«12. . .3,5743,5753,5763,5773,5783,5793,580. . .3,6073,608»
I think cars should be free, paid for by the government.
After all, having a car is a basic human right, is it not?
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/scandanavia-land-of-the-free/article/2567127?utm_campaign=Washington?utm_campaign=Washington.
I guess this might be relevant to thw whole Scandinavia debate.
And other fun thing to tell Bernie Sanders fanboys when they say they want Scandinavian politics to America is to say "ahhh so you wanna cut the corporate tax and deregulate minimum wage laws?"
But that's secretly apart of the progressive agenda! You just don't know it, fool!
Oh right! How could I forget. The neoprogressive agenda.
Does progressive mean the same as liberal in the US?
More or less. At least some more radical "liberals" call themselves that.
Ohh, here it means sort of like socially liberal or culturally liberal, without anything else attached.
I'd think as progressivism as more socially and culturally liberal and economically left-wing.
Yeah seems to mean that in the US, I would say that in continental Europe it is more connected to economical centrism or center-right, and green liberalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5mmFPyDK_8
^most badass song eva
HAPPY MURICA DAY BICHES!
Happy Independence Day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjzZh6-h9fM
That sounds about right.
I urge the region to accept the embassy request from Mont Pelerin Society. I founded the region as a place for multiple regions and nations to come together to discuss and debate libertarian ideas.
Going back to that reason article...
http://www.cato.org/blog/where-are-libertarians
So it seems the mountainous west (as opposed to the plains and coastal west) is by far, the most libertarian, with the obvious exception of New Hampshire on the east coast.
The Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom finally got their new site up:
http://libertarianpartyuk.com/
From a graphical perspective it's not much better than their old one, imo.
Wonderful name for a region.
As a child I dreamed of being a pro liberty academic and a member of the Mont Pelerin society - alas my dream was not to be (but it does make a change from all the children who dream of being astronauts or football players).
I certainly support the idea of a embassy.
If one defines "libertarian" as being in favour of smaller government - then an argument could be made that South Dakota is the most libertarian State (apart from those "islands of socialism" the Indian reservations where Tribal Councils own the land and healthcare and so on is "free" - and what wonderful results socialism has created in Pine Ridge and so on, warning sarcasm).
South Dakota most likely has the lowest government spending (in proportion to its economy) of any of the 50 States.
And South Dakota is only partly mountain - it is mostly plains. Little House on the...... (the author was one of the founders of the modern libertarian movement).
Still it one is interested in self identified Libertarians (big L - not small one) then South Dakota may indeed score lower than some other States.
But I am more interests in results than in what people call themselves.
For example New Hampshire would have much lower taxes and government spending if Democrats did not keep winning the Governorship.
And libertarians not voting for Republicans in New Hampshire is at least one of the reasons for that.
If people want Republican candidates to be more libertarian - then they have to get involved in the Primary process (really involved).
Splitting the vote is the road to defeat.
Before the First World War "liberal" meant anti big government (pro private property).
For example a "liberal Republican" in the 1870s was a free trade supporting Republican - as opposed to a pro tariff Grant Republican. And a "liberal Democrat" as late as the 1890s was someone like President Grover Cleveland - supporting less government (lower taxes, hard money and so on).
After the First World War - "liberal" in the United States (unlike parts of Europe) came to mean big government (collectivist), basically socialists dishonestly cover themselves with the word "liberal" (which had meant the opposite of what they believed) - for example the founders of the ACLU pretending to support the Bill of Rights (which they privately despised), choosing to "cover ourselves in the flag" in order to deceive people.
"Progressive" - that is easy, in the United States it is has always meant statist (collectivist).
There were moderate Progressives and more extreme one (the extreme ones were socialists or Fascists - it is often forgotten that the Fascists were also collectivists, indeed Mussolini was a heretic Marxist).
But moderate or extreme - Progressives were always bad news.
For example, when a Republican tells you he admires "Teddy" Roosevelt (the leader of the Progressive faction of the Republican Party) he is telling you something very bad about him (or her) self.
lol libertarian used to mean left-wing stuff. murry rothbard is on record bragging about how the right-wing managed to steal it. shít happens get over it the evil socialists stole our word dishonestly.
States have no control over Indian Reservations. It's managed by the Tribal Councils (as you point out) under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs.
@McCosh
Aye, Little House on the Prairie, Rose Wilder Lane. Read the books myself, they gave a pretty good "account" about the western expansion in the 1800s. (I don't want to say that word, since the books are fiction, despite being inspired from those accounts.)
When you usually hear about the Libertarian Party causing trouble, gaining big wins, or getting any sort of press, it's usually in those mountain states.
http://www.oppositionnews.org/articles/2014/q3/libertarian-roots-shines-chaos-mt-us-senate-race/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/07/22/gop-boosts-libertarian-spoiler-in-montana/
http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2015/02/09/libertarians-privilege-problem-at-the-montana-legislature/
http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/994758-colorado-libertarians-nominate-41-2014
To be fair, I am not as troubled by "socialism" on an insignificant local level as I am on a broader level. Socialism can very much work on a smaller level, and if Native Americans want to practice it, hey - it's their nations. Just don't force it on the rest of us.
Well New Hampshire has those types of "Jeffersonian" libertarian Democrats (i.e. Mike Gravel) which could work just as well as taking over the Republican Party. A good amount of Democrats don't really care about economic issues anyway over there. But yeah, they should probably choose a party and then work from there. IIRC Ron Paul finished seconded to Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, which is really amazing. Building off that could work too.
I think it was libertarian and Native American rights activist Russell Means who believed that Indian Reservations could be a tool for "libertarian experimentation." The only problem was, there weren't a lot of libertarians that wanted to live on a reservation. :p
Whether you support his policies or not, it's hard not to admire him. If you ask me, he was the last 'badass' American president, climbing mountains, camping out in wilderness, and that's not even mentioning his war years and the time he took a bullet and kept giving his speech. His aid in the establishment and protection of the forestry department during his presidency may well have saved the entire Pacific Northwest from turning to ash during the Great Fire of 1910, even when the huge foresting companies lobbied against them for so long and Taft was ready to give in.
Guess what, thanks to Teddy's idiotic policies, the forest fires are now worse than ever. As it turns out, forest fires are GOOD for the environment - in moderate amounts, but the US government tried to stamp out all forest fires, creating the problem we have today with mega infernos constantly ravaging the western half of the US. All the dead shrubs and grasses are now like kindle to a mega inferno, no thanks to the government.
The environment, like the economy, seeks a balance. If problems arise, it has a tendency to self correct the problem. And when humans intervene, it just gets worse.
It is forced on them by the US government. It fails them every day. They are by far the sickest and poorest people in America.
Some tribes do not have federal recognition. Like the Lumbees. And do very well because of that, as they have property rights. Property rights are fundamental to success. They build successful businesses and prosper.
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/6356919
It's very easy not to admire him. In fact, it's impossible to admire him.
«12. . .3,5743,5753,5763,5773,5783,5793,580. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
