The Consistent Inconsistencies of Libertarians and Ron Paul

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Libertarians believe only in laws that limit the freedom of those who set out to harm other people. Pedophiles don't deserve freedom, because they assault and abuse others.

You don't need to "pass" a law to make some legal. You strike down the law that made it illegal in the first place.



Do you understand the difference between party beliefs and individual beliefs? I do not believe in the social conservative aspect of the Conservative movement. That doesn't make me a conservative, it doesn't make me a liberal. It makes me more of an moderate republican. Kinda like Mitt Romney, but more like Huntsman. The majority of the GOP is made up of social conservatives. Us moderates in the republican party are a dying breed. Liberals like to call them boring old white guys. (i'm one of the youngest moderate republicans I know)

1. But he called himself a libertarian nonetheless. And was advocating for the rights of pedophiles. Seriously a misguided person if I must say so myself.

2. There are many new laws coming into the liberal states like California and Colorado making it legal to own a business that sells the drug! "For Medical reasons." Sounds like they, twist the constitution for moral reasons huh?




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 



Do you understand the difference between party beliefs and individual beliefs? I do not believe in the social conservative aspect of the Conservative movement. That doesn't make me a conservative, it doesn't make me a liberal. It makes me more of an moderate republican.


Well that makes things more clear, and ok, be a moderate. However, do you understand the concept that I put fortht to you regarding your idea that you are a "conservative"?

Do you see the oxymoron you create when you say " I'm for limited government, but I think abortion and same sex marriage should be lega." ?


1. But he called himself a libertarian nonetheless. And was advocating for the rights of pedophiles. Seriously a misguided person if I must say so myself.


That guy who killed a bunch of people in Norway claimed to be Christian? Should I use his actions and opinions as a means to judge all Christians?

No?

Then why would you use on Libertarians opinion to judge all of us?


2. There are many new laws coming into the liberal states like California and Colorado making it legal to own a business that sells the drug! "For Medical reasons." Sounds like they, twist the constitution for moral reasons huh?


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

I don't understand how else I can put this.

The state, has the power to make ANY law it wants regarding anything. As long as it does not conflict with the Constitution.

PLEASE show me how that law is twists the constitution?

It doesn't.

~Tenth

ETA: just so there's no confusing, " The State" I mean the actual state, like Oregan, or Florida. Not the Federal Government.



edit on 8/6/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Libertarians believe only in laws that limit the freedom of those who set out to harm other people. Pedophiles don't deserve freedom, because they assault and abuse others.


Yeah and Conservatives believe that the laws that they pass will help others not harm them. Please tell me why it is wrong to pass a law that allows prayer in school? Christianity is the largest religion in the world. The Christians shouldn't have to bow down to the minorities that might get offended.

Same with the whole gay marriage thing, laws are being passed right now and the gays claim that it infringes on their rights as people. But, on the other side there is evidence to suggest that gay marriage is not a healthy moral aspect for society to adopt. For thousands of years the family model has been one man and one woman, conservatives argue that it will be a disaster to the family unit.

On the opposite end of the abortion debate are the social liberals who claim that you can get rid of the baby anytime you want. Conservatives would rather keep the baby and raise it on their own. The liberals won the case that their is a right to abortion in roe v wade. There are advocate groups wanting that law to end, but its not going to happen anytime soon.

Health Care is another moral dilemma. You have the liberals claiming that health care is a right, and you have conservatives saying that it is not it is a privilege. Dr. Paul once said that society should not take care of someone who was dying and did not have health insurance because it was his choice it should be his punishment. The doctor would have to make a moral choice right there. And it happens all the time.

I make it sound very black and white, but the four issues I have outlined above have a lot of moral implications. in the US it is still up to the individual to decide what to do in these circumstances.
edit on 6-8-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


How many people in California do you honestly think use the drug for real medical purposes?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 



Yeah and Conservatives believe that the laws that they pass will help others not harm them. Please tell me why it is wrong to pass a law that allows prayer in school? Christianity is the largest religion in the world. The Christians shouldn't have to bow down to the minorities that might get offended.


If you can explain to me how prayer will increase my son's SAT scores or make him smarter I'd like to hear it.

The last time I checked, school was not a place to indoctrinate children into religion. Just because the majority may be Christian, doesn't give you, or them the right to impose their religion on others.

It's illegal too so there's that.

You don't have to bow down, you can pray all you want, in the comfort your own home, your church and out in the street if you'd like, it's a free country. But religion and school do not go together.


Same with the whole gay marriage thing, laws are being passed right now and the gays claim that it infringes on their rights as people. But, on the other side there is evidence to suggest that gay marriage is not a healthy moral aspect for society to adopt. For thousands of years the family model has been one man and one woman, conservatives argue that it will be a disaster to the family unit.


What evidence? Please provide it. Furthermore, you again, attempt to use OPINION as a means to pass laws that limit people's freedom. That's not a conservative value.

Actually for thousands of years men simply chose whoever they wanted to have babies with and forced the women to do so, or the women's parents did it for her. Are you suggesting that we return to that model because it was popular for thousands of years?


On the opposite end of the abortion debate are the social liberals who claim that you can get rid of the baby anytime you want. Conservatives would rather keep the baby and raise it on their own. The liberals won the case that their is a right to abortion in roe v wade. There are advocate groups wanting that law to end, but its not going to happen anytime soon.


Again, you don't have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do. I don't personally agree with abortion, I think it's barbaric and below the 21st century human. However I don't believe in making it illegal and telling others that they can't have one because I disagree.


Health Care is another moral dilemma. You have the liberals claiming that health care is a right, and you have conservatives saying that it is not it is a privilege. Dr. Paul once said that society should not take care of someone who was dying and did not have health insurance because it was his choice it should be his punishment. The doctor would have to make a moral choice right there. And it happens all the time.


That's an economic decision, not a moral one. ANY laws passed on "morality" that aren't in relation to the 3 things listed here:

Killing.
Causing somebody significant harm.
Breaking contracts that you signed and agreed to.

Are nonsense and should NEVER be passed because they are subjective laws.


make it sound very black and white, but the four issues I have outlined above have a lot of moral implications. in the US it is still up to the individual to decide what to do in these circumstances.


You say it's up to the individual, yet you'd like to limit the choices that individual can make by making the decision for them? What kind of double think circular logic is that?

There are no moral issues when it comes to governance. The government has NO right to make decisions for you, unless they are regarding the 3 things above. Abortion is a unique issue in that field, I won't discuss it further.

~Tenth

edit on 8/6/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


How many people in California do you honestly think use the drug for real medical purposes?


Is alcohol used for real medicinal purposes?

Hell no, but it is more dangerous than lots of drugs.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Also I have a hayfever allergy and I am DYING in this thread full of straw.

I thought trolling was not allowed on ATS?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


hmmmm, did you know that when it was made illegal in 1943??, the day before it was the 2'nd most prescribed legal substance by the medical community?...solely for the benefit of health and healing?

nahhhh, you wouldn't know that..you are a moderate....lol

You bring the weakest args to the table. I am certain you are an agent provacateur.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatriotAct
I think we should attack Israel ourselves and destroy them that way we can rub it in the face of Iran. Then we'll be known as true fighters of terrorism.


When was the last time Israel sent a suicide bomber or blew up a pizza place?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Jjf, You do realize your little avatar thingy is from the Libertarian site right?

Which leads me to believe you've put in a lot of time to pick apart what you view to be inconsistancies in the libertarian agenda. Why the hatred?

And BTW, In Michigan. The GENERAL CONSENSUS among libertarians is NOT to just go ahead and dissolve things like welfare and disability etc etc as you state. But instead, those kinds of programs belong to state control and not Federal. Which is without a doubt what the constitution called for in the begining. A limited, small, federal government to regulate commerce between states and protect from foreign invasion. It's there in black and white. I don't understand how you, and people like you can take such a clear cut document and skew it into long drawn reasons for exceptions to the rules of the clear cut writings of the constitution. It's just ridiculous. And is the reason why we have a bloated federal government in violation of it's own laws ten times over! It's insanity! Like taking the right to bear arms away from only certain people, what kind of crap is that? You run over a mailbox on purpose and now you can't protect your family? Somehow they lives are worth less in the eyes of the government? It's people like you that have butchered our constitution time and time again and perverted it into a jumbled ball of toilet paper.

PS,

You could take the biggest Federalist from back in the day and even he would be more of a libertarian than you ever could be. What we have now are politicians with NO regard to our founding fathers and our constitution! money is the rule of law now. And slaves of the supreme court. Nowadays they're the arbitrators of the constitution....Whatta joke...Can I get a hell yeah?!?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Yes I am glad we are the tiny percentage. I'm glad the country isn't being run by us, Im glad no one listens to us. That way no one can blame the state of the world on us. This is the fault of the democrat, the republican, the Christian, the Muslim and the Jew.
Shame on you all!
(kinda hung yourself with your own rope)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 



Yeah and Conservatives believe that the laws that they pass will help others not harm them. Please tell me why it is wrong to pass a law that allows prayer in school?


Have you heard of the separation of church and state? How would you feel if your child went to a school with more Muslims than Christians, therefore your children would have to abide by the Muslims praying???

Seriously, you are so blind to a politcal ideology that you don't even recognize the feelings of other human beings!!!


Christianity is the largest religion in the world. The Christians shouldn't have to bow down to the minorities that might get offended.


Ahhhh, so you think we are a Democracy versus a Republic??? Come on man, your agenda and lies are really digging you a hole that will just keep getting deeper the longer you fabricate your opinions into what you want others to believe is the truth! Again, would you be saying the above if Islam was the largest religion in the world??? Highly doubtful! Look in the mirror before you tell other people how to live, otherwise someone may be soon bursting your little bubble!



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



The state, has the power to make ANY law it wants regarding anything. As long as it does not conflict with the Constitution.

PLEASE show me how that law is twists the constitution?

It doesn't.

~Tenth

ETA: just so there's no confusing, " The State" I mean the actual state, like Oregan, or Florida. Not the Federal Government.


Well I guess my question Tenth is what is the difference between a state government and a federal government in the long run?

Both are authoritative powers with the ability to interpret and argue the constitution in any way they see fit, hell the fed and the states have upheld the polygamy ban because they believe they have the right to regulate the practices of religion and they came to this conclusion because of debate.

That being said, the constitution is a 200+ year old document that actually holds little true significance in the modern world. Most would probably scoff at this remark but I believe it to be very true, while the overall "spirit" of the constitution is still valid; its dictation of how government should be ran is..well...out dated. We have made countless laws that are unlawful according to the constitution, and we carry on countless practices that are unlawful according to the constitution (i.e. judicial review). However many of these "unconstitutional" laws and practices are necessary for a functional modern society.

The libertarian movement of the modern day is in my opinion a joke, because they don't understand their own political ideology. They don't know if they are conservatives or social anarchists.
edit on 6-8-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
To the OP,

You're so full of it, its laughable.

Not worth my time.

Enjoy your delusion.
edit on 6-8-2012 by IndieA because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Praetorius
 


That just means he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Giving the same speeches for thirty years is a bit boring. He only panders to his selective cult and never tries to think about how other people might see him, or what other voters want.

"He is just spreading his message." That's it!

But I tell you that message is very inconsistent.
edit on 6-8-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



No really? This is one of those troll threads right?the kiind somebody puts up to get a thousand pissed off replies to his ill thought out maundering?

Ron Paul is about the MOST consistent, even predictable representative.....
if anything comres up, you KNOW he will come down on the side of the people and uphold the constitution.....Like i said predictable even.....
You sir are merely pandering for an argument.why?well thats your call......



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 




Well I guess my question Tenth is what is the difference between a state government and a federal government in the long run?


The average citizen has far more power to influence the state legislature than it does the federal one. IMO the whole separation of powers mentality was a means to make sure that power wasn't centralized to Washington DC, where the average American had little to say, or did not have the means to get there.

Thinking 200+ years ago.


Both are authoritative powers with the ability to interpret and argue the constitution in any way they see fit, hell the fed and the states have upheld the polygamy ban because they believe they have the right to regulate the practices of religion and they came to this conclusion because of debate.


Well, I can't say that it's perfect and that the states vs the fed always do the right thing in terms of legislative policy. However any of those bans on polygamy should have been hard fought by everybody, not just polygamists.

We've allowed our federal and state governments to pass laws that aren't lawful. With our apathy we've set up a system where they think the game rules only apply to us and they make the next set of rules.

When we all know it's the opposite.



That being said, the constitution is a 200+ year old document that actually holds little true significance in the modern world. Most would probably scoff at this remark but I believe it to be very true, while the overall "spirit" of the constitution is still valid; its dictation of how government should be ran is..well...out dated. We have made countless laws that are unlawful according to the constitution, and we carry on countless practices that are unlawful according to the constitution (i.e. judicial review). However many of these "unconstitutional" laws and practices are necessary for a functional modern society.


I've always stated the that Constitution should be a living, breathing document that changes overtime to not only reflect the current state of affairs within the country; but also the appropriate language so it cannot be interpreted in some weird way.


The libertarian movement of the modern day is in my opinion a joke, because they don't understand their own political ideology. They don't know if they are conservatives or social anarchists.


Like any movement, the Libertarian movement has been hijacked by those who wish to keep you away from your rights. The want by our masters to keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of fighting them is very strong.

And one of the most powerful ways to do this is political ideology.

~Tenth



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
Never said anything about welfare or the department of education. But to dismantle them completely in one swipe would be suicide for the economy and the millions of people who DO use these programs!

It's obvious you know little/nothing about responsibility.

If you're going to cut government programs and spending, you don't do it in one fell swoop. You peel it back piece by piece. You don't dive into the deep end of the pool to see if you can swim. You cautiously wade in, and you learn.

Libertarians are not anti-government. They are against Big Government. Government is a necessary evil, and that is why it is to be kept as small as practical. Libertarians are not anarchists, as has already been said.

And I don't believe that any libertarians believe that we will ever win by running as a third party. I don't think that the point of running as a libertarian on a ticket is to win. It's to put out a message and keep particular ideas in foreground. That is probably why Ron Paul ran as a republican this year.

As I said in another thread, I am perfectly content to vote for libertarian candidates. I don't expect that they'll win. I hope that libertarians steal potential votes from the Republican party. I hope that Democrats beat Republicans by the margins that libertarian votes could have afforded.

Democrats and Republicans are for Big Government - despite what they may say. There is no real difference between the two. Both parties want to tell you how to live your life. Libertarians don't. So let the Democrats win, and let Republicans be frustrated. Let Republicans be put out of a job. At the end of the day, if the Republican party ever wants to hold office again, they'll have to field suitable candidates. They'll have to cater to the libertarians. That's the only way libertarians will get their way.

It's a slow game, and it will be a painful process. In the end, though, libertarians will have essentially usurped the Republican party and turned it into something respectable. As it stands, the Republican party is absolutely disgusting.

So when you cast your vote, don't vote for Romney just because you'd rather he were in office than Obama. If you think Gary Johnson would do a better job, vote for him. Vote your conscience. If you always vote inside the two-party system, you'll always get one of their candidates. If everyone that believes in libertarian ideals votes for libertarians, we will eventually have pull within the the Republican party once they decide that they'd like to be employed again.

Voting for a third party, no matter what it is, is not throwing away your vote. It's sending a message.
edit on 8.8.2012 by NeutralGuard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by METACOMET
 


settle down I fixed the mistake.


Not really, since you still list Lincoln and FDR as libertarians. They're probably the most anti-libertarian people in your list.

/TOA



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Thanks for the response Tenth.

I agree with the majority of your post, but as I mentioned in a previous thread I believe this argument boils down to two very common questions, "How big should government be?" and "Is a large government inherently bad?".

My answer's to both of these are, "As big as it needs to be." and "No".

I think we are in a time where we are divided in to two groups, the idealists, and the rationalists. The majority libertarian's, republicans, and democrats are idealists who want something that is near impossible to obtain. The rest of them are the rationalists who (while sticking to their respective political ideologies) are willing to compromise and find solutions that benefit the whole, they are also willing to change their minds when information is obtained that conflicts with their positions.

In the "war" between these two groups the idealists are winning which is a travesty. Reason has been continuously stifled or warped by those who "believe" they are right, despite the facts contradicting those beliefs.
edit on 10-8-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join