Opinion of Woodrow Wilson

[Mechaman]

What, sane libertarians?!

Mind boggling isn't it?

Impossible!  You simply must be insane.  You're so much easier to strawman when you actually believe in your strawmen.

That's what the voices in my head tell me everyday.

[ilikeverin]

What, sane libertarians?!

Mind boggling isn't it?

Impossible!  You simply must be insane.  You're so much easier to strawman when you actually believe in your strawmen.

That's what the voices in my head tell me everyday.

That's what she said last night.

OMG FIRST DEGREE BURN apply aloe vera and lidocaine as needed

[Mechaman]

What, sane libertarians?!

Mind boggling isn't it?

Impossible!  You simply must be insane.  You're so much easier to strawman when you actually believe in your strawmen.

That's what the voices in my head tell me everyday.

That's what she said last night.

OMG FIRST DEGREE BURN apply aloe vera and lidocaine as needed

Who? Your sister?
OMG SECOND DEGREE BURN time to visit the doctor!

[SPC]

Let's see:
*Supported eugenics
*Started the IRS
*Started the Federal Reserve
*Got America into World War I
*Cracked Down on Free Speech
*Implemented War-Time Rationing
*Pushed for the League of Nations

I'd say one of the biggest HPs we've had in the White House, third only to Lincoln and Roosevelt.

[Phony Moderate]

HP for his social and foreign policy.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I believe the Antitrust Act and the income tax were the only good things he did. Monopolies are no good for the free market, and the income tax helped reduce the need for tariffs.

As a libertarian, you should know better than to support breaking up successful ventures, unless they fix prices or other such behaviour.

I take more of a moderate stance on economic matters. In that instance, I suppose I'm a bad libertarian

Supporting slavery a.k.a. the income tax makes you not a libertarian at all.

That mentality is what prevents libertarianism from ever becoming viable. You have to be open to a big tent like the two major parties, to accomplish any of your goals at all. It's called compromise.

Libertarians necessarily must accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable. Robbery at gunpoint, by any name, is clearly a violation.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I believe the Antitrust Act and the income tax were the only good things he did. Monopolies are no good for the free market, and the income tax helped reduce the need for tariffs.

As a libertarian, you should know better than to support breaking up successful ventures, unless they fix prices or other such behaviour.

I take more of a moderate stance on economic matters. In that instance, I suppose I'm a bad libertarian

Supporting slavery a.k.a. the income tax makes you not a libertarian at all.

That mentality is what prevents libertarianism from ever becoming viable. You have to be open to a big tent like the two major parties, to accomplish any of your goals at all. It's called compromise.

Libertarians necessarily must accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable. Robbery at gunpoint, by any name, is clearly a violation.

Income tax>sales tax>property tax

[Mechaman]

I believe the Antitrust Act and the income tax were the only good things he did. Monopolies are no good for the free market, and the income tax helped reduce the need for tariffs.

As a libertarian, you should know better than to support breaking up successful ventures, unless they fix prices or other such behaviour.

I take more of a moderate stance on economic matters. In that instance, I suppose I'm a bad libertarian

Supporting slavery a.k.a. the income tax makes you not a libertarian at all.

That mentality is what prevents libertarianism from ever becoming viable. You have to be open to a big tent like the two major parties, to accomplish any of your goals at all. It's called compromise.

Libertarians necessarily must accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable. Robbery at gunpoint, by any name, is clearly a violation.

If that is indeed the case, why even have a government? After all, whether you like government or not, the institution of government can not exist if there is no coercive powers granted to it. If libertarians have to accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable they accept anarchy. If there is really no difference between libertarianism and anarchism what is the point of calling oneself a "libertarian"?

[WillK]

I believe the Antitrust Act and the income tax were the only good things he did. Monopolies are no good for the free market, and the income tax helped reduce the need for tariffs.

As a libertarian, you should know better than to support breaking up successful ventures, unless they fix prices or other such behaviour.

