Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

The New United States wrote:This is why people don't take libertarians seriously.

Besides, the roads are owned publicly and thus subject to public regulation. In a completely private society, private road owners would undoubtedly also forbid drunk driving.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:If we're gonna complain about authoritarianism, drunk drunk driving laws are probably the most laughable thing to complain about.

Prohibiting the random activation of a device designed to cause harm of life and limb (such as a firearm) is in itself prudent, and in some communities probably pertinent. It cannot infringe upon a person lawfully using their firearms, however. My neighbors generally shoot their shotguns up in the air at 0000 on New Year's and light off enough fireworks to irritate everyone trying to sleep withing a country mile. As long as no one is hurt (and my cows do not give soured milk the next day) what is it to a third party?

Kongeriget Island wrote:Hope you are all watching the European handball tournament, you guys need to learn about proper sport instead of this violent ‚football‘ you play

Before my spine injury that was one of my favorites to play. Most of my American friends liked to use a racket, but handball is/was funner to play. Watching any sport if I do not know the participants is never entertaining for long though.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I never implied such a thing as Trump being bad. That said, it should be well known that I don't like him.

My focus was on the fact that Trump is using Christianity (which he most certainly does not care one bit about) as a tool to win elections and so called pious Christians are putting the hypocrite on a pedestal (wonder what that makes them?)

See

Narland wrote:...
I tried to answer that general thought.

Addenda. Trump is nominally Presbyterian (a quintessential Americanist Denomination) so it is not surprising that he resinates with the majority of nominal Christians.

I think Trump is a casual Christian that doesn't really think about it much, besides maybe the occasional prayer when he remembers that's a thing Christians do. It's just a label he's adopted. I don't think it's insecere, I just don't think he thinks about it much. That being said, I don't give a flip as an atheist.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Narland wrote:I doubt it. Being Omniscient means your cannot be surprised. I would like to think that He would spin Atheists in their graves, but that would in contrary to his character and nature.

I seems that most people in the US who think they are Christians aren't thinking things through.

Those who consider themselves Christians yet do not:

>>>know their God intimately,

>>>study their Scriptures thoroughly,

>>>practice their faith wholly,

>>>understand their history integrally

>>>nor can barely articulate its tenets to even adhere to it

are not the Christians they think they are.

Most Christians who are Christians do not need a Chaplain America in the White House, anyway.

We need a wrecking ball to bash down the Statists contraptions in DC and a President that will thrash the status quo. We do need a revival in our hearts and in our land, but that is a separate order from electing a "Cyrus" to reject the Progressivist unlawful encroachment of our Liberties. While revival and Liberty may go hand in hand that is not always necessarily so.

Amen

The New United States

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I am first in the region for recreational drug use.

Hippy

The New United States, Rateria

For the sports debate aussie rules footballl is great

Narland

Old hippies are now boomers which is hilarious

The New United States

Suzi Island wrote:Old hippies are now boomers which is hilarious

When I think of boomers I still think of people running to boomtowns (or since the Keynes Banksters tightened the screws in the 60s/70) -- limp to the next econ bubble) to make money.

The last thing I think is Hippie. When I think of an "Old Hippy" I think of the "Thoroughly Modern" Flapper and Flamer/Sheik that were stilll living a bohemian lifestyle as they were the "gramps and gramms" when I was a teen. Most assimilated into American society but some remained. The now "old" Hippies remind me of them.

When I was a kid, what are now called Boomers were demographically called Generation X by both the New Academicians and Madison Avenue Marketers. It generally rotates X => Y => Z and back again. I try to ignore Labels created solely by Social Engineers that ignores reality or some practical utility.

Suzi Island wrote:For the sports debate aussie rules footballl is great

Anything that mixes Aussie Rules footaball with Rugby and Mixed Martial Arts has my attention, just throw in football bats and we are good to go. Well maybe not MMA and bats, but that is the direction that American Football should head -- back to more running and kicking, not turning it further into a no-contact sport with pickets for linemen.

A Great Uncle on the NZ side of my family talked about US and Australian troops playing a combo of American Rules and Australian rules football during WW2. I have heard people talk about it, but have never been able to find the rules. It allowed both the kicking and passing of both and lots of lateral passing iirc.

@Lib

Sports like throwing hammers, eh Icelander?

Narland, Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Ok boomer

You can call me anything but late for dinner.

The New United States, Rateria

Narland wrote:You can call me anything but late for dinner.

Ok late for dinner

The New United States, Rateria

Millienials are worse than boomers

>I just outlawed emigration

fug

Hello, i’m new

Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Rafakta wrote:Hello, i’m new

Welcome to Libertatem! I am Rateria, and I have been here for many years. Much of our activity is on the Discord server, so feel free to join us on there.

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

For all our libertarian citizens, what's the most annoying thing about other libertarians? What's the best thing? What're some common misconceptions about us?

Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:For all our libertarian citizens, what's the most annoying thing about other libertarians? What's the best thing? What're some common misconceptions about us?

I hate it when people assume getting the government out of every day life means abolishing the state

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Rafakta wrote:Hello, i’m new

Welcome to Libertatem.

Miri Islands wrote:I hate it when people assume getting the government out of every day life means abolishing the state

That is the big misconception, or that because you are for limited government it means you are anti-government (insinuating uncivil disobedience).

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:They're not libertarians

Libertarian thought includes a large array of ideas. Just because someone doesn't conform to your brand of Libertarianism doesn't mean they get their "L card" revoked.

Rateria, Kongeriget Island

***Narland got his L-Card revoked for having too many books overdue...***

Rateria, Skaveria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Narland wrote:***Narland got his L-Card revoked for having too many books overdue...***

Sounds like the plot to an episode of Arthur

Narland

Miri Islands wrote:Sounds like the plot to an episode of Arthur
Better an episode plot of Arthur than that of Elwood, I suppose. :)

Team Hartford Whalers wrote: this land is my land

It's free real estate

Guys do you know of any Discord group for those who are trying to quit smoking/other forms of tobacco? Asking for a friend

Skaveria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:So what you're trying to tell me is, you're not a libertarian?

It depends on what your threshold for being a libertarian is. For example, I'm perfectly happy to accept folks who are 51% liberty leaning just to advance the movement. We can worry about ideological purity and consolidation later, maybe after we actually have a chance to gain some power.

As for myself, every political test I've taken over the last four years has put me solidly in the Libertarian camp, with the Republican and Constitution parties fighting for second place. I've often described myself as "conservitarian" but the WAYS I'm "conservative" aren't very conservative at all.

Socially I'd like to see the legalization of all drugs, prostitution, and anything else that's not anyone's business. Economically I'm as free market as it gets. The confusing part is that I do see the wall as being a hypothetically valid government expenditure, voter id laws seem reasonable to me, I think abortion is murder, and I see the left as a way bigger threat to liberty than the right. At least conservatives pretend to consider liberty, progressives openly mock the word whenever they hear it.

And all that being said, if Gabbard made it to the general, she might have my vote over the Don, even though I do like him so much, a lot less lately, but still.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:But nicotine is good.

Smoking a cigarette was symbolic to Miss Rand. As one character in Atlas Shrugged said, “I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. ... When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind–and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression.”

Skaveria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:But nicotine is good.

Can you once just not? I didn't say it was good; I said it wasn't a drug. Fúckhead

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Shut up.

Low standards never advances anything... Except low standards.

We're not in a position to have high standards. If we demand everyone in the party pass a purity test, we'll wind up with no people. Most people are liberty-minded about one issue or another, drugs, war, prisons, ect. The libertarian movement is the only movement that's serious about abolishing a lot of these institutions. We have a perfect opportunity to build a coalition with these people now. You can't separate the wheat from the chaff when you literally have no wheat, beggars can't be choosers, other colloquialisms, ect, ect.

Kongeriget Island

Most people have libertarian leanings on at least a few issues

Kongeriget Island wrote:Guys do you know of any Discord group for those who are trying to quit smoking/other forms of tobacco? Asking for a friend

>using discord

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Chasing numbers has literally done no good for any organization.

It really is always necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff, because no one, not even a beggar, can eat chaff. If we have no wheat, it's not because we didn't have low enough standards, it's because our standards were not high enough and we didn't understand farming (maybe we should switch to another plant). A farmer who allows weeds to grow up in his field is an idiot, and a farmer who thinks that he'll be more successful lowering standards by tending to his wheat and all the other grasses that'll try growing in his field is an idiot.

It's okay though, the state will probably pay him either way.

When people join a team, they tend to adopt the positions of that team. That means that folks who become active in the Libertarian cause will become more libertarian over time as they're exposed to more ideas and great people doing good work. I understand the idealism, I really do, but the bottom line is a simple calculation.

We can be a 100% ideologically pure party from the base up to pundants and nominees, we'll be truthful and forthright with our principles, but we'll lose.

The Libertarian party will eventually be reduced to the level of the Greens, Constitutionists, ect, a mere distraction, whenever people hear the word "libertarian" they'll think: "Oh yeah, those people exist." Then they'll carry on without a second thought. JUST like the Greens.

OR, alternatively, we could take a risk and cast a wider net. We could inflate the Libertarian numbers so we could actually effect change, banking on the supposition that those new people won't change the fabric of the party, but rather the party will change them.

This whole notion of scouring every nook and cranny for pure libertarians, then mobilising them only works if those people actually exist. They don't, we have to manufacture libertarians.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Kongeriget Island wrote:Guys do you know of any Discord group for those who are trying to quit smoking/other forms of tobacco? Asking for a friend

I would recommend self-hypnosis techniques developed by a reputable source such as Mayo Clinic (not the CDs sold by stage magicians at the county fair).

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Have fun with your opportunism. The thing is, how can you call your team "libertarian" if it's simply become an opportunist party like the Dems and Republicans? How can you call it anything but demagoguery?

It shouldn't be about winning elections, it should be about being right. The truth doesn't need to become less truthful, nor should it.

It's how you play the game. If it's a choice between no Libertarian representation at all or some libertarian-ish representation, I'll take the latter. There isn't an option where we win on pure principle. This party needs a healthy dose of realism.

The United States Of Patriots

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

You can't fully test ideology and keep your party completely pure, sure. There still needs to be some form of checking though. If you want to have an effective party, you need to maintain a core base of issues that everyone runs for and supports. Take the Republican party for example, I'm sure most Republicans support LGBT+ rights and marriage because its such an easy issue to win points with, but because they've allowed that dissent, most people will automatically peg them as the party of anti-LGBT. People will associate you with your least popular policy. If the Libertarians want to win, they can't be allowing wackos who claim you should be able to sell heroin to kids to go around representing them.

They desperately need to learn how to politic. You can truly believe in your heart that all drugs should be legal, or that drunk driving shouldn't be a crime, but those aren't winning votes. Run on popular issues like LGBT+ rights, legalizing weed, and even cutting spending/lowering taxes until you put yourself in the place to start going further.

The American political system is absolutely horrendous and only really allows for boring, establishment, moderate centrists from the two parties to gain any real power, but it can't be the excuse for every third party failure. The American public is becoming more and more alienated and disillusioned with the system. Candidates like Trump, Yang, Sanders, and even Tulsi who've slammed their parties' establishments are increasingly popular. If there is any time to capitalize on this, it's now.

Skaveria

Skaveria wrote:

And all that being said, if Gabbard made it to the general, she might have my vote over the Don, even though I do like him so much, a lot less lately, but still.

I'm actually really interested in why you'd prefer Tulsi, honestly. I had pegged her as someone this region would hate.

Jadentopian Order wrote:I'm actually really interested in why you'd prefer Tulsi, honestly. I had pegged her as someone this region would hate.

I love her stances on foreign policy and war, I respect her service as a veteran, she doesn't demonize the other side and treats them like human beings, she had the stones to go after Clinton publicly, she called out the DNC for stealing Bernie's nomination, those are a few, I know most of those aren't exactly policy reasons, but they move me nonetheless. Sure, she's a Keynesian and only sane on guns when compared to her competition, but Trump has his own set of problems.

I felt betrayed when he foolishly launched us into a trajectory of war with Iran, non-interventionism is one of the reasons I voted for him in 2016. The raising of the smoking age and the gaul to do it though a rider, along with the banning of menthols and other flavored nicotine products coming down the pipes in May has really made me irritated with him as well.

This is a man I've defended for three damn years as being more in tune with liberty than people gave him credit for. He didn't campaign on cracking down on legal marijuana states, yet if this is how he handles nicotine, I can only imagine weed will be handled with even more prejudice. I still like his bombastic personality, the wall, and several other things, but his actions of late have shaken my faith in him.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Buh-buh-but th-thats Satanic witchcraft.

lol. Someone better tell Benny Hinn...

I see Statanic Whichcraft more as Congress aiming to spend N Trillions of Taxpayers money (that they do not have), but then appropriating only 2/3 of the N Trillions (they do not have) so they can tell the taxpayers that they cut spending by 1/3 N Trillions (of the projected N Trillions that they didn't have) while spending just increased by 2/3 of N Trillions (that they did not have). It's magic.

Rateria

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Shut up.

Low standards never advances anything... Except low standards.

There is a difference in maintaining objective standards personally while trying to objectively change the societal standards (status quo). Organizations need their core groups and covenance, but also their more general congregants (with a diluted amenability) and the ever more general periphery (learning to accept the ideals of Liberty).

Maintaining a personal standard in a state of deprivation (such as current society's penchant for tyranny) is a hope (or more colloquially, a goal). Once the goal is attained, that gain can become the standard (proper). Once gained it is more readily set (settled), more steadily adhered, and more commonly kept.

It is one of the few things (arguably the only thing) that Progressivists (and ilk) are good at but unfortunately rarely if ever used for good. It is their hammer and everyone and everything is their nail. They will bash anyone and everything with it until millions of people dead and societies are in ruins. But that is their intermediate goal anyway.

When used properly as a tool for advanced planning in advocating Liberty as the standard, good comes from it. A friend recently remarked that even when Socialism is done "right," millions of people suffer and die, but when Capitalism (he used Capitalism to mean Open Market Free Enterprise) is implemented even shoddily millions of people end up better off for it.

In your opinion, when does the right to self-governance get superseded? Here's three cases: the CSA, Palestine, and Northern Ireland. All three were responsible for terrorism, all three have a history of racism, all three either seek or sought independence, but I'd wager we all have different opinions on all three.

In retrospect, Catalonia is a good addition. It's my opinion that all four should have had independence a long time ago, even though I detest Islam and Socialism. Sinn Fein is only kinda Socialist, but whatever, the point stands.

Skaveria wrote:In your opinion, when does the right to self-governance get superseded? Here's three cases: the CSA, Palestine, and Northern Ireland. All three were responsible for terrorism, all three have a history of racism, all three either seek or sought independence, but I'd wager we all have different opinions on all three.

In retrospect, Catalonia is a good addition. It's my opinion that all four should have had independence a long time ago, even though I detest Islam and Socialism. Sinn Fein is only kinda Socialist, but whatever, the point stands.

Norther Ireland voted to stay though

Narland wrote:I would recommend self-hypnosis techniques developed by a reputable source such as Mayo Clinic (not the CDs sold by stage magicians at the county fair).

Yeah, that sounds like some new age thing

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Norther Ireland voted to stay though

If they ever did vote to leave, they have a right to is all I'm saying. Should've worded it better

my average lifespan is 22 years. Ouch

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/297762352546316290/668563448300568576/unknown.png

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/297762352546316290/668563448300568576/unknown.png

Me: https://images.app.goo.gl/szh7GbGpUVSgTjyQ8

Miencraft

The problem with libertarians and libertarian voters is that we aren't an identifiable voting block. You have clusters of liberals in cities and conservatives in rural areas, but libertarians are all over the place, which makes it harder to consolidate our power.

The New Hampshire project was an attempt at fixing that, but it still has a long way to go.

Narland, Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:The problem with libertarians and libertarian voters is that we aren't an identifiable voting block. You have clusters of liberals in cities and conservatives in rural areas, but libertarians are all over the place, which makes it harder to consolidate our power.

The New Hampshire project was an attempt at fixing that, but it still has a long way to go.

The current libertarian movement seems hopeless, honestly. Because of the nature of the political system, you need to start a movement from within a party. The Democrats are terrible at using their party, and now the establishment is paying the price. They've spent the entire primary trying to slander the candidates that actually threaten them. Bernie is polling at #1-2 consistently, and Biden and Buttigieg are losing steam, despite their best efforts to keep them afloat. The Dems have the progressive movement to deal with because of how awful their management is. Meanwhile, the Republicans are excellent at using their party. There is virtually no dissent allowed. You can talk about congressmen like Rand Paul all you want, but every Republican knows, they have to support Trump. There's no real room for a libertarian movement, every "libertarian" republican still has to bow to Trump and the party. If you're truly a libertarian, you're just expected to vote for Trump like everyone else, because doing otherwise makes you some closeted socialist traitor. The Democrats have a wing that openly rebelled against Pelosi, and is not afraid to speak ill of Obama and Biden.

If there's going to be a true libertarian movement, it won't be coming from the Republican party, the only place a movement like that can come from.

Narland

Skaveria wrote:In your opinion, when does the right to self-governance get superseded? Here's three cases: the CSA, Palestine, and Northern Ireland. All three were responsible for terrorism, all three have a history of racism, all three either seek or sought independence, but I'd wager we all have different opinions on all three.

In retrospect, Catalonia is a good addition. It's my opinion that all four should have had independence a long time ago, even though I detest Islam and Socialism. Sinn Fein is only kinda Socialist, but whatever, the point stands.

The right to governance gets superseded when those who are supposedly governing themselves cannot contain themselves (literally) such that they overflow their malfeasance whether from within (a despotic state oppressing themselves) or from without (aggression and subversion upon other self-governing societies) by which they coerce or defraud others from their rights as individual human beings ending either by lawful insurrection (in the former) and necessary invasion (in the latter).

As terrorism is a recent political fiction of convenience removing by a degree the actual crimes (perfidy, piracy, brigandry, outlawry, murder, larceny etc ), I prefer to deal with the direct actions of perpetrators instead of obfuscating them with an additional layer of Statist baggage. CSA denied the recognition of Negroes as persons. The West Bank occupants who militantly deny the right of Israel to exist as a nation at all have no business in the same vicinity as that State. Fein Sein denied the rights of anyone those whom did not adhere to their pet doctrines for a wholly independent Ireland made amenable only to Marxist activity (by whom my Great-grandfather's wife and children were murdered). Barcelona seems to want to be let be without bombing Castile once independent -- let them.

Jadentopian Order wrote:I'm actually really interested in why you'd prefer Tulsi, honestly. I had pegged her as someone this region would hate.

I'd vote Tulsi for Pres over a Lindsey Graham or a Romney. The most important power the President has is command over the Armed Forces, and her foreign policy positions are great.

Plus, under a President Gabbard, I imagine the GOP would return to their Obama-era practice of at least rhetorically supporting balanced budgets and reining in government.

Rateria

New poll in Zentari. Come and vote!

Who Will Win Superbowl 54?

Zurkerx wrote:New poll in Zentari. Come and vote!

Who Will Win Superbowl 54?

The 49ers are a solid all around team, sure, but they were handed that game. Green Bay's success was fraudulent -- their defense is inconsistent and their offense carried them to 13-3 against a bunch of push-over teams. I don't think there's any way you put them over San Francisco. The 49ers have their weaknesses. I mean, Jimmy G has barely shown up so far these playoffs, and they're relying heavily on a rushing offense that's led by their #2 guy. I don't buy it at all. Either they get the passing game going again, or the Chiefs are gonna run all over them. Patrick Mahomes has played crazy these past two games, especially with Tyreek Hill being so unstoppable, and the Chiefs' D is showing it can clutch up. I have to take the Chiefs here, 38-27.

In Idaho it is Civil Rights Day/MLK, Jr. Day. At least Federally a Republican has a national holiday, even if he was one of the least consistent GOPers. I am re-reading Letters From A Birmingham Jail.

Don't forget Malcolm X Day on May 15th. His autobiography is worth reading. I read it in the 5th grade and it helped to realize that I could never join the Democrat party.

Narland wrote:In Idaho it is Civil Rights Day/MLK, Jr. Day. At least Federally a Republican has a national holiday, even if he was one of the least consistent GOPers. I am re-reading Letters From A Birmingham Jail.

Don't forget Malcolm X Day on May 15th. His autobiography is worth reading. I read it in the 5th grade and it helped to realize that I could never join the Democrat party.

Isn't it just a myth that he was a Republican?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

He was a pro-union Republican. He didn't live to join the migration to the Democrat party that took place from the late 60s to the the present state of affairs. Most pro-union Republicans would readily vote for a Democrat candidate if they were more pro-union (or broke ranks with the Dem Platform and were also pro-Civil Rights).

My grandfather who was also a pro-union Republican. He considered MLK, Jr. a fellow Republican, and belonged to some of the same organizations. It was hard for him to remain GOP with the likes of the Rockefellers gaining Establishment control of his party, but held out hope for a shake-up because Liberty and Equality was more important to him than Unionism.

The union question of the GOP didn't bother me as much as I was swayed more at the time by JBS and saw Goldwater as the base for reforming the GOP and in the 70s the likes of Reagan, and Paul, FEE, and Constructive Action (a late 60s/early 70s manifestation of TEA) as the the future of the GOP. By the 1980s a supermajority of Blacks had been convinced that the free stuff offered by the Dems was preferable to the freedom offered by GOP.

When it became apparent the union leaders were only interested in towing the Democrat party line (and most union leaders showed themselves hostile to Conservatism), and with the Civil Rights questions resolved (thanks to the Dems Capitulating) most pro-Union republicans "went Red" (turned Democrat) or stopped supporting unions altogether. Back then being a registered Democrat was tantamount to being anti-civil rights, but when Johnson turned and supported the Civil Righs act, it allowed them to persuade the rank and file urbanites (including Afro-Americans, 80% who were urban to join them despite formerly seeking to enslave them and deprive them of their rights.

It was a very different America back then. Dem and GOP weren't divisively worn on the cuffs like they are today. Both parties represented a more diverse constituency. The Americanist foundations were common to both parties and what differed was which direction we should go. Being a Democrat wasn't necessarily exclusive to being Republican and vice-versa.

Today the question is do we continue down the road to serfdom (Progressivists who run the Democrat Party), create a new despotism of our very own (Corporatists who run the GOP), or return to the precepts of Liberty and Freedom (minorities unwelcome in both parties).

In other news a Pro-Gum Rally in Singapore failed as would-be protesters could not find any.

Rateria, Miri Islands

Jadentopian Order wrote:The current libertarian movement seems hopeless, honestly. Because of the nature of the political system, you need to start a movement from within a party. The Democrats are terrible at using their party, and now the establishment is paying the price. They've spent the entire primary trying to slander the candidates that actually threaten them. Bernie is polling at #1-2 consistently, and Biden and Buttigieg are losing steam, despite their best efforts to keep them afloat. The Dems have the progressive movement to deal with because of how awful their management is. Meanwhile, the Republicans are excellent at using their party. There is virtually no dissent allowed. You can talk about congressmen like Rand Paul all you want, but every Republican knows, they have to support Trump. There's no real room for a libertarian movement, every "libertarian" republican still has to bow to Trump and the party. If you're truly a libertarian, you're just expected to vote for Trump like everyone else, because doing otherwise makes you some closeted socialist traitor. The Democrats have a wing that openly rebelled against Pelosi, and is not afraid to speak ill of Obama and Biden.

If there's going to be a true libertarian movement, it won't be coming from the Republican party, the only place a movement like that can come from.

By true Libertarian I take it to mean Objectivist Libertarianism, then no probably not. The GOP would have to return to its Classical Liberal roots first. Paleo-Cons within who are trying to do so are facing an uphill battle.

The GOP just appears united because it is literally Trump and His Motley Band of Deplorables vs the World, and the world (including the GOP Establishment) wasn't prepared for the likes of Trump.

Trump is the expression of open rebellion within the ranks of the GOP for robbing Ron Paul of the candidacy. Paul won the Iowa straw poll, and should have been backed immediately, but this was obfuscated by the Establishment GOP who lied about it, and the Press (a rare tempory alliance) did their "New Top Tier" BS that brought Romney (a corrupt Crony Capitalist Establishment Lackey) to the win. Trump is our retaliation.

The Dems are experiencing this 4 years later with the betrayal of Bernie for Hillary. The difference is that Bernie is still in the race (whereas Ron Paul retired). Bernie is the expression of that retaliation. A greater retaliation will happen if Bernie isn't nominated this time around. If not nominated it will be 1968 all over again for the Dems as history rhymes with itself.

These are politics as usual. It is just that the ubiquitous use of Social Media platforms has allowed everyone to see how rotten the Establishment control in both parties actually is, (but not how rotten it historically has been). The real battle since Viet-Nam in America is Establishment verses Disestablishment.

It has been that way usually in both parties since the Progressivist era began with election of Teddy Roosevelt for the GOP and Wilson for the Democrat Party. The power brokers that guide the DNC and RNC (today's instruments of control) keep a tight reign on their candidates to give an appearance of popular choice, while electing a President that will tow the Establishmentarian line. This was very easy by the 50s when Broadcast Media all got their feeds from AP and UPI all owned by the same interlocking group of corporations. Disestablishmentarians and outsiders were not allowed to advance beyond the need of the power brokers to secure party allegiance.

It does create flukes, but differently (as the Dems tend to be centrifugal and the GOP centripetal their respective flukes are contrariwise to each other). A fluke within the GOP is not as catastrophic to the power players and the RNC quickly regains control. A fluke within the Democrat Party is catastrophic to the power players and they must quickly realign their support network or lose control of their party's machinery to a more radical Establishment as what routinely happens though the decades.

In the GOP, Ronald Reagan was a fluke within the process but was quickly contained during Bush I. The Reagan Revolution was thwarted and it went back to Beltway business as usual. For the Democrats (not wanting to tarnish an otherwise potentially viable candidate) Bill Clinton was offered as a sacrificial lamb and expected to loose against GHW Bush. The DC Establishment lost to the Clintons and their outsider allies from the Chicago Political machine that got Obama (another fluke) elected. The DC establishment adjusted to the new players and went back to Beltway Business as usual. That same machinery is going to try to insert Hilary back into the race when things go south at the Democratic Convention if not before.

The New United States

My liberal friend was trying to tell me that Ron Paul wanted to get rid of seatbelts and bring back asbestos in houses

Suzi Island wrote:My liberal friend was trying to tell me that Ron Paul wanted to get rid of seatbelts and bring back asbestos in houses

Ron Paul might not believe that, but I do.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Suzi Island wrote:My liberal friend was trying to tell me that Ron Paul wanted to get rid of seatbelts and bring back asbestos in houses

I suppose someone who does not know that Liberty is safer than petty despotism would see it that way (until his ox is gored). "If the government doesn't step in people will die." The problem is that historically it has been the opposite -- more people in history have died from external government (unlimited government) than from Liberty/self-government (limited government).

Seat Belts

Ron Paul would have called out for Congress to abolish the Department of Transportation, and in the mean time denied it funding citing the Constitution. Relevant Constitutional responsibilities would have been put in proper venues. For example return the cost of maintenance of the Freeway system would go back to the Dept of Defense until it could be apportioned to the States directly. Freeway System was originally "justified" as a necessary military post/building to transport our Armies between Borders/Coasts for invasion and anywhere Conus for insurrection quickly.

A reorganized Bureau of Standards would get the seat belt data, and as a PSA publish recommended standards. Private insurance companies would be quite interested in the data, and give lower rates for their customers "buckle up." Government need not be involved in the enforcement at all.

Asbestos

One type of asbestos (asbestos composed of fibres less than 5 microns) does not have the health risks that the others do, but it was included in the asbestos ban anyway. The banning of asbestos was a test case to see if the Administrative State (OSHA) could get away with a power grab. They were not as interested in the intricacies of people's health (as much as they crowed about). They were more concerned about securing an unprecedented dominion.

Ron Paul would have encouraged Congress to abolish the EPA and OSHA and denied it funding citing the Constitution. He would return what little constitutional duties they had back to the US Marshals service/FBI, Bureau of Standards, etc. The Standard Bureau would publish relevant data on the actual health risks of the different types. This would have allowed Congress to act appropriately (assuming they would), and industry to manage abatement wisely and much more safely with free market alternatives.

***anecdote alert***

When I buy a car without seatbelts (e.g., 1954 Commander, or 1967 Datsun 110), I always have seat belts installed (or did it myself with the Datsun). There are only two places 3 point safety-belts are detrimental, long steep embankments such as draws/ravines and bodies of water where it is more advantageous (however slight) to not be strapped to the car as it is plummeting/tumbling or sinking.

***end anecdote alert***

Miri Islands

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I wanna bring back polio.

Think of the poor horses... ;)

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I wanna bring back polio.

The eradication of polio has been a disaster for iron lung manufacturers. Let's bring the disease back to help out our local metalworkers.

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:The eradication of polio has been a disaster for iron lung manufacturers. Let's bring the disease back to help out our local metalworkers.

The plague was a boon for textile looms...

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Is the impeachment over yet?

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Just raise tariffs on imported people who lack polio.

Make Polio Great Again

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Narland wrote:I suppose someone who does not know that Liberty is safer than petty despotism would see it that way (until his ox is gored). "If the government doesn't step in people will die." The problem is that historically it has been the opposite -- more people in history have died from external government (unlimited government) than from Liberty/self-government (limited government).

Seat Belts

Ron Paul would have called out for Congress to abolish the Department of Transportation, and in the mean time denied it funding citing the Constitution. Relevant Constitutional responsibilities would have been put in proper venues. For example return the cost of maintenance of the Freeway system would go back to the Dept of Defense until it could be apportioned to the States directly. Freeway System was originally "justified" as a necessary military post/building to transport our Armies between Borders/Coasts for invasion and anywhere Conus for insurrection quickly.

A reorganized Bureau of Standards would get the seat belt data, and as a PSA publish recommended standards. Private insurance companies would be quite interested in the data, and give lower rates for their customers "buckle up." Government need not be involved in the enforcement at all.

Asbestos

One type of asbestos (asbestos composed of fibres less than 5 microns) does not have the health risks that the others do, but it was included in the asbestos ban anyway. The banning of asbestos was a test case to see if the Administrative State (OSHA) could get away with a power grab. They were not as interested in the intricacies of people's health (as much as they crowed about). They were more concerned about securing an unprecedented dominion.

Ron Paul would have encouraged Congress to abolish the EPA and OSHA and denied it funding citing the Constitution. He would return what little constitutional duties they had back to the US Marshals service/FBI, Bureau of Standards, etc. The Standard Bureau would publish relevant data on the actual health risks of the different types. This would have allowed Congress to act appropriately (assuming they would), and industry to manage abatement wisely and much more safely with free market alternatives.

***anecdote alert***

When I buy a car without seatbelts (e.g., 1954 Commander, or 1967 Datsun 110), I always have seat belts installed (or did it myself with the Datsun). There are only two places 3 point safety-belts are detrimental, long steep embankments such as draws/ravines and bodies of water where it is more advantageous (however slight) to not be strapped to the car as it is plummeting/tumbling or sinking.

***end anecdote alert***

I have a classic car, the seatbelts suck it comes in two parts a lap belt and a shoulder belt. I rarely wear the shoulder belt part because it restricts movement alot and I have to wear it very loose to reach the HVAC controls. I usually put it on when I'm on a busy freeway or driving somewhere I'm unfamiliar with

Narland

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:You're more likely to die in a place your familiar with.

Of course more accidents happen where you drive the most. However, per mile driven you're more likely to have an accident where you're unfamiliar with the roads.

Narland

More Asbestos! More Asbestos!

Miri Islands wrote:I have a classic car, the seatbelts suck it comes in two parts a lap belt and a shoulder belt. I rarely wear the shoulder belt part because it restricts movement alot and I have to wear it very loose to reach the HVAC controls. I usually put it on when I'm on a busy freeway or driving somewhere I'm unfamiliar with

What kind of old car do you have? You do not have to answer. In rural areas there is so little traffic that individuals are identified by their cars.

