A big FUCK YOU to Libertarians

[Choid]

For this thread, I'll put on my kevlar and drop this article by a Canadian Feminist Libertarian.

https://mises.org/wire/election-2020-choking-political-red-and-blue-pills

In my mind blind devotion to either party is big problem these days. That being said ... I didn't vote Libertarian even though voting for a Republican president in Washington State is kind of a wasted effort at the end of the day it is important to pick a side that at least has a chance of winning. I will always be a Libertarian at heart.

Be a libertarian 364 days a year, and an adult on voting day.

 

[CRT2]

How can people be so dense? Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and then I stopped looking - each state, the Libertarian vote would have swung the state RED. Hopefully Georgia will get their peachy act together in January and provide us two Republican Senators.

 

[Rthur]

A little reading material for the high minded folks:

Biden calls ATF

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/atf-working-biden-transition-team-ban-pistol-braces/#axzz6dUwq2Hwj

www.snipershide.com

R

 

[jphil108]

If this is directed at me, I can’t stand Trump, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand what has happened to libertarianism. There is a difference between understanding how it relates to ordered society, and being a petulant child who can’t understand society exists. The question has always been about the relevant moral sphere for the question, not how to be the most pure possible.

Not directed at you but the several posters before you. asking a “dark horse candidate” to not spend us off a cliff is not looking for maximum purity. Asking the guy who ran on draining the swamp to quit installing political donors to agency heads and to actually stop letting agencies write rules that function as law with no judicial or congressional review is not much of a stretch. Asking the guy that said he’d build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it to do just that instead of spending ridiculous sums of taxpayer money on a fixed fortification that is full of holes and a six year old can climb. He pissed off the entire establishment; great. But what the fuck for if the deficit has grown, and agencies are as swampy as ever. he didn’t lose you many freedoms but he didn’t gain you any either, almost everything g he did accomplish happened by executive order so it disappears in January. at best this was a four-eight year stall between communists. Y’all act like he’s the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party, but he’s been pretty hard on the brand from what I can see; but what the fuck do I know, I wasn’t sufficiently Republican when I voiced my concern in the 2016 primaries, and now in a crack-pot, dope-smoking lefty.

And on the pistol brace issue, this shit was coming one way or another and trump did nothing to stop it when it was brought to his attention earlier this year. had trump actually fought on the bumpstock ban rather than “compromise” to placate the rabid left, there wouldn’t be legal precedent for banning a “brace” but now there is, which will make it that much more difficult to overturn in the appeals courts. But you’re right, that wasn’t the hill to die on, and this won’t be either because “it’s for poors” and”only dumbasses would do this instead of an SBR stamp” you're probably right, but the same logic is going to be applied to 30rd Pmags and trigger groups, and buffer springs. But sure, I’m an idealist with my head up my ass.

 

[Steel+Killer]

 

[Choid]

Not directed at you but the several posters before you. asking a “dark horse candidate” to not spend us off a cliff is not looking for maximum purity. Asking the guy who ran on draining the swamp to quit installing political donors to agency heads and to actually stop letting agencies write rules that function as law with no judicial or congressional review is not much of a stretch. Asking the guy that said he’d build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it to do just that instead of spending ridiculous sums of taxpayer money on a fixed fortification that is full of holes and a six year old can climb. He pissed off the entire establishment; great. But what the fuck for if the deficit has grown, and agencies are as swampy as ever. he didn’t lose you many freedoms but he didn’t gain you any either, almost everything g he did accomplish happened by executive order so it disappears in January. at best this was a four-eight year stall between communists. Y’all act like he’s the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party, but he’s been pretty hard on the brand from what I can see; but what the fuck do I know, I wasn’t sufficiently Republican when I voiced my concern in the 2016 primaries, and now in a crack-pot, dope-smoking lefty.

And on the pistol brace issue, this shit was coming one way or another and trump did nothing to stop it when it was brought to his attention earlier this year. had trump actually fought on the bumpstock ban rather than “compromise” to placate the rabid left, there wouldn’t be legal precedent for banning a “brace” but now there is, which will make it that much more difficult to overturn in the appeals courts. But you’re right, that wasn’t the hill to die on, and this won’t be either because “it’s for poors” and”only dumbasses would do this instead of an SBR stamp” you're probably right, but the same logic is going to be applied to 30rd Pmags and trigger groups, and buffer springs. But sure, I’m an idealist with my head up my ass.

I grant you that Donald Trump is a cunt. No doubt about that from me. But a four year stall between communists, as you put it, serves the interests of liberty. And really that is a better definition for what a thinking libertarian should be. Somebody who believes most strongly in liberty, but also who can understand which acts further the interests of liberty, and which acts further its destruction.

It is really, really easy to never believe somebody is good enough for your vote, and that is why libertarians have become the incels of the political world. It doesn't have to be that way, and when there were great Libertarian minds, the Hayeks, Mises, Friedmans etc, it wasn't. Part of this is on Rothbard. His uncompromising streak appeals a lot to people because it is easier, but his writings are a bit like the Koran in that they become more radical in his later life, and like the most radical of muslims, today's libertarians tend to read Rothbards later suras as superseding earlier ones. I'm not sure that is the right way to read it, and practically, I know it isn't the right way to view it.

 

[jphil108]

I grant you that Donald Trump is a cunt. No doubt about that from me. But a four year stall between communists, as you put it, serves the interests of liberty. And really that is a better definition for what a thinking libertarian should be. Somebody who believes most strongly in liberty, but also who can understand which acts further the interests of liberty, and which acts further its destruction.

It is really, really easy to never believe somebody is good enough for your vote, and that is why libertarians have become the incels of the political world. It doesn't have to be that way, and when there were great Libertarian minds, the Hayeks, Mises, Friedmans etc, it wasn't. Part of this is on Rothbard. His uncompromising streak appeals a lot to people because it is easier, but his writings are a bit like the Koran in that they become more radical in his later life, and like the most radical of muslims, today's libertarians tend to read Rothbards later suras as superseding earlier ones. I'm not sure that is the right way to read it, and practically, I know it isn't the right way to view it.

I understand your point fully, and were i in a state that had any chance of voting blue in the last two election cycles I would have probably made the same moral compromises you did and voted for a cunt that I hate, but the point is, I intentionally don’t live in a blue or purple state and as a result my voting for my conscience has no impact other than to potentially change some minds in the state party apparatus. I mainly vote to make sure that my local representatives and county councilors don’t go all eastern bloc on me. Are you guys right about it being a waste of a vote in most cases? Probably, will I vote this way again? Probably not. Will I start a thread dedicated to saying fuck you to a bunch of republicans who voted in the primaries to have this ridiculous orange messiah elected in the first place? Probably not.

We as gun owners have 2 years to figure out how to regain the house and strengthen our hold on the senate with congressmen who are more than just paid spokespeople for the NRA and we have a little under four years to find a rock solid candidate for president who does more to improve our position and doesn’t have so many skeletons in his closet, don’t make it so easy to hate the man. You won’t do any of that by telling potential Republican voters to fuck off. You’re at square one again, so don’t be Clemson’s offense, run a different play.

 

[The D]

To make it easier to understand, modern libertarians have made voting a death pact that excludes all of the human ability to analyze and prioritize that characterized Mises thinking. They have taken his brilliance and used it as an excuse for their stupidity. Bravo and pass the bong.

So maybe I can wrap my lizard brain around the concept of voting. For decades and decades politicians have been voted into office and quite steadily destroyed all freedoms to citizens. Now the idea is to vote harder for a different person and they will magically reverse course?

No. Fascism is the other side of the collectivist coin. It does however make you a fanatic, who is in denial about the human condition.

To be sure, you are not in as much in denial as a leftist/collectivist or a fascist, who seems to believe we are more akin to insects rather than primates, but in denial nonetheless, because our social nature makes us have a collectivist bent despite our condition of being entirely cut off from other individuals of our species. Collective action and cooperation is vital, and contrary to your beliefs it does not spring fully formed from the Head of Zeus. It is just as likely not to work without a framework and structure as it is to be successful, and 50/50 is shitty odds when we're talking about civil society.

To eschew all collectivism and tribalism as if it served no purpose and was an evil in itself may not rise to the level of barbarity and evil that collectivism/communism does, but it is a similar denial of reality with it's own set of very negative consequences. It is right for there to be a struggle between collectivism and individualism, but according to our Christian beliefs and our American values (derived from Christian faith) it falls heavily on the side of the individual. And yet, government is necessary, and collectivism in suitable amounts is actually vital (like drops of vanilla in the recipe that taste good, but even a teaspoon of it tastes foul).

Yes, I am a fanatic for personal liberty. Guilty as charged

I’m not eschewing any form of social organization per se, just that I think it should all be organized on a voluntary basis. I don’t actually give a shit if an entire county somewhere near me wants to be run like the soviet union, as long as I don’t have to pay for it.

If your government is such a noble idea then people will willingly fund it. The problem is forcing people to comply up to and including with the price of their lives.

 

[Choid]

So maybe I can wrap my lizard brain around the concept of voting. For decades and decades politicians have been voted into office and quite steadily destroyed all freedoms to citizens. Now the idea is to vote harder for a different person and they will magically reverse course?

Stipulating to the fact that all mainstream politicians have been harmful in their own ways to liberty, try this thought experiment. Imagine that you could vote retroactively for each candidate that would have taken less of your liberties. In that case, would we be more or less free than we are today? If the answer is more free, and of course it is, then in doing so you would be voting in the cause of liberty. In not doing so you would be voting in the cause of tyranny. Perhaps your judgment isn't good enough to know before the fact which is which. In that case, I'd say that you probably shouldn't vote. But not voting because there is no perfect makes you the political version of the incel who complains that girls have sharp knees, not the valiant defender of freedom you make yourself out to be. I know it is easy to delude oneself into thinking he is the latter, but it is equally easy to see through it, which is why you get so much pushback.

 

[Fig]

So maybe I can wrap my lizard brain around the concept of voting. For decades and decades politicians have been voted into office and quite steadily destroyed all freedoms to citizens. Now the idea is to vote harder for a different person and they will magically reverse course?

Yes, I am a fanatic for personal liberty. Guilty as charged

I’m not eschewing any form of social organization per se, just that I think it should all be organized on a voluntary basis. I don’t actually give a shit if an entire county somewhere near me wants to be run like the soviet union, as long as I don’t have to pay for it.

If your government is such a noble idea then people will willingly fund it. The problem is forcing people to comply up to and including with the price of their lives.

Again, we probably agree on more than we disagree. The worst calamity that has ever befallen our country was the passage of the 16th, 17th, and 18th (repealed) amendments. These kicked out key checks on government power that allowed Federalism to function. Once they were law we started to run off the rails, and the speed and ferocity of our downfall just keeps increasing.

The ability for the government to steal our income by force (16th), and to not be directly reliant on the economy and economic transactions is the root of most Federal evil, and all the deficit spending. Couple that with neutering the States to the point that they are rump, muni governments (17th), and the Federal Government becomes totally unaccountable except by plebiscite, which we see is far from the most protective aspect of Republicanism. The 18th fueled the rise of organized crime, and once risen it has proven impossible to kill it, as is so obvious over multiple generations.

These "Progressive Amendments" will be known as the cause of our downfall when the ultimate history is written. Pretty must all that ails us can be traced directly back to them. They were the beginning of our government turning against us, and what allowed unscrupulous politicians to play identity politics and divide us for their own benefit and power.

With these amendments in place we simply cannot have a just government. It is a tyranny by default.

That said, personal liberty has limits, and pretending that there is no common good, or that you have a system wherein people will always choose that good because of liberty/freedom is a gross self deception. Assuming the good in man is just as wrong as the communist assuming everyone is as evil as they are. There are no absolute maxims, and it is not a betrayal of principal to asknowledge that.

My guess is that you are an atheists and are looking for faith in the wrong place. Such views are rarely held by someone who acknowledges Man's problem, and accepts God's solution. If that makes you angry it is a near certainty. However, you are actually closer to the right track than you know, because personal liberty is the foundation of Judeo/Christian belief, and has been so since Man first ate of The Tree of Knowledge and became self aware.

