Are Libertarians Isolationist?

It's amazing how many on here INSIST on being ignorant. Instead of attacking real Libertarian policy positions, they make shit up, laugh at it, and then tell themselves how smart they are.

A Libertarian will go to war WHEN NECESSARY!
A Libertarian supports local police and fire departments.
A Libertarian supports fair taxation to support the public good.
A Libertarian supports having the defense necessary to protect our interests.

A Libertarian is NOT an anarchist, nor do they believe that helping one's neighbor is bad. They just aren't going to force money out of you to assist their crony friends and buy votes.

A Libertarian OPPOSES sending tax money, obtained through threat of force from citizens, to countries who oppose the United States. (Any anyone who thinks tax money is not collected through threat of force is an idiot.)

A Libertarian respects you enough to think that you have the right to pretty much do what you want, so long as you don't harm someone else. What is wrong with that?

They are clueless COG. But they are only repeating what they have been told, and taken no steps to educate themselves.
We can post it in black and white for them and it will make no difference.

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. (Yssup ought to be behind this 110%, Start no shit, Get no shit)

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market. http://www.lp.org/platform

Now watch the lefties here go apeshit.

I never gave a drunken driver example, that was you. I gave the example of a guy who was already in a ditch out of traffic, who had a reputation of being a bad driver who would possibly be under the influence. My main jist was since he was out of traffic and not a danger to anyone or himself don't help him so he won't be a hazard. Originally Posted by acp5762

So if someone is "possibly under the influence", are you trying to say you didn't mean under the influence of alcohol, the commonly accepted usage of that term?

Oh and by the way you're sarcasm is not really obvious. Actually I think you use sarcasm as an excuse for your inability to properly comprehend. Originally Posted by acp5762

No, I think "you're" (note the quotes this time to mock your incorrect usage of the word in your previous post) misunderstanding of my post is that it's all well and easy to say "I don't want to help anyone who isn't a danger to anyone" but in real life the situation is usually more of one like the drunk driver swerving around, ie. one where others are in a position to hurt other people.

It's amazing how many on here INSIST on being ignorant. Instead of attacking real Libertarian policy positions, they make shit up, laugh at it, and then tell themselves how smart they are.

A Libertarian will go to war WHEN NECESSARY!
A Libertarian supports local police and fire departments.
A Libertarian supports fair taxation to support the public good.
A Libertarian supports having the defense necessary to protect our interests.

A Libertarian is NOT an anarchist, nor do they believe that helping one's neighbor is bad. They just aren't going to force money out of you to assist their crony friends and buy votes.

A Libertarian OPPOSES sending tax money, obtained through threat of force from citizens, to countries who oppose the United States. (Any anyone who thinks tax money is not collected through threat of force is an idiot.)

A Libertarian respects you enough to think that you have the right to pretty much do what you want, so long as you don't harm someone else. What is wrong with that? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm glad we're all in agreement then that an isolationist policy is one that doesn't work.

"A Libertarian OPPOSES sending tax money, obtained through threat of force from citizens, to countries who oppose the United States. (Any anyone who thinks tax money is not collected through threat of force is an idiot.)"

This part in particular, I think it's easy to say, but is difficult to actually apply in real life. For example, what do you mean by "oppose the United States"? Real life isn't usually so black and white where we can easily paint those who "oppose us" with a bright marker.

Second, as in previous posts, it's cheaper and more cost effective to pay for aid / education now in poor countries to keep them from becoming bigger problems in the future. Poverty and lack of education is one of the leading factors to kids getting swept up into terrorist training camps. You very rarely see college educated suicide bombers, why? Because once you get more educated, you 1) have more options in life available to you and 2) you open your mind to other ways of thinking other than your own narrow one.

Third, in terms of foreign policy, while it sucks to have to appease other countries, sometimes the alternative is worse. Do we pay off North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons? If we don't and the alternative is either they get nukes or we have to invade (and costing more American lives in a time where we're already sick of the two wars we've been in), we're likely going to just pay them off. It sucks, but there's very rarely a perfect and clean solution to these types of things.

In short, it's nice to try and sum up things in a easy short statement, but in reality actual application is much messier.

"A Libertarian OPPOSES sending tax money, obtained through threat of force from citizens, to countries who oppose the United States. (Any anyone who thinks tax money is not collected through threat of force is an idiot.)"

This part in particular, I think it's easy to say, but is difficult to actually apply in real life. For example, what do you mean by "oppose the United States"? Real life isn't usually so black and white where we can easily paint those who "oppose us" with a bright marker.

. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

COG does not mind sending money to folks that he approves of!

What a crock of shit by that definition Republicans , Democrats and every single person in the world could be labeled a Libertarian.

In my heart, I'm a Libertarian but pragmatically I'm a progressive. You only have two choices GOP or DNC all others are just fence sitters, if not Ralph Nadar would have been President or Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

So if someone is "possibly under the influence", are you trying to say you didn't mean under the influence of alcohol, the commonly accepted usage of that term?



No, I think "you're" (note the quotes this time to mock your incorrect usage of the word in your previous post) misunderstanding of my post is that it's all well and easy to say "I don't want to help anyone who isn't a danger to anyone" but in real life the situation is usually more of one like the drunk driver swerving around, ie. one where others are in a position to hurt other people.



I'm glad we're all in agreement then that an isolationist policy is one that doesn't work.

"A Libertarian OPPOSES sending tax money, obtained through threat of force from citizens, to countries who oppose the United States. (Any anyone who thinks tax money is not collected through threat of force is an idiot.)"

This part in particular, I think it's easy to say, but is difficult to actually apply in real life. For example, what do you mean by "oppose the United States"? Real life isn't usually so black and white where we can easily paint those who "oppose us" with a bright marker.

Second, as in previous posts, it's cheaper and more cost effective to pay for aid / education now in poor countries to keep them from becoming bigger problems in the future. Poverty and lack of education is one of the leading factors to kids getting swept up into terrorist training camps. You very rarely see college educated suicide bombers, why? Because once you get more educated, you 1) have more options in life available to you and 2) you open your mind to other ways of thinking other than your own narrow one.

Third, in terms of foreign policy, while it sucks to have to appease other countries, sometimes the alternative is worse. Do we pay off North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons? If we don't and the alternative is either they get nukes or we have to invade (and costing more American lives in a time where we're already sick of the two wars we've been in), we're likely going to just pay them off. It sucks, but there's very rarely a perfect and clean solution to these types of things.

In short, it's nice to try and sum up things in a easy short statement, but in reality actual application is much messier. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Why do we have to police North Korea - can't the United Nations do it?
Why is it our responsibility?
We need to keep our minds on our own responsibilities and and not let our wallets overload our capabilities.

So if someone is "possibly under the influence", are you trying to say you didn't mean under the influence of alcohol, the commonly accepted usage of that term?



No, I think "you're" (note the quotes this time to mock your incorrect usage of the word in your previous post) misunderstanding of my post is that it's all well and easy to say "I don't want to help anyone who isn't a danger to anyone" but in real life the situation is usually more of one like the drunk driver swerving around, ie. one where others are in a position to hurt other people.



I'm glad we're all in agreement then that an isolationist policy is one that doesn't work.

"A Libertarian OPPOSES sending tax money, obtained through threat of force from citizens, to countries who oppose the United States. (Any anyone who thinks tax money is not collected through threat of force is an idiot.)"

This part in particular, I think it's easy to say, but is difficult to actually apply in real life. For example, what do you mean by "oppose the United States"? Real life isn't usually so black and white where we can easily paint those who "oppose us" with a bright marker.

Second, as in previous posts, it's cheaper and more cost effective to pay for aid / education now in poor countries to keep them from becoming bigger problems in the future. Poverty and lack of education is one of the leading factors to kids getting swept up into terrorist training camps. You very rarely see college educated suicide bombers, why? Because once you get more educated, you 1) have more options in life available to you and 2) you open your mind to other ways of thinking other than your own narrow one.

Third, in terms of foreign policy, while it sucks to have to appease other countries, sometimes the alternative is worse. Do we pay off North Korea to stop developing nuclear weapons? If we don't and the alternative is either they get nukes or we have to invade (and costing more American lives in a time where we're already sick of the two wars we've been in), we're likely going to just pay them off. It sucks, but there's very rarely a perfect and clean solution to these types of things.

In short, it's nice to try and sum up things in a easy short statement, but in reality actual application is much messier. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Don't try and bail yourself out of any of this. You're a chicken shit little wimp. The bottom line is you're only good for giving lip service. You're not going to lift a finger to do shit for any one or for any worthy cause. You're all about nothing.

Why do we have to police North Korea - can't the United Nations do it?
Why is it our responsibility?
We need to keep our minds on our own responsibilities and and not let our wallets overload our capabilities. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I don't believe the United Nations has the capacity (militarily nor willpower) to do it.

I think it's fundamentally it's in our self-interest to do so which is why, not out of any particular moral reason (other than the morality of doing what we believe is in our country's best interests).

All of these things are definitely a balancing act between what's good for our country vs the cost of doing so, I agree.

Don't try and bail yourself out of any of this. You're a chicken shit little wimp. The bottom line is you're only good for giving lip service. You're not going to lift a finger to do shit for any one or for any worthy cause. You're all about nothing. Originally Posted by acp5762

Ahh big man no longer has any more logical or cogent arguments so he has to resort to name calling. Well done, sir. You are a true and shining example for your cause. Note the lack of the /sarcasm tag in my response.

You only have two choices GOP or DNC all others are just fence sitters, if not Ralph Nadar would have been President or Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. [/FONT] Originally Posted by WTF

Or the lovely Cynthia
2012 Green Party Candidate for President*

fucking idiots!

BTW -- most Libertarians fall into one of 24 categories. But Whiny won't tell us which kind of Librarian he is!

He's a fence sitting Librarian ... Stuck in a corner of his own painting!

Where's ol' LooneyFlyer who said I wasn't a real Libertarian? Guess he's got nothin'. If any of you decide to no longer be ignorant, you may learn about modern American Libertarianism here:

http://www.lp.org/

I may or may not endorse everything on this site. I'm sure there are probably some issues with which I disagree. But generally speaking, this is where America should be headed.

Like, that's your opinion, man...

But you agree with everything on that site except for the things with which you disagree?

Makes perfect sense!

I expect I agree with over 90% of it. I haven't found any areas of conflict yet. They present a reasonable approach to government which maximizes freedom, and minimizes cost.

OK, then by your own admission, you are a multilevel Whiner.

I guess that gives you a different approach to Whining pretty much each day of the week!


How about lying? Seems like you just use the generally accepted method for that ... Just just tell whoppers!

From A Libertarian's New Year's Resolutions:


9. I resolve to cleanse myself of hate, resentment, and bitterness. Such things steal time and attention from the work that must be done.



11. I resolve to remind myself that someone’s “stupid” opinion may be an opinion I once held. If I can grow, why can’t I help him grow?



12. I resolve not to raise my voice in any discussion. In a shouting match, no one wins, no one changes his mind, and no one will be inspired to join our quest for a free society.



13. I resolve not to adopt the tactics of Republicans and Democrats. They use character assassination, evasions, and intimidation because they have no real benefits to offer Americans. We, on the other hand, are offering to set people free — and so we can win simply by focusing on the better life our proposals will bring.

14. I resolve to be civil to my opponents, and treat them with respect. However anyone chooses to treat me, it’s important that I be a better person than my enemies.

Some good points we'd all probably be better off following.

Or at least WHINY!

LMAO!

Like it's been pointed out... The man ain't no Librarian! He doesn't even know their 14 commandments!