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.

 

Why I will never support the Libertarians.

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

nwtrucker
reply to post by Em2013
 


Yah right. I'd love to see a Jihadist with a matter transmitter.....





I think it's funny that you cry "religious persecution against christians!" and then proceed to make a highly prejudiced post. Care to tell me which country / society "Jihadists" are part of?

Oh, do you mean Muslims? Who are spread out over many countries, with differing styles of government?


And since when are "Jihadists" socialists?



Sounds to me like you've got some pretty mixed up, biased views. I guess that's what happens to political perspective when it's clouded with religion. Just like the "Jihadists." lol




posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

nwtrucker
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Ouch, that's nasty. LOL.

So I guess you support more tolerance, after all, everything is our fault. Live and let live then they'll leave us alone, right?

Well, I tolerate you and your right to speak / find your own happiness, so I guess so
As far as "leave us alone"..who in specific? the gheys?
I cannot be "converted" into being gay, can you? (if you can, guess what...)



I didn't say anything about religion, just a moral code. Of course, there's the no moral code code of the humanist.

Humanists tend to have principles and ethics. Morality is something personal.
Unification under morality is at best a theocracy, but most likely just a cult/mob.
Unification under principles is typically the foundation of law and order / society.
Which do you stand for?


Sorry. this isn't the middle east, nor will it become one.

I'm digging in, not packing bags...

Well digging in is fine, just understand that indeed this isn't the middle east. This is the west, where tolerance and progression is keystone to our success.
(hint: we are going for the "first to colonize space" achievement, so help out or get out of the way basically)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I'm just confused by how you would separate morals and religion as though it is exlusively religion that screws up morality.

In my experience, it's exclusively the province of human beings and human nature to screw it up. We then come up with all sorts of excuses for it with religion simply being one of a whole host of them.

It provides a very easy out for you to try to blame it all on religion as well as a kind of means of claiming a sort of moral high ground because it allows you not have to acknowledge that you are just susceptible to the same flawed nature as everyone else, including those icky religious folks.

And it irks me to no end to see people trying to draw this distinction between themselves and the religious as though it someone makes their moralities really any different because, as you so ably pointed out, the Golden Rule is pretty much universal. So if the religious have it and you do too, then any failures to live up to it on any side are strictly down to the failure of the person and not any excuse they may attempt to make.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Ok fair enough. I will concede that religion isn't the sole reason morality gets screwed up, but what you are addressing isn't really what I was originally addressing to the OP. The OP mentioned Judeo-Christian morals and that our country needs to return to an earlier time when our country was successful due to these morals. My entire point was focused on showing that religious based morals are a flawed concept and that we were never as moral as we [America] like to think we were. Then I provided an alternative to this concept in the Golden Rule. It's not like I argued against religious morals then proceeded to give another flawed method of moral delivery. Religion would be a fine device to deliver morals if it didn't keep getting hijacked by some religious nut with his own view on how people should live (even if there is no mention of it in the bible).

A fine example of this is marijuana. It is known that marijuana was lobbied against in the 50's by the paper industry because hemp was poised to overtake lumber in producing paper (which by the way needs to happen, I can't believe our legislators sided with deforestation). Then to really cement the idea in the public's mind, a smear campaign was drawn up with made up "facts" about the plant, then sold to the public with a religious slant, and now you have religious nuts to this day claiming that it is a sin to smoke marijuana. When applying the Golden Rule to this same situation (which should have been done from the beginning), you can easily discard the made up "facts" as irrelevant since they are only effecting the user and he is free to do what he wants with his body.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Ok, then live and let live.

You can have your marijuana, but I don't have to fork over money to help support you if it undercuts your ambition enough that you just can't be bothered to hold down a job. Fair?

But, then, a libertarian understands that's part of accepting the responsibility for his or her actions. If he or she can't handle their vices, they deserve to suffer for them. I can go a ways with that.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ozwest
 


Excellent, corporate fascist is exactly what has become of the US.

Libertarianism, the idea that we can get rid of the laws/regulations, that keep corporations from destroying our country is pure idealistic chit. The market does not self regulate.

I lived in the sixties and seventies, and it was far superior to what we have going on now.

The thing is, that the people who want to get rid of the regulations that keep the bankers in check want to create more and more laws to regulate the individual, and those are the laws that need to be eliminated.

Making a mistake is not a crime. Restitution to the victims should be made, when there are victims, but otherwise, correct the mistake, modify behavior to keep from happening and move on.

These days corporations are the ones creating the rules we must live by, and that is the crux of everything evil going down in this country.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Okay, I'd like to raise a point about libertarians... and who knows... maybe I'll get lucky, and someone will have something intelligent and/or insightful to respond with.


Personally, as far as their general "platform" I think libertarians do get a lot of things right. However, there are some areas where I fear they may have it very wrong. Areas which really may prevent them from having my support. And who knows... maybe my impression is wrong.


My issue relates to the belief in limited government, as it relates to capitalism. I think we have learned quite a lot about capitalism in the last century or so. Much about its benefits, but also its limitations, and its flaws. And one of the things I think we've seen, is that left unchecked, with no or few rules, capitalism will eventually morph from what begins as free, fair and (mostly, kinda) even trade, into something very different. Something where corporations begin to gain massive power. Where they even have "personhood" (which in some ways is good, and some bad, depending on the specific point, and your perception.)


But you end up in this system, where there are a small handful of companies with vast power. The kind of power and influence that allows them to even influence government, and law itself. The kind of power where monopolies, or near monopolies are created. The kind of power where they do not have to pay a fair and liveable wage, because of not only lobbyists and purchased politicians affecting the laws, but also a system based on lack of options and coercion. Necessary decisions made under duress.


How can I hold my position, that my labor should be worth a fair, liveable wage (say $15/hr) when I have to take a job to keep from starving, yet unemployment is at an all time high (partly, again, due to some of these corps and their policies) so there is massive competition, even for crappy jobs at $7/hr?



The system is set up such that those with more money have all the power and options, and those without such massive wealth have little to nothing, in the way of power, or options. Quite reliably, and predictably, in such a system those in power will take advantage of that system for their own gain. That is to say, take advantage of other people who lack much personal power. In this system the gain of one at the top is clearly to the detriment of one closer to the bottom.


And what about monopolies? Those aren't supposed to exist. In my area, if I want to get cable television service, I have exactly one choice. Sure, I could instead opt for satellite service (which is similar, but technically not the same thing) and give myself perhaps one, maybe two more options. But if I want cable television I have one choice. If I want high speed internet, I have two choices. But if I want the faster cable internet, it's back down to one choice.


What about the concept of big business crushing smaller start ups, by virtue of their size and resources? A big retailer like wal mart can just about always afford to under-sell the competition.



Big businesses have some inherently morally corrupt features. Many big businesses out there will operate in ways that clearly have harmful effects on society, for example pollution, with no care as long as they can "get away with it" and still profit. They really do encourage and reward sociopathic behavior.


And yes, to a degree any system allowing a few to collect massive wealth will have some of these attributes. But left unchecked, IMO, it could get pretty ugly. Even with the supposed checks and balances we have today, I could easily envision a future where corporations, not governments run the world. Or where corporations use governments like puppets. Actually, if you ask some people, that may already be happening / starting today.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


but your own post contradicts itself. for most of this country's existence those groups of people were discriminated against. wasn't this country supposed to be equal treatment, equal rights for all? not just white anglo saxon protestant men? (women had no vote remember up until 1914. just shy of 100 years)

as for libertarians. a couple of elections ago, bill maher had the libertarian presidential candidate on his show. bill asked him about regulations. he said "no regulations."

what about health regulations and inspections on food.

still no regulations, market will work it out.

so, if a company sells tainted meat and people get sick and die, that is okay?

if that happens, then people will just stop going there.

how many people have to die until that happens?

the candidate had no answer for that. government DOES have a small role in public life.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I think you underestimate the forces of raw economics.

