Quote:I already did better. The thread is already finished from a logical point of view. I already made it clear why socialism and libertarianism are misnomers and pointless labels and what really matters is what you stand for.
At this point it's all just about making idiotic jokes about "the other side."
The thread's over because you won? Okay. Whatever.
It's settled, Oklacommie won.
The comments section is pure gold.
Quote:As for private business I agree regulations on how they operate are needed but I advocate those regulations come from more local governments. Pollution is probably the exception but hours of operations, types of business and equal access are all local issues. Take the civil rights act for example. Personally I hate all discrimination as a first generation American with Hispanic heritage I've faced it first hand. But I don't support legislation that says from a federal level a private business has to serve everyone or no one. If some cake factory doesn't want to make gay themed cakes that's their choice. If a restaurant wants to serve only whites or blacks or Hispanics that's their choice. However local towns or even states are within their jurisdiction to say operating in our territory requires you serve x people under y circumstances.
As for substances I'm for decriminalizing all narcotics. Laws can still be established against public intoxication or using narcotics while operating a vehicle on public roads. But what I do in the privacy of my home is my business no matter how harmful to myself.
All this freedom also requires more responsibility an that's where you tend to lose people. Smoke all the dope you wants, call a hooker every night but your responsible for your own health care, income, housing and food. It's why freedom is tied directly to ending federal welfare. Really ideally ending all public funded welfare but ending it at the federal level is a good start.
Define "home". Home as in property? Should I legally be allowed to work around my front yard naked or even worse, have intercourse with a goat on my front lawn? Hey, it's my "home" and it isn't harming anyone else.....
Also, what about minors? Should I legally be allowed to sell meth to a 10 year old? 12? 18?
Quote:Define "home". Home as in property? Should I legally be allowed to work around my front yard naked or even worse, have intercourse with a goat on my front lawn? Hey, it's my "home" and it isn't harming anyone else.....
Also, what about minors? Should I legally be allowed to sell meth to a 10 year old? 12? 18?
Can you sell Alcohol to a minor? Your attempt to be ludicrous does nothing to invalidate the argument of a government established to protect only life and property. It's easily established protecting the life of a minor goes hand in hand with restricting their access to narcotics. No one's ever advocated a free for all in narcotics, decriminalization simple refers to the removal of federal laws punishing adults for private consumption of various narcotics.
As for naked property work that's up to individual communities, I imagine most would agree to restrict nudity, however some communities might not have a problem with them, hows that governments business?
Quote:Can you sell Alcohol to a minor? Your attempt to be ludicrous does nothing to invalidate the argument of a government established to protect only life and property. It's easily established protecting the life of a minor goes hand in hand with restricting their access to narcotics. No one's ever advocated a free for all in narcotics, decriminalization simple refers to the removal of federal laws punishing adults for private consumption of various narcotics.
As for naked property work that's up to individual communities, I imagine most would agree to restrict nudity, however some communities might not have a problem with them, hows that governments business?
So you think the federal government was established to protect only life and property?
Quote:Can you sell Alcohol to a minor? Your attempt to be ludicrous does nothing to invalidate the argument of a government established to protect only life and property. It's easily established protecting the life of a minor goes hand in hand with restricting their access to narcotics. No one's ever advocated a free for all in narcotics, decriminalization simple refers to the removal of federal laws punishing adults for private consumption of various narcotics.
As for naked property work that's up to individual communities, I imagine most would agree to restrict nudity, however some communities might not have a problem with them, hows that governments business?
1. Why shouldn't minors have the right to choose for themselves? I know a lot of minors that are better decision makers than adults. Why should the government set the age limit? The government can say a 20 year old can have a beer, but a 21 year old cant?
2. Why should communities be able to tell me what I can and cannot do as long as it isn't causing harm to others?
Quote:So you think the federal government was established to protect only life and property?
No that's what I believe it's role SHOULD be, not what it currently is.
Quote:1. Why shouldn't minors have the right to choose for themselves? I know a lot of minors that are better decision makers than adults. Why should the government set the age limit? The government can say a 20 year old can have a beer, but a 21 year old cant?
2. Why should communities be able to tell me what I can and cannot do as long as it isn't causing harm to others?
still trying to be ludicrous I see. However you unknowingly expose the flaw in the traditional conservative rational, the quality of decisions has nothing to do with the liberty of being allowed to make decisions.
Unless you advocate anarchy communities on some level will always establish laws, the difference between you and me is at what level we want those rules established.
Quote:No that's what I believe it's role SHOULD be, not what it currently is.
Here's the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That's a lot more than just life and property. Do you think the founding fathers were wrong? Honest question.
Quote:Here's the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That's a lot more than just life and property. Do you think the founding fathers were wrong? Honest question.
None of that contradicts a federal government with the role of protecting property and life. But to answer the direct question, yes and no. Anyone who says the founding fathers had it ALL figured out for all of time is being naive at best. They didn't nor could they be expected to see what the nation would become, and how big government would become. Some of them warned about the dangers (Jefferson specifically) but I don't believe in a "dead" constitution.
Back to the Preamble, all of that is covered by the protection of property and life. Your property is your possessions, your thoughts, your speech, your earnings, your body, your family, your home and so on. Property isn't referring to only your address or even simply physical things, your intellectual property (speech, thoughts, expression, media) is also protected. The defense of the nation is the defense of the lives of it's citizens.
Quote:None of that contradicts a federal government with the role of protecting property and life. But to answer the direct question, yes and no. Anyone who says the founding fathers had it ALL figured out for all of time is being naive at best. They didn't nor could they be expected to see what the nation would become, and how big government would become. Some of them warned about the dangers (Jefferson specifically) but I don't believe in a "dead" constitution.
Back to the Preamble, all of that is covered by the protection of property and life. Your property is your possessions, your thoughts, your speech, your earnings, your body, your family, your home and so on. Property isn't referring to only your address or even simply physical things, your intellectual property (speech, thoughts, expression, media) is also protected. The defense of the nation is the defense of the lives of it's citizens.
If you are going to have that loose a definition of "property and life," then I don't think you're a
Libertarian so much as a moderate with some libertarian leanings. Or maybe just moderately libertarian. Which is what I think I am, but it's all a matter of degree. I probably want a little more government than you do.
I don't think you and I have enough of a difference on ideology to have an argument. We could argue over the specifics, but that's about it.
Quote:If you are going to have that loose a definition of "property and life," then I don't think you're a Libertarian so much as a moderate with some libertarian leanings. Or maybe just moderately libertarian. Which is what I think I am, but it's all a matter of degree. I probably want a little more government than you do.
I don't think you and I have enough of a difference on ideology to have an argument. We could argue over the specifics, but that's about it.
From what I've read, the Libertarians I've talked to, the Libertarian sponsored party meetings I've attended that's the interpretation of Life and Property that's always used.
There's a narrative by Republicans and Democrats alike to paint Libertarians as militia nut jobs, in our bunkers, with canned food waiting for the apocalypse, while stashing away gold. Some of it's true, there's a strong militia movement within the Libertarian party, there's also the fair share of "doomsdayers" myself included in the Libertarian party. But the party itself is a very moderate party. Johnson who won the presidential nomination for the Libertarian party described it as a fiscally conservative socially liberal party.
I think the Libertarian party could become a real force with the combination of their message to end the war on drugs and end the foreign interventions like Iraq, Afghanistan, now Syria, Libya and so on.
Abortion is about the only issue you find inconsistency in the Libertarian party, some say it falls under the protection of life (I'd align myself with that part of the party) others argue it falls under the protection of the mothers body as her property. Comes back to the same argument when does it become a life and when is it granted rights as a life.
Quote:That's cute.
Always the one to contribute
Quote:No that's what I believe it's role SHOULD be, not what it currently is.
still trying to be ludicrous I see. However you unknowingly expose the flaw in the traditional conservative rational, the quality of decisions has nothing to do with the liberty of being allowed to make decisions.
Unless you advocate anarchy communities on some level will always establish laws, the difference between you and me is at what level we want those rules established.
You can call it ludicrous, but I call it pointing out flaws in your logic. You claim to support the rights for individuals to choose for themselves, so why should ANYONE be able to make laws about what I can do on my own property (as long as it isn't causing harm to others). Why do you think my community, or my state, should have the right to tell me I can't walk around my yard naked?
Quote:Always the one to contribute
It's cute that you think the libertarian party will become a real force. It reminds me of kids in 1st grade saying they are going to be the next Michael Jordan.
Quote:You can call it ludicrous, but I call it pointing out flaws in your logic. You claim to support the rights for individuals to choose for themselves, so why should ANYONE be able to make laws about what I can do on my own property (as long as it isn't causing harm to others). Why do you think my community, or my state, should have the right to tell me I can't walk around my yard naked?
What your trying to bait me into is anarchy I've said a million times I'm not an anarchist it's not a practical option. Localized govenments legislating what local populations agree upon with a libertarian principled federal government is an achievable goal and one I support.
Quote:It's cute that you think the libertarian party will become a real force. It reminds me of kids in 1st grade saying they are going to be the next Michael Jordan.
Maybe you haven't notice but the libertarian movement had already changed many of the GOP stances and is slowly working within both parties towards decentralized power.
If the GOP continues to march towards authoritarian police state legislation and the democrats continue to march towards big welfare state a third party WILL fill the vacumme. But go ahead stick your head in the sand and believe your party is safe.
Quote:What your trying to bait me into is anarchy I've said a million times I'm not an anarchist it's not a practical option. Localized govenments legislating what local populations agree upon with a libertarian principled federal government is an achievable goal and one I support.
I'm leaving terminology out of it. You're on record stating that you believe people should be allowed to do what they please in the confines of their own home. Why would you support legislation preventing that, regardless of what level it is set at? You're suppose to be all for rights of individuals, no?