• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

5 pages of you whining about the tea party, 5 pages of wrapping your foul mouth around their good name, and then you have the brass to say this?

See above. I'm fine with anyone meeting for any peaceful purpose. just because I don't agree with them does not mean I take issue with them actually meeting. You seem to take this stuff emotionally. I don't. I'm a cyborg for God's sake. Feelings never enter into it.
 
See above. I'm fine with anyone meeting for any peaceful purpose. just because I don't agree with them does not mean I take issue with them actually meeting. You seem to take this stuff emotionally. I don't. I'm a cyborg for God's sake. Feelings never enter into it.




What is this a slip up?



Are you actually for larger government, higher taxes, less accountable representatives?





OOOPS!


:pimpdaddy:
 
What is this a slip up?



Are you actually for larger government, higher taxes, less accountable representatives?





OOOPS!


:pimpdaddy:

Actually, they are! As I've stated repeatedly I don't believe them. Think of it this way: They keep voting for big government. Over and over. I don't. So yes, I disagree with them. If they were honest I would be on board. It's tough to claim you are for small government when you vote the opposite for 30 years (well, not you personally, of course).
 
Last edited:
Oh you want to take years of his radio and point out some of his possible mistakes? My bad, I thought you said you listen to him and could tell me some of his daily wrongs....



Looking at your list, he's less wrong than you have been since your arrival. :ssst:

You asked for links (post 115 I think). I listen to him say we would be thankful to Bush and his invasion of iraq once our oil came down. Can't fine a link and that was a long time ago. But he said it, and he was wrong. Even heard him say once that what happened at WACO was the fault of the people holding up in WACO (he flip quite fast on that). Heard a 19 year old girl reduce him to screaming why do you hate America when he couldn't answer her reasonable questions. And even though she never raised her voice, or interrupted him as he was her, he cut her off. He's a tad weak that way.

But you asked for links and I gave you some.
 
You asked for links (post 115 I think). I listen to him say we would be thankful to Bush and his invasion of iraq once our oil came down. Can't fine a link and that was a long time ago. But he said it, and he was wrong. Even heard him say once that what happened at WACO was the fault of the people holding up in WACO (he flip quite fast on that). Heard a 19 year old girl reduce him to screaming why do you hate America when he couldn't answer her reasonable questions. And even though she never raised her voice, or interrupted him as he was her, he cut her off. He's a tad weak that way.

But you asked for links and I gave you some.


Funny i dont recall any of that. :shrug:
 
You sound surprised....... not all posters that call themselves Libertarians are, me thinks you are talking to a lib in sheep’s clothing.

Yeah...I've noticed that many who have taken the name "Libertarian" are just right-wingers who are too ashamed to call themselves Republicans anymore.

They give the "true" Libertarians a bad name. Be careful "Libertarians"....the will do for you what they did for the Republican party.
 
Actually, they are! As I've stated repeatedly I don't believe them. Think of it this way: They keep voting for big government. Over and over. I don't. So yes, I disagree with them. If they were honest I would be on board. It's tough to claim you are for small government when you vote the opposite for 30 years (well, not you personally, of course).

The Libertarian Party hosts some Tea Parties, ya know......
 
The Libertarian Party hosts some Tea Parties, ya know......
Well Mellie as long as you can talk about and cast aspersions at nebulous "they" people, you can really make great hey on the internet!
 
Yeah...I've noticed that many who have taken the name "Libertarian" are just right-wingers who are too ashamed to call themselves Republicans anymore.

They give the "true" Libertarians a bad name. Be careful "Libertarians"....the will do for you what they did for the Republican party.






yeah and having a raving lib lecture anyone on libertarianism is rather humorous..... :lamo:
 
yeah and having a raving lib lecture anyone on libertarianism is rather humorous..... :lamo:

I'm not lecturing anyone on the fundamentals of "libertarianism". I agree with many of their policies and disagree with others. However, that said, I respect those who adhere to the fundamentals of the party.

What I was commenting on...if you go back and re-read...is not about Libertarians at all. It was about those right-wing Republicans who are trying to distance themselves from the failures of the GOP and have decided to adopt the "Libertarian" label. These people will destroy the Libertarian party (if given a chance), the way they destroyed the Republican party.
 
I'm not lecturing anyone on the fundamentals of "libertarianism". I agree with many of their policies and disagree with others. However, that said, I respect those who adhere to the fundamentals of the party.

What I was commenting on...if you go back and re-read...is not about Libertarians at all. It was about those right-wing Republicans who are trying to distance themselves from the failures of the GOP and have decided to adopt the "Libertarian" label. These people will destroy the Libertarian party (if given a chance), the way they destroyed the Republican party.




As a libertarian, I welcome them. As I bet many of them don't go back and become more informed with the ideals this nation was founded on. ;)




btw, re: your sig. How specifically did Obama do that? :ssst:
 
As a libertarian, I welcome them. As I bet many of them don't go back and become more informed with the ideals this nation was founded on. ;)

You might....however, I wouldn't doubt if those in control of the party are watching them very carefully.
I can't see the Libertarian party adopting their right-wing social agenda simply to increase its numbers. And these people are not going to be content with a fiscally conservative agenda without a party that advocates their social agenda.

BTW: Obama has improved our standing amongst our allies and our would-be allies by regaining the high ground that we lost under GWB.
But....that's a different topic...not meant for this tread.
 
Last edited:
As the saying goes, for every ten libertarians, there are eleven different opinions. The tea party movement is not libertarian because of their endorsement of authoritarian social policy and effective defense of corporatism.

The only real libertarians I've seen on the forum are Harry Guerrilla and whoever else is willing to abandon defense of corporate capitalism and pursue a defense of free markets. That means not chanting that progressive taxation is theft, because there is no right to stolen property, and since it was originally created in theft generations ago, existing property is based in aggression.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation]Primitive accumulation of capital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
As the saying goes, for every ten libertarians, there are eleven different opinions. The tea party movement is not libertarian because of their endorsement of authoritarian social policy and effective defense of corporatism.

The only real libertarians I've seen on the forum are Harry Guerrilla and whoever else is willing to abandon defense of corporate capitalism and pursue a defense of free markets. That means not chanting that progressive taxation is theft, because there is no right to stolen property, and since it was originally created in theft generations ago, existing property is based in aggression.

Primitive accumulation of capital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Is this some leftwing "libertarian-(insert left wing ideology bunk)" nonsense? :roll:
 
If the poll is accurate, then it appears that the folks who built this country and keep it afloat with their hard work, everyday, are the same folks who make up the Tea Party.

Seeing how that voting block makes up 80%+ of the country, one should think twice before pissing all of them off...if one wants to get re-elected, of course.
 
Is this some leftwing "libertarian-(insert left wing ideology bunk)" nonsense? :roll:

Libertarianism isn't "left" or "right." It's just libertarian.

If you are actually a libertarian, you know that currently existing corporate capitalism is not based in free markets. It's based in state-regulated markets. That's why I'm wary of the "libertarian" defense of corporatism and its wealth and property distributions. I've been reading a book called Radicals for Capitalism, and its author elaborated a bit on ultra-libertarian Murray Rothbard's thoughts on the "primitive accumulation" issue.

Rothbard here presented the fullest explanation of the ethical philosoph behind his property-based anarcho-capitalism - and lets some of his truest radicalism shine through. For example, he says that a libertarian mustn't stand for merely protecting any existing distribution of property; rather, he is interested in defending justly held property. When we can authoritatively say that a current property holding is not based in an unbroken line of just possession, and can find a victim or an heir of the victim from whom the property was taken, then that victim or heir must take possession.

Rothbard isn't exactly a "leftwing libertarian"; he's an anarcho-capitalist. Most libertarians are minarchists (as am I, incidentally), but they don't tend to disparage the libertarian credentials of hard-core anarchists who want the state replaced by competing private firms. I know I don't. I just think there would be feasibility issues.

But aside from that, you can see the implications of that view. I tend to think that Amerindian poverty is probably related to their forcible/fraudulent dispossession, slaughter, and confinement to reservations, for example. If wealthy property owners were taxed and portions of their assets transferred to Native Americans, how would that be "theft"? Their gains were made through the losses of others in times past in violation of the non-aggression principle!
 

