ldrews

I agree. The question is where to draw the line. As a limited government libertarian I recognize that to live with other people a limited form of government is required. The defense of the group against outside aggressors, the fair and consistent settlement of disputes among the citizens of the group, the protection of individuals in the group from aggression by other members of the group, these are to me the essentials of such a limited government. Since the effective enforcement of the government functions ultimately depends on the use of force, anything additional must have an overwhelming justification. Consent to this limited government should, in my opinion, be explicit and in writing. Anyone not willing to voluntarily enter into a binding agreement should be asked to leave. The age at which this agreement is presented to youth would be set at an appropriate age, say 18. How to pay for this limited government is open to debate. Some forms of taxation would probably be required, but again minimized. Subscription fees, import tariffs, etc., are alternative ways of funding. This is all fantasy, however. We do not live in that kind of world. But, to me, it is a worthy goal.

You are right, I am a libertarian. I believe and try to adhere to the code of not initiating the use of force or coercion in any of my relationships. I seek only voluntary agreements. To me it is a moral code. If that makes you consider me selfish and unaware, so be it. It seems that you do condone and/or participate in the initiation of force and coercion to implement the type of society that you prefer. "Might makes right". To me that makes you immoral.

Well, we do disagree. By your logic a wealthy person should not complain if a mugger robs him. After all, it just another example of someone using force or coercion to confiscate his property, of which he has a disproportionate share. The sin of envy can be used to justify all sorts of immoral actions.

Which you just did.

Which again is not the use of force. The church simply says we don't want you as a member anymore. That individual is free to go elsewhere for religious association. For this to be comparable to the government, if you don't pay taxes then the government would say we don't want you to be a citizen anymore. But government doesn't do that, it confiscates property or puts you in jail.

If it is by government it is by force. If it is by the church it is inherently voluntary. A church member who does not tithe may receive opprobrium from his fellow members, but no one comes with weapons to take the tithe from him.

But using taxation to give to the poor is like: If you don't voluntarily give to poor we will forcibly take your money/property from you and give it to the poor. Not exactly a Christian moral act.

And exactly what has that got to do with our discussion? Trying to divert attention from a losing position?

Taxation is also about morality. Since the collection of taxes in inherently coercion, it should be, in my opinion, minimized and stringently justified, not seen as a never-ending cornucopia for centralized solutions.

Is there a reason you are SHOUTING? The other power centers are not germane to the conversation. Please focus.

The U.S has had a functioning single payer health system for years, Medicare. Why not just extend Medicare to cover everyone?

I am also an engineer (software). One of the lessons of software development over the last 60 years is that big, centralized projects generally fail. I think you make the same mistake. Trying to come up with a centralized general solution to social problems often fails. So I suggest pushing the problem down to the local/individual level as much as possible and let the inherent creativity of the people come up with a multitude of solutions. Many of these will also fail but some will work. We can try to scale up those working solutions, or replicate them. To me, this is the populist approach. Stop thinking that a centralized government is going to solve the problems. It won't.

Why would you think that? U thought George W. Bush was an idiot. I did not vote for him. Would you like to lay out all of your other assumptions and projections about me?

It seems to me that if the anti-Trump people want to replace Trump at the next election, they need to work on understanding why his approval rating remains high among his supporters and addressing those issues. Otherwise the result is likely to be the same, another 4 years for Trump. At this point I would predict that Trump will be re-elected. The rabid expressions and behavior of the anti-Trump people seems likely to drive independents and moderates toward Trump, not away. But just my opinion.

If you think Trump is shooting randomly then I must question your ability to perceive reality. Trump made a number of campaign promises. He is now fulfilling some of those promises. How is this random?

When I was much younger I had an attorney friend who was the nicest guy, amiable, conciliatory, a pleasure to be around and talk to. He also lost just about every case he was involved in. So when you have significant problems in the society/economy to deal with and contentious adversaries, which would you choose to tackle the problems: the nice amiable guy or the bulldog/shark? I'll pick the bulldog/shark every time. But go on thinking that getting everyone in a circle holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" is the way to go. On another newsgroup the anti-Trump contingent is pushing assassination and death for Trump. I don't think "Kumbaya" is going to be effective with them.

Still a native citizen and still concerned for the well-being of the US. How about you? Trump is far from an authoritarian regime, just a stronger personality than we are used to. Check North Korea, Turkey, most Middle Eastern nations for examples of true authoritarians. But forced to choose between socialist tyranny and authoritarianism, I will take the latter. The authoritarian can be replaced, socialist tyranny gets baked into the foundation.

Trust is not involved, I will judge his actions. Trump had already promised an increase in defense spending during his campaign, so nothing new here. I will wait to see what they spend it on. And yes, I hope for and end/reduction in USA-as-policeman-around-the-world. If it does not happen I will indeed be disappointed. But lots of other actions are being taken that I approve of, so on balance I am content.

Well, let's wait and see what happens. Trump was elected President and has 4 years to make things happen. I will judge him on whether he does or not. The rest of this debate is fruitless.

His history is relevant only if you want to engage in the game of trying to predict what he will/won't do. His history is irrelevant with respect to the fact that he has already been elected President of the US, which is where most people here seem to spend their energy (he shouldn't be the President because ...). I'm pretty sure that Trump has some sense of empathy, just not up to your expectations/desires. Where do you derive your conclusion that he has no desire to learn? It seems to me to be more the case that the anti-Trumpers have little desire to learn: they keep repeating the same ineffectual behavior that they used before the election.

He is now "our" 70 year old narcissist President, for better or worse. His history is now irrelevant, he was elected. You will have to deal with it.

Unfortunately the choice was between Clinton and Trump. For all of his defects I think Trump was the better choice for the country. Apparently enough voters thought the same way. So now we need to do what we can to make the best of it. As someone else said "When the airplane takes off, our self-interest becomes supporting the Captain in doing his job".

You are right, the USA is not a company. The US has put a CEO without much political experience in charge of the ship. I would expect some gaffes and mistakes during the initial learning phase. We will see how quickly Trump learns, if at all.

Apparently one of the fears is that a transgender who has taken on a female identity and is using the female bathroom would temporarily revert to a male identity, run amok and molest a young girl in that same bathroom. In other words, some people don't buy the idea that a real gender switch has occurred. Once a male, always a male. That is the fear. Good question but I have no answers or suggestions.

Any significant and rapid change of direction of the ship of state is destabilizing. The harder the turn the more bucking and shudders the ship experiences. Big ships are not designed for fast turns.