Libertarianism is for teenagers and idiots.

Any well-adjusted adult with any ability for critical thinking can see how stupid this is. Even his premise is idiotic. The government doesn't use guns to enforce parking violations (for example) they certainly don't use guns to provide healthcare to people. When was the last time a bus driver pointed a gun at you and said, "Get on the bus, it's public transit, cars are illegal now!"

Just because America has a lousy political system and therefore generally a string of bad governments, does not mean government is bad. It just means American government is bad. The countries with the highest levels of citizen happiness, the greatest spread of wealth, the highest education standards, the longest lifespans, the lowest infant mortality rates, the lowest crime rates, all have the kinds of governments Libertarians rail against.

Libertarianism, in summary, is childish, stupid, and immoral. No big surprise @bobknight33 is a fan then.

Getting soaked is a crock of BS. They're paying often times 20% effective tax rates.

And when income and wealth inequality is as bad as it is today, what you're pointing out points to how ridiculous the economic system is when almost half of Americans pay no federal income taxes and still see their effective income drop over the last four decades, while the rich have experienced steady income increases during that time.

IE, the inequality is so great, even if you literally don't have people pay taxes, it's still resulting in growing wealth inequality.

And I'm sure you're gonna claim that I'm suggesting pure income/wealth equality is what we want, which I'm not. However, it is absolutely essential to a functioning market economy that wealth and income inequality do not become too great, as that was one of the contributing factors to the Great Depression. If the economic lower class does not have money to purchase goods and services the businesses owned by the rich produce, those businesses will inevitably decline.

Syria had a fractured military, where part went with Assad, and part went with the [effectively "Neo Hama"] rebellion (i.e. anti secularist rebellion).
Russia supported Assad.
Militants from the region came to support the rebellion and were given shelter and resources by rebels.
(Which is why moderate Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc, are now hiding on Assad's side of the conflict (or running to Europe))
That place really sucks. If you're a regular person, the options are bad and worse.

Land and buildings don't produce wealth and taxes without people.

-scheherazade

I see, that was both unclear and unadvisable....but I'll play along.....
I think you misunderstand, they want reparations for a past theft that was never recouped or returned. The Nazis returned what they stole and paid dearly for their crimes, and they admit and have shame for the crimes of their nation/countrymen. Slave owners couldn't return the lost lives, families, property, or cultures, and largely didn't even try to pay compensation, and they and their descendants have acted like releasing the slaves WAS reparation AND just punishment for the kidnappers/slavers, so any further complaint is unjustified.

The sins of the father are the father's, but if the son takes the money dad stole and lives on it, knowing it's stolen, then the son is complicit. If my dad kidnaps your child and rapes it to death, and makes a fortune selling tickets to the event, I'm a complicit monster if I live on that money instead of giving it to you even if I wasn't born when he did it....no?

It's largely because the crimes have never been addressed and also because the victims are still, to this day, harassed and attacked as if they were the kidnappers rather than the victims.
If your mother was kidnapped, worked to death, and you were shunned and denied because of it, and so were your children and grandchildren, would you not want your great grandchildren to try to get justice for her from the people whose wealth was created by selling people like her? Would you not hold a grudge against them?

Considering the wrath provoked by niggling perceived slights against the right, can you even imagine how you and they would react if positions were reversed? I think they would demand deportation of the descendants of slave owners and forfeiture of all their assets, judging from recent behavior.

Ugh - how to I start this:

First, not many Republicans are "right wing" any more. Many vote against free markets and Capitalism and vote for social engineering, wealth redistribution, and growing the size of the Government.

There are a few true right wingers left, but the establishment Republicans are not right wing at all if you test their voting habits against what it means to be on the right side of the political spectrum.

Also, I patently reject that notion that all racists are Republican. If you think racism only happens in the white community I suggest you open Youtube and simply search the term "kill whites".

Not too long ago, David Duke, a major KKK leader of some sort, was a Democrat in Congress.

My point is the only reason these people are voting Republican right now is because the social engineering of the left is seen as anti-white, which I am certain makes it untenable for a white racist to vote for that candidate/party.

Total BS answer.

WHAT shared beliefs? There is no color requirements or religious prerequisites to being on the right hand side of the political spectrum. I know the media and lefty fanbois try to paint it that way, but that is complete drivel.

Goals? What 'goals' do these white idiot racists have that black idiot racists or hispanic idiot racists don't ALSO have ? What makes one group's racism leftist and therefor tolerable/understandable/justifiable in the media and the other group's racism "right wing" and abhorrent? And yes, there ARE black and hispanic racist groups...

Nothing but political bullsh*t. Racism is racism and it ALL should be abhorrent.

At it's core today, the right-wing political ideal maintains that free markets and capitalism is the best economic system for a free people because it promotes the MOST interchange between classes of people (poor, rich, powerful, etc). As such, a true right wing government would be small and not so powerful in an individual's everyday life.

At it's core, the left-wing political ideal is that capitalism is not "fair" and that the Government should step in to make everyone "equal", trading away freedom to social engineer equality and redistribute wealth. Of course, this means the more power that can be consolidated into the government, the better and more "equal" we can all be. (Don't even get me started on how this path leads to the shores of Venezuela or every other failed socialist country before it)

Back on my point though, racism doesn't rely on free markets or capitalism. Racism CAN and I would argue DOES benefit from leftist ideas of social engineered equality though.

So if these white racists voted as a majority for Republicans this election cycle, I would suggest that they did NOT do it because the are "right wing" at all. I suggest they did it because the other side of the ticket represents nothing but more and more "social engineering" that would NOT benefit their preferred race. Further, I would suggest that had the "social engineering" over the time period of the last Presidency been skewed towards pro-white, that these same white racists would have voted Democrat.

More like feudal peasants who aren't allowed to accrue wealth.

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

The American system is stacked toward the wealthy.

He inherited 200 million in NYC condos in the early '80s. If he'd held on to them, they'd be worth an estimated 12 billion today. If he'd sold and put the money in indexed stocks, he'd be worth 10 billion today. By his own most generous estimate he's worth 8 billion today (and less biased estimates have him out of billionaire status entirely).

Trump filed for bankruptcy four (I think, might have been more) times, each time structuring his debt so the shareholders got screwed and he got away clean.

He's accepted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of sweetheart loans from Russian banks. Every American bank has him blacklisted.

He's screwed contractors, employees, and practically everyone he can for years.

He's stiffed debt collectors for decades.

He's paid no taxes for decades.

In spite of all those benefits, he's still managed to lose approximately 90% of the massive wealth he inherited. Yeah, brilliant person.

BTW, every time I hear about the Dunning Kruger effect, I think of you and all the other Trumpites, Bob. It's worth giving some critical thought, if you can manage it.

Thanks....again! ;-)

Shit...turns out Chris Cornell committed suicide by hanging. I guess success, fame, and wealth (I assume) doesn't translate to happiness.

Except that he didn't. He took that million, made investments, got a job with daddy, and within 15 years had accrued massive debt.

When his father died he got a massive inheritance. That's where his wealth comes from.

And, as John Oliver pointed out with great humor, Trump has had one failure after another as a businessman. But his name has recognition so it's useful as a brand. So OTHER people put his name on their buildings and such, and then he swaggers around taking credit for it.

You bought the yellow kool-aid, and now you're smiling through it and trying to tell us it doesn't taste like piss.

In terms of the UK, your average house price was under £10 000 in the 70s. If wages had increased at the same rate as house prices have increased, which is not an unreasonable request, especially if you're mocking them for not having the money, then the average wage would be £87 000. Alternatively, if house prices had increased at the same rate as wages have, the average house would be worth around £60 000. It's no good talking about people buying iPhones when that disparity exists - if anything, the iPhones help distract them from their poverty.

It's been rigged for 40 years now, bob. Who do you think a landlord/renter economy benefits more - the young or the old? You are blind to the reality of life for people just starting out.

Sooner or later, civilisation is going to have to change to account for this. You can call me a lefty all you like, but the numbers don't lie - this isn't sustainable, the cost of living does not match full time pay for a huge number of people, including necessary and skilled jobs like nurses and teachers (in the UK).

It's no longer about aspiration, or working harder at school. Average people are struggling and that should be a concern to you if you care about society at all. In fact, if you're a die-hard, card carrying, flag waving capitalist it should worry you. Landlords aren't wealth creators.

Nobody wants to hear these inconvenient truths. Corporations that do business with Walmart give their lowest quality grains and products. It's practically returning to feudalism. Here is your lower class food, peon. Let my massive wealth create another low paying job for you. Oh, college education? Here's a low paying shitty job for you, as well. Unless you like climbing corporate ladders by using other people as stepping stones. This world: brought to by the ruling sociopathic elite. Here's an anonymous reporting system for you to minimize and abuse people who violate your social order. You work faster than everyone else but you talked too much according to anonymous reports, tsk tsk, human resources reeducation after investigating that although you are a superior worker, you talk too much.

@bcglorf

i don't think using @drradon 's example of anarchy a good use as a rebuttal.

now may be larken rose's vision is an extreme example,taken from the von mises institute,and where they dreamily offer a counter to police with a "non-aggression principle".while cute and adorable,humans tend to be far more vicious and violent in nature,especially when desperate.

but again,i think our respective approaches to authority will not find common ground here.

i do not seek a leader,but i am ok with a representative,though i do not seem to have any in my government at the moment.

i find it curious,amazing and not a little disturbing just how easily people will quietly,and tacitly accept a police that has become more and more draconian,violent and aggressive while SIMULTANEOUSLY decreasing the citizens rights to protect themselves,defend themselves and resist unlawful police practices.

because they simply change the law to make what WAS illegal...legal.with a stroke of a pen.

and i simply cannot respect when an american says,without any sense of justice or history,to just sit down,shut up and do what you are told.

while claiming they are a patriot,waving their american flag made in china.

the history of law enforcement in this country reveals that their main job,their main focus and duty is NOT to the poor,the dispossessed or the marginalized.

the police's job is to protect those who hold assets,who have money and wield political power.

and before you say anything,i am quite aware that there are some,and they are the majority,who do their job with honor and distinction.my argument is not about singular police officers but rather the systematic problems inherent in the system.

lets take my city for example.
i am blessed enough to live adjacent to a very wealthy and influential housing development.

average police response time?=7 minutes.

right down the street,not 10 miles down the road,is a depressed area of town.industry and manufacturing abandoned that area 20 years ago.it is stricken with prostitution,heroin addicts and abject poverty.

average police response time?=22 minutes

yet the main police station is in THAT area.

or should i bring up the history of american labor movement?
where the coal miners in west virginia decided to strike,and because the owners of the mines were politically connected.the governor sent in the state police to...and this should send chills down your spine...shoot any miners unwilling to go back to work.

and they did.
they murdered any coal miner still willing to stand up against the owners of the mine,and this included women and children.

now lets examine that for a minute.
workers for a coal mine decided to strike for better working conditions (which were horrible) and actually have a day off,besides sunday (because:god).

the owner of the mine,who was losing immense of amount of money due to zero production of coal,called the governor to have the state police,a civil institution,sent in to put those people down.to force them to either get back to work or face violence.

*now the owner brought in his own mercenary group to assist in the process of intimidation,strong arm tactics and violence.

i will add one more story that is personal,and comes from my own family,and may possibly explain my attitude towards police in general.

my father was born in 1930,in alton illinois.
now that small town had been hit particularly hard during the depression.my father spoke of not having indoor plumbing until he went into the navy,and how the floors in his childhood home were simple boards over dirt.

he grew up extremely poor,and my grandfather struggled to find steady work,and i gather from what my father told me.my grandpa made bootleg beer out of the bathtub.so he and his 6 brothers and 1 sister had to bathe in the mississippi river while grandpa tried to make money by selling illegal hooch.

my father also regaled me with stories of the chores he had as the youngest of 8 kids.it was his job every morning to head to the train tracks and pick the coal that dropped from the coal carts.(which he admitted to being lazy and stole directly from the very full coal cart itself while his brother kept an eye out for the station master).

my point is that my father grew up in desperate and poor times.

but one story always stood out,and i think it is because it has a wild west feel to it that always transfixed me,and i made him tell me the story over and over as a child.

when times are tough,people will do whatever they have to in order to survive,so my grandfather making illegal hooch was not the only illegalities being played out in that small town.neighbor upon neighbor did what they had to,and most were considered criminals in the eyes of the state.

so i guess one of my grandpa's friends was on the run from the law,and sought refuge at my grandpa's home.which he allowed,because neighbors take care of neighbors,at least they used to.

well,in a small town everybody knows everybody,and eventually three police officers showed up at my grandpa's house,and demanded that he turn over (i forgot the guys name).

and i remember the pride on my fathers face whenever he retold this story....

my grandfather stood tall on the top of his stairs facing his front door,holding his gun he was given during WW1 and told the police officers (which he knew.small town remember?),that if they took one step into his home..he would blow their heads off.

now this is a story retold from a childs perspective many years later.i am sure my fathers memory was a tad....biased..but i would bet the meaty parts were accurate.

now my question is this:
how would that exact same scenario play out in todays climate?

well,we would see on the 6 o'clock news how a family was tragically shot to death for harboring a criminal and that the police had done EVERYTHING in their power to avoid this kind of violence.

i know this is long,and i hope i didn't lose you along the way,but i think we should not dismiss the very real slow decent into a society that silently obeys,quietly accepts more and more authoritarian powers all in the name of "safety",and that any form of resistance is to be viewed as "criminal" and "troublesome".

so while i agree that "when should we shoot a cop" should be in the realm of:let us try to never do that.

i also cannot agree to placing cops on a hero platform as if their job is somehow sacrosanct and beyond reproach.they are human beings,of limited intellect,whose main job it is to protect those who own property,have wealth and wield political power.

and with the current disparity and blatant inequality their job has been more and more focused on keeping those 30% undesirables down.

the poor,the destitute,the marginalized,the addict and the junkie and the petty criminals.

those are a threat to the "better" citizens.they are a blight on a community that should be cleansed from the tender eyes of those who are deemed more "worthy".

rich folk may wring their hands,and lament the plight of the poor and wretched,but for GOD's sakes! they don't want to actually SEE them!

so a police officer can do all the mental gymnastics they want in order to justify their place in society,but at the end of the day,they serve the elites.

and they always have.