2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Trump's sundown town tour.
The term sundown town originated in the numerous signs that were posted at the
limits of such towns warning African Americans: “Don’t Let the Sun Go Down on You in ____.”
Take it from an old white woman in northeast Texas,
sundown towns are very real, and there's still a lot of them around.
And yes. Trump's on a tour of sundown towns for a reason.
He's rallying the troops for his second try at insurrection.
Trump going after the union vote.
I want to dismantle the federal regulatory state for sure and i never made a mistery of that but no, i am not against state regulations in general, even if obviously the proper threshold in my preferred model is a lot less regulations than today, but it isn't 0.
But there clearly is nothing that requires federal regulations except when it deals with the borders. And most of the other attempts are actual unconstitutional abuses predicated on
Me I’m against all state regulations , I think only cities and villages regulations should exist .
Why should we have borders anyway between states.
Just an artificial territory limitation to pay couple politicians and huge administrations cost ….
What you think about that ?
And supposedly the story is trump really won by Millions of votes--if not for that massive rig job. If the trumpers really were the majoirty/silent majority he'd just be standing pat and laughing waiting on the obv landslide. Instead he's in a street fight for political survival against a black girl lol
And supposedly the story is trump really won by Millions of votes--if not for that massive rig job. If the trumpers really were the majoirty/silent majority he'd just be standing pat and laughing waiting on the obv landslide. Instead he's in a street fight for political survival against a black girl lol
lol
Me I’m against all state regulations , I think only cities and villages regulations should exist .
Why should we have borders anyway between states.
Just an artificial territory limitation to pay couple politicians and huge administrations cost ….
What you think about that ?
States rights have been really important for people in rural areas of pot- and gay-friendly states
States rights have been really important for people in rural areas of pot- and gay-friendly states
I was sarcastic of course .
Luciom think federal isn’t needed .
So why stop at state laws.
Shouldn’t a libertarian obliterated states laws and regulation once they got rid of the federal states ?
Just drop it to counties and cities mind as well ?
I mean society was so much better and richer during the far west .
I was sarcastic of course .
Luciom think federal isn’t needed .
So why stop at state laws.
Shouldn’t a libertarian obliterated states laws and regulation once they got rid of the federal states ?
Just drop it to counties and cities mind as well ?
I mean society was so much better and richer during the far west .
I see what you did there....
A libertarian doesn't equate speech with treason, either, whether you prefer the libertarianism of Proudhon, Rothbard, or even a minarchist like Ron Paul. TO be fair, though, I don't think Luciom sees himself as a libertarian so much as he sympathizes with libertarians on single issues for generally unlibertarian reasons.
Looking to bet on Kamala , anyone here wanna bet Trump and escrow w someone
I see what you did there....
A libertarian doesn't equate speech with treason, either, whether you prefer the libertarianism of Proudhon, Rothbard, or even a minarchist like Ron Paul. TO be fair, though, I don't think Luciom sees himself as a libertarian so much as he sympathizes with libertarians on single issues for generally unlibertarian reasons.
as I have already explained I just use libertarian as the label because it's closer to classic small state liberalism than right-wing is today.
it's also closer to the social-progressive, economically ultra right-wing position that I hold.
and I don't "equate speech with treason", I equate helping the enemy with treason, I just have an enlarged view of what helping the enemy is that you do.
States don't have their own exchanges.
I don't know what you mean by "sold to investors in the financial sector"? Do you think that states should be able to regulate companies that sell securities to investors in the state? If other words, if a New York resident logs into his brokerage account and buys stock in a Delaware company in reliance on material misstatements made by the Delaware company, is that any business of New York state in
there is jurisdiction when you buy from a state, unless SCOTUS decides that because of the actual meaning of the commerce clause, there isn't.
but in the sense that the lower threshold (the less regulated state) applies not in the sense that a federal threshold applies instead.
if we take "normal goods" which are easier to discuss, if a state considers certain materials to be toxic in production (and so banned) and another doesn't, what happens? can a state ban GMO food?
btw states don't all have their own exchanges currently, why do you think they wouldn't have them in the model I describe?
I was sarcastic of course .
Luciom think federal isn’t needed .
So why stop at state laws.
Shouldn’t a libertarian obliterated states laws and regulation once they got rid of the federal states ?
Just drop it to counties and cities mind as well ?
I mean society was so much better and richer during the far west .
states have their own constitution, some will be very federal (leaving a lot of power to local councils) some won't.
I think federal intrusion in many things in the USA is actually unconstitutional.
but yes I also favor federalism inside single states, and many states do
as I have already explained I just use libertarian as the label because it's closer to classic small state liberalism than right-wing is today.
it's also closer to the social-progressive, economically ultra right-wing position that I hold.
and I don't "equate speech with treason", I equate helping the enemy with treason, I just have an enlarged view of what helping the enemy is that you do.
On the ground it's pretty close to a push economically between the big2. Unless those couple% are worth all of the social losses. The wide chasm is on the social side of things.
You're a lefty here sorry 😀
On the ground it's pretty close to a push economically between the big2. Unless those couple% are worth all of the social losses. The wide chasm is on the social side of things.
You're a lefty here sorry 😀
There isn't only america, UK government already is to the far left of the democratic party (economically) , and most of Europe is to the left (economically) of the UK including Meloni
Is there even an "economic ultra right-wing" position?
The European fascists historically went with corporatism, the US far-right has a preference for mercantilism while bending over for big capital, the South American nationalists went for deregulation of business sprinkled with brutal oppression of workers, in Asia you saw the the South Korean dictatorship go with corruption and conglomerates, while the Taiwanese fascists went with planned economy and protectionism before they did a 180 and went full bore export economy (presumably because it became a bit hectic to shoot every starving protester)
Unless "ultra right-wing" refers to some fantasy about complete deregulation. A concept that has actually never existed, because it doesn't actually work. Sure, you had very little regulation of industry in the start of the industrial era, but it took place in heavily mercantilist and protectionist economies, all dominated by the largest corporations in human history with charters that effectively monopolized large parts of the economy and granted them the power of states complete with large military forces. So, basically "deregulated" in that context means "do whatever you want, lives come cheap".
Yes there is tame , you can be against payroll taxes and "big state" system, even if it's minoritarian.
Think about the total fiscal intake of the USA in 1885.
Corporations didn't have the powers of the state at all.
Not a fantasy a real life example which actually happened.
Today it could be a Qatar or Dubai, but with Florida democratic and liberal (in the sense of rights) values
Or, tame, to look at it in the present take theost extremist tea party take on the economic role of government from say 2011 and move a lot to the right of that and that's where I am.
Think of a federal constitutional ban on all forms of redistribution with an explicit denial that any exception can exist.
Or, tame, to look at it in the present take theost extremist tea party take on the economic role of government from say 2011 and move a lot to the right of that and that's where I am.
Think of a federal constitutional ban on all forms of redistribution with an explicit denial that any exception can exist.
Why does it matter to you if there are any form of redistribution?
Isn't banning any form of redistribution what an authoritharian state would do?
How does it hurt you specifically?
Think about the total fiscal intake of the USA in 1885.
Corporations didn't have the powers of the state at all.
Idk, standard oil seemed pretty powerfull back in the day, state even had to dissolve the company...
So was the east india company for europe.
uh? banning any form of state redistribution of course. Why does it matter that people can vote to direct taxpayers money for functions which the state shouldn't do for me? while not all taxes are theft, taxes used to redistribute are literal legalized theft. The idea that you can vote to violently sequester property from someone to give to people you prefer to have that stuff is absurd and should be banned.
Or at the very very least beneficiaries of redistribution shouldn't be allowed to vote until they are net tax-takers.
They didn't "have" to dissolve the company. They dissolved the company that did the best for customers to please other companies that did worse to customers, in the original economic sin of america, under completly false pretenses (that customers were worse off).
And that company had no state powers.
there is jurisdiction when you buy from a state, unless SCOTUS decides that because of the actual meaning of the commerce clause, there isn't.
I wasn't asking for you to explain jurisdiction to me. I assure you that your explanation on this point is unnecessary.
but in the sense that the lower threshold (the less regulated state) applies not in the sense that a federal threshold applies instead.
I don't know what this means. Take my example again. A company that is organized in Delaware sells securities to an investor in New York pursuant to material misstatements. In Luciom world, Delaware's securities statute has no anti-fraud provisions. New York's statute does. Can the New York investor sue in Luciom-world based on the anti-fraud provisions in the New York statute?
btw states don't all have their own exchanges currently, why do you think they wouldn't have them in the model I describe?
I wasn't suggesting that you thought all states would have to have their own exchanges. I thought you believed that state exchanges were currently a thing in the United States. They are not. I thought that because you said:
The state can both 1) regulate how you can list in an exchange in that state
I guess you were referring to privately-owned exchanges that are nominally located in a particular state. It's a little silly to think that the physical location of the NYSE or the Nasdaq is critically important for regulatory purposes in this day and age, but OK.
Ooh, is the Colonel wearing his law professor hat today? That's always fun times.
The idea that government would be smaller in the aggregate if we just left everything to the states is far from obvious to me.
If I were planning a nation, and I wanted the nation to have as few government employees and as little government interference as possible, I would not opt for federalism. I would eliminate statehood entirely and have one national government that was as small as possible.
and I don't "equate speech with treason", I equate helping the enemy with treason, I just have an enlarged view of what helping the enemy is that you do.
The 1A allows people to vocally sympathize with enemies of the government.
You also have an enlarged view of what an enemy is fwiw.
That's fine. It's just very unlibertarian to core of libertarian values, that's all I'm saying.
