Yo, that you think it counts as a concession for you to agree to something that is unequivocally true(FRB predates the Federal Reserve by centuries! That there were bank failures doesn't disprove the existence of FRB any more than a food truck going out of business proves that sandwiches are an artifact of government meddling) is why I don't engage with you. This isn't an argument.

You're asking me to tutor you in economics, but hold on, there's a catch: if I get too fancy with the egghead talk you'll disagree with me because you REALLY REALLY REALLY want us to be on the verge of a hyperinflationary fiscal apocalypse.


LOL, naw man, I'll pass. Instead, why don't you go give some money to Ron Paul? He needs it to expose the homosexual agenda of the HW Bush administration. And the FEMA camps. Agenda 21?

/forum

If they child *is capable of* consenting & consents, then no obviously.

I already explained. Go back and reread. If you still don't understand, I can't help you.

One thing that might help you though: ask yourself if any of the two questions I mentioned a few posts ago has an answer "No" and why.

Have you ever been to a libertarian event or joined up with a libertarian group? Libertarians cannot reject these folks because they are those folks. You want them to be one way, but they are another.

Your suggestion is pretty good though.

You don't read and you are incapable of understanding context, as you think I'm arguing something that I'm not. *Of course* FRB has existed in a free market--bank failures are what kept it in check. Huge multiples of leverage are only possible through FRB's institutionalization through a lender of last resort Anyone who read my post honestly (here I am talking about "Good Faith" again) could see this. Speaking of "Good Faith":


Good Faith and Reading Comprehension, my friend. Together they will take you far.

Pretty much /thread... as was just demonstrated by the ultra-rightists/Rothbardians ITT. They can't ever let go of their 'rightness' because that's what they are (and really all they are).

Sure, the Republicans, paleo-conservatives, paleo-libertarians, Gold buggery clowns, 'Austrians', L.Ron, conspiritards, ACists, NAPiteraian 'Axiom'-addicts... in other words the right, or at least that part of the right which is libertarian... needs to go if the goals are abating the wars on drug users, or foreigners, or more rights for woman and immigrants.

But if you abandon the right, and wanna work towards those kinda social ends using reformist means... well those are all liberal ends, and reformism is the libber means. In other words, if you take the ultra-right wing "tarian" part out of "libertarian" what you got left is a "liberal", just like any other modern liberal, or social democrat.

And P.S. to the NAPiterians: As I've blogged several times on this BBS, the fatal logical flaw that always leads you NAPpies into defending/hand waiving away about child prostitution and 'voluntary' slavery and such is the self-contradictory non-principal of 'Self-Ownership'. It is an obvious case of garbage-in, really stinky garbage-out.

OWS is not, in fact, a "Libertarian" group.

Come on, brah. Campaign for liberty, OWS, College Libertarians, College Greens, Green Party, and the Federalist Society off the top of my head. If you watched PCU I'm one of the cause heads.

Well, you've certainly hung out with enough stoners to call yourself a Libertarian.

I'm unsure because of your position on the Second Amendment though.

Thoughts on the TSA?

I wonder how many liberty loving libertarians support the ACLU. I bet not many.

I wonder the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment?

To provide a serious response, I'm about 50/50 on them. I support some of their causes, disagree with others, typically my support is stronger than my opposition though, so we'll call their presence a net positive.

Treat the 2nd Amendment just like the 1st and 4th and they'd be GOAT cause IMO.

I'm not a libertarian, though I really empathize with their cause. I am more of just a run of the mill talking head progressive guy.

You know me, living constitution so we can have reasonable controls on the 2nd amendment. I love guns and gun control. Hypocrite fo' sho'.

There is a need for plane safety ldo. But our current system is not really efficient. You do give up rights when you go onto a plane, but TSA people should not be able to molest kids.

A private charity that fights against governmental oppression and for civil liberties and general freedom? That's basically a no true scotsman type deal. I can't imagine calling anyone a libertarian if they didn't support it.

No one is going to take CNN.com videos seriously either. Especially if it has Wolf Blitzer in those absurd hipster glasses.

ACLU 2nd amendment stance

It was a rhetorical question Trolly. I already knew the ACLU had that ridiculous, debunked "Collective right" theory.

I assumed zikzak did too.

ETA: that is pretty sweet though.

Ranting cause you have no idea what someone is saying isn't picking low hanging fruit.

I'll agree that the arguers should abandon their argument immediately though, because most people won't grasp it and will just end up hearing something awful in its place.

Except that 99% of the world (the sane part) decides that no child is capable of consenting, then works backwards to create appropriate laws. IE - no thriving market in children. Nobody wants to live in that kind of crazy hellscape.

Yep.

Scottish argument or not, it's definitely a bit strange to me how frequently libertarians seem to completely ignore the established organizations fighting for the exact same things libertarians claim to care about but advocate much less successfully. In the general (and hopelessly derailed) theme of the thread, I'm rhetorically asking...

I'm not sure what I'm asking. I'm just pointing to the ACLU, NORML, Amnesty International, etc etc etc, and kinda going . Like, what unaddressed problem is libertarianism even trying to solve if you take away the fringe right wing economic stuff?

eta: I realize this is not even a remotely original comment in this thread.

We want to roll all that good stuff up into one party, with this as the theme:

How about not aggressing on others?

Impossible.

I convinced my parents to move their IRAs to Schiff's company in August 2008, which was horrible timing given that commodities crashed in October of 2008, and of course his macro strategy is heavily based on a bull market in commodities.

Aggregated those investments have still gained 20% per annum, even with the poor timing, which are damn nice returns. Care to admit that you are talking directly out of your ass?