Kent - in just one of your examples I would use the label "luddite". Now you'll have to figure out which one
Not if I don't really care
- Status
Not if I don't really care
Not if I don't really care
But you do. Last time I checked you were not braindead so you still have that thing called curiosity.
Kent, both of your posts are outstanding, and exactly what I meant when I originally said I'd like to see more libertarianism in today's government and candidates.... you just said it much more eloquently, and we certainly share very common views. I wish more Americans did.
And, an Ayn Rand quote to boot... with your Atlas Shrugged avatar and all....
And, an Ayn Rand quote to boot... with your Atlas Shrugged avatar and all....
Kent, both of your posts are outstanding, and exactly what I meant when I originally said I'd like to see more libertarianism in today's government and candidates.... you just said it much more eloquently, and we certainly share very common views. I wish more Americans did.
And, an Ayn Rand quote to boot... with your Atlas Shrugged avatar and all....
I truly appreciate your comments. My interests in early American history and philosophy in general helps with any 'clarity' one might see (or not see :- ) I'm no 'ivory towered' individual - I put those ideas into action - locally, state and federally with communications and support. Surveys of libertarians have shown Rand to be prominent in bringing individuals to the libertarian movement. Milton Friedman is also prominent and my personal introduction to basic 'free minds, free market' approach. I've read all of both of their books.
Despite all the sensational news, there are so many actions, things... that people do, that harm no one and the defense of those actions are essential - so the underlying principles of why they should be left alone, should be part of the debate.
Good science is respected and it should be. But even if science would show ecigarettes to be harmful to only the individual vapers and not others - there's still the question of whether gov't should be involved and - on principle - the libertarian, Randian, as well as the old Left civil libertarianism answer is No!
And when good science shows that the only harm to vapers is the same as breathing air in some cities, then the answer is He!! No! :- ) When it comes to individual rights, principle trumps science, pragmatism, utilitarianism, 'good intentions', 'good ideas', and 'reasonableness'.
This part of your post brings up one of my continuing internal struggles...
There are people I respect here who advocate for compromise.
I have come to consider compromise to be a questionable goal at best.
But yeah, I still struggle with it.
Understood. For me it's no compromise on principle, but a compromise on implementation of a principle is open for discussion :- )
For example. I like the ecig industry as it is today - innovations and moving toward more safer alternatives via free market demands. Any added regulations are a compromise.
Taxes - there were no income taxes until 1937. How did the gov't survive! lol via other taxes that weren't a burden on productive individuals. But in the current state, even though I believe that the income taxes should be abolished, I'd 'compromise' by agreeing to lower taxes.
In the first case no regulations exist (except on certain components that existed before ecigs), so new regulations are a compromise of the principles of the free market that has moved ecigs toward safer, more effective devices.
In the second case - taxes - there already exists over 'regulation' where the principle is lost - any implementation toward the principle of no income taxes is a benefit, not a burden.
Yeah oxygen should be regulated . And while we're at it, let's control dihydrogenmonoxide too... That stuff's way too dangerous and too addictive to be left out there unregulated...
Kent, I'm pretty sure that this author/commentator is not a Libertarian, but wondered if you had read Charles Krauthammer's "Things That Matter"? I believe it has been on the best seller list for about a year. I found that I agree with many of his commentaries. He is a physician/psychiatrist by training. He is also a reformed liberal in the best way.
I was commenting on Endor's comments. I like Krauthammer, but... he has some of the same conservative ideas that fit the altruistic thread I mentioned - likely from his earlier liberalist ideas. Even though I'll agree with Charles, much of the time vs. say Chris Mathews.... lol...or William Kristol, but David Horowitz is another that came from the radical left with whom, since his 'transition', I have a lot more in common, even though I didn't 'come from the Left'. I haven't read Krauthammer's books. I used to read those type of books - but many are just fluff that attempts to profit from their popularity - Bill O'Reilly, for example. I have absolutely no interest on his take in "killing Lincoln, Kennedy, etc., except perhaps him - that's a joke.
I would be interested in what Charles view would be on ecigs (although not O'Reilly's).
I would like to know his views on the "war against vaping". My strong guess is that he would clearly be in our corner. I would not mind having O'Reilly in our corner. His platform is influential. Since he has John Stossel on his show occasionally and Stossel is a supporter and libertarian, it would be interesting if he or Gutfeld would get O'Reilly on board.
they might not be taxing oxygen, derived from the air.
they are certainly trying to tax another thing derived from
air,carbon.
it wont be long before they "deem" it all air.
regards
mike
I assume that because of O'Reilly's position (ie. ratings) that Stossel and Gutfeld have to be on his show (same for Beck earlier) but if I were them I'd refuse. He attacks all three of them when on his show and I think it is self-serving - iow, when someone on Fox has ratings, likeability, popularity that approach his ratings, he pulls them in to criticize or ridicule them. All three are smarter and have a more consistent philosophy/politic than he has - which is all over the place. He's not a conservative - he's a 'mixed economy' type who picks and chooses his 'mix' without any sense of reason but only his own whims - which is typical of those types.
Does this mean that a day will come when we won't be allowed to talk about tobacco/nicotine on ECF, but we will be able to talk about the thing we can't talk about now as the secular "public health" left doesn't seen to have a problem with it?
Just imagine all the retroactive ECF bans for mentioning tobacco.... lol.......
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
