Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Johnson/Weld - Why the hell not?

Johnson/Weld - Why the hell not? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2016, 12:48 AM
 
Yes, but the media also had him dead to rights on live tv.

But I respect him flat out asking what it was rather than just trying to bullshit his way through.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2016, 01:35 AM
 
^^^

There is that.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2016, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, but the media also had him dead to rights on live tv.
I still don't think he rises to the level of running a disinformation campaign about his hand size, or graduating from the school of what "is" is.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2016, 06:21 PM
 
For those of you very concerned with candidate health, who doubt the ability of tubby Trump or coughing Hillary to live through 2017... did you know Johnson has climbed Everest?

Is Gary Johnson the Fittest Presidential Candidate Of All Time? | Men's Health

Failure to Launch | Outside Online

hint: skiing Tuckerman's Ravine is also pretty badass.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2016, 06:37 PM
 
This just reinforces that he's crazy.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 02:13 PM
 
Listening to another interview, he advocates getting rid of the income and corporate tax and replacing it with a consumption tax.

My memory is hazy but I think that's pretty much what Ted Cruz was advocating in the primaries.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 03:28 PM
 
The corporate tax ultimately is a consumption tax. Companies pay for it by charging the consumer.

It makes sense from a simplicity standpoint to cut out the middleman, problem is corporate tax is a Pandora's box it's very difficult to jam closed. There would be a long, long period of corporations pocketing as much of the windfall as they can.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The corporate tax ultimately is a consumption tax. Companies pay for it by charging the consumer.

It makes sense from a simplicity standpoint to cut out the middleman, problem is corporate tax is a Pandora's box it's very difficult to jam closed. There would be a long, long period of corporations pocketing as much of the windfall as they can.
Well, you are a libertarian
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Listening to another interview, he advocates getting rid of the income and corporate tax and replacing it with a consumption tax.

My memory is hazy but I think that's pretty much what Ted Cruz was advocating in the primaries.
www.fairtax.org
45/47
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 04:40 PM
 
Looks like no debate participation for Johnson ...

Gary Johnson won't be debating Clinton and Trump

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well, you are a libertarian
I'm philosophically a Libertarian, but as I implied in an earlier post, I don't feel the need to assert my ideological purity at the cost of ignoring reality.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Looks like no debate participation for Johnson ...

Gary Johnson won't be debating Clinton and Trump

OAW

I disagree with the rules here that you need 15% in the polls to be invited. You get to 15% by being known, but it is hard to become known if you're not invited to an event like this.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I disagree with the rules here that you need 15% in the polls to be invited. You get to 15% by being known, but it is hard to become known if you're not invited to an event like this.
I see your point. But OTOH unless there is some reasonable threshold how do you prevent "Deez Nuts" from being on the presidential debate stage as well? The line has to be drawn somewhere.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I see your point. But OTOH unless there is some reasonable threshold how do you prevent "Deez Nuts" from being on the presidential debate stage as well? The line has to be drawn somewhere.

OAW

How would you draw the line?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 12:38 PM
 
Any candidate over X% in the polls OR the nominee of a political party which on enough state ballots to possibly win the presidency in the electoral college. IOW not necessarily all 50 states. Just enough to conceivably win.

OAW
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 01:11 PM
 
Being on the ballot in 2/3 states?
But then you risk Vernon Supreme being in the debates, I suppose.

Gary is on 50.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Being on the ballot in 2/3 states?
But then you risk Vernon Supreme being in the debates, I suppose.
As entertaining as that would be, he's hilarious, the lack of substance in this election is bad enough as it is.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Being on the ballot in 2/3 states?
But then you risk Vernon Supreme being in the debates, I suppose.

Gary is on 50.
And therein lies the rub. If philosophically one has a problem with the two-party system there has to be a mechanism to allow other parties into the game. But the million dollar question is how do you do that without screwing the pooch and having nutjobs like this on the stage? Perhaps it's combination of the two factors I mentioned above?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 02:18 PM
 
My spidey senses tell me if being on the ballot is the bar, state legislatures will immediately double the number of signatures required, or other shenanigans in that vein.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And therein lies the rub. If philosophically one has a problem with the two-party system there has to be a mechanism to allow other parties into the game. But the million dollar question is how do you do that without screwing the pooch and having nutjobs like this on the stage? Perhaps it's combination of the two factors I mentioned above?

Maybe this will sort itself out when third parties aren't such an attention getting novelty?

This country needs more than two parties.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 03:04 PM
 
I agree, but it seems like we're stuck with it. The people who are most well equipped to address the problem are the prime beneficiaries of the status quo.

The only bright spot is one of the parties imploding every now and again has so far been the historical norm. We're actually kind of overdue.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 03:10 PM
 
The problem is the two party system is codified into law. Democrats and Republicans are on the ballot BY DEFAULT for the most part. Everybody else has to QUALIFY.

OAW
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And therein lies the rub. If philosophically one has a problem with the two-party system there has to be a mechanism to allow other parties into the game. But the million dollar question is how do you do that without screwing the pooch and having nutjobs like this on the stage? Perhaps it's combination of the two factors I mentioned above?
Change the voting system. I really think that that is the only way to do it. Australian rules, instant runoff voting even seems to fit into the current system IMO.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My spidey senses tell me if being on the ballot is the bar, state legislatures will immediately double the number of signatures required, or other shenanigans in that vein.
If I remember correctly, Perot received enough votes in '92 to put the Reform Party automatically on the ballot in all 50 states for '96. The party has since fell off the face of the earth.
45/47
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 06:12 PM
 
https://twitter.com/sheldonrichman/s...31203674963968
Carl Bernstein reports that Bill Weld is considering dropping out if he thinks Johnson-Weld will help elect Trump.
It's probably not the right term, but it feels like there's irony in this.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
https://twitter.com/sheldonrichman/s...31203674963968

It's probably not the right term, but it feels like there's irony in this.
I remember when Perot dropped out. He said he was "afraid it would end up in the House", and he added because "The Democrats had revitalized their party". Then Bubba fell behind in the polls and got back in.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?27152-...ign-withdrawal
( Last edited by Chongo; Sep 18, 2016 at 08:08 PM. )
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2016, 08:02 PM
 
Could the notion that a two party system is unhealthy be one of the few things we all agree upon?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2016, 01:59 AM
 
"Why doesn't the libertarian party get more support?"
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, takes what he calls the "long-term view" of climate change. "In billions of years," he said in 2011, "the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future."

The former New Mexico governor did acknowledge that humans are making the world warmer in the near term, too—but he doesn't think the government should do much about it. In the same speech, he denounced "cap-and-trade taxation," said we "should be building new coal-fired plants," and argued that the "trillions" of dollars it would cost to combat climate change would be better spent on other priorities.
"Long-term consequence of our existence in the whole scheme of things is the sun is getting closer to the Earth and that at a point in the very distant future, the sun will actually encompass the Earth. So global warming is something that's going to be inevitable."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2016, 11:50 AM
 
^^^

Because for every single issue the Libertarian Party position makes a helluva lot of sense there are two others where it's quite clear that they all too often favor ideological purity over common sense.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2016, 12:39 PM
 
I've decided to see if some context helps that quote. It's an hour long video, so I haven't found it yet.

Best line so far was along the lines of "someone asked me what it was like to conquer Mount Everest. I didn't conquer Everest... she lifted her skirt and I got a peek."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2016, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Best line so far was along the lines of "someone asked me what it was like to conquer Mount Everest. I didn't conquer Everest... she lifted her skirt and I got a peek."


OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2016, 01:09 PM
 
I didn't get a chance to track down that particular quote, but it's got its own Snopes page.

They point out (correctly IMO) the interpretation everyone wants to make about the "sun swallowing", doesn't really jibe with him saying we as humans are causing climate change, which he says in the same speech.

I personally think cap and trade is a problematic idea, I assume newer coal plants are cleaner than old ones, and we waste tons of resources on the issue to little appreciable effect.

This doesn't mean "**** the environment", it means current methods suck.

President subego would go nuclear on everybody's ass.

     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2016, 02:06 PM
 
Damned right, nukes for all and a thorium reactor in every home.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2016, 02:57 PM
 
I don't know about one in every home, but how about we start with one full-size reactor to do some serious research on. AFAIK, almost nobody does real research on nuclear power anymore.

And stop worrying about transmission costs. Build the nukes right in the middle of nowhere and run power lines. It is not like the dams for hydro plants are right in the middle of populated areas. High voltage DC works nicely for transmission to cut down on cable costs and safety zones for magnetic fields.

But hey, if you want to build solar plants in the desert instead, go ahead. Or in orbit, works for me. Just stop pretending that we can keep burning coal and oil for the foreseeable future and do something major to replace it.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2016, 06:58 PM
 
OH I forgot to mention, listened to an interesting podcast on libertarianism on freakonmics last week. If anyone cares.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2016, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn't get a chance to track down that particular quote, but it's got its own Snopes page.

They point out (correctly IMO) the interpretation everyone wants to make about the "sun swallowing", doesn't really jibe with him saying we as humans are causing climate change, which he says in the same speech.

I personally think cap and trade is a problematic idea, I assume newer coal plants are cleaner than old ones, and we waste tons of resources on the issue to little appreciable effect.

This doesn't mean "**** the environment", it means current methods suck.

President subego would go nuclear on everybody's ass.

The problem is he basically chalks up trying to fight climate change as futile, so why bother.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2016, 10:24 PM
 
Is there something which definitively makes it clear this interpretation is correct as opposed to mine?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 12:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Just stop pretending that we can keep burning coal and oil for the foreseeable future and do something major to replace it.
I'm assuming you mean this in general and not us specifically? I've been off the grid for quite a while now. We can actually produce way too much, but our former utility wanted to charge us a substantial amount to contribute to the local distribution network. So now the cells only operate as needed during peak usage and to charge our main batteries.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 12:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is there something which definitively makes it clear this interpretation is correct as opposed to mine?
...
"When you look at the amount of money we are looking to spend on global warming — in the trillions — and look at the result, I just argue that the result is completely inconsequential to the money we would end up spending," he said. "We can direct those moneys to other ways that would be much more beneficial to mankind."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 01:02 AM
 
“What it points to also is that we do have to inhabit other planets. The future of the human race is space exploration.”
I don't think he's saying this is what he'd propose as president, but this seems to be about as close to solutions he's going to advocate.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 02:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...
What (I assume) he's talking about is money being spent to subsidize solutions which are otherwise economically unviable. It's pissing money away.

This is opposed to something like a switch to nuclear.

That's the irony here, no one calls nuclear "fighting global warming" because from an economic standpoint it makes too much goddamn sense. That gets it put into another category. It's like it doesn't count as fighting global warming unless the shit is wacky enough.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm assuming you mean this in general and not us specifically? I've been off the grid for quite a while now. We can actually produce way too much, but our former utility wanted to charge us a substantial amount to contribute to the local distribution network. So now the cells only operate as needed during peak usage and to charge our main batteries.
I mean in general. We don't actually burn coal and oil for power at all here in Sweden in most cases, although there is a single oil-burning power plant that gets turned on in case of emergency, and we use the waste heat from industries that burn coal for other reasons. No, the reason I thought about it this time is that I was recently in south-east China again. They burn some coal over there, and it shows. There is a reason that just about every other person you see wears a mask over nose and mouth.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 06:57 AM
 
Johnson-Weld....sounds like a glue.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 07:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Johnson-Weld....sounds like a glue.
But who would want to glue that? And to what?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 08:00 AM
 
Seen the movie "Teeth" ?
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 02:33 PM
 
er, Trump glues his hair to his head. Nyah.

Anyway, on a MATURE note, Johnson/Weld will be fielding questions on Facebook LIVE at 6pm, then after the "debate" on twitter.

https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
OH I forgot to mention, listened to an interesting podcast on libertarianism on freakonmics last week. If anyone cares.
What was your biggest takeaway?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2016, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What (I assume) .
Yeah well he does himself no favors by neither specifying what he means or his alternatives.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
What was your biggest takeaway?
The contrast between one of the guests perspective on how libertarianism is too extreme for most people and needs to be toned down to be politically viable and his personal positions being that same extreme libertarianism that throws people off. IIRC
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2016, 10:50 PM
 
Gary Johnson struggles to name a world leader he respects - CNNPolitics.com
The Libertarian presidential nominee was asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews during a town hall forum to name his "favorite foreign leader."

Johnson began to restate the question, and Matthews interrupted: "Any one of the continents, any country. Name one foreign leader that you respect and look up to, anybody."

The former New Mexico governor sighed, and his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, said his would be Shimon Peres, the recently deceased Israeli statesman.

"I'm talking about living. You gotta do this. Anywhere, any continent. Canada, Mexico, Europe, over there, Asia, South America, Africa. Name a foreign leader that you respect," Matthews said.

Johnson, still struggling to answer the question, offered: "I guess I'm having an Aleppo moment ... the former president of Mexico."
Bill Weld on point with the best political answer.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2016, 12:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What was your biggest takeaway?
God bless Freakonomics, they have a transcript.
Ten Signs You Might Be a Libertarian - Freakonomics Freakonomics

And what does he think of the Libertarian political party?
TAYLOR: Well, I’m probably not the best person to ask because I’ve never been a member of the Libertarian Party.
DUBNER: Oh is that right. Why is that?
TAYLOR: The American political system is essentially rigged to produce a two-party system, and it’s virtually impossible to imagine a world in which a third party could sustain itself over a long period of time and become a relevant political actor. So if you’re trying to advance your ideas in American politics, you either have to advance them in the Democratic Party or you have to advance them in the Republican Party.
So that’s how Taylor spends his days.
TAYLOR: Libertarians have spent a tremendous amount of time and energy since 1970 promoting their ideas, and yet, there’s no indication that libertarian sentiment in this country is any larger today than it was then. There is no real clear evidence that libertarian ideas are penetrating an academia amongst intellectuals to any greater extent than they ever have been in the past. The reality is that in politics, libertarianism has faced a market test and lost repeatedly. And I think this is an important bit of an information for libertarians who believe in markets and the functionality of markets — to face up to the fact that libertarian ideas have failed two very important market tests: a political market test and an intellectual market test. So either there is something wrong with the salesman of libertarian ideas, or there is something wrong with the product they’re selling, and I suspect that it’s a chunk of both.
DUBNER: Let me read you a fairly short list of topics and give me the standard — or what you see as the standard — libertarian position on the following issues. So first of all: the size and role of the federal government?
TAYLOR: Probably cut by 90 percent.
DUBNER: What survives?
TAYLOR: The standard libertarian position is that we need a military that is capable of defending the continental shorelines of the United States from foreign intrusion, which will imply a far less military presence than we have. We would be disengaged from global alliances and bases in Europe and whatnot, since we’re only interested in the security of our own nation, no other nation. And welfare disappears, and public expenditures for the most part disappear on, you name it. All the government does is has a court system. It has a police force. And it has a few rules of the road here and there, but otherwise government goes back to the levels it was before the progressive era, which was very, very small.
DUBNER: So Department of Education gone, Department of Transportation gone.
TAYLOR: Labor regulations, gone. Minimum wage is gone. OSHA regulations gone. Anti-trust operations disappear. The economy becomes a real laissez-faire operation.
DUBNER: Internal Revenue Service?
TAYLOR: Gone. Well, somebody has to pay at least the minimum bills, but I feel most libertarians will oppose income taxes to do so.
DUBNER: What kind of taxation? Give me again the standard position on taxation generally, then.
TAYLOR: Well I think it’s a bit confused. For a lot of libertarians, they will puff out their chest and say, “taxation is theft.” Well, if taxation is theft then there is no legitimate way of funding even these minimum responsibilities of the government except, say, bake sales or something like that.

It looks like I misheard his explaining standard L positions as espousing them himself.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:29 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,