Think Rand Paul is an intellectual lightweight?

[Crezth]

But there are certain issues where the more libertarian option is pretty obviously the right one,

Oh dear.

 

[JollyRoger]

But there are certain issues where the more libertarian option is pretty obviously the right one

Agreed - legalization of marijuana, legalization of prostitution, and legalization of abortion are pretty obviously right.

 

[Murky]

Most libertarians are pretty harmless. They just want to be left alone and not do harm to anyone else. There are some that are certifiable sociopaths who want the government out the way so they are free to exploit others to their heart's content.

 

[Arakhor]

But if it benefits me, it's both sensible and right!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Most libertarians are pretty harmless. They just want to be left alone and not do harm to anyone else. There are some that are certifiable sociopaths who want the government out the way so they are free to exploit others to their heart's content.

I don't disagree with this statement.

 

[JollyRoger]

Deleted

 

[Leoreth]

Its not a delusion

How can you tell, I wasn't referring to you. Abegweit is at least capable of pulling off the appearance of intellectual superiority. And is a proper libertarian.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

It is true that some sociopaths want the government out of the way so that they can more easily exploit others. It is also true however that many sociopaths prefer to use a powerful state as a tool to exploit others. Sociopathy is much more common among politicians than among the general population.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

What's with dissing mathematicians? Is this a lolbertarian tactic because like Barbie, they think "math is hard"?

Maths is the purest thought exercise known to man. Get over it.

Or at least come back when you have won an academy award and some German award we only saw a photo of

 

[Cutlass]

It is true that some sociopaths want the government out of the way so that they can more easily exploit others. It is also true however that many sociopaths prefer to use a powerful state as a tool to exploit others. Sociopathy is much more common among politicians than among the general population.

However, in a government with very broadbased representation, not much sociopathy actually happens within the government. The narrower is the representation, the more sociopathy is evident. As is, there's more actual sociopathy in private enterprise in countries like the US than there is in government. And there would be vastly more still if government wasn't keeping a lid on it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Its not a delusion

In all seriousness, there are a lot of issues that we can disagree on without anyone being dumb. But there are certain issues where the more libertarian option is pretty obviously the right one, but since it doesn't benefit the state, they don't want to do it, and most people don't actually think about it enough. In a way, pure libertarianism is a more internally consistent ideology than left-libertarianism, but since I don't hold to 100% pure libertarianism, that's a wash.

I would love to hear how you make that distinction between "pure" and "left" libertarianism, especially given that the terms "libertarian" only ceased to exclusively denote left-libertarianism in the 1960s. (A purity well-hidden, it would seem.)

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Note that the states are also bound by the US constitution. They are required to recognize the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

Why is this fundamental point always conveniently forgotten when this issue comes up? Not to mention, most state constitutions are based off of the U.S. Constitution. The states didn't trust the feds either and wanted to ensure the bills of rights was a basic part of their constitutions as well.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Why would he have to? He lives under tyranny either way. If the states are permitted the power which libertarian types are inclined to grant them, each will pursue and impose its own brand of tyranny on its people. It may not matter to you what the Alaskan suffers under, but they are our countrymen and fellow humans and any indignities they must suffer where their rights are stripped from them we all have a duty to combat. As it happens, one federal government is easier to redress than 50 individual provincial governments, each privy to its own corruptions, intrigues, and prejudices.

If you are serious about human rights, you will realize that the current system offers a more robust method for dealing with civil liberties than a more confederated system, where the guarantee of those liberties being held inviolate across the nation is even less than it is now.

On the contrary if your concern is human rights you should advocate decentralized power and divided government.


Link to video.

 

[Traitorfish]

"States Rights vs Centralised Power" seems like a false dichotomy to me. It confuses scale with centralisation, as if (for example) the Girl Scots were invariably more centralised than the State of Texas, because they're organised on a national level. Whatever the historical particulars, it is in principle possible to have a federal government more diffuse than any present state government, or a state government more centralised than the present federal government.

 

[Cutlass]

On the contrary if your concern is human rights you should advocate decentralized power and divided government.


Link to video.

Then why does decentralization typically lead to far more oppressive and destructive crushing of human rights?

In US history decentralization is the cry of the tyrant, not the cry of the liberator.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"States Rights vs Centralised Power" seems like a false dichotomy to me. It confuses scale with centralisation, as if (for example) the Girl Scots were invariably more centralised than the State of Texas, because they're organised on a national level. Whatever the historical particulars, it is in principle possible to have a federal government more diffuse than any present state government, or a state government more centralised than the present federal government.

I'm loving the inappropriate airtime the GSA is getting in this thread.

 

[Crezth]

On the contrary if your concern is human rights you should advocate decentralized power and divided government.

You act as though decentralization has been associated with an increase in civil liberties in this country when, in fact, when left to their own devices, the states have been prone to take them away.

 

[Ajidica]

The states didn't trust the feds either and wanted to ensure the bills of rights was a basic part of their constitutions as well.

Interestingly, the states distrusted the federal government enough that they had to be told to follow the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court had to incorporate several amendments by flat out telling the states in Supreme Court cases they had to follow those amendments.

 

[GhostWriter16]

How can you tell, I wasn't referring to you. Abegweit is at least capable of pulling off the appearance of intellectual superiority. And is a proper libertarian.

Abegweit isn't libertarian, he's anarchist.