The pro-freedom, anti-authoritarian, anti-mandate party is banning books, abortions, criminalizing the LGBTQ and taxing the poor.

[vegas giants]

This is all part of the glorious democratic process. If you don't like it move to Somalia.

Is that where you live....since you also hate the democratic process

 

[aociswundumho]

Total insanity. Who enforces your property rights? Why can't I just take your stuff?

People protect their own property every day. It's not some radical concept.

 

[Dans La Lune]

No government.

And no money, no market, no civilization. I hope you enjoy trading in sheep skins and hemp.

[image]

Voter suppression | Definition, History, Examples, Bills, & Facts

Voter suppression, in U.S. history and politics, any legal or extralegal measure or strategy whose purpose or effect is to reduce voting or registering to vote by members of a targeted racial, political, or religious group. The majority of victims of voter suppression in the United States have...

www.britannica.com

voter suppression, in U.S. history and politics, any legal or extralegal measure or strategy whose purpose or practical effect is to reduce voting, or registering to vote, by members of a targeted racial group, political party, or religious community. The overwhelming majority of victims of voter suppression in the United States have been African Americans.

Provide some examples of voter suppression by Republicans.

Stacking the deck: How the GOP works to suppress minority voting

When Wisconsin tried to hold a presidential primary election during the pandemic, Milwaukee officials opened just five polling places for the entire city. One study said that difficult access and long lines reduced turnout by more than 8% — and more ...

news.berkeley.edu

- "....Tennessee legislators imposed substantial requirements on groups that foster political participation via voter registration efforts and created criminal and civil penalties against those who fail to comply with these onerous requirements and turn in “incomplete” applications."

- "In Georgia, lawmakers have made it a crime to provide food and water to voters standing in line at the polls — lines that are notoriously long in Georgia, especially for communities of color."

- "Many of these laws are rooted in the Jim Crow era, when legislators tried to block Black Americans’ newly won right to vote by enforcing poll taxes, literacy tests, and other barriers that were nearly impossible to meet. To this day, the states with the most extreme disenfranchisement laws also have long histories of suppressing the rights of Black people."

- "Cleaning up voter rolls can be a responsible part of election administration because many people move, die, or become ineligible to vote for other reasons. But sometimes, states use this process as a method of mass disenfranchisement, purging eligible voters from rolls for illegitimate reasons or based on inaccurate data, and often without adequate notice to the voters."

- "Legislators use these district lines to allocate representation in Congress and state legislatures. When redistricting is conducted properly, district lines are redrawn to reflect population changes and racial diversity. But too often, states use redistricting as a political tool to manipulate the outcome of elections."

- "Thirty-six states have identification requirements at the polls. Seven states have strict photo ID laws, under which voters must present one of a limited set of forms of government-issued photo ID in order to cast a regular ballot — no exceptions. These strict ID laws are part of an ongoing strategy to suppress the vote."

Who's Affected By Voter Suppression?​

• Across the country, 1 in 16 Black Americans cannot vote due to disenfranchisement laws.
• Counties with larger minority populations have fewer polling sites and poll workers per voter.
• In 2018, Latinx and Black Americans were twice as likely as whites to be unable to get off work while polls were open.
• 25 percent of voting-age Black Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID.
• Geographic isolation is a major barrier to Native American voters due to the inaccessibility of nearby polling locations in many reservations.
• 18 percent of voters with disabilities reported difficulties voting in person in 2020.

Subject to the executive branch is not subject to the people, that's why the people couldn't do anything when Trump rolled back those pernicious regulations.

Trump was voted out.

Yes there would, only the period between elections would be longer.

A president that unaccountable to the will of people for 30 years is not a democratic president.

 

[Dans La Lune]

People protect their own property every day. It's not some radical concept.

So property rights are determined by who has the most guns or biggest posse? How is that not feudalism?

 

[aociswundumho]

So property rights are determined by who has the most guns or biggest posse?

No, property rights are protected by force, not determined by force. If you are assaulted and robbed by a mugger, it's still your property.

