Libertarians seize power in New Hampshire, Fed moves to quash rebellion.

I am a Libertarian. However, like any type of group, not all people believe exactly the same, but rather closely relate.

I believe in the Libertarian ideology.

I believe the government exists to protect the citizenry from all threats foriegn and domestic. I believe the government's job is to stop other persons/groups whether foriegn or domestic from interfering in my right to live as I see fit, and vice versa. Any law passed that prohibits anything that does not directly hurt another person is wrong.

Some Libertarian beliefs:

Drugs should be legal: Libertarians do not, as Libertarians, advocate the use of drugs, however we do recognize the right of any person to do whatever they feel makes them happy. If you get high on crack and then go murder someone, charge them with murder.

Prostitution should be legal: Again, as Libertarians, we do not advocate prostitution, but we recognize the right of the prostitute to earn a living in this manner and for the consumer to seek the services thereof. If a prostitute, whether knowingly or not, passes a disease onto his/her customer, charge them with the applicable crime. Also, some responsibility should rest with the consumer to protect his/herself and to consider the risks. If a consumer murders or passes a disease onto the prostitute, same thing.

Government Subsidies: Most Libertarians do not believe in supporting buisnesses, individuals, etc who are failures with the hard earned cash of those who are not. If a farm makes the mistake of growing too much corn, the government should not use our cash to buy the extra that is not sold. If a person chooses to be socially deviant and has children out of wedlock or with a non-supportive spouse, they should not be supported. We should not be sending international welfare overseas in the form of economic assistance, national defense, etc to people who do not pay U.S federal taxes.

Generally: The government and the people of this nation should treat each other and themselves as adults who should be responsible for themselves. By removing that responsibility we make ourselves dependent and weaker. Since the U.S Constitution was enacted in 1787, we have slowly, but surely seen more and more government regulation of American life. Along with increased regulation and Nanny-ism of America, we have seen a slow, but sure decay of our society (especially since WWII). Nearly 100 years of Democratic and Republican monopoly of our political system has drained us of our potential to achieve something greater than we can imagine. During the middle of the century, the work week for the average American was decreasing. It looked as though we would end up with 20 or 30 hour work weeks. We don't see that optimism anymore. The average American has to work two jobs or more than 40 hours a week to support his/herself and/or a family. 15 percent, or more, of Americans can't afford health care, because of excessive taxes, the thieving insurance companies, frivilous malpractice lawsuits, and a greedy medical profession. Our eduction system and generally our care of our youth has been destroyed and mangled by people who want zero accountability and judgement of behaviors and actions. We have a judicial system that has recently been subverting the will of the people one decision after another. We have a government that OUTRIGHT REFUSES to do its job at home by using the military for what it is REALLY for and putting them on the U.S-Mexican border and stopping the REAL threat, the invasion of American through illegal immigration. We have Mexican murderers, rapists, criminals of all kinds coming across the border illegally and the gov't refuses to protect us, but they want to invade Iraq. We have CEOs cooking the books, robbing average Americans of massive investments amounting to their absolute future well-being and the government has done very little to protect us from that, but they can give Germany an entire division of American boys and girls forever. We have Americans losing jobs, their homes, their lives, but we can send 3 billion dollars to Haiti. The government is NOT taking care of us. The government is NOT protecting us from the real threats. The politicians in Washington are paying themselves fat salaries for comfortable jobs with excellent fringe benefits, etc, but THEY ARE LETTING OUR SOLDIERS DIE OF DISEASE AND ILLNESS THAT THEY THEMSELVES ALLOWED OUR TROOPS TO BE EXPOSED TO, such as Agent Orange, Depleted Uranium, and God knows what else. Dammit, take a pay cut and take care of our troops! There is no reason why politicians should recieve better pensions than our soldiers. There is no reason Americans should suffer while we take care of others abroad. There is no reason Americans should suffer while we provide everything and anything to illegal immigrants, here. There is no reason to fill jail cells with decent otherwise law-abiding citizens who feel that maybe it makes them happy to smoke pot and snort a fat line of coke while plugging a 20 dollar hooker until their face turns blue and they keel over from heart attack at age 20. I want to do whatever it is I want to myself or my body without anybody on my back about. If I start intruding on you or anyone else, then you can get on my case, otherwise, worry about yourself!
 
Originally posted by lceman
Any law passed that prohibits anything that does not directly hurt another person is wrong.
Not only is the definition of "directly" open to debate (if someone is dying and you see him, say nothing and don't call for help, is this directly or indirectly hurting him ?), but it happens that many people (myself included) don't consider abusive to take "danger" into the equation and not just the result itself.
As in : driving at 180 Km/h in a city is dangerous and should be forbidden. Even though, until the accident happens, the driver isn't directly hurting anyone.
 
Originally posted by Akka

Not only is the definition of "directly" open to debate (if someone is dying and you see him, say nothing and don't call for help, is this directly or indirectly hurting him ?), but it happens that many people (myself included) don't consider abusive to take "danger" into the equation and not just the result itself.
As in : driving at 180 Km/h in a city is dangerous and should be forbidden. Even though, until the accident happens, the driver isn't directly hurting anyone.

Strawmen galore in this post, fellas.

If the road is privately owned, you can drive at whatever speed you want, without a license even. This is the situation even today. If you don't want to be around fast-moving vehicles, stay off the property. If you drive on public roads, you must obey the rules of the public road as established by the government. Few libertarians will tell you "you have the God-given right to drive as fast as you want on public roads." Some of them will tell you we should abolish publicly-owned roads altogether, but very few will have you flout the law.

As for whether you are directly or indirectly hurting the dying man, it's quite clear the harm is inflicted only indirectly (if you don't agree, tell me how the harm is directly caused to the dying man). Whether "good samaritan" laws, which would punish you for doing nothing, are morally correct would be a very interesting topic for debate.
 
Originally posted by Kilroy
Strawmen galore in this post, fellas.

If the road is privately owned, you can drive at whatever speed you want, without a license even. This is the situation even today. If you don't want to be around fast-moving vehicles, stay off the property. If you drive on public roads, you must obey the rules of the public road as established by the government. Few libertarians will tell you "you have the God-given right to drive as fast as you want on public roads." Some of them will tell you we should abolish publicly-owned roads altogether, but very few will have you flout the law.
Ok, let's take another example, considering you wish to nitpick.

What about someone storing nitroglycerine in big half-full tanks in his garden, just aside my house ?
Is this acceptable ?
As for whether you are directly or indirectly hurting the dying man, it's quite clear the harm is inflicted only indirectly (if you don't agree, tell me how the harm is directly caused to the dying man).
Technically, you're not even hurting him, as the harm come from the loss of blood (or water if he's drowning, or fatigue and height if he's hanging on a cliff, or things like that).
But I think that conscious actions go a little beyond strictly technical considerations.

Exemple : you're driving, someone cross the road. If you don't brake, your car will crush him.
On a strict technical point of view, if you do nothing, you're not directly harming him, your car is just set on a course that he happens to cross. Still, I suppose that not slowing down and flattening someone you saw is considered murder.
Same as firing a gun in random direction if you're blindfolded. You perhaps not purposedly targetted anyone, but anyway you acted in a way that you KNEW would let people be hurt.

I don't see the real difference between not calling help and not slowing down to not crush a walker. In both case you decide to do nothing, and the result is that someone will get hurt.

Whether "good samaritan" laws, which would punish you for doing nothing, are morally correct would be a very interesting topic for debate.
I hardly see how there can be a debate in cases where the no-acting person has no risk. I mean, I can understand that someone won't jump in a building in fire to save someone trapped inside. I can also understand someone who don't dare to enter in a fight to help the one being attacked, or someone who don't know well how to swim to help someone who's drowning. In all cases the person put himself at risk. But calling for help, won't endanger himself.
I don't see how anyone can seriously debate about the morality of a law punishing this kind of behaviour.
 
Originally posted by lceman
I am a Libertarian. However, like any type of group, not all people believe exactly the same, but rather closely relate.

I believe in the Libertarian ideology.

I believe the government exists to protect the citizenry from all threats foriegn and domestic. I believe the government's job is to stop other persons/groups whether foriegn or domestic from interfering in my right to live as I see fit, and vice versa. Any law passed that prohibits anything that does not directly hurt another person is wrong.

Some Libertarian beliefs:

Drugs should be legal: Libertarians do not, as Libertarians, advocate the use of drugs, however we do recognize the right of any person to do whatever they feel makes them happy. If you get high on crack and then go murder someone, charge them with murder.

Prostitution should be legal: Again, as Libertarians, we do not advocate prostitution, but we recognize the right of the prostitute to earn a living in this manner and for the consumer to seek the services thereof. If a prostitute, whether knowingly or not, passes a disease onto his/her customer, charge them with the applicable crime. Also, some responsibility should rest with the consumer to protect his/herself and to consider the risks. If a consumer murders or passes a disease onto the prostitute, same thing.

Government Subsidies: Most Libertarians do not believe in supporting buisnesses, individuals, etc who are failures with the hard earned cash of those who are not. If a farm makes the mistake of growing too much corn, the government should not use our cash to buy the extra that is not sold. If a person chooses to be socially deviant and has children out of wedlock or with a non-supportive spouse, they should not be supported. We should not be sending international welfare overseas in the form of economic assistance, national defense, etc to people who do not pay U.S federal taxes.

Generally: The government and the people of this nation should treat each other and themselves as adults who should be responsible for themselves. By removing that responsibility we make ourselves dependent and weaker. Since the U.S Constitution was enacted in 1787, we have slowly, but surely seen more and more government regulation of American life. Along with increased regulation and Nanny-ism of America, we have seen a slow, but sure decay of our society (especially since WWII). Nearly 100 years of Democratic and Republican monopoly of our political system has drained us of our potential to achieve something greater than we can imagine. During the middle of the century, the work week for the average American was decreasing. It looked as though we would end up with 20 or 30 hour work weeks. We don't see that optimism anymore. The average American has to work two jobs or more than 40 hours a week to support his/herself and/or a family. 15 percent, or more, of Americans can't afford health care, because of excessive taxes, the thieving insurance companies, frivilous malpractice lawsuits, and a greedy medical profession. Our eduction system and generally our care of our youth has been destroyed and mangled by people who want zero accountability and judgement of behaviors and actions. We have a judicial system that has recently been subverting the will of the people one decision after another. We have a government that OUTRIGHT REFUSES to do its job at home by using the military for what it is REALLY for and putting them on the U.S-Mexican border and stopping the REAL threat, the invasion of American through illegal immigration. We have Mexican murderers, rapists, criminals of all kinds coming across the border illegally and the gov't refuses to protect us, but they want to invade Iraq. We have CEOs cooking the books, robbing average Americans of massive investments amounting to their absolute future well-being and the government has done very little to protect us from that, but they can give Germany an entire division of American boys and girls forever. We have Americans losing jobs, their homes, their lives, but we can send 3 billion dollars to Haiti. The government is NOT taking care of us. The government is NOT protecting us from the real threats. The politicians in Washington are paying themselves fat salaries for comfortable jobs with excellent fringe benefits, etc, but THEY ARE LETTING OUR SOLDIERS DIE OF DISEASE AND ILLNESS THAT THEY THEMSELVES ALLOWED OUR TROOPS TO BE EXPOSED TO, such as Agent Orange, Depleted Uranium, and God knows what else. Dammit, take a pay cut and take care of our troops! There is no reason why politicians should recieve better pensions than our soldiers. There is no reason Americans should suffer while we take care of others abroad. There is no reason Americans should suffer while we provide everything and anything to illegal immigrants, here. There is no reason to fill jail cells with decent otherwise law-abiding citizens who feel that maybe it makes them happy to smoke pot and snort a fat line of coke while plugging a 20 dollar hooker until their face turns blue and they keel over from heart attack at age 20. I want to do whatever it is I want to myself or my body without anybody on my back about. If I start intruding on you or anyone else, then you can get on my case, otherwise, worry about yourself!

interestingly you therefore do want quite a lot of laws and rules - against accounting fraud, insider dealing, access to legal rights, restrictions on imports (hardly libertarian?!) etc. seems to me you don't want fewer restrictions, just DIFFERENT restrictions?

I'd be interested to see the relative contribution from and take by illegal immigrants - after all, most of these people work in low-paid jobs that legal workers won't take, and I bet the great majority are honest and hard-working, despite the media stereotype. Making out that all Americans are at major risk of rape and murder as a result of immigration - is there evidence for this assertion?

Surely a libertarian would welcome immigrants, illegal or otherwise, on a 'work or starve' basis?

In short I'm puzzled, you don't seem to be a libertarian to me....
 
The whole basis of Libertarianism is rather fantastical and overly theoretical. It is one of those the ideologies that has the distinct pleasure of never having had a real chance of having to suffer the rigour of actual implementation.
 
I like many aspects of the Libertarian ideology (not all), but I think it's practically not workable. But this Free State Project is interesting, just to see what happens, and who knows, it might work. I believe a similar project is in preparation in Europe too.
 
Originally posted by addiv
But this Free State Project is interesting, just to see what happens,

No it's not - it's ridiculous and dangerous.

Have we all forgotten about the problems associated with people moving into an area to set up a state based around a certain ideology or something? *Cough* Israel *Cough*

Oh, and not to mention that it relies on the totally absurd basis that every subsequent generation of the population of such a state will be 'ideologically pure', and won't turn out to be, say, socialists or conservatives.

What would you do with those people, when they started setting up Socialist parties or Green parties or centre-right parties and demanding changes to the system? Throw them out?!? Deny them their rights?!?
 
Originally posted by Hamlet
The whole basis of Libertarianism is rather fantastical and overly theoretical. It is one of those the ideologies that has the distinct pleasure of never having had a real chance of having to suffer the rigour of actual implementation.

Yes, but when we went in that direction, the human condition got a whole lot better. The same cannot be said for going in the other direction.
 
Originally posted by thestonesfan
Yes, but when we went in that direction, the human condition got a whole lot better. The same cannot be said for going in the other direction.

Pardon? Would you care to add some bones to that remark?
 
Originally posted by Hamlet

Oh, and not to mention that it relies on the totally absurd basis that every subsequent generation of the population of such a state will be 'ideologically pure', and won't turn out to be, say, socialists or conservatives.

Good point. The United States is a great example of a State founded on sound principles which has suffered and will probably fail due to a vacancy of common sense.

What would you do with those people, when they started setting up Socialist parties or Green parties or centre-right parties? Throw them out?!? Deny them their rights?!?

Educate them!
 
reminds me of our attempt to take over the FDP (radical libertarians as far as economy id concerned (i.e. corporate honcho *****ers)) in my home town.... We'd only have needed 127 people voting for them to disband the local club..... but they realized and shut us out :(
 
Originally posted by thestonesfan
Good point. The United States is a great example of a State founded on sound principles which has suffered and will probably fail due to a vacancy of common sense.

The United States is a pluralistic society. If you want an ideologically pure state that is destined to continue in the same political vein until the end of time, then set up a dictatorship or something similarly inflexible. You already mentioned The Soviet Union.

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Educate them!

Yes, because your political views are based upon how clever you are! Socialists are all stupid, lol!


:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Hamlet


The United States is a pluralistic society. If you want an ideologically pure state that is destined to continue in the same political vein until the end of time, then set up a dictatorship or something similarly inflexible. You already mentioned the Soviet Union.

Yes, history has proven time and again that dictatorships never collapse.

Yes, because your political views are based upon how clever you are! Socialists are all stupid, lol!
:rolleyes:

Not necessarily 'stupid', they just lack a certain grasp of things, not the least of which is human nature.
 
Originally posted by thestonesfan

Not necessarily 'stupid', they just lack a certain grasp of things, not the least of which is human nature. [/B]

I think their desire to enslave all of man and create some sort of monstrous beehive is far more frightening.
 
Originally posted by thestonesfan
Yes, history has proven time and again that dictatorships never collapse.

What the devil has this got to do with what I posted?

My point, which you seem to have totally missed, was that an unchanging polity and Democracy are incompatible. Please address this.

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Not necessarily 'stupid', they just lack a certain grasp of things, not the least of which is human nature.

Your comment "Educate them!" seemed to imply that you thought they were in some way stupid or lacking in formal understanding.

By that, you seem to be saying that non-Libertarians are somehow mentally or knowledgably deficent to Libertarians - which is as laughable as it is unfounded.
 
Incidentally, who in the name of god are you to lay down the facts with regards to what is or what is not human nature to people? Philosophers have been arguing about this for hundreds of years, and still are. Nobody knows the answer to it, if there is one 'correct' answer.

Are you God or something?!?
 
Originally posted by Hamlet


What the devil has this got to do with what I posted?

My point, which you seem to have totally missed, was that an unchanging polity and Democracy are incompatible. Please address this.

Because politicians have too much power. The 'leaders' in a successful system should have no power to change the internal mechanics and policies of our society, so there would be no one voting for some candidate because he or she will 'tax the rich more' or 'give more money to schools' or whatever. The problem with democracy is that we're always voting for politicians. I want a system where you don't need to vote, because you dictate your own policy.

Granted, that would be an incredibly revolutionary system which most people could not currently handle.

Essentially, I think we would be much better off if all the President did was go to luncheons with foreign leaders.

Your comment "Educate them!" seemed to imply that you thought they were in some way stupid or lacking in formal understanding.

By that, you seem to be saying that non-Libertarians are somehow mentally or knowledgably deficent to Libertarians - which is as laughable as it is unfounded.

Was I saying that? Shame on me! :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom