ldrews

I read of a situation in, I think, Kentucky where a rural area was provided fire protections service on a subscription basis by the nearest city. A homeowner chose not to subscribe, his house caught fire, the fire department responded, checked that no one's life was at risk, and then calmly stood by while the house burned to the ground, protecting the houses of their nearby subscribers. Sounded appropriate to me.

Probably much like you outgrew your Sunday school morality. It is evident in your advocacy/acceptance of the use of force/threat of force on your fellow citizens to promote your view of the way things should be.

I agree, there are limited functions of government that need to be paid for. The issue is how to generate the revenue. User fees (you can choose not to use the service), transaction fees (you can choose not to do the transaction), etc. But I will concede that their are probably a few items that will require taxes. To that extent I join in the immorality of using force, so indeed I am not untainted. However, I strongly advocate minimization of such, not expansion. There are many examples in the United States of common services being provided by private companies on a subscription basis, include fire protection, police protection, etc. But we are lazy and it is so much easier to just use the force of government to collect the revenues. As in the Godfather, the government makes us an offer that we can't refuse. Either our signature goes on the agreement or our brains. But for me, the bottom line is that the use of threat of force to collect taxes is extortion. You can try to dissemble or put lipstick on it, but it is still extortion. It may be agreed to by a majority of the voters, but it is still extortion. It may be a necessary method to make society work, but it is still extortion.

Thanks for the compassion, but I am not an anarchist, but a limited government libertarian. But in essence you are correct, life sucks for us libertarians also. We are surrounded by morally corrupt individuals such as yourself who think the initiation of force or threat of force is an acceptable way to conduct relationships. But, alas, we are outnumbered. So we try to peacefully cope as best we can.

You are correct, in my view all taxes are extortion. The fact that the majority agrees to them does not change their nature. The extraction of money or goods from unwilling citizens under threat of force is extortion. Reminds me of the quip "2 foxes and a chicken voting on what is for dinner".

You are right, it is not enslavement, it is extortion. But to the extent that the extortion is ongoing, then it becomes enslavement. If someone comes up to you and says to you "Buy my service or something bad will happen to you", that is extortion. When the government does it, it is still extortion.

Isn't the federal mandate to purchase insurance a mild form of enslavement?

For those that may be interested, here is a list of the significant actions taken by the Trump administration during the first 10 months: http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/4621979/ An even more detailed list: http://www.magapill.com/

Wow, I must really get under your skin! So sad.

I was under the impression that this is a discussion board. Asking questions is one of the ways to invite discussion. Giving an opinion usually shuts down discussion or invokes argument, not discussion. Since you think my asking questions, rhetorical or not, is weird, you must prefer just giving opinions.

I often think the identical thing about the liberal left/Democrats. We must live in totally different universes. The Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate, the Republicans will vote for the Republican Candidate. That accounts for about 50% (25% Democrat, 25% Republican) of the voters. The independents will decide who is elected. How do the independents view the current political landscape?

Isn't that the important question to ask of all individuals running for public office?

Here is a somewhat independent view of Trump keeping his promisess: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/30/how-trump-is-doing-on-keeping-10-key-promises.html

I thought I remembered this: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/news/economy/trump-carrier-deal/index.html So Trump did take action regarding jobs at Carrier. Do you think that because Trump took the initial action to save jobs at Carrier that he has then assumed a life-long obligation to continue doing so?

Does everyone else here think that Trump has the power and authority to grant and withhold contracts from companies based on his specific beliefs and views? Or the supplications of the public? Bypassing laws and regulations? If that were so Trump could simply transform society by issuing edicts, executive orders, or getting on the phone with the CEO of a company and telling them they are out of business. You people really do want a dictator, don't you. Be careful of what you wish for.

You are right. Trump has not saved those 700 jobs at Carrier. Unfortunately for those laid off workers, Trump is not an Emperor or Dictator. He can only jawbone the companies and issue executive orders that might make a difference at the margins. Almost anything else requires the cooperation of Congress, and there hasn't been much effectiveness in that area. However in the economy in general unemployment is at the lowest in many years, employment participation is up, consumer and worker/business confidence is at high levels. GDP growth for the last 2 quarters has been 3+%, something not seen in years. So yes, Trump has failed to keep a specific promise to the workers of a specific company. Given the reality of the workings of government and the limitations of the power of the Presidency, do you have any suggestions on what he might have done to keep that promise?

Sorry, but that link is behind a paywall. Do you have another link that does not require a subscription?

Doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

I didn't realize you held this viewpoint. I certainly don't share it.

It just occurred to me that Colin Kaepernick and his fellow professional football players who are protesting against the treatment of blacks by the police by "taking a knee" during the national anthem are engaging in a form of political terrorism. Just like the jihadists who bomb public places or engage is mass killings, they are inflicting damage on the general public in an attempt to bring pressure on the government. Granted the football players are not engaging in physical violence, but the formula is the same. Inflict pain or discomfort on the public, who generally are not involved in the dispute, in an attempt to bring pressure on government, big corporations, or other public institutions.

It seems to me that LaVar Ball is an ungracious asshole. Perhaps that is what they all have in common. I know that if Obama had kept my son from spending 10 years in a Chinese jail I would kiss his ass as often as he wanted.

Shows lack of imagination. For example, Democratic think tank comes up with method to revitalize inner city education in a way that Trump likes, Trump picks it up and forms a special task force to implement, Would you not work with such a task force because Trump initiated it?

Right on!

I don't think their approach will work out well for them.

Do you really think that Obama's efforts regarding North Korea are of the same magnitude as Trump's efforts? I do not remember Obama sending 3 aircraft carrier groups to the North Korean area. I do not remember Obama telling the other countries that if you do business with North Korea you don't get to do business with the US. I don't remember Obama going on an international tour of several Asian countries and at each stop specifically requesting help to reign in North Korea. Do you?