I take more of a moderate stance on economic matters. In that instance, I suppose I'm a bad libertarian

Supporting slavery a.k.a. the income tax makes you not a libertarian at all.

That mentality is what prevents libertarianism from ever becoming viable. You have to be open to a big tent like the two major parties, to accomplish any of your goals at all. It's called compromise.

Libertarians necessarily must accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable. Robbery at gunpoint, by any name, is clearly a violation.

Income tax>sales tax>property tax

Income tax<sales tax<property tax

[Alexander Hamilton]

I believe the Antitrust Act and the income tax were the only good things he did. Monopolies are no good for the free market, and the income tax helped reduce the need for tariffs.

As a libertarian, you should know better than to support breaking up successful ventures, unless they fix prices or other such behaviour.

I take more of a moderate stance on economic matters. In that instance, I suppose I'm a bad libertarian

Supporting slavery a.k.a. the income tax makes you not a libertarian at all.

That mentality is what prevents libertarianism from ever becoming viable. You have to be open to a big tent like the two major parties, to accomplish any of your goals at all. It's called compromise.

Libertarians necessarily must accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable. Robbery at gunpoint, by any name, is clearly a violation.

Income tax>sales tax>property tax

Income tax<sales tax<property tax

You hate the middle class?

[WillK]

...
Income tax>sales tax>property tax

Income tax<sales tax<property tax
[/quote]

You hate the middle class?
[/quote]

Huh?  Class has nothing to do with what I wrote.  I as expressing an opinion as to which form of taxation I think is preferable.

[Alexander Hamilton]

...
Income tax>sales tax>property tax

Income tax<sales tax<property tax

You hate the middle class?
[/quote]

Huh?  Class has nothing to do with what I wrote.  I as expressing an opinion as to which form of taxation I think is preferable.
[/quote]

I put them in an order of which ones are best for middle class.

[RScannix]

Income tax>sales tax>property tax

So there ARE people who think like me??? Fascinating....

[rebeltarian]

Woodrow Wilson: beginning of the end for American sovereignty and neutrality.  Worst President ever, period.

[Хahar 🤔]

You know that American neutrality was nothing more than retroactive justification by George Washington for the failure of the French alliance, I hope.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You know that American neutrality was nothing more than retroactive justification by George Washington for the failure of the French alliance, I hope.

Besides the fact that we had distinct pro-Britain and pro-France groups that didn't get along well, you mean?

[Хahar 🤔]

You know that American neutrality was nothing more than retroactive justification by George Washington for the failure of the French alliance, I hope.

Besides the fact that we had distinct pro-Britain and pro-France groups that didn't get along well, you mean?

Oh, that's certainly true. And Washington was pro-British. His Farewell Address did exactly what he wanted it to do; make it seem to posterity that he was an impartial moderator.

[rebeltarian]

But led America through WW1 and introduced internationalism to America. And proved that Isolationism is nothing  but a cowardly and failed policy.

Yeah, and how has that interventionism worked out for us in Korea, Vietnam, Solamia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Хahar 🤔]

But led America through WW1 and introduced internationalism to America. And proved that Isolationism is nothing  but a cowardly and failed policy.

Yeah, and how has that interventionism worked out for us in Korea, Vietnam, Solamia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq?

Korea was, broadly speaking, a successful war.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Income tax>sales tax>property tax

I won't nitpick over the different forms of legalized armed robbery. But the fact alone that the income tax enables the state to snoop so deeply into the personal business of individuals while stealing the fruits of their labor makes it far more offensive than the sales tax.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Woodrow Wilson: beginning of the end for American sovereignty and neutrality.  Worst President ever, period.

lolololololololololololol

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

If that is indeed the case, why even have a government? After all, whether you like government or not, the institution of government can not exist if there is no coercive powers granted to it. If libertarians have to accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable they accept anarchy. If there is really no difference between libertarianism and anarchism what is the point of calling oneself a "libertarian"?

We have a government because this is earth, not Heaven. We can't go back to the garden of Eden. Of course anarchy would be ideal but we need a dose of pragmatism to move forward in this dark age.

According to Harry Reid, paying taxes is voluntary in the U.S. Reid is a lying slimeball, but that is the way it should be if we wish to call ourselves a free society.

[Хahar 🤔]

If that is indeed the case, why even have a government? After all, whether you like government or not, the institution of government can not exist if there is no coercive powers granted to it. If libertarians have to accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable they accept anarchy. If there is really no difference between libertarianism and anarchism what is the point of calling oneself a "libertarian"?

We have a government because this is earth, not Heaven. We can't go back to the garden of Eden. Of course anarchy would be ideal but we need a dose of pragmatism to move forward in this dark age.

According to Harry Reid, paying taxes is voluntary in the U.S. Reid is a lying slimeball, but that is the way it should be if we wish to call ourselves a free society.

If taxes are voluntary, then nobody will pay them, since nobody enjoys paying taxes. We will have anarchy. How does an anarchistic society deal with crime?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

If that is indeed the case, why even have a government? After all, whether you like government or not, the institution of government can not exist if there is no coercive powers granted to it. If libertarians have to accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable they accept anarchy. If there is really no difference between libertarianism and anarchism what is the point of calling oneself a "libertarian"?

We have a government because this is earth, not Heaven. We can't go back to the garden of Eden. Of course anarchy would be ideal but we need a dose of pragmatism to move forward in this dark age.

According to Harry Reid, paying taxes is voluntary in the U.S. Reid is a lying slimeball, but that is the way it should be if we wish to call ourselves a free society.

If taxes are voluntary, then nobody will pay them, since nobody enjoys paying taxes. We will have anarchy. How does an anarchistic society deal with crime?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I thought government was the will of the people? If they really want it, they will pay for it. That's how everything else on the market works. If people are willing to voluntarily spend their money on superfluous luxuries like big screen TVs and SUVs, why wouldn't they be willing to make the investment to protect themselves and their property? If one government fails, a new one will arise that would meet the needs of the people. Just as with any other provider of services on the free market.

Anyway that's besides the point considering that the government today is involved in a million-and-one things other than its original stated goal of protecting people and their property and maintaining law and order. Not to mention the fact that today's militarized police spend more time protecting the government from the people and fleecing citizens to generate revenue for the state than actually serving and protecting the people.

[ilikeverin]

If that is indeed the case, why even have a government? After all, whether you like government or not, the institution of government can not exist if there is no coercive powers granted to it. If libertarians have to accept the non-aggression principle as inviolable they accept anarchy. If there is really no difference between libertarianism and anarchism what is the point of calling oneself a "libertarian"?

We have a government because this is earth, not Heaven. We can't go back to the garden of Eden. Of course anarchy would be ideal but we need a dose of pragmatism to move forward in this dark age.

According to Harry Reid, paying taxes is voluntary in the U.S. Reid is a lying slimeball, but that is the way it should be if we wish to call ourselves a free society.

If taxes are voluntary, then nobody will pay them, since nobody enjoys paying taxes. We will have anarchy. How does an anarchistic society deal with crime?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I thought government was the will of the people? If they really want it, they will pay for it. That's how everything else on the market works. If people are willing to voluntarily spend their money on superfluous luxuries like big screen TVs and SUVs, why wouldn't they be willing to make the investment to protect themselves and their property? If one government fails, a new one will arise that would meet the needs of the people. Just as with any other provider of services on the free market.

Anyway that's besides the point considering that the government today is involved in a million-and-one things other than its original stated goal of protecting people and their property and maintaining law and order. Not to mention the fact that today's militarized police spend more time protecting the government from the people and fleecing citizens to generate revenue for the state than actually serving and protecting the people.

You should meet bono.  You'd get along smashingly.