What's new

Libertian party debate

Meh.

Lots and lots of talking points with lil substance. The former governor of New Mexico, "everything in the future is going to be like uber. Uber doctors, plumbers, etc."

Apparently his vision of the future includes a bunch of unlicensed, unregulated, cheap high school dropouts looking to make an easy buck. Make no mistake, I'll pay extra if it means that my doctor or plumber actually know what the hell they're doing.

Their arguing for the free market while complaining about our open borders and the need to seal the border seems hypocritical to me. It's impossible to support the free market while arguing for closed borders. If you're pro free market then you should recognize that the invisible hand will always find the cheapest labor.

Not only that, but this undermines their primary argument for the free market. When arguing for trade deals they argued that these trade deals, while hurting some Americans via offshoring of jobs, actually added to the purchasing power of most Americans. Why doesn't this same thinking apply to immigration? While supporting immigration, especially illegaLaissez-fairel immigration, yes you undermine Some laws and hurt some Americans. But ultimately, you create a cheap (slave) labor caste which ultimately adds to the purchasing power of most Americans, correct?

Lastly, I agreed with them on foreign policy. We are suffering from some terrorist groups and organizations that we helped to create through our intervention.

However, isn't that also part of the "free market."

If some extremists don't like western influence, too bad. Right? The invisible hand will find the cheap labor, abundant oil, etc that the ME offers, right?

What in the fork are you talking about? Nobody said we want anarchy. So what if we do not want government in are business and bedrooms? That does not mean we do not believe there is a role for government in protecting are boarders and national sovereignty.

As far as foreign policy goes, I say we let the free market handle it. Let the oil cartel create a mercenary army to dismantle the Middle East then they can reap the war booty. Costs us less than nothing as oil would be cheaper.
 
I've also never met a true libertarian. Every self proclaimed libertarian I've ever met have fallen into 2 categories:

Desenfranchised repub or repub trying to sound unique or smart.

for example, one of my friends was a huge libertarian. Especially when it came to taxes, education, and health care. Yet, he was adament about enforcing drug laws, maintaining gay marriage/discrimination bans, and was a huge supporter of the Bush wars. So basically, he was just a desenfranchised republican. He felt like the GOP had back stabbed him with tarp.

Libertarians a repub trying to sound smart. In reality, their policies and philosophy look nice on paper but don't work in a globalized reality.

The Koch bros, the poster children for libertarianism. Even they put the whole philosophy on hold when it came to the 08 crisis. Originally, Americans for Prosperity (their mouthpiece masquerading as a think tank) was against tarp. But after a few days of stocks falling, the organization changed sides and met with members of congress to pass tarp.

The poster girl for libertarianism, Ayn Rand, was against social security and Medicare until she became old and destitute. Then, suddenly, she forgot her anti-gubbamint philosophy and joined the masses drinking from the public trough.

Again, libertarians are against gubbamint intervention until they want/need its services.
 
What in the fork are you talking about? Nobody said we want anarchy. So what if we do not want government in are business and bedrooms? That does not mean we do not believe there is a role for government in protecting are boarders and national sovereignty.

As far as foreign policy goes, I say we let the free market handle it. Let the oil cartel create a mercenary army to dismantle the Middle East then they can reap the war booty. Costs us less than nothing as oil would be cheaper.

Anarchy? Who said anything about anarchy?

Watch the debate bro. You cannot argue for Laissez-faire and against open borders. Pretty simple. In this case, the libertarians want to have their cake (free market) and eat it too (control the borders and shut down illegal immigration).
 
I've also never met a true libertarian. Every self proclaimed libertarian I've ever met have fallen into 2 categories:

Desenfranchised repub or repub trying to sound unique or smart.

for example, one of my friends was a huge libertarian. Especially when it came to taxes, education, and health care. Yet, he was adament about enforcing drug laws, maintaining gay marriage/discrimination bans, and was a huge supporter of the Bush wars. So basically, he was just a desenfranchised republican. He felt like the GOP had back stabbed him with tarp.

Libertarians a repub trying to sound smart. In reality, their policies and philosophy look nice on paper but don't work in a globalized reality.

The Koch bros, the poster children for libertarianism. Even they put the whole philosophy on hold when it came to the 08 crisis. Originally, Americans for Prosperity (their mouthpiece masquerading as a think tank) was against tarp. But after a few days of stocks falling, the organization changed sides and met with members of congress to pass tarp.

The poster girl for libertarianism, Ayn Rand, was against social security and Medicare until she became old and destitute. Then, suddenly, she forgot her anti-gubbamint philosophy and joined the masses drinking from the public trough.

Again, libertarians are against gubbamint intervention until they want/need its services.

I'm not racist I know a black guy. Yeah, we have heard this drivel before.


Anarchy? Who said anything about anarchy?

Watch the debate bro. You cannot argue for Laissez-faire and against open borders. Pretty simple. In this case, the libertarians want to have their cake (free market) and eat it too (control the borders and shut down illegal immigration).

Your essential claim is that libertarians must be anarchists and there is no middle ground, no room for government. This is akin to me claiming liberals like you are hypocrites if yo do not turn your children over to the state to raise or let a panel decide if every pregnant woman should get an abortion. You want gigantic government right? This is what I read in every post from you. Well you are the hypocrite for not allowing communists to dictate your every action.
 
Meh.

Lots and lots of talking points with lil substance. The former governor of New Mexico, "everything in the future is going to be like uber. Uber doctors, plumbers, etc."

Apparently his vision of the future includes a bunch of unlicensed, unregulated, cheap high school dropouts looking to make an easy buck. Make no mistake, I'll pay extra if it means that my doctor or plumber actually know what the hell they're doing.

Their arguing for the free market while complaining about our open borders and the need to seal the border seems hypocritical to me. It's impossible to support the free market while arguing for closed borders. If you're pro free market then you should recognize that the invisible hand will always find the cheapest labor.

Not only that, but this undermines their primary argument for the free market. When arguing for trade deals they argued that these trade deals, while hurting some Americans via offshoring of jobs, actually added to the purchasing power of most Americans. Why doesn't this same thinking apply to immigration? While supporting immigration, especially illegaLaissez-fairel immigration, yes you undermine Some laws and hurt some Americans. But ultimately, you create a cheap (slave) labor caste which ultimately adds to the purchasing power of most Americans, correct?

Lastly, I agreed with them on foreign policy. We are suffering from some terrorist groups and organizations that we helped to create through our intervention.

However, isn't that also part of the "free market."

If some extremists don't like western influence, too bad. Right? The invisible hand will find the cheap labor, abundant oil, etc that the ME offers, right?

Who was talking about sealing the border? All 3 candidates agreed that immigration was good for America. They all called for a path to citizenship for people already here and to increase the number of work visas so that people don't get labelled "illegal".
 
Who was talking about sealing the border? All 3 candidates agreed that immigration was good for America. They all called for a path to citizenship for people already here and to increase the number of work visas so that people don't get labelled "illegal".

False

All 3 admitted that an all out ban on immigration wasn't the right move. But all wanted to secure the border.

Essentially, amnesty now, strict border patrol and a limited number work visas later. Oh and few if any consequences for businesses that hire illegals. Which has been our policy for 30 years.

How's that worked out?
 
Hmm, I also didn't gather a harsh on immigration message from them at all.

Anywho, an anarchist would weep at being mistaken for a libertarian. The few anarchists I've met were essentially idealist communists.
 
What's wrong with holding business accountable for illegal immigration? Hire an illegal? Go to prison *** wipe for 10+ years and lose your business license? Illegal immigration would be solved overnight.

I hate how we put business on a pedestal and let it do whatever the hell it wants. While punishing poor families.

My solution would be to drastically up the working visas and demilitarize the border. That way seasonal workers would return. That way workers can traverse the borders without fear of being deported. This policy worked fine in the past and allowed workers to come and go as they pleased. Now, as it stands, the border is so militarized that immigrants once they get here stay here. They don't want to risk going back for fear of never being able to successfully return again.

Please read about the Yuma 14 or read the book "The Devil's Highway" to learn about how Raygun and the militarization of our border has actually worsened illegal immigration. Much like our war on drugs and war on terror.
 
What's wrong with holding business accountable for illegal immigration? Hire an illegal? Go to prison *** wipe for 10+ years and lose your business license? Illegal immigration would be solved overnight.

I hate how we put business on a pedestal and let it do whatever the hell it wants. While punishing poor families.

My solution would be to drastically up the working visas and demilitarize the border. That way seasonal workers would return. That way workers can traverse the borders without fear of being deported. This policy worked fine in the past and allowed workers to come and go as they pleased. Now, as it stands, the border is so militarized that immigrants once they get here stay here. They don't want to risk going back for fear of never being able to successfully return again.

Starving the poorest Americans by cutting off work avenues is one of the most disgusting proposals I have ever heard. I want to quit posting here if this is the kind of stuff supported by you long time posters.
 
Starving the poorest Americans by cutting off work avenues is one of the most disgusting proposals I have ever heard. I want to quit posting here if this is the kind of stuff supported by you long time posters.

Good. Stop posting *** wipe. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out
 
False

All 3 admitted that an all out ban on immigration wasn't the right move. But all wanted to secure the border.

Essentially, amnesty now, strict border patrol and a limited number work visas later. Oh and few if any consequences for businesses that hire illegals. Which has been our policy for 30 years.

How's that worked out?

^you're being dishonest. Here is the entire discussion on immigration.

Stossel: Gov. Johnson what would you do about illegal immigration?

Johnson: I would make it as easy as possible for those illegal immigrants to get a work visa as long as they haven't committed any crimes.

Stossel: Agreement? Disagreement?

John McAfee: Yeah, our country was founded on the principle of open arms.All of our ancestors were immigrants and so why are we trying to shut our borders and keep people out? but, they have to be documented, if I have to be documented then I think immigrants as well should have to be documented and made legal.

Petersen: I think we can incentivize legal immigration so that we can cut down on illegal immigration. If we make a simpler path to citizenship then people will not break the law if they know there's a chance they can come here...

Stossel: Simple path for 11, 12 million illegals already here?

Petersen: Yeah, they're already here, they're already adding to our economy, so why don't we make it so that they can find a path to citizenship?

Stossel: Because they lied to get in. It's an insult to people who followed the rules.

Petersen: If you were living in a 3rd world country and your family was starving to death who would not cross that wall? We have got to make it simple for them to come here because we have a policy of love towards them. We are an immigrant nation. My last name is Petersen spelled s-e-n, the Danish came over here through Ellis Island. We need to have a simple path to naturalization. Disease check, security check, done.

Stossel: Any disagreement?

Johnson: Well, the reality is that you've got Mexicans in Juarez that can see jobs that exist in El Paso but they can't get across the border to take those jobs. So, they have to cross illegally and they are taking jobs that US Citizens don't want.

Stossel: Americans say they are taking our jobs.

Johnson: Well, that's not the case. It's not an issue either of lower pay. It's lower pay when language is an issue and they're the first ones that recognize this. We're getting the cream of the crop when it comes to workers from Mexico and I am speaking as a border governor.

McAfee: I'd like to say something. You said they lied to get in. I'm not going to claim hypocrisy however who of you have not lied? Has anyone ever had an affair here? Has anyone smoked weed in a state where it's illegal? and been asked by the police if you carry it? Come on sir, that was an absurd statement and I'm sorry I have to say that.

Stossel: Fair enough. Libertarian-ish conservative Rand paul said we have to worry about terrorism and that we should put a hold on immigration from certain areas of the world. Do you agree? Disagree?

Johnson: I disagree. I think that we should be taking our fair share and I think you phrased that question just right. Rand Paul, libertarian-ish. About half of what he has to say I agree with wholeheartedly, of all the Republican candidates he was my guy but the bottom line is he's a Republican. He's not a libertarian.

Stossel: Any ban on Muslims coming in?

Petersen: You can't enforce something like that. The first amendment of the US Constitution says that the government should stay out of religion. The government set those kinds of standards or quotas. What are you going to do? Are you going to ask them what there religion is when they come here? That's un-American. We've got to have a simpler path to naturalization for these people because they are coming here because they want to work. When immigrants come to the United States they don't just take jobs, they give labor, they create wealth. That's how the free market economy works and we should encourage that. Besides if they wanted free welfare they would go to Europe. It's the United States...here in the United States it's the land of opportunity, it's still is. So, we should welcome the people that want to come here.

Stossel: Let's talk about that. Mr. McAfee you've said as did Milton Friedman that a country can't have open borders and a welfare state so...You would shut the border until you took down the welfare state or how would you do it?

McAfee: You're assuming that I'm agreeing with that statement which I do not. I don't think that open borders and the welfare states have anything to do with one another. I think it's the attitude of the government towards its citizens that creates the welfare state. but I would like to say about letting Muslims in...What are we trying to protect ourselves from? Is it not ourselves? Did we not create terrorism by interfering in the affairs of foreign nations?

Petersen: I just want to say that you've left out a part of Milton Friedman's statement. When he said that you can't have open borders in a welfare state, he then followed up by saying, "that means illegal immigration is actually superior" why (did he say this) because then they don't qualify for benefits. So if we had a simpler path to naturalization we wouldn't have the problem but we should build a wall around the welfare state.

Stossel: Let's move on
 
Last edited:
^you're being dishonest. Here is the entire discussion on immigration.

Stossel: Gov. Johnson what would you do about illegal immigration?

Johnson: I would make it as easy as possible for those illegal immigrants to get a work visa as long as they haven't committed any crimes.

Stossel: Agreement? Disagreement?

John McAfee: Yeah, our country was founded on the principle of open arms.All of our ancestors were immigrants and so why are we trying to shut our borders and keep people out? but, they have to be documented, if I have to be documented then I think immigrants as well should have to be documented and made legal.

Petersen: I think we can incentivize legal immigration so that we can cut down on illegal immigration. If we make a simpler path to citizenship then people will not break the law if they know there's a chance they can come here...

Stossel: Simple path for 11, 12 million illegals already here?

Petersen: Yeah, they're already here, they're already adding to our economy, so why don't we make it so that they can find a path to citizenship?

Stossel: Because they lied to get in. It's an insult to people who followed the rules.

Petersen: If you were living in a 3rd world country and your family was starving to death who would not cross that wall? We have got to make it simple for them to come here because we have a policy of love towards them. We are an immigrant nation. My last name is Petersen spelled s-e-n, the Danish came over here through Ellis Island. We need to have a simple path to naturalization. Disease check, security check, done.

Stossel: Any disagreement?

Johnson: Well, the reality is that you've got Mexicans in Juarez that can see jobs that exist in El Paso but they can't get across the border to take those jobs. So, they have to cross illegally and they are taking jobs that US Citizens don't want.

Stossel: Americans say they are taking our jobs.

Johnson: Well, that's not the case. It's not an issue either of lower pay. It's lower pay when language is an issue and they're the first ones that recognize this. We're getting the cream of the crop when it comes to workers from Mexico and I am speaking as a border governor.

McAfee: I'd like to say something. You said they lied to get in. I'm not going to claim hypocrisy however who of you have not lied? Has anyone ever had an affair here? Has anyone smoked weed in a state where it's illegal? and been asked by the police if you carry it? Come on sir, that was an absurd statement and I'm sorry I have to say that.

Stossel: Fair enough. Libertarian-ish conservative Rand paul said we have to worry about terrorism and that we should put a hold on immigration from certain areas of the world. Do you agree? Disagree?

Johnson: I disagree. I think that we should be taking our fair share and I think you phrased that question just right. Rand Paul, libertarian-ish. About half of what he has to say I agree with wholeheartedly, of all the Republican candidates he was my guy but the bottom line is he's a Republican. He's not a libertarian.

Stossel: Any ban on Muslims coming in?

Petersen: You can't enforce something like that. The first amendment of the US Constitution says that the government should stay out of religion. The government set those kinds of standards or quotas. What are you going to do? Are you going to ask them what there religion is when they come here? That's un-American. We've got to have a simpler path to naturalization for these people because they are coming here because they want to work. When immigrants come to the United States they don't just take jobs, they give labor, they create wealth. That's how the free market economy works and we should encourage that. Besides if they wanted free welfare they would go to Europe. It's the United States...here in the United States it's the land of opportunity, it's still is. So, we should welcome the people that want to come here.

Stossel: Let's talk about that. Mr. McAfee you've said as did Milton Friedman that a country can't have open borders and a welfare state so...You would shut the border until you took down the welfare state or how would you do it?

McAfee: You're assuming that I'm agreeing with that statement which I do not. I don't think that open borders and the welfare states have anything to do with one another. I think it's the attitude of the government towards its citizens that creates the welfare state. but I would like to say about letting Muslims in...What are we trying to protect ourselves from? Is it not ourselves? Did we not create terrorism by interfering in the affairs of foreign nations?

Petersen: I just want to say that you've left out a part of Milton Friedman's statement. When he said that you can't have open borders in a welfare state, he then followed up by saying, "that means illegal immigration is actually superior" why (did he say this) because then they don't qualify for benefits. So if we had a simpler path to naturalization we wouldn't have the problem but we should build a wall around the welfare state.

Stossel: Let's move on

Of course the libertarian hater is being dishonest. What else do they got?

If you ask me the thriller is playing a role to make meow cons looks bad. Silly is not it?
 
I've also never met a true libertarian. Every self proclaimed libertarian I've ever met have fallen into 2 categories:

Desenfranchised repub or repub trying to sound unique or smart.

for example, one of my friends was a huge libertarian. Especially when it came to taxes, education, and health care. Yet, he was adament about enforcing drug laws, maintaining gay marriage/discrimination bans, and was a huge supporter of the Bush wars. So basically, he was just a desenfranchised republican. He felt like the GOP had back stabbed him with tarp.

Libertarians a repub trying to sound smart. In reality, their policies and philosophy look nice on paper but don't work in a globalized reality.

The Koch bros, the poster children for libertarianism. Even they put the whole philosophy on hold when it came to the 08 crisis. Originally, Americans for Prosperity (their mouthpiece masquerading as a think tank) was against tarp. But after a few days of stocks falling, the organization changed sides and met with members of congress to pass tarp.

The poster girl for libertarianism, Ayn Rand, was against social security and Medicare until she became old and destitute. Then, suddenly, she forgot her anti-gubbamint philosophy and joined the masses drinking from the public trough.

Again, libertarians are against gubbamint intervention until they want/need its services.

Hi, my name is Gameface. I'm a type of libertarian you haven't met yet.

I'd kindly ask you to go...Humm, I think I've been warned about this stuff... please go please yourself aggressively. Thank you..
 
I'm the type of libertarian that doesn't much like big business. I care about individual liberty, above all else.

We all own our own existence.

We all have the freedom to succeed or fail. That freedom should be extended to the banking industry. That freedom should be extended to multi-national corporations. It shouldn't be limited to the individual.

I support the rights of each human on this planet, regardless of nationality, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of gender, regardless of culture.

I support human opportunity. I support the expansion of the human experience.

I love humanity.

I am a libertarian.
 
lol, of course Thriller is being dishonest in his posts and attacking anyone not super liberal. It's what he does.
 
I'm the type of libertarian that doesn't much like big business. I care about individual liberty, above all else.

We all own our own existence.

We all have the freedom to succeed or fail. That freedom should be extended to the banking industry. That freedom should be extended to multi-national corporations. It shouldn't be limited to the individual.

I support the rights of each human on this planet, regardless of nationality, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of gender, regardless of culture.

I support human opportunity. I support the expansion of the human experience.

I love humanity.

I am a libertarian.

Which brand of libertarian are you? You do not come across as a socialist libertarian or the opposite an anarco libertarian.
 
Back
Top