Libertarians should oppose the Arizona Immigrant Laws

That's an excellent reason for NOT subscribing to a political party, there are just too many issues for any one party to address them all acceptably.

 

Acceptably to who?

The majority is all that's required to maintain power and address issues. That's the problem in the U.S. though. The country has been fundamentally gridlocked at 50-50 for some time.

The only reason the republicans have been able to do as much damage as they have recently was the 911 attacks which gave them the opportunity to suspend habeas corpus and get everytrhing they wanted for about 7 years under the opportunistic 'if you're against us, you're against America' bullshit. Enjoy the debt from their spending spree which enriched their cronies and pet industries but broke the country.

 

Those of us who look at each issue individually.

Therefore you are claiming that one party has all the right answers and the other only wrong answers to each and every issue? Go ahead and vote the party line.

Not even worth the time to respond to.

 

1/ if you're in the minority it doesn't matter.
2/ no.
3/ no response possible except 'yep'.

 

only because half of one of the 50s is too dumb to realize it's been dealt a hand of three card monte

"vote for us and we'll get rid of the black queens"

[but we'll still keep the money]

 

Maybe we should eliminate money altogether, and trade our labor skills with one another as a means of acquiring the products of others?
Greed is bad, but envy is good, right? Who should own the things that are one of a kind, like works of art? Some things, like a painting, are produced and sold for very little, but over time may become desirable and much more valuable to the owner. If sold, does the whole of society become entitled to a share of the gain?

 

We're all a minority, until we become a member of a gang.

No? But you would agree that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad, wouldn't you? Or stated another way, Liberals are good and Conservatives are bad? Or would you prefer the poor are good and the rich or bad?

You forgot, hogwash.

 

You really expect me to believe you're 75 years old with such nonsense? These posts of yours are becoming increasingly silly. You know - like what we get from 14 year olds.

But to address the above (don't know why I bother):

1/ political minority opinion is what is being discussed. Gangs. Jeesh.
2/ again, no.
3/ It's evident that you're a member in full of the proverbial 'some of the people all of the time'.

 

The fact that I wasn't educated along liberal lines should be evidence enough of my age. But you can believe as you wish, that's unimportant to me.

The title of the thread exposes an intent, or perhaps just a desire to create a consensus of opinion for those who claim to be Libertarians. Strength in numbers with a desire of leading to majority rule. This is the problem with accepting democratic government as applied to a Nation.

The Arizona immigration law is what has been questioned, but as most often I've found to occur, the questions get lost in the dribble about the respondents.

Labels, such as Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, etc. only serve as an aid in grouping people in ways that can be useful to those who have a broader agenda, and most often are those who run for political office.

If I am a member of any group at all, it would be based on "None of the people ALL the time." The United State(s) is made up of many people with many differing ideas, who wish to exercise individual freedom within a minimal, but acceptable number of constraints which the greatest majority find acceptable. This is represented in the Constitution, with the Federal governments powers being enumerated, and explicitly recognizing in the 10th Amendment that the States and the people to retain all other powers.

The Arizona immigration law would be unnecessary if the Federal government was doing its job. There's no point in creating laws if they are not going to be enforced, and Arizona is a clear example of where laws may be more applicable or necessary depending upon circumstance and/or location.

 

Yep, you did get pretty lost there. And now, to escape accounting for your silliness you want to change the subject - pretend to yank it back to the OP like it wasn't you who kept taking it down irrelevant pathways. Your 'dribble' as you refer to it. And even now you bring in 'liberal education', 'acceptable constraint' and 'greatest majority' (???) for some reason, apparently forgetting that you're supposed to be returning to the subject of libertarianism vis-a-vis illegal immigration.

As to your 'none of the people all of the time' as a response to my identifying you as the proverbial 'some of the people all of the time' - did you forget what we were talking about? It was number 3. You'll probably have to go back as you seem to get distracted.

 

The OP assumes a universal acceptance in defining what all Libertarians should think, which makes the basic concept of Libertarianism irrelevant.

 

No, I didn't assume anything. I'm simply a fan of the Cato Institute, which is probably the smartest, most logical libertarian think tank in America (although I disagree with them on most issues). I mentioned Cato before in this thread, and you've promptly ignored it.

Anyway, since you understand the Constitution better than everyone else, so I don't know why I'm arguing with you. Surely, sir, you can lead us socialistic weasels back to the libertarian paradise of the early 1900s.

But before you do, allow me this one point, please...

I notice that many a libertarian-Tea Bagger-Supply Side Republican-Rand worshiper seem to claim the same argument: Mainly, the free market was awesomely super duper until the Fed pokes its nose in.

I'm not going to get into every goddamn charge against "big government" that you fellas and gals suppose, but I'll give you this (legit) example: Reaganites often claim Supply Side Bullshit will "save" America. When ya'll guys cut regulations, gut unions, and starve the welfare state, you all smile and say, "Now we're gonna have us some economic freedom and prosperity up in this bitch!"

But that didn't happen. In fact, the opposite happened...and not promptly. Over the course of three decades (give or take) since the Reagan Revolution, shit in this country got worse for the poor, middle, and working classes. But you don't admit any fault. Ya'll guys say, "It wasn't OUR POLICIES OF SUPPLY SIDE BULLSHIT, IT WAS SOCIALISTIC POLICIES IMPLEMENTED BEFOREHAND -- OFTEN ON A RELATIVELY SMALLER SCALE -- THAT CAUSED ALL THIS BULLSHIT!" At least you say that when you can't smother our ills in Walmart party balloons.

So it seems to me America was better off before Hayek-type Economics took hold, it was if we had this deeply flawed but half-decent machine. Then the Reaganites took hold and tinkered with the machine. And when the machine broke, you guys blamed it...well, you blamed it on the machine. Not the lil' experiments ya'll guys subjected it to, which is a pleasant euphemism for destroying the fragile prosperity for the working-class in an effort to solidify the wealthy's chokehold on this nation.

Socialistic ideas gave many Americans a decent wage, a small-but-functioning social safety net, and relative stability. What has Supply Side Econ done for the majority of Americans? All we have is gradually decreasing standards of living, uncertainty, and manipulated fuckers such as yourself who somehow find it fulfilling to root for a bunch of wealthy motherfuckers who could give a rat's ass if you live or die.

I, and many posters here on this site, may very well be fighting an impossibly powerful enemy. But at the very least, many of us understand who that enemy is, and we're not so easily fooled as to believe that enemy is somehow looking out for us.

Good day, sir.

 

^^ Amen, brutha

 

What the hell are you trying to argue? Immigration laws, socialism, wages, unions, distribution of wealth, utopia? These threads seem to turn into moving targets as a replacement for any form of rational discussion.

 

Heh, exactly the response I expected from ya, my man. You've had ample opportunity to nail down most of those topics (although I don't know where you got "utopia" from) but you've chosen none.

That only shows me you're full of hot air.

Goodnight, sir. I'm sure I'll wake up in the morning to find another swamp of your vaguely libertarian talking points.

 

Go back and read your own posts, that's all I've responded to, and I've not claimed to be a Libertarian, but freely admit that I am in no way receptive to Socialism or Communism in any form or fashion.
Yes, I think we each have received the responses expected, which pretty well shows that compromise is not acceptable as a workable solution to most, if not all, of the problems we can't even agree on as to what they are.

 

However, this country was built by people who died fighting for freedom. Why should we just surrender it to a bunch of johnny come latelys, who can't be bothered to even limit their overpopulation enough to get some property rights and live within their resources? this "lizard brain" reproducting self as many times as possible is ruining the Earth. We've found out how to correct that, so how about doing so FIRST, and then worry about the small stuff?

 

What in God's name are you talking about?

 

He appears to be referring to the birth rates common to the poor families south of the U.S. border. He seems to think that that is the crux of their problems - that their country would be able to provide more opportunity if there wasn't so many of them.

Right, Sweat?

But the building the country with death fighting for freedom stuff is just the usual rewrite-mythologizing of propagandized minds.

 

Tell that to the families of the hundreds of thousands who died in our wars, dudes.