Quick Summary Of My Beliefs

Sorry I cannot fully understand what your saying. Probably just me.
Aggression is an enemy of freedom. I believe people in society can do more good than government. If your saying a libertarianism type of society will not work in our country today than I will agree. You would have to change morality for it to work. I do not mean libertarians should stop trying to get people to understand our principles and keep trying to bring more people into our fold.

 

I admire your non-partisan stance and ability to think for yourself... Unfortunately, because you do not agree 100% with the extreme Right of this forum, you'll be branded a communist.

Welcome.

 

With respect, American's should stop putting people into little boxes... it is this nature which is killing your political system. Life is far to complex to be branded as X or Y, and it is this principle of putting people into boxes, which allows your political classes to manipulate the public.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think your Dem party is anti-business at all. That's just the stance of the GOP, because they need to oppose the oppostion.

 

This would rely on every world government implementing it, which they won't. So there'll always be an external threat and a government will always have to be able to respond to it, which means they need a central military, which taxes have to pay for. Which means libertarianism doesn't work in it's purest form.

Of course the reality is that none of our political ideologies work in their purest form, so it's no different in this regard to socialism, communism and capitalism.

Another "ism" actually works the best - pragmatism.

 

A libertarian truly said that "a rational army would desert."

But, it must be noted that real armies generally don't desert.

Conclusion, real armies are not rational. We can further conclude that people are not rational in general.

An ideology, like libertarianism, that depends on people acting rationally, conforms poorly to reality.

 

Firstly, let me say that I have been consistent in my position that the gun buybacks (there were two) were bad policy and simply populist politics and achieved two-thirds of Swee Fanny Adams.

Having said what happened was that the federal government pressured the states (via its funding powers) to prohibit certain long firearms in the first one and certain handguns in the second. Owners were compensated when they handed in their weapons. Apparently - this is only anecdotal - some owners did very well out of it and managed to get better firearms with the money they were given (albeit not the type of weapons that had been newly prohibited).

I might disagree with it but it was done lawfully.

 

Just in keeping with the tone of the thread (I hope) it's refreshing to see someone who won't hide behind a label or a slogan and who is willing to consider issues on their merits. I must say I get a bit ticked off when I am called a "statist" and there's no argument forthcoming. Better to discuss the issues without referencing an ideological position.