No. A straw man is to misrepresent another person's argument into something more easily defeated.
For example, someone argues that government should protect private property. Another responds using an example involving public property. Then, when corrected, they assert that the only way that government protects private property is through the police, totally ignoring other means like civil courts, real estate laws, etc. I'm not gonna touch on the million ways to steal someone's property with the proverbial pen here, but suffice to say they exist and in ways you've likely never dreamed of.
You also used the No True Scotsman fallacy. Not every libertarian wants to have to camp out defending their property 24/7. I for one would like to be able to go to work or take a vacation with the reasonable assurance that it will still be there as I left it when I get back. Without some minimal form of government to maintain law and order (with courts as well as police), that would not be a reasonable expectation. Buying insurance is sound capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
If you spent as much time researching political leanings as you did trying to learn fancy Fallacy words you might actually know what you are talking about. Alas, all you have is fancy talking points by throwing out your "Fallacies for Dummies" talking points.
Sorry for you.
What specifically do you mean by "protect property?" Be specific..
At the risk of continuing to feed your trolling, where exactly did I not know what I'm talking about?
The police have no obligation to protect you or your property specifically. There have been court cases, it's already settled.
As for government employees they do work for us, the citizenry, although they seem to have forgot it. Maybe it has something to do with relying on bank loans instead of taxes for paying their salaries...
Look how the public property was handled during the shutodwn, that gives you an idea as to how most people want private property handled. Thats not at all what libertarians want. They simply want their rights protected, they dont want the government standing gaurd on the entrance to their property. In fact you really dont need the government to protect property rights, you simply need agreed upon laws in place covering property rights. An example of that is HOA rules. The government doesnt enforce the HOA rules, except through the rules that govern contract law.
How is expecting a single number a 50-page manifesto?
What is a "living wage" for a single mom with 2 kids. Feel free to pick whatever geographic region you prefer.
This isn't about the present govt. system, this is about Libertarian election campaign platform representing libertarian belief as to what the proper role of govt. is.
Lol. Statists.
This is how people like you manage to interpret the constitution as the communist manifesto. You just make up shit to read however you want, combined with no grasp of history or of what anything actually means.
Protecting a RIGHT is not the same thing as physically protecting what that right secures. You have a RIGHT to freedom of assembly. That is NOT the same as a guaranteed police escort when you're assembled with your ilk of like-minded knuckleheads. You have a RIGHT to freedom of the speech and press... that does NOT mean government is providing you with a printing press and typing the words for you.
Anyway, you guys are a good illustration of how statists twist litterally everything into big government worship.
You actually manage to get big government worship out of the libertarian agenda! LOL!
Fuck you sideways with a rusty shovel.
Well.. do keep in mind that "libertarian party" is an oxymoron.
It seems that the Randites (as in Ayn and not Paul or Rand) have pretty much pushed out most of whatever adults were left in modern American libertarianism. Not that modern American libertarianism was ever all that 'adult' for the most part.
It seems that the Randites (as in Ayn and not Paul or Rand) have pretty much pushed out most of whatever adults were left in modern American libertarianism. Not that modern American libertarianism was ever all that 'adult' for the most part.
The US was built on Libertarian values but keep spouting your nonsense.
What a wonderful counter argument. Your grasp of the intricacies of the issue and the pure poetry of your counter prose is awe inspiring.
This is a truly valuable addition to the debate.
Or not....
When something so stupid is posted, no other response but ridicule is warranted. If he believes the top 5% are wealthy, he's an imbecile.
The one thing that is very irritating to read throughout this thread, is this assumption that only "the rich" are greedy and uncaring.
The large corporations would provide more wages to employees if there were competition for that worker's talents. Problem is there is no competition to corporations.
I am basically self employed in the computer/IT support business. Every time I walk into nearest Best Buy there is a line of people at the Geek Squad counter, instead of at my doorstep. I still do good business, pull in good money, support enough local businesses. But these businesses are all struggling. They are all barely keeping their employees paid. Why? Because anytime anyone, poor or middle class, want to make a purchase, or need a service provided, they find the nearest & largest corporation who promise them a dollar extra in savings, and give them their money, instead of giving their money to the local small business.
That is the culture amongst the average citizen - purchase the product that has the cheapest price tag, morality be damned, community support be damned.
And when certain people have attacked me in this thread - NEWS FLASH! I'm about the biggest supporter of small, local business around, I support them with my dollars. I'm not the hypocrite who goes around spreading the message of progressive utopias, while on the other hand, buying all my Christmas gifts off Amazon for every penny of savings.
The problem in this country is not "the rich", it is not the employers. The problem are the commoners who only pay lip service about helping fellow Americans, hoping everyone else supports rebuilding the nation while they quietly go about their business of being a cheap bastard looking out for himself.
That is a good point, we all need to be more aware of impact of our purchasing decisions. But this is not a corporate vs small business issue. It's businesses that treat employees well vs those who see them as disposable cogs.
Without putting too much time into it, briefly:
I would address the problem of Global Labor Arbitrage which dramatically increases the supply of labor relative to the demand for labor. (An increased supply of labor relative to capital or the demand for labor means lower wages. It's also a merger between our nation's economy and standard of living and that of the third world.) This means increasing tariffs and adopting a national industrial policy to bring back jobs that were shipped overseas (foreign production for domestic consumption). It also means deporting millions of illegal immigrants and imposing a moratorium on legal immigration or at least reducing legal immigration to a trickle. It also means ending or severely curtailing the foreign work visa programs such as the H-1B ("My job was bombed by the H-1B") and L-1 visas.
I would fix our nation's disastrous and inefficient health care system and replace it with real socialized medicine. It's currently consuming 17.6% of our nation's GDP and in-spite of that our businesses and economy are still heavily burdened by insurance benefit concerns.
I would increase taxes on the top 5% with higher taxes for the mega rich. That revenue could be used to fund health insurance, needed social welfare programs, and infrastructure.
I would end the War on Drugs, legalizing all drugs. This would reduce money wasted on the criminal justice system. At the very least, I would fully legalize and tax marijuana.
I would reduce the size of our military and military budget and avoid becoming entangled in foreign boondoggles such as the Iraq War.
I would also reform our higher education system such that our nation and populace no longer wastes money on higher education for which there is not a real-world demand. In reality, only a small percentage of jobs (perhaps 10-15%) actually require or make use of a four year college degree. So, I would find a way to reinstate some form of employment market feedback to college graduate production, such as allowing student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. I would also reform or curtail the federal student loan program. If higher education has an economic value, let private lenders fund it and let them be subject to bankruptcy protections just like for any other investment. I would also support a "clawback" policy that would hold colleges and universities accountable for higher education that does not provide a return-on-investment by forcing them to pay back a portion of the amounts of student loans discharged in bankruptcy. (This would probably reduce the number of excess colleges and universities by a significant amount.) What I'm proposing would result in a radical reform of higher education in this country. However, such reform is needed and the expense, waste, and inefficiency in this area is part of what's hurting the middle class.
---Not the proposals you expected to hear from someone that you might (in a knee-jerk fashion) typecast as an evil communist?
Its pretty clear you don't actually understand what you read.
And don't forget who pays for these handout programs..... It's the group you despise so much, the hard-working americans, the people striving to make more money and better themselves.
The father of 8, taking in $2k per month in benefits, is not providing to our society in any way, shape or form. The last thing we should do is promote that lifestyle, it should be shunned.
The US was built on Libertarian values but keep spouting your nonsense.
You know, I like Ayn Rand but prefer Heinlein