[quote=AN][quote=no_such_reality][quote=AN][quote=flu]LoL. As of tonight, you just threw away your vote 🙂
I’m writing in Gary Johnson, heh heh….[/quote]
Good for you. I voted for Gary too,, but I check the bubble instead of writing him in. Hopefully, this will get you to register as a Libertarian.[/quote]
I’ll actually write in Bernie myself, particularly in view of NBC/AP “calling” Hillary the presumptive nominee and saying she’s “clinched” the nomination.
In all likelihood, I should be switching my registration in democrat going forward. I’ve been protest voting for libertarians or others for cycles and since we’re essentially a one party state voting for more moderate dems is probably the way to go.
Libertarians sounds appealing when you say socially liberally and fiscally conservative but when I’ve looked at them in the past, it’s really more socially Laisse faire, fiscally conservative (we’re all on our own) and property rights.
In other words, things will be decided in the private sphere and courts. Ask anyone living next to a Trump development how that works out.[/quote]Your example with Trump is the exact opposite of what Libertarian believe. Johnson opposes using the eminent domain power to benefit private entities. So, under Johnson’s presidency, guys like Trump can’t buy the politicians to use eminent domain to take properties from the little guys. If anything, it’s exactly what Democrat is fighting more. Much bigger government. Which means that those will bigger $ will be able to manipulate and have much stronger pull than the little guy. So, your example is exactly why I hate the Democrats almost just as much as I now hate the Republicans. Just look at what they did w/ SCA-5 when they have the power and a special interest group was able to manipulate.
BTW, Laissez-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French phrase and literally translates to “let (it/them) do”, but in this context usually means to “let go”. So, it shouldn’t be used to describe social policies. But if you like to use it in that context, you can look at Gary Johnson and his platform vs Hillary vs Trump. He’s much more socially liberal than Hillary is. So, is it really that bad to be Laissez-faire when we can get the government out of our bedrooms and not putting people who use pot in jail?[/quote]
Yea, we tried that before, it was called the gilded age at the end of the 1800s. Company towns, “the jungle”,, Rockefeller refining oil and dumping the by product, gasoline, straight into the rivers and streams, rivers in Penn literally catching fire and monopolistic business practices pre Sherman act.
Recently we have CDOs, long term capital management and the S&L fiasco.
Seat belts, air bags, safety standards. Coal power… With no pollution controls. And of course Shkrelli.
Yea, I’ve seen Laisse faire.
Trump tends not to take properties via eminent domain, he buys them and then uses courts and money to force the neighbors to let him do what he wants.
