The final question is from a troll (intentionally disruptive for their own purposes) group on reddit called braveryjerk. They posted things to this nature on almost all the questions becuase the mention of RP is considered “so brave” and insult with no meaning whatsoever.
August 23, 2013 at 10:37am
Add your comments
August 14, 2013 at 12:24pm
Good let them go bankrupt.
July 17, 2013 at 1:47am
He will produce a smaller government than those who STRIVE to get us involved in wars. I can only hope a real small government conservative can get in the race and allow these two statists to split the vote.
June 11, 2013 at 12:38am
Best of luck Dr. Beck.
June 11, 2013 at 12:28am
As far as the article regarding who’s time has come. The premise is faulty to begin with. It is an appeal to tradition. Before the founding fathers was there a country with the system espoused in America. Before communism, which took a radical change, were there communist governments. No, of course not. There were theorists known as Jacobian Socialists years before Marx. Did that mean they could not have been. Well we know they were and often violently.
These are really simplistic concerns in many regards. Why cannot SSI work as an opt in program or money market accounts for those who desire much the way vouchers occurred. Those have been common republican refrains for some time.
As far as the civil rights act. Much of it was as Nick said however one aspect which is specifically which Rand refered to in this previous case. Here is a post I made on the http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian site:
To answer your question “civil rights” in general…uh I guess it depends what one means by it. In general libertarians are for advancing individual liberty. This encompasses a large part of civil rights. Generally when someone brings this up they point to “the right to access” businesses.
The libertarian position on this is basically why force a ******* to serve those they’d prefer not to. This is looked at poorly by most on the left but consider what the alternate is. Black people may be shopping at a racist store location enriching the man who is racist. Now if the government offers something it should be open to absolutely everyone.
The libertarian recourse also exists to these situations, boycotts protests ect are encourage to basically damage their reputation and livelihood such that you hurt their livelihood (matches action like the chik-fil-a moves mostly by the left not too long ago).
The potential knock here is to the isolated, 1 black person in town of 100. This person probably has no store alter
There is of course another economist, Robert Murphy, Krugman won’t debate even for 80k to charity. Donate to make it so big he can’t ignore? http://krugmandebate.com/
February 28, 2013 at 2:33pm
Not by giving the government control of drones on american land. You want the future. I think saying that is stupid frankly but at least if you are going to play with them keep them out of American land.
February 28, 2013 at 1:13pm
So progressives are big government socialist. What republicans keep voting for more government?
Well lets look to spending under Bush-Medicare D, the patriot act, the militarization of police, the drug war, the fight against gay rights
>SE Culp just proposed a whole new layer of thought police and run Christians out of the party. Is that not progressive? She attacked CPAC for being conservative, I know she is not elected but is that conservative or progressive?
Here is the libertarian look on this. Ok, it is your right to disclude gays from your club. But if I take issue with that I can tell people that is why I won’t go there. I can encourage others not to do so. Now furthermore progressivism would be if she encouraged the government to pass a law saying you have to take the gays. This is social pressure. There is a strong difference as one reflects the people’s moral stance and the other reflects force of some groups version. Also how does this run Christians out of the party. Your values are your own. You just don’t get to legislated them. Keep your CPAC if you want.
February 28, 2013 at 12:15pm
Who where you listening to. I would recommend Peter Schiff.
February 28, 2013 at 12:13pm
Sorry replied to the wrong thing and don’t know how to remove it…
February 28, 2013 at 12:11pm
You are the same as Jack Hunter (a “libertarian” on th epanel, well he’s a paleocon). Good enough and an ally on the federal government if you really believe these are states issues. (I know I put those libertarian party confirmation stickers here somewhere)
February 28, 2013 at 12:09pm
Try listening to Peter Schiff as a start.
February 28, 2013 at 11:52am
>Until we change the culture, both Beck and Coulter are right. Libertarians will get no where. Their message needs to resonate with people again because they have gotten bad PR. What is the first question asked of a Libertarian? It’s either about the legalization of drugs or sex laws. Libertarians have such good ideas, they need to tone down the big changes until they have an audience that doesn’t see them through evil glasses.
Well I agree that we need to take a reverse progressivism approach. I mean I’m entirely against taxation. I see it as theft. Right now much of the country will go for MJ legalization. It isn’t a big idea anymore. Again I say is the person able to use your money on alcohol? I mean we can be rational people and devise ways to avoid that. I supported the drug testing approach that was recently rule unconstitutional in FL, but if such things are legal we can monitor at the site of sale.