It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So where are the conservative and libertarian utopias?

page: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The Original Poster said 'So where are the conservative and libertarian utopias?' There are no utopias, period, anywhere on the planet. He could have said, 'show me the magical unicorn forest'. It was a straw man.

I think the problem is on the receiving end.


Then what is the opposite of your statement? What are unfree people capable of doing?

Doesn't matter, I'm not talking about them. Insert whatever you want, it doesn't affect my premise.


Taking advantage of the system is not 'conspiring' and this activity takes place in all political systems.

Symantics. Taking advantage of a system usually involves "conspiring". You infer all over the place, except where it's inconvenient for your argument.


edit on 5-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
I think the problem is on the receiving end.


Your opinion is irrelevant, his actions are what matter.


Doesn't matter, I'm not talking about them. Insert whatever you want, it doesn't affect my premise.


It does, whether you wish to avoid the implications or not.


Symantics. Taking advantage of a system usually involves "conspiring". You infer all over the place, except where it's inconvenient for your argument.


Which would disprove your maxim that 'free people are free to conspire' as, if there are less laws, there are less opportunities to 'conspire' to take advantage of.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Your opinion is irrelevant, his actions are what matter.

I was talking about your actions. You have gone on for pages agruing only to end up saying what the OP was inferring, libertarianism has never resulted in utopias.


It does, whether you wish to avoid the implications or not.

Prove it?

Free people are free to conspire.

Oppressed people are [insert whatever you want here]

Then post the completed latter sentence that alters the meaning of the former.


Which would disprove your maxim that 'free people are free to conspire' as, if there are less laws, there are less opportunities to 'conspire' to take advantage of.

Conspiring doesn't require laws or a system. Two people on a deserted island can conspire against a third. Doesn't get much freer than that and the opportunity to conspire is still there.
edit on 5-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

I was talking about your actions. You have gone on for pages agruing only to end up saying what the OP was inferring, libertarianism has never resulted in utopias.


Point to ANY utopia. The Original Post was a farce at best and was meant to troll Conservatives and Libertarians.


Oppressed people are [insert whatever you want here]

Then post the completed latter sentence that alters the meaning of the former.


Oppressed people are also free to conspire and may end up doing so violently.


Conspiring doesn't require laws or a system.


The why even interject that comment to begin with?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Point to ANY utopia. The Original Post was a farce at best and was meant to troll Conservatives and Libertarians.

Do you know what "inclusive" means?

ETA: Before you call "vagueness" again, asking where the libertarian utopias are is just pointing out the fact that libertarian and conservative ideals don't result in utopias, either.


Oppressed people are also free to conspire and may end up doing so violently.

No, that doesn't change anything about my premise.


The why even interject that comment to begin with?

Because it is what keeps libertarian utopias from existing.


edit on 5-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   


So where are the conservative and libertarian utopias?


They are a couple blocks over from the liberal Utopia



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Literally one of the dumbest topics I've ever read in ATS history. For a good example of how conservative policies succeed look at the state of Texas - it remained a flourishing and innovative job creator throughout the recession. Also look at Scott Walker, took on the unions in Missouri - balanced the budget and created a tax surplus using conservative policies. Of course the wage gap is something you whine about, even though this administration has only widened it - making the rich richer.

It's simple, the private industry blows out anything the public can do. Medicine? Not from gov. Our military tech? Lockheed, Halliburton, etc. Food? I could go on forever. The government accomplishes nothing, and wasn't meant to do any more than preserve our freedom. Conservatives lean more toward the constitution, so it's dumb to go any other way.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

A smoothbore Musket cant be compared to a F-22

The only people comparing such things are you and those that are Anti-2nd.
One is a firearm. The other is an aircraft.
Both can be legally owned by a US citizen.
Now, compare the smooth-bore musket to the rifled barrel of its counterpart. Both were available during the time of the creation of the Constitution. Along with the Gatling gun, cannons and so on.
Sooooo, technology does not equal restricting things called out within the founding documents. If that were the case, there would be statements within, like "The right to Bear Arms available at this time".
Again..if this was even remotely seen as an issue, restricting of Freedom of Speech to town squares, pubs and manual printing presses would be in effect as well.
It is an all or none.


originally posted by: crazyewok
Im not saying they don't serve a purpose.

Yes, great and fantastic.






originally posted by: crazyewok
Well I know a Royal Engineer and a few officers. A UK army engineer is not going to be too far from a US army engineer.

So, here is the disconnect I point out in SOOOO many threads here on ATS.
Your dealings are with UK based military members. We are not talking UK military. We are talking US military.
US Military, doesn't matter if AD, Reserve or Guard, all can/do fill the roles just like any other within the US military.


originally posted by: crazyewok
Its his career. Sure he had some help from part time territorial army staff and again they serve a purpose but there is a still a core team of full timers who are tasked with keeping up with all the latest tec and helping train others on its use and maintenance.

And again, what the UK does and defines within its military is different than the US.



originally posted by: crazyewok
Plus answer me this.

Do you think a part time fighter pilot that only has around 10 flight hours a year will not be at a disadvantage to fighter pilot in china that does 120+ a year?

You clearly aren't listening......RS and GD pilots all serve active duty roles like AD does. During the last 20+ years, all three groups have seen about the same time behind the stick as the others. RS and GD have been some of the first units to go, while AD serves the roles of continued support to permanent placements like bases.
Your understanding of the US military roles is lacking.




originally posted by: crazyewok

Thats still a far cry from 5th Gen fighter planes and Nuclear carriers.


They are not even in the same league.

Please, read my quote in my signature.



originally posted by: crazyewok

Not really.

Yes.....yes it is.



originally posted by: crazyewok
What im saying is SOME military jobs in the modern age have to be career jobs.

Not all but some.

No they don't. Maybe within the UK Military. Within the US, each part can fill the role.



originally posted by: crazyewok
Im sure you could still replace many many military positions with part time militia. But there will be a a small amount of jobs you cant.

Never-mind...
edit on 6-4-2015 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Yes, yes there is. My question was on the implementation of libertarian ideology. I gave a specific example. You decided that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights answered that. They do not. Would you restrict the right to bear arms in some manner? Other libertarians would, therefore it needs clarification.

There are Libertarians that push for restricting Rights?? Please show me such a person, and I will show you someone that isn't a Libertarian.
And no, if you were to follow those documents, restricting of Rights doesn't fall within that.
Even convicted criminals are not allowed, if following the documents, to be restricted from firearm ownership.



originally posted by: Greven
I have not denounced Libertarians - that's kind of what that phrase means, y'know? You seriously don't have a clue who I am as a person, and yet you say uninformed stuff like this:

Has the Progressive notion corrupted your ability to use common sense that it truly is foreign to you?


Haha. A Progressive I am not. I voted for Ron Paul back in '08. Here's another thing - one of my degrees is in the field of Political Science, so yeah, I've read the Constitution.

Ahhhh, so a Political Science degree...great. So a school told you what things mean. Great for you.


originally posted by: Greven
Your need to attack and categorize me as (what seems to me) an enemy is curious. Why do you jump to this conclusion and reaction?

Please show me otherwise.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

I think we will have to politly agree to disgree.

My opinion is there would be some goverment function you can reduce greatly but not cut.

MAYBE if after years of succefull intial libetarian reformes you could transition further.
I dont know it all depends how the intial reforms went.




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Well then,...all you had to do was state that.

Yes, there will always be a need for some, small form of Govt. But........no where near the size and levels we have today.

Even for a Libertarian driven form of a standing/non-standing Army, in today's world, would be hard pressed not to have a small staffed group.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

There may be a point if libertarian was so succefull that America and the wests enemys would be so woefully left behind in the distance you could transition to a 100% part time armed forces.

To me that is long term thinking.

Im of the mind for a libertarian system to work you would need a slow gradual transistion. Reduce the govermnet as you wean people off dependance.
edit on 6-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
There are Libertarians that push for restricting Rights?? Please show me such a person, and I will show you someone that isn't a Libertarian.
And no, if you were to follow those documents, restricting of Rights doesn't fall within that.
Even convicted criminals are not allowed, if following the documents, to be restricted from firearm ownership.

Ahhhh, so a Political Science degree...great. So a school told you what things mean. Great for you.

Please show me otherwise.

Perhaps you should read the thread? Others have responded to my original post beyond yourself; in fact, prior to you:

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot own anything you want and I am fine with that.


originally posted by: johnwick
I would say besides nukes ya sounds good to me.

Hence the inquiry, macman. We have devastating weapons as a result of technological development that weren't even imagined back when the Constitution was written.

Also, why are you so aggressive all of the time? You continually mock and demean anyone at the slightest provocation. Recall what you wrote that I responded to:

originally posted by: macman
There is no need to state what a Libertarian wants. It is clear as day when YOU actually read and abide by the Constitution and BoRs. Why is this so hard for people like you to understand?

Part of that degree involved reading and understanding the Constitution. Saying it's what the school 'told me' is hilarious.

It's hard to 'prove otherwise' when I don't where you're coming from. Again, how did you come to this conclusion - what do you define your enemy as?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Perhaps you should read the thread? Others have responded to my original post beyond yourself; in fact, prior to you:

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot own anything you want and I am fine with that.


originally posted by: johnwick
I would say besides nukes ya sounds good to me.

Hence the inquiry, macman. We have devastating weapons as a result of technological development that weren't even imagined back when the Constitution was written.

Well good on them.
Maybe they can chime in to clarify their position.
And there is nothing in the 2nd talking about how devastating something is. Nor does it have anything in there about restrictions. It states very very very clearly, "Arms".
And since we are going to apply this to the Constitution/BoRs, the internet has become a devastating platform for free speech...therefore it must be restricted.


originally posted by: Greven

Also, why are you so aggressive all of the time? You continually mock and demean anyone at the slightest provocation.

Because I am.
And yes I do. Something as simple as "the Right to Bear Arms" can only be contorted by someone with an agenda.



originally posted by: Greven

Recall what you wrote that I responded to:

originally posted by: macman
There is no need to state what a Libertarian wants. It is clear as day when YOU actually read and abide by the Constitution and BoRs. Why is this so hard for people like you to understand?

Part of that degree involved reading and understanding the Constitution. Saying it's what the school 'told me' is hilarious.

And it is pretty clear that what you "understand" is not what is written. If that were the case, you would see the obvious. That it doesn't place restrictions on firearms. We are not talking about nukes...nor fighter jets.. or Rockets.


originally posted by: Greven

It's hard to 'prove otherwise' when I don't where you're coming from. Again, how did you come to this conclusion - what do you define your enemy as?

Prove what?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
originally posted by: macman
I did not ask what the Constitution said:

originally posted by: Greven
For example, would you be able to own any weapon you chose to?

I did not say 'nukes' or planes or anything (though others may have):

originally posted by: Greven
We have devastating weapons as a result of technological development that weren't even imagined back when the Constitution was written.

Others mentioned nukes; I did not. Yet again, you put words in my mouth and assume things that are not. Further, you need to pay a wee bit more attention to the Bill of Rights, because the Second Amendment doesn't just say what you seem to think it says:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you want an idea of where what's written in that amendment actually happens? Look no further than Switzerland.

If you are unwilling to behave in a civil manner in discussions, perhaps you should refrain from engaging in them. You neither concede that you slandered me nor even mention it. You clearly have preconceived notions of me as an enemy and I can only conclude that you think enemies deserve such treatment.

Finally, you have forgotten what was being discussed, since I had come to the conclusion that you perceive me as an enemy in a prior post. You responded to that:

originally posted by: macman
Please show me otherwise.

So, I asked how. Now you want to know what to prove?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

I did not ask what the Constitution said:

That's too bad, as it outlines exactly what should happen.


originally posted by: Greven
I did not say 'nukes' or planes or anything (though others may have):

Good for you.


originally posted by: Greven
Others mentioned nukes; I did not. Yet again, you put words in my mouth and assume things that are not. Further, you need to pay a wee bit more attention to the Bill of Rights, because the Second Amendment doesn't just say what you seem to think it says:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Oh this should be good. Okay then, what does the BoRs state, in regards to the 2nd?





originally posted by: Greven

Do you want an idea of where what's written in that amendment actually happens? Look no further than Switzerland.

Restrictions, registration and so on are not within the 2nd. Switzerland's actions on gun rights has nothing to do with this.
If registration and restrictions were meant to be, the 2nd would have stated as such.
So....


originally posted by: Greven
If you are unwilling to behave in a civil manner in discussions, perhaps you should refrain from engaging in them. You neither concede that you slandered me nor even mention it. You clearly have preconceived notions of me as an enemy and I can only conclude that you think enemies deserve such treatment.



You may have honestly hurt my last feel.
I think I shall engage in how I want.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Yet, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is also part of the Second Amendment. So, what does that tell you exactly?

The childish behavior is endearing, in a way.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

It loses its charm quickly. You are wasting your time and, honestly, so is macman.
edit on 6-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

It outlines it very much in detail.

In order for the US to remain free, without a standing Army, the Militias, which we are all in, are needed with the people having the right to bear the arms that are available.

This is so simple, that a caveman could understand it.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: macman
It is brief and somewhat ambiguous; that is neither detailed nor simple. Otherwise, there would not be so much case law regarding this amendment.

Since we keep skirting around things, a simple question: what do you define as arms? Just firearms?
edit on 15Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:30:18 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join