 

[The D]

Stipulating to the fact that all mainstream politicians have been harmful in their own ways to liberty, try this thought experiment. Imagine that you could vote retroactively for each candidate that would have taken less of your liberties. In that case, would we be more or less free than we are today? If the answer is more free, and of course it is, then in doing so you would be voting in the cause of liberty. In not doing so you would be voting in the cause of tyranny. Perhaps your judgment isn't good enough to know before the fact which is which. In that case, I'd say that you probably shouldn't vote. But not voting because there is no perfect makes you the political version of the incel who complains that girls have sharp knees, not the valiant defender of freedom you make yourself out to be. I know it is easy to delude oneself into thinking he is the latter, but it is equally easy to see through it, which is why you get so much pushback.

Alright, put all of those unconstitutional laws and executive orders up for vote. Don’t put some stuffed suit in front of me and tell me that suddenly this person has all the answers. Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of trump and I also think the way he trolls people is fucking hilarious. I just don’t think he has as many solutions as others think

 

[Choid]

Alright, put all of those unconstitutional laws and executive orders up for vote. Don’t put some stuffed suit in front of me and tell me that suddenly this person has all the answers. Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of trump and I also think the way he trolls people is fucking hilarious. I just don’t think he has as many solutions as others think

Look, I agree with all of that, I just differ with what you decide one day of the year.

To me, Mises greatest insight, though I can't say it was purely his, was the idea that preferences must be taken as a priori. To me that is not only the foundation of economic choice theory, but the foundation of the theory of liberty altogether. viz. when looking at the actions of another person, we must not assume that he has the incorrect goals, but we can analyze how he acts in order to reach his goals. His goals are what make him human. Clearly, both political parties fail to understand this insight. Party politics has to fail in this because it requires a consensus of goals from different constituencies. Because of that, we get a very binary choice on voting day, and it certainly does seem that those of us who value liberty are at a loss for a choice, but I believe that it is a mistake to believe that this is really so. Analyzing the platforms and actions of the two political parties, it is clear to me that the Democrats do not believe in the ability to aspire to different goals, to hold different preferences, and their method is to impose group preferences on to each and every individual. This cuts directly at what makes us individuals, and free. The Republican party, on the other hand, makes no pretense of forcing single goals on disparate people, and where they err it is to circumscribe the actions of individuals. While I may not like the latter approach, it is certainly more in keeping with the correct (imo) role of the government in a society. It's a nuanced distinction, but an important one. And I think it makes the choice of voting really easy.

 

[The D]

Again, we probably agree on more than we disagree. The worst calamity that has ever befallen our country was the passage of the 16th, 17th, and 18th (repealed) amendments. These kicked out key checks on government power that allowed Federalism to function. Once they were law we started to run off the rails, and the speed and ferocity of our downfall just keeps increasing.

The ability for the government to steal our income by force (16th), and to not be directly reliant on the economy and economic transactions is the root of most Federal evil, and all the deficit spending. Couple that with neutering the States to the point that they are rump, muni governments (17th), and the Federal Government becomes totally unaccountable except by plebiscite, which we see is far from the most protective aspect of Republicanism. The 18th fueled the rise of organized crime, and once risen it has proven impossible to kill it, as is so obvious over multiple generations.

These "Progressive Amendments" will be known as the cause of our downfall when the ultimate history is written. Pretty must all that ails us can be traced directly back to them. They were the beginning of our government turning against us, and what allowed unscrupulous politicians to play identity politics and divide us for their own benefit and power.

With these amendments in place we simply cannot have a just government. It is a tyranny by default.

That said, personal liberty has limits, and pretending that there is no common good, or that you have a system wherein people will always choose that good because of liberty/freedom is a gross self deception. Assuming the good in man is just as wrong as the communist assuming everyone is as evil as they are. There are no absolute maxims, and it is not a betrayal of principal to asknowledge that.

My guess is that you are an atheists and are looking for faith in the wrong place. Such views are rarely held by someone who acknowledges Man's problem, and accepts God's solution. If that makes you angry it is a near certainty. However, you are actually closer to the right track than you know, because personal liberty is the foundation of Judeo/Christian belief, and has been so since Man first ate of The Tree of Knowledge and became self aware.

I’m not strongly religious but I’m definitely not an atheist. Certainly more religious than not.

The problems with the above mentioned amendments isn’t that they were passed, it’s that they were even allowed to be put up for vote in the first place. You’ve poo-pooed my support for the articles of confederation before because they weren’t strong enough of a document (I think this was your argument, hopefully I’m being genuine here) but that’s exactly why I think they were ideal. They made sure the federal gov wasn’t very powerful and could sort of only advise on conflict between the states

 

[The D]

Look, I agree with all of that, I just differ with what you decide one day of the year.

To me, Mises greatest insight, though I can't say it was purely his, was the idea that preferences must be taken as a priori. To me that is not only the foundation of economic choice theory, but the foundation of the theory of liberty altogether. viz. when looking at the actions of another person, we must not assume that he has the incorrect goals, but we can analyze how he acts in order to reach his goals. His goals are what make him human. Clearly, both political parties fail to understand this insight. Party politics has to fail in this because it requires a consensus of goals from different constituencies. Because of that, we get a very binary choice on voting day, and it certainly does seem that those of us who value liberty are at a loss for a choice, but I believe that it is a mistake to believe that this is really so. Analyzing the platforms and actions of the two political parties, it is clear to me that the Democrats do not believe in the ability to aspire to different goals, to hold different preferences, and their method is to impose group preferences on to each and every individual. This cuts directly at what makes us individuals, and free. The Republican party, on the other hand, makes no pretense of forcing single goals on disparate people, and where they err it is to circumscribe the actions of individuals. While I may not like the latter approach, it is certainly more in keeping with the correct (imo) role of the government in a society. It's a nuanced distinction, but an important one. And I think it makes the choice of voting really easy.

I guess I’ve just been disillusioned too much by both parties to see much of a difference between the two. Yeah, trump is a little bit of an outlier but not that much.

 

[Choid]

I guess I’ve just been disillusioned too much by both parties to see much of a difference between the two. Yeah, trump is a little bit of an outlier but not that much.

In my estimation, W Bush was about the bottom for Republicans as far as being illiberal. What is odd is that the current D party incorporates both their organic economic illiberalism combined with a full adoption of Bush's war and surveillance state. The Republicans seem to have partly walked back their support for those things, mainly because of Trump, but I don't know that they can reengage with those beliefs. Who knows.

I don't like Trump as an individual, but as far as preserving liberty he has been far better than average over the post-Coolidge era. Perhaps the best in this time period.

 

[Fig]

I’m not strongly religious but I’m definitely not an atheist. Certainly more religious than not.

The problems with the above mentioned amendments isn’t that they were passed, it’s that they were even allowed to be put up for vote in the first place. You’ve poo-pooed my support for the articles of confederation before because they weren’t strong enough of a document (I think this was your argument, hopefully I’m being genuine here) but that’s exactly why I think they were ideal. They made sure the federal gov wasn’t very powerful and could sort of only advise on conflict between the states

Again the history that wasn't written. Don't be so sure the one we're living in wasn't/isn't the best possible outcome.

 

[Autofire]

After reading 5 pages of fuck this, fuck that and fuck you. If the 2 senate races in Georigia go blue and they have what they need to hit the 2nd amendment ask yourself one question are you willing to :
Pledge To Each Other Our Lives, Our Fortunes And Our Sacred Honor?

 

[Fig]

We (actual Americans who believe in the Constitution) hold a majority in the Supreme Court. They could do a lot of damage, but unless they get rid of SCOTUS or try to pack it, which I do not think is feasible, that will limit their orgy of socialism.

If they took out the courts then we would have no choice.

 

[Ledzep]

The entire premise of the OP is flawed because it assumes that the vast majority of libertarians would A) vote for Trump, or B) vote at all, if they didn't vote for Jorgensen. In one or two of those states, maybe. The others, not a chance. For every Jorgensen voter, how many republicans are there that didn't vote at all? Take your blame where it belongs if your candidate didn't make it.

As far as the rest of it goes, the two party system is horse shit. Unfortunately libertarianism and/or the concept of individual liberty being the fundamental law of the land will likely not succeed in today's America because too much of the populace is too stupid and lazy to handle their own lives. America has it's right and left hands in a bunch of finger traps (2 party system) and keeps pulling harder and harder like it's the path to freedom...

 

[W54/XM-388]

We are also starting to get some information come in that indicates it may not matter as much on the small percentage of votes because the Democrats and their software and vote counters were busy "dynamically adjusting" the vote counts each evening to get the "correct" number of votes for them to win.

 

[Fig]

The Rs are far closer to Libertarians than the Ds. Premise intact.

 

[The D]

After reading 5 pages of fuck this, fuck that and fuck you. If the 2 senate races in Georigia go blue and they have what they need to hit the 2nd amendment ask yourself one question are you willing to :
Pledge To Each Other Our Lives, Our Fortunes And Our Sacred Honor?

Yes

We are also starting to get some information come in that indicates it may not matter as much on the small percentage of votes because the Democrats and their software and vote counters were busy "dynamically adjusting" the vote counts each evening to get the "correct" number of votes for them to win.

Oh yeah, I’m sure if there was a way to get every legitimate vote counted that trump would win decisively.

 

[The D]

Again the history that wasn't written. Don't be so sure the one we're living in wasn't/isn't the best possible outcome.

It isn’t exactly about what is or isn’t. It’s about the degradation that’s taken place. You are right about not knowing what an alternate reality of a country living under the articles of confederation would be. It’s possible the outcomes would be the same, just delayed X number of years. But we can absolutely know how the powers of the fed gov would be different between the two.

 

[Jgunner]

5, 5 people i know in az have voted for third party in this election. Seriously, i do not understand it.

i need new friends. Anyone want to be friends with a middle aged, sarcastic asshole who dislikes most people but likes guns and dogs? I cook well too.

 

[CRT2]

5, 5 people i know in az have voted for third party in this election. Seriously, i do not understand it.

i need new friends. Anyone want to be friends with a middle aged, sarcastic asshole who dislikes most people but likes guns and dogs? I cook well too.

My Wife read this and wanted to know when I moved to AZ.

 

[The D]

5, 5 people i know in az have voted for third party in this election. Seriously, i do not understand it.

i need new friends. Anyone want to be friends with a middle aged, sarcastic asshole who dislikes most people but likes guns and dogs? I cook well too.

How do you feel about snooty microbrew beers(read as; good beer) and scotch?

 

[Jgunner]

How do you feel about snooty microbrew beers(read as; good beer) and scotch?

Honestly i quit drinking, but i loved scotch and did like a good microbrew HOWEVER i did not try to tell everyone about that particular brew or brewery like they paid me to pimp it. Just drank my beer and tried to have conversations about killing stuff, shooting stuff, trucks, music and of course women.

 

[Fig]

Actual pic of @Jgunner going into the micro-brewery:

 

[Jgunner]

Actual pic of @Jgunner going into the micro-brewery:

you been stalking me?!?

 

[Fig]

What's that piece of fabric trailing behind? Is that a cape?

 

[The D]

Honestly i quit drinking, but i loved scotch and did like a good microbrew HOWEVER i did not try to tell everyone about that particular brew or brewery like they paid me to pimp it. Just drank my beer and tried to have conversations about killing stuff, shooting stuff, trucks, music and of course women.

Perfect, I like you.

Everyone I know that drinks cheap beer gets shit from me but it’s only because I’ve slowed way down over the years and can sacrifice quality for quantity(my very biased opinion).

I’m perfectly happy to talk guns, cars, and/or grilled meat with anyone

What's that piece of fabric trailing behind? Is that a cape?

Most likely it’s a lap blanket

 

[Fig]

 

[The D]

I can’t be the only one who’s heard their wife use this term for the dozen or so blankets on the living room furniture

 

[Rlandry]

The Libertarians know they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning an election. They just cast protest votes. I have no use for them either.

 

[The D]

The Libertarians know they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning an election. They just cast protest votes. I have no use for them either.

Yeah yeah yeah, I get it. We’re over that shit for now and talking about beer

 

[jphil108]

I think this guy wants his biscuit.

The Libertarians know they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning an election. They just cast protest votes. I have no use for them either.

 

[DOA]

The Libertarians know they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning an election. They just cast protest votes. I have no use for them either.

But..but.. their morals...

 

[Jgunner]

next time i vote, it’ll be for myself. Ya know, in protest, but i know what i want the most, id make a great president for some people, but uhhhh some others i would look like a tyrant, the shit they’d say about me in the news would look like they like trump compared to me.

 

[The D]

next time i vote, it’ll be for myself. Ya know, in protest, but i know what i want the most, id make a great president for some people, but uhhhh some others i would look like a tyrant, the shit they’d say about me in the news would look like they like trump compared to me.

I think this is what everyone should do

 

[wapiti16b]

I'll gladly take a "thanks for nothing" and also thank others in kind. :^)

Thank you for restoring civility to the thread.

Bronco, don't look to anyone to blame for "failing to protect our rights." That's on you at the end of the day.

Wapiti, my suggestion is that you don't depend on a 401K. There are better ways to secure your future.

My future is VERY secure Thank You!, Do Not concern your self/selfishness with my opinion of libertardians. A hopeless third party with albeit views that I agree with to a point is one thing, should you in some cases regarding elections let your opinion turn our nation toward socialism simply because you hate Trump more than you Love the Nation?
I know a few libertarians and to a person they feel that they know what's best and are unwilling to compromise on anything , kind'a like the libs!, maybe that's why the root word of their party has been corrupted from Liberty to Liberal !

 

[The D]

My future is VERY secure Thank You!, Do Not concern your self/selfishness with my opinion of libertardians. A hopeless third party with albeit views that I agree with to a point is one thing, should you in some cases regarding elections let your opinion turn our nation toward socialism simply because you hate Trump more than you Love the Nation?
I know a few libertarians and to a person they feel that they know what's best and are unwilling to compromise on anything , kind'a like the libs!, maybe that's why the root word of their party has been corrupted from Liberty to Liberal !

The root word of both of those terms is liber, which is Latin for “the free one”. Also the name of a Roman god, Liber Pater, of wine, fertility, & freedom

 

[Fig]

I think this is what everyone should do

Whatever floats your boat, but don’t kid yourself about vocally espousing your libertarian beliefs to a bunch of people, and then saying how you are not part of the process. That’s like lecturing us on healthy eating and then admitting the majority of your own diet is Cheetos and Mountain Dew...

 

[Ledzep]

Everyone should be able to eat as much cheetos and mt. dew as they want... Provided the government isn't involved in health care.

 

[vinniedelpino]

Look, I agree with all of that, I just differ with what you decide one day of the year.

To me, Mises greatest insight, though I can't say it was purely his, was the idea that preferences must be taken as a priori. To me that is not only the foundation of economic choice theory, but the foundation of the theory of liberty altogether. viz. when looking at the actions of another person, we must not assume that he has the incorrect goals, but we can analyze how he acts in order to reach his goals. His goals are what make him human. Clearly, both political parties fail to understand this insight. Party politics has to fail in this because it requires a consensus of goals from different constituencies. Because of that, we get a very binary choice on voting day, and it certainly does seem that those of us who value liberty are at a loss for a choice, but I believe that it is a mistake to believe that this is really so. Analyzing the platforms and actions of the two political parties, it is clear to me that the Democrats do not believe in the ability to aspire to different goals, to hold different preferences, and their method is to impose group preferences on to each and every individual. This cuts directly at what makes us individuals, and free. The Republican party, on the other hand, makes no pretense of forcing single goals on disparate people, and where they err it is to circumscribe the actions of individuals. While I may not like the latter approach, it is certainly more in keeping with the correct (imo) role of the government in a society. It's a nuanced distinction, but an important one. And I think it makes the choice of voting really easy.

Idubitably....

Big words? Check. Latin words properly italicized? Check. References to obscure economists? Also check.

Just curious... what do you do for a living?

Excellent dissertation, Choid. Well played. A+ with a smiley face.

 

[Choid]

Currently Jackoff of all Trades. Formerly finance.