Why I will never support the Libertarians.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


At least you do respond with an argument.

I've seen chronic pot-heads and chronic boozers and neither is a desirable condition IMO.

I'm not particularly interested in turning this into your hobby horse/vested interest re pot. I do not but your argument re booze is worse, it's highly debatable. for example, the liver converts the alcohol into blood sugar. Pot cannot be so converted. One doobie is still detectable in the bloodstream 4-6 weeks after consumption. Long after the high.

As a trucker, and not inexperienced in both booze and 60's strength pot, now that both are legal in many states, accident rates will go up, especially when both are combined, toss in zero standards for D.U.I. equivalents, gov't oversite costs, increased insurance issues, the juries are still out on the "financial" gain aspect. By the way, it's Colorado who's taxing pot. I don't think the state of Washington has thought of it yet....we too close to the "B.C. Bud"..LOL

Again, unless your a chronic user, even you cannot deny usage by a large and growing larger consumption of pot, due to it's "legality" diminishes analytical, physical abilities. it's hard to tackle the issues of life rolling on the floor giggling. From that context, the unstoned, the sober states or the lesser stoned, more sober states will flourish over those chemically disconnected from reality.

Back to your Morality statement re countries and good morals, I will correct you on this.

No one said or implied that everyone can or should be "moral". It isn't when viewed on a group basis, an absolute. It is a matter of degrees.

The U.S. had a strong, if imperfect moral background in it's day and was the envy of the world.

It is no longer the envy of the world. it's morals have dropped considerably.

I say there is a correlation in those to facts. I believe it to be so obvious as to be almost unarguable.

The only point is see worth discussion/debate is to what degree-how far- that moral code should go.

Off the top, the worse the situation, the tougher the code. As things improve, the codes weaken by themselves, over time, apparently.

Just my opinion though.

reply to post by nwtrucker


The thing about the pot though is that in a libertarian world view, no one would have to pay for the pot head, including with increased insurance costs.

If insurance companies didn't want to touch a pot head, they wouldn't have to, and ideally, we would all be paying for most of our health care out of pocket anyhow. The most we would have insurance for would be the truly catastrophic stuff, and an insurance company would be well within their rights to demand more from a pot smoker for the increased risk of accident, as would auto insurers. Both these increases in cost would be part of the responsibility of the pot smoker to take on as part of being responsible for their vice.

Yes, you could have laws to restrict movement on roadways while intoxicated as that does attempt to help protect others from your own actions although one would hope that smokers and drinkers would be responsible enough to stay home in the first place - we know this does not work in practice.

The law exists to help protect others' rights from your actions.

This is again where a basically moral society comes in. You need one in order to live in maximal freedom. That doesn't mean you need to be religious, but the more every person lives in a way that is good to those around him and respects them, the less we need to try to pass laws to attempt to compel them to do so.

Thank about it - which is more freedom: Living a life respectful of others, but knowing you could do whatever you wanted to because there is no threat of legal punishment if you didn't -or- living a life respectful of others because you fear the legal consequences of not complying with the force of law?

On the one hand, you always have the option even if you choose to never exercise it. On the other, you lose everything if you take that option.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Every single point you just made about marijuana is incorrect. For instance your comment about the liver is wrong and you'd know this if you knew that THC metabolites (read: NOT THC, but metabolites) are fat soluble and because of that property, they stay in the system longer than alcohol. However since this is getting increasingly offtopic, I will stop commenting about it. By the way stop accusing me (indirectly) of smoking pot, I never admitted to as such and it is against the T&C to say so. So please don't talk about what I do or don't do in this regard.

But see this is what I was talking about earlier. You think that pot is immoral (though the reasons for it appear to be due to a lack of knowledge about the plant on your part, but that is your prerogative and a discussion for another thread) and that legislating morality is ok. Well there you go. That is a much better reason for not voting Libertarian then whatever you said in your OP. I do wish that you'd open your mind to some of these things that you consider immoral and actually research them since it appears that many of your opinions about it are based on myths and half-truths.

nwtrucker
reply to post by buster2010

 

All in all, other than a weak attempt at insult, you haven't posted anything that changes my viewpoint.

So all in all, his insult changed your viewpoint?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I freely admit suspecting you were a pot user if for no other reason than altering what I post.

Actually, I suspect you are wrong re the active ingredient being in the blood stream for 4-6 weeks. It also deposits in fatty tissues never to leave the body unless via a detox/ heavy exercise regime.

Also, the thread is about moral codes, whether legislated or not. I don't think any legislated moral code is workable without the citizens agreeing to and contributing to that code.

One only has to look at the current laws that are violated more and more day by day to see this. Which brings me back to the point of the thread, a society without a moral code is on it's way out.

Most of the "laws" on the books were basically agreed to by a big majority, including pot, by the way. Not so much these days. the laws haven't changed, but the morals certainly have.

My last comment on the pot issue is the active ingredient was available in pill form-and therefore controlled like any other powerful painkiller/drug. The argument was "it was too strong". LMAO. Did any of you request a smaller dosage pill? NOPE. Instead, Hydroponic growth and some Genetic modification at the University of B.C. INCREASED it's strength by a factor of (what?) 12?

So I don't buy any of the Pot-head P.R. crap whatsoever. It's nothing more than me, me, me. Self-indulgence, nothing more, nothing less.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I have zero problem with gov't involvement with space exploration or expenditures in that area. the spin off technologies are more than worth it, in my books. Especially R and D.

I believe that is also true of most "conservatives". I have yet to see a conservative or even a Republican cut funds for NASA in favor of some social program.

Also, under NASA many, many private companies are contracted for virtually all the actual work. The gov't and pressure within caused the fatal explosion which was warned against BY THE CONTRATOR in advance that it was too cold to safely launch.

At least up until recently, the biggest difference between the Soviet space program and the U.S.'s was private company involvement. A "gov't" alone couldn't compete. again, balance. Gov't oversite is needed. Unfortunately, there is no effective oversite on Gov't itself and it's actions...at least when there's no moral code to measure them against.

I have yet to see a conservative hate gov't, per say. Just what we have now. That's closer to the libertarian views.

I'm sure glad the gov't doesn't design our cars, they're complicated enough as it is...

reply to post by Krazysh0t


P.S. I think drug usage and the promoting in favor of it is immoral. it's just makes this environment even more unsafe. Especially when mixed with booze.

I will reiterate, let each state decide. That's their constitutional right. My experience says the states that have less drugs and less drug usage of any kind will do better and be happier in the long run. Can't handle that? TOUGH.

reply to post by SaturnFX


P.P.S. "societies evolve and adapt"?? They grow, get bigger, stronger. Then they decay and they die.. Every time, without fail.

reply to post by nwtrucker


I absolutely agree with you that we are in the middle of a moral crisis worldwide, not just here in the US. What I can't agree with is almost everything else you have said. It appears to me that you are trying to say that government should force a moral code on citizens. A short look at history will show the terrors that have occurred when this has been done before.

A moral code is something that is instilled within a family, not by a government. It is something that is learned, it can not be forced down the throats of individuals by a government, with that comes loss of all freedoms.

What two, or more, consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home should be between them and them alone. It does not involve their neighbors and damn well is not and should not be a concern of their government.

I am a libertarian and profoundly believe in the Constitution as the first law of the land, and nowhere in this document did the founding fathers set a moral law of any sort. They clearly understood that morality can not be legislated and left it to the individual families and their choice of religion to set a moral framework for them. A moral framework was not and should not be set for the entire country.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Thank you for clearly stating what Libertarianism is actually about. People today are confusing Libertarians with the modern Tea Party.

I support and work for Libertarian ideals and truly have a hard time understanding how some Republicans have twisted Libertarian concepts into the issues that the Tea Party backs.

Actually looking at what the Tea Party does rather than what they say, they want anything but smaller government, what they want is less regulation on business and more on people. At least on people that earn less then $250K a year.

ketsuko
reply to post by olaru12

 

The "evil" is when you feel that laws should be written elevating a group at the expense of others. None of those groups are evil, but all of them have been used to chip away at our freedoms in the form of laws that get ever more restrictive for everyone.

I don't understand, how does ensuring that those groups have the same basic rights as we are all supposed to have chip away at your freedoms?

olaru12
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)

The second part of you argument fails. Morals are dictated by a culture and religious background. What is moral for you is very different than what is moral for an Hassidic Jew, which is very different than what is moral for a person of any other cultural and religious background.

Moral absolutes do not exist, stating that they do is solely based on your own religious background.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Krazysh0t, I am hoping that ketsuko is jsut playing 'Devil's Advocate" with you, but in case he/she is just ignorant of what "The Golden Rule" is I will attempt to put it very simply.

"The Golden Rule" is, by definition, a moral code. It specifically states,
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Unlike moral codes based on religious precepts handed down form great authority, it is based on humanist principles and is self-regulating. It means to treat others as you want them to treat you. Don't do things to other people that you don't want them to do to you.

It is the only self-regulating moral code extant and is, in many ways, similar to the philosophy of Buddhism while not dependent upon any religious background and does not, in any way, require an adherent to force a moral code on any other. It also does not required an adherent to sway from the religion they chose to practice.

Damn straight!

I'm with OP!

No way will I EVER support librarians

Å99

reply to post by nwtrucker


The 'concept' of Libertarianism is indeed based on a kind of 'live and let live' foundation. Unfortunately, as with all things political, it is one thing to call oneself this or that but quite another to hold true to the ideals behind it.

This is, in my opinion, one of the most obvious and crippling faults in any political party and why I personally would like to see political parties... ALL of them, set aside. A nation of independent thinkers and servers would represent us far better because, in the end, no matter what flag we may choose to carry onto the partisan battlefield, very few of us actually agree with every square inch of the platforms we pretend to support.

Besides that... when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, there's not a single political party today that has built one of those rigid, crumbling platforms that doesn't contradict itself in one place or another... all in an effort to pretend to be the 'big tent' and lure in those at a distance.

But... the show goes on.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Personal experiences mean squat. They are usually developed through personal bias and selective listening. You need to look at hard statistics. Drug use is no different then alcohol use. The reason for this is because alcohol is a drug as well. If people can be responsible drinkers, they can be responsible with any other recreational drug that