• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question for libertarians

uruk said:
If you had a concealed hand gun with you, you would not have to run back to your dorm to get it. You have the gun on your person at the time.
Re-imagine that "psycho" scenario with 30 armed people. Psycho brandishes a gun, 30 armed people point thier guns back at the psycho.
That's not to say that everyone will chose to carry a concealed handgun but you know there would alot more who would given no regulation.
[..]
Click to expand...

So, everybody walks with their own gun?
What happen if someone gets drunk, and accidentally shoots someone?
What if a tree-old-year baby manages to get the gun?
What if.. ?
 
dudalb said:
The only reason Matteo likes Ron Paul is that Matteo hates the United States, and he supports Paul's policy of a total US withdrawal from world affairs so he won't be bothered by all those Nasty Americans any longer.[..]
Click to expand...

This guy is trolling..
Please, ignore his comments on me.
 
megaresp said:
Even better, once the Greens get in, we will finally be free of the tyranny of personal hygiene that is mercilessly forced upon us all by the evil corporations that constantly manipulate social convention.
Click to expand...

Freedom from detergent gives us the Liberty to pursue Vegetable rights and peace, brother!

dudalb said:
The Green Party is just as screwed up in a different way then the Libertarians.
Click to expand...

Screwed up? When there's a free poster on offer? I think your priorities must be wrong.

Come, let us listen to whale song and consider Washington Mutual, then sing sad songs ourselves.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, the hysteria demonstrated in this thread is incredible. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Now, please excuse me while I pop off to buy a couple of nukes and acquire a few slaves.
 
megaresp said:
I have to say, the hysteria demonstrated in this thread is incredible.
Click to expand...

Yup, blanket denial, with neither evidence nor argument. I didn't bother to call the offhand ad hominem, but that's minor.

I'd like my million in twenties, please, Mr. Randi.
 
megaresp said:
I have to say, the hysteria demonstrated in this thread is incredible. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Now, please excuse me while I pop off to buy a couple of nukes and acquire a few slaves.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the second amendment supporting private ownership of nuclear weapons part of the 04 libertarian presidential candidates stance?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Wasn't the second amendment supporting private ownership of nuclear weapons part of the 04 libertarian presidential candidates stance?
Click to expand...

Well, here's a quote on the subject from a self-identified libertarian:

Libertarianism implies simply that nuclear weapons, along with all weapons, should be privately owned, and kept in a safe place according to common practice (set by the consensus of juries, not legislatures, whose job in common law is to set guidelines) .
Click to expand...

Here's another:

The Libertarian Party stands for the private ownership of nuclear weapons. That was how LP officials first explained the party to me.
Click to expand...

And from a 2000 article on Libertarianism by Walter and Matthew Block:

[N]ukes cannot be banned, since a defensive purpose for them
exists.
Click to expand...

.... as long as I can come up with a justification, no matter how-farfetched.

And even this nuanced "if only" comes under criticism by the hardliners:

“The libertarian response to this is predicated upon the issue of whether it is possible to use these weapons in a purely defensive manner…” This statement does not seem to necessarily follow from the Non-Aggression Axiom, which is the heart and soul of libertarianism. After all, perhaps I’m a harmless collector of nuclear weapons who owns them simply for aesthetic value. By simply owning them I am committing no more of an aggressive action than by owning a pen. At Mises U 2008 I remarked to you that I was standing close by with a pen in my hand and it could be potentially as dangerous to you as a nuclear weapon I could be hiding upstairs. Should I be restrained by possessing this pen without having committed or threatened to commit any actual aggression?
Click to expand...

So I have no problem making the statement that Libertarians are in favor of the private ownership of nuclear arms. That's not a caricature, that's not a strawman, and that's not a political stance that anyone with the sense God gave a hamster would support.

After all, even "harmless collectors" sometimes get angry, drunk, and depressive.....
 
Last edited:
uruk said:
Its called "thinning the herd".

If more irresponsible gun yahoos take themselves out of the evloutionary gene pool the better off we'll all be. ;P

Yea it'll be bloody and tragic at first, but an equalibrium will achieved.
Click to expand...

And the equilibrium will be ZERO. :(
 
Last edited:
The Libertarian stand on Nuclear Weapons are a perfect example of what happens when you follow an ideology with a total disregard of reality.
The Libertarians are living in a fantasy world, end of discussion.
 
The Libertarian stand on drunk driving is just as bad. Many Libertarians feel that drunk driving laws are a violation of personal liberty. You should be allowed to drive drunk until you actually run over somebody,then you can be charged with manslaughter or civil charges.(Some Libertarians advocating abolishing all criminal law and replacing it with civil law.If somebody kills your wife, they are not arrested and prosecuted;you sue them in court. I am not kidding).

That it is sort of hard to issue a court order to somebody to bring somebody they killed back to life seems to pass Libertarians by.
 
megaresp said:
In every situation you encounter? So who wrote your software?
Click to expand...

My.. what?

Chaos said:
Yeah, sure. Like that´s going to happen. Dream on.
Click to expand...

If the majority of the schools and the majority of the students and the majority of the employers prefer resume with intelligent design in it, then how can you expect, whatever the system, that the government will go against that?

drkitten said:
Well, here's a quote on the subject from a self-identified libertarian:
[..]
Click to expand...

One crazy guy does not make all guys crazy
 
drkitten said:
So a better description, when you actually look at the libertarian platform, is that "Freedom to act as one pleases, regardless of the consequence of those actions to others, is a fundamental libertarian principle.
Click to expand...
I call "stupid" on that.

The real problem is that libertarianism is sociopathy in a three-piece suit.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's your problem because you're an ignorant bigot.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
And the equilibrium will be ZERO. :(
Click to expand...

Well, we had a good run. We had our chance and couldn't make it work.
No big loss in the grand scheme of things.


Don't get the idea that I am a libertarian. If you noticed the last sentance in my first post I said "Or so the line of thinking goes".

I'm all for the reasonable regulation of fire arms. I think the average citizen is too irresponsible to "freely" own a gun.
 
Matteo Martini said:
There has to be a limit, somewhere..
Click to expand...
A libertarian-friendly limit would likely involve disallowance of weapons that cannot be used without harming someone or their property. This would leave pretty much anything up to and including grenades. Perhaps some small explosives.

Nukes are outright non-starters, since even the smallest generate a blinding flash for miles, and pour radioactive material into the atmosphere that will certainly travel over someone else's land, contaminating it for perhaps years. Rocket launchers experience similar obstacles in their safe deployment.

Perhaps the best way to set a limit is to declare some explosive equivalent as an upper bound and regulate everything greater than that.
 
Matteo Martini said:
So, everybody walks with their own gun?
Click to expand...
Think about it. Would you mess around with someone with a gun hanging off his hip?
What happen if someone gets drunk, and accidentally shoots someone?
Click to expand...
What do you mean "what would happen if.."?, That sort of thing happens right now. Remember what happend to Cheney and his lawyer friend on that hunting trip? And Cheney wasn't even drunk.
What if a tree-old-year baby manages to get the gun?
Click to expand...
Ditto. That happens now. Personaly I think anyone who wants to buy a gun needs to go to a traning class on gun saftey. But hell, here in the US you don't need to go to class inorder to get your drivers licence and more people die from car accidents than get accidentaly shot.
What if.. ?
Click to expand...
What if what? There are alot of people her own guns legaly or illegaly. There is not an all out wild west shoot out going on everywhere all the time.
people manage to get shot even in countries where civillian ownership of gun is illegal.

If someone wants to kill another person they'll manage to find a way to do so. Guns just make it more efficient to do so.




Anyhoos, I'm all for reasonable gun control laws. I don't think everyone should be able to freely own a gun.

I was just illustrating the possible line of thinking Ron Paul may haave in his head concerning guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom