ldrews

And herein lies our irreconcilable differences. You are a true statist. I am a libertarian. All of our disagreements come from this difference. Whether it Clinton, Trump, Repubicans, Democrats, we just simply see things through different colored lenses. We are inherently political enemies. We will meet on the political battlefield. I will continue to confront you, challenge you, discredit you as best I can. Have a good day and Happy New Year!

In the US the prevailing social contract is that a woman may have an early term abortion. This is established law and has been so for many years. So why are there still protesters around abortion clinics? Aren't you saying that those protesters should stop protesting or leave the US? After all, they are expected to abide by the social contract regardless of their "ridiculous" claims of morality.

I would think that if you consider me a troll and that my posts have no value, that you would simply ignore me. I do try to ask provocative questions to further meaningful discussion. Otherwise what seems to occur is endless repetition of echo chamber opinions. So please, put me on ignore.

You raise a very contentious issue, even among libertarians. I don't personally have any axe to grind on the issue but pro-choice does follow from the concept that a woman owns her body. But you will find plenty of libertarians on the other side of the issue as well.

You evaded the question again. Would you use the same reasoning? and so, you are saying that using force (robbery) or the threat of force (extortion) to extract money from unwilling citizens is well within your moral code? That is good to know about you.

That would certainly be true for visitors, green card holders, and naturalized immigrants. They all had a choice to come or not. Not so with people born in the US. So you are merely "enslaving" the future generation in order to placate your sense of unease. But that is to be expected from people in a privileged class. Would you apply the same reasoning to Germany in the 1930's where the prevailing social contract included the Holocaust? After all, Hitler was freely elected and the populace, in general, did not object. They were "damn well" expected to live by its laws, ridiculous claims of moral rights aside.

A child does not choose to be born (at least I think that) and therefore incurs no obligation to its parents or society. However, an argument can be made that society has some kind of claim because of the resources spent in raising the child. A possible resolution might be to present the child, at the age of maturity, a bill for the costs, repayment to be scheduled. The mature child may choose to accept the obligation as part of remaining a member of the society, or refuse the bill and leave the society. Now we have informed and conscious agreement to the social contract. Of course the social contract must be comprehensible in its entirety in order for the agreement by the individual to be effective. I have often thought that the rights, privileges, and obligations of citizenship should be accepted by conscious agreement at the age where such consciousness is present. And revokeable at any time with consequent loss of rights and privileges.

The government certainly has the ability to impose the social contract through the use of overwhelming force. To me that does not constitute a "right". Unless, of course, you subscribe to the doctrine that "Might makes Right". To me the use of force in that way is inherently immoral. The fact that I sometimes passively participate does not make it any less immoral.

Wow! OK, this is the type of discussion I was looking for. I wish to understand where you are coming from, why, and how you got there. So, if an individual is born in a territory, does the birth signify that the individual has agreed to the social contract? If not, at what point is the individual considered to have agreed to the social contract? Is this a conscious agreement? Do the citizens of the territory have any inherent right to impose the social contract on unwilling residents? I am full agreement with the statement that individuals have freedom to contract and can decide to surrender products of their labor to another individual or group. But sans any agreement, the group has no legitimate claim against the individual. And the individual has no legitimate claim against the group. But then, when living with others, the problem arises of individuals who do not respect the ownership of others, or who initiate force or threat of force against others in order to acquire what they want. And there is always the problem of disagreements and/or misunderstandings of agreements, and how to resolve such disputes. And so we reach the justification for some type of mechanism for handling these problems, i.e., some form of authority to resolve/enforce agreements and restrain the initiation of force. This also raises the question of how to pay for such a mechanism. Historically in the US the interested citizens formed an association and divided the costs among themselves. This was how early Sheriffs and schools were paid for. So, keeping the peace, protecting private property, resolving disputes are necessary functions that have to be performed if individuals are going to be able to live together peacefully. Beyond that what are the justifications for a centralized mechanisms, i.e., government? Common defense perhaps.

The pejorative comments are unnecessary. Certainly to live together requires voluntary collaboration. If you have something I want or need then I trade with you or enter into a voluntary agreement to yield some of those claims. Note the use of the word "voluntary". The other party still has no legitimate claim other than what I voluntarily offer. Is this inconsistent with your view?

The disagreements on this forum start much more basically than "winning" or "losing" or who is President, etc. The disagreement starts in basic political philosophy. I believe that every individual is sovereign. By that I mean that every individual has a right to attempt to survive, that every individual owns their own body, that every individual owns the products of their own labor, mental or physical, and nobody else has a legitimate claim against those things. By the same token, an individual has no legitimate claim against those same things owned by other individuals. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain your beliefs in this area so that we may discuss them.

I would love to engage in discussion, but unfortunately most here seem to be intent on bashing Trump or winning insult points. I have stated this many times so I don't know where you get the idea to the contrary. Perhaps you could give me a link where I have said the opposite. I am sure to someone with a mind as closed as yours that what I post does seem like bullshit, but I can't help you with that. You might try getting out of the echo chamber and thinking for yourself. And I do try to ask provoking questions, that is how discussion is started. Or is discussion to you just lining up behind the prevailing groupthink? Now, we are having a discussion, no?

It may be a "long con". You know, Trump cons us for 8 years, brings huge prosperity to the US, solves all kinds of societal problems, all so that at the end he becomes filthy rich. Damn him! We must be stupid to let that happen!

I find it fascinating that someone with a different viewpoint, who attempts to remain civil in the midst of insults and namecalling, is considered a troll.

Seriously, Clinton is not longer a candidate or spokesperson for the Democratic Party, so her plans are no longer pertinent. I do concede that the Democratic Party website has a rough plan. I notice the premier talking point is rebuilding the US infrastructure. It will be interesting to see if they participate in the upcoming Republican effort to initiate an infrastructure rebuilding effort. I would bet not, but I am quite willing and hopeful that I am wrong. But still, I have not heard any of the Republican leaders, Pelosi, Schumer, et. al., talking about what the Democrats can do for America. They still seem to be stuck in resistance mode. I would think that "We are not Republicans!" would not do well in the upcoming elections. But we shall see.

So you have nothing. I understand.

Thank you.

That is just a list of legislation, not a plan. What is the Democrat's vision? How do they plan to address problems with education, inner cities, jobs, prosperity, North Korea, etc. What is their game plan? What are they for? How do they want to attempt to improve US society/economy?

Check out the Partnership/Teacher forum.

Wow, Zelandakh, you are a class act. Apparently because of our disagreements on this forum you have attempted to damage and disrupt my bridge playing partnerships. Way to go!

I believe that your statement above is in error and misleading. Was that intentional? A quarterly GDP growth figure of 3% is either a year-to-year comparison or an indication that if the same growth rate were maintained for all 4 quarters the annual growth rate would be 3%. First quarter 2017 was 1.2%, second quarter was 3.1%, third quarter was 3.2%. Notice the sudden jump after Trump was inaugurated. If the 4th quarter comes in at 4% or greater I believe on a compounded basis that the annual figure will be 3+%. You might check my math. 4% for the 4th quarter is not impossible given that the 3rd quarter was hampered by various national weather disasters. But we will see. But in any case, the GDP growth since Trump was inaugurated has been significantly higher than during Obama's last year. In fact, GDP growth was significantly slowing down during the last two quarters of 2016 and first quarter of 2017, in contrast to a significant uptick during the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2017. You may continue to wave your hands and claim that it has nothing to do with Trump, but shift is a bit startling to say the least.

Perhaps the last that you will have to experience. Enjoy your new year!

Are these the same economists that swore that there was no chance in hell of the GDP growth reaching 3% in 2017?

Merry Christmas to you, too.

I think the US should simply get out of the Middle East to the extent possible. Apparently you would agree with that.