three questions...

[WalterMitty]

among forum members...who was:

1. the most liberal bush supporter?
2.  the most conservative kerry supporter?
3. the sanest badnarik supporter?

[WalterMitty]

ok ill go first...

1.  waltermitty or angus
2. bob.
3.  sane badnarik supporter is an oxymoron.

[??????????]

ok ill go first...

1.  waltermitty or angus
2. bob.
3.  sane badnarik supporter is an oxymoron.

John Dibble isn't sane?

[WalterMitty]

ok ill go first...

1.  waltermitty or angus
2. bob.
3.  sane badnarik supporter is an oxymoron.

John Dibble isn't sane?

equating anti-smoking laws with fascism is a sane position?

[??????????]

ok ill go first...

1.  waltermitty or angus
2. bob.
3.  sane badnarik supporter is an oxymoron.

John Dibble isn't sane?

equating anti-smoking laws with fascism is a sane position?

Yes. You don't believe in property rights I suppose?

[WalterMitty]

ok ill go first...

1.  waltermitty or angus
2. bob.
3.  sane badnarik supporter is an oxymoron.

John Dibble isn't sane?

equating anti-smoking laws with fascism is a sane position?

Yes. You don't believe in property rights I suppose?

sure.

but ill also believe in enacting regulations to preserve the public health.

didnt the segregationists use that property rights argument back in the 60s?

[A18]

Yes, and they were completely right. Too bad the fed got away with its anti- civil rights legislation.

[??????????]

ok ill go first...

1.  waltermitty or angus
2. bob.
3.  sane badnarik supporter is an oxymoron.

John Dibble isn't sane?

equating anti-smoking laws with fascism is a sane position?

Yes. You don't believe in property rights I suppose?

sure.

but ill also believe in enacting regulations to preserve the public health.

didnt the segregationists use that property rights argument back in the 60s?

How a business runs itself is no business of the US Government. Its a blatant slap in the face of freedom and its equivalent to spitting on the Constitution. The problem is that the government was allowed to have this much power in the first place and you can thank the tyrant for that one.

[Akno21]

ok ill go first...

1.  waltermitty or angus
2. bob.
3.  sane badnarik supporter is an oxymoron.

John Dibble isn't sane?

equating anti-smoking laws with fascism is a sane position?

Yes. You don't believe in property rights I suppose?

sure.

but ill also believe in enacting regulations to preserve the public health.

didnt the segregationists use that property rights argument back in the 60s?

How a business runs itself is no business of the US Government. Its a blatant slap in the face of freedom and its equivalent to spitting on the Constitution. The problem is that the government was allowed to have this much power in the first place and you can thank the tyrant for that one.

If the government helps it, it should be under it's jurisdiction. By help, I mean send firefighters when theres a fire, build roads that go there, etc.

[??????????]

ok ill go first...

1.  waltermitty or angus
2. bob.
3.  sane badnarik supporter is an oxymoron.

John Dibble isn't sane?

equating anti-smoking laws with fascism is a sane position?

Yes. You don't believe in property rights I suppose?

sure.

but ill also believe in enacting regulations to preserve the public health.

didnt the segregationists use that property rights argument back in the 60s?

How a business runs itself is no business of the US Government. Its a blatant slap in the face of freedom and its equivalent to spitting on the Constitution. The problem is that the government was allowed to have this much power in the first place and you can thank the tyrant for that one.

If the government helps it, it should be under it's jurisdiction. By help, I mean send firefighters when theres a fire, build roads that go there, etc.

That's a ridiculous idea and it's flawed. Companies pay taxes so the services are already paid for.

[A18]

No, those are put in place for the mutual protection of public and private property, funded by the state's citizens (much more so by business owners). If anything, poor people should not have such protections, since they don't pay any taxes.

By your asinine logic, there are no property rights; and if government decides you have to let poor people sleep in your house, that's their right, since your home should be under their jurisdiction for the protection the state offers.

[John Dibble]

ok ill go first...

1.  waltermitty or angus
2. bob.
3.  sane badnarik supporter is an oxymoron.

John Dibble isn't sane?

equating anti-smoking laws with fascism is a sane position?

Yes. You don't believe in property rights I suppose?

sure.

but ill also believe in enacting regulations to preserve the public health.

didnt the segregationists use that property rights argument back in the 60s?

How a business runs itself is no business of the US Government. Its a blatant slap in the face of freedom and its equivalent to spitting on the Constitution. The problem is that the government was allowed to have this much power in the first place and you can thank the tyrant for that one.

If the government helps it, it should be under it's jurisdiction. By help, I mean send firefighters when theres a fire, build roads that go there, etc.

The government helps us by providing a military for our protection, therefore all citizens are under the government's jurisdiction and can do whatever it wants to them.

Careful with that logic, it's easily extended for the purposes of tyranny.

Also, as mentioned, those businesses and the citizens that own them pay taxes which make those services possible. They help the services exist in the first place.

[angus]

among forum members...who was:


2.  the most conservative kerry supporter?

ian or carlhayden maybe.  what happened to Ben?

I agree with badnarik and dibble on more issues than not, so I'm not a true liberal, but probably closer to a libertarian.  My main problem with their platform comes from economic extremism:  IRS abolition, public school abolition, and the like.  You cannot go back to Jefferson's agrarian America, and it's foolish to try, and I'm not sure I'd want to anyway.

[MaC]

1 John Ford
2 I dunno, does Ebowed support Kerry?
3 probably me, but I could also say David S or John

[MaC]

among forum members...who was:


2.  the most conservative kerry supporter?

ian or carlhayden maybe.  what happened to Ben?

I agree with badnarik and dibble on more issues than not, so I'm not a true liberal, but probably closer to a libertarian.  My main problem with their platform comes from economic extremism:  IRS abolition, public school abolition, and the like.  You cannot go back to Jefferson's agrarian America, and it's foolish to try, and I'm not sure I'd want to anyway.

Some say we're extreme like it's a bad thing. I disagree. To quote Goldwater "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".  I mean a moderate libetarian (not that I know of any) would hardly get anything done. As for abolishing the IRS, I'm for it.  America existed some 120 odd years before the income tax and did very well before it was enacted.  We didn't have to worry about tax brackets, or tax cuts for the rich or any of that stuff.  Why should the government take any of the money you work so hard to earn?

Lemme compare this with a more "moderate" stance.  If we turned the income tax into a plain simple 5% flat tax, it wouldn't last long at all.  When politicians "make a tax cut permanent", permanent means for how ever long that group of people is in power.  This 5% tax may be nice for a while, but it will only be a matter of time before it goes to 7%, then 10%, then 15%, then 30%.

However if we abolish this tax completely, we can be pretty sure we won't see it again.  Politicians will be very afriad to speak of it coming back because it will be incredibly unpopular and could risk their re-election.

[Alcon]

1. WalterMitty, or Angus, if you can really characterize Angus's politics using simple adjectives.
2. Going by Political Compass score, Bob, although both Ebowed and Max Power have had some very odd scores here.
3. John Dibble. Supporting Badnarik is the only thing that makes me question his mental well-being.

[angus]

Some say we're extreme like it's a bad thing. I disagree. To quote Goldwater "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".  I mean a moderate libetarian (not that I know of any) would hardly get anything done. As for abolishing the IRS, I'm for it.  America existed some 120 odd years before the income tax and did very well before it was enacted.  We didn't have to worry about tax brackets, or tax cuts for the rich or any of that stuff.  Why should the government take any of the money you work so hard to earn?

Lemme compare this with a more "moderate" stance.  If we turned the income tax into a plain simple 5% flat tax, it wouldn't last long at all.  When politicians "make a tax cut permanent", permanent means for how ever long that group of people is in power.  This 5% tax may be nice for a while, but it will only be a matter of time before it goes to 7%, then 10%, then 15%, then 30%.

However if we abolish this tax completely, we can be pretty sure we won't see it again.  Politicians will be very afriad to speak of it coming back because it will be incredibly unpopular and could risk their re-election.

I appreciate your response.  Yes, I think I agree with Goldwater's statement to some degree.  For example, it was extreme to take out armies against the people of South Carolina when it's legislature would not yield a fort which belonged to the US.  The action, signature GOP with it's God'n'Glory shoot-first ask questions later mentality, was extreme, resulting in the deaths of about 800 thousand people, but imho was the right thing to do.  Our country likely wouldn't exist if the GOP hadn't the balls to stand up to the democrats.  You can be it would have fallen apart and reverted back to an imperial playground for the Europeans.  It's extreme to allow a hundred guilty men go free in order to avoid wrongly convicting an innocent man, but again, imho it's the right thing to do.   I'm a big fan of certain forms of extremism.  Hell, our country was born of a violent, and illegal, revolution.  So, in a historical sense, extremism is our birthright.

But the world has changed since Jefferson.  Sure, the USA did okay for 120 years before the taxes started.  But for those 120 years social mores were different as well.  Longevities of 50 years were perfectly acceptable.  Literacy rates of 40% among the adult population was normal.  And infant mortality was high, but who cares?  You should have ten children if you want to have four adult children one day, since you know your baby has a 4 in 10 chance of getting to his/her 18th birthday.  I guess I'm a tad more moralistic than the average Libertarian, or even the average Republican, for that matter.  It just bothers me on some level when I think that the society can do more to help it's most disaffected members.  No, I'm not pushing for gun control, or affirmative action, and I'm not against vouchers or against "personalizing" Social Security, because I'm not part of the bandwagon that has ceased thinking for itself, and in fact I think that bandwagon approach can harm society even more than just ignoring problems, if they're left unchecked.  My point is, would you really want to return to the America wherein the "average" man lives only 50 years, where the "average" woman should have ten children if she wants four, and where the "average" family has no idea how to read the directions that come with the appliances it just bought?  I would not.

I have more than my family and I need.  Now, I'm not some overly-altruistic idealist who gives away the farm, but I don't mind the government taking a few thousand dollars from me every year to help ensure that the streets are safe and clean, that the sidewalks are in a good state of repair, that the woman behind the counter is sufficiently educated to help me out with my problem when I come in to complain, and to know that there's a hospital nearby where my son can get his arm set should he accidentally break it.

[bullmoose88]

Some say we're extreme like it's a bad thing. I disagree. To quote Goldwater "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".  I mean a moderate libetarian (not that I know of any) would hardly get anything done. As for abolishing the IRS, I'm for it.  America existed some 120 odd years before the income tax and did very well before it was enacted.  We didn't have to worry about tax brackets, or tax cuts for the rich or any of that stuff.  Why should the government take any of the money you work so hard to earn?

Lemme compare this with a more "moderate" stance.  If we turned the income tax into a plain simple 5% flat tax, it wouldn't last long at all.  When politicians "make a tax cut permanent", permanent means for how ever long that group of people is in power.  This 5% tax may be nice for a while, but it will only be a matter of time before it goes to 7%, then 10%, then 15%, then 30%.

However if we abolish this tax completely, we can be pretty sure we won't see it again.  Politicians will be very afriad to speak of it coming back because it will be incredibly unpopular and could risk their re-election.

I appreciate your response.  Yes, I think I agree with Goldwater's statement to some degree.  For example, it was extreme to take out armies against the people of South Carolina when it's legislature would not yield a fort which belonged to the US.  The action, signature GOP with it's God'n'Glory shoot-first ask questions later mentality, was extreme, resulting in the deaths of about 800 thousand people, but imho was the right thing to do.  Our country likely wouldn't exist if the GOP hadn't the balls to stand up to the democrats.  You can be it would have fallen apart and reverted back to an imperial playground for the Europeans.  It's extreme to allow a hundred guilty men go free in order to avoid wrongly convicting an innocent man, but again, imho it's the right thing to do.   I'm a big fan of certain forms of extremism.  Hell, our country was born of a violent, and illegal, revolution.  So, in a historical sense, extremism is our birthright.

But the world has changed since Jefferson.  Sure, the USA did okay for 120 years before the taxes started.  But for those 120 years social mores were different as well.  Longevities of 50 years were perfectly acceptable.  Literacy rates of 40% among the adult population was normal.  And infant mortality was high, but who cares?  You should have ten children if you want to have four adult children one day, since you know your baby has a 4 in 10 chance of getting to his/her 18th birthday.  I guess I'm a tad more moralistic than the average Libertarian, or even the average Republican, for that matter.  It just bothers me on some level when I think that the society can do more to help it's most disaffected members.  No, I'm not pushing for gun control, or affirmative action, and I'm not against vouchers or against "personalizing" Social Security, because I'm not part of the bandwagon that has ceased thinking for itself, and in fact I think that bandwagon approach can harm society even more than just ignoring problems, if they're left unchecked.  My point is, would you really want to return to the America wherein the "average" man lives only 50 years, where the "average" woman should have ten children if she wants four, and where the "average" family has no idea how to read the directions that come with the appliances it just bought?  I would not.

I have more than my family and I need.  Now, I'm not some overly-altruistic idealist who gives away the farm, but I don't mind the government taking a few thousand dollars from me every year to help ensure that the streets are safe and clean, that the sidewalks are in a good state of repair, that the woman behind the counter is sufficiently educated to help me out with my problem when I come in to complain, and to know that there's a hospital nearby where my son can get his arm set should he accidentally break it.

No surprise that I agree with angus 110.04% here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1. angus
2. Ben, even though he hasn't been around in awhile
3. John Dibble

[Filuwaúrdjan]

2. Ben, even though he hasn't been around in awhile

He's pretty busy right now

[Joe Republic]

I still don't think I know the political positions of every forum member well enough yet to judge for these questions.  In any case, of the three libertarians I've seen on the forum, all of them seem sane to me.

[Joe Republic]

In any case, of the three libertarians I've seen on the forum, all of them seem sane to me.

There are a lot more than three libertarians on this forum. For that matter, there are a lot more than three Libertarians on this forum as well.

Well like I said in the first sentence, I don't really know every political position of every forum member.  The three people I mentioned (for the record: John Dibble, David S and M&C) are the ones that I could only assume from their avatar to be Badnarik supporters.  And I only counted them because they're the only Libertarians who seem to post anything these days.

[A18]

You can abolish the IRS without abolishing taxes. And you can massively downsize it without abolishing the income tax.