Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/14/2010 7:10:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2010 6:43:29 PM EDT by sherrick13]
that would reduce the money going to government.

That would be their SOLE issue.

It wouldn't matter if that person wanted to ban drugs, guns, sex, TVs, cars and Playboy magazines. If that candidate was going to reduce the money going to the govenment, that is where the vote should go.


Government gets its power from one thing and one thing only. Money. Without money they can't do shit. With less money they do less. PERIOD.


You will NOT get more liberty by voting for candidates that will legalize dope. Or will make porn more avaliable. Or even make machines guns easier to get, if they aren't willing to reduce the money going to the government.


You will ONLY get more liberty by sending less money to the government. PERIOD.



Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:11:00 AM EDT
Tea Party votes Conservative .
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:12:37 AM EDT
It's a nice idea, in theory.

Or would have been before deficit spending became the national sport.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:12:50 AM EDT
Well duh. Is there a preamble to your flash of the obvious or did you hit your head on something?
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:13:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
that would reduce the money going to government.




That would be their SOLE issue.

It wouldn't matter if that person wanted to ban drugs, guns, sex, TVs, cars and Playboy magazines. If that candidate was going to reduce the money going to the govenment, that is where the vote should go.


Government gets its power from one thing and one thing only. Money. Without money they can't do shit. With less money they do less. PEROID.


You will NOT get more liberty by voting for candidates that will legalize dope. Or will make porn more avaliable. Or even make machines guns easier to get, if they aren't willing to reduce the money going to the government.


You will ONLY get more liberty by sending less money to the government. PEROID.








Rant much?

While taxation is at the heart of the libertarian cause, "banning" things certainly doesn't sit well with freedom loving libertarians.

Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:13:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DPeacher:
Well duh. Is there a preamble to your flash of the obvious or did you hit your head on something?


It isn't obvious to 99.99% of the Libertarians.


Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:14:11 AM EDT
As a libertarian I completely agree with your post. It would be an essential domino effect. There would be no way for the government to enforce those unjust laws without funding.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:15:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MP0117:
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
that would reduce the money going to government.

That would be their SOLE issue.

It wouldn't matter if that person wanted to ban drugs, guns, sex, TVs, cars and Playboy magazines. If that candidate was going to reduce the money going to the govenment, that is where the vote should go.


Government gets its power from one thing and one thing only. Money. Without money they can't do shit. With less money they do less. PEROID.


You will NOT get more liberty by voting for candidates that will legalize dope. Or will make porn more avaliable. Or even make machines guns easier to get, if they aren't willing to reduce the money going to the government.


You will ONLY get more liberty by sending less money to the government. PEROID.








Rant much?

While taxation is at the heart of the libertarian cause, "banning" things certainly doesn't sit well with freedom loving libertarians.




Who gives a fuck about bans? If the .gov has no money or so little they can't do anything about it.

Besides, limit the money and you limit legislation. That is another fact.


You will NOT get more liberty by electing people that spend more government money. Even if (for now) they vote to legalize your pet fetish.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:15:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By randomhero97:
As a libertarian I completely agree with your post. It would be an essential domino effect. There would be no way for the government to enforce those unjust laws without funding.


Exactly.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:23:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

You will NOT get more liberty by electing people that spend more government money.


Now there is some excellent advice.

Conservatives, take note.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:24:24 AM EDT
Okay, I say again:

A truly "conservative" fiscal policy leaves no budget for any sort of social policy.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:24:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FeebMaster:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

You will NOT get more liberty by electing people that spend more government money.


Now there is some excellent advice.

Conservatives, take note.


No doubt, that applies to Republicans as well. Conservatives already have that philosophy.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:25:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By brasscrossedrifles:
Okay, I say again:

A truly "conservative" fiscal policy leaves no budget for any sort of social policy.


Exactly.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:26:37 AM EDT
What the fuck is a peroid?
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:27:16 AM EDT
Does your definition of "government" include the local, county, and state governments?
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:27:42 AM EDT
I hope that half of the posters in GD read this, then read it again to ensure that they fully comprehend the logic behind it...
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:29:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
that would reduce the money going to government.




That would be their SOLE issue.

It wouldn't matter if that person wanted to ban drugs, guns, sex, TVs, cars and Playboy magazines. If that candidate was going to reduce the money going to the govenment, that is where the vote should go.


Government gets its power from one thing and one thing only. Money. Without money they can't do shit. With less money they do less. PEROID.


You will NOT get more liberty by voting for candidates that will legalize dope. Or will make porn more avaliable. Or even make machines guns easier to get, if they aren't willing to reduce the money going to the government.


You will ONLY get more liberty by sending less money to the government. PEROID.





I would agree with that. Without the funding and cut down to size, the government could not delve into all of these things. The other things would follow.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:30:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By DPeacher:
Well duh. Is there a preamble to your flash of the obvious or did you hit your head on something?


It isn't obvious to 99.99% of the Libertarians.




That's OK. 99.99% of us libertarians do get it.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:32:09 AM EDT
What about debt? How does debt factor into this? It's been shown time and time again that lower taxes does not generally stop government. It just ups the debt.

Link Posted: 9/14/2010 7:39:26 AM EDT
Your premise is flawed in enough areas that the whole thing becomes suspect.

Government's power comes from their ability to apply force, or as someone else said "from a barrel of a gun". Now you could claim that without money they can't apply force and you'd be right. However without money the government can't do anything and we have little control over how they spend money once they have it. They're well known to acquire money for one purpose, and then spend it on something entirely different.

The only answer if we follow your suggestion is don't give them any money at all, which means no government at all. IMO you will never achieve a government that only spends money on what they originally say they want it for.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 8:33:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2010 8:41:34 AM EDT by ceverett]
Originally Posted By sherrick13:
that would reduce the money going to government.




That would be their SOLE issue.

It wouldn't matter if that person wanted to ban drugs, guns, sex, TVs, cars and Playboy magazines. If that candidate was going to reduce the money going to the govenment, that is where the vote should go.


Government gets its power from one thing and one thing only. Money. Without money they can't do shit. With less money they do less. PEROID.


You will NOT get more liberty by voting for candidates that will legalize dope. Or will make porn more avaliable. Or even make machines guns easier to get, if they aren't willing to reduce the money going to the government.


You will ONLY get more liberty by sending less money to the government. PEROID.





Eliminating programs that cost money is the only way to do this. Two sides of the same coin. "Across the board" budget cuts don't really accomplish anything, other than making the necessary parts of .gov suck.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 8:48:14 AM EDT
You are confusing Libertarian with Fiscal Conservative.

Libertarians want freedom, fiscal conservatives want a balanced budget.

What good is a coutry with a good economy if they are going to ban things for no reason and nitpick every nuance of your life.

Check out the root word of Libertarian , liberty...

Definitions of Liberty on the Web:

autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty––perfect liberty––to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"
personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 9:00:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2010 9:02:09 AM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Angelshare1:
What about debt? How does debt factor into this? It's been shown time and time again that lower taxes does not generally stop government. It just ups the debt.


Guess you need to elect politicians who won't borrow as much.

A co-equal failure of many 'budget hawk' types, is focusing on trying to limit credit availability under the belief it will reduce government spending...

You see this in people complaining about the Federal Reserve because 'it enables government spending' - which is false, the Fed enables credit economy-wide.... And any restrictions on that 'enabling' impact economy-wide (but hit government last)....

The problem is, artificially restricting credit crushes the private sector long before it impacts the government's ability to borrow.

Artificially limiting/reducing the amount of credit in the economy = BAD, and won't impact government one bit until after it's ruined everyone else....


Link Posted: 9/14/2010 6:43:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Credge:
What the fuck is a peroid?


A misspelling.

Thank you.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 6:46:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bcw107:
Does your definition of "government" include the local, county, and state governments?


Yes.

If you are a Libertarian at the local level with the same zeal as the Federal level, you should vote the same way.


i.e. If the city has MJ laws, but there is only 2 cops for 100,000 people, with a single cell jail, one part time judge with one court secretary, do you really have to fear those laws?
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 6:47:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2010 6:48:49 PM EDT by sherrick13]

Originally Posted By Angelshare1:
What about debt? How does debt factor into this? It's been shown time and time again that lower taxes does not generally stop government. It just ups the debt.



Vote for the people that REALLY want to reduce the money going to the .gov, (not just talk about it) and you will find those that want to stop spending as well.
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 6:48:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Credge:
What the fuck is a peroid?

Good question!
Link Posted: 9/14/2010 6:49:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gonzo_beyondo:

Originally Posted By Credge:
What the fuck is a peroid?

Good question!


Already corrected.
Top Top