Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm against them wanting to infringe on my rights as much as I'm against some left progressives wanting to infringe on my rights.
By the way, evangelicals are mainly against public funding for Planned Parenthood. They are against taxpayers money paying for something they do not believe
You know exactly what I meant...
What rights have the left tried to infringe on, besides the uniquely US gun rights issue. I'm asking in the broader sense?
The fight against Planned Parenthood is just part of it. They are against abortion and in states where they have influence, or have a leader that is evangelical, they are doing everything to make abortions more difficult to get.
They funding is irrelevant overall to them.
I did not add anything.....is your misunderstanding of what libertarianism is.....a libertarian society does not mean a society with no government...not at all.
A libertarian society has police, fire fighters and public schools and roads.
The so called "progressive left" is simply incapable to understand what libertarianism is.
It's a pipe dream that doesn't take into consideration human nature. Like communism. It sounds nice, but in reality it is unworkable.
It's a pipe dream that doesn't take into consideration human nature. Like communism. It sounds nice, but in reality it is unworkable.
It is not a pipe dream ...the broadly misunderstood libertarian concept (which is a fringe of the libertarian universe, the so called anarcho-libertarians) is....
What rights have the left tried to infringe on, besides the uniquely US gun rights issue. I'm asking in the broader sense?
What size of soda you ought to drink
What type o food you ought to eat
In Europe, pretty much forcing you to replace cars every 4-5 years with increasingly tightening Euro normative for pollution...maybe is a shock to you but in some countries they can outright ban or tax to death the use of cars that are not that old.....we are not talking about 1970s era clunkers...and guess what, poor people cannot afford new cars.
Gun rights (or better, the right to self defense) is not an uniquely US issue...and contrary to you may believe there are a lot of people in Europe that would love to enjoy more gun rights.
Rights to privacy that are increasingly stomped on and where the left is virtually indistinguishable from the right.
An increasingly anti-democratic EU (since we are widening our horizon to progressive Europe)
An ever growing banking oligarchy that the left (or the right) is more than happy to let run amok crushing everybody except for the elites.
War mongering as much as the right.
The progressive left is very smart in exploiting marginal identity politics issues to easily distract the public at large from the real enchilada......the fact that so many so called progressive initiatives are spearheaded by someone like George Soros should be very telling....but liberals are too smart for that
I laugh my butt off at the hypocrisy of some of the left standard bearers....Leonardo Di Caprio catching a private jet to be in time to receive a "green award"...you cannot make this stuff up.
When I did look at the desperation and crying of some of the typical retail minimum wage job hipster sharing a shoebox sized condo with other 3 people because "Hillary lost", I wonder if there is little more than saw dust inside that head....
Last edited by saturno_v; 06-28-2017 at 05:04 PM..
It is not a pipe dream ...the broadly misunderstood libertarian concept (which is a fringe of the libertarian universe, the so called anarcho-libertarians) is....
I'll tell you why it's a pipe dream. If you believe the dictionary definition
"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."
The first question that pops up to me is, WHO is going to decide what is minimal and what is not? Once that's decided are there going to be factions that leave and set up their own society and on and on?
You want roads, police, firefighters and public schools. Already sounds like a lot laws will have to be in place and people to create and change these laws over time...and oh ya, people to oversee the people doing all this to make sure they are on the up and up. Then there is the funding for these services...taxes..laws about marriage and other unions will have to be established. The list is endless.
In time, you will have basically have what we have now.
I'll tell you why it's a pipe dream. If you believe the dictionary definition
"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."
The first question that pops up to me is, WHO is going to decide what is minimal and what is not? Once that's decided are there going to be factions that leave and set up their own society and on and on?
You want roads, police, firefighters and public schools. Already sounds like a lot laws will have to be in place and people to create and change these laws over time...and oh ya, people to oversee the people doing all this to make sure they are on the up and up. Then there is the funding for these services...taxes..laws about marriage and other unions will have to be established. The list is endless.
In time, you will have basically have what we have now.
Very simple....government should take care only of the desperate cases...people unable to work with handicaps, etc...unemployment benefits run like insurance...you have a temporary cushion before you have to find something.
Is not a government business to insure your mortgage, to guarantee you a lavish pension, to bailout companies, banks, etc...
It would be very different than what we have....services would be paid in an honest way, with taxes not loading on ungodly amount of debts for future generations.
Last edited by saturno_v; 06-28-2017 at 05:43 PM..
...Recently Trudeau said that Canada had "no core identity, no mainstream", that it was "first postnational state". Canary in the coalmine indeed.
I moved to the US last year after living in BC and Quebec and find the place much better. People in Canada think it's great to work for a branch of an American company because Canadian companies have no money and technology is behind. Quebec forces immigrants to learn French while business people of Quebec congratulate themselves on their achievements in English that empower them to communicate with outside world (and get paid from outside). What a joke. Canadian companies are failing, there are massive layoffs, bailouts, their stock prices collapse, there's little innovation, workplaces are like cemeteries (and I've been to lots of them). National currency went down 25% just because price of black sludge coming out of earth collapsed.
Sounds progressive to you? I don't care about how cute Trudeau is and the rest of progressive bundle, it all just doesn't matter for people leading regular lives, and probably even harms them more that do any good.
I hope this social experiment will be contained and the canary doesn't find its way. Would hate to see place like the US turning into something like Canada, just 10 time bigger, it would be just horrible.
I don't understand why people give Canada such a hard time for being "dull, bland, etc." and Canadians for being "polite and obedient". I'd much rather live in a peaceful, orderly, "boring" country than a violent, chaotic, "interesting" one. And honestly, I don't even think Canada is a boring place anyway. Also, what's wrong with having a multicultural society as long as people of different cultures can coexist and work together as Canadians?
If Canada wasn't right next door to its very best friend in the whole wide world, the United States, I bet Canada would have had more disagreements and entanglements with other countries around the world thru out its history. But when you're next door, and long time best friends and on good terms with the United States, no sane country is going to want to mess with ya.
Overall I think that's quite accurate.
However, even in the event that Canada isn't on fabulous terms with the United States (or the current WH administration), I don't think the U.S. would in anyway allow a foreign power to set foot in Canada or any part of North and Central America, for the simple reason that allowing such an act is a direct security threat to the safety of U.S. mainland.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is a perfect example - the United States was essentially prepared to go to war against Cuba over the fact that the USSR placed strategic military assets on the island right off the U.S. coast. It was not that the U.S. had any love for Cuba or Castro, but rather that allowing Soviet presence would pose a significant national security risk to the United States.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
