What would America be like if we had a Libertarian president who strictly adhered to the basic Libertarian beliefs like personal freedom and abolishment of welfare? And would you prefer that over a Democrat or Republican who strictly adhered to their parties core beliefs with no straying, on any issues, away from what the majority of their party believes in?
Open borders would destroy this country.
>>55872696
Even with the abolishment of welfare and an increase in personal protection and gun rights?
>>55872696
First post in a libertarian thread is a straw man. Why am I not surprised?
>>55872662
The prosperity of the 1950's and the eventual stability of the 60's and 70's.
Libertarians are like communists. It would never work because of Human nature.
>>55872840
Shit another good straw man here.
Ok dickhead why wouldn't it work?
>>55872765
Wages are much higher in America than in developed countries, so hundreds of millions of people would flood into this country even if you eliminated welfare.
>>55872883
> flood
> borders
That's why we have border patrol
>>55872662
GDP would collapse because business would not be able to transport goods with collapsing infrastructure. We need the government to build the roads.
>>55872867
Because if the economy doesn't work, the less income people will vote for welfare and minimum wages. The only way to stop that is to have an economy that never slows down, or remove voting rights from lower income people.
i would be perfectly alright with that, as long as their policy had the caveat of strict environmental regulations. I want them to care about the environment the way teddy roosevelt did
>>55872980
Hahaha good points desu but that's why we abolish democracy and go back the ye olde days of early America of republics
But if anything the economy will function way better in a libertarian society
Your presupposition is that it won't without the government managing it. So you would be wrong, VERY wrong here
>>55872662
Libertarians are just republicans before the Democrats abandoned the south.
>>55872937
>this meme
Municipal governments have been known to reopen potholes filled in by volunteers.
>>55873119
fugged up, saved wrong image
>>55873096
What do you mean by that?
>>55873095
I'm just saying, economies grow and economies shrink, sometimes even the best governance and economic policy can't control that.
>>55873399
The ideology of libertarians are more similar to those of the Republicans before the Republicans tried to gain the votes of the abandoned southerners.
>>55872662
I agree with them on some things, but going full libertarian by letting business do whatever they want and opening borders would destroy this country.
>>55873623
Yeah I know. That's what I like about libertarians. They don't promise that they'll change the weather for you if u vote for them.
>>55872662
EAT SHIT AND DIE BERNIE
>>55873653
Richard Nixons southern strategy. Which inadvertently attached the religious conservatives to the republicans.
Then came the new conservative movement, which called for strong military and direct international policy. So anti-libertarianism, essentially.
Aren't libertarians just states rights advocates?
well id finally legally be able to bed a 13 year old. i would love this.
>>55873925
No, that's democrats (originally). (and anti-federalists before them)
>>55874007
Yeah but I mean now. I mean Ron Paul often said left the states handle things and his son says similar things.
>>55873995
Libertarians would lower the age of consent?
>>55874109
That he has. The best example for that is his stance on abortion. Letting each state have their own laws on issues that have moral causes on both sides of the argument.
>>55872696
Well this thread got BTFO quickly.
>>55874271
I'm not advocating for a Libertarian president, I'm only asking what would happen with one. It's all personal imagination rather than arguing.
>>55874109
Libertarians are tyupically: socially liberal and small government in all aspects, low taxes, few if any government services, low regulations, small military, pro-gay marriage, legalize drugs, and pro-free trade.
Libertarians are a type of liberal, meaning they are an evolution of Classical liberals who stress the freedom part of 'freedom and equality', progressive liberals on the other end of the leftist scale stress the 'equality' part. Most libs fall somewhere in between.
Right libertarians are just libertarians who are personally right leaning, but otherwise are for the same leftist things as far as the governments concerned.
>>55874146
Age of consent is a government construct.
>>55874109
Ron Paul is a Republican, meaning he has to go along with what republicans want to get elected. Its easier for him to say 'let the states decide' then to sound like a democrat.
Just like Mitt Romney on his state healthcare bill, Mass-health (aka Romneycare)
>>55872662
Exactly what the founding fathers wanted to happen.
>>55874394
Well then I'm a libertarian.
>>55874146
lowered? it would be removed. why would you get to tell people what they can and cant do?
>>55874508
"Let the states decide" is distinctly not democrat in modern politics and has since at least 1991.
>>55874585
I mean, that's your state's job.
Massive civil insurrection. If you remove welfare and social security you'll have poor people and the over-65 set up in arms. You may be able to protect your own shit with the guns in your home, but society would collapse because it no longer looks after its own.
>>55874615
you lost me
>>55872662
Would we (murica) even be able to protect ourselves from terrorist threats if there is no central government to form a functioning department of defense?
>>55874478
>>55874585
Well it news to me that Libertarians are pedos. But seriously I believe the president would allow the states to decide their own age of consent. Would they not? Otherwise it seems like Anarchy in that aspect.
>>55874588
No, I meant that in the. I can say one thing and look bad because its the same thing the Democrats want and Republicans don't, or I can say it should go to the states and avoid losing political points.
Conservatives tend to not like gay marriage. Libertarians are liberals on social issues, so they tend to want gay marriage, like the democrats.
>>55874711
When it comes to the issue of how young a girl can be when it's not okay to fuck her, the state that you live in should decide that age according to this philosophy. Actually, that's how it is right now.
>>55874779
>Well it news to me that Libertarians are pedos.
The point is that libertarians are fucking retards who are in favor of anything that weakens the government.
>>55874790
I'm pretty sure the libertarian would say leave it up to the states. I personally would say let them do what they want, but I'm pretty culturally liberal for a libertarian.
>>55874850
I mean, I live under three governments right now, I just think things would work better if the middle one did most of the work.
>>55874790
*continued
Although, its not like libertarians can't take a moral stance either. Age of consent laws is one of those things.
Nobody is 100% one thing. If libertarians were 100% libertarians, they would be anarcho-capitalists.
>>55874779
yeah dude, all libertarians are pedos now. great work.
>>55874802
okay? i know all of this. are you just giving me your opinion or something?
>>55874772
Did the government of France prevent last week's terrorist attacks?
How is any government capable of doing that?
People have this illusion that they are being protected by the government, until they are inside a stadium running from kebabs with AKs.
The state does NOT and is NOT capable of protecting you from anything.
>>55874850
I really don't think that's unreasonable.
>>55874919
I don't know, you seem to be trying to make these ideas look bad using an example, but that's actually how things are done now
>>55874772
There is still a central government, but the point is that they don't reach into personal lives too much. Things like military police and fire departments are still government run. However the military budget would be cut severely from what it is now and all soldiers in the middle east get pulled out, if that is what you mean.
>>55872662
What happens when there is a coup or civil war in a country from which your business acquires resources? For example, lets say you import Swedish meatballs and tomorrow the government of Sweden is overthrown and Sharia law is implemented. Your meatballs are so good because you use a little bit of pork, and now the first Imaam Akbar of Sweden says no more meatballs for you because they are not Halal. Demand for your meatballs is higher than ever, yet you have no more supply. What do you do? Is this "free trade"? Is military intervention justified to keep the market free?
The terrorist attacks in France were the final proof that if you sacrifice liberty for security you get NEITHER.
If europeans didn't figure this out now, they never will and europe is definitely doomed.
>>55875008
so youre saying im making the age of consent look bad, but appealing to how things are right now as a way to make them more correct? youre really using that fallacy?
or are you saying that im making libertarians look bad by sarcastically saying they would remove it? if thats the case then there was a misunderstanding. i am for this as well.
>>55875051
Nigga cows don't just exist in sweden and neither do all the ingredients for swedish meatballs.
>>55875089
Oh my fault. I thought you were saying handling it at a state level was a bad idea.
>>55874271
Yeah, that was nice. Just BAM and it was all over.
That's the great failing of libertarianism, and all other variants on the liberalism spectrum (inb4 38 teenagers who don't know anything about political science or words): the presumption that people are basically equal.
>>55875187
no no no. i am for the complete removal of the concept known as the age of consent at any level. no one should be able to tell anyone else what to do, regardless of anyones age or authority.
sorry if my typing was shit or anything like that, but i dont know how that wasnt clear from my first post >>55874585
i asked him why he thinks he should get to tell people what to do. philosophically speaking, i wouldnt be caring if he was the president, the state, or the persons parents.
>>55875303
That's not what it's saying. It's just saying handle most of your problems at the state level. I'm pretty sure that most libertarians are fine with the feds handling defense and border patrol. I'm pretty sure those are just about the only things they want them to take care of.
>>55875360
No man, I think the age of consent is important and I really don't think that's something that should ever be dropped.
>>55875303
i agree with you. i know we havent talked yet, but basically im a libertarian socially, but realize free trade is a pretty silly idea. whoever ends up with the most money will end up becoming the ruler if we let anyone have anything they want if they can manage to get it. this is already happening, and stopping them is difficult enough when free trade doesnt exist... imagine if it did.
>>55875416
i of course will debate this point. state your reasons for it being important.
>>55875143
Just a thought experiment. There are many resources with geographical and geopolitical constraints--oil, diamonds, wood, etc.
>>55875501
Little girls have underdeveloped brains and are easily manipulated into sex. That's fucking disgusting man and no adult should ever fuck a young teenager or a child. That's repulsive. Girls who got fucked by men as children are extremely likely to develop serious mental issues later in life. I'm not hateful, but I would fucking murder a pedophile if I was given the chance to be allowed to do it.
>>55875541
Sure, they can all be found within the united states or in neighboring nations.
Keep in mind that the Authoritative <-> Libertarian axis is independent from the Left/Right compass, at least in a practical applied setting.
A fully left libertarian would want open border zero government anarchy like Adam Kokesh, where a right libertarian would perhaps take a more nationalistic, closed borders side while outsourcing to free market instead of government protectionism.
I don't think I can argue that pure utopian libertarianism isn't ultimately leftist, but libertarians currently share more in common with small government republicans.
To say all libertarians are anarchist left isn't fair as most realize that is purely the realm of theory.
>>55875501
What economic ideology do you think best fits America?
>>55875641
its weird how blue pilled you are for a libertarian on this issue. its clear youre a thinker though, because of your other opinions. you probably have just avoided giving it any real thought because it seems obvious.
>Little girls have underdeveloped brains and are easily manipulated into sex.
for this to have any negative meaning, you would have to believe that sex is bad by itself. if i manipulate someone into eating toast, no harm done, because theyre just eating toast. unless they end up being allergic to it, the worst that could happen is that they dont like the taste. if i manipulate a girl into having sex with me, no harm done unless i have an std or get her pregnant (both things that can happen to any couple), but other than that, the worst that could happen is that she doesnt enjoy herself and doesnt want to do it anymore.
if i manipulate someone into killing, then we have a travesty. because it is obviously bad.
>That's fucking disgusting man and no adult should ever fuck a young teenager or a child.
just a restated opinion
>Girls who got fucked by men as children are extremely likely to develop serious mental issues later in life.
society has deluded us to believe that sex is this magical act that cannot be done with the conditions that you are talking about. indeed, but you and they are the deluded ones. unless you would have me believe that the thousands of years prior to the 1900s, all women had mental instability because they were fucked at an early age, it should be obvious bullshit to you.
>I'm not hateful, but I would fucking murder a pedophile if I was given the chance to be allowed to do it.
and a threat. very nice.
>>55872696
Libertarianism != open borders
Are you retarded?
>>55876135
By the book it does ask for open borders.
>>55876135
Most libertarians I've met are for open borders desu senpai
>>55875903
if im not allowed to come up with my own, and have to use something that exists, socialism.
oh no, a socialist! right? no no.
the 50s were great right? white men could obviously handle all the work the country needed to be happy economically. but i have a genius idea. lets now throw in women, mexicans, and technology. obvious yet? we had an economy that already had penty of workers (obviously, since everything was fine - great even), but suddenly all this new stuff needed to have jobs too.
you must face it. labor, and even white collar things can be replaced by robots/software. even if we cant go fully automated right this moment, the beginning of the transition is at least overdue. this would most likely start as socialism.
Libertarians are fucking retards who live in a fantasy land.
Better than left socialists, but still retarded faggots.
>>55876205
>>55876221
libertarianism does not force me to have an opinion on races. i can hate whoever i want, so i can close my borders to whoever i want. all it takes is others to agree with me, and we can exist in an area with these rules.
>>55876135
How can you be pro liberty but moving across state lines warrants capturing and deporting people?
>>55872662
Daily reminder that Libertarians have the highest IQ of a political party, are wealthier, and are more educated on economics and political philosophy.
The rest of you are retarded.
>>55876590
why are they in our area? i didnt tell them to come here, and in fact we said they cant come here. i can already get people removed off my premises if i dont like them, as it is my property. why cant a group of us decide that we dont want people in our city?
and why do these people want to be in our city so badly? we are libertarians. they can do whatever they want, wherever they want, except in our city.
>>55876135
There is alot of dissent on this issue within the party.
Open borders at the end of the day is economic disaster waiting to happen until we reach a point of a worldwide near quality of life parity - which frankly is probably a thousand years away
>Short running the labor market to cut labor costs historically leads to nasty as fuck problems, like revolutions
>>55876205
What book says libertarianism means open borders?
>>55876221
>>55876590
A libertarian state would be a minarchist state, meaning its purpose is protecting the rights of its citizens and defending the people from foreign invaders. You cannot defend the people from foreign invaders with open borders as was shown in France this weekend.
Additionally, a libertarian state has no obligation to protect the rights of non citizens, as demonstrated by its isolationist, anti-foreign aid policy.
>>55876674
I believe that is because the only people invested into politics enough where they'd know what a libertarian even is are probably smarter and richer than your average voter from the get go. What I'm saying is that your average dumbass American would never learn what a Libertarian is thus never joining the party and dragging down the stats about IQ and wealth.
>Yes, I took the bait
>>55876135
It's probably the supreme bullshit hypocrisy of the platform, which is why I'm thankful most identified Libertarians dissent on the issue.
An economy that undercuts it's labor force to lower costs (remember labor is one of the 3 production inputs - the others being Land and Capitol Goods (the physical means of production) is by no means a healthy economy, but a deeply flawed.
Any self described libertarian that espouses open border is basically telling you "I have a vested stake in land and/or the physical means of production my own self interest dictates I undercut the Labor input for a slightly higher profit at the detriment of society at large"
The fuck you pay me fallacy )by any means available)
Basically a liberal economic manipulator in sheeps clothing at that point
>>55876985
In my original post of this thread, I said "if we had a Libertarian president who strictly adhered to the basic Libertarian beliefs"
Open borders has always been a sort of default for Libertarians and although not all are in favor, a majority are and that stems back to my point of starting this thread.
>>55876590
Liberty and a higher quality of life can be achieved anywhere though, globalist open/lax border immigration theory removes the incentive to better their surrounds.
>>55876590
>>55876881
>>55876221
>>55876205
>Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
https://www.lp.org/platform
The official platform is not open borders, it is: allow immigration unless a person threatens our security. This doesn't mean open borders since we have to check if a migrant is a threat. So basically, we allow people to come in legally but we ensure the bad ones don't come through. A libertarian could be for building a wall and rejecting all Syrian refugees by this logic. The wall so we can control and vet migrants for security risk, and the refugees are rejected because they have no papers (unvettable) and it is verified ISIS is among them (security threat).
>>55877222
It's a childish keynesian centric policy to:
A) Attract minority voters
B) Attract big money market manipulators to investing libertarian.
As a mostly self described libertarian:
Not everything that is good for business is good for society at large; there has been a vested interest to lower the value cost of the labor input, and this extends into Liberal and neo-conservative economic policy as well.
Short term gains for long term woe
Fuck you pay me
>>55877222
I think if they stick to the party platform they would have trump-like immigration.
See >>55877416
>>55877416
Oh. I see. There was a misunderstanding here. We both had different definitions for "Open Borders." You are correct that Libertarians call for screened immigration. I wrongly assumed that you were saying that Libertarians don't want any immigration at all in your original post.
>>55872662
Libertarians are for abolishing our borders.
So if they won, there'd be no country.
It's very Zen.
>>55877692
>You are correct that Libertarians call for screened immigration.
Don't you believe it. That's not their view. Some are saying that to get a foot in the door, but it's not their beliefs or party platform.
>>55877416
It needs to go further than that, lax immigration even with walls and checks, or wholesale near open doors for "skilled" labor undermines the economy at large long term.
Lowering the value of the labor input eventually means people earn less, spend less, buy less, and their quality of life lowers, and the economy and the GDP with it as well, and applying keynesian band-aids like government transfer payments and cash injections will only make the prolong the problem and make it worse long term.
We live in the long term short run now friend, and it's only a matter of time before shit starts getting out of control
>Most likely scenario - unprecedented currency deflation
>>55877775
I'd never elect anyone who'd have actual open borders so I hope you're wrong but I can believe it.
>>55877775
Read the party platform ya goof. >>55877416
It specifically says you can control immigration in order to stop entry of potentially dangerous people.
>>55877887
>control immigration in order to stop entry of potentially dangerous people.
That's what Obama does now.
The most dangerous thing about immigration is the millions of native Americans on welfare because it pays better.
Leading to pic related.
