Thursday, October 20, 2016

Before you Libertarians get too smug.

Your candidates suck too.

Jill Stein said she would be okay nationalizing the banks. She is like Bernie Sanders but with less math skills. Here.

And Johnson said we should just shut up and take our fair share of refugees. Here.

I don't know how either of these things are Libertarian views.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

First of all, you can't use an anti Libertarian headline and then start talking about the green party nominee. Of course she is like Bernie Sanders, she even offer to step down and let Bernie take the Green nomination. Comparing the Green to the Libs is like apples and oranges.

As far as Gary Johnson goes, he is admitedely a pseudo Libertarian, so his positions are not always canon. A pure Libertarian would have too much trouble winning with some of the more extreme planks that the party endorses in their platform.

When it comes to refugees though, I don't see how being for open borders is anti-libertarian. The freedom of movement is one of our birth rights and any attempt to restrict it would be frowned upon by the party. Our problem isnt that we have refugees that want to live here, but rather that we give away free money to the poor and then act surprised when people take advantage. If Johnson is elected we won't be bombing Syria and in the long run that's the best way to stop them from coming en masse. DF

she said: said...

It's a fair comment about Stein. Libertarians just seem to love her though and it drives me nuts.

"Our problem isnt that we have refugees that want to live here, but rather that we give away free money to the poor and then act surprised when people take advantage."

This is the problem I have with open borders. Boy, if you think poor people will take advantage.... what do you think poor refugees without educations will do? I am very pro immigration, and in some cases that even extends to certain refugees as we have done in the past. But us not bombing Syria isn't going to stop them from coming here. It isn't logical to not want to handle a problem and just say - divide up the country and put them in the rest of the world. What if
N. Korea went tits up and we said nope - don't want to deal with it. Just make all the other countries take them all?! Then the next shithole and the next. We have organized immigration so it allows us to be able to absorb the burden of new people. and it *is* a burden for a little while.

Every single country has the right to determine who we let in by the proper channels.

We are not obligated to take in the rest of the world just because we can't figure out what to do. I think we are all extremely willing to take people who will contribute to our society. Syrians have NO history of contributing to anything. Not even their own country. Whatya going to do - make them all do fast food work? Because I
don't see many doctors or other professionals coming from Syria. I can't count how many times I've talked to legal immigrants who were doctors or nurses in their old country.

It isn't fair to our citizens who work hard and are barely making it while being told suck it up woosie take care of the rest of these people. When it's going to take almost a generation to get them up to speed in the real world. And anyway, how do you know how many of them are resentful because most people just want to go home but can't.

The US basically did nothing until this year. It's didn't stop them from going anywhere en masse. So far all they've done is become a burden for countless countries.

It makes me feel like the Libertarians are for freedom, just not for Americans to not be forced to support everyone else in the world. Immigrants in the past came here wanting to work. We were all fine with that. Let them all in. This is not the world today.

And anyway - Now Germans are fleeing their country in droves because of the refugees. Maybe they want to come here, and they actually have some skill to benefit our society instead of being a drag on it. Are they less deserving now? The whole thing is just crazy.

Anonymous said...

If Johnson is elected president, he will end the welfare state. Libertarians hate government spending even more then they care about civil liberties. If we went to a consumption tax like he has proposed, it would mean that even those who live here illegally will be paying in. If corporations can avoid tax by basing their operations here, then trillions will pour in creating middle management opportunities.

If you don't have freedom of movement than you are a slave to your country. If you are free to come and go then resources get allocated more efficiantly. If you didn't have a welfare state and the immigrants were paying a 15 percent tax on goods like everyone else, what is the harm in letting everyone live where they want to live?

she said: said...

There are a lot of "if's" in that reply. A flat tax will not end the welfare state. To the contrary, every single retired person will be plunged into poverty. They aren't making money anymore, so they aren't really paying taxes. So all they get is the consumption tax, no offset from a tax decrease because they pay no taxes anyway.

Additionally every complains about about how our tax systems disproportionally affects poor people. What do you think a consumption tax will do? These are also people who are not paying much, if any, taxes. You think people are screaming about inequality now. I think you are betting the health of the economy even more and more for richer people. And eventually they will not all be rich with so many other segments of the population getting creamed by a consumption tax. Poor people will spend less, and that travels UP the food chain. Isn't like 50% of the population basically pays no taxes
right now? Then the idea is to just make them all pay a consumption tax and it all flattens out? You can't have it both ways. They will spend less and fall further into poverty and the welfare state sadly will only grow.

About the other topic. You are free to come and go to which ever country will permit you to come in. why should they be forced to let you in if they don't want to? I think it's an odd thing that our country only wants to take the worst of the worst. We used to be great because we brain drained the rest of the world. Not taking in only the worst. Syria has been a terror training camp for 5 years. You can't even bring in the young ones because even they are used as soldiers.

People(I'm not saying you) have been paying exactly zero attention to what is going on in Syria. Yet they want to let in untolds hoards of them. They can't even get along with their neighbors, yet people think they are going to get along with us just fine. It's fantasy.

 
http://www.wikio.com