Why I will never support the Libertarians.

reply to post by crazyewok


I agree with your post. Surprised??

I was referring to times past. Not the present.

Your points are obvious, I'd like it, in most ways , back the way it was.....

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


What your missing is live and let live is a major, if not THE major reason we are in the mess we are.

That's why I support the Tea Party. Who has done more work in less time than the Libertarian Party by a "light year".

reply to post by olaru12


Sigh, who do you think is evil?

The "evil" I address is what's being done to this country. I really don't care if they are conservatives or whatever. Everyone has contributed to this mess by inaction at least from what I can see.

I happen to be old enough to be able to compare the imperfect, yet, far preferable conduct of Americans and America in the past than what we have now.

In that past we were a moral people and nation, hello? It's really simple...like me. LOL

nwtrucker
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

What your missing is live and let live is a major, if not THE major reason we are in the mess we are.

That's why I support the Tea Party. Who has done more work in less time than the Libertarian Party by a "light year".

That probably has more to do with the fact that the Tea Party is associated with the Republican party and all their members run with (R)'s next to their name. Libertarians run as independents and many people just can't be bothered to learn about the various independents' platforms even if they may more closely align with their political views then the two reigning parties. Plus there is that extremely stupid stigma that voting independent is akin to throwing your vote away or indirectly voting for another party.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Your post is a perfect example of why I'm a tea party supporter rather than a Libertarian. Is there any difference in what we did to the locals than Canada? Mexico? Australia? N.Z.? Great Britian? on and on and on.....

Name me any country that didn't develop via one group dominating those lower on the food chain.

Sad but true.

So on that level, we are no better or worse than anyone else on this planet.

Therefore, you make no valid point in regards to the Libertarians versus any other party or group, from what I can see.

nwtrucker


In that past we were a moral people and nation, hello? It's really simple...like me. LOL

Sorry, I fail to see the morality in the way blacks, Native Americans and other minorities were treated in the past.

And saying others did the same is no argument. Either it's Moral or it's not.

reply to post by nwtrucker


I'm off to work. I won't be able to defend myself until tomorrow night.

Nice chatting with you all.

reply to post by olaru12


That argument isn't valid in my books. Sorry, your "it's moral or it's not" is flat out wrong. There are degrees to morality and is certainly not an absolute.

We've been made so guilty for errors of the past, that somehow it's evolved to every minority shall get special consideration no matter what.

How about we're all the same, hit the ground naked and crying and will go out similarly?

olaru12

nwtrucker


In that past we were a moral people and nation, hello? It's really simple...like me. LOL

Sorry, I fail to see the morality in the way blacks, Native Americans and other minorities were treated in the past.

And saying others did the same is no argument. Either it's Moral or it's not.

edit on 11-11-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

So consistently allowing a group to win elections who is doing its darndest to make sure we are all treated exactly the same way they were treated makes it right? It might be "fair" in the strictest sense of the word, but it doesn't advance the cause of liberty for anyone, including members of those groups.

The original post is missing one small detail which is the 10th amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Being said, and also being a libertarian I look at it this way.

Take whatever state you are in and imagine for a moment that there was NO Federal aid (except expressly detailed in the constitution)

This means your education system, fire, police, etc is funded and controlled 100% by the state you live in.

I promise you, if this was the case, people would take it upon themselves to

1. Vote for official(s) who had their best interests in mind
2. Hold officials accountable
3. Make sure they are informed voters so they could make the best possible choice.


Problem now is people just simply don't care. They don't care because the Federal govt will always just bail out the states when the local officials drive it into the ground.

And your Star Trek reference is a little off... It took a GLOBAL war before man took it upon themselves to change as species. These changes were fundamental changes to the human condition which is a pipe dream as it stands today.

The libertarian view point it based on the human condition as it stands today.

ketsuko

olaru12

nwtrucker


In that past we were a moral people and nation, hello? It's really simple...like me. LOL

Sorry, I fail to see the morality in the way blacks, Native Americans and other minorities were treated in the past.

And saying others did the same is no argument. Either it's Moral or it's not.

edit on 11-11-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

who is doing its darndest to make sure we are all treated exactly the same way they were treated makes it right? It might be "fair" in the strictest sense of the word, but it doesn't advance the cause of liberty for anyone, including members of those groups.

So consistently allowing a group to win elections

I thought elections were won by a consensus of the voters. I thought that's what separated us from tyranny.

Do you want to do away with elections? What do you purpose?

It's not perfect, but I'm for letting the electorate choose their leaders. Sometimes the leaders suck, and lie, and get us into illegal wars, pander to their base; the system is far from perfect but it's the closest to "Liberty" we got.

What's your plan? A Theocracy? Benevolent dictators? Or a continued Corporate Oligarchy we currently enjoy; Obama is the consummate neocon....isn't that the conservatives wet dream...ala St. Ayn?

nwtrucker
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Your post is a perfect example of why I'm a tea party supporter rather than a Libertarian. Is there any difference in what we did to the locals than Canada? Mexico? Australia? N.Z.? Great Britian? on and on and on.....

Name me any country that didn't develop via one group dominating those lower on the food chain.

Sad but true.

So on that level, we are no better or worse than anyone else on this planet.

Therefore, you make no valid point in regards to the Libertarians versus any other party or group, from what I can see.

I never claimed we were better or worse than any other group. I was just demonstrating that there never was this supposed moral golden era in our country that Judeo-Christians always go on and on about. That is why the Tea Party platform is flawed. They seem to think there is this time period in American history where we were all morally just or something. This isn't true as I've shown in my first post. The decadent morals always existed, people just didn't talk about them as much and pretended they didn't happen.

Meanwhile, Libertarians just want to be left alone by the government. We don't like being told what you can and cannot do with your body, and as long as we don't cause harm to someone else through our actions, you have no business telling us we can't do it. We don't need some ridiculous appeal to religious morality to back our argument, we just let the Golden Rule (which transcends all religions and belief systems) back it instead.

One more point, morality is subjective. There are many things that we think are immoral in this country that are perfectly acceptable in others and vice-versa. Who is to say that the Christian morality is correct? I personally don't believe so, they tend to have archaic views on women and homosexuality. Instead of marrying your morality to religion, break it free and base it to just humanity in general.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Ah, morality is subjective.

You do realize that when you go with moral relativism than all things are permitted?

Basically, your base morality becomes a version of action A is always wrong for me, but if it is permissible to Harry because of his personal beliefs, then who am I to judge? Basically, you may feel good to say that action A is never right for you, but because you find it justifiable for Harry, guess what? Action A is also right for you, too, in those circumstances. Therefore, while you may say I follow the Golden Rule, what you really follow is that all things are permissible because you can find someone for whom any act is perfectly fine for them and thus would be perfectly fine for you because who are you to judge?

So which is it - the Golden Rule -or- Moral Relativism?

reply to post by ketsuko


Um... I made it pretty clear in my post that you should base your morality on the Golden Rule. I don't know why you are trying to muddy my meaning here. I never claimed that it is permissible, morally, to do whatever you want because morals are subjective. I said that you should decouple your morality from religion and base it on humanism (in other words the golden rule).

Krazysh0t

Instead of marrying your morality to religion, break it free and base it to just humanity in general.

Last line of the post you replied to.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Then after that great start.

You also said that morals are subjective.

You can't have it both ways. The Golden Rule IS morality.

Em2013
I'd also like to mention that Socialism has a finite life before it runs out of other people's money. The image representation is more or less inaccurate even if it were reversed.

> Socialism is poor for morale and incapable of self-sustaining itself
> Libertarianism is good for morale and capable of self-sustaining itself
> Communism is poor for morale but capable of self-sustaining itself
> Capitalism is okay for morale and partially capable of self-sustaining itself
> Marxism is poor for morale and unable to sustain itself
> Fascism is poor for morale but capable of self-sustaining itself with a very finite lifespan

I don't think we would be able to achieve a Star Trek kind of era under libertarianism, but socialism is far less likely to be probable.

edit on 11-11-2013 by Em2013 because: (no reason given)

I do like the way you presented this; however I don't agree that socialism is poor for moral and ask how you came to this conclusion.

The more socialist countries to my perception have quite high morale which leads to excellent production and innovation.

Perhaps we have a different definition of morale though.

reply to post by ketsuko


You are splitting hairs. I'm just making an argument that since morality is subjective, it shouldn't be tied to another human construct like religion, since that can be corrupted or perverted. It should be tied to making humans in general better or happier. The golden rule, in its simplicity, says just that. I'm really not sure how else I can explain this to you.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Morality can be corrupted or perverted just fine with or without religion attached to it, or else you are going to argue that regimes where religion is currently not allowed and punishable by the state (North Korea) are in no way morally flawed.

reply to post by ketsuko


Why are we still having this conversation? Are you purposely not understanding my point or something? I feel like I've explained my position well enough at this point that I shouldn't have to elaborate on it anymore. I'm really not sure what you are trying to argue in favor of here. Maybe explain your position in more detail and we can continue this discussion.

tridentblue
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

If you look close, you'll see you're moral too SaturnFX. Do you think there's something in the laws of science that says the 1% elite shouldn't engineer a situation where 99% of the earth is killed and they take over? There isn't. Any argument against that, or any other evil thing you can think up, is MORAL in nature. Without a moral code, anything goes. There's no reason in speaking out at all, except for your own self interest. So admit it, there's things you think are right, and things you think are wrong. You have a moral code.

Actually, I have a very strong moral code personally. I however also don't see my moral code being something open to legislation or should be enforced by law and rule. it is what I personally view as my morality.

Now

Principles and Ethics, yes..this should be a society norm. Principles tend to keep a society in line and helpful while moving up. Rarely is it subjective.
For instance, a principle of not destroying life will protect the innocent, but it will also eliminate death penalty by government
a moral obligation to kill bad people will open up the death penalty, but also will bring about lynch mobs and a debate of what is objectively bad (a subjective viewpoint).
Best to stand openly on principles..leave morals where they belong, in your heart and home.