• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

I'd love to wear a rainbow every day

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
You're obviously passionate about libertarianism (which anyone could have guessed from reading your posts here) but you say nothing new in this essay. It's the same boring anti-government tripe we hear from RPBs and libertarians day in and day out with no solutions. No offense but this article did nothing for me.


Originally posted by: Ozoned
I heard a similar story 40 years ago, and 30 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 10 years ago. Despite that, every time and every where that I have looked, the average living condition is improving.

~~No matter how you write it down, when you look in the box, the only thing you are going to see is what is in the box. The human condition is so much more than what you have tried to make it be about. Grow up...



I'd say those two comments just about sum up the OP. I agree with bamacre regarding the errors of neo-conservatism, but otherwise his post essentially is a doomsday rant placing the blame on the existence of government and perhaps the absence of a perfect world (which necessitates a government). I agree that the current Bush Administration has done much to hurt the nation - however, like most libertarians (or at least most Ron Paul supporting libertarians), bamacre seems to not understand that the sins of individual politicians or administrations in a democracy are not sins of the system as a whole. In other words, just because Ted Stevens inserts the bridge-to-nowhere earmark or because Bush allows Haliburton to profit tremendously off of the Iraq war, both things that should be opposed, doesn't mean that's the own course the democratic government can take.

Americans being tax to death? Please, taxes in the United States are far lower than in virtually all other industrialized countries. I'd say we need more taxes, not less, primarily to pay for the things the current administration has thus far failed to pay for (i.e. the Iraq War), though most of that could be made up by removing Bush's tax cuts for the rich plus getting rid of loopholes primarily to their benefit in the first place.

Bamacre's main gripe is not that he objects to the current level of taxation, or current government policy, but that, as far as I can tell, he seems to object to essentially any taxation or government involvement in society whatsoever. Which again isn't surprising for a Ron Paul supporter, but still. For people like him, taxation of any kind amounts to "theft", in that it is not money he specifically wants to spend. And thus, I'd say democracy itself is incompatible with at least his brand of libertarianism, since ultimately any decision not universally supported amounts to "forcing" people to do or accept something that they do not. Such thinking has a level of appeal on a basic level and in theory, but obviously falls completely apart in the real world. It assumes that accidents do not happen, that no one can do wrong, and that everyone is born equal (so far as having an equal opportunity to succeed in life). Thus libertarianism, dealing solely with the ideal, ignores the need for a third party arbitrator (I.e. a government) to step in and deal with the defects of an imperfect world. Obviously doing so reduces the liberties of others, but I think its clear to most that the government ?demanding? everyone, for instance, pay an extra tenth of a cent a year to support someone who developed cancer is far more respective of liberty than leaving that person alone to foot the medical bill. Ultimately libertarianism I think denies that violations of liberty can exist at different levels ? in such a mindset, everyone paying a fraction of the costs of someone's cancer bills is far worse than just one man being denied his liberty of well-being (or perhaps libertarians don't in the first place consider his/her liberty being denied by such a handicap of their well-being).

On a random side note, I find there to be many interesting similarities in the thought process of extreme libertarians and extreme communists. Both assume essentially a perfect world, libertarians in the way outlined above, communists so far as that leaders will not abuse their power, and that everyone will contribute what they can and will receive what they need. Like libertarianism's focus on the ideal of individuals deciding what is best for them, communism sounds good in theory until you again approach the reality that there is no simple way to measure one's needs and means, nor can you ensure people will contribute all they can and take only what they need.


Wow, I better cut off my post here before I spend all night ranting against Internet libertarianism (it is more fun than studying for midterms though).

Edit: I should add that references to "libertarianism" above refer primarily to the Internet libertarianism exposed by bamacre and other Ron Paul supporters seen here. Obviously "libertarianism", like "conservatism", "liberalism", "socialism", etc, is not a monolitehic ideology, nor one that can't exist in degrees.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
You're obviously passionate about libertarianism (which anyone could have guessed from reading your posts here) but you say nothing new in this essay. It's the same boring anti-government tripe we hear from RPBs and libertarians day in and day out with no solutions. No offense but this article did nothing for me.
You want a solution? I give you a 230 year old solution that created the greatest nation on earth.

Secession

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Thats not a solution, unless you count setting fire to a good portion of the south again, which is a solution I can get behind.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,782
3,306
126
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
There are far more things than bind us together than your apocalyptic slather.
Is that why we have broken our melting pot, and have encouraged cultural diversity over unity? Because we're all united?

News Flash: The sun will rise tomorrow. And the next day, too.
Irrelevant. The sun rose after Rome and the USSR fell. Doesn't mean **** as to the condition of a nation. You?re avoiding the subject.

You have Free Will.
Does government allow the inherent right of self determination, or is it destructive to those ends? Does your grand ideal of continued taxes and power favor the individual or the collective?

Being free means limited government in my view. The opposite of what you desire. If your will is to be imposed on me against my will, that is not free will. How can you define it as such?

You choose to be a part of your family, your local community and American society. It is not an abstraction of your will but the shackles of a perceived moral culpability - your ultimate responsibility is only to yourself.

There is a cost to society. Your participation is voluntary. Your cognitive disease is greed. You want to accumulate all the benefits of our society without bearing the burden of its price.
I?m sure Stalin told his people that too, as he butchered them for the collective good.

Speaking of local community. Then why is it an unrepresentative and distant government has greater authority than the local community? Seems you oppose the very concept of local authority if only to make it an extension of federal authority, as directed by Washington DC.

On January 20, 2009, a presidential inauguration will open a new chapter. I plan to enjoy every minute of it. Join the party, pal.
I will enjoy every minute of reality sinking in and the utopist view becoming the nightmare it always becomes. Guess you really loved the Patriot Act, it?s ?the cost to society? and our participation is ?voluntary? right?

You go ahead and enjoy it as long as you can. Inevitability has your days numbered.
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
You're obviously passionate about libertarianism (which anyone could have guessed from reading your posts here) but you say nothing new in this essay. It's the same boring anti-government tripe we hear from RPBs and libertarians day in and day out with no solutions. No offense but this article did nothing for me.
You want a solution? I give you a 230 year old solution that created the greatest nation on earth.

Secession

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Uh, how the hell is secession a solution!? Unless I'm horribly misreading the OP, he's talking about the United States as a whole, so how does a nation secede from itself? I think the word you are looking for is revolution, not secession.

And assuming you do mean revolution, just quoting Jefferson talking about why the American Revolution was necessary doesn't begin to amount to a solution to today's problems. What would this revolution entail? How would this revolution create a better nation than what we have now? What kind of government would be created in place of the current one - unless, of course, you share the OP's internet libertarianism and essentially want to overthrow a democracy and put in its place an anarchy.

Those, and obviously plenty of other questions are the kinds of things you would need to provide answers for to begin to approach a solution.



Edit: Actually a nation seceding from itself is an interesting thought. What would happen to the national debt, for instance, if the entire United States (or, perhaps all of it but a square foot in the middle of DC) seceded to form the United States 2.0? Or what would become of trade agreements were a "new" nation to emerge. Obviously a weaker nation could be compelled to end the charade, but since no one could easily force the USA 2.0 to end the foolishness (and even the rest of the world banning together would easily lead to an unacceptably destructive WW3)...interesting.
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Does government allow the inherent right of self determination, or is it destructive to those ends? Does your grand ideal of continued taxes and power favor the individual or the collective?

Being free means limited government in my view. The opposite of what you desire. If your will is to be imposed on me against my will, that is not free will. How can you define it as such?

I don't have time to reply to all of your post, but this part stuck out to me as particularly ridiculous. You claim to be in favor of a "limited government", yet you oppose "continued taxes" (whatever that means) and people's wills being opposed on you. I question what sort of government you are in favor of then, since government at any size represents some level of you will being imposed upon. Even a national government solely concerned with a national army/national defense requires funding, which would require taxation of some kind and thus your liberty being reduced.

I'd be interested to hear your idea of a "limited" government that does not in any way, shape, or form impose upon your free will...
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Anarchy?

LOL, wow.
Since Jaskalas, as in the section I quoted above, seems opposed to any imposition on his free will/liberty whatsoever, I don't see how he could be in favor of anything but anarchy (since any form of government, no matter how "limited", would still impose upon your liberty to some degree). The only other solution I guess would be a government where 100% consent would be required on all matters.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,782
3,306
126
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Thats not a solution, unless you count setting fire to a good portion of the south again, which is a solution I can get behind.
See? You're already in the mood.

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You want a solution? I give you a 230 year old solution that created the greatest nation on earth.

Uh, how the hell is secession a solution!? Unless I'm horribly misreading the OP, he's talking about the United States as a whole, so how does a nation secede from itself? I think the word you are looking for is revolution, not secession.
You therefore missed the meaning behind the word and also are foreign to the events that occurred in 1861. Local authorities ignoring the federal authority and only recognizing their own authority is secession.

Those, and obviously plenty of other questions are the kinds of things you would need to provide answers for to begin to approach a solution.
Your host of questions does not need an answer. The solution does not need to include you. That?s the entire point.

That ?quote? is the declaration of independence. Local authorities ruling themselves is the solution to a corrupt federal authority that abuses its power. Ask Rome, ask the British Empire, ask the Soviet Union, ask Kosovo. National breakdowns do eventually happen especially with regards to the OP?s subject on doom and gloom.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,782
3,306
126
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: bamacre
Anarchy?

LOL, wow.
Since Jaskalas, as in the section I quoted above, seems opposed to any imposition on his free will/liberty whatsoever, I don't see how he could be in favor of anything but anarchy (since any form of government, no matter how "limited", would still impose upon your liberty to some degree).
You seem to be incapable of understanding state and local governments. They are not anarchy. An unrepresentative and distant government need not be the only form of government you recognize as legitimate. It?s a very telling sign that in this day of age you completely scoff at the concept of any other and call them anarchy. Very telling sign indeed.

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
You claim to be in favor of a "limited government", yet you oppose "continued taxes" (whatever that means)
The continued increase in taxes, which the socialist mindset guarantees to impose.
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: bamacre
Anarchy?

LOL, wow.
Since Jaskalas, as in the section I quoted above, seems opposed to any imposition on his free will/liberty whatsoever, I don't see how he could be in favor of anything but anarchy (since any form of government, no matter how "limited", would still impose upon your liberty to some degree).
You seem to be incapable of understand state and local governments. They are not anarchy. An unrepresentative and distant government need not be the only form of government you recognize as legitimate. It?s a very telling sign that in this day of age you completely scoff at the concept of any other and call them anarchy. Very telling sign indeed.
Uh, so how does a state or local government taxing you for something you don't exactly support differ from the federal government? Are you saying that you will/liberties can't be imposed against in state/local government?

Yes, state/local governments are less "distant" so far as they represent less people (and thus each person's voice counts for more), but how else do you deal with national problems/issues?

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
You claim to be in favor of a "limited government", yet you oppose "continued taxes" (whatever that means)
The continued increase in taxes, which the socialist mindset guarantees to impose.[/quote]

First off, with inflation taxes would need to increase as a result anyway.

Beyond inflationary increases though, tax are only continually increased as far as the public supports them being increased. If the people want to go to war in Iraq, then the taxes must (err, well, should) increase to pay for it. There's nothing "socialistic" about taxes being increased to cover additional programs, spending, etc (the additional programs themselves I suppose you could call socialistic, but not the tax increases to pay for them).
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
You want a solution? I give you a 230 year old solution that created the greatest nation on earth.

Uh, how the hell is secession a solution!? Unless I'm horribly misreading the OP, he's talking about the United States as a whole, so how does a nation secede from itself? I think the word you are looking for is revolution, not secession.
You therefore missed the meaning behind the word and also are foreign to the events that occurred in 1861. Local authorities ignoring the federal authority and only recognizing their own authority is secession.

So your solution to the problems facing the United States is essentially to break it up into 50 different countries? If that's what you mean than I understand what you are saying, though for too many reasons to count would have issues with it.


Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV


Those, and obviously plenty of other questions are the kinds of things you would need to provide answers for to begin to approach a solution.
Your host of questions does not need an answer. The solution does not need to include you. That?s the entire point.

That ?quote? is the declaration of independence. Local authorities ruling themselves is the solution to a corrupt federal authority that abuses its power. Ask Rome, ask the British Empire, ask the Soviet Union, ask Kosovo. National breakdowns do eventually happen especially with regards to the OP?s subject on doom and gloom.

The solution does not need to include me? Huh? It might just be sleep deprivation at 1:30 after getting up quite early, but I have no idea what you mean in your first three sentences. Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure a valid solution would have to provide answers to at least basic questions like the ones I posted.


The chief problem with your "solution" is that it assumes the federal government is some uncontrolled, unaccountable entity outside of the people of the United States. When we seceded from Britain, we pulled away from the government of another nation that did not give us representation, and one that clearly we had moved apart from to the point that the United States already largely governed itself.

National breakdowns can obviously occur, that I would not challenge. What I would challenge is the likelihood of such an occurrence and moreover its merits. Were the 50 states to become 50 independent nations, they would all but certainly need to enter into a CIS (the organization of the former post-Soviet states) style organization to regulate trade between each other to avoid the nightmares of 50 different currencies, foreign policies, etc (or, moreover, if the 50 new nations kept the same currency, for instance, then they would have to create a EU like organization to control that). That would result in far more girdlock than even the Articles of Confederation, which were quite unsuccessful as it is. I don't see how you could possibly find such a mess better than the comparatively far, far less imperfections of having a central government over all states.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,782
3,306
126
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Uh, so how does a state or local government taxing you for something you don't exactly support differ from the federal government? Are you saying that you will/liberties can't be imposed against in state/local government?

Yes, state/local governments are less "distant" so far as they represent less people (and thus each person's voice counts for more), but how else do you deal with national problems/issues?
Good question.

First, I came upon this concept at P&N when someone posted a ?Democracy? ranking. Such as: http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm in which we concluded the smaller a democracy is, the more democratic it is.

It makes perfect since, especially with our government?s approval ratings of 11% these days. Try to change a nation of 300 million. You?ll never do it, especially with political parties standing between you and your government. When divided by 300 million people you are infinitesimally smaller than when you are among a group of, say, 1 million people. Or a town of 100,000.

Representation and holding your elected officials accountable is the key issue at stake here. In which the smaller and more local you government, the better off you are.


Congress and ?national? issues should be defined under their 10 enumerated powers. As spelled out in our constitution and as we are protected against in the Bill of Rights. (Read the 10th amendment, my signature). Of course there are issues Congress should have authority over, but it should ONLY be those specific issues

The crux of my problem is federal authority. The ability to impose laws that are unconstitutional. Such as the Patriot Act. Such as the amount of water allowed in my toilet. The solution is NOT anarchy however much you repeat that word.

In order to avoid corruption and abuse it power ? the ultimate authority in this nation needs to be at a minimum at the state level. This encourages diversity, competition, and is far easier to avoid corrupting all 50 states ? as opposed Washington DC all by its lonesome self. It isn?t perfect but it helps bring us that much closer to a more representative and accountable government.

I?m all for us being a Union of States, as directed by our constitution. So you can stop calling that anarchy.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,217
11
81
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Deeko
I read the title, cocked my head with some form of interest. Then I saw the poster, rolled my eyes, and prepared myself for a bunch of BS to be spewed.

I was not disappointed. What was the purpose of this post? Is this your defeat speech?
ROFLMAO, those were my thoughts exactly! :laugh:
Its like a train wreck. You know you shouldn't stop to look, you should just keep driving, but something enthralls you....
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,850
8,167
126
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Excellent post, ZebuluniteV. I couldn't agree more.
Why? It was nonsense. American libertarianism is so far from anarchy it's not even funny. In fact, it depends absolutely on the concept of government as third-party arbitrator between individuals. They just don't want government used as a system of large-scale societal control and conformity. Otherwise, you let me know when libertarians want the county courthouse and recorders office shut down, eh?
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Excellent post, ZebuluniteV. I couldn't agree more.
Why? It was nonsense. American libertarianism is so far from anarchy it's not even funny. In fact, it depends absolutely on the concept of government as third-party arbitrator between individuals. They just don't want government used as a system of large-scale societal control and conformity. Otherwise, you let me know when libertarians want the county courthouse and recorders office shut down, eh?
I never once said "anarchy" in the post GodlessAstronomer was referring to. I only brought up anarchy in response to Jaskalas's post, where he mentioned he was for "limited government" yet said this:

"Being free means limited government in my view. The opposite of what you desire. If your will is to be imposed on me against my will, that is not free will. How can you define it as such?"

Which seemed to me to imply he was opposed to any imposition of a collective will on the individual, which thus would be opposed to any form of government.


As I noted in that earlier post, when I referred to "libertarianism" I meant the kind of internet libertarianism found in the Ron Pual-bots here, and others who ascribe to an extreme libertarianism that doesn't seem to allow for any government whatsoever. That doesn't cover more "moderate", or less extreme libertarians such as yourself who recognize that there must be at least some level of liberty given up and some level of imposition on their will to have a functioning society.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
As I noted in that earlier post, when I referred to "libertarianism" I meant the kind of internet libertarianism found in the Ron Pual-bots here, and others who ascribe to an extreme libertarianism that doesn't seem to allow for any government whatsoever.
This is just ridiculous.
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Uh, so how does a state or local government taxing you for something you don't exactly support differ from the federal government? Are you saying that you will/liberties can't be imposed against in state/local government?

Yes, state/local governments are less "distant" so far as they represent less people (and thus each person's voice counts for more), but how else do you deal with national problems/issues?
Good question.

First, I came upon this concept at P&N when someone posted a ?Democracy? ranking. Such as: http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm in which we concluded the smaller a democracy is, the more democratic it is.

It makes perfect since, especially with our government?s approval ratings of 11% these days. Try to change a nation of 300 million. You?ll never do it, especially with political parties standing between you and your government. When divided by 300 million people you are infinitesimally smaller than when you are among a group of, say, 1 million people. Or a town of 100,000.

Representation and holding your elected officials accountable is the key issue at stake here. In which the smaller and more local you government, the better off you are.


Congress and ?national? issues should be defined under their 10 enumerated powers. As spelled out in our constitution and as we are protected against in the Bill of Rights. (Read the 10th amendment, my signature). Of course there are issues Congress should have authority over, but it should ONLY be those specific issues

The crux of my problem is federal authority. The ability to impose laws that are unconstitutional. Such as the Patriot Act. Such as the amount of water allowed in my toilet. The solution is NOT anarchy however much you repeat that word.

In order to avoid corruption and abuse it power ? the ultimate authority in this nation needs to be at a minimum at the state level. This encourages diversity, competition, and is far easier to avoid corrupting all 50 states ? as opposed Washington DC all by its lonesome self. It isn?t perfect but it helps bring us that much closer to a more representative and accountable government.

I?m all for us being a Union of States, as directed by our constitution. So you can stop calling that anarchy.

I agree that more local governments are more representative, since each individual's vote counts for more.

But again, I ask you, how else do we solve national problems other than a national government? How do we, for instance, ensure that a company spanning multiple states follows environmental laws? If we left that solely to the states there would be no effective way to guarantee that, for instance, one state doesn't lower its standards to gain more investment, and thus the entire nation would eventually become more polluted (the tragedy of the commons sort of). For a real life example, Indiana has allowed BP to dump more pollution into lake Michigan, even though these new standards are lower than that of other states bordering lake Michigan. Without a higher power, what would regulate BP, and ensure that it does not use one state as an end-run to polluting a lake that is bordered by several other states. (now, to be fair, you could raise the point that we obviously have a federal government and yet this has occurred, but I'd chalk that up to the deregulatory practices of the Bush Administration than some sort of flaw in federal government as a whole).


I agree with you that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional (I consider myself to be closest to a ?liberal? or ?progressive?, certainly not a neo-conservative, which we both oppose). I oppose this because it clearly violates several of the amendments and other legislation already passed.

Yes, the 10th amendment does seem to limit the authority of the federal government, but there also exists the necessary and proper clause (and the commerce clause as well). They and the 10th amendment obviously conflict with each other, and I don't think you could say one is clearly more ?valid? than the other. Ultimately the Constitution is a document of compromise, one that intends a balance between the authority of the states to run themselves, and the ability of the federal government to supersede them to better carry out the will of the people. I think that balance has largely been met. For instance, the federal government carrys out some nation-wide regulation of education, yet does not violate the authority of the states so far as that states still run education. Its not as though federal schools exist around the state. The federal government has ?expanded? its powers so far as to address national concerns, not to take over the role of the states. Or, for instance, allowing the states to have wide discretion as far as carrying out elections, yet mandating that they cannot discriminate against certain voters. Thus, the ultimate authority under the current system is generally split between the federal and state governments.


Edit: For instance, were the federal government to step in to run the school district of a local community, obviously that would be a clear violation of the intent of the Constitution, and would be much less representative since people who aren't directly affected by the decision are deciding on it. However, I wouldn't consider it an abuse of the Constitution for, say, the federal government to step in and declare that evolution must be taught at all public schools. Because that is a national issue affecting all voters, I wouldn't consider it an abuse of the Constitution.
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
As I noted in that earlier post, when I referred to "libertarianism" I meant the kind of internet libertarianism found in the Ron Pual-bots here, and others who ascribe to an extreme libertarianism that doesn't seem to allow for any government whatsoever.
This is just ridiculous.
Uh, how so? Everyone who is a "libertarian" shares the same views? Are you saying its not possible that some people who consider themselves to be libertarians can't be opposed to essentially all government impositions on their liberties, while others who call themselves that can recognize the need for some level of government, and instead just want it reduced to some degree?
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,064
0
0
Originally posted by: Deeko
I read the title, cocked my head with some form of interest. Then I saw the poster, rolled my eyes, and prepared myself for a bunch of BS to be spewed.

I was not disappointed. What was the purpose of this post? Is this your defeat speech?
Put your dick back into your pants, nobody needs to see that.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
As I noted in that earlier post, when I referred to "libertarianism" I meant the kind of internet libertarianism found in the Ron Pual-bots here, and others who ascribe to an extreme libertarianism that doesn't seem to allow for any government whatsoever.
This is just ridiculous.
Uh, how so? Everyone who is a "libertarian" shares the same views? Are you saying its not possible that some people who consider themselves to be libertarians can't be opposed to essentially all government impositions on their liberties, while others who call themselves that can recognize the need for some level of government, and instead just want it reduced to some degree?
It appears that you should go back and read what I considered to be ridiculous.

I have not seen anyone calling for something resembling anarchy.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,850
8,167
126
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Excellent post, ZebuluniteV. I couldn't agree more.
Why? It was nonsense. American libertarianism is so far from anarchy it's not even funny. In fact, it depends absolutely on the concept of government as third-party arbitrator between individuals. They just don't want government used as a system of large-scale societal control and conformity. Otherwise, you let me know when libertarians want the county courthouse and recorders office shut down, eh?
I never once said "anarchy" in the post GodlessAstronomer was referring to. I only brought up anarchy in response to Jaskalas's post, where he mentioned he was for "limited government" yet said this:

"Being free means limited government in my view. The opposite of what you desire. If your will is to be imposed on me against my will, that is not free will. How can you define it as such?"

Which seemed to me to imply he was opposed to any imposition of a collective will on the individual, which thus would be opposed to any form of government.


As I noted in that earlier post, when I referred to "libertarianism" I meant the kind of internet libertarianism found in the Ron Pual-bots here, and others who ascribe to an extreme libertarianism that doesn't seem to allow for any government whatsoever. That doesn't cover more "moderate", or less extreme libertarians such as yourself who recognize that there must be at least some level of liberty given up and some level of imposition on their will to have a functioning society.
You said: "Thus libertarianism, dealing solely with the ideal, ignores the need for a third party arbitrator (I.e. a government) to step in and deal with the defects of an imperfect world."

And I will say it again, that is nonsense. American libertarianism depends ABSOLUTELY on the concept of government as third-party arbitrator between individuals. You can blame the Paulbots all you want, and I won't disagree, however, I've seen ignorance like you've posted here long before the Paulbots ever arrived on the scene.
Like most "internet socialists," you're confusing the Paulbots' anti-federalist talk as being anti-government in general. It's not. They're "localists." Jakalas is not opposed to the county courts and recorders office, just ask him.

You are correct though, that extreme libertarians and extreme communists both want the same ideal of perfection (a world where people "do the right thing" just because they want to). The difference is that the libertarians just want to be left alone to bring it about for themselves, while the communists want to force it on everyone by violent means. Which is more delusional?
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Excellent post, ZebuluniteV. I couldn't agree more.
Why? It was nonsense. American libertarianism is so far from anarchy it's not even funny. In fact, it depends absolutely on the concept of government as third-party arbitrator between individuals. They just don't want government used as a system of large-scale societal control and conformity. Otherwise, you let me know when libertarians want the county courthouse and recorders office shut down, eh?
I never once said "anarchy" in the post GodlessAstronomer was referring to. I only brought up anarchy in response to Jaskalas's post, where he mentioned he was for "limited government" yet said this:

"Being free means limited government in my view. The opposite of what you desire. If your will is to be imposed on me against my will, that is not free will. How can you define it as such?"

Which seemed to me to imply he was opposed to any imposition of a collective will on the individual, which thus would be opposed to any form of government.


As I noted in that earlier post, when I referred to "libertarianism" I meant the kind of internet libertarianism found in the Ron Pual-bots here, and others who ascribe to an extreme libertarianism that doesn't seem to allow for any government whatsoever. That doesn't cover more "moderate", or less extreme libertarians such as yourself who recognize that there must be at least some level of liberty given up and some level of imposition on their will to have a functioning society.
You said: "Thus libertarianism, dealing solely with the ideal, ignores the need for a third party arbitrator (I.e. a government) to step in and deal with the defects of an imperfect world."

And I will say it again, that is nonsense. American libertarianism depends ABSOLUTELY on the concept of government as third-party arbitrator between individuals. You can blame the Paulbots all you want, and I won't disagree, however, I've seen ignorance like you've posted here long before the Paulbots ever arrived on the scene.
Like most "internet socialists," you're confusing the Paulbots' anti-federalist talk as being anti-government in general. It's not. They're "localists." Jakalas is not opposed to the county courts and recorders office, just ask him.

You are correct though, that extreme libertarians and extreme communists both want the same ideal of perfection (a world where people "do the right thing" just because they want to). The difference is that the libertarians just want to be left alone to bring it about for themselves, while the communists want to force it on everyone by violent means. Which is more delusional?

I did say that, but I also edited in a few minutes after the clarification that when I said ?libertarianism? I was referring to the it in the extreme sense or in the way most of the Ron Paul bots here seem to view it. To some of the Paulbots, your acceptance of essentially any role of a third-party arbitrator means that you aren't a libertarian. Its that sort of view that I was mainly targetting.

I did misinterpret what Jaskalas saying ? he seems opposed to any federal imposition on liberties, but not necessarily state/local impositions. I have some issues with that, as posted above, but from what I've since read it does not seem he favors anarchy in an absolute sense (i.e. not at all levels).

While extreme libertarians do just want to be left alone to achieve an ideal, I wouldn't say that means they're necessarily less delusional than extreme communists. In large part that is because extreme libertarians want to essentially remove all regulation and etc, which in a perfect world would make things better, but in the real world simply leaves individuals to fill in the gaps and abuse the liberties of others. The problem with extreme libertarians is that, due to a idealist view of the world, they view government imposition as bad while ignoring that removing such impositions just leads to individuals imposing on the liberties of others. Giving people the ?liberty? to freely exploit others obviously leads to a reduction of liberty among many while a rise in the liberty of the few. For instance, if you were to allow business owners to do whatever they want, then you could wind up again with the robber barons, who obviously enjoyed nearly unlimited liberties themselves but constrained the liberties of their workers and etc.

But yes, the main point is that both extreme libertarianism and extreme communism, while theoretically exact opposites, are both similar in their ignorance of reality.
 

ZebuluniteV

Member
Aug 23, 2007
165
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
As I noted in that earlier post, when I referred to "libertarianism" I meant the kind of internet libertarianism found in the Ron Pual-bots here, and others who ascribe to an extreme libertarianism that doesn't seem to allow for any government whatsoever.
This is just ridiculous.
Uh, how so? Everyone who is a "libertarian" shares the same views? Are you saying its not possible that some people who consider themselves to be libertarians can't be opposed to essentially all government impositions on their liberties, while others who call themselves that can recognize the need for some level of government, and instead just want it reduced to some degree?
It appears that you should go back and read what I considered to be ridiculous.

I have not seen anyone calling for something resembling anarchy.
Then what level of government do you support? You say that the democrats wanting, for instance, a level of wealth redistribution (in the form of programs aiding the poor through aid programs funded by progressive taxation) is "much closer to mob rule rather than democracy" How is that not democracy? From that statement at least, it seems to me that your main opposition to such programs is not whether you think they are a good thing or not, but that you consider it wrong that the people through the government can decide to do that (i.e. wrong that liberties can be imposed on in such a way).

I could just be misinterpreting what you are saying, but otherwise beyond the initial post you have just complained a few times that I said "anarchy". If not anarchy, what do you support?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
As I noted in that earlier post, when I referred to "libertarianism" I meant the kind of internet libertarianism found in the Ron Pual-bots here, and others who ascribe to an extreme libertarianism that doesn't seem to allow for any government whatsoever.
This is just ridiculous.
Uh, how so? Everyone who is a "libertarian" shares the same views? Are you saying its not possible that some people who consider themselves to be libertarians can't be opposed to essentially all government impositions on their liberties, while others who call themselves that can recognize the need for some level of government, and instead just want it reduced to some degree?
It appears that you should go back and read what I considered to be ridiculous.

I have not seen anyone calling for something resembling anarchy.
Then what level of government do you support? You say that the democrats wanting, for instance, a level of wealth redistribution (in the form of programs aiding the poor through aid programs funded by progressive taxation) is "much closer to mob rule rather than democracy" How is that not democracy? From that statement at least, it seems to me that your main opposition to such programs is not whether you think they are a good thing or not, but that you consider it wrong that the people through the government can decide to do that (i.e. wrong that liberties can be imposed on in such a way).

I could just be misinterpreting what you are saying, but otherwise beyond the initial post you have just complained a few times that I said "anarchy". If not anarchy, what do you support?
Uhh, well the Constitution would be a good start in answering your question. :D

How could I be an anarchist when I believe the Federal Government's job is to protect my freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights? ;)

It is not so much that I want to see our government as it was in the year 1787, but what we have in 2008 is totally unacceptable. My focus now is more so on direction, not destination.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY