It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America: Vote Libertarian or We're Finished

page: 5
45
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThichHeaded
a reply to: greencmp

Then from what you say that isnt either of those..

I stated earlier I have twists and turns on things.. But in the end I let the Constitution guild me because well it did really well for 130 or so yrs right theantediluvian ?(notice here I am not liking a particular amendment here because it wasn't actually voted on properly..)

But really I believe everything I type here.. I dont fight what the constitution says because as I said it is right mostly.. If we followed it we would be alot better off in all facids of life except the 16th amendment and Federal Reserve Act..(Those were shady dealings in the 1st place.)


I agree, all of the above. The 16th was not properly enacted so we have a good case against it and the fed, well, I don't think we have as much resistance from voters on that either. Both are unifying positions.




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   


Who came at who first?
You didn't like my opinion of the posters comments.

Actually no. I didn't "come at" anyone? You've actually just quoted somebody else's comment.



I have The Right to Disagree, Which Apparently you Don't Believe I should Have, I have The Right To State My Opinion, Which Apparently You Don't Like Me Having.

I never said anything even remotely like this.



After your comment about Gun Hoarding Nuts, You Really want anyone here to believe you own a gun.

Again, I didn't say anything about "gun hoarding nuts" either. Perhaps you intended to respond to somebody else's comment?

EDIT:
Regardless of the fact that you've confused me another poster and are attributing things to me that I did not say, the fact does remain that you did say:



Bassago, My Friend, Please,,,, If we ever got the Opportunity to take all that away from theantediluvian, He / She would Curl Up in the Fetal Position and Hold Their HOA Coupon Payment Book as their Last Life Line To Sanity!


Regardless of who you intended to direct this to, you're obviously confused about what Libertarianism is. The object of a Libertarian society is not to remove the impediments to armed robbery.
edit on 2014-4-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: greencmp



We simply don't have the option of isolationism, we really, really don't. I hope that this doesn't become the deal breaker for a political unification strategy. And our problems are bigger than even that.

how are we going to get the Libertarian and Constitution parties to see eye to eye? The abortion issue doesn't appear to be negotiable.


Can you expand on those a bit? Why can't we become more isolationist? I don't mean in business areas but militarily. Anyone looking at a map of US bases around the world has got to be scratching their heads questioning the logic of that. I say close most of them down. The Chinese and Russians are not going to invade us. Heck they'd probably be more willing to work with us internationally if we stepped back a bit.

As far as abortion I'm also unsure what you mean. Libertarians should not be involved in that discussion unless it's them getting an abortion. Is the Constitution party against abortion?


Yeah, the "constitution party" is expressly anti-abortion.

We have the most powerful military in the world but, it isn't the only military in the world. Much like personal defense, a nation must maintain a state of readiness for conflict at all times. I do, however, think we should require congress to actually declare war when we go to war which is the lion's share of the arguments against most of the conflicts which we have found ourselves in since WWII.

In Europe, it was our presence that had kept the soviets from further encroachment not any good will on their part. China is a communist totalitarian megacorporation with a vast military and an outspoken plan for expansion.

Diplomacy only works if you have the military capability to back up your words.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

OK thanks. So apparently the constitution party only believes in personal freedom when they agree with it. Sounds like a typical republican idea of trying to pretend they're for true liberty but really aren't.

I still think our military presence globally is ridiculous. Nobody, China or anyone else is going to invade us as we have the biggest nuclear stick in the world. I might care about foreign wars and conquests a bit more if the US wasn't in such a shambles.

When your own house is a disaster area it makes sense to me that we would stay home to repair it before going to the neighbors and complaining about their lawn. In this regard I think the Libertarians can help us with our neocon problem.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

I agree with you halfway. As a "conservative" I know damned well I have NO ONE representing me in either party. For people who think the Republican party is the home of conservatism, it may have been at one time, but if it ever was, it certainly isn't any more. Nothing but a bunch of spineless, mealy-mouthed jellyfish is all they are. They are "Dem-lite," that's all. Half the leftism, same terrible flavor. No one comes out harder against conservatives than establishment "Republican" idiots like John McCain. He won't take on leftists, but he'll stab a conservative in the back every chance he gets. He's but one of most Rs who are like that. I didn't leave the Republican party, they left me, and all conservatives.
I doubt 80% of the polticians in the nation even understand the difference between a Democracy (which they continually brainwash everyone into thinking we are) vs. a Representative Republic (which they never educate anyone about, instead insisting on calling ourselves a "Democracy" until the term soaks into every skull full of mush)

I agree that both parties are completely worthless, but putting both parties on notice by voting libertarian and righting the sinking ship would have worked, 20 years ago. Now? Now, the patient, having waited for a cure for far too long, is terminal, regardless of whatever cure is attempted now. I really think we're past the point of no return in the USA. Both parties are too entrenched, too out of touch with reality to self correct, and too arrogant to know world history and how they might be impacted by history that repeats itself.

I'm afraid it's going to have to get drastically worse before it gets better, but I'm just one guy with one opinion, and I hope I'm wrong. I will be voting for anyone who realizes that bigger govt = less liberty, smaller govt. = more liberty. Anyone who can comprehend this ridiculously simple to understand inverse proportion gets my vote.
'

edit on 21-4-2014 by Gozer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Most of the debate seems to be understandably about liberty but has anyone considered that liberty is not in of itself a solution but rather a result? What I'm driving at is would anyone care to elaborate on how the Libertarian Party's policies might accomplish something like increasing the size of the dwindling middle class, specifically?
edit on 2014-4-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Reduced government bureaucracy, taxes, overhead, etc means that it is easier for anyone to start a business. With the resurge of small businesses that don't have the means to outsource will employ locally, creating more and more jobs for everyone else. Meanwhile, corporations that are too big too fail and require government subsidies just to stay afloat, would be forced to break apart allowing for room in the market for competition again.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Have to disagree with you there. I think beiber, who has millions and millions of fans, mostly our youngest and most impressionable, is JUST as bad as republicans and democrats. What a negative influence he is on the worlds youth. He's setting the example that yes, you can be a total douche and people will still love you, and you can get away with it.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

My Bad, You're Right, That was @ theplu , my apologies.
I got the two of you mixed up, Brain Fart of the Old.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

Reduced government bureaucracy, taxes, overhead, etc means that it is easier for anyone to start a business. With the resurge of small businesses that don't have the means to outsource will employ locally, creating more and more jobs for everyone else. Meanwhile, corporations that are too big too fail and require government subsidies just to stay afloat, would be forced to break apart allowing for room in the market for competition again.


I can understand and I completely agree with the premise that giving small businesses a tax break would encourage more small business and improve survival rates. I'm not sure precisely what you're referring to by "bureaucracy" but where applicable, I think that applying for licenses should be as painless as it can be and fees should always be as low as possible. However I think much of this is actually not at a federal level. Businesses with fewer than 50 full time employees are already exempt from many federal requirements including ESRP under the ACA.

Can you point to any examples of government subsidized corporations occupying a niche that would be better filled by small businesses? I certainly don't want to subsidize shareholder profits with my tax dollars. It should be noted that barring subsidies, there is nothing about Libertarian ideology that I'm aware of that holds that small business is more desirable than large corporations. In fact, is it not the natural evolution of the free market that large corporations will arise and in fact without regulation become monopolies?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Libertarian is my first vote now, then maybe Green party if I know it's a throw away vote.

I registered Republican back in the 80s because I actually believed Regan's trickle-up, er, um, trickle-down economics I mean, then I started voting split ticket for what ever party had the politician I thought would be the best choice. After awhile of that, the Libertarian candidates started getting more of my vote. These days, I'm too the point where I might go straight Libertarian.

Bottom line for me, Democrat gets a big FAT NO, Republican gets a mostly no, Libertarian yes, Constitutional or Green parties, maybe.

I want to clarify that our local Republicans here are more like the Libertarians and I hate to admit it, but if a Democrat seems likely to win, I might vote Republican if the candidate is right. That's something I probably shouldn't do. I do check the judges' political leanings when I can vote on them.


edit on 21-4-2014 by MichiganSwampBuck because: for clarity



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: greencmp

OK thanks. So apparently the constitution party only believes in personal freedom when they agree with it. Sounds like a typical republican idea of trying to pretend they're for true liberty but really aren't.

I still think our military presence globally is ridiculous. Nobody, China or anyone else is going to invade us as we have the biggest nuclear stick in the world. I might care about foreign wars and conquests a bit more if the US wasn't in such a shambles.

When your own house is a disaster area it makes sense to me that we would stay home to repair it before going to the neighbors and complaining about their lawn. In this regard I think the Libertarians can help us with our neocon problem.


Well, yes and no.

Their argument is, at the heart of it, identical to the libertarians, that individual freedom trumps all else. They just consider unborn babies as equal to ordinary citizens so a case can be made for a need for equal protection under the law.

There is a reason these issues aren't settled and there is always some valid argument to be made.
edit on 21-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

Reduced government bureaucracy, taxes, overhead, etc means that it is easier for anyone to start a business. With the resurge of small businesses that don't have the means to outsource will employ locally, creating more and more jobs for everyone else. Meanwhile, corporations that are too big too fail and require government subsidies just to stay afloat, would be forced to break apart allowing for room in the market for competition again.


I can understand and I completely agree with the premise that giving small businesses a tax break would encourage more small business and improve survival rates. I'm not sure precisely what you're referring to by "bureaucracy" but where applicable, I think that applying for licenses should be as painless as it can be and fees should always be as low as possible. However I think much of this is actually not at a federal level. Businesses with fewer than 50 full time employees are already exempt from many federal requirements including ESRP under the ACA.

Can you point to any examples of government subsidized corporations occupying a niche that would be better filled by small businesses? I certainly don't want to subsidize shareholder profits with my tax dollars. It should be noted that barring subsidies, there is nothing about Libertarian ideology that I'm aware of that holds that small business is more desirable than large corporations. In fact, is it not the natural evolution of the free market that large corporations will arise and in fact without regulation become monopolies?


No, the argument is that monopolies are born of the unholy alliance between corporations and the regulators themselves. Monopolies cannot last in a free market without the threat of state violence to curb and subvert competition.

Even the uncorrupted few regulators left are still attempting to strategically interfere with the free market with the intent of achieving a desired outcome. It doesn't work, it never has and it never will.

So, with regard to examples of government displacing and foiling real productive society, the evidence abounds.
edit on 21-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
An honest question, not trying to poke the flames or anything, but how does a vote for a libertarian help the struggling vast majority of Americans? Figure out how to sell that. The vast VAST majority just want to know how a politician will make their lives better. They don't care about tea parties or buzz words. What can the libertarian party do for me? You can argue that is the wrong question to ask but it is the one that voters will surely ask and maybe the only question that matters. If you can't answer that, then forget it.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Anonex

That's actually the right question.

From the OP:

The Libertarian Party is for all who don't want to push other people around and don't want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.

Just think about that idea for a moment. Just look at any societal or legal question through the "Live and let live" filter and you will begin to see what this will effect. Pretty much everything from what I can see.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp




No, the argument is that monopolies are born of the unholy alliance between corporations and the regulators themselves. Monopolies cannot last in a free market without the threat of state violence to curb and subvert competition.

Even the uncorrupted few regulators left are still attempting to strategically interfere with the free market with the intent of achieving a desired outcome. It doesn't work, it never has and it never will.

So, with regard to examples of government displacing and foiling real productive society, the evidence abounds.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but natural monopolies (and oligopolies) do in fact occur without any help from external forces. So you see no need for any regulation at all? What about price fixing/gouging? I suppose if the market leaders conspire in secret to artificially keep the cost of a good or service high, the government is behind that as well? A lack of perfect competition and perfect information will always insure that some level of intervention is required. It amazes me that you can have such an intense distrust for all things governmental on the one hand but a blind trust for corporations on the other. It seems to me that too much trust in either could have equally horrifying consequences.
edit on 2014-4-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Bassago
The government is bad, but it is often the only bulwark against the monied interests taking control even more than you can imagine. Read about the Robber Barons and The Mob.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Bassago
How is voting another party going to help? Did you even see what they did to Ron Paul this last election? They wouldn't even let him in on the debates or ticket.They can't have that cause he might of won,then where would we be with Russia and the Ukraine right now? probably a lot better off I think.


Well now they couldn't give the Paul any cred in public like that. Why if he were in on the debate folks may ascribe some standing to the party and a populist sort of party at theat. Oh the nightmare! Why just let Fox pick him up for a chit chat now and again as not to offend the lot of them. Make them think "conservatives" are giving them and ear, just not any debate podium.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian


In fact, is it not the natural evolution of the free market that large corporations will arise and in fact without regulation become monopolies?


Usually in the wake of their rise they have managed to close all the avenues for completion by way of self protective regulations, provided by lobby and legislation, that squeeze out upstarts or competition in a lesser state of evolution. This in from is the classic model. Or they pressure sell outs, seek to control recourses necessary of the survival of the monopoly. What doesn't sell out gets the squeeze.

Capitalism as an economic philosophy maintains an open ended growth maxim. Apologist do not entertain the idea that such a thing can cause any problems to an economy. Any problems that do arise to them are not problems but simple collateral damage to the weaker elements of an economy that is ever in motion and "growth". In short they don't ask how everyone can get a slice of this but rather how can we "consolidate" the production and supply chain. "Consolidation" here having nothing to do with running a profitably efficient business as much as it means consolidating options that the consumer has to do business with, restricting product competition on store shelves, controlling production recourses ect.


edit on 22-4-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   
(Scoops up mud and flings like all get out)

Go ahead and sell your souls into slavery, as you all shirk your own self representation responsibilities!


Monsters who will not speak only for themselves, speak for no one of importance, as they speak for slaves who are by definition speechless ... without a voice and with no say.

Example ... Rand Paul or whoever MAY represent ones political outlook ... but that can change in a heartbeat and then where is one?

OUT IN THE FREAKING POLITICAL COLD UNTIL THE ELECTIONS CYCLE AROUND! THAT IS WHERE!


Taxation without [self] representation is TYRANNY!

Vote for people and parties over pure policy at your own peril!




top topics



 
45
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join