For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[Lex Concord]

Again, you seem to have trouble reading my posts and understanding what I'm saying. <sigh>.

As I said before at least the Republican platform doesn't call for drug legalization, homosexual rights, and open borders.

So, although they don't necessarily reflect everything I believe, at least they aren't trying to make a bad situation worse as the Libertarians are doing with their positions.

Since the goal was to get Obama out of office, I voted for the person who I thought had the best chance of doing that.

The funny thing is, I consider myself primarily a Libertarian. I just don't agree with the Libertarian Party platform.

They should be working to dismantle the problems in the current system and reestablish true rights for people, like property rights and freedom of association, instead of wasting time trying to invent "rights" for homosexuals and dope heads.

That's where you lose people. The ability to use cannabis or whatever else without fear of being beaten to a pulp and/or thrown into a cage is very clearly a property rights issue, and returning people to a state in which they are able to do so is not invention of new rights, but recognition of an existing right.

While I agree that government assistance for some clown who things he can bong up and XBox his way through life should be zero on all fronts (I'm sure you're thinking about their tax exemptions now, but I believe in a 0% income tax, so it would be okay).

The biggest problem is that so many of the issues we have with government have grown massive very slowly, incrementally, over a large period of time. In order to put everything right, it would take enough politicians with the stones to remove any one of the millions of affronts to liberty currently on the books, the brains to realize just how many there are and how interconnected they are, and the wisdom to pull of dismantling most or all of them at once. Until someone figures that out, we are left with a sort of "reverse incrementalism" wherein people may be inclined to accept whatever gains in the right direction are made.

 

[Liberty1911]

So if only republican voters held their candidates to the same standards they hold libertarian candidates. Maybe the repubs would quit getting their asses handed to them in future elections. Hell of a standard there. Your name isn't Obama? You got my vote.

Reagan
Bush Sr
Dole
Bush Jr.
McCain
Romney

Great trend there.

I'll let you take that up with the Republicans. I didn't vote for half the people on that list.

And yes, most of my votes are a choice between the lessor of two evils, which is no less valid than your reasons for voting. Disparaging other people's choices isn't very Libertarian.

 

[Lex Concord]

That's what I mean by "legislation". Legislation repealing existing legislation that forces me to take care of others, or infringes on my rights, when new "rights" are created.

How are rights created? They exist. The law respects them or it doesn't. It infringes upon them or it doesn't. No law creates rights. Many laws assign privileges (aka the spoils of plunder)...maybe this is what you're thinking of?

 

[hornadylnl]

That's where you lose people. The ability to use cannabis or whatever else without fear of being beaten to a pulp and/or thrown into a cage is very clearly a property rights issue, and returning people to a state in which they are able to do so is not invention of new rights, but recognition of an existing right.

While I agree that government assistance for some clown who things he can bong up and XBox his way through life should be zero on all fronts (I'm sure you're thinking about their tax exemptions now, but I believe in a 0% income tax, so it would be okay).

The biggest problem is that so many of the issues we have with government have grown massive very slowly, incrementally, over a large period of time. In order to put everything right, it would take enough politicians with the stones to remove any one of the millions of affronts to liberty currently on the books, the brains to realize just how many there are and how interconnected they are, and the wisdom to pull of dismantling most or all of them at once. Until someone figures that out, we are left with a sort of "reverse incrementalism" wherein people may be inclined to accept whatever gains in the right direction are made.

You mean my lungs are my property and I have a right to put into them what I want?

 

[Lex Concord]

I'll let you take that up with the Republicans. I didn't vote for half the people on that list.

And yes, most of my votes are a choice between the lessor of two evils, which is no less valid than your reasons for voting. Disparaging other people's choices isn't very Libertarian.

And now this thread has come full circle

 

[Lex Concord]

You mean my lungs are my property and I have a right to put into them what I want?

That's one truth in the tip of the iceberg.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'll let you take that up with the Republicans. I didn't vote for half the people on that list.

And yes, most of my votes are a choice between the lessor of two evils, which is no less valid than your reasons for voting. Disparaging other people's choices isn't very Libertarian.

Why do you hold libertarians in contempt for a particular position while voting for candidates who hold the same position? Libertarians are bad for not putting forth legislation to end the social safety net but nowhere have I seen you hold repubs in the same level of contempt that you hold libertarians.

What liberties does Romney support that earned your vote?

 

[Liberty1911]

That's where you lose people. The ability to use cannabis or whatever else without fear of being beaten to a pulp and/or thrown into a cage is very clearly a property rights issue, and returning people to a state in which they are able to do so is not invention of new rights, but recognition of an existing right.

While I agree that government assistance for some clown who things he can bong up and XBox his way through life should be zero on all fronts (I'm sure you're thinking about their tax exemptions now, but I believe in a 0% income tax, so it would be okay).

The biggest problem is that so many of the issues we have with government have grown massive very slowly, incrementally, over a large period of time. In order to put everything right, it would take enough politicians with the stones to remove any one of the millions of affronts to liberty currently on the books, the brains to realize just how many there are and how interconnected they are, and the wisdom to pull of dismantling most or all of them at once. Until someone figures that out, we are left with a sort of "reverse incrementalism" wherein people may be inclined to accept whatever gains in the right direction are made.

I understand your point. It was well stated in fact.

I actually don't care if people smoke dope, or drink bleach for that matter. I just don't want to be responsible for their poor choices.

I'd rather work toward dismantling the current affronts to liberty in the system instead of advocating additional irresponsible behavior.

 

[Liberty1911]

Why do you hold libertarians in contempt for a particular position while voting for candidates who hold the same position? Libertarians are bad for not putting forth legislation to end the social safety net but nowhere have I seen you hold repubs in the same level of contempt that you hold libertarians.

What liberties does Romney support that earned your vote?

We're just going in circles now. I've already explained the platform differences.

 

[Liberty1911]

How are rights created? They exist. The law respects them or it doesn't. It infringes upon them or it doesn't. No law creates rights. Many laws assign privileges (aka the spoils of plunder)...maybe this is what you're thinking of?

Exactly my point. Homosexual marriage isn't a "right". However, once created, it will be touted as such and infringe on actual rights, like freedom of association.

 

[IndyDave1776]

How are rights created? They exist. The law respects them or it doesn't. It infringes upon them or it doesn't. No law creates rights. Many laws assign privileges (aka the spoils of plunder)...maybe this is what you're thinking of?

I think you missed the significance of the quotation marks around the word 'rights', and yes, your characterization of "rights" in quotation marks is absolutely correct. I hate to see a good point get derailed over sarcasm being misinterpreted.

 

[hornadylnl]

I understand your point. It was well stated in fact.

I actually don't care if people smoke dope, or drink bleach for that matter. I just don't want to be responsible for their poor choices.

I'd rather work toward dismantling the current affronts to liberty in the system instead of advocating additional irresponsible behavior.

What exactly are you doing to that end and how is it working? Seriously, I'd like to know so I can get on board. You keep stating you want to dismantle current affronts to liberty. So do I. You believe the libertarian party isn't the solution. What is? Anybody but Obama?

 

[Liberty1911]

What exactly are you doing to that end and how is it working? Seriously, I'd like to know so I can get on board. You keep stating you want to dismantle current affronts to liberty. So do I. You believe the libertarian party isn't the solution. What is? Anybody but Obama?

I think the Tea Party has done the most good in that area. I didn't say perfect, I said the most good.

The "problem" with the Tea Party is that many of the candidates are pro life Christians.

That is a valid Constitutional position, or more specifically, the Right to Life is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately, far too many people have an irrational zeal to make sure women are free to slaughter unborn children, so to them, pro life Christian candidates are like a crosses to a vampire.

The funny thing is, people seem to hate Christians more that statists, even though their Constitutional freedoms would be better protected under a pro life Christian.

Our recent Indiana Senate election bears this out.

 

[Lex Concord]

I think you missed the significance of the quotation marks around the word 'rights', and yes, your characterization of "rights" in quotation marks is absolutely correct. I hate to see a good point get derailed over sarcasm being misinterpreted.

No, I didn't miss the significance of the quotation marks...I missed them altogether

That said, I think Liberty1911 and I most certainly understand each other and, for the most part, are in agreement on principles.

The trick is how to yank the whole rug out from under the government and the freeloaders at the same time.

If you can't figure that out, your choices are more incremental steps toward totalitarianism, or incremental steps back toward a state of liberty. Sometimes those steps will be out of balance, though not all of them must be.

 

[mrjarrell]

Every American has the right to be treated equally before the law. That includes the 14th Amendment, which libertarians cite as the reason for granting gays the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals where marriage is concerned. While getting government out of the marriage equation is the best solution, until that day gays should be treated equally before the law, if we are to be a nation of laws. They should be accorded the same benefits as straights in the marriage contract. That's what libertarians want.

 

[Liberty1911]

Every American has the right to be treated equally before the law. That includes the 14th Amendment, which libertarians cite as the reason for granting gays the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals where marriage is concerned. While getting government out of the marriage equation is the best solution, until that day gays should be treated equally before the law, if we are to be a nation of laws. They should be accorded the same benefits as straights in the marriage contract. That's what libertarians want.

You'll have to define marriage first.

What exactly is it?

 

[Lex Concord]

You'll have to define marriage first.

What exactly is it?

According to the LP, no government has a right to do so.

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

While I understand the mindset of incrementalism toward liberty, as opposed to incrementalism toward totalitarianism, it would be nice to the plank better highlight the principle of eliminating government involvement in the institution with a statement about that being the ideal. The problem with granting the same privileges to same sex couples is that it necessarily results in the infliction of damage against freedoms held by others.

Take health care, for instance. I've had employers who covered same sex couples; while there are intricacies and entanglements, they have done this by choice; that is their prerogative. If federal rules officially recognized a same-sex marriage, then many employers who have heretofore not made such a choice, would likely be forced to cover such couples against their will.

This is an example of government picking winners and losers. The homosexual couples win by having their privileges upped to match those of the heterosexual couples, but the business owners who would prefer not to cover homosexual couples now have no choice.

Further, it would be great to see the subsidies that are given for remaining out of wedlock (assuming we are going to keep it...if not, they would necessarily go away via elimination of the core condition) be stricken from the books post haste.

 

[Liberty1911]

The problem with granting the same privileges to same sex couples is that it necessarily results in the infliction of damage against freedoms held by others.

Exactly my point, and consequently, supporting LP positions is doing nothing more than infringing on the rights of some, to create the "rights" of others.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think the Tea Party has done the most good in that area. I didn't say perfect, I said the most good.

The "problem" with the Tea Party is that many of the candidates are pro life Christians.

That is a valid Constitutional position, or more specifically, the Right to Life is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately, far too many people have an irrational zeal to make sure women are free to slaughter unborn children, so to them, pro life Christian candidates are like a crosses to a vampire.

The funny thing is, people seem to hate Christians more that statists, even though their Constitutional freedoms would be better protected under a pro life Christian.

Our recent Indiana Senate election bears this out.

Like these 38 tea partiers who voted to punt the senate's role of advise and consent? S 679 | U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington PostThe Washington Post

 

[Lex Concord]

Exactly my point, and consequently, supporting LP positions is doing nothing more than infringing on the rights of some, to create the "rights" of others.

But, if you join the party and work to change it from the inside....