Some of the old ones are like driving around in a living room. There is a nice comfy couch to sit and drive, but one has to have a passenger turn on the radio or Heater because even without seat belts the driver almost has to get up and walk over to the controls to reach them. Hyperbole, but close.

Larry Niven wrote about a sci-fi future "Known Universe" character who despised the Earth Culture rubrics. The disappearing degrees of separation from a United Earth had amalgamated Earth culture into a blasé homogenization of the most unimpressive barely acceptable aesthetics to be tolerated from all different earth cultures. Kind of like how Canada could have had it all: American industry, British Culture, and French Cuisine but got French Industry, American culture, and British cuisine.

I feel that way about contemporary Automobile controls -- a blasé homogenization. There is a sense of excitement about sitting behind the dashboard of an unfamiliar pre-regulated-to-death automobile and learning what the purpose of the various buttons, nobs and levers are for. Kind of like the excitement in not killing myself or others when driving left-handed for the first time in England. :)

Suzi Island wrote:More Asbestos! More Asbestos!

I went to a schoolhouse that had turned one of the basement rooms (meant for storage and emergency civil defense) into a weight room for the wrestling team. One of the pipes in the overhead had a crack in the outer casing and the wrestlers would use the white powder that would fall from it when struck as gripping powder. When it was discovered to be asbestos, they locked the room shut and the government built us a new school building with much safer PCB pipes.

Rateria

Senate Impeachment Pre-Trial Hearings Thus Far:

Trump Deranged Democrats:

If you do not agree with us you are part of a coverup! Who are you going to believe, us or your own lying eyes/ears? When you have the facts argue the facts, when you have the law on your side, argue the law, if you have neither argue nonsense and get the opposition to buy into our narrative by namedropping Framers and Prezs.

Disinterested Democrats and GOP Senators:

Whatya mean I gotta check my smart phone at the door? Oh snap, I am in Hell.

Nevertrumpican GOP:

Come on Dems, give us something substantive to have a reason to backstap Trump and get re-elected.

Trumpican GOP:

This is a farce. Point of fact, (f)x = {Ø} Point of law, (l)x = {Ø} Therefore: Trump2020

American General Populace:

zzzZZZZZZzzzzzZZZZ (snortle) ZZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzz

Narland wrote:What kind of old car do you have? You do not have to answer. In rural areas there is so little traffic that individuals are identified by their cars.

Some of the old ones are like driving around in a living room. There is a nice comfy couch to sit and drive, but one has to have a passenger turn on the radio or Heater because even without seat belts the driver almost has to get up and walk over to the controls to reach them. Hyperbole, but close.

:)

I have a first gen firebird. It's definitely not a full sized boat the controls are easy to reach for the most part and it's very comfy on the highway with it's soft suspension. Since it's late 60s it's more sporty with bucket seats

Narland, Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:I have a first gen firebird. It's definitely not a full sized boat the controls are easy to reach for the most part and it's very comfy on the highway with it's soft suspension. Since it's late 60s it's more sporty with bucket seats

My brother lucked out with a mint first gen Firebird Convertible back in 1980. He stopped to admire it. It was parked out in front of an estate, and a distressed looking guy ran out and said that the IRS was demanding 5 grand immediately and the 'Bird was his if he had the cash. My brother emptied his bank account and borrowed the rest from family to get the thing. It was a rare edition and after 10 years he sold it to buy a house.

I never get good deals like that. Even if I find an old Pinto out in someone's back forty, they tend to think it is a Classic and want an arm and a leg for it.

My favorite was a 65 Cyclone with Columbia Overdrive. The thing would cruise at 65 mph and get 30 mph. It was a guzzler in town with 13 mpg, so I would use it for hiway road trips.

Rateria

Narland wrote:My brother lucked out with a mint first gen Firebird Convertible back in 1980. He stopped to admire it. It was parked out in front of an estate, and a distressed looking guy ran out and said that the IRS was demanding 5 grand immediately and the 'Bird was his if he had the cash. My brother emptied his bank account and borrowed the rest from family to get the thing. It was a rare edition and after 10 years he sold it to buy a house.

I never get good deals like that. Even if I find an old Pinto out in someone's back forty, they tend to think it is a Classic and want an arm and a leg for it.

My favorite was a 65 Cyclone with Columbia Overdrive. The thing would cruise at 65 mph and get 30 mph. It was a guzzler in town with 13 mpg, so I would use it for hiway road trips.

5k for a firebird in the 80s? Must have been in show room condition. As the story goes you could get two of those things for less than a grand in the 80s even rare ones like the ram air 2 Firebirds didn't go for that much

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.