Just keep pretending the American people are irrelevant, just keep pretending. Please, please, I BEG of you to keep pretending... Really, why wouldn't we want more results like this?

1486870331_62482399001_0120dv-ma-senate-reax-400x300-jpg-thumb.jpg

What's next...Illinois?
 
Last edited:
I find it kind of funny that the Tea Partiers are blaming Obama, who came into office after the crash began. They should be blaming the president whose policies started the whole process that finally culminated in the collapse of our economy - Bill Clinton. Of course, Obama is actually making things much worse, but he and Bush merely stepped into the shoes that Clinton provided. Those who wax fond for Clinton need to reexamine their misplaced adoration. Clinton screwed them, as well as the rest of us.

Fascinating..... Bush was just an innocent bystander to the 2008 crash... just a clueless buffoon that didn't see all of the faults engineered into the system by his predecessor? Wow? Are you sure you don't want to spread a little blame to Jimmy Carter on this one as well?

This is intellectually dishonest. The guy was at the helm for eight years (and Clinton 8 years removed). We experienced a full cycle in the interim. I could indulge an argument of how Clinton's policies contributed, but to suggest that Bush had nothing materially to do with it is pretty absurd.

If you insist on making such an absurd argument, at least give us arguments and facts supporting those arguments. You offer nothing but fantasy island.
 
Last edited:
Libertarianism isn't "left" or "right." It's just libertarian.

If you are actually a libertarian, you know that currently existing corporate capitalism is not based in free markets. It's based in state-regulated markets. That's why I'm wary of the "libertarian" defense of corporatism and its wealth and property distributions. I've been reading a book called Radicals for Capitalism, and its author elaborated a bit on ultra-libertarian Murray Rothbard's thoughts on the "primitive accumulation" issue.


I'm not sure who these libertarian are that support this corporate welfare, or was this some sort of a strawman to sound intellectual?


Rothbard isn't exactly a "leftwing libertarian"; he's an anarcho-capitalist. Most libertarians are minarchists (as am I, incidentally), but they don't tend to disparage the libertarian credentials of hard-core anarchists who want the state replaced by competing private firms. I know I don't. I just think there would be feasibility issues.


hypenated-libertarian = idiot trying to onto a political ideology in an attempt to find relevancy.



But aside from that, you can see the implications of that view. I tend to think that Amerindian poverty is probably related to their forcible/fraudulent dispossession, slaughter, and confinement to reservations, for example. If wealthy property owners were taxed and portions of their assets transferred to Native Americans, how would that be "theft"? Their gains were made through the losses of others in times past in violation of the non-aggression principle!




Ahh, so as a rich man, I should be taxed money and this money should be given to native americans because of past injustices by other people a long long time ago.....:roll:


with a view like this, you prove my point regarding hyphenated-libertarianism.... this is no libertarianism I have ever heard of. :lamo:
 
I'm not sure who these libertarian are that support this corporate welfare, or was this some sort of a strawman to sound intellectual?

Assertions that progressive taxation is theft or that corporate taxation is a punishment of the productive is an implicit assumption that free markets exist when they do not. State-managed markets exist, and current property distribution has the hand of statism behind it. I don't shed tears when the owners of stolen property are taxed.

hypenated-libertarian = idiot trying to onto a political ideology in an attempt to find relevancy.

Where exactly have you gotten the idea that what you call "leftwing libertarianism" is something completely different than just plain old "libertarianism"? Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian? - The Mises Community

Also, what is in left-libertarianism that isn't already in libertarianism?

Because whenever I hear a left-libertarian say anything, it's just like "don't apologize for the current market"... but that's not anything different from libertarian philosophy.

If openly forcible or fraudulent aggression in times past affects current market structure, reparation/redistribution is necessary.

Ahh, so as a rich man, I should be taxed money and this money should be given to native americans because of past injustices by other people a long long time ago.....:roll:

:roll:

It's not about personal complicity; it's about the modern consequences created by the aggression of ancestors. The present distribution of wealth and property has been directly influenced by past aggression, since effectively all existing property was either unjustly acquired at some point or created through some other resource or capital good that was itself unjustly acquired or created by something that was. Rothbard put it this way:

We at the Lib. Forum have long been advocates of land reform, but not, obviously, because we are socialists or egalitarians, or because we are
simply pro-peasant or anti-landlord. "Land reform" is a portmenteau
.concept that covers a lot of sins and virtues, and so is a virtually
meaningless term. What we favor, here as always, is justice and property
rights, and we favor the return of stolen property to its rightful owners. In
many areas of the world, arable land was stolen by conquest and
government expropriation from the peasants and handed to a favored
group of "feudal" landlords, and we consider it not only just but essential
to restore this property to the rightful peasant owners.


In these cases, the "rent" extracted by the unjust landlords is really a form of tax paid by the peasantry. This of course is not true of all peasants and all landlords, since in many cases the land was justly owned by the landlords and then rented out to the peasantry. How do we know which is which? Obviously, in the same way we know whether any property-a watch, a horse, or whatever-is justly or criminally owned by its current possessor: by
engaging in a "historical" inquiry into the source of its current title. The
proper analysis is not "peasant" vs. "landlord" but just vs. criminal
possession of current property.

But yea...I'm sure Murray Rothbard isn't a real libertarian...

with a view like this, you prove my point regarding hyphenated-libertarianism.... this is no libertarianism I have ever heard of.

You've never heard of Murray Rothbard? That's probably because you're a standard conservative looking for an exotic label, but far be it from me to judge. Just try to remember that libertarians are not Republicans in Halloween costumes.
 
Libertarianism isn't "left" or "right." It's just libertarian.

If you are actually a libertarian, you know that currently existing corporate capitalism is not based in free markets. It's based in state-regulated markets. That's why I'm wary of the "libertarian" defense of corporatism and its wealth and property distributions. I've been reading a book called Radicals for Capitalism, and its author elaborated a bit on ultra-libertarian Murray Rothbard's thoughts on the "primitive accumulation" issue.



Rothbard isn't exactly a "leftwing libertarian"; he's an anarcho-capitalist. Most libertarians are minarchists (as am I, incidentally), but they don't tend to disparage the libertarian credentials of hard-core anarchists who want the state replaced by competing private firms. I know I don't. I just think there would be feasibility issues.

But aside from that, you can see the implications of that view. I tend to think that Amerindian poverty is probably related to their forcible/fraudulent dispossession, slaughter, and confinement to reservations, for example. If wealthy property owners were taxed and portions of their assets transferred to Native Americans, how would that be "theft"? Their gains were made through the losses of others in times past in violation of the non-aggression principle!


Ah.

So you support taking property and wealth from people who are "not your kind" and giving it to people who "are your kind", based on things that happened centuries ago, the principles of whom are all long dead.

No self-intrest involved, I'm sure.

Where can be found any piece of ground, other than the Arctic and Antarctic, that didn't belong to someone else at some point in history? Probably nowhere. Probably every Amerind tribe that ever claimed a territory, at some point took it away from some other tribe that was living there before them, before any historical record was written.

If I personally wronged you, then I owe you recompense to make you whole. If my great-granddaddy wronged your great-granddaddy, and they're both dead...well, that pretty much ends the matter.

Otherwise we might as well throw away all current titles and give everyone forty acres by random lottery, whether it is downtown Denver, a General Motors factory outside Chicago, or a patch of desert in Death Valley Arizona.

It won't work. If you did that, in twenty years there would be those who owned forty thousand acres, and those who'd lost everything they had. Outcomes are not equal because people aren't.
 
Ah.

So you support taking property and wealth from people who are "not your kind" and giving it to people who "are your kind", based on things that happened centuries ago, the principles of whom are all long dead.

No self-intrest involved, I'm sure.

Where can be found any piece of ground, other than the Arctic and Antarctic, that didn't belong to someone else at some point in history? Probably nowhere. Probably every Amerind tribe that ever claimed a territory, at some point took it away from some other tribe that was living there before them, before any historical record was written.

If I personally wronged you, then I owe you recompense to make you whole. If my great-granddaddy wronged your great-granddaddy, and they're both dead...well, that pretty much ends the matter.

Otherwise we might as well throw away all current titles and give everyone forty acres by random lottery, whether it is downtown Denver, a General Motors factory outside Chicago, or a patch of desert in Death Valley Arizona.

It won't work. If you did that, in twenty years there would be those who owned forty thousand acres, and those who'd lost everything they had. Outcomes are not equal because people aren't.

Actually, there isn't self-interest involved. I'm well-off enough and not even on my own rez anyway. I just consider myself an exception to a general rule.

It's fallacious to believe that personal complicity is a necessary condition of being in possession of stolen property. If Joe steals John's property and passes it down to his grandson Jim, that hardly changes the fact that it rightfully belongs to John's grandson Jones, regardless of the fact that Jim didn't steal anything. That he's in possession of stolen property is the issue.

This does apply to everyone and everything to some extent. As I said in another thread:

Firstly, not all indigenous groups were "tribes." There were several regional entities that could reasonably be called "states." Secondly, I already responded that the Navajo and Apache and their common ancestors stole land and resources from Pueblo communities. I said that if this interfered with current private property rights of the Pueblo, they were entitled to reparation. It's simply that it's far more clear-cut that current ownership by the U.S. government interferes with all sorts of indigenous private property rights.

Now, says Rothbard:

In Portugal, there is no land problem north of the Tagus River, where no land conquest or expropriations took place, and where the land is consequently marked by private peasant proprietors and there is no cause for land reform. Southeast of the Tagus, however, is a land conquered centuries ago from the Moslems, with the peasants expropriated by State creation of large feudal estates. It is in southern Portugal, then, where land reform is a very live issue

Every assumption that equality of opportunity exists is an implicit assumption that free markets exist, which we know to be false. State-managed markets exist, and current property distribution is capitalism's inheritance from the feudalist economy. Libertarian principles demand the restoration of private property to those that are entitled to them. What matters is not the personal complicity of present actors, but the ways in which aggressive acquisition in times past affect the conditions and opportunities of people today.

I want to see a meritocratic free market where people rise and fall based on their abilities and willingness to work hard, not a state-managed and centrally planned economy where the fates of so many are predetermined by government protection of past theft.
 
Assertions that progressive taxation is theft or that corporate taxation is a punishment of the productive is an implicit assumption that free markets exist when they do not. State-managed markets exist, and current property distribution has the hand of statism behind it. I don't shed tears when the owners of stolen property are taxed


Taking my money to give it to someone else for supposed past wrongs is not "libertarianism", sorry.

Where exactly have you gotten the idea that what you call "leftwing libertarianism" is something completely different than just plain old "libertarianism"? Why or how did Roderick Long become a left-libertarian? - The Mises Community


From this thing called "reality". taking my money to pay someone else for percieved injustices of others, is not any kind of libertarianism i have heard of. :shrug:



If openly forcible or fraudulent aggression in times past affects current market structure, reparation/redistribution is necessary.



by committing the same fraudulent agression onfolks like me? this is your version of "libertarianism"?



:roll:


:roll:

It's not about personal complicity; it's about the modern consequences created by the aggression of ancestors. The present distribution of wealth and property has been directly influenced by past aggression, since effectively all existing property was either unjustly acquired at some point or created through some other resource or capital good that was itself unjustly acquired or created by something that was. Rothbard put it this way:


sounds like left wing bull**** to me. :shrug:






But yea...I'm sure Murray Rothbard isn't a real libertarian...



You've never heard of Murray Rothbard? That's probably because you're a standard conservative looking for an exotic label, but far be it from me to judge. Just try to remember that libertarians are not Republicans in Halloween costumes.


I know him fairly well, I never considered the racist a true libertarian but more a scourge on the liberty movement. :shrug:




I'm comfortable in my liberty minded ways.... I don't need to pretend to be one thing, while advocating something as far left and statist as the notion of reparations.....
 
Last edited:
also "cochise" from "Chinle, Arizona", 91% native american, navajo reservation, etc... your desire for reparations wouldn't be personal now would it? :roll:



Well whatever it is, it's not "libertarianism". :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom