TFL - a Libertarian Board?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And here is what I think: read it in my double post: :)

[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
To me, it is rather clear that:

Pretty much everybody here subscribes to a Libertarian (or Libertarian-leaning) philosphy.

That is to say, that, save for the odd disagreement on the drug-liberalization issue, we all wish that the role of Government was as restricted as the Libertarians wish it to be.

The difference is in the pragmatic stance we adopt vis a vis the next election. The 2 schools of thought are:

1 - The "vote your conscience" crowd, featuring Dennis, Allan, DC, etc....

2 - The "do what you can to stop Gore, Bush ain't so bad for now" crowd, of which Nralife, Monkeyleg and yours truly happen to belong....

I, for one, credit Dennis, DC and the rest of the "conscience" crowd with a big part of the development of my own political conscience. Someone like Dennis (no offence about revealing his age ;)) has seen America deteriorate from a place where you could easily take your son on a "silent walk", rifle in hand, to this over-regulated beaurocratic jungle we have now. His opinions have been therefore not only valuable but influential in my (hopefully ever-evolving) "civic conscience".

That I choose to partially ignore my conscience in November (for purely pragmatic reasons) means that my conscience is Libertarian. And I am willing to bet that many other "November-republicans" on TFL can share my feelings.

As for confining moderators to... moderating, I am 100% against it. This board would lose its shine, its dialectic zest and some of its best posters, were that to happen.

My suggestion: let's put this bad idea aside.

------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

Get some real news at www.worldnetdaily.com

[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
So what is wrong with someone who believes whole-heartedly in freedom, liberty, and other general principles that this nation was founded on? I still can't figure that one out. Look at the face of any of your coins, the word LIBERTY is printed on every single US Coin.
I don't give a ---- if you vote Republican. There are some Republicans that truly do believe in liberty, and freedom. They garner my vote too. The Libertarian Party believes in A--RT--N (dirty word here at TFL), and I am opposed to that practice with every fiber of my being. I will still choose liberty over tyranny in the best way I know how. I hope that you ALL will do the same. If to you that means a vote for GW, then go for it. I'd be proud to have him beat Al Gore. I still believe that you should vote your conscience, and I will do that. Just don't tell me how I should vote.
Don't get rid of these political threads, because the more heated the debate, the more I learn. The more I learn, the better I am prepared to run for the Libertarian Ticket in 2004!

KJM for Sheriff,
kjm for Congressman
kjm for Senator
kjm for PRESIDENT
and maybe...
kjm for POPE!!! (although I'd have to convert to catholicism from Presbyterianism)
 
Ive been busy and havent been checking this stuff out,
...I have disagreed at length with Dennis and other of the people who are libertarians but I have never felt that the disagreement went beyond the bounds of civility. As a matter of fact, a moderator who will remain nameless once called me to see if in our heated discussion he had offended me, he had not.
I believe that part of the problem between factions is the technique used by the libertarians, in particular to recruit. And example would be "Im on the side of liberty and freedom", subtle but it implies that if you dont agree your against such things....(this is not intended to flame), they are simply attempting to take the moral high ground. They are attempting to frame the debate, although it is constantly and incessantly.
Its no different when the other side(s), use arguments like "unviable" and such.
I do feel there is a definite libertarian flavor to the board...for me its not the reason I come here, I come to enjoy, the fellowship. While I do feel the board has a libertarian slant in some areas and it could have a chilling effect on different opinions--if you'll search the archives you'll see that the opposite has occured....and with the growing/changing membership it could take on a decidely different flavor.

DC--you mean you have been exploiting me and I didnt know it? I certainley must be getting old...lol....

To Rich and the moderators....thankyou for your time, efforts and the money to make this happen..........fubsy.
 
While rereeading this thread I thought of another, very pertinent fact.

Probably a couple of years ago now, the Wall Street Journal ran an article indicating that roughly 40% of Americans identify with libertarian ideals. Not registered, or even voting libertarian obviously, but when asked questions about personal and economic freedom, 40% of Americans answered with a libertarian response.

Now, since the RKBA is under such serious attack, and in my experience people who believe in the RKBA are fairly individualistic, it would not surprise me at all if RKBA activists and enthusiasts do have a higher proportion of libertarians (at least in philosophy).

Glenn will now tell me there is absolutely no basis for any of this ... ;)

[BTW, a number of the posts above help me remember, again, how much I like TFL. Sharp group of courteous, very decent people.]

