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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
It is only 'variable' as you continue to fixate on rather minor groups who do not espouse the same platform as in the link I provided.

No, it's a variable within the larger scope of the ideal. You do understand that it isn't just about you or your/that party.


The Libertarian Party does not look to affect change via conspiracy, it is rather transparent in its platform and objectives.

Reading problem? They seek to undo the changes that were imposed via conspiracy. Freedom to conspire is partially responsible for the present state of the republic.




posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
No, it's a variable within the larger scope of the ideal.


So is any over-arching political ideology, stop being pedantic.



Reading problem?


Not particularly, your sentence was not very clear.


They seek to undo the changes that were imposed via conspiracy. Freedom to conspire is partially responsible for the present state of the republic.


You can attribute 'changes' to anything you want, I opt for poor political decisions by previous parties.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
So is any over-arching political ideology, stop being pedantic.

What happened to calling a spade a spade?


Not particularly, your sentence was not very clear.

Right.


You can attribute 'changes' to anything you want, I opt for poor political decisions by previous parties.

Parties don't conspire? It's the very reason for parties to exist.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

What happened to calling a spade a spade?


Irrelevant when focusing on the fringe which is not germane to the Original Post.


Parties don't conspire? It's the very reason for parties to exist.


I find that an odd basis in which to establish a political party. A rational person who most likely think they are there to help further a published agenda.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Yes...yes it is. This is very clear and very simple.

The Constitution and BoRs is very clear in what the Country was to be established upon. I can't help that you either refuse to understand that so you can continue your ignorant rail against Libertarians...or you just truly don't understand this.

The Country was designed to have a limited.....very limited Federal Govt, with documents outlining this.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

And as stated in US law, every US citizen is in the "militia" and therefore is to be trained in such things.
Regardless, Fighter Jets are not "arms". Neither are Nuclear warheads.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Irrelevant when focusing on the fringe which is not germane to the Original Post.

Why do you wish to exclude the fringe?


I find that an odd basis in which to establish a political party. A rational person who most likely think they are there to help further a published agenda.

You are either being rather naive or you are a politician.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Why do you wish to exclude the fringe?



Because they are irrelevant to the party platform.


You are either being rather naive or you are a politician.


Neither. The mission of the party is a smaller government which would have obviously fewer avenues for corruption.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

And as stated in US law, every US citizen is in the "militia" and therefore is to be trained in such things.
Regardless, Fighter Jets are not "arms". Neither are Nuclear warheads.



No but would be part of a central government.
Airforce navy and specialised army jobs would come under government.

Those jobs are not for conscripts or militia they are career jobs.

If conscripts serve 2 years By the time you train one to fly a f-22 or as a engineer in the navy half there service time would be up. And that's the basics, let alone combat training that will put the piliots and other specilised jobs on par with there foreign counter parts.

And those are skills that need constant training. You can tjust train em and leave them until a war breaks out or give part time training.
edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

No....the Militia was there and worked hand in hand since the creation.
The ranks were very much the same, and the jobs were are well. Ground units did this and the Merchant Marines had this as well.

The Militias turned then into the State run Guard units, which have access to all weapon systems just like active duty and reserves.

And, in addition.....the US was not supposed to have a standing Army.
edit on 2-4-2015 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
Yes...yes it is. This is very clear and very simple.

The Constitution and BoRs is very clear in what the Country was to be established upon. I can't help that you either refuse to understand that so you can continue your ignorant rail against Libertarians...or you just truly don't understand this.

The Country was designed to have a limited.....very limited Federal Govt, with documents outlining this.

Lovely slander you engage in, here. I've made two posts in this thread:

originally posted by: Greven
So, a question - to you or anyone else - how would Libertarian ideology play out if implemented?

For example, would you be able to own any weapon you chose to?


originally posted by: Greven
That is not an answer to those questions.

Others have given reasonable answers without resorting to such. Further, they actually answered the example question.

The example question is in the first - is this uncomfortable for you to answer?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

No....the Militia was there and worked hand in hand since the creation.
The ranks were very much the same, and the jobs were are well. Ground units did this and the Merchant Marines had this as well.

The Militias turned then into the State run Guard units, which have access to all weapon systems just like active duty and reserves.

And, in addition.....the US was not supposed to have a standing Army.


Again we are not in 1776, that was before all the advanced tec and even the concept of a air force.

For your average grunt sure that would work, you could scale your army back its what we are doing in the UK. Scale the regular army back and have a part time territorial army.


BUT

There are still jobs that cant be left to part timers.

A fighter pilot given a crash training course and only has a few hours flight time a year in a part time role will get eaten alive by pilots of other nations that serve full time and practice every day.


And its the same for Engineers in the Army and Navy. Tec is constantly changing and a engine room of a arleigh burke destroys going to be a hell of a different animal to the engine from of a civilian ships.


Yes there are certain jobs you can palm off to a part time militia. But there are others that in this modern age are always going to be career jobs that need constant full time staff.


And remember...... It was professional army from Canada that ripped through the USA and burned DC to the ground. The USA only got lucky cause the British were to occupied with France to send reinforcements.
Thats why you adopted a more professional army in the first place.

That was in a era of primitive weapons. Today with more complex weapons systems will make that even worse!

So yes you can scale back the military. But you still need a small professional core.
edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Because they are irrelevant to the party platform.

People from the party platform are not the only people addressed in the OP. It is mainly thrown at them but I'm sure any Libertarians can add their POV.


Neither. The mission of the party is a smaller government which would have obviously fewer avenues for corruption.

I do believe I used the term parties in general, although I don't trust the "Stated Mission" of any organized group.

If you believe them then the former probably fits.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

People from the party platform are not the only people addressed in the OP. It is mainly thrown at them but I'm sure any Libertarians can add their POV.


A rational approach will obviously show that any fringe party is less likely to construct a 'utopia' than a larger one based on sheer numbers.


I do believe I used the term parties in general, although I don't trust the "Stated Mission" of any organized group.

If you believe them then the former probably fits.


Maybe one day I will be as politically savvy as you and think less freedom leads to less 'conspiring'.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven
There isn't any need for some lengthy dissertation as to what has to happen..And slander? Really? Do you think this is "the People's Court" or something?

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?

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



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

*sigh* It doesn't matter, in regards to technology.

There was advanced technologies back then. Private citizens would purchase, and did own more advanced firearms then what the US Military had. So....that arguing point is blown out of the water.

Now, you do realize that it is a large portion of Reserve and Guard units that are filling the active roles right now in combat, don't you?
Guard and Reserve SOF units are at the spearhead in most theaters right now. Hell, I almost re-enlisted into a Air Force Guard unit for TACP and was guaranteed to have the pick of any assignments I wanted.

I really don't feel like being a dick today, it is nice and sunny out and it is my Friday for my day job, but you really have no clue as to what US Military Forces are doing. And to suggest this, after your statement of part-time pilots doing active missions would be eaten alive shows it is truly not something you are in the know about.

And there are no jobs offered to Active Duty that isn't available to Guard or Reserve personnel.

The "primitive weapons" still went bang and fired a round. Just like today.
The weapons the Military had, in many times, were older than the weapons used by the Militia.

But, using this logic, then our Freedom of Speech is only limited to the town square and printing press.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

There was advanced technologies back then. Private citizens would purchase, and did own more advanced firearms then what the US Military had. So....that arguing point is blown out of the water.

A smoothbore Musket cant be compared to a F-22



originally posted by: macman
Now, you do realize that it is a large portion of Reserve and Guard units that are filling the active roles right now in combat, don't you?
Guard and Reserve SOF units are at the spearhead in most theaters right now. Hell, I almost re-enlisted into a Air Force Guard unit for TACP and was guaranteed to have the pick of any assignments I wanted.

Im not saying they don't serve a purpose.



originally posted by: macman
I really don't feel like being a dick today,

You dont have to be dick to disagree. No one is going to agree on everything.


originally posted by: macman
, but you really have no clue as to what US Military Forces are doing. And to suggest this, after your statement of part-time pilots doing active missions would be eaten alive shows it is truly not something you are in the know about.

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.

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.


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?



originally posted by: macman

The "primitive weapons" still went bang and fired a round. Just like today.


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


They are not even in the same league.



originally posted by: macman
But, using this logic, then our Freedom of Speech is only limited to the town square and printing press.


Not really.

What im saying is SOME military jobs in the modern age have to be career jobs.

Not all but some.


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.
edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
A rational approach will obviously show that any fringe party is less likely to construct a 'utopia' than a larger one based on sheer numbers.

Again, the question was about examples not about which sub-group is more likely to ceate a utopia.


Maybe one day I will be as politically savvy as you and think less freedom leads to less 'conspiring'.

It isn't political savviness but common sense.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Again, the question was about examples not about which sub-group is more likely to ceate a utopia.


And a fringe group is not going to be able to provide an example despite your fixation on them.


It isn't political savviness but common sense.


Well then, perhaps I will one day have so much 'common sense' (Paine would be appalled) as you that I will think that more freedom equals more conspiracy.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

Now, you do realize that it is a large portion of Reserve and Guard units that are filling the active roles right now in combat, don't you?
Guard and Reserve SOF units are at the spearhead in most theaters right now. Hell, I almost re-enlisted into a Air Force Guard unit for TACP and was guaranteed to have the pick of any assignments I wanted.




And to add.

Yes and those guard/Reserve units are also supported by full time career units too.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join