Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,459 Responses
- omahadesigns0
You know Nate Silver is gay? Who knew? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
- uan0
- ukit20
- i think he doesn't understand the definition of free markets and he's all over the placedeathboy
- He's questioning whether what you think is a free market actually isukit2
- I agree though, this talk is a bit disjointed. This one might be easier to follow: https://www.youtube.…ukit2
- yurimon0
This is actually a big story, Good to see people supporting each other..
- So should be pay the roughly 1 million he owes the government for grazing there?hereswhatidid
- asking you specifically, yurihereswhatidid
- There is more to the story. 1) he was there before these dept happened. 2) he said they changed the deal where he would pay to put himself out of businessyurimon
- would put himself out of business.yurimon
- so he didnt want to pay to put himself out of businessyurimon
- so you don't feel he should pay it?hereswhatidid
- If he had rights before and if the policy was made to put him out of business then no...yurimon
- So let's say your neighbor has a pool. And he says "Use it anytime you like, no need to ask"locustsloth
- And you do for many years and all is well. But then that neighbor moves and a new one moves in.locustsloth
- And one day your swimming in your new neighbor's pool and they kick you out.locustsloth
- Do you tell the neighbor, "Hey, i've been swimming here for years! i'm entitled to this!"locustsloth
- Because it was never the ranchers land, always federal public land. Feds have every right to change the rules on federally owned landlocustsloth
- federally owned land. The $1M pricetag, as i read it, is cumulative over the 20 yrs that he's been grazing without their permissionlocustsloth
- permission.
If ths disputed land was someone's private property, instead of federal, would you feel the same?locustsloth - the same way?locustsloth
- and it'd be OK if your neighbors then had their friends show up armed to threaten you for attempting to collect?hereswhatidid
- Federal use is much different then private. not even close to being an analogy.yurimon
- Also you are talking about 100 plus years ago.. where was it structured before civil war?yurimon
- Also bleeds into state rights issue because of it. Plus Gov is servant of people not a landlord.yurimon
- As a debate question. I would ask you what you think the role of gov is? and is for filling it?yurimon
- Alot of people see disturbing policies that cause more harm then good. bureaucratic issues.yurimon
- So you're ok with someone using government land to feed their cattle? Seems like a government hand out to mehereswhatidid
- please refer to statement of rights in use 100+ years ago. some posts down :)yurimon
- IRNlun60
^ That article, and what seems to be most of the ranchers supporters, completely gloss over the legal ownership of the land as if it's just a minor and irrelevant fact. Then preach about stomping on the constitution, overreaching government, aggressive law enforcement and federal rights. Even the rancher knows it's not his land. Are they basically declaring that laws are not relevant and are defending it with a militia? What are the militia protecting? The cows, or the land that's not theirs?
- That's because they're old rich white dudes. You see, government is supposed to work for them...TheBlueOne
- only brown people have to worry about "laws"TheBlueOne
- These guys sucking off the government tit as much as a "welfare queen"..TheBlueOne
- Gov't needs just one A10 to wipe these retards out..TheBlueOne
- ..but let them wave their winchesters in the air like they accomplished something..TheBlueOne
- ..the iRS will be all up in their bidness next year.TheBlueOne
- http://scontent-b-lg…IRNlun6
- Its a state rights issue to them prob because he comes from an old family.yurimon
- Its a question of role of Gov. I would look back to how it was when his family started ranching. I think they going by that traditionyurimon
- I think we all should be owned by the gov that we dont have to worry and we would live in a utopiayurimon
- plus people say what gov is not other way around. but i see the conflict as you go federal. more bureaucratic and cold.yurimon
- plus he said he was happy to pay if their policies didnt put him out business..yurimon
- Or he could, you know, NOT use land that's NOT his any morelocustsloth
- Like I said. its state rights issue and rights of late 1800'syurimon
- Tell the gov to give back the land to the indians if you thats the logic..yurimon
- actually, that's what the government should do by YOUR logic, yurihereswhatidid
- yurimon0
Seems, Sen Reid along with his son Rory have previously tried to get Chinese solar company ENN to build a solar farm in the area
- yurimon0
What about this? is this ok?
- ukit20
Notice how this pushes all the right-wing buttons...the GOVERNMENT wants to build a SOLAR FARM on this rancher's land.
I wonder how right wing would react if a group of Occupy activists or Black Panthers camped out in a public space or took over an abandoned building. Would they still be take the side of the little guy or would they cheer when the police kicked them out? Seems like most people don't really have any firm beliefs when you get down to it, they just side with people who look or think like them.
- yupmoldero
- they would complain that those dirty hippies should be working at a job instead of causing troublehereswhatidid
- I think we should give it back to the indians...thenyurimon
- ukit20
"Libertarianism"
https://mises.org/rothbard/ethic…
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.
Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.
- TO be fair, comparing a politcal ideology to parenting is like thinking a govt should run like a businesslocustsloth
- There is libertarianism in respect to natural law, and another aspect. There libertarianism with messianic law mix...yurimon
- the messianic law aspect would say god forbids adaption. you have to raise your children.yurimon
- @locustsloth
Not a comparison, this is what they actually advocateukit2 - Murray Rothbard being the main influence on Ron Paul and most right wing libertariansukit2
- I dont believe in a right or left...its stupid way to think..yurimon
- IRNlun60
Slavery, Abolition, and “Socialism” in the U.S. Congress
- ukit20
A libertarian utopia
Libertarians are united by opposition to government, but when it comes to planning a new society they are deeply divided