liberal or libertarian
- Thread starter talldave
- Start date
-
- Tags
- liberal libertarian
shanek said:
So what happens if I do something that is against the law, can no one can use force to detain me, put me on trail and imprison me?
shanek said:
Ok so we don’t talk at cross purposes can you please let me know your definition of "initiation of force"?
shanek said:
The first part I can understand, the second I need further clarification. What does "retributive force necessary" mean?
replies to questions....
Thanks for all the great responses. This is an great discussion board.
Anyway, here's what I think:
My impression is that Democrats feel that that kind of media management is un-democratic, that it's un-American. I certainly feel that way.
Perhaps I'm hopelessly nieve, but it seems like the information about what our representatives are doing should have more to do with their actual actions and their competence than a slick media campaign.
I don't mind media campaigns to influence my choice of Coke or Pepsi (I like root beer, personally), I don't mind slogans and clever commercials about car insurance. But people die needlessly when bad leaders push bad ideas and make bad decisions.
By the way, in my opinion, being deceived by a charismatic religious leader has as little to do with being smart or stupid as being surprised by an illusion on stage.
If Social Security is invested in the stock market (as it seems the Bush plan prescribes, who knows, he hasn't really said) then isn't that just putting all our eggs in one basket? Shouldn't Social Security be immune to the kinds of things that would wipe out people's 401k's? My twist on Murphy's law is this: One of the key differences between good ideas and bad ideas is that for bad ideas to work, everything has to go exactly right, for good ideas to work small things can go wrong without catastrophic failure.
Nevada style self regulation is exactly what I had in mind. Either that or the system alluded to in the tv show Firefly.
If, on the other hand, an idea has just the support of a wealthy backer, who then pays people who don't care either way about the issue to collect signatures from people, most of whom will sign anything that sounds okay, it becomes a fake grassroots movement. It's something that seems to be done to produce the appearance of popular support even if the reality is very different.
David
Thanks for all the great responses. This is an great discussion board.
Anyway, here's what I think:
Do I have statistics to back up my notion that the (I should clarify) New Metal Republicans, these neocons are more deceptive than Democrats? No, I don't have numbers on that. I just get the impression after the fake news broadcast on medicare reform, the fake public service announcements on medicare, the fake reporter in the White Press Room throwing softball questions, the fake town hall meetings where people have to sign loyalty oaths to get in, the fake "push-polls" that propagated the rumor that John McCain had an illegitamate black child during the 2000 Republican primary (he doesn't, he does have an adopted daugter, I think she's Indonesian), that the neoconservative press management has gone beyond simple staging and moved into shades of Orwell.RandFan said:
My impression is that Democrats feel that that kind of media management is un-democratic, that it's un-American. I certainly feel that way.
Perhaps I'm hopelessly nieve, but it seems like the information about what our representatives are doing should have more to do with their actual actions and their competence than a slick media campaign.
I don't mind media campaigns to influence my choice of Coke or Pepsi (I like root beer, personally), I don't mind slogans and clever commercials about car insurance. But people die needlessly when bad leaders push bad ideas and make bad decisions.
I had to go back to see what you were actually talking about. My loathing for the deceptive practices of faith healers was crystalized by reading Randi's books. If someone dies because they believed in the flim-flam of a faith healer and did something foolish as a result, I would have no problem with them being charged with murder, under depraved indifference statutes. They should definitely be charged to the fullest extent of the law and not be given a pass because they live under the aegis of religion.crimresearch said:I would say that your desire to use the full force of law against those with whom you disagree would disqualify you as a libertarian...but there is always the Libertarian Party, which has similar notions, at least as expressed by their candidates.
You would of course have to get over that silly science bias and start drinking colloidal silver in mass quantities.
By the way, in my opinion, being deceived by a charismatic religious leader has as little to do with being smart or stupid as being surprised by an illusion on stage.
I was under the impression that banks without FDIC are Savings and Loans. I was also under the impression that just about everyone agrees that Savings and Loans were a really bad idea. If we had to pay for a Savings and Loans size buyout during this economy, we'd probably slide into a depression. I might be wrong about some of the details, this happened a while ago.Rouser2 said:
If Social Security is invested in the stock market (as it seems the Bush plan prescribes, who knows, he hasn't really said) then isn't that just putting all our eggs in one basket? Shouldn't Social Security be immune to the kinds of things that would wipe out people's 401k's? My twist on Murphy's law is this: One of the key differences between good ideas and bad ideas is that for bad ideas to work, everything has to go exactly right, for good ideas to work small things can go wrong without catastrophic failure.
Nevada style self regulation is exactly what I had in mind. Either that or the system alluded to in the tv show Firefly.
I've never been involved in a petition drive. From my armchair it seems like most people will sign a petition if asked by someone that seemed to believe in it. The sense is that if there is a popular support for something then it should at the very least make it to the ballot, where it can then be carefully considered.
If, on the other hand, an idea has just the support of a wealthy backer, who then pays people who don't care either way about the issue to collect signatures from people, most of whom will sign anything that sounds okay, it becomes a fake grassroots movement. It's something that seems to be done to produce the appearance of popular support even if the reality is very different.
David
Darat said:
Basically, the power to arrest, try, convict, and incarcerate offenders. Our founders were very concerned about the abuse that is inherent with the use of this force, and this is a reason for much of Article I Section 9 and the Bill of Rights.
Since this is force, it is only justified against people who have committed some sort of force. That's why laws protecting or defending against force are the only valid ones.
Re: replies to questions....
Cool. Then we agree.
Problems: Getting the volunteers to ask for it. Getting the space to set up the booths to ask for it. Getting any local permits necessary to get the space to set up the booths to ask for it.
And really, when it comes down to it, what does it matter if the person asking for the signatures is a volunteer or someone paid to do it?
Well, just to let you know, right now we in NC are in the process of collecting about 60,000 valid signatures (probably over 100,000 raw signatures) just so the Libertarian Party can stay on the ballot. We have an impressive core of volunteers, but even with all that, there's just no way any group can get that number of signatures without resorting to paid petitioners, which of course we try to avoid. Paid petitioners of course cost money, and volunteers have a higher ratio of valid-to-raw signatures than paid petitioners. They cost about $3/signature; with all of our volunteers, we can generally do it for $1/signature. In all honesty, I'd love to see the Democrats and Republicans try that (if they hadn't written the laws so that they don't have to).
The grass roots simply couldn't work without paid petitioners.
talldave said:
Cool. Then we agree.
Problems: Getting the volunteers to ask for it. Getting the space to set up the booths to ask for it. Getting any local permits necessary to get the space to set up the booths to ask for it.
And really, when it comes down to it, what does it matter if the person asking for the signatures is a volunteer or someone paid to do it?
Well, just to let you know, right now we in NC are in the process of collecting about 60,000 valid signatures (probably over 100,000 raw signatures) just so the Libertarian Party can stay on the ballot. We have an impressive core of volunteers, but even with all that, there's just no way any group can get that number of signatures without resorting to paid petitioners, which of course we try to avoid. Paid petitioners of course cost money, and volunteers have a higher ratio of valid-to-raw signatures than paid petitioners. They cost about $3/signature; with all of our volunteers, we can generally do it for $1/signature. In all honesty, I'd love to see the Democrats and Republicans try that (if they hadn't written the laws so that they don't have to).
The grass roots simply couldn't work without paid petitioners.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Re: replies to questions....
Dave,
Thank you very much for the response.
Edited to add. I don't like the sorts of games politicians play. I admit that Bush et al have been involved in some of the things you list. I don't think there is any grand conspiracy and I don't think the Republicans are only evil while the Democrats are only good. I accept that polticians behave like politicians and we get what we allow.
I found much of what went on during the Clinton years to be disgusting. The selling of the Lincoln bedroom, fund raising scams etc.
That Clinton or other Democrats did something wrong does not excuse Bush. If he is doing something wrong then it is WRONG. However I tire of the notion that only the Republicans play politics.
Dave,
Thank you very much for the response.
Cool, but then accusing the opposition of sophistry if they suggest parity seems about inappropriate. I could make the same statement in reverse. I don't now what a New Metal Republican is but I'm not sure comparing Neo Cons to Democrats is a fair comparison. How about comparing Liberals to Neo Cons?talldave said:
I'm sorry, I don't at all agree with you. I remember the same types of anecdotes made about Clinton. I didn't buy them then I don't buy these now.
Edited to add. I don't like the sorts of games politicians play. I admit that Bush et al have been involved in some of the things you list. I don't think there is any grand conspiracy and I don't think the Republicans are only evil while the Democrats are only good. I accept that polticians behave like politicians and we get what we allow.
I found much of what went on during the Clinton years to be disgusting. The selling of the Lincoln bedroom, fund raising scams etc.
That Clinton or other Democrats did something wrong does not excuse Bush. If he is doing something wrong then it is WRONG. However I tire of the notion that only the Republicans play politics.
Democrat politicians are politicians. Many are good decent people. Many are corrupt. They are ALL politicians. They all know how to manipulate their constituents. I think the demagoguery that accompanies much of the Democrat's rhetoric to be un-American.
Welcome to politics. The Republicans did not invent any of this. Democrats have a long and storied history of political campaign and rhetoric.
No one here disagrees with you. The problem is that most Republicans think their leaders make good decisions and vice versa.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
"....the fake town hall meetings where people have to sign loyalty oaths to get in..."
Now who could possibly have a problem with a political party requiring oaths?
Now who could possibly have a problem with a political party requiring oaths?
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Did you ever admit, as pointed out to you repeatedly, that I never made such a claim?
You got your ass handed to you by other posters and myself when you tried to make up a phony absolutist definition of 'requirement' and stick me with it.
This was of course, after both national and state level Liberatarian Party documents were shown to use the word 'required' in conjunction with the term 'oath', in spite of your denials.
You got your ass handed to you by other posters and myself when you tried to make up a phony absolutist definition of 'requirement' and stick me with it.
This was of course, after both national and state level Liberatarian Party documents were shown to use the word 'required' in conjunction with the term 'oath', in spite of your denials.