The Way It Is, Like It Or Not...
"In order for libertarian ideals to succeed, as Stefan Molyneux often argues, it would mean a drastic change in human thought and behavior. Society would have to accept and understand the idea that liberty stems from birth and not from the government, and that governments only exist to quell those liberties."
I don’t understand something.
If people who change their mind on an issue are to be derided and mocked for doing so, why do we proselytize our views? Why are we on Tumblr expressing the importance of limited government and the liberty movement and all those other things we’re fighting for if we won’t allow people to come around to our side without beating them up about their past ideological indiscretions?
This is not the way to widen the tent of a movement, and we should be willing to be more accepting of people changing their mind, otherwise the work we’re doing to change minds and win hearts is for nothing.
It’s been a century since women got the vote and we still have democracy (republic or not, the US still puts things up to a vote). We are not smashing the state anytime soon, so I don’t think that apathy in the face of the unfair application of laws, which irrefutably affect people on an intimate level, is a defensible position. Paradigms shift gradually; you aren’t going to get the state out of marriage anytime soon and when you do, it’ll be because people opt-out, not because you affirm discrimination in the law.
I’m glad that I have the option to vote defensively in local elections. It’s a very privileged position to say that issues aren’t important when you, personally, have a choice in whether to participate in them. Defending the right to equal treatment isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a culture war. Many people, however illegitimately, feel justified in discrimination when supported by the law.
On those same grounds, I may think that the state has no legitimate place to regulate the economy, but I’d still fight against laws prohibiting women from entering certain professions (as has been the reality in the past), precisely because the world we live in is not an ideal one and it will not change overnight.
God I love this woman. That answer is pitch-perfect.
I will NEVER stop reblogging this.
What a horrible strawman.
Could it be the problem is the state’s involvement in marriage, allowing the first two to exist in the first place?
Oh what a bullshit argument. The only people making the argument that the government should not be involved in marriage are libertarians. The so-called conservatives in the Republican party added “traditional marriage” to their platform before the last convention and while it’s nice that in your FAQ you point out that government should be out of marriage, that is clearly not the desire of a large portion of people on your side of the political fence, so let’s not act like this is some straw man argument not based in fact.
Maybe if you’d stop shitting on libertarians you’d realize that they’re 100% right on this issue.
“Libertarians are pussies” says the vapid idiot party hack who will vote for anyone as long as the party she carries pompoms for puts their letter after the candidate’s name.
Ann Coulter is a bomb thrower who thinks “courage” is saying mean things on TV and in print. She’s never actually done anything courageous in her life that I’m aware of, she just gets off on calling everyone else a coward.
Meanwhile, her iconic idol, Ronald Reagan, loved libertarians and called them the heart and soul of the movement she claims to represent. Nice courage, stupid.
Ms. Coulter, I can think of another synonym for “pussy” and boy, do you fit the term.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
~ Ronald Reagan. Maybe it’s time for the conservatives who, as of late, seem to like equating libertarians with liberals, to shut the hell up and take note of someone they venerate as a political god.
Maybe it’s time for the conservatives who, as of late, seem to like equating libertarians with liberals, to shut the hell up and take note of someone they venerate as a political god.
"In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the “freedoms” that they think they will find here."
~ That, my friends, is an elected official promising to make the law so inhospitable to people that they won’t want to come there.
That, my friends, is an elected official promising to make the law so inhospitable to people that they won’t want to come there.
"Minnesota’s two senators sought Monday to delay a tax on medical devices that was expected to add $28 billion over the next decade to help pay for health care reform. Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken pointed to thousands of high-paying jobs that device companies support in Minnesota, headquarters to such giant devicemakers as Medtronic and St. Jude Medical. The industry has painted the tax as a job killer that would hurt innovation. “The delay would give us the opportunity to repeal or reduce that tax,” said Klobuchar, co-author of a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seeking the delay. Repeal is the ultimate goal of the letter’s 18 signers, including Klobuchar, Franken and all the heavy hitters in the Senate Democratic leadership. But politically that would be virtually impossible before Jan. 1, said Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert with the American Enterprise Institute."
~ But I thought taxes didn’t stifle innovation and growth? Oh, I guess they do when they’re in your district. The new mantra must be “Everyone ELSE must pay their fare share.” This is why liberals hate flat taxes; because flat taxes apply to everyone and they can’t make exceptions for their preferred friends. What you’re witnessing here is also not capitalism, it’s corporatism.
So much education in one throwaway story.
But I thought taxes didn’t stifle innovation and growth? Oh, I guess they do when they’re in your district. The new mantra must be “Everyone ELSE must pay their fare share.”
This is why liberals hate flat taxes; because flat taxes apply to everyone and they can’t make exceptions for their preferred friends.
What you’re witnessing here is also not capitalism, it’s corporatism.
It’s now December 12, and the headlines are the same as they were two weeks ago: The so-called “Fiscal Cliff” is looming. From watching the news and listening to the politicians in Washington, DC, we would believe the sky will come crashing down January 1 if the President and Congress don’t miraculously save us – from the very mess they themselves created.
If the sky falls, it won’t be because of the Fiscal Cliff. The panicked politicians will undoubtedly once again pull out the duct tape and baling twine and somehow put together a deal that will let them pretend that a crisis has been averted – for now. But at the end of the day, they will have really done nothing."
IT’S BEEN 19 YEARS SINCE SCAR KILLED MUFASA.
Ok I literally just got 40 notifications in the...
The hardest part of being a wrestling fan is...