TakeYouToTasker

How can something that is finite, and that requires the resources and labor of others in order to obtain, be a right? A right is something which requires only the inaction of others in order to exercise.

Yes. It always has. The labor market, just like any other, is competitive. No. A minimum doesn't account for the true value of labor at any fixed point in time. That's not a flaw of capitalism, it's a feature. It's why it works. Without the possibility of the reward of profits, no one would make the necessary investments or take the necessary risks. The laborer risks nothing, and is contracted to sell his labor at a certain price, which he must mutually agree to. If he feels his labor is worth more than the compensation offered, he is free to not take the job. He is not entitled to the profits of the owner unless he is able to obtain them through his contract. Further, the laborer is not entitled to his job. The job is not actually his. The job belongs to the owner.

Oh, look. Baskin showed up to post something irretrievably stupid and objectively incorrect. Who ever would have guessed.

Oh good. Another obstinate !@#$ who takes pride in his ignorance. Just what this place needed.

In what way does the Bill of Rights contradict free association? I neither support them, nor condemn them. As I said before, they are a product of free association, and as long as they exist in a way which does not restrict that same freedom of association, they are valid. The only sector which should be forbidden from unionizing is the public sector.

Your gerrymandering thread is nonsense. Again, the purpose of congressional districts is to give politically homogenous groups congressional representation which reflects their values. The purpose of the House of Representatives is not for people to work towards the center to achieve the goals of big government. Congress is not intended to represent you. Your own congressional representative represents you. That's it. That's why it's called "the House of Representatives".

Let me clarify. Individual representatives represent their individual constituencies, and are supposed to bring their issues to the House. Congress as a whole doesn't represent you, but your congressperson does.

That isn't the purpose of districts though. The role of districts is that they are supposed to encapsulate a fairly politically homogenous group such that the groups interest can be represented by someone in Congress. Your idea makes congress less representative of the people.

Anyone surprised by a big government liberal taking umbrage with libertarians is an idiot, and anyone who thinks libertarians will begin to dwindle in numbers for opposing a big government liberal is an even bigger idiot.

Actually, it is your job. Saying "this sucks" achieves nothing, and comes across as nothing more than whining. As I said, any redrawing of district lines is gerrymandering, and relinquishing the very purpose of districts in favor of "compactness" doesn't make any real sense in terms of giving individuals a voice that represents their interests. So, while gerrymandering may be mildly problematic, any proposed solutions that I've ever seen are even more so; and it's vital to note that gerrymandering isn't the main cause of congressional stagnation.

More evidence you don't understand libertarians. You don't even understand the difference between big (L) Libertarians, and actual libertarianism. Further, you've shown your poor hand with your ignorant mistaking of principled opposition for grandstanding. You need us. We don't need you.

We shall see, though you forget that this caucus was built on the back of "Dr. No", Ron Paul. The caucus will lose members who were not truely representitive of the people who elected them, and simply posed to be for political expediency, and they'll be replaced. Again, this is a rapidly growing voting block who has taken over 20% of the governing party in 12 short years. America is dissatisfied with big government. You clearly don't understand libertarians, or their motivations. Says the man who begs their vote with the intention of disregarding them. Again, Hillary, reflect on why you lost your major political battle, and resign yourself to it unless you can bring libertarians to the table with libertarian ideas. We've never been represented by our government, and we're willing to suffer under Democratic rule if you can't give us what we want. In fact, when you don't, often times we give them that rule at the ballot box in protest of your lack of principle.

They are not there to conduct business that big government Republicans deem to be in the best interests of the country. They are there to represent their own constituents only. The libertarian movement has grown from nearly non-existent to comprising 20% of the majority party in the House in a very short amount of time because of their unwillingness to compromise on libertarian issues. They will continue to grow as distrust in government grows, and even more so if Republicans attempt to marginalize them. You don't have to like that reality, but it's still reality.

And as I responded to Tom, by doing that the leftists got the government that they want. They'd have taken the White House had they nominated Sanders, or really, anyone other than Clinton. Libertarians are not going to acquiesce to big government Republicans who are trying to marginalize them.

The progressives got the government they wanted. Which is fine when your long game is to force the Republican Party towards a libertarian bent. Remember, I advocate voting for Democrats when Republicans don't offer a libertarian leaning candidate. In a two party system you are never represented unless you can force your party towards your preferred philosophy. Republicans are dependent on libertarians to win elections, and it would be wise for them heed that when attempting to legislate and govern. That is, unless you don't want their votes. In which case, yes, you'll be in for decades of Democrat rule, just as you said.

As I mentioned earlier, the Republican Party is a loose coalition cobbled together from many different sub-parties. The are not a monolith, and will be unable to govern as one.

Libertarians we no more given a gift by a Trump victory than they would have been by a Clinton victory, given that they oppose both. They were elected to be libertarians as representative of their constituencies, and that means holding to their principles. They were not elected to help create new big government entitlements, and they will not suffer for being an internal opposition party within their own party. It's what they were elected to do. As I've been telling you for years, libertarians should hold the Republican Party hostage unless and until they can produce sufficiently libertarian policies which they can support.

I know you didn't say that. I said that, then I asked you to provide what would be better, and your reasons why. I have no idea why you'd be upset by that.

And, as I mentioned in your thread, any redrawing of district lines is gerrymandering. Please provide what you believe to be a better, non-arbitrary, drawing of those lines for every district in the country, and then providing his reasons why your preferred lines are better.

Any redrawing of district lines is gerrymandering. I'll task the OP with providing what he believes to be a better, non-arbitrary, drawing of those lines for every district in the country, and then providing his reasons why his preferred lines are better.

I know you were talking about the two political parties. My point was that you were wrong to do so, as the two parties aren't monolithic (though Democrats certainly are trending that way in opposition), as our two party system forces many more narrowly defined systems of belief to cobble themselves together into a loosely held faction. Having done exactly that, it's a fatal act for big government Republicans to attempt to marginalize 20% of their block. In doing so, they will have to deal with an internal opposition party; and they will likely lose their support in future national elections.

There are not two sides, there are dozens of sides, each representing a constituency that elected them because of the positions they take. To those ends, I find it hilarious that you believe "marginalizing one side always ends up bad in the long run", while at the same time insisting that marginalizing libertarians and conservatives is a good thing.

More evidence that the morally flexible don't understand the principled. The libertarian movement is growing, and rapidly. They currently make up 20% of the Republican House, where libertarians were nearly non-existent 12 years ago. Any veiw point which seeks to both ignore them while governing them is DOA. But hey, ignoring what you view as a problem makes it go away, right? For the rest of you: What Magox is doing now is exactly what those in Congress who think like him did, and continued to do. He ignores the libertarians his "opposition party" depends upon to win elections. 20% of his party. Then, after losing an historic political battle, he refuses to examine, as his preferred House members had better, the reasons he lost. This is exactly why Hillary Clinton lost the presidential race, and exactly the mistake Democrats are making today, holding America back.

You've nearly terminally ghettoized your mind. Again, the Freedom Caucus did not want the bill to advance. They thought it was garbage, offered them nothing, and knew the Senate was going to send back something even less palatable. Stop being a useless hack. I'm losing respect for you by the second.

That's hilarious.