Absolutely minarchist. i always saw what the anarchists described as the means for settling disputes as refuting anarchy. It is government in all but name.Anyone /minarchist/ here? I also sympathize with anarchists.
From all that I've witnessed, that's what the average Libertarian believes. It's only a few who imagine that complete anarchy is compatible with individual freedom.
Absolutely minarchist. i always saw what the anarchists described as the means for settling disputes as refuting anarchy. It is government in all but name.
I think it is a good ruling, but not for the usual political reasons everybody is always screaming about. In my own opinion, no POTUS has, or should have the authority to amend or create laws. And essentially, in creating this policy, this is what Pres. Obama did. To override the authority of congress is not acceptable.What does everyone here think of this recent news?
Immigration Ruling Leaves Millions in Limbo; Obama to Appeal - WSJ
While I do not agree on open borders, that is a discussion for another thread. My point here is that no sitting POTUS should have the authority to legislate, which is essentially what his immigration e.o. did. For this reason, it must be turned back. And changes in the law must come from congress, NOT the desk of the POTUS.I oppose most restrictions on travel between countries. Putting up walls to keep people out also keeps us in. The right to travel is a natural human right, like the other rights, i.e. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.
The death penalty is way wrong. So many people are wrongly convicted, at least 10%. Only God knows who deserves to die. Murderers can repent and be good Christians like anyone else can. The prison system is a for-profit institution based on greed, like much of the corruption in our society. We have way too many imprisoned for trivial offenses as well as wrongful conviction by corrupt officials.
Do we hear from the Free State Project around here? That's a libertarian effort, you know. I write a lot on their forum at http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=63.0.
Welcome to the board and to the 'Pub'. i've been 'oppressing' people since 1986. Winning the Presidency for two terms isn't going to make freedom happen. There is so much that needs be undone in this country that it would take a couple of decades to set it to right. Like it or not, we have to find a way to do it such that the least number of people are permanently harmed consistent with the Libertarian principle of non-aggression.Anyone else feel like oppressing people by leaving them alone to make their own choices?
I think the president and Congress should be abolished, so we can be oppressed by governments closer to home.While I do not agree on open borders, that is a discussion for another thread. My point here is that no sitting POTUS should have the authority to legislate, which is essentially what his immigration e.o. did. For this reason, it must be turned back. And changes in the law must come from congress, NOT the desk of the POTUS.
Apology accepted...for now. However be aware that i'm not a patient man. i'll give you 40 years to stop oppressing me by leaving me alone in the conduct of my own life, and then...i'll probably be too dead to care about it...and I want to take this opportunity to apologize for "oppressing" you, Calvinist Dark Lord.
I don't know you, or much of anything about you, and I haven't had any previous contact with you that I recall...so I'm being told that because I have allowed you to live your own life as you choose to live it, this means I've oppressed you. Sorry.
Welcome to the board and to the 'Pub'. i've been 'oppressing' people since 1986. Winning the Presidency for two terms isn't going to make freedom happen. There is so much that needs be undone in this country that it would take a couple of decades to set it to right. Like it or not, we have to find a way to do it such that the least number of people are permanently harmed consistent with the Libertarian principle of non-aggression.
Trying to get those reforms past career politicians would prove to be a challenge due to the fascists pretending to be capitalists or socialists on both the right and the left.
Been that way since the 1940 election, when the Repukelicans selected former Demonrat Wendall Willkie to run against FDR. There was no real difference between the two of them.I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson because Billary and the Hairpiece are two sides of the same coin.
This is the "rub" for all minor parties. If they go for the most electable candidates in order to look serious, they usually have to compromise their policies; but if they go for the philosophically-sound candidate (usually a party worker who's unknown the outside world and has almost no political resume), they attract little attention from the media and, consequently, the voters.i'm worried about what has become of the party as of late. When Barr won the nomination in 2008, there were some shenanigans with the guy who became his running mate, Wayne Allen Root. i happen to think that Mary Ruwart would have been a better candidate than Barr, and she was leading until Root, running in third place threw his support to Barr.
Although i held my nose and voted for Barr (he was IMO the best candidate of the bunch), i thought that Mary Ruwart was the stronger candidate, especially as Sarah Palin was running on the Repukelican side. Dr. Ruwart is a VERY intelligent woman, and had a great deal to offer.This is the "rub" for all minor parties. If they go for the most electable candidates in order to look serious, they usually have to compromise their policies; but if they go for the philosophically-sound candidate (usually a party worker who's unknown the outside world and has almost no political resume), they attract little attention from the media and, consequently, the voters.
Barr seemed to me at least to have made the effort to toe the Libertarian line for the most part. Johnson is just a liberal (and Weld moreso), except for the parts of the Libertarian platform that are least attractive to the average voter. This election and this ticket should provide an interesting case study in "which way to go," however.
Let's face it: NO Libertarian is at this time going to win the Presidency. However, what i believe you may be missing is the idea that there is a third reason that the Libertarians even field a Presidential candidate: Namely to expose the general public to the ideas of Libertariansim. We ALL know that Johnson stands no chance at all of being elected. However getting the general voting public exposed to the ideas of Libertarianism is worth the bother.
That doesn't look like Bill Weld.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?