Regards from AZ
 
Being able to say "I am right" and then being nailed to a cross only worked for one person I know about.

Voting your conscience is a "warm fuzzy feel good" short term thing. Voting your intelligence is a long term thing that might help accomplish an objective. Your choice.

RKBA!


RKBA!
 
Allow me to second fubsy's post.

I see no harm whatsoever when people of good will disagree vehemently on certain things. By and large we all agree on the Main Theme, perhaps certain variations from time to time may be a little painful to the ears of certain members, but so what?

For goodness sake, the last thing I need is
any more perfect joy and harmony 'round the clock. I live in Japan, where everyone has pretty much the same opinion, which is whatever everyone else happens to feel at the time. It can get trying, believe you me.

No one here yields to anything but the verdict of their own conscience, so I think we all think this from time to time, I hope:

"Here's to you and here's to me,
And may we never disagree,
But if by chance we disagree,
The hell with you,
And here's to me."

In fact I couldn't trust anyone who felt otherwise.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by westex:
Voting your conscience is a "warm fuzzy feel good" short term thing. Voting your intelligence is a long term thing that might help accomplish an objective. Your choice.
[/quote]

But of course the two aren't mutually exclusive. As you know.

My conscience won't allow me to vote for a candidate who consistently says he supports existing unconstitutional gun-control laws and that he will implement additional ones if elected. My intelligence tells me that Bush, like Gore, is likely to make good on his promise to enact such new unconstitutional laws. I therefore choose not to vote for him.
 
If not voting for Bush helps get Gore elected, then, unless the voter doesn't mind universal victim disarmament, the vote was cast sans intelligence.

------------------
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. -- Ambrose Bierce
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by westex:
Voting your conscience is a "warm fuzzy feel good" short term thing. Voting your intelligence is a long term thing that might help accomplish an objective. Your choice.[/quote]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by Clark Kent:
If not voting for Bush helps get Gore elected, then, unless the voter doesn't mind universal victim disarmament, the vote was cast sans intelligence. [/quote]

If someone wants to vote for Bush because they think he's the best candidate, I respect that. If someone wants to vote for him because they think it's the "intelligent" vote, I can accept that without insulting that person. But, frankly, I respect someone who votes for Gore because they honestly feel he is the best candidate a lot more than I respect someone who votes "the intelligent" vote and criticizes anyone else who does not. If you don't want to vote based on your principals, fine. But please don't criticize those of us who do.
Let's talk ethics vs. intelligence....if you're selling a car and you know it's a piece of junk, you have two choices:

1)listen to your conscience...tell the potential buyer the problems with the car. You will probably get less money, but you did the right thing.

2)do the "intelligent" thing...don't tell the person about the car's malfunctions. Your intelligence tells you you'll get more money, so you win.

As I said, if you want to vote for Bush, please do so. If you want to tell us why you're voting for Bush and why you think we should, go ahead. But please stop insulting people who don't agree with everything you say. (and yes, we are "intelligent" enough to know that "sans intelligence" = "stupid." Simply phrasing it in a more sophisticated manner does not make it less insulting)
 
Cindy - Our struggle to keep the RKBA is much too serious for us to take umbrage or feel insulted because we think someone with whom we disagree has impugned our motives or intelligence. When I say someone is not voting intelligently, I'm not saying the person is not intelligent, but that the person is not acting intelligently in this instance. If it makes you feel any better, I will say right here and now that there have been plenty of times when I have acted like an idiot, but I do not consider myself an idiot. But if you want to call me one, or call me an insensitive boor for speaking passionately about an issue I consider to be of life-and-death importance, be my guest.

My main concern in this debate, if that's what it is, is with the sense of purer-than-thou that comes thru from people who evidently think that voting their conscience is the superior way, no matter what the consequences for others. While you may feel insulted at my describing something you say as lacking intelligence, I am offended by the attitude (not said directly, but coming thru clear as crystal nonetheless) that I am morally inferior because I'm willing to vote pragmatically in the interest of achieving a practical goal.

But I care so much about the progress of this war in which we are engaged, that I am willing to endure the condescension, so long as I have the opportunity to reach people whose minds may yet be open on the issue.

We are engaged in a war to preserve our legal right to own, keep and bear firearms. We are at a stage in this war that I will compare with the trench warfare of WWI--we are slugging it out in the political trenches, city by city, state by state and congressional district by congressional district. We are slugging it out in the courts and in the media. Believe it or not, we've made some gains as well as suffered some losses. To say that we are on a slippery slope to full confiscation is not supportable by our recent history.

I'm not certain of specific dates, or years (don't have handy my copy of David B. Kopel's "Guns: Who Should Have Them?"), but our defeats with passage of the Brady Bill and the "assault weapons" ban, were followed with Republican taking control of Congress. Clinton publicly credited (the quote is in Kopel's book) anger over the bill banning "assault weapons" for the defeat of enuf Democratic congressmen to give the GOP a majority. This after his pollster had assured him the ban would have no effect on the congressional elections (also in Kopel's book).

OK, you might say, so more Republicans elected, so there's a GOP majority, so what? Republicans are hardly better than Democrats, yada yada yada.... Of course, that's true. I will not quarrel with you on that. The fertile political fields have proven of late to be those in the center, thus leftwingers who want to be elected sidle to the right and rightwingers wanting likewise sidle to the left. This takes compromise. A dirty word, I know, but as much a part of politics as kissing babies and eating rubber chicken. Remember, it's our war we're concerned with here, not our quest to find politicians who wear capes and tights and fight valiantly for truth, justice and the American way. Except perhaps for Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," those types, admirable as they may be, never get elected. And if they don't get elected, they can't help us win our war.

So, getting back to the new Republican milquetoast Congress, how did these might-as-well-be-Democrats beating the real Democrats help our cause? It sent a message to the politicians who work the center, the ones who stand a chance of getting elected, no matter what their stripe. The message was, "Oh, ****, the NRA is still in the fight. The gun nuts haven't rolled over and died. We gotta be a little more careful. We gotta mush up what we say. Oh, gee, what if Bush gets in? If he doesn't get lost on his way to the White House, we don't dare mess with guns for at least four more years. Oh, not because Bush is a valiant defender of the average citizen's right to protect himself or herself with a gun, but because Bush will have no political reason to assault that right. He will have no constituency expecting him to. He will let it slide for at least four years."

OK, so why is Gore sticking his neck out if Clinton has already admitted that gun nuts tipped the congressional balance of power in, I believe in 1994? Hell, I don't know. Gore's a dipstick. He probably thinks Clinton said that to inspire fury toward the NRA. It probably did, a little, but the NRA's recruiting effort is going like gangbusters. Vote for Bush? I don't want to vote for Bush, as some here say of those of us who argue that a vote for Bush is a vote against Gore. I know that I have to vote for Bush, because if I vote for anyone else, and Gore wins, my conscience will hurt. It will really, really hurt.

And now, the good news: the "assault weapons" ban was passed with a lifespan of 10 years. That means it automatically expires in a two or three more years, unless Gore happens to be president.
 
Dennis,
Apparently, it was my comment in the closed thread below that inspired this topic.

For the record: I'd like to state, that even if ALL the moderators and administrators on this forum are Libertarians, as a private business, it is your absolute right to espouse anything you wish. My comment was in the manner of an observation, rather than a complaint.

Your forum allows for the free exchange of political thought, subject only to the boundries of common courtesy, and good taste. For that, you are to be congratulated.

The one thing that bothers me, a little, is the Chauvinistic tendency of some Libertarians to contend that The Republican Party is no different than the Democrat Party when it comes to Gun Control. The "Tweedle-Dee, and Tweedle-Dummer," "Republicrats and Demicans," comments suffer the same flaws, as any gross generalizations.

I have homes in two States. My Representatives, and State Legislators are all conservative Republicans, and staunch opponents of Gun Control. The four Senators, on the other hand, (all Democrats) are absolute party-line followers of the Democrat Gun Control Dogma.

If you want to know what the Democrat position on Gun Control is just go to their website: www.ca-dem.org:

"Support Gun Control. We continue to support efforts to require greater controls on weapons that are not used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes. California must take the lead in continuing to support the federal ban on deadly assault weapons, require firearms dealers and owners to register with local police departments, eliminate the sale and manufacture of "Saturday Night Specials," maintain 15-day background checks for anyone who wants to purchase guns, ban gun shows and internet gun sells, and fight any and all efforts to overturn the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban."

I know of no similiar position in the Republican Party platform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top