If you truly believe that merely because someone won an election means liberty has been advanced, then you are going to have to explain how "liberty was advanced" under Bush Jr and Obama. Since your argument is that electing a random person in and of itself advances liberty, explain Bush and Obama.
I keep reading about this premise of more disposable income yet I've yet to read a sensible answer to the question "Where does this income come from?"......
I've heard the theory expressed that technology creates jobs and people adapt to changing environments but a simple look at the sheer number of people supported by government would negate both of those theories.
I certainly don't have an answer but the current "solutions" aren't working and they won't continue for long..
Thing is, this isn't a "libertarian" movement. Liberty isn't owned by libertarians. The constant pronouncements on this forum by some individuals to the contrary is very off-putting to those who are not part of the "clan". Nor is it a cover for hating the country, the Constitution, our Founders, or for the unfettered illegal alien invasion of the U.S.
What I see for a future is a call to mandate a "required wage" provide by government, of course.
With all the strings attached of course.
I'd also say under while under total surveillance, but that's already the case.
My credit union is going to be offering new-fangled chip cards as an alternative to standard debit in coming months. Supposedly it's an added layer of security. What say you-good or bad from a privacy/libertarian-interested POV? Thnx! ~hugs~
I'm going to disagree. Civilization is the downfall of morality as I see it. It allows for majority rule on epic scales.
When you state "There are only two rights: the right of might and the right of contract." You might as well break it down to one "right." The right of might. Of which there is no such thing. You do not have the "right" to aggress against me. Or anyone else.
I dunno. On page four, lines 8-10, she says The Donald did take her virginity. And also on page 4, lines 19-20, she claims Epstein was mad because Donald "took her cherry". Maybe she had a small cherry?:confused: Now I'm left wondering where Donald took her cherry. Are we missing a page?
Primarily financial support:
- "Maxed out" for Ron Paul in '12
- organized & contributed to "One K for Karen K" mini-moneybomb (for Karen Kwiatkowski)
- contributed to the campaigns of Glen Bradley & Justin Amash
- contributions to assorted other endeavors on an "ad hoc" basis (such as Ben Swann's "Truth in Media" project)
- continuing contributions to the Mises Institute & the Tenth Amendment Center
Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons. - Ron Paul