Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/28/2005 9:48:04 AM EDT
how much freedom is too much? the times i've seen libertarians post here, they seem to be opposed to just about any law which affects them. so.............should a family who lives in a municipality be allowed to defecate and urinate in a pail and throw it out in their yard? this leads to disease and an awful stench which would affect their neighbors. should they be free to?
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:50:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
how much freedom is too much? the times i've seen libertarians post here, they seem to be opposed to just about any law which affects them. so.............should a family who lives in a municipality be allowed to defecate and urinate in a pail and throw it out in their yard? this leads to disease and an awful stench which would affect their neighbors. should they be free to?





Why...is that wrong?
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:50:31 AM EDT
No.

My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:52:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
how much freedom is too much? the times i've seen libertarians post here, they seem to be opposed to just about any law which affects them. so.............should a family who lives in a municipality be allowed to defecate and urinate in a pail and throw it out in their yard? this leads to disease and an awful stench which would affect their neighbors. should they be free to?



Be reasonable also in a bucket in modern times? We're not trogladytes. If it is your property it would probably be no worse than a large dog. Large dogs are not regulated. I also hear of people shitting in their gardens to use it as fertilizer do they count?
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:52:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markl32:
No.

My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:59:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 10:03:49 AM EDT by man_of_few_words]
I think of it in terms of personal responsibility. It the person is responsible, you are not going to have a problem with him exercising his rights to do whatever, but it he becomes destructive and irresponsible, something must be done to correct his behavior. This is not a preemptive act though, based on something that has not happened yet. And it is only applied to him not everyone. Like with guns, it is possible that some people will not be responsible with them, but laws should not be made that affect the lawful use of everyone else because of the actions of the irresponsible few.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 10:04:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markl32:
My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.


+1

As long as your actions do not harm or otherwise endanger anyone else, you should be free to do it. This is a general libertarian guideline; I am sure that there are exceptions.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 10:41:43 AM EDT
Existing laws provide an adequate remedy in this situation. Based upon the facts given, the offended neighbors would have a cause of action for nuisance and would be entitled to compensation for their damages. There's no need for a new law.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 10:48:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By markl32:
My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.


+1

As long as your actions do not harm or otherwise endanger anyone else, you should be free to do it. This is a general libertarian guideline; I am sure that there are exceptions.



is this not how most other laws are made though?

To prevent harm to other people. Illinois has mandatory liability insurance for autos. If someone who cannot afford an accident hits me, the state make sure i am protected by requiring the driver to have insurance.

We have speed limits to prevent accidents which harm others.

we have health codes to prevent people from spreading disease by cr@pping in their own yards.

restaurants have sanitary requirements to help keep you from getting disease.

we have police to help prevent vigilantiism (sp?)

we have consumer protection laws to prevent outright theft of customers money.

yet..........libertarians insist there are too many laws. And most likely each and every law on the books is due to some problem which as already occurred and been a problem for many people.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 10:57:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By man_of_few_words:
I think of it in terms of personal responsibility. It the person is responsible, you are not going to have a problem with him exercising his rights to do whatever, but it he becomes destructive and irresponsible, something must be done to correct his behavior. This is not a preemptive act though, based on something that has not happened yet. And it is only applied to him not everyone. Like with guns, it is possible that some people will not be responsible with them, but laws should not be made that affect the lawful use of everyone else because of the actions of the irresponsible few.



Well worded, and not exclusive thinking to "libertarianism". I believe most of our founding fathers also stated this in some form time and again when forming our constitution.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 11:10:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By markl32:
My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.


+1

As long as your actions do not harm or otherwise endanger anyone else, you should be free to do it. This is a general libertarian guideline; I am sure that there are exceptions.



is this not how most other laws are made though?

To prevent harm to other people. Illinois has mandatory liability insurance for autos. If someone who cannot afford an accident hits me, the state make sure i am protected by requiring the driver to have insurance.

We have speed limits to prevent accidents which harm others.

we have health codes to prevent people from spreading disease by cr@pping in their own yards.

restaurants have sanitary requirements to help keep you from getting disease.

we have police to help prevent vigilantiism (sp?)

we have consumer protection laws to prevent outright theft of customers money.

yet..........libertarians insist there are too many laws. And most likely each and every law on the books is due to some problem which as already occurred and been a problem for many people.

the problem with the things you have said is this: only responsible law abiding people observe the speed limit,just look at any road at any given time.
health codes that keep people from crapping in their front yard wont stop someone from crapping in their front yard. FRIDAY.
restaurants only strictly follow health codes the night before and the day of the visit from health inspectors.
prevention of a vigilante is not something that should always be regarded as admirable.
consumers, when burnt enough, will be cautious and spread the word about bad business.
let me give you an example of a libertarian......
lets say i live in a country full of libertarians...... and someone next door to my mom keeps crapping in their yard and stinking up the neaiborhood. well, my mom calls me, after talking to the offensive neighbor to no avail. i then get in my car, drive to my moms house the fastest speed possible while being safe, i go into this guys yard and pick up the shit and yell for him to come out, i then take the "law" into my own hands and shove it in this guys mouth. he realizes this is very unsanitary. i then offer to clean it up for him for a million bucks. he decides to do it on his own.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 11:38:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
how much freedom is too much? the times i've seen libertarians post here, they seem to be opposed to just about any law which affects them. so.............should a family who lives in a municipality be allowed to defecate and urinate in a pail and throw it out in their yard? this leads to disease and an awful stench which would affect their neighbors. should they be free to?


You let your dogs do it. What's the diff.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 11:57:12 AM EDT
The fact that this action is detrimintal to the health of the people around them - then of course, - no.

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 1:40:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cnow:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By markl32:
My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.


+1

As long as your actions do not harm or otherwise endanger anyone else, you should be free to do it. This is a general libertarian guideline; I am sure that there are exceptions.



is this not how most other laws are made though?

To prevent harm to other people. Illinois has mandatory liability insurance for autos. If someone who cannot afford an accident hits me, the state make sure i am protected by requiring the driver to have insurance.

We have speed limits to prevent accidents which harm others.

we have health codes to prevent people from spreading disease by cr@pping in their own yards.

restaurants have sanitary requirements to help keep you from getting disease.

we have police to help prevent vigilantiism (sp?)

we have consumer protection laws to prevent outright theft of customers money.

yet..........libertarians insist there are too many laws. And most likely each and every law on the books is due to some problem which as already occurred and been a problem for many people.

the problem with the things you have said is this: only responsible law abiding people observe the speed limit,just look at any road at any given time. Then the law works pretty well, doesn't it?
health codes that keep people from crapping in their front yard wont stop someone from crapping in their front yard. FRIDAY. Maybe not some people, but the law works pretty well here too, doesn't it?
restaurants only strictly follow health codes the night before and the day of the visit from health inspectors. true.
prevention of a vigilante is not something that should always be regarded as admirable.
consumers, when burnt enough, will be cautious and spread the word about bad business.
let me give you an example of a libertarian......
lets say i live in a country full of libertarians...... and someone next door to my mom keeps crapping in their yard and stinking up the neaiborhood. well, my mom calls me, after talking to the offensive neighbor to no avail. i then get in my car, drive to my moms house the fastest speed possible while being safe, i go into this guys yard and pick up the shit and yell for him to come out, i then take the "law" into my own hands and shove it in this guys mouth. he realizes this is very unsanitary. i then offer to clean it up for him for a million bucks. he decides to do it on his own.

gross. seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through. If the person is so mentally affected as to cr@p in their own yard, how do you know they would just not shoot you when you "trespassed" onto their property? How do people know what is expected and accepted if there are not laws actually written?
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 6:46:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerOfDoom:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
how much freedom is too much? the times i've seen libertarians post here, they seem to be opposed to just about any law which affects them. so.............should a family who lives in a municipality be allowed to defecate and urinate in a pail and throw it out in their yard? this leads to disease and an awful stench which would affect their neighbors. should they be free to?


You let your dogs do it. What's the diff.



How'd you know???

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:02:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markl32:
No.

My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.



That is how I've always explained it.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:12:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markl32:
No.

My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.



Pretty much.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:23:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By markl32:
No.

My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.



Pretty much.




so it's ok to swing at people, threaten and intimidate, but not actually hit. right?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:25:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By markl32:
No.

My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.



Pretty much.




so it's ok to swing at people, threaten and intimidate, but not actually hit. right?




Geeze...

It's an expression to convey an idea.

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:26:03 AM EDT
There is FREEDOM, and there is LIBERTY


They aren't the same
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:27:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
how much freedom is too much? the times i've seen libertarians post here, they seem to be opposed to just about any law which affects them. so.............should a family who lives in a municipality be allowed to defecate and urinate in a pail and throw it out in their yard? this leads to disease and an awful stench which would affect their neighbors. should they be free to?





Why...is that wrong?



Go to the team forum and have 1shott ask Jimmy!
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:28:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
how much freedom is too much? the times i've seen libertarians post here, they seem to be opposed to just about any law which affects them. so.............should a family who lives in a municipality be allowed to defecate and urinate in a pail and throw it out in their yard? this leads to disease and an awful stench which would affect their neighbors. should they be free to?




that is a poor example for your argument
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:30:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jmzd4:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
how much freedom is too much? the times i've seen libertarians post here, they seem to be opposed to just about any law which affects them. so.............should a family who lives in a municipality be allowed to defecate and urinate in a pail and throw it out in their yard? this leads to disease and an awful stench which would affect their neighbors. should they be free to?




that is a poor example for your argument



you might think it's a poor example, but it's a real one.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:39:14 AM EDT
I always describe it like this, If what you are doing does not DIRECTLY AFFECT your neighibors or someone else then you should be free to do what you want. It's that simple, and something that is lost on our "social control" enginneering faschist asshole pols and Govt people. The reason why I say "directly Affect" is not that indirect harm is OK it's just that I've seen every social-faschist make a really weak case that somehow everything you do somehow indirectly hurts someone else or society. You know like eating fat will cause you to end up in a hospital which drains societies medical resources therefore, "fatty foods should be banned" or Prostitution causes women to take drugs and hey would you want that to be your daughter and they spread STDs and blah blah blah therefore, Prostitution should be illegal. And also salt, fireworks, long folding knives, driving without a seatbelt, drugs, lawn darts, bb guns, saying "poo-poo" on the radio, scary loooking guns, parking your car on your lawn, etc etc, Basically if it's a "vice" crime or a victimless crime or a safety issue reguarding self behavior (like bungee jumping) the state should stay the fuck out of those affairs and stick to true 'victim crimes' and of course revenue generation! How hard is that for people to understand?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:40:41 AM EDT
True Libertarianism is only successful as a thought experiment, much like Communism.

Sorry if that seems like a troll, but I've given it a lot of thought. Society simply doesn't work the way Libertarians wish it would.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:44:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
True Libertarianism is only successful as a thought experiment, much like Communism.

Sorry if that seems like a troll, but I've given it a lot of thought. Society simply doesn't work the way Libertarians wish it would.



I think you are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy (no rules).

Libertarianism is basically governed by the Constitution. The idea is to restore the "liberties" as outlined and defined by the Constitution. It is NOT a "no rules" concept.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:44:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markl32:
No.

My right to swing my fist ends at the bridge of your nose.



unless its a Full Power Shot ... ?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:45:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
True Libertarianism is only successful as a thought experiment, much like Communism.

Sorry if that seems like a troll, but I've given it a lot of thought. Society simply doesn't work the way Libertarians wish it would.



i have to agree. i believe my example, though odd to most of us, is an excellent example.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:49:09 AM EDT
Is this situation to fertilize the grass or to piss off the neighbors? Unless you bought a house with no septic or sewer, then I dont see throwing feces into the yard as much of a problem. If youre doing it and purposely building up a pile of shit to piss me off as a neighbor with the stench, youre gonna catch a ass whippin.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:49:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:
True Libertarianism is only successful as a thought experiment, much like Communism.

Sorry if that seems like a troll, but I've given it a lot of thought. Society simply doesn't work the way Libertarians wish it would.



I think you are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy (no rules).

Libertarianism is basically governed by the Constitution. The idea is to restore the "liberties" as outlined and defined by the Constitution. It is NOT a "no rules" concept.



since sanitation is not outlined in the constitution, the .gov is able to regulate it?

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:55:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:
True Libertarianism is only successful as a thought experiment, much like Communism.

Sorry if that seems like a troll, but I've given it a lot of thought. Society simply doesn't work the way Libertarians wish it would.



I think you are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy (no rules).

Libertarianism is basically governed by the Constitution. The idea is to restore the "liberties" as outlined and defined by the Constitution. It is NOT a "no rules" concept.



No, actually, I'm going straight from what I've read on the Libertarian Party's website.

Great thought experiment - and it would honestly be great if it worked like they wanted to in reality - but where the rubber meets the road, it simply doesn't work.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:56:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:
True Libertarianism is only successful as a thought experiment, much like Communism.

Sorry if that seems like a troll, but I've given it a lot of thought. Society simply doesn't work the way Libertarians wish it would.



I think you are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy (no rules).

Libertarianism is basically governed by the Constitution. The idea is to restore the "liberties" as outlined and defined by the Constitution. It is NOT a "no rules" concept.



since sanitation is not outlined in the constitution, the .gov is able to regulate it?




Actually it is covered by the Constitution. Give it a read.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:56:49 AM EDT
The Government does not have license to regulate something simply because it isnt in the Constitution. Remember - The Constitution delegates power to the Feds, reserves power to the states and to the people.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:57:50 AM EDT
libertarians anr not anarchists. We do not believe there should be no laws.

Libertarians believe that government is a necessary evil. Without laws to govern improper conduct we would have anarchy. But, we believe that all laws should be carefully scrutinized, and tested against the inevitable infringment on freedom that they bring. Libertarians do not understand why gambling or prostitution or drugs are illegal. Libertarians believe in individual responsibility. If your crap in your yard causes me harm (stink, disease, etc.) YOU should be responsible for that. Not some faceless government entity.

Other libertarians here might or might not entirely agree, but that is the way I see it.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:02:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:
True Libertarianism is only successful as a thought experiment, much like Communism.

Sorry if that seems like a troll, but I've given it a lot of thought. Society simply doesn't work the way Libertarians wish it would.



I think you are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy (no rules).

Libertarianism is basically governed by the Constitution. The idea is to restore the "liberties" as outlined and defined by the Constitution. It is NOT a "no rules" concept.



No, actually, I'm going straight from what I've read on the Libertarian Party's website.

Great thought experiment - and it would honestly be great if it worked like they wanted to in reality - but where the rubber meets the road, it simply doesn't work.



And there is another problem, the current LP. They aren't exactly Libertarians anymore.

Kinda like how the Democrats are really Socialsists and Republicans are now Democrats, the current Libertarians are now fucking nuts in many cases. Too many only care about legalizing weed and are really Demos (socialists) regarding their politics. This is why I am only "philosophically" Libertarian because what is being advocated currently is NOT Libertarianism. In many ways the LP is like the ACLU in that they profess to be one thing and actually something completely different and at times completely at odds with their own purported values.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:03:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By man_of_few_words:
The Government does not have license to regulate something simply because it isnt in the Constitution. Remember - The Constitution delegates power to the Feds, reserves power to the states and to the people.



Bingo. A person who can read.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:04:45 AM EDT
Interesting case since people do that with dogs all the time.

And I don't see counties shotting geese because they are befouling parks & cemetaries.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:16:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
Interesting case since people do that with dogs all the time.

And I don't see counties shotting geese because they are befouling parks & cemetaries.



i believe the issue is more about disease and the attraction of rodents than anything. things like dysentary and mice show up around filth.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:20:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:
True Libertarianism is only successful as a thought experiment, much like Communism.

Sorry if that seems like a troll, but I've given it a lot of thought. Society simply doesn't work the way Libertarians wish it would.



I think you are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy (no rules).

Libertarianism is basically governed by the Constitution. The idea is to restore the "liberties" as outlined and defined by the Constitution. It is NOT a "no rules" concept.




That is not the way is movement is progressing. The Libertarian ranks are now filled with self-centered egoists who are trying to morph the libertarian ideals into what I call "Anarchy with a Conscience".

Honestly, I considered myself a Libertarian for a long time until I started interacting with them on the internet and found than many of them were just fucking nuts, and their rants sound as crazy as the stuff I could read at DU any day of the week. So I guess I'm some kind of Republican/Libertarian Hybrid.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:20:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:

Originally Posted By SS109:
Interesting case since people do that with dogs all the time.

And I don't see counties shotting geese because they are befouling parks & cemetaries.



i believe the issue is more about disease and the attraction of rodents than anything. things like dysentary and mice show up around filth.



I dunno about you, but Ive never seen mice or rats attracted to feces.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:42:10 AM EDT
I think the root problem that is inherent in the pure libertarian/republican/conservative ideal is that individuals that support these movements want to be individuals. And if you split hairs too much, each individual will be a party unto himself and that only promotes division (political), but individual freedom.

The greatest enemy is that the opposing socialist/democratic/liberal mindset is the collective. There they will always stand together and have their numbers if the individuals have their way too far and get split down to the individual level.

This is the unavoidable circumstance that has to be recognized for the people that promote the individualist views of government.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 11:08:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:

No, actually, I'm going straight from what I've read on the Libertarian Party's website.

Great thought experiment - and it would honestly be great if it worked like they wanted to in reality - but where the rubber meets the road, it simply doesn't work.



And there is another problem, the current LP. They aren't exactly Libertarians anymore.

Kinda like how the Democrats are really Socialsists and Republicans are now Democrats, the current Libertarians are now fucking nuts in many cases. Too many only care about legalizing weed and are really Demos (socialists) regarding their politics. This is why I am only "philosophically" Libertarian because what is being advocated currently is NOT Libertarianism. In many ways the LP is like the ACLU in that they profess to be one thing and actually something completely different and at times completely at odds with their own purported values.



Ack! Any links to websites with the real tenets of Libertarianism?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 11:11:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:

Originally Posted By SS109:
Interesting case since people do that with dogs all the time.

And I don't see counties shotting geese because they are befouling parks & cemetaries.



i believe the issue is more about disease and the attraction of rodents than anything. things like dysentary and mice show up around filth.



I dunno about you, but Ive never seen mice or rats attracted to feces.



i've never lived anywhere that there was a lot of feces, actually. i've lived in areas where there was some form of sanitation, whether municipal water treatement or septic tanks. I have always understood that the reasoning was disease and pests. as far as animal crap v. human crap, it seems that there are fewer animals and they disperse their waste over a wide geographical range whereas we live in one place and cannot do the same.

either way, the way people live packed together, throwing crap in your yard is disgusting and is rightly prohibited.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 12:33:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MudBug:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:
True Libertarianism is only successful as a thought experiment, much like Communism.

Sorry if that seems like a troll, but I've given it a lot of thought. Society simply doesn't work the way Libertarians wish it would.



I think you are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy (no rules).

Libertarianism is basically governed by the Constitution. The idea is to restore the "liberties" as outlined and defined by the Constitution. It is NOT a "no rules" concept.




That is not the way is movement is progressing. The Libertarian ranks are now filled with self-centered egoists who are trying to morph the libertarian ideals into what I call "Anarchy with a Conscience".

Honestly, I considered myself a Libertarian for a long time until I started interacting with them on the internet and found than many of them were just fucking nuts, and their rants sound as crazy as the stuff I could read at DU any day of the week. So I guess I'm some kind of Republican/Libertarian Hybrid.



I noted that a few posts later.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 12:37:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:

No, actually, I'm going straight from what I've read on the Libertarian Party's website.

Great thought experiment - and it would honestly be great if it worked like they wanted to in reality - but where the rubber meets the road, it simply doesn't work.



And there is another problem, the current LP. They aren't exactly Libertarians anymore.

Kinda like how the Democrats are really Socialsists and Republicans are now Democrats, the current Libertarians are now fucking nuts in many cases. Too many only care about legalizing weed and are really Demos (socialists) regarding their politics. This is why I am only "philosophically" Libertarian because what is being advocated currently is NOT Libertarianism. In many ways the LP is like the ACLU in that they profess to be one thing and actually something completely different and at times completely at odds with their own purported values.



Ack! Any links to websites with the real tenets of Libertarianism?



The US Constitution.

Sadly that isn't really their main focus anymore.

The LP constituency is getting pretty nuts, fortunately the few successful candidates are pretty normal and seem to represent the values of real Libertarianism. But they are an impossible minority (likely due to the radical elements of the LP) and mostly serve only as corrective steering for the government.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:01:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By macman37:

No, actually, I'm going straight from what I've read on the Libertarian Party's website.

Great thought experiment - and it would honestly be great if it worked like they wanted to in reality - but where the rubber meets the road, it simply doesn't work.



And there is another problem, the current LP. They aren't exactly Libertarians anymore.

Kinda like how the Democrats are really Socialsists and Republicans are now Democrats, the current Libertarians are now fucking nuts in many cases. Too many only care about legalizing weed and are really Demos (socialists) regarding their politics. This is why I am only "philosophically" Libertarian because what is being advocated currently is NOT Libertarianism. In many ways the LP is like the ACLU in that they profess to be one thing and actually something completely different and at times completely at odds with their own purported values.



Ack! Any links to websites with the real tenets of Libertarianism?



The US Constitution.

Sadly that isn't really their main focus anymore.

The LP constituency is getting pretty nuts, fortunately the few successful candidates are pretty normal and seem to represent the values of real Libertarianism. But they are an impossible minority (likely due to the radical elements of the LP) and mostly serve only as corrective steering for the government.



what the difference between the libertarians and the constitution party?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:55:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:


what the difference between the libertarians and the constitution party?



Suppossedly or actually?

Suppossedly almost nothing. If you ask they both claim to want a country and a government of the type intended and stated by the Constitution.

But in actuality they are mostly an agenda group seeking to establish a Christian based country and government.

Both groups claim to be inerested ONLY in personal liberty, but in actuality seem more concerned with promoting their own vision of what that is, even at the expense of the personal liberties of others.
Top Top