User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 1:55:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
This man is the definition of a Libertarian and should be a role model to many........ http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp307/PAPA77_2008/pyramid-jumbo-1.jpg Dave, this is a strong piece of evidence against your argument 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 1:55:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. 
Take that one up with God. Oh- I see the problem here. Not surprising... Libertarianism and secular humanism tend to go hand in hand... Without a higher power, 'good' becomes completely subjective, and again, we revert to base-nature: 'If it feels good do it, if you want it, take it'... That's humanity in a nutshell, without God and government... Dave, you have claimed christianity in a form before. I will assume that you know the history of the children of Israel. When they were brought out of Egypt God gave them judges and elders. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that they asked for a king. AT that point God told Samuel, " They have rejected me as their King, but tell them all the things a king will do to them." God is my King, and Jesus my Savior. I am subject to whatever whims the government puts on me so long as they do not violate the will of God. What eventually happens in all government however is God is replaced with government. The worship of the state. It is idolatry. I will pray for you in that. Pmc |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 1:56:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: P.S. I wonder how long it will take a certain poster, to realize that he's being ignored... For going from a normal, stable viewpoint - libertarian, but stable... To an off-the-edge gold-bug/conspiracy-follower, with a tinge of teh-gay mixed in... do you actually think anyone cares if you ignore them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 1:57:43 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Its a badge of honor. Now if he would just ignore everyone else.....Quoted: P.S. I wonder how long it will take a certain poster, to realize that he's being ignored... For going from a normal, stable viewpoint - libertarian, but stable... To an off-the-edge gold-bug/conspiracy-follower, with a tinge of teh-gay mixed in... do you actually think anyone cares if you ignore them?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 1:59:50 PM EDT
[#5]
One quick comment about morality and federalism. If there is to be any morality law in our system, it is supposed to be from the state and local level. The Federal Government was never given authority to legislate in the area of police powers. That said, a state can only pass laws not prohibited to it by the US Constitution and the state constitution. So all else being equal, your state has legitimate authority to pass laws regulating morality.
That said, state constitutions tend to have restrictions on this relating to the right to privacy. And one can always push changes to laws to get the state out of morality. But they absolutely have the authority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:02:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Meh... I don't have a problem with Dave.Quoted: Its a badge of honor. Now if he would just ignore everyone else.....Quoted: P.S. I wonder how long it will take a certain poster, to realize that he's being ignored... For going from a normal, stable viewpoint - libertarian, but stable... To an off-the-edge gold-bug/conspiracy-follower, with a tinge of teh-gay mixed in... do you actually think anyone cares if you ignore them? I just don't agree with him all that often, is all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:02:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. Take that one up with God. Oh- I see the problem here. Not surprising... Libertarianism and secular humanism tend to go hand in hand... Without a higher power, 'good' becomes completely subjective, and again, we revert to base-nature: 'If it feels good do it, if you want it, take it'... That's humanity in a nutshell, without God and government... Dave, you have claimed christianity in a form before. I will assume that you know the history of the children of Israel. When they were brought out of Egypt God gave them judges and elders. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that they asked for a king. AT that point God told Samuel, " They have rejected me as their King, but tell them all the things a king will do to them." God is my King, and Jesus my Savior. I am subject to whatever whims the government puts on me so long as they do not violate the will of God. What eventually happens in all government however is God is replaced with government. The worship of the state. It is idolatry. I will pray for you in that. Pmc I do not in any way 'worship the state'. I do however, question the wisdom of attempting to replace our present government - one of the most successful and most 'free' ever, with something too weak to maintain order, in a quest largely to be 'free' to behave in a more hedonistic/sinful manner... The 'No one should be able to tell me what to do' mentality, with complete disregard for all that would be destroyed in order to make that the law of the land... There is also the differentiation between Samuel and Romans, in this regard... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:03:17 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:So all else being equal, your state has legitimate authority to pass laws regulating morality. That being said, while they may have the authority, the argument must be made is should they use the power? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:03:29 PM EDT
[#9]
Are we seriously back around to the "everybody is a sociopath" argument again?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:04:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality.
