User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 11:52:54 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me tally some things I've heard Libertarians argue.
Quoted:
. I have heard libertarians even argue in favor of indentured servitude! 
An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities.(paid) so work in exchange for a form of payment. Unlike slaves, an indentured servant was required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.[1][2] Legal arrangements of this type have been extremely widespread throughout world history in different forms, and have had a number of specific names, and may overlap with the status of apprentice, debt slave, unfree labour, and other terms. Usually the status of indentured servant was entered into voluntarily by the servant 1. Indentured Servitude should be legal. Freely entered contract. What do you think the military is? What right do you have to indenture the servitude of people who had no choice in the matter? Often times the indentured servant brought along family, who may or may not have been willing to be a part of it. Children were ALSO sold into indentured servitude... Except the only ones bound by the indentured servitude are those who agreed to the contract. If someone takes their family along, that is their choice. They can leave their families outside of the contract. If a parent signs up a child for an apprenticeship such that the child has a future, that is supposedly bad? Is the parent looking out for the child's interests? Such contract would be written that once the child reaches their majority, they would then be freed from that contract, because the contracting party (parent) no longer has any rights to the child. 2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see). Not freely entered contract, no libertarian could support that. In all due fairness, the guy who said that was VERY bitter towards women. So perhaps this one should not be counted.Again, violence against another and no contractual agreement.
3. Child abuse should be legal. Define abuse? There-in lies the rub. However, the protection of the innocent from violence from the powerful is one of the clearly defined responsibilities of government. No disagreement there. Is spanking a child abuse? Who has a right to decide how you raise your child? As long as no permanent injury or infirmaty exists, who are you to decide how a parent acts? What about sending a child to their room without supper! OMG it's starvation! bullshit. If there were a case of actual abuse, the community (NOT government) can step in and solve the situation, and are better able to assess the situation based upon the relevant community standards
4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal It is legal, by the government. They have done all three of these things completely legal. What rights do the government have to arm murderers terrorists and enemy regimes? Any right the government has to conduct free trade should be extended to the individual While I think the government SHOULD be more careful in who it sends arms too, just because our government does it, doesn't mean civilians should be allowed to do the same. The government also tries and executes criminals... Should I be allowed to capture criminals on my own, and set up a trial, and then execute them in my own private justice system? No.... Why should a government non-entity have more rights than its constituatant civilians? if a person sells anthrax to the local whackjobs and that whackjob manages to kill his neighbors, th ecommunity can then police its'ef because hey, they don't want that guy to sell to those whackjobs anymore. So they run him out of town. Else what right does government have ot tell anyone how they do their business?[ if they are not vilating the other tenents, such as doing violence to others? Further how is the seller of an item to blaim for the actions of the user? Is a gunstore presumed to be a murderer because they sold a gun which was eventually used in a murder? Bullpucky.
5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal. Which drugs? Can't give out midol for fear of prison now in school. Alcohol? Tobacco? Ginseng route? Caffiene? All drugs, some legal, some not. Should we go to jail for selling a coke to a minor? You are giving a drug to them. You are honestly insane if your going to argue that theres no difference between selling acid to a kid and giving a child aspirin. One is an FDA approved over-the-counter medicine. The other is a harmful, addictive drug. I obviously do think our government goes overboard... what's your point Who are you to decide what someone does with their own body? if they wan tto spend their time huffing paint, rubbing alcohol on themselves and setting themselves on fire, then thats terrific. Their body, their choice. Once they try and violate other's rights, such as stealing, or murder then they've already crossed that line concerning violence and others rights to do with their bodies.
6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police. No one is protected by the police. That is from the Supreme Court. The rich can pay for private security that the poor cannot. C'est le vie! What I meant, is that they believe there should be no police to keep the streets safe. Just security guards to keep the rich safe. In libertarian view, the community polices itself. Everyone is prepared to take care of themselves and they are then thus left alone as long as they do not violate another persons space, property etc. Should that occur the violated person, and thus the community he is part of defend themselves. This is much more direct andaccurate to community standards and law, since they understand what is acceptable and what is not in their commnity.
7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal! [For those who could afford it, they could already have it. Make one yourself. This is the classic strawman for weapons. Once you give government the right to determine which weapons are acceptable are which are not, you tread a dangerous ground. People can own a smallpox biological sample now. Be more scared of that. You cannot honestly tell me, that if you can afford a nuclear bomb, it should be legal for you to do so. Just because someone can do something illegally, doesn't mean it should be legal. Arguing for the ownership of nuclear weapons, is the same as arguing for the right to use nuclear weapons and murder millions of citizens on a simple person's whim.
8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal. If warning is given, respect people's property Killing someone simply for crossing your property line is a little extreme... don't you think? Nope not really. What right do they have to cross into your space? Killing someone who breaks into your home is a little extreme don't you think?
9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property. Your property, and for those who don't intrude, they pose no risk. Rose bushes have thorns. Ban those? Rose bushes are highly visible, and don't cause instantaneous death. Landmines are hidden... What happens if a child wanders onto your property? What if the mailman comes? There are plenty of reasons that someone might have a LEGAL RIGHT to be on your property...This all falls under the idea that simple trespassing should NOT be a capital offense Then they should have been taught better as a youth. I don't wander into my neighbor's property because it's not mine. I don't steal my neighbors newspaper because it's not mine. I fhte mailman or milkman comes along, they understand their role, and where they can go and not go (to th emailbox and milk box respectively).
10. Polluting common public resources should be legal. What is public? Land owned by the government? If your acts of polluting affect the rights of others, then that defaults to the responsiblities of government. You have intruded on others rights and society forms governments to stop that from happening. At least your one of the more sensible ones who thinks that there SHOULD be public land. Course, judging from some of your other responses, I'm not so sure how sensible you are. Ithe Community again polices itself. I fyou dump oil into the ground water, guess what the community is going ot be pissed. They will sort it out themselves. There is not need to have the government involved, because the community i smore than capable of deciding that"Hey thats not cool." or "Hey, thats fine." If you dump it upstream and it poisons another town's watersupply, then they obviously have a grievence against that person, and it can then be sorted out because you have another town (thus more people going Hey, thats not cool" or "Hey, s'all right chief".
11. Killing one of your kids should be legal. Back to defined rights. Protection from violence. Not saying many libertarians believe this... Again, I'm just listing all the crazy things that I've heard libertarians say. again community policing itself It can then judge what is and what is not apppropriate. maybe the child has downs syndrome, has become increasingly violent, and a dnager to the community. is it alright to killl or euthanize the child? What about if you rchild has terminal cancer and you want to spare them the suffering? Should the government be able to deny that person that choice? In this case, the parent is serving as the child's proxy That said. I'm not saying ALL libertarians are like that... but a disturbingly large amount of them ARE. I'd rather not associate myself with people like that. As for labels, we as a society have completely abandoned the term "liberal" because it was picked up by socialists and progressives... so whats the difference with abandoning the "libertarian" label, because it is increasingly being populated by nuts? Some spelling maybefscrwed up because of a IE8 scroll error. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 11:57:23 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let me tally some things I've heard Libertarians argue.Quoted: . I have heard libertarians even argue in favor of indentured servitude! An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities.(paid) so work in exchange for a form of payment. Unlike slaves, an indentured servant was required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.[1][2] Legal arrangements of this type have been extremely widespread throughout world history in different forms, and have had a number of specific names, and may overlap with the status of apprentice, debt slave, unfree labour, and other terms. Usually the status of indentured servant was entered into voluntarily by the servant 1. Indentured Servitude should be legal. Freely entered contract. What do you think the military is? What right do you have to indenture the servitude of people who had no choice in the matter? Often times the indentured servant brought along family, who may or may not have been willing to be a part of it. Children were ALSO sold into indentured servitude... Except the only ones bound by the indentured servitude are those who agreed to the contract. If someone takes their family along, that is their choice. They can leave their families outside of the contract. If a parent signs up a child for an apprenticeship such that the child has a future, that is supposedly bad? Is the parent looking out for the child's interests? Such contract would be written that once the child reaches their majority, they would then be freed from that contract, because the contracting party (parent) no longer has any rights to the child. 2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see). Not freely entered contract, no libertarian could support that. In all due fairness, the guy who said that was VERY bitter towards women. So perhaps this one should not be counted.Again, violence against another and no contractual agreement. 3. Child abuse should be legal. Define abuse? There-in lies the rub. However, the protection of the innocent from violence from the powerful is one of the clearly defined responsibilities of government. No disagreement there. Is spanking a child abuse? Who has a right to decide how you raise your child? As long as no permanent injury or infirmaty exists, who are you to decide how a parent acts? What about sending a child to their room without supper! OMG it's starvation! bullshit. If there were a case of actual abuse, the community (NOT government) can step in and solve the situation, and are better able to assess the situation based upon the relevant community standards 4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal It is legal, by the government. They have done all three of these things completely legal. What rights do the government have to arm murderers terrorists and enemy regimes? Any right the government has to conduct free trade should be extended to the individual While I think the government SHOULD be more careful in who it sends arms too, just because our government does it, doesn't mean civilians should be allowed to do the same. The government also tries and executes criminals... Should I be allowed to capture criminals on my own, and set up a trial, and then execute them in my own private justice system? No.... Why should a government non-entity have more rights than its constituatant civilians? if a person sells anthrax to the local whackjobs and that whackjob manages to kill his neighbors, th ecommunity can then police its'ef because hey, they don't want that guy to sell to those whackjobs anymore. So they run him out of town. Else what right does government have ot tell anyone how they do their business?[ if they are not vilating the other tenents, such as doing violence to others? Further how is the seller of an item to blaim for the actions of the user? Is a gunstore presumed to be a murderer because they sold a gun which was eventually used in a murder? Bullpucky. 5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal. Which drugs? Can't give out midol for fear of prison now in school. Alcohol? Tobacco? Ginseng route? Caffiene? All drugs, some legal, some not. Should we go to jail for selling a coke to a minor? You are giving a drug to them. You are honestly insane if your going to argue that theres no difference between selling acid to a kid and giving a child aspirin. One is an FDA approved over-the-counter medicine. The other is a harmful, addictive drug. I obviously do think our government goes overboard... what's your point Who are you to decide what someone does with their own body? if they wan tto spend their time huffing paint, rubbing alcohol on themselves and setting themselves on fire, then thats terrific. Their body, their choice. Once they try and violate other's rights, such as stealing, or murder then they've already crossed that line concerning violence and others rights to do with their bodies. 6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police. No one is protected by the police. That is from the Supreme Court. The rich can pay for private security that the poor cannot. C'est le vie! What I meant, is that they believe there should be no police to keep the streets safe. Just security guards to keep the rich safe. In libertarian view, the community polices itself. Everyone is prepared to take care of themselves and they are then thus left alone as long as they do not violate another persons space, property etc. Should that occur the violated person, and thus the community he is part of defend themselves. This is much more direct andaccurate to community standards and law, since they understand what is acceptable and what is not in their commnity. 7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal! [For those who could afford it, they could already have it. Make one yourself. This is the classic strawman for weapons. Once you give government the right to determine which weapons are acceptable are which are not, you tread a dangerous ground. People can own a smallpox biological sample now. Be more scared of that. You cannot honestly tell me, that if you can afford a nuclear bomb, it should be legal for you to do so. Just because someone can do something illegally, doesn't mean it should be legal. Arguing for the ownership of nuclear weapons, is the same as arguing for the right to use nuclear weapons and murder millions of citizens on a simple person's whim. 8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal. If warning is given, respect people's property Killing someone simply for crossing your property line is a little extreme... don't you think? Nope not really. What right do they have to cross into your space? Killing someone who breaks into your home is a little extreme don't you think? 9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property. Your property, and for those who don't intrude, they pose no risk. Rose bushes have thorns. Ban those? Rose bushes are highly visible, and don't cause instantaneous death. Landmines are hidden... What happens if a child wanders onto your property? What if the mailman comes? There are plenty of reasons that someone might have a LEGAL RIGHT to be on your property...This all falls under the idea that simple trespassing should NOT be a capital offense Then they should have been taught better as a youth. I don't wander into my neighbor's property because it's not mine. I don't steal my neighbors newspaper because it's not mine. I fhte mailman or milkman comes along, they understand their role, and where they can go and not go (to th emailbox and milk box respectively). 10. Polluting common public resources should be legal. What is public? Land owned by the government? If your acts of polluting affect the rights of others, then that defaults to the responsiblities of government. You have intruded on others rights and society forms governments to stop that from happening. At least your one of the more sensible ones who thinks that there SHOULD be public land. Course, judging from some of your other responses, I'm not so sure how sensible you are. Ithe Community again polices itself. I fyou dump oil into the ground water, guess what the community is going ot be pissed. They will sort it out themselves. There is not need to have the government involved, because the community i smore than capable of deciding that"Hey thats not cool." or "Hey, thats fine." If you dump it upstream and it poisons another town's watersupply, then they obviously have a grievence against that person, and it can then be sorted out because you have another town (thus more people going Hey, thats not cool" or "Hey, s'all right chief". 11. Killing one of your kids should be legal. Back to defined rights. Protection from violence. Not saying many libertarians believe this... Again, I'm just listing all the crazy things that I've heard libertarians say. again community policing itself It can then judge what is and what is not apppropriate. maybe the child has downs syndrome, has become increasingly violent, and a dnager to the community. is it alright to killl or euthanize the child? What about if you rchild has terminal cancer and you want to spare them the suffering? Should the government be able to deny that person that choice? In this case, the parent is serving as the child's proxy That said. I'm not saying ALL libertarians are like that... but a disturbingly large amount of them ARE. I'd rather not associate myself with people like that. As for labels, we as a society have completely abandoned the term "liberal" because it was picked up by socialists and progressives... so whats the difference with abandoning the "libertarian" label, because it is increasingly being populated by nuts? Some spelling maybefscrwed up because of a IE8 scroll error. Here's the problem with all of the above: 'The Government' has been elected by 'The Community' to do all of the above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:02:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Except its not doing it very well, and has overextended itself far in excess of what the community actually wants. Do YOU want government telling you what you can do with your body? Apparently they've just said that they certain can tell you what you can and can't do. Outlawing smoking, ring a bell? Sure I might not do it personally, but you have full rights to carcinogen the hell out of your lungs. Forcing seatbelt laws? Why exactly? If I don't wear a seatbelt, and I die, it's my own call. I choose not to use a safety restraight.
The government does not exist to protect people from themselves. The government has already absolved itself of having to protect people from others. So what is it that government is SUPPOSED to do? Provide for the common defense maybe? Thats pretty much it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:03:04 PM EDT
[#4]
well, libertarianism is the closest thing to my political position, and i just kicked $5 into the boot at an intersection this afternoon.
for some reason, i'm incapable of saying no to the boot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:03:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
What you're describing is anarchocapitalism. AKA, 'fuckup libertarians'. And in 20 years, when capitalists are still trying (completely unsuccessfully) to get rid of socialized medicine, people will call them "anarcocapitalists" or "fuckup libertarians." Hell, I get called an anarchist because I believe the government should not be involved in education at all. Since when did we get the idea that certain services could only be provided by the government? Or could be best provided by the government? So far as I can tell, the only services " the government" can provide more effectively than individuals or groups of individuals is national defense and courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:06:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Except its not doing it very well, and has overextended itself far in excess of what the community actually wants. Do YOU want government telling you what you can do with your body? Apparently they've just said that they certain can tell you what you can and can't do. Outlawing smoking, ring a bell? Sure I might not do it personally, but you have full rights to carcinogen the hell out of your lungs. Forcing seatbelt laws? Why exactly? If I don't wear a seatbelt, and I die, it's my own call. I choose not to use a safety restraight. The government does not exist to protect people from themselves. The government has already absolved itself of having to protect people from others. So what is it that government is SUPPOSED to do? Provide for the common defense maybe? Thats pretty much it. Establish justice Insure(sic) domestic tranquility Provide for the common defense Promote the general welfare Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:14:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Except its not doing it very well, and has overextended itself far in excess of what the community actually wants. Apparently not, because the community keeps voting to approve it... Do YOU want government telling you what you can do with your body? Apparently they've just said that they certain can tell you what you can and can't do. Outlawing smoking, ring a bell? If that's what the community wants done, and it doesn't violate higher constitutional/legal protections, by all means... Sure I might not do it personally, but you have full rights to carcinogen the hell out of your lungs. I would disagree with the use of the term 'right' in this case Forcing seatbelt laws? Why exactly? If I don't wear a seatbelt, and I die, it's my own call. I choose not to use a safety restraight. Because public resources end up being used to respond to, clear, and provide emergency treatment to accidents that take place on public roads. The use of seatbelts has been proven to reduce the severity of accidents, and the strain on said resources. Also, there is the issue of children & seat-belts, and parents failing to ensure kids are properly restrained - yes we could just hit this one with the 'sledge-hammer' catch-all of child-abuse charges... But apparently 'the community' seems to think that giving you a traffic ticket is a more reasonable solution (I would agree).... The government does not exist to protect people from themselves. The government has already absolved itself of having to protect people from others. So what is it that government is SUPPOSED to do? Provide for the common defense maybe? Thats pretty much it. The government is supposed to do whatever the community wants it to, so long as it does not violate established constitutional & legal protections of citizens rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:17:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Establish justice Already done by the community. The government doesn't establish justice, it only provides punishment. The community establishes what is just, hence a jury of your peers.
Insure(sic) domestic tranquility Already done by the community. And when there is unrest, it still gets done by the community. See Watts. See LA Riots. Provide for the common defense The one really valid point of a national government Promote the general welfare Promote it how? Nanny state, or allowing the community to address its own needs, and simply ensuring that basic needs/standards are met? (IE standardized testing?) Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity Done by the community, as government solely has the power of "NO". It cannot secure anything, only deny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:23:13 PM EDT
[#9]
HOw about stop making your belief system a "dogma" and instead use it only as a "guide post" for a general direction.
I always use libertarian ideas FIRST when looking at an issue, HOWEVER, if i come to the conclusion that in this particular case that the so called "free market" can't come up with a solution or that the government solution is better then i will go with the other solution. Fire fighting being the perfect example. WE have a 2000 year history (since romans) of Firefighting in an organized manner. Initially in the USA it was a private enterprise. But that led to peoples houses burning down because they refused to "subscribe" to a service before hand. Thats all well and good in rural areas (well not really, you let the guys house burn down!) but in the cities it could spread to other houses. There was also fighting in the streets between fire companies over the "right" to put out a fire. And in the worse case scenario they would intentionally start fires to "drum up business." 
clearly we learned from our history that in this case its better that fire fighting like police and military be a public function rather than a private one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:34:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Except its not doing it very well, and has overextended itself far in excess of what the community actually wants. Apparently not, because the community keeps voting to approve it... By being bought and paid for by tax dollars? Since when do Urbanite Seattle standards equate to what Rural Agrarian Yakima standards want? Do YOU want government telling you what you can do with your body? Apparently they've just said that they certain can tell you what you can and can't do. Outlawing smoking, ring a bell? If that's what the community wants done, and it doesn't violate higher constitutional/legal protections, by all means... Except it does violate higher legal protections, ones unalienable right to SELF. Sure I might not do it personally, but you have full rights to carcinogen the hell out of your lungs. I would disagree with the use of the term 'right' in this case So you are arguing you do not have a right to your own body? Forcing seatbelt laws? Why exactly? If I don't wear a seatbelt, and I die, it's my own call. I choose not to use a safety restraight. Because public resources end up being used to respond to, clear, and provide emergency treatment to accidents that take place on public roads. The use of seatbelts has been proven to reduce the severity of accidents, and the strain on said resources. Also, there is the issue of children & seat-belts, and parents failing to ensure kids are properly restrained - yes we could just hit this one with the 'sledge-hammer' catch-all of child-abuse charges... But apparently 'the community' seems to think that giving you a traffic ticket is a more reasonable solution (I would agree).... Again, you are arguing you do not have the right to your own body? Those resources again are being paid for by you, your emergency treatment is paid for by you (well not under Obamacare), the 'public' resources are still being paid for by you (as you will likely be cited), the 'public' roads are still being paid for by you Increase the risk and dangers of driving, you increase the awareness, concentration, and safety of driving; simple driver evolution. Poorer drivers die off, better drivers survive. Problem solved. As for children, again who are you to decide what another parent does? As it is if a passenger is riding without a buckled seatbelt, that is their choice. If they are physically unable to do so for themselves, and are unable to voice their preference than the driver can decide as they are in effect in charge. They are driving and in control of the vehicle, thus taking responsibility for that person, thus serving as their proxy. The government does not exist to protect people from themselves. The government has already absolved itself of having to protect people from others. So what is it that government is SUPPOSED to do? Provide for the common defense maybe? Thats pretty much it. The government is supposed to do whatever the community wants it to, so long as it does not violate established constitutional & legal protections of citizens rights. Except it has already violated those constitutional boundaries and limitations placed upon it. Therefore the government has failed its purpose |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:39:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
I think Libertarians would want competition for city contracts by private fire-fighting companies. Anyone who has worked at a fire dept day in and day out (especially a smaller one or a huge city) I think would readily admit a private firefighting company would run things much better/smoother. The phrase monkey fucking a football comes to mind... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:42:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Volunteer firefighter with a libertarian streak here
 Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:42:41 PM EDT
[#13]
The local fire department that protects my parents community is a private department contracted out by the local government. It is by far the worst staffed paid fire department in the county. There are only TWO personell on duty at each station 24/7. You simply cannot effectively fight fire with that kind of staffing. The equipment is nice, thats about it. I swear all their chiefs care about are looking good to the trustees, not actually having an effective department. As a firefighter, their staffing and performance is shamefull compaired to other local departments.
Firefighting is one area where privatization is almost always less effective. There is good reason most communities have moved away from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:45:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Do YOU want government telling you what you can do with your body? Apparently they've just said that they certain can tell you what you can and can't do. Outlawing smoking, ring a bell? If that's what the community wants done, and it doesn't violate higher constitutional/legal protections, by all means... While there are often times when I agree with you Dave... There are also a lot of times when you say things that scare the crap out of me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:48:53 PM EDT
[#15]
I'm a libertarian and that is BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:49:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
The local fire department that protects my parents community is a private department contracted out by the local government. It is by far the worst staffed paid fire department in the county. There are only TWO personell on duty at each station 24/7. You simply cannot effectively fight fire with that kind of staffing. The equipment is nice, thats about it. I swear all their chiefs care about are looking good to the trustees, not actually having an effective department. As a firefighter, their staffing and performance is shamefull compaired to other local departments. Firefighting is one area where privatization is almost always less effective. There is good reason most communities have moved away from it. But but but its privatized.... it has to be better!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:49:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do YOU want government telling you what you can do with your body? Apparently they've just said that they certain can tell you what you can and can't do. Outlawing smoking, ring a bell? If that's what the community wants done, and it doesn't violate higher constitutional/legal protections, by all means... While there are often times when I agree with you Dave... There are also a lot of times when you say things that scare the crap out of me. I think you have spoken for 90% of the board. The other 10% would exclude the preamble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 12:55:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: So far as I can tell, the only services " the government" can provide more effectively than individuals or groups of individuals is national defense and courts. Hmmm... I'd be real interested in seeing how the private sector was gonna take over for the FDNY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:03:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Everyone that feels that the fire service would be better handled as a private company obviously no experience with private or evil gubbmint fire services.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:04:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
The government is supposed to do whatever the community wants it to, so long as it does not violate established constitutional & legal protections of citizens rights. but Dave in your world Rights are clearly relative, therefore in the future, it could be perfectly acceptable for the greater good that people when they reach a certain age are killed and their organs harvested to grind up and make gruel for new borns raised in incubators, Since constitutionality really means nothing becuase anything can be interpreted and any law passed and followed. our founders were mistakenly not specific enough, therefore rather then people taking the original intent of the founders they can interpret our consitution in any means they see fit. all it will take is a few changes in the SCOTUS and it will be a living document. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:06:36 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
I'm a libertarian. I'm on my local vollie fire department. I need to quit now? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Me too. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:07:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted: So far as I can tell, the only services " the government" can provide more effectively than individuals or groups of individuals is national defense and courts.
Hmmm... I'd be real interested in seeing how the private sector was gonna take over for the FDNY. Does FDNY manufacture it's own fire trucks or other equipment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:13:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Police and fire departments serve all civilians equally. It's stuff like welfare, where tax money is used to distribute wealth, that gets most people worked up.
Anyway, if we didn't have these public services, the private sector would step it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:14:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
As a libertarian I have no issue with the fire department, as long as it isn't funded with federal dollars. Libertarians want a federal government that opperates stricty within the boundaries of the constitution. Local governemnts are free to offer whatever services that the voters approve. Government power is suppost to be concentrated closest to the people(local gov) Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yeah that's a good point. State's rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:17:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A common thread among Libertarian detracters is that Libertarians do not support services like Police and Fire departments. Please discuss the accuracy of this line of thought. http://i.imgur.com/D7cNY.jpg TOTALLY true... wait till you hear these nuts argue that we don't need a national military to protect us . Afterall no one would ever want to attack a rich, libertarian nation! And if they did, we have guys with AR15s who can't even afford plane tickets to Afghanistan to protect us.
Never heard a libertarian say that. Maybe you're confusing them with anarchists? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:19:57 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: nobody really wants to do away with local services like fire, police, and schools, so it makes it difficult to build a party based on drastic reductions in government from the bottom up. Lots of libertarians really believe in federalism, want local government relatively strong compared to the federal, so shrinking local government is actually counterproductive.
I lean this way. Federal government needs to be much smaller and have much less power over our daily lives. State and local also need to be smaller, but able to provide public services such as fire, police, libraries, schools, roads as the citizens are willing to fund locally without federal grants. This is not really an issue if the Ponzi wealth redistribution scheme of the federal income tax was reduced such the fed .gov didn't take $$$ and redistribute it among the states. The money would just stay local and it would certainly cost us less if it didn't pass through the US Treasury first. All .govs need to stay out of our personal business: sex, religion, haircuts, etc.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:24:21 PM EDT
[#27]
In East TN FD are private, you buy in or get a big bill if you have a fire.
Go piss up a rope commie scum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:26:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Indentured Servitude should be legal. Freely entered contract. What do you think the military is? 2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see). Not freely entered contract, no libertarian could support that. 3. Child abuse should be legal. Define abuse? There-in lies the rub. However, the protection of the innocent from violence from the powerful is one of the clearly defined responsibilities of government. 4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal It is legal, by the government. They have done all three of these things completely legal. What rights do the government have to arm murderers terrorists and enemy regimes? Any right the government has to conduct free trade should be extended to the individual 5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal. Which drugs? Can't give out midol for fear of prison now in school. Alcohol? Tobacco? Ginseng route? Caffiene? All drugs, some legal, some not. Should we go to jail for selling a coke to a minor? You are giving a drug to them. 6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police. No one is protected by the police. That is from the Supreme Court. The rich can pay for private security that the poor cannot. C'est le vie! 7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal! [For those who could afford it, they could already have it. Make one yourself. This is the classic strawman for weapons. Once you give government the right to determine which weapons are acceptable are which are not, you tread a dangerous ground. People can own a smallpox biological sample now. Be more scared of that.8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal. If warning is given, respect people's property 9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property. Your property, and for those who don't intrude, they pose no risk. Rose bushes have thorns. Ban those?. 10. Polluting common public resources should be legal. What is public? Land owned by the government? If your acts of polluting affect the rights of others, then that defaults to the responsiblities of government. You have intruded on others rights and society forms governments to stop that from happening. 11. Killing one of your kids should be legal. Back to defined rights. Protection from violence. well done i really dont understand why people do not understand such concepts, are they incapable or just refuse to use reason? Some people are too stupid to realize that Libertarian is not equal to Anarchist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:26:14 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So far as I can tell, the only services " the government" can provide more effectively than individuals or groups of individuals is national defense and courts. Hmmm... I'd be real interested in seeing how the private sector was gonna take over for the FDNY. Does FDNY manufacture it's own fire trucks or other equipment? And that doesn't include Rescue, Haz-Mat or Marine companies, or support units. How is a private company going to do that? On a contract basis? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:26:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
In East TN FD are private, you buy in or get a big bill if you have a fire. Go piss up a rope commie scum. Interesting way of handling it. So if you aren't subscribed and your house catches on fire, does the fire department still come and perform their service before sticking you with the bill, or do they get payment first? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:28:40 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Except its not doing it very well, and has overextended itself far in excess of what the community actually wants. Apparently not, because the community keeps voting to approve it... By being bought and paid for by tax dollars? Since when do Urbanite Seattle standards equate to what Rural Agrarian Yakima standards want? Hence different levels of government, to represent different levels of the public... Some stuff - such as how much to spend on the fire dept/police - is obviously local... And some - such as weather or not to allow gambling - is obviously state-level (aka 'provincial' in any other country).. Others, like what the minimum standards are for K-12 education, how to manage RF spectrum, rules for aviation, and such - are obviously national. Do YOU want government telling you what you can do with your body? Apparently they've just said that they certain can tell you what you can and can't do. Outlawing smoking, ring a bell? If that's what the community wants done, and it doesn't violate higher constitutional/legal protections, by all means... Except it does violate higher legal protections, ones unalienable right to SELF. No such right is recognized in the United States Sure I might not do it personally, but you have full rights to carcinogen the hell out of your lungs. I would disagree with the use of the term 'right' in this case So you are arguing you do not have a right to your own body? That is one way of looking at it. I am arguing that you do not have an implicit right to 'do whatever you want, so long as you don't think it hurts anyone else'... The rights recognized in this country all have a bearing on greater principles than base self-gratification. More specifically, they are all related to the maintainance of the integrity of the Republic, and the continuation of free & fair representative governance. There is not, nor has there ever been, any legal basis for a 'right to do anything you want, unless it hurts someone else' in US tradition. Nor should there be. Forcing seatbelt laws? Why exactly? If I don't wear a seatbelt, and I die, it's my own call. I choose not to use a safety restraight. Because public resources end up being used to respond to, clear, and provide emergency treatment to accidents that take place on public roads. The use of seatbelts has been proven to reduce the severity of accidents, and the strain on said resources. Also, there is the issue of children & seat-belts, and parents failing to ensure kids are properly restrained - yes we could just hit this one with the 'sledge-hammer' catch-all of child-abuse charges... But apparently 'the community' seems to think that giving you a traffic ticket is a more reasonable solution (I would agree).... Again, you are arguing you do not have the right to your own body? Those resources again are being paid for by you, your emergency treatment is paid for by you (well not under Obamacare), the 'public' resources are still being paid for by you (as you will likely be cited), the 'public' roads are still being paid for by you. I'm not talking about the end-state medical treatment. I'm talking about all the resources expended to get you from the scene of the accident to the hospital, and to clean up the damage done. In many areas, that is a function of the publicly funded PD/FD - and they have finite resources that are wasted when not wearing a belt results in more severe injury during a crash. Those resources are thus not available to serve other citizens who have also paid for them to exist, because someone was being a moron & didn't buckle up. It is understandable that said other citizens just MIGHT not like this, and MIGHT want a law passed to deal with it. Increase the risk and dangers of driving, you increase the awareness, concentration, and safety of driving; simple driver evolution. Poorer drivers die off, better drivers survive. Problem solved. Not an acceptable solution, due to resource drain above. As for children, again who are you to decide what another parent does? Parents are not 'owners' of children. They are guardians. They are responsible to ensure that the children in their care are properly cared for until they reach an age where they can responsibly decide for themselves how to live (generally, 18). Thus, it is society's responsibility to protect children (as individual people, vice parental-property) from failing parents - a responsibility that encompasses child-abuse law, mandatory school attendance, and child-restraint law, among other things. As it is if a passenger is riding without a buckled seatbelt, that is their choice. If they are physically unable to do so for themselves, and are unable to voice their preference than the driver can decide as they are in effect in charge. They are driving and in control of the vehicle, thus taking responsibility for that person, thus serving as their proxy. The driver is responsible for the actions of those in his/her vehicle. 'I'm not moving this car until you put it on' seems to work well. The government does not exist to protect people from themselves. The government has already absolved itself of having to protect people from others. So what is it that government is SUPPOSED to do? Provide for the common defense maybe? Thats pretty much it. The government is supposed to do whatever the community wants it to, so long as it does not violate established constitutional & legal protections of citizens rights. Except it has already violated those constitutional boundaries and limitations placed upon it. Therefore the government has failed its purpose Debatable. I would say that it largely has NOT violated those boundaries - and that where it has, the Constitutional system tends to correct said violations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:29:43 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: The same way any other corporation runs.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So far as I can tell, the only services " the government" can provide more effectively than individuals or groups of individuals is national defense and courts. Hmmm... I'd be real interested in seeing how the private sector was gonna take over for the FDNY. Does FDNY manufacture it's own fire trucks or other equipment? And that doesn't include Rescue, Haz-Mat or Marine companies, or support units. How is a private company going to do that? On a contract basis? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:30:28 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: The government is supposed to do whatever the community wants it to, so long as it does not violate established constitutional & legal protections of citizens rights. but Dave in your world Rights are clearly relative, therefore in the future, it could be perfectly acceptable for the greater good that people when they reach a certain age are killed and their organs harvested to grind up and make gruel for new borns raised in incubators, Since constitutionality really means nothing becuase anything can be interpreted and any law passed and followed. our founders were mistakenly not specific enough, therefore rather then people taking the original intent of the founders they can interpret our consitution in any means they see fit. all it will take is a few changes in the SCOTUS and it will be a living document. The Constitution is not a living document, but it is an amendable document. In a society where such behavior is acceptable, no theoretical 'concept of rights' is going to make a difference. You cannot fight the will of the people with paper - they will just change the contents of the paper to suit their will. The solution to all political issues, is to garner enough popular support to your cause, to have it carry the day. Not to beat people over the head with legal procedure, hoping that they give up rather than change the law..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:30:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So far as I can tell, the only services " the government" can provide more effectively than individuals or groups of individuals is national defense and courts.
Hmmm... I'd be real interested in seeing how the private sector was gonna take over for the FDNY. Does FDNY manufacture it's own fire trucks or other equipment? And that doesn't include Rescue, Haz-Mat or Marine companies, or support units. How is a private company going to do that? On a contract basis? I realize I'm speaking outside my area here, but there are many large private corporations that handle complicated operations over large areas with a great many agents. What advantage is there to having "the government" do it? The logistical and organization problems are the same either way, aren't they? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:30:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
[div]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: So far as I can tell, the only services " the government" can provide more effectively than individuals or groups of individuals is national defense and courts.
Hmmm... I'd be real interested in seeing how the private sector was gonna take over for the FDNY. Does FDNY manufacture it's own fire trucks or other equipment? And that doesn't include Rescue, Haz-Mat or Marine companies, or support units. With shareholders and board of directors attempting to pinch every penny, it would decay into the same situation where we pay for insurance and need state insurance commissions to make sure we don't get screwed. And a private company would not be protected from lawsuits like a city FD, so that would create a whole other level of insanity. Private FD and PD are pretty much an impossibility in this day and age. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:36:58 PM EDT
[#36]
I'm not saying that private fire services don't work. They just don't work everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:38:47 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
With shareholders and board of directors attempting to pinch every penny, it would decay into the same situation where we pay for insurance and need state insurance commissions to make sure we don't get screwed. And a private company would not be protected from lawsuits like a city FD, so that would create a whole other level of insanity. Private FD and PD are pretty much an impossibility in this day and age. A private entity could easily be as protected from lawsuits as a public entity. The only thing protecting them are laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:39:53 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let me tally some things I've heard Libertarians argue.Quoted: . I have heard libertarians even argue in favor of indentured servitude! An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities.(paid) so work in exchange for a form of payment. Unlike slaves, an indentured servant was required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.[1][2] Legal arrangements of this type have been extremely widespread throughout world history in different forms, and have had a number of specific names, and may overlap with the status of apprentice, debt slave, unfree labour, and other terms. Usually the status of indentured servant was entered into voluntarily by the servant 1. Indentured Servitude should be legal. Freely entered contract. What do you think the military is? What right do you have to indenture the servitude of people who had no choice in the matter? Often times the indentured servant brought along family, who may or may not have been willing to be a part of it. Children were ALSO sold into indentured servitude... Except the only ones bound by the indentured servitude are those who agreed to the contract. If someone takes their family along, that is their choice. They can leave their families outside of the contract. If a parent signs up a child for an apprenticeship such that the child has a future, that is supposedly bad? Is the parent looking out for the child's interests? Such contract would be written that once the child reaches their majority, they would then be freed from that contract, because the contracting party (parent) no longer has any rights to the child. 2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see). Not freely entered contract, no libertarian could support that. In all due fairness, the guy who said that was VERY bitter towards women. So perhaps this one should not be counted.Again, violence against another and no contractual agreement. 3. Child abuse should be legal. Define abuse? There-in lies the rub. However, the protection of the innocent from violence from the powerful is one of the clearly defined responsibilities of government. No disagreement there. Is spanking a child abuse? Who has a right to decide how you raise your child? As long as no permanent injury or infirmaty exists, who are you to decide how a parent acts? What about sending a child to their room without supper! OMG it's starvation! bullshit. If there were a case of actual abuse, the community (NOT government) can step in and solve the situation, and are better able to assess the situation based upon the relevant community standards 4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal It is legal, by the government. They have done all three of these things completely legal. What rights do the government have to arm murderers terrorists and enemy regimes? Any right the government has to conduct free trade should be extended to the individual While I think the government SHOULD be more careful in who it sends arms too, just because our government does it, doesn't mean civilians should be allowed to do the same. The government also tries and executes criminals... Should I be allowed to capture criminals on my own, and set up a trial, and then execute them in my own private justice system? No.... Why should a government non-entity have more rights than its constituatant civilians? if a person sells anthrax to the local whackjobs and that whackjob manages to kill his neighbors, th ecommunity can then police its'ef because hey, they don't want that guy to sell to those whackjobs anymore. So they run him out of town. Else what right does government have ot tell anyone how they do their business?[ if they are not vilating the other tenents, such as doing violence to others? Further how is the seller of an item to blaim for the actions of the user? Is a gunstore presumed to be a murderer because they sold a gun which was eventually used in a murder? Bullpucky. 5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal. Which drugs? Can't give out midol for fear of prison now in school. Alcohol? Tobacco? Ginseng route? Caffiene? All drugs, some legal, some not. Should we go to jail for selling a coke to a minor? You are giving a drug to them. You are honestly insane if your going to argue that theres no difference between selling acid to a kid and giving a child aspirin. One is an FDA approved over-the-counter medicine. The other is a harmful, addictive drug. I obviously do think our government goes overboard... what's your point Who are you to decide what someone does with their own body? if they wan tto spend their time huffing paint, rubbing alcohol on themselves and setting themselves on fire, then thats terrific. Their body, their choice. Once they try and violate other's rights, such as stealing, or murder then they've already crossed that line concerning violence and others rights to do with their bodies. 6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police. No one is protected by the police. That is from the Supreme Court. The rich can pay for private security that the poor cannot. C'est le vie! What I meant, is that they believe there should be no police to keep the streets safe. Just security guards to keep the rich safe. In libertarian view, the community polices itself. Everyone is prepared to take care of themselves and they are then thus left alone as long as they do not violate another persons space, property etc. Should that occur the violated person, and thus the community he is part of defend themselves. This is much more direct andaccurate to community standards and law, since they understand what is acceptable and what is not in their commnity. 7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal! [For those who could afford it, they could already have it. Make one yourself. This is the classic strawman for weapons. Once you give government the right to determine which weapons are acceptable are which are not, you tread a dangerous ground. People can own a smallpox biological sample now. Be more scared of that. You cannot honestly tell me, that if you can afford a nuclear bomb, it should be legal for you to do so. Just because someone can do something illegally, doesn't mean it should be legal. Arguing for the ownership of nuclear weapons, is the same as arguing for the right to use nuclear weapons and murder millions of citizens on a simple person's whim. 8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal. If warning is given, respect people's property Killing someone simply for crossing your property line is a little extreme... don't you think? Nope not really. What right do they have to cross into your space? Killing someone who breaks into your home is a little extreme don't you think? 9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property. Your property, and for those who don't intrude, they pose no risk. Rose bushes have thorns. Ban those? Rose bushes are highly visible, and don't cause instantaneous death. Landmines are hidden... What happens if a child wanders onto your property? What if the mailman comes? There are plenty of reasons that someone might have a LEGAL RIGHT to be on your property...This all falls under the idea that simple trespassing should NOT be a capital offense Then they should have been taught better as a youth. I don't wander into my neighbor's property because it's not mine. I don't steal my neighbors newspaper because it's not mine. I fhte mailman or milkman comes along, they understand their role, and where they can go and not go (to th emailbox and milk box respectively). 10. Polluting common public resources should be legal. What is public? Land owned by the government? If your acts of polluting affect the rights of others, then that defaults to the responsiblities of government. You have intruded on others rights and society forms governments to stop that from happening. At least your one of the more sensible ones who thinks that there SHOULD be public land. Course, judging from some of your other responses, I'm not so sure how sensible you are. Ithe Community again polices itself. I fyou dump oil into the ground water, guess what the community is going ot be pissed. They will sort it out themselves. There is not need to have the government involved, because the community i smore than capable of deciding that"Hey thats not cool." or "Hey, thats fine." If you dump it upstream and it poisons another town's watersupply, then they obviously have a grievence against that person, and it can then be sorted out because you have another town (thus more people going Hey, thats not cool" or "Hey, s'all right chief". 11. Killing one of your kids should be legal. Back to defined rights. Protection from violence. Not saying many libertarians believe this... Again, I'm just listing all the crazy things that I've heard libertarians say. again community policing itself It can then judge what is and what is not apppropriate. maybe the child has downs syndrome, has become increasingly violent, and a dnager to the community. is it alright to killl or euthanize the child? What about if you rchild has terminal cancer and you want to spare them the suffering? Should the government be able to deny that person that choice? In this case, the parent is serving as the child's proxy That said. I'm not saying ALL libertarians are like that... but a disturbingly large amount of them ARE. I'd rather not associate myself with people like that. As for labels, we as a society have completely abandoned the term "liberal" because it was picked up by socialists and progressives... so whats the difference with abandoning the "libertarian" label, because it is increasingly being populated by nuts? Some spelling maybefscrwed up because of a IE8 scroll error. Here's the problem with all of the above: 'The Government' has been elected by 'The Community' to do all of the above. I hate to say this... but... th-th-thhh––-thaa––-thaann- Thank you... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 1:47:43 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A common thread among Libertarian detracters is that Libertarians do not support services like Police and Fire departments. Please discuss the accuracy of this line of thought. http://i.imgur.com/D7cNY.jpg TOTALLY true... wait till you hear these nuts argue that we don't need a national military to protect us . Afterall no one would ever want to attack a rich, libertarian nation! And if they did, we have guys with AR15s who can't even afford plane tickets to Afghanistan to protect us.Never heard a libertarian say that. Maybe you're confusing them with anarchists? I admit, I am mostly talking about the anarchist leaning Libertarians... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:08:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
As a libertarian I have no issue with the fire department, as long as it isn't funded with federal dollars. Libertarians want a federal government that opperates stricty within the boundaries of the constitution. Local governemnts are free to offer whatever services that the voters approve. Government power is suppost to be concentrated closest to the people(local gov) Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:24:33 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. I have heard libertarians even argue in favor of indentured servitude!
An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities.(paid) so work in exchange for a form of payment. Unlike slaves, an indentured servant was required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.[1][2] Legal arrangements of this type have been extremely widespread throughout world history in different forms, and have had a number of specific names, and may overlap with the status of apprentice, debt slave, unfree labour, and other terms. Usually the status of indentured servant was entered into voluntarily by the servant. Let me tally some things I've heard Libertarians argue. 1. Indentured Servitude should be legal. 2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see) 3. Child abuse should be legal 4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal 5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal. 6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police 7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal! 8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal.
9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property. 10. Polluting common public resources should be legal. 11. Killing one of your kids should be legal (YES EVEN BORN CHILDREN) 
You have quite an imagination. If only I had a voice recorder.... Dude, you're obviously making this all up. Libertarians would never say this- you're just upset because you're in lock step with Dave_A and want the .gov to control everything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:25:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me tally some things I've heard Libertarians argue.
Quoted:
. I have heard libertarians even argue in favor of indentured servitude!
An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities.(paid) so work in exchange for a form of payment. Unlike slaves, an indentured servant was required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.[1][2] Legal arrangements of this type have been extremely widespread throughout world history in different forms, and have had a number of specific names, and may overlap with the status of apprentice, debt slave, unfree labour, and other terms. Usually the status of indentured servant was entered into voluntarily by the servant 1. Indentured Servitude should be legal. Freely entered contract. What do you think the military is? What right do you have to indenture the servitude of people who had no choice in the matter? Often times the indentured servant brought along family, who may or may not have been willing to be a part of it. Children were ALSO sold into indentured servitude... Except the only ones bound by the indentured servitude are those who agreed to the contract. If someone takes their family along, that is their choice. They can leave their families outside of the contract. If a parent signs up a child for an apprenticeship such that the child has a future, that is supposedly bad? Is the parent looking out for the child's interests? Such contract would be written that once the child reaches their majority, they would then be freed from that contract, because the contracting party (parent) no longer has any rights to the child. 2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see). Not freely entered contract, no libertarian could support that. In all due fairness, the guy who said that was VERY bitter towards women. So perhaps this one should not be counted.Again, violence against another and no contractual agreement.
3. Child abuse should be legal. Define abuse? There-in lies the rub. However, the protection of the innocent from violence from the powerful is one of the clearly defined responsibilities of government. No disagreement there. Is spanking a child abuse? Who has a right to decide how you raise your child? As long as no permanent injury or infirmaty exists, who are you to decide how a parent acts? What about sending a child to their room without supper! OMG it's starvation! bullshit. If there were a case of actual abuse, the community (NOT government) can step in and solve the situation, and are better able to assess the situation based upon the relevant community standards
4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal It is legal, by the government. They have done all three of these things completely legal. What rights do the government have to arm murderers terrorists and enemy regimes? Any right the government has to conduct free trade should be extended to the individual While I think the government SHOULD be more careful in who it sends arms too, just because our government does it, doesn't mean civilians should be allowed to do the same. The government also tries and executes criminals... Should I be allowed to capture criminals on my own, and set up a trial, and then execute them in my own private justice system? No.... Why should a government non-entity have more rights than its constituatant civilians? if a person sells anthrax to the local whackjobs and that whackjob manages to kill his neighbors, th ecommunity can then police its'ef because hey, they don't want that guy to sell to those whackjobs anymore. So they run him out of town. Else what right does government have ot tell anyone how they do their business?[ if they are not vilating the other tenents, such as doing violence to others? Further how is the seller of an item to blaim for the actions of the user? Is a gunstore presumed to be a murderer because they sold a gun which was eventually used in a murder? Bullpucky.
5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal. Which drugs? Can't give out midol for fear of prison now in school. Alcohol? Tobacco? Ginseng route? Caffiene? All drugs, some legal, some not. Should we go to jail for selling a coke to a minor? You are giving a drug to them. You are honestly insane if your going to argue that theres no difference between selling acid to a kid and giving a child aspirin. One is an FDA approved over-the-counter medicine. The other is a harmful, addictive drug. I obviously do think our government goes overboard... what's your point Who are you to decide what someone does with their own body? if they wan tto spend their time huffing paint, rubbing alcohol on themselves and setting themselves on fire, then thats terrific. Their body, their choice. Once they try and violate other's rights, such as stealing, or murder then they've already crossed that line concerning violence and others rights to do with their bodies.
6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police. No one is protected by the police. That is from the Supreme Court. The rich can pay for private security that the poor cannot. C'est le vie! What I meant, is that they believe there should be no police to keep the streets safe. Just security guards to keep the rich safe. In libertarian view, the community polices itself. Everyone is prepared to take care of themselves and they are then thus left alone as long as they do not violate another persons space, property etc. Should that occur the violated person, and thus the community he is part of defend themselves. This is much more direct andaccurate to community standards and law, since they understand what is acceptable and what is not in their commnity.
7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal! [For those who could afford it, they could already have it. Make one yourself. This is the classic strawman for weapons. Once you give government the right to determine which weapons are acceptable are which are not, you tread a dangerous ground. People can own a smallpox biological sample now. Be more scared of that. You cannot honestly tell me, that if you can afford a nuclear bomb, it should be legal for you to do so. Just because someone can do something illegally, doesn't mean it should be legal. Arguing for the ownership of nuclear weapons, is the same as arguing for the right to use nuclear weapons and murder millions of citizens on a simple person's whim.
8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal. If warning is given, respect people's property Killing someone simply for crossing your property line is a little extreme... don't you think? Nope not really. What right do they have to cross into your space? Killing someone who breaks into your home is a little extreme don't you think?
9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property. Your property, and for those who don't intrude, they pose no risk. Rose bushes have thorns. Ban those? Rose bushes are highly visible, and don't cause instantaneous death. Landmines are hidden... What happens if a child wanders onto your property? What if the mailman comes? There are plenty of reasons that someone might have a LEGAL RIGHT to be on your property...This all falls under the idea that simple trespassing should NOT be a capital offense Then they should have been taught better as a youth. I don't wander into my neighbor's property because it's not mine. I don't steal my neighbors newspaper because it's not mine. I fhte mailman or milkman comes along, they understand their role, and where they can go and not go (to th emailbox and milk box respectively).
10. Polluting common public resources should be legal. What is public? Land owned by the government? If your acts of polluting affect the rights of others, then that defaults to the responsiblities of government. You have intruded on others rights and society forms governments to stop that from happening. At least your one of the more sensible ones who thinks that there SHOULD be public land. Course, judging from some of your other responses, I'm not so sure how sensible you are. Ithe Community again polices itself. I fyou dump oil into the ground water, guess what the community is going ot be pissed. They will sort it out themselves. There is not need to have the government involved, because the community i smore than capable of deciding that"Hey thats not cool." or "Hey, thats fine." If you dump it upstream and it poisons another town's watersupply, then they obviously have a grievence against that person, and it can then be sorted out because you have another town (thus more people going Hey, thats not cool" or "Hey, s'all right chief".
11. Killing one of your kids should be legal. Back to defined rights. Protection from violence. Not saying many libertarians believe this... Again, I'm just listing all the crazy things that I've heard libertarians say. again community policing itself It can then judge what is and what is not apppropriate. maybe the child has downs syndrome, has become increasingly violent, and a dnager to the community. is it alright to killl or euthanize the child? What about if you rchild has terminal cancer and you want to spare them the suffering? Should the government be able to deny that person that choice? In this case, the parent is serving as the child's proxy That said. I'm not saying ALL libertarians are like that... but a disturbingly large amount of them ARE. I'd rather not associate myself with people like that. As for labels, we as a society have completely abandoned the term "liberal" because it was picked up by socialists and progressives... so whats the difference with abandoning the "libertarian" label, because it is increasingly being populated by nuts? Some spelling maybefscrwed up because of a IE8 scroll error. Here's the problem with all of the above: 'The Government' has been elected by 'The Community' to do all of the above. I hate to say this... but... th-th-thhh––-thaa––-thaann- Thank you... I hate to say this, but "The Federal Government" is to do that which is defined by the Constitution. What happens when your friends and neighbors decide through the democratic process to take your rights? Something about a terrible servant... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:27:05 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
I think Libertarians would want competition for city contracts by private fire-fighting companies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:29:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
I hate to say this... but... th-th-thhh––-thaa––-thaann- Thank you... Are you coming closer to realizing that his and your way of thinking are just different branches on the authoritarian tree? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:44:12 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: I hate to say this... but... th-th-thhh––-thaa––-thaann- Thank you... Are you coming closer to realizing that his and your way of thinking are just different branches on the authoritarian tree? Why because I don't believe in beating the crap out of your kids to a bloody pulp being legal, because I dont think individuals have a right to own thermo-nuclear weapons, because I don't think cocaine should be sold to underage kids??? Go ahead and go out in public and tell everyone you support those "rights" and see how many people laugh at you... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:47:54 PM EDT
[#46]
And No, I don't agree with Dave_A on everything... I think he goes a little too far into the authoritarian wing... I think most libertarians are a little too anarchistic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:52:28 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate to say this... but... th-th-thhh––-thaa––-thaann- Thank you... Are you coming closer to realizing that his and your way of thinking are just different branches on the authoritarian tree? Why because I don't believe in beating the crap out of your kids to a bloody pulp being legal, because I dont think individuals have a right to own thermo-nuclear weapons, because I don't think cocaine should be sold to underage kids??? Go ahead and go out in public and tell everyone you support those "rights" and see how many people laugh at you... Again.... Where in any documented stance on libertarianism are you finding this stuff? It reeks of fear-mongering and other tactics that wacko leftists use to scare people about gun owners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:53:18 PM EDT
[#48]
What's a libertarian thread without the douche baggery and adolescence.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:54:54 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: I'm pretty sure Vin Suprynowicz is the one who supports the legalization of Nuclear Weapons for common folk. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hate to say this... but... th-th-thhh––-thaa––-thaann- Thank you... Are you coming closer to realizing that his and your way of thinking are just different branches on the authoritarian tree? Why because I don't believe in beating the crap out of your kids to a bloody pulp being legal, because I dont think individuals have a right to own thermo-nuclear weapons, because I don't think cocaine should be sold to underage kids??? Go ahead and go out in public and tell everyone you support those "rights" and see how many people laugh at you... Again.... Where in any documented stance on libertarianism are you finding this stuff? It reeks of fear-mongering and other tactics that wacko leftists use to scare people about gun owners. Theres your "Documented" stance... When I read that, thats when I started to realize that the libertarians I was associating myself with, were nuts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2010 2:58:04 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: I'm pretty sure Vin Suprynowicz is the one who supports the legalization of Nuclear Weapons for common folk. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hate to say this... but... th-th-thhh––-thaa––-thaann- Thank you... Are you coming closer to realizing that his and your way of thinking are just different branches on the authoritarian tree? Why because I don't believe in beating the crap out of your kids to a bloody pulp being legal, because I dont think individuals have a right to own thermo-nuclear weapons, because I don't think cocaine should be sold to underage kids??? Go ahead and go out in public and tell everyone you support those "rights" and see how many people laugh at you... Again.... Where in any documented stance on libertarianism are you finding this stuff? It reeks of fear-mongering and other tactics that wacko leftists use to scare people about gun owners. Theres your "Documented" stance... When I read that, thats when I started to realize that the libertarians I was associating myself with, were nuts.From there I started to become much more aware of all the crazy CRAP that was being said by these so called "Libertarians"... That's when I started to back peddle from the libertarian crowd. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
