Libertarians should oppose the Arizona Immigrant Laws

Can left and right coexist.

Canada.

 

Hahaha, ya think?

Don't forget Anarchists...:beatnik:

ZW

 

Predominantly?

 

It appears to me this site is predominantly comprised of sex enthusiasts and pot heads...:daisy:

ZW eace:

 

Can't argue with that.

 

I'll answer you by the paragraph...

1. I only ask that you submit to logic and critical thought. Or you can continue to chuck vaguely libertarian talking points at me. I mean, I asserted some specific topical subjects concerning social stratification and the most obvious failure of trickle down economics, not to mention the success government intervention in the post WW2 years. Were they in depth assertions with references and all that? No. But I can back them up with citations. You've only given me vaguely libertarian talking points sprinkled with a Tea Party platitude or two.

2. The American Dream seems to be "You can be wealthy too!!!" Only that is a lie or, at the very least, the doing of those who would pick out a few exceptions from a very large whole. Or maybe we can say the American Dream is the ability of poor and working-class folks to provide a better life for their (hopefully upwardly mobile) children, which isn't the case. (I can also back this up with citations.)

3. Yes. Competition in the marketplace might be cool. Are you supposing that we should subject our weaker citizens to "competition" for, I dunno, the means to satisfactorily feed, clothe, and provide adequate healthcare for themselves? For a society that houses possibly the greatest concentration of wealth in human history, that don't sound too mufuckin' humane. Or civilized. But I'm sure Atlas Shrugged provided you with several interesting ideas on that subject, correct?

4. Oh, there's that Social Darwinism I was talking about. And I'm sure your opinion on the subject would not change drastically if you were on the bottom rung of that ladder. I'm sure you'd espouse the virtues of the free market and competition even if you were a single parent in the ghetto, making minimum wage, trying to keep crackheads out of your backyard. I'm absolutely sure of it.

5. Well I'm a blue-collar dude from a union family hailing from a piss poor working-class urban neighborhood, so I guess that qualifies me to be "irresponsible and lazy", according to many libertarians these days. Oh, and I'm also a novelist, short story author, left-leaning humorist, and a small business owner. So I guess I'm also an "anti-American elitist lefty" because, ya know, I think people such as yourself are easily manipulated folks who are quite casually made to believe you've bootstrapped your way into "Real America" when really your just a knucklehead pawn of corporate America. And that's my polite response.

6. Then why do you visit HipForums? If it bothers you so much, you should seek out a forum for Cato enthusiasts. Or, wait...maybe you're just attentive enough to study the libertarian talking points, but not intelligent enough to frequent a truly right wing libertarian message board and share your personal thoughts and opinions with those who already have in depth knowledge of the one-dimensional turds you found on Wikipedia. Maybe...just maybe...you come here to drop right wing one-liners because you know you'll have nothing of value to add to a conversation among right wing libertarians who actually have a grasp on the issues concerning their political position. Just sayin' that maybe you can't handle a discussion about, say, the ideological differences between Rand and Hayek. So instead you drop bullshit one-liners here, hoping to find a 16-year-old Flower Power anarchist who you can impress with your free market platitudes.

7. Oh for the love of God, what the fuck are you talking about? Because it seems to me that if the "desired final result" among debaters/voters is socialism, you'd be whining like a bitch.


Can we please get some libertarians on his board that aren't jackasses and can actually back up their points with arguments of substance?

*Awaiting Individual's passionate response, which will most likely be chock full of Wikipedia references...or possibly citations taken from Townhall.com or maybe Human Events, which we all know are reputable sources of information*

 

good luck with that

individual's comments, his very tone, seemed so familiar that i was sure i knew him from other boards, under other names

but no, the few small private details i've gleaned don't match up

every sheep thinks they're an individual too . . .

 

I'm sorry, but I find no value in arguing with a fool, and perhaps you're right, I've spent more than enough time on HipForums to clearly see it is a place where the only accepted views are those which fall flat on the Left. Perhaps with age and maturity more of those here will change their views, if it is still allowed.

 

oh ho ho

 

There's no fool like an old fool.

 

Indie

This is a left leaning site, it has been since it began, reflecting the free spirited progressiveness of its founder Skip.

When I first came here not long after 9/11 it was one of very few places where left leaning ideas could be discussed openly and without rancour. Before I found it, many forums had summarily banned me (sometimes just after one post) or made discussion impossible because rather than debate the members only hurdled sustained, acrimonious and often graphic insults.

Since becoming moderator I’ve tried (not always successfully) to try and make this a place where people can debate politics and political issues.

People do get banned from the site but not just because they utter right wing views and the hurling of insults is frowned upon.

But debate is debate if someone is not willing to debate and only comes here to promote a viewpoint they are then unwilling to discuss it can be trying and frustrating for other members, and I see it as akin to spamming which is against the forum guidelines.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism of what’s said.

I can understand your own frustration people are not just accepting what you are saying they’re arguing back, point out what they see as flaws in your viewpoint and asking you to back up your ideas with rational argument. This can be disconcerting to people that are not used to it and as obviously as unprepared as you seem for it.

Maybe if you stopped just sprouting dogma, rhetoric and slogans and hoping that is enough you should instead put a bit more effort into being better informed and tried finding out if there are rational arguments to back up your views then you might find things easier or even discover that your ideas are not as solid or as persuasive as you once thought them to be.

Yours in expectation

Balbus

 

While I can't deny that some Liberal, Left, or Socialist based government programs sound quite attractive, such as Social Security, and Medicare, they are quickly proving to be unsustainable far into the future. I fail to see how growing debt can equate to progress.

When you speak of left leaning ideas, are you speaking of a socialist form of government or an implementation of democracy? I don't see either as representative of the U.S. form of government under the Constitution while I do accept that such might be true of European governments.

For the most part I cannot complain.

I exercise a tremendous amount of self censorship.

The frustration I experience is the fact that government of the U.S. is one that has constraints that are intended to keep democracy from allowing a simple, or even a large majority to oppress a minority.

Noted.

Perhaps a problem exists due to the fact that I argue from the point of a government that is a Constitutional republic as I was taught in school, and not a true Democracy or Socialistic central government. I think that view is becoming more expressed by many voters in the U.S. today.

I don't think much progress between our differing views can be made without first gaining a common understanding of what the Constitution allows the Federal government to do. Laws should be written understandable to all, and not require interpretation in each case where they might be applied. Would you not agree to that?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." is not contained within the U.S. Constitution or any other document under which the U.S. government receives authority.

 

yes, but the beauty of the thing is we can amend it, we can add this if we choose to

 

Oh for the love of God...stop whining like a pussy and back up your arguments a bit. I respect a good argument, even if I disagree with it. You did not provide one.

So don't blame the predominately left wing atmosphere of this site for your lack of substance.

 

I hear SS and Medicare will be solvent until 2070. And funding those programs is quite simple: Raise taxes. I don't want to hear any "trickle down" arguments on that, since we've tried Supply Side Econ for close to 30 years now, to no avail.

Did you notice that the Constitution has these things call 'Amendments'?

Amendment (from Dictionary.com): "an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc. ", and THAT means our Constitution can be changed. And it has been changed, several times.

There ya go with the Constitution thing again. Don't get me wrong, I love the Constitution, mainly because it's fluid and can be changed when need be.

And by the way, at what point in American history was the Constitution perfect? Because I think it's pretty cool that women and blacks can vote. I also like the two-term limit for Presidents. Do you?

So you don't understand the Constitution? And of course interpretation is necessary. Because some ideas just won't work out if they're dumbed down to the point where every uneducated jackass can understand them without the help of an educated person to explain it. It's called nuance.

Yet it could be. If that happened, would you move to Taiwan?

 

Finally, we agree on something.

 

The whole point is that many seem to accept that the Federal government has the authority to create laws as it sees fit, or interpret the Constitution widely by appointing political activists of one agenda or another to the courts. Laws are meant to be clear and concise or they are meaningless.

 

Libertarians should oppose the Arizona Immigrant Laws -

I know I do- -If you believe in the truest form of Liberterianism you should oppose Az. Immigrant laws, but like every thing else , people want to compromise thier stance.

Im a liberal- except when it comes to .....
Im a conservative -except when it come to-...........
Im a liberterteran ,except when it comes to ..........

There will always be exceptions, and people dont have to be for or against everything right down the ol party line- -
but with the more important issues in the political spectrum. if you choice to throw your support to a certain party- - then you really should learn what they support and what they dont support- this way if you do subscribe to the party system- - you know what they stand for on the issues and you dont risk sounding silly or hypocritical, making one of the above statements- -and sounding confused and/or uninformed

 

You consider $2.5 trillion in IOU's to be solvent? There is no Social Security box of cash from which payments are made. ALL money government takes in, plus more which is borrowed, is spent each year.

I agree with the amendment process, why not give it a try. And yes, I do understand the Constitution quite well, perhaps better than many of the Judges who have been appointed over the last century.

I moved many years ago, seeing what was becoming of the U.S. government, and many voters.

 

Indie

Again you seem to be treating the US constitution (and what are termed the bill of rights which were just its first amendments) as if they were sacred text.

But anyway I can only send you back to my last post in the Effort or Luck thread (which you seem to have run away from) where I say about you that –

You seem to be claiming that you have an interpretation of the US constitution that rationally backs up your views, but you seem unable or unwilling to produce it, and what you have produced doesn’t back you up in the least.

As to you having an in-depth knowledge of the US constitution, well I’ve seen no evidence of it so far, you’ve talked of having a ‘feeling’ about it but from what I’ve seen that is as far as it goes.