This is stuff that most people learn in kindergarten.

 

[Dans La Lune]

No, property rights are protected by force, not determined by force. If you are assaulted and robbed by a mugger, it's still your property.

Says who? When do property rights begin? Do the indigenous Americans still hold all property rights to America?

This is stuff that most people learn in kindergarten.

Libertarian kindergarten.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Here's some property rights info for you.

 

[Dans La Lune]

'Property is a social construct based on the ability to exercise the government's monopoly of force'.

Perfect.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

That is absolutely false.(1) I have no problem whatsoever with industry standards as long as they are voluntary and not mandated by idiot politicians. The standards themselves are created by the market, not by corrupt governments. There are thousands of firms which specialize in this area. Some of the larger ones are Underwriters Laboratories and ANSI. From the latter's website:



There's the V word that the political left hates more than anything.



The purpose of government licensing is to create labor cartels, and that is a fact. Government licensing schemes are never instigated by the public, but always by the industry being licensed. For example, all 50 states require a license to cut hair, and none of them were instigated by consumers. From that link:



The purpose is to reduce the supply of barbers in order to increase the earnings of the cartel members, which it does. While the cartel members benefit, the (2) public is harmed by higher prices, few choices, and lower quality. The number of barbers is extremely small compared to the number of people who pay to get their hair cut, that's why cartels are a net loss for society. You want the situation that's best for the most people possible, and that means free and open competition.

Here's another little nugget of information you won't like. Do you know which political ideology luvs setting up labor cartels? I'll give you a hint: it begins with an F, was founded by a life-long socialist, and has an enormous amount in common with progressivism.



The latter is a tragedy of the commons situation which is fixed with property rights. Let's also not forget that governments are the biggest polluters in the world.



Unlike you, who believes the state should punish adults for putting certain drugs into their own bodies. Many people reading this have taken illegal drugs, and (3)according to you, we all belong in prison.



That's true, and there's a mountain of evidence to support that position.

(1) So you're against seat belts and airbags in automobiles. The auto manufacturers fought against those safety features for decades. They were only instituted as a result of government. Lee Iacocca in his autobiography says that back in the 1950s auto executives argued against offering seatbelts as an option because it might make people think cars weren't safe. He brags that he personally led the fight against airbags for over 20 years. He wrote that before airbags were mandated.

(2) You're of the opinion that you can fill in the blank with any profession or trade and make the same claim. You think the public is harmed by electrical building standards. You make the ridiculous claim that by someone having to demonstrate their competence in dental care, the public is subjected to lower standards of dental care. Nothing could be further from the truth.

(3) That is a lie. You have never read me anywhere advocating adult illicit drug users going to prison. Whom I think should be in prison are the people who manufacture dangerous addictive drugs and then mislead the FDA, doctors, and the public about the dangers of those drugs.

What you advocate is essentially anarchy. We know from sad experience that left to their own devices, humans will typically not do the right thing for society as a whole. They almost always seek to establish unfair advantages over their fellow citizens. They tend to take advantage of the weak, disadvantaged, and uninformed. Occasionally, private industry does step up as you pointed out with UL and ANSI. However, more often, if there is no profit to be realized, private industry has no interest in getting involved. That is why we have government agencies such as the EPA, FDA, and USDA. What you advocate is the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. Civilization should be done away with and only the strongest and richest should be allowed to thrive.

There needs to be a basic framework of laws and mechanisms to enforce those laws in order to allow society to survive and even thrive. The bigger the society, the bigger and more complex the government tends to to be. This is because the vast majority of laws and regulations are a response to a recognized problem. Typically, laws are designed to remedy a problem and provide a benefit to society. Laws typically do not arise in a vacuum.

All laws, by their very nature, limits someone's freedom. Please tell us, are there any laws you think are good laws? Any at all?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

No, property rights are protected by force, not determined by force. If you are assaulted and robbed by a mugger, it's still your property.

This is stuff that most people learn in kindergarten.

And under your libertarian utopia, it would be up you to figure out how to get your property back. No government to help. No laws to enforce, no courts to compel. If you can create enough force, you succeed, if not, oh well, sucks to be you.

Your ideas are stupid. History proves it.

 

[Dans La Lune]

And under your libertarian utopia, it would be up you to figure out how to get your property back. No government to help. No laws to enforce, no courts to compel. If you can create enough force, you succeed, if not, oh well, sucks to be you.

Your ideas are stupid. History proves it.

Not only that, there also wouldn't be any standard currency (i.e. money). So his property would be functionally worthless.

I'm still waiting for him to answer whether the native Americans are still owners of America.

 

[aociswundumho]

(1) So you're against seat belts and airbags in automobiles.

Your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible. I obviously have no problem with safety equipment, I am against political mandates.

The auto manufacturers fought against those safety features for decades. They were only instituted as a result of government.

Seat belts were created by the market, not the state, because of consumer demand for safety. Saab or Volvo (I can't remember which) was putting seat belts in cars as standard equipment back in the early 60s.

Lee Iacocca in his autobiography says that back in the 1950s auto executives argued against offering seatbelts as an option because it might make people think cars weren't safe. He brags that he personally led the fight against airbags for over 20 years. He wrote that before airbags were mandated.

Air bags are an excellent example of regulatory failure:

Airbags associated with increased probability of death in accidents, study finds

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that airbags installed in automobiles have saved some 10,000 lives as of January 2004. A just-released study by a statistician at the University of Georgia, however, casts doubt on that assertion.In fact, said UGA statistics...

phys.org

There were no market forces for airbags, it was entirely political and due to lobbying. Air bags are dangerous, expensive, and do not save lives. Mandating air bags is a perfect example of how government regulation harms society. Oh wait, maybe a better example is government mandating corn ethanol.

You have this fairy tale stuck in your head that government consists of hard-working politicians and bureaucrats trying to do the right thing for Americans.

(2) You're of the opinion that you can fill in the blank with any profession or trade and make the same claim.

Correct. Milton Friedman was arguing against licensing physicians over 50 years ago.

What you advocate is essentially anarchy. We know from sad experience that left to their own devices, humans will typically not do the right thing for society as a whole.

Yes, that's why giving a tiny group of them power over everyone else is such a bad idea.

They almost always seek to establish unfair advantages over their fellow citizens. They tend to take advantage of the weak, disadvantaged, and uninformed.

A very accurate description of how government agents behave. Well done.

Occasionally, private industry does step up as you pointed out with UL and ANSI.

It's not "occasional", it's constant. I gave you two examples, but there are thousands of private standards organizations around the world. Consider a voluntary standard every person reading this is familiar with: threads on nuts and bolts. There are many standards regarding threads, and no bolt or nut maker has to use any of them. But if they don't, the market will punish them financially. That's the morally correct way to get standardization, because it's voluntary.

There needs to be a basic framework of laws and mechanisms to enforce those laws in order to allow society to survive and even thrive.

Agreed, but whereas I want the market to provide the framework, you want a bunch of corrupt, idiot, politicians to do it.

For nearly every service government provides there is a private alternative that does it much better and much cheaper.

The bigger the society, the bigger and more complex the government tends to to be. This is because the vast majority of laws and regulations are a response to a recognized problem. Typically, laws are designed to remedy a problem and provide a benefit to society. Laws typically do not arise in a vacuum.

Laws today are written by lobbyists. Do you really think the morons in Washington DC are all experts regarding education, energy, healthcare, the environment, drugs, labor, finance, and all the other shit the federal government does? That's why the politicians you worship don't even bother reading the bills before they vote on them.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible. I obviously have no problem with safety equipment, I am against political mandates.

So no mandatory steel toe boots?

Agreed, but whereas I want the market to provide the framework, you want a bunch of corrupt, idiot, politicians to do it.

What market? The free market, which literally doesn't exist?

For nearly every service government provides there is a private alternative that does it much better and much cheaper.

The private sector almost always does a worse job than the public sector at providing services for citizens, and certainly does it for far more cost. I'm tempted to say 100% of the time. The reason the pandemic hit America so hard is because its not profitable to have empty hospital beds (for example).

The private sector is horrible at providing essential services. Hell, just look at the privatization of energy in America. America has the resources to be energy independent but the private sector ships the energy elsewhere. What a ****ing joke.

Laws today are written by lobbyists.

Who do you think the lobbyists work for?

Do you really think the morons in Washington DC are all experts regarding education, energy, healthcare, the environment, drugs, labor, finance, and all the other shit the federal government does? That's why the politicians you worship don't even bother reading the bills before they vote on them.

Do you believe in experts at all, though?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Yeah, right. Congress has nothing to do with standardization of nuts and bolts. Unless you consider this:

Here's a little excerpt from the LAW

§5401. Findings​

The Congress finds that—

(1) the United States fastener industry is a significant contributor to the global economy, employing thousands of workers in hundreds of communities;

(2) the American economy uses billions of fasteners each year;

(3) state-of-the-art manufacturing and improved quality assurance systems have dramatically improved fastener quality, so virtually all fasteners sold in commerce meet or exceed the consensus standards for the uses to which they are applied;

(4) a small number of mismarked, misrepresented, and counterfeit fasteners do enter commerce in the United States; and

(5) multiple criteria for the identification of fasteners exist, including grade identification markings and manufacturer's insignia, to enable purchasers and users of fasteners to accurately evaluate the characteristics of individual fasteners.

Tell us again how it is all "voluntary." You live in some sort of Fantasyland.

You say you have no problem with safety equipment. Yet, you believe there should be no enforceable law that requires anyone installing safety equipment to know WTF they are doing. You're saying now that buildings should have electrical codes that must be met. But again, you're against requiring electricians from demonstrating they know WTF they are doing. Why don't you see the obvious disconnect?

You wrote:

For nearly every service government provides there is a private alternative that does it much better and much cheaper.

Air Traffic Control? Yeah, let the free market run it.

Medicare? No insurance company in the country wants to do the heavy lifting. Millions upon millions of Americans have access to healthcare because of it.

Prisons? Should they have profit incentives for keeping the cells full?

Social Security? Yeah, let's go back to 1929 when all pensions were private. We have SS because the private sector failed big time.

Enforcement of the Clean Air Act? Clean Water Act? While children are dying of preventable cancers, we can just hash it out in court for the next two decades.

National Park Service? How about turning them over to the casino industry? Wouldn't that be fun?

NOAA? Don't even get me started. That government agency has literally saved millions of lives since its inception. Where's the profit model for that?

I know how and why we have laws and regulations. I know why NASA taught us how to put satellites into orbit.

You can buy a GPS unit and not have to pay a subscription rate to access it. Because, as an American taxpayer, you have already paid for it. GPS belongs to you and me. And everyone on the planet can benefit from it. It would not exist if NASA and the Pentagon had not figured out how to do it. There was no company or consortium of companies who were willing to risk the capital or manpower it took to learn how to use satellites because there was no profit in it. Nevertheless, it needed to be done.

There are literally hundreds of cable and satellite channels available today but only one you can put in front of your child that does not flood your kid's head with dreams of sugary sweets and other consumer nonsense. That's PBS (Sesame Street). There are no commercial ads hyping toys, drugs, clothes, or cars. No profit in that. So the private industry does not get involved beyond making corporate donations. They say let the government run Big Bird. Right wingers like you want to shut it down. Children should not be allowed to watch TV if they are not inundated with commercialism. Isn't that right?

Seat belts were created by the market, not the state, because of consumer demand for safety. Saab or Volvo (I can't remember which) was putting seat belts in cars as standard equipment back in the early 60s.

That's a lie. The AMERICAN auto makers fought against seat belts. Both Saab and Volvo hail from socialist countries where profits don't outweigh people. American executives testified before Congress, they were telling reps and senators how seat belt were a very bad idea and completely unnecessary. I suppose it was the 50,000 annual fatalities in auto accidents that convinced the government otherwise.