Why I will never support the Libertarians.

reply to post by Rekrul


Huh? What "words have I put in other peoples mouths?? "

The words are out of my mouth, not anyone else's.

reply to post by poet1b


That's true, but, the federal gov't is the most powerful "corporation" in the country.

reply to post by poet1b


True, but then you leave out state, federal, county taxes, FDA regulations that others don't have, gov't subsidies-real ones, not the political labeled one in the U.S.-, disability taxes, social security payments, unemployment...oh yes medical insurance, Legal insurance/costs.

Most of which doesn't exist in many other countries.

A lot more than just "labor costs"....

reply to post by YayMayorBee


Outstanding post!

reply to post by YayMayorBee


A perfect example is the booming "Organic Food" market. While gov't has butt in regarding labeling, perhaps not a bad thing, it remains that that is a market driven industry and well above the Gov't regulation level.

Market forces made the Japanese car industry, quality, not regulations. The U.S. auto industry has responded to that market force.

reply to post by Em2013


Just because the gov't endorses a product, doesn't mean you have to purchase it. Hello?

One can do the research and decide for themselves. it's the responsible thing to do.

reply to post by iwilliam


Not overburdened by a sense of humor, are you.

OK, a terrorist. That meet with your approval??

The point is that beautiful socialist piece of sci-fi- which I've been a fan of since the first episode- doesn't work in the real world, especially the one we live in.

Go Klingons LOL

reply to post by SaturnFX


Sigh, as things are going now with the "progressives" running the show, shutting down NASA, I'm betting the Chinese colonize before the U.S.

If you progressives would get out of the way, we'd have colonized the Moon and perhaps Mars by now.

Your post confirms the "no moral code" flaw of the Progressives and Libertarians.

The Constitution cannot survive in a moral vacuum. It requires a group that supports it. For a group to survive as such a group mores has to exist.

The diminished morals of this country are part of, if not the greatest part of, the abuse of the Constitution.

That's my empirically developed understanding of the situation. It doesn't have to go to the extremes, but the no moral code crowd make the fix harder than anything else that's blocking the way.

That's how I see it.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I didn't say that the Judeo-Christian moral code was perfect or without flaw, what I'm saying is "no code" isn't working.

The golden rule is very cool. By itself, it's not enough.

There are too many that won't live by it, or can't, either personally or by circumstance. That number is going up, from what I can see, in no small part, due to the lessened morals.

Go ahead and do your doobies. Let each state decide for themselves. We'll see which ones survive the longer. The stoned or the straight. Wanna bet?

nwtrucker
reply to post by Em2013

 

Just because the gov't endorses a product, doesn't mean you have to purchase it. Hello?

One can do the research and decide for themselves. it's the responsible thing to do.

You have the right to not purchase a product, I agree with that but the FDA will allow this or that to pass without labeling and there is no way for us to know until years later. How many years of pink slime did we eat before someone finally pulled a James bond and found out the process of which the hamburgers were made? The FDA knew, but they didn't tell people because to them this was acceptable. The private sector however wouldn't be so carefree and the moment one company accepts a bribe and gets caught, it's over for them. You can worship your government as much as you like but realistically it cannot do as good of a job as the private sector. The only thing it can do is help crowdsource projects that are too expensive to do in the private sector, like space exploration and build a military. Although arguably the military has grown out of control.

nwtrucker
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Sigh, as things are going now with the "progressives" running the show, shutting down NASA, I'm betting the Chinese colonize before the U.S.

ok, first off, you are totally misinformed about this (not really a surprise).
Some background info found here: Infolink
It was a old program that simply had its time end with no new program drawn up since then. Defunding nasa more and more tends to hamper the program
The numbers
No, this is not your stance. as a conservative, you are meant to be cheering nasa's destruction as a waste of time with spacey wasey stuff with your hard earned dollars and all that tripe. Nasa is always first on the chopping block when people talk about cutting waste in government (because you know...advancing us is a total waste)
So, bull and twice bull. learn the history.

If you progressives would get out of the way, we'd have colonized the Moon and perhaps Mars by now.

I made a thread about this ages ago. What is the conservative plan for space colonization?
There is none. the idea is to shut down nasa and let some companys do it...because yeah, totally gonna happen that way.
The idea is that its not in the governments power to start the space race, it should be done through capitalism.
so
Bullpucky twice on you. You may not actually know what it means to be a conservative.

Your post confirms the "no moral code" flaw of the Progressives and Libertarians.

The Constitution cannot survive in a moral vacuum. It requires a group that supports it. For a group to survive as such a group mores has to exist.

The constitution is -not- a religious doctrain, it is the magna carta rewritten, some basic rules of law and a general understanding of human disposition.
Your neocon requirement to have a sky ghost watching you in order for you to do the right thing is understood as falty logic, hense why law is established instead of a theocratic heirachy. If the neocons are correct in requiring a deity centric society to keep them in line, then why is it secular nations on earth today are doing profoundly better in almost all areas of life (quality, economic, environmental, etc) than religious nations? Its simple really, and something the average neocon possibly cannot comprehend. Man serves man and law on earth. What they do in their home is their choice, but in society, its better them reflect on law than on morality...law keeps a person in line, morality makes someone suicide bomb the infidels.
Not only is your views on society highly inaccurate factually, empty of any remote desire by over 70% of the people, but it simply doesn't work in any...any logical framework.
Morality should -never- be legislated...morals is a home thing, not a government thing. learn from history already!

The diminished morals of this country are part of, if not the greatest part of, the abuse of the Constitution.

People since the days of Caesar have been writing about the diminishing of morality

Come to find out, its not really the country, its the person speaking whom is having their personal morals diminished.
Society simply evolves and adapts.

I wonder if the parents of the first children who decided to wear clothes thought the morals of the new generation are lax..all this covering and enticing.

Anyhow, good luck in the quest to devolve society. plenty of proud progressives will check your kind at every step. You had a good run of almost a thousand years in the dark ages, that's enough of that nonsense.

But its good to have you speak, it reminds people why social conservatism is something to be stopped.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Well first of all....when the current political parties are so mired in frivolous infighting and playing games and only concerned with money then you need something different. The tea party had a good concept and then devolved into conservative republicans. We already have plenty of those. The occupy movement had a good concept but they couldn't form a cohesive political effort and maybe that wasn't the point. The Green party, constitution party, communist party etc.. don't have enough money or support to get on a national ballot in any meaningful way yet.

Our problem is greed and money and power. Our current political process is set up so that only establishment, wealthy, connected people can get elected. If you're not establishment or new or common or a real person you can't get in and make changes that need to happen. Libertarians are a solid third party that has had and still has a chance to break that cycle a little bit. Any third party that can shake up this system would be good. That's the only way things will change, if we make it easy to have third party candidates on ballots and in debates.

The problem with your post, though, is that you suggested that there is something wrong with gay people and that they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexual people. They should. You suggested that the problem with this country is gay people. Christians are getting this backlash, because they don't think that people that are different than themselves should have the same rights. That's why there appears to be a war on Christians. Most Christians that I know, 90% are hypocritical in that they say they are Christians but forget that Jesus said there is only one commandment ...to love thy neighbor. If Jesus was around today, he would also say, "quit killing north Koreans by sending them bibles on balloons!"

reply to post by nwtrucker



I'm sure glad you got the lock on the truth. We need more guys like you around to tell us what to do and to think.

I like that philosophy, kill you enemy before he kills you. And by God anybody who don't think like I do is my enemy. Democracy be damned, I know what is right for this world, and I'm acting on it.

God bless you you are a patriot.

reply to post by Em2013


Worship my gov't? Huh? I agree with you re private sector being superior, in many ways.

Balance is required, however. As you say, corporations are money motivated, gov't are control motivated. Both are "imperfect."

The problems of the financial institutions are a combination of both, from what I can see.

I highly doubt the FDA "knew" in advance. They'd have to do the research first, which I'm betting they didn't do...rubber stamped it and then the gov't machinery, being what it is, was slow.

Neither the gov't nor corporations get a "rubber stamp" from me.

Lousy morals, I guess..LOL

reply to post by nwtrucker


A true libertarian doesn't really give a crap what the constitution says - it just so happens that the constitution aligns fairly well with most libertarian values, and enforcing it would limit the size, scope and intervention potential of the government. In other words, it is a step towards a libertarian society - it certainly isn't an end point.

To be truly libertarian is to abolish all taxes for a start, abolish standing armies and to remove all regulation that does not protect private and common property, prevent monopoly, or prevent fraud/deceit.

Libertarians value both freedom AND justice as the pillars of society. The libertarian knows the govt is always evil, and see's its only legitimate roles as managing an effective defense against invasion, and to protect personal liberty, private property, enforce criminal law, prosecute fraud, deceit and eliminate monopolies.

Ethics cannot be mandated, a society needs to have a culture of ethical behavior passed generation to generation - if you want to understand why it has collapsed, then look no further than welfare, unequal divorce settlements, child support, alimony to support the destruction of families, and of course - the wonders of public education. You can of course add in monopolistic control of media which has targeted a degradation of the ethical character of the western world by design.

Of course, for myself I'm not really libertarian - I'm more to the right, just short of anarchist. I think there are no legitimate roles for any central govt, but that communities should manage public funds raised by collecting all rent from monopolies. The public funds should be dispersed by democratic processes, not requiring any central govt. Laws and legal process should be handled by communities for private property, and by democratic means for common property. Defense should be handled by voluntary militias.

reply to post by okyouwin


Sarcasm noted.

