Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 47 of 47

Thread: What happened to Young Americans for Liberty?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Last time I checked, Koch Network was a commercial interest group. Are they not?
    Certainly

    Did they not pen and introduce at the federal level legislation that protects them from the free market? They absolutely did.
    No, they absoilutely did not.

    They penned and introduced federal legislation that would prevent state governments interfering in the free market by forcing business to label.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, they absoilutely did not.

    Yes they did.

    They penned and introduced federal legislation that would prevent state governments interfering in the free market by forcing business to label.
    I agree with you that this was part of it. I'm not denying that forced labeling at the hand of state government isn't interference with the fundamental principles of liberty. Certainly we don't want the state forcing anyone to do something at gunpoint. I agree with you there.

    But we don't want the federal government over-riding state laws either. States are seperate federations for a reason. To protect their people from federal over-reach/tyranny.

    At the same time, though, the Kochs are essentially doing the very same thing. They are absolutely protecting themselves from the free market by penning some crap like that and trying to make it a federal law to specifically overthrow states rights. Except under the illusion that their fighting aginst statists. If I can't, by federal law, and enforceable by gunpoint, make an educated decision on what to consume...which is exactly what their bill says... then, competition is out the window. And naturally, the free market as we know it as well. And they know it. That's some anarcho-cap crap, really. Freaking cartels.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-12-2016 at 05:15 PM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I agree with you that this was part of it. I'm not denying that forced labeling at the hand of state government isn't interference with the fundamental principles of liberty. Certainly we don't want the state forcing anyone to do something at gunpoint. I agree with you there.

    At the same time, though, the Kochs are essentially doing the very same thing.
    So....opposing government intervention in the economy is essentially the same thing as supporting it?



    They are absolutely protecting themselves from the free market
    Since the free market does not consist in state governments forcing people to label things, no, they aren't.

    They may be benefiting themselves and their business interests, but by promoting pro free market legislation.

    ...so what's wrong with that?

    Abolishing the income tax would benefit me personally. Does that mean I'm a mercantilist by lobbying government to abolish the income tax?

    If I can't, by federal law, make an educated decision on what to consume..which is wha ttheir bill does... then, competition is out the window.
    See, that makes it sound like you are in favor of mandatory labeling laws.

    ...but you've said multiple times that you aren't.

    So, I am at a total loss to make sense of what you're saying.

  6. #34
    Yeah, see. I know what you're doing. You're trying to spin the idea that I'm for mandatory labeling in order to make me the topic and avoid the fact that your boys are equally forcing their protctionist policy on people at federal gunpoint. That's disingenuous. And once stupid memes start coming out, I don't see any reason to take discussion with you seriously about it. And I don't support mandatory labeling. Caricaturing doesn't justify what you're essentially ignoring here. Not even if you think it does. It doesn't.

    I provided for you with what is patently mercantilist legislation that the Kochs penned and introduced into congress. Protectionism is patently counterintuitive to a genuine free market. Period. That legislation specifically protects them from the free market by removing, by federal gunpoint, the consumer's means to make an educated decision on what they consume. They are legislating away choice. This is precisely counterintuitive to how a genuine free market functions. Consumers decide who wins and loses by being able to make an educated choice on what they consume. The koch bill removes that ability. And it removes any states rights on top of it that ensure that the fed trumps the states. You're simply ignoring it.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-12-2016 at 05:37 PM.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Yeah, see. I know what you're doing. You're trying to spin the idea that I'm for mandatory labeling in order to make me the topic and avoid the fact that your boys are equally forcing themselves on people at gunpoint. That's disingenuous.
    You JUST SAID that the Koch's law preventing states from implementing mandatory labeling would make consumers unable to make educated decisions and eliminate competition. Call me crazy, but that sounds like you think mandatory labeling laws are good. What other possible interpretation could I have made of that statement?

    As for the Kochs "forcing themselves on people at gunpoint," no, they're preventing state governments from doing that.

    I provided for you what is patently mercantilist legislation that the Kochs penned and introduced into congress.
    No, you provided an example of the Kochs supporting pro market legislation, which you have somehow confused with mercantilism.

    That legislation specifically protects them from the free market by remving the consumer's means to make aneducated decision on what they consume.
    It protects them from state governments who would otherwise implement unlibertarian, anti-free market labeling laws.

    This is precisely counterintuitive to how a genuine free market functions
    Businesses being able to choose how to label their products is exactly how a genuine free market works.

    Consumers decide who wins and loses byu being able to make an educated choiuce on what they consume.
    Again, this sounds like you're in favor labeling laws.

    And it removes any states rights on top of it that ensure tht the fed trumps the states.
    As far as it being unconstitutional, yes, it clearly is.

    But there's nothing unlibertarian, mercantilist, or anti-free market about it - at all, as I've very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-12-2016 at 05:38 PM.

  8. #36
    You're being intentionally disingenuous, rev. And now you're attacking the arguer and not the argument. You're making me the topic in order to avoid what I provided for you. It's deceptive to do that. You haven't, very clearly and repeatedly, demonstrated anything of the sort that the Koch legislation is pro-free market. All you've done is make a point against forced labeling. Which I agree with you about. But in doing so you've completely avoided the protectionist aspects of the Koch bill. Ignoring something doesn't, in any way, demonstrate anything at all other than the fact that you choose to ignore it.

    Anyway. I've got pm going on at the moment. Later...

    Btw. I want to ask you something. You've spent some time making claims about what I support and what I don't, but, I've not asked you of your philosophies. Are you an ancap, by chance? I don't really care if you are. I'm just curious.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-12-2016 at 05:57 PM.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    You're being intentionally disingenuous, rev. And now you're attacking the arguer and not the argument. You're making me the topic in order to avoid what I provided for you. It's deceptive. The Koch law is absolutely mercantilist and anti-free market. You haven't, very clearly and repeatedly, demonstrated anything of the sort that it is. All you've done is make a point against forced labeling. Which I agree with you about. But in doing so you've completely avoided the protectionist aspects of the Koch bill. Ignoring something doesn't, in any way, demonstrate anything at all other than the fact that you choose to ignore it.

    anyway. I';ve got pm going on at the moment. Later...
    I've addressed and refuted all of your claims that the Koch's bill is protectionist.

    Protectionism/Mercantilism means government interference in the economy for the benefit of some interest group.

    The Kochs are not lobbying for government interference in the economy.

    They are lobbying AGAINST government interference in the economy.

    ...I don't know how to make that any clearer.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The Kochs are not lobbying for government interference in the economy.
    Yes they are.

    They are lobbying AGAINST government interference in the economy.
    They're privately penning federal legislation to kill states' rights.

    They're privately penning federal legislation against state and local government and making it enforceable at gunpoint by way of the federal government for the specific purpose of protecting their personal business interests. Period.

    This is a merge of corporation and state. Do you know what we call a merge of corporation and state? I'll tell you. Facism. But you know that. I know you do.

    While I agree with you that we don't want the state forcing mandatory rules, nor do we want the fed enforcing mandatory provisions against state and local government tha tremove their rights. Free market aside.

    ...I don't know how to make that any clearer.
    I just made it perfectly clear.

    Anyway. I'm chatting in the pm. I'll check back with you later. And I do still want to go over the constitutional aspects of the discussion. I do enjoy discussing the constitution. It's usually more pleasant.

    Hey, what about my question there in my previous post there at the end? Are you?
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-12-2016 at 06:11 PM.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The Kochs are not lobbying for government interference in the economy.
    Yes they are.
    For what government intervention in the economy are they allegedly lobbying?

    Hey, what about my question there in my previous post there at the end? Are you?
    No, I'm not an ancap.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 06-12-2016 at 06:23 PM.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Mandatory labeling laws have no place in a free market.

    Being opposed to them is not mercantilist, it's libertarian.
    Don't we have a right to know what's in the food we buy? Ridiculous!



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Son_of_Liberty90 View Post
    Don't we have a right to know what's in the food we buy? Ridiculous!
    You have a right to not buy unlabeled food if you so desire.

    You don't have a right to force labeling.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You have a right to not buy unlabeled food if you so desire.

    You don't have a right to force labeling.
    Exactly

    caveat emptor

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You have a right to not buy unlabeled food if you so desire.

    You don't have a right to force labeling.
    I fail to see how labeling of your products is somehow oppressive on producers. Why is it that only government should be transparent, but we cannot demand the same of private enterprise?

    On GMO labelling, with all the corn, soy, beet sugar and other modified crop by-products in almost 100% of processed food products, it's almost impossible for the average joe consumer to get rid of GMOs from their diet. For places like Whole Foods, despite their claims of "Nothing Artificial, Ever", a few years back they were caught selling thousands of GMO items on their shelves while still having customers pay a premium as they believe they were purchasing a "organic" GMO free product.

    What about on a different market - pharmaceuticals. No side effects should be disclosed?

    Let's take another example- Cosmetics and body care products. You have parabens, and phtalates, methylchloroisothiasoline, and many more additives to choose from that have been shown be carcinogens and have detrimental effects on lab tested animals.

    For many years, I used a lot of deodorant with aluminum in it. Which turns out, aluminum is not so good for you to be putting on your skin. How did I end up stop using aluminum deodorant? I overheard a fitness instructor talk about it at a fitness class at the gymn on an ocean liner. Back then, I used any sort of deodorant without a second thought. For me, there might as well have not been any ingredient labeling at all, because there was no reason for me to suspect anything. Labeling allows consumers to look up what's in the products they are using. So something weird sounding with eight syllables can be looked up and he or she can ask "Is this good for me"?

    How about chewing gum? For YEARS I consumed gum with Aspartame, and when I stopped, I noticed a significant improvement in my cognitive and memory function. I don't have to go on about the harmful effects of aspartame. But because it was an ingredient disclosed on the label, people could look it up, and see where it came from (engineered bacteria fecal matter).

    Plus, you would be hard pressed to find ANY chewing gum on the market today made without aspartame. Without labeling, who's to know what Aspartame is?

    Companies should put the ingredients of all the products used in their products on the labels. After that, government SHOULD NOT exercise any more authority.

    For example, on GMO labeling, I read a comment that
    Monsanto doesn't need to do a thing other than add "Contains GMO" to their products, while places like Whole Foods would actually have to spend time and resources to prove to the FDA that their products can go without the label.


    THIS I disagree with. Companies can put whatever they want out to market without interference from FDA or the USDA, so long as they disclose what's inside their products. Then let people like Dr. Mercola investigate and tell us if it's bad or not.
    Last edited by Son_of_Liberty90; 06-13-2016 at 11:44 PM.

  17. #44
    Now I will be forthcoming and admit I'm just some dumb bubba still learning the ropes, but when has banning anything at any level of government ever been libertarian?

  18. #45
    YAL tried to kick out Milo because he offended the cultural sensitivities of feminists and SJWs, before they were forced to recant due to a backlash.

    So if that doesn't show everyone what cowards and losers are in positions of power within this organization, I don't know what will. I think I can probably count on one hand the number of liberty organizations that haven't been infiltrated.

  19. #46
    This back-and-forth hurt my brain.
    "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, 1801

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Son_of_Liberty90 View Post
    YAL doesn't do much anymore. I still get their emails from the chapter I was apart of. Now they're just holding meetings and watching documentaries. No on campus activism.
    So, most of them graduated and are no longer on campus? Maybe YAL was an organic, authentic, organisation comprised of like minded individuals who held similar beliefs, particularly concerning the scope of government. These individuals have graduated, and left the campus to the next organic, authentic, organization (well you see where this is going, yes?) group comprised of individuals who hold similar beliefs, particularly concerning the scope of government.

    The answer to why movements, particularly ones that are aged out of, seem to fail is in the future. The level of preconditioning the members of future generations receive, and concerning what behaviors, to a large degree dictates what actions they will take, and how far they will take them. This is because said preconditioning happens concomitantly with education (the latter being the lesser aim) and makes up the beliefs of every generation, which are the fuel of action.

    Education has become common core, a monopoly has been established that not only controls the content of preconditioning, but by dubious mandate increases the number of members subjected to its influence, that is more and more with every generation. Just as importantly this preconditioning begins in early education, when lessons are more formative-- especially those regarding authority and the order of the world.

    These members (lol!) inherit the campus in their due turn, where they become the cutting edge of the future as though they are some kind of promissory note on how its going to turn out. And they are, so long as the preconditioning mechanism is successful in properly influencing the next generation.

    YAL members aged out, and the freshman that came in behind them held different definitions. Beliefs, and also the lengths to which they are willing to go in acting on them.
    Last edited by BV2; 06-23-2016 at 02:46 AM. Reason: For clarity

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •