Death of the LP [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Death of the LP


G-19
06-18-2012, 16:26
I have been saying pretty much the same thing as this guy.

http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/articles/july-2-2010/obituary-libertarian-party

JBnTX
06-18-2012, 16:31
Was it ever alive?

It all sounds good on paper, but libertarian principles are a disaster in real life.

If Ron Paul would have been elected president, he would have been impeached or would have done serious long term damage to this country in his first two years.

The libertarian party supporters are their own worst enemy. They've done
more to kill their party than anyone or anything else.

Hopefully with Ron Paul's latest defeat, the libertarian party will now go the way of the dodo bird and the prairie chicken.

..

9jeeps
06-18-2012, 16:37
:yawn:

G-19
06-18-2012, 16:51
This article also points out how they are their own worst enemy. I have never seen a group so set on self destruction.

GAFinch
06-19-2012, 08:54
Saw Gary Johnson on Fox last week saying that he doesn't support decriminalizing drug possession because it frees up police to go after drug dealers more.

For 90% of Libertarians, the Liberty movement = Liberty To Get High movement.

G-19
06-19-2012, 19:04
Gary who?

Gundude
06-19-2012, 19:19
It all sounds good on paper, but libertarian principles are a disaster in real life.Seems that they did OK in turning a fledgeling, underdog group of colonies into the most powerful nation on Earth.

The libertarian party supporters are their own worst enemy. They've done
more to kill their party than anyone or anything else.No argument there. When one doesn't appreciate the difference between libertarianism and anarchy, one certainly isn't helping the libertarian cause.

Cavalry Doc
06-19-2012, 19:34
OK, for a while I thought this was posted in the wrong forum.


http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://onlyhdwallpapers.com/wallpaper/music_record_song_random_colors_album_disk_lp_desktop_1920x1200_wallpaper-183895.jpg&sa=X&ei=iCjhT_vAAei22gXCvNm2Cw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGPzgHe8g8S7YXzuTHFOMCZ9AIYMQ

GAFinch
06-19-2012, 19:50
Seems that they did OK in turning a fledgeling, underdog group of colonies into the most powerful nation on Earth.

No argument there. When one doesn't appreciate the difference between libertarianism and anarchy, one certainly isn't helping the libertarian cause.

That's the problem...every Libertarian/Paulite thinks that they're emulating the American Revolution, but many of them don't realize that they're actually closer in ideology to the morally depraved anarchist mobs of the French Revolution. The LP has always had its fair share of crazies, but the Ron Paul faction's attraction of hard left liberals has certainly dumbed down whatever intellectualism that did exist in the party.

ChuteTheMall
06-20-2012, 09:01
The self-styled Party of Principle has a history of abandoning it's lofty principles for political expediency, then they call everyone else hypocrites.:rofl:

The issuance of U.S. passports should cease. We look forward to an era in which American citizens and foreigners can travel anywhere in the world without a passport. We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas, or other papers required to cross borders. http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/itafi.html

Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/imm.html

JBnTX
06-20-2012, 12:35
Seems that they did OK in turning a fledgeling, underdog group of colonies into the most powerful nation on Earth...

The libertarian party had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of this country.

If they had, this country would never become the country that it is today. It would have descended into anarchy and chaos, and disappeared long ago.

Cavalry Doc
06-20-2012, 13:06
Seems that they did OK in turning a fledgeling, underdog group of colonies into the most powerful nation on Earth.

.


The guy looks pretty good for 270.

http://ronpaulstickers.com/images/ronpaulinfo.jpeg

Booker
06-20-2012, 15:55
And yet, the Republicans can't win an election without them!

Gundude
06-20-2012, 15:57
The libertarian party had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of this country.I know. The post in question was referring to "libertarian principles".

Chronos
06-20-2012, 16:36
The libertarian party had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of this country.

If they had, this country would never become the country that it is today. It would have descended into anarchy and chaos, and disappeared long ago.

Well yeah, you make a pretty strong case there, JBnTX. Which part do you think would have been the cause?

The libertarian "zero income tax" policy?

Maybe the crazy libertarian notion of free travel without passports?

Maybe a "libertarian" immigration policy?

Perhaps a "libertarian" set of federal drug laws would have brought them down, right?

Maybe military spending as a fraction of GDP that looked something like this?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Defense&units=p&size=m&year=1800_2010&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a _i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=1.28_0.76_0.49_0.44_0.41_0.43_0.48_0.53_0.76_0.86_0.58_0.54_2.04_2.73_2.60_2.57_2.48_1.53_ 1.30_1.77_1.45_1.10_0.91_0.98_1.04_0.99_1.13_1.01_1.02_0.98_0.93_0.95_0.95_1.32_1.00_0.87_1.42_1.49_ 1.34_1.11_1.01_1.05_1.02_0.48_0.83_0.78_0.93_2.01_1.50_1.08_0.75_0.86_0.64_0.69_0.65_0.75_0.81_0.80_ 1.00_0.89_0.67_0.79_7.57_8.70_8.26_11.84_3.82_1.76_2.12_1.62_1.39_1.18_1.03_1.13_1.21_1.13_1.03_0.94 _0.91_0.97_1.05_0.91_0.98_1.06_0.95_0.99_0.92_0.98_0.98_1.11_1.15_1.29_1.29_1.55_1.61_1.42_1.40_1.39 _1.65_2.22_1.61_1.55_1.27_1.22_1.27_1.16_1.11_1.05_1.22_1.17_1.16_1.17_1.11_1.09_1.17_1.10_0.86_2.69 _15.83_22.00_5.28_4.02_1.77_1.49_1.43_1.36_1.25_1.27_1.32_1.33_1.60_2.04_2.85_2.44_1.64_2.55_3.17_2. 34_1.92_2.07_2.13_5.72_16.73_35.47_39.17_42.04_24.00_9.35_7.34_8.23_8.25_8.61_14.43_15.01_13.89_11.3 7_10.77_11.13_11.08_10.66_10.12_10.46_10.86_10.40_9.85_8.57_8.84_10.06_10.36_9.62_9.12_8.24_7.65_6.7 2_6.56_6.73_6.27_5.99_5.71_5.61_6.02_6.19_6.81_6.98_6.84_7.00_7.04_6.76_6.47_6.26_5.90_5.35_5.49_5.1 6_4.75_4.40_4.03_3.90_3.67_3.56_3.60_3.56_3.96_4.33_4.58_4.75_4.64_4.65_5.08_5.70_5.83

Which principles do you think would have caused this ultimate libertarian disaster you have in mind?

JBnTX
06-20-2012, 17:09
And yet, the Republicans can't win an election without them!


Prove It!.... :poke:

Cavalry Doc
06-20-2012, 17:16
Well yeah, you make a pretty strong case there, JBnTX. Which part do you think would have been the cause?

The libertarian "zero income tax" policy?

Maybe the crazy libertarian notion of free travel without passports?

Maybe a "libertarian" immigration policy?

Perhaps a "libertarian" set of federal drug laws would have brought them down, right?

Maybe military spending as a fraction of GDP that looked something like this?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Defense&units=p&size=m&year=1800_2010&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a _i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=1.28_0.76_0.49_0.44_0.41_0.43_0.48_0.53_0.76_0.86_0.58_0.54_2.04_2.73_2.60_2.57_2.48_1.53_ 1.30_1.77_1.45_1.10_0.91_0.98_1.04_0.99_1.13_1.01_1.02_0.98_0.93_0.95_0.95_1.32_1.00_0.87_1.42_1.49_ 1.34_1.11_1.01_1.05_1.02_0.48_0.83_0.78_0.93_2.01_1.50_1.08_0.75_0.86_0.64_0.69_0.65_0.75_0.81_0.80_ 1.00_0.89_0.67_0.79_7.57_8.70_8.26_11.84_3.82_1.76_2.12_1.62_1.39_1.18_1.03_1.13_1.21_1.13_1.03_0.94 _0.91_0.97_1.05_0.91_0.98_1.06_0.95_0.99_0.92_0.98_0.98_1.11_1.15_1.29_1.29_1.55_1.61_1.42_1.40_1.39 _1.65_2.22_1.61_1.55_1.27_1.22_1.27_1.16_1.11_1.05_1.22_1.17_1.16_1.17_1.11_1.09_1.17_1.10_0.86_2.69 _15.83_22.00_5.28_4.02_1.77_1.49_1.43_1.36_1.25_1.27_1.32_1.33_1.60_2.04_2.85_2.44_1.64_2.55_3.17_2. 34_1.92_2.07_2.13_5.72_16.73_35.47_39.17_42.04_24.00_9.35_7.34_8.23_8.25_8.61_14.43_15.01_13.89_11.3 7_10.77_11.13_11.08_10.66_10.12_10.46_10.86_10.40_9.85_8.57_8.84_10.06_10.36_9.62_9.12_8.24_7.65_6.7 2_6.56_6.73_6.27_5.99_5.71_5.61_6.02_6.19_6.81_6.98_6.84_7.00_7.04_6.76_6.47_6.26_5.90_5.35_5.49_5.1 6_4.75_4.40_4.03_3.90_3.67_3.56_3.60_3.56_3.96_4.33_4.58_4.75_4.64_4.65_5.08_5.70_5.83

Which principles do you think would have caused this ultimate libertarian disaster you have in mind?

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/defense-spending-entitlement-spending-problem-600.jpeg

Chart of the Week: Cutting All Defense Spending Would Not Solve Debt Crisis (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/09/chart-of-the-week-cutting-all-defense-spending-would-not-solve-debt-crisis/)


Which is why some of us fiscal conservatives didn't buy into Ron's plan to cut defense now, and to gradually cut social programs over many years, more than his term......


Oh well, cut it all, but cut it all together, cap spending to 80% of revenue until the debt is paid off, then cap it at 95% of revenue.

We can only afford what we can afford. We cannot afford to let poor people live beyond their means.

GAFinch
06-20-2012, 18:13
Well yeah, you make a pretty strong case there, JBnTX. Which part do you think would have been the cause?

The libertarian "zero income tax" policy?

Maybe the crazy libertarian notion of free travel without passports?

Maybe a "libertarian" immigration policy?

Perhaps a "libertarian" set of federal drug laws would have brought them down, right?

Maybe military spending as a fraction of GDP that looked something like this?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Defense&units=p&size=m&year=1800_2010&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a _i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=1.28_0.76_0.49_0.44_0.41_0.43_0.48_0.53_0.76_0.86_0.58_0.54_2.04_2.73_2.60_2.57_2.48_1.53_ 1.30_1.77_1.45_1.10_0.91_0.98_1.04_0.99_1.13_1.01_1.02_0.98_0.93_0.95_0.95_1.32_1.00_0.87_1.42_1.49_ 1.34_1.11_1.01_1.05_1.02_0.48_0.83_0.78_0.93_2.01_1.50_1.08_0.75_0.86_0.64_0.69_0.65_0.75_0.81_0.80_ 1.00_0.89_0.67_0.79_7.57_8.70_8.26_11.84_3.82_1.76_2.12_1.62_1.39_1.18_1.03_1.13_1.21_1.13_1.03_0.94 _0.91_0.97_1.05_0.91_0.98_1.06_0.95_0.99_0.92_0.98_0.98_1.11_1.15_1.29_1.29_1.55_1.61_1.42_1.40_1.39 _1.65_2.22_1.61_1.55_1.27_1.22_1.27_1.16_1.11_1.05_1.22_1.17_1.16_1.17_1.11_1.09_1.17_1.10_0.86_2.69 _15.83_22.00_5.28_4.02_1.77_1.49_1.43_1.36_1.25_1.27_1.32_1.33_1.60_2.04_2.85_2.44_1.64_2.55_3.17_2. 34_1.92_2.07_2.13_5.72_16.73_35.47_39.17_42.04_24.00_9.35_7.34_8.23_8.25_8.61_14.43_15.01_13.89_11.3 7_10.77_11.13_11.08_10.66_10.12_10.46_10.86_10.40_9.85_8.57_8.84_10.06_10.36_9.62_9.12_8.24_7.65_6.7 2_6.56_6.73_6.27_5.99_5.71_5.61_6.02_6.19_6.81_6.98_6.84_7.00_7.04_6.76_6.47_6.26_5.90_5.35_5.49_5.1 6_4.75_4.40_4.03_3.90_3.67_3.56_3.60_3.56_3.96_4.33_4.58_4.75_4.64_4.65_5.08_5.70_5.83

Which principles do you think would have caused this ultimate libertarian disaster you have in mind?

Notice how the spikes in spending were preceded by decades of very low spending? By the time you pay back the spikes, you average out higher anyway. It's expensive to play catch-up and is much harder nowadays due to highly technical ships/planes/vehicles that require specialized factories with specialized workers.

ChuteTheMall
06-20-2012, 20:51
Thankfully, libertarians have proven over and over again that they are incapable of winning elections, so we don't need to see the very obvious fact that they are also totally incapable of governing. No power to them.

.

Sam Spade
06-20-2012, 21:08
I know. The post in question was referring to "libertarian principles".

Nope, not them either.

The LP wants open borders and no barriers to free trade. The first Congress established a Customs service and shut down those who would evade duties. The LP views a military draft as slavery. All colonies and the new republic had mandated militia and civic service. Libs hold private property sacrosanct. The Constitution specifically allows it to be taken for public use. I daresay that holding another human in slavery is a serious violation of libertarian principles; of course, the Constitution was written to protect slave owners. And finally, the disproportionate representation of little state in the US senate and electoral college is hardly libertarian.

There's more, but that'll do for now. The Founders weren't libertarian. Those that claim so have to cherry pick to make the case; it's not a case that holds water when you look at what was actually enacted.

Yessir How High
06-20-2012, 21:25
Wasting my time to make a response

Fed Five Oh
06-20-2012, 21:45
Wasting my time to make a responseIt would have been easier for you to write "I got nothin'".

Chronos
06-20-2012, 22:20
Nope, not them either.

The LP wants open borders and no barriers to free trade. The first Congress established a Customs service and shut down those who would evade duties. The LP views a military draft as slavery. All colonies and the new republic had mandated militia and civic service. Libs hold private property sacrosanct. The Constitution specifically allows it to be taken for public use. I daresay that holding another human in slavery is a serious violation of libertarian principles; of course, the Constitution was written to protect slave owners. And finally, the disproportionate representation of little state in the US senate and electoral college is hardly libertarian.

There's more, but that'll do for now. The Founders weren't libertarian. Those that claim so have to cherry pick to make the case; it's not a case that holds water when you look at what was actually enacted.

The only modern philosophy being talked about here which is even close to founding principles are the libertarians. The biggest discrepancies you can think up is that modern libertarians are anti-slavery (so are the R's and D's), anti-draft (so are the R's and D's), and support a hard line on private property?

LOL

Sam Spade
06-20-2012, 22:39
The only modern philosophy being talked about here which is even close to founding principles are the libertarians. The biggest discrepancies you can think up is that modern libertarians are anti-slavery (so are the R's and D's), anti-draft (so are the R's and D's), and support a hard line on private property?

LOL

I specifically addressed the (erroneous) claim that the Founders enacted libertarian principles. I gave a series of examples where they were decidedly at odds with the current LP thinking. Saying that the Rs and Ds have similar views doesn't address the premise at all.

There're more. Alien and Sedition Acts. How libertarian were they? What LP principle was displayed in the Louisiana Purchase? When the fedgov put down the Whiskey and Shay's Rebellions, were they taking a plank from the LP? The very ratification of the Constitution, which required less than full consent of the governed...maybe that fits your view of how the LP would handle things?

Nope. Libertarian principles (even allowing for the variance in libertarian thought) are not what founded this country. "LOLing" in an attempt to equate small government with libertarian government is an example of the cherry-picking I mentioned.

And with the central role that property rights play in the LP philosophy, you need to pay *serious* attention to anywhere the Founders deviate from LP dogma. You've just waved your hand around that one.

Chronos
06-20-2012, 22:45
Notice how the spikes in spending were preceded by decades of very low spending? By the time you pay back the spikes, you average out higher anyway. It's expensive to play catch-up and is much harder nowadays due to highly technical ships/planes/vehicles that require specialized factories with specialized workers.

The only "spike" in the first century worth talking about is the civil war, the cause of which obviously had nothing to do with under-funding the military.

Is your case seriously that the US government needs to avoid a foreign policy and military spending philosophy analogous to the 19th century in order to avoid an expensive "spike" which might occur a century from now?

Gundude
06-20-2012, 23:06
Nope, not them either.

The LP wants open borders and no barriers to free trade. The first Congress established a Customs service and shut down those who would evade duties. The LP views a military draft as slavery. All colonies and the new republic had mandated militia and civic service. Libs hold private property sacrosanct. The Constitution specifically allows it to be taken for public use. I daresay that holding another human in slavery is a serious violation of libertarian principles; of course, the Constitution was written to protect slave owners. And finally, the disproportionate representation of little state in the US senate and electoral college is hardly libertarian.

There's more, but that'll do for now. The Founders weren't libertarian. Those that claim so have to cherry pick to make the case; it's not a case that holds water when you look at what was actually enacted.I see the misunderstanding now. I was interpreting "libertarian principles" literally, as in the general concept of individual freedom, free will, and restricted government, while you and JB are referring particularly to principles held by the Libertarian Party. My mistake, really, since you guys' definition is actually the one that this thread is about.

In that respect, I agree with both of you that there are some very fundamental differences between Libertarian principles and those that founded this country.

Chronos
06-20-2012, 23:09
I specifically addressed the (erroneous) claim that the Founders enacted libertarian principles. I gave a series of examples where they were decidedly at odds with the current LP thinking. Saying that the Rs and Ds have similar views doesn't address the premise at all.

There're more. Alien and Sedition Acts. How libertarian were they? What LP principle was displayed in the Louisiana Purchase? When the fedgov put down the Whiskey and Shay's Rebellions, were they taking a plank from the LP? The very ratification of the Constitution, which required less than full consent of the governed...maybe that fits your view of how the LP would handle things?

Nope. Libertarian principles (even allowing for the variance in libertarian thought) are not what founded this country. "LOLing" in an attempt to equate small government with libertarian government is an example of the cherry-picking I mentioned.

And with the central role that property rights play in the LP philosophy, you need to pay *serious* attention to anywhere the Founders deviate from LP dogma. You've just waved your hand around that one.

I'm LOLing at your pure smoke screen. Minus the issue of slavery, libertarians today would universally ditch today's government in favor of one with the size and scope of the US federal government of the 19th century. If you made a similar offer to modern D's and R's, they would universally throw an absolute fit and predict the immediate collapse of civilization if it were to happen (in fact, we already have an example of something like that in this thread already).

You're simply pointing out the obvious fact that the US government gradually deviated from the libertarian principles of small government and individual liberty, and that the process began early. Yes, thank you, we know -- Hamilton and Adams and other monarchists weren't libertarians. That doesn't change the fact that the founders were able to settle on a government that was light-years closer to what modern libertarians advocate than what modern R's and D's advocate.

Syclone538
06-20-2012, 23:26
Saw Gary Johnson on Fox last week saying that he doesn't support decriminalizing drug possession because it frees up police to go after drug dealers more.

For 90% of Libertarians, the Liberty movement = Liberty To Get High movement.

You really hate the idea of freedom and responsibility don't you?

walt cowan
06-21-2012, 05:34
the next curse to befall the mittens supporters will come from their own mouths.

Cavalry Doc
06-21-2012, 06:39
the next curse to befall the mittens supporters will come from their own mouths.

Maybe. Or maybe the hijincks of the Ron Paul guys at the convention will cause a backlash. I know where my money's at.

Bren
06-21-2012, 07:13
Was it ever alive?

It all sounds good on paper, but libertarian principles are a disaster in real life.

If Ron Paul would have been elected president, he would have been impeached or would have done serious long term damage to this country in his first two years.

The libertarian party supporters are their own worst enemy. They've done
more to kill their party than anyone or anything else.

Hopefully with Ron Paul's latest defeat, the libertarian party will now go the way of the dodo bird and the prairie chicken.

..

Libertarian policies would work great in real life, if we ever tried them. They follow very sound economic and political theory, but they don't allow for special interests and factions to have the degree of control over others that they want, so we will never get to try them out. I would love to live in a country that followed libertarian principles, but as long as everybody from communists to christians wants to use the government to force others to act like them, it won't happen.

I'll be voting for Romney, but ONLY because a vote for Paul (as a 3rd party candidate) is a vote for Obama.

certifiedfunds
06-21-2012, 07:22
One thing is for sure: Statism is alive and kicking!

JBnTX
06-21-2012, 07:38
Libertarian policies would work great in real life, if we ever tried them. They follow very sound economic and political theory, but they don't allow for special interests and factions to have the degree of control over others that they want, so we will never get to try them out. I would love to live in a country that followed libertarian principles, but as long as everybody from communists to christians wants to use the government to force others to act like them, it won't happen.



How do we know libertarian policies work great if we've never tried them?

JBnTX
06-21-2012, 07:46
One thing is for sure: Statism is alive and kicking!



Statism is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree. Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism. Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense.


Just because a person sees a need for some functions of government, doesn't see things your way or doesn't worship at the throne of Ron Paul, doesn't mean they're a statist.

I'd rather have statism over anarchy any day.

..

RC-RAMIE
06-21-2012, 08:01
Statism is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree. Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism. Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense.


Just because a person sees a need for some functions of government, doesn't see things your way or doesn't worship at the throne of Ron Paul, doesn't mean they're a statist.

I'd rather have statism over anarchy any day.

..

:dunno: :faint:

certifiedfunds
06-21-2012, 08:19
Statism is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree. Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism. Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense.


Just because a person sees a need for some functions of government, doesn't see things your way or doesn't worship at the throne of Ron Paul, doesn't mean they're a statist.


..

You've made your statist views very clear on this forum and restated them several times.

I'd rather have statism over anarchy any day.


We know, we know. That's how Progressives are.

Cavalry Doc
06-21-2012, 08:39
Statism is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree. Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism. Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense.


Just because a person sees a need for some functions of government, doesn't see things your way or doesn't worship at the throne of Ron Paul, doesn't mean they're a statist.

I'd rather have statism over anarchy any day.

..

I think most would agree that anarchy and totalitarianism are both extremes that are undesirable. Where one draws a line and declares that is statism is highly debatable. Some government is good, too much is bad. And each individual issue would require a line to be drawn.

walt cowan
06-21-2012, 08:46
Maybe. Or maybe the hijincks of the Ron Paul guys at the convention will cause a backlash. I know where my money's at.

and so it shall it be done.

Gary W Trott
06-21-2012, 09:22
I would not count the Libertarian Party out just yet because with Gary Johnson as their candidate it's very possible that they will receive electoral votes by winning at least one state, New Mexico, and maybe even others. A three way race is an excellent chance for a popular former governor to win his state.

427
06-21-2012, 10:48
I would not count the Libertarian Party out just yet because with Gary Johnson as their candidate it's very possible that they will receive electoral votes by winning at least one state, New Mexico, and maybe even others. A three way race is an excellent chance for a popular former governor to win his state.

I live in NM, and he's all but forgotten.

walt cowan
06-22-2012, 05:53
with a or b, garry might be the "other" vote.

Cavalry Doc
06-22-2012, 06:14
I would not count the Libertarian Party out just yet because with Gary Johnson as their candidate it's very possible that they will receive electoral votes by winning at least one state, New Mexico, and maybe even others. A three way race is an excellent chance for a popular former governor to win his state.

That still doesn't negate the fact that either Barry or Mittens will likely be the president this time next year. What relevance the LP party will have has yet to be seen. Time will tell.

walt cowan
06-22-2012, 09:53
theres a ton of pissed off voters in both the dnc and the rnc. both sides will refused to vote for either barry or mittens. gary might just pull that 40%. seen this happen in many elections where the party fav's wern't the folks fav.

ChuteTheMall
06-22-2012, 18:02
theres a ton of pissed off voters in both the dnc and the rnc. both sides will refused to vote for either barry or mittens. gary might just pull that 40%. seen this happen in many elections where the party fav's wern't the folks fav.

There is absolutely no possibility that you are even close to reality.
:tinfoil:

countrygun
06-22-2012, 18:34
There is absolutely no possibility that you are even close to reality.
:tinfoil:


Funny, I keep running into Paulites who don't think Mittens is a "true Conservative" when it suits them. The call him a "liberal" etc, but then when it suits them they claim that Dems frustrated with Obama won't switch and vote for Romney, because......?:dunno:

So Romney isn't a real conservative the Libertarian party is the true Conservative party and democratic liberals won't vote for Romney because he is too conservative and enough of the Democrats who are PO'ed at Obama will vote Libertarian, which is the true conservative party, to elect a conservative instead of Romney who is a liberal in conservative clothing.????????

Whew.....that is a mouthful and a Herculean leap of logic, all at once.

GAFinch
06-22-2012, 20:21
How do we know libertarian policies work great if we've never tried them?

You can always look at Somalia, or other tribal-based countries in Africa and Asia. The central government has very limited power over the tribal warlords/councils, despite being a pretty small country.

Cavalry Doc
06-22-2012, 20:41
theres a ton of pissed off voters in both the dnc and the rnc. both sides will refused to vote for either barry or mittens. gary might just pull that 40%. seen this happen in many elections where the party fav's wern't the folks fav.

Hey, if you're right, I'll give you props.

If you're wrong, you gonna show up and give me mine?


:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
06-22-2012, 20:44
Funny, I keep running into Paulites who don't think Mittens is a "true Conservative" when it suits them. The call him a "liberal" etc, but then when it suits them they claim that Dems frustrated with Obama won't switch and vote for Romney, because......?:dunno:

So Romney isn't a real conservative the Libertarian party is the true Conservative party and democratic liberals won't vote for Romney because he is too conservative and enough of the Democrats who are PO'ed at Obama will vote Libertarian, which is the true conservative party, to elect a conservative instead of Romney who is a liberal in conservative clothing.????????

Whew.....that is a mouthful and a Herculean leap of logic, all at once.

They simply do not understand. They are in their echo chamber inside the ron paul forums. They think they are the majority, and anything that causes their defeat must be cheating.....fraUD......ETC.


Jee whizzzzz oh well.

countrygun
06-22-2012, 20:55
They simply do not understand. They are in their echo chamber inside the ron paul forums. They think they are the majority, and anything that causes their defeat must be cheating.....fraUD......ETC.


Jee whizzzzz oh well.

I would buy stock in Prozac but apparently they aren't taking it like they're supposed to. Maybe we should see if we can find out who the makor maker of straightjackets is, their stock is going to go up drastically after Romney (or heaven forbid Obma) wins the election.

Either way, a lot of them folks are going to be wearing a white sportcoat, with sleeves that fasten in the back, as they do a standup routine in the naugahyde room of the Hotel De'Loon.

Andy123
06-22-2012, 21:23
Prove It!.... :poke:

We might, in about four months.

lancesorbenson
06-22-2012, 22:34
Funny, I keep running into Paulites who don't think Mittens is a "true Conservative" when it suits them. The call him a "liberal" etc, but then when it suits them they claim that Dems frustrated with Obama won't switch and vote for Romney, because......?:dunno:

So Romney isn't a real conservative the Libertarian party is the true Conservative party and democratic liberals won't vote for Romney because he is too conservative and enough of the Democrats who are PO'ed at Obama will vote Libertarian, which is the true conservative party, to elect a conservative instead of Romney who is a liberal in conservative clothing.????????

Whew.....that is a mouthful and a Herculean leap of logic, all at once.

From the guy who argues that the Republican party's small government rhetoric is a myth created by libertarians in order to validate their political beliefs. Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower etc. all ran on a limited government position with some of them sticking closer to that position than others.

Incidentally, if we're trying to compare the founders to any contemporary political philosophy is someone here willing to make the argument that they were more like today's Democrats and Republicans than they were libertarians?

countrygun
06-22-2012, 22:38
From the guy who argues that the Republican party's small government rhetoric is a myth created by libertarians in order to validate their political beliefs. Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower etc. all ran on a limited government position with some of them sticking closer to that position than others.

Incidentally, if we're trying to compare the founders to any contemporary political philosophy is someone here willing to make the argument that they were more like today's Democrats and Republicans than they were libertarians?


Read "The Federalist Papers" and tell me all them were closer to Libertarians.

lancesorbenson
06-23-2012, 20:48
Read "The Federalist Papers" and tell me all them were closer to Libertarians.

It's not surprising you'd choose a document most heavily influenced by Hamilton to make your point. Why don't you apply the same reasoning to the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights? Early American government was small, cheap, and generally unobtrusive. The founders didn't break the bank on social programs for old people that both major parties now consider sacred cows. There was basically no gun control, drug war, regulation, etc. as we understand any of that today. I'd say it was closer to the current libertarian model than to either the Republicans or Democrats are now espousing.

walt cowan
06-24-2012, 06:05
It's not surprising you'd choose a document most heavily influenced by Hamilton to make your point. Why don't you apply the same reasoning to the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights? Early American government was small, cheap, and generally unobtrusive. The founders didn't break the bank on social programs for old people that both major parties now consider sacred cows. There was basically no gun control, drug war, regulation, etc. as we understand any of that today. I'd say it was closer to the current libertarian model than to either the Republicans or Democrats are now espousing.

oops! theres that nasty truth again. the checker pants club is gonna cry.:crying::rofl:

Gary W Trott
06-24-2012, 07:27
Read "The Federalist Papers" and tell me all them were closer to Libertarians.
You are correct that there were differences of opinion between the Founders. That's why there were also the lesser known, but just as valid, Anti-Federalist Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers).

Gary W Trott
06-24-2012, 07:30
That still doesn't negate the fact that either Barry or Mittens will likely be the president this time next year. What relevance the LP party will have has yet to be seen. Time will tell.
No but winning electoral votes does add legitimacy to a party, especially one like the Libertarian Party which has been around for a number of decades now.

ChuteTheMall
06-24-2012, 07:41
No but winning electoral votes does add legitimacy to a party, especially one like the Libertarian Party which has been around for a number of decades now.

How many electoral votes have they actually won over all those decades?

:dunno:

G-19
06-24-2012, 07:51
No but winning electoral votes does add legitimacy to a party, especially one like the Libertarian Party which has been around for a number of decades now.

And judging from GTPI 50% of them are kooks. It is no wonder they have been around that long and are still irrelevant.

RC-RAMIE
06-24-2012, 10:02
And judging from GTPI 50% of them are kooks. It is no wonder they have been around that long and are still irrelevant.

The way the Republicans look at us then get mad that we won't support Mitt.


....

G-19
06-24-2012, 15:01
The way the Republicans look at us then get mad that we won't support Mitt.


....

The way we look at you is well deserved. Don't take the victim stance now. You all started the name calling. You could just not stand the fact that everyone just did not see the world the way you do, and verbally attacked those who dared to disagree with you, and now you want to cry because we were right.

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 15:05
The way we look at you is well deserved. Don't take the victim stance now. You all started the name calling. You could just not stand the fact that everyone just did not see the world the way you do, and verbally attacked those who dared to disagree with you, and now you want to cry because we were right.

Congratulations, you folks are effectively running John McCain part deux

lancesorbenson
06-24-2012, 15:08
Congratulations, you folks are effectively running John McCain part deux

Oh come on! Mitt has way better hair than McCain. Plus the magic underwear.

G-19
06-24-2012, 15:39
Congratulations, you folks are effectively running John McCain part deux

What you never understood is that most of us agree with some of the LP fiscal platform, not all but some.

Where we differed was the social platform. Social issues are just as important as fiscal to most of us, and more important to some.

Also, The anti-law platform did not sit well with probably 75 to 90% of the republican party (and probably a good portion of the DP). Most of us see the need for laws, the idea of anarchy is something we don't agree with.

If you could have let people have their opinions without the personal attacks, things may have went better for you. In the big boy world we realize that it can never be one way or the other, it takes compromise. Most of us learned in kindergarten that we can't have it our way all the time, and that things work better when we work together.

The so called Secret Delegate ploy also hurt your cause. Most people see it as an attempt to circumvent the will of the people. Kind of like it was saying that the few of you know better how things should be. Did you really think people would respond positively to such an elitist attitude?

Another thing that hurt you is the conspiracy theories. Clinging to the 9/11inside job, Bilderberger, Illunimati type of theories really don't help your cause. Getting associated with these types destroyed any creditability you may have had.

Maybe you would have had better luck trying to overtake the DP. Most of them would have agreed with your socially liberal views, if not your fiscal.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 15:54
Funny, I keep running into Paulites who don't think Mittens is a "true Conservative" when it suits them. The call him a "liberal" etc, but then when it suits them they claim that Dems frustrated with Obama won't switch and vote for Romney, because......?:dunno:

So Romney isn't a real conservative the Libertarian party is the true Conservative party and democratic liberals won't vote for Romney because he is too conservative and enough of the Democrats who are PO'ed at Obama will vote Libertarian, which is the true conservative party, to elect a conservative instead of Romney who is a liberal in conservative clothing.????????

Whew.....that is a mouthful and a Herculean leap of logic, all at once.

You (and others, conservative and libertarian) fail to mention the difference between fiscal and social issues.

Romney is a fiscal liberal, social conservative.
Libertarians are fiscal conservative, social liberal.

Now it's obviously not that simple because we don't disagree on everything.

I would hope it would be safe to say that conservatives want less .gov, and as far as I can tell, most R's do not.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 15:56
From the guy who argues that the Republican party's small government rhetoric is a myth created by libertarians in order to validate their political beliefs. Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower etc. all ran on a limited government position with some of them sticking closer to that position than others.

Incidentally, if we're trying to compare the founders to any contemporary political philosophy is someone here willing to make the argument that they were more like today's Democrats and Republicans than they were libertarians?

Don't forget GWB

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 15:57
Read "The Federalist Papers" and tell me all them were closer to Libertarians.

What do you think about the Articles of Confederation?

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 16:02
What you never understood is that most of us agree with some of the LP fiscal platform, not all but some.

Where we differed was the social platform. Social issues are just as important as fiscal to most of us.
...

Yeah, we know many R's are against freedom, that's the biggest disagreement between us.

G-19
06-24-2012, 16:07
Yeah, we know many R's are against freedom, that's the biggest disagreement between us.

There is a big difference in having freedom and having anarchy. Maybe you should try leaving the USA sometime, then maybe you will see how good it actually is here. I have been to several other countries and none compare to the good Ol' USofA.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 16:20
There is a big difference in having freedom and having anarchy.
...

Absolutely. I don't want to eliminate .gov, we should cut it in half and see how that goes.

...
Maybe you should try leaving the USA sometime, then maybe you will see how good it actually is here. I have been to several other countries and none compare to the good Ol' USofA.

The U.S. probably is the best place on earth to live, not disputing that, but are you saying we should not try to make it better? Do you think that continuing to grow .gov and lose freedom is the right path for the future?

countrygun
06-24-2012, 16:23
No, and I mean NO "great change" is going to occur in the span of one Presidency. The system itself will remain intact. Now I have to ask the Paulites, especially now with Obama's BIG CHANGE in "Health Care" being in the hands of the SCOTUS at this very moment,

"Just exactly how in the *&&^ are any great Conservative changes going to be implimented in the future if Obama packs the SCOTUS with "his" Judges in the second term you are going to hand him?"

G-19
06-24-2012, 16:25
Absolutely. I don't want to eliminate .gov, we should cut it in half and see how that goes.



The U.S. probably is the best place on earth to live, not disputing that, but are you saying we should not try to make it better? Do you think that continuing to grow .gov and lose freedom is the right path for the future?

No, but I also don't want to see drugs legalized, roads with no speed limits, and a whole host of laws I have seen criticised on here.

G-19
06-24-2012, 16:28
No, and I mean NO "great change" is going to occur in the span of one Presidency. The system itself will remain intact. Now I have to ask the Paulites, especially now with Obama's BIG CHANGE in "Health Care" being in the hands of the SCOTUS at this very moment,

"Just exactly how in the *&&^ are any great Conservative changes going to be implimented in the future if Obama packs the SCOTUS with "his" Judges in the second term you are going to hand him?"

You being an adult just don't understand the school yard mentality of "If I don't win then I will ruin the game for everyone".

If the LP actually believed half of what they say, They would suck up the lose and look at the end game. We did not get in this mess over night, and we can not clean it up over night. Voting for BO or third party does nothing but guarantee BO's second term, and ensuring the downward spiral of the US. They will not agree, but it don't make it true.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 16:32
No, but I also don't want to see drugs legalized, roads with no speed limits, and a whole host of laws I have seen criticised on here.

I would be completely happy to see those become state or local issues.

countrygun
06-24-2012, 16:33
Yeah, we know many R's are against freedom, that's the biggest disagreement between us.


Unfettered freedom has exactly the same weakness as Communism. It is completely dependent upon the goodness of Man's nature to not be abused.

I have seen enough of my fellow Man and various political and social experiments, to be glad for some restrictions.

G-19
06-24-2012, 16:42
I would be completely happy to see those become state or local issues.

So you are ok with not being able to travel from state to state without breaking several laws? If left to their own then any state could pass any law the majority of its people wanted. What is perfectly legal in one state could cost you several years in prison in another. Kind of defeats the purpose of us being an united states doesn't it?

I was in Germany for two years and went to several different countries while there. What you advocate would be like traveling in Europe.

One state could say they don't want drivers licenses or tags, but all the surrounding states could require you to have one from their state to drive there. Is that the kind of country you want? Imagine the cost of food and products if a trucker had to have a different license from every state they drove through.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 16:46
No, and I mean NO "great change" is going to occur in the span of one Presidency. The system itself will remain intact. Now I have to ask the Paulites, especially now with Obama's BIG CHANGE in "Health Care" being in the hands of the SCOTUS at this very moment,
...

I guess that would depend on your definition of great change. I'm sure you wouldn't deny that a president vetoing 75% of the bills to hit his desk, including any that didn't specify where in the Constitution fed gov gets the authority for the bill, appointing judges like Andrew Napolitano, bringing a bunch of troops home, and appointing an Austrian in economics for chairman of the Fed, would be a change. I'd like to see an argument that it would not be a great change.

...
"Just exactly how in the *&&^ are any great Conservative changes going to be implimented in the future if Obama packs the SCOTUS with "his" Judges in the second term you are going to hand him?"

I will not vote for more government. Period.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 16:51
Unfettered freedom has exactly the same weakness as Communism. It is completely dependent upon the goodness of Man's nature to not be abused.

I have seen enough of my fellow Man and various political and social experiments, to be glad for some restrictions.

I do not want anarchy, or completely unfettered freedom. I want the most freedom for the most people. To do that you need laws against things like robbery and murder.

G-19
06-24-2012, 16:56
I do not want anarchy, or completely unfettered freedom. I want the most freedom for the most people. To do that you need laws against things like robbery and murder.

Why? Because they make sense to you? Maybe someone else thinks they should be free to take something of yours. If you are not strong enough to keep it that is your fault.

Sounds silly don't it? I see the legalization of drugs to be just as silly.

countrygun
06-24-2012, 16:57
So you are ok with not being able to travel from state to state without breaking several laws? If left to their own then any state could pass any law the majority of its people wanted. What is perfectly legal in one state could cost you several years in prison in another. Kind of defeats the purpose of us being an united states doesn't it?

I was in Germany for two years and went to several different countries while there. What you advocate would be like traveling in Europe.


I happen to be on the opposite side from you on this one in that I believe strongly in States Rights, but I don't hink that many of the people who champion the cause have thought it through in both effects and method.

Nobody, that would do anything to put Obama back in could possibly be concerned with State's Rights.

Hate "Romney Care" in MA but realize that it was done within the bounds of States Rights and Romney, being a former Governor, is familiar with the concept. (And if you want to throw a hissy about his being a Morman I have worse news, Utah, has a history of Mormons exercising States Rights, I am pretty sure he knows this too).

Now look at Obama and the attacks on Arizona, that is his view of States Rights. AND THE BEST PART for "no law" PAULITES. Look at the Federal enforcement af Marijauna laws in California under Obama. That shows his respect for States Rights and you want HIM packing the SCOTUS????

States Rights is an issue that needs to be brought by the States themselves taking back control. In order to do that they are going to need positive SCOTUS rulings. My bet is Romney will put Judges on the SCOTUS that are far more likely to be sympathetic, not to the political issue, but to the Constitution, which can only lead them one direction.

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 17:04
Why? Because they make sense to you? Maybe someone else thinks they should be free to take something of yours. If you are not strong enough to keep it that is your fault.

Sounds silly don't it? I see the legalization of drugs to be just as silly.

You've officially crossed the moron rubicon.

Government should protect my rights and my things so that I can pursue happiness. Not protect me from myself.

It is up to me to determine how I define the pursuit of happiness.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 17:13
So you are ok with not being able to travel from state to state without breaking several laws?
...

I'm assuming you are talking about while in possession of drugs that some state would criminalize, so no, I'd have no problem with that.

...
If left to their own then any state could pass any law the majority of its people wanted.
...

No, rights of the people in the Constitution have been incorporated through the 14th so states could not violate them. But I don't know what this has to do with anything anyway as I never said states should be left completely to their own. :dunno:

...
What is perfectly legal in one state could cost you several years in prison in another.
...

I would have no problem with that. With freedom comes responsibility. Ignorance is not an excuse, know the laws where you are going.

edit
We have this now with gun control.
/edit

...
Kind of defeats the purpose of us being an united states doesn't it?
...

It seems to me that you are under the mistaken impression that I would prefer to abolish the fed gov, this is not the case.

...
I was in Germany for two years and went to several different countries while there. What you advocate would be like traveling in Europe.
...

Nothing of the sort.

...
One state could say they don't want drivers licenses or tags, but all the surrounding states could require you to have one from their state to drive there. Is that the kind of country you want?

This is the type of thing that the Interstate Commerce Clause is actually for, not for wheat that never leaves the property it was grown on.

Fed gov could say, states don't have to make it mandatory to have a drivers license or license plates, but you have to make them available, and by so and so standard. If another state meets that standard, every state has to recognize it as valid.

But that doesn't matter, because every state would be under so much pressure from their people to negotiate reciprocity with every other state that is would happen in no time.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 17:20
Why? Because they make sense to you? Maybe someone else thinks they should be free to take something of yours. If you are not strong enough to keep it that is your fault.

Sounds silly don't it? I see the legalization of drugs to be just as silly.

Well yeah they make sense to me and every other sane person. Maybe you can quote me where I said I want complete anarchy, no gov at all?

If you want to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else you should be free to do it. The acts of buying, selling, or using drugs, in and of themselves doesn't hurt anyone else, so in my opinion you should be free to do them.

countrygun
06-24-2012, 17:22
I do not want anarchy, or completely unfettered freedom. I want the most freedom for the most people. To do that you need laws against things like robbery and murder.


You haven't seen "most people" in action have you?

I literally cannot stomach that phrase coming from anyone who has seen what humans are capable of.

You pretty much have a big problem with such an attractive cliche'. Who are the "least" people? Who decides who they are? What keeps the "Most" from abusing their freedom and therefore denying their neighbor his freedom?

It is the sad nature of Humanity to say that restraints are needed. I favor as few as possible myself but I refuse to go along with politicians, or anyone, who does not speak of the limits, and the RESPONSIBILITIES that come with the freedom in the same breath. One who does not do that is trying to sell cotton-candy castles on rock candy mountains to the gullible.

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 17:33
Folks you're debating with a person who earns his living working in a prison. He has a vested interest in a constant supply of new criminals to keep watch over.

lancesorbenson
06-24-2012, 17:43
What you never understood is that most of us agree with some of the LP fiscal platform, not all but some.

Where we differed was the social platform. Social issues are just as important as fiscal to most of us, and more important to some.

What you don't seem to understand is that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to assert itself in these social issues you are so concerned with.

The 10th Amendment is pretty clear unless you are a supporter of judicial activism, which is a liberal hallmark. The Constitution has a way of being added to and in fact has been added to in order to address one of your pet issues. Prohibition, unlike the drug war, was at least pursued through legitimate constitutional channels. Sure, it was a dismal failure--one you apparently would like to see repeated--but that probably tells us something about the vision of the founding fathers. They specifically did not give the federal government authority over these types of issues because they understood the notion that states are better equipped to deal with them.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 17:45
You haven't seen "most people" in action have you?
...

To vague of a question to know how to answer.

...
Who are the "least" people?
...

Those who violate others rights and freedom.

...
Who decides who they are?
...

Society, through government.

...
What keeps the "Most" from abusing their freedom and therefore denying their neighbor his freedom?
...

In theory, the U.S. Constitution.

...
It is the sad nature of Humanity to say that restraints are needed.
...

I agree completely.

...
I favor as few as possible myself
...

It doesn't look that way to me, but I guess it's an argument over what "as few as possible" means.

...
but I refuse to go along with politicians, or anyone, who does not speak of the limits, and the RESPONSIBILITIES that come with the freedom in the same breath.
...

Again, I agree completely. I'm pretty sure I've already said in this thread at least once that with freedom comes responsibility.

...
One who does not do that is trying to sell cotton-candy castles on rock candy mountains to the gullible.

lol, I guess that's one way to put it.

RC-RAMIE
06-24-2012, 17:46
Why? Because they make sense to you? Maybe someone else thinks they should be free to take something of yours. If you are not strong enough to keep it that is your fault.

Sounds silly don't it? I see the legalization of drugs to be just as silly.

You want to use big government to enforce what you think is right but get upset when others try the same yes that sounds silly.


....

RC-RAMIE
06-24-2012, 17:51
You haven't seen "most people" in action have you?

I literally cannot stomach that phrase coming from anyone who has seen what humans are capable of.

You pretty much have a big problem with such an attractive cliche'. Who are the "least" people? Who decides who they are? What keeps the "Most" from abusing their freedom and therefore denying their neighbor his freedom?

It is the sad nature of Humanity to say that restraints are needed. I favor as few as possible myself but I refuse to go along with politicians, or anyone, who does not speak of the limits, and the RESPONSIBILITIES that come with the freedom in the same breath. One who does not do that is trying to sell cotton-candy castles on rock candy mountains to the gullible.

Why do people automatically assume this? Have you been a LEO I have also grew up with a father that retired from Law Enforcement, and I'm anti drug laws because of it. It's a waste of money.


....

countrygun
06-24-2012, 17:54
Folks you're debating with a person who earns his living working in a prison. He has a vested interest in a constant supply of new criminals to keep watch over.


Yes be careful of him, he deals with the people that laws protect the rest of us from so his opinion is tainted by personal experience.

countrygun
06-24-2012, 17:59
Why do people automatically assume this? Have you been a LEO I have also grew up with a father that retired from Law Enforcement, and I'm anti drug laws because of it. It's a waste of money.


....


I am struggling to see what your post has to do with mine.

Could you elucidate for me.

I don't really want to be snarky but my post doesn't mention drugs whatsoever. Do you, 'ahem" have... "Drugs on your mind a lot?"

G-19
06-24-2012, 18:27
Folks you're debating with a person who earns his living working in a prison. He has a vested interest in a constant supply of new criminals to keep watch over.

That really irks you don't it.

lancesorbenson
06-24-2012, 18:50
That really irks you don't it.

I think he's saying that your chosen profession may have something to do with your repeated desire to use government to create even more job security for your "industry." we don't lock enough people up for you? You want to revive the abysmal failure that was alcohol prohibition, among other things? Why? Because it worked so well the first time?

G-19
06-24-2012, 19:01
Folks you're debating with a person who earns his living working in a prison. He has a vested interest in a constant supply of new criminals to keep watch over.

Thanks for proving the validity of my original post and the link explaining the death of the LP. These kind of attacks and mentality of the LP are exactly what the article refers to. Have fun fading into obscurity, you worked hard to achieve it. You deserve it.

certifiedfunds
06-24-2012, 21:00
Thanks for proving the validity of my original post and the link explaining the death of the LP. These kind of attacks and mentality of the LP are exactly what the article refers to. Have fun fading into obscurity, you worked hard to achieve it. You deserve it.

Did you or did you not advocate here for reinstating alcohol prohibition?

G-19
06-25-2012, 07:29
Did you or did you not advocate here for reinstating alcohol prohibition?

Yes, I did. I see no useful purpose for it. On the other hand I have seen lives destroyed by the misuse of it. I have seen the results of accidents where the drunk walked away and innocent people were killed. I have seen families destroyed by alcohol. So yes, I would like to see it gone.

That's the great thing about this country, we are all allowed to have an opinion. I guess that is as long as it don't differ from yours. Or do you feel the same way about opinions as you do voting, only the privileged should be able to do it.