I hate to say it but...(Newt/RP)
- Thread starter SUP3RNOVA
- Start date
Regardless, answer his question. Do you have such a right to these things that it justifies you taking them from other people by force?
If yes, from where did you derive this right over your fellow man? I say "over" because if they could do the same to you, then you're basically proposing a "might makes right" society and not making a case for some sort of "necessity".
Taxes are the worst thing ever. You can defend that position from both principled and pragmatic positions.
Principled: coercion is always wrong.
Pragmatic: taxation and government funding fuck up the free market.
Principled: coercion is always wrong.
Pragmatic: taxation and government funding fuck up the free market.
That's your state-approved education talking. Learn to think bigger.
Not only is socialism/coercion always morally wrong, and not only does it stand in the way of a truly free market, but who says your life wouldn't be much improved getting the same services from that free market?
What, did you think that only the government can build & upkeep roads?
All non-libertarians need to learn that their education was provided to them at the cost of not learning that there are better alternatives to socialistic government, and specifically by that socialistic government, which some might call a conflict of interests.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFXXAuDK1Ao]Meet Vermin Supreme 2012 Presidential Candidate - YouTube[/ame]
When you consider that most people in the world won't even own a car in their lifetime, yeah, I'd say it is a luxury.
The fact that they were built using the fruits of other people's labor, by way of violence, makes them seem even more luxurious actually. Kind of in the same way getting to live in the manor house on the plantation is luxurious.
I've actually resisted posting for a while because I wanted to work on an epic boob thread.
Oh well.
My only connectivity right now is via 4G, but as soon as I've got something stable, I'll be working on collecting tons o' boobage.
I shall disappear until then...
Oh well.
My only connectivity right now is via 4G, but as soon as I've got something stable, I'll be working on collecting tons o' boobage.
I shall disappear until then...
For fucks sake, is thread for real? He is lying. You are gullible. What he says he agrees with has nothing to do with he will actually do. He will continue the agenda. Why would you even waste your brain cells contemplating what he says he's for? And then using his false stance to support your point. WTF.
I'm quoting you because you started this, but I'm addressing a few others below too.
What's wrong with the "income" tax is that it was started as a way to fund WW1 and entitlement programs. In reality, it was used to start lining political coffers by pushing the money to other programs so that the politicians can get kickbacks.
There's nothing wrong with a "war" tax to help defend against a country trying to takeover the world. But it needs to go once the war's been paid for. The same with estate taxes.
The reason that Ron Paul won't run with any of the other nominees right now as VP is because they want to keep big spending and promote the status quo of allowing waste to continue. If he ran with any of them, he'd be hypocritized in the media for the rest of his life and the momentum he's gained over the last 30 years would have been for naught.
As Obi Wan once said, only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Principally, you are right. Practicality is a different issue, not a conflict with principle. I don't have a problem with a low, flat income tax rate as a step towards the capitalistic utopia libertarians seek. But truthfully speaking, American nor Washington is ready for a President like Ron Paul. He's done a great job in making the younger generation aware of the problems that face us, and if he wants to really have an influence in Washington I think he'd be a good Vice President.
Again, when I argue here it's not with my own interests and intellect in mind, it's that of this country. Of course I'd support 0% income tax over 15%, but I also realize that 15% is far more realistic.
That being said, "out on the streets" I fight for Ron Paul's ideals because that's the contrast America needs. Most people here don't need to be preached to about this because they agree, which is why I always argue from the most realistic standpoint given the situation.
I agree with you.
Just because Paul is VP and not P doesn't mean he'll change his ideals or principles that he fights for. I think his crowd would be smart enough to realize that being VP is better than going back to being a Texas congressman.
As far as the media goes, has Ron Paul ever cared what the media says about him? At least he'd be getting media coverage.
Just because Paul is VP and not P doesn't mean he'll change his ideals or principles that he fights for. I think his crowd would be smart enough to realize that being VP is better than going back to being a Texas congressman.
As far as the media goes, has Ron Paul ever cared what the media says about him? At least he'd be getting media coverage.
WTF. RON PAUL ISN'T WINNING THE GOP NOMINATION. Is your brain real?
Is it better to vote for Romney, Santorum, Gingrich (w/ Paul VP), Obama, Johnson (independent ticket), or cry in a corner come election day? Welcome to the real world.
You either ignored this post or failed to fully understand it.
Whether you personally have a problem with it is irrelevant. Can you build a logically and ethically consistent argument for confiscating property under threat of violence? Can you at least build an economic case for the confiscation and redistribution of property?
You have been here since '07. On numerous occasions, it has been stated that libertarians do not seek, nor do they promise, utopia. I am certain you have seen these posts.
Are you dumb, forgetful, or trolling? I can imagine no other options.
Claptrap. Prove it logically, or abandon it. (Or, cling to it and keep emoting.)
Translation: "I want peace. And I support peace. But for the good of the country, we must promote violence. That's just realistic."
Claptrap.
What does "that's the contrast America needs" even mean? You use words without saying anything. You are emoting. Nothing more.
More of the same.
Heads up: I know your way, Paul. You respond to critical posts asking for a logical position by emoting. So, my comments above are not meant to spark a discourse with you. Nor are they meant to offer logical arguments since doing so in this thread would be a waste of time. My comments are meant to highlight flaws in your statements.
I avoid discourse with you because I have learned there is nothing to gain from it.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX1uPaTf2BA"]A handout for statists... - YouTube[/ame]
Molyneux: "Can you find any logical flaws in my position?"
Statist: "No. But uh... I still think that you're wrong."
lol I can relate to this exchange.
That statement is an absolute, rendering it a contradiction.
Now are you going to answer my question, or keep posting nonsense?