What is the libertarians answer for stopping an asteroid impact?

C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
ASCIIGHOST said:
The point is the currently federally funded programs don't have a solution for this, and you want to scrutinize a hypothetical society with a hypothetical situation. why not offer what you view as a success of federally funded programs, then free market thinkers will illuminate how youve been robbed, and how it could be done better. destroying an incoming asteroid is not a solution anyone has done....building roads, or bringing drinkable water to the masses has....maybe start in reality if you want to learn more about free markets....if you want to learn more....it would seem you're not trolling, becuase you do resond to answers, unlike the rest.
Click to expand...
Actually the government is working on this
 
HookahsGarden

HookahsGarden

Well-Known Member
We will have to fess up to our space based stealth nuclear missile moon base.


Trust me. I helped design the moon dust camouflage solar panel.
8) bongsmilie8)
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Through tariffs, usage fees and many other of the same ways we fought a few wars before the concept of income taxes existed.

Then there's always credit, I think even the most hardcore Libertarian would be in favor of to save mankind.

There's a handful of you guys here who keep thinking libertarian means no government. Is there even a possibility your thought process can change on this? All of the proof is already there, Ron Paul is about as hardcore as it gets and even he favors gov over no gov as a necessity. Self rule through a representative government was kind of our thing, then we allowed our government to become a self-serving entity instead. I'm still floored people are cool with that.
Click to expand...
I'M STILL FLOORED THAT YOUR WHITE SUPREMACIST ASS THINKS ANYONE WANTS YOUR OPINION ON ANYTHING.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
That depends on the "something" the government wants to do. That is the point.

Governments in the past have created extermination facilities for large groups of people.

How many people were killed at the hands of governments in the 20th century.

Your worship of government is pretty damn stupid.

Libertarians want a small government, with a limited set of powers to accomplish a very few functions. Personally, I would settle for a federal government that perform the very limited set duties set forth in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
YET ANOTHER WHITE SUPREMACIST WHO FAILS TO REALIZE HIS OPINION IS UNWANTED ON A POT WEBSITE.

GO BACK TO STORMFRONT.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ASCIIGHOST said:
You showed one alleged government success, and I showed one free market success. Lets keep going, see who runs out of examples first.
Click to expand...
I already told you, you're attempting to frame the discussion in a way to imply that I favor 100% of what the government does 100% of the time when I've already made it clear that isn't the case. When government does what the libertarian wants, you end up with unregulated crony capitalism. They want to take what we currently have and make it much worse, where government doesn't regulate fiscal or monetary policy at all and when we get into recessions/depressions with no way out, they voice no solutions. When we get into a situation like we're in now, where there is low demand to consume because of low incomes/wages, when people just can't afford to buy extra things, the reasonable solution is for government to step in and protect the citizens against that. Protecting Americans from economic harm is just as important as protecting them from terrorism or invasion from a foreign army. If we do nothing, nothing changes.
 
ASCIIGHOST

ASCIIGHOST

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
where government doesn't regulate fiscal or monetary policy .
Click to expand...
Very few people are 100% types i guess.
Tell me again how having the policy of letting a private corporation (the federal reserve) be in charge of the currency required by law is a good thing?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
When we get into a situation like we're in now, where there is low demand to consume because of low incomes/wages, when people just can't afford to buy extra things, the reasonable solution is for government to step in and protect the citizens against that. Protecting Americans from economic harm is just as important as protecting them from terrorism or invasion from a foreign army. If we do nothing, nothing changes.
Click to expand...
Eloquently stated. Consumers are job creators, in spite of the right wing bullshit to the contrary. The biggest economic mistake this country has made in the past half century is failing to protect its consumers. And republicans are the worst offenders, go figure.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ASCIIGHOST said:
Very few people are 100% types i guess.
Tell me again how having the policy of letting a private corporation (the federal reserve) be in charge of the currency required by law is a good thing?
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about the inner workings of the federal reserve to have a strong opinion either way about that
 
ASCIIGHOST

ASCIIGHOST

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I don't know enough about the inner workings of the federal reserve to have a strong opinion either way about that
Click to expand...
its pretty straight forward. federal reserve uses Keynesian economics which by the 1970's (federal reserve born 1913) it had become obvious how bad a failure Keynesian ecomics was, and Austrian economics became very popular in certain pockets within the USA. Now that another long term bubble happened its really being sough after by more and more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top