Better yet, I should have voted for Obama I guess. It would have been more feasible?
I don’t see way to multiple quote in here, so I’ll just quote this one.
How’s that outcompeting the state working out for you? It sounds like an excuse to do nothing to me. The state controls our economy. It infringes on our economic, political and person freedom. That’s what we should work to end. Educating the public about freedom is a wonderful thing, but to what end? Sitting on the sidelines waiting for the system to collapse is not a good plan. That’s the Road to Serfdom.
As for facts on the FairTax, they’re all over the place. Since several people poo-pooed my idea of a libertarian using the FairTax as tool to get elected, using it to dramatically improve the lives and economy of America, then using the political capital gained to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government, I was just soliciting alternatives. All I’ve gotten in response is non-answers and Zen-like responses. Maybe I need to know the secret handshake or something before I can get a straight answer.
And it’s pretty easy to tell the difference between a jailer and a person who frees people from jails.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. What did you mean about Ron Paul getting killed? Were you saying if he tried to abolish the Fed, he’d be assassinated?
By paragraph:
1 - So we should not outcompete the State and support the State? So I guess you are for the State with its theft and murder?
2- Fair Tax facts all over the place yet you can’t even show me any. Sounds like you didn’t think (aka that reason thingy I talked to you about) about Fair Tax. If you thought this through intellectually, you would have something to immediately share for you would have already done your homework on this. You just jumped on the bandwagon apparently.
2 - As to the “Zen-like responses”… since you don’t favor being reasonable, then I guess you favor irrationality. It was simply about thinking for yourself.
3 - something about jailer?
4 - question to somebody else
Why am I detecting hostility here? Please, take it onto the Obamafreak forums if you want to display a patronizing attitude. Besides, they deserve it, and we probably don’t disagree fundamentally at all…
In the near future (as long as the Republicrat party is still in charge) we all know there isn’t going to be a 0% income tax or anything close. Personally what I could see happening, maybe, is a halfway-point alternative at best. I’m just saying we should be partially receptive towards those stepping stones in the same way Ron Paul is. The way he seems to handle it is something like “Yeah, that’s okay for a start I guess, so I’ll support it, but the long term goal should be…[stop legalized looting speech here]” I think that’s a bit more feasible approach, as opposed to demanding elimination of all taxes the day after inauguration–a candidate with that position would get laughed off the stage.
I was talking about political feasibility specifically from a politician’s perspective, and the approach the politicians will need to take for voters to accept the change. Even though RP supports dropping income tax for example, he still has said that he’d probably support “FairTax” (as in vote for it if it got that far), because he understands that a step in the right direction is better than fighting for the decisive victory that can’t be won.
I’m willing to consider that my thinking is wrong on this and that perhaps we need to be as aggressive as possible, but I still feel that the more moderate (in the short term) Ron Paul style approach is less likely to scare people away.
“Lostinwilderness” you could clinge to your false hopes for as long as you want. The reality of the situation is dire. The way to convert the dumbed-down populace is usually during an extreme circumstance. Until then, the government is ahead in every aspect. The only real change would be educating the future. . . . of course big brother is currently ahead . . . for the moment. After the calamity balances we’ll have our opportunity.
I’m unreasonable? 230 years of libertarians opting out of the political process has led to the leviathan government we have today. I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouth, like you’re trying to put words in mine, but the few answers I’ve received here sound like they support continuing that failed strategy. Maybe I’m misunderstanding. What does outcompeting the state mean? Buying more shares in banks? Buying more tanks? Ignoring the law? Winning a softball game? What does it mean?
I don’t have the secret decoder ring to translate these vague non-answers.
As for the FairTax, I understand it very well. I have read, debated and written about it. Here’s a link to get some facts on it: www.google.com
But I’m not trying to convince anybody to support the FairTax. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. I’ve laid out a reasonable plan to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. All I wanted to see is clear, alternative plans from the people dissing mine, but I haven’t seen one yet.
We have a unique opportunity to get conservatives to work in the cause of freedom. We shouldn’t squander it.
Unreasonable cause you show no facts. You just show fad. All that hard work you put into it, and again another post goes by and you can’t even know off of the top of your head anything about this process. Meanwhile Nitroadict showed you that the so called expert on Fair Taxes doesn’t even believe taxes will decrease with them, that the process of taxing will simply become easier.
Read up on Rothbard. He’ll help you decode this. The faculty of reason is something all people are born with. That’s really not a difficult statement to understand. You’re making this harder than it need be.
I need not discuss with you anymore. It’s clear that I’ve tried to consider your position but you have no facts, nothing but fad and fashion to try to persuade me. Til next time. [:)]
Feasibility is a slippery slope and is a premise that can slide all over the place is my point.
Can’t argue with “style”.
So I’m wrong for wanting freedom, law, and morality is basically what you’re saying.
Enabling political action only encourages the existing paradigm that monopoly government can be controlled without competition. It validates democracy (mob rule) and undermines property rights.
I’m not going to criticize people who vote or campaign, that’s their choice, but to claim there is no cognitive dissonance would be dishonest.
All politics is based on redistribution of property.
Well, I’m not going to disagree with that. Except of course I’m not saying those things are “wrong”. Come on now, you know that. I don’t see your point really, this seems silly. It sounds like you’re saying that since I’m accepting of a more gradual (realistic?) path to “freedom, law, and morality” that this is worse than demanding it immediately. I’m just saying that change is more likely to happen if it’s gradual so we have to be accepting of that instead of fighting it because it’s not perfection. Of course right now we’re on a gradually accelerating course in the other direction…
Without some major media figure or movie or tv series or whatever talking about these things it’s hard to imagine people in general starting to change their thinking. Hmm, maybe that’s something we should be focusing on–infiltrating popular culture with libertarian type ideas? I could imagine that working if it managed not to be overwhelmed by the trash they’re making in TV and movies now.
“change is more likely to happen if it’s gradual” that’s your opinion and you’ve chosen your path
Well yeah, that’s my opinion. I’d rather have instant change too but I just can’t imagine it happening like that, realistically. Is that wrong?
Well I know there’s one less individual that supports freedom right here, right now.
I don’t know what else to tell you. I do support freedom right here, right now, and of course would jump to support that. I just don’t think it’ll happen like that in the current climate. If you want to hate me for being a realist, what can I say?
You’re grappling with this too much. Just let it go. The thought of hating you never crossed my mind. You have your own life and there is no need to get an ok from somebody for a choice you made in your life. You made that choice now be excellent in your pursuit.
Hate to break it to you, but you’re the only one who comes off as grappling too much in this discussion. Ansury made is making concise, rational points and you’re acting like a troll.
I don’t know. Ansury thinks I hate him. I have no idea why. I told him awhile back that I don’t need to discuss this anymore with him, it’s obvious we don’t agree. But for some reason he wants to convince me he’s right. It’s a mute issue left for moral arguments that just sometimes end up being an expression of individuality. I’m not for gradualism. You can’t prove that is an irrational decision of mine. I’m for freedom now. He’s for it gradually. So what. So if you need a daddy to make you feel more secure about your decisions too, mrwiizrd, I can’t help you with that. Debate me intellectually and stop looking like a cheerleader it doesn’t help.
Aside from the false flag, war drum mrwiizrd is trying to wave and beat, I think we agree way more than we disagree. I think it’s the way this has been framed. I’m not speaking for other people which is a ‘gradual freedom argument’. I’ve been discussing my stance. When I sit back and weed through what might be called a populist perspective on gradual freedom, I can see you stated, “I do support freedom right here, right now.” And that’s all I’ve been saying as well.
He he, the “hate” comment was a bit much wasn’t it? (I was exaggerating “dislike”.) I was under the impression you were trying to say my opinion was logically or fundamentally incorrect in some way. Anyway, no hard feelings of course, we certainly do agree on the principles that matter and I look forward to future discussions here.
[:D][Y]