Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 1/29/2011 12:41:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 12:43:02 PM EDT by Apollos]
so as not to derail the Cairo thread...let's talk about libertarianism and its application in the real world.

I once heard it said that libertarianism would be the ideal political system if it could account for two things: children and foreign policy...children being a symbol, really, of any group that could/would get "left behind" and not have any real control over it.

So a couple questions: Does libertarianism account for a foreign policy? What is the role of foreign policy as related to good governance?

Can a man rule himself? Not only do I believe a man can rule himself, I believe that any alternative thereof can breed complacency...as consequences of actions can be deferred to another entity, such as government for example.

Government is force...and an inefficient and messy force at that. Is the clumsiness of "government" the best we can do as far as an organizational structure for humans?

eta: I mainly consider myself a consequential libertarian in that I recognize the value of government in terms of infrastructure and raising a relatively well organized national defense.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:42:53 PM EDT
Still trying to convince people that Julian Assange is a Randian hero?
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:43:20 PM EDT
Get off of my lawn.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:45:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Still trying to convince people that Julian Assange is a Randian hero?


I think Julian Assange is the scapegoat of a systemic problem the magnitude of which we have yet to realize.

He's a propaganda tool...that's all.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:51:28 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:54:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
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.

Well said.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:55:56 PM EDT
In before this thread gets spammed by statists.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:56:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 12:57:58 PM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Apollos:
so as not to derail the Cairo thread...let's talk about libertarianism and its application in the real world.

I once heard it said that libertarianism would be the ideal political system if it could account for two things: children and foreign policy...children being a symbol, really, of any group that could/would get "left behind" and not have any real control over it.

So a couple questions: Does libertarianism account for a foreign policy? What is the role of foreign policy as related to good governance?

It's more basic than that: Libertarianisim makes the same fatal mistake as most other utopian ideologies, including ideological (as opposed to practical, Soviet-style) Marxism: It fails to account for humans beings being evil-by-nature, and incapable of ever maintaining a 'utopia'.

Also, like most Utopian ideologies, it's got it's own pet-terms for everyone who opposes it's vision of 'Utopia'.... For the Marxists, you were an 'enemy of the revolution' or a 'greedy exploiter of the workers' if you were a capitalist... To the Libertarians, anyone who desires an orderly, civilized society is a 'Statist'...


Can a man rule himself? Not only do I believe a man can rule himself, I believe that any alternative thereof can breed complacency...as consequences of actions can be deferred to another entity, such as government for example.

If allowed to 'rule himself' completely, man degrades to his nature - which is to take whatever he can get, from whoever he can take it from.

Cooperation, and sharing of responsibility - and thus civilization - are completely unnatural, and require imposition by an outside force to exist....


Government is force...and an inefficient and messy force at that. Is the clumsiness of "government" the best we can do as far as an organizational structure for humans?

It's the best humans can do on their own.

Everything else has been tried, everything else has failed.

Invariably, man returns to his nature if allowed to do so - and once there, only organized violence can put that cat back in the bag...




Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:57:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
Get off of my lawn.

Get your lawn pollen out of my air.


Link Posted: 1/29/2011 12:59:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Apollos:
So a couple questions: Does libertarianism account for a foreign policy? What is the role of foreign policy as related to good governance?


From the LP offiical website: http://www.lp.org/platform

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should
emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding
foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and
defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of
terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.



Can a man rule himself? Well, speaking as more or less an anarchist I think a man should be free to do whatever he wants, with the knowledge that if he fucks with anyone else, they are FREE to draw and quarter the cocksucker.

The current government I see is a fat, bloated slug that needs to be scraped away and replaced. The way I see it government should exist for the sole purpose of keeping other countries out of our shit, that's it, that's all.

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:01:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Moochin:

Can a man rule himself? Well, speaking as more or less an anarchist

Well, at least you're honest...
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:05:40 PM EDT
Hell, people can do things on their own, they do it everyday. The shit goes going on now is so far fucking removed from common sense that any discussion of pairing back government overreach is met with hysterical blatherings of "OMG! YOU ANARCHIST! THE FACT THAT YOU WANT TO DISTILL YOUR OWN BOURBON MEANS YOU WANT TO GO AND RAPE THE 12 YEAR OLD GIRL NEXT DOOR"

It's ridiculous. I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.

I want to be free of coercion. I want to live a life were I can make my own way, live in a house full of amenities which I want, not what government wants. I want to drive vehicles made the way I want them, not what a bureaucrat wants. What's worse, is not only do I have to be subjected to this horseshit, but I'm forced to pay for it to boot.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:06:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 1:47:26 PM EDT by Seansworth]
nvm, misread the title
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:09:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.


Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:09:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

It's more basic than that: Libertarianisim makes the same fatal mistake as most other utopian ideologies, including ideological (as opposed to practical, Soviet-style) Marxism: It fails to account for humans beings being evil-by-nature, and incapable of ever maintaining a 'utopia'.


I think that brand of libertarianism is better described as a Randist anarchy, where Randian principles match human nature for once in rejecting a categorical imperative; when most people think of a libertarian government as enforcing a minimum common denominator of morality.
Ayn Rand's philosophy works great for slaves, but the super-individualist perspective of artificially hamstrung rationality fails outside safety nets.

But morality doesn't necessarily require artificial imposition, or even instilled values, because distilled, it's merely cooperation. The Hobbesian state of nature is dependent on trust staying below a certain threshold, otherwise, mechanisms to regulate externalities tend to arise naturally.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:14:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By runcible:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.



No one wants an authoritarian government.

However, a Republic such as ours, with the legal power to legislate morality by majority rule, is not an authoritarian government.


Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:15:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By runcible:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.



No one wants an authoritarian government.

However, a Republic such as ours, with the legal power to legislate morality by majority rule, is not an authoritarian government.



Ummm Sugar Plum, you can't make statements like that and be taken seriously now.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:15:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 1:16:40 PM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By GreyHat:

But morality doesn't necessarily require artificial imposition, or even instilled values, because distilled, it's merely cooperation. The Hobbesian state of nature is dependent on trust staying below a certain threshold, otherwise, mechanisms to regulate externalities tend to arise naturally.

The most common such 'mechanism' is one human convincing a bunch of others to get together and make everyone obey him, using the promise of all the other people's stuff they will take - and the fear of the rest of the group - to maintain loyalty.

Aka 'Despotisim'.

It is the almost certain end result of ideologues being allowed to institute a weak government.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:19:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By runcible:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.



No one wants an authoritarian government.

However, a Republic such as ours, with the legal power to legislate morality by majority rule, is not an authoritarian government.


In your opinion.

No disrespect Dave, but you just favor a lot more government intervention into people's personal lives than I do.

Just have to agree to disagree.

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:21:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By runcible:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.



No one wants an authoritarian government.

However, a Republic such as ours, with the legal power to legislate morality by majority rule, is not an authoritarian government.



Ummm Sugar Plum, you can't make statements like that and be taken seriously now.


He's obviously never been concerned with that.

And, ironically enough, it's immoral to legislate morality even if you do it via majority rule



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:22:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 1:26:45 PM EDT by GreyHat]
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
The most common such 'mechanism' is one human convincing a bunch of others to get together and make everyone obey him, using the promise of all the other people's stuff they will take - and the fear of the rest of the group - to maintain loyalty.

Aka 'Despotisim'.
It is the almost certain end result of ideologues being allowed to institute a weak government.


Thus the invention of the republic, where morality is outsourced to a god, or declared inherent to nature, instead of the arbitrary fiat of government. Sleight of hand, but it's functional enough that attempts to legislate morality are readily identified as tyranny, even by the proles. Extra irony, because the common factors of every human morality can be identified, extraneous bits sifted out, and the product is the contractual, professional ethic and basic freedoms.

You could add in religious, geographic, or cultural specifics, but then you risk contradicting every other morality out there, for no actual gain.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:23:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By runcible:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.



No one wants an authoritarian government.

However, a Republic such as ours, with the legal power to legislate morality by majority rule, is not an authoritarian government.




What section of the Constitution grants the US government the power to legislate morality? Much less by majority rule?
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:24:01 PM EDT
Every government legislates 'morality.' The big difference is whose morality is being imposed on the rest.


Dave_A misunderstands the concept of Libertarianism; like many, he confuses it with anarchism.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:24:22 PM EDT
Nowadays "libertarianism" is an umbrella catch phrase for anyone who doesn't fit into left or right neatly. Unfortunately.
Plenty of anarchists call themselves libertarian.
Plenty of isolationists call themselves libertarian.
Plenty of people with "pet causes" try to say that what they believe is "libertarian", but that is rubbish.
Straight up fact is that libertarianism has NOTHING to do with foreign policy WHATSOEVER.
Its like asking "Whats the "right to life" parties position on Trade with China or I.M.F Special drawing rights?"

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:25:00 PM EDT
So now Libertarianism is the same as Marxism?

Does anyone besides the .gov spammer believe this shit?

If man can't rule himself, how have I never been arrested, shot anyone, beaten anyone, and maintain my household and property???

......I would wait for a coherent response, but I know better. [/Thread]
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:25:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Apollos:
so as not to derail the Cairo thread...let's talk about libertarianism and its application in the real world.

I once heard it said that libertarianism would be the ideal political system if it could account for two things: children and foreign policy...children being a symbol, really, of any group that could/would get "left behind" and not have any real control over it.

So a couple questions: Does libertarianism account for a foreign policy? What is the role of foreign policy as related to good governance?

It's more basic than that: Libertarianisim makes the same fatal mistake as most other utopian ideologies, including ideological (as opposed to practical, Soviet-style) Marxism: It fails to account for humans beings being evil-by-nature, and incapable of ever maintaining a 'utopia'.

Also, like most Utopian ideologies, it's got it's own pet-terms for everyone who opposes it's vision of 'Utopia'.... For the Marxists, you were an 'enemy of the revolution' or a 'greedy exploiter of the workers' if you were a capitalist... To the Libertarians, anyone who desires an orderly, civilized society is a 'Statist'...


Can a man rule himself? Not only do I believe a man can rule himself, I believe that any alternative thereof can breed complacency...as consequences of actions can be deferred to another entity, such as government for example.

If allowed to 'rule himself' completely, man degrades to his nature - which is to take whatever he can get, from whoever he can take it from.

Cooperation, and sharing of responsibility - and thus civilization - are completely unnatural, and require imposition by an outside force to exist....


Government is force...and an inefficient and messy force at that. Is the clumsiness of "government" the best we can do as far as an organizational structure for humans?

It's the best humans can do on their own.

Everything else has been tried, everything else has failed.

Invariably, man returns to his nature if allowed to do so - and once there, only organized violence can put that cat back in the bag...





To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:26:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR4U:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By runcible:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.



No one wants an authoritarian government.

However, a Republic such as ours, with the legal power to legislate morality by majority rule, is not an authoritarian government.




What section of the Constitution grants the US government the power to legislate morality? Much less by majority rule?


Private property and the Western concept of contract law are fundamentally moral in their nature so, at the most basic level, you can't sustain a capitalist economy without 'legislating morality'.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:27:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 1:28:07 PM EDT by nukldragr]
Originally Posted By Moochin:
Originally Posted By Apollos:
So a couple questions: Does libertarianism account for a foreign policy? What is the role of foreign policy as related to good governance?


From the LP offiical website: http://www.lp.org/platform

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should
emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding
foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and
defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of
terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups
.



Can a man rule himself? Well, speaking as more or less an anarchist I think a man should be free to do whatever he wants, with the knowledge that if he fucks with anyone else, they are FREE to draw and quarter the cocksucker.

The current government I see is a fat, bloated slug that needs to be scraped away and replaced. The way I see it government should exist for the sole purpose of keeping other countries out of our shit, that's it, that's all.

That part in red is useless if you are not backing it up with force. It is as dickless as a UN strongly worded letter of protest.

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:29:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
Originally Posted By Moochin:
Originally Posted By Apollos:
So a couple questions: Does libertarianism account for a foreign policy? What is the role of foreign policy as related to good governance?


From the LP offiical website: http://www.lp.org/platform

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should
emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding
foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and
defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of
terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups
.



Can a man rule himself? Well, speaking as more or less an anarchist I think a man should be free to do whatever he wants, with the knowledge that if he fucks with anyone else, they are FREE to draw and quarter the cocksucker.

The current government I see is a fat, bloated slug that needs to be scraped away and replaced. The way I see it government should exist for the sole purpose of keeping other countries out of our shit, that's it, that's all.

That part in red is useless if you are not backing it up with force. It is as dickless as a UN strongly worded letter of protest.



Just linking it from their site, not my words, I agree with you, sometimes you just need to bitchslap a mofacka
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:34:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:
In before this thread gets spammed by statists.


Exactly. And yes Im in
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:35:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 1:35:49 PM EDT by jsnappa]
Originally Posted By Dave_A:



It fails to account for humans beings being evil-by-nature, and incapable of ever maintaining a 'utopia'.

Also, like most Utopian ideologies, it's got it's own pet-terms for everyone who opposes it's vision of 'Utopia'.... ...


man degrades to his nature - which is to take whatever he can get, from whoever he can take it from.

Cooperation, and sharing of responsibility - and thus civilization - are completely unnatural, and require imposition by an outside force to exist....




Invariably, man returns to his nature if allowed to do so - and once there, only organized violence can put that cat back in the bag...
[/span]





You've done a smashing job of describing our current government representatives.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:35:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Venkman:
So now Libertarianism is the same as Marxism?

That is not what I said....

They are both Utopian ideologies (with some shared traits, because of this), and both make a similar basic mistake.

That does not make them 'the same as', any more than a tank and a prius are 'the same' because they are both land vehicles.


If man can't rule himself, how have I never been arrested, shot anyone, beaten anyone, and maintain my household and property???

You have been conditioned by external forces, to behave in such a manner.

It is not your nature to be good, no matter how well you have been fooled into thinking it is.



Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:35:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gearjammer351:

To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality.

Take that one up with God.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:36:12 PM EDT
Define "good."
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:36:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By AR4U:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By runcible:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.



No one wants an authoritarian government.

However, a Republic such as ours, with the legal power to legislate morality by majority rule, is not an authoritarian government.




What section of the Constitution grants the US government the power to legislate morality? Much less by majority rule?


Private property and the Western concept of contract law are fundamentally moral in their nature so, at the most basic level, you can't sustain a capitalist economy without 'legislating morality'.
So is self-ownership.

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:37:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By gearjammer351:

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.

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:38:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR4U:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By runcible:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.



No one wants an authoritarian government.

However, a Republic such as ours, with the legal power to legislate morality by majority rule, is not an authoritarian government.




What section of the Constitution grants the US government the power to legislate morality? Much less by majority rule?

What part of this discussion is confined to the Federal government?

This is not a neo-confederacy topic, as much as some neoconfeds think they are 'libertarian'...

Libertarianism demands a reduction in ALL government - not just US Federal.

Libertarians claim it will result in a more productive, peaceful and free society.

I disagree, and believe that any libertarian government will be too weak to maintain order, will collapse, and will be replaced by despotism.

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:38:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 1:40:16 PM EDT by AR77]
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:39:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:



It fails to account for humans beings being evil-by-nature, and incapable of ever maintaining a 'utopia'.

Also, like most Utopian ideologies, it's got it's own pet-terms for everyone who opposes it's vision of 'Utopia'.... ...


man degrades to his nature - which is to take whatever he can get, from whoever he can take it from.

Cooperation, and sharing of responsibility - and thus civilization - are completely unnatural, and require imposition by an outside force to exist....

The problem is contradiction is Sugar Plum, is that you say man is evil, yet in order for your level of government to exist, it requires humans, those same beings which you describe as evil, and you give them the power to do evil to boot, instead of letting them be individuals who have no power.

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:41:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By AR4U:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By runcible:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I want no party in anarchy, I also want no party in a authoritarian government telling me how to live. That's not what I call a high standard of living, that's called a well kept slave.



No one wants an authoritarian government.

However, a Republic such as ours, with the legal power to legislate morality by majority rule, is not an authoritarian government.




What section of the Constitution grants the US government the power to legislate morality? Much less by majority rule?


Private property and the Western concept of contract law are fundamentally moral in their nature so, at the most basic level, you can't sustain a capitalist economy without 'legislating morality'.
So is self-ownership.



Exactly - the primacy of the individual is another (primarily Western) moral concept.

I always shake my head at the Libertarians who try to argue from a position of moral relativism - they don't understand what a contradiction it is.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:41:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
What part of this discussion is confined to the Federal government?

This is not a neo-confederacy topic, as much as some neoconfeds think they are 'libertarian'...

Libertarianism demands a reduction in ALL government - not just US Federal.

Libertarians claim it will result in a more productive, peaceful and free society.

I disagree, and believe that any libertarian government will be too weak to maintain order, will collapse, and will be replaced by despotism.


You are pure satire, Sugar Plum. Any mention on our end of pearing down government is met by your retort that it would result in societal collapse. You are joke.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:42:10 PM EDT
This man is the definition of a Libertarian and should be a role model to many........


Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:42:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gearjammer351:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By gearjammer351:

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...



Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:43:45 PM EDT
ROFL. As I assumed, a certain poster is shitting all over this thread. Can't help but keep his mouth shut. lol...

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:44:03 PM EDT
What's with the Robert Goulet Pyramid?
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:45:02 PM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:46:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR77:
Originally Posted By DuraToTheMax:
In before this thread gets spammed by statists.


Exactly. And yes Im in

Dura barely made it.
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:46:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By gearjammer351:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By gearjammer351:

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...



Sorry Dave, gotta call "Bullshit" on that one.

I like you, but I hate when you, or anyone else, trots out that shit where, "You have to be a believer to be moral."

It's nonsense.

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:46:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
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...

You can't ignore me, Sugar Plum, not with all of the history we share.......
Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:53:04 PM EDT
TAG

Link Posted: 1/29/2011 1:54:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2011 1:56:11 PM EDT by Moochin]

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...




I can agree somewhat with the religion aspect. With many religions there is a aspect of self betterment, becoming enlightened, or caring for your fellow man. Add in with many there is the aspect of being cosmically bitchslapped in some form or another if you do not. So I can see religion being a big factor in self government, not the only factor, and non believers can hold their selves to similar codes of honor, ethics, self betterment, etc.

The problem I see is is when one man attempts to 'regulate' another. Going back to religion with this, when one person, reads whatever religious script or dogma they believe in, interprets it in his or her own fashion then believes their interpretation is the ONLY way and EVERYONE else should believe as they do, there is a huge problem. It's the same with politics, yes everything thinks random murder is bad, yes everyone knows you shouldn't steal, but like with religious interpretation everyone has their own ideals on the 'smaller' details of how life should be. While I may think all cars should be blue, do I have the right to dictate to others what color car they should drive? Silly example but the point remains the same.

So because YOU think alcohol is bad, who are YOU to tell me not to drink, because THEY think high cap mags are bad who are THEY to tell me I cannot buy them. THEY have no right to govern what my daily life entails, as long as I am not killing random people for no reason they should mind their own business, they are just another lowlife hairless ape like I am, their shit stinks, mine peels paint, they need to FOAD.

Anyway, I think I made a point in there somewhere..

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top