Whatsup with @bronsonkaahui letting his hair grow back?
@the_peoples_champ lol today is shaving day actually
People have been uneducated since the dawn of time. It's not a modern phenomenon. There is a reason that the founding fathers etc... were only for landed educated men to vote or hold office. Jefferson, then later Jackson tended to buck that trend, and ultimately the ideals of classic liberalism naturally lead to wider and wider enfranchisement.
@sigfried I firmly believe in less democracy.
@nellyj_misesian I find that antithetical to the ideals of government by for and of the people. Representative government is a very pragmatic system, but when franchisement is limited to an elite, then all you have is an oligarchy of elites ruling everyone else, and that inevitibly leads to rank corruption, not enlightened rule.
@sigfried "I find that antithetical to the ideals of government by for and of the people."That's because that ideal is based on false premises.
@bronsonkaahui How so?
@sigfried that's simply not what government is. The government must be viewed as an institution, separate and distinct from the people, because that is what it is. I can't just come to your house and take your shit, even if I'm allegedly doing it for a good cause. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSuTt_WzbPg
Gary Johnson is Not a principled man and Weld is horrible (they both Love HRC). This is why I don’t think they would actually do anything at allhttps://youtu.be/OsWGdPBbsI0
@nellyj_misesian hmmmm interesting. I’m not an expert on the Libertarian Party. But o know someone who is. (@agent00mama)
@nellyj_misesian far more principled than the person you support lol
@bronsonkaahui he has no principles as he clearly displayed in the debate and that clip.
@nellyj_misesian in that case Trump is in the negatives lol
Gary Johnson is as honest as it gets. He stood in front of Libertarians during the debate in Orlando and gave honest answers when asked about his positions on issues. Knowing some of his positions were unpopular amongst some Libertarians. Many people would stand there and spout off whatever it takes to get them elected. Both Johnson and Weld were consistently honest on every issue. And I'll vote someone that is honest that disagrees with me, over someone that deceitfully agrees with me on everything, in an attempt to get my vote.
@agent00mama neither honest nor libertarian and Wierdo, Mr Bean Johnson is a buffoon.
I voted draw. I think Pro makes a good case that as the party of principles they are an embarrassment in that they have chosen spokesmen that don't represent those ideas especially well.But I don't think he made a case that they are a detriment to the cause of liberty. Con points out that they are still more on the side of liberty than their closest competitors in the political arena, and that to actually make political progress, some flexibility in ideals is simply part of the political process. I have libertarian sympathies, in that I think that ideally, the less government the better. But I'm not a party member because I think that there are many challenges we face where government action is the most pragmatic response. If government action proves effective and useful, then I'm fine with it, if it proves problematic and ineffective, then stop it. And if it is unclear or ambiguous, side on the side of less state interference.I think that if the world were composed entirely of smart, moral, and kind people then we wouldn't need much government at all. But, it has lots of stupid, immoral and selfish folks so we have to have rules and social movements to make up for that.
@sigfried that last paragraph never made sense to me. People are stupid, immoral, and selfish, therefore they should have power over others? LOL!
@bronsonkaahui Well, the idea is that it doesn't take a lot of bad apples to make a big mess. So you make some rules to keep the bad apples from causing too much damage.Though in truth, sometimes it is the majority that are selfish, and the minority that make the rules to put a stop to it. Fire codes are a good case in point. Large cities used to burn to the ground fairly often. Buildings were cheap and flammable. Most figured the risk of a fire was not worth the cost. But one mistake and that whole idea went to shit and everyone burned. The way cities are, leaving it up to individuals to make the right choice still means a certain percentage of those making the selfish choice still end up burning down most of the city, and those who made resistant buildings along with them since no building resists a truly raging fire.But if you make a rule that everyone in the tightly packed city has a responsibility to make their building less flammable, then huge raging city-wide fires don't really get going in the first palace. Usually, just the one that first catches on fire, and on a really bad day those on the same block.Now if everyone thought, wow, it sure would be terrible for the whole city to burn down, I'd better make sure my building won't catch on fire easily, or even if 80% of the people did that, then such laws wouldn't be nessesary.
@sigfried I'd be okay if the government were limited to only those kinds of things, but that of course is never the case with any government that actually exists, and it also doesn't seem like it would necessarily require a government per se. Maybe only city-state governments are morally justifiable?
It's amazing that two liberty loving people just agreed that "The media is the enemy" Who needs free press after all. :P
@sigfried there is no “free press.” The main stream Press is an arm of the left wing government doing little more than parroting what government says so of course it’s not to be trusted or listened to.
@nellyj_misesian That would still be a free press. Free means they can print what they want and the state can't tell them not to. Free press does not mean they print stories you agree with or that you judge as fair.
@sigfried if that’s all it is why did you bother to comment on it?