I get that libertarians are for less government. As in, “the less government, the better.” Right? Well, if less government is better, then no government should be paradise, no?
I had to change an old taxation argument around, but I think I made my point. There was an argument that “lower taxes on the rich will lead to government coffers being overfilled with cash.” So it goes to follow that eliminating taxes on the rich will have money funneling in by the billions!
If you view taxation as oppression, then any tax would be equal to tyranny. If you view government as oppression, the same. So, are you saying libertarians accepting of some oppression? Doesn’t that violate the ideal of individual freedoms and liberty? Again, if you want some regulation, who decides what? Say you are for regulating this, but not that. I am for regulating that, but not this. Who wins? How does that get solved? Negotiate? That is just giving up freedom. If that is OK for the common good, who defines the common good? Remember what I said about “majority rule”? That just takes away individual freedoms.
This can go on and on and on. Effectively, you accept 100% of the government, or none of it. All the rights, or none of it. Sacrifice your freedoms for the greater good, or establish 7 billion tiny republics.
The Russian thing, as viewed from outside, is a smoke-screen. Just like the whole birther bullshit.
Even if Russia did play a part in his election, so what? There is nothing illegal about that unless they tampered with machines or the results.
What is illegal, and an open violation to the oath he took thus impeachable and possibly punishable by incarceration, is if he takes any personal favors from foreign governments. All about those business interests he has yet to distance himself from. If, say, Putin or someone with ties to him, made 45 an offer like “lift sanctions, and we will give you land to build 100 hotels…and some rubles.” Then the Russia story takes legs. That is the Woodward and Bernstein thing everyone is looking for.
Remember his banter about China? How he was going to make China play by American rules and curb Chinese imports this and that? He even took a planned call from President Tsai to show he meant business. Well…
After meeting with Xi at his failing golf resort in Florida, that taxpayers have to pay for all 200 trips he has made there…in the past year. (and the condo in NY) All was forgiven. China is OK after all and no more concessions will be made toward Taiwan. Hmmm…I wonder why? Could it be his daughter’s clothing line, and even his, are made in China? Hmmm…
Next year will be interesting what with the Revolution 18 movement (which has been planning for over a year) taking seats in Congress off dinosaur politicians (Like in Alabama recently).
These newcomers will back Trump’s agenda (unless he has been compromised by the ‘deep state’ neo-cons), which the lobbyist neo-cons are not backing.
I would love to see scumbags like McCain, Graham, etc shown the door.
If I want CNN, I can go downstairs and turn on the “news”. which I do quite often by the by, you repeating their talking points on here makes them no more valid.
What did your news source tell you to think about this photo? Did they even mention Modi at all? What changed from Obama to Trump, and are you able to place this in the context of China. If you are drawing a blank on all that, once again might I suggest, your “news” sources, are not informing you nearly as well as you might think.
The Taiwan arms deal is a smoke screen. Actions speak louder than words. If he was serious about China, or serious about not caring what they thought, then he will land Air Force One in Songshan Airport and meet with President Tsai at the Presidential Palace. If he doesn’t grab her lady bits, first.
If you are just going to dismiss any thing I would post here as “MSM” or “CNN” then who is being disingenuous? But, we will try…
you are being disingenuous and IMO not owning up to exaggerated comments you made. I was replying to this comment.
and no more concessions will be made toward Taiwan
and then posted two very contentious issues with regard Taiwan made after the Xi meeting, the second of which was even more contentious than the first, which you chose to comment on.
Did you miss trump threatening to sanction Chinese banks?
Or threatening not to do any trade with anyone who trades with North Korea? Hyperbolic, yes, but your characterization was way off the mark.
So what? I am not inclined to hand this to you on a plate. Everyone in Taiwan can see how Taiwan can be used against China as leverage. We all know Trump likes to create leverage.
What is India’s leverage and against who? Who are India’s natural enemies? Could it possibly be that Trump in creating leverage, is doing so against Pakistan and China, which provides more security to India and more money if Trump encourages a shift in manufacturing? Maybe if I were Modi I would want to give him a hug too.
Did you read where I said actions speak louder than words? So what? European banks have been sanctioned before. Hell, Standard Charter was hit by US regulators. So has Megabank in Taiwan. Sanctioning a Chinese bank does not signal a “strong arm” from the D.
Taiwan trades with NK. Did you miss that thread? Taiwan also trades with Iran. Perks of losing your seat at the UN. I do not hear him threatening to shut down the FoxConn deal.
India and China have are a trade bloc. BRICS anyone? China has had issues with the Russians, the Vietnamese, and the Indians over their borders. Only one has sent China packing. Hell, even the US and Canada get into a kerfluffel over some rocks at times.
We will agree to disagree JB_IN_TW, at this point, I will sign off as poster, and go back to mod.
When what should be casual conversations between expats devolves into this confrontational battle, When both sides should be acknowledging and addressing valid points from the other side.
When that doesn’t happen, you have a climate denier argument on your hands, lots of “facts” too many to deal with in any one post, and the denier just goes on to list 20 more “facts” in their next post.
Nope. As I libertarian, I respect minimal government, but I see no government as just not feasible. I believe government can play a positive role. I have just been in government (fighting bureaucracy and reducing red tape) long enough to realize it should be kept under strict size control. Taxation is necessary to an extent – that is what governments do – redistribution. However, my criticism of government is waste. And I have seen the socialist tissue paper ministries spend money like drunk sailors at the end of the year because they need to justify it for the next year. Government can be streamlined big time without being eliminated. And just streamlining can easily mean the lowering of taxes. The money just needs to be spent wisely.
Of course he would take credit for it if you asked him, but it seems he’s been keeping quiet about it while Russia & Co. do their thing. Then when the IS loses all its territory, then, he’ll finally break his silence and say see, my brilliant plan worked!
Which at some level will be true, of course. As the Civil Code says, a prestation may consist in forbearance (不作為亦得為給付).
Mr. Dawg is actually right. If anarchism is like nudism, then libertarians accept loincloths as a necessary evil. Brassieres and so on are controversial, but everyone accepts the loincloths, however grudgingly.
I believe in the rule of law, but when you phrase it like that, you’re in danger of sounding like W… or Rowland… or Pol Pot, for that matter.
In completely unrelated news, the legalization of marijuana proceeds apace. I’m no doctrinaire libertarian, but I do support the right to blissful self destruction. Because who am I to tell someone else what kind of pain is worth his enduring?
Just don’t let them operate heavy machinery, alright?
Full disclosure: I’ve known people on opiates, and I’ve known potheads. They all make their own choices, and enough self control can avoid problems in either case.
I had a philosophy professor ask this my freshman year of college…
“You have to choose between two doors. One door offers you a life of 100% freedoms, but 100% taxation. The other door offers you 0% taxation, but 0% of the freedoms. Which do you choose?”
W? How did W get drawn into this?
Let me expand this…The Ls like to brag about privatization being the best, but that does not guarantee freedoms or rights. OK, Freedom of Speech is the Cause Celeb now. People are arguing they have 100% the right to say 100% what they want, 100% when they want, and 100% where and in the manner they want. Agreed? All speech is free, no exceptions. BUT…FB, Twitter, your job, even this lovely forum can censor what it deems as unsavory speech as they define it. So much for FoS, yes? So, how does privatization guarantee rights? You cannot say market, since neither appear to be hurting. Even so, if you start your own, your ISP could knock you off a la Stormfront. (I am not supporting them!)
That’s a slick trick question. If they take away all your freedom, they’ll tax you whenever they feel like it. And if they’re taxing you 100%, you haven’t got any actual freedom.
If anarchism is like nudism, then libertarians accept loincloths as a necessary evil. Brassieres and so on are controversial, but everyone accepts the loincloths, however grudgingly.