Take that one up with God. Oh- I see the problem here. Not surprising... Libertarianism and secular humanism tend to go hand in hand... Without a higher power, 'good' becomes completely subjective, and again, we revert to base-nature: 'If it feels good do it, if you want it, take it'... That's humanity in a nutshell, without God and government... True- a lot of people who don't share a mystical view of the universe are offended by the attempts of those who do to impose their 'morality' on the rest of society. Objectivity is the fundamental precept of a rational system of morality. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:05:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Are we seriously back around to the "everybody is a sociopath" argument again? Do you honestly believe that respect for private property is a universal value? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:06:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Are we seriously back around to the "everybody is a sociopath" argument again? Pretty much, which is funny isn't it. If you don't want power, and if you don't think anyone else should have power, that qualifies you as a nut. However, seeking the right and the power to institute and codify a coercive and authoritarian government makes you sane and rational. I'm pretty sure that's what the members of the Politburo in the old Soviet Union thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:08:09 PM EDT
[#13]
The question depends on what you're definition of libertarianism is.
For example, many of you have probably read Michael Z. Williamson's Freehold. The Freehold of Grainne is a fantasy; it could not exist in the real world. And the reason it could not exist is that it fails, ironically, on the same point as communism: it's a system that only works if people behave as they ought to. I don't agree with Dave on much, but on one thing he is right: people are inherently evil. Any system that requires people to be inherently good in order to function is doomed to fail. On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:13:52 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: If we are looking at it as people are inherently evil, then you are putting those people in charge, you are giving them power, where otherwise they would be just plain old individuals with hardly any power at all. The question depends on what you're definition of libertarianism is. For example, many of you have probably read Michael Z. Williamson's Freehold. The Freehold of Grainne is a fantasy; it could not exist in the real world. And the reason it could not exist is that it fails, ironically, on the same point as communism: it's a system that only works if people behave as they ought to. I don't agree with Dave on much, but on one thing he is |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:14:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
The question depends on what your definition of libertarianism is. True -and many people define it differently. A fundamental principle of Libertarianism was lifted from the philosophy of Objectivism, which holds the use physical force as wrong (as the opposite of reason- which demands the use of logic to persuade), and that no one should initiate it. The state's role should be to act as arbiter of justice -being the only justified user of retributive force in the event of a crime occurring. So, a proper Libertarian government would have police, courts, jails, and a military; this is oft overlooked by those who wish to cast Libertarians as anarchists in order to dismiss them as kooks. I admit, though, that this is easier than trying to justify a statist agenda as 'moral.' |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:14:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. The problem is, what would the RESULT be. IMHO, it has been done before, and it's FAILURE is what got us the Constitution. Further, that is not libertarianisim, it's neoconfederacy. The result, is that all of the morality legislation and 'un-libertarian' things done by the US, would be re-enacted at state level. However, without the unity of a strong federal system, the US would rapidly lose it's superpower status, and we'd slip into an unrecoverable decline. Remember: it's our power that enables our economy, and it's our economy that produces our standard of living. That standard of living, is what allows you to enjoy the level of freedom that you do. If that fails, freedom fails with it... Sure, it won't be the present government pushing you around and taking your stuff... But that doesn't mean those things won't happen... In fact, it almost assures that they will... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:16:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. The problem is, what would the RESULT be. IMHO, it has been done before, and it's FAILURE is what got us the Constitution. Further, that is not libertarianisim, it's neoconfederacy. The result, is that all of the morality legislation and 'un-libertarian' things done by the US, would be re-enacted at state level. However, without the unity of a strong federal system, the US would rapidly lose it's superpower status, and we'd slip into an unrecoverable decline. Remember: it's our power that enables our economy, and it's our economy that produces our standard of living. That standard of living, is what allows you to enjoy the level of freedom that you do. If that fails, freedom fails with it... Sure, it won't be the present government pushing you around and taking your stuff... But that doesn't mean those things won't happen... In fact, it almost assures that they will... Now I understand how the republicans nominated McCain. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:16:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: The question depends on what your definition of libertarianism is. True -and many people define it differently. A fundamental principle of Libertarianism was lifted from the philosophy of Objectivism, which holds the use physical force as wrong (as the opposite of reason- which demands the use of logic to persuade), and that no one should initiate it. The state's role should be to act as arbiter of justice -being the only justified user of retributive force in the event of a crime occurring. So, a proper Libertarian government would have police, courts, jails, and a military; this is oft overlooked by those who wish to cast Libertarians as anarchists in order to dismiss them as kooks. I admit, though, that this is easier than trying to justify a statist agenda as 'moral.' The problem with this, is that 'initiation of force' is what enables civilization. You cannot have order by playing reactive catch-up. Either in domestic policy, or foreign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:18:33 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Now I understand how the republicans nominated McCain. He wasn't the first choice, but after Fred left he was the only choice that wasn't insane or a flaming liberal... Sucked, but it was what we had... Hopefully we'll get someone better in 2012... I'd take DeMint, Thune, or Coburn, personally.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:19:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
A fundamental principle of Libertarianism was lifted from the philosophy of Objectivism, which holds the use physical force as wrong (as the opposite of reason- which demands the use of logic to persuade), and that no one should initiate it. That's an odd premise - under certain circumstances, physical force and coercion are perfectly rational responses. It seems entirely too dualistic to me - close to the pacifism the Left expounds. The premise that "Violence/Aggression = Evil" has never been intellectually sustainable, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:21:29 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The question depends on what your definition of libertarianism is. True -and many people define it differently. A fundamental principle of Libertarianism was lifted from the philosophy of Objectivism, which holds the use physical force as wrong (as the opposite of reason- which demands the use of logic to persuade), and that no one should initiate it. The state's role should be to act as arbiter of justice -being the only justified user of retributive force in the event of a crime occurring. So, a proper Libertarian government would have police, courts, jails, and a military; this is oft overlooked by those who wish to cast Libertarians as anarchists in order to dismiss them as kooks. I admit, though, that this is easier than trying to justify a statist agenda as 'moral.' The problem with this, is that 'initiation of force' is what enables civilization. Initiation of force is the opposite of morality; you can't base 'civilization' on immoral behavior. An armed robber initiates force. A policeman who arrests him is providing retribution. According to my morality, the robber is wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:24:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A fundamental principle of Libertarianism was lifted from the philosophy of Objectivism, which holds the use physical force as wrong (as the opposite of reason- which demands the use of logic to persuade), and that no one should initiate it. That's an odd premise - under certain circumstances, physical force and coercion are perfectly rational responses. It seems entirely too dualistic to me - close to the pacifism the Left expounds. The premise that "Violence/Aggression = Evil" has never been intellectually sustainable, IMO. It condems the initiator of force, not the one who provides retribution. Force, in response to force with the aim of justice, isn't considered immoral by Objectivists. The idea is that a rational being should exchange value for value and use reason -not force- to achieve their goals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:31:36 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
The problem with this, is that 'initiation of force' is what enables civilization. You cannot have order by playing reactive catch-up. Either in domestic policy, or foreign. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:33:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. The problem is, what would the RESULT be. IMHO, it has been done before, and it's FAILURE is what got us the Constitution. Further, that is not libertarianisim, it's neoconfederacy. The result, is that all of the morality legislation and 'un-libertarian' things done by the US, would be re-enacted at state level. However, without the unity of a strong federal system, the US would rapidly lose it's superpower status, and we'd slip into an unrecoverable decline. Remember: it's our power that enables our economy, and it's our economy that produces our standard of living. That standard of living, is what allows you to enjoy the level of freedom that you do. If that fails, freedom fails with it... Sure, it won't be the present government pushing you around and taking your stuff... But that doesn't mean those things won't happen... In fact, it almost assures that they will... That is happening anyway, Dave. China is quickly going to surpass us both economically and militarily. The over-burdening of the fedgov has made this a reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:34:19 PM EDT
[#25]
I would no more want to live in a country under the rule of Dave than I'd want to live under Dennis Kucinich's vision of America.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:35:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now I understand how the republicans nominated McCain. He wasn't the first choice, but after Fred left he was the only choice that wasn't insane or a flaming liberal... Sucked, but it was what we had... Hopefully we'll get someone better in 2012... I'd take DeMint, Thune, or Coburn, personally.... NO SITTING SENATOR ELECTED PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM. The best Presidents have been Governors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:36:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
In before this thread gets spammed by statists. By 4 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:41:01 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. The problem is, what would the RESULT be. IMHO, it has been done before, and it's FAILURE is what got us the Constitution. Further, that is not libertarianisim, it's neoconfederacy. The result, is that all of the morality legislation and 'un-libertarian' things done by the US, would be re-enacted at state level. However, without the unity of a strong federal system, the US would rapidly lose it's superpower status, and we'd slip into an unrecoverable decline. Remember: it's our power that enables our economy, and it's our economy that produces our standard of living. That standard of living, is what allows you to enjoy the level of freedom that you do. If that fails, freedom fails with it... Sure, it won't be the present government pushing you around and taking your stuff... But that doesn't mean those things won't happen... In fact, it almost assures that they will... wrong it's our economy that enables our power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:48:22 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now I understand how the republicans nominated McCain. He wasn't the first choice, but after Fred left he was the only choice that wasn't insane or a flaming liberal... Sucked, but it was what we had... Hopefully we'll get someone better in 2012... I'd take DeMint, Thune, or Coburn, personally.... NO SITTING SENATOR ELECTED PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM. The best Presidents have been Governors. So who would you suggest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:53:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: The problem with this, is that 'initiation of force' is what enables civilization. You cannot have order by playing reactive catch-up. Either in domestic policy, or foreign. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason 'Objectivisim' is simply setting man as a (false) god, to be worshiped just like any other god throughout history... The worst part about it, is that man is a pathetically weak 'god', with none of the powers & miraculous abilities one would expect from any being elevated to that position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:54:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: And our economy is enabled by individuals freely working and engaging in business,commerce and production; otherwise known as freedom.Quoted: Quoted: On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. The problem is, what would the RESULT be. IMHO, it has been done before, and it's FAILURE is what got us the Constitution. Further, that is not libertarianisim, it's neoconfederacy. The result, is that all of the morality legislation and 'un-libertarian' things done by the US, would be re-enacted at state level. However, without the unity of a strong federal system, the US would rapidly lose it's superpower status, and we'd slip into an unrecoverable decline. Remember: it's our power that enables our economy, and it's our economy that produces our standard of living. That standard of living, is what allows you to enjoy the level of freedom that you do. If that fails, freedom fails with it... Sure, it won't be the present government pushing you around and taking your stuff... But that doesn't mean those things won't happen... In fact, it almost assures that they will... wrong it's our economy that enables our power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:55:04 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. The problem is, what would the RESULT be. IMHO, it has been done before, and it's FAILURE is what got us the Constitution. Further, that is not libertarianisim, it's neoconfederacy. The result, is that all of the morality legislation and 'un-libertarian' things done by the US, would be re-enacted at state level. However, without the unity of a strong federal system, the US would rapidly lose it's superpower status, and we'd slip into an unrecoverable decline. Remember: it's our power that enables our economy, and it's our economy that produces our standard of living. That standard of living, is what allows you to enjoy the level of freedom that you do. If that fails, freedom fails with it... Sure, it won't be the present government pushing you around and taking your stuff... But that doesn't mean those things won't happen... In fact, it almost assures that they will... That is happening anyway, Dave. China is quickly going to surpass us both economically and militarily. The over-burdening of the fedgov has made this a reality. China is going to do neither of those things - they are too dependent on the west for their economy, and attempting to grow out of this will cause it to collapse (as their own people start demanding a higher standard of living, western investment will leave China for the next cheap-labor paradise). China's only 'resource' is it's people. And average, poorly educated people are not scarce enough of a 'resource' to build an economy on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:55:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. The problem is, what would the RESULT be. IMHO, it has been done before, and it's FAILURE is what got us the Constitution. Further, that is not libertarianisim, it's neoconfederacy. The result, is that all of the morality legislation and 'un-libertarian' things done by the US, would be re-enacted at state level. However, without the unity of a strong federal system, the US would rapidly lose it's superpower status, and we'd slip into an unrecoverable decline. Remember: it's our power that enables our economy, and it's our economy that produces our standard of living. That standard of living, is what allows you to enjoy the level of freedom that you do. If that fails, freedom fails with it... Sure, it won't be the present government pushing you around and taking your stuff... But that doesn't mean those things won't happen... In fact, it almost assures that they will... wrong it's our economy that enables our power. Not anymore.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:56:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: China's only 'resource' is it's people. And average, poorly educated people are not scarce enough of a 'resource' to build an economy on. That's a false and dangerous assumption to make. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:56:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Get off of my lawn. Get your lawn pollen out of my air. YOU OWNING A LAWN AFFECTS ME. GTFO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:59:02 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now I understand how the republicans nominated McCain. He wasn't the first choice, but after Fred left he was the only choice that wasn't insane or a flaming liberal... Sucked, but it was what we had... Hopefully we'll get someone better in 2012... I'd take DeMint, Thune, or Coburn, personally.... NO SITTING SENATOR ELECTED PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM. The best Presidents have been Governors. So who would you suggest? Palin 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:59:13 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Get off of my lawn. Get your lawn pollen out of my air. YOU OWNING A LAWN AFFECTS ME. GTFO.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:59:40 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Dave... your "God" is a just a bunch of stories, passed down through history, that you chose to believe.'Objectivisim' is simply setting man as a (false) god, to be worshiped just like any other god throughout history... (This is why I don't like religious threads.) But... you do understand that... right? You have no more proof of the "godliness" of your "god", than Objectivists do of theirs. You know that, right? It's a story... that you chose to believe. That's your "god". Meh... I'm out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 2:59:59 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now I understand how the republicans nominated McCain. He wasn't the first choice, but after Fred left he was the only choice that wasn't insane or a flaming liberal... Sucked, but it was what we had... Hopefully we'll get someone better in 2012... I'd take DeMint, Thune, or Coburn, personally.... NO SITTING SENATOR ELECTED PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM. The best Presidents have been Governors. So who would you suggest? Palin I'm not exactly opposed, although I am wary of her being another 'W Bush School of Media Relations' candidate... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:01:12 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: Dave... your "God" is a just a bunch of stories, passed down through history, that you chose to believe.'Objectivisim' is simply setting man as a (false) god, to be worshiped just like any other god throughout history... (This is why I don't like religious threads.) But... you do understand that... right? You have no more proof of the "godliness" of your "god", than Objectivists do of theirs. You know that, right? It's a story... that you chose to believe. That's your "god". Meh... I'm out. The supposed 'divinity' of mankind, or of 'reason', is equally without 'proof'... We Christians freely admit we cannot scientifically 'prove' God's existence - that's why it's called 'faith'... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:04:13 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now I understand how the republicans nominated McCain. He wasn't the first choice, but after Fred left he was the only choice that wasn't insane or a flaming liberal... Sucked, but it was what we had... Hopefully we'll get someone better in 2012... I'd take DeMint, Thune, or Coburn, personally.... NO SITTING SENATOR ELECTED PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM. The best Presidents have been Governors. So who would you suggest? Palin
I'm not exactly opposed, although I am wary of her being another 'W Bush School of Media Relations' candidate... I'm familiar with the Bush School of Government and Public Relations, Palin's been to Texas A&M? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:04:34 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
My definition of libertarianism is the belief that the legitimate scope of government authority is limited to that which is necessary and sufficient to secure the rights of the people. Plenty of room in there for children and foreign policy IMO, and for stuff like fire and life safety, infrastructure, and most of the other things people like to claim libertarianism cannot address. When people say it can't, what they really mean is it can't support the policy they want, or else they're confusing libertarianism with something else. Concur 100% |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:06:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: And yet you insist on using terms like "false god". Quoted: Quoted: Dave... your "God" is a just a bunch of stories, passed down through history, that you chose to believe.'Objectivisim' is simply setting man as a (false) god, to be worshiped just like any other god throughout history... (This is why I don't like religious threads.) But... you do understand that... right? You have no more proof of the "godliness" of your "god", than Objectivists do of theirs. You know that, right? It's a story... that you chose to believe. That's your "god". Meh... I'm out. The supposed 'divinity' of mankind, or of 'reason', is equally without 'proof'... We Christians freely admit we cannot scientifically 'prove' God's existence - that's why it's called 'faith'... Kinda begs the inference that you know the "true god", right? I don't insist on divinity... I'm just trying for a world where the most people are happy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:09:32 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. The problem is, what would the RESULT be. IMHO, it has been done before, and it's FAILURE is what got us the Constitution. Further, that is not libertarianisim, it's neoconfederacy. The result, is that all of the morality legislation and 'un-libertarian' things done by the US, would be re-enacted at state level. However, without the unity of a strong federal system, the US would rapidly lose it's superpower status, and we'd slip into an unrecoverable decline. Remember: it's our power that enables our economy, and it's our economy that produces our standard of living. That standard of living, is what allows you to enjoy the level of freedom that you do. If that fails, freedom fails with it... Sure, it won't be the present government pushing you around and taking your stuff... But that doesn't mean those things won't happen... In fact, it almost assures that they will... wrong it's our economy that enables our power. Not anymore.... Not being an ass or anything, but you could not be more wrong. How do you think we can afford the finest military the world has ever seen? Our economy. And the reason we have the economy that we have is due to the freedom the government still allows us. With less regulation from the fed our economy would be in much better shape than it is now. You and I do not disagree that a federal government is needed, we disagree on the power and scope of the government. I agree with you to a certain extent that a large part of the human race are shitheads, and because of them a true libertarian form of government would not work. However the larger a government gets, the more concentraited its power becomes, the more inefficient it becomes, not to mention self serving and not serving the needs of the nation as a whole. You need look no further than the federal governments push for ' green energy ' to see my point. If it were just about energy sources with less polution, we would be building nuke plants all over. Those pushing for that dont really believe in man made global warming any more than I do, they are using it for a political power grab, nothing more. And because of that, energy will become more expensive than dictated by a free market, which in the end WILL lower our standard of living. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:27:58 PM EDT
[#45]
I honestly don't know where you guys find the patience.
Once I discover that a persons nature is in alignment with an all powerful central government, my interest in civil discourse with that person ceases to be. I can't bring myself to waste my time on the anti-American, and all the ways he tries to disguise himself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:31:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality.
Take that one up with God. Oh- I see the problem here. Not surprising... Libertarianism and secular humanism tend to go hand in hand... Without a higher power, 'good' becomes completely subjective, and again, we revert to base-nature: 'If it feels good do it, if you want it, take it'... That's humanity in a nutshell, without God and government... Dave, you have claimed christianity in a form before. I will assume that you know the history of the children of Israel. When they were brought out of Egypt God gave them judges and elders. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that they asked for a king. AT that point God told Samuel, " They have rejected me as their King, but tell them all the things a king will do to them." God is my King, and Jesus my Savior. I am subject to whatever whims the government puts on me so long as they do not violate the will of God. What eventually happens in all government however is God is replaced with government. The worship of the state. It is idolatry. I will pray for you in that. Pmc I do not in any way 'worship the state'. I do however, question the wisdom of attempting to replace our present government - one of the most successful and most 'free' ever, with something too weak to maintain order, in a quest largely to be 'free' to behave in a more hedonistic/sinful manner... The 'No one should be able to tell me what to do' mentality, with complete disregard for all that would be destroyed in order to make that the law of the land... There is also the differentiation between Samuel and Romans, in this regard... And you are making a fundamental mistake that all moralists make. Hedonism did not destroy the Empire. Its some kinda populist clap trap that arose i don't know how. Maybe its Christians trying to deflect the fact that it was Christianity that essentially destroyed the empire, so instead blame something else. Caligula and nero lived at ROMES HEIGHT not its decline, nor did they cause it, the empire expanded after they died. By the time Rome went into decline the orgies were gone, the houses of ill repute closed, The gladiator games were gone and the vomitoriums were gone. 
I can't think of one empire in which "hedonism" led to its decline. Its was always down to "pacifism", a people unwilling to fight, or miscalculation of an enemy or isolationism which led to scientific and military stagnation or basic economic collapse due to bad farming methods or debasement of currency metals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:36:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. Take that one up with God. Oh- I see the problem here. Not surprising... Libertarianism and secular humanism tend to go hand in hand... Without a higher power, 'good' becomes completely subjective, and again, we revert to base-nature: 'If it feels good do it, if you want it, take it'... That's humanity in a nutshell, without God and government... Dave, you have claimed christianity in a form before. I will assume that you know the history of the children of Israel. When they were brought out of Egypt God gave them judges and elders. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that they asked for a king. AT that point God told Samuel, " They have rejected me as their King, but tell them all the things a king will do to them." God is my King, and Jesus my Savior. I am subject to whatever whims the government puts on me so long as they do not violate the will of God. What eventually happens in all government however is God is replaced with government. The worship of the state. It is idolatry. I will pray for you in that. Pmc I do not in any way 'worship the state'. I do however, question the wisdom of attempting to replace our present government - one of the most successful and most 'free' ever, with something too weak to maintain order, in a quest largely to be 'free' to behave in a more hedonistic/sinful manner... The 'No one should be able to tell me what to do' mentality, with complete disregard for all that would be destroyed in order to make that the law of the land... There is also the differentiation between Samuel and Romans, in this regard... And you are making a fundamental mistake that all moralists make. Hedonism did not destroy the Empire. I am talking about Romans, the book of the Bible (Paul says 'a few' things about how a Christian should conduct himself in civil society), not Romans the people. Context man, context.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:39:30 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now I understand how the republicans nominated McCain. He wasn't the first choice, but after Fred left he was the only choice that wasn't insane or a flaming liberal... Sucked, but it was what we had... Hopefully we'll get someone better in 2012... I'd take DeMint, Thune, or Coburn, personally.... NO SITTING SENATOR ELECTED PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM. The best Presidents have been Governors. So who would you suggest? Palin I'm not exactly opposed, although I am wary of her being another 'W Bush School of Media Relations' candidate... I'm familiar with the Bush School of Government and Public Relations, Palin's been to Texas A&M? It's a comment at the chance that she MIGHT be as inept at dealing with the press as W Bush was - that was his one significant fault. I don't really have a problem with her beliefs, personality or anything like that. The only thing that concerns me, is her ability to handle the media. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:44:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: On the other hand, if your position is that we are better off with as little government as practically possible, I see that as entirely workable. If the federal government were restricted to national defense and the few other constitutionally enumerated powers, this would be a very good thing. This sort of libertarianism is completely workable, as it has been done before. The problem is, what would the RESULT be. IMHO, it has been done before, and it's FAILURE is what got us the Constitution. Further, that is not libertarianisim, it's neoconfederacy. The result, is that all of the morality legislation and 'un-libertarian' things done by the US, would be re-enacted at state level. However, without the unity of a strong federal system, the US would rapidly lose it's superpower status, and we'd slip into an unrecoverable decline. Remember: it's our power that enables our economy, and it's our economy that produces our standard of living. That standard of living, is what allows you to enjoy the level of freedom that you do. If that fails, freedom fails with it... Sure, it won't be the present government pushing you around and taking your stuff... But that doesn't mean those things won't happen... In fact, it almost assures that they will... wrong it's our economy that enables our power. Not anymore.... Not being an ass or anything, but you could not be more wrong. How do you think we can afford the finest military the world has ever seen? Our economy. And the reason we have the economy that we have is due to the freedom the government still allows us. That is how we GOT it, but somewhere along the line, the cart and the horse switched directions. At this point, they are at a minimum intertwined, but I would say that our military/diplomatic power now 'holds up' the economy. With less regulation from the fed our economy would be in much better shape than it is now. Agreed. You and I do not disagree that a federal government is needed, we disagree on the power and scope of the government. I agree with you to a certain extent that a large part of the human race are shitheads, and because of them a true libertarian form of government would not work. Exactly However the larger a government gets, the more concentraited its power becomes, the more inefficient it becomes, not to mention self serving and not serving the needs of the nation as a whole. I'd say that the more 'human' and localized a government gets, the more you have to deal with this problem... Which is why the states have so much worse a record in this regard, than the Feds You need look no further than the federal governments push for ' green energy ' to see my point. If it were just about energy sources with less polution, we would be building nuke plants all over. And the govt chokes this due to over-regulation. ESPECIALLY the state governments, but definitely the Feds as well. Don't confuse my distaste for libertarianisim, with a desire to see the US be ruled by an autocracy. Those pushing for that dont really believe in man made global warming any more than I do, they are using it for a political power grab, nothing more. I'd say most of them are stupid enough to believe it. Most of the ones who are faking it, are not politicians, but rather academics And because of that, energy will become more expensive than dictated by a free market, which in the end WILL lower our standard of living. Very true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2011 3:44:33 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: I honestly don't know where you guys find the patience. Once I discover that a persons nature is in alignment with an all powerful central government, my interest in civil discourse with that person ceases to be. I can't bring myself to waste my time on the anti-American, and all the ways he tries to disguise himself. That's a nice straw-man you've built, however it has little connection to reality. BTW, the only thing more abhorrent than an ALL-POWERFUL federal government, is all-powerful STATE governments. |
|
|
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.
