My Excruciating Experience Debating a Libertarian Who Tried to Claim That Progressivism is a Religion

stupid-peopleI have a pretty steady rule that I follow fairly well when it comes to political debates: I don’t deal with Libertarians.  It’s just not worth it.

Libertarianism is the bane of my existence.  Not that all Libertarians are bad people – they’re not.  I have several Libertarian friends (though I absolutely refuse to debate politics with them).

I always refer to them as the philosophers of the political world.  They can b.s. anything to make it sound plausible, but when you really get down to what they’re saying, it doesn’t make any damn sense.

It goes back to the question I ask every Libertarian, “Can you name one civilization, either past or present, that’s successfully been built based on Libertarian ideology?”

Some try to say the United States, but that’s complete nonsense.  How can someone claim that the United States was founded on Libertarianism when we had slavery, women couldn’t vote and we were slaughtering Native Americans by the thousands?

You know what, maybe that is Libertarianism.  A society with no real laws to protect people.  Where most people are left to fend for themselves.  We were poor, weak and disorganized.  That does sound a lot like the type of society Libertarianism might create.

I guess we could just go ask a few Somalians.  After all, their country is a paradise for small government and little or no taxes.

Another fun thing I like to point out is that if you took 10 Libertarians and asked each one separately to define what it is to be a Libertarian, or where they stood on several issues, you’d probably get 10 different answers.

Have you ever seen two Libertarians argue?  Half the time they go back and forth accusing the other of not being a “real” Libertarian.

That all being said, I recently made the mistake of engaging in political talk with a Libertarian.  This individual claimed that progressivism was a religion, just like Christianity.  He was responding to an article I recently wrote where I stated my belief that any politician who tries to interject religion into politics should automatically be forced to resign, since doing so is a blatant violation of our First Amendment.  Their entire basis for this ridiculous argument is that they worship God while progressives worship government.

And no matter what I said, they didn’t seem to understand the difference between a political ideology and a religion.

Because if you want to use the thought process that “progressives worship government” while Christians worship God, that still makes absolutely no sense.  No matter what you think of our government, the President of the United States and Congress undeniably exist.  A belief in God is based on faith.  A belief in government is based – on the fact that you can actually see it.  

Then they asked me the question which proved how ignorant they were about this entire subject matter:

“Why should I be subject to your progressive ideals while you shouldn’t be subjected to my christian ideals?”

See what I mean about the “philosophy” of it?  It almost sounds like it makes sense – but it makes absolutely no sense.

You know why?  Because progressivism isn’t a religion. 

This individual just seemed unable to grasp this concept.  Here are a few more of their comments:

“I worship an unprovable entity, progressives worship the collective/government.  Two different kinds of God.”

“Objectively. progressivism is just as much a religion as Christianity.”

“Progressivism is a religion by any objective measure. You leave out yours, I’ll leave out mine.”

Yup, I foolishly dealt with that.  

But even as foolish as these comments were, they’re about on par with most debates I’ve had with Libertarians.  Typically just philosophical sounding gibberish that sounds great to those who are often too impressionable to think for themselves.

But at the end of the day, it just doesn’t make any damn sense.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Matthias Ladwig

    Are you sure those people are “Libertarians” ? Sounds more like Christian
    Fundamentalists, or as I would call them : Christian nutjobs.

    • TrollBaby

      One in the same.

      • Pipercat

        There was a time when that wasn’t the case.

      • Newsericks

        Libertarianism and Christianity are NOT “one in the same.” They are mutually exclusive. (That’s what Pope Francis has been saying since he was elected, and he knows a little bit about Christianity.)

      • buricco

        Most people I’ve read who claim to be big-L Libertarians are really christofascists.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Like the Bible says, Satan is the great DCeiver!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        ABSOLUTELY!

        This is the first Pope in My lifetime whose, amin concern seems to be People, then Catholics, then the Church asa business.

        I am for ENDING tax exemptions for ANY non religious behavior from a congregation. You file suit to attack the PPACA, then pay your taxes. Politics of any kind is VERBOTEN!

      • Matthew Reece

        In modern political terms, what we know of Jesus puts him in the anarcho-capitalist camp.

    • Jamroast

      They have hijacked what was a half-baked ideology at best… Let them have it.

    • Stephen Barlow

      Evangelublicans.

      Repubelican.

      Revanpubel jelly fish

  • shawn_von_socialist

    libertarian society is like madmax kinda society movie wise
    progressive society is more like star trek kinda society movie wise

    every tyrant the world has ever seen claimed divine individual libertarian right crap

    they free themselves and enslave the people

    “never collective right”
    libertarians are de-construstionists who deconstruct instead of construct

    its a thought process really its not logical by any means

    dangerous to boot

    the myth that america was founded by rugged individuals was started by the hoover admin the worst admin in the history of america

    • Cliff Herring

      “Rugged individualism” was a phrase coined by Teddy Roosevelt. The ironic thing is,T.R. was a Republican,who believed in gov’t standing up for those who can’t. He broke up trusts and monopolies,reined in Wall St,.and was ridiculed as being”the World’s Policeman!” If T.R.were alive today he’d be a Dem/Progressive/Liberal. Hoover was bad,yes…but Bush was worse. Let’s face it..the last Administration was really Cheney pulling the strings!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        funny how FOX “news” almost NEVER brings up teddy R: the republican president who was awesome???

      • Mr. Timm

        …or Ike building the Interstate system?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        correct!! those TERRIFIC TRUE republicans are now viewed as COMMUNISTS by the regressive white trash tea party ( bowel) movement

    • kenbrit

      Wow. Everything in you statement and most of the views in it his entire thread are completely out of touch and for that matter incorrect. The libertarians will never be a large party in this country. The only reason she even wanted to interview this person is because he was an easy target. Kind of like most libtards these days who can’t defend ANYTHING they have done lately. She asked if any civilization has ever been successful when begun as a libertarian state, I ask you people if there has ever been a successful socialist state? NO THERE HAS NOT! So why do the progressives keep pushing us in that direction. Progressive socialism has actually been the downfall of almost every great civilization in history. And unlike most of what this guy Clifton is saying, that is fact not opinion.

      • Aaron Hawryluk

        Demark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Germany, France… The list does go on. All with socially conscious, progressive constitutions, socialized health care, gun control, regulated markets, state ownership of public goods, high taxes on the wealthy (compared to the USA), social welfare and education for the poor. All doing better than ‘Murica, in terms of the happiness, education, life expectancy, and general satisfaction of their citizens.
        Your definition of “fact” is pretty shaky.

      • ez dee

        kenbrit,
        Why is it that you,like so many other ignorants believe that progressivism equals socialism?I would say it comes down to a mixture.I guess you think Sweden,Norway,Denmark and a few others have totally failed?Mixing a small bit of socialism in could be compared to mixing in a small bit of chlorine to the swimming pool.Pure chlorine would be deadly but a small dose prevents the rot.I also would put pressure on the bottom feeders of society to not think in terms of being saved by government.Democracy works best when people are willing to work it and not just sit and be passive.I get that.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        he ( kenbrit) be a still suckling babe upon the tattered tete of FOX “news” information

      • DavidD

        Socialism at it’s heart is production for use not profit.Command economics have been shown not to work but most progresive policies were orginaly socialist policies as well.We invented them out of that basic central premise of use rather than profit,
        They did not fall from the sky and fall into the Democrats lap but were forced upon them by events and the struggle of our own socialis here in the USt.May Day came out of Chicago not Moscow.
        The course we on is not substainable .A mixed economy does seem to be doing a lot better job in Western Europe than than the poorly regulated bribery we have over here and a large component of policy over there is socialistic themes.

      • Mr. Timm

        Most Progressives would not support a fully Socialist state, anyways, since there are poorer rewards for hard work than under Capitalism. When faced with the hard choice of what would be a fair distribution of wealth, we find that 99.9% of all Americans are naturally Capitalists – just that we don’t like the extreme inequality of the systems in place right now. A Social safety net is useful for preserving the health of the economy, but just because we want Social welfare programs, doesn’t mean we want Socialism.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey Einstein:
        defend anything liberals have done ( lately)???
        Hmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, shall we compare the republican VS democrat federal policies– and what they collectively have done to ALL AMERICANS– over the past 25 yrs??
        shall weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee???
        *******************************************************************
        I will allow U to go 1st

  • cgallaway2000

    just like the tea party, I contend that there really isn’t a true thing as a “libertarian”….even though the word originally described an ideaology, much like conservatism or liberalism, I think the word has been hijacked and the definition has been changed. It’s interesting how much today’s “libertarians” will argue how conservative they are compared to anyone else, or more often, how liberal they are not. They tend to use it as a way to distance themselves from the republican conservatives that the libertarians vote for. Kind of like the tea party, they try to convince everyone that they are not simple republicans, but are something else, however, the proof is in the pudding, and even their political leaders identify themselves as “Conservatives” and “Republicans”

  • Sick of Libertarians

    The Libertarian ideal exists in that period of time between revolution and the rule of law. It is more commonly defined as a state of anarchy. Libertarianism is an ethically bankrupt philosophy which bases all of its precepts on a the utopian ideal that people are naturally reasonable, and will behave accordingly. While this may be true in ethnically homogeneous groups, it breaks down completely when confronted by any form of outside challenge, or the rise of that portion within a group who desire power. History bears this out with near infinite repetition. Essentially Libertarianism is Societal Nihilism. It is a self destructive philosophy, which since it is always professed by pseudo intellectuals also know as religious zealots; can never be blamed for the failures it incurs. Something else will always be the reason it fails, never a lack of reason within the philosophy, or the shortcomings of those who follow it. In essence Libertarianism is a religion, and it is why the toolbox you were arguing it with could not see the difference between a political ideology and religion. By operating from a position of faith (that people will behave reasonably, something completely unsupported by reality), Libertarianism immediately crosses the line between a set of ideals, and a set of laws set by the universe. A self constructed reality in which some things are simply taken as fact without any supporting documentation is generally the purview of religion. So you see he took it as an opportunity to preach.

    • Newsericks

      “Why should I be subject to your progressive ideals while you shouldn’t be subjected to my christian ideals?” The guy is obviously confused. No one is forcing him to be progressive. If our country adopts some policies that are based on progressive views, that’s called democracy. (The same thing happens when we adopt laws based on Christian beliefs that non-Christians then have to follow.)

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        it is ONLY a democracy when the regressives ( TEA PARTY/LIBERTARIANS) win the election.
        when they lose it is called muslim Marxist Kenyan secular martian anti white people socialism. ( “SECEDE”)

      • Stephen Barlow

        LMAO! Secessionaist are BOTH Seditionists AND Traitors. Martyr them all!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        nah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lets make them watch our country embrace ALL americans as EQUAL— which will totototally piss off the white trash regressive religious ( VOODOO) crybabies.
        plus: cretins such as beck/ “no tits” malkin/ Limbaugh and pirro DO provide a very fractured entertainment!

      • Matthew Reece

        “Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and only rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.” -Hans Hermann Hoppe

    • Matthew Reece

      I recommend reading the writings of Christopher Cantwell, Robert Murphy, and Stefan Molyneux to help you see why your view is misguided.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        so– because U read stuff written by authors U “respect” and AGREE with them allows U to arbitrarily state that the prior post(er) is misguided?
        matthew———— ya really should eat better. your ‘thinking’ is ostensibly affected

    • Charles Vincent

      “The Libertarian ideal exists in that period of time between revolution and the rule of law. It is more commonly defined as a state of anarchy.”
      Not really libertarians live under law but the law has one purpose which is to protect life, liberty, and property if the individual.

  • Lucius

    I suppose it boils down to a definition of terms: God and religion. Sounds like your interlocutor hasn’t given much thought to what these terms denote. The government is not a god and progressivism is not a religion. Conflating a political ideology with a religion is just ignorant unless you happen to be a theocrat, in which case they are indistinguishable.

    • Matthew Reece

      In a certain way, the state is a deity and statism is a religion. Larken Rose explains this rather well in “The Most Dangerous Superstition.”

      • Lucius

        Checked it out at Amazon. Looks interesting. Thanks.

  • Daroe23

    Libertarians are Free Market Utopianists.

    • DavidD

      Do You Believe in Magic is their theme song.I’m so special if I want it it has to be true.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        and ” spirit in the sky” 1970

  • Oathar Thane

    “having a argument with an imbecile is like administering medicine to the dead” , Thomas Payne.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      im soooooooooooo stealing that!!!

  • Brenden Donaldson

    Our country is falling apart. Secessionists and a weak government..lovely mix.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      what EXACT date did our country start ” falling apart”??? ( according to what U wrote here)

      NOTE: I will slightly alter what U say with……

      ” our country is being divided”

      • Brenden Donaldson

        and being divided is not falling apart?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        brenden- im agreeing with you!
        Im asking: what specific date did our country start falling apart?

    • Mr. Timm

      There’s only certain places in the US where things are “falling apart”, as you put it. However, despite their presence in the media, The Tea Party/Libertarians/Neo-Fascists can’t make a dent in the politics of areas like Seattle, San Francisco, New York, or Los Angeles. In the event of a real, Conservative-fueled insurrection or uprising, our police and military would put it down quickly. The Tea Party is also proving to be VERY unpopular with our men in blue, as jurisdictions try to cut funding for police and fire protection, citing a need for smaller government. As the deaths of two police officers in Las Vegas have shown, many of these wingnut ideologies are the sworn enemy of law and order, and if they keep up their shenanigans, they’ll soon be on the wrong end of the gun barrel. It’s a shame that the two psychopaths in Vegas took their own lives – our news media missed the opportunity to air their story so that the public can see them for the murdering bigots they are.

  • BDW

    Libertarianism is a system of beliefs for people that think adolescence is the epitome of human achievement.

    • Ben Weston

      You have just defined Libertarianism like none has ever succeeded before.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s because liberals don’t realize that libertarian and liberal are synonymous.

        Libertarian

        1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.

        2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).

        adjective

        3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

        4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

        Liberal (definitions 4 and 5 are the applicable definitions here.)
        1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

        2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressivepolitical reform.

        3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual andgovernmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

        4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

        5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

      • Mr. Timm

        Except that the Libertarian Party in the US doesn’t fit that definition anymore. It’s been hijacked by people who aren’t Liberals at all.

      • Charles Vincent

        And liberals don’t fit the definition either.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        according to the king spinner– Charles.
        progressives VS regressives- that is simply the case here

      • Stephen Barlow

        That would make libertarians Egressives… people who want access your land, without fee, for personal gain, without giving recompense.

        FREELOADERS!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        nahhhhhhhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        “patriots” ( see: cliven bundy)

      • Charles Vincent

        Not really more of a not what they label themselves as.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Libertarians are in league with REPUBLICANS Cruz, Paul, HeitKamp…
        Bachmann and Palin LOVE doing whatever they please despite ethical obligations and law. It’s why the abandoned their offices and FLED into media.

        You watch, Michelle will be an anchor whore for Fox before Easter 2015.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        I hope so!!! watching them add more insanity to the legion is irrepressible!!
        ( but– remember: they dumped LOON beck as he was costing Murdoch MONEY)

      • buricco

        Most people I’ve talked to who claim they are libertarians actually support some sort of fascism, be it the corporate type or the religious type.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Libertarian, Liberty and Liberal

        1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.

        WHICH IS:

        1) freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

        BUT PROGRESS is what a Liberal seeks:

        1.} Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

        Libertarian:

        2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).

        Anarchy is absolut Libertarianism. ARRRRGH!!! Let’s play Pirates!!!

        2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

        Is that progressive as an adjective, or as a verb, which is to move forward in continuing the growth from the past…?

        2) freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

        Libertarian:
        3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

        3) of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

        So a LiberAL WANTS government controls, whereas a Libertarian does not, but will accept the bare minimum, as opposed to the LiberAL who wants a more uniform society.

        Libertarian:
        3} freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

        Libertarian
        4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

        4) favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

        So Libertarian’s want NO GUARANTEES?

        4} freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.

        Liberal:
        5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

        5} permission granted to a sailor, especially in the navy, to go ashore.

        What is not mentioned is that the sailor had shore rules to follew, standards to maintain and when all is done and not accounted for, they return to the ship as sailors, ready to obey commands a ordered.

      • Charles Vincent

        So Libertarian’s want NO GUARANTEES?
        There are no guarantees in life.

        “WHY do the Libertarians ALL run as REPUBLICANS when the emocrats give them the most of what they are seeking?”
        Democrats want a nanny state where people are completely dependent on and subservient to government rule.
        Libertarians wish to be independent and self sufficient, and want government to be small and un-intrusive in their personal lives.

        “What is not mentioned is that the sailor had shore rules to follow, standards to maintain and when all is done and not accounted for, they return to the ship as sailors, ready to obey commands a ordered.”

        This is non sequitur and irrelevant. Sailors are an agent to an employer and have a duty to follow rules set out by their employer private individuals do not have that expectation.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        wrong answer chuckie–
        Im a left leaning centrist independent who does NOT want this purported “nanny state ” which regressives bemoan so loudly (as fed by FOX “news” zealots)
        as U made YOUR statement in the parameters of finality/ absoluteness it is now rendered obsolete.
        ————————————————————————— too many pseudo ‘Christian’ libertarians want GOVERNMENT to imbue their scumbag superstitious beliefs in state ( and higher) legislation……. THAT; my dear chuckie— is BIG government
        ************************************************************
        Liberals want equality to all americans

      • Charles Vincent

        And I am an independent moderate. If your point is that because your moderate and don’t want a nanny state then everyone else believes the same as you, you best pack it in now because you lost the round.

        “Liberals want equality to all americans”
        This is the high road to communism.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        really? equality socially for all americans is COMMUNIST – driven?
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        WOW!! I must be a Marxist!
        ( see: Thomas Jefferson)

        …………. u were stumbling over some ‘ victory” in a 1st round??

      • Charles Vincent

        Jefferson wasn’t a Marxist. And the people who penned the Constitution realized that people are not equal in that they have different advantages and disadvantages and that not everyone reaches their full potential. That being said they wanted everyone to have an equal opportunity to make their life how they saw fit as individuals and not in some manner prescribed by the nanny state which the democrats are now trying to foist upon us, in a continuous effort to undermine personal responsibility of the individual.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        equal opportunity to the “pursuit of happiness” ( JEFFERSON)
        repubs — especially scum religious white trash– want NO equality for Africans( minorities in general)/ gays/ women,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        nanny state is a contrived FOX “news” verbal bavardage

      • Charles Vincent

        “repubs — especially scum religious white trash– want NO equality for
        Africans( minorities in general)/ gays/ women,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”

        Ironically it was Democrats that tried to prevent the passage of the civil rights act not the republicans.

        “nanny state is a contrived FOX “news” verbal bavardage”
        Even IF this is true it still accurately labels the democrat /progressive movement.

      • John E. Conway

        Really? I thought it was the standard of equality that Lincoln was talking about? Her point wasn’t that all moderates dont want a nanny state it is that not all liberals do. And in fact, I dont know any liberals that actually do, its something that you conservatives and libertarians cant seem to shake.

      • Charles Vincent

        Really you could have fooled me, given the lunacy that Bloomberg was trying to pass off with the ban on fountain drinks et. al. Moreover people on the left want big government i.e. the nanny state.

      • John E. Conway

        Government can best handle many functions, whereas private and free enterprise, working solely for profit, would abuse and take advantage. Just look at private prisons and the rampant abuses and neglect running in them.

      • Charles Vincent

        Libertarian philosophy wouldn’t allow for profit prisons. Furthermore libertarian philosophy would hold corporations and their owners personally liable for the things you mentioned.

      • Stephen Barlow

        DEmocrats want tax revenues to be fairly collected and equally distributed for th common good, nor as subsidies for the few, who get special exemption the many can never qualify for.

        NO tax deductions that do not apply to 25% of the population. Should make revamping the tax code VERY simple. Cap gains, dividends and interest wold be taxed at the same rate as EARNED dollars.

        One home, one mortgage interest deduction. Dressage horses are taxable hobbies.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        there U go again …..!!!!!!!
        ———————– ………………….. annoying a regressive with FACTS ( and solid ideas)

      • Charles Vincent

        you have apparently not looked ate the tax stuff i pointed you to.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        even if I did ( and I do get lost reviewing this thread stuff sometimes as I actually DO have a life) how would that discount/discard what I wrote to S barlow?

      • Charles Vincent

        The tax code can’t be simplified it needs tossed out. Personally I favor abolishing the income tax all together and sticking to the tax that’s allowed by the constitution prior to the advent of the IRS and the income tax, either that or a consumption tax of some sort.

      • Those taxes are by nature regressive because the poorer you are, the greater the percentage of your income you tend to spend.

        Oh and the income tax and IRS are constitutional. We have a process to determine that. The Supreme Court gets the final say and they have upheld the Constitutionality numerous times.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually if you read the SCOTUS decision on the 16th amendment income tax isn’t constitutional. The government used its power and turned us all into federal employees making the income tax legal since the constitution allows the federal government to place income tax on federal employees, Google it.

        “Those taxes are by nature regressive”
        All taxes are regressive but they are a part of the Lockean bargain to which the constitution is and only allows direct and indirect taxation excepting in the case of federal employees.

      • The 16th Amendment is not ambiguous.

        “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

        No word of making everyone a federal employee there. It explicitly and unambiguously gave the federal government the power to levy income taxes. Only the tinfoil hat crowd believes otherwise.

        Since the second part of your argument is predicated on the false assumption that income taxes are based on making everyone a federal employee, I’m just going to ignore it because it is silly.

      • Charles Vincent

        And the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th amendment granted no new powers of taxation. Therefore congress is still bound by the constitutionally enumerated taxation which are direct taxes which must be apportioned and indirect taxes.

      • No, the Supreme Court ruled that although the 16th did not grant a new power of taxation, it removed the requirement that income taxes be apportioned by state — which is what the Amendment is designed to do and says it does in plain language.

        “Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived’.”

        -Justice Pierce Butler
        Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., (1926)

        The Constitution used to say you had to apportion direct taxes. It was amended to say it no longer does. That is the purpose of the Amendment..

        You need to get your legal opinions from actual textbooks and not from blogs on the Internet. You are 100% wrong.

      • Charles Vincent

        Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 U.S. 1916
        Mr. Brushaber was a fiduciary of several foreign investors in the Union Pacific R.R. Co., not a private individual.

        Stanton v Baltic
        The 16 amendment confers no new powers of taxation, it prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation congress possessed from the beginning from being taken out of the category of taxation subject to apportionment, from which income was derived.

        Peck and Co. v Lowe, 247 U.S. 165(1918)
        The 16th amendment does not extend the powers of taxation to new or excepted subjects.

        Eisner v Macomber 252 U.S. 189(1920)
        The 16th amendment must be construed in connection to the taxing clauses of the original constitution and therefore this revenue must come from foriegn commerce

      • Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co

        This reinforced that income taxes were always constitutional and clearly eliminated the need for them to be apportioned.

        From the judgment: “As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes.”

        Stanton v Baltic

        Stanton lost. The court ruled that income taxes were always Constitutional and that he had to pay them. Again, the argument that the taxes were illegal because they were not “apportioned” was rejected because the 16th Amendment removed that requirement.

        Peck and Co. v Lowe

        Same as the others. The fact that they are saying “the 16th Amendment does not extend the powers of taxation to new or excepted subjects” is meaningless when they are also saying that the Federal Government always had the right to collect income taxes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the original Constitution. They note that the 16th Amendment merely removes the requirement that those taxes be apportioned.

        Eisner v Macomber

        You are on crack. This case determined that increased shares of stock are not taxable as “income” under the 16th Amendment. Dividends, yes — but not capital gains.

        “Foreign commerce” had nothing to do with it. The shares of stock were held in Standard Oil which was an American Corporation.

        Every single case you cited reinforced that income taxes were legal.

        I know you think you are privy to secret knowledge that the rest of us poor sheep are not — but you are wrong. Repeatedly.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re ignoring the core holdings and if you read the TD 2313 decision you’ll under stand why dividends are taxed and how they must be handled. Your tactic of ignoring the facts that rebut your argument is why you fail to win.

      • I am quoting the holdings directly.

        I’ve read “TD 2313” and 1. It is not a Supreme Court decision or a law and does not have the weight of either, and 2. it clarifies how income from foreign nationals should be collected. It does not say anything about income from citizens at all.

        In essence, it says that income tax should be collected from non-resident aliens. Nowhere in the decision does it say that income should _only_ be collected from non-resident aliens.

        The fact that the IRS collected income taxes from US citizens that year might have been a clue that they thought doing so was Constitutional.

      • Charles Vincent

        No not really they exploited a loop hole wherein they are constitutionally allowed to level an income tax on federal employees. They issued all citizens a federal ID in the form of the SS number.
        Secondly TD 2313 followed SCOTUS case law that’s why it’s constitutional.

      • TD 2313 was issued in 1916.

        Social Security Numbers were not created until the New Deal in 1935, 20 years later. And — I think this is important — they don’t make you a “federal employee.” They were used to track your Social Security benefits.

        Your timeline doesn’t add up and your interpretation of what a Social Security Number is for is laughable.

        It’s been fun exploring the depths of your delusions and the acrobatics you are willing to go through to avoid reality, but I think I’ll let you go back to the dark chatrooms where you and other like-minded individuals can carefully reinterpret reality to your liking without troublesome reality getting in the way.

      • Charles Vincent

        I took them that long to see the loop hole and secondly I never said they were the same time.
        No I think I will stay right here and smash you in the face with actual facts sorry your to juvenile to actually debate with facts but instead resort to name calling.

      • You meant “you’re too,” not “your to.” “Sorry” actually is the beginning of a new sentence. You have a run-on going on there.

        Fixed your grammar. You can thank me later.

        What “loophole?” You said they had to make everyone a federal employee in order to make it legal. Now this is completely wrong and moderately crazy, but they collected income tax just fine for 20 years after that order without issuing Social Security Numbers, which — I feel I must mention again — had nothing to do with making anyone a federal employee and instead were part of the New Deal program designed to combat the Great Recession.

        You mention cases, I quote the justices decision from those cases. You throw out TD 2313. I read the thing top to bottom (it’s only one page.) Nowhere does it say that 1040s are only to be used for foreign income.

        You have not once actually cited these cases you say support your case. I have, and you are wrong.

        All these Supreme Court cases that you claim invalidated the income tax? The income tax was collected after each decision and the court never tried to stop it. I wonder why?

        My theory? Because you have no idea what you are talking about. I have bludgeoned you with facts which you just ignore, so I’ve decided that you are just silly.

        Maybe if you construct a coherent argument or rebuttal I will re-evaluate — but that hasn’t happened yet.

      • Charles Vincent

        Stooping to grammar nazi I see. Yes you quoted the justice in one case but you cherry picked and pulled it out of the context it was meant. Secondly you ignore what the cases were about. They were about taxation on corporate profit not individual wages.

        You’ve only posited contextomy nothing more because you ignore what the cases are actually about and instead cherry pick and try to spin it to be about taxation of individual wages which those cases clearly are not and you completely ignored that three of the four I mentions state explicitly that the 16 the amendment conferred not new power of taxation and that congress leaving them with only the constitutionally allowed direct tax which by law must be apportioned and the indirect tax(excise tax).

      • Oh I wasn’t too serious about the grammar thing. I was just keeping myself entertained.

        The courts repeatedly ruled that the 16th Amendment did not confer a new power of taxation because the government already had authority to tax income. The only thing the 16th Amendment did is remove the requirement that income taxes be “apportioned” to the states.

        That is the context you are missing. I can’t tell if you are doing it on purpose or if you have just been misled, but your unwillingness to address that the court specifically said that government had the right to tax income is selective reading at it’s finest.

      • The cases that we are discussing are ones you brought up — not me. Complaining that they are not on topic is hardly my problem, now is it?

      • Charles Vincent

        “The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the
        sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action
        independent of the sovereign will.
        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 81”

        See also
        Alexander Hamilton’s writings in federalist papers; 12, 21, 30, 35, 36, and;
        James Madison’s writings in federalist paper 54.

      • Ah you mean the stuff they wrote that they didn’t put in the Constitution? Interesting from a philosophical perspective — but not the document that is the foundation of our nation of laws.

      • Charles Vincent

        You seem to think those things didn’t translate in their intent when they drafted the constitution. When In fact they are writings that help posterity understand the meaning of the constitution. I get the sense you’re quite intelligent but you’re standing to close to see the big picture. Take a step back and read what the cases I listed were actually about.

      • The Federalist Papers had lots of interesting ideas, but not all of them were good. They were against the Bill of Rights on the principle that those might be interpreted as the only rights people had. I see what they were thinking — but they were wrong.

        I actually read the decision in three of those cases and I think I got them pretty spot on. My response is that I think you are cherry picking specific lines or arguments from those cases without proper context and without looking at what the actual determination of the court was.

      • Charles Vincent

        Furthermore U.S. Treasury decision (TD2313)
        Stated “collectors of internal” revenue must use form 1040 only for/by the fiduciary of a nonresident alien who has received interest from bonds/dividends on the stock of a domestic U.S. Corporation stock.

      • Charles Vincent

        Your SCOTUS case has nothing to do with income tax it has to to with the taxable income from German marks.
        http://en DOT m DOT Wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Bowers_v._Kerbaugh-Empire_Co.

      • I quoted directly from the decision in that case. That was what you (should have) read. The Court reaffirmed the legality on the income tax and that the 16th Amendment eliminated the need for such a tax to be apportioned.

        So, you are wrong. Again.

        Must be getting old by now.

      • Charles Vincent

        But it’s out of context that’s the problem you quote out of context I went and read the case apparently you didn’t nor did you read the case that followed the one you mentioned. You can have your own opinion but you don’t get to make up your own facts.

      • Charles Vincent

        P.S.
        This site doesn’t allow links you posts it has been deleted.

      • Stephen Barlow

        All employees are agents of their employees idiot!!!

        ON THE CLOCK.

        The discussion is about the over reach of employers to control OFF THE CLOCK behavior.

        it’s hard enough to tolerate you nonsense Chuck, but when I have to do your thinking for you…

        No wonder Top Cruise put Ray back in the home.

      • Charles Vincent

        Uhh wft are you blabbering about now?
        Those sailors are visible agents and are expected to act accordingly. The navy does this, the merchant marines do this, and so do shipping companies. You brought up sailors not me sorry it blew up in your face.

        “”What is not mentioned is that the sailor had shore rules to follow, standards to maintain”
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Your words not mine^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      • Stephen Barlow

        Hey Rainman!!!!

        NOT IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES they are not obvious agents.

        And Hobby Lobby now have a SCOTUS approved religious SEX CODE to adhere to.

        in violation of the 1st Amendment. This is a GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED RELIGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE.

      • Charles Vincent

        HMM sialors in the merchant marines have a uniform as do the navy sailors and so to private shipping companies. Furthermore they are required to(behave) in or out of uniform.

        The ISPS defines shore leave as “Technically, shore leave is a part of the sailor’s work time on the vessel.”

        This means that in civilian garb or not they are bound by rules as an agent of the ship/employer that employees them.

        “And Hobby Lobby now have a SCOTUS approved religious SEX CODE to adhere to.

        in violation of the 1st Amendment. This is a GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED RELIGIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE.”

        This is off topic and irrelevant to the current discussion.

      • John E. Conway

        No. Libertarians put themselves and their rights and needs first. Liberals are looking at the rights of all and the needs of all.

      • Charles Vincent

        No liberatarians put the rights of the individual first and if you read the constitution it does as well life, liberty, property, Johnny. Liberals by and large want Joe to pay for Sally, and to do so they steal Joe’s property for Sally.

      • John E. Conway

        No, we do not want Joe to pay for Sally, and no one is stealing from Joe. We just want fairness and equality, which cannot happen without the rule of law.

        Actually you are thinking of the declaration of independence that’s talk about life, liberty, etc, not the constitution, but I will concede that it does grant rights, but it grants them to all individuals equally. The libertarian view is that you should be able to do whatever you want, but when the rights of two different people collide, we need have have a framework to determine who is in the right. For example, two neighbors, one of which has to work two jobs and study and get what little sleep they can in between. The other likes to have loud parties every night but does not damage his neighbors property. Who’s rights take precedence? Because we have seen this before, the law has determined that the loud neighbor is in the wrong, especially since they could “harm” more than just the one neighbor with their noise, whereas having to turn the music down would only “harm” him.

        That is the problem I have with libertarians. they dont understand why we have the laws we do, dont want to be bothered looking into their history, and just want to do what they want to do, to hell with anyone else.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Actually you are thinking of the declaration of independence that’s talk about life, liberty,”

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

        Not really the preamble of the constitution say basically the same thing it just uses different words to say the same thing.
        I will answer the other things you posited later when I get home.

      • John E. Conway

        Yes and no, the pursuit of happiness is definitely a much more gray area here. However, the preamble itself grants no rights or protections per se.

      • Charles Vincent

        No but the constitution does and it recognizes natural rights they only enumerated a few and I think it was Hamilton the argued against that in the federalist papers they really drew from people like John Locke and lord Blackstone who both wrote on natural rights.

      • John E. Conway

        True, and the 10th amendment is pretty broad, but it isnt all inclusive, otherwise there would be no debate that healthcare, a living wage, shelter, and food are human rights. So far only 2 of those have been agreed are rights.

      • Charles Vincent

        I would say healthcare is a right but not when it is forcefully taken from another. Healthcare would be under the right of life and is not a government function IMHO Governments role is to apply the law and the laws only legitimate function its to protect life liberty and property. Therefore the law binds the government to protect those things.

      • John E. Conway

        So ensuring everyone has health insurance would be the governments role, but not to provide the health care itself, which is what we are doing. I would disagree with that since we are the only advanced nation that does not have universal health care and fall behind other nations in life expectancy, infant mortality, and several other areas now. Much of it is due to a poor educational system that is allowing those in charge to continue to push a status quo that hurts us. (BTW, I said 10th amendment earlier and I meant 9th, My mistake).

      • Charles Vincent

        My problem isnt with government helping its that they are a cluster [email protected]!#K and they create more problems ala the ACA than they fix. Mind you the ACA doesn’t address the real problem with healthcare, moreover I object to the government telling anyone they must contract with a private corporation for anything or be levied a penalty.

        “So ensuring everyone has health insurance would be the governments role, but not to provide the health care itself,”
        Not really I think its governments roll to provide access to proper healthcare and to regulate the facets of healthcare so that its affordable to the majority of the citizenry and to encourage charity of citizens to give to those that are unable to afford it and to do so in a manner that keeps that Charity voluntary.

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=n_IODlKV4Ow

        “Much of it is due to a poor educational system that is allowing those in charge to continue to push a status quo that hurts us.”

        This is a government run and Funded Bureaucracy. We have been dumping money into this system to no effect because all the funding is eaten up by the bloated bureaucracy that is the Dept. of Education.

        Sorry this video is long I searched for something shorter that would encapsulate my point better.

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=yx6-PHKzHvM

      • John E. Conway

        And how do you propose they do that? they either would have to provide the insurance themselves, provide the care themselves, or enforce everyone become insured. The government is no more of a cluster %^&* than any other business, really. it is just on a much larger scale.

      • Charles Vincent

        The government has the power to regulate under the commerce clause. And that’s the problem with government they use force in ways that damage people’s property, that’s a bad thing.

        I think if you go back and look at Hobbes and Lockes ideas here you could see where they would have gone in this instance.

      • John E. Conway

        Ok, there are instances, yes I agree. but it isn’t limited to federal government, or state, or even local government, or government at all. home owners associations do the same things. Local zoning and shadow casting laws also do. the list goes on And BTW, your definition of harm and mine are very different, but I have gone through that argument with another libertarian friend of mine.

        The facts are, people have different ideas of what is right and ok. Laws are needed to define what applies to everyone, so it is clear to everyone what is expected. We only have so many laws because we found we needed them. We would all be happier if we didnt have to be restricted so much, but people dont interact well with each other without rules.

      • Charles Vincent

        To your first point yes I do. Ot expect my definition of harm to bet the same as yours. But laws are good as long as they do not violate an individual’s person or property. Additionally there are something like 186,000 pages of laws on the federal books and the average person in America commits 3 felonies a day and doesn’t know it that my friend is a big problem.

        To your second point I am not advocating now law structure just one that is more simple and that the laws be negative in nature instead of positive. Also we have all in this country agreed to the Lockean bargain but I believe the federal government has over step is limited authority under the constitution, I think this is where people get derailed in that libertarians want small government people fly off the deep end and resort to all manner of hyperbole on the topic.

      • John E. Conway

        Yes and no. Many people who call themselves libertarians are really more anarchists and do not do your movement any favors. Perhaps the laws need to be rewritten 9A lot of them are poorly written), but honestly, we do generally have them because we there is a need. And I do not honestly believe the federal government oversteps, as maintaining the general wealfare is part of its responsibilities, so there are times when it will have to do things that might seem like it is over stepping, but if it needs to be uniform for all citizens across all states, then that has to be federal, the states will always just do things their own way or not at all.

      • Charles Vincent

        As to general welfare the federalist papers cover this here is an excerpt.

        “It has been urged and echoed that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.” But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to
        give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful andindefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity
        James Madison, Federalist #41″

      • Sinan

        This is why the canonization of the founders is a gigantic mistake. While they were brilliant men, they lived over 200 years ago and had ideas and opinions that we would now consider immoral, indecent and impractical. When a libertarian starts quoting the Federalist Papers, you know they are in trouble. In essence, a libertarian wants to rewrite the entire history of the nation and take us back to a mythical time and place that never, ever existed. I take that back, they harken for the days of the Articles of Confederation which almost destroyed the new nation.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hmm well a few things on your post.
        1) the articles of confederation where before the federalist papers and the constitution.
        2) the federalist papers were written by people who helped write the constitution. you know them as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. they are key to understandiong how the constitution is supposed to be interpreted.
        3) They looked at notable people like John Locke and Lord Blackstone when they drafted the constitution which is still currently the law of the land.
        4) I suppose I shouldn’t expect you to know this since you in all likelihood think our form of government is a democracy.

      • Sinan

        I am very well versed in the history of our republic, the founders, the law, the Federalist Paper, Locke, Blackstone, Paine, Hobbes and more. The federalist papers showed us what three men thought independently of each other. They did not write them as a committee. They are also not part of the law anymore than a treatise by Locke or Blackstone. As for the democracy comment, that is the unfortunate truth which is why our founders really should be treated as historical figures, not guides for the present or future. We are now completely controlled by a minority of voices courtesy of your vaunted republic, Citizens, gerrymandering, arcane Senate rules and the Electoral College.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re conflating here. And this country has been on a road running away from the republic since the civil war and started picking up speed around the First World War.
        Convieniatly you gloss over the fact that the people that wrote the constitution drew on all of these people I mentioned when they drafted the consitution. These things are clearly evident in both the declaration and the constitution, and you can lament all you want but it won’t change the fact that the progressive mind set and ideology has caused more problems in our society than it has solved

      • Charles Vincent

        The federal governments only role is to provide defense against the invasion of any state by either another state or foreign power and to regulate commerce between states and foreign governments. everything else is the purview of the individual state which is under direct control of the people.

      • John E. Conway

        Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty. But honestly, the Government was envisioned as a strong central force, which is why we are a federation, and not a confederacy.

      • John E. Conway

        If we were a confederation, I would agree with you, but we are a federation, we wanted a strong Central government. So no. And the constitution I believe grants more authority than that, although not much more specifically, although I would have to look into it for the specificity. Also, the supreme court has ruled that it has more authority as well.

      • Charles Vincent

        According to the constitution we are a constitutional republic, and if you look at our country Pre civil war it is apparent that the states had more pull(politically) than the federal government but the Civil war fallout and laws destroyed states rights. something I don’t think the founders would have liked or approved of.

        I am Interested in what you mean by not much more Specifically.
        Also Hope your holiday season was a good one.

      • John E. Conway

        Yes, we are a representative democracy or democratic republic. We are also a federation (hence why we have a Federal Government, not a Confederate government) which describes hows our individual states relate to the central government. In a Federation, the Central, Federal government is stronger than the comprising parts (in this case the states), so when there is a conflict between laws or authority, the Federal government take priority. In a Confederation, the opposite is true, the States have more power, and when there is a conflict between the central government and the states, the state take priority. Some feel a confederation provides more freedom, but since there is no consistancy between regions, there is no unity, no nation. A federation provides stability and uniformity.

      • Charles Vincent

        Democracy isn’t what I would call us we are governed by laws not the whims of the majority. But let us not get stuck on semantics.

        I think the federal government was intended to be minimal and even less intrusive in the lives of the average citizen they were to be the framework which the state was to abide by the boundaries if you will and hence they were to set up standards for things like commerce and how militia is to be trained etcetera.

        I do not think the people who thought up this grand design would have liked unelected Bureaucracies making regulations by the thousands, or congress making laws so complex you need a PhD to wrestle your way through the law to understand it.

        P.S.
        Still waiting on the specifics of this;
        “And the constitution I believe grants more authority than that, although not much more specifically, although I would have to look into it for the specificity.”

      • John E. Conway

        As I said I would have to look into that one, and I was wrong, there is actually a lot more the constitution grants. It starts in the constitution under Article one, section 8 where it grants the power to tax as well as numerous other things, such as the power to lay rules for bankruptcies, etc, and continues on for the next two sections, and that is just the legislative branch. The number of powers granted there belies your worry about them not liking them making so many laws, indeed it seems they fully expected it. There are still several supreme court ruling granting powers as well, but I really dont have time to look the up. I know you know they exists, you aren’t really challenging me on that.

        Most laws do not require a PHD to understand, but one of the problems is that most laws are not written by congressman anymore, but by corporations and lobbys. As for the regulations, we need those regulations to keep things under control and to ensure safety as best we can, otherwise, unscrupulous businesses (and almost all of them are, as businesses are not people and therefore have no conscience, and only exists to increase profits) will exploit the systems and people and cause harm. We already have enough of that with the systems we have, could you imagine how bad it would be unregulated?

      • Charles Vincent

        ” The number of powers granted there belies your worry about them not
        liking them making so many laws, indeed it seems they fully expected it.”

        Not true;
        “The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings
        of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
        Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people.

        Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch thechange, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens.This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.
        James Madison, Federalist # 62

      • John E. Conway

        And while Hamilton was one of the signers, he was only one, and the federalist papers are not the constitution. Most of our laws are not that voluminous or incoherent, and the rest is all political posturing, mostly played by tea party republicans and libertarians trying to defund or otherwise mess with laws placed on the books. Do we have some bad laws? yes. But we aren’t focusing on those, we are focusing on ones that actually help people and protect people.

      • Charles Vincent

        Madison wrote them as well as John Jay and I used writings of both Hamilton and Madison. I am trying to find a comprehensive account of the ratification debates to further clear up the picture.

        WRT

        ” Do we have some bad laws”
        and
        “But we aren’t focusing on those, we are focusing on ones that actually help people and protect people.”

        We have an overwhelming amount of bad laws Currently there are 186,000 pages of just laws on the federal level and probably 10 times that in regulations. The average person commits 3 felonies a day and doesn’t know it, that’s a major problem. Laws that do protect people aren’t the problem its the laws that don’t which far outnumber the law that do protect people.

      • John E. Conway

        Now that would be interesting, but I dont think such exists. there are lots of documentaries about what when on behind those doors. Basically, some think no one was happy, which they all felt meant it was a great compromise.

      • Charles Vincent

        Their are Minutes of the debates. But outside of the library of congress I don’t know where to find them. And I am not sure they are Minutes of the whole thing.

      • Charles Vincent

        WRT taxation
        The Constitution still limits what taxation is and defines it as Direct taxation the must be apportioned and Indirect taxation which can be avoided by not using a particular product.
        Moreover it lists only 17 powers of congress in section nine it lists 7 clear limitations on the power’s of congress.

        WRT regulation/deregulation

        Reguklations that hurt free competition and or are protectionist in nature are unhealthy to economies and generally only benifit large corporations that use thier station to enact more regulation and legislation as a tool to kill free market competition because they know competition drive price down via the law of supply and demand.

      • John E. Conway

        It does not define taxation nor does it state what is direct or indirect. It lists 18 in section 8, and they are very wide ranging. and the limitations are very specific. The Bill of rights lists more limitations and finally spells out that any not enumerated are given to the state.

        I disagree with your sweeping assertion about regulations. Monopolies are terrible for economies, yet regulations prevent them. Regulations ensuring safe product ensure people compete on an even level without putting the lives and well being of the consumer at risk. I would rather see a slightly weaker econmy than an large decrease to our quality of life. This applies to most of our regulations, where we have decided that lives are more important than money. now if we could only decide that about climate change before it is too late.

      • Charles Vincent

        ” Monopolies are terrible for economies, yet regulations prevent them.
        Regulations ensuring safe product ensure people compete on an even level
        without putting the lives and well being of the consumer at risk.”

        Regulations create monopolies through government consent The Davis-Bacon act is a clear example of this.
        The FDA exists to protect consumers from poor drugs yet increasingly i see more and more suits against particular prescription drugs in class action suits, this is one example of poor regulation and regulation that hurts the economy.
        I also contend that these laws and regulations decrease our quality of life on a much larger scale.

        I am also not sold on whether or not humans are contributing climate change on a global scale. Look at history on climate change it has changed on a dime when there were not many humans around. the last ice age for instance. I am not an expert this is just my observation. Do i think we need to be better stewards of this planet? Certainly, but we have to develop the alternatives to replace the current models we use.

      • John E. Conway

        The FDA fails because congress does what it can to keep it from having more authority. It can only do so much within the confines of teh executive branch. Legislation would give it the power to enforce more power to prevent bad drugs from going though, but it wont pass. Right now most regulations are voluntary, and if you choose not to follow, you are fined, but there is nothing we the executive branch can do to enforce a recall. Why, because regulation is not legislation. It holds no real authority in most causes, and people dont realize that. But without the controls we do have, imaging how bad it would be without those. People would be dying and nothing would be happening, companies would not be even held accountable. They would shrivel up, and disappear, then rise up again under a different name, selling the same poison. how do I know? because it happened before.

        AS for climate change, whether or not we caused it, there is little doubt we are effecting it and adding to it. When you have as many scientists agree on it as agree that gravity is real, you pretty much have to accept it or you have to deny all science. You either believe in science or you dont. Now, while it has turned on a dime before, never this much, this fast, not without an event like a massive eruption or asteroid collision, and even then, I think is wasnt quite as fast unless it was MASSIVE, like extinction level, such as the yellowstone caldera eruption or the asteroid that ended the reign of the dinosaurs. Now, we are already working on getting alternatives in place, but we cant get it done if we dont get funding in place.

      • Charles Vincent

        ” Right now most regulations are voluntary, and if you choose not to follow, you are fined,”

        Nothing about this sounds voluntary, and the can put you in jail as well.

        The FDA banned the sale of raw milk and eggs(at the behest of dairy lobbies) this basically crushed income for small farms. that isn’t good nor is it preventing anything.

        “Why, because regulation is not legislation.”

        Yes it is you can read it under the Commerce clause.
        Which in effect delegated power to the FDA under that umbrella to regulate food and drugs.

        WRT Climate Change

        While don’t directly deny the science I have yet to read any Peer reviewed articles on the subject.
        Also as far as I know the Ice age 10,000 years ago was rather fast happened in less than 100 years if I remember correctly and i dont recall any global events being attached to it.

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Temperature_record

        I agree that we are working on them, but none of the alternatives can viably replace fossil fuels yet. I think that pebble bed reactors and hydrogen fuel cell technology show the most promise IMHO.

      • John E. Conway

        You can only be incarerated for crimes, not breech of regulation. if there is jail time involved, then there is accompanying legislation. And Raw milk was banned because it led to many sick children because of the bacteria is carries, thats why we have to pasteurize milk. Please dont tell me you are one of those people that thinks raw milk is completely harmless. Sure most cases is probably is, what about when it isn’t and a kid dies? I hope you dont think Vaccinations are bad too.

        As to climate change, there are literally thousands of peer reviewed articles out there on it, showing it is real. if you haven’t read them, it is because you have chosen not to, not because they aren’t there. I do believe the last ice age was tied to a massive volcanic eruption, (I have not looked and my memory is fuzzy on this, so I might well be wrong).

        Hydrogen fuel cells are good, but kinda gimicky. most currently rely on natural gas to strip the electrons from in the fuel cell (I worked for a compact hydrogen fuel cell company for a while). this is more efficient than burning it, but it is still putting some co2 into our atmosphere in addition to the water it creates. I dont know much about pebble bed reactrs, I need to look into them. but honestly solar is very viable right now if we would just get on it. We have massive unusable tracks of desert that are perfect for building power grids. plus they can be places on roofs and garage tops. Hydro electric is already very big, and tidal is picking up steam. Geothermal has huge potential in some areas, and wind, while we need to figure out how to protect the bats and birds better, has added a lot. Our problem is getting people to innovate in teh vehicles and the batteries. tesla is the only one really doing it. Once we have that, then its a matter of infrastructure, getting recharge stations in place.

      • Charles Vincent

        “You can only be incarerated for crimes, not breech of regulation.”
        Not true to my knowledge. Researching this now back with more later.
        WRT
        “And Raw milk was banned because it led to many sick children because of the bacteria is carries, thats why we have to pasteurize milk. Please dont tell me you are one of those people that thinks raw milk is
        completely harmless. Sure most cases is probably is, what about when it isn’t and a kid dies?”

        I drank both raw cow and goat milk as a child and so did many of my cousins not one was ever sick as a result. we made butter from them as well and never got sick form eating that either. Moreover all food carries bacteria and will get you sick if you don’t follow food handling procedures raw milk is no different. Further more it isn’t just raw milk they killed selling eggs as well. No I know it isn’t harmless that’s absurd everything you consume can make you sick if it isn’t handled correctly. And more than likely kids that got sick probably had milk that wasn’t refrigerated or was contaminated by an outside source like many food borne illnesses.
        although sad a kid dying from raw milk is no different than a kid dying from getting food from a restaurant that made him sick due to poor cooking or refrigeration or just plain old contamination regardless of the source of the contamination.

        WRT

        “I hope you dont think Vaccinations are bad too.”

        If you’re allergic to a particular vaccine yes its bad for you.

        WRT

        “Hydrogen fuel cells are good, but kinda gimicky. most currently rely on natural gas to strip the electrons from in the fuel cell (I worked for a
        compact hydrogen fuel cell company for a while).”

        I read an article on pebble bed reactors where they use the heat from the reactor to split the hydrogen out which was ancillary to the power production of the reactor there are many articles on this. the one I read was in popular science I believe. Also not a fan of electric because batteries are just as bad for the environment.

        Solar can’t effectually deal with peak demand so unless every house is fitted with solar this is a no go and again the batteries come into play here as well.

        WRT

        “We have massive unusable tracks of desert that are perfect for building power grids.”

        Deserts are an ecosystem that supports life as well and IMHO no different than forests or lakes etcetera.

      • John E. Conway

        Sorry, but rawmilk should be considered about the same level of harm as raw meat. You can eat raw meat and it wont make you sick (see steak tartar), but other times it will. Look back in your history books and you will find that with the advent of pasteurization and the ban of raw milk a lot of milk borne illnesses ended. We dont worry about them anymore because of that, thats why we think its safe, because we have no knowledge in our own history. Back before pasteurization, these illnesses were common prior to pasteurization, but less so now. they include, but are not limited to: E. Coli, Tuberculosis, Staph, and Listeria

        Yes, if you are allergic to the vaccine or what it is made of, its bad, I accept that answer.

        I defiantely need to look into this pebble bed reactor no. The hhydrogen fuel cells I see mostly used are teh same ones that have been in use for several decades, which are fuel membrane. There are huge ones of these that power large buildings all over the place, the company I worked for is making compact ones for peoples homes.

        Solar, while not as efficient as fuel cell, does have the potential to handle full demand, if we maximize our potential. But we likely would not go fully any one power method. Batteries are fine as they mostly can be recycled (as long as we can get people to recycle them, which from what I have seen isn’t hard once they get used to the idea). LAstly, yes, the desert is definately an ecosystem (and it can be a fragile one at that) but wide open areas without rocky outcrops or sources or water would mean minimal risk of intruding upon life, the technology is generally not toxic to the local environment, and can actually, if done right, provide habitat fore the local fauna, especially things like bat boxes.

      • Charles Vincent

        WRT raw milk
        http://www DOT cdc DOT gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks DOT html

        and

        http://wwwnc DOT cdc DOT gov/eid/article/19/3/11-1866_article

        The number of incidents of raw milk causing any problems are statistically insignificant from 1993 to 2006 there were 3 documented deaths

        I am not contending that there isn’t a certain amount of risk to drinking raw milk but the studies from the CDC didn’t look at possible causes i.e did the milk cbecome contaminated by handling like in food borne illnesses etcetera. in the end no one gets out of life alive ever my stance is if people want to drink it or eat it let them the CDC and fda should only make sure it is handles and packages properly like any other raw food so as to avoid contamination from an outside source and have labeling on them to educate the public.

      • John E. Conway

        That is because it is known that the cause of these types of infection (tuberculosis, staph, ecoli, etc) are from the milk itself, or rather, what the cow ingests and microbes that reside within the cow. could some of the exposure have come from outside? yes. But that doesn’t remove the inherent risk, especially from tuberculosis, or “consumption” which used to be prevalent in our society.

        However, mediums can be found. In Oregon it is legal to sell raw milk, you just cannot advertise in any way. That keeps the number of people putting the system at risk down (It isnt just themselves that it costs, it never is; no man is an island and all that). But if all you want is them to be glorified inspectors, then sure, Ill go out and start selling my new natural sleep aid, nightshade. I swear it will be packaged properly.

      • Charles Vincent

        There are inherent risks with everything we do some things have more risk and some less that doesn’t meant the government gets to step in and micromanage everything. To me its just and excuse to expand a virtually useless bureaucracy at the expense of everyone’s tax dollars, dollars I think could be better used elsewhere.
        “The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says improperly handled raw
        milk is responsible for nearly three times more hospitalisations than
        any other food-borne disease outbreak,”

        The key here is “Improperly handled” which tells me that it was more of an outside agent that contaminated the milk.

        ” Ill go out and start selling my new natural sleep aid, nightshade. I swear it will be packaged properly.”

        Nightshade is poisonous milk is not, and why engage in hyperbole in the first place.

      • John E. Conway

        They aren’t micromanaging anything. they are weighing the costs of prohibition against the lives it saves, and the cost of the lives lost and treatment for lack of prohibition. its simple economics. Lets also not forget that enforcement costs next to nothing.

        Also, you are increct about these microbes only existing in mishandled milk. they exist whether the milk has been mishandled or not from what the cow eats and the natural environment of the cow’s body.

      • Charles Vincent

        WRT the first point
        The cost of alcohol related diseases costs more economically as does use of cigarettes yet we learned that prohibition caused more problems in the case of Alcohol. It isnt about cost its about government stepping over its due power and trying to save us from ourselves, This was never the intent of our founders. On a different level policies like this thwart personal responsibility.

        WRT cost to enforce
        I would hardly call it next to nothing and this is just one industry they over see alot more;
        http://www DOT gocolumbiamo DOT com/Health/Documents/AnnalofInternalMedicineArticleSmokingRegulation DOT pdf

      • John E. Conway

        You fail to see the social costs of banning alcohol (Cigarettes we might be able to do). Banning alcohol would cut into tradition and histories that have been passed down through centuries. The new world could not have been discovered or colonized were it not for beer. Just a look at prohibition in the 20’s tells us the unforeseen costs to society. But, that is with alcohol, which is ingrained in our society. Raw milk is not. And sorry, I just dont see the downside of the ban. I jut dont. I dont see any over step as providing for the general welfare is part of the governments job, and that is what this does. Maybe it does thwart personal responsibility, so did seat belt laws, but they work.

        Yes, they oversee many more, and all of them together add up, but sorry, the raw milk program isnt even a drop in a drop in the bucket.

      • Charles Vincent

        “You fail to see the social costs of banning alcohol”

        Not really I understand the cost and the same reasoning applies to cigarettes and illicit drugs. Moreover loss of jobs by banning either cigarettes or alcohol end up as social costs. but to me it all boils down to the government trying to make social/moral decisions for people this is something that people on an individual level are responsible for not government.

        “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
        without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
        C. S. Lewis”

      • John E. Conway

        Not when we are talking about epidemics, which tuberculosis was and is still considered one of the most dangerous diseases in the world. This wasn’t so much for the individual’s good will, but the good of the group as a whole. People fighting against such things that benefit everyone sound like petulent children who just dont like getting thier own way. There is nothing concrete in their argument. I can provide statistics on lives saved and the epidemic stopped, although not eradicated; to counter it there are arguments of supposed lost liberties that are debatable and that you cannot provide a cost for. there was no real loss of any kind and a very real benefit. This isnt like your right to vote was denied, sliencing your voice. that would be a very real loss. but the loss of the ability to sell raw milk…so you sell pasteurized instead…and people are healthier, so you have more customers for longer…I dont see the cost.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not even the FDA asserts that raw milk causes TB that is Ignoratio elenchi My friend.
        They do however claim this;
        “Raw milk is milk from cows, sheep, or goats that has not been
        pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria. This raw, unpasteurized milk can
        carry dangerous bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, which are responsible for causing numerous foodborne illnesses.”

        Furthermore food borne illness is an epidemic so we should just stop eating altogether as the argument you make about raw milk can be made against any food so why not have the government ban that too. You see the notionm of banning food because people get sick its well absurd raw milk or not. Also not governments job to make that decision for people as to what they do or do not want to consume.

        WRT
        “to counter it there are arguments of supposed lost liberties that are
        debatable and that you cannot provide a cost for. there was no real
        loss of any kind and a very real benefit.”

        Self determination is a right and under that is a right to choose as the individual sees fit not as you think or the government thinks is right. Loosing any option is a loss of rights just because you dont see it that way doesn’t mean it isn’t a loss.

      • Charles Vincent

        WRT renewable energy

        http://www DOT businessweek DOT com/articles/2013-02-21/china-wants-nuclear-reactors-and-lots-of-them

        As to fuels cells again its lack of innovation. I am also curious as to the cells you spoke of are the similar to lipo batteries which utilize membranes as well?

        The efficiency of solar is very small

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit

      • Charles Vincent

        I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they [the states] would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution.

        An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the

        Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another
        prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant.
        I use these terms to distinguish this last case from another which might appear to resemble it, but which would, in fact, be essentially different; I mean where the exercise of a concurrent jurisdiction might be productive of occasional interferences in the policy of any branch of administration, but would not imply any direct contradiction or repugnancy in point of constitutional authority.

        The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor is not only a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States.

        The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.

        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 32

        Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the governments of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power and bearrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty?

        We have heard of the impious doctrine in the old world, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the new, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.

        James Madison, Federalist # 45

        the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not onlyto be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 26

        there might sometimes be a necessity to make use of a force constituted differently from the militia to preserve the peace of the community and to maintain the just authority of the laws against those violent invasions of them which amount to insurrections and rebellions.

        Independent of all other reasonings upon the subject, it is a full answer to those who require a more peremptory provision against military establishments in time of peace to say that the whole power of the proposed government is to be in the hands of the representatives of the people. This is the essential, and, after all, the only efficacious security for the rights and privileges of the people which is attainable in civil society. If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State.

        In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts.

        Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

        The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.

        But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.

        The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

        It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information.

        They can discover the danger at a
        distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.

        The great extent of the country is a further security. We have already experienced its utility against the attacks of a foreign power. And it would have precisely the same effect against the enterprises of ambitious rulers in the national councils.

        If the federal army should be able to quell the resistance of one State, the distant States would be able to make head with fresh forces. The advantages obtained in one place must be abandoned to subdue the opposition in others; and the moment the part which had been reduced to submission was left to itself, its efforts would be renewed, and its resistance revive.

        We should recollect that the extent of the military force must, at all events, be regulated by the resources of the country. For a long time to come it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionably increase.

        When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.

        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 28

        Were it admitted, however, that the federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State, and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone.

        The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand.

        The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

        But ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the State governments would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only.

        They would be signals of general
        alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be
        opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conductthe whole.
        The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But whatdegree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?

        James Madison, Federalist # 46

      • John E. Conway

        This is all well and good, but the states do not have sovereignty. And the constitution does indeed give power over the states, stating that when there is a conflict of law, the federal law takes precedent. However, while not sovereign, they were granted the right to govern themselves by the constitution, to to makes laws that, so long as they did not contradict federal laws, they saw fit. So while every state has its own laws, the federal laws apply to them all, and they must abide by them.

      • Charles Vincent

        The constitution is the supreme law of the land and federal and state laws that contradict that are null and void.

        Moreover we adopted the federalists ideals of the way government should work and they explicitly layout who has what and explain that line of thought. There are also SCOTUS rulings that show states have these sorts of obligations and powers that Madison and Hamilton spoke of in the federalist papers.

      • John E. Conway

        Yes, they do, but they still do not have sovereignty. they are not their own nation in their own right, federal states are not set up that way, including this one.

      • Charles Vincent

        Now this is probably true but prior to the civil war I don’t think so. But I still think that States have more power than the federal government lets on. I point to the right to call conventions to change the way the federal government is under the constitution. It seems to me that the people who wrote the Constitution felt that power in the states was more easily controlled by residents of those states, where on a federal level they were not. Which was why they called states sovereign.

      • John E. Conway

        The states have a fair amount of power, the 10th (I think) amendment grants them a lot of autonomy and authority not granted to the federal government. But if they passed a law that the federal government didnt like, and the federal government passed a laws contrary, the federal law trumped it, regardless which was first (although I think they could challenge it in court). However, if the law extended beyond the reach of the powers granted by the constitution, then the supreme court could strike it down as unconstitutional. Essentially, the states became a fourth branch after the fact. They have have the power to change the constitution, although it is not easy.

      • Charles Vincent

        “But if they passed a law that the federal government didn’t like, and the federal government passed a laws contrary, the federal law trumped
        it, regardless which was first (although I think they could challenge it in court)”
        This is where the states have neglected their duty.
        I would point to laws that directly go against federal law. States that legalized recreational Marijuana is one and one the feds would likely lose in court.

        WRT the 10a

        It also reserves power to the people who are in essence the several states.

        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      • John E. Conway

        The problem with the recreational use laws is that it would have to be limited to marijuana grown winthin the state. any import makes it subject to federal oversite, and therefore the commerce clause. But I think that is why Obama is leaving it alone, as a constitutional scholar, he recognizes that as long as they follow that part of the law, they cant do anything. But now there is evidence that Colorado Marijuana is being exported to Oklahoma and Wisconsin, and that is a game changer. If that can be proven, then Colorado would stand no chance in a constitutional test.

        And yes, of course, to the people, as just like corporations, states cannot have some rights or powers either, and they would belong to the people.

      • Charles Vincent

        the drug war produces more crime and violence than prohibition and if you look and crime rates and money spent enforcing retarded laws in either case you would see striking parallels. To my knowledge Colorado doesnt import or export unless it was to another state that already legalized. two reasons I say this the licesure to grow and sell are easily obtainable. And there was already a growing medical use infrastructure.

      • John E. Conway

        It depends on the drug, I Believe that Marijuana has been improperly listed as Schedule A for too long which is a large part of the problem. but that is neither here nor there.

        The State itself doesnt have to do the exporting or importing to fall under the commerce clause, just the item. so what is happening is people from the neighboring states are buying pot across the border and bringing it back, in effect smuggling. These two states are currently Suing Colorado trying to invalidate the law legalizing its recreational use because of the damages to their states. The case doesnt have much merit on those standings, but on a standing of lack of enforcement from the federal government it does.

      • Charles Vincent

        Those cases are a no go. Colorado can’t control those who purchase the drug and then drive to another state if the state they drive to catches them it’s the same as them coming from Mexico with drugs of any sort. charge them with transporting an substance period.

        WRT

        “It depends on the drug, I Believe that Marijuana has been improperly listed as Schedule A for too long which is a large part of the problem. but that is neither here nor there.”

        More people die from prescription drug use than all illicit drugs combine. further more drugs (illicit) are no different than legal ones. Look up Portugal and how they handled it and the result of their policy ten years later.

      • John E. Conway

        But Portugal also has socialized medicine and single payer (see government run) insurance. We would need some massive changes in thsi8 country before we could do something like that, and people would have to let go of ideas like “socialism in all forms is evil.” And it is ABUSE of prescription drugs that kills, not use of. Many street drugs are nothing more than perversions of prescription drugs or attempts to recreate their effects. Again, I dont like the idea of PCP making a come back into common usage, it is prevalent enough still.

        However, I do understand your point, the war on drugs has been going on for decades now and we dont seem to be getting anywhere, so at the very least it is time we started talking about other possibilities. I dont personally like the idea of several types of drugs being readilly available, but perhpas somsone can come up with an idea that would assuage my worries.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually Portugal used money that would have went to prosecuting and incarcerating people and used it to fund clinics and programs for treatment they also don’t stigmatized the use of drugs so people would use the clinics this is not socialism its wise use of tax dollars.

        ” And it is ABUSE of prescription drugs that kills, not use of.”
        The same applies to illicit drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, food and any other thing consumed by humans.

        legalize and regulate like alcohol IMHO turn that into an industry and focus on helping people who abuse or are addicts with the tax dollars that would have been used to interdict, prosecute, and incarcerate the users and the traffickers

      • Charles Vincent

        WRT socialism/communism et. al.
        Those things don’t scale well nor do they mix well with government IMHO

      • John E. Conway

        They have been working well with our government since the 1800’s and with other governments around the world for a long time. Some far better than ours. Socialism does not equal communism. We are the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare.

      • Charles Vincent

        I wasn’t equating them.
        They are related in that both Communism and Fascism grow out of Socialism. The fascists grew out of the socialist party in Germany and the Communist party did the same in Russia. The only difference is in one instance socialism takes a right turn and the other a left. Socialism also has a bad habit of denying individual liberty and usually ends up killing individual property rights among others.

        WRT healthcare.
        The way I see it healthcare isn’t a Right per se, but I would agree that access to healthcare is. secondly our population is roughly 2/3 to 3/4 larger than other industrialized nations, moreover our population is far less homogeneous than most other industrialized nations.

      • John E. Conway

        Our economy is also larger so the size of our population should be no deterrent for providing healthcare, nor should our homogenization. The right to life includes healthcare, it must or it is meaningless.

      • Charles Vincent

        thats not correct because the paying portion is smaller that the portion that need healthcare this is why china doesn’t have socialized medicine it has alot to do with logistics of delivering care as well as the cost of the care and the cost of delivering the care read a paper on it I will see if I can find it. Also the Homogeneity of a culture plays a larger part in healthcare than you want to admit.

        “The right to life includes healthcare, it must or it is meaningless.”
        I never denied this, but I do deny the method (the ACA) which is the method being foisted on us.
        Also you access to healthcare is the same as healthcare.

      • John E. Conway

        Access to health care is not the same as health care, if you cannot afford the health care, regardless of if you have access to it, then it isn’t of any benefit to you.

        The paying portion should be the same as the portion that needs it or larger in a universal system, as it is the entire populace that pays taxes, which at any given time is going to be larger than the number of people requiring medical care, not to mention the costs of care in the US are absurdly high compared to other places in the world for the same services and same quality of service.

      • Charles Vincent

        Cost of healthcare is an ancillary issue as is quality of said service.

        Your second paragraph is theory up to where you talk about US healthcare cost
        We both know that not all citizens pay taxes, furthermore people who can’t afford insurance pay little to no taxes and are in all likelihood on medicaid at no cost to themselves.(happy they have care but they drain the system(the ACA)). I am not arguing that cost isn’t high or that we need to fix it. I am arguing that the ACA isn’t a solution its part of the problem.

      • John E. Conway

        Cost of health care is not ancillary if it prevents people from obtaining the service if we agree that Health Care is a right giving meaning to the right to life.

        The second paragraph was dealing with a universal system, which the US system is not, so it doesnt apply to the US. however my previous posts discussing universal and single payer would fall under this, and it is how we would have to change, and we would have to accept a degree of socialism more than we have.

        The system we have (The ACA) has nothing to do with providing health care. It is about reforming health care providers. And it is doing that, making tings more available. The funds it uses to help those obtain insurance are not put toward paying insurance bills or such. The Federal government is not providing any insurance at all. All that funding is for is to help people get insurance, so it isnt a drain, it is doing what it is supposed to do. And it will eventually be funded by people paying the fine for not having insurance, or companies paying fines for breaking the rules. Will that cover it all? no, thanks to the GOP getting rid of some of the original requirements, such as all businesses filing 1099’s each year, even corporations, which would allow the IRS to catch more tax cheats. Now, is all this a solution? no. We still have the problem of insurance iants being fed larger amounts of money and controlling costs in bed with giant hospitals that decide what they will use to treat patients with and in what order. We still have pharmaceutical companies holding patents for far too long on drugs that cost pennies to make and charging hundred of dollars per pill. The government coming in and competing to bid on these items would be a game changer, as they could cause companies to compete against each other to provide quality at lower cost for a huge dollar contract and provide a much needed cost savings to people through single payer.

      • Charles Vincent

        Access to healthcare is a right making healthcare a right gives people the false notion that they can take from one group something that isn’t theirs and give it to a second group.

        “The system we have (The ACA) has nothing to do with providing healthcare. It is about reforming health care providers. And it is doing that, making tings more available.”

        The official line politically is counter to your assertion here, moreover it doesn’t even reform the broken system we have nor does it do anything to mitigate the High cost of healthcare which is the problem in the first place.

        “The funds it uses to help those obtain insurance are not put toward paying insurance bills or such.
        All that funding is for is to help people get insurance, so it isnt a drain, it is doing what it is supposed to do. And it will eventually be funded by people paying the fine for not having insurance, or companies paying fines for breaking the rules.”

        Fits the majority of the new sign ups even by the numbers posted by the Obama administration are Medicaid enrolls who pay nothing, that cost gets shifted to the small amount of people who are paying. This also ignores the current SCOTUS case over the subsidies ALA Johnathan Gruber and how 38 states don’t have a state run exchange and as such are not eligible for subsidies.

        WRT

        “We still have pharmaceutical companies holding patents for far too long on drugs that cost pennies to make and charging hundred of dollars per pill. The government coming in and competing to bid on these items”

        The government is barred by law from negotiating drug prices. This goes back to the FDA and how big pharma is involved.

        “The FDA’s federal budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2012 totaled $4.36 billion,[3] while the proposed 2014 budget is $4.7 billion.[11] About $2 billion of this budget is generated by user fees. Pharmaceutical firms pay the majority of these fees,[11] which are used to expedite drug reviews.[12]The FDA’s federal budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2008 (October 2007 through September 2008) totaled $2.1 billion, a $105.8 million increase from what it received for fiscal year 2007.”

      • John E. Conway

        The official party line has always been that the ACA is not insurance and provides no insurance itself. And sorry, but an individual’s right to life trumps an individuals perceived right to money. Your entire argument about taking from one to give to a second is immaterial until you can tell me who decides who’s rights take precedent and which ones are more important than which others. I will always believe that life and health is ahead of happiness and possessions, because you can get the second after you have protected the first, but you cannot get the second, if you have neglected the first.

        You missed my point on the pharmaceutical, if we have single payer, if we hd universal health care, the government would negotiation, and would compete, just like any other business. and its business would be so big that it would force companies to cut prices to more reasonable rates, which is one reason why rates are lower in countries that have universal health care. Its a purely hypothetical, since we do not, but it is the best solution and is actually more capitalistic than our current solution since even though its socialized medicine, its lowers prices though competition, as other insurance plans will still exist offering more coverage for more things to those who can afford it.

      • Charles Vincent

        WRT the first paragraph
        As I am an individual and you as an individual are not entitled to anything my labor has produced nor are you rightfully able to employ government force to take it from me to fill your need for medical care.

        Life and health are ahead of possessions, but only your possessions, not the possessions of anyone else.

        I never claimed the ACA made it so government provided insurance I was speaking to the exchanges either being federally set up and run or state set up and run.

        I could almost buy in to the idea of your second paragraph.

      • John E. Conway

        See, this is kinda what I have a problem with. You are so focused on keeping what is yours that you are willing to let people die to keep hold of it, just because it is yours. Because you believe they dont have a right to it. I believe that society DOES have a right to it in a manner of speaking, to a certain degree and with lots of limitations, but that is what tax is for and about: to provide for the needs of the nation, including the needs of health care in order to preserve the right to life for example. We established that you felt health care was a right as defined under right to life, so now, to protect it, our nation must spend. To do so, we must tax. So everyone put in so everyone benefits. It isn’t like only you are giving and only others are taking. we all give and we all take.

      • Charles Vincent

        No society doesn’t. I have my own obligations with my own progeny, their and my needs out weight yours and the needs of others.
        I also object to the notion that taxes for this sort of thing on a federal level are OK and to the notion of “lots of limitations” government rarely if ever conforms to limitations. Taxes were intended to run government and to do things private individuals and businesses could not do profitably i.e. keep up and maintain national scale infrastructure.

      • John E. Conway

        And that whole ensure domestic tranquility thing. See, that attitude to me is why we are in such trouble. It is all me and mine before everything else, instead of working as a community to move us all forward, like humans were forced to do when we were not the dominant species. We are only as strong as our weakest, so we need to strengthen them. culling them doesn’t help us because it leaves us with fewer numbers. Caring for them returns them to strength so that they can be productive. But by all means, focus on you and yours above all else, let the world burn around you.

      • Charles Vincent

        Again to the hyperbole. And yes domestic tranquility FFS. Also the reason individuals join society is for protection but society which then robs them of the fruits of their labor sort of makes one not want to join society. I alsoi dont deny that we need to help people in need but I deny that we have to take property from someone else to achieve that goal.

      • John E. Conway

        Umm, no. People dont join society just for protection. that is one reason, yes, but it is also because it is more efficient. More hands doing more things means greater yield and more food for everyone. They could bring down larger prey weith more people, gather from larger areas and carry more, especially as tools were discovered. The same still holds true today, a single person simply cannot provide form themselves nearly as efficiently as a society can. If people stop looking at things as the fruits of their labor and as just a commodity, things are a little simpler. Even better if they can take a more socialist view, but thats asking too much.

        Nothing comes free, even society. for those protections and benefits, you have to give up certain things, certain freedoms, and pay into it so that everyone benefits. Members of society, citizens as it were, have a responsibility to follow the rules (unless they are repugnant to human dignity, in which case civil disobedience is called for, which means you pay the price willingly for breaking the law openly, it isn’t sneaking around trying to get away with doing it), if required, service in the military (we dont have conscription currently, but it might improve things, I am on the fence), and pay taxes. Taxes are not robbery. That is Hyperbole. What I said before was not, it was metaphor.

      • Charles Vincent

        WRT your first paragraph

        “To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater mpart no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
        Sec. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.
        John Locke Two treatises of Government

      • Charles Vincent

        WRT your second paragraph
        “3. Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good.”
        John Locke Two treatises of government

        Caveat for use of force is under “Chapter II
        Of the State of Nature in the came treatise.
        There is more to it but I leave that to you to investigate at your leisure.

      • Devin D.

        I apologize for the inconvenience, but I was was compiling an extremely useful list of fallacies (including credible links) for reference. I was curious if you were interested in a copy? Email me at the following address if you are interested.

        [email protected]

      • Charles Vincent

        I have been referencing the wiki page for logical fallacies its well referenced and contains many different kinds and their respective definitions.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

        But I would be interested in new information sources. You can find me on FB.

      • Charles Vincent

        On a side note a couple of posters here and I created a closed group on Facebook where were entertain these ideas and just general discussion if you’re interested you should check it out.

      • John E. Conway

        Oh, I totally missed the second half of this before. The education system is state run, not federal. The reason it is so poor is because state politicians keep cutting funding and keep pushing bad choices like intelligent design. Most importantly, they are purposefully keeping the populace ignorant so they are easier to keep controlled.

      • Charles Vincent

        State education departments all fall under the federal department of education and they are one and the same bureaucracy.

        “The reason it is so poor is because state politicians keep cutting funding and keep pushing bad choices like intelligent design.”

        If this is true one would have to ask the question; “Where did all the federal funding and state funding they say they are dumping into the system go?”

        ” Most importantly, they are purposefully keeping the populace ignorant so they are easier to keep controlled.”
        I concur.

      • John E. Conway

        No, the state education departments are completely separate and do not answer to the federal department. Just like the state governors do not answer to the president. Laws and standards must align when covered by the constitution, but anything else is fair game, and there is a HUGE area uncovered.

      • Charles Vincent

        “The libertarian view is that you should be able to do whatever you want,”

        You seem to have the impression that Libertarianism is about anarchy, this is a false assumption. Libertarian laws protect life, liberty, and property and they prevent government from violating theses laws as well as the individual citizen.

        “For example, two neighbors, one of which has to work two jobs and study and get what little sleep they can in between. The other likes to have loud parties every night but does not damage his neighbors property. Who’s rights take precedence?”

        The guy playing loud music would be told to turn it down under the libertarian principle of non aggression as the music being loud causes the neighbor to lose sleep this is a physical aggression.

        “No, we do not want Joe to pay for Sally, and no one is stealing from Joe.”

        I am guessing you support the ACA. If that’s the case you and others support taking from one to give to another. Under the constitution we all are guaranteed the right of unlimited contract the ruling by SCOTUS is in effect a government forced contract. the ACA forces on person to pay for another person at is base. And if people choose not to contract they are penalized an amount of money.

      • John E. Conway

        That isnt stealing, that is the law. Stealing would be the unlawful taking of another property without their consent. Taxes are completely legal and are not stealing in any way, shape, or form.

        However, I am heartened to see I have run into a real libertarian for once. It is nice to see there are a few of you around still. Unfortunately, the majority representing your group fall into teh categories i described earlier.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am more on the Lockean ideal and I only refer to tax on wages not the tax in the constitution.

      • John E. Conway

        Which is in the constitution.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wage tax isn’t and is currently only legal no because we have all been made federal employees via the SS number and card. The tax on wages is a direct tax and by law a direct tax must be apportioned.

      • John E. Conway

        Ok, define the wage tax you are speaking of. I am pretty sure that all of the taxes currently on our payrolls have been challenged and the supreme court has ruled them to be constitutional, therefore, they are. Income taxes are in the constitution themselves now.

      • Rebecca Kleitz

        You don’t really know how the ACA works, do you?

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually after reading the law yes I do know how it works.

      • Charles Vincent

        The Nonaggression principle;
        “Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.”

      • John E. Conway

        Great. most libertarians I know have no concept of this notion. Sounds good, but how is it enforced, and who determines what is damaging and what isnt? Some people are more thin skinned. Also at times two people will both “damage” each other, how does it go then, do they both have to stop?

      • Charles Vincent

        At the risk of sounding outlandish you can find this in the bible and in John Locke’s second treatise on government. And I believe Thomas Hobbes does as well in leviathan.

      • John E. Conway

        Considering none of those are teh constitution or the law, they dont constitute ways to govern that are recognized (especially not the bible). TO put it simply, to the libertarian, you do things however you want, until there is a conflict, and then you resolve the conflict. There will always be conflicts because different people see things different ways. With law, there is a clear line, everyone knows what is expected. the only reason there is conflict is because someone does not care. Anti social people will exists regardless of wither we live in a society governed by law or in a libertarian society. Laws simply make it clear to everyone what is expected so nothing is hidden and everyone can make an informed decision, assuming they do their research. The problem comes in when the laws become too heavy and we need to have a think manual to do the simplest tasks simply to abide the law. We arent there yet, but its approaching, I will agree. But we can rein that in without having to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      • Charles Vincent

        the framers totally drew on Locke and Hobbes you can clearly see that when you read the constitution and the federalist papers. I only mentioned the bible because it shows dispute resolution just like Locke and Hobbes does.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      and sunday school,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    • Matthew Reece

      Wrong. Libertarianism is a philosophical position on the acceptable use of force. It says that initiating the use of force is always unacceptable, and using force to defend against a force initiator is always acceptable.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        theoretically insane as initiating a force can be defensive
        ——allow my example:
        ==========================================
        someone is getting ready to steal my car.
        I punch him/ remove his crowbar/ lock opener (Q.V.)
        ***************************************************************
        and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the abstract ( to quote matt baby) of ‘getting ready to” is NOT an initiation of force.
        I have initiated (concrete evidence of) FORCE by recognition of what is upcoming.
        NOTE: if Im wrong,,,,,,,,return force might be used against me!!

      • Matthew Reece

        Wrong. A credible threat counts as the initiation of force and may be responded to with as much force as is necessary to end the threat.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        wrong again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, until something HAPPENS it has NOT happened; ergo it remains ” abstract”
        “credible”…… by whom? many “credible ” items have been disproved but initially were ” credible”
        ********************************************************* extrapolated into: a THREAT counts as an initiation of force…..
        wrong answer matt baybeeee……

      • Charles Vincent

        You don’t understand the non aggression principle.

        “Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.”

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        im sorry chuck: did I dispute that?
        =====================================
        try reading (READING) what matt and I have gone back&forth with
        ……………………………… they lay some trite stuff on me

      • Charles Vincent

        “im sorry chuck: did I dispute that?”

        Yes you did right here;

        “someone is getting ready to steal my car.I punch him/ remove his crowbar/ lock opener (Q.V.)
        ***************************************************************
        and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the abstract ( to quote matt baby) of ‘getting ready to” is NOT an initiation of force.
        I have initiated (concrete evidence of) FORCE by recognition of what is upcoming.
        NOTE: if Im wrong,,,,,,,,return force might be used against me!!”

        and then again here;

        “until something HAPPENS it has NOT happened; ergo it remains ” abstract”
        “credible”…… by whom? many “credible ” items have been disproved but initially were ” credible”
        ********************************************************* extrapolated into: a THREAT counts as an initiation of force…..
        wrong answer matt baybeeee……”

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        now U are being a schmuck–
        READ the ENTIRE conversation with matt & I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the get back- don’t F*CKINg cherry pick as u usually do

      • Charles Vincent

        I did read the conversation, all 6 posts and you’re just mad you got caught in a lie. I posted your exerpts verbatim and in context that is not cherry picking.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        really? what lie asshole? I said when NO action is (yet) taken,,,, there is NO ACTION.
        care to try showing ur stupidity again???

      • Charles Vincent

        “any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person”

        I guess you missed this part which lead to;

        “someone is getting ready to steal my car.I punch him/ remove his crowbar/ lock opener (Q.V.)
        ***************************************************************
        and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the abstract ( to quote matt baby) of ‘getting ready to” is NOT an initiation of force.
        I have initiated (concrete evidence of) FORCE by recognition of what is upcoming.
        NOTE: if Im wrong,,,,,,,,return force might be used against me!!”

        and then again here;

        “until something HAPPENS it has NOT happened; ergo it remains ” abstract”
        “credible”…… by whom? many “credible ” items have been disproved but initially were ” credible”
        ********************************************************* extrapolated into: a THREAT counts as an initiation of force…..
        wrong answer matt baybeeee……”
        you then lied and said you didnt dispute that and now your butthurt because you got caught in a lie.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        schmuck,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, his assertion was that someone seeming to ( want to) breakin to my car and my subsequent INITIAL attack upon him IS warranted as defensive ( and according to his post) bcause of the alleged “CREDIBLE” ( subjective; not OBJECTIVE) threat.
        allow me to simplify for Ur stupid fat ass–
        ( a) he says FIRST action ( initiating use of force) is ALWAYS UN acceptable – his description of LIBERTARIAN defining of such. Stated by matt 4 days ago replying to “BDW”
        (b) by ME using force FIRST( see: initiation OF) against someone who was GETTING READY TO break in2my car
        ( but NOT YET did anything) matt says its OK- subverting the prior statement that INITIAL force is ALWAYS unacceptable.
        what part does ur dumb ass not gather here?

      • Charles Vincent

        ” his assertion was that someone seeming to ( want to) breaking to my
        car and my subsequent INITIAL attack upon him IS warranted as
        defensive”

        It wasn’t his assertion You stated the whole scenario on the guy breaking into you car Evidenced here in this quote from your original post;

        “someone is getting ready to steal my car.I punch him/ remove his crowbar/ lock opener (Q.V.)”

        I then replied after your diatribe about him being wrong that you didn’t know what the nonaggression principle even was and posted this:

        “Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership”

        Which disproved your assertion entirely then you went off on some tangent about that isn’t what you mean in which case the choice of words here; “someone is getting ready to steal my car.I punch him/ remove his crowbar/ lock opener (Q.V.)”

        Which are pretty plain and therefore a straw-man if you intended a different meaning.

        “( a) he says FIRST action ( initiating use of force) is ALWAYS UN acceptable”
        The first action was taken here by the guy tampering with your car;
        “someone is getting ready to steal my car.I punch him/ remove his crowbar/ lock opener (Q.V.)”

        “(b) by ME using force FIRST( see: initiation OF) against someone who was GETTING READY TO break in2my car”

        This is covered in this part of the Nonaggression principle;
        “any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive”

        Keep digging that hole bigger T it isn’t going to end well for you I have my stick now and the poking has started.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        im praying that we may have headway as2 what U just RE wrote….
        ( stay with me here chuckie)
        ” someone is getting READY to”……. hasn’t DONE anything yet 9 see: action VS inaction)
        if he has initiated ANY thing? then Charles; thou be 1000000% correct!! no doubt! …
        but until he has exhibited any CONCRETE ACTION ( touch car/ place tools in window ETC) ,,,UNTIL that happens he is simply in a place of IN ACTION.
        I can do 2 things: wait until his FIRST “action” is taken ,,,,then clobber him ( which renders chucks/matts platform CORRECT)
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>or<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
        I can clobber him b4 he does anything ( which makes MY action the FIRST action ) and renders my argument the correct one. It also places me in a precarious situation of HOPING I am correct in my usage of INITIAL force. If I am correct ( he is carrying tools of car theft/breakin) then john q law sides with me. If I am INCORRECT then my initial action is designated as offensive by the courts and I get my ass sued and in the slammer.
        summarize: I act proactively FIRST: initiating force FIRST which matt says is unacceptable in all cases. I hope I have been able to dissect and help determine the difference between initial use of force being acceptable and Un acceptable in ALL cases. There ARE cases in which FORCE used FIRST is acceptable. my limited example above should show this
        if I have failed; one of us ( you and I) is ostensibly an imbecile

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re on a tangent again. Your original statement explicitly stated that you observed someone attempting to meddle with your property it furthermore explicitly stated that this meddling was against your
        wishes(will) therefore the person meddling is the aggressor. Keep this up and you’ll dig a hole to china T.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        yes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, seemingly getting ready to. just because I can not illustrate to you what ‘ getting ready to” in MY vision means has u crying as your lack of sight bewilders me.
        if a carjacker approaches the car; but does nothing YET———–
        he has done nothing
        until he does ; he has NOT
        -===============================
        what do u not grasp?

      • Charles Vincent

        This is going to leave a mark T.

        Lets talk about word choice T. Carjacker explicitly means someone attempting to steal a car by force thus this person was the first to initiate force .
        car·jack [kahr-jak]
        verb (used without object)
        1.) to forcibly steal a vehicle from a motorist.

        verb (used with object)
        2.) to forcibly steal (a vehicle), or to victimize (a driver) in this way.

        You loose because you cant discern the difference between a person approach your car and a carjacker approaching your car.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        a– it is spelled LOSE
        b– u don’t want to grasp the obvious: u wish to conflate
        au revoir mon idiot

      • Charles Vincent

        “a– it is spelled LOSE”

        Grammar/spelling Nazi and ad hominem. You lose.

        “b– u don’t want to grasp the obvious: u wish to conflate au revoir mon idiot”

        I am taking my ball and going home. just remember you chose the words not me its your own fault not anyone elses. Learn how to structure your sentences correctly to avoid the problem. You Lose

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        read it again.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, U mustve been sleepy or DRUNK the 1st time– even u aint dat’ stoooopid

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        ACTIONS…………………….. ACTIONS—
        action: something BEING done / already done
        ************************************************************
        matthew has a different meaning. he feels a purported THREAT is an action.
        Hmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if Im swimming and see a 12 ft tiger shark who is ignoring me but POSES a threat
        ………………. until he moves upon me NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN!!
        *********************************************************
        ( C’ept me soiling my swimwear) :))

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        assholeth maximus: funny how U didn’t reply here
        down below this post

      • Charles Vincent

        I replied to the post that was concerning what I quoted.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        and do U share matts view that NO ACTION is ” action” ??? do U share his view that “credible” threat is an action?
        please explain to me how a NON action is an action; im too stoooopid too know these things
        ( and I do know from chemistry that an inaction is an action—– in a lab)

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey stoooopid- im aware of THAT principle: matt baybee said a CREDIBLE ” threat” counts as FORCE,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I said NO: until ACTION is taken there is NO FORCE. CREDIBLE is subjective; NOT OBJECTIVE—
        ya needz ta’ learn to reeeed better there chuckles

      • Charles Vincent

        “any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person,”
        You stated if a person was breaking into your car and you intervened to stop them they could initiate force in self defense that is a lie and you are lying to cover it up. Man up and admit you are and stop pouting like a baby.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        no dumbass
        I said if someone was GETTING READY TO ,,,not WAS BREAKING INTO ( already)
        you dumb fat scumbag,,,,,,,,,,,, I NEVER wrote the creep who IS GETTING READY TO ,,,and thus acted against me when I punch his lights out is in ” self defense”-I never wrote the phrase self defense
        Man up? to you? u fat ass loser who cannot read straight and conjures up fabulisms??/
        learn to read in conjunction with the sequence that items are written– U fat stupid fuck

      • Charles Vincent

        “I said if someone was GETTING READY TO ,,,not WAS BREAKING INTO ( already)”

        This still applies;
        “any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person,”

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        if im getting READY to ROB a bank,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        but as of yet done NOTHING action-wise:
        cops just ignore me
        ====================================
        ur are now evading what u know is true. that means u have no self respect; ergo im done with you. U occasionally( in the past) had SOME merit as a conversation…..
        your pride has swallowed that as all of your Ilk do
        ========================================
        adieu

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re on a tangent again. Your original statement explicitly stated that you observed someone attempting to meddle with your property it furthermore explicitly stated that this meddling was against your wishes(will) therefore the person meddling is the aggressor. Keep this up and you’ll dig a hole to china T.

      • bigovernmentsocialconservative

        “using force to defend against a force initiator is always acceptable”

        This above definition implies the right to seek, have an abortion at-will.

      • Matthew Reece

        The correct answer to the question of abortion is evictionism. See Walter Block’s writings on the subject for more, but the basic idea is that a pregnant woman may evict a fetus from her uterus but may not kill it.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        wrong matt baybeeeeeeeeeeeeee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        the correct answer is that a grown ( 18 plus) woman has total rights over her OWN body. a regressive aging white trash religious cretin cannot tell her what to do legislatively.
        and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, she is NOT killing that which is not fully alive yet.
        we are alive when we breathe and see and hear and respond and are free from that which got us here.

        ,,,,,,, abortion is brutal upon women: spiritually and psychologically as well as physically———– men will never understand. yet these religious VOODOO scum ‘think’ they know!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        walt block is male; ergo disqualified from KNOWING

      • Matthew Reece

        A priori theory trumps and corrects experience, not vice versa.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        really? so U claim a MAN will know more than a woman about abortion ET AL because u read some guys book?
        matt baybeee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        ya’ REALLY need more interaction- socially and intimately— with women
        ======================================
        NOTHING trumps experience; C’ept more experience

      • Matthew Reece

        If you observe something which suggests that 2+2=5, do you defenestrate the entirety of mathematics based upon your experience, or do you conclude that your observation must be incorrect because 2+2 must equal 4? The latter, because a priori theory trumps and corrects experience.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        here we go again matt baybeeeeeeeeeeeee……
        “objective” VS ” subjective”
        =========================================
        and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if I see something which “trumps” that which is already taken as 100% accurate I will do much more experimenting to see which is correct
        =========================================
        shall we start with the INTANGIBLE principle of how to ‘win a woman’?
        I will take experience over THEORY every day
        =========================================

      • bigovernmentsocialconservative

        By the definition of viability, BEFORE viability, eviction leads to death of the fetus.

        If you’re arguing the pregnant woman therefore cannot evict before viability, you might as well claim that trees are people.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        matt does run in a tight circle sometimes

    • John E. Conway

      Its just for those who have no concept of what a society actually is.

  • oldiugymnast

    It is funny because libertarianism is much more like a religion than progressivism. Most progressives I know value study and empiricism when making policy choices, whereas libertarians rely on dogma of free market fundamentalism that is obviously counter factual.

  • Eg Kbbs

    I agree with what you say, especially that if you ask 10 libertarians to define libertarianism……

    However, at the heart of almost any definition of libertarianism is the idea that we are not responsible for others. Like any idea, take that to the extreme and you are absolutely untenable.

    Besides that you seem to identify your libertarian friend as both Christian and libertarian (try reconciling those two, Ayn Rand Christianity), plain, basic anthropology / sociology shows that people very quickly join together into communities. Communities offer common protection against outside threats, the ability to specialize in work (most proficient), etc. Or for a quote which drove the right wing crazy, the H Clinton book title, “It takes a village.”

    • Eg Kbbs

      Or why should I become a fireman and place myself in danger for you ?

      • Matthew Reece

        Rational self-interest is served in at least two ways in this case. One can make a profit by fighting fires in exchange for money, and fires can spread to one’s own property if no firemen put them out.

    • Charles Vincent

      ” Communities offer common protection against outside threats, the ability to specialize in work (most proficient), etc.”
      This is part of the Lockean Bargain. This is in line with libertarianism so long as the rules(laws) of the community protect Person, liberty, and property. and that the nonaggression principle is observed.

  • Ben Weston

    The closets thing I have ever had to a reasoned debate with a Libertarian ended up with my pointing out that the reason Government and the rule of law is so important, and we can’t just let people deal with matters on their own, was when I pointed out that the Government, and Rule of Law, is the only thing that protects him from people like me.

    If I lived in Somalia, I’d just shoot anyone that pissed me off. Publicly. And everyone would know “just leave him alone… that’s him being nice”.

  • Elvis Oswald

    You really whupped that straw man’s ass. Good job. 🙂 You too SOL….

  • Let me tell you about my excruciating experiences debating Democrats who claim the Democratic Party is a progressive party.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      would U call the tea party/republican party ” progressive’ by comparison????

      • Let me tell you about my excruciating experiences debating Democrats who claim the Democratic Party is a progressive party.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        cut and paste is a typical small dicked regessive reply on these threads
        =======================================
        wanna buy a BENGHAZI Tshirt??

      • Enjoy supporting, donating to, and voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 along with the Forward Progressives editors. It takes a large penis to fuck yourself.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        im not voting for Hillary,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        …………………… im voting whoever brings back those wonderful republican policies over the past 25 yrs which helped SO MANY americans!!!
        ====================================
        aren’t you?

      • You’re voting for Clinton. I’ll be voting for the Green nominee.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        im voting for Clinton???? geeeeeeee!!! I missed something! did she announce her candidacy?
        eliz warren is more my style but as of now not politically qualified ( not enough experience)
        now; Bernie sanders,,,,,,,,,,,,,,YEAH BAYBEE
        =========================================
        allow my infantile summary: Im voting against all religious scum who endorse the trickle down economic / jesus legislate/ non equal rights for all Americans platform. I vote based upon the VOTING RECORDS of any candidate

      • You will vote for Clinton because you are a liberal Democrat and all progressive primary challengers are dead ends that lead to Hillary Clinton’s nomination. Good liberals vote for their neoliberal betters. You will support Sanders when he joins the Democrats, and upon losing the primary he will tell you to support Clinton and you will. That is your role as a liberal Democrat and that is his role as a progressive Democrat.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        awww,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        “testarudo” and lachrymosity be thy name??

      • You’re not even a progressive. You’re a neoliberal.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        must be tough having to cry as much as thee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        lets all bring back those stellar republican policies over past 25 yrs; shall we?

      • Funny you should say that, because that is exactly what Hillary Clinton is going to do. And you’re going to help her, because you’re a liberal.

        See the July 5 New York Times story titled “Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally with Hillary Clinton?”

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        funny(???) U should ( spin) say that…….
        it allowed U to ( as usual) NOT answer the easy2 answer question
        ======================================
        care to fall down again?

      • You misunderstand. Clinton is a Republican. She is allying with Bush-era neocons for 2016 (and indeed, Bush neocons were employed by her and Obama in State Department, so it is no surprise). So when you say “let’s all bring back those stellar republican policies,” it is Clinton who will bring them “back” (they have never gone) and it is you, a liberal, who will help her by supporting her and voting for her. This is what good liberals do. It is also what progressives do. You will play your role, because you have no idea what else to do.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        “Clinton is a republican”
        ====================================
        ummmmm,,,, yeah
        ok; I will play–
        who do U see as a healthy alternative to making America equal for ALL americans; allowing ALL americans to attempt ( if they want to) to become happy and healthy and not living in fears??
        ——————————————————————-
        this should be a fun answer

      • Neither Clinton nor any GOP nominee is acceptable. A “healthy alternative” would be the building of left-wing political parties independent of the duopoly parties. Liberals do not take this route, though. Liberals, like good liberals, support the Democratic Party even when the Democratic Party wants to empower a neoliberal-neocon administration–which you will support and vote for.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        innnnnn-teresting:
        but presumptive

  • Stephen Barlow

    LMAO!!! “You want small government and minescule taxes that provide bare essential services because you believe in self righteous independence and demand other be accountable for themselves. Somalia Acres is the place to be!! MOVE!!”

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      plenty of somalian land still available!!! Glenn beck sells that along with GOLD

  • JCD

    I think you mean sophistry not philosophy.

  • Matthew Reece

    The President, members of Congress, White House, Capitol building, soldiers, police officers, and their guns all exist. This is because they are all people, places, and things with independent forms in physical reality. The collective called “government” is an idea which has no independent form in physical reality. Thus “government” does not exist; it is only a mental abstraction and a linguistic shorthand.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      and THUS ” religion” also is categorized this way?
      Government does exist. It governs with those non abstract images u see
      =================================================
      matt baby; ya’ need to get out and be social a bit more often.

      • Matthew Reece

        Religion is also categorized this way, yes. The temples, priests, sacraments, books, etc. exist. The religion does not.

  • surfjac

    I never liked Liberace and probably never will.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      I know a woman — pretty sexy from my home town named Lisa Addeo who toured with liberace. shes in her 50s and still looks YUM

  • LibertyDwells

    So basically, like most regressives, you avoid discussing politics when you know you won’t be able to baffle, bully or intimidate your intended victim. You’re just a typical leftist then…

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      hey schmuck– REGRESSIVES are the tea party white trash repub/libertarian religious ( SEE: superstition) “party”………………
      PROGRESSIVES are what U hate. socially liberal/ democrats
      ===============================================
      please stop praying to the dead carpenter and stop drinking so much so U can make a NOTE of that distinction

  • Aaron Levesque

    All religions are ideologies, not all ideologies are religions. I think this guy has the two terms confused.

  • Adam

    Ha, he was probably talking to Chucky. Not worth peeking under that bridge, Allen!

  • bigovernmentsocialconservative

    Allen,
    While I empathize with you, IMHO you need to show more intellectual depth to engage with this beast and take the debate to it’s logical conclusion.

    I say this while I agree with you to a substantial degree on “ends”.

    “…it doesn’t make any damn sense”

    Actually, there are CONTRADICTIONS in what they advocate. Your job as a debating opponent is to demonstrate the contradictions of their arguments, and leave it at that.
    Apart from the contradictions, there are fallacious predictive claims. Again, you’re expected to call out the fallacious claims, and merely referencing Somalia isn’t good enough, IMHO.

    “Why should I be subject to your progressive ideals while you shouldn’t be subjected to my christian ideals?”

    This is one of the numerous contradictions I talked about earlier (this is the least of the contradictions).

    The minute that “L” fellow claimed that he wanted to subject YOU to HIS/HER ‘so-called Christian ideals’, that person’s credibility as a L is shot.

    “Have you ever seen two Libertarians argue? Half the time they go back and forth accusing the other of not being a “real” Libertarian.”

    And here you FINALLY arrive at the core issue, yet you run away.

    The core issue is: 3 classes of people associate themselves with the L word:

    1.libertarians: these people start off, de-facto, by denying government’s legitimate role in …ANYTHING, you name it.
    Defense? The uber-libertarian would advocate for private defense agencies paid for by voluntary subscriptions. This is the Somalia argument, except from the advocate himself/herself, not a “he said she said”. There are other shades, such as “miniarchists”, who claim government has a legitimate role in protection of individual rights to the minimalist extent possible…and then drawing further shades of grey from there, there are further shades, all of which start off with the premise (on any topic), that if something has to be done, it’s “probably” better off not being done by government.

    2.Libertarians: Their BELIEFS agree with libertarians, but out of political expediency, they truck with those who directly trash the above premises…the neocons, the social conservatives…

    3.The Phonies: the Neocons/Social Conservatives pretending to be Libertarians (not libertarians: the distinction between libertarian and Libertarian is subtle, but has been explained in 2. above. A Libertarian actually disagrees with the neocons AND the Social Conservatives. INCLUDING on the most divisive issue of abortion-rights.

    When you SEE “Libertarians” calling others not a genuine libertarian/Libertarian, that group of people is comprised of people like ME.

    People like ME, doing YOUR job.

    YOU were supposed to accept the libertarian argument, and DEMONSTRATE the absurdity of the PHONIES on specific topics:
    1.Their hypocrisy, dishonesty and the autocratic nature of their advocacy, on abortion-rights

    2.Their shameless dishonesty on equal rights when it comes to civil rights

    3.Their lack of credibility as judged by their silence when NeoCons drive the agenda.

    Believe me, over 90% of people calling themselves Libertarians/libertarians on these threads are of the 3rd category: phonies.

    The ones calling their phony advocacy include people like me.

    Don’t blame me for doing YOUR job, which you failed to do even in your above article.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      that’s a bit too serious— good stuff; but charting the depths of a bottomless ocean

  • EaDiot

    To praphrase Terry Pratchett in Good Omens… ‘after the end times when all higher life forms are extinguished from the planet earth, all you will have left are some insects and libertarians!’

  • MLR

    Libertarians, right-wingers, tea bags, whatever,,,,they are all full of shit when they say they want smaller government because they sure as hell want big government when they want to restrict other people’s rights. They love to stick big government up a woman’s uterus and want big government in people’s bedrooms. Recently I had one tell me that the death penalty is ok because they’ve murdered somebody. I’m like, first of all, how many innocent people on death row have been killed? Several. Second of all, it’s not our place to judge or decide when a person dies. Jesus said so in the Bible when he said “he who is without sin cast the first stone.” One of the commandments says “thou shall not murder.” I hate debating unreasonable people but sometimes you have to because to simply let them advance their twisted ideology unchallenged is very dangerous.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      I enjoy asking them how noah got all those animals ( after the “flood”) to places such as Tanzania or south america
      ==============================================
      and————– ever notice the miracles religious scum CLAIM never ever include such “easy’ stuff as curing ( fully) an amputee??

  • dedegold

    It appeals to a collective conservative lizard brain

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      HEY!!! I own an argentine TEGU!!!
      be nice! :))

  • Nemisis

    I’m sorry for your loss Allen, that time and those brain cells….wasted…sad,

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      he lost them attempting to show regressive white trash republican religious scumbags some facts…. I also feel his ( and your) pain as his endeavor ( which I just mentioned) is as fruitful as getting my pet argentine TEGU ready to play ROSSINI upon a harpsichord or perhaps we finding a a living dinosaur…..

      • Nemisis

        ….being rode by Jesus…

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        ive got the U TUBE video—- did U know that jesus did NOT look like a European surfer rock-star ??
        he actually looked like frank zappa ( but jesus was only 5’8)

  • Alison Demzon

    My Dad says he is a libertarian. In general he makes some statement that is totally disconnected from reality, and I point out what it makes no sense and provide sources for data based in fact. Like one time he told me that Glenn Beck (you know it’s going be good starting from there) said that all of the gold mined in all of history would cover… It was some ridiculous number of foot ball fields 11 feet deep; too which I explained as a jeweler that much of the gold in jewelry today is the same gold mined and gathered during the gold rushes, and mined and gathered by cultures going back thousands of years because of recycling. He wandered off a few minutes to pout. This is the normal cycle of things. The sad fact of this is that he was the one that instilled the ideals of finding facts and verifiable data above rumor and supposition as a kid.

  • Johnny

    Libertarianism as it is now is a perversion. All the politicians who claim it don’t understand it. If they had actually read Atlas Shrugged they should know that they are actually the characters in the book referred to a “moocher.” Rand has not created anything. He has only gained political notoriety on the coattails of his father who is a true libertarian. Libertarian = Liberty: don’t take away our freedoms, allow us our right to choose who to marry or if we want to abort. *this is where I get pissed though: when kids start shooting each other, take their guns away; when banks start preying on the weak, lock ’em up; when politicians begin to listen to corporate interests over their constituents, GET RID OF THEM!!!

  • marvinkeene

    You seem very sure that progressivism is not a religion. How deeply have you studied its roots and development? Most progressives I encounter are surprisingly uncurious about the this all-encompassing ideology that they have adopted that which has its own dogma, blasphemies, demonology, martyrs, holy days, and saints and yet somehow is not a religion. If you read the early progressives (not read about them–actually read Albert Beveridge, Edward Bellamy etc etc) it is hard to miss the hyper-Protestantism in it. Over time, Protestantism lost the overt focus on God and became more Unitarian Universalist. Essentially, it became the thing that John Stuart Mill strove to achieve–an authoritarian secularism or as he called it “a religion of humanity”.

  • Colleen A Shea

    My daughter (15) has a Libertarian US history teacher. He isn’t very bright (sorry for redundancy) and she has so much fun @ his expense. Last week she got him on a binge regarding “evil big gubmint.” After making sure there was enough rope, she asked him why he wanted to spend so much gubmint time/money/effort regulating what goes on in the privacy of other people’s bedrooms if he wanted less interference in our lives? Of course he was dumfounded when the cheering broke out, he had no idea that 30% of his class is LGBTQ. She got a trip to the principal’s office and I got to explain that if this fool messes w. her academic world (she is acing calc & physics), there would be severe consequences for the school. If not, fine-we all need living caricatures & buffoons, it is sad when teens see the discrepancy in their ideals.

  • Maria DelCoco

    I imagine their motto to be: No rules, just screwed.

  • Sinan

    Libertarians are utopians, they are dreamers enamored with a set of ideals that are fantasy. I too have debated them ad nauseum. They are incoherent babblers.

  • Mark Schmidt

    Libertarians think they are smart and that no one else is, and that EVERYONE would be a libertarian if we all only understood them…Actually, they are 3 year olds in adult bodies, with NO thought for anyone but themselves and NO they are not “liberals” by any means, but part of the GOP/teabag/libertarian party of brain damaged anti Americans.

  • Neil

    For the record the 1848 Paris commune effectively operated on a largely libertarian model. Perhaps if you want to discuss some legitimate libertarian ideas you should talk to some political scientists who actually have some training in the field. There’s also a lot of confusion on here surrounding the difference between liberalism, Liberalism, libertarianism, and progressivism….

  • fire lion

    Progressivism believes in a rationalistic utopia. And will impose their will to reach this utopia. If Buddhism is a religion then progressivism is one too.
    Buddhists never truly posit a divine power. Never truly posit a heaven or hell.
    Salvation is merely seeing the universe as it is.

    Progressives believe that if everyone saw it their way, the world would enter a golden age. For all intents and purposes progressivism acts exactly like any religion.

  • fire lion

    Name me one country or civilization based on progressivism? or even close to progressivism? none. nada. America was built on the ideals of libertarianism. Not perfectly but its there. Not one country or civilization has ever prospered from progressivism. No one has ever laid out a progressive ideal and grown a country from it.