Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by LafayetteBis, May 16, 2018.
Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother responding to your posts.
That you would compare rahl's coherent argument with the holocaust shows a lack of argument on your part. Put more effort in it.
A fake libertarian being upset over being informed on the evidence of the pressure groups herding the fakery? Golly!
Yeah, you were talking about a paper contract. You need to get your story straight but I imagine that your arguments are so incoherent because you haven't fully grasped the concepts that you are advocating.
No, it ISSUED the title under certain conditions because government administers possession and use of land in trust for the people, as part of its duty and function to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. That's what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. But no one can rightly own land, and a trustee does not own the trust assets. GET IT??
Which is how Replicants think the way Social Democracies work. (When they are capable of thinking, every now and then.)
But they don't. In fact, The European Union is the world's first Social Democracy - and it has a total population of more than 500 million compared to the US at 325 million.
And nobody's complaining yet in the EU that social-democracy doesn't "work" ...
Definition of "libertarian": A person who enters into the political dialogue for the first time having never exhibited any particular prior interest in the human condition or society at large outside the welfare of his own family or close personal friends.
Yet another kneejerk denial because you apparently know absolutely nothing about the history of the founding of our nation and the abject failure of libertarianism.
That you could not refute any of the FACTS stipulated in the Constitution says volumes.
Yet another fallacy with ZERO substantiation.
The two defining characteristics of libertarians are selfishness and greed.
Typical also of those who have limited intellectual capacities. (To think one lives a family-life alone in this universe is sheer folly in 21st century. Perhaps that notion existed once in the US at it expanded its frontiers. But no longer.)
Today we are all intimately dependent upon one-another for the panoply of goods/services provided by a market-economy within which we all work and our families all benefit. (The only immediate problem being the Gross Income Disparity that has been made by finagling upper-income taxation and bringing it down from where it justly was before 1962. See here.)
Libertarians cannot neither literally nor figuratively think beyond their nose, which is why they resort to childish sarcasm to defend their utter nonsense ...
I wasn't aware that you were a Libertarian, but now that you've defined it I'll be more prepared for what to expect in any of your future posts.
Ad hominem nonsense and not acceptable in any real-debate.
Go haunt some other forum ...
no, I wasn't.
I don't need to do anything. You are both wrong, and you have both been shown how and why, and you both know that.
which is correct.
started rambling about off topic nonsense.
still have nothing to do with this thread.
I have done no such thing. My argument has remain unchanged this entire thread.
those sentences in no way contradict.
It wasn't a claim. Libertarians are a fringe minority.
sorry, most americans are center left politically.
no it wasn't
The foundational principle of libertarianism is that it's wrong to use force to violate the person or property of one's fellow man. That sounds like its two defining characteristics are peace and respect.
the self exists to be selfish. If everyone is selfless then no one is helping or developing themselves and societal growth is retarded. Now you know why the more socialism the more poverty and suffering. Capitalism encourages everyone to contribute to society, socialism encourages everyone to leech.
Unless, of course, it is the private lord doing it. Then its OK.
Really? I've never heard that 'unless' part. Can you cite the libertarian writer who makes this 'unless'?
Separate names with a comma.