It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why the HELL are you NOT a Libertarian?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:23 PM
reply to post by Byrd

You are misrepresenting the Libertarians through a gross exaggeration. But then you know that. The Libertarian Party is no more a dictionary definition of being a Libertarian than the Democrats are interested in a pure Democracy. I think people call that spin?

You practically say outright that if the Libertarians had their way society would collapse. Pedophiles would run rampant. Religions would have orgies in the streets. People would sit on their front lawn shooting Minorities.

Byrd I'm shocked. You know as well as I do that the things you suggest do infringe on other rights and would be illegal under their platform as well. Are the Democrats running this scared?

I'm not even a Libertarian by the way. Just honest.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:26 PM

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by hawkiye

Ireland was settled by stone age hunter gatherers at least as far back as 7500 BC.

They built various megalithic structures, some as early as 3200 BC.

The Celts originated in central Europe forming their culture as early as 1400 BC.

The Celts arrived in Britain around the 6th century BC and expanded into Ireland around that same time.

proof? According to records, Sumerians were the most ancient civilization according to archiological findings. They are maybe 4,00 B.C. ish, Egyptians were 3,500 B.C.

7,500 B.C.? Really? C'mon. Just by saying that even if the other things r true, it completely makes everything you just said total bs. Please, proof.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by poet1b

I would like to point to one of the largest markets there are.

Illicit drugs.

Seems to be running quite well with no regulation.

Hell, even with millions of LEO's attempting to destroy the market.

It keeps running and running and running!

Let us look at another unregulated market. The hiring of illegal immigrants.

It keeps running and running and runnning!

Or another one, prostitution.

Any market thrives without government intervention. THRIVES.

wow, i'm a liberitarian, and WOW. Thats terrible to say. Ina sense your right, but those are issues that need to be DEALT WITH! I'm not against ALL LAW! those things r illegal!!!

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by RRokkyy

Well, one of the greatest countries ever used it for over a hundred years.

Then Crime Inc, sorry I mean United States Inc, took over.

reply to post by lastzoroastrianleft

Yes of course they are wrong, but not unlawful. Do any of those things harm another? Or infringe on another's rights?

People need to realize, that forcing ones beliefs on another is wrong. Force in any shape or form being used to inflict anything is wrong. Period.

Yes, I believe a lot of things are immoral and wrong, does that mean I should force my beliefs on another?

We have to move past this mentality of our superiority to others. It is destroying our society. As it is destroying the world.

Might does not make right.

Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.

You have to realize that any control over others can be used against you also. If you get certain types into power, they enforce their edicts. Then the next one get into power using the same force to enforce their edicts.

It is a never ending cycle of oppression. Never ending.

The argument always comes back to, who do you trust with the power?

To me, is ME. No one else do I trust with my life or my rights.

[edit on 5/12/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:03 PM
wat? explain wat u mean. Government isnt a bad thing. There just needs to be limited federal government, and more power to the state governments.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

I am an Anarchist, please do not place me in the same mix as Libertarians.. we are not the same. To equate each to be one in the same is a failure to understand either.

I'm not being rude, and don't mean to come off as such, but you are wrong on this one.

Libertarians very much believe in government, small, but government nonetheless..

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by lastzoroastrianleft

Agreed. That is a limited central government, where they are restricted to a limited role that is laid out in the Constitution.

Tell me, did you know that prostitution is legal in a state now?

Did you know that marijuana has been decriminalized in several places in the US?

I am all for the federal government being stripped back to it's size in 1800.

The states are allowed to do pretty much anything they want. As long as their laws do not break the Constitution of the US or their own Constitution. We are a union of Republics to be governed by ourselves. Not governed by a tyrannical totalitarian central state that mandates what States and Sovereign Individuals must do to further the aims of the federal government and their cronies.

reply to post by broahes

He apologized later in the thread.

[edit on 5/12/2010 by endisnighe]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:30 PM
I think people are too used to the system we have now for the most part, going from what we have now to libertarianism would have a large section of society rioting within no time imo, the generation coming up right now especially. While they may not agree with the government in some aspects(if they even bother with politics or think about these sorts of things) it is still deeply ingrained for them to seek government to guide them and implement various's as natural as breathing. As for me, i would prefer a type of communist society if i could pick.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by Solomons]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:15 PM
FACT: Decriminalization works

Just google "portugal decriminalization"

It seems like people are hypnotized over the dual party government. All I hear is Democrats - Republicans... Even a few store owners that I heard around town are saying they regretted voting for Obama and will now vote Republican.


Prostitution should be legal. It's none of the government's business what anyone does with their bodies, as long as they are not harming anyone.

If you join the combat forces, you get paid to kill people. In prostitution you get paid to make people feel good. What's worse?

You are using your body to provide a service. How is that different from any other regular job?

Drugs should be legal or decriminalized at least. It's already happening all around the country. Here, in Massachusetts, up to ounce of marijuana is a $100 ticket. No, there were no increase in the number of accidents, murders or school and college drop outs since decriminalization has taken place.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by misha.baikal]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:18 PM
I consider myself "independent" and do not really like to be associated with any political party.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:19 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

I seen that after the fact. I couldn't help but comment before reading the whole thread.

I hope you didn't take any offense to me not wanting to be compared to libertarians.. I know plenty of wonderful ones. I would be one if I believed in any form of government I guess.

Star and Flag for the thread though. Good conversation starting OP. I will go now and finish reading the rest before my next comment.

Resistance is Peace.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by broahes

I found that comparison a bit odd myself. People are illiterate about the Libertarians to say the least. A Libertarian government would be similar to a Conservative government sans entitlements and special interests influence. The only reason I don't go Libertarian is my refusal to join any Party.

Anarchy as I see it is a total lack of government and law enforcement under a government. It is an ideal only attainable were all of us peaceful, honest and ethical. Since we are not, it could never work. We would have to change our species. It would only work if the entire planet were to suddenly become nice people.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by lastzoroastrianleft

I swear they must not teach history anywhere but college.

Ireland in Prehistory, Herity, M. and G. Eogan

Ancient Ireland. Life before the Celts, Flanagan L.

Ireland’s Pre-Celtic Archaeological and Anthropological Heritage, Thompson, T.

The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Bradley, R.

This is prehistoric, you know the stone age, mesolithic and neolithic eras?

Humans were around long before Sumeria and Egypt, making tools, fire, and weapons. Sumeria and Egypt represent the rise of the city states and kingdoms, the dawn of history, writing and mathematics.

Edit to add: many of the books are available on Goggle Books. I would also suggest a college level class on anthropology.

[edit on 12/5/10 by MikeboydUS]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:46 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

You are right about that.. I don't disagree.

While I am an Anarchist, I am also a realist. I believe in individual anarchism, but realize that things must evolve into the ideology over time, with the individual moving to it one by one. I practice what I preach. I am what I want to see in the world, peaceful and free.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:21 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Anarchy as I see it is a total lack of government and law enforcement under a government. It is an ideal only attainable were all of us peaceful, honest and ethical. Since we are not, it could never work. We would have to change our species. It would only work if the entire planet were to suddenly become nice people.

I beg to differ. Anarchy might mean lack of law enforcement under a government but it does not mean a total lack of law enforcement. People would be able to to enforce common law, as it pertains to them. For instance, if someone comes on your property to initiate force against you, you can apply force back and therefore enforce the law. Think about that for a minute... If a criminal knew that he could easily lose his life if he tries to steal your car, chances are that he won't attempt it. Also, anarcho-capitalism doesn't prevent you and your neighbors from banning together in an effort to ensure the safety of people and property. I think that anarcho-capitalism could be a very viable alternative to what we currently have.

People often have misconceptions of what anarchy is. They often associate it with lawlessness and chaos but that is just not true. If people protect themselves, then lawlessness and chaos would have a hard time rearing its ugly head. Our current system does nothing to stop force applied to us by government. In fact, force applied by government is sanctioned with our current system.

All in all, order could easily be maintained without a government. Chaos, disorder and lawlessness is what they want us to believe would occur without someone making choices for us, such as a government.

Government needs us to think that we need them in order for them to be relevant. Would there be crime? Sure there will, but there is also crime with our current system, only it's done by both our protectors and those they are supposed to protect us from. Why not take one variable out of the equation? Also, I think people would be far more effective at protecting themselves, rather than relying on an inefficient and incompetent entity for that protection, especially when there is no way to protect against plunder and extort by those commissioned to protect. That was/is a Mafia tactic and it is certainly employed by our current and supposed protectors. When we delegate our security, our security becomes in jeopardy. Why force me to delegate my own responsibilities, especially something as important as security, when that delegation has proven to be a failure since the beginning of recorded history?

Just my 2 cents.


Edited for grammar, structure and to add the last sentence.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by airspoon]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by airspoon

He stated that there would be a lack of law enforcement under government, which is correct. At least that is the way I took his comment anyway.

Other than that one thing, a star for you. Nice post.

A lot of self proclaimed anarchist aren't really anarchist anyway.. I think that adds to peoples confusion over the idea of anarchy.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by broahes]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:27 PM
Libertarian or LIBERALtarian ?

The reason I no longer consider myself a Libertarian is:

Libertarians are supposed to be against the welfare state, yet many favor the idea of welcoming Illegal Aliens with open arms. (Welfare state)

Open Trade with slave nations will reduce your wages to that of a slave, yet many Libertarians blindly support open trade. (globalism)

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by zzombie

How do you equate open arms for illegal immigrants to a welfare state?

Libertarians don't believe in government social programs.. loose borders maybe, but there would be no social programs for the illegals when they got here under a libertarian government. Please explain that one for us..

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by broahes

No offense taken you filthy anarchist! Kidding.

I am an anarchist at heart but see the possibility of that ever happening non existent.

Now libertarian society existed in the beginning of this nation and is possible to get back to.

We just need to open peoples eyes to the destructive nature of this tyrannical system that has reared it's filthy head.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by broahes

I knew that he meant lack of law enforcement under government, but it would seem that he was emplying that this would lead to chaos and/or lawlessness, to which I replied that anarchy doesn't mean lack of total law enforcement. So what if law enforcement was not done by a government, if law enforcement could be done by someone with vested interest in the outcome.


top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in