Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(06-27-2021, 01:25 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2021, 11:25 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Nuance is irrelevant, because this radical libertarian positions treats all future possibilities as unavailable, which renders authority useless. So, what happens if the driver refuses to pull over? If he ignores the cop and drives anyways? There is no crime. Nothing can be done until someone ends up injured or dead. This is an unreasonable position to take. The founders never said municipalities can't make laws. They only said these types of laws should be made at the most local level. If libertarians want to form their own municipality and live with the fallout of this type of reasoning, they should be allowed to do so. However, most people with common sense want some measure of protection against other people's stupidity.

People are the problem with most of the extremes. Libertarian or left utopia all fail because some people are evil and don't care about others. You have to have laws because people will do whatever they feel is fine without them, regardless if it hurts or threatens others.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Libertarians are not anarchists. At least not those who are members of the actual Libertarian party.

(06-27-2021, 04:46 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2021, 01:25 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]People are the problem with most of the extremes. Libertarian or left utopia all fail because some people are evil and don't care about others. You have to have laws because people will do whatever they feel is fine without them, regardless if it hurts or threatens others.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Libertarians are not anarchists. At least not those who are members of the actual Libertarian party.

There are some who want no laws, there are a majority who recognize you have to have laws to keep everyone obeying a social contract to not harm others.

Most people would probably identify as libertarian if there was a real national platform and not a bunch of individuals who want to make everything legal.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

(06-27-2021, 05:04 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2021, 04:46 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]Libertarians are not anarchists. At least not those who are members of the actual Libertarian party.

There are some who want no laws, there are a majority who recognize you have to have laws to keep everyone obeying a social contract to not harm others.

Most people would probably identify as libertarian if there was a real national platform and not a bunch of individuals who want to make everything legal.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Have you looked at the national party platform? No Libertarian Party members are for no laws. 

(06-27-2021, 01:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2021, 11:25 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Nuance is irrelevant, because this radical libertarian position treats all future possibilities as unavailable, which renders authority useless. So, what happens if the driver refuses to pull over? If he ignores the cop and drives anyways? There is no crime. Nothing can be done until someone ends up injured or dead. This is an unreasonable position to take. The founders never said municipalities can't make laws. They only said these types of laws should be made at the most local level. If libertarians want to form their own municipality and live with the fallout of this type of reasoning, they should be allowed to do so. However, most people with common sense want some measure of protection against other people's stupidity.

Like I said, the conversation about what we propose gets devolved into something we aren't. Almost like one those logical fallacies ya'll are always going on about.

How have I misrepresented you? I didn't characterize ALL libertarians. I am specifically talking about the problem with THIS one libertarian position, which I consider to be radical.

(06-27-2021, 08:10 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2021, 01:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said, the conversation about what we propose gets devolved into something we aren't. Almost like one those logical fallacies ya'll are always going on about.

How have I misrepresented you? I didn't characterize ALL libertarians. I am specifically talking about the problem with THIS one libertarian position, which I consider to be radical.

Did I say you?

(06-26-2021, 05:18 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2021, 03:06 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Most states have no regulation on the collection of rainwater, and if fact, encourage the practice.

What if someone becomes sick from a lemonade stand?

What if someone suffers from an infected cut with a razor by an untrained barber who is not practicing mandated hygiene laws?

You seem to think these laws are written in a vacuum by politicians and bureaucrats with the sheer intent to create hardship. They're written and enforced because of adverse incidences. Health and safety laws are there for a purpose.

If you get sick from a lemonade stand you treat them like any other business. If know a barber is not practicing hygene laws, you take your business else where. It isn't that hard of a concept.

I can't help but believe you're being intentionally obtuse. If standards aren't upheld, you can rest assured that far fewer people will engage in good practices. Especially if the consequences are only losing a customer or two.

I'm curious, do these laissez-faire standards also apply to restaurants, medicine and airlines as well?

(06-27-2021, 07:47 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2021, 05:04 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]There are some who want no laws, there are a majority who recognize you have to have laws to keep everyone obeying a social contract to not harm others.

Most people would probably identify as libertarian if there was a real national platform and not a bunch of individuals who want to make everything legal.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Have you looked at the national party platform? No Libertarian Party members are for no laws. 

There are definitely members who want no laws. There may be a national platform but because 3rd parties aren't allowed everywhere on ballots, there are a lot of loose structure so some radicals easily get attached as members of the party.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

(06-27-2021, 10:42 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-27-2021, 07:47 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]Have you looked at the national party platform? No Libertarian Party members are for no laws. 

There are definitely members who want no laws. There may be a national platform but because 3rd parties aren't allowed everywhere on ballots, there are a lot of loose structure so some radicals easily get attached as members of the party.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

No one can be a member of a political party and want no laws, that makes no sense. Libertarian party is more about limiting Federal laws and power. Keeping everything local. Yes there are different caucuses with in the Libertarian party with different views but that is expected when the party is made up of all kinds of people. And by the way, the Libertarian party was the only 3rd party on every ballot in every state last election.