OT: Congrats Obama!

[paramount]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=paramount]
There already is such a party: The Libertarian Party[/quote]

I think you missed this part:

(not reflexively averse to any and all government regulation or assistance or involvement)[/quote]

No, I didn’t miss that part.

All parties should be reflexively opposed to gov’t regulation and involvement; that should be the default position.

[paramount]

Consider taking the world’s smallest Political Quiz (it takes about 30 seconds if that):

The World’s Smallest Political Quiz

[cvmom]

[quote=paramount]Consider taking the world’s smallest Political Quiz (it takes about 30 seconds if that):

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz%5B/quote%5D

I liked it, thanks!

[zk]

[quote=paramount][quote=Rich Toscano][quote=paramount]
There already is such a party: The Libertarian Party[/quote]

I think you missed this part:

(not reflexively averse to any and all government regulation or assistance or involvement)[/quote]

No, I didn’t miss that part.

All parties should be reflexively opposed to gov’t regulation and involvement; that should be the default position.[/quote]

Either your logic has failed spectacularly or you are delusional.

It is your opinion that “All parties should be reflexively opposed to gov’t regulation and involvement; that should be the default position.”

And hence, according to your logic, the platform I suggest must include this philosophy (as indicated by the fact that you state that the platform I suggest is equal to the libertarian party’s, along with your (correct) implicit acknowledgement that the libertarian party does hold such a philosophy). Even though I stated directly that it would not.

So, either your logic has failed (you have concluded that the platform I suggest would include what you opine should be the default philosophy regarding government involvement without any reasons whatsoever for reaching that conclusion).

Or, you’re delusional (you believe that because it’s your opinion that it should be the default position, it therefore is).

[zk]

paramount, do you understand what “reflexively” means? It means to do something automatically, without making a conscious choice.

Do you really think that the default position of all government parties should be to reject government involvement without giving it any thought at all?

[zk]

Now that I think about it, this is probably why the libertarian party is nothing but a fringe party. They take their “small government” philosophy – make that ideology – and apply it unthinkingly, without regard to practical matters or the future of the country. If they had a bit more sense and a lot more pragmatism, they might be a viable party.

On the one hand, they would no longer be the libertarian party that we have today. On the other hand, they might rule the country.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk]Now that I think about it, this is probably why the libertarian party is nothing but a fringe party. They take their “small government” philosophy – make that ideology – and apply it unthinkingly, without regard to practical matters or the future of the country. If they had a bit more sense and a lot more pragmatism, they might be a viable party.

On the one hand, they would no longer be the libertarian party that we have today. On the other hand, they might rule the country.[/quote]

Zk: I don’t know if you’ve studied it or not, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s “New Federalism” makes for a fascinating read. He was a Liberal in the truest sense of the word and accurately predicted the mess we’re in now, especially regarding entitlement spending.

The truth is, we don’t have two distinct parties anymore, not when you focus on the large issues like defense spending, entitlements, or tax reform. And face it, without massive reform and changes, by 2035 all that will remain is entitlement spending and debt service.

[Author]

Posts