Lack of logical rebut also noted.

Yes, at our best, the U.S. was still flawed, imperfect. Perhaps even more flawed than the "patriots" could or would admit.

On the other hand, the unending guilt trip for past sins and mistakes used to attack/demean, again "patriots",- I prefer "Americans"- seems to be intended to stop any comments or striving for American exceptionalism.

Perhaps, the truth is somewhere in between.

It's hard to tell what comments are heartfelt and honest from mere political ideology or self-interest.

There is a balance point between freedom and responsibility, between "live and let live", do what you want and the military code of Justice. An irreligious society and a society run by a religion.

My view is we've gone too far one way. None have argued that a moral code is useless or of no value, at least no farther than being guilty due to association with religion.

As a huge "believer" in the Tenth Amendment. The problem is largely solved by letting each state go the route that their citizens want. The federal gov't is the source of much of the problems. Put the leashes back on it.

Let the States "live and let live". Then we'll have happier citizens...either way.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Well seeing as how Washington state has legalized recreational use and is now starting to figure out how to gain tax revenue from it, I'd wager that doobie using states will survive better than ones where usage is still illegal. You know instead of costing the state more and more as they jail weed smokers, they instead gain tax revenue from them instead. Your response to me almost suggests that you think marijuana use is immoral. If that is the case, I sure hope you think alcohol use is immoral too, since it is MUCH worse for you than marijuana. That is unless you think marijuana use is immoral just because it is currently illegal and actually believe those stupid myths they told us in the 70's and 80's.

Though if you think marijuana should remain illegal, that is all you needed to say on why you don't want to vote Libertarian. We want to decriminalize EVERY drug law (as well as any moral laws like prostitution, gambling, assisted suicide, etc). Legislating morality is a quick way to gain record breaking prison populations without actually fixing the problem.

You suggest that morality is somehow better then no morality. Well point me to a civilization or country that has or has had good morals and as a result has been successful? Quick answer, they don't exist. EVERY country since ever has had immorality, they try to legislate against it and it becomes a huge police problem for them. It makes more sense to just let these people be and do what they want to do as long as they aren't hurting others or their property. By the way, our country didn't go down the tubes due to dropping morality (first off, I pointed out that we never had good morals to begin with), but in reality we are going downhill due to corruption and marrying private business with the government. More people smoking pot today then 30 years ago doesn't make bankers hijack the economy, crash it, then whine for a government bailout (and get it) without any legal repercussions.

reply to post by Amagnon


Good post. Yes, ethics cannot be mandated. Moral codes are, if not outright mandated, then enforced in some degree by society itself rather than the gov't.

My personal sense of ethics "mandated" this thread. LOL

I suspect I know the answer to this question but will ask you anyways. What do you see as the difference, if any, between the "Tea Party" and the Libertarians?

You want "your" culture to win? Can you elaborate on what you culture actually is?

nwtrucker
First let me say there are many, many good Libertarians and my comment are not reflections on them. This is just my opinion.

First, if I have it right, the general idea that I get is a "live and let live", as long as it's within the Constitution. As the Constitution is directed at Gov't, then I assume your referring to elected legislators. Not "The People".

As the Constitution restrains gov't, it's LAW that restrains people, not the Constitution. Do I have this right?

In an earlier thread I got into it with a libertarian who used the Mosque at ground zero as his example of "violating the constitution". Yet, if Libertarians ran the show, they couldn't stop "The People" from stopping it due to their own belief that laws restricting them to the Constitution would bar them from making any law regarding religion as a violation of the separation of church and state. So the whole concept of how they would implement this concept escapes me.

But that's not the point of this thread.

There is a culture war that we are in the middle of. I won't bore going over that. However, as in a shooting war, as this one is not, fortunately, one doesn't "live and let live" towards the "enemy'. One defeats him.

To those that will jump in and say "you fool, don't you realize that both sides are being duped by the 'elite'"?

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...

So to make it simple, we have the anarchists who say "no rules". Then the Libertarians who say "Constitution only...then no rules." Then there's the conservatives that say, "constitution and rules". Our rules. Our Judeo-Christian moral code rules. That which worked in the past and helped put America on the top in virtually every category one could think of. Workability. Tried and true.

The Constitution is useless without a group that has a moral code, with the majority following that moral code as best as they can. "laws" add consequences to violating that moral code, not live and let live.

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.

We went from a heterosexual society, at least in public, to the point where our senate is drafting laws against discriminating against gays. At the same time, the 'discrimination' against gays is being replaced with discrimination against Christians. In the military, gov't, schools and the list grows as we speak.

So all "live and let live" has gotten us is a degraded moral level, an ineffective/repressive gov't, yet again..on and on.

You want MORE live and let live????

I think not.

I'm not a rocket scientist, so forgive my simplistic thread. Although, sometimes simple is better...just look under your hood sometime..