Syllogistic Libertarian

If you were dating two different people, and you really weren't crazy about either one of them, would you pick the one you disliked the least and then marry him or her? If this notion sounds crazy then why do we apply that exact logic to our political candidates?

Obama said we have fewer horses and bayonets than in 1916, I'm curious if that is actually true. The National Defense Act of 1916 authorized a massive increase in the military to 175,000 men. Currently the Marine Corps alone has over 200,000 active duty personnel, and the Army has about 560,000. Given that marines still train with bayonets, and both branches make them standard issue, I would think that equipping 760,000 troops (not including air force or navy) would require MORE bayonets than equipping 175,000 troops that included naval forces. Can anybody give me a definitive answer? It seems like simple math to me, given that 760,000 > 150,000

In light of Obama's recent comments on how successful business owners didn't do it on their own, I'm curious about whether all those things he mentioned (roads, schools, fire fighters,etc.) would never have existed if the government didn't provide them. Do roads not have value that the market can provide? Do schools? Are there teachers in existence that are paid with purely private dollars? The line of reasoning seems to be that if the government takes money from its citizens by force to provide a service, and then the citizens use that service, then they owe the government even more for making that service available. This seems like a deeply flawed argument to me, as things like roads and schools can and have been built and operated successfully and independently of the government. Can anyone explain it to me?

Both Obama and Romney are spinning like dynamos trying to convince us that their respective individual mandates aren't a tax. Does it really matter what it's called? The supreme court sure doesn't think so! People keep telling me that voting for Gary Johnson is the same as voting for Obama, well, why should I care? What's different about the two? They're caught up in trying to convince us that A isn't A, but it's not the name that is our enemy here.

I hear a lot of people talking about voting for Ron Paul in November no matter what happens. I'm curious, has he decided to file as a write in candidate? Each state has different procedures, but in many (18) any vote for him will not even be counted if he hasn't filed. In 9 other states he CAN'T file because he will have lost the primary. And in 3 states write in candidates aren't even allowed. So in at least 60% of the states a vote for Ron Paul is the exact same thing as not voting at all, unless he files. So is he going to file?

Obama and his cronies have made quite a bit about him being a "constitutional scholar", even going so far as to claim that Obamacare MUST be constitutional because of his former job as senior lecturer on the subject. And yet, Obama's administration ROUTINELY has their arguments shot down by the supreme court. And before you start saying that it's all because of the conservative slant, Obama has lost numerous cases in highly different areas by UNANIMOUS rulings! He couldn't even get a single justice to agree with him in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, United States v. Jones, Bond v. United States, or Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency! Given that every time his administration is hauled before the supreme court he loses huge, I have to wonder: did he find his constitutional scholar certificate in a box of Lucky Charms? Or was is some other type of cereal?

I'm curious as to whether anybody has ever done a study looking at how much you would have to be paid to make getting off welfare a sound financial move. I know that the amounts vary by state and situation, but let's say that you are supported entirely by welfare. Food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid, SCHIP, etc. What would your hourly wage at a 40 hour/week job have to equal in order to provide the same benefits? If anybody can quote or link to an actual study that would be outstanding.

I've heard it mentioned that Romney, no favorite of the republican leaning independents and libertarians, might choose Ron Paul as his VP. Doing so would prevent him from running on a third party ticket, and would lock up the vote of those who will vote for Ron Paul regardless of whether he's even on the ballot or not. So it would be a shrewd political move. My question is, could Ron Paul actually do anything useful in the role of the VP? Paul is a small government republican who, often as not, is considered an out and out libertarian (he did run for president as one). Romney is a big government "conservative" who only thinks government should be limited if it's at a level he hasn't yet attained. The two are oil and water. So if Paul got the VP nod, would it really serve any purpose? Could a libertarian VP do anything but b!+ch and moan while Romney drove the country further into the crapper? As such, should he turn down the position if it is offered to him?

I'm confused. When the Bush Tax Cut extension was being debated, Republicans said that letting the cuts expire would be equal to a tax hike. Democrats said that they were simply expiring as planned, and if rates went up it wasn't really a tax hike, it was just the planned ending of a program. Now we have a temporary payroll tax break set to expire, and democrats are claiming that letting rates return to normal would be a tax hike on the middle class. This is the exact opposite of what they said a year ago. Which is it? Is letting a temporary tax break expire as planned a tax hike, or not?

The "Patriotic Millionares" are lobbying congress to raise taxes. They claim that they are not paying enough, and the rates at which they pay are immoral. However, when given the chance to pay more (see attached video link) not a single one was willing to do so. One of them said, in effect, that taxes are involuntary and the only way to make people pay their "fair share" is to force them. They want higher rates, they want to pay more taxes, but they still hire accountants to minimize their own tax burden and refuse to contribute more than what they claim is an immoral minimum. Which leads to the conclusion, of course, that their immoral behavior is perfectly acceptable because they aren't being forced to act morally. This confuses me. If you won't act morally until someone is holding a gun to your head, are you a moral person? Isn't morality supposed to be independent of the law?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/patriotic-millio...

I've heard people say that we should be more like Europe, tax the rich at a higher rate, make them pay their "fair share". Okay, so which countries exactly are the progressive utopias these liberals are talking about? As a percentage of total taxes collected, which countries ask the most of their richest citizens? Who has the most progressive system that America can model itself after? I've included a chart to help make sure we're all comparing apples to apples in our analysis. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html

I have a very novel concept that I think the department of energy would want to support but I just can't seem to convince them of its merit. Can anybody help me out? I was thinking that we should dig up all the founding fathers and wrap them in copper wire. We would then rebury them, but line the long sides of their graves with magnets. We would then blast news coverage at them 24 hours a day. I'm pretty sure the constant spinning would induce a current that could power the eastern seaboard, and we could experiment to see whether CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, or some other station increased or decreased the generation rate. I've written this up for a number of RFP's but they never even rate me. It's absolutely green, relatively simple, and would finally capitalize on the two party system. Why won't they support me?

I was talking with a very partisan democrat at work the other day, and he said that no matter what happens in 2012 Obama's presidency has been a victory because he enacted health care reform. I mentioned that if the republicans keep the house (likely), take the senate (likely), and take the presidency (toss up) in 2012 they can repeal it. He said that wasn't possible, as the democrats would filibuster a repeal in the senate. I noted that since reconciliation was used to pass the law then it would be nonsense to think it couldn't be used to repeal it, and all it would require was a simple majority. Which it looks likely the republicans will have. He got very upset at the notion, although he didn't seem to have any good response. Have any democrats contemplated this notion in the media? What will be the democratic response if their signature bill is repealed using the same tactics used to pass it in the first place?

Obama has said that he will not rest until everyone that wants a job has one.

Obama does not lie, many believe that he is actually incapable of lying.

Obama is taking a vacation.

A vacation is equated with resting.

Therefore everyone that wants a job has one.

If everyone that wants a job has one then unemployment is 0%.

Why wouldn't the media cover such a fantastic story?

The news that floating libertarian cities are moving beyond the conceptual stage has me thinking a lot about Galt's Gulch (Google it). While many libertarians have decried the erosion of our freedoms for years, the unfortunate reality is that there hasn't been anywhere to go that was really an improvement. In the near future there will be. Are we going to see the ambitious, the successful, and the wealthy pull up stakes and move beyond the reach of American statism? And if we do, can America survive the loss of those who pay the vast majority of its taxes? Will a libertarian outlet destroy America? Has Atlas started to shrug?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley...

The 2012 election cycle is bringing up shades of 2004, and I can't help but wonder if the Republicans learned anything at the time. They had an incumbent president who was unpopular, drawing heavy criticism from his own party, had signed a number of deficit heavy laws destroying any credibility of fiscal responsibility, was engaged in a war that many considered downright illegal, and seemed generally clueless on a host of major issues. It was widely held that any moderate democrat without too many skeletons in the closet would trounce him. So who did the democrats serve up as their nominee? John Kerry, who didn't fit the bill in any way, shape, or form, and basically handed Bush his second term on a silver platter. Now we're seeing a re-run with the R's and D's reversed, as the republicans seem hell bent on nominating their own version of Kerry. Did the republicans learn anything in 2004 that they can apply to themselves? Or did their victory blind them to the lessons of history?

There was a lot of talk about a credit default over the last few weeks, but luckily former federal reserve chairman Alan Greenspan put those doubts to rest this weekend. "The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default" said Greenspan on NBC's Meet the Press. Why didn't he tell us this earlier? If we can just print money then we're infinitely rich! Why haven't we been upgraded to zillion A status? Our money can never run out!

I've heard a lot of people say that we should go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton, as the economy was doing great. The only thing they ever seem to mention though, is the tax rate. Okay, how about we balance both sides of the scale? Will anyone who wants to go back to Clinton era tax rates also support a return to Gingrich era spending? If we taxed and spent like it was 1999 (adjusted for inflation) would that be a compromise everyone could live with?

I just bought a Weber Genesis E-320, and it has the porcelain enameled cooking grates. A friend told me that you need a special brush to clean those, that the standard stainless steel brushes will strip off the porcelain. Is this true? Do I need to go buy a special brush?

In one week the US will have been involved in military action in Libya for 90 days. According to the War Powers Act after 60 days the president must have authorization from congress to remain, and he has 30 days after that to withdraw if he fails to get authorization. Obama has not received authorization, and I have not seen or heard of any plans to halt military actions. Even though some say that it's NATO, not the US, involved, we are still shouldering 75% of the costs. Even more importantly, treaties CANNOT supersede the Constitution. Which means that no matter how you spin it, in one week Obama will be in open defiance of US law. Have any congressmen made plans to impeach Obama when this happens? Or will one of the most important limitations on executive power die a quiet death?