Where to begin in Straw Man City? Making bogus things up about someone else does not further your own agenda. It just assumes that no one will bother to check things out and will believe them without question like too many too many people do today. No subsidies for wastrels starts the ball rolling towards freedom for everyone. No subsidies for anyone also helps. It lowers waste, corruption, inefficiency just for starters
Negative rights: the right to NOT have things done to you against your free will trump positive rights every time.
Positive rights: I want something from you and instead of holding a gun on you I'll just get the government to hold a gun on you and give it to me upon pain of death if you don't.
Do you see a difference there? If someone upstream poisons the water they poison other people - a negative right whereby you should not be victimized by someone else means they don't have the right to do that. No libertarian would ever assert negative rights do not exist. Its the main thrust of their philosophy.
But the liberal idea of turning all of our constitutional rights over to a regulatory agency that does not care about individual rights, like the EPA, is just 1 example of how government makes everything worse. The EPA has been known to roll over people who won lawsuits against them by trying to re-impose penalties for which they lost in court hoping the individual will run out of money and just go to jail, have their land seized, etc.
Drug dealers? The fact that most would go out of biz if both the dealers and junkies were not subsidized by my taxes never occurs to a liberal. They would just say we need more subsidies, for the "poor" of course. A druggie mainly harms himself unless the government says I must pay for his habit, which it does through food stamps. A druggie can buy $100 worth of pot by paying their dealer with $200 in food stamps. They go to the store and buy their dealer the food they want in exchange for the stuff. However, if pot was legal to be grown by farmers and sold most places in the U.S. the price of drugs would be cheap enough that the cartels would not turn a place like Honduras into a hellhole whereby 100,000 children try to escape into the U.S. to get away from it. The "more government" way has always failed and every time it does a liberal will insist on more of the same.
"May end up being self-defeating" ? How about 100% of the time self-defeating. Every place the tenets of liberalism are put into force 100% the people die, are imprisoned, starve, get tortured, oppressed, depressed and in other ways wiped out.
And it never dawns on them at any time that the powerful overlord that put those tenets into force he used the exact same buzzwords they use: inclusiveness, fairness, bourgeois, proletariat, etc. None of these are places a liberal ever wants to live, though. You'll never see one wanting to immigrate to Cuba, North Korea, or other hellholes where government made everything "fair", or "inclusive".
The Enlightenment? You have to be kidding. You must believe the Enlightenment fought for more powerful government than absolute monarchy and one that is also more intrusive to citizens. You believe that only government agents can divine what the politically correct global temperature is right now and should be later. These govt. high priests, who run a magical mystery religion called AGW, alone can detect this phenomenon and that causes you to believe that despite the coldest winter in anyone's lifetime that the globe is "hotter than its ever been before".
After erecting several bogus straw men you demonstrate clearly that you have absolutely no idea what libertarian government is or how it would free man from government shackles that keep it stupid and in poverty and threaten anyone who tries to get free of the government plantation.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you see a difference there? If someone upstream poisons the water they poison other people - a negative right whereby you should not be victimized by someone else means they don't have the right to do that. No libertarian would ever assert negative rights do not exist. Its the main thrust of their philosophy. But the liberal idea of turning all of our constitutional rights over to a regulatory agency that does not care about individual rights, like the EPA, is just 1 example of how government makes everything worse. The EPA has been known to roll over people who won lawsuits against them by trying to re-impose penalties for which they lost in court hoping the individual will run out of money and just go to jail, have their land seized, etc.
Drug dealers? The fact that most would go out of biz if both the dealers and junkies were not subsidized by my taxes never occurs to a liberal. They would just say we need more subsidies, for the "poor" of course. A druggie mainly harms himself unless the government says I must pay for his habit, which it does through food stamps. A druggie can buy $100 worth of pot by paying their dealer with $200 in food stamps. They go to the store and buy their dealer the food they want in exchange for the stuff.
However, if pot was legal to be grown by farmers and sold most places in the U.S. the price of drugs would be cheap enough that the cartels would not turn a place like Honduras into a hellhole whereby 100,000 children try to escape into the U.S. to get away from it. The "more government" way has always failed and every time it does a liberal will insist on more of the same.
"May end up being self-defeating" ? How about 100% of the time self-defeating. Every place the tenets of liberalism are put into force 100% the people die, are imprisoned, starve, get tortured, oppressed, depressed and in other ways wiped out.
And it never dawns on them at any time that the powerful overlord that put those tenets into force he used the exact same buzzwords they use: inclusiveness, fairness, bourgeois, proletariat, etc. None of these are places a liberal ever wants to live, though. You'll never see one wanting to immigrate to Cuba, North Korea, or other hellholes where government made everything "fair", or "inclusive".
The Enlightenment? You have to be kidding. You must believe the Enlightenment fought for more powerful government than absolute monarchy and one that is also more intrusive to citizens. You believe that only government agents can divine what the politically correct global temperature is right now and should be later. These govt. high priests, who run a magical mystery religion called AGW, alone can detect this phenomenon and that causes you to believe that despite the coldest winter in anyone's lifetime that the globe is "hotter than its ever been before".
After erecting several bogus straw men you demonstrate clearly that you have absolutely no idea what libertarian government is or how it would free man from government shackles that keep it stupid and in poverty and threaten anyone who tries to get free of the government plantation.
If it is not about furthering their power and influence they usually are not interested.