While my heart agrees with Scottish Independence in principle, the issue has a major wrinkle that libertarians should examine before decrying the results. I don't believe that many of these "No" votes are out of loyalty to London, but out of fear of Scotland's political class (who are much closer to Marx in ideology than Locke). I, like many here, have Anglo-Scottish ancestry and would love to see an Independent Scotland, but the independent Scotland that would have arisen from this referendum would overwhelmingly be politically dominated by socialists with strong political ties to Brussels.
Scotland's socialists have also promised the voters that they would have immediately sought stronger ties to the E.U., effectively giving voters the choice of either voting "Yes" to transferring Scotland's political and fiscal control from London to Brussels...or to say "No". While it would have been politically dicey for Scotland to enter the E.U. without irritating Spain and England, political (and possibly fiscal) union would just be a matter of time.
This could be just as much a referendum against socialism rather than over a "free" Scotland. If the pro-independence politicians had a policy of retaining power in Scotland, then I'd be seeing this differently.
UKIP is doing a good job of pushing Brussels back on UK soil and anyone looking for a little freedom could do better than to turn their new country over to the champaign socialists in Brussels. Until the next referendum (which will come), we libertarians need to step up our efforts in Scotland and export back to them the ideas of John Locke that once made us free and prosperous before the E.U anthem is sung daily in Scottish schools.
Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.
And it seems like that day will never come. Putting financing of elections under the control of incumbent politicians seems insane to me. Elizabeth Warren is dead wrong in supporting this.
…at one time or another. I am a college professor so I see these moments all the time with both students and academics. The same tired rhetoric from people who don't know how to analyze their own premises usually being thrown at people who understand EXACTLY what they are talking about. Be it gun rights, monetary policy, the founding fathers, constitutional law/philosophy, or religion they always say the same nonsense as though they are touting facts.
Tom is a great man who stood his ground. Can we get him to run for Congress?
...to say "Rand is the best we have". "We've got" is grammatically atrocious on several levels.
The "nobody but Ron" crowd has been with us since the beginning. Nothing new with them. However, many here didn't get the memo that Ron retired from politics and that Rand is the main guy carrying our political torch now.
I've met both men (Ron several times) and there isn't as much ideological separation between them as you guys think. The point is to make the media believe there is a separation because they have audiences that don't like to think too much.
Because the GOP is still trying to bandage him up after the absolute butt-kicking he took.
Rand thinks like Hayek, debates like Lincoln, and fights like Rocky.
King's on the losing side of the debate and on the losing side of public opinion. He's irrelevant.
Giving him a forum to debate Rand elevates King and lowers Rand…not a good strategy for our movement.
My pastor always taught that December 25 was the date of Jesus' conception and that he was born in September during the feast of tabernacles. Your post supports this.
...on this site. Many of the people reading and posting on this site have Irish blood to some degree. Maybe you should find someplace else to spew your racist and divisive drivel.
It always has. Nothing new here. Soldiers are taught to do this when captured by the enemy to convey that they are in distress when propaganda photos are issued. Rand is conveying a message to you of distress in an effort to disarm his political opponents.
Here's a photo of a soldier doing this very thing to Hillary Clinton...
This is incredible.
I would love to see that evidence as well.
...not modify it. Acting on the premise that Congress has a say is the issue for me.
...Rand was right to vote as he did. The ends don't justify the means. It should be a state issue.
...but there are some major social issues in southern France and resentment is clearly building on both sides of this issue. Marseille and Beziers are two cities I've visited in the last year and they are clearly Muslim-dominated cities: socially, religiously, economically, and politically. While my Cajun-French is of a rather limited use in France, I understood enough during my visit to know that these issues are getting worse, not better. This is a complex issue and people on both sides are becoming angrier with time.
J'espère qu'ils pourront trouver une solution pacifique.
...that we ought to be careful how we employ the words "true", "logic", "reason", or "philosophy" and how we connect them in our statements. Philosophy doesn't imply reason or logic because in some cases it is explicitly hostile to it. That was my point.
Philosophy is occasionally based in reason, but not always. Nietzsche was very opposed to the idea that reason should be the cornerstone of philosophy. "All philosophers are tyrannized by logic" he once wrote.
...I wish it was but it isn't. Here's the original article from a German-language satire site that I've translated via Google Translate:
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: