Smaller Government?

First topic message reminder :

American taxpayers will send approximately $6 trillion to the Pentagon over the next decade, as military costs are projected to hit levels 20 percent higher than their Cold War peak, the Congressional Budget Office says in a new analysis.

That doesn't include the cost of so-called "overseas contingency operations," military slang for the billions of spent off-budget every year to fight the never-ending and open-ended War on Terror.

The current federal budget calls for $575 billion to fund the U.S. military, with another $65 billion in OCO costs. The Trump administration's goals for the military—which included a $54 billion boost in Pentagon spending this year—will result in "steady increases" in annual base budgets for the next decade, with non-war-costs hitting $688 billion by 2027, according to the CBO.

Three policies will drive the military budget higher, the CBO analysis says. An increase in the number of military personnel, perhaps by as much as 10 percent (an increase of about 237,000 people). A 30 percent expansion to 355 ships in the Navy fleet. And the cost of weapons (along with research and development, a.k.a. contracts to defense contractors) and military equipment is expected "to outpace inflation."

If the military budget hits $688 billion, as the CBO expects, it would be about 20 percent higher than Pentagon's peak annual spending, adjusted for inflation, during the final stages of the Cold War in the 1980s. The Trump administration's plans to grow the size and cost of the military will cost taxpayers $683 billion more than projections for the next decade made at the end of the Obama administration.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/05/us-military-will-cost-about-6-trillion-o

Nothing remotely "conservative" about that.

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:Well I don’t think they’re poor excuses, but you’re entitled to your own opinion. I’m just relating my own experiences.

I’m getting the feeling from this and other threads that you want an argument. If I misread then I apologize.

I’m off anyways. It’s wine and hot tub time. It’s bloody freezing here and the sky is clear as anything. Hope to see some shooting stars.


Goodnight x

Why is it that anyone cannot take criticism when they are left leaning?

So you are saying that because i disagree, that i want an argument?

I give up

How is it, that when I defend people and groups I am compared to scrat and now when i defend the NHS, i am cast as looking for an argument.

I mean, is it wrong for me to have any opinion?

Good night cass, I wont bother anyone any more tonight. For fuck sake, as it seems, hard questions makes snowflakes out of people

So I am a snowflake for giving my opinions and answering your questions (but you didn’t like my answers. Ok end of discussion in my opinion) and then getting off the internet to enjoy some time with my husband after a long week at work and it was 9:30 at night? Right got it.

I like snowflakes. They’re beautiful, individual,artistic, soft, seemingly fragile but in a group make blizzards and avalanches. Being compared to one is perfect.

Have a good day. We’re off for breakfast and shopping. Ugh to the shopping, yeah for French Toast!

Cass wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why is it that anyone cannot take criticism when they are left leaning?

So you are saying that because i disagree, that i want an argument?

I give up

How is it, that when I defend people and groups I am compared to scrat and now when i defend the NHS, i am cast as looking for an argument.

I mean, is it wrong for me to have any opinion?

Good night cass, I wont bother anyone any more tonight. For fuck sake, as it seems, hard questions makes snowflakes out of people

So I am a snowflake for giving my opinions and answering your questions (but you didn’t like my answers. Ok end of discussion in my opinion)  and then getting off the internet to enjoy some time with my husband after a long week at work and it was 9:30 at night? Right got it.

I like snowflakes. They’re beautiful, individual,artistic, soft, seemingly fragile but in a group make blizzards and avalanches. Being compared to one is perfect.

Have a good day. We’re off for breakfast and shopping. Ugh to the shopping, yeah for French Toast!

I see the point went over your head cass. In that you think where I give opinions, it suddenlly becomes an argument, due to you not liking my views.

Hey ho

I do not hold grudges and never have, I simple speak my mind, but please spare me the nonsense that anytime we disagree its an argument. Its patronizing and insulting to the fact we are friends who can and do disagree. Hence why I hit back casting you as a snowflake and clearly you did not like it.

Lesson learnt?

Snow is nothing more and an illusion of beauty that many admire when it falls, but like everything that comes from mother mature, it brings death. Through freezing tempretures and the dangers that such snowfalls bring.

There is nothing beautiful in that, as nature is the enemy of humans and all animals.

I hope you have a good day too

Cass wrote:So I am a snowflake for giving my opinions and answering your questions (but you didn’t like my answers. Ok end of discussion in my opinion) and then getting off the internet to enjoy some time with my husband after a long week at work and it was 9:30 at night? Right got it.

I like snowflakes. They’re beautiful, individual,artistic, soft, seemingly fragile but in a group make blizzards and avalanches. Being compared to one is perfect.

Cass, this is the way that conservatives argue. They are not accomplished in actual reason, so they fart out jingos and catch-phrases.

Have a good breakfast. The winters are lovely down there.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:So I am a snowflake for giving my opinions and answering your questions (but you didn’t like my answers. Ok end of discussion in my opinion) and then getting off the internet to enjoy some time with my husband after a long week at work and it was 9:30 at night? Right got it.

I like snowflakes. They’re beautiful, individual,artistic, soft, seemingly fragile but in a group make blizzards and avalanches. Being compared to one is perfect.

Cass, this is the way that conservatives argue.  They are not accomplished in actual reason, so they fart out jingos and catch-phrases.

Have a good breakfast.  The winters are lovely down there.

And a prime example of what the left continually do.

They cannot respond to reason and like last night with Elmer Fudd, attempt to deligitimise the person instead

Again many die during winters, I fail to see how in any shape of form its lovely. Just as it is now with fires raging through California, destroying everything its path.

Hence why there is no beauty in nature, only destruction and rebirth.

It's most valuable to document the tendencies of your adversary, so that others may see the pattern.  RW'ers want everyone to believe that political debate is a mêlée, with no discernible structure.  

By contrast, LW'ers point out that such a belief is really a restatement of RW'ers themselves.  Because their cognitive function lacks reason, they want to say all people lack reason.

Therefore, it's essential to point out when an argument is simply jingo, and when an argument has a sound foundation, with implications arising therefrom.  This frames the difference between Right and Left.

Original Quill wrote:It's most valuable to document the tendencies of your adversary, so that others may see the pattern.  RW'ers want everyone to believe that political debate is a melee with no discernible structure.  

By contrast, LW'ers point out that such a belief is really a restatement of RW'ers themselves.  Because their cognitive function lacks reason, they want to say all people lack reason.

Therefore, it's essential to point out when an argument is simply jingo, and when an argument has a sound foundation, with implications arising therefrom.  This frames the difference between Right and Left.

There is both good and bad in left and right wing beliefs, but sadly you look at one, as if its devine and god like.

Its the same failing of both the left and right, to find middle ground and do what is best for the people and not for their own selfish needs. Yet neither side does that and it only has happen in the great wars.

So your claim on arguments, claiming its jingo, sums up exactly what you are doing yourself. You do not want to cross a threshold or a line, but maintain a divide between you and other people. A world between right and left.

So how can you believe you are reasoned, when you do not look to provide solutions that bridge divides, but further seek to deepen those divides further?

Didge wrote:There is both good and bad in left and right wing beliefs, but sadly you look at one, as if its devine and god like.

No, it's a lot simpler than that. While the left is progressive, utilizing minds to repair social problems--thus, requiring one to exercise cognitive functions--the right side merely promotes the status quo.

Nothing promotes slovenly bodies like inactivity, and inactivity is what conservatism is all about (to conserve = to resist change, and therefore withhold effort). The upshot of this is that the cognitive function of the right atrophies.

Quite naturally, if you have no real product, you substitute. If the right has no answers, how does it promote it's agenda? The right must substitute jingos and catch-phrases, for solid reason.

You snooze, you lose.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:There is both good and bad in left and right wing beliefs, but sadly you look at one, as if its devine and god like.

No, it's a lot simpler than that.  While the left is progressive, utilizing minds to repair social problems--thus, requiring one to exercise cognitive functions--the right side merely promotes the status quo.

You are just regurgitating the same thing over and over again.

Neither left or right are progressive, if they instill unfounded fears of others through guilt.

Its like the continual white guilt lable, from the past. As if this is a stain that people today have to live with, when they never were a part of such hate. Yes many have benefited through wealth from this, but this benefits the whole nation. Not just those labelled white. Yet this guilt is perpetually played onto people labelled white. As if being born, is like the daft Christian concept, in being born with sin. Its again this archaic concept of original sin, being played out daily in peoples lives within the west. As if we have to pay the proce for the wrongs of the past and correct this to people living today, who never suffered these wrongs from the past.

Its essentially illogical and again continues to maintain an absurd divide between people.

You cannot even see, how you sound like people on the right, because in efect there is very little difference, between left and right, in how they create division between people.

That is never ever going to be progressive, but regressive.

You're beginning to repeat yourself. I'm going to check some other threads.

Original Quill wrote:You're beginning to repeat yourself.  I'm going to check some other threads.

You mean, you have no answer to my points

Fine by me

Have fun

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No. I believe society drives government, not the other way around. Government is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator.  

Over reach by government is a lagging indicator. government sometimes has to drive society, otherwise there would be chaos. There will always be corruption in government and society. It’s been that way since the beginning. There is no Utopia.

And I’m sure that those people who 54 years ago were not allowed to marry their partner of choice or sit and be served where they wanted or been allowed to vote would agree with you.

There was a time in this country, when governments didn't marry people, so that wouldn't matter.

They can eat somewhere else and give their money to non racists. Reward the good people.

Voting has to do with the government and all people should be treated the same by the government.

Eilzel wrote:If everybody could be proven to always be altruistic and wanting to help one another, small government (and at most extreme no government) could work. But human nature sadly isn't like that.

I think enough people are good people.

I think many on the left have far too high of an opinion of themselves. What they tend to think is "of course I would help others, but most people are not as good as me".

Quill seems to be arguing that RW want bigger govt and higher tax/spend to pay for it... while also arguing that RW want smaller govt and lower tax/spend...


Most amusing...!

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Over reach by government is a lagging indicator. government sometimes has to drive society, otherwise there would be chaos. There will always be corruption in government and society. It’s been that way since the beginning. There is no Utopia.

And I’m sure that those people who 54 years ago were not allowed to marry their partner of choice or sit and be served where they wanted or been allowed to vote would agree with you.

There was a time in this country, when governments didn't marry people, so that wouldn't matter.

They can eat somewhere else and give their money to non racists. Reward the good people.

Voting has to do with the government and all people should be treated the same by the government.  

There was a time before Christianity hijacked marriages.

Even before Judaism

Sadly it has been religion that has hijacked and claimed ownership, on how people can live their lives.

That is even worse that Governement.

At least you can vote against a governement.

The Abrahamic religions, keep people perpetually entrapped in stupidity through fear.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:If everybody could be proven to always be altruistic and wanting to help one another, small government (and at most extreme no government) could work. But human nature sadly isn't like that.

I think enough people are good people.

I think many on the left have far too high of an opinion of themselves. What they tend to think is "of course I would help others, but most people are not as good as me".

If enough people are good people then:

Why is there discrimination?
Why do big companies carelessly dispose of waste?
Why are we fracking all over the place?
Why do the rich often find every creative way to avoid paying tax? Even in countries where taxes aren't that high.
Why do insurance companies look for ways to avoid paying out, and why are they so expensive, especially for the elderly?

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Reducing government just gives more power and influence to the rich and big businesses.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:If everybody could be proven to always be altruistic and wanting to help one another, small government (and at most extreme no government) could work. But human nature sadly isn't like that.

I think enough people are good people.

I think many on the left have far too high of an opinion of themselves. What they tend to think is "of course I would help others, but most people are not as good as me".

+1

How very true lol

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Over reach by government is a lagging indicator. government sometimes has to drive society, otherwise there would be chaos. There will always be corruption in government and society. It’s been that way since the beginning. There is no Utopia.

And I’m sure that those people who 54 years ago were not allowed to marry their partner of choice or sit and be served where they wanted or been allowed to vote would agree with you.

There was a time in this country, when governments didn't marry people, so that wouldn't matter.

They can eat somewhere else and give their money to non racists. Reward the good people.

Voting has to do with the government and all people should be treated the same by the government.  

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- Etc..

So this doesn’t matter?

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
If everybody could be proven to always be altruistic and wanting to help one another, small government (and at most extreme no government) could work. But human nature sadly isn't like that.

I think enough people are good people.

...........................

If that were so...

Why are there more than one-and-a-half billion people around the world living in 'abject' poverty --  half of them on the verge of starvation every day ?

Why are millions of Americans homeless;
30 million can't afford or access adequate healthcare;
Millions can't find full-time productive work;
Thousands of war veterans are living on the streets;
Half of those with significant disabilities or serious mental illness don't receive proper care  ???

And at the same time, the USA put Trump and his thieving and destructive cronies into the White House..

And native Americans are still waiting for a genuine "treaty" and admissions of wrong doing -- just last week Trump announced a new round of attacks against native lands, national monuments and other protected areas.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/04/native-american-alliance-bears-ears-trump

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-order-puts-monuments-in-jeopardy-7eb59371d5ff/

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
If everybody could be proven to always be altruistic and wanting to help one another, small government (and at most extreme no government) could work. But human nature sadly isn't like that.

I think enough people are good people.

...........................

If that were so...

Why are there more than one-and-a-half billion people around the world living in 'abject' poverty --  half of them on the verge of starvation every day ?

Why are millions of Americans homeless;
30 million can't afford or access adequate healthcare;
Millions can't find full-time productive work;
Thousands of war veterans are living on the streets;
Half of those with significant disabilities or serious mental illness don't receive proper care  ???

And at the same time, the USA put Trump and his thieving and destructive cronies into the White House..

And native Americans are still waiting for a genuine "treaty" and admissions of wrong doing -- just last week Trump announced a new round of attacks against native lands, national monuments and other protected areas.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/04/native-american-alliance-bears-ears-trump

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-order-puts-monuments-in-jeopardy-7eb59371d5ff/

Well said Wolf

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think enough people are good people.

...........................

If that were so...

Why are there more than one-and-a-half billion people around the world living in 'abject' poverty --  half of them on the verge of starvation every day ?

Why are millions of Americans homeless;
30 million can't afford or access adequate healthcare;
Millions can't find full-time productive work;
Thousands of war veterans are living on the streets;
Half of those with significant disabilities or serious mental illness don't receive proper care  ???

And at the same time, the USA put Trump and his thieving and destructive cronies into the White House..

And native Americans are still waiting for a genuine "treaty" and admissions of wrong doing -- just last week Trump announced a new round of attacks against native lands, national monuments and other protected areas.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/04/native-american-alliance-bears-ears-trump

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-order-puts-monuments-in-jeopardy-7eb59371d5ff/

Brilliant. Nail...hammer...bang!

Nail, Hammer,............ouch, I hit my thumb !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think enough people are good people.

...........................

If that were so...

Why are there more than one-and-a-half billion people around the world living in 'abject' poverty --  half of them on the verge of starvation every day ?

Why are millions of Americans homeless;
30 million can't afford or access adequate healthcare;
Millions can't find full-time productive work;
Thousands of war veterans are living on the streets;
Half of those with significant disabilities or serious mental illness don't receive proper care  ???

And at the same time, the USA put Trump and his thieving and destructive cronies into the White House..

And native Americans are still waiting for a genuine "treaty" and admissions of wrong doing -- just last week Trump announced a new round of attacks against native lands, national monuments and other protected areas.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/04/native-american-alliance-bears-ears-trump

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-order-puts-monuments-in-jeopardy-7eb59371d5ff/

I think my signature answers your question

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think enough people are good people.

I think many on the left have far too high of an opinion of themselves. What they tend to think is "of course I would help others, but most people are not as good as me".

If enough people are good people then:

Why is there discrimination?
Why do big companies carelessly dispose of waste?
Why are we fracking all over the place?
Why do the rich often find every creative way to avoid paying tax? Even in countries where taxes aren't that high.
Why do insurance companies look for ways to avoid paying out, and why are they so expensive, especially for the elderly?

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Reducing government just gives more power and influence to the rich and big businesses.

And puts it in the power of the state, which historically has proven to be very dangerous for those out of favor with the State.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


If that were so...

Why are there more than one-and-a-half billion people around the world living in 'abject' poverty --  half of them on the verge of starvation every day ?

Why are millions of Americans homeless;
30 million can't afford or access adequate healthcare;
Millions can't find full-time productive work;
Thousands of war veterans are living on the streets;
Half of those with significant disabilities or serious mental illness don't receive proper care  ???

And at the same time, the USA put Trump and his thieving and destructive cronies into the White House..

And native Americans are still waiting for a genuine "treaty" and admissions of wrong doing -- just last week Trump announced a new round of attacks against native lands, national monuments and other protected areas.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/04/native-american-alliance-bears-ears-trump

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-order-puts-monuments-in-jeopardy-7eb59371d5ff/

I think my signature answers your question  

Unfortunately, after the corporations, the financiers, the dictatators, the monarchists, and their "robber barons" have fucked everything and everyone over, big-time...

It always takes a combined community/'collectivist' effort to repair the damage..

Those greedy bastard corporatists, fascists and totalitarian/authoritarian types can never be trusted to clean up or restore the messes they created.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There was a time in this country, when governments didn't marry people, so that wouldn't matter.

They can eat somewhere else and give their money to non racists. Reward the good people.

Voting has to do with the government and all people should be treated the same by the government.  

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- Etc..

So this doesn’t matter?

Of course they matter. It's a shame very few people embrace those words. Now it's to hell with liberty and freedom and let's force people to behave the way the majority thinks they should.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- Etc..

So this doesn’t matter?

Of course they matter. It's a shame very few people embrace those words.  Now it's to hell with liberty and freedom and let's force people to behave the way the majority thinks they should.  

And you just made the point for me. “Very few people”. That’s why we need government in civil rights cases. When they were written, they didn’t apply to all of our citizens. Certain groups had to fight to get laws passed so that the above words included them, so that they had liberty and freedom.

Game. New balls.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Of course they matter. It's a shame very few people embrace those words.  Now it's to hell with liberty and freedom and let's force people to behave the way the majority thinks they should.  

And you just made the point for me. “Very few people”. That’s why we need government in civil rights cases. When they were written, they didn’t apply to all of our citizens. Certain groups had to fight to get laws passed so that the above words included them, so that they had liberty and freedom.

Game. New balls.

No doubt the constitution needed to be amended based on the fact that government did not protect the liberty if all of its citizens equally. That is a role of government and ours failed when it allowed for people to own other people.

That violates the NAP.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

And you just made the point for me. “Very few people”. That’s why we need government in civil rights cases. When they were written, they didn’t apply to all of our citizens. Certain groups had to fight to get laws passed so that the above words included them, so that they had liberty and freedom.

Game. New balls.

No doubt the constitution needed to be amended based on the fact that government did not protect the liberty if  all of its citizens equally. That is a role of government and ours failed when it allowed for people to own other people.  

That violates the NAP.  

That's not the Constitution. That's the Declaration of Independence. What amended to end slavery was another document, the Emancipation Proclamation, essentially an executive order. Later, the Constitution was amended with the Civil War Amendments (13th Amendment ends slavery).

The Constitution is essentially a body of laws. But it is a body of laws that applies to government, not to citizens. It defines the roles of the three branches of government, and ends with a bunch of prohibitions that limit government (Bill of Rights). Through the short history of the Divided States, we have added amendments.

The Declaration of Independence--essentially a letter to George III--is like a mission statement. That's why it doesn't need amendment.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No doubt the constitution needed to be amended based on the fact that government did not protect the liberty if  all of its citizens equally. That is a role of government and ours failed when it allowed for people to own other people.  

That violates the NAP.  

That's not the Constitution.  That's the Declaration of Independence.  What amended to end slavery was another document, the Emancipation Proclamation, essentially an executive order.  Later, the Constitution was amended with the Civil War Amendments (13th Amendment ends slavery).

The Constitution is essentially a body of laws.  But it is a body of laws that applies to government, not to citizens.  It defines the roles of the three branches of government, and ends with a bunch of prohibitions that limit government (Bill of Rights).  Through the short history of the Divided States, we have added amendments.

The Declaration of Independence--essentially a letter to George III--is like a mission statement.  That's why it doesn't need amendment.

I know which document is which. I referred to the constitution because it is the document that limits the power of the government to oppress people. Our government allowed for state sanctioned oppression of certain people, which needed to end.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's not the Constitution.  That's the Declaration of Independence.  What amended to end slavery was another document, the Emancipation Proclamation, essentially an executive order.  Later, the Constitution was amended with the Civil War Amendments (13th Amendment ends slavery).

The Constitution is essentially a body of laws.  But it is a body of laws that applies to government, not to citizens.  It defines the roles of the three branches of government, and ends with a bunch of prohibitions that limit government (Bill of Rights).  Through the short history of the Divided States, we have added amendments.

The Declaration of Independence--essentially a letter to George III--is like a mission statement.  That's why it doesn't need amendment.

I know which document is which. I referred to the constitution because it is the document that limits the power of the government to oppress people. Our government allowed for state sanctioned oppression of certain people, which needed to end.  

And to carry your point further, it was the power of government (Constitution and Civil Rights Acts) that limited the excesses of state governments (slavery, peonage, separate-but-equal, segregation and discrimination).

Anarchy and libertarianism would have been powerless to do that.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I know which document is which. I referred to the constitution because it is the document that limits the power of the government to oppress people. Our government allowed for state sanctioned oppression of certain people, which needed to end.  

And to carry your point further, it was the power of government (Constitution and Civil Rights Acts) that limited the excesses of state governments (slavery, peonage, separate-but-equal, segregation and discrimination).

Anarchy and libertarianism would have been powerless to do that.

You can have libertarianism and laws that limit government oppression from state and local governments.

Libertarians believe in limited government. There is debate on how limited, no doubt.

Someone like Ron Paul was part of government, yet also ran as the Libertarian candidate for president at one time.

If libertarians didn't believe in government at all, they wouldn't run for office and they wouldn't vote (there are anarchists and a few libertarians that don't believe in voting).

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And to carry your point further, it was the power of government (Constitution and Civil Rights Acts) that limited the excesses of state governments (slavery, peonage, separate-but-equal, segregation and discrimination).

Anarchy and libertarianism would have been powerless to do that.

You can have libertarianism and laws that limit government oppression from state and local governments.  

Libertarians believe in limited government. There is debate on how limited, no doubt.

Someone like Ron Paul was part of government, yet also ran as the Libertarian candidate for president at one time.

If libertarians didn't believe in government at all, they wouldn't run for office and they wouldn't vote (there are anarchists and a few libertarians that don't believe in voting).  

Once you accept the legitimacy of laws, the only questions are which laws and how many of them?

That's the operative question between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to support a war machine and make the world safe for capitalists; Democrats want to help mankind with problems like health and hunger. The reason why Ron Paul can run, is he accepts the status quo.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- Etc..

So this doesn’t matter?

Of course they matter. It's a shame very few people embrace those words.  Now it's to hell with liberty and freedom and let's force people to behave the way the majority thinks they should.  

How does that then stop those at the smaller level doing exactly the same?

How is that Liberty?

You are just substituting one system for another, but on a smaller scale.

I mean we could have basically an anarchist system, that allows anything to happen to people?

No laws to protect the rights of individuals.

Is a state of lawlessness, what you want?

How has that ever panned out?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Of course they matter. It's a shame very few people embrace those words.  Now it's to hell with liberty and freedom and let's force people to behave the way the majority thinks they should.  

How does that then stop those at the smaller level doing exactly the same?

How is that Liberty?

You are just substituting one system for another, but on a smaller scale.

I mean we could have basically an anarchist system, that allows anything to happen to people?

No laws to protect the rights of individuals.

Is a state of lawlessness, what you want?

How has that ever panned out?

Of course I want laws to protect individuals and their property. If you harm another person, you need to repair the damage and/or be punished.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You can have libertarianism and laws that limit government oppression from state and local governments.  

Libertarians believe in limited government. There is debate on how limited, no doubt.

Someone like Ron Paul was part of government, yet also ran as the Libertarian candidate for president at one time.

If libertarians didn't believe in government at all, they wouldn't run for office and they wouldn't vote (there are anarchists and a few libertarians that don't believe in voting).  

Once you accept the legitimacy of laws, the only questions are which laws and how many of them?  

That's the operative question between Republicans and Democrats.  Republicans want to support a war machine and make the world safe for capitalists; Democrats want to help mankind with problems like health and hunger.  The reason why Ron Paul can run, is he accepts the status quo.

As few as possible.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


How does that then stop those at the smaller level doing exactly the same?

How is that Liberty?

You are just substituting one system for another, but on a smaller scale.

I mean we could have basically an anarchist system, that allows anything to happen to people?

No laws to protect the rights of individuals.

Is a state of lawlessness, what you want?

How has that ever panned out?

Of course I want laws to protect individuals and their property. If you harm another person, you need to repair the damage and/or be punished.  

So you really have no argument here.

Small governement can do as much as a large national system can it not.

What you have then with some that want it locally, as they want to base it own their own selfish needs. Negating the fact, the world does not function without a global economy. Let alone who each requires resources from others. 

We should be moving in the opposite direction from small to global. To a time when the world looks after everyone and not those interested within themselves

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Of course I want laws to protect individuals and their property. If you harm another person, you need to repair the damage and/or be punished.  

So you really have no argument here.

Small governement can do as much as a large national system can it not.

What you have then with some that want it locally, as they want to base it own their own selfish needs. Negating the fact, the world does not function without a global economy. Let alone who each requires resources from others. 

We should be moving in the opposite direction from small to global. To a time when the world looks after everyone and not those interested within themselves

I support looking after others, as long as there is no force involved.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you really have no argument here.

Small governement can do as much as a large national system can it not.

What you have then with some that want it locally, as they want to base it own their own selfish needs. Negating the fact, the world does not function without a global economy. Let alone who each requires resources from others. 

We should be moving in the opposite direction from small to global. To a time when the world looks after everyone and not those interested within themselves

I support looking after others, as long as there is no force involved.  

So basically not paying any taxes then?

No compulsary education then?

No money for education, medicine etc

You seem to want a society to go back to the stone ages

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you really have no argument here.

Small governement can do as much as a large national system can it not.

What you have then with some that want it locally, as they want to base it own their own selfish needs. Negating the fact, the world does not function without a global economy. Let alone who each requires resources from others. 

We should be moving in the opposite direction from small to global. To a time when the world looks after everyone and not those interested within themselves

I support looking after others, as long as there is no force involved.  

So basically not paying any taxes then?

No compulsary education then?

No money for education, medicine etc

You seem to want a society to go back to the stone ages

that would be the Libertarian economic policy of anarcho-capitalism

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


So basically not paying any taxes then?

No compulsary education then?

No money for education, medicine etc

You seem to want a society to go back to the stone ages

that would be the Libertarian economic policy of anarcho-capitalism  

So it would seem  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I support looking after others, as long as there is no force involved.  

So basically not paying any taxes then?

No compulsary education then?

No money for education, medicine etc

You seem to want a society to go back to the stone ages

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

The US functioned without an income tax until 1913. There were other taxes, but they funded a very smaller and more limited government.

So to put it succinctly, much lower taxes, not no taxes.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So basically not paying any taxes then?

No compulsary education then?

No money for education, medicine etc

You seem to want a society to go back to the stone ages

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

The US functioned without an income tax until 1913. There were other taxes, but they funded a very smaller and more limited government.

So to put it succinctly, much lower taxes, not no taxes.

It has to be

You said nobody should be forced.

Either you accept that some laws are needed that people abide to or you do not

So with taxes, you agree to people being forced to do something

If you open the door to this, then your first statement contradicts in the previous post

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

The US functioned without an income tax until 1913. There were other taxes, but they funded a very smaller and more limited government.

So to put it succinctly, much lower taxes, not no taxes.

It has to be

You said nobody should be forced.

Either you accept that some laws are needed that people abide to or you do not

So with taxes, you agree to people being forced to do something

If you open the door to this, then your first statement contradicts in the previous post

I believe in less force. I understand that government is a necessary evil and must be funded. The vast majority of things done by government however, can be done outside of government.

"Looking after others" would be one of those things that can be done (and is done in great measures) outside of government.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


It has to be

You said nobody should be forced.

Either you accept that some laws are needed that people abide to or you do not

So with taxes, you agree to people being forced to do something

If you open the door to this, then your first statement contradicts in the previous post

I believe in less force. I understand that government is a necessary evil and must be funded. The vast majority of things done by government however, can be done outside of government.

"Looking after others" would be one of those things that can be done (and is done in great measures) outside of government.  

Is it?

How so and how would you fund it?

Like for example any cancer treatment?

Education?

So either you buy into the bigger system or go it alone with the smaller system?

The reality is this, its based on a selfish need when people want to think they can control their lives through a smaller state system. It fails to recognise that even at that level people disagree.