«12. . .3,5593,5603,5613,5623,5633,5643,565. . .3,6073,608»
i dunno man you could have voted lib dem. unless you are prioritizing "austerity" over civil liberties.
this is what always interests me about right wing libertarians. they claim to be all about civil liberties, but then they vote for parties that are quite authoritarian but have right-wing economic stances, like the GOP, Tories, or UKIP.
it's clear that a fetish for markets and low taxes outweighs opposition to things like state surveilance and censorship.
I vote tactically, with shrinking the state and expanding liberty on net in mind. At the time of voting I felt that the Conservatives would be the party that would shrink the state the most. UKIP are protectionist bigots and Labour and Green are economically illiterate and oppose civil liberties. The Tories know a bit more about economics and oppose civil liberties a bit less, so it seemed like the rational choice. The Lib Dems? I couldn't vote for a party that's so pro-European.
I could say the same about "progressives" - their fetishism for growing the welfare state outweighs their opposition to foreign wars and state surveillance. I recall you saying you support Hillary Clinton over Rand Paul, despite the fact that Paul is anti-Drug War, moderately non-interventionist and de facto pro-gay marriage legalisation. Hillary is a Bushite war hawk who has strongly supported the PATRIOT Act and "traditional marriage" for most of her career. Yet you would choose to vote for her because she doesn't want to cut government as much. Should we hold "progressives" to the same standards for prioritising certain issues over others?
I might not be the popular opinion here, but to me, yes. That's why I'm not voting for Sanders; a supposed Socialist in office seems like a nice thing, but I won't vote for another Israel toady like him.
Murder in response to speech is excessive force, by anyone's definition.
It is best to leave government out of rule making.
No libertarian voted for UKIP or any mainstream GOP candidate.
This is true, though in the end it is still restricting freedoms because rules are being made in the first place. I am saying people should be more specific in what they advocate for, instead of just the vague term 'freedom of speech'.
The term is not vague. It is clear and precise.
Anyone should be able to say anything. In extreme cases, the consequences of their speech may be harsh and drastic.
Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, and Greece beg to differ.
From whom are they expected to receive these harsh and drastic consequences? If it is the government, you call it an attack on freedom of speech. If it is an individual or group of like-minded individuals, than it is a 'tragedy', like the Charlie Hebdo shootings.
Is this a joke, or are you economically illiterate? Oh wait, you support socialism. That answers that question.
All of them are mired in poverty. Cuba's standard of living is below the US poverty rate. Venezuela is so economically idiotic they use their money to wipe their asses. Cuba has a shortage of basic medicine, like aspirin.
Congratulations. You have posted the most idiotic thing on this RMB. Ever. Truly a great achievement.
http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=65695
http://www.cato.org/blog/venezuela-reaches-final-stage-socialism-no-toilet-paper
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/venezuela-toilet-paper-shortage/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-27/venezuela-inflation-surpasses-100
From whoever is offended.
It is the democratic system at work. Even in Cuba, where democratic principals hardly apply, they've proven that even with so little, any level of Socialism can make it work. Don't like it? Label it hate speech against Capitalism and you'd never have to worry about baddies like me again.
I think it was sarcasm? not sure
The only one that has said anything about banning hate speech is you. You are the one that supports rules and regulations.
We support reform through education. We educated Central and Eastern Europe. Estonia and the Czech Republic are major success stories. Among others. China and India learned. And their market reforms have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
The nation in which the public supports free markets most, is none other than Vietnam. They have first hand experience with the idiocy you support.
He has a long history of cheerleading idiocy.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/13/1037.full
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/venezuela/index.html
The top article wholly proves that the Cuban medicine sector is alive and well, and shortages are the result of the embargo. The next contains links to many articles, each proving the point that it is from underlying corruption by individuals, not by the Socialist system or Maduro's works. You make no mention of Bolivia or Greece.
Then Charlie Hebdo's killing as well as the attempted shootings at the Texas Prophet Muhammad depiction contest were fully justified in your eyes. I won't disagree, but that seems like more an issue that should be worked out with your disagreeing peers.
Greece isn't socialist.
No, it doesn't. The embargo doesn't help, obviously. But other nations trade with Cuba. They could import medicine if they had a way to pay for it.
Does it matter? They are pathetic. Greece had to be bailed out several times, already. Bolivia has a GDP/capita of $2,800.
That is not even remotely close to what I said.
I already told you that murder in response to speech is excessive force.
I never once mentioned banning hate speech. You have me confused with Atlanticatia.
And yet while these countries make up for years of bad planning, the western countries are turning more and more towards Socialism. If it is through this education you mention that Socialism is to be destroyed, then why are we cropping up at your backdoor?
And oh, ouch. I'm so hurt.
But almost as pathetic.
Because governments lust for power and socialism gives them more of it. Because they "never let a good crisis go to waste."
Not because it is viable or beneficial.
You think their problem was bad plans, rather than having plans at all?
Typical.
You can't plan an economy. No organization, group or even machine can allocate resources efficiently.
SYRIZA is the party in power, espousing a left-wing radical ideology. Formally, they are Socialist.
I'll disagree with Cuba in that it has taken an isolationist approach to shortages, but in the end it says nothing about Socialism. They have shelter, food, water, and at least some medicines. More so than the emerging capitalist countries in Africa, where according to their situations, they should be at the same level.
Most of Greece's problems are from Germany's direct economic attacks on Greece, but otherwise the standard of living has risen dramatically since SYRIZA's emergence. The same could be said for Bolivia, and its poor level in fact proves the point that with Socialism, even in the worst of economic situations, Socialist countries maintain their living standard while Capitalist ones crumble.
But you contradicted this point by saying that the consequences could be 'harsh and drastic', to be administered 'from whoever was offended'. Saying that one punishment is allowed and another isn't is restricting their right to be harsh and drastic.
Shelter, food, water and some medicines is not sufficient. That is a pathetic existence.
What emerging capitalist countries in Africa?
What German economic attacks? What capitalist nations are crumbling?
[quote]
But you contradicted this point by saying that the consequences could be 'harsh and drastic', to be administered 'from whoever was offended'. Saying that one punishment is allowed and another isn't is restricting their right to be harsh and drastic. [/quote]I never said it is allowed. I said it would happen. It happened.
Rules don't matter, anyway. The fact that it happened, proves so.
«12. . .3,5593,5603,5613,5623,5633,5643,565. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement