No the issue isn't mosquitoes; but property and individual rights !
Wow; your blood pressure is elevated today................
If you can't see the issues within the arguement; then let's drop it....I am not trying to dissuade you from LP......
Carry on trying to convince us to learn the LP way.........
- Whirlaway
- 08-09-2012, 10:11 AM
- CuteOldGuy
- 08-09-2012, 10:32 AM
How is it a property or individual right to harbor mosquitoes? Many questions would have to be answered before making a decision. This doesn't lend itself to partisanship.
- JD Barleycorn
- 08-09-2012, 10:34 AM
Beware the syntax police (especially when posting in the wee hours). Thanks for your input CJ.
To respond to a couple of things; I have always advocated that society could legalized drugs but only if you give the concerned people, in this case employers, the RIGHT to terminate them if they feel that the user is endangering other employees or the public by unwise usage. Right cut both ways.
Molestation is obviously not the best descriptive term but it was early. What I was trying to say that you have to be of a certain age to consent. Now as to what that age is has to be determined. And what if you are not able to consent? This applies to euthanasia, abortion, and molestation. Someone in a coma cannot consent, someone in a vegetative state cannot consent, someone who is yet to be born (but is alive) cannot consent. Before we allow people do to anything we need to understand that there are those who are absolutely helpless who need protection.
We are never going to get 100% agreement on laws. It seems to me that libertarians say that if I don't agree with this law then I don't have to obey even though the community passed it with due process. Does libertarianism respect contract law? If I agree to something, sign a contract, and then change my mind where does that leave me. It seems to me that I could walk away. Is that a good interpretation?
To respond to a couple of things; I have always advocated that society could legalized drugs but only if you give the concerned people, in this case employers, the RIGHT to terminate them if they feel that the user is endangering other employees or the public by unwise usage. Right cut both ways.
Molestation is obviously not the best descriptive term but it was early. What I was trying to say that you have to be of a certain age to consent. Now as to what that age is has to be determined. And what if you are not able to consent? This applies to euthanasia, abortion, and molestation. Someone in a coma cannot consent, someone in a vegetative state cannot consent, someone who is yet to be born (but is alive) cannot consent. Before we allow people do to anything we need to understand that there are those who are absolutely helpless who need protection.
We are never going to get 100% agreement on laws. It seems to me that libertarians say that if I don't agree with this law then I don't have to obey even though the community passed it with due process. Does libertarianism respect contract law? If I agree to something, sign a contract, and then change my mind where does that leave me. It seems to me that I could walk away. Is that a good interpretation?
- CuteOldGuy
- 08-09-2012, 10:43 AM
Where did you EVER get the idea that Libertarians don't believe you have adhere to a contract you voluntarily signed? Nowhere. The essence of Libertarianism is that you have the right to contract. And if you breach the contract, you will pay whatever penalty is called for in the contract, or in the common law.
Where the hell do you get your information? Not trying to be mean, but Jesus. That is so far offbase. It surprises me you would even bring it up.
And where do Libertarians say you can disobey laws you don't like? Let me guess. NOWHERE! Now there are civil disobedience groups who advocate such, but they are not necessarily Libertarian. In fact, Libertarianism is based on having appropriate laws, and obeying them. When you have too many laws, you can't help but disobey some. Limit laws to only those necessary, and enforce them.
And yes, helpless people need protection. But from government? You really want government deciding what to do for people who can't help themselves? The first round of assistance should come from those who love the person, their caregivers, and the last resort should be government, only when there is no other resource available.
C'mon, JD. You're smarter than this.
Where the hell do you get your information? Not trying to be mean, but Jesus. That is so far offbase. It surprises me you would even bring it up.
And where do Libertarians say you can disobey laws you don't like? Let me guess. NOWHERE! Now there are civil disobedience groups who advocate such, but they are not necessarily Libertarian. In fact, Libertarianism is based on having appropriate laws, and obeying them. When you have too many laws, you can't help but disobey some. Limit laws to only those necessary, and enforce them.
And yes, helpless people need protection. But from government? You really want government deciding what to do for people who can't help themselves? The first round of assistance should come from those who love the person, their caregivers, and the last resort should be government, only when there is no other resource available.
C'mon, JD. You're smarter than this.
- JD Barleycorn
- 08-09-2012, 11:16 AM
That was a question and not an accusation.
and I didn't say that government should decide but government should give protection. Not the same thing.
and I didn't say that government should decide but government should give protection. Not the same thing.
- CuteOldGuy
- 08-09-2012, 01:01 PM
Why would libertarians be opposed to enforcing voluntary contracts. How did that even come up?
No wonder Libertarians are unelectable. If that's the kind of bullshit being spread about them, I wouldn't want them in power either. But that is not the case.
There would still be contract enforcement. There would still be a police departments, fire departments, dog catchers, road repair, garbage collection and a whole host of things that help a society run smoothly.
What would be different is that the rights of the people would be paramount. The convenience of government would be secondary. Government would be subordinate to the rule of law, protecting those rights.
You could do what you want in the privacy of your own home. Want to smoke something? Ok. Want to hire a lady to come over and give you special attention? Ok. Want your wars to be declared by Congress with a definable national interest involved and clear definition of victory? You got it. You want a tax system designed to raise money that is simple, understandable and collects only enough to run the essential functions of government, and is NOT designed to place one group in a more preferred position than another? You got that, too. Want a stable money supply based on what is best for the people, rather than what is best for the banks? Yup, we have that, too.
You want to screw somebody out of their life, liberty or property by force of fraud? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party. You want to indefinitely detain a citizen with no judicial review? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party. You want to give tax breaks to your cronies, at the expense of others? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party. You want to spend 40% or more, every year, than the government takes in? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party. You want to imprison the mentally ill for exercising choices that affect no one but them? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party.
Right now we're arguing over whether we want a left wing tyranny, or a right wing tyranny. Do you want to be shot or stabbed? Do you want arsenic or hemlock? Do you want Schlitz or PBR? Those are not choices.
But those are the "electable" ones. Who says? Well, the state-controlled media, for one, who have a vested interest in electing only the "electable".
It's time to turn them out. I know we won't, and we will be worse off for it. We will have either a right wing tyranny or a left wing tyranny. The end result is the same. Tyranny.
No wonder Libertarians are unelectable. If that's the kind of bullshit being spread about them, I wouldn't want them in power either. But that is not the case.
There would still be contract enforcement. There would still be a police departments, fire departments, dog catchers, road repair, garbage collection and a whole host of things that help a society run smoothly.
What would be different is that the rights of the people would be paramount. The convenience of government would be secondary. Government would be subordinate to the rule of law, protecting those rights.
You could do what you want in the privacy of your own home. Want to smoke something? Ok. Want to hire a lady to come over and give you special attention? Ok. Want your wars to be declared by Congress with a definable national interest involved and clear definition of victory? You got it. You want a tax system designed to raise money that is simple, understandable and collects only enough to run the essential functions of government, and is NOT designed to place one group in a more preferred position than another? You got that, too. Want a stable money supply based on what is best for the people, rather than what is best for the banks? Yup, we have that, too.
You want to screw somebody out of their life, liberty or property by force of fraud? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party. You want to indefinitely detain a citizen with no judicial review? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party. You want to give tax breaks to your cronies, at the expense of others? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party. You want to spend 40% or more, every year, than the government takes in? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party. You want to imprison the mentally ill for exercising choices that affect no one but them? You have NO friends in the Libertarian party.
Right now we're arguing over whether we want a left wing tyranny, or a right wing tyranny. Do you want to be shot or stabbed? Do you want arsenic or hemlock? Do you want Schlitz or PBR? Those are not choices.
But those are the "electable" ones. Who says? Well, the state-controlled media, for one, who have a vested interest in electing only the "electable".
It's time to turn them out. I know we won't, and we will be worse off for it. We will have either a right wing tyranny or a left wing tyranny. The end result is the same. Tyranny.