Talk-Polywell.org

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/12/the- ... re-coming/

See about 25:30 into the video where the rise of libertarianism among the youth is discussed. It is a wildfire.

It is described as socially tolerant and fiscally conservative. Or if you like a catch phrase: "Out of My Wallet, Out Of My Bedroom".

MSimon wrote:http://classicalvalues.com/2013/12/the- ... re-coming/

See about 25:30 into the video where the rise of libertarianism among the youth is discussed. It is a wildfire.

I have little doubt that naive people will think to try libertarianism first. Just as the smoking addict wants to try a puff or two while they are trying to quit, they simply can't resist the temptation to look for an easy way out.


It will take them decades to figure out why it won't work, but there's no helping it.

MSimon wrote: It is described as socially tolerant and fiscally conservative. Or if you like a catch phrase: "Out of My Wallet, Out Of My Bedroom".

"Out Of My Bedroom" is a strawman argument. The problem is, people won't keep their bedrooms out of my wallet and out of my life.

Hagood is under guard at AnMed Hospital recovering from his wounds. He was also served with a Family Court bench warrant for child support in the amount of nearly $80,000.

Read more: http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-news/an ... z2mXzUEh1F

Diogenes wrote:"Out Of My Bedroom" is a strawman argument. The problem is, people won't keep their bedrooms out of my wallet and out of my life.

And by what means do they do that? Government, maybe?

You don't understand people. Learning from your own mistakes is superior to being forced to do the "right thing" at the point of a gun. Which is impossible in any case. Sooner or later in everyplace it has been tried it fails. Because everyone is different.

What is making the youth rebel against control? Forty years at the point of a gun. Thanks you you and those you work for.

In that way you are no different from the communists. You believe in the power of the gun. In that respect you and they are fellow travelers. I offer something superior to naked force. An idea whose time has come. For a while at least you will be consigned to the dust bin of history. But these battles are fought in every generation. And it always comes down to the same thing.

Those with faith in God (the Force, what have you) vs those who only have faith in Power and Control.

You believe in the One True Way. I believe in the One True God. They are different even if you do not think so.

Note: the Communists believe in the One True Way. It is their God. Just as your One True Way is yours. Since you are a Bible type may I suggest you read Samuel again with what I have said above in mind. Samuel advises against the way of the controllers. But it is a very old desire in humans. We will confront it again and again because we are who we are.

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:"Out Of My Bedroom" is a strawman argument. The problem is, people won't keep their bedrooms out of my wallet and out of my life.

And by what means do they do that? Government, maybe?

If by "Government", you mean Governmental inaction, then yes. Unfortunately the government is all too active in promoting and funding the creation of children without fathers.

Diogenes wrote:

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:"Out Of My Bedroom" is a strawman argument. The problem is, people won't keep their bedrooms out of my wallet and out of my life.

And by what means do they do that? Government, maybe?

If by "Government", you mean Governmental inaction, then yes. Unfortunately the government is all too active in promoting and funding the creation of children without fathers.

No, I want to know how you think other people get access to your wallet.

MSimon wrote:It is described as socially tolerant and fiscally conservative.

It's only described by that when people are trying to deceive others to get them to vote Libertarian. The moment people discover what you really want is to legalize all drugs and prostitution, the curiosity evaporates and you're left in the sad, silly position you are only without the delusions of grandeur.

We've had plenty of license in this country. We grew past the kinds of silliness and childishness the real Libertarians want to welcome back.

MSimon wrote:It is described as socially tolerant and fiscally conservative.

It's only described by that when people are trying to deceive others to get them to vote Libertarian. The moment people discover what you really want is to legalize all drugs and prostitution, the curiosity evaporates and you're left in the sad, silly position you are only without the delusions of grandeur.

We've had plenty of license in this country. We grew past the kinds of silliness and childishness the real Libertarians want to welcome back. Every lawless extension of a society into the black wilderness has historically created the lack of social concern that Libertarians seek, but the "wild west" stage ends as soon as civilization knocks at the door. With women and flush toilets, you get common sense.

What you don't get is, that there is probably less than one woman in one hundred who sympathizes with the Libertarian argument for prostitution. Women instinctively know better and you're not going to convince them that in this instance, personal freedom necessitates debauchery and a denial of the sanctity of humanity. Indeed, Libertarianism may one day win out, but it will not be until secularism has washed out all real religion. When the day comes that "all our love has run cold" then of course, all bets are off and one should expect to see all manner of gladiatorial bloodsport as well. But so long as God has written his law in the hearts of those who believe, people know things like prostitution are wrong.

And might I say you have reached new heights of offensiveness in your pretense that God speaks to you and informs you of your positions. That is not God. God does not tell people it's okay to shirk the responsibility to work for decades at a time, sit at home and do drugs all day. That is Not God, simon. That's someone else.

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:"Out Of My Bedroom" is a strawman argument. The problem is, people won't keep their bedrooms out of my wallet and out of my life.

And by what means do they do that? Government, maybe?

Probably Rooms-To-Go - it's amazing how fast they can get a bedroom out of your wallet...

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

If by "Government", you mean Governmental inaction, then yes. Unfortunately the government is all too active in promoting and funding the creation of children without fathers.

No, I want to know how you think other people get access to your wallet.

?????? I can't imagine any American taxpayer asking such a question.

Well where i'm at, they take nearly 9% on every economic transaction through a process called "Sales Tax." This state also has an Income Tax, and because I own some properties, they also demand "Property" tax out of me. If that's not enough, they have a "Personal property" tax which is sort of an additional "Property" tax.

The state also imposes Tag fees that are effectively a tax. (but not to support roads or anything related to driving. Most of the money goes straight into the "Education" (Teachers Unions) system.) Included in this are penalties if you have the temerity to not tag the vehicle when they say you should, even if it is broken down and undrivable.

There is a Gasoline tax, a Hotel/Motel tax, a tire and battery disposal fee. In addition to this, there is a mandatory INSURANCE requirement, which is effectively the same thing as a tax, because the state is taking your money away from you whether you like it or not.

There are toll roads, which would be a tax of a sort except for the fact that the state has sold all the rights to tolls to a private company, so now we have (due to actions of the state) a private company regulating the driving upon roads which were promised by the state to become freeways back in 1985.

And, of course, Federal Income Tax, as well as social security, which is just another tax.


The part that pays people to have children at my expense would come out of the General fund for the State, and with augmentation from Federal funds, so the primary method by which the people who can't keep their bedroom out of my wallet gain access to my money would be through State Sales tax, State Income Tax, and Federal Income Tax.

But as money is fungible, it isn't really accurate to say the other taxes don't contribute to it as well. If they weren't paying people to have unwanted children, the "other" taxes might be lesser or non-existent. Certainly crime related taxes would be less.

Diogenes wrote:The part that pays people to have children at my expense would come out of the General fund for the State, and with augmentation from Federal funds, so the primary method by which the people who can't keep their bedroom out of my wallet gain access to my money would be through State Sales tax, State Income Tax, and Federal Income Tax.

Right. Tax. Government.

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:The part that pays people to have children at my expense would come out of the General fund for the State, and with augmentation from Federal funds, so the primary method by which the people who can't keep their bedroom out of my wallet gain access to my money would be through State Sales tax, State Income Tax, and Federal Income Tax.

Right. Tax. Government.

I'm not following your meaning here. Some government is necessary. It is my belief that it should be as small as is necessary, but no smaller.


Providing perverse incentives with recursive bad consequences should not be a function of government.

Diogenes wrote:Providing perverse incentives with recursive bad consequences should not be a function of government.

And if government restricted itself like this in reality, would you still want to control what other people do in their bedroom?

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Providing perverse incentives with recursive bad consequences should not be a function of government.

And if government restricted itself like this in reality, would you still want to control what other people do in their bedroom?

I'll be honest - I don't know anyone who particularly cares what someone else does in their bedroom. It's a nice talking point when bashing conservatives/non-liberals, though. Hell, even in this antique state they've struck down laws against consensual oral sex or sodomy.

You want to do something odd with a goat, a squid, three sailors and a quart of 90w gear lube, that's your own business.

Now, if you're doing it the street and messing up traffic, that's something else. There oughta be a law against fornication in the slow lane. Or the fast. Or on the shoulders.

I don't need or even particularly want details of anyone else's sex life, much less to have any control over it.

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Providing perverse incentives with recursive bad consequences should not be a function of government.

And if government restricted itself like this in reality, would you still want to control what other people do in their bedroom?

Some people really like to use the word "Control" because it's loaded with their preconceived bias. I like to use the word "Defense" as in not letting people screw me over by their foolish or reckless behavior.


The answer would depend on what you mean by "do in their bedroom." Obviously keeping an unwilling sex slave is out. Rodgering underage young boys, ala Harvey Milk is also out. Not informing a potential partner that you have a deadly or potentially dangerous STD is also out.

Beyond that, if I don't have to pay financially for your behavior in the bedroom, and the consequences of it do not impact me adversely in some other way (such as AIDS infected blood donors, or the creation of children destined to become unwanted or criminals) then I don't see any reason why it makes any difference to me how people put their naughty bits together.

If the stink doesn't leave the walls of the bedroom, I won't be able to smell it.