Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/15/2004 6:38:22 PM EST
I just read their platform I and agree with 90% of it.

Libertarian Platform

I really like their stand on guns

Libertarian Position on Firearms
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:39:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:40:06 PM EST
Yeah, if only the Libertarian party wasn't filled with dorks, geeks, and jerkwads who preach to the choir and bicker over minutae.

Or am I thinking of the Arfcom General Discussion Forum?

Hmmm....

<­BR>
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:41:05 PM EST
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:43:43 PM EST
And Constitutionalists are Libetarians with a higher moral base. After this election I am re-regestering from Republican to Constitutionalist.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:44:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.

or if the party wasn't filled with a bunch of half assed wack jobs.


Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:45:19 PM EST

I just read their platform I and agree with 90% of it.

Libertarian Platform

I really like their stand on guns

Libertarian Position on Firearms




Yeah, me too. It sucks that third party votes dont count though, Im voting for W b/c hes a lot better than Kerry. Hopefully, the Dems will fall of the radar screen, the Reps will take their spot, and the Libertarians will become what Republicans used to/should be.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:46:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 7:47:26 PM EST by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.

or if the party wasn't filled with a bunch of half assed wack jobs.




+1

Libertarians are enemies of America who want to see this country in flames!
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:47:39 PM EST
No your not...your just confused, lost, and misguided.

SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:49:06 PM EST
You're still voting for Bush, right?

The libertarians need to drop the "open borders and free immigration" and some other platform "albatrosses" hanging from their necks before I will get behind them.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:52:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.

or if the party wasn't filled with a bunch of half assed wack jobs.




+1

Libertarians are enemies of America who want to see this country in flames!



please explain how libertarians want to see america in flames?
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:53:37 PM EST
just b/c the libertarian platform has a couple of extreme views doesn't mean that they will actually be imposed on the whole country if they are voted into the executive office. Didn't you at least take civics in high school?
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:59:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.

or if the party wasn't filled with a bunch of half assed wack jobs.




+1

Libertarians are enemies of America who want to see this country in flames!



please explain how libertarians want to see america in flames?

doing away with borders? the military? etc....?
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 8:00:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.

or if the party wasn't filled with a bunch of half assed wack jobs.




+1

Libertarians are enemies of America who want to see this country in flames!



please explain how libertarians want to see america in flames?



1. Unrestricted immigration. Allow anyone from anywhere in without restriction.

2. Allow military to quit. If a soldier is ordered to shipout, and decides to quit instead, then he says no and goes home without any reprecussions.

3. Unrestricted drug trade.

4. Unrestricted pornography industry.

5. Privatize police and courts, putting justice in the hands of the people with the money. The largest funders of the justice system would become the Porno barons and drug peddelers, since their industries would see explosive growth in a libertarian uthopia.

Eventually, the society would be infested with aliens who are incapable of earning a living legally in this country (like the millions we already have, only 100 times worse). Without a stable, disciplined military, we would be opened to outside agression, and internally government would evolve into a feudal system where the privately funded police and courts are controlled by the rich who fund them.

Think Somolia! That's a libertarian uthopia.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 8:04:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.

or if the party wasn't filled with a bunch of half assed wack jobs.




+1

Libertarians are enemies of America who want to see this country in flames!



please explain how libertarians want to see america in flames?



1. Unrestricted immigration. Allow anyone from anywhere in without restriction.

2. Allow military to quit. If a soldier is ordered to shipout, and decides to quit instead, then he says no and goes home without any reprecussions.

3. Unrestricted drug trade.

4. Unrestricted pornography industry.

5. Privatize police and courts, putting justice in the hands of the people with the money. The largest funders of the justice system would become the Porno barons and drug peddelers, since their industries would see explosive growth in a libertarian uthopia.

Eventually, the society would be infested with aliens who are incapable of earning a living legally in this country (like the millions we already have, only 100 times worse). Without a stable, disciplined military, we would be opened to outside agression, and internally government would evolve into a feudal system where the privately funded police and courts are controlled by the rich who fund them.

Think Somolia! That's a libertarian uthopia.



guess you didn't bother to read my next post, huh? Platforms are always the extreme, EVERYONE knows that.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 8:04:52 PM EST
Doesn't seem like bush cares too much about our borders either, now does it?
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 8:05:58 PM EST
a couple of those things you mentioned, don't even apply to the libertarian platform.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 8:11:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 8:49:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 8:50:40 PM EST by cyrax777]
people always mention the open border postion of the libertations but alwyas forget to mention in a libertation run goverment they would be ZERO Handouts.

sadly most Libertations are living in a pipedream,

edit to fix tags
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 9:13:24 PM EST
Open borders means everybody gets screened, registered and anybody who crosses illegally gets treated as an invader. Badnariks words, not mine.

That sounds like a radical improvement to me.

Drug war faught at the borders.

Pornography unregulated among consenting adults.

An all-volunteer army.

Courts and law enforcement FUNDED locally and by fining the criminals wherever possible, get rid of all the BS gun,drug, gambling, sex laws makes justice a lot less burdensome.

There are the planks without the GOP spin.

Y'all forgot the MAJOR difference between libertarian and GOP, FREE markets.

Honestly if all the libertarians and constitutionalists voted their conscience the GOP would have nobody left but a few uninformed, brainwashed people and the hardcore statists on the right.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 9:22:56 PM EST
I recently learned my family doctor is a Libertarian.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 9:25:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 9:35:49 PM EST by Sturmwehr]

1. Unrestricted immigration. Allow anyone from anywhere in without restriction.


You can't have unrestricted immigration. I haven't seen one single Libertarian support this.


2. Allow military to quit. If a soldier is ordered to shipout, and decides to quit instead, then he says no and goes home without any reprecussions.


I guess contractors are cowards, then.

What's wrong with PMCs? Executive Decisions proved that it's just fine. However, the Libertarian party would never do away with volunteer military.


3. Unrestricted drug trade.


Well, if you want to waste 30 billion dollars a year, so be it. You can pay for my rate.


4. Unrestricted pornography industry.


Again, I have yet to see Libertarians dancing the in street handing out child porn fliers advocating perversion.


5. Privatize police and courts, putting justice in the hands of the people with the money.


I got news for you, there's a small department in Horry county here that got 2 new squad cars. How? State funding? Federal? NOPE! Private donations for the community and other organizations.

However, so far, I haven't seen them terrorizing around the countryside fullfilling the agenda of those that donated the money to them. I suppose if ARFCOM supports disabled veterans, that too means we're putting disabled vets under our secwet agenda - OF DOOM!

Sorry, but I don't think so. Paranoia here.

Also, Libertarianism offers about the most pro-RKBA people in the business of politics. Dubya said himself if the AWB renewal came to his desk, he'd sign it into law (although this was almost an impossibility of happening, that means Dubya WOULD HAVE renewed the AWB had it came to his desk). Badnarik would most like sign "FUCK YOU, IT'S VETO'D" in his own blood and hand-deliver it to Congress on the end of a spear before he'd ever think of signing a gun control act.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 9:35:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 9:41:04 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.



Most Republicans do NOT want:

Legalization of ALL drugs

Abolition of the UCMJ

Isolationisim, Nuclear Disarmament

Absolute open borders with no immigration control

Tarriffs

Legalized prostitution & gambling

Absolute freedom for 'The Masses'...

And so on...
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 9:40:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.



Most Republicans do NOT want:

Legalization of ALL drugs

Abolition of the UCMJ

Isolationisim, Nuclear Disarmament

Absolute open borders with no immigration control

Tarriffs

Legalized prostitution & gabling

Absolute freedom for 'The Masses'...

And so on...



Neither do libertarians.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 9:41:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 9:42:34 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By K2QB3:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
umm, the libertarian party is what the republicans want and should be. I'm sorry to say it but Bush has gone against so many libertarian/conservative ideals its not even funny. Bush hasn't seen a big spending bill come across his desk that he has not liked. It's fucking disgusting. He hasn't been the best conservative is what I'm saying. The libertarian party could do great things if it got the recognition and the support from people that actually agree with its platform.



Most Republicans do NOT want:

Legalization of ALL drugs

Abolition of the UCMJ

Isolationisim, Nuclear Disarmament

Absolute open borders with no immigration control

Tarriffs

Legalized prostitution & gabling

Absolute freedom for 'The Masses'...

And so on...



Neither do libertarians.



According to their platform they do...

And your Presidential candidate is an anti-war isolationist (opposed to Iraq), and an admitted criminal (tax evasion & driving sans-license)....
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 9:52:19 PM EST

What people do not understand about libertarians is that all of their policies and views actually come from a unifed principal. IE: That you should be able to do whatever you wish to do, as long as it does not harm, defraud or deprive anyone anyone else their rights.

Unlike all other parties which are just laundry lists of positions which can change or be cheated on at any given time.

That is why people like Henry Hide, ronald reagan, george bush sr, (and many, many other long time republicans) were able to support gun control. Their philosophies do not come from any unified ideas.

Libertarians are just patriots in the origional conception of this country. (jefferson etc)

Both rebublicans and democrats want to restrict individual freedoms. Just different ones. And between the two parties we are practicly slaves in our own country. They are both two halfs of the same bad coin.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 9:54:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

According to their platform they do...

And your Presidential candidate is an anti-war isolationist (opposed to Iraq), and an admitted criminal (tax evasion & driving sans-license)....



PARTY PLATFORMS ARE ALWAYS BROAD AND EXTREME, THIS GOES FOR EVERY PARTY!

Jesus, does someone have to say it for a 4th time?

Also, I want sources to your claims. Don't go claiming stuff like Mr. Kerry and not have any sources to back it up.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 9:57:47 PM EST
So being opposed to preemptive foreign adventuring in Iraq makes him an isolationist hmm?

Words have meanings.

And good for him for having the guts to risk jail on principle. 16th amendment was never properly ratified, and according to law the licensing statute only applies to vehicles used for commeercial purposes.

Notice they haven't arrested him yet (for that)

Libertarianism isn't just a platform, it's a philosophy. Individual positions don't exist in isolation nor are they as simple as a paragraph on a website. If you're going to repeatedly argue against it you should at least have the courtesy to read up.

I've already tried to clarify the positions in isolation.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:06:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By mcantu:
I just read their platform I and agree with 90% of it.

Libertarian Platform

I really like their stand on guns

Libertarian Position on Firearms



Welcome aboard! What part of NY are you in?

As for the people who say the party is full of crackpots, that's true to an extent, which is why its especially encouraging to have more "normal" people signing on. Then again, if "normal" means you treat anything W says as gospel and anything Kerry says as absolutely false, then who's the real crackpot?

Don't listen to the naysayers. They have chosen their side and will just dismiss anyone who "opts out" of the 2-party system as a crackpot. Progress is made one person at a time.

Personally, I have converted my family (ex-republicans) to the Libertarian side, and most of the women I dated are now voting Libertarian. Except for the more recent gal, as she was Libertarian before she met me, so that saved me some work.

I also like the Consititutionalists. While my viewpoints diverge from theirs in many places, at the end of the day, respecting the constitution and being a libertarian are very close. L. Neil Smith is a Libertarian who coined the term "Bill of Rights enforcement" and declared that any politician who advocates positions contrary to the Bill of Rights to be guilty of treason. To me, Consititutionalists are just Libertarians that are all hopped up on god and Jesus. Fine with me, as for example, they may find recreational drug personally distasteful, but they don't let their personal opnion get in the way of their principles and the truth, which is that the war on drugs is unconstitutional and leads to breaches of our civil rights and abuse of the constitution. Just as an example.

And as for the Libertarians believeing you can just quit the military anytime you want. That's just more disinformation. All the Libertarian positions I have read say that if you voluntarily sign up for the military for say, 4 years, then you better serve your 4 years. If you decide to just quit before that, then you breach your contract and are liable for that. They DO oppose the draft, which they see as forced labor (slavery), which really it is and it's hard to counter that point. So Libertarians are anti-draft, but pro-volunteer military.

As I said, some people are married to the 2-party system and will say anything whether its true or not, to disparage minor parties and the people who support them.

-Nick Viejo.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:08:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 10:11:52 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By ZEN:
you should be able to do whatever you wish to do, as long as it does not harm, defraud or deprive anyone anyone else their rights.


I will give only one (of many possible) examples of how bad the Libertarian party's "unified ideals" are:

Pollution -
"Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution.... We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property."

So Libertarians are in favor of allowing businesses and individuals to legally dump any and all toxic pollutants into the water, ground and air. NO gov't regulations or standards for water or air quality. Cyanide, lead, arsenic, mercury, sludge, radioactive wastes... they're legally (i.e. no gov't agency or restriction stopping them) allowed to dump toxic waste anywhere in any amounts. But if you're poisoned by those toxic wastes - then YOU have to sue the company yourself for damages. The Libertarian "unified ideal" then is to throw each and every incidence of pollution into the courts. A trial lawyers free-for-all.

The Libertarian principle is to eliminate Gov't agencies that impose fines for pollution and replace them with "objective legal systems" that imposes fines for pollution.

Well just HOW is it any less "free" for a Gov't agency to fine and punishment if a company pollutes the ground water than it is for a court of law to impose that fine and punishment???

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:13:59 PM EST
As a former Libertarian Party member, I think you should look at what they do rather than what they say.

The LP expresses some very nice sounding ideals. In practice, they are a bunch of froot-loops.

A few weeks after Sept. 11th, I went to a bar with the state director of the LP. Some guy there had just come back from a "peace march" and she started chatting him up. Her -- the LP state director's -- sentiment was that all of the 19 guys who had attacked our country had died in the attacks, and that we shouldn't be attacking Afghanistan over it. I heard this same sort of crap many times from many different Libertarians in the year or so after that that I still hung around them. The basic idea among the indoctrinated masses, er, handful is that if America was to pull out of everywhere worldwide tomorrow, Osama would send us a videotape saying, "Hey, cool, you guys have come to your senses and stopped waging war on us! Let's be buddies! Sorry we had to kill 3000 people to get your attention, it won't happen again now that you've learned to behave in the world."

The LP talks a lot about freedom and peace and good pot and so on, and I agree with most of their platform too, but once you get involved you soon discover that they are idiots.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:17:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By ZEN:
you should be able to do whatever you wish to do, as long as it does not harm, defraud or deprive anyone anyone else their rights.


I will give only one (of many possible) examples of how bad the Libertarian party's "unified ideals" are:

Pollution -
"Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution.... We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property."

So Libertarians are in favor of allowing businesses and individuals to legally dump any and all toxic pollutants into the water, ground and air. NO gov't regulations or standards for water or air quality. Cyanide, lead, arsenic, mercury, sludge, radioactive wastes... they're legally (i.e. no gov't agency or restriction stopping them) allowed to dump toxic waste anywhere in any amounts. But if you're poisoned by those toxic wastes - then YOU have to sue the company yourself for damages. The Libertarian "unified ideal" then is to throw each and every incidence of pollution into the courts. A trial lawyers free-for-all.

The Libertarian principle is to eliminate Gov't agencies that impose fines for pollution and replace them with "objective legal systems" that imposes fines for pollution.

Well just HOW is it any less "free" for a Gov't agency to fine and punishment if a company pollutes the ground water than it is for a court of law to impose that fine and punishment???




With all due respect:

You don't understand this position. You need to do a lot more reading about why the govt doesn't protect us against this kind of thing right now anyway. (indeed the govt is paid off by lobbies etc) And why it is that real liabilty would actually be more effective than bought off govt agencies.

Like many who hate libertarian policies you haven't done your homework, and do not understand the subject matter.

And no, I'm not going to type my fingers to the bone to educate you, that isn't my job. (so don't ask) It's your job to understand the Republic in which you live.

Zen




"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:17:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Well just HOW is it any less "free" for a Gov't agency to fine and punishment if a company pollutes the ground water than it is for a court of law to impose that fine and punishment???




Well you asked...

Suppose Macallan runs an industrial company and dumps toxic waste into a stream running through his property. This waste runs downstream to MY property, where it pollutes my property. This lowers my property value, my familily gets sick from it, maybe I have a few domestic animals die from the pollution. Rather than the EPA fining Macallan's company for pollution, and taking that fine money to prop up some government bureacracy somewhere, the Libertarian position recognizes, that I am the one harmed because it was my property that was damaged. So I sue Macallan's company for all I can get and he must pay restitution for the decline in my property value, damages incurred to my health, the value of the livestock dead and so on.

No victim, no crime. When their is a victim, through negligence or otherwise, then the perpetrator must pay restitution to the victimized parties.

This seems much more straightforward and common-sensical to me--the criminal pays off the people he hurt to "make it right" rather than paying a fine to some government agency for the money to wind up who knows where.

-Nick Viejo.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:24:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 10:27:14 PM EST by K2QB3]
McCallan,

Read your own quote, then read it again.

Your interpretation of the quote is at odds with the quote itself.

It actually says that you're responsible and liable for any damage you do.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:26:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By N_Viejo:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Well just HOW is it any less "free" for a Gov't agency to fine and punishment if a company pollutes the ground water than it is for a court of law to impose that fine and punishment???




Well you asked...

Suppose Macallan runs an industrial company and dumps toxic waste into a stream running through his property. This waste runs downstream to MY property, where it pollutes my property. This lowers my property value, my familily gets sick from it, maybe I have a few domestic animals die from the pollution. Rather than the EPA fining Macallan's company for pollution, and taking that fine money to prop up some government bureacracy somewhere, the Libertarian position recognizes, that I am the one harmed because it was my property that was damaged. So I sue Macallan's company for all I can get and he must pay restitution for the decline in my property value, damages incurred to my health, the value of the livestock dead and so on.

No victim, no crime. When their is a victim, through negligence or otherwise, then the perpetrator must pay restitution to the victimized parties.

This seems much more straightforward and common-sensical to me--the criminal pays off the people he hurt to "make it right" rather than paying a fine to some government agency for the money to wind up who knows where.

-Nick Viejo.




I hate to do this but I will ad a few comments to this well written post.

1. As things are now, the govt is so corrupt that the "fines" it imposes allows some companies to contunie polluting. To them it is just a cost of doing business. And it does not nessessarily help those they harmed. A trial with punitive damages would potentially put the polluter out of business. This acts as a derterent to possible polluting companies.

As things stand now, companies are protected sometimes from this kind of tort because we have govt agencies. And yes the lobbies for these companies like it that way. CORRUPTION.

2. If a company killed anyone with their behavour they could still be sent to jail for that behavour. The wouldn't be off the hook under the libertarian system for their acts as they are now under current govt. When was the last time you heard of a companies pollution hurting some one and a company official went to jail??????? It doesn't happen because we have REGULATION which protects them.

"think about it"

Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:29:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
McCallan,

Read your own quote, then read it again.

Your interpretation of the quote is at odds with the quote itself.

It actually says that you're responsible and liable for any damage you do.




I do not understand what you mean. Please explain?

Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:31:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
The Libertarian principle is to eliminate Gov't agencies that impose fines for pollution and replace them with "objective legal systems" that imposes fines for pollution.

Well just HOW is it any less "free" for a Gov't agency to fine and punishment if a company pollutes the ground water than it is for a court of law to impose that fine and punishment???


With all due respect:

You don't understand this position. You need to do a lot more reading about why the govt doesn't protect us against this kind of thing right now anyway. (indeed the govt is paid off by lobbies etc) And why it is that real liabilty would actually be more effective than bought off govt agencies.

Like many who hate libertarian policies you haven't done your homework, and do not understand the subject matter. {yeah, far be it for a Losertarian to explain their own party's position}

And no, I'm not going to type my fingers to the bone to educate you, that isn't my job. (so don't ask) It's your job to understand the Republic in which you live.


TRANSLATION: "I can't explain it, so I'll just resort to non-sequitors."

Wow. Is this why you Losertarians can only muster 0.35% of the vote - because they can't defend or even EXPLAIN their own positions when questioned about them other than to immediately say "you just don't understand".

Hell, I can go for hours expounding about the RKBA, the need to secure the border or the necessity of public health laws. If YOU were having to explain something like the RKBA to an anti, would that be your response "Like many who hate guns you haven't done your homework, and do not understand the subject matter" and walk away.

Fine.

Whatever.

I knew I shouldn't have even tried.

Have fun voting for your local dog catcher for president.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:32:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:
What people do not understand about libertarians is that all of their policies and views actually come from a unifed principal. IE: That you should be able to do whatever you wish to do, as long as it does not harm, defraud or deprive anyone anyone else their rights.



On an isolated, small scale.. that probably works, but if 50% of the population did that, it might be bad.
Maybe the "free love" of the sixties is a good example, maybe not, and no I wasn't there.

No party ideology will ever be right because life/soceity is to complicated to manage from a 'play book' of laws.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:37:35 PM EST
Sorry Zen, I had to edit because I realized I responded to your quote of Mccallons post. getting late for me.

McCallon,

Among other things intentional dumping "anywhere and in any amount" would be a criminal matter, as well as a civil one.

The state still has jurisdiction.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:37:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By ZEN:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
The Libertarian principle is to eliminate Gov't agencies that impose fines for pollution and replace them with "objective legal systems" that imposes fines for pollution.

Well just HOW is it any less "free" for a Gov't agency to fine and punishment if a company pollutes the ground water than it is for a court of law to impose that fine and punishment???


With all due respect:

You don't understand this position. You need to do a lot more reading about why the govt doesn't protect us against this kind of thing right now anyway. (indeed the govt is paid off by lobbies etc) And why it is that real liabilty would actually be more effective than bought off govt agencies.

Like many who hate libertarian policies you haven't done your homework, and do not understand the subject matter. {yeah, far be it for a Losertarian to explain their own party's position}

And no, I'm not going to type my fingers to the bone to educate you, that isn't my job. (so don't ask) It's your job to understand the Republic in which you live.


TRANSLATION: "I can't explain it, so I'll just resort to non-sequitors."

Wow. Is this why you Losertarians can only muster 0.35% of the vote - because they can't defend or even EXPLAIN their own positions when questioned about them other than to immediately say "you just don't understand".

Hell, I can go for hours expounding about the RKBA, the need to secure the border or the necessity of public health laws. If YOU were having to explain something like the RKBA to an anti, would that be your response "Like many who hate guns you haven't done your homework, and do not understand the subject matter" and walk away.

Fine.

Whatever.

I knew I shouldn't have even tried.

Have fun voting for your local dog catcher for president.





I don't bother wasting my breath on uneducated liberals either. It is a waste of time to try and convince someone of your position when that person has not done their homework and refuses to understand the basic issues of a topic.

You have shown with your post that you have failed to do your homework and are speaking from a position of ignorance.

Just in the same way anii-gunners just keep repeating that "assault weapons" are machine guns and there is no need for them.

If you would do you homework on this subject I would be glad to debate you on it.

But I won't attempt to EDUCATE you on a subject you are attempting to debate and THEN also debate you on it.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:44:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
Sorry Zen, I had to edit because I realized I responded to your quote of Mccallons post. getting late for me.

McCallon,

Among other things intentional dumping "anywhere and in any amount" would be a criminal matter, as well as a civil one.

The state still has jurisdiction.




Exactly!!! Polluting could still be a crime, punishable by PRISON as well as torts.

As it is now, companies get off the hook for criminal acts due to the govt regulation laws. (for the most part, except in very extream cases)

I believe that if a company harms someone with pollution they should be prosecuted just as a gun owner would be if he pointed his gun out of his window and shot off rounds for fun that hit someone.

But companies don't bear that kind of responsiblity for thier acts because they are "regulated" and therefore get a "free pass" from big brother.

This is why corporate america loves big brother, as he protects them from real consequences. (serious torts and jail)

Nice to see someone who understand the issues -------> K2QB3


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 10:51:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By N_Viejo:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Well just HOW is it any less "free" for a Gov't agency to fine and punishment if a company pollutes the ground water than it is for a court of law to impose that fine and punishment???


Well you asked...

Suppose Macallan runs an industrial company and dumps toxic waste into a stream running through his property. This waste runs downstream to MY property, where it pollutes my property. This lowers my property value, my familily gets sick from it, maybe I have a few domestic animals die from the pollution. Rather than the EPA fining Macallan's company for pollution, and taking that fine money to prop up some government bureacracy somewhere, the Libertarian position recognizes, that I am the one harmed because it was my property that was damaged. So I sue Macallan's company for all I can get and he must pay restitution for the decline in my property value, damages incurred to my health, the value of the livestock dead and so on.

No victim, no crime. When their is a victim, through negligence or otherwise, then the perpetrator must pay restitution to the victimized parties.

This seems much more straightforward and common-sensical to me--the criminal pays off the people he hurt to "make it right" rather than paying a fine to some government agency for the money to wind up who knows where.

-Nick Viejo.

Get real.

In the Libertarian world - if I'm too poor to afford to take on Monsanto's team of 25 lawyers for a three to five year litigation struggle, I'm shit out of luck or left begging for support.

Dow Chemical can poison my land and if I'm not even AWARE of it (no gov't monitoring or pollution standards for ground water) until I'm diagnosed with liver cancer - tough luck bud. Hope you don't die before the lawsuit settles.

Currently there is BOTH gov't and legal action that brought against entities that pollute other's land or water. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Basically it seems the Libertarian position is that Intel Corp. can freely dump all the arsenic in the groundwater it wants until it can be PROVEN in a court of law that THAT arsenic dumped by Intel (as opposed to the arsenic dumped by Honeywell, TRW or Motorola plants nearby) is responsible for birth defects observed in some of the towns 20 miles downstream, even in other states. Uh-huh.

And so explain how environmental protection of air and groundwater is NOT part of the "general welfare" protection that the US Constitution delegates to the Federal Gov't?????

Nah, better not - like many who hate libertarian policies I haven't done my homework, and do not understand the subject matter, right?





Link Posted: 10/15/2004 11:02:20 PM EST
It is part of the general welfare clause, no arguement.

A corporation has NO RIGHT to dump ANYTHING into public or private waterways, air etc. It's responsible for any damage it does to anyones property, or the environment at large.

That's the point you seem to miss.

It's about transferring the costs from the taxpayer to the polluter.


It is a thorny subject and there is as much disagreement among libertarians as anyone else.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 11:12:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
It is part of the general welfare clause, no arguement.

A corporation has NO RIGHT to dump ANYTHING into public or private waterways, air etc. It's responsible for any damage it does to anyones property, or the environment at large.

That's the point you seem to miss.

It's about transferring the costs from the taxpayer to the polluter.


It is a thorny subject and there is as much disagreement among libertarians as anyone else.




Another good post.

And I will ad to it.

What most people don't understand about all of the govt regulation is that it doesn't stop a single damn thing that it regulates.

Take the illegal drug trade for instance. I alwasy have to laugh when I advocate the legaliztion of all recreational drugs and people say: "oh but if we do that drugs will be available and people will use them"

Of course they fail to see that drugs are already available and being used and probably more so as it is a "ban market" (see what the bans did to AW sales for reference)

Regulators do not stop pollution, or polluters. At best they might catch them after the fact and fine them. But in the law creating such "regulators" there are "special privliges" for the people being regulated which protect them from true consequences.

Again, see how well govt regulation of illegal drugs has worked. Govt regulation is a joke.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 11:14:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 11:32:01 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By ZEN:
Exactly!!! Polluting could still be a crime, punishable by PRISON



In the Libertarian world, what levels of arsenic in the ground water would be defined as "pollution"? How much would be acceptable?

And WHO defines what that level of pollution is? Gov't agency? A Federal Court? A state court? A single judge? A single jury?

Would pollution standards vary from district to district? City to city? State to state?


I believe that if a company harms someone with pollution they should be prosecuted just as a gun owner would be if he pointed his gun out of his window and shot off rounds for fun that hit someone.

Holy crap are you a nitwit or what?

This ABSURD comparison of pollution to gunshot injuries proves that YOU are the one who is ignorant on this subject and that YOU don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about!

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that, just for example, 0.05ppm of arsenic in ground water can lead to a statistically-significant increase in cancer and so a 18% increase in liver cancer deaths in Townsville which is 10 miles downstream from Intel which dumps arsenic into a river is CAUSED by that pollution? The science, epidemiology and statistics behind even the most agregious pollution lawsuits are nowhere near as certain as a bullet to the head.

In fact it's for damn sure absolutely NOTHING like proving a bullet in a child's head came from your gun you fired out your window as she was passing by.

Like I said, your ignorant comparison proves how dim your understanding of this subject are.

So... you have absolutely NO ability to defend or even begin to explain your Libertarian "principles" and now you've proven your sheer ignorance on the particular topic of pollution too. You're really quite an ignoramus aren't you?

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 11:18:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 11:21:05 PM EST by The_Macallan]
You didn't comment on the justice (or lack thereof) in these two scenarios:
----------------------------
In the Libertarian world - if I'm too poor to afford to take on Monsanto's team of 25 lawyers for a three to five year litigation struggle, I'm shit out of luck or left begging for support.

Dow Chemical can poison my land and if I'm not even AWARE of it (no gov't monitoring or pollution standards for ground water) until I'm diagnosed with liver cancer - tough luck bud. Hope you don't die before the lawsuit settles.
----------------------------


Originally Posted By K2QB3:
It is part of the general welfare clause, no arguement.

A corporation has NO RIGHT to dump ANYTHING into public or private waterways, air etc. It's responsible for any damage it does to anyones property, or the environment at large.



So WHO prosecutes this company for damaging "the environment at large"?

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 11:26:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 11:27:48 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By ZEN:
Regulators do not stop pollution, or polluters. At best they might catch them after the fact and fine them. But in the law creating such "regulators" there are "special privliges" for the people being regulated which protect them from true consequences.


Again, the depths of your ignorance knows no end.

Regulations are the basis for determining WHEN to impose fines or punishments. They DEFINE the act of pollution.

I'll ask again, in the Libertarian world - WHO defines what "pollution" is? Who determines that "X" amount of carbon monoxide is "too much" and therefore constitutes "pollution" and is therefore punishible?

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 11:32:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 11:34:55 PM EST by K2QB3]
The state, as I said before, repeatedly, that's still the states purvue.

There may be a libertarian somewhere who agrees with your premise concerning the libertarian position, but I've yet to meet him.

You, like many, seem to assume the libertarian doesn't believe in government at all, this isn't true, that's anarchism.

The libertarian believes the states only legitimate role is protecting the citizen from the initiation of force.

It isn't saying what you think it is, and I'm going to bed.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 11:33:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By ZEN:
Exactly!!! Polluting could still be a crime, punishable by PRISON



In the Libertarian world, what levels of arsenic in the ground water would be defined as "pollution"? How much would be acceptable?

And WHO defines what that level of pollution is? Gov't agency? A Federal Court? A state court? A single judge? A single jury?

Would pollution standards vary from district to district? City to city? State to state?


I believe that if a company harms someone with pollution they should be prosecuted just as a gun owner would be if he pointed his gun out of his window and shot off rounds for fun that hit someone.

Holy crap are you a nitwit or what?

This ABSURD comparison of pollution to gunshot injuries proves that YOU are the one who is ignorant on this subject and that YOU don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about!

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that, just for example, 0.05ppm of arsenic in ground water can lead to a statistically-significant increase in cancer and so a 18% increase in liver cancer deaths in Townsville which is 10 miles downstream from Intel which dumps arsenic into a river is CAUSED by that pollution? The science, epidemiology and statistics behind even the most agregious pollution lawsuits are nowhere near certain.

And it's for damn sure absolutely NOTHING like proving a bullet in a child's head came from your gun you fired out your window as she was passing by.

Like I said, your ignorant comparison proves how dim your understanding of this subject are.

So... you have absolutely NO ability to defend or even begin to explain your Libertarian "principles" and now you've proven your sheer ignorance on the particular topic of pollution too. You're really quite an ignoramus aren't you?






I see that you have taken to calling me names. (nitwit, ingnoramus, etc)

When I said you were ignorant about libertarianism, I did not mean to say that you were a stupid person or insult you personally etc. I only meant to point out that you do not fully understand the libertarian position you are speaking about. I still believe that.

But, .... that being said, I apologize if I offended you personally with my remark. That was not my intention.

Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 11:37:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 11:37:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
The state, as I said before, repeatedly, that's still the states purvue.


So it's the GOVERNMENT that sets the standards for what constitutes "pollution".

And it's the GOVERNMENT that prosecutes those companies for pollution violations that affect "the environment at large".

That is exactly what we have today.

Thank you.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top