I'm guessing the shift down ballet will be permanent. Simply put, they get way more bang/buck shoveling money into ALEC,etc -vs- POTUSBOWL.

QED

To elaborate: the 'organized' faction of the "Libertarian Party" is a front for white nationalists. Work has already been shown up thread. We can dig even deeper. This would be interesting! The libertarians are the ancaps are the monarchists are the fascists, and so on. They hold meetings in public, LOL.

It's interesting how nobody has to cite anything, basically make everything up as you go along, and then the burden is shifted on you. I mean, keep the card in the deck from time to time; it's more useful that way. Pro tip.

Any updates from this guy, leaves? You see him at the airport yesterday?

I was playing poker. Politics came up, but wasn't serious.

http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/29...ities-airport/

add:

Maybe if HC invited GJ to debate, this immigration policy could've been discussed.

What would my sign read, hmmmm: "Terrorism insurance is a good on the market place. This whole 'we the people' doesn't make any logical sense, neither does the common good, and the common defense. WTF the common good of 300M people WTF does that actually mean? Can't private enterprise just buy terrorism insurance, instead of having everyone else pay for the costs of their free enterprise by government?"

Or, I could become a poet, and I have my moments. Lets see. "Me the People"

The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda

The burden has been shifted to you.

Got this far. Not wasting more time. Buchanan is not a libertarian.

Now, since your burden is so low that you have to stretch it where Buchanan is a libertarian, can I now say all democrats are racist because Byrd was a leader in the KKK?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan

Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle at the core, not racism, not whichever pundit Fly started to link and connect all kinds of dots in the OP, definately not Buchanan, and so on.

Who made you the king of saying what LTism is?

The term was think tanked up by the usual business lobbyist groups just after WW2, was popularized by one of the Koch bros running for VPOTUS in the 1970s, and today primarily exists as the think tank arm of the Kochtopus. Also a insignificant remnant of the Official LTism Party straggles on nominating G.Johnson for unknown reasons.

Besides, the NAP is a buncha childish crap. What, have you been in a coma the last few years ??

Yes, you're right, you're the king. Fly is the king, Mark Levin is a libertarian! LOL! Buchanan is a libertarian LOL! It's not a disingenuous game of CONNECT THE DOTS. You're like all super sleuths here, and I'm just playing the same game with (D) Senator Byrd, right? To me this is somewhat symbolic of the lack-of-inquiry on the left, and how everything just bounces off the walls from one tabloid to another, one blog to another, etc. Connect the Dots is not a Trival Pursuit, lol.

The term Kochtopus was created by SEK3, an agoristarian, which is more where I am at. The NAP is very logical when properly understood and applied. It's quite foolish to allow people to over claim property, and land, and this leads to all kinds of disputes that could be avoided, largely nation-states with their vast territorial claims, landing in dispute time and time again, and going to war time and time again.

Basically, the word libertarian has no meaning anymore. The LP is populated with Constitutionalists these days. The ancaps kind'a left. GJ was no threat in the debates, but I think the LP's case for allowing them in the debates would've been stronger if they picked someone smarter. I also think HC had better chances inviting GJ to the debate.

It goes against human nature, and maybe nature in general. The strong have power over the weak, the strong take advantage of the weak. The NAP can't protect the weak.

This is an interesting argument. I much prefer the concept of mutual aid. Join a social group, pay dues, and insure each other against risks. Or just buy an insurance policy. This is preferable to government, which serves as a mandatory insurance policy which has a bad history. The weak are the first to be conscripted into wars over land. You essentially have to fight for everyone else's land. It's not the strong that wind-up in the military, imho.

They're called the police.

I'm not arguing that the status quo doesn't work. It doesn't work very well, and a better world is possible. A lot of low IQ's wind-up in the police, convinced that they are strong, stupidly put themselves in harms way, apart from the survival instinct, and are convinced that their work is full of this intangible good called "honor". I mean, I guess you do it either for the chicks, or you are somewhat incompetent, and can't find a better job, or have a violent nature. That's my current read on the police.

No pro-social reasons you can imagine?

At least in Canada, policing is viewed as a perfectly honorable profession. Some cops are dumb, and some are sharp, like everyone else. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it, and I'd rather the majority of high IQs were doing something else with their big brains. Society would have a hard time progressing if only smart people could be trusted with policing and security issues. (And, I assume, there's plenty of smart people out there who feel compelled to be a cop over finding the cure for cancer, or becoming a lawyer, or whatever.)

God I hate it when lawyers get grouped with doctors in "honorable" trade discussions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lawyers are coming off pretty honorable to me these days, all that airport pro-bono work. And my brother's in law school, and he's alright.

Of course in agreement that higher IQs are better off doing something else. In the US, there's a police state brewing, so the police are more populated with thugs, at least in major cities. This is not really true in rural areas.

This is more what the liberty movement seems like at times. Ron Paul managed to hold it all together. Now basically everyone goes separate ways.

Torches you say

We didn't punch them hard enough last time.

Next torch march should be met with a good 50 cal and artillery tbqh

Rand Paul was furious on CNN about Sessions and all the things he is doing to brown and black people.

(despite voting to confirm)

Yeah if only some of us had been sounding the alarm that Sessions was awful for civil rights (including his favoring of civil forfeiture) before the confirmation :eyeroll:

Profiles in Libertarian Courage


https://twitter.com/lindsaywise/stat...27255023779841