Most big businesses as we know them could not exist if the market were actually free. Most of them could be easily undercut by smaller, localized competitors. Of course, you also have to have people who are willing to take the time to actually make sure they are getting what is advertised and their money's worth ...



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

blackthorne
reply to post by ketsuko
 


but your own post contradicts itself. for most of this country's existence those groups of people were discriminated against. wasn't this country supposed to be equal treatment, equal rights for all? not just white anglo saxon protestant men? (women had no vote remember up until 1914. just shy of 100 years)


Actually, if you want to get technical, it started out as only landowners who could vote because it was felt that voters needed to be invested in the process with skin in the game as it were.

Given the situation we find ourselves in today were about 51% of the electorate has no direct income tax liability and finds themselves in a situation where they can now vote themselves into the pockets of the rest of us with direct income tax liability, I do understand the impulse that limited the franchise.

What do you care about big government spending if you are not directly connected to the government money till on the supply side, and why then would you do care about issues that promote fiscal responsibility and might limit your own monthly benefits?


as for libertarians. a couple of elections ago, bill maher had the libertarian presidential candidate on his show. bill asked him about regulations. he said "no regulations."

what about health regulations and inspections on food.

still no regulations, market will work it out.

so, if a company sells tainted meat and people get sick and die, that is okay?

if that happens, then people will just stop going there.


Any business that is worth it's reputation and wants to remain in business long-term won't risk alienating its customer base. As I said, with most of the impediments to business out of the way, most of the businesses around would be small ones. What small businessman has enough customers that he can afford to take a chance with sickening any of them?


how many people have to die until that happens?


Given what you know about the size of customer base and all other things about a business, you would presumably be an informed consumer. Who would you be more likely to trust? The guy who sells a lot of meat all over the area or the local guy whose facilities you can see and look at, the one you know, the neighborhood guy everyone used to have access to who's been driven out of business thanks to big government cronyism.


the candidate had no answer for that. government DOES have a small role in public life.


Oh, it does have a small role, but this should be a strictly local role for the most part.

Remember, libertarianism does not equal anarchy.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

nwtrucker
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


So what you say the humanist has a moral code. the only one I've seen is perfectly detailed in your post. Hating any and all religions and their moral codes.

What, other than your vent, has added to human morals that hasn't been covered by the Judeo-Christian morals?

I'm all ears.....


The same moral code that endorses slavery? that allows people to be stoned to death? the same that tells us unruly children can be killed?
Sorry but the moral code you are talking about started long before 0 AD you don't have a monopoly on it don't act like you do.
It is true I hate religion because it is something that you have been told, not what you have come up with by yourself and is a way to collect money from the poor (look at 2nd book of the bible) and make its priests rich.
I don't hate any moral code but again your lot didn't invent it....



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I think you greatly misunderstand the power of raw economics.

Raw economics doesn't have a sense of morality, no sense of right or wrong, except that in raw economics, might is right.

With out laws to keep businesses in check, there is no morality, no social contract, and no trust!

And this is exactly what I see happening in society today.

Giant corporations are enabled by the elimination of regulations to prevent start up companies, competitors, from even entering the market.

It is pure fantasy that markets can self regulate.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


You said a couple of things that really caught my attention:



I answer I DON'T CARE. I want our culture to win no matter who's pulling the damn strings. We can always take care of them afterwards. We outnumber them by just a bit...


And...



Truth be told, the reason we are in this mess is due, at least partially, to having already being suck into "live and let live". We've done it with our culture, our language, our institutions, our gov't...the list is a long one.


To the first as far as taking care of them afterwards because we outnumber them. What do you suggest we do? Would you not agree that the peoples pleas of peaceful redress have been largely ignored? IRS targeting, NSA spying, Welfare, DHS, etc. etc. At which point do we take care of them and in what fashion? The Constitution provides a means of response but are you willing to go there, or have we not yet endured enough. Just what is our line in the sand?

To the latter. You presuppose that in our lifetime we have actually experienced a Constitutional Republic. Let us examine that.



A Republic, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.


When we finally if ever live in a Constitutional Republic we will better be able to tell which form of governance we prefer. I propose a Constitutionalist party but I hear that makes me a terrorist.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


That's fine with me. I never asked for support for it or any other thing I've done. All the support I've taken advantage of, I've earned. Like the G.I. Bill.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


This is why as I said earlier, it is so important for those who live in the sort of free Republic the Founders envisioned to be able to trust one another meaning they must have some sort of basic moral code.

If the people taking part of the market are moral people and by and large practice at the very least the Golden Rule, then they shouldn't be out to take advantage of others in a dishonest manner.

The very fact that you are already calling for laws says that you cannot be trusted.
edit on 11-11-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


Ummm.....Perhaps you need to take a more fundamental approach to what your erroneously attempting to define. Libertarianism's only interest is in........wait for it..........LIBERTY... That being said, let me ask you some personal question's if I may.

How many LEO's do you need to police yourself...one? Two? Three?

How many laws does it take you for you to exist and function throughout your day...five, six hundred? A few thousand?

How many governing entities do you require to legislate for you...because your just too damned inept to govern yourself?

You see, your entire premise is flawed. I have no need, want or desire for any of those things, I can govern and police myself.......thank you. It's not merely a live and let live belief, but a determination to "DO NO HARM" to another or that other's property. Yet at the same time be responsible enough when accidents happen and also trained to defend your right to the same....by any and all means.

So then, as I live my life bringing no harm to you in any relative way...beyond an overt jab at the politically correct nature of this post modernistic society we all love to hate. Then you also let me live in this fashion...realizing that I just might have the teeth behind my open and frank smile to insure that you not attempt to govern or police my good nature.

In a nutshell, that is the whole of being a person of liberty.

Thank you for your time and allowing me the full use of your cognitive function for the duration of this exercise.

YouSir



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


Are uou off your rocker? Live and let live is something we haver NEVER tried.

Also supporting the tea party is truly naive. There is NO tea party. The tea party is an invention of the GOP to keep naive and foolish votes voting in the Republican party after their reputation and trustworthiness was destroyed by Bush. They are a scheme. Cant you see that? After Bush the GOP had to come up up with something to get people to continue voting for them.

Its a joke. They haven't done squar. Nothing compared to what libertarians would do. They basically are fooling the republicans that wouldve gone libertarian into justifying staying with the GOP. You are juat voting republican again. Same left tight paradigm.

Get with it, open your eyes. You are screwing yourself. You think they didn't have a way to fool the weak from jumping ship to libertarianism? Its funny that voting tea party steals votes that would help the libertarian candidate but keeps those votes for the gop.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

ketsuko


If the people taking part of the market are moral people and by and large practice at the very least the Golden Rule, then they shouldn't be out to take advantage of others in a dishonest manner.



I don't know what fantasy land you live in or else you haven't been paying attention but those taking part in the market have no moral code and the Golden rule is the farthest thing from their mind.

Enron ring a bell?

www.accounting-degree.org...

How about Global Crossing


www.forbes.com...

And those are just the few that got caught.

Ignoring this information and living in some sort of Ayn Rand fantasy land shows you can't be trusted either.



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



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


I said that in order for it to work ...

You are clearly not reading what I have been writing.

However, if you want to live in a NWO where no one has basic liberties or freedoms ... I guess that's our alternative.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I was impressed by your link between morality and communal trust. IMO, Morality exists to establish communal trust, in order for the whole system to work. This is something I have been saying for awhile now.

Ever heard the expression, "Locks are meant to keep honest men honest?"

That is the purpose of laws. Most people will do what is right, again, IMO, but there is always a percentage that will take advantage, and if they get by with it, they will continue to take advantage.

If one starts taking advantage, then soon everyone will take advantage.

This is the exact same reason why communism does not work.

Laws against fraud are as necessary as laws against murder and rape.

Anarchy does not work at any level.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join