The Libertarian Party Race is Filling Up?

[BugI02]

I am not an anarcho capitalist. Minarchist, maybe. I am, however, an individualist. It's just a quote from Margaret Thatcher, which I formerly had in my sigline. The point of the quote is one that I've made over and over since I've been on INGO. I guess I can do it again, since it's been a year or two. People who've heard the spiel can scroll past or let their eyes glaze over.

There's no such thing as a society. "Society" is just a name we use to describe a collection of individuals who share some commonality. Maybe a border. Maybe an interest. There's a "gun" society, of sorts, for example. INGO is a type of society. But "societies" aren't monolithic entities that act as one. A society is comprised of individuals who act independently and are individually self/family motivated. Society isn't responsible for my family. I am. My wife is. Other individuals and families are responsible for their families. I'm not. My family is not. A government truly of the people isn't responsible for the decisions individuals and families make. It is only responsible for protecting individual rights. You can argue, if you want, that the child has an individual right to get the appropriate care, but you're not entitled to win that argument just because you make it.

And that general "society is not monolithic" world view in no way prohibits individuals from choosing to be a part of a nation, with a government. I am not against government, per se. I'm not against laws to prohibit violating rights. I'm even not against laws governing reasonable order.

As it applies to this, I don't mind a government truly of the people holding families responsible when they've actually caused harm, intentionally, or negligently. When Soteria doesn't grant safety in return for the cakes of goddesses, and the family neglects to get the needed transfusion, and the child dies because of that, go ahead and prosecute the parents.

Hear, hear! Inherent in True Liberty® is the right to make, for yourself and/or your family, decisions that others may see as wrong or in error

 

[Jludo]

Well, there it is. You can do anything you want - if it's 'for the children'

Example "We are instituting full firearms confiscation, for the children" (alternately, 'Think of the children')

See also "If it saves one life ... [Insert Liberty crushing, soul destroying government action HERE]

There should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that covers this formulation arising in discussion

You're conflating two different things. 'for the children' is a poor anecdotal argument used by many sides of many issues. Legally protecting children themselves is different.

 

[Jludo]

Hear, hear! Inherent in True Liberty® is the right to make, for yourself and/or your family, decisions that others may see as wrong or in error

We draw a line at some point, it's the spanking debate, disagreement about where to draw the line but I think most agree parents can't beat the **** out of their kids.

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 49638

 

[jamil]

View attachment 49638

While I would agree with that, the unsaid part of that is responsibility, accountability, and consequences.

 

[ATM]

While I would agree with that, the unsaid part of that is responsibility, accountability, and consequences.

Responsible was right there in the opening sentence.

 

[jamil]

Responsible was right there in the opening sentence.

Oh jeez. Nevermind. I don't know what I was reading but it certainly wasn't that.

 

[dusty88]

He's mastering the Trump multi-speak technique.

Actually I think he just has to work on his communication and that he (sadly) has to be aware of sound bites. The first time he gets asked about something he fumbles, generally says that the subject is worth talking about, or he might be open to it, or some idea makes sense, etc.... the type of things that can be taken out of context in either direction. Then he clarifies his position and occasionally does even change some of the details.

I've not seen him adamantly defend a position then flip-flop on it. For that matter, I can appreciate any politician changing their mind on an issue if they explain how their viewpoint evolved. When they go back and forth on multiple issues and/or they have no rationale for it OR it's obvious they just blow with the wind,, then they have zero trust. Obviously, how many times someone can change their mind or clarify a minor difference is going to be viewed subjectively and is probably subject to confirmation bias.

Some of the worst flip-flops I've seen are Romney and Trump on abortion. And Trump on his fence/immigration. He used "the wall" and anti-immigration stance to gain speciifc supporters now he is changing his mind.
Oh, and Trump on guns. He was in favor of gun control until suddenly he wasn't. Then he was in favor of no guns for the "no fly" list but it isn't clear why he changed his mind except that he probably had to because of the NRA endorsement. Honestly I would rather see someone (gun or anti-gun) change their mind about "the list" because they realize what an arbitrary list means. I actually respect the idea that the knee-jerk reaction is "people on the no-fly list shouldn't buy guns". And if they want a process for "the list" then I can appreciate having penalties/restrictions for people on that list.

An obvious example of people blowing with the wind is Clinton and Obama on gay marriage. They opposed it until the wind shifted just enough for it to be politically favorable to support it. Again, I have watched a lot of people including myself reach a point where they reasoned their way to accepting gay marriage. But those 2 were exposed to the rational arguments for decades then changed their mind.

And then there is the infamous "read my lips; no new taxes". Of course, I don't think that's the kind of promise that should be made in that format anyway. I think if you have a record of supporting lower taxes, that means something. But one can't predict what situation might occur that would cause a rational person to change their mind. The problem with that switch from Bush if you really can't tell if he had good reason for changing his mind of if he never cared about his word in the first place.

 

[dusty88]

I think vaccinates and disease management are one of the few areas where individual rights can truly conflict.

I would like everyone to have the personal choice of whether or not they vaccinate. When they want to send their kids to a school or other gathering place (never mind for the moment they are forced to help fund the school), they can put others at risk by not being vaccinated.

No vaccine is 100% effective. And of course your individual immunity might at times be challenged when you are tired or fighting off something else. So the more exposure you get at the wrong time, the more likely you are to contract an illness in spite of being vaccinated. A vaccinated person who contracts a disease may or may not briefly shed the virus while fighting off the disease. An unvaccinated person is more likely to walk around shedding the virus (polluting the population with the disease) for a longer period of time before he gets sick enough to stay home, or even infect a hospital where the real weakened immune systems are.

Having said all that, it's another issue like "bake the cake" that is being made into a huge controversy and not likely to be a presidential issue at all.

I think Johnson is the least likely to sign any sort of order mandating vaccines for anyone. It would take an extreme disease for him to do that. I can base that on his record and fairly consistent positions of not wanting unnecessary laws, even if he views "cake-baking" differently than I do.

Both of the Clumps show an overwhelming interest in forcing their will on others, just arguing over what that will should be.

 

[dusty88]

So on a tangent, if I have my children vaccinated and you do not; how is your choice affecting anyone other than you or other folks who have opted not to vaccinate. If there is a measles outbreak in the school is not my child protected? Isn't that the point of opting in for vaccination?

Would not a true Libertarian support your right to make a personal choice that does not potentially harm others (except others who have opted out, as already mentioned). If you are aware of a risk and decide to take it, what role does government legitimately have?

Let me tell you what happens in a dog shelter or boarding facility in 3 scenarios: disease exposure where almost everyone is vaccinated, disease exposure where some are vaccinated, and disease exposure where none are vaccinated.

If a serious disease hits an environment like a kennel (or a school, because both are germ factories) pretty much everyone gets sick and dies (assuming it's a fatal disease). The disease will often be more virulent due to the concentration in the environment.

If you have the same outbreak at a kennel where vaccination was required, many of the dogs might get a mild illness, because that's in some cases how vaccines work (your immune system is "ready" but the disease might still make you feel a bit ill while you battle it). This process also still means the dog might take the illness home and there is a chance of them spreading it to other dogs in the house, but less so in the neighborhood because the illness is pretty brief. It usually dies out in such a situation. This also really helps out the weak or older dog's chances because the less dogs that are spreading the virus and the less number of days they are spreading it reduces everyone's exposure.

If you have one dog at kennel 2 who wasn't really immune (maybe he just got the vaccine the day before and it isn't working yet, or he just didn't get good immunity from the vaccine) he's going to be the really ill one at the kennel who might spread it to a lot more dogs before everyone realizes there is a contagious disease going around. Now, add 3 or 4 dogs like that (because more people wanted to get around the requirements) and you start to really increase the chance of a more serious outbreak.

Some viruses also mutate. When you keep spreading them around a vaccinated population, you may be more likely to have a mutated version take off. if you can get a full population vaccinated you might eradicate them either permanently or for a long time period (not every disease, but possible with some depending how they are transmitted).

This issue would be a lot easier for me as a libertarian if we weren't all forced to pay for public school. If you can't afford private school or to homeschool, you then in turn have to follow more rules of the public school, which I don't like.

 

[dusty88]

That is like advocating anticipatory surrender as a way to prevent war.... it works great if the only goal is to avoid war but loses sight of some other rather important issues. Maintaining our freedom and sovereignty are my main focuses so the logic of our border problems being caused by enforcement of our immigration and drug laws is rather lost on me.

Do those immigration and drug laws do anything for our freedom and sovereignty?
If the government weren't trying to control the market and redistribute wealth, I don't think we'd be attracting so many immigrants. And if we do, without government handouts, still need immigrant workers, then why stop them? Immigrants on the whole have been a benefit to our society and how most of us got here. If you are dealing with a normal market (IOW makign it EASY for those who actually want to work to get here) then security against the criminals becomes much easier.

The drug war creates another black market and huge crime syndicates of its own. So perhaps we are actually creating the security problem with our laws and thereby making it impossible to have a secure border.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Indiana Libertarian congressional candidate eyes second district seat - ABC57 News

 

[Jludo]

I've seen/heard more Johnson Weld ads down here in Florida than I've heard Trump or Clinton.

 

[dusty88]

I've seen/heard more Johnson Weld ads down here in Florida than I've heard Trump or Clinton.

Well they are trying to bring their poll numbers up for the debates. Maybe old people answer their phone more often?

 

[Jludo]

Well they are trying to bring their poll numbers up for the debates. Maybe old people answer their phone more often?

Ya I don't get it, any reason to target Florida? Does swing state matter to libertarians?

 

[nate77]

I've seen/heard more Johnson Weld ads down here in Florida than I've heard Trump or Clinton.

Putting all that big Koch money to good use.

 

[nate77]

Johnson, the social justice warrior candidate.

Watch: Gary Johnson Gets Triggered Over Term 'Illegal Immigrant' » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[jamil]

Johnson, the social justice warrior candidate.

Watch: Gary Johnson Gets Triggered Over Term 'Illegal Immigrant' » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Because "appropriate" > constitutional.

 

[nate77]

Because "appropriate" > constitutional.

In some circles, yes.

 

[jamil]

Bsically there are three Democrats running for president now.