>>55877864
By that logic wouldn't a naturally fast growing population undermine the economy due to more labor competition?
Additionally who is to say that more wealth won't be created? Who is to say the growing population won't have a increase in the number of firms so that it cancels out any disproportionate growth in the labor market?
>>55878065
>Transfer payments out the ass
>Intentional manipulation to maintain a steady rate of inflation
Man it's going to be funny as fuck when currency deflates, mmmmm just look at those gas prices now
>>55878065
>That's what Obama does now.
No, Obama is letting in clearly dangerous people like the Syrian refugees and has no screening process since we have no borders. An effective libertarian state would have borders and reject dangerous people, looking much different from today's mess.
>The most dangerous thing about immigration is the millions of native Americans on welfare because it pays better.
Agreed. A libertarian state wouldn't have any welfare though, meaning that the only impact would be a stronger military/police due to increased tax revenue.
>>55878087
>Additionally who is to say that more wealth won't be created?
Because you need an educated and motivated workforce for that. Unskilled peasants won't do.
>Who is to say the growing population won't have a increase in the number of firms
Landscapers work in "crews".
Follow these easy, proven 13 steps to financial well-being…
1. Don’t get married to her
2. Use your mom’s address to get mail sent to
3. Guy buys a house
4. Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has two of his kids
5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a three-bedroom home
6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn’t have to pay out the butt for family insurance
7. Girlfriend gets to go to college free for being a single mother
8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps
9. Girlfriend gets free cellphone
10. Girlfriend gets free utilities
11. Guy moves into home but uses mom’s house to get mail sent to
12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes… now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit
13. Girlfriend gets disability for being “bipolar” or having a “bad back” at $1,800 a month and never has to work again
This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people.
A married couple with a stay-at-home mom yields $0.00 dollars.
An unmarried couple with stay-at-home mom nets:
$21,600 disability +
$10,800 free housing +
$6,000 free Obamacare +
$6,000 free food +
$4,800 free utilities +
$6,000 Pell grant money to spend +
$12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell grant +
$8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother
= $75,000 a year in benefits
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
>>55878197
>>Transfer payments out the ass
$20 Trillion since 1964.
>>Intentional manipulation to maintain a steady rate of inflation
Giving us deflation.
>Man it's going to be funny as fuck when currency deflates, mmmmm just look at those gas prices now
Look up "fracking". And "oil glut".
You didn't make any points that I could see, so this is all I can return.
>>55872662
Racemixing would wreak havok on society
Fat capitalists who profit from immorality would reign supreme
Degeneracy would demolish society
>>55878289
A libertarian state wouldn't have any of these benefits so I'm missing the point here. I agree we need a strict merit based system in the pseudo capitalist modern US.
Can you rebut the first argument in this post? >>55878087 I'm curious.
>>55872696
you can be anti immigration and libertarian because assuming the country is in the ownership of its citizens then the citizen may decide who they let in. Just like you can decide who you would let in to your private possession.
>>55878244
>Obama is letting in clearly dangerous people like the Syrian refugees
He denies it and says it humanitarian. Why wouldn't your libs do the same?
>An effective libertarian state would have borders and reject dangerous people
That goes against their most basic beliefs.
>stronger military/police due to increased tax revenue
So does this.
If you guys reject your own beliefs, how I can Believe?
The only way you'll amount to anything is by winning local elections and showing competence, like Sarah Palin did. I haven't seen that yet.
>>55878508
>A libertarian state wouldn't have any of these benefits
No one will ever believe that.
Not saying you're lying. I also would like to end this. But no one will believe it after seeing you deny your other Beliefs as spelled out above.
>>55878087
Wealth is a sliding boundary
Record profits don't mean much with inflation based value adjustments; and growth for the sake of growth means peaks and recessions.
3 steps forward, 2 steps back.
Labor competition expansion isn't exactly a good thing, because they don't understand when enough is enough until it's already too late, and there are numerous benefits to a shortage of the labor input to the labor market.
- People get paid more
- Quality of life improves
- People have more kids, because they can afford more kids
- The shortage self corrects itself in this regard: the next generation is larger in numbers and it's larger size stabilizes the value of labor.
It's a short run on a self correcting problem.
Historically in the past the US allowed foreigners in to Build shit or fight wars and to facilitate leaps in growth
There is no more growth leaping going on, and providing government transfer payments (welfare) and injecting cash into the economy to achieve a stable rate of inflation to facilitate a positive growth rate has a huge chance of crashing down to earth in the long run.
Deflation is real, and a reverse depression would be insane
>>55878516
>He denies it and says it humanitarian. Why wouldn't your libs do the same?
Libertarian governments aren't supposed to take part in humanitarianism.
>That goes against their most basic beliefs
The party platform disagrees
I agree the libertarians won't be winning an election any time soon if ever.
>>55878604
Where do or other libertarians deny their own beliefs?
>>55878508
>Can you rebut the first argument in this post? >>55878087
The native population is the same culture, language and education system. Like previous years in the US, when we dominated and surpassed everyone.
Multi-cultural and multi-lingual societies never produce innovation. Ever. You need a united people.
Which is why the US stopped immigration for 50 years. To let people assimilate. Pressing 1 for English means it's time for another pause.
>>55878395
Those are obvious external causations of the oil drop, but to be frank given the absolute nuttiness in the middle east right now it's quite unusual historically speaking that oil has remained so low
>>55878699
>Libertarian governments aren't supposed to take part in humanitarianism.
That's my point. We have nothing to go on but your word. Most pols are lying scum.
Win local elections and prove it.
>The party platform disagrees
I looked at the platform in 2012 and it did not. Can you link me to the revised edition?
>>55872662
>What would America be like if we had a Libertarian president who strictly adhered to the basic Libertarian beliefs
Goodbye white people
>>55878928
>it's quite unusual historically speaking that oil has remained so low
Historically, there was no fracking.
The US has the worlds largest oil reserves now.
And our fracking was against the will of the Feds, who are right now imposing new EPA regs to stop it.
All fracking is done on private land. It's been banned from public lands.
>>55874947
Kike loving anti-nationalistic spotted
The government must be given even more power and the police given more presence.
If there were armed police officers there in France, this would have not happened.
And what after you would allow guns? There would still be gun free zones like schools and hospitals, so terrorists would just go on rampages there. Are you libtards then gonna tell us that we need guns there too?
The problem is that the French government has already been undermined by jewhood, liberalism and capitalism.
We need strong fascist governments in our countries, which will enforce peace and security.
Libertarians would bring the same chaos as the communist would, a nationless, cultureless world at the mercy of subhumans
>>55875051
Dat fucking example
>>55878679
>Record profits don't mean much with inflation based value adjustments
No central bank in libertarianism
>and growth for the sake of growth means peaks and recessions.
Not always, it depends.
>Labor competition expansion isn't exactly a good thing
It can be if the rest of the economy is strong and can sustain it. Competition in labor also drives growth and lowers the price of g&s, leading to many of the positives you mentioned as a result of the opposite cause.
>There is no more growth leaping going on, and providing government transfer payments (welfare) and injecting cash into the economy to achieve a stable rate of inflation to facilitate a positive growth rate has a huge chance of crashing down to earth in the long run.
Once again, not necessarily. We only have these significant fluctuations due to monetary policy.
>Deflation is real, and a reverse depression would be insane
Deflation is great, I wish we had some right now.
>>55878944
Here >>55877416
>>55872662
>What would America be like if we had a Libertarian president who strictly adhered to the basic Libertarian beliefs like personal freedom and abolishment of welfare? And would you prefer that over a Democrat or Republican who strictly adhered to their parties core beliefs with no straying, on any issues, away from what the majority of their party believes in?
ANYTHING but libertarians.
I'd rather:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs
>>55879090
There was not one valid point there. In fact, it was anti-intelligent.
>>55879198
>and growth for the sake of growth means peaks and recessions.
>Not always, it depends.
Always, since the beginning of human civilization.
>We only have these significant fluctuations due to monetary policy.
There were the same boom-bust cycles before the Federal Reserve was re-established.
>Deflation is great, I wish we had some right now.
We do. We have since 2009. Government spending is added to GDP. Without the ACA and other new massive .gov spending, the past years would all be negative growth rates. And the economy is the worst since the '30's.
>>55879249
>we have to check if a migrant is a threat
But you can't do that. Mexico isn't going to help, nor is Syria or anyone else that wants to export population. You'll do what Obama is doing now.
>but we ensure the bad ones don't come through.
Said every politician ever.
>could be for building a wall
which goes against the basics of freedom you espouse and keep people in.
Your Party is just like every other party.
Once again, win local elections and prove it. Otherwise, you just keep getting the incumbent elected as you have been. You are why we have Obama now.
