For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[hornadylnl]

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



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.

I support an employers right not to provide insurance at all. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide insurance for anyone. Insurance should not be forced to cover pre existing conditions but they're now a protected class.

 

[HenryWallace]

I've been so overly confused about the word "Libertarian". My view was personal freedom. Freedom to choose. Freedom to live my life without violating someone else'. Does the word liberty mean anything more or less than just that? Why should my life be affected by someone else'? Especially when I want to live self sufficiently, outside of influence. Borderline Amish. But not as cool of a hat.

 

[lucky4034]

F

If you legalize drugs, then more people will be on "disability" etc. If you legalize homosexual marriage, then you automatically create yet another protected class that gets to clog up the system with law suits whenever they come across someone who doesn't agree with their "freedom".

What? How does legalizing drugs equate to more people being disabled? And why in the hell is the government have their hands in marriage anyway?

I'm going to have to read back over this thread to see if I missed something...

Seems to me that you simply disagree with homosexual marriage and drug use for personal reasons.... For the life of me I can't understand how you are trying to equate these with perpetuating socialism?

 

[Lex Concord]

I support an employers right not to provide insurance at all. Employers shouldn't be forced to provide insurance for anyone. Insurance should not be forced to cover pre existing conditions but they're now a protected class.

Couldn't agree more...just illustrating the mangled surface of the Gordian knot that is our system of entitlements, coercions, and confiscations. It is very deep and twisted, and whosoever looseth the knot shall have rule of all Asia!

 

[Liberty1911]

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

87% of D's supported it, 40% of R's, and 35% of Tea party endorsed.

This would fall under the "not perfect but most good" comment I made above.

If you don't like my idea, let's hear yours.

If we want to dismantle the unconstitutional aspects of the current system, how do we go about that? What party/people should we be supporting?

What are you doing to further the cause of Liberty and Constitutionalism?

 

[hornadylnl]

87% of D's supported it, 40% of R's, and 35% of Tea party endorsed.

This would fall under the "not perfect but most good" comment I made above.

If you don't like my idea, let's hear yours.

If we want to dismantle the unconstitutional aspects of the current system, how do we go about that? What party/people should we be supporting?

What are you doing to further the cause of Liberty and Constitutionalism?

I vote libertarian. You say it's not the answer, the tea party is. What inroads are they making? How many tea party types were booted from committees by the repub party recently? I was at the first tea party rally in Chicago. It was nothing like the Sarah Palin tea party of today.

 

[poptab]

I vote libertarian. You say it's not the answer, the tea party is. What inroads are they making? How many tea party types were booted from committees by the repub party recently? I was at the first tea party rally in Chicago. It was nothing like the Sarah Palin tea party of today.

You went to --itcago?!!

 

[hornadylnl]

You went to --itcago?!!

I know, right? But there weren't any of these signs at that tea party.

 

[Liberty1911]

I vote libertarian. You say it's not the answer, the tea party is. What inroads are they making? How many tea party types were booted from committees by the repub party recently? I was at the first tea party rally in Chicago. It was nothing like the Sarah Palin tea party of today.

Well, as we've seen, Libertarians want to trade the rights of some to invent "rights" for others. That's clearly not the answer.

As to the inroads, at least Tea Party people get elected. How many Libertarian party members do you have in Congress?

That would be zero. You can't influence anything if you're not there to begin with.

At least candidates I support are in the game, and of those who are in the game, the Tea Party candidates are the ones most likely to preserve your Constitutional rights.

If your answer is to vote Libertarian, then you've accomplished nothing. Excellent work.

 

[poptab]

Well, as we've seen, Libertarians want to trade the rights of some to invent "rights" for others. That's clearly not the answer.

I dont see how you reached that conclusion.

 

[hornadylnl]

Well, as we've seen, Libertarians want to trade the rights of some to invent "rights" for others. That's clearly not the answer.

As to the inroads, at least Tea Party people get elected. How many Libertarian party members do you have in Congress?

That would be zero. You can't influence anything if you're not there to begin with.

At least candidates I support are in the game, and of those who are in the game, the Tea Party candidates are the ones most likely to preserve your Constitutional rights.

If your answer is to vote Libertarian, then you've accomplished nothing. Excellent work.

It was those libertarians who brought us the parrot act and tsa. Was government bigger or smaller in January 2009 than in January 2001?

Did you support the parking lot bill that granted employees the right to keep guns in their vehicles?

 

[Liberty1911]

It was those libertarians who brought us the parrot act and tsa. Was government bigger or smaller in January 2009 than in January 2001?

Did you support the parking lot bill that granted employees the right to keep guns in their vehicles?

Wasn't the Tea Party either.

You keep trying to hang the Republicans around my neck, but it's not going to work.

You asked what I think the solution is and I gave you the best answer I can come up with, an answer that has at least seen some influence.

You have nothing.

At least Ron Paul was smart enough to get in the game. Did you vote for him?

 

[lucky4034]

Well, as we've seen, Libertarians want to trade the rights of some to invent "rights" for others. That's clearly not the answer.

You keep making these ridiculous statements, but fail to ever specify what in the hell you are talking about. Give some examples and then back them up.

So far we have... "legalizing drugs increases disability" and "legalizing homosexual marriage creates another protected class."

HOW?

 

[hornadylnl]

Wasn't the Tea Party either.

You keep trying to hang the Republicans around my neck, but it's not going to work.

You asked what I think the solution is and I gave you the best answer I can come up with, an answer that has at least seen some influence.

You have nothing.

At least Ron Paul was smart enough to get in the game. Did you vote for him?

Yes, I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. The Republican Party changed the rules to shut him out. So just how "in the game" was he? A liberty minded candidate can't influence the repub party as evidenced by their treatment of Ron Paul and Boehner kicking congressman who don't toe the establishment line out of committees. An abused wife of an alcoholic stands a better chance of changing her husband.

 

[hornadylnl]

You keep making these ridiculous statements, but fail to ever specify what in the hell you are talking about. Give some examples and then back them up.

So far we have... "legalizing drugs increases disability" and "legalizing homosexual marriage creates another protected class."

HOW?

Because landlords won't be able to keep homosexuals from defiling their properties.

 

[Liberty1911]

Because landlords won't be able to keep homosexuals from defiling their properties.

Your statement seems to indicate you think landlords who don't wish to rent to homosexual couples are being unreasonable.

Judging other people's exercise of freedom doesn't seem to be keeping with libertarian sentiment.

I notice that a lot with "libertarians" though. They have their own set of "moral values" that they are just as eager to shove down the throats of others as they accuse others of doing to them.

So, I'll give you a chance to reestablish your libertarian principles.

Do you support government forcing landlords to rent to those they don't wish to rent to?

 

[Liberty1911]

Yes, I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. The Republican Party changed the rules to shut him out. So just how "in the game" was he? A liberty minded candidate can't influence the repub party as evidenced by their treatment of Ron Paul and Boehner kicking congressman who don't toe the establishment line out of committees. An abused wife of an alcoholic stands a better chance of changing her husband.

You voted for a Republican? Wow, I'm speechless. It sounds like you did the same thing you ridicule me for - supporting Tea Party candidates in the Republican party.

 

[steveh_131]

Do you support government forcing landlords to rent to those they don't wish to rent to?

Do you support imprisoning a human being because they possess a certain plant?

 

[steveh_131]

Judging other people's exercise of freedom doesn't seem to be keeping with libertarian sentiment.

I notice that a lot with "libertarians" though. They have their own set of "moral values" that they are just as eager to shove down the throats of others as they accuse others of doing to them.

This is exceptionally silly.

The libertarian ideal does not preclude morals or a vocal opposition to things that one might disagree with. I'm starting to question your understanding of libertarianism.

 

[Liberty1911]

Do you support imprisoning a human being because they possess a certain plant?

No. But I also don't support letting them smoke that plant if I have to be responsible in any way for the outcome of that action.

So here we are, stuck in this argument.

I realize that libertarians want freedom - NOW!

However, no one has come up with a way, in the current system, to insure that by granting freedom and "rights" to some, you aren't infringing on the freedom and rights of others.

Until you do, you simply aren't going to have my support for a free-for-all, that will cause responsible citizens to shoulder an increased burden for the irresponsible.

The burden we have is too much already. You should look at decreasing that, instead of adding more.