Jaybird, don't you just hate it when this system runs out of reply buttons? I do. Gotta schlep all the way down here. Anyway, this in in reply to your 10:47 am.
Sorry buddy, I don't do understand woo. Having been raised Catholic I recognize woo but that's it.
@Jason Kuznicki, but, but but...I'm seeking some sort of minimal definition. Is it legitimate for the library board to establish a mill levy to keep it running. Is it legitimate for states to tax liquor, groceries, services, gasoline to support whatever the state supports, schools, roads, etc. What do they see as minimal and legitimate?
@Jaybird, nah, I'm not a whining sort. I'm a head-scratching sort. I keep wondering, what do glibertarians really find to be legitimate governmental action? From smallest entity to federal?
Can you offer some specifics as to legitimate actions, as you see it?
@Matthew Schmitz, I agree with you 10o percent. I wrote much the same thing as you in a comment on another thread. But they, libertarians, *are* upset with Newsom. They seem to see threats to the republic everywhere. All takings are "objectionable."
"Like fireworks. Or pornographic videos. Or jeggings. Again, I don’t see any libertarian objection here whatsoever."
But wouldn't libertarians object to all the prohibitions you list? Wouldn't a libertarian say the folks in SF, or Anywhere USA , lack the power to restrict sales of fireworks, porn or jeggings?
Mike Farmer, what do I see lacking, I'll tell you. A sense of perspective. For example, all the boohooing over kicking sugary soft drinks off city property in San Francisco. Anti choice bastards!
Jaybird, for some reason I have this vision of you sitting at your computer, tears pooling.
Have no fear. People like me, if indeed they are like me, are 100% in favor of democracy, and it's variant, representative democracy. We also have great respect for the Constitution. (No mention of sugary soft drinks.)
When libertarians start winning elections I will support all constitutional laws they enact.
No kidding, I'm all in favor of electing a pro-choice mayor in San Fransisco. Put that poison back on city property, I don't care, I don't drink it. (My poison is generally no available in vending machines anyway.)
The ban on sweetened drinks applies *only* to vending machines on city property. It is the result of a decision made *entirely* by mayor Gavin Newsom, not the city counsel. If the citizens of San Francisco find the ban an appalling trampling of their freedom of choice there exists sufficient means to correct the injustice, elect a pro-choice mayor next time.
@Mike Farmer, maybe, but they are paid, "doing business everyday," to earn their keep. Seems they owe their employer an honest days work. And if they have learned the lesson you guess they have learned shouldn't they say as much - We're just dipshits and the suites know best.
@Koz, Jeez, I guess we are destined to cross swords today.
What evidence can you point to that Klein or Wilkerson care less about X than you or I or any amateur?
I just don't see it that way. If anything they seem to be saying they care, a lot, and they are grading against repeating information that just endorses their point of view.
Shouldn't Klein and Wilkerson, of all people, have a sense of reputable information as it pertains to economics? Just throwing up your hands and saying, "I don't know" seems weird. I understand the tenancy to latch onto points of view that support your position, god knows, I do.
But Klein and Wilkerson should be able to separate out the junk. Aren't they "A-list bloggers"?
I suspect, that more often than not, some sort of absolute truth does not exist. Then one is left with the strong urge to grab the stuff we find comforting.
The best thing I can say about their admissions - now we know.
On “I’m a Libertarian, You Know, But We’ve Gotta Have a Few Limits…”
@Jaybird, sure, one and two for sure. As for three, "superficial" describes you response as far as I'm concerned.
"
@Jaybird, is it a "suspicion" or are you "sure?"
No matter, I took it as predictive hence woo.
"
Jaybird, don't you just hate it when this system runs out of reply buttons? I do. Gotta schlep all the way down here. Anyway, this in in reply to your 10:47 am.
Sorry buddy, I don't do understand woo. Having been raised Catholic I recognize woo but that's it.
"
Jason Kuznicki, this is what in mind as glib -
"Performed with a natural, offhand ease: glib conversation.
"Showing little thought, preparation, or concern: a glib response to a complex question.
"Marked by ease and fluency of speech or writing that often suggests or stems from insincerity, superficiality, or deceitfulness."
"
@Jaybird, and JK, thanks guys. You earned the "glib" thing.
"
@Jason Kuznicki, but, but but...I'm seeking some sort of minimal definition. Is it legitimate for the library board to establish a mill levy to keep it running. Is it legitimate for states to tax liquor, groceries, services, gasoline to support whatever the state supports, schools, roads, etc. What do they see as minimal and legitimate?
