How will you feel if Obama wins a second term?

[History_Buff]

Life starts at conception. Period.

Not by any meaningful criteria.

 

[WindFish]

whats that country im curious

The United Kingdom of Obama removed a Churchill bust from the White House.

 

[Joecoolyo]

INCOMING CSA DEBATE OH LAWDIES

And yet he was better than Lincoln since he did not start a war that led to over a half-million deaths.

The idea that Lincoln started a war which had it's roots 20 years before he was born is rich.

 

[emzie]

The United Kingdom of Obama removed a Churchill bust from the White House.

The UK is pretty far from the most Libertarian country in Europe. I feel like that's an understatement.

 

[WindFish]

The UK is pretty far from the most Libertarian country in Europe. I feel like that's an understatement.

Okay I'm curious

Which other European countries are more Libertarian than the UK?

 

[Angst]

The tax havens?

(not being a smartass, merely suggestive)

 

[WindFish]

The tax havens?

(not being a smartass, merely suggestive)

Liechtenstein is an absolute monarchy

I don't know about Switzerland

 

[GhostWriter16]

=

Okay I'm curious

Which other European countries are more Libertarian than the UK?

To my knowledge there are no Libertarian countries right now. Somalia is anarchistic, but anarchistic =/= Libertarian.

 

[emzie]

Okay I'm curious

Which other European countries are more Libertarian than the UK?

Well, there's a few countries more "economically free" than the UK: Switzerland, Ireland* and Denmark, though there's a larger list which that I'd consider not significantly diffident: the Baltic countries, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland.

Factor in the other half of the equation, personal freedom, that seems even more subjective. I put high weight on lax gun control and lax drug policies, yet another person might weigh those exactly opposite to myself as an expression of the freedom to live their life safely. Same thing with speed cameras. It feels really nannystate, but all they're doing is catching people breaking the law -- and breaking the law is not a freedom anywhere.

All that said, give me the Netherlands.

*whoops

 

[GhostWriter16]

It feels really nannystate, but all they're doing is catching people breaking the law -- and breaking the law is not a freedom anywhere.

That's all they're SUPPOSED to do. I don't trust the government though. They will almost always overstep their bounds.

The only fair way is to weigh everything equally, but that might be a bit whacky, since it would put an anti-meth law, an anti-porn law, and an anti-free religion law on equal footing, while any rational analysis would say that banning porn is more "Anti-Libertarian" than banning meth and that banning free exercise of religion even more authoritarian than banning porn.

Those were just three arbitrary examples, but yeah, you can't weigh everything equally. There is no question, however, that the "Freedom to live safely" and banning drugs and guns over that fact, is anti-Libertarian, whether you approve or not (I don't, BTW.)

 

[History_Buff]

I don't trust the government though. They will almost always overstep their bounds.

That's a bold assumption.

 

[WindFish]

I don't trust the government though. They will almost always overstep their bounds.

Prove that every government oversteps their bounds

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's a bold assumption.

How often has it held false? The only time I remember it happening in this country was when Jefferson was in the White House. Even then, I wouldn't be shocked if some abuses occurred then as well.

 

[Angst]

That's all they're SUPPOSED to do. I don't trust the government though. They will almost always overstep their bounds.

Danish people enjoy more freedom than Americans. Our government is pretty red.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

How often has it held false? The only time I remember it happening in this country was when Jefferson was in the White House. Even then, I wouldn't be shocked if some abuses occurred then as well.

You do see this only holds for someone of your radical persuasion?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

but all they're doing is catching people breaking the law -- and breaking the law is not a freedom anywhere.

Breaking the law is a freedom everywhere. It just is not the sort of freedom that governments wish to protect. Laws ought to limit freedom only in so much is necessary as to allow individuals more freedom from the negative externalities that other individuals cause them, but in practice they tend to go much further than that.


There are actually some studies that seem to imply that even traffic regulations may make driving less safe. They can make drivers pay more attention to traffic lights and signs than to the conditions of the road and the actions of other vehicles.

 

[History_Buff]

How often has it held false? The only time I remember it happening in this country was when Jefferson was in the White House. Even then, I wouldn't be shocked if some abuses occurred then as well.

You know, most western countries? You'll also notice our governments tend to step back when the Courts tell them they have overstepped their grounds.

 

[Cutlass]

And yet he was better than Lincoln since he did not start a war that led to over a half-million deaths.

And yet any person who know what the frak they are talking about counts Lincoln as either the first or second best. Only the people who are completely ignorant think Lincoln is bad.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Danish people enjoy more freedom than Americans. Our government is pretty red.

You might be right, I haven't compared the two. I imagine you have a better record than we do when it comes to government surveilance and airport security. I think ANY western democracy probably does

I don't know of any country that defends the right to bear arms as much as we do though.

You know, most western countries? You'll also notice our governments tend to step back when the Courts tell them they have overstepped their grounds.

Except that the courts are PART of said government? We were better off when nullification was used.

And yet any person who know what the frak they are talking about counts Lincoln as either the first or second best. Only the people who are completely ignorant think Lincoln is bad.

I used to think Lincoln was one of the first or second best. Than I studied the civil war.

I believe in the right to secede and I believe in isolationism (Or "Non-interventionism" more specifically.) Lincoln, on the other hand, was the second imperial President after Polk. Admittedly, Lincoln did accomplish ending slavery on top of all of the bad stuff the civil war caused, but that still doesn't make him great. He still acted in an unethical manner, or at least, you could argue he did the right thing for the wrong reasons. (How anyone could defend a war "To preserve the union" is absurd to me, but I guess I'll let you deal with your nationalism.)

 

[W|M]

I dont think there is an unethical way to free slaves, regardless of ulterior motives