Jump to content

Southern Avenger Is Leaving


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, first of all, libertarian philosophy is not at all utopian because it isn't centralized, doesn't rely on benevolent actors, and doesn't demand any actions from any individual or group of individuals in order to work.

 

It's the ultimate live and let live philosophy, which simply states: "Do as you will, but don't ask me to pay for it."

 

There is no artificial mechanism which is required for the opperation of self reliance. Darwin is found in nature: poverty is the stick, riches the carrot.

 

Anyone who claims libertarianism is utopian is wrongly and illogically measuring the philosophy through the prism of the goals and values of their own ideology, essentially examining a screwdriver and summarily announcing that the screwdriver is a lousy hammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Booth also killed Lincoln after Act 3, Scene 1 of Our American Cousin.

 

3 acts and counting?

 

I'd say odds are pretty high that Lincoln leaned over to Mary and said "Just Shoot me" and Booth simply overheard and complied.

 

 

It's the ultimate live and let live philosophy, which simply states: "Do as you will, but don't ask me to pay for it."

 

 

Meaning "Do as you will, but let me steal it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, first of all, libertarian philosophy is not at all utopian because it isn't centralized, doesn't rely on benevolent actors, and doesn't demand any actions from any individual or group of individuals in order to work.

 

It's the ultimate live and let live philosophy, which simply states: "Do as you will, but don't ask me to pay for it."

 

There is no artificial mechanism which is required for the opperation of self reliance. Darwin is found in nature: poverty is the stick, riches the carrot.

 

Anyone who claims libertarianism is utopian is wrongly and illogically measuring the philosophy through the prism of the goals and values of their own ideology, essentially examining a screwdriver and summarily announcing that the screwdriver is a lousy hammer.

Every Libertarian seems to have their own unique perspective on what exactly a Libertarian country would look like so let me ask you some general questions

 

1. What if any services would public, how would they be paid for and if you feel that the service is of no benefit to you, can you opt out of both the service and paying for the service.

 

2. How is redress decided, and what if any enforcement is used to accomplished redress.

 

3. Is there any interplay between individual property rights and community property rights ie. am I allowed to do anything I wish with my own property as long as it stays on my property or am I subject to community standards and if I am subject to community standards who gets to set those standards and how are those standards enforced.

 

 

if you answer those questions then I'll get a better idea what you mean by Libertarian Philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Libertarian seems to have their own unique perspective on what exactly a Libertarian country would look like so let me ask you some general questions

 

1. What if any services would public, how would they be paid for and if you feel that the service is of no benefit to you, can you opt out of both the service and paying for the service.

 

2. How is redress decided, and what if any enforcement is used to accomplished redress.

 

3. Is there any interplay between individual property rights and community property rights ie. am I allowed to do anything I wish with my own property as long as it stays on my property or am I subject to community standards and if I am subject to community standards who gets to set those standards and how are those standards enforced.

 

 

if you answer those questions then I'll get a better idea what you mean by Libertarian Philosophy.

 

What's his is his and what's yours is his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Libertarian seems to have their own unique perspective on what exactly a Libertarian country would look like so let me ask you some general questions

 

1. What if any services would public, how would they be paid for and if you feel that the service is of no benefit to you, can you opt out of both the service and paying for the service.

 

2. How is redress decided, and what if any enforcement is used to accomplished redress.

 

3. Is there any interplay between individual property rights and community property rights ie. am I allowed to do anything I wish with my own property as long as it stays on my property or am I subject to community standards and if I am subject to community standards who gets to set those standards and how are those standards enforced.

 

 

if you answer those questions then I'll get a better idea what you mean by Libertarian Philosophy.

 

Your questions ponder a Utopian world. The burden on the Libertarian these days is shaking that conversation and getting to something more practical. If at my core, I think that people need less government intervention in our lives, I'd like to see the government shrunk down towards that goal.

 

Can we shut down public schools tomorrow? No, but maybe start with a voucher system.

 

Can we stop all welfare on a dime? No, but we can decrease it and tie it to work.

 

Can we legalize every drug tomorrow? (Probably.) No, but we can tackle something between the failed War on Drugs and heroin sold off the shelf at the local 7-11.

 

And on and on. The trouble is that no current party does anything substantial to shrink government control and spending. It's all about growth--the only argument the parties engage in is where to grow.

 

The arm-chair libertarian is often a Randian idealist with no use for middle ground. This person is not practical--the Libertarians need to find some people who are fundamentally sound but who propose practical solutions.

Edited by John Adams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and on and on. The trouble is that no current party does anything substantial to shrink government control and spending. It's all about growth--the only argument the parties engage in is where to grow.

 

In fact is incomprehensible to some on the Left that anyone would even think of repealing any laws (or programs) even if they do not work as promised.

 

 

 

Daily Beast's Tomasky Rips 'Terrifying' Suggestion That Congress Should Repeal Bad Laws, Not Pass More of Them

 

Michael Tomasky lambasted House Speaker John Boehner on The Daily Beast Wednesday for Boehner’s recent comment that Republicans should be judged on how many laws they repeal, not how many new ones they pass. The special correspondent summed up his feelings in the article’s sub-headline: "This is unprecedented, irresponsible, and terrifying.”

 

And why was Boehner’s statement “terrifying?” Because it was a sign of Republicans’ embrace of dysfunction. Apparently the function of Congress is to pass never-ending rafts of new, government-growing legislation:

 

"The Republican Party now sees dysfunction as not just an unfortunate consequence of a set of historical factors, something that they might work every now and again to correct. Now, the Republican Party sees dysfunction as its mission."

 

Tomasky must consider it dysfunctional to want to repeal bad legislation. This means that, in his view, a government’s functionality is measured by how many laws it passes. God help us all if our federal government begins to function well according to this criterion

The idea that elected officials should prevent bad laws from passing is not new, despite what Tomasky asserted in the article. It was the backbone of Grover Cleveland’s governing philosophy in the 1880s and 1890s. President Cleveland, a Democrat, vetoed a whopping 414 bills during his first term – and 170 more during his second term – because he believed it was the president’s job to protect Americans from harmful legislation. Speaker Boehner and other House Republicans now seem to believe it is their job to protect the country from bad legislation.

 

Similarly, Republican President Calvin Coolidge was known for his aversion to passing legislation for the sake of legislation. "It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones," he famously quipped.

 

 

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.o...n#ixzz2a4UACff1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Libertarian seems to have their own unique perspective on what exactly a Libertarian country would look like so let me ask you some general questions

Couldn't this be said for Democrats, Communists, Republicans, Tea Party'ers, and Independent?

 

1. What if any services would public, how would they be paid for and if you feel that the service is of no benefit to you, can you opt out of both the service and paying for the service.

Federal highway systems would be paid through taxing automobiles, motorcycles, devices that use them with a self propulsion system.

Enviromental, climate and science studies meant to help promote sustainable lifestyles and enviroments paid for by federal industrial taxation. These industries would not have to comply to standards but these standards would be electives to allow for better business and better public appeal.

Military protection of the air and sea primarily - defense strategy minded - paid by taxing. Not sure what method - I do not know enough to say.

 

2. How is redress decided, and what if any enforcement is used to accomplished redress.

Civil action using the judicial system.

 

3. Is there any interplay between individual property rights and community property rights ie. am I allowed to do anything I wish with my own property as long as it stays on my property or am I subject to community standards and if I am subject to community standards who gets to set those standards and how are those standards enforced.

It would depend on the community you live in. If a community privatized and became a "gated" community then you would have their standards. If you live in Monroe County on 4 acres you could do whatever you wanted, so long as you are not injuring, harming or exposing your neighbors to hazzards which may be unsafe...in which case they could take you to court. Loser pays court costs.

 

if you answer those questions then I'll get a better idea what you mean by Libertarian Philosophy.

Just some of my personal beliefs. I identify myself as Batman politically, but some times Libertarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Libertarian seems to have their own unique perspective on what exactly a Libertarian country would look like so let me ask you some general questions

 

1. What if any services would public, how would they be paid for and if you feel that the service is of no benefit to you, can you opt out of both the service and paying for the service.

 

2. How is redress decided, and what if any enforcement is used to accomplished redress.

 

3. Is there any interplay between individual property rights and community property rights ie. am I allowed to do anything I wish with my own property as long as it stays on my property or am I subject to community standards and if I am subject to community standards who gets to set those standards and how are those standards enforced.

 

 

if you answer those questions then I'll get a better idea what you mean by Libertarian Philosophy.

First of all, a bit of education: stop capitalizing the "L" in libertarian when refering to the philosophy. Libertarian, with a capital "L" refers to the party, which is not libertarian in philosophy at all, but rather seeks libertarian reforms of socialist programs, ultimately culminating in conservative socialism.

 

Secondly, before I can answer your questions, I need to know exactly what you're trying to discover. Are you asking me what a transitional period would look like, how long it would likely last, and what it would entail; or are you asking me what the final end goal would look like such that you can mischararterize and strawman my position by standing the final product up against the realities of today's world and claim that I'm living in a world that doesn't exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, a bit of education: stop capitalizing the "L" in libertarian when refering to the philosophy. Libertarian, with a capital "L" refers to the party, which is not libertarian in philosophy at all, but rather seeks libertarian reforms of socialist programs, ultimately culminating in conservative socialism.

 

Secondly, before I can answer your questions, I need to know exactly what you're trying to discover. Are you asking me what a transitional period would look like, how long it would likely last, and what it would entail; or are you asking me what the final end goal would look like such that you can mischararterize and strawman my position by standing the final product up against the realities of today's world and claim that I'm living in a world that doesn't exist?

 

This post is not exactly convincing when it comes to the practicality of implementing libertarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is not exactly convincing when it comes to the practicality of implementing libertarianism.

This post wasn't intended to convince, it's intended to inquire. Convincing comes after understanding the purpose of the audience. But then, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

 

But hey, since we're talking, what happened to your proclaimation stating your intentions to not muddy up other threads with your tired bull ****, and to start another thread where we could discuss our prior argument? Liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, a bit of education: stop capitalizing the "L" in libertarian when refering to the philosophy. Libertarian, with a capital "L" refers to the party, which is not libertarian in philosophy at all, but rather seeks libertarian reforms of socialist programs, ultimately culminating in conservative socialism.

 

Secondly, before I can answer your questions, I need to know exactly what you're trying to discover. Are you asking me what a transitional period would look like, how long it would likely last, and what it would entail; or are you asking me what the final end goal would look like such that you can mischararterize and strawman my position by standing the final product up against the realities of today's world and claim that I'm living in a world that doesn't exist?

Convincing someone that less is more is next to impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post wasn't intended to convince, it's intended to inquire. Convincing comes after understanding the purpose of the audience. But then, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

 

But hey, since we're talking, what happened to your proclaimation stating your intentions to not muddy up other threads with your tired bull ****, and to start another thread where we could discuss our prior argument? Liar.

 

I brought that up?

 

I don't think I did. I was just mocking your convoluted "logic" regarding libetarianism and capital letters and stuff. You did that in this very thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought that up?

 

I don't think I did. I was just mocking your convoluted "logic" regarding libetarianism and capital letters and stuff. You did that in this very thread.

You're an idiot.

 

Convincing someone that less is more is next to impossible.

I haven't attempted to convince anyone of anything as of yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that many of you here would gain something by going to the used book store and picking up any/all of of Robert Ringer's books. His first book "Winning Through Intimidation" got a lot of liberals to squeek and squack, but only because they didn't read it and undertand that it was mainly about business and intimidating through preparation. His second book, "Looking Out For #1" leaned toward relationships of all kinds. It had to do with a win/win philosophy. You can guess what "Restoring The American Dream" was about. Robert Ringer is a libertarian, but I think even he sees that in all practicality a marriage of libertarians and conservatives is most likely the best that we can hope to put together in defense of this nation's heritage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...