Why I'm not a Libertarian

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why I am NOT a Libertarian (party that is)

1. NO primary system to select a candidate
(my grandparents worked long and hard to get a gop primary here in Texas)

2. No dicernable forign policy

3. My views may not be alwas heard by the Republican's in congress but NO Lib's voice is ever heard there.


When the Lib's get a primary in MY state and I can have some voice on the selection of candidates (note the s on the end of that word you know Mayor, sherif, count judge not just President) I will rethink my position some but not untill. I have voted Lib when a Dem is being opposed by one and no Rep is available, not really voting for a Lib but against a Dem I guess
 
My take on the morality issue is that government is not the way to achieve moral objectives. Although it can be used to do so, this is often dangerous and destructive. This is because government action always relies on force or the threat thereof to achieve its goals. Think about it. Taxes, laws, regulations, and any other government initiative will be ignored unless they are backed up by something stronger than "because we're asking you to".

Government has its place in society. It is trusted with maintaining the rule of law, and providing certain Public Goods (see an economist for the full definition). It should not however, be subourned to other purposes as it so often is. When this happens, it becomes a mere tool of thieves and petty tyrants.

If someone wishes to decrease the amount of pornography, drinking, gambling, prostitution, or drug use in his community, the proper course of action is to PERSUADE his neighbors to comply. There are many ways this can be done. Money is a big motivator, as is public opinion. If you want something badly enough, then you should be willing to trade for it. Granted, moral changes are expensive, because people (especially Americans) value their freedoms very highly.

My main point is that as long as no one is being hurt, it is unjust and inappropriate to force compliance on any issue. That is what Government does. It IS force. Because of this, it needs to be excluded from any societal function where the private sector can take over.

That's why the Libertarian Party exists.
 
Read Nixon's report on pornography which found no link between pornographic materials and criminal behavior. That's right--none at all! Certainly you're not going to trot out the unproven porn/rape connection? Why not take a walk to your local porn palace and see all the wonderful sights there are to behold--gorgeous women, erotic videos, and various implements of pleasure. The porn stores in my area--including the one that I work at--don't affect the neighborhood as much as the bars do when they kick out all of their drunken revelers at 3am.

I am proud to be a gun owner.
I am proud to be a pornographer.
Yeah!
 
adad,
The point you make is correct with one adjustment. Guns that do hurt people SHOULD be taken away from the users. My guns however, have never hurt anyone. I am not still in Kindergarten (I hope), and so I do not take kindly to the notion that the group should be punished for the actions of an individual. If I were ever, God Forbid, to hurt someone outside of self-defense with one of my guns, I would expect them to be taken away from me. Until such time however, I'll not be lumped in with the criminals thank you.

I stand by my earlier statement.
 
Topkick: I can think of @ 17,000 reasons why drunk drivers should taken off our highways and prosecuted. If you don't grasp that concept just ask someone who has a family member or friend killed or injured by an impaired driver.
Speeding laws: Because 99% of people operating motor vehicles don't have the ability to drive above 60 mph in the first place. If you don't believe this ask any professional racing driver for there opinion on this matter.
If porno is so great and is a victimless crime ask youself, would you want your daughter or family member engaged in the making or selling of this material? It is in fact a operation that only those [ie.. organized crime] make profits from its distribution. The bottom line is MONEY and those who argue FREEDOM OF SPEECH in the defense of porno are kidding themselfs and lying to you.
 
"Speeding laws: Because 99% of people operating motor vehicles don't have the ability to drive above 60 mph in the first place. If you don't believe this ask any professional racing driver for there opinion on this matter."

what a load of horse sh#t!

"If porno is so great and is a victimless crime ask youself, would you want your daughter or family member engaged in the making or selling of this material? It is in fact a operation that only those [ie.. organized crime] make profits from its distribution. The bottom line is MONEY and those who argue FREEDOM OF SPEECH in the defense of porno are kidding themselfs and lying to you."

porno isn't a crime in most free areas. the organized crime line is a load of horse sh#t too. i do think that it steals the soul of participants in it. i think that of the entire sex industry from t#tty bars to wh#re houses on the other side of the border. but it should be legal in a free society.

[This message has been edited by needanak (edited February 10, 2000).]
 
12-34hom & needanak, Hi guys. Geesh, Mom always said that I should never get my self into conversations about religon and politics! Please re-read my post. I don't condone drunk driving, period. All the lives that have been taken, broken families, the heartbreak of loosing a dear loved one (I have)are enough to bring about the most severest of punishments. And if someone chooses to drink and drive, and chooses to ignore his responsibility in doing so, and causes the death of another innocent human life, and KNOWING that he would pay for his act with his own life, would he still drive drunk. I don't know. Maybe. My friends point in all of this is that the existing laws on these type of crimes is NOT to save lives, but to generate money for someone! How many DUI's does someone have to get before the lose their license for life? When they lose their license for life, does that assure me that this individual is now off the road forever? No. Does it mean that he no longer will have the ability to kill someone while driving? No. But look at all the money that he paid out in fines, etc. over that period of 2-3-4 DUI convictions. And he's still driving! Of course he's breaking the law. But if that person were in jail after the 2nd conviction for 10 years, he can't possibly be a threat to anyone else on the road during that time. I'm starting to rant here. Sorry, been a long day.

------------------
Proud,dues paying,member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
 
A gun is an inanimate object. Do we blame it
or the people who use it illegally?

A picture is an inanimate object. Do we blame the picture or those who commit acts that are illegal (skirting the gay rights issue)?

What is the difference?

Unless producing the picture itself is a crime as a tape of a rape, hidden camera or child pornography - I prefer to blame the evildoer and not the inanimate object.
 
Topkick, drunk drivers should be stopped for the same reason that drive-by shooters who miss should be stopped. by their *actions* they have put specific members of society at risk of harm.
 
adad, a basic set of fundamental rules of conduct is a feature of many cultures. what we westerners like to think of as the "Judeo-Christian ethic" are common in many other cultures. over the course of time, certain essential rules become the common denominator of orderly yet free societies; murder is wrong violent assault is wrong, theft is wrong, etc.

the key is that societies in which the laws of man are limited to essential issues tend to work better than those in which every aspect of personal conduct is adjudicated by the government. who wants to live in a state where having a beard, or not having a beard, is a crime?
 
Topkick, you are dead on about the revenue generation aspect of current law. it is not how things should be in this country, but we as a society have not yet gotten angry enough to fix it yet.

American society has a strong puritanical undercurrent, which is why citizens fall prey to the urge to pass judgement on their fellow man, even when therre is no harm done. "sin taxes" such as the alcohol taxes are a prime example. if we were to assess taxes based on the supposed costs to society, we'd put a $20,000 tax on every newborn baby.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men"
-- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead (1943)

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
--Ayn Rand

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
 
I think I am quoting Shin-Tao when I say that Christian arguments only work on Christians. Second amendment rights are rights of personal freedom and belong in discussions of government and law. The right to enjoy pornography is often contested on moral or religious grounds, neither of which have any place being regulated by the government or anyone besides the individual.

Hmmmm. Guess that might make me a libertarian.

If your religion tells you porn is wrong, then don't buy porn...but don't you dare touch mine.

Interesting also that someone evoked the name of Ben Franklin...wasn't he a legendary connoisseur of erotica? :eek:


------------------
*quack*
 
"Government by the People, For the People". That is at the heart of this debate. I am a "C"hristian first, a citizen of this United States second. That is my choice as blessedly given by our Constitution. As an example, people at large do not like drunk drivers. These same people are responsible for electing the officials who make our laws, hopefully withing the confines of the Constitution. By stating that all laws that do not directly hurt someone are bad, you are taking away from the spirit of the law. The laws are made by us and for us. Before you say that I am dismissing our Republic form of government, I am not advocating the making of laws outside the parameters of the Constitution. The Constitution was formed on the basis of a moral constituency and relies on that base to survive. Like it or not. Most of us realize that with freedom comes responsiblilty. Without responsibility you have anarchy. At some point a concensus is reached as to what is acceptable behavior among the general population. This becomes law if it does not step outside the bounds of the Constitution or the moral views of the majority, whatever that my be. I am often troubled by what is illegal vs. what is an infringement on my freedom. Some actions may not directly affect someone else. That is just another way of saying that they only affect society as a whole. Either way, they affect us all. In many examples there is not black or white as far as the Law is concerned. In the end all laws follow a moral compass in some direction. Our hope is that they do not fall outside of the Constitution, where they are no longer dependant on us for their validity. I like the Constitution the way it is, and leave the gray areas up election time. I am a Liberal Libertarian.
 
I don't think I'm doing a good enough job in trying to explain my beliefs for some(not all)of you. I agree with almost all of you on this post about all of the issues on this post. I used the drunk-driver, speeding examples only as an extreme.

Lets go this route. Just being drunk out in a public area is against the "Law".(public intoxication) Who have been "harmed" by the breaking of this law. No one that I can see but the person who is drunk. People will look at him and laugh. They will make point at him and look with utter disdain on his condition. They will shun him socialy. Parents might even use him as a teaching aide to their children. "Look at that poor specimum of a human being", Junior. "You don't ever want to that to yourself, now do you"? But should this person be arrested, jailed, fined for this? If this person wants to, and is determined to make a complete %^$ of himself, then he should have that right to do so. If however this person were in such of a drunken rage that he was threatening people or distroying property then that is where the Law should step in and met out the proper punishment. At this point he is harming others. Not just himself.

If I drive across the desert, roll down my window, point my AR-15 out the window, pull the trigger and MT the 30rnd mag into the sand, I have committed a "drive by shooting". And have most likely broken the Law. The only people that I could have even remotely hurt were in the police helicopter 5000 ft overhead. I'm going to prison. Please write me will ya guys? :) :)

------------------
Proud,dues paying,member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
 
IVAN, I know what you mean by they people who act holy-er than thou. I believe Jesus saw it in the "Faith of the centurian" chapter, where a Roman Soldier had more faith than all the jews in Israel.

ADAD, it for the public safety, ya know we need a village.

The gene pool needs some chlorine.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON

Do you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breakings laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.

A RAND
 
Needanak: I'll stand by my statements. If there not true or valid; please explain to me why @ 40,000+ people are killed every year on our highways? [speed kills]
No organized crime? how bout Mafia, Bloods, Crips, Motorcycle gangs, Jamaican Possee, many other groups acting together in a criminal conspiracy? [just to name a few] I think that's why we have RICO laws on the books. Porno is a huge industry and MONEY is thier bottom line; as in most criminal activities. If you choose to ignore [organized crimes] existance = that's your business. That's just what the people who engage in those types of activities hope more people will do. I choose not to.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by adad:
You confuse the process of creating new laws (politics) with the basis for valid laws. If you follow the arguments used in the (political) process we follow to create laws, you will hear moral language from beginning to end: "ought", "should", "should not", "bad", "good", etc.[/quote]

And I say again: All human laws, good or bad, moral or immoral, are created entirely through politics. The fact that moral language may be used in the process is absolutely irrelevant. It's still politics.

And, in reference to your comment about not fearing government bureaucrats, please explain who else is in charge of interpreting laws? Our government is full of regulatory agencies -- the BATF and the IRS, to name two that should be familiar to everyone here -- with literally thousands of unelected officials making daily decisions about whether, in their opinions, you or I or any other Americans have broken the law. The results of those entirely subjective (and sometimes contradictory) decisions include fines and loss of livelihood, and, in the best cases where citizens have the financial means to fight back, expensive court battles.

Anyone who professes to have no fear of excess power in the hands of government bureaucrats hasn't been paying much attention for the past few decades.
 
baloney! people can drive over 55 on the highway without dying or getting into wrecks. the majority of them do.

where is your proof about organized crime in pornography. which is not usually a crime. though you might be from a state where fellatio or cunninglus among consenting adults is one.

rico - unconstitutional as all get out. i never said organized crime didn't exist. from the mexican mafia to lousiana cops shaking down folks on i-10, it exists.




[This message has been edited by needanak (edited February 11, 2000).]
 
OK, 116K and this thread has degenerated badly. If someone wants to start another anti-Libertarian thread, go ahead...

but keep it civil, for a change. :rolleyes:

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top