Libertarians

[Leoreth]

Always with the libertarians.

Why can't there ever be a good thread about us libertines?

Wouldn't that belong into the Art & Entertainment forum?

 

[Traitorfish]

But that's still not really coherent, because many of those tribes are identified chiefly through reference to the United States government itself anyway. Why should a pre-legal concept of property ownership have to deal with the definitions of the American federal government?

Federal recognition of Indian tribes is generally related to the processes by which they obtained the land once inhabited by them, so in most cases they can be reasonably described as the last identified owners- at least insofar as it relates to the federal government returning land. That doesn't cover every scrap of the United States, granted, because in some cases we can identify previous owners who no longer exist as coherent tribal entities, but it takes enough chunks out of it to cause problems for GhostWriter's dopey assumptions.

And, again, why does it matter whether the groups are Indian tribes or not?

You could probably talk about returning the South-West to Mexico and I suppose the Swedes might get a look-in along the Delaware. I think that parts of New York were also seized from the Dutch in the Anglo-Dutch Wars? I dunno, I didn't exactly spend forever constructing this, it's just the first example of the arbitrary seizure of property which GhostWriter can't reasonably claim to condemn that came to mind.

 

[Dachs]

Federal recognition of Indian tribes is generally related to the processes by which they obtained the land once inhabited by them, so in most cases they can be reasonably described as the last identified owners- at least insofar as it relates to the federal government returning land. That doesn't cover every scrap of the United States, granted, because in some cases we can identify previous owners who no longer exist as coherent tribal entities, but it takes enough chunks out of it to cause problems for GhostWriter's dopey assumptions.


You could probably talk about returning the South-West to Mexico and I suppose the Swedes might get a look-in along the Delaware. I think that parts of New York were also seized from the Dutch in the Anglo-Dutch Wars? I dunno, I didn't exactly spend forever constructing this, it's just the first example of the arbitrary seizure of property which GhostWriter can't reasonably claim to condemn that came to mind.

Believe me, I'm not trying to make him look like he knows what he's talking about. My contention is mostly with the description of the previous owners as the "original" ones, and the notion that giving land back to the people who had it before the American government did would be any more legitimate than the American government simply keeping it, because the people who had it before the people who had it before the American government did are still unaccounted for.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That would still place them as first known owners, wouldn't it?

Isn't that usually who wins property disputes?

 

[Angst]

How about that?

"And by 'liberalism' I mean the buzzword talking heads have taught me."

Well, I agree with that fix but I tried sounding nice.

 

[Sonereal]

-In General-

 

[Berzerker]

most of the land in the usa wasn't occupied when europeans showed up, most land is still in the hands of the peoples who've been living on it for eons or was abandoned for whatever reasons

this notion "original" owners of land dont exist and that discredits owning property is bs

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

@Cheezy- Yeah, I know it won't go away, but that hardly makes it justifiable.

Theft does not magically become OK by voodoo when the majority empowers it to do so.

And by "liberalism" I meant the left-wing side of liberalism.

This is what I get. A pair of hour-long posts painstakingly explaining things to you in a way you as a teenage layman can understand, and I get an @by the way, with three single lines basically saying "nu uh." This will be the very last time I waste my precious time on the mistaken belief that you have any interest in learning anything.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Why not write a good post the shows what great humanitarians you "libertines" are?

We're not really humanitarians per se. Our voter base is the amoral minority and are active supporters of the Tea Bag Party.

 

[Murky]

We're not really humanitarians

Which is why the libertarians are doomed to be nothing more than marginal candidates at best. At least Republicans pretend to stand up for the little guy. Throw away all pretense about helping the common people and they are sure to abandon you. Even if a poor person generally agreed with libertarian ideology it would still not be in their own best interest to vote libertarian.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

Which is why the libertarians are doomed to be nothing more than marginal candidates at best. At least Republicans pretend to stand up for the little guy. Throw away all pretense about helping the common people and they are sure to abandon you. Even if a poor person generally agreed with libertarian ideology it would still not be in their own best interest to vote libertarian.

Why not then?

 

[Murky]

Why not then?

Because the libertarian candidates will promise to nothing but things that will hurt them.

 

[Phrossack]

Because the libertarian candidates will promise to nothing but things that will hurt them.

The squirrel was actually talking about libertines. Not libertarians.

 

[Murky]

The squirrel was actually talking about libertines. Not libertarians.

Good point. I got confused by the thread topic I guess.

A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society. Libertines place value on physical pleasures, meaning those experienced through the senses. As a philosophy, libertinism gained new-found adherents in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Great Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, and the Marquis de Sade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine

I'm not sure how that is much different from libertarians/objectivist because they don't seem to be constrained by traditional morals as far as I can tell. They make up their own moral code as it suits them.

 

[Phrossack]

I think he was joking about being a womanizer and not making a political statement, what with his "Tea Bag Party" remark and all.

 

[Murky]

I think he was joking about being a womanizer and not making a political statement, what with his "Tea Bag Party" remark and all.

I see. I wasn't familar with the term libertine he was using then. The joke wasn't caught by me.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

Because the libertarian candidates will promise to nothing but things that will hurt them.

Oh! Like Republicans and Democrats don' do the same? Please....

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh! Like Republicans and Democrats don' do the same? Please....

Would people vote for them if they did?

 

[Leoreth]

Oh! Like Republicans and Democrats don' do the same? Please....

Is your only argument for the libertarian party "Yeah, but ... the Repubs and Dems are doing the same!"? That's ... not very convincing.

 

[Angst]

Oh! Like Republicans and Democrats don' do the same? Please....

"We promise to strip you of all governmental interference save rights of property, helping the major businesses but not you, and we will not give you any benefits or sustain any sort of cultural tradition that you might enjoy. We will provide and create no government jobs, but will rather cut down so you will never have access to one such thing. We will provide as little services as possible and allow drugheads to poison national health. You have no personal interest in voting in us in that we will additionally take away basic welfare rights that you currently have."