DeusExMachinima posted:

I'd tell you not to be pedantic when I say "army" lower-case but I know who I'm talking to. Active duty military is approx 1 1/4 million and reserves are like another 3/4 million IIRC. I wonder what percentage of those guys are necessary to maintain a navy that doesn't "need" 10 supercarrier groups, for example. We don't need them all because it's time for Europe and others to get off the NATO (or their local equivalent) welfare train. And I'm aware most troops aren't based overseas, it doesn't matter though. Troops at home or abroad are mostly a barrel of pork and make-work either way.

Glad you stopped bringing up Israel though.

fishmech posted:

No, active military is about 1.1 million, most of whom are desk jockeys these days. You're also being pretty ignorant if you think make-work isn't inherently good. Why not bring federal money and a measure of rotation of ideas (because there's people from other parts of the country being restationed to different areas throughout the normal military career) to backwater areas by having a military base there? I get it's because you have weird ideas of what's wasteful, but it isn't a bad thing.

Yeah because you stopped even making your flailing arguments.

DeusExMachinima posted:

This line might have a snowball's chance in hell if you were arguing with someone who doesn't favor a GMI. And even if I didn't, a couple hundred thousand dead Iraqis, amongst others further back in history, have zero responsibility to be on the hook for your inherently good make-work program.

fishmech posted:

The Iraqis aren't dead because there's a million man military. Your arguments frankly don't make any sense.

DeusExMachinima posted:

It was an indispensable enabler, your distinction is academic. But then you are the fishmech.

About Steve posted:

Steve’s presence in the business world for nearly 30 years has given him great perspective. He has witnessed first-hand the pitfalls for the individual in a climate of an ever-growing excessive and aggressive government. As an experienced entrepreneur, he has witnessed and weathered the wrath of an overzealous government and has seen its impact on individuals, businesses, consumers and employees.

Immigration posted:

Goal: To solve the problem of illegal immigration

Reason: Illegal immigration represents a problem that can be addressed with a Liberty based solution. Illegal immigration also creates an unfair labor situation, as taxation is not consistent with legal citizens and residents. In common with many of our issues, the problem relates to our own laws.
First Step: In order to get to the point in which immigration is an easy process and our borders are easier to manage, border security should be re-worked in order to more efficiently identify those who plan to enter our country to bring us harm or to take advantage of public benefits paid for by taxpayers. A program of identifying the people that are here without proper entry or identification should be implemented, those without criminal records should be allowed the opportunity to apply for legal residency. Once we have a handle on who is entering the country, and we have developed a system that allows us to be aware of and manage threats, we need to relax this security and aim towards an environment in which people can come and go as they please, while not skirting the same taxation that citizens and documented immigrants take responsibility for.

Ultimate goal: Simple and swift border identification of all persons entering the United States. Once no opportunity would exist that allows people to take advantage of our public benefits from crossing without authority, and illicit drug possession is decriminalized, a streamlined process should be implemented for people who wish to enter the United States legally. Because taxes would not be paid via employment, everyone would pay a share of the cost of running the country via their consumer behavior. Because drug possession would not be a criminal issue, the smuggling of drugs and associated violence would no longer be a problem. Two way reciprocity of free movement via the Mexican and Canadian borders is the ultimate goal.

Foreign Policy posted:

Goal: To remove American troops from as many foreign assignments as possible, and draw down financial support to sovereign nations.
Reason: Sovereign countries must take the responsibility of providing their own protection and financing and without a threat to the United States, our military personnel should not be in harm’s way.

First Step: Diplomacy with foreign nations to prepare them for this eventuality. Immediately reduce our presence by a percentage to be exacted following first approach via diplomacy. Draft an exit plan, complete with agreement with the allied nation for our withdrawal without upsetting their security.

Ultimate goal: To remove all of our military personnel from foreign situations that do not threaten the United States, thereby reducing the military expenses.

Economy Taxation and Jobs posted:

Goal: To eliminate personal and corporate income tax

First Step: Repeal the sixteenth amendment to the constitution. Estimate the necessary revenue needed to pay committed expenses and debt payments, and convert this amount to a procurement tax that covers the obligations that we are committed to pay. A system to protect those with lower means from a portion of these taxes would be implemented.
Ultimate Goal: To allow a person to keep the fruits of their labor, and still pay the obligations committed to by the federal government.

Economy Taxation and Jobs posted:

Goal: To eliminate the Federal Reserve

First Step: As this process will take decades to ultimately achieve, the first step is to begin building a replacement framework backed by the free market that serves to provide stability in our financial market, and the international financial markets that follow ours. While implementing this framework, the legislative process begins, as the elimination of the Fed will be very complex, and just as many of the other reforms must be executed methodically to avoid collapse and panic, the replacement of the Fed with free market controls must be done with planning and forethought.

Ultimate goal: For the Federal reserve to be eliminated and replaced with the free market.

Economy Taxation and Jobs posted:

Goal: To encourage job creating and return manufacturing jobs to the United States

First Step: Manufacturing left the USA due to many reasons, as did many companies that employed millions of Americans of all education spectrums. The top three have to be high corporate taxes, excessive union demands, and baseless employee lawsuits. I have addressed the fact that removal of corporate income tax is part of my plan, and hopefully unions will be more mindful of the big picture in the future. The first step in this process would need to be a reform that punishes those who file fraudulent and/or exaggerated lawsuits to receive nuisance value and beyond. I would immediately request a bill for my signature that creates a strong deterrent for baseless and opportunistic lawsuits with exaggerated claims. Not only would this help to reduce many ancillary costs such as insurance, medical care and consumer goods, but it will serve as a peace offering to business that the USA is once again a smart place to do business.

Ultimate goal: To revitalize the large metropolitan areas of our country by bringing back a huge former source of employment, and build new sources, which creates opportunity for many regardless of their educational background. We do not accomplish this via legislation, we accomplish this by reducing and eliminating government barriers against businesses both large and small, and all Americans.

YF19pilot posted:

YF19pilot posted:

fishmech posted:

Actually when we did it, we had 1.5 million active duty people in the military. Try again.

eNeMeE posted:

Hey, just because you were beaten 1/2 to death doesn't mean a crime was committed. That's just what happens to people on a picket line.

YF19pilot posted:

McAfee2016.com posted:

Cybersecurity Legend.
Entrepreneur Extraordinaire.
Privacy Advocate.
Libertarian.

Immigration posted:

Building a wall does nothing to increase our National Security.
Terrorists determined to enter the country will do so, no matter how much we attempt to secure our borders. The key to reducing terrorism is reducing our interference in the affairs of other nations.
Our borders should be opened, and the money now spent on patrolling them should be spent on creating a documentation process and an education system for immigrants. We must also realize we cannot have open borders and at the same time maintain the current level of our entitlement system.
There are millions of people who want to immigrate to the US, most of which want to do so legally. That said, there are simply so many barriers in the way of legal immigration that it is often infinitely easier to immigrate illegally.
A McAfee administration would look to make immigration a much easier process. That does not, however, mean rubber stamping every immigration form that comes in. The process can be made more efficient and streamlined, but there must still be conditions that must be met.
America is a nation of immigrants. With common sense solutions, and an end to entitlement programs that encourage unproductivity, immigration can once again be seen as an asset rather than a xenophobic, “rally-round-the-flag” issue.

Foreign Policy and Cyber Awareness posted:

Foreign Policy
“The US has for too long considered itself as the world’s policeman, at the expense of rational internal growth. This must change. Interference in the affairs of foreign states is the true cause of national animosities, and is the fertilizer and feed for terrorism.” –John McAfee
We reject the interventionist pursuit of idealistic and moral goals. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense, especially the defense of our national technological infrastructure.
We must seek to end the current United States government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid.
We must focus on using our strength only when and where it protects the security and interests of the American people, not multinational corporations or war profiteers.

Our Economy posted:

Neither the Democratic, nor Republican parties can be trusted with our economy.
George W. Bush’s presidency was characterized by massive spending, not only on unjust war, but also massive new farm subsidies, huge increases in education spending, and finally the disastrous Wall Street bailouts.
The Obama administration followed suit, with its endless fiscal “stimulus” and “stabilization” spending, bloated entitlement budgets, and an ever-rising national debt ceiling.
The failed policies of the Democrats and Republicans in Washington have lead us into a decade of economic stagnation, all the while still wasting money on endless war.

Our Economy posted:

Where America has seen incredible progress is in those sectors of the economy that are least regulated, such as the technology sector.
With the new online sharing economy, and the exponential advances in our ability to conduct commerce electronically, we have already proven that great advances are made possible when government gets out of the way.
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control trade, are improper in a free society.

@officialmcafee posted:

Guns, drugs and freedom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucXRHdVJEF0

DeusExMachinima posted:

Yeah that falls into the set of million+. Definite enabler of OIF, Iraqis aren't on the hook to be collateral for your make-work, I think that about covers it.

DeusExMachinima posted:

It was an indispensable enabler, your distinction is academic. But then you are the fishmech.

paragon1 posted:

Looks like you won't be getting those bitcoins QuarkJets.

QuarkJets posted:

That makes no sense at all, and the distinction between having a military and invading another nation is very meaningful. While having a gun might enable you to shoot someone, it's not true that all gun owners are also murderers, yet that's effectively the argument that you've made.

In your opinion, is there really no room for a national guard or a military that supports a nation's allies in defensive wars?

icantfindaname posted:

not really, no

QuarkJets posted:

If you have no national guard or standing military at all, then what happens when a neighboring country with a standing military politely asks that you hand over all of your poo poo?

QuarkJets posted:

If you have no national guard or standing military at all, then what happens when a neighboring country with a standing military politely asks that you hand over all of your poo poo?

VitalSigns posted:

There was somebody in here arguing that you just assassinate the enemy leader and then they'll all go home because no one would want to be the next leader.

It's so easy duh why didn't anyone think of trying to kill Hitler. Remember when we hanged Saddam and all the various factions in Iraq laid down their arms immediately.

StandardVC10 posted:

That was jrodefeld, of course.

Bio posted:

Darryl W. Perry was born and raised in Birmingham, AL and the surrounding area; graduating from Hewitt-Trussville High School in 1996. Darryl attended Jefferson State Community College on a Scholarship with the Speech Team (Forensics Team), and later on a Management Scholarship with WJSR-FM, the college radio station, of which Darryl was Station Manager from Summer of 1997 until he graduated in 1998.

Immigration posted:

I believe that people should be allowed to travel freely without government interference. This includes the right of individuals to choose where they decide to live.
Current federal immigration laws are convoluted and give preferential treatment to individuals from certain countries. The current system also relies on quotas, hosts and in some cases an immigration lottery, as well as preferred treatment to athletes and refugees. This must change, and there should be one uniform immigration law. I believe the best model law is the “wet foot, dry foot rule” in place for people fleeing Cuba. Under this rule, anyone from Cuba who makes it safely into the United States, is allowed to stay; however, the aspect of this rule that I would end is that the Coast Guard patrols the waters looking for people with “wet feet” in order to redirect them back to Cuba. The immigration policy of the United States of America should once again resemble the words written on the Statue of Liberty
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
An aside: most of the people who argue against eased immigration standards point to the “abuse” of the welfare system. That is actually an argument against welfare, not an argument against immigration!

Foreign Policy posted:

1. Foreign Policy
There is a saying “If goods don’t cross border, armies will.” I believe American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Peace will never be achieved through force. Libertarians seek the withdrawal of troops from the 900+ military bases in over 130 nations around the world.
I support an end to taxpayer funded foreign aid.

Foreign Policy posted:

2. Free Trade
Free Trade does not require a treaty, rather a lack of government involvement. I support real free-trade (not the bureaucratic version of “free trade” that exists under NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc). To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I support peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

Foreign Policy posted:

3. Homeland Security
I support abolishing the Department of Homeland Security. Constitutionally, the military is responsible for protecting the country; however, I do not support a standing army, rather I support calling up a military only in times of declared war or in cases of imminent defense.

Foreign Policy posted:

4. United Nations
I support the immediate withdrawal of the United States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations. Specifically, I oppose any US policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the world, committing US troops to wars at the discretion of the UN, or placing US troops under UN command. I oppose US government participation in any world or international government. I oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated.

Foreign Policy posted:

5. War & Peace
I am opposed to war for moral and philosophical reasons, not for political reasons. Force is only justified in defense of person or property; preemptive use of force is always wrong.
The foundation of libertarianism is mutual respect. It is a principle that extends to our relationships with people throughout the world.
All American troops currently stationed around the world, excepting those troops who are protecting embassies, should be brought home immediately.

Trade And The Economy posted:

1. Budget & Economy
I fully support abolishing the Federal Reserve, IRS and all unconstitutional spending. I support a repeal of legal tender laws, and a free-market monetary system of competing currencies.
I also oppose any attempts to regulate virtual currencies.

Trade And the Economy posted:

8. Social Security
Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi-scheme, whereby a fraudulent investment operation pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.
Every individual should be responsible for his/her own retirement. Therefore, everyone should be allowed to opt-out of the Social Security system. Those who decide to opt-in to Social Security should have their contributions placed into a private account, such as a 401k or Money Market Account, which they control.
I wish to phase-out the system altogether to remove the coercion of government from an individuals retirement.

Trade And the Economy posted:

10. Welfare & Poverty
The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is in reality a growing and parasitic burden on all productive people, and injures, rather than benefits, the poor themselves.
I oppose government-enforced charity such as welfare programs and subsidies, but heartily applaud those individuals and private charitable organizations that help the needy and contribute to a wide array of worthwhile causes through voluntary activities. Taxpayer funding for welfare should be phased out as quickly as possible.

Trade And the Economy posted:

9. Tax Reform
I support abolishing the IRS and all forms of coercive taxation (this includes tariffs, excise taxes, payroll taxes, etc), and government programs should be funded voluntarily.

Trade And the Economy posted:

5. Health Care
I support the existence of free-market certifications and believe such certifications are helpful to those looking for qualified health care.
I believe that individuals should be free to choose the medical care they believe is best for themselves. This includes the freedom to seek alternative forms of treatment, such as holistic, homeopathic, chiropractic, acupuncture, shaman, or any other form of treatment they choose. Governments should not mandate what qualifies someone to give medical treatment, nor should any government use force, or the threat of force, to prevent an individual from seeking treatment from an “unqualified” practitioner.
I support the repeal/abolition of the FDA, Medicare, Medicaid, forced vaccination, mandatory health insurance laws, and any other governmental dictate that interferes with than individuals right to choose the medical care the wish to seek.

QuarkJets posted:

That makes no sense at all, and the distinction between having a military and invading another nation is very meaningful. While having a gun might enable you to shoot someone, it's not true that all gun owners are also murderers, yet that's effectively the argument that you've made.

In your opinion, is there really no room for a national guard or a military that supports a nation's allies in defensive wars?

QuarkJets posted:

Yeah I'm 99% sure it was jrod suggesting the assassination thing as a viable means by which a loving suburban neighborhood could defend itself against a foreign nation's military, but it could have been one of the many other accounts that would come and post for like 2 days and then disappear forever

Who What Now posted:

I have another question that should be easy.

Assuming that you abolish the entire American government and form a free stateless society. Now I'll be kind and I'll let your stateless society keep all the infrastructure the government built for you, but all military equipment is destroyed because they have no place in a society ruled by the NAP.

The next day China and Russia invade the west coast. How does your society then protect itself?

shiranaihito posted:

A free society would do their best to assassinate the invading country's psychopath leader(s), because that's the single most efficient and effective way of stopping the war. Who wants to lead a country into a war where he himself will be the opposing side's primary target? -Why that would be no one, of course.

Ratoslov posted:

Where does this bizarre affection that Libertarians have for the idea of assassination come from? Between this and those silly assassination markets that pretend to be death prediction websites, it seems like they have a huge faith in assassination being both reliable and effective as a means of implementing social policy.

DeusExMachinima posted:

I'd suggest that there's a difference between having a military at all and having a military that spends more than the next few highest military spenders all combined. It's the latter that enables mistakes on the scale of the OIF clusterfuck, not the former.

There's valid points to having a military beyond the unlikely case that the U.S. mainland is invaded. Air support for people fighting ISIS (I think we have a responsibility to help clean up our mess and then not do it again) and keeping shipping lanes safe are examples. But regional nations should pitch in to a greater degree instead of us rationalizing stuff like the NATO gravy train forever.

DeusExMachinima posted:

I'd suggest that there's a difference between having a military at all and having a military that spends more than the next few highest military spenders all combined. It's the latter that enables mistakes on the scale of the OIF clusterfuck, not the former.

QuarkJets posted:

I would agree, but that's not what you said earlier: you said that the distinction between "has a large military" and "invades Iraq" is purely academic, which is completely nonsensical. If you're willing to walk back from that to the more reasonable stance of "bigger military enables bigger mistakes" then that's fine, but this bullshit idea where having a large military meant that we would inevitably invade Iraq is just idiotic

StandardVC10 posted:

Insofar as it keeps Putin from loving with even more people I think NATO is a pretty good deal.

YF19pilot posted:

DeusExMachinima posted:

My stance is exactly that a gigantor military enables gigantor mistakes, but I don't feel the need to wait around to see whether or not those mistakes are inevitable. But ofc I could look back and see they've already happened multiple times. Earlier I said that our military enabled Iraq, fishmech replied "yeah well it didn't CAUSE it," and that was academic, as in totally irrelevant to my point. Without a runaway military, the idea of OIF could've occurred to people all day and it wouldn't have mattered. That's the part I care about.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

YF19, I just want to say you're doing Alien Reptile Satan's, pbuh God's work here. It's been a wild ride, and if anything your characterization of John McAfee was very polite and mild.