Not specifically no. Unless Kinder is like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I'm not sure which half you'd be though >.>
Oh, no I thought you where implying that he was PMing me about this.Please don't compare me and him.
So, is he actually going to respond to my argument or just keep pretending he's a libertarian?
Will you cry if I don't?
Not really, I'm just trying to make you see that you pretty much as close as you can be to being wrong, at least on protectionism. Corporation tax is admittedly a trickier issue. I don't care if you agree with me or not - hell, I don't care if you don't want to debate me - I'm just demonstrating how essentially un-libertarian you are despite your assertions.
So because I support one policy, that means I'm not Libertarian? Lol k. Guess that means Democrat Mark Begich isn't a Democrat because he strongly supports the 2nd Amendment and is life-long member of the NRA
In his wisdom, word hath been spoke of the good of free trade. We must trust in the Paul's word and do away with tariffs and the private auto import ban.
Krugman?I was quite surprised how capitalist he is, to be honest. I used to have a horrible bias against him.
No, Ron Paul.
Well actually it's a collection of potential policies like tariffs, subsidies, et cetera. I knew you'd say that eventually; "It's only one discrepancy". But it isn't, it's the consequences that count too, and they are many. By not supporting free trade you're harming taxpayers, consumers, workers and firms both domestic and foreign. I get that you think jobs should be protected or whatever, but since when did a libertarian think that was the government's job? Since when does any libertarian think the government has the right to meddle in the economy is such a disruptive and distortionary way? Especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The implication is that, essentially, the government owns the economy instead of the people interacting in it. That some collection of individuals acting as a monolithic institution have the right to limit our choices and essentially force our hand. Governments don't act, only individuals do, and you're essentially saying bureaucrats are better placed to make economic decisions over consumers and producers. Not only is it intellectually offensive to anybody with the basest sort of political awareness, it's implicitly anti-libertarian.
libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violenceNewsflash, when left with no government over-watch, industry will take advantage of the people they employ. We have corporations like Apple, Microsoft, Nike, etc. doing business in 3rd world countries and workers are treated like shit, get little pay, and work over-extended hours. That's the result of allowing free-trade: Countries with shit governments don't give a single fuck about their people. Libertarianism is about protecting the people and I take that as placing a necessary evil in place to do soMaybe if the world was a perfect place and this shit never existed then I'd be in support of free-trade. But the moral obligations of the people and the environment currently say otherwise
uw0t m80
brian mulrounay, get off the internetdon't you have to go host canadian idol or something?
just because you killed the PCs doesn't mean you have to kill this website toogo back to florida, or wherever the fuck you live now
>implying kinder isn't brain-dead
GG Meta at getting everyone to switch sides, gg.
I think it's time to educate Kinder
