Okay so lemme get this straight. You argue that you like Mitt Romney because of what he claims he would do. I argue that not only is the crap he claims he’ll do immoral, economically bad, and downright dangerous, but more than that, I argue that he’s a liar and the fact that you simply like what he claims he’ll do is no reason to like him (the least of which being you cannot trust what he says).
I provided links to literally dozens of examples of him saying one thing, and then doing or saying the exact opposite, from his own mouth. Your response is “oh, well, uh, of course he will have to come through because the people are aware and they will be watching.” So I also provided plenty of irrefutable evidence proving that not only making, but running on big promises and having the people be “aware” and “watching” offers exactly zero reassurance that it will actually get done. Absolutely none, whatseoever. In fact, it would seem the exact opposite…that whatever is promised you can do well betting it won’t happen.
So your response to this is, “well, it’s your word against his. (And please don’t mind the fact that he’s been proven untrustworthy countless times). It’s still just your word against his. This hardly makes it irrefutable. I’m sure there are many irrefutable things we can find.”
So I ask for examples of these “irrefutable things” you speak of that will prove he can be trusted. And what do you give me? “His stance” on Iran, and “his promises” on China. In other words, more of his talking.
So again, just so we’re clear. I say (1) the guy’s just talking, but more importantly, (2) we have virtually no evidence that he will actually follow through on what he says and mountains of it that suggest he wouldn’t. You tell me this isn’t good enough, that we need “irrefutable”. So I ask for some examples, and you give me more of his “promises”.
Have you ever heard of begging the quesion?
So like I said. Majority rules. Great recipe. So convenient of you to ignore how horrifically it’s worked in the past so that you can try to claim how well it will work in the present/future.
Not what you said. You said “Wrong yes, but it is what the people want.”
Uh. No. It changes the process, as well as the outcome. Allow me to use alternate words: “Sacrificing your principles doesn’t change your vision, but it does change the actual outcome.”
Again, “government” (i.e. the State) is illegitimate, so it shouldn’t be “doing” anything. If you’re simply asking a moral question about whether an individual should blow up the bridge if he had the ability, then again it would depend on the specifics of the circumstances, but I would say if the attack was completely known and utterly imminent, and the owner of the bridge welcomed your destroying it, then yes, you personally could by all means destroy the bridge.
Obviously if the bridge was owned by the aggressor, it would be within your defensive rights to destroy it as a prevention of imminent threat.
That would be up to the individual and whether or not he wished to risk the consequences of violating the sovereignty of the cat nation that owned the bridge. It could probably be assumed that if the cats wished to see our destruction so much that they would be willing to aid our murderers, they would be enemies too. So if one were to destroy the bridge on the cat property as a defensive measure, assumedly the hateful cats would then move to attack us themselves, in which case we would need to defend against them.
But one would need to wonder how these parties came to such animosity (despite the fact of being cats and dogs). You don’t usually find communities of people who trade freely with each other (and are therefore more prosperous because of it) getting into wars. Even people who really don’t like each other tend to find ways to get along, at the very least to a point of tolerance…if for nothing else than the symbiotic relationship that makes them both better off…(and the mutually assured nature of war that makes both worse off).
This is part of the point. If it wasn’t for all the xenophobia and nationalism and isolationism, there wouldn’t be as much tension. (Not to say it would completely disappear, but there would be less actual violence).
Great.
https://wiki.freecapitalists.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
And what I’m getting at is that there’s not an easy answer along these lines. For one, again, the state is illegitimate, and therefore shouldn’t be doing anything. For another, it could easily be argued that “the government as it stands now” should not be getting involved in anything that doesn’t threaten the security of the nation it governs. Of course there are others who would argue “oh yeah well if we hadn’t stopped Hitler he would have taken over the world…you’re just gonna sit back and let him conquer the rest of the world until he attacks you?”
If you’re interested in this, I suggest bumping one of these threads:
Why didn’t the US need to get involved in WWII?
Was invading Nazi Germany to stop genocide justified?
But again, since you want to keep using “the government as it stands now”, of course there would need to be a declaration of war by Congress before committing an act of war. I am of the belief that if just this simple Constitutional mandate were upheld, it would do a lot to make such “humanitarian acts” actually what they are sold to be as opposed to anything but. However, even then, its not an easy answer. Again, see the links here for more detail on libertarian interpretation of war.
Right. Just like I said. So how in the world is guaranteeing them welfare a motivator to get a job? You just said yourself it wasn’t (contradicting yourself from your last post)
Now you’re getting it.
You still haven’t explained why someone who would be given everything they need to sustain themselves even if he didn’t do a damn thing, would have “urgency” to do anything.
And again, I’m still waiting to hear what this place is when you have people purposfully trying to get into jail because of the living situation it provides. So please tell me how you guarantee someone that all their needs will be met, regardless of whether they do anything productive or not, and have them be motivated to do anything.
Then why argue for it?
…so you argue in favor of them? This doesn’t make sense to me.
I’m sorry but there is nothing to call the belief that creating more government programs will be a step in the direction to shrinking government other than “delusional”, or perhaps “naive”.
Oh? Why’s that? Why’s that violation of liberty so special, yet others are to be freely trampled on? And what about non-domestic violence? I suppose that’s okay?
I cannot believe you just actually argued in favor of slavery. And yes, I notice you did it in the name of “compromise”. That’s actually what makes it even more frightening.