You don't think we're headed for collapse? Care to explain the math on how we avoid one?

You know we'd already have collapsed if interest rates weren't being kept artificially low by the Fed, right? And you know that the Fed can only keep this up so long as the Dollar is the world's reserve currency, right? And you know that nations are making agreements to trade oil and other goods w/o the Dollar more and more often, right?

It's positively coming. Our overlords, who are causing it with cronyism, corruption, and breeding a dependent class are going to blame the collapse on capitalism. They'll use it as an excuse to breed MORE dependence (everyone will line up with their hands out when they have nothing) and expand the oversized government that caused the collapse to begin with.

There are no limits to what you can get away with when your people are dependent, ignorant sheep.

Of course Marco Rubio is a whore (and Limbaugh for playing along). He's a Republican. His job is to appear the lesser of evils to soak up votes and keep them from going somewhere that might actually slow down the machine. Are any Republicans actually fighting for balanced budgets and solvency? Nope. Are they standing firm (they control the House) against additional spending which is going to collapse our nation sooner? Nope again!

I disagree on the topics of abortion and immigration.

On the topic of abortion, I believe there is room for legitimate debate. I respect the LP's zero government involvement position, but, because it's a moral issue for those who object to it, I can certainly see legitimate cause to debate their advocacy for laws against it.

That the life being killed can't complain is not a reason to ignore the objections of those who protest abortion. It's convenient, but not a logical basis for a position by any standard of moral philosophy. ("populism" and "mob rule" don't count)

I believe that holding human life sacred as a society, as a nation, is a good thing. I think our cultural values and views toward human life here (USA) are far superior to those of many other nations where human life is cheap. While this is a generalization, I think it is a very important one. The status of human life itself in a culture/society, under a set of laws, is rather fundamental and influential over many other aspects of law and society.

Personally, I'd never kill my children. I'm just not that kind of guy. (No, I wouldn't abandon nor neglect them either; I think creating human beings is kindof a big deal.) At the same time, I appreciate the fact that people are going to do it anyway. If laws prohibiting it after the first trimester, for instance, encouraged more people who are going to do it to do it sooner, I wouldn't think that's the worst thing in the world.

So I'm open to debate on the topic, whereas the LP's official position is pretty much "no government regulation" on the activity. I'm not a fan of it and abhor it personally, while I'm aware that trashy people are going to do it anyway--thus, ways to impact their behavior other than a 'ban' which will not effect them are desirable. Yes, I believe that people who kill their kids are trashy. It's my personal political opinion on a politics forum. Brutal place!

Regarding immigration, I would make two points. One, that the LP's open-borders position presumes that the welfare-state has been dismantled. Obviously, opening borders WITHOUT dismantling our current welfare state would be a disaster. (As President Obama advocated doing today) So I don't think the LP's position is completely nuts, as it proposes open borders AFTER federal handouts are reduced/removed and the American people aren't taxed to feed, clothe, house, and school a mass influx of immigrants. Under LP policy, the things offered by America would be liberty and an awesome economic environment. Immigrants attracted to these things are desirable and good for everyone; they work, compete in market places, and result in more and better products at lower prices for everyone.

But, at the same time, I don't see the need to completely give up national borders in order to be free. I want to be free in my nation's borders. That doesn't mean I demand that everyone on earth have the right to enter into my nation at will. There are a number of national security and economic reasons I support reasonable immigration laws (and actual enforcement; imagine that!). Weirdos in Texas who want to become part of Mexico are weirdos, and there's nothing wrong with kicking them out and telling them to stay out! (Those who want to secede ATM, on the other hand, are perfectly reasonable and even desirable!)

Additionally, I think the LP's platform doesn't account for the influx of immigrants that would result from the desirable economic climate their policies would create. I'm all for immigration in a land of immigrants, but the fact is our transportation infrastructure is orders of magnitude greater than it was when the majority of immigrants came to this nation.

Opening our doors to tens of millions of the poor and destitute, in this day and age, isn't necessarily as desirable as it once was. The education curve to engage in our society and produce is greater than it used to be. Voting rights have been dramatically expanded, and the language and communication skills of all are more important than they once were. And our nation itself has developed. There's nothing wrong with wanting more skilled and educated immigrants and less toilet cleaners. We really don't benefit from 50 million more of those. We don't need so many, so some would surely end up preparing food. What if they didn't wash their hands first!? Gross!

I don't mean to be mean to the unskilled and uneducated, but the fact is America just literally doesn't have room for them all. By being an example of liberty and a sexy awesome economy under Libertarian governance, America would be an example for the entire world. (As it once was) Even the poor America just doesn't have room/use for would benefit by America's successful example. What's missing right now are the liberty and successful parts.

There's nothing wrong with looking out for #1 (yourselves/ourselves), especially when it sets an example of success which in turn helps others. So I support immigration policies which accept more of the best and brightest and avoid a mass influx of immigrants that bring down our averages (economic/social statistics). That's what groups of trashy people with 80% illegitimacy rates, high welfare rates, high poverty rates, high drop-out rates, and high crime rates are for!

Additionally, I'm not real thrilled about government completely ignoring personal relationships in regard to adoption by homosexuals. Because children are primarily socialized in the home, and men and women are chemically/physiologically/psychologically/mentally (among other ways) different, development is best served by both a male and female primary role model in the home.

On the other hand, I'm not an orphan, and I can only imagine how awful that must be. I'm not eager to condemn children to be alone if there are loving, willing guardians for them, even if their genders aren't ideal for development. Lots of single parents and widows also lack both genders raising their children, but that's still preferable to the children being parentless. That's why I didn't list this topic at the start of this post, and I'm not necessarily dead-set against it.

The topic of where I my views differ from the Libertarian Party's platform slightly is a new one. You didn't bring it up previously. You didn't ask about it before. Please stop rambling incoherently as if you had--as if I avoided the topic. Vaguely calling me a liar and a trickster has nothing to do with this topic. Please be specific and clear in your responses if you have anything to say about the LP's platform or my views which differ from theirs.

I'm obviously not afraid to voice or discuss my views. Consider trying the same. This is what you got when you asked for my view on something. Doesn't look like I avoided it to me.

Baseball is a fine game! It's a game of anticipation. Don't blame baseball for the ADD generation, raised on flashy TV shows designed for simpletons!

It has come to my attention that some people do not understand the Libertarian values that some of us hold dear.

These are the values of liberty and limited government, such as those held by the founders of the United States of America.

They don't include racist laws against the intoxicants of choice of minorities. They don't include bedroom police. They don't include the robbery (enslavement) of the working people by private banks, as is institutionalized by the Federal Reserve in American governance today, which gives control of our currency to private institutions. They don't include cronyism and bailouts. They don't include foreign invasions at the discretion of international powers (including banking interests). None of these things existed at America's founding; they were not values held by America's founders.

There's nothing in here about "fundamental arguments." There's nothing about "outcome of process." There's nothing about "radical permissiveness;" anything anyone does that effects you can still be regulated under Libertarian principles. Such language is an attempt to mislead and deceive, not honest discourse. While there is obviously room for legitimate debate regarding an appropriate level of "permissiveness," I don't think there's cause to describe "liberty" as inherently "radical." In fact, I find such an anti-freedom baseline to be disturbingly radical.

These are Libertarian beliefs. As such, disagreeing with these is disagreeing with Libertarian beliefs and values. Disagreeing with things not remotely mentioned or hinted here is not attacking Libertarian beliefs or values. While this list is not exhaustive, I find it pretty comprehensive. Personally, I don't agree with 100% of the positions here 100%. But they are pretty representative of Libertarian values, while there is some variety of opinions on some of the finer points below among Libertarians and those who lean Libertarian.

Libertarian Party Platform, Adopted in Convention, May 2012, Las Vegas, NV:

PREAMBLE

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating

You're incoherent. What rules? What examples of Libertarianism? What are you talking about?

This thread is spam. You're afraid to talk about anything I brought up. The only things you bring up are weird rambling with nothing to do with Libertarian ideas/values.

Until you're not too frightened to respond to everything I've posted, Einstein, nobody cares.

And we give them billions, warplanes, and tanks.

BMI does not determine "fat." "Fat" still dies earlier.

"Those considered severely obese

Nice citation of nothing. You act as if slightly heavy people not suffering health problems is the same thing as fat people not suffering health problems as a result of their weight. This is not the case.

People your size still die decades early on average as a result of their weight, Einstein.

I said that Republicans agree with the rest of Globalists regarding Federal Reserve monetary policy, ie banks running the world and stealing from the working. You haven't disputed a word of this. Not only do Republicans not talk about it, ever. Not only have Republicans never tried to do anything about it. But when it was debated, they supported something even worse than what we have now with even _less_ government oversight.

Why would I "wiki Conservatism"? What does it have to do with this "discussion"? Can you succinctly tell me what Conservatism has to do with anything coherent anyone has said here? Furthermore, I pointed out that many conservatives do not share your big-government, anti-freedom views. To pretend you share their views would be silly.

You're literally refusing to respond to anything I said. I pointed out that a meaningless Republican vote on an audit isn't "proof" and asked if you had ANY more evidence in support of your [supposed (you have a hard time articulating it)] argument that Republicans don't fully approve of the Fed, as do Democrats, Socialists, and all Globalists. You've failed to respond in any way, or provide any evidence or argument in support of your position.

Rambling about me conceding and me being a liar and me playing tricks is a poor substitute for arguments, evidence, or discourse of any kind.

You never asked me to "defend my principles." You never attacked them. The notion that you attacked Libertarian values, when you made it clear from the OP that you don't know what they are, is laughable. You brought it up. If you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, that's neither my fault nor my problem.

All you've done in this thread is ramble about complete nonsense you made up--Nothing any Libertarian has ever said, nor Libertarian values, nor Libertarian platform--and call me names. You haven't identified, let alone attacked, a single Libertarian idea (alone or how it compares to any other idea). You haven't responded to a single thing I've said, except to cry that you don't like the facts I bring up, even though you don't dispute them.

Libertarian Party Platform:
http://www.lp.org/platform

Oh look, you didn't respond to a single idea in the Libertarian Party platform in your OP. You didn't even come close to commenting on anything in it. You rambled about things like "Libertarians attach great value to the outcome of process" which means absolutely nothing and has no basis in anything beyond your own psychosis.

Instead you're crying that I haven't summarized the LP's platform for you (which you've never asked for--The Yell just suggested I should do it, a notion which I rejected with explanation that you're not a baby and shouldn't start threads on topics which you know literally nothing about and can learn about on your own.)

If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one.

You never said that you wanted to know about Libertarian ideas and values nor asked for good sources of further information (even that'd have been pretty silly, seeing how easy the LP's platform is to find).

You never commented on a single Libertarian value or idea in your OP, just random thoughts you attributed to Libertarians with no basis whatsoever. When challenged, you never provided any basis or explanation for your rambling (or what it supposedly has to do with Libertarian ideas/values) whatsoever.

You never responded to my argument that Republicans and Democrats (and all Globalists) agree on Fed policy, beyond a reference to one vote pressured by Rep. Paul, (someone who doesn't represent the Republican party's values and whom you personally despise) which has absolutely no chance of impacting law in any way whatsoever, ever. And everyone voting on it knew this.

You probably never responded to my argument that Republicans and Democrats agree on foreign aggression for corporate and NWO interests either, though admittedly your post was too pained with completely inane rambling for me to finish reading it. I'm sure you made powerful arguments than we needed to secure the 4% of Libyan oil we imported--what vital interests we have in these third-world nations!--and how nobody could ever get on a plane with a shoe-bomb for another nation if we invaded a few key ones. Either way, Democrat and Republican actions abroad are more alike than different. Both support random invasions and bombing for nonsensical reasons, and both support drone strikes to keep people pissed at us. It'd be a shame if we left people alone and a foreign threat couldn't be used to take more rights away from Americans!

Globalists like Einstein come up with lots of bad ideas in their endless struggle to come up with more ideas to expand central control over all of society.

Einstein,

You're just angry that everything I said is true. And it's not my problem, nor is it my failing.

Is it not true that Republicans have had the capacity (votes) to audit the Fed's policies repeatedly in the past, but consistently passed up every opportunity? Yes, that's a fact. You're changing the subject, not me.

All you're doing is bloviating about me. You're not providing any evidence that Republicans actually disagree with Democrats at all on this topic. You're not providing any such argument at all, just complaining that you don't like the facts I bring up.

It angers you that Republicans and Democrats agree on this subject, so you call me a liar and rant about Libertarians all being liars? Flawless logic! I didn't say anything about "Conservatives." First, they don't have a lot of representation in our legislature, or, if they do, they tend to vote with Republicans anyway. Second, your view of "Conservatives" is a big government one including an individual healthcare mandate and methods of people-control like smoking bans. I don't think most "Conservatives" share your big-government, anti-freedom view of "Conservative" principles. Most Conservatives would reject your views, so why would I talk about them here?