"The problem with your idea about voting in a candidate in a region that I am not part of is that our federalism government is not built to be like that. It is meant to be broken down into smaller regions to accommodate the population of hat given region. Who am I to say what is better for your area of the world?"
"The problem with your idea about voting in a candidate in a region that I am not part of is that our federalism government is not built to be like that. It is meant to be broken down into smaller regions to accommodate the population of hat given region. Who am I to say what is better for your area of the world?"
My idea? How is it my idea? That's what the federal government IS and always has been. Reps don't only vote on issues affecting the states they live in. Those that do are called STATE reps. Federal reps vote on issues that affect YOU whether you like it or not. That's called REALITY. Pretending they don't doesn't change it. If you don't think people should help good out-of-state candidates, you're shooting yourself and the rest of us in the foot.
Don't like it, want to change it, voting L will never do it. All that does is spoil races and elect even worse candidates - communists. Perhaps you think a RINO or conservative that doesn't keep all his promises is just as bad as a communist. If so, crack a history book.
Voluntarism is terrific. It's a good example of "sacrifice". Time = money. Have you ever done it?
But the notion that good candidates don't need money, just volunteers, that money makes no difference, reveals a lack of experience with campaigns and how things really work. A good candidate doesn't need to match the spending of a communist, but they need SOME funding. I've seen candidates like Dave Brat beat entrenched RINOs with a relatively small warchest, some of which I donated, but he did HAVE a warchest. In Arizona, Blake Masters is being outspent 8-1 by commies and RINOs, and he may beat the commie anyway, barely, but he HAS a warchest, probably $10 million by now. There's a reason so money goes into campaigns; it's necessary and it works.
You keep excusing things by asserting that's the way they are and have been. Then, sadly, the government has always been unconstitutional?
Just because reps vote on issues affecting not only the states they live in, does not mean they should, or that such a thing is constitutional. I certainly would not want California politicians voting on things that won't fly down her in Georgia and vice versa. Isn't it very clear after three years that one-size-fits-all is clumsy and a horrible way to run a country the size and scope as ours? Wouldn't more autonomy broken up into smaller areas and regions be better than more central control?
While federal reps do vote on issues that affect me whether I like it or not, and that is reality, that doesn't mean it is true. There are a lot of things in this life that are real but predicated on falsehood. I can say repeatedly that the vaccine is safe and effective..and that mantra is real, but it is not true. That more people adopt the idea that it is, also is not true. Truth has no bearing on the amount of people who believe it.
The problem here is misinterpreting reality as true. But I understand your world view, and that you want to use ad hominem attacks who do not believe as you do. I will accept the moniker of ignorant and a wishful thinker, and you can safely discard whatever it is I have to say based on it.
I noticed how you didn't engage with the definitions of the word "libertarian" and notice the dichotomy of what the "reality" of libertarian party is.
I'm not excusing that. You seem to think noticing reality is excusing it. Lay off the strawman arguments. I'm busy. Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios.
Except it's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is a distortion of the extreme version of itself. Throughout this discussion your answer has been that "this is what is going on" as a way of discarding it. In this case, it is the libertarian party. Although the Libertarian party has been traditionally taken over by the left wing which could very well lead to social/globalism, that isn't what it means to be a libertarian. At the very heart of libertarian view (at least in principle) is the individual property owner and their ability to conduct trade with other individual property owners.
The mises caucus does not support unlimited immigration. They speak rather that those who are into violent crimes and are bad actors should not be allowed to come into our country. But if they are here peacefully they should be allowed to come here. That doesn't sound unlimited to me. In fact, the libertarian policy is to make it easier for immigrants to come into this country, this is something I agree with. We should not make immigration so difficult and expensive so as to motivate citizens from other countries to come here illegally.
I went through the mises material on immigration and the ultimate goal is as much open borders as possible, but the arguments and discussions proposed show realistic incremental thinking, and an admission that there should be some form of vetting going on, but they would rather it be in the form of competition in, at least one form, an Ellis Island type strategy.
You are not excusing it, but you are in your way, seeing the way the libertarian party has been during your time familiar with it to make broad judgments based upon it, and that is a perfectly valid tact to take. The problem I have is that it is not exercised the same way in regards to your position as well.
I wish there was a document that contained a summary of all the libertarian candidates and their specific views on immigration and other issues. What I can assert is that from what I know of and have read of Mises candidates, they are definitely not into globalization and socialism, nor do they adhere to an unrealistic ideal of complete open borders in the same way they would not be for removing doors on their own houses and inviting anyone in for a perpetual open house.
This is not double-talk, you said in your comment, "Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios." I was responding to that statement.
To speak in plainer English, if you go through the different libertarian candidates and notice which ones are Mises Caucus members, they are not for "numerically unlimited immigration."
No one ever stated you were for "unlimited immigration, what, if anything, in my comment suggested you did?
For those keeping track at home I have now been called:
Ignorant
Uneducated
Inexperienced
Leftist
Unintelligible
A Double-Speaker
Loser
Spoiler
Lazy
If I collect a full twenty ad hominem attacks I get a free toaster.
I'm paraphrasing YOU, not me. If the Mises camp or Hoppe were relevant factors, Weld would never have been the "L" nominee. Moreover, you're evading your support for effectively unlimited immigration and what that means to US sovereignty, redistribution etc. The issues you can't handle. All you have is red herrings, diversions, strawmen, games. No time for it. Go play on a toll road.
So what is your definition of "effectively unlimited immigration"and how do you see its effect on US sovereignty? The below position by Dave Smith sounds reasonable and consistent with the values.
I am not for "effectively unlimited immigration" and the libertarian policy regarding it shouldn't be for it either...as you should not be able to come where you aren't invited. The idea that people should wander into your house, take what they want, is a ridiculous notion and definitely is not considered "peaceful" in the way they arrived.
If I was polite, invited myself into your house, and then raised your refrigerator and stole all your possessions, that wouldn't be very peaceful.
"The problem with your idea about voting in a candidate in a region that I am not part of is that our federalism government is not built to be like that. It is meant to be broken down into smaller regions to accommodate the population of hat given region. Who am I to say what is better for your area of the world?"
My idea? How is it my idea? That's what the federal government IS and always has been. Reps don't only vote on issues affecting the states they live in. Those that do are called STATE reps. Federal reps vote on issues that affect YOU whether you like it or not. That's called REALITY. Pretending they don't doesn't change it. If you don't think people should help good out-of-state candidates, you're shooting yourself and the rest of us in the foot.
Don't like it, want to change it, voting L will never do it. All that does is spoil races and elect even worse candidates - communists. Perhaps you think a RINO or conservative that doesn't keep all his promises is just as bad as a communist. If so, crack a history book.
Voluntarism is terrific. It's a good example of "sacrifice". Time = money. Have you ever done it?
But the notion that good candidates don't need money, just volunteers, that money makes no difference, reveals a lack of experience with campaigns and how things really work. A good candidate doesn't need to match the spending of a communist, but they need SOME funding. I've seen candidates like Dave Brat beat entrenched RINOs with a relatively small warchest, some of which I donated, but he did HAVE a warchest. In Arizona, Blake Masters is being outspent 8-1 by commies and RINOs, and he may beat the commie anyway, barely, but he HAS a warchest, probably $10 million by now. There's a reason so money goes into campaigns; it's necessary and it works.
You keep excusing things by asserting that's the way they are and have been. Then, sadly, the government has always been unconstitutional?
Just because reps vote on issues affecting not only the states they live in, does not mean they should, or that such a thing is constitutional. I certainly would not want California politicians voting on things that won't fly down her in Georgia and vice versa. Isn't it very clear after three years that one-size-fits-all is clumsy and a horrible way to run a country the size and scope as ours? Wouldn't more autonomy broken up into smaller areas and regions be better than more central control?
While federal reps do vote on issues that affect me whether I like it or not, and that is reality, that doesn't mean it is true. There are a lot of things in this life that are real but predicated on falsehood. I can say repeatedly that the vaccine is safe and effective..and that mantra is real, but it is not true. That more people adopt the idea that it is, also is not true. Truth has no bearing on the amount of people who believe it.
The problem here is misinterpreting reality as true. But I understand your world view, and that you want to use ad hominem attacks who do not believe as you do. I will accept the moniker of ignorant and a wishful thinker, and you can safely discard whatever it is I have to say based on it.
I noticed how you didn't engage with the definitions of the word "libertarian" and notice the dichotomy of what the "reality" of libertarian party is.
I'm not excusing that. You seem to think noticing reality is excusing it. Lay off the strawman arguments. I'm busy. Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios.
Except it's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is a distortion of the extreme version of itself. Throughout this discussion your answer has been that "this is what is going on" as a way of discarding it. In this case, it is the libertarian party. Although the Libertarian party has been traditionally taken over by the left wing which could very well lead to social/globalism, that isn't what it means to be a libertarian. At the very heart of libertarian view (at least in principle) is the individual property owner and their ability to conduct trade with other individual property owners.
The mises caucus does not support unlimited immigration. They speak rather that those who are into violent crimes and are bad actors should not be allowed to come into our country. But if they are here peacefully they should be allowed to come here. That doesn't sound unlimited to me. In fact, the libertarian policy is to make it easier for immigrants to come into this country, this is something I agree with. We should not make immigration so difficult and expensive so as to motivate citizens from other countries to come here illegally.
I went through the mises material on immigration and the ultimate goal is as much open borders as possible, but the arguments and discussions proposed show realistic incremental thinking, and an admission that there should be some form of vetting going on, but they would rather it be in the form of competition in, at least one form, an Ellis Island type strategy.
You are not excusing it, but you are in your way, seeing the way the libertarian party has been during your time familiar with it to make broad judgments based upon it, and that is a perfectly valid tact to take. The problem I have is that it is not exercised the same way in regards to your position as well.
I wish there was a document that contained a summary of all the libertarian candidates and their specific views on immigration and other issues. What I can assert is that from what I know of and have read of Mises candidates, they are definitely not into globalization and socialism, nor do they adhere to an unrealistic ideal of complete open borders in the same way they would not be for removing doors on their own houses and inviting anyone in for a perpetual open house.
Where did you go to doubletalk school? Ask for your money back.
"I'm not for unlimited immigration. I'm just for letting everyone in who is here peacefully."
This is not double-talk, you said in your comment, "Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios." I was responding to that statement.
To speak in plainer English, if you go through the different libertarian candidates and notice which ones are Mises Caucus members, they are not for "numerically unlimited immigration."
No one ever stated you were for "unlimited immigration, what, if anything, in my comment suggested you did?
For those keeping track at home I have now been called:
Ignorant
Uneducated
Inexperienced
Leftist
Unintelligible
A Double-Speaker
Loser
Spoiler
Lazy
If I collect a full twenty ad hominem attacks I get a free toaster.
I'm paraphrasing YOU, not me. If the Mises camp or Hoppe were relevant factors, Weld would never have been the "L" nominee. Moreover, you're evading your support for effectively unlimited immigration and what that means to US sovereignty, redistribution etc. The issues you can't handle. All you have is red herrings, diversions, strawmen, games. No time for it. Go play on a toll road.
How many ad hominem attacks are we up to now? I hear with fifty, you can get a rain slicker.
1. Ignorant
2. Uneducated
3.Leftist
4. Inexperienced
5.Unintelligible
6. Extreme Arguments.
7. Double Speaker
8. Lazy
9. Loser
10. Spoiler
11. Incompetent
12. Diversive
13. Game-Player
14. Speed Bump
Mises principles at least are relevant factors for because they speak to the factors that libertarian ideas were predicated upon.
Speaking of Weld, in my effort to educate myself, I ran across this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yj851NgjUA
So what is your definition of "effectively unlimited immigration"and how do you see its effect on US sovereignty? The below position by Dave Smith sounds reasonable and consistent with the values.
I am not for "effectively unlimited immigration" and the libertarian policy regarding it shouldn't be for it either...as you should not be able to come where you aren't invited. The idea that people should wander into your house, take what they want, is a ridiculous notion and definitely is not considered "peaceful" in the way they arrived.
If I was polite, invited myself into your house, and then raised your refrigerator and stole all your possessions, that wouldn't be very peaceful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GWM8Ne20WY
But why listen to me or these examples, you believe my only use is as a speed bump.