or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libertarianism - Page 12

post #441 of 735

liberalt.jpglol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #442 of 735

Look: Someone is having fun with caricatures again.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #443 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Look: Someone is having fun with caricatures again.

Yup!

 

tumblr_lys5meKFmw1r8d2mio1_500.jpg Just following jazzy's lead!lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #444 of 735
Thread Starter 

tumblr_m7cdtnSoK91r8jacvo1_500.jpg

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #445 of 735
Thread Starter 
"'Need' now means wanting someone else’s money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer.”
— Joseph Sobran

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #446 of 735
Thread Starter 

15 Ways You Are Probably Wrong About Anarchists, Agorists, and Voluntaryists

 

 

Quote:
1. We don't want to turn your government anarchist.  That makes as much sense as accusing you of wanting to dye your hair "bald".
 
2. We get it, there's no historical precedent. That tends to be a common problem with new things, yet new things are created every day.
 
3. We don't expect utopia. If you think that's what we're after, maybe it says more about your idea of the function of government than ours.
 
4. Some of us live with our parents, and maybe even have a room in the basement. Some of us are parents.  Most of us are just adults with lives not too different than yours.
 
5. Arguing on facebook is not how we think we're getting anything done, it's what we do in our spare time. It's what we do to connect with each other, to exercise our ideas before applying them out in the real world, or just for fun.
 
6. Convincing you is not important to us, except in an abstract or personal sense.  You're probably not as important as you'd like us to think you are.
 
7. We're not seeking consensus, nor to sway the masses. The requirement that our lives be ruled by public opinion is one of the things we oppose.
 
8. We're not the ones breaking Starbuck's windows. We like coffee too.
 
9. We're not trying to mooch off the system, we want to be free to produce for ourselves the useful things the system produces, and to do it better.
 
10. We're against a lot of the same things you are, and more.  We value most of the same things you do, and maybe more highly. It's our means that are different. When those values and oppositions come into conflict, we don't make excuses, we resolve it.
 
11.  We're not nihilists.  We're for a lot more than we're against, it's just that the main thing we're against is so overwhelming it blots out the view of everything else.
 
12. Solving problems requires work and time.  We're not the ones with illusions of having our wishes fulfilled through documentation and edict.
 
13. We don't blame you for creating the system, but we're amused by how obviously self-fulfilling your prophecy that "we can't do anything about it" is.
 
14. We don't want a violent revolution, we want billions of peaceful ones.
 
15. "We" are neither a monolith nor a collective. We're not defined by our label, our label is a recognition of the overlap between our individual beliefs. Extrapolate from it at your own risk.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #447 of 735
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #448 of 735
I'd like to have a serious discussion with MJ and Jazzy on this. One issue I have is with the idea of privatization of security forces. I see this as a recipe for abuse and disaster.

How does it work? Is it supplementary to government police or does it replace them altogether? If there is a rogue agency, who polices the police? Gun owners? I'm not trying to be snarky but it sounds like the Wild West.
post #449 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'd like to have a serious discussion with MJ and Jazzy on this. One issue I have is with the idea of privatization of security forces. I see this as a recipe for abuse and disaster.
How does it work? Is it supplementary to government police* or does it replace them altogether? If there is a rogue agency**, who polices the police? Gun owners? I'm not trying to be snarky but it sounds like the Wild West.

 

We should begin with why you see it as a recipe for abuse and disaster. Why do you assume this? What sort of abuse do you imagine? Is your standard for a private solution perfection while the government solution need not meet that same standard***?

 

***I ask this important question because I see this often with criticisms of private solutions: The assumption that it must be perfect for it to be successful while ignoring the obvious imperfections of government-based solutions, thus creating an unfair and biased standard.

 

It is important to understand your underlying presuppositions in order to address them well and to address why privatization of this function might work, on net, better than the socialized version.

 

Something that has been written on this is Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "THE PRIVATE PRODUCTION OF DEFENSE". I'm guessing that this will address this question much better than either Jazz or I could in the medium of an internet forum. This may not address all of your questions or assumptions, and you may likely disagree with the author's logic and reasoning and assumptions. But it might be a decent starting place.

 

P.S. I appreciate you interest in having a serious discussion about this.

 

*We already have this situation in the present. We have private security agencies. These are, like private schools (and, perhaps, someday private medical practitioners) primarily affordable only by the rich. In large part because less costly services have essentially been crowded out by the state and, simultaneously, money taken that would be used for private services is unavailable to lower income individuals.

 

**We also have this today. We call it the "mafia" or the "mob" or even just ordinary street gangs.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #450 of 735

Romanticizing Taxation:

 

Quote:
Roosevelt's claim that we can judge the social conscience of the government by how it collects taxes is true in a way he could not have imagined. Contrary to FDR and Justice Holmes, taxes are neither a price (in the voluntary-transaction sense) nor club dues. On the contrary, they are exactions by threat of violence. Some social conscience! How ironic that organized society and civilization itself are said to depend on the government's threatening peaceful people if they fail to surrender their property as demanded by politicians who presumptuously and self-servingly claim to "represent" all the people.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #451 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Romanticizing Taxation:

 

 

That's an excellent article.  I have noticed this romanticization of taxation over the past several months, though I never thought to label it as such.  I've got to hand it to the Democrats right now, though.  They really have a majority of people convinced that the problem is we don't steal enough of people's money.  A good number of people actually believe that the rich aren't paying their "fair share" and that somehow the middle class is "paying for" the the tax "cuts" the rich want.  The stupidity and ignorance is amazing.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #452 of 735

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #453 of 735
I voted for Gary Johnson simply because I did not care for either Obama nor Romney and I didn't want to spend another election day sitting home.
post #454 of 735

If you were in a swing state, thank you for your vote for Obama, Winter.  Your failure to accept the reality of a first-past-the-post election system was quite counterproductive.  If you really want to make a difference, fight for a system in which third party votes aren't wasted.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #455 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If you were in a swing state, thank you for your vote for Obama, Winter.  Your failure to accept the reality of a first-past-the-post election system was quite counterproductive.  If you really want to make a difference, fight for a system in which third party votes aren't wasted.

I live in NJ so Obama was going to win anyway.

Edit: Also what can I do really? I am not part of the elite billionaires club in this country. Do I hate Obama? No. I liked him better than Romney though just not enough to vote for him officially.
Edited by Winter - 12/30/12 at 1:50pm
post #456 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If you were in a swing state, thank you for your vote for Obama, Winter.  Your failure to accept the reality of a first-past-the-post election system was quite counterproductive.  If you really want to make a difference, fight for a system in which third party votes aren't wasted.


You're unlikely to ever see that under the electoral college system, especially with the level of campaign spending in the US.

post #457 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If you were in a swing state, thank you for your vote for Obama, Winter.  Your failure to accept the reality of a first-past-the-post election system was quite counterproductive.  If you really want to make a difference, fight for a system in which third party votes aren't wasted.


You're unlikely to ever see that under the electoral college system, especially with the level of campaign spending in the US.

I think we saw an example of that in previous years where people instead of voting against Bush they voted for the Green party instead. A noble effort that helped get us 4 more years of Bush.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #458 of 735
I have some conservative viewpoints but most of them are economically conservative. Part of the reason why I voted for Gary Johnson is because I cannot stand social conservatism.

I am sure some of you are familiar with this Barry Goldwater quote.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TGjSSq2likc/TynVPdD67MI/AAAAAAAAEwk/Hzzs6aggXUY/s400/barry+goldwater+quote.jpg

You can call it a wasted vote and/or a vote for Obama and that's fine but in 2012, those who for strongly "protecting" marriage, "protecting" life, for so-called "morals and values", and trying to clean up things with the way the economy is are what is causing this country to decline.

I won't say the "liberals" are any better though, that's for sure.
post #459 of 735
Thread Starter 
A common defense of the State holds that man is a “social animal,” that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of “atomistic individuals” uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.

--Murray N. Rothbard

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #460 of 735
Thread Starter 
"As reason tells us, all are born thus naturally equal, with an equal right to their persons, so also with an equal right to their preservation . . . and every man having a property in his own person, the labour of his body and the work of his hands are properly his own, to which no one has right but himself; it will therefore follow that when he removes anything out of the state that nature has provided and left it in, he has mixed his labour with it, and joined something to it that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. . . . Thus every man having a natural right to (or being proprietor of) his own person and his own actions and labour, which we call property, it certainly follows, that no man can have a right to the person or property of another: And if every man has a right to his person and property; he has also a right to defend them . . . and so has a right of punishing all insults upon his person and property."


Rev. Elisha Williams (1744)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #461 of 735

Ah yes, not too busy to spam a thread without commenting, but too busy to cite the blog you plagiarized from in the other thread.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #462 of 735

It sounds like you could not care who became the president of the U.S.
 

post #463 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I have some conservative viewpoints but most of them are economically conservative. Part of the reason why I voted for Gary Johnson is because I cannot stand social conservatism.
I am sure some of you are familiar with this Barry Goldwater quote.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TGjSSq2likc/TynVPdD67MI/AAAAAAAAEwk/Hzzs6aggXUY/s400/barry+goldwater+quote.jpg
You can call it a wasted vote and/or a vote for Obama and that's fine but in 2012, those who for strongly "protecting" marriage, "protecting" life, for so-called "morals and values", and trying to clean up things with the way the economy is are what is causing this country to decline.
I won't say the "liberals" are any better though, that's for sure.

 

First of all, preachers aren't in control of the GOP.

The party JUST finished nominating a Northeastern Moderate (and Mormon) to be its flag-bearer.

 

Secondly, people who claim to be economically conservative but socially liberal are probably nice people but are deeply confused.

 

The economic situation the U.S. finds itself in did not occur in a vacuum. People who cannot exercise restraint in areas of life such as sexual morality, diet or murder-for-gain will be unable to exercise any significant restraint in their economic judgment. Which is why America is crashing and burning today.

 

The foreclosure and debt crisis, along with a society rife with institutional corruption, is largely a product of the country's moral decline.

 

No amount of program-cutting by tea-partiers, tax-raising by liberals or government elimination by libertarians will save a fundamentally immoral country.

 

Economic conservatism can tweak the system a bit and buy some time. But that's all.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #464 of 735

Moral decline?  Oh silly Christian.  Your times of oppressing the masses are ending and you just can't handle it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #465 of 735

Bring back Jesus he might help all of you with your problems that are plain nothing! You do not know what problems really are in life .
 

post #466 of 735
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #467 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

The economic situation the U.S. finds itself in did not occur in a vacuum. People who cannot exercise restraint in areas of life such as sexual morality, diet or murder-for-gain will be unable to exercise any significant restraint in their economic judgment. Which is why America is crashing and burning today.

Define for me your view of sexual morality, diet, and murder for gain.
post #468 of 735

1. It's immoral to have sex without doing your best to enjoy it.

 

2. It's immoral not to have sex when it's something you both enjoy and want, as long as a) you've taken precautions against pregnancy and disease, and b) you're not hurting each other or someone else emotionally by doing it.

 

Go out and have fun! That's the moral thing to do.

 

If there's any aspect of our sexual behavior that's contributing to the decline of the US or any other nation, it's sticking your god damned noses into what other people enjoy doing safely and privately.

post #469 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post


Define for me your view of sexual morality, diet, and murder for gain.

 

My apologies. I guess I didn't see the notification for this thread.

 

My point was that, regardless of your religious views, it can't be denied that Americans are indulging in risky sexual behaviours knowing fully well that many sexually transmitted diseases have no cures and are now resistant to medical treatment. In the same vein, it cannot be denied that there is a severe obesity crisis, where even young children in the U.S. are overweight.

 

Thirdly, we have a society that believes that killing one's unborn children so you can climb the corporate ladder or preserve your financial status is okay. (To say nothing of a President who thinks you can kill the inconvenient child right after he or she is born, if you can get away with it.)

 

Of course, abortion is so old school that progressives are now moving on to sanction the killing off of grandma, grandpa and anyone else who is perceived to be a long-term drain on their tax dollars.

 

In such a climate, 'economic conservatism' has no chance. If you won't 'balance' your sexual behaviours, your dietary intake or your ability to delay any personal gratification for the most serious concerns, it is pointless to expect the balancing of a checkbook.

 

The people will vote whatever they want from the treasury, society will slowly break down and authoritarianism will begin to take root.

 

Just as it has happened in other societies for thousands of years.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #470 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

My apologies. I guess I didn't see the notification for this thread.

My point was that, regardless of your religious views, it can't be denied that Americans are indulging in risky sexual behaviours knowing fully well that many sexually transmitted diseases have no cures and are now resistant to medical treatment. In the same vein, it cannot be denied that there is a severe obesity crisis, where even young children in the U.S. are overweight.

Thirdly, we have a society that believes that killing one's unborn children so you can climb the corporate ladder or preserve your financial status is okay. (To say nothing of a President who thinks you can kill the inconvenient child right after he or she is born, if you can get away with it.)

Of course, abortion is so old school that progressives are now moving on to sanction the killing off of grandma, grandpa and anyone else who is perceived to be a long-term drain on their tax dollars.

In such a climate, 'economic conservatism' has no chance. If you won't 'balance' your sexual behaviours, your dietary intake or your ability to delay any personal gratification for the most serious concerns, it is pointless to expect the balancing of a checkbook.

The people will vote whatever they want from the treasury, society will slowly break down and authoritarianism will begin to take root.

Just as it has happened in other societies for thousands of years.

Okay I see what you are saying and you make a lot of sense. The problem that I have though is that a lot of social conservatives take what you are saying to an extreme. I have nothing against sex though I believe you should always use protection. Otherwise, the only way you avoid them is to not have sex at all and who wants to do that? I believe abortion is a last resort though I also don't believe life is a miracle. Bill Hicks said it best that childbirth is a chemical reaction, and that raising a child not to talk in a movie theater is a miracle.

Stop spending money on useless wars. That's a good start. Let's get our manufacturing base started up again here as well.

And now your thoughts sir?
post #471 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

I have nothing against sex though I believe you should always use protection. Otherwise, the only way you avoid them is to not have sex at all and who wants to do that?

 

Avoid what?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #472 of 735
Of course Americans are engaging in risky sexual behavior.

The assholes are trying to prevent children from learning how to avoid it (in the case that they do choose to have sex).

It's not the sex that's risky. It's ignorance about the importance of safe sex, and how to practice safe sex... That's the problem.

Stop preventing education on the matter. Hiding your kids' eyes is not going to protect them from sex, it's just going to keep them ignorant.
post #473 of 735
Avoid risky behaviors.
post #474 of 735
Thread Starter 
Government control is a poor (and dangerous) substitute for self control.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #475 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Government control is a poor (and dangerous) substitute for self control.

 

And clearly, since self control has served humanity so admirably throughout history, it is also quite unnecessary¡

post #476 of 735
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And clearly, since self control has served humanity so admirably throughout history, it is also quite unnecessary¡

You prefer being governed to governing yourself?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #477 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And clearly, since self control has served humanity so admirably throughout history, it is also quite unnecessary¡

You prefer being governed to governing yourself?
I certainly prefer a community being governed rather than governing themselves individually. We live in a society, and no man is an island. If that means I have to follow the same rules as everyone else, I gladly accept that, as long as I have a say in said government through 1) my vote and 2) freedom of speech.
post #478 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We live in a society, and no man is an island.

 

No one is claiming differently. That's a straw man.

 

Furthermore, your statement seems to imply that the state and society are one and the same thing. This is not true.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If that means I have to follow the same rules as everyone else

 

No one is claiming any differently. That's a straw man.

 

Libertarianism, more than another other political philosophy  (e.g., Democrats & Republicans, liberals and conservatives, progressives, socialists, Marxists, fascist and statists of all flavors), demands that the same rules apply to everyone. Where these other groups often want special privileges and rights to certain groups and for certain rules to not apply or apply differently.

 

The simple, honest fact is that you don't actually want everyone to follow the same rules. Think carefully about that.


Edited by MJ1970 - 1/21/13 at 3:55pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #479 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We live in a society, and no man is an island.

No one is claiming differently. That's a straw man.

Furthermore, your statement seems to imply that the state and society are one and the same thing. This is not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If that means I have to follow the same rules as everyone else

No one is claiming any differently. That's a straw man.

Libertarianism, more than another other political philosophy  (e.g., Democrats & Republicans, liberals and conservatives, progressives, socialists, Marxists, fascist and statists of all flavors), demands that the same rules apply to everyone. Where these other groups often want special privileges and rights to certain groups and for certain rules to not apply or apply differently.

The simple, honest fact is that you don't actually want everyone to follow the same rules. Think carefully about that.
The thing you don't understand is that without enforcement of the rules, there are no rules. Society alone is incapable of enforcing the rules without someone taking a leadership role. I would prefer to have a voice in selection of who that someone is. No matter what you choose to call the selection of that leadership, whether it's through strength of arms or through committee, that's the very definition of government.
post #480 of 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The thing you don't understand is that without enforcement of the rules, there are no rules.

 

I understand this perfectly.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Society alone is incapable of enforcing the rules without someone taking a leadership role.

 

This is almost certainly not true, but I'm willing to listen your logical support and defense of this claim.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No matter what you choose to call the selection of that leadership, whether it's through strength of arms or through committee, that's the very definition of government.

 

Actually, it's not. The government/state is a unique entity within society that has unique properties, privileges, "rights" and powers. Chief among these is the monopoly on the use of initiative force and violence. That's what we're referring to when we refer to the government. NOTE: I'm not referring to the more general sense of governing. I am speaking of the government, the state. I hope that clarifies things.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism