Jump to content

Do Libertarians Still Exist?


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Are politicians of whateverism off the rails when they say that they will not prosecute theft of items less than $1000?  Should the limit be index-linked?

 

One would assume that if that is not a popular idea they would get voted out. Where is this going on? Maybe I need to steal a bunch of shit worth $999 :rolleyes:
* Isn't this really libertarian? Why should my tax dollars pay to guard your business? Hire your own security if you want to. This is how places like Somalia work, your stuff doesn't get stolen if you have the money to hire an army to guard it, otherwise fair game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here is my big issue that overrides the smaller ones: Politics should not be a religion! No one "ism" has all the answers. I like to view communism, socialism, libertarianism, capitalism, democracy-is

Somebody posted this a few days ago. The best description of them I've ever heard.  

The fundamental and inescapable failing of Libertarianism as a philosophy as it is with Communism, Fabianism and all the rest of the "isms" is that it fails to take human nature into account. The

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

It's true that Amash goes against the LP party line on abortion. If your characterization of the LP position on sewerage is right (for the first time ever), then I disagree and would be happy to discuss it in the WOTUS thread.

But none of that has to do with the issue I asked about.

Rand Paul and Amash are on one side and Biden is on the other when the issue is drug war looting. So, without any distractions this time, can you explain to me why cops need to seize property from people who are not charged with a crime, then force those people to prove the property innocent? Also why the seizing agencies should get to keep the loo... oops... assets.

No, the subject of this thread is Do Libertarians Still Exist?

Joe Biden is not a libertarian. There's nothing about Joe Biden which will help answer that question. Asking about that would be like asking about Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr's support for the War on Drugs except that Barr supposedly is a libertarian. Asking about that would be like asking about Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson who put people in prison for drugs before becoming a virgin except that Johnson supposedly is a libertarian.

You really should contemplate potholes and sewerage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

One would assume that if that is not a popular idea they would get voted out. Where is this going on? Maybe I need to steal a bunch of shit worth $999 :rolleyes:
* Isn't this really libertarian? Why should my tax dollars pay to guard your business? Hire your own security if you want to. This is how places like Somalia work, your stuff doesn't get stolen if you have the money to hire an army to guard it, otherwise fair game.

Not when you only have two parties.  It does appear that folks are beginning to get more than a little pissed off at lax enforcement.

We'll see.

BTW, we just had a court case in Kenosha where a couple of car lots got burnt out and hired some private security.  It worked out well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Not when you only have two parties.  It does appear that folks are beginning to get more than a little pissed off at lax enforcement.

 

Fear is always a great selling point for a challenger. It works, because so many are fearful.

What this has to do with fauxbertarianism? Who knows? We know Soreass ain't a libertarian. He's a lifer civil servant who loves SS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

I did not attend public schools after 6th grade.
And I didn't say that government/public funding for schooling should be eliminated, I said public schools should be eliminated. Big difference that is lost on you and a few others.

If you want to live in a society that is >75% illiterate, then yeah. Sounds great.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

To be fair to libertarians and their ism, IMHO they are 100% correct in campaigning for pot to be legal and they are 100% correct in fighting against civil forfeiture. They go off the rails when they want heroin and meth to be legal as well.

That's nice, but wouldn't we have to exist to gain your support in those things?

Actually, judging by your posts on those issues, I guess we don't, so thread thesis proven.

(We're still going to fight eminent domain buybacks, you know...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, quod umbra said:

I think maybe you should research SDF's before you comment any further on the roles they fulfill.

For y'all, those roles must include "standing by" as the authoritarians smash the republic. 

Don't you get that they were 100% serious ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Olsonist said:

No, the subject of this thread is Do Libertarians Still Exist?

Joe Biden is not a libertarian. There's nothing about Joe Biden which will help answer that question.

I brought him up as an example of the opposite of a libertarian on civil asset forfeiture.

Opposition to drug war looting is the most libertarian thing I can think up about Rand Paul and Justin Amash has also sponsored legislation to reverse Biden's legacy on that issue.

Seems to me a pretty clear issue on which we have a difference of opinion. I still think the drug war looting is wrong.

So why are libertarians and people like Rand Paul, who sorta lean libertarian sometimes, wrong, and why is Joe Biden right on that issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  From the generally ignored thread on asset forfeiture:

On 10/21/2021 at 7:57 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

Civil forfeiture preys on disadvantaged communities. Two-thirds of respondents were Black, 63% earned less than $50,000 annually, and 18% were unemployed. And forfeitures were clustered in predominantly minority and low-income areas.

Hmm... Just like the stupid drug war, eminent domain, and gun laws, these laws disproportionately target minorities.

That's why Black Lives Matter is so very active on all those issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

I brought him up as an example of the opposite of a libertarian on civil asset forfeiture.

Opposition to drug war looting is the most libertarian thing I can think up about Rand Paul and Justin Amash has also sponsored legislation to reverse Biden's legacy on that issue.

Seems to me a pretty clear issue on which we have a difference of opinion. I still think the drug war looting is wrong.

So why are libertarians and people like Rand Paul, who sorta lean libertarian sometimes, wrong, and why is Joe Biden right on that issue?

Yes Tom, I notice that you want to ignore the Libertarian candidates for president who were drug warriors and concentrate on the Democratic President who isn't a libertarian.

Remember, you aren't introducing this topic. You are not making this argument de novo. You've been around since the Obama administration, since December 2008 at least.

Yes, I understand you want to blame the entire War on Drugs on Biden forgetting drug warriors like Republicans Nixon, Barr and Johnson I understand you want to blame civil forfeiture on Biden despite its its much much longer history. I understand you want to blame Obama for Fast and Furious despite its origins as Wide Receiver under Bush the Stupid. I get this.

I get this because, Tom, you're not a libertarian and so 'actual' libertarians are the last thing you want to talk about.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Yes, I understand you want to blame the entire War on Drugs on

  

On 12/4/2021 at 4:15 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

the Reagan/Biden drug war looting program

Just a little reality injection. You informed me of Nixon's involvement in the drug war several years too late, as I showed in the stupid drug war thread.

I'm well aware that Biden's co-author was Strom Thurmond and that Senator Sessions singled out Biden for praise on the asset forfeiture issue. TeamR deserves most of the blame for drug war looting, but they couldn't have done it without blessed bipartisan unity. Biden's support was crucial.

As for Bob Barr, I agree he was not the most credible libertarian candidate, but he and President Clinton did at least try to rein in drug war looting in 2000 and I've praised him for changing his mind on that issue, something that distinguishes him from Biden, who has never said a bad word about drug war looting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

Just a little reality injection. You informed me of Nixon's involvement in the drug war several years too late, as I showed in the stupid drug war thread.

I'm well aware that Biden's co-author was Strom Thurmond and that Senator Sessions singled out Biden for praise on the asset forfeiture issue. TeamR deserves most of the blame for drug war looting, but they couldn't have done it without blessed bipartisan unity. Biden's support was crucial.

As for Bob Barr, I agree he was not the most credible libertarian candidate, but he and President Clinton did at least try to rein in drug war looting in 2000 and I've praised him for changing his mind on that issue, something that distinguishes him from Biden, who has never said a bad word about drug war looting.

I'm glad you've come around on erstwhile and soon to be Trumper again Bob Barr. So maybe there's hope you'll figure out that other drug warrior, Gary Johnson. Do you have any comment on Libertarian Party candidate for President Ron Paul calling abortion murder and bravely saying it should be a stites rahts thang? Actual libertarians are big on stahts rites. Why is that?

I must apologize though. It's almost as if I don't believe that libertarians exist and that those who wear that 'Badge of Courage', your boy Rand's phrase, are, like Rand himself, just faking it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

So maybe there's hope you'll figure out that other drug warrior, Gary Johnson.

I'm always glad when drug warriors come around to the libertarian way of thinking. For example,

  

On 2/13/2019 at 8:19 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

Kamala Come Lately
 

Laughable in 2014, a campaign position in 2019.

Better late than never, so welcome Senator Harris!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

I'm always glad when drug warriors come around to the libertarian way of thinking.

I'm glad the Prodigal Son is your favorite parable. Now about your boy Ron's anti-abortion stance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bdgWesternMass said:

I think a better question is do conservatives still exist. Th current group labeled conservative is very far from my idea of conservatism.

Sure they do. Joe Biden is as conservative as anyone can be. Not sure if any are in the Republican Party anymore, I liked it when they were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Sure they do. Joe Biden is as conservative as anyone can be. Not sure if any are in the Republican Party anymore, I liked it when they were.

If I squint I can see your point but I feel he supported too many laws to be truly conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bdgWesternMass said:

If I squint I can see your point but I feel he supported too many laws to be truly conservative.

Conservatives love laws. You're thinking of anarchists/libertarians. Neither of which are conservative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bdgWesternMass said:

If I squint I can see your point but I feel he supported too many laws to be truly conservative.

Up here in America's hat, Biden is considered extremely conservative. Republicans are approaching Mussolini standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites


 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Up here in America's hat, Biden is considered extremely conservative. Republicans are approaching Mussolini standard.

 

I’m not so sure conservatives love laws. I always felt they want just the right number of laws. To keep the the ball rolling. I do believe the slow drift from conservatism to fascism is why we conflate extra laws with conservatives.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Conservatives love laws. You're thinking of anarchists/libertarians. Neither of which are conservative. 

I think conservatives are more interested in just enough laws. There is wide gap between no laws and some laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bdgWesternMass said:

I think conservatives are more interested in just enough laws. There is wide gap between no laws and some laws.

Nah, that's Libertarian. Look at all the big-gov't laws the Rs put in place. Regulations of companies they don't like, but laws against the little people? They are all for that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Now about your boy Ron's anti-abortion stance.

He disagrees with me and with the party platform on that one, but differences of opinion are tolerated in some political circles.

Do you have any differences of opinion with Biden at all?

For example, do you like his anti-libertarian position on drug war looting?

Maybe this will help:

21 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:
On 10/21/2021 at 7:57 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

Civil forfeiture preys on disadvantaged communities. Two-thirds of respondents were Black, 63% earned less than $50,000 annually, and 18% were unemployed. And forfeitures were clustered in predominantly minority and low-income areas.

Hmm... Just like the stupid drug war, eminent domain, and gun laws, these laws disproportionately target minorities.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

He disagrees with me and with the party platform on that one, but differences of opinion are tolerated in some political circles.

Do you have any differences of opinion with Biden at all?

For example, do you like his anti-libertarian position on drug war looting?

Maybe this will help:

His VP sponsored the MORE Act in the Senate which would have decriminalized marijuana. I suppose it could have used some Republican co-sponsors, maybe one from Kentucky, a badge of honor wearing Senator from Kentucky. Maybe your boy Rand. Yeah, maybe not.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s2227/cosponsors

It passed the 2019 House. Died in Grassley's (!) Finance Committee.

BTW, I notice that your boy Shitstain rescinded the Cole memorandum and that Biden's AG said he'd reinstitute a version of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

He disagrees with me and with the party platform on that one, but differences of opinion are tolerated in some political circles.

Do you have any differences of opinion with Biden at all?

For example, do you like his anti-libertarian position on drug war looting?

Maybe this will help:

 

Wait, uncle joe’s not a libertarian? Well, hu gnu? Rand isn’t either? Yeah, I did know that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

The problem is that it is a bigger tent that you can comprehend.

A big empty tent. Where do you propose a libertarian movement would find what it needs: adherents and voters? Presently the dreamers seem to think the RWNJ are a ready source. I cannot think of any other group in history less interested in personal responsibility than the RWNJ army. Then there are the conservatives. They seem quite happy with the present corporate-socialism-wealth system in the US and so not apt to vote for any significant change. I think you are left with only a few young males who just got their first paystub and said “FICA? WTF?” And a few backwoods crazies that are largely uncoupled from society anyways. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, quod umbra said:

And William F. Buckley publicly advocated decriminalizing all drugs.......
It's not a defining subject really, not a bellwether.

You may wish to bring up whether drug legalization is a libertarianism bellwether with Tom; he is the arbiter of all things 'libertarian'. As for Buckley, he is known for the Buckley Rule which defines conservatism rather than libertarianism:

The National Review will support the rightwardmost viable candidate

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/02/buckley-rule-according-bill-not-karl-neal-b-freeman/

Buckley did however refer to himself as a libertarian, in the same way that Rand Paul said he could wear it as a badge of honor. I don't know that he ever defined libertarianism. Sounds more like a flag of convenience than a badge of honor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buckley was a pompous ass.

He was the definition of the saying "He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple".

He was such a pretentious sesquipedalian that he managed to make books about sailing cool boats across oceans almost unreadable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Olsonist said:
22 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

He disagrees with me and with the party platform on that one, but differences of opinion are tolerated in some political circles.

Do you have any differences of opinion with Biden at all?

For example, do you like his anti-libertarian position on drug war looting?

Maybe this will help:

His VP sponsored the MORE Act in the Senate which would have decriminalized marijuana. I suppose it could have used some Republican co-sponsors, maybe one from Kentucky, a badge of honor wearing Senator from Kentucky. Maybe your boy Rand. Yeah, maybe not.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s2227/cosponsors

It passed the 2019 House. Died in Grassley's (!) Finance Committee.

BTW, I notice that your boy Shitstain rescinded the Cole memorandum and that Biden's AG said he'd reinstitute a version of it.

Wow, that's quite the string of distractions, all of which I've mentioned in the relevant thread. That would be, the stupid drug war thread. Rand Paul was worse than Donald Trump OR Hillary Clinton on the stupid drug war during his Presidential campaign, and I said that at the time too. The MORE Act is stuffed with ridiculous, unrelated boondoggling, of course, and seems to me like they're trying to get credit for trying without the horrible possibility of actual success.

The thing is, though they are related, asset forfeiture is not the stupid drug war.

I enjoy new distractions, so I'll ask again:

Do you have any differences of opinion with Biden at all?

For example, do you like his anti-libertarian position on drug war looting?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, El Borracho said:

A big empty tent. Where do you propose a libertarian movement would find what it needs: adherents and voters? Presently the dreamers seem to think the RWNJ are a ready source. I cannot think of any other group in history less interested in personal responsibility than the RWNJ army. Then there are the conservatives. They seem quite happy with the present corporate-socialism-wealth system in the US and so not apt to vote for any significant change. I think you are left with only a few young males who just got their first paystub and said “FICA? WTF?” And a few backwoods crazies that are largely uncoupled from society anyways. 

Admittedly, finding people who agree that drug war looting is wrong is pretty hard. Supporting it is a good way to get elected President.

Still, popularity doesn't determine what I think is right and I still think drug war looting is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

You may wish to bring up whether drug legalization is a libertarianism bellwether with Tom; he is the arbiter of all things 'libertarian'. 

It is a very important issue to us. Causes actual libertarians to say stuff like this about people like Rand Paul.

  

On 10/31/2015 at 10:17 PM, Lochnerian Tom said:

Bernie Sanders has come out against the war on cannabis and now it's looking like the smartest Republican on this issue is...

 

 

sigh...

 

Donald Trump

 

 

My reaction: WTF, Rand Paul? You deserve to lose to him just for being slow to realize that libertarians are right on this issue, have been for a long time, and the public is starting to realize it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

It is a very important issue to us. Causes actual libertarians to say stuff like this about people like Rand Paul.

Libertarians may do well to educate themselves on Paul Rand, and avoid mentioning the politics of Rand Paul until they can place both men into a rational worldview ...

https://www.retroavangarda.com/henri-matisse-vs-paul-rand-en/

39838-rand1.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2015 at 7:17 PM, Lochnerian Tom said:

Bernie Sanders has come out against the war on cannabis and now it's looking like the smartest Republican on this issue is...

sigh...

Donald Trump

My reaction: WTF, Rand Paul? You deserve to lose to him just for being slow to realize that libertarians are right on this issue, have been for a long time, and the public is starting to realize it.

Yeah, that's what I like about 'actual' libertarians. That was your boy Shitstain saying pretty things in 2015. Then he rescinded the Cole Memo in 2019. Your boy said pretty things about leaving Afghanistan as well. In 2016. Then he increased troop levels until finally signing a withdrawal for after he left. Biden actual (there's that word again) ly withdrew. Thank you President Biden for getting us the fuck out of Afghanistan.

BTW, as per civil forfeiture, yeah I disagree with the policy Biden/Garland that inherited from your boy Shitstain. Your boy rescinded the Obama/Holder's rollbacks (rollbacks, because conservatives in Congress ain't a gonna rollback that law that Biden voted for which passed the Senate 100-0). But I'm beginning to see a pattern here Tom.

Attorney General Eric Holder curtailed use of the practice in the Obama administration, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions restored it under President Donald Trump. Though Attorney General Merrick Garland has rolled back many Trump-era changes at the Justice Department, he has not taken action on asset forfeiture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html

Anyways, I know it's a distraction to say this but I believe the topic of this thread is Do Libertarians Still Exist?  Can we at least agree on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Olsonist said:

... Sounds more like a flag of convenience than a badge of honor.

Many adopt libertarianism as merely a scholarly way to present their hate and misanthropy. That's what I always thought of Buckley, et al: Pompous learned assholes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pompous assholes. If the breadth of one's learning is citing Reason Magazine (hi Tom!) then they aren't learned. Seriously, I've been dealing with this posturing IRL since the 80s. Yeah the internetz let me look things up now and quote the hypocrisy but this is not new. Buckley was trolling in the 60s. He was trolling about drugs in the 90s. FWIW (which ain't much) Fakebertarians troll less when there's an R in the WH.

No Tom, to answer the thread question, 'actual' libertarians don't exist. Fakebertarians/Conservatives for better or worse (or worser) do exist. You're one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Yeah, that's what I like about 'actual' libertarians. That was your boy Shitstain saying pretty things in 2015. Then he rescinded the Cole Memo in 2019. Your boy said pretty things about leaving Afghanistan as well. In 2016. Then he increased troop levels until finally signing a withdrawal for after he left. Biden actual (there's that word again) ly withdrew. Thank you President Biden for getting us the fuck out of Afghanistan.

Yeah, I was more disgusted than fooled by Trump so didn't vote for him and did spend the last several years posting libertarian critiques of him, none of which you noticed. It's OK, I'm used to dealing with willful ignorance from TeamD/grabby types.

At least we can more or less agree on the Afghanistan withdrawal. As I said at the time, I didn't see the need for the minor delay Biden imposed, but that's a sliver of the issue. To my surprise, he did get us out after what, in the context of that war, was a brief delay. I'm still glad too.

18 hours ago, Olsonist said:

BTW, as per civil forfeiture, yeah I disagree with the policy Biden/Garland that inherited from your boy Shitstain.

Read a little. We all got it from Reagan and Biden in the 80's, though the loot was re-routed when Bob Barr and Bill Clinton tried to rein in the practice. No one could, or can today, develop the political will to actually stop it.

 

18 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Your boy rescinded the Obama/Holder's rollbacks (rollbacks, because conservatives in Congress ain't a gonna rollback that law that Biden voted for which passed the Senate 100-0). But I'm beginning to see a pattern here Tom.

Attorney General Eric Holder curtailed use of the practice in the Obama administration, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions restored it under President Donald Trump. Though Attorney General Merrick Garland has rolled back many Trump-era changes at the Justice Department, he has not taken action on asset forfeiture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html

All of which is covered in the relevant thread. It went extremely well for Malinda Harris in 2015. Well, not so much, but libertarian nutjobs did get her looted car back the other day. Still providing a little friction to attempt to slow down the Reagan/Biden looting machine. About as effective as usual, but we won't give up just because no one will explain why we're wrong.

You just explained that Obama went our way a little bit, and we can at least agree that the Duopoly is completely disinterested in dismantling the Reagan/Biden drug war looting legacy. What's missing is an explanation of why Obama was wrong.
Or at least why Garland is wrong to take no action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

we won't give up just because no one will explain why we're wrong.

What bullshit. Dark money is obviously skanky, yet all the Libertarians oligarchs promote it, and utilize it, and legalize it, then exploit it, against the needs of The People. The Libertarian promotion of gun proliferation shows the same obvious, and heinous, deafness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

Yeah, I was more disgusted than fooled by Trump so didn't vote for him and did spend the last several years posting libertarian critiques of him, none of which you noticed. It's OK, I'm used to dealing with willful ignorance from TeamD/grabby types.

At least we can more or less agree on the Afghanistan withdrawal. As I said at the time, I didn't see the need for the minor delay Biden imposed, but that's a sliver of the issue. To my surprise, he did get us out after what, in the context of that war, was a brief delay. I'm still glad too.

No Tom, we don't agree at all on Afghanistan. The delay you refer to is because you were more fooled than disgusted by your boy Shitstain who had 4 years to withdraw. There's your minor delay. Your boy never liked the Afghanistan war but then he never had the backbone to withdraw. Shitstain even had his own surge.

Biden actually withdrew, and he took his lumps from idiots like you for doing it while you were crediting your boy for 'signing' it. No, we don't agree on Afghanistan at all. Biden paid a price for getting the right thing done. Your boy whom you credited paid no price because he did nothing.

Nor should it have been any surprise. When McChrystal (Abu Ghraib, ...) was selling the surge to a wet behind the ears Obama who was already dealing with the Great Recession, Biden was saying don't do it. Biden was the lone voice asking the tough questions. When McChrystal got fired in 2010 for 'being a truth teller', he got fired for criticizing Biden instead of for doing his job. He was also the guy who gave Tilman the Silver Star for getting killed by his own men because it looks better that way going into a re-election. It isn't clear what McChrystal got right but then the press sure loved him. God help corporate persons but he gives management seminars now.

But you were surprised by Biden.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Don't know about Krauthammer......

But Buckley believed in legalization of all illicit drugs.
Do a little homework if you don't believe me.

Yeah, I know about that. He campaigned for mayor of NYC (a joke/spoiler candidacy) with that as a plank. I get cable. But did he talk about sentencing reform? Powder vs crack? Or was he just wearing it as what Rand Paul calls a libertarian hero badge? It certainly didn't prevent him from supporting pro drug war conservatives including the generalissimo himself, Richard Nixon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Ummmm, you mean James Buckley ran for mayor of NYC?
Did you know while the left thinks bike lanes are their domain, James Buckley ran with that part of his campaign??
Funny how the left steals ideas from the right and then claim the right is just trolling!!

James Buckley was a serious candidate?  Make me laugh, never mind, you did.  I died laughing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

Ummmm, you mean James Buckley ran for mayor of NYC?
Did you know while the left thinks bike lanes are their domain, James Buckley ran with that part of his campaign??
Funny how the left steals ideas from the right and then claim the right is just trolling!!

When Buckley was asked what he'd do if he won he said, demand a recount. When it was his turn to speak at the debate he said, I am satisfied to sit back and contemplate my own former eloquence. He was a joke. Sorry you didn't get it. I take him about as seriously as I take his modern imitator, Bill Maher. I don't take Maher seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

Again, I ask, are you confusing James Buckley with WFB?

William Buckley was a bit more than Maher. Maher gripes. WFB actually articulated serious ideas, laid out what he felt would be effective policy.
Maher is part pundit, part talk show host. Big freakin' difference.

What serious ideas did Buckley articulate? Ok, he defended Joe McCarthy and Francisco Franco thus forever cementing his libertarian credentials. Pinochet, check. He empirically defined conservatism as support for the rightmost electable candidate. Well, that's actually not a serious idea since it doesn't define conservatism from first principles. Indeed the NR even used it to support Shitstain which means you can't take the NR seriously.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/william-f-buckley-donald-trump-republican-conservative-electable-candidate/

Floor's yours. What 'serious' ideas did Buckley articulate?

Yes, Firing Line was a talk show. If either Maher or Buckley had each other on their respective talk shows they'd complain about liberals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

What serious ideas did Buckley articulate?

Add his opinion that whites should govern the south because the whites were "more advanced". Reinforcing that libertarians would suddenly love government and oppression if they ever win power. The brochure vs. reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Olsonist said:
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

Again, I ask, are you confusing James Buckley with WFB?

William Buckley was a bit more than Maher. Maher gripes. WFB actually articulated serious ideas, laid out what he felt would be effective policy.
Maher is part pundit, part talk show host. Big freakin' difference.

What serious ideas did Buckley articulate? Ok, he defended Joe McCarthy and Francisco Franco thus forever cementing his libertarian credentials. Pinochet, check. He empirically defined conservatism as support for the rightmost electable candidate. Well, that's actually not a serious idea since it doesn't define conservatism from first principles. Indeed the NR even used it to support Shitstain which means you can't take the NR seriously.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/william-f-buckley-donald-trump-republican-conservative-electable-candidate/

Floor's yours. What 'serious' ideas did Buckley articulate?

Yes, Firing Line was a talk show. If either Maher or Buckley had each other on their respective talk shows they'd complain about liberals.

Buckley articulated serious ideas, laid out what he felt would be effective policy.

 

If you were born a rich, white, east coast patrician.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2021 at 9:19 AM, Olsonist said:

BTW, as per civil forfeiture, yeah I disagree with the policy Biden/Garland that inherited from your boy Shitstain. Your boy rescinded the Obama/Holder's rollbacks (rollbacks, because conservatives in Congress ain't a gonna rollback that law that Biden voted for which passed the Senate 100-0). But I'm beginning to see a pattern here Tom.

Attorney General Eric Holder curtailed use of the practice in the Obama administration, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions restored it under President Donald Trump. Though Attorney General Merrick Garland has rolled back many Trump-era changes at the Justice Department, he has not taken action on asset forfeiture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lara-nevada-asset-forfeiture-adoption/2021/09/01/6f170932-06ae-11ec-8c3f-3526f81b233b_story.html

"Curtailed" means "cut back to where it was under W, before forfeitures skyrocketed under Obama."

Which was still a problem! Yes, Sessions made it worse, a tradition for him as it is for Biden on that issue.

Figure-23.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom:

Your issue is you get very monomaniacally interested in a few issues over all others. Asset forfeiture is about 0.5% of the issues I care about. The overall governance of the state and country outrank getting my way in ONE area to the detriment of 100 others.

If you have to know, I have contributed to a PAC that has worked to reform those issues among other things for a long time now. I have actually been a bit of a victim of this, the plane I used to fly frequently vanished one day. We thought it was gone forever when someone else who also flew it was on vacation and happened to see it sitting in Florida in an area where Customs kept airplanes they had confiscated. Once the FBO was told where it was we got it back. Seems someone rented it, copied the key, and later stole it and was running dogballs to South America. They got busted and Customs must have liked the airplane, they "forgot" to tell the owners they had it and showed no signs of doing so until found out :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Tom:

Your issue is you get very monomaniacally interested in a few issues over all others. Asset forfeiture is about 0.5% of the issues I care about. The overall governance of the state and country outrank getting my way in ONE area to the detriment of 100 others.

If you have to know, I have contributed to a PAC that has worked to reform those issues among other things for a long time now. I have actually been a bit of a victim of this, the plane I used to fly frequently vanished one day. We thought it was gone forever when someone else who also flew it was on vacation and happened to see it sitting in Florida in an area where Customs kept airplanes they had confiscated. Once the FBO was told where it was we got it back. Seems someone rented it, copied the key, and later stole it and was running dogballs to South America. They got busted and Customs must have liked the airplane, they "forgot" to tell the owners they had it and showed no signs of doing so until found out :angry:

"Mono" means one. I admit to being interested in several issues, many of them libertarian issues. The stupid drug war is a big one. Asset forfeiture is ancillary to it. Eminent domain is another one. So is occupational licensing. The first amendment. The fourth. I could go on, and have.

The common thread: not one of the libertarian bashers here will tell us why we're wrong on any of those issues.

Anyway, please share the PAC. If they seem anywhere near as useful as IJ, I'll join you in donating.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

D.D. Eisenhower  was beyond my lifetime but I believe he was the last rational republican. Can anybody set me straight on that or was he actually good?

When I hear my realatives mourn the loss of their party I think that is who they are mourning...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

"Mono" means one. I admit to being interested in several issues, many of them libertarian issues. The stupid drug war is a big one. Asset forfeiture is ancillary to it. Eminent domain is another one. So is occupational licensing. The first amendment. The fourth. I could go on, and have.

The common thread: not one of the libertarian bashers here will tell us why we're wrong on any of those issues.

Anyway, please share the PAC. If they seem anywhere near as useful as IJ, I'll join you in donating.

No Tom, you will find little or no support for the drug war, for the war war nor for asset forfeiture in these parts. We just don't think you're any sort of a 'actual' libertarian simply because of your arcane knowledge of carefully chosen topics which you've strenuously acquired from the close reading of Reason Magazine posts.

No, I don't think you were particularly opposed to the Afghanistan War. You simply saw it a convenient cudgel at opportune times. If anything, you seemed upset that Biden took your toy away. You'll find that folks here were simply opposed to it and aside from being distracted by the media during the final withdrawal haven't mentioned the 20 year multi-trillion dollar war since.

Instead you're more trolling a position in an own-the-liberals kind of way than stating what you believe and supporting it. The easy way for normal people to see that is your legendary inability to find common ground. That's why your attempt above to award yourself common ground, At least we can more or less agree on the Afghanistan withdrawal, was so ludicrous.

Orwell said The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Tom, you lack clarity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Tom, those who bash libertarians are authoritarians. That is the root of their anathema.
Of course they do not see it that way......it is everyone else who has fascist leanings.

Couldn't disagree more.

In my mind a true libertarian has no compulsion to do anything they do not want to at all. They could choose to live entirely off grid, on some unowned land somewhere, that no one has improved, and eke out an existence. I have no issue with that philosophy at all.  So long as they are not given resources others have invested in, without some payment as compensation. 

They may find someone else to share their life, who feels the same way, but even at that point they have to learn to massage their philosophy to now include 'cooperation' with someone else.

EVERY self proclaimed libertarian I know who has suffered hard times at some stage puts their hand out, despite saying no one should receive government assistance because everyone has ample opportunity to build up a nest egg.

'cooperation' is the antithesis of libertarianism. 

For me, at the moment the whole rwnj movement has become a collection of wannabe libertarians, who are now becoming really pissed off the rest of the world doesn't like them. What did they expect? If you dont put out, you dont get anything back. 

Wokeism is the most pure expression of capitalism I have seen. Capitalists have one goal in mind = make more money with the money they have now. 

So I, as a capitalist, decide to sell as many widgets as possible - I am going to make myself as nice as possible, to as many buyers as possible. So if that means I keep more customers by not selling what the majority of my customers see as being offensive e.g. 'my pillow / lindell', i will 'cancel' lindell's products. I have zero compunction at all in 'cancelling' individuals whose philosophies are counter to a friendly, empathetic society where the good of all is as important as the good of one..

After all, no one is forced to like you. No one is forced to believe anything (ignoring indoctrination). Whatever you choose to do has consequences. Libertarians, in my experience, are not good at owning the consequences of their choices.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Tom, those who bash libertarians are authoritarians. That is the root of their anathema.
Of course they do not see it that way......it is everyone else who has fascist leanings.

You were defending Buckley who supported McCarthy, Pinochet and Franco. And YOU are complaining about us disgusting librul authoritarians?

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dfw_sailor said:

Couldn't disagree more.

In my mind a true libertarian has no compulsion to do anything they do not want to at all. They could choose to live entirely off grid, on some unowned land somewhere, that no one has improved, and eke out an existence. I have no issue with that philosophy at all.  So long as they are not given resources others have invested in, without some payment as compensation. 

They may find someone else to share their life, who feels the same way, but even at that point they have to learn to massage their philosophy to now include 'cooperation' with someone else.

EVERY self proclaimed libertarian I know who has suffered hard times at some stage puts their hand out, despite saying no one should receive government assistance because everyone has ample opportunity to build up a nest egg.

'cooperation' is the antithesis of libertarianism. 

For me, at the moment the whole rwnj movement has become a collection of wannabe libertarians, who are now becoming really pissed off the rest of the world doesn't like them. What did they expect? If you dont put out, you dont get anything back. 

Wokeism is the most pure expression of capitalism I have seen. Capitalists have one goal in mind = make more money with the money they have now. 

So I, as a capitalist, decide to sell as many widgets as possible - I am going to make myself as nice as possible, to as many buyers as possible. So if that means I keep more customers by not selling what the majority of my customers see as being offensive e.g. 'my pillow / lindell', i will 'cancel' lindell's products. I have zero compunction at all in 'cancelling' individuals whose philosophies are counter to a friendly, empathetic society where the good of all is as important as the good of one..

After all, no one is forced to like you. No one is forced to believe anything (ignoring indoctrination). Whatever you choose to do has consequences. Libertarians, in my experience, are not good at owning the consequences of their choices.

 

 

 

 

I'm always startled at how quickly the "Personal Responsibility Express" derails after a natural disaster occurs. Or a manmade ones such as economic crashes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

I'm always startled at how quickly the "Personal Responsibility Express" derails after a natural disaster occurs. Or a manmade ones such as economic crashes.

Don't forget "government is the problem".

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bdgWesternMass said:

D.D. Eisenhower  was beyond my lifetime but I believe he was the last rational republican. Can anybody set me straight on that or was he actually good?

When I hear my realatives mourn the loss of their party I think that is who they are mourning...

Well, technically my lifetime includes Ike but I don't remember him. OTOH the impression I've always gotten is that he was a bit too honest and fair minded for a lot of Republicans at the time... not wanting to nuke North Vietnam (Dulles, Dien Bien Phu), urging the construction of the interstate highway system, supporting Social Security, warning us about the Military-Industrial Complex. My father could probably be best described as an Eisenhower Republican. Another older man I've discussed politics a lot with, whom I specifically asked about Truman, said that he liked both Harry and Ike.

So it could be that the majority of Republicans at the time were more sensible conservative-leaning types, uncomfortable with the Bircher screeching and Nixon's crookery of the times.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

I'm always startled at how quickly the "Personal Responsibility Express" derails after a natural disaster occurs. Or a manmade ones such as economic crashes.

Don't forget "government is the problem".

The biggest disaster in heartland USA is that there are so many places like the tornado disaster area; slowly sinking into poverty and despair of low wages and crumbling infrastructure and diminishing expectations. Average household in the area of the candle factory ~ $18k/yr and people glad to work 3rd shift for a pittance competing against prisoners for cheap labor.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The biggest disaster in heartland USA is that there are so many places like the tornado disaster area; slowly sinking into poverty and despair of low wages and crumbling infrastructure and diminishing expectations. Average household in the area of the candle factory ~ $18k/yr and people glad to work 3rd shift for a pittance competing against prisoners for cheap labor.

- DSK

All the while voting for the right wingers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

That's because I do not see life as one or the other. I see the good and appreciate that, I see the bad and oppose that.
Way too many people, particularly on this forum are all in, for good or ill. Sheeple are like that.

Riiiight. You're forgiving of Buckley the individual supporting authoritarians and fascists like McCarthy, Pinochet and Franco but then you write off libruls as group as authoritarians ... because you see the good in people.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Olsonist said:

No Tom, you will find little or no support for the drug war, for the war war nor for asset forfeiture in these parts. 

But I already found support for asset forfeiture in you.

On 12/9/2021 at 9:19 AM, Olsonist said:

Attorney General Eric Holder curtailed use of the practice in the Obama administration, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions restored it under President Donald Trump. Though Attorney General Merrick Garland has rolled back many Trump-era changes at the Justice Department, he has not taken action on asset forfeiture.

 

The rest of the story is that the Obama administration went on a looting bonanza that was bad enough to actually provoke a political backlash. Holder instituted some half measures, knowing as I did at the time that the exception would swallow the rule, and dialed back the looting to the level seen under W. Which, by the way, was objectionable to libertarians before Obama's looting bonanza.

But don't worry. If you just don't quote my response, most of the wise ones around here will be misled as intended by your post and will think TeamD is actually helpful on asset forfeiture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

But I already found support for asset forfeiture in you.

 

The rest of the story is that the Obama administration went on a looting bonanza that was bad enough to actually provoke a political backlash. Holder instituted some half measures, knowing as I did at the time that the exception would swallow the rule, and dialed back the looting to the level seen under W. Which, by the way, was objectionable to libertarians before Obama's looting bonanza.

But don't worry. If you just don't quote my response, most of the wise ones around here will be misled as intended by your post and will think TeamD is actually helpful on asset forfeiture.

What you don't seem to get is this isn't even cracking the top 100 of things most of us worry about now, let alone the top 10.  This is not the time for single-issue voting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SloopJonB said:
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The biggest disaster in heartland USA is that there are so many places like the tornado disaster area; slowly sinking into poverty and despair of low wages and crumbling infrastructure and diminishing expectations. Average household in the area of the candle factory ~ $18k/yr and people glad to work 3rd shift for a pittance competing against prisoners for cheap labor.

 

All the while voting for the right wingers.

Maybe not. Kentucky is a purple state.

You're right that a lot of the poorest rural areas are clotted with Trump signs

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question posed was do they exist.  The answer is absolutely.  Just not very many.

To me, the issue relative to PA is that there aren't any conservatives so the entire fight is between moderate democrats and liberal democrats and if your aren't either,  you're clearly and orange man devotee.   Except the number of actual trump voters in PA is...maybe two?  And they rarely debate.

PA survives on gestalt and strawmen.  At the end of the day, that's what thrives here.  It's a monoculture with a few weeds ( Tom, how's that for a backhanded compliment???  Ha!). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

The question posed was do they exist.  The answer is absolutely.  Just not very many.

To me, the issue relative to PA is that there aren't any conservatives so the entire fight is between moderate democrats and liberal democrats and if your aren't either,  you're clearly and orange man devotee.   Except the number of actual trump voters in PA is...maybe two?  And they rarely debate.

PA survives on gestalt and strawmen.  At the end of the day, that's what thrives here.  It's a monoculture with a few weeds ( Tom, how's that for a backhanded compliment???  Ha!). 

Oh, I disagree on this. I think the number of PA posters who voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 is a lot higher.

But you're right they don't debate. They spout bullshit and insults. It's all they know, and they puzzled why it doesn't work on those who respect debate.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

Oh, I disagree on this. I think the number of PA posters who voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 is a lot higher.

But you're right they don't debate. They spout bullshit and insults. It's all they know, and they puzzled why it doesn't work on those who respect debate.

- DSK

Or they know it won't work on those engaged in the debate but hope it will influence the weaker willed lurkers and stiffen the resolve of the oppressed awakened ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The opiate of the masses?

- DSK

Those folks are already locked in to the deception and self deception.  As the Chosen, they believe they're to ones fated to be in charge after the fires have died down.  Gotta love those premillennialists.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

But I already found support for asset forfeiture in you.

 

The rest of the story is that the Obama administration went on a looting bonanza that was bad enough to actually provoke a political backlash. Holder instituted some half measures, knowing as I did at the time that the exception would swallow the rule, and dialed back the looting to the level seen under W. Which, by the way, was objectionable to libertarians before Obama's looting bonanza.

But don't worry. If you just don't quote my response, most of the wise ones around here will be misled as intended by your post and will think TeamD is actually helpful on asset forfeiture.

No Tom, that isn't support. That is a cite from the Washington Post. Is there anything else I can help you with?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet it is the Conservatives that are reducing opportunities to vote, encouraging armed supporters, censoring school curriculums, storming government buildings, threatening minorities, promoting a government supported religion, suppressing boycotts...

And liberals are the authoritarians.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Not reducing opportunities to vote, working to ensure we can verify our elections are secure. We currently cannot achieve that.

Bull pucky !!  You are a Riechista liar. 

Where is your Eva Dense that 2020 was a problem ?? 

Unless you mean this  . . 

VOTER FRAUD HAS BEEN DISCOVERED IN FL! Three Trump supporting Republicans from the MAGA Capitol of FL - The Villages - have just been arrested and charged with voting more than once in the 2020 election.

Link to post
Share on other sites