libertarian candidates

[varwoche]

And while we're on the subject of conceding, do you concede that the Second Amendment largely came about because in 1775 the British government began confiscating cannons and large stores of gunpower from the colonists, which were the biggest weapons available at the time and would give the British the biggest advantage over the colonies?

I've no reason to doubt this, however I must please ignorance.

 

[Kerberos]

A crucial aspect of pretty much any crime, be it murder or whatever, is mens rea. That deals with motive and intent. Firing a gun at another human being may or may not be a crime based on mens rea. If your motive is self-defense, and your intent is to stop that person taking a life, it's not murder. If your motive is greed and your intent is to take his money, then it is.

Are you HONESTLY telling me that this shouldn't apply at all to people acquiring weapons? That somehow, something they can determine in practically every other crime is suddenly impossible in this case?

Sure you can determine intent once it's set of, but it's rather difficult to do it before. This isn't unique for nuclear weapons, we can't determine what a gun is going to be used for before hand, but it's much easier to imagine legitimate uses for guns and the consequences of misuse are much smaller.

IF it's armed and ready to launch or detonate. As I pointed out, that's not necessarily the case.

I agree 100%. And if someone has a nuke armed and ready to detonate, either pointed at a target or around the radius of it exploding in place, then I fully agree that it's time to step in.

How do you tell if it's ready to launch or detonate? If somebody points a gun at me I'm not going to wait to discover if the safety is off and if there's bullets in it. If you can show how to make misuse impossible or as close as to make no difference then you've got a point, but otherwise not.

I showed WHY the argument was invalid. You called it a non-sequitur for reasons that don't have anything to do with showing the argument to be invalid.

No you just said it had been used to justify atrocities, which is a non sequitur.

Let's assume that he is elected, and assume he manages to get through his first weeks in office without impeachment: how much threat would we be under from people having nukes? Please show your work.

I really don't understand what it is you don't understand, if FBI discovers that somebody is making or trying to buy a nuke then they'll arrest him, if it's legal then obviously they won't.

And how do you make the determination that it's not a right, that we should only restrict certain people from doing if they do it dangerously, and a privilege, so we should only allow people to do it if they do it safely?

I suppose the general difference between a right and a privilege, is that you can go to the courts if you're denied a right. In this case he would have to have a reason that the government found acceptable, they could refuse him based on suspicion, even if nothing could be proven, and there would be safeguards that kept him from using them, in a different manner than the one he stated.
[ QUOTE]
It was irrelevant to the point you were trying to make at the time. I never said it was irrelevant to the entire discussion. I think that Badnarik does have a valid point, even though I disagree with it. Why can't others here do the same? [/QUOTE]
And we all know how tolerant you are of people who disagree with you The reason I’m calling Badnarik a kook isn’t that he interprets the constitution, in a way that I don’t agree with. If the Constitution said for example that citizens could have any weapon they wanted, he would be right from a literalist point of view, but he would IMNSHO still be a kook. The problem is that he apparently feels that a literalist interpretation of the constitution, in a situation which the writers never considered, justifies a position that is insanely dangerous.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

And how does he want to do that? The closest he ever comes is by advocating that they take his Constitution class, but then he'd only be telling them what the Constitution says what powers they have, which is something I'd think they should know anyway (and precious few of them do; go up to your average legislator and ask him what the 10th Amendment says and watch him stare at you blankly).

He doesn't “advocate” anything; he says they would be required to attend, as in forced. He also wouldn't be telling them what the constitution said, he would be telling them how he interpreted the constitution which is hardly the same thing. Then he would insist (doesn’t sound voluntary either) that they should restate their oaths while being videotaped. He doesn't say straight that it's him rather than the Supreme Court that gets to interpret what the constitution says, but he comes very close. Speaking of which you said earlier that the founding fathers intended the president to refuse to implement laws that he considered unconstitutional, I don’t suppose you have any evidence for that?

"I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. Those videos could then be used as future evidence should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again."

 

[shanek]

I've no reason to doubt this, however I must please ignorance.

Fair enough.

Now, would you also agree that the only real difference between such ordinance (which WERE privately held during the Revolutionary war to be brought out and used when they were needed) and a nuke is magnitude, that a nuke just poses a much greater danger to a much greater area over a much greater time period, once it's appropriately armed etc.?

If you agree with all that, then how is Badnarik's comment "nutty"?

 

[shanek]

How do you tell if it's ready to launch or detonate? If somebody points a gun at me I'm not going to wait to discover if the safety is off and if there's bullets in it.

And so it would be perfectly valid of you to take action at that time. Same with a nuke.

No you just said it had been used to justify atrocities, which is a non sequitur.

It's not, since you were using it as a justification for your policy's validity. Pointing out how it has been used to justify atrocities is NOT a non-sequitur in that context.

I really don't understand what it is you don't understand, if FBI discovers that somebody is making or trying to buy a nuke then they'll arrest him, if it's legal then obviously they won't.

Really? They won't do anything to figure out why the person is making a nuke and what they're going to do with it? They aren't already doing that anyway? They just say, "Oops, no nukes, sorry, you can't have that" and just take it and be done with their day? You're REALLY saying that they won't do ONE SINGLE THING to try and figure out what kind of threat this guy poses toward others?

I suppose the general difference between a right and a privilege, is that you can go to the courts if you're denied a right. In this case he would have to have a reason that the government found acceptable, they could refuse him based on suspicion, even if nothing could be proven, and there would be safeguards that kept him from using them, in a different manner than the one he stated.

With respect, that doesn't answer the question.

And we all know how tolerant you are of people who disagree with you

I am, as long as they don't deliberately lie or misrepresent what I'm saying or resort to ad hominem attacks or anything like that. Look over my body of posts objectively, and you'll see this is 100% true.

The reason I’m calling Badnarik a kook isn’t that he interprets the constitution, in a way that I don’t agree with. If the Constitution said for example that citizens could have any weapon they wanted, he would be right from a literalist point of view, but he would IMNSHO still be a kook.

He'd be a kook BECAUSE HE DISAGREES WITH YOU. You have given NO OTHER REASON for calling him a kook.

 

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by crimresearch [/i]

>>Uhhh..Rouser?
LA was talking about card carrying members of the Libertarian party, not people who hold some libertarian views.

LA was talking about people he percieved as "crazies" who he also perceived as libertarians. Carrying a card membership hardly has any relevence to substance.
...
-- Rouser

Once again, I have labia. Does that need to be in my sig?

crimresearch was correct. Or to be more specific, I percieved them as Libertarians because they were card-carrying members.

 

[crimresearch]

My 's' key only works intermittently...so I have a ready out when I type 'he' for 'she'...

 

[LostAngeles]

My 's' key only works intermittently...so I have a ready out when I type 'he' for 'she'...

Did you refer to me as a "he" too? I must have missed it because you were supporting me. I caught Rouser2 though, but that's because s/he was attacking me...

*shakes fist*

Bah, it's INTARWEB chauvanism. "Presume all are male."

 

[crimresearch]

Not this time, but I have made that mistake elsewhere...someone once told me that they 'weren't the man I thought they were'...

 

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Unless you want to live in a police state, there's no way to keep a gay with a nuke from doing that.

Wow, that’s quite a bit of homophobia. Why single out gays as potential bomb-toters?

According to my physics teacher who once mentioned this what happens is that when you fire a high speed bullet at somebody’s head, a lot of brain mass is pushed out the same way, and the head is pushed the other way to compensate because the impulse must be constant…Now should I believe my physics teacher or Badnarik?

How about neither. What force would propel the head?

I just don't understand it. Here we live in a country where every last word out of every politicians mouth is pronouncement on the virtue of liberty and freedom. We grow up indoctrinated with the mythology of the "land of the free". The Libertarian party is the only party that actually represents a belief in liberty and all you people can do is heap contempt on it.

I hope you're not referring to me in that statement. I consider myself a libertatrin (but not a Libertarian), and I would like to see a party dedicated to limited government have real influence. My criticism have been directed specifically at Badnarik, not the LP in general. I'm not going to look the other way while someone makes absurd statements simply because he is advancing a cause I believe in.

As I said, it's easy to take swipes at the Libertarians, but consider this: Under a libertarian principled government the internment of Americans of Japanese decent during World War II would never have happened...

It seems to me that when you say "libertarian principled government" you really mean "magic world in which everyone agrees with me". Certainly some of the things you list would go against clear principles of libertarianism. Others, however, are things which libertarians would disagree about. And others are things which in no way are a violation of libertarianism. For instance, the "McCarthy era", while named after a senator and supported by government action, was mainly the result of private actions, such as blacklists. In a pure libertarian society, private organizations would be free to create all the blacklists they want. That's why I think that the concept of libertarianism should be modified to recognize the fact that sometimes private organization can accrue so much power that they can act like governments, and the actual government has the right to regulate such organizations.

 

[Art Vandelay]

“People don’t want to vote for someone that wants to order people to vacate the UN building, then wait a week, then blow up the building along with anything anyone has left in it” just didn’t flow. I fully expected people to read the page themselves, and obtain the full details. Its deletion from the website was simply something that I did not anticipate. If you felt that my characterization was missing some crucial details, it would be quite valid for you to point out those details. Basically calling me a liar, and THEN pointing out the details strikes me as dishonest.

If he did, it was likely as much humorous hyperbole as when Harry Browne ran the ad about demolishing the IRS building. In either event, you are dishonestly painting him as a nutcase when you have no basis for doing so.

Just listen to yourself! You have already decided that he is the guy for the job. When I post a criticism of him, you respond that I must be lying, because he wouldn’t say what I’m claiming he said. You’re defending the proposition that he’s not a “nutcase” (your word, not mine) on the basis that what I’m saying is a lie, and you’re saying that it’s a lie on the basis of he’s not a “nutcase”, so he wouldn't say that, so it must be a lie! Talk about circular reasoning. You simply refuse to listen to reason. Anyone who presents opposing evidence must be lying.

So, the government gets to withhold information, and even lie outright, to make people stupid, and that justifies it?

No, THAT is an example of a strawman. The government is not withholding the information; it is common knowledge that we live in a two party system. People who don’t try to keep informed don’t deserve to vote.

Weaseling. The person's stance on the issues and his abilities to perform the duties as President are the issues.

WEASELING!?! Pointing out that Badnarik is a valid topic of discussion is “weaseling”? ”But in this case, the person IS the issue.” and “The person's stance on the issues and his abilities to perform the duties as President are the issues.” mean the same thing. His stances are part of who he is. I just can’t believe that, in a thread that has become a discussion of Badnarik’s suitability for the presidency, you would call it “weaseling” to say that Badnarik is the issue. I’m really starting to wonder about your sanity.

You are trying to paint him as a nutcase, which is very much unfounded.

What you don’t understand is that even if that is true, IT’S NOT AN AD HOMINEM FALLACY! The issue of whether he is a nutcase is absolutely relevant to this thread.

So, hyperbole, then. Art sill misrepresented it. Demolishing a building that is no longer in use is quite different than blowing up a building that is still being used, which is how Art tried to paint it

Yet again you show your poor grasp of the Englsih language. "Hyperbole" refers to making an absurd exaggeration, not leaving out details that you think should be included. You really should find out what words mean before using them.

As for the difference between blowing up a building in use versus one that is not, I don't see the big distinction. He’s the one that is planning on making it not be in use! He is planning on blowing up a building that currently is in use. You’re the one misrepresenting the situation. I didn’t try to “paint” it any way. I reported the facts: he is planning on blowing up the UN building. The fact that he will allow people the opportunity to evacuate is self-evident; if he did not intend to give people warning, he wouldn’t announce it on his website! If he is elected, people will hear about this. And by the time he is inaugurated, the building will no longer be in use (at least not fully). Why should I point out that he isn’t going to blow up a fully functional UN building, when that is obvious?

If you have other qualifications you would like to see in a President, fair enough, but to state your position as an absolute instead of your opinion only reflects on you, personally, and says nothing about Badnarik.

Don’t you mean “In my opinion, if you have other qualifications…”? You wouldn’t be posting your opinion as an absolute, would you?

That was certainly his implication. Why else, then, would he mention 9/11?

I didn’t. Just what are you responding to?

The requirement to listen to what he says rather than go quote mining for things to take out of context so you can go labelling him a "nut."

Why aren’t you listening to what I am saying? You’re not just taking things out of context, you’re making things up!

By the way, why are you vociferously railing against this guy, judging him as a nut, before you've even had the opportunity to hear him speak?

It is precisely because we have seen what he has to say that we don’t support him.

The President is most certainly allowed to refuse to enforce laws he feels are unconstitutional no matter what the courts say. That's checks and balances. I don't know where people get this bogus idea that the courts are the only branch allowed to decide if something violates the Constitution or not...

The president may certainly veto a law that he believes in unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court has no problem with it. And he may exercise his discretion (which may include nonenforcement) regarding laws that he believes are unconstitutional. It is quite another thing to say that he may violate laws. As an analogy, if I call the police and complain about someone robbing me, but the police don’t investigate, the police are not guilty of a crime. But if the police rob me, then that’s different.

I see your distinction, but Constitutionally any law that violates the Constitution isn't a law at all. So really, there's nothing to overturn

I can see where you’re coming from, but there is nothing special about the president in this regard, and specifically mentioning him simply clouds the issue. If Congress passes a unconstitutional law, then I don’t have a constitutional obligation to follow it, regardless of my position in the government. The election to presidency does not give someone special rights in this area.

 

[shanek]

How about neither. What force would propel the head?

What propels the head is the exit wound. What comes out is a lot more matter than what came in, and the head gets thrown back in the direction of the shot.

That's why I think that the concept of libertarianism should be modified to recognize the fact that sometimes private organization can accrue so much power that they can act like governments, and the actual government has the right to regulate such organizations.

And that is the point where they would be initiating force or fraud, so that is the point where a Libertarian government would step in.

 

[shanek]

Just listen to yourself! You have already decided that he is the guy for the job.

What's this "already" crap? I've spoken and debated with the guy off and on for like a year and a half now! He was actually my first choice until Russo threw his hat in.

When I post a criticism of him, you respond that I must be lying,

When did I say that?

You simply refuse to listen to reason.

I've been providing many reasoned arguments against what you and others have said about him. I've hardly gotten many responses in kind, although there have been a few. Either way, don't accuse ME of refusing to listen to reason.

No, THAT is an example of a strawman.

No, that is an example of a QUESTION. You said that anyone who didn't know how the current system is being run doesn't deserve to be involved in the political process. You didn't specify any sort of reasons for this, so that was a natural extrapolation of your claim—and, again, phrased in the form of a question.

The government is not withholding the information;

The government is actively withholding and even misleading about a LOT of things about our electoral process. You pretty much have to have gone through it to see what's going on, and even then when you try to spread the word and tell people about the election-rigging on internet boards they flame you for being a paranoid extremist, no matter how much evidence you show.

I mean, how widely publicized is it, for example, that North Carolina REFUSED to count CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID votes for Ralph Nader in 2000?

WEASELING!?! Pointing out that Badnarik is a valid topic of discussion is “weaseling”?

Any time you attack the person and not the issues it's an ad hominem.

What you don’t understand is that even if that is true, IT’S NOT AN AD HOMINEM FALLACY! The issue of whether he is a nutcase is absolutely relevant to this thread.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing. That should win some kind of mega-irony award...

Yet again you show your poor grasp of the Englsih language. "Hyperbole" refers to making an absurd exaggeration, not leaving out details that you think should be included.

And it does indeed seem like an absurd exaggeration. That is, if you haven't already made up your mind that the guy's a nutcase.

You really should find out what words mean before using them.

I do. You should really try and understand what the other person is saying before flaming him.

As for the difference between blowing up a building in use versus one that is not, I don't see the big distinction.

You don't see the distinction between a peaceful act of construction and a forceful act of destruction?

He’s the one that is planning on making it not be in use!

So? That doesn't mean it's tantamount to mass murder!!!

It is precisely because we have seen what he has to say that we don’t support him.

The president may certainly veto a law that he believes in unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court has no problem with it. And he may exercise his discretion (which may include nonenforcement) regarding laws that he believes are unconstitutional. It is quite another thing to say that he may violate laws.

Who's saying VIOLATE anything? Man, and you accuse ME of making stuff up! Badnarik would be refusing to enforce a law he believed to be unconstitutional. What would he be violating? What POSSSIBLE justification would there be between his position and police committing crimes????

I can see where you’re coming from, but there is nothing special about the president in this regard, and specifically mentioning him simply clouds the issue.

Uh, we're TALKING ABOUT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY HERE!!!!!

 

[varwoche]

Now, would you also agree that the only real difference between such ordinance (which WERE privately held during the Revolutionary war to be brought out and used when they were needed) and a nuke is magnitude, that a nuke just poses a much greater danger to a much greater area over a much greater time period, once it's appropriately armed etc.?

If you agree with all that, then how is Badnarik's comment "nutty"?

Yes, I do agree. In fact, a nuke's magnitude is SO much greater that it would have been outside the realm of imagination in 1776.

Which is why the constitution has been interpreted differently over time. This is a logical process, so long as proper checks and balances are in place.

Here's some flip-side literalism for you: Since in 1776 the definition of the word "arms" basically meant muskets, this means the 2nd amendment allows ONLY muskets.

Incidentally, this introduces some interesting mayhem when combined with the all-powerful presidency Badnarik advocates (with the right to unilaterally void laws the pres unilaterally deems unconstitutional)...

President Badnarik unilaterally declares all gun laws unconstitutional and throws all ATF employees in jail (the 2nd flourish is mine, not Badnarik's, though he does threaten it.) Four years later President elect Y emerges from his bomb shelter and reinstates all of the old laws, and throws Badnarik in jail. This is virtual anarchy.

So yes, I think Badnarik is a hyper-nutty extremist. His views are disconnected from reality, lacking intellectual coherence, and lacking real-world feasability.

But now the final layer of nuts, let's pretend: OK President Badnarik, you're right, it's unconstitutional to deprive private citizens of nukes (plus bazookas and ricin, to introduce an element of practicality).

Seeing as this would, beyond a doubt, lead to a massively weaponized country/world, placing WMDs in all sorts of wrong places, shouldn't your 2nd order of business, Pres Badnarik, be a new/revised constitutional amendment that in fact bans private nukes?

 

[shanek]

Yes, I do agree. In fact, a nuke's magnitude is SO much greater that it would have been outside the realm of imagination in 1776.

I'll grant you that, too.

Here's some flip-side literalism for you: Since in 1776 the definition of the word "arms" basically meant muskets,

Uh, not true. It also refered to larger armaments like cannons. As I said, cannons (at least the ones used by the colonists) were privately owned (yeah, like the British government was going to let them use their cannons, so this is obvious). Read what Madison had to say about the second amendment and what kind of militia the people would be able to put together.

[qoute]Incidentally, this introduces some interesting mayhem when combined with the all-powerful presidency Badnarik advocates (with the right to unilaterally void laws the pres unilaterally deems unconstitutional)...[/quote]

You have yet to explain how this makes the Presidency "all-powerful" since ANY branch of government has the ability to do this. Repeating your weasel words over and over again after they've been refuted doesn't help your position any.

Four years later President elect Y emerges from his bomb shelter and reinstates all of the old laws, and throws Badnarik in jail.

On what grounds?

This is virtual anarchy.

No, what we have NOW is anarchy. Badnarik wants to restore the rule of law (i.e., the Constitution).

Seeing as this would, beyond a doubt, lead to a massively weaponized country/world, placing WMDs in all sorts of wrong places, shouldn't your 2nd order of business, Pres Badnarik, be a new/revised constitutional amendment that in fact bans private nukes?

More FUD. And completely unfounded. We didn't really become much of a weaponized country until places started passing restrictions on firearms ownership (that was what led directly to the gunfight at the OK Corral, for example), just as drugs didn't become anywhere near as hard or as prevalent as they are now until they were criminalized.

History DOES NOT back you up here.

 

[crimresearch]

"Since in 1776 the definition of the word "arms" basically meant muskets..."

I'm not taking any position here, but in the interest of clarity, 'arms', then as now, means literally 'weapons'...
" From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French, pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons; see ar- in Indo-European Roots. V., from Middle English armen from Old French armer, from Latin armre, from arma. "
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arms

Now the word can certainly be used to refer to a more specific class of weapons, like firearms, sidearms, etc., but by itself it is an inclusive, not exclusive, term.

And having just been through a war with a superpower's army, it doesn't seem rational to assume the the Framers didn't know what grape shot, or chain shot, or bayonets, or cannon were.
And given the eloquence of their other written works, it seems equally unlikely that they just fumbled around and misused 'arms' when they really meant 'muskets only'.

So I would have to respectfully submit that the 2nd amendment was not worded and placed in its position among the Bill of Rights in order to preserve the right to go black powder squirrel huntin'....

Now that in no way substantiates the position that the Framers meant any military weapon that could ever be devised in the future, or that they condoned reckless abuse or unfettered access by anyone.
The full extension of those notions would of course, negate the intent of much of the rest of the Constitution.

 

[varwoche]

Uh, not true. It also refered to larger armaments like cannons.

I stand corrected. According to my literal interpretation of the constitution, US citizens are permiited ONLY muskets and cannons. (Geez, you sure a literal type.)

On what grounds?

On the grounds of having violating the constutution, per the next president.

 

[varwoche]

I'm not taking any position here, but in the interest of clarity, 'arms', then as now, means literally 'weapons'...

Granted. I'm simply making the rhetorical point that there is >1 literal interpretation.

 

[varwoche]

Update on the Badnarik front

Some content has finally been added to the Badnarik site, coming after the controversial articles referenced in this thread were yanked once he was nominated.

Does Badnarik's new issues page discuss right-to-bare-nukes? Nope.

That he is going to blow up the UN building? Nope.

That the president can overrule the supreme court unilaterally? Nope.

That he is going to force congress to take his constitution class and then videotape them reciting loyalty to the Badnarik interpretation of the constitution? Nope.

Rather, we get to read about how the policies of the LP will reduce the cost of prescription drugs.
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/

Well done Badnarik, the republocrats have nothing up on you. One problem though: Google cache. Surely this, er, little problem was anticipated by high-tech expert / telemarketer Badnarik.

 

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
As for the difference between blowing up a building in use versus one that is not, I don't see the big distinction. He’s the one that is planning on making it not be in use! He is planning on blowing up a building that currently is in use. You’re the one misrepresenting the situation. I didn’t try to “paint” it any way. I reported the facts: he is planning on blowing up the UN building. The fact that he will allow people the opportunity to evacuate is self-evident; if he did not intend to give people warning, he wouldn’t announce it on his website! If he is elected, people will hear about this. And by the time he is inaugurated, the building will no longer be in use (at least not fully). Why should I point out that he isn’t going to blow up a fully functional UN building, when that is obvious?

Art, your patience is highly commendable.