Republicans Vs. Republican TEA Partiers

[Ted]

The argument taking place is whether or not personal morality should be the basis for law. Rambone made the argument that it shouldn't, as did I.

nawainwright implied that it should be. His implication was that if we don't use morality as a basis for law, then things like murder would be legal, hence the 'anarchy' argument.

My response was that personal morality doesn't have to be the basis for law in order for murder to be legal. Initiation of force is a superior standard, and includes violent acts such as murder.

Hopefully we are on the same page now.

I understood all that, but still don't understand your definition of murder with the word "initiation", when associated with "force".

I can't counter your argument, when I don't understand the basis for it.

 

[steveh_131]

I understood all that, but still don't understand your definition of murder with the word "initiation", when associated with "force".

I can't counter your argument, when I don't understand the basis for it.

Murder is an initiation of force, and therefore should be illegal.

Self defense is not an initiation of force, and therefore is not included.

 

[jamil]

The argument taking place is whether or not personal morality should be the basis for law. Rambone made the argument that it shouldn't, as did I.

nawainwright implied that it should be. His implication was that if we don't use morality as a basis for law, then things like murder would be legal, hence the 'anarchy' argument.

My response was that personal morality doesn't have to be the basis for law in order for murder to be legal. Initiation of force is a superior standard, and includes violent acts such as murder.

Hopefully we are on the same page now.

Murder is an initiation of force, and therefore should be illegal.

Self defense is not an initiation of force, and therefore is not included.

Ah, okay, I get it now. I've been trying to figure out why you say this stuff as if it were an obvious truism. So now after googling this a bit, it seems this is libertarian/objectivist doctrine; a religion unto itself. Now that I understand where you're coming from, no need to argue the matter further. It's pointless as you've no better standing for your opinion than a Christian advocating morality.

 

[Liberty1911]

Ah, okay, I get it now. I've been trying to figure out why you say this stuff as if it were an obvious truism. So now after googling this a bit, it seems this is libertarian/objectivist doctrine; a religion unto itself. Now that I understand where you're coming from, no need to argue the matter further. It's pointless as you've no better standing for your opinion than a Christian advocating morality.

Bingo! We have a winner!

 

[Expat]

Hopefully most of us can agree with Liberty1911. We should be Constitutionalists at a minimum. These great social debates should be done at the state and local level. The Federal government should have nothing to say on most of these matters.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hopefully most of us can agree with Liberty1911. We should be Constitutionalists at a minimum. These great social debates should be done at the state and local level. The Federal government should have nothing to say on most of these matters.

I could.

But there are some champions of liberty that are quite ok not letting the states "do what they want."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ah, okay, I get it now. I've been trying to figure out why you say this stuff as if it were an obvious truism. So now after googling this a bit, it seems this is libertarian/objectivist doctrine; a religion unto itself. Now that I understand where you're coming from, no need to argue the matter further. It's pointless as you've no better standing for your opinion than a Christian advocating morality.

And like all "religions" the believers think theirs is the only truth and want to force it on everybody else.

 

[Roscoe38]

Not Voting

Great. Looks like I can resume not voting for republicans again.

And that would accomplish what?
Eight more years of the same old same old ****.

 

[steveh_131]

I could.

But there are some champions of liberty that are quite ok not letting the states "do what they want."

I don't know any libertarians who think that.

They may criticize the states for bad policy, but they would never advocate this being restricted by the federal government.

And like all "religions" the believers think theirs is the only truth and want to force it on everybody else.

It's not a 'religion'. I have a religion.

It's simply a better system of governance than statism, in my opinion. And I'm not forcing it on anyone, unless stating my opinions on a forum is force.

 

[steveh_131]

Ah, okay, I get it now. I've been trying to figure out why you say this stuff as if it were an obvious truism. So now after googling this a bit, it seems this is libertarian/objectivist doctrine; a religion unto itself. Now that I understand where you're coming from, no need to argue the matter further. It's pointless as you've no better standing for your opinion than a Christian advocating morality.

Ahh, in 5 minutes of google you've gone from complete ignorance on the subject to complete knowledge. Congratulations.

 

[Liberty1911]

And that would accomplish what?
Eight more years of the same old same old ****.

When Republicans and Democrats are indistinguishable, you don't accomplish anything by voting.

We had a much larger expansion of government and trampling of freedom under GWB than Clinton.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't know any libertarians who think that.

They may criticize the states for bad policy, but they would never advocate this being restricted by the federal government.

Says the man who wants the Federal government to use the 14th amendment to force states to recognize homosexual marriage.

 

[jamil]

Ahh, in 5 minutes of google you've gone from complete ignorance on the subject to complete knowledge. Congratulations.

Not exactly. I've read, rejected, and forgot about the libertarian non-aggressive principle, so I did not make the connection when you invoked the phrase "Initiation of Force". (BTW, the broader definition of "force" was the semantic issue I had earlier, not the "initiation" part). So yes, googling IoF gave me an "ah" moment. Not exactly going from complete ignorance to complete knowledge in 5 minutes, but a reconnection.

Oh, gosh. Here we go again. Remember that the word 'initiation' also appears in the phrase. It's not just 'force'. It's 'initiation of force'.

Never mind, I give up.

It's not a 'religion'. I have a religion.

It's simply a better system of governance than statism, in my opinion. And I'm not forcing it on anyone, unless stating my opinions on a forum is force.

So, anything but your ideology is state-ism. Wow. Way to opine.

To the point, no it's not a religion, it's a philosophy and an ideology. It's not a truism either, a fact you've just acknowledged as your opinion. But excluding all the supernatural stuff, religion, philosophy, and ideology are functionally the same. With each, doctrinal "better" is in the mind of the believer. And also like religion, it's pointless to argue doctrine with the ideologically entrenched.

Though you've now acknowledged with words that this is merely your opinion, to GFGT's point, the spirit with which you've expressed it has all the attributes of religious zealotry. Behaving like dissenters are stupid, if the term "force" may be so broadened, is a form thereof.

Religion, philosophy, ideology, doctrine, all ideas, mostly unprovable, and thus not really more than opinion. If it were as factually certain as the spirit with which you've express it, every reasoning person could be convinced with reasonable arguments, and see the "better-ness" of your thinking.

 

[Ted]

Ahh, in 5 minutes of google you've gone from complete ignorance on the subject to complete knowledge. Congratulations.

Sorry to break it to you, but your definition doesn't fit with the accepted definition.

Initiation of force, defined: The start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint.

 

[jamil]

Sorry to break it to you, but your definition doesn't fit with the accepted definition.

Well that's what I thought when he first used IoF. I made the mistake of taking the words to mean what they mean, and didn't make the connection that it's part of libertarian doctrine. They expand "force" to mean actions that affect an individual's person or property that is against his or her will.

 

[Ted]

Well that's what I thought when he first used IoF. I made the mistake of taking the words to mean what they mean, and didn't make the connection that it's part of libertarian doctrine. They expand "force" to mean actions that affect an individual's person or property that is against his or her will.

Yeah, I know.

I also know that the Westboro Baptist Church has some strange definitions of commonly utilized words and phrases too. Though I wouldn't classify them as appropriately used either.

My point is that anyone can twist the meaning of words to fit their twisted view. This is the reason why "God loves dead soldiers."

 

[steveh_131]

Sorry to break it to you, but your definition doesn't fit with the accepted definition.

What? Yes it does. Self defense does not qualify as 'initiation of force' in the context that it is being used by libertarians.

Says the man who wants the Federal government to use the 14th amendment to force states to recognize homosexual marriage.

Please, please quote anywhere that I have ever advocated federal force against the states. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Not exactly. I've read, rejected, and forgot about the libertarian non-aggressive principle, so I did not make the connection when you invoked the phrase "Initiation of Force". (BTW, the broader definition of "force" was the semantic issue I had earlier, not the "initiation" part). So yes, googling IoF gave me an "ah" moment. Not exactly going from complete ignorance to complete knowledge in 5 minutes, but a reconnection.

Fair enough.

Yeah, I know.

I also know that the Westboro Baptist Church has some strange definitions of commonly utilized words and phrases too. Though I wouldn't classify them as appropriately used either.

My point is that anyone can twist the meaning of words to fit their twisted view. This is the reason why "God loves dead soldiers."

Wow. Ok.

If someone tries to kill you, and you respond with force, you didn't initiate that force. The person trying to kill you did.

This is the important distinction. Both are force. Only one is initiated.

You're going to compare this to Westboro Baptist Church? Are you high?

 

[Liberty1911]

Please, please quote anywhere that I have ever advocated federal force against the states. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Post 51 of this thread, discussing the 14A. You agreed people should be "treated equally under the law". 14A is Federal force. That's a ridiculous statement, because they already are, not to mention, marriage isn't a Federal issue anyway, but that's another discussion.


I'm going to have to put you in the same category as lucky4034 - not worth responding to generally. I don't put anyone on ignore, but there are a couple of people here who do nothing to further debate, they just make ridiculous statements and accusations, then constantly challenge people to "prove it". Whatever

It's not worth my time anymore but you're welcome to have a nice day.

 

[steveh_131]

Post 51 of this thread, discussing the 14A. You agreed people should be "treated equally under the law". 14A is Federal force. That's a ridiculous statement, because they already are, not to mention, marriage isn't a Federal issue anyway, but that's another discussion.


I'm going to have to put you in the same category as lucky4034 - not worth responding to generally. I don't put anyone on ignore, but there are a couple of people here who do nothing to further debate, they just make ridiculous statements and accusations, then constantly challenge people to "prove it". Whatever

It's not worth my time anymore but you're welcome to have a nice day.

Sorry, I missed the part about the 14A and that isn't what I was agreeing with.

I do think it should ultimately be left up to the states.

I would be interested to see the quote where Gary Johnson said that the Feds should intervene. I'd like to read his reasoning.

 

[steveh_131]

And goodbye, old friend. I'll genuinely miss you. There is a severe shortage of people around here with your viewpoint to debate with.

Oh, wait.