Is libertarianism a genetic mutation? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Is libertarianism a genetic mutation?


Ruble Noon
12-07-2012, 16:11
Maybe this is more evidence in favor of a premise I've long suspected is true: libertarianism is actually a genetic mutation.


L: It certainly feels that way. Frequently.

Doug: It does, doesn't it? Even when people recognize and intellectually understand the philosophy of personal freedom and responsibility, most just can't integrate it into themselves emotionally. And others simply refuse to grasp it intellectually. I'm afraid libertarianism is fated to appeal to only a small minority.


http://lewrockwell.com/casey/casey142.html

token5gtd
12-07-2012, 16:39
Who doesn't want to be free?

Genetic mutation is very laughable though.

Ruble Noon
12-07-2012, 17:14
Who doesn't want to be free?



Have you spent much time perusing GTPI?

hogfish
12-07-2012, 17:14
Who doesn't want to be free?

Genetic mutation is very laughable though.

Submissiveness is very common. :dunno:

kirgi08
12-07-2012, 17:57
There is a difference between a liberal and a libertarian.'08.

Chronos
12-07-2012, 18:06
I doubt it's genetic, but I suspect that it (or rather the lack of it) does have some very real roots in brain function and formation that are established at a young age. There was almost certainly a similar phenomenon back when slavery was taken for granted as a "righteous institution." You just need to expose a child to violence early and often, and get them to identify with the attacker rather than the victim, and boom -- you've made a little authoritarian who has a custom-built sociopathy towards whatever class of innocent people he saw abused. Today, this is what the state does in 12 years of "public education" -- extol violent state intervention in nearly all circumstances, and denigrate innocent people who don't want to be a part of it.

It may be that only a tiny fraction of people have what it takes to break out of that kind of conditioning, though.

Cavalry Doc
12-07-2012, 18:13
Y linked dominant, or recessive?

The way the country is going, I'm thinking recessive makes more sense.

barbedwiresmile
12-07-2012, 18:28
... this is what the state does in 12 years of "public education" -- extol violent state intervention in nearly all circumstances, and denigrate innocent people who don't want to be a part of it.


As usual, Chronos nails it.

countrygun
12-07-2012, 19:05
I doubt it's genetic, but I suspect that it (or rather the lack of it) does have some very real roots in brain function and formation that are established at a young age. There was almost certainly a similar phenomenon back when slavery was taken for granted as a "righteous institution." You just need to expose a child to violence early and often, and get them to identify with the attacker rather than the victim, and boom -- you've made a little authoritarian who has a custom-built sociopathy towards whatever class of innocent people he saw abused. Today, this is what the state does in 12 years of "public education" -- extol violent state intervention in nearly all circumstances, and denigrate innocent people who don't want to be a part of it.

It may be that only a tiny fraction of people have what it takes to break out of that kind of conditioning, though.

I think there is a further step that you stopped short of.

It even seems horrifying to some "libertarians" but, at one time, in this Country a male child was taught to stand up for himself if he was picked on. He didn't "run and tell the teacher" he generally got in a fight. (oh the horror). Once you teach a child to be dependent on authority figures...well you see where it goes. They no longer make their own decisions, they become used to abiding by what the authority figure says and they are more willing to follow orders "handed down".

kirgi08
12-07-2012, 19:14
We home school ta avoid the mandated indoctrination.'08.

barbedwiresmile
12-08-2012, 06:58
Bravo K'08!

JBnTX
12-08-2012, 07:52
In theory libertarianism sounds great, but in reality it's impossible to practice simply because we must have laws if we are to remain a civilized society.

Libertarianism has been hijacked by two different groups that have their own selfish motives.

One is the anarchist who feels he should be allowed to live his life as he sees fit. It's his life and what he does with it is nobody's business.

The other is the pothead whose only motivation in life is legal pot. He'll support any politician who promises to legalize marijuana.

Without the support of these two groups, libertarians would have become extinct long ago.

Cavalry Doc
12-08-2012, 08:00
http://static.neatorama.com/images/2007-06/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-rich-people.GIF


There are a lot of good ideas in libertarianism. Most of them in fact. The problem is that absolute liberty is anarchy, and a system of might is right.

I'm no where near an anarchist, but we could definitely take many large leaps toward libertarianism and things would be better.


It requires a balance.

Syclone538
12-08-2012, 09:53
Who doesn't want to be free?

Genetic mutation is very laughable though.

Most people don't want other people to be free.

Syclone538
12-08-2012, 10:02
...
One is the anarchist who feels he should be allowed to live his life as he sees fit. It's his life and what he does with it is nobody's business.
...

What's the problem with that? The initiation of for is wrong. You should be allowed to live your life as you want as long as you don't harm someone else.

kirgi08
12-09-2012, 07:52
Bravo K'08!

Wanna see something funny,my kid competes against public school kids.Their parents walk away quite angry.'08. :whistling:

NMG26
12-09-2012, 08:11
I'm in.

JBnTX
12-09-2012, 10:48
What's the problem with that? The initiation of for is wrong. You should be allowed to live your life as you want as long as you don't harm someone else.


That concept is a social myth, spread by people who think only of themselves.

The problem is that no one lives their life in a vacuum, and many times what you do does harm someone else.

Even if you only harm yourself, it affects others indirectly.
Whatever harmed you also has the potential to harm others, who may not wish to be harmed in that manner.

That behavior needs to be regulated to protect others.

Governments and laws are necessary if we want to live in a safe, secure and civilized society.

Ruble Noon
12-09-2012, 10:55
That concept is a social myth, spread by people who think only of themselves.

The problem is that no one lives their life in a vacuum, and many times what you do does harm someone else.

Even if you only harm yourself, it affects others indirectly.
Whatever harmed you also has the potential to harm others, who may not wish to be harmed in that manner.

That behavior needs to be regulated to protect others.

Governments and laws are necessary if we want to live in a safe, secure and civilized society.

Always the consummate statist.

steveksux
12-09-2012, 11:45
Always the consummate statist.Only so long as its other people's choices being restricted. It's all good until you start talking about something he wants to do.

Randy

JBnTX
12-09-2012, 13:07
Only so long as its other people's choices being restricted. It's all good until you start talking about something he wants to do.

Randy

There's plenty of things I'd like to do that are illegal or restricted. I understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like it, but I understand it.

If people were allowed to live their lives as they see fit, just as long as they didn't harm anyone else, it wouldn't be one day until that rule was broken in mass quantities.

The problem is that the majority of people can't, or won't, stay within those boundaries. If they could, we wouldn't have half the laws we have now.

The more aggressive would prey on the weak and we'd end up in a savage "me first and to hell with you" society.

The "I can do what I want and you can't stop me" attitude would be the cause of many conflicts, resulting in a complete break down of law and order.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to adults? Or am I?

..

randrew379
12-09-2012, 15:19
There's plenty of things I'd like to do that are illegal or restricted. I understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like it, but I understand it.

If people were allowed to live their lives as they see fit, just as long as they didn't harm anyone else, it wouldn't be one day until that rule was broken in mass quantities.

The problem is that the majority of people can't, or won't, stay within those boundaries. If they could, we wouldn't have half the laws we have now.

The more aggressive would prey on the weak and we'd end up in a savage "me first and to hell with you" society.

The "I can do what I want and you can't stop me" attitude would be the cause of many conflicts, resulting in a complete break down of law and order.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to adults? Or am I?

..

Exactly what illegal activity are you wanting to engage in; and if it harms no one, why should it be illegal?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

countrygun
12-09-2012, 15:39
Exactly what illegal activity are you wanting to engage in; and if it harms no one, why should it be illegal?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

And how is it decided whether it harms another? Do you wait until it HAS?

For instance,

when I lived in the city they had some rules and laws that prevented me from checking the zero on my 30-06 in my backyard, no matter how well I built a backstop. It seems that they were worried that some folks might get a little careless about it and someone might get killed at worst, or others property might be damaged. I know that sounds silly to some but they had this notion that it would be better to keep someone from getting killed, than to let anybody that wanted to fire a gun in the city. Can you imagine the nerve of those "Statists" putting the life of a child in a playground above the right to discharge a firearm?

I tell you it is a sign of the fascist, statist mindset, how they get away with trampling on people's rights like that I don't know, after all we live in a FREE Country.

JBnTX
12-09-2012, 15:41
Exactly what illegal activity are you wanting to engage in; and if it harms no one, why should it be illegal?




That's ALL you got from my post?
That's sad.

People with that (your) attitude are the exact reason we have to have all the laws we have today.

The laws that you detest so much are designed to prevent people like you from becoming a menace and a danger to society.

..

hogfish
12-09-2012, 16:49
That's ALL you got from my post?
That's sad.

People with that (your) attitude are the exact reason we have to have all the laws we have today.

The laws that you detest so much are designed to prevent people like you from becoming a menace and a danger to society.

..

I like the way you think. Can you imagine how much safer it would be for us all if we outlawed POVs? Public transportation would save more lives than anything I can think of. People driving their own vehicles are a menace and a danger to us all. Actually, I think it's a Clear and Present Danger. :upeyes:

glockman045
12-09-2012, 18:24
Am I the only one who shakes his head every time JBNTX posts something?

Long term use narcotic pain killers can cause brain damage, just saying.

Syclone538
12-09-2012, 20:33
There's plenty of things I'd like to do that are illegal or restricted. I understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like it, but I understand it.

If people were allowed to live their lives as they see fit, just as long as they didn't harm anyone else, it wouldn't be one day until that rule was broken in mass quantities.

The problem is that the majority of people can't, or won't, stay within those boundaries. If they could, we wouldn't have half the laws we have now.

The more aggressive would prey on the weak and we'd end up in a savage "me first and to hell with you" society.

The "I can do what I want and you can't stop me" attitude would be the cause of many conflicts, resulting in a complete break down of law and order.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to adults? Or am I?

..

Well you are trying, but no.

So your argument is that if we had fewer laws people would harm each other? Are you saying this does not happen now?

The Maggy
12-09-2012, 21:04
blah blah blah

Once you teach a child to be dependent on authority figures...well you see where it goes. They no longer make their own decisions, they become used to abiding by what the authority figure says and they are more willing to follow orders "handed down".

I think that I am actually agreeing with Countrygun. I need to go take a shower and cry for a bit.

NMG26
12-09-2012, 21:09
I think there is a further step that you stopped short of.

It even seems horrifying to some "libertarians" but, at one time, in this Country a male child was taught to stand up for himself if he was picked on. He didn't "run and tell the teacher" he generally got in a fight. (oh the horror). Once you teach a child to be dependent on authority figures...well you see where it goes. They no longer make their own decisions, they become used to abiding by what the authority figure says and they are more willing to follow orders "handed down".

I see what you did there.


.......you just described JBnTX.

JBnTX
12-09-2012, 21:12
Am I the only one who shakes his head every time JBNTX posts something?

Long term use narcotic pain killers can cause brain damage, just saying.

Maybe you'd like to comment on the topic, instead of insulting me?
The narcotic pain killer remark is out of line and I take great offense
at it.

At least I'm not afraid to speak my mind and make a stand for what I believe in.

Clearly I'm posting on the wrong forum.

UtahIrishman
12-09-2012, 21:25
That concept is a social myth, spread by people who think only of themselves.

The problem is that no one lives their life in a vacuum, and many times what you do does harm someone else.

Even if you only harm yourself, it affects others indirectly.
Whatever harmed you also has the potential to harm others, who may not wish to be harmed in that manner.

That behavior needs to be regulated to protect others.

Governments and laws are necessary if we want to live in a safe, secure and civilized society.

Bold font added by me.

What you say is correct...sort of...that's assuming that is what we want. However I would say most people, at least on here, prefer less government intervention in their lives not more...

I'll take unsafe rogues over most civilized people any day. I have no need to be 'secure' either. I'll take care of my own security thank you.

podwich
12-09-2012, 21:41
There's plenty of things I'd like to do that are illegal or restricted. I understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like it, but I understand it.

If people were allowed to live their lives as they see fit, just as long as they didn't harm anyone else, it wouldn't be one day until that rule was broken in mass quantities.

The problem is that the majority of people can't, or won't, stay within those boundaries. If they could, we wouldn't have half the laws we have now.

The more aggressive would prey on the weak and we'd end up in a savage "me first and to hell with you" society.

The "I can do what I want and you can't stop me" attitude would be the cause of many conflicts, resulting in a complete break down of law and order.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to adults? Or am I?

..

So if I understand you correctly--

You're saying that if people were only prohibited from behavior that would adversely affect others' rights, people would go outside those limits en masse (apparently in contrast to the current status quo?). Thus, to prevent this, we must require limits on people's liberty on things that do not affect others' rights adversely.

Is this what you're saying? If so, it makes no sense.

JBnTX
12-09-2012, 21:47
I'll take unsafe rogues over most civilized people any day. I have no need to be 'secure' either. I'll take care of my own security thank you.

So if I move in next door to you and I'm bigger, stronger, got bigger speakers, more beer, more rowdy friends and more guns than you, you'd be ok with that as long as I'm not hurting anybody else?

I'll drive my car through the neighborhood at 100mph so long as I don't hit anyone.

I like to shoot my guns late at night after I've had too much to drink.

I'm building a meth lab in my basement, since it's my body and what ever I put in it is my business. I'll even sell it and the pot that's growing in my backyard.

Also my wife and a couple of her female friends will be having a lot of "customers" at all hours of the day.

Me and my homeboys have already warned you for the last time that as long as we're not hurting anyone else, what we do is our own business. I'll mind my business and you mind yours.

We OK? Hell, I ain't hurting anybody.
I have a right to live my life as I see fit.

..

UtahIrishman
12-09-2012, 21:52
So if I move in next door to you and I'm bigger, stronger, got bigger speakers, more beer, more rowdy friends and more guns than you, you'd be ok with that as long as I'm not hurting anybody else?

Can I drive my car through the neighborhood at 100mph so long as I don't hit anyone?

I'm building a meth lab in my basement, since it's my body and what ever I put in it is my business. I'll even sell it and the pot that's growing in my backyard.

Also my wife and a couple of her female friends will be having a lot of "customers" at all hours of the day.

Me and my homeboys have already warned you for the last time that as long as we're not hurting anyone else, what we do is our own business. I'll mind my business and you mind yours.

We OK?

We're cool...though I doubt you'll like my new security protocols :supergrin:

Read Farnham's Freehold and get back to me.

podwich
12-09-2012, 22:08
So if I move in next door to you and I'm bigger, stronger, got bigger speakers, more beer, more rowdy friends and more guns than you, you'd be ok with that as long as I'm not hurting anybody else?

I'll drive my car through the neighborhood at 100mph so long as I don't hit anyone.

I like to shoot my guns late at night after I've had too much to drink.

I'm building a meth lab in my basement, since it's my body and what ever I put in it is my business. I'll even sell it and the pot that's growing in my backyard.

Also my wife and a couple of her female friends will be having a lot of "customers" at all hours of the day.

Me and my homeboys have already warned you for the last time that as long as we're not hurting anyone else, what we do is our own business. I'll mind my business and you mind yours.

We OK? Hell, I ain't hurting anybody.
I have a right to live my life as I see fit.

..

1. Property rights.
2. Um...? It's easy to defend reasonable limits based on limited government.
3. As long as you have enough property that'll hold max range on your rounds. If they leave it...well, property rights again. And I'd sure hope you're alone. Because if you're shooting wildly while drunk, that'd sure seem to endanger others, and we've established that's not ok...
4. Sure, no problem. Do what you want to yourself. Although you may want to take care as you're responsible for the effects as well. If someone else wants to do the same, I don't care. They're also responsible for those effects. Don't expect me to pay for your bad decisions.
5. I really don't give a crap. More power to you. Of course, she's responsible for her decisions as well (kids, STDs, etc.).

I agree. You have the right to live your life as you see fit (as long as you're not adversely affecting others' rights). Just don't expect me to support you when you're running into bad effects from your bad decisions.

JBnTX
12-09-2012, 22:08
We're cool...though I doubt you'll like my new security protocols :supergrin:

Read Farnham's Freehold and get back to me.


I'm trying to be serious, and you refer me to a fantasy novel.

If I moved next door to you, you'd be on the phone to the cops demanding that they do something.

But, if there were no laws against what I do, as long as I don't hurt anyone, then I guess you'd be SOL.

What a wonderful world this would be without all those nuisance laws that take away our personal liberty and intrude into our lives.

JBnTX
12-09-2012, 22:11
1. Property rights.
2. Um...? It's easy to defend reasonable limits based on limited government.
3. As long as you have enough property that'll hold max range on your rounds. If they leave it...well, property rights again. And I'd sure hope you're alone. Because if you're shooting wildly while drunk, that'd sure seem to endanger others, and we've established that's not ok...
4. Sure, no problem. Do what you want to yourself. Although you may want to take care as you're responsible for the effects as well. If someone else wants to do the same, I don't care. They're also responsible for those effects. Don't expect me to pay for your bad decisions.
5. I really don't give a crap. More power to you. Of course, she's responsible for her decisions as well (kids, STDs, etc.).




You have no right to put any type of condition on my behavior or activities. And if my lifestyle should cause me harm, I'll just go to the hospital. After all, you're paying for it.

Your increased taxes will more than cover any damage I do to myself.

juggy4711
12-10-2012, 01:33
You have no right to put any type of condition on my behavior or activities. And if my lifestyle should cause me harm, I'll just go to the hospital. After all, you're paying for it.

Your increased taxes will more than cover any damage I do to myself.

:faint: Yet another thread where JB proves he is bat **** crazy.

That we all would have to pay for such behavior is a direct result of your mind set. I don't expect you to understand that.

walt cowan
12-10-2012, 07:02
http://lewrockwell.com/casey/casey142.html

the dnc and rnc are a direct result of incest.

JBnTX
12-10-2012, 07:16
That we all would have to pay for such behavior is a direct result of your mind set. I don't expect you to understand that.

You're already paying for drug rehabilitation centers and some hospital services with your tax money.

Right now you're already footing the bill for the damage that some people's lifestyle does to their bodies.

Who's bat**** crazy now?

..

walt cowan
12-10-2012, 08:11
You're already paying for drug rehabilitation centers and some hospital services with your tax money.

Right now you're already footing the bill for the damage that some people's lifestyle does to their bodies.

Who's bat**** crazy now?

..

right on with that. how is this for crazy? the government forces a mandate that darwin must be taught in schools but, when it comes to letting darwin take effect and letting those lifestyles die off... libs and the gov become born again christians.

UtahIrishman
12-10-2012, 10:06
I'm trying to be serious, and you refer me to a fantasy novel.

If I moved next door to you, you'd be on the phone to the cops demanding that they do something.

But, if there were no laws against what I do, as long as I don't hurt anyone, then I guess you'd be SOL.

What a wonderful world this would be without all those nuisance laws that take away our personal liberty and intrude into our lives.

I'm not suggesting a lawless society. You're are totally misunderstanding the concept. A lawless society is anarchy. I'm not an anarchistic.

There is a difference, a big difference, between a lawless society and one with far fewer laws than we have.

The reference to Farnham's Freehold was meant to show what I'm talking about. And it was flippant I'll admit. I do think you take this way to seriously.

Glock_Convert
12-10-2012, 10:42
I think there is a further step that you stopped short of.

It even seems horrifying to some "libertarians" but, at one time, in this Country a male child was taught to stand up for himself if he was picked on. He didn't "run and tell the teacher" he generally got in a fight. (oh the horror). Once you teach a child to be dependent on authority figures...well you see where it goes. They no longer make their own decisions, they become used to abiding by what the authority figure says and they are more willing to follow orders "handed down".

I think you are confusing libertarians with liberals. Libertarians are all about personal responsibility and taking care of yourself. Pummeling the bully yourself fits perfectly into a libertarian view.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

countrygun
12-10-2012, 12:38
I think you are confusing libertarians with liberals. Libertarians are all about personal responsibility and taking care of yourself. Pummeling the bully yourself fits perfectly into a libertarian view.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

Your view I'm sure, but I know several people who wear the banner of "libertarian" for what ever reason that are mollified when little Johnny comes home with a shiner.

Sadly most parents today were raised under the "Nanny State" incarnation of the public education system and while they might understand other principles I have found, that when faced with an unpleasant situation, tend to largely fall back on the conditioning as a basal response.

One of the problems with boldly identifying ones self with a label is that others who wear the same label may not behave as you would. Granted that may, in and of itself, be a "Libertarian quality" but it can look like the position of the "whatever, Dude" party.

token5gtd
12-10-2012, 14:17
I'm trying to be serious, and you refer me to a fantasy novel.



You mean like the one you live your life by?

Chronos
12-10-2012, 15:39
So if I move in next door to you and I'm bigger, stronger, got bigger speakers, more beer, more rowdy friends and more guns than you, you'd be ok with that as long as I'm not hurting anybody else?

I'll drive my car through the neighborhood at 100mph so long as I don't hit anyone.

I like to shoot my guns late at night after I've had too much to drink.

I'm building a meth lab in my basement, since it's my body and what ever I put in it is my business. I'll even sell it and the pot that's growing in my backyard.

Also my wife and a couple of her female friends will be having a lot of "customers" at all hours of the day.

Me and my homeboys have already warned you for the last time that as long as we're not hurting anyone else, what we do is our own business. I'll mind my business and you mind yours.

We OK? Hell, I ain't hurting anybody.
I have a right to live my life as I see fit.

..

You would get far, far more polite without the state standing between direct negotiation with your neighbors. Or you'd very quickly be taken out of the equation during one of your drunken shooting sessions.

This is yet another example of how the state achieves the opposite of what they advertize.

If you want to see an actual anarchistic community in operation, visit ebay. It took almost no time at all to figure out how to deal with bad actors far more efficiently than the state ever could.

juggy4711
12-10-2012, 16:49
Right now you're already footing the bill for the damage that some people's lifestyle does to their bodies.

Who's bat**** crazy now?

..

Considering that was my point, I'm still going to say you are.

...If you want to see an actual anarchistic community in operation, visit ebay. It took almost no time at all to figure out how to deal with bad actors far more efficiently than the state ever could.

Fantastic example.

glockeglock
12-10-2012, 17:16
There's plenty of things I'd like to do that are illegal or restricted. I understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like it, but I understand it.

If people were allowed to live their lives as they see fit, just as long as they didn't harm anyone else, it wouldn't be one day until that rule was broken in mass quantities.

The problem is that the majority of people can't, or won't, stay within those boundaries. If they could, we wouldn't have half the laws we have now.

The more aggressive would prey on the weak and we'd end up in a savage "me first and to hell with you" society.

The "I can do what I want and you can't stop me" attitude would be the cause of many conflicts, resulting in a complete break down of law and order.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to adults? Or am I?

..

My interpretation: People cannot be trusted. They need other "special" people to control them.

podwich
12-10-2012, 18:54
You have no right to put any type of condition on my behavior or activities. And if my lifestyle should cause me harm, I'll just go to the hospital. After all, you're paying for it.

Your increased taxes will more than cover any damage I do to myself.

I'm not sure what you trying to describe. It sure doesn't describe libertarianism. Perhaps it's some convoluted caricature you've dreamed up, but it's not libertarianism. You're describing anarchy without personal responsibility and with some semblance of statism. I'm not sure what exactly that would be, but it's not libertarianism.

I'll go back to a prior post from you as well:

--------------------------------------------------------

There's plenty of things I'd like to do that are illegal or restricted. I understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like it, but I understand it.

If people were allowed to live their lives as they see fit, just as long as they didn't harm anyone else, it wouldn't be one day until that rule was broken in mass quantities.

The problem is that the majority of people can't, or won't, stay within those boundaries. If they could, we wouldn't have half the laws we have now.

The more aggressive would prey on the weak and we'd end up in a savage "me first and to hell with you" society.

The "I can do what I want and you can't stop me" attitude would be the cause of many conflicts, resulting in a complete break down of law and order.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to adults? Or am I?

..


So if I understand you correctly--

You're saying that if people were only prohibited from behavior that would adversely affect others' rights, people would go outside those limits en masse (apparently in contrast to the current status quo?). Thus, to prevent this, we must require limits on people's liberty on things that do not affect others' rights adversely.

Is this what you're saying? If so, it makes no sense.

--------------------------------------------------------

You're railing against something you clearly don't understand. You should educate yourself some more (and yes, I know you can find some true anarchists out there--this isn't the mainstream libertarian push).

podwich
12-10-2012, 18:58
You're already paying for drug rehabilitation centers and some hospital services with your tax money.

Right now you're already footing the bill for the damage that some people's lifestyle does to their bodies.

Who's bat**** crazy now?

..

You don't get it. The answer isn't to control people's lives. The answer is to allow people to live them...and to live with the consequences.

Rather than controlling people, I'd stop footing the bill for their bad decisions.

countrygun
12-10-2012, 20:02
You don't get it. The answer isn't to control people's lives. The answer is to allow people to live them...and to live with the consequences.

Rather than controlling people, I'd stop footing the bill for their bad decisions.

While that sounds like a good theory there are a number of flaws to it that make it a "pie in the sky" dream.

What happens when someone's "free decision" DOES do harm to someone else and the liable party can't pay for the damages? Do we just have a society of damagers and people limping around from the damage? What do we do with miscreants who do damage above their ability to pay? I know, we'll throw them in prison. If you think prison crowding would be relieved by less laws you just stop and think how full they would be if we just enforced laws against deadbeats.


Where this theory has a big, I mean HUGE, disconnect from reality is the thought that our society which has created all of these welfare programs, that has come to expect a "safety net" from big brother, is ever going to vote away those things. There is no way you are going to convince a significant portion of the people who have either voted for what we have or are the beneficiaries of it to turn it off. There are too many people who think charity should be a function of government, others who are afraid of "the masses" if they aren't appeased, and too many politicians catering to both, to see wholesale change.

Look at how much time is being spent on the issue of more taxes on the wealthy when they won't amount to a drop in the bucket anyway, nobody is fighting to cut anything.


The notion of a change to "individual responsibility" is just the other side of the coin from the socialist utopia of the far left. Unfortunately the left has a better PR department and offers a better signing bonus and gift package.

Time to fight their changes and proclivities rather than preach for something that isn't going to happen and wouldn't work if it did.

At best Libertarians should work on their individual communities, Counties and States, maybe a positive model can be created in the coming chaos, but 90% of our society is not geared to trying to hold onto Individual Responsibility when things get tough, quite the opposite.
It's reality- get used to it.

JBnTX
12-10-2012, 23:11
You don't get it. The answer isn't to control people's lives. The answer is to allow people to live them...and to live with the consequences.

.

REALLY? Have you thought that through, or are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?

Are you aware of how greedy, cruel and vicious many people can be? There are "people" who literally have no souls, no conscience, no remorse and believe in nothing but themselves.

This is NOT a live and let live world.

Laws, regulations and controls must be put in place to keep them from destroying our civilized society.

It's far better for good people to suffer the inconvenience of those controls, than for them to have to suffer the consequences of the bad people's uncontrolled behavior.

We don't get it both ways.
There is no middle ground with some of the animals that pass for human beings.

..

wprebeck
12-11-2012, 01:36
My favorite part of this argument is reading the replies - and then contrasting those replies with how crime and punishment existed in post-Revolutionary America.

Most of you would be exceedingly unhappy living in that world, methinks.

JBnTX
12-11-2012, 04:48
My favorite part of this argument is reading the replies - and then contrasting those replies with how crime and punishment existed in post-Revolutionary America.

Most of you would be exceedingly unhappy living in that world, methinks.



That's like contrasting the water on Earth with the water on Mars.

You would be exceedingly unhappy living in that world, methinks.

syntaxerrorsix
12-11-2012, 11:45
http://socalskateshop.com/images/products/thumb_5859_thumb_bsPinkHelmet.gif

certifiedfunds
12-11-2012, 12:36
REALLY? Have you thought that through, or are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?

Are you aware of how greedy, cruel and vicious many people can be? There are "people" who literally have no souls, no conscience, no remorse and believe in nothing but themselves.

This is NOT a live and let live world.

Laws, regulations and controls must be put in place to keep them from destroying our civilized society.

It's far better for good people to suffer the inconvenience of those controls, than for them to have to suffer the consequences of the bad people's uncontrolled behavior.

We don't get it both ways.
There is no middle ground with some of the animals that pass for human beings.

..

You truly are a tyrant at heart aren't you? A big government statist that would make Mao blush with pride

barbedwiresmile
12-11-2012, 12:41
Laws, regulations and controls must be put in place to keep them from destroying our civilized society.

It's far better for good people to suffer the inconvenience of those controls, than for them to have to suffer the consequences of the bad people's uncontrolled behavior.



You are a good American.

certifiedfunds
12-11-2012, 12:44
:faint: Yet another thread where JB proves he is bat **** crazy.

.

Ya think?

syntaxerrorsix
12-11-2012, 12:45
You truly are a tyrant at heart aren't you? A big government statist that would make Mao blush with pride

You are a good American.

Somethings never change.

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/you-might-be-a-statist.jpg

countrygun
12-11-2012, 12:53
You truly are a tyrant at heart aren't you? A big government statist that would make Mao blush with pride

And you are just as dangerous in your idealism as the Big Brother State types. There is no evidence that we can rely on people to behave without laws anymore than we can trust folks to make laws "for our own good". Human nature proves that either extreme is a path to failure. Common sense will tell you that we have gotten where we are because a significant number crave excess structure. Being an *** because your dream of a structureless society is completely unworkable and never going to happen, doesn't do any good to the cause of pruning back the excesses.

You, in your own way, are just as fanatical as the Christian Fundamentalists, or the Jihadies. There is no way your anarchist utopia is going to come about. There is no possibility of it having popular support, nor any hope of it working if forced by circumstances, on our current society.

It is as ridiculous as the Unicorn-Fart dreams of the left.

certifiedfunds
12-11-2012, 13:01
And you are just as dangerous in your idealism as the Big Brother State types. There is no evidence that we can rely on people to behave without laws anymore than we can trust folks to make laws "for our own good". Human nature proves that either extreme is a path to failure. Common sense will tell you that we have gotten where we are because a significant number crave excess structure. Being an *** because your dream of a structureless society is completely unworkable and never going to happen, doesn't do any good to the cause of pruning back the excesses.

You, in your own way, are just as fanatical as the Christian Fundamentalists, or the Jihadies. There is no way your anarchist utopia is going to come about. There is no possibility of it having popular support, nor any hope of it working if forced by circumstances, on our current society.

It is as ridiculous as the Unicorn-Fart dreams of the left.

Please point to a post where I said I want no laws.

Don't get worked up. You'll get your social security no matter what I believe.

countrygun
12-11-2012, 13:15
Please point to a post where I said I want no laws.

Don't get worked up. You'll get your social security no matter what I believe.

You keep with the Social Security thing DESPITE the fact that I have said many times before that I neither collect it, nor expect to. You cannot put me into one of your labled categories. Which, by the way, is EXACTLY what the left wing propagandists do. You lamely attempt to categorize those who disagree with you so you can marginalize them. Your tactics owe a lot to Alenski.

JBnTX
12-11-2012, 13:15
Please point to a post where I said I want no laws.

.


Please explain to us just what kinds of laws you do support and why. Don't throw the constitution up as a diversion, tell us what you think.

Guys like you usually have a burr up their ass because of some law they disagree with. Usually it's marijuana legalization, motorcycle helmet laws or something similar.

You can't have it your way so you go on some selfish and childish crusade against the evil and oppressive government that has restricted your activities somehow.

You misuse the US constitution as a weapon and latch onto kook candidates like Ron Paul, because you think they might get you what you want.

So tell us just what laws do you support and which you don't.
If you hide behind the constitution, you will just prove me right.

OR, you can just insult me again and avoid telling us what you think.

..

syntaxerrorsix
12-11-2012, 13:20
Please explain to us just what kinds of laws you do support and why. Don't throw the constitution up as a diversion, tell us what you think.

Guys like you usually have a burr up their ass because of some law they disagree with. Usually it's marijuana legalization, motorcycle helmet laws or something similar.

You can't have it your way so you go on some selfish and childish crusade against the evil and oppressive government that has restricted your activities some how.

You misuse the US constitution as a weapon and latch onto kook candidates like Ron Paul, because you think they might get you what you want.

So tell us just what laws do you support and which you don't.
If you hide behind the constitution, you will just prove me right.

OR, you can just insult me again and avoid telling us what you think.

..

Uh, that's what all legitimate law is based on. It's not a diversion it is ORIGIN.

syntaxerrorsix
12-11-2012, 13:33
http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo144/syntaxerrorsix/statist.png

JBnTX
12-11-2012, 13:38
Uh, that's what all legitimate law is based on. It's not a diversion it is ORIGIN.

Yes it is, and you are correct!

But I want an explanation from certifiedfunds, barbedwiresmile,
Ruble Noon and yourself, of just what laws you do support and why.

Everytime I post the necessity for laws you flame me hard and call me a statist, and other childish names.

So let's here from you guys on just what laws you think the perfect society would have.

Should child seat laws, speed limits, drug laws, housing codes and other laws be abolished because they're not in the constitution?

There are no clothing requirements in the constitution, should a person be allowed to go naked in public?

The constitution doesn't say anything about mufflers on cars.
Can I take mine off?

..

syntaxerrorsix
12-11-2012, 13:45
Yes it is, and you are correct!

But I want an explanation from certifiedfunds, barbedwiresmile,
Ruble Noon and yourself, of just what laws you do support and why.

Everytime I post the necessity for laws you flame me hard and call me a statist, and other childish names.

So let's here from you guys on just what laws you think the perfect society would have.

No JB, I only flame you hard and call you a statist when you act like one. Particularly when you claim to be a conservative republican.

You have a hard time differentiating between state and federal laws.

Let's work with the two examples you brought up.

1 - Marijuana. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to restrict it or any other drugs. None. Doesn't exist. On the other hand such laws are WELL within the authority of the State.

I have a problem with the Federal government overstepping it's bounds.


Therefore I disagree with the FEDERAL law in this case.


2 - Helmet laws. There is no Federal helmet laws (or the authority to create one) and States may enact such laws as they see fit as long as it doesn't conflict with the State constitution.

Does that clear things up a bit?

JBnTX
12-11-2012, 13:57
No JB, I only flame you hard and call you a statist when you act like one. Particularly when you claim to be a conservative republican.

You have a hard time differentiating between state and federal laws.

Let's work with the two examples you brought up.

1 - Marijuana. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to restrict it or any other drugs. None. Doesn't exist. On the other hand such laws are WELL within the authority of the State.

I have a problem with the Federal government overstepping it's bounds.


Therefore I disagree with the FEDERAL law in this case.


2 - Helmet laws. There is no Federal helmet laws and States may enact such laws as they see fit as long as it doesn't conflict with the State constitution.

Does that clear things up a bit?

Your post makes it crystal clear and I agree with you 100%.

Now reference post #52 in this thread.
How do you know I'm not talking about state laws?

Specifically what do you disagree with in my post #52?
Read Podwich's post that I was commenting on.

In response to post #52 Certifiedfunds replied:
"You truly are a tyrant at heart aren't you? A big government statist that would make Mao blush with pride."

Now does that response fit with what I posted in post #52?

When you automatically flame and insult me, you give the impression that you're against ALL laws. Certifiedfunds certainly gives that impression.

Everytime I post that laws are necessary for a civilized society, I get called a statist, a freedom hater, a tyrant and other childish and immature names.

It's like I'm dealing with 30 year olds, living in their mother's basement, stoned on pot and typing on the computer.

..

syntaxerrorsix
12-11-2012, 13:58
Your problem is you only see one source of law. The Federal government. You don't even consider townships, counties or states. People are best governed at the smallest level possible where they get to sit down and decide what they want for their township, county or state.

We aren't all the same, not even on a community to community basis. To expect one Central Overlord Federal Government to govern 314 million people across such a large land mass is ridiculous.

Chronos
12-11-2012, 14:02
Are you aware of how greedy, cruel and vicious many people can be? There are "people" who literally have no souls, no conscience, no remorse and believe in nothing but themselves.

And so, naturally, you support an institution called "government" for these sociopaths to control -- and institution which claims legitimate use of violence against the innocent. What could possibly go wrong (other than that whole "#1 cause of unnatural death in the 20th century" thing)?


This is NOT a live and let live world.

Precisely because such a large majority of people like you wish to empower the sociopaths of the world with government.

Laws, regulations and controls must be put in place to keep them from destroying our civilized society.

It's a strange notion of "civilized society" when these sociopaths you empower literally steal ~1/2 the wealth from every single producer every single year, and use it to pay 47% of the population to ensure they remain in power. This is an achievement beyond the mafia's wildest dreams.

certifiedfunds
12-11-2012, 14:03
Your post makes it crystal clear and I agree with you 100%.

Now reference post #52 in this thread.
How do you know I'm not talking about state laws?

Specifically what do you disagree with in my post #52?
Read Podwich's post that I was commenting on.

When you automatically flame and insult me, you give the impression that you're against ALL laws. Certifiedfunds certainly gives that impression.

Everytime I post that laws are necessary for a civilized society, I get called a statist, a freedom hater, a tyrant and other childish and immature names.

It's like I'm dealing with 30 year olds, living in their mother's basement, stoned on pot and typing on the computer.

..

I'm on phone so can't reply in detail. You get flamed because there often aren't sufficient words to describe the disjointed statist stupidity you post.

Case en point above where you start talking about seatbelt laws not being in the cotus

barbedwiresmile
12-11-2012, 14:03
Somethings never change.

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/you-might-be-a-statist.jpg

Is this directed at me? You've been on these forums for years and years. Help me to understand? Your sarcasm detector out of batteries?

syntaxerrorsix
12-11-2012, 14:05
Is this directed at me? You've been on these forums for years and years. Help me to understand? Your sarcasm detector out of batteries?

Lol of course not :wavey:

It's for our helmeted friend.

Chronos
12-11-2012, 14:05
Your problem is you only see one source of law. The Federal government. You don't even consider townships, counties or states. People are best governed at the smallest level possible where they get to sit down and decide what they want for their township, county or state.

We aren't all the same, not even on a community to community basis. To expect one Central Overlord Federal Government to govern 314 million people across such a large land mass is ridiculous.

Yes, anarchy doesn't mean "no rules" or "no order" (there are plenty of non-government rules in the world, and these would naturally expand or contract to fill the demand for order) -- it means "no kings," which is just a concept that blows the mind of certain people.

barbedwiresmile
12-11-2012, 14:06
Lol of course not :wavey:

It's for our helmeted friend.

My apologies. I will check my own batteries! :wavey:

Stubudd
12-11-2012, 15:11
talking to this pair is pointless, nm

certifiedfunds
12-11-2012, 15:58
talking to this pair is pointless, nm

Not completely pointless. It serves to illustrate that the republicans and democrats both love big government. They only differ in the details.

It also shows there are some folks pretty far to the left who are lurking amongst the GT "conservative" ranks.

Finally, it identifies at least a couple of them for all to see.

RC-RAMIE
12-11-2012, 18:21
Not completely pointless. It serves to illustrate that the republicans and democrats both love big government. They only differ in the details.

It also shows there are some folks pretty far to the left who are lurking amongst the GT "conservative" ranks.

Finally, it identifies at least a couple of them for all to see.

Damn good entertainment to.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

UtahIrishman
12-11-2012, 19:53
What I find more amazing than anything is that our country has so many laws that all of us at some point every day break a law. And to absorb and understand all the laws that govern us? Past ridiculous

Last year the Utah State Legislature passed 311 NEW laws to go into effect in 2012. I know only two of them which I found out when I used Google to research my short diatribe here.

We are governed by so many laws, some conflicting, that the idea of actually being a law abiding citizen is meaningless.

And that is why I'm for fewer laws. Personally I think the first thing on each legislatures agenda is to find and repeal laws we don't need. Ideally until we're down to maybe a dozen.

Instead each session more laws are passed...

So the majority of us ignore any law we safely can simply because it's insane to do other wise.

UtahIrishman
12-11-2012, 20:04
REALLY? Have you thought that through, or are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?

Are you aware of how greedy, cruel and vicious many people can be? There are "people" who literally have no souls, no conscience, no remorse and believe in nothing but themselves.

This is NOT a live and let live world.

Laws, regulations and controls must be put in place to keep them from destroying our civilized society.

It's far better for good people to suffer the inconvenience of those controls, than for them to have to suffer the consequences of the bad people's uncontrolled behavior.

We don't get it both ways.
There is no middle ground with some of the animals that pass for human beings.

..

The largest error I see here is that no amount of laws, regulations and controls can contend with "the animals that pass for human beings." as you put it

I've met more than my share of the kind of animals you refer to and laws and regulation mean absolutely nothing to them, and I mean nothing. You might as well write your laws in smoke as far as they are concerned. Laws mean absolutely nothing to the lawless...period.

And I am unwilling to "suffer" for the good of the majority as you put it. This is the same kind of logic that leads to "zero tolerance" BS.

I am quite willing to handle my own affairs in this regard.

NMG26
12-11-2012, 20:16
Seems to me that libertarians come from the old shcool thought, and golden rule, "treat others like you would like to be treated".


.

UtahIrishman
12-11-2012, 20:43
Seems to me that libertarians come from the old shcool thought, and golden rule, "treat others like you would like to be treated".


.
I would agree with that.
Until someone gives me a reason to treat them otherwise I will treat them like I want to be treated.