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.

 

The Simple Truth In Three Sentences

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Ironhawke

Traditional libertarianism advocates continued public ownership of and taxes for maintenance of public infrastructure. Your fears are baseless.

What likely scares people more about Libertarianism is the fact that it mandates personal responsibility, which is an anathema to liberals and it mandates corporate responsibility (including the idea that nothing is "too big" to fail) which is an anathema to Republicans. As far as I am concerned, we need libertarianism desperately and, along with it, a healthy allowance of social Darwinianism. Preventing both individuals and businesses from floundering and falling on their ass isn't working, it's just dragging the rest of us down into the abyss, albeit at a slightly slower overall rate than simply allowing failures to naturally fail would see.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have a question. Do libertarians advocate for a strong armed forces?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
Personally, Libertarians scare the ever lovin' hell out of me. Anyone who thinks Ayn Rand is the cat's pajamas and shouts that much needs to be watched. Closely. From behind glass. Btw, read my signature..I'm the anti-war Democrat your parents hate.


You should familiarize yourself with actual libertarians who are primarily economists.

Murray Rothbard will either set you straight and provide you with some comfort or cause your heart to explode out of your chest.

On second thought, just stick to Ayn Rand, it is probably safer.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have a question. Do libertarians advocate for a strong armed forces?


Yes though, they are adamant that it be reserved for defensive use only.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The Libertarian Party is just as corrupt as the other two. It just isn't given the same large stage by the media (and isn't even remotely comparable in financial resources), so it's rarely talked about.

On top of that, add inept leadership and unmotivated, deunified membership, and you get what we have today: an impotent political party serving as the official forum for an anarcho-capitalist popularity contest/circle jerk.

Oh, and don't forget the weekly Mises/Friedman/Rothbard/Hayek/Rand Literature Raffle. It's an anarcho-capitalist/objectivist cult masquerading as a political movement.

And about as trustworthy as the lot of them.
edit on 4/1/15 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   


In America, libertarian, means "extreme advocate of total tyranny." It means power ought to be given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies - even worse than state tyrannies because in them the public has some kind of role.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
Personally, Libertarians scare the ever lovin' hell out of me. Anyone who thinks Ayn Rand is the cat's pajamas and shouts that much needs to be watched. Closely. From behind glass. Btw, read my signature..I'm the anti-war Democrat your parents hate.


What do you find scary? No wars? No judgement? Freedom to do what you want?

I am going to guess it is the personal responsibility.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Reminder (emphasis mine):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I'll vote for whoever is behind THAT.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JimNasium

Well, if that were true I guess nobody would be brainwashed or hold erroneous beliefs. The truth will always stand, but it won't always be widespread or even acknowledged at all.

Truth needs to be pushed, otherwise we would make no progress. Certain scientific truths for example certainly wouldn't have just appeared and propagated themselves..

I find it a somewhat lazy train of thought, perhaps embedded with certain truths. I think it sounds profound as there's certainly truth in it. Scratch that by the way, it's more of a spiritual truth than anything else, true on certain levels, but on other levels patently false.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Ain't that the truth! Now If we can only get the rest of America to see beyond the two party bull crap. You'd figure after decades of wars, broken promises, death, scams, cheats, greed and bloating budget that people would freaking try something new!!!



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

No I'm all about personal responsibily..which is why I refuse to abdicate it in favour of someone who is pro-business, pro "special elite" Ayn Rand/ Rand Paul certifying himself rubbish.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have a question. Do libertarians advocate for a strong armed forces?


I do, at least, but I can't speak for all Libertarians.

In my opinion, there should be no distinction between citizens and soldiers. We all have the personal responsibility to defend our communities and our liberty.

I personally think that there should be no standing army. Instead, each county of a state should be responsible for training citizens in combat. If a war broke out overseas, Congress can draft as many of us as needed. If someone invaded, they'd literally have to fight tooth and nail from one coast to the other.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Serious question : if each state is to train it's citizens for combat, what happens when you run into folks like me, who categorically refuse to handle a firearm, never mind pointing one at another human being and squeezing the trigger, usually over something as ultimately pointless as mineral slime or squiggles on a map?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have a question. Do libertarians advocate for a strong armed forces?


Yes though, they are adamant that it be reserved for defensive use only.


Absolutely!!!

Are they attacking America?

Then letvthem deal with it!!



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: Metallicus

No I'm all about personal responsibily..which is why I refuse to abdicate it in favour of someone who is pro-business, pro "special elite" Ayn Rand/ Rand Paul certifying himself rubbish.


By personal responsibility you nesn big brother controlling every aspect of everyone's lives right?

They are responsible to adhere to the millions of laws set against their freedom or else.

This is the personal responsibility you speak of yes?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have a question. Do libertarians advocate for a strong armed forces?


I do, at least, but I can't speak for all Libertarians.

In my opinion, there should be no distinction between citizens and soldiers. We all have the personal responsibility to defend our communities and our liberty.

I personally think that there should be no standing army. Instead, each county of a state should be responsible for training citizens in combat. If a war broke out overseas, Congress can draft as many of us as needed. If someone invaded, they'd literally have to fight tooth and nail from one coast to the other.


I agree for the most part, but think service and voting rights should go hand in hand.

One must serve 2 years minimum, u til you do you can't vote or hold public office.

You may decline forever but never vote or hold any public office.

If you aren't willing to serve, how can you be fit to serve?

Sure exemptions for the physically handicapped could be made, but honestly there are many ways to serve.

There is no excuse to demand rights you won't help guarantee.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp




Yes though, they are adamant that it be reserved for defensive use only.


Well there you go than, Libertarian FAIL!

How are you suppose to make peace and friends if you don't go and blow up neighbourhoods across from yours.

You can only have peace as long as you keep everyone else fighting among themselves, and hope they never figure out that you are the catalyst.

Silly Libertarian , Everyone knows that you must $hit in your neighbors yard so they don't want to $hit in your yard. Its just political cheerleader common sense. Get with the KoolAid , ahh I mean game.

edit on 38430America/ChicagoWed, 01 Apr 2015 23:38:05 -0500up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Serious question : if each state is to train it's citizens for combat, what happens when you run into folks like me, who categorically refuse to handle a firearm, never mind pointing one at another human being and squeezing the trigger, usually over something as ultimately pointless as mineral slime or squiggles on a map?


Well considering all conflicts would be in protection of your country, not corporate interests in others.

Then don't serve, opt out, but you can't vote, because you aren't willing to serve your nation in a time of need.

Be a part of the solution, or accept its decisions.

There will never under libertarians be a preemptive Iraq or Afghanistan conflict.

If they want to come get some more power to them.

But I honestly don't want to watch a single other american die over money or oil or whatever idiocy today claims.

If they aren't a threat to us directly, let it go.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7


In America, libertarian, means "extreme advocate of total tyranny." It means power ought to be given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies - even worse than state tyrannies because in them the public has some kind of role.


This is just completely backwards, libertarians are on the opposite end of the political spectrum from that of authoritarians (fascists, communists--the actual tyrants).

The most tyrannical institutions human beings have ever endured have always been governments.

The Third Reich was the military for the National Socialist Party--a government.

The Soviet Union was a government.

The People's Republic of China under Mao was a government.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is a government.

The Roman Catholic Church was a government.

The crazy-despotic emperors of ancient Rome ran a government.

The tyrannical senate of Rome was government

The Mongolian Empire was a government

The British Empire was a government

Every tyrannical Monarchy was a government.

Every authoritarian oligarchy comprised of nobility was a government.

The most depraved, sick, infuriating, violent, twisted, and inhuman acts against our fellow human beings have always been carried out under the law and with the full force of executive powers of governments.

Please name one business that has ever come close killing millions, imprisoning millions, torturing millions, censoring millions, or brainwashing millions with tools such as patriotism and nationalism.

For any evil carried out by a business, government has always done it better by 100 fold.

Show me one business that made being a specific race illegal. Show me one business that gassed 6 million human beings "for the greater good."

When you create an institution whose sole existence is the monopoly of power, what do you expect to happen?

Human beings are "too evil" for financial freedom, but they aren't "too evil" to direct militaries? To run police departments? To wield unheralded power under the concept of law?

There is a reason as to why Thomas Paine wrote that government is a necessary evil, because if an objective form of evil actually existed, it would be government. The older I get, the more I wonder at how "necessary" it actually is.

Government is power, business is commerce. Don't confuse the two.

edit on 1-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Ah, so in a Libertarian society, only those who are not pacifistic get to vote? What other groups do you exclude? Who says that, as one committed to doing no violence, I cannot serve my country? And what of an obligation to serve humanity as a whole? Are you saying only my country is due service - which, by the standards you just set - means being prepared to do violence?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join