Ixian
Well-known member
The border stuff didn't go through is a good thing
Yeah, instead it was only 95 billion dollars leaving the country. What a great "compromise".
The border stuff didn't go through is a good thing
Yes like 75% of the left are commie authoritorians as opposed to libertarian. But not all authoritorians are leftist. Singapore's leaders are not leftist, neither was China(not CCP but Chiang Kai Shek guys the ones who made Taiwan the Republic of China) also Franco and Spain. They were all authoritarian. But they were not leftist, they were in fact anti communistleftist is authoritarian.
almost all leftists are communist authoritarians
We got the libertarians. they sometimes do something silly like take off their pants in the middle of a debate.America is a one party state, change my mind.
Liberterians are not leftist. They are centrists who just want to be left the fuck alone.Yes like 75% of the left are commie authoritorians as opposed to libertarian. But not all authoritorians are leftist. Singapore's leaders are not leftist, neither was China(not CCP but Chiang Kai Shek guys the ones who made Taiwan the Republic of China) also Franco and Spain. They were all authoritarian. But they were not leftist, they were in fact anti communist
hmmMinarchism is the way to go.
not seeing anything about protecting against megacorpsA night-watchman state, or minarchy, whose proponents are known as minarchists, is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose functions depend on libertarian theory. Right-libertarians support it only as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing citizens with the military, the police, and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud, and enforcing property laws.[1][2][3]
hmm
not seeing anything about protecting against megacorps
it looks like vanilla libertarian to me. the kind who are not so extreme as to advocate total stateless anarchy. but still too extreme as they want total unrestricted rich oligarchs
So what? they were not perfect before the civil war.Was literally what America originally was until the Civil War
No system is perfect but I rather live under a minarchy than what we currently haveSo what? they were not perfect before the civil war.
And made mistakes, like a lack of defenses against the rise of oligarchs / megacorps / cartels / central banking / monopolies / etc
Sure, but you can't put the genie back into the bottle.No system is perfect but I rather live under a minarchy than what we currently have
We aren't centrists.Liberterians are not leftist. They are centrists who just want to be left the fuck alone.
and occasionally have the delusion that the govt is the only one out to get them. rather than the reality where the govt is merely one of several forces out of them
And that position runs counter to both leftists and right wingers. making you a centrist by default.We aren't centrists.
Libertarianism is a fundamentally radical position of complete selfownership.
it really really isn't.The whole goal of minarchism is that it makes converting money into power hard
what they are already doing is bad enough.Google etc would not somehow instantly fuck us anymore thab they are already,
Govt is literally whomever has the guns right now. And they have on occasion protected from oligarchs. Anti trust laws are a thing and used to be enforced. Central banking opposition was a thing at some points in american history.Government simply doesn't protect from oligarchs. Because if it could, then the oligarchs buy enough of it to set it against their enemies.
Ohh.Yeah, instead it was only 95 billion dollars leaving the country. What a great "compromise".
Sure, but you can't put the genie back into the bottle.
You cannot magically disappear firearms
You cannot magically disappear nukes
You cannot make oligarchs forget the tricks they learned on subverting democracy.
If you, today, replaced the USA govt with minarchy. We would not go back to 200 years ago. Instead we would still be totally fucked by microsoft, google, banks, etc.
That isn't to say we shouldn't drastically trim down the govt as per minarchist principals. But that it is not enough by itself.
Megacorps aren't restricted by government. This is your issue. Megacorps love government, because they own it and you don't. The restrictions only ever apply to their competition. Your delusion is that you think you can put the "buy the government" genie back in the bottle. You can't.what they are already doing is bad enough.
and actually with less restrictions on them google could get away with doing even worse.
You are free to bury your head in the sand if you want, but don't spread your bullshit elsewhere. I would suggest that for the start you read first what Nazis actually wrote, and then what they actually did RE:economy. In both cases, they were very definitely socialist.Please don't start this idiotic bullshit again. You're wrong but will screech wrong shit until we all stop responding, it won't make you right though. Let's just leave it be and not kill another thread with this.
No, it cannot - at least not in this context. "On Earth as it is in Heaven" is a prayer for literally God's intervention; there is no suggestion that humans themselves can create heaven on earth, without God's help.The idea of creating heaven on earth can be conservative. "On Earth as it is in Heaven" being right out of the Lord's Prayer.
Ohh.
Sorry I just seem to think about the birder aspect that the right had been jumping and gnawing about fir awhile
Are you seriously trying to argue that anti trust laws do not exist and that never in the history of mankind has a govt actually applied them properly to break up megacorps?Megacorps aren't restricted by government. This is your issue. Megacorps love government, because they own it and you don't. The restrictions only ever apply to their competition. Your delusion is that you think you can put the "buy the government" genie back in the bottle. You can't.
The earliest surviving example of modern competition law's ancestors appears in the Lex Julia de Annona, enacted during the Roman Republic around 50 BC.[1] To protect the corn trade, heavy fines were imposed on anyone directly, deliberately and insidiously stopping supply ships.[2] Under Diocletian, in 301 AD an Edict on maximum prices established a death penalty for anyone violating a tariff system, for example by buying up, concealing or contriving the scarcity of everyday goods.[2] The most legislation came under the Constitution of Zeno of 483 AD which can be traced into Florentine Municipal laws of 1322 and 1325.[3] It provided for property confiscation and banishment for any trade combinations or joint action of monopolies private or granted by the Emperor. Zeno rescinded all previously granted exclusive rights.[4] Justinian I also introduced legislation not long after to pay officials to manage state monopolies. As Europe slipped into the Dark Ages, so did the records of law making until the Middle Ages brought greater expansion of trade in the time of lex mercatoria.
"Unless the corrupting monster should be shraven with its ill gotten power, my veto will meet it frankly & fearlessly."
President Andrew Jackson to John Coffee,
February 19, 1832
Congress established the First Bank of the United States in 1791 to serve as a repository for Federal funds. Its charter expired in 1811, but in 1816 Congress created a Second Bank of the United States with a charter set to expire in 1836. By the 1830s the Bank had become a volatile political issue. Some, especially in the trans-Appalachian West, were suspicious of banks because they distrusted the paper money issued by them and because banks controlled credit and loans. To them, the Bank of the United States was the worst of them all: a greedy monopoly dominated by the rich American and foreign interests.
The Bank's most powerful enemy was President Andrew Jackson. In 1832 Senator Henry Clay, Jackson's opponent in the Presidential election of that year, proposed rechartering the Bank early. This bill passed Congress, but Jackson vetoed it, declaring that the Bank was "unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive to the rights of States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people." After his reelection, Jackson announced that the Government would no longer deposit Federal funds with the Bank and would place them in state banks. Supporters of the Bank in the Senate were furious and took the unprecedented step of censuring Jackson. The President held fast, however, and when the Bank's charter expired in 1836, it was never renewed.