"
@Jaybird, nah, I'm not a whining sort. I'm a head-scratching sort. I keep wondering, what do glibertarians really find to be legitimate governmental action? From smallest entity to federal?
Can you offer some specifics as to legitimate actions, as you see it?
On “The Insignificance of Gavin Newsom’s Soda Ban”
@Matthew Schmitz, I agree with you 10o percent. I wrote much the same thing as you in a comment on another thread. But they, libertarians, *are* upset with Newsom. They seem to see threats to the republic everywhere. All takings are "objectionable."
On “What Does the War on Sugar Say?”
Oh, no! Another war. Captain Crunch, gather your armies.
On “The Insignificance of Gavin Newsom’s Soda Ban”
"Like fireworks. Or pornographic videos. Or jeggings. Again, I don’t see any libertarian objection here whatsoever."
But wouldn't libertarians object to all the prohibitions you list? Wouldn't a libertarian say the folks in SF, or Anywhere USA , lack the power to restrict sales of fireworks, porn or jeggings?
On “I’m a Libertarian, You Know, But We’ve Gotta Have a Few Limits…”
Mike Farmer, what do I see lacking, I'll tell you. A sense of perspective. For example, all the boohooing over kicking sugary soft drinks off city property in San Francisco. Anti choice bastards!
But we agree on the cup. Heaven.
"
Jaybird, for some reason I have this vision of you sitting at your computer, tears pooling.
Have no fear. People like me, if indeed they are like me, are 100% in favor of democracy, and it's variant, representative democracy. We also have great respect for the Constitution. (No mention of sugary soft drinks.)
When libertarians start winning elections I will support all constitutional laws they enact.
No kidding, I'm all in favor of electing a pro-choice mayor in San Fransisco. Put that poison back on city property, I don't care, I don't drink it. (My poison is generally no available in vending machines anyway.)
"
@Jaybird, I'm one of those people that find libertarianism lacking.
"
@Jaybird, parents need to control those brats and get off my city property.
"
The ban on sweetened drinks applies *only* to vending machines on city property. It is the result of a decision made *entirely* by mayor Gavin Newsom, not the city counsel. If the citizens of San Francisco find the ban an appalling trampling of their freedom of choice there exists sufficient means to correct the injustice, elect a pro-choice mayor next time.
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/07/san_francisco_starts_soda_ban.html
On “The limits of doing this for free”
@Mike Farmer, maybe, but they are paid, "doing business everyday," to earn their keep. Seems they owe their employer an honest days work. And if they have learned the lesson you guess they have learned shouldn't they say as much - We're just dipshits and the suites know best.
"
@Koz, Jeez, I guess we are destined to cross swords today.
What evidence can you point to that Klein or Wilkerson care less about X than you or I or any amateur?
I just don't see it that way. If anything they seem to be saying they care, a lot, and they are grading against repeating information that just endorses their point of view.
On “We’re already at war”
"War" is generally a bad addition to any phrase in the political realm. I think you made that point already E.D. It sounds right to me.
On “The limits of doing this for free”
Shouldn't Klein and Wilkerson, of all people, have a sense of reputable information as it pertains to economics? Just throwing up your hands and saying, "I don't know" seems weird. I understand the tenancy to latch onto points of view that support your position, god knows, I do.
But Klein and Wilkerson should be able to separate out the junk. Aren't they "A-list bloggers"?
I suspect, that more often than not, some sort of absolute truth does not exist. Then one is left with the strong urge to grab the stuff we find comforting.
The best thing I can say about their admissions - now we know.
On “A Response to Paul Krugman”
@Koz, excellent point. Keep struggling, dude.
But, I'm becoming churlish. I think I'll take a break till you get to explaining your general proposition. Cheers.
"
@Koz, "Other liberals, like people in general, have their faults."
You are, indeed, a wordsmith. Master of the trite.
"
@Koz, "We’ll get to the general proposition soon enough I’m sure."
Go for it.
"
@Koz, "...liberalism is a mechanism for turning otherwise intelligent people into drooling idiots."
Oh, that is a generalization.
On “Prop. 8 and the Future”
@Dave, thanks. I thought it had something instructive to say. But, I'm no....
On “A Response to Paul Krugman”
@Koz, if throwing around generalized nonsense, I mean bullshit, is the game this morning, let me add to your stinking mess. It takes one to know one.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.