Thread: i'm naive.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

And from whence does the "state" derive it's powers? Should those powers be used to stop people from getting as rich as they possibly can?

The state derives it's powers from the consent of the governerned.

No. As long as those people break no laws in attaining wealth, the state should keep out of it, and tax them only when necessary. Furthermore, it should tax them in different ways. Get rid of the income tax, and institute a Fair Tax policy.

Or, if the income tax has to stay, then only use the revenue from their taxed wealth for what's absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

No. As long as those people break no laws in attaining wealth, the state should keep out of it, and tax them only when necessary. Furthermore, it should tax them in different ways. Get rid of the income tax, and institute a Fair Tax policy.

Or, if the income tax has to stay, then only use the revenue from their taxed wealth for what's absolutely necessary.

You miss the point entirely. If you are truly libertarian your point of view should be to call for the elimnation of all but the most essential laws and services. A world of caveat emptor, social darwinism, and Forte-Mayne governance, with only COERCION being wrong. This is what the libertarian party espoused in their website.

Under this scenario, then FRAUD would be acceptable as would embezzlement, theft that did not require force or fear. So I ask you why stop at the laws you don't like?

Originally Posted by johnlocke

You miss the point entirely. If you are truly libertarian your point of view should be to call for the elimnation of all but the most essential laws and services. A world of caveat emptor, social darwinism, and Forte-Mayne governance, with only COERCION being wrong. This is what the libertarian party espoused in their website.

Under this scenario, then FRAUD would be acceptable as would embezzlement, theft that did not require force or fear. So I ask you why stop at the laws you don't like?

No, because fraud would be a non-physical type of injury. As would be embezzlement, and of course theft.

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

Of course the Republican party as a whole expanded the size of government. The point is that the Democrats did as well. If neither party stopped government expansion, then how could a non partisan bill? Nothing has stopped government expansion under this sham of balanced government.



...and only if they are Democrat or independent, as your quote says,



Which contradicts itself.



While one of the two scam parties has used tactics of smear and unchecked callousness, the mere comparison to Nazi Germany is both detached from reality and smear itself. Speaking of which, is a common trait of both parties as a whole.




So in other words, you have no specific, reliable sources.

Dear Blue grass of all the "liberterian" posters on this forum you remain constant and honest about your convictions of no government except for what liberterians believe the constitutions allow. I don't share those views. I believe that the constitution allows for the welfare of its people. I also don't subscribe to a dog eat dog environment of business. I don't think are country was founded on a "free capitalist system(free-for-all), but instaed founded on a "fair" capitalist system. I don't advocate socialism and or communism. I appreciate that you have never accused Liberalism as being socialist or communist. Some of the more ignorant posters call Liberalism as, can you believe it...as facist. I admit to you and no one else that I don't understand "liberterian", because what I see is pure anarchy.
I think Clinton has progressive ideals that will work. The Clinton foundation has helped to date 100,000,000 million people world wide. That makes it the most successful charity organization in world history. It tops the Bill Gates foundation.
You have to admit that Clinton is a good administrator. It didn't matter what the majority in congress was things got done with Clinton was in office. He did a great deal for Business. He raised taxes to simply get rid of the deficit that Reagan and Bush I created...and it worked.
Clinton is very bright and a great manager. Under the 3rd most partisan time in our governments history, (3rd only to the present administration and the civil war), Bill Clinton made things happen.
So I respectfully disagree with your accessment.

i don't read so i have no idea what's going on.