Trump Is Right About Birth Citizenship

loyek590 said:
I get that a lot. I'm from the pro food stamp wing of the party. As far as I know there is only one of us.
More...
That is perfectly compatible with true Libertarianism. Here is where many of these folks who are calling themselves Libertarians have gone wrong. And this would apply to those who have officially co-opted the name Libertarian as in "Libertarian Political Party". Rand and Ron Paul both fit into this false Libertarian school of thought, which when you examine it closely is complete nonsense. These folks all believe that the problem is too much government. This has led many of them to espouse laissez faire business practice and what is really Ayn Rand, objectivism. (Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand Objectivist before he got religion from the 2007-9 crisis) A few of these, what shall I call them, perhaps "neolibertarians", even border on anarchism in their beliefs.

It is generally considered today that John Locke is the father of what we could call today "classical liberalism." He was greatly influenced by Thomas Hobbes who was older, but their lives ovelapped by thiry years. The best known quote in all of English philospohy is from Hobbes:

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.*

What Hobbes is referring to here is the quality of life in the absence of government. So all of the "neo-libetarians" are wrong according to Hobbes. They want what it is necessary to have government for; yet they believe, and this is common to all of their various sects, that government is bad. In reality, not only is government good, but as Hobbes makes clear, it is essential. What true Libertarians, such as myself, recognize, is that government is essential to the protection of individual freedoms. We true Libertarians work to oppose repressive and bad government and those parts and activities of our own government that are unnecessarily repressive of personal freedoms. We don't think in terms of government too big or too small, rather we think in terms of good government and bad government.

I am a Thomas Hobbes - John Locke Libertarian, and I think you may be too. The rest of these folks are form Mars.

If one is interested in foundation of modern Libertarian political philosophy, in English, their is nothing better to read than Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
__________________
* This passage is from "Leviathan" which he wrote during the English Cival War which was in the middle part of the 17th entury.
 
Last edited:
loyek590 said:
the funny thing is, it's totally sexist. I wouldn't say that about a man that is miserable all the time and always bitching about something, and if she was even about 1% as good looking as she thinks she is I might even giver her a pass. In my darker days I use to spend a lot of time down in those whorehouses in Mexico, and I can hardly look at her without thinking about some of those boys who use to like to dress up as girls. Whenever she opens her mouth I always stare at her adam's apple (that's how you know who you are dealing with.)
More...
Lmao, good story.

You know, she has a liberal boyfriend, so I think her extreme reactionism is just a product she's peddling.
 
piezoe said:
That is perfectly compatible with true Libertarianism. Here is where many of these folks who are calling themselves Libertarians have gone wrong. And this would apply to those who have officially co-opted the name Libertarian as in "Libertarian Political Party". Rand and Ron Paul both fit into this false Libertarian school of thought, which when you examine it closely is complete nonsense. These folks all believe that the problem is too much government. This has led many of them to laissez faire business practice and what is really Ayn Rand, objectivism. (Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand Objectivist before he got religion from the 2007-9 crisis) A few of these, what shall I call them, perhaps "neolibertarians", even border on anarchism in their beliefs.

It is generally considered today that John Locke is the father of what we could call today classical liberalism. He was greatly influenced by Thomas Hobbes who was older, but their lives ovelapped by thiry years. The best known quote in all of English philospohy is from Hobbes:

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

What Hobbes is referring to here is the quality of life in the absence of government. So all of the "neo-libetarians" are wrong according to Hobbes. They want what it is necessary to have government for; yet they believe, and this is common to all of their various sects, that government is bad. In reality, not only is government good, but as Hobbes makes clear, it is essential. What true Libertarians, such as myself, recognize is that government is essential to the protection of individual freedoms. We true Libertarians work to oppose repressive and bad government and those parts and activities of our own government that are unnecessarily repressive of personal freedoms. We don't think in terms of government too big or too small, rather we think in terms of good government and bad government.


I am a Thomas Hobbes - John Locke Libertarian, and I think you may be too. The rest of these folks are form Mars.

If one is interested in foundation of modern Libertarian political philosophy, in English, their is nothing better to read than Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
More...
whatever, Give me a big strong safety net for everybody, not just USA and then get the hell outta my way! Too big too small? It's too big if you can't manage it.
 
Scataphagos said:
Ditto!

These were the Founders' Principles of America and our Constitution.... and lead to America becoming the greatest economic, industrial and military power the world has ever known.... all with freedom for our citizens.

But over the last 100 years or so, the cancer of Leftism has crept into our lives and country. And we all know cancer eventually kills everything unless the cancer itself is killed.

:(
More...
The Founders had no interest in what was good for "the people" unless it directly benefited themselves in some way. Their concern was maintaining control and making it as difficult as possible for the indentured servants, the dispossessed and the indians to form alliances.
 
piezoe said:
That is perfectly compatible with true Libertarianism. Here is where many of these folks who are calling themselves Libertarians have gone wrong. And this would apply to those who have officially co-opted the name Libertarian as in "Libertarian Political Party". Rand and Ron Paul both fit into this false Libertarian school of thought, which when you examine it closely is complete nonsense. These folks all believe that the problem is too much government. This has led many of them to espouse laissez faire business practice and what is really Ayn Rand, objectivism. (Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand Objectivist before he got religion from the 2007-9 crisis) A few of these, what shall I call them, perhaps "neolibertarians", even border on anarchism in their beliefs.

It is generally considered today that John Locke is the father of what we could call today "classical liberalism." He was greatly influenced by Thomas Hobbes who was older, but their lives ovelapped by thiry years. The best known quote in all of English philospohy is from Hobbes:

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.*

What Hobbes is referring to here is the quality of life in the absence of government. So all of the "neo-libetarians" are wrong according to Hobbes. They want what it is necessary to have government for; yet they believe, and this is common to all of their various sects, that government is bad. In reality, not only is government good, but as Hobbes makes clear, it is essential. What true Libertarians, such as myself, recognize, is that government is essential to the protection of individual freedoms. We true Libertarians work to oppose repressive and bad government and those parts and activities of our own government that are unnecessarily repressive of personal freedoms. We don't think in terms of government too big or too small, rather we think in terms of good government and bad government.

I am a Thomas Hobbes - John Locke Libertarian, and I think you may be too. The rest of these folks are form Mars.

If one is interested in foundation of modern Libertarian political philosophy, in English, their is nothing better to read than Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
__________________
* This passage is from "Leviathan" which he wrote during the English Cival War which was in the middle part of the 17th entury.
More...
Coincidentally, I was reading on Hobbes last night. Maybe not the best choice I've made in the past, quoting him to defend government. He was not advocating an elected, strong central government, he was a monarchist and was advocating total control by the monarch. He expected the king to represent the masses in his private conversations with God, but by no means were the masses to have any real political power and upset royal privilege.
(I'm not done reading him, I may have this first impression wrong.)
 
piezoe said:
That is perfectly compatible with true Libertarianism. Here is where many of these folks who are calling themselves Libertarians have gone wrong. And this would apply to those who have officially co-opted the name Libertarian as in "Libertarian Political Party". Rand and Ron Paul both fit into this false Libertarian school of thought, which when you examine it closely is complete nonsense. These folks all believe that the problem is too much government. This has led many of them to espouse laissez faire business practice and what is really Ayn Rand, objectivism. (Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand Objectivist before he got religion from the 2007-9 crisis) A few of these, what shall I call them, perhaps "neolibertarians", even border on anarchism in their beliefs.
More...

And many people who call themselves "liberals" today have nothing to do with what true liberals in the classic sense were, either. So we can either use the party labels of today to describe what we believe in today as a frame of reference, or we can all pretend (which is what you do) we are something that might have - once upon a time - been considered correct, but is no longer relevant. You can play semantic games all you want (and you do) but at the end of the day, while it is possible you could have been a Libertarian back in 1679, today you are a liberal. And definitions today - political parties today - are what matters. The rest of it is academics like yourself trying to either convince each other that you're not as bad as "those guys on the left" by claiming otherwise, or you are trying to turn your nose up and show folks that you're a student of history. Both of these possibilities are irrelevant in the discussion of today's politics. If anyone is from Mars, as you say, it is you. The rest of us have evolved, politically speaking, and have clearly chosen sides. A few random academics sit on the sidelines shouting at the rain about how we're all representing our political parties incorrectly as they were presented hundreds of years ago. Apart from your small group, no one gives a shit. Pick a side, get in the argument. Quit trying to pull technicalities and obfuscation into it.

If you approach a political discussion at a party and people ask you where you stand, and you reply "I'm a Thomas Hobbes Classic Libertarian", don't be shocked when they nod politely and avoid you the rest of the time.

Time to join the 21st century, Piezoe, and become relevant. You are a liberal.
 
Last edited:
thank you ricter for setting it straight. the juxtaposition that Piezoe is making is so stark I wonder if it he pulling our legs. Piezoe is either a smart guy with a Swift like sense of humor. see... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
or he is deluded about what he really believes.


as I explained before a Thomas Hobbes libertarian is similar to a Joseph Stalin democrat. question... if hobbes is correct and people are corrupt and evil... why would giving power to central authority be a good move?

hence the need for decentralized power.

Ricter said:
Coincidentally, I was reading on Hobbes last night. Maybe not the best choice I've made in the past, quoting him to defend government. He was not advocating an elected, strong central government, he was a monarchist and was advocating total control by the monarch. He expected the king to represent the masses in his private conversations with God, but by no means were the masses to have any real political power and upset royal privilege.
(I'm not done reading him, I may have this first impression wrong.)
More...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top