Libertarians

[Kathianne]

The Constitution does not suggest doing away with government restrictions on all self-destructive behaviors, nor do I. However, our current selectivity of which "self-destructive" behaviors we DO do away with is based solely on some activist and/or minority group crying like babies and/or stupid preconceived notions based on government propaganda.

Our government and its laws no longer reflect the Bill of Rights. It reflects a bureaucracy more intent on serving itself than the people. It's nothing more than the largest union in the country.

An example from Congressional hearing today:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ing-412601281/

House report: Cash-strapped IRS prioritized bonuses, union activity over helping taxpayers

Published April 22, 2015

While facing budget cuts, the IRS nevertheless prioritized worker bonuses, union activity and the implementation of President Obama’s health care law over assisting taxpayers during tax season, according to a new report released Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee.

The findings, in a Republican-led report, were released ahead of a subcommittee hearing Wednesday morning with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
At the hearing, Koskinen stressed that the agency is significantly under-funded, and those cuts have consequences.

He said less funding means there will be a decline in service for taxpayers, and pledged that service would improve if they got more money.

"Customer service -- both on the phone and in person -- has been far worse than anyone would want. It's simply a matter of not having enough people to answer the phones and provide service at our walk-in sites as a result of cuts to our budget," he said.

...

However, while cuts were made in part to focus the agency on customer service, the report asserted that “spending decisions entirely under the IRS’s control led to 16 million fewer taxpayers receiving IRS assistance this filing season.”

The panel found the IRS had cut customer services while continuing to hand out bonuses to employees, allowing staff to conduct union activities, failing to collect debt owed by employees of the federal government and spending over $1.2 billion on implementing ObamaCare.
...

While acknowledging that the agency has cut the amount of time spent on discretionary union activity, the report questioned why it could not have been decreased further, asserting that “the amount of resources spent on discretionary union activity could have assisted nearly 2.5 million taxpayers.”

The report noted that while the IRS’s implementation of ObamaCare was deemed a success by Koskinen, “the IRS achieved this supposed success by prioritizing … implementation over other activities, including core responsibilities like taxpayer assistance.”

The panel also claimed the agency had failed to pursue recommendations for streamlining and reducing waste
and abuse. It concluded that what it called “large areas of systemic waste and inefficiency” present in 2010 remained unaddressed in 2015, and highlighted in particular that the IRS spent $2.1 million on litigation services that the government could have conducted itself.

[Gunny]

An example from Congressional hearing today:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ing-412601281/

Sounds about right.

[fj1200]

I do not make the case that Unions' 'state granted power' is Libertarian. I do say that Unions have a long track record of fighting for what THEY consider are 'freedoms' and instances of so-called 'needed justice'. I do not say that giving in to such demands is, of itself, Libertarian.

Um, yes you do.

It seems to me that those Unionists could cite Libertarianism as a defence for their disgusting, antisocial behaviour. I mean, why not ? Each Trade Unionist would put his, or her, individual 'rights' above others. And mob rule resulted.

Unless you're now admitting that you're wrong. Because you attempt to split hairs and invoke something that is opposite of what a Libertarian would advocate.

I'm simply saying that individuals banded together to form Unions, to make and insist upon those demands. Becoming collective entities gave them power. This over time made them power-drunk, and irremediably wedded to the concept of 'the collective' being everything. Ultimately, Margaret Thatcher had to bring them to heel ... using STATE POWERS to do it.

Admitting you're wrong would be OK too.

YOU CANNOT NOT BE.

How many ways must I tell you how wrong you are? There are plenty of other threads in which I've done so and you've abandoned them. There is no rule agaisnt reopening them.

FJ should...

I don't think Gunny really cares about what you think I should do.

[fj1200]

I do not make the case that Unions' 'state granted power' is Libertarian. I do say that Unions have a long track record of fighting for what THEY consider are 'freedoms' and instances of so-called 'needed justice'. I do not say that giving in to such demands is, of itself, Libertarian.

Um, yes you do. ... Because you attempt to split hairs and invoke something that is opposite of what a Libertarian would advocate.

I'll expand a bit. Making the case as you do that a unions desire to assert their "freedoms" against the property of another is akin to a mass murderer desiring to assert their "freedom" against the lives of other individuals. At the core of a Libertarian desiring to assert their rights as an individual; life, liberty, and property in this case, is also the restraint to try and assert power over the natural rights of other individuals.

I hope this helps.

[tailfins]

I'll expand a bit. Making the case as you do that a unions desire to assert their "freedoms" against the property of another is akin to a mass murderer desiring to assert their "freedom" against the lives of other individuals. At the core of a Libertarian desiring to assert their rights as an individual; life, liberty, and property in this case, is also the restraint to try and assert power over the natural rights of other individuals.

I hope this helps.

When you're not in power, you can be all things to all people. Even Marxists can be Libertarians.

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

[fj1200]

When you're not in power, you can be all things to all people. Even Marxists can be Libertarians.

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

As pointed out before, just tacking on 'libertarian' in front of something that is automatically the opposite of libertarian doesn't construe libertarianism on the primary subject; Marxism... or on Socialism as attempted before.

Libertarian Marxism refers to a broad scope of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism.

Anyone can say that Socialism, Marxism, etc. would be wonderful examples upon which to build a society and anyone can also say that libertarian is a great ideal that can coexist with them but... that would be pure theory as Socialism, Marxism, etc. require state coercion on property, liberty, and ultimately life.

[tailfins]

As pointed out before, just tacking on 'libertarian' in front of something that is automatically the opposite of libertarian doesn't construe libertarianism on the primary subject; Marxism... or on Socialism as attempted before.



Anyone can say that Socialism, Marxism, etc. would be wonderful examples upon which to build a society and anyone can also say that libertarian is a great ideal that can coexist with them but... that would be pure theory as Socialism, Marxism, etc. require state coercion on property, liberty, and ultimately life.

If you want an example of what effect a successful Libertarian Party would have, study what the Reform Party did to the Progressive Conservatives in Canada. It put the Liberals in power for well over a decade. Was all that time being powerless worth dropping "Progressive" from their name? You can talk about philosophy all day long; what matters are the results and deeds.

[fj1200]

If you want an example of what effect a successful Libertarian Party would have, study what the Reform Party did to the Progressive Conservatives in Canada. It put the Liberals in power for well over a decade. Was all that time being powerless worth dropping "Progressive" from their name? You can talk about philosophy all day long; what matters are the results and deeds.

Actually I consider a Libertarian Party success here is influencing the Republican Party platform. The fact is that the US is significantly different in our national government than Canada and, IMO, favors a two-party system which will limit any real chances at any long-term third party success. In very few instances does a third party have much electoral impact.

Of course that would all be solved when I repeal the 18th Amendment and require all Federal elections be decided by a run off if no one obtains a majority.

[Kathianne]

Actually I consider a Libertarian Party success here is influencing the Republican Party platform. The fact is that the US is significantly different in our national government than Canada and, IMO, favors a two-party system which will limit any real chances at any long-term third party success. In very few instances does a third party have much electoral impact.

Of course that would all be solved when I repeal the 18th Amendment and require all Federal elections be decided by a run off if no one obtains a majority.

I love the electoral college.

[tailfins]

I love the electoral college.

So do I. Without it, the Democrats could get enough votes in Illinois alone to win the Presidency.

[Drummond]

Um, yes you do.

Rot.

Unless you're now admitting that you're wrong. Because you attempt to split hairs and invoke something that is opposite of what a Libertarian would advocate.

Sometimes people, and institutions, are the opposite of what they say they are.

The old 'DDR', for example .. or, German Democratic Republic. Was it what it claimed to be, or, was it a satellite country of the old Soviet Union ?

Libertarianism is all about the rights of the individual. BUT, how much power does a single individual have ? There's power in numbers. Libertarians, here, learned that long ago. Unions were meant to address this.

Admitting you're wrong would be OK too.

Not when I'm right, it wouldn't. How about practising what you preach ??

How many ways must I tell you how wrong you are?

As many times as your desire to mislead, misrepresent, and exercise your ego, tells you that you must, of course.

Alternatively, you could start to post HONESTLY. Try it sometime. Instead of arguing in favour of contrary positions, and insisting that they're all right ...

There are plenty of other threads in which I've done so and you've abandoned them. There is no rule against [TYPO CORRECTED] reopening them.

And restart another plethora of your gratuitous insults and other abuse ? There are plenty of other threads where you've been bested, but you won't concede it (e.g your ridiculous nonsense about the UK going the way of Greece ..). Instead, you cover for your failures by using shabby tactics that any Leftie troll would be familiar with.

[Gunny]

When you're not in power, you can be all things to all people. Even Marxists can be Libertarians.

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

You're missing the point. When you aren't a Republican definition of conservative or a Democratic definition of "liberal", (both party's definitions being WRONG), you're a "libertarian". Or "Tea Partier" Because those who use blind labels must have a blind label. Those of us that refuse to be a blind label get called all kinds of stuff by those that think in a black or white only sieve.

Follow the party line or you're a __________.

"Libertarian" is just the latest label.

[fj1200]

Libertarianism is all about the rights of the individual. BUT, how much power does a single individual have ? There's power in numbers. Libertarians, here, learned that long ago. Unions were meant to address this.

You have to work hard to be this off topic. You've never identified Libertarians there.

BTW, try pointing out a thread where I've been "bested." Better yet actually open one and defend your position rather than dragging yet another thread off into your imagination.

[Gunny]

If you want an example of what effect a successful Libertarian Party would have, study what the Reform Party did to the Progressive Conservatives in Canada. It put the Liberals in power for well over a decade. Was all that time being powerless worth dropping "Progressive" from their name? You can talk about philosophy all day long; what matters are the results and deeds.

The only self-professed "libertarians" in office in the US are RIGHT libertarians. Basically, 1930s isolationist conservatives. We aren't Canada.

[Gunny]

So do I. Without it, the Democrats could get enough votes in Illinois alone to win the Presidency.

Doubtful. The Dems in IL have only Chicago. The rest of the people in the state are predominately conservative.

The electoral college nullifies your vote and puts it in the hands of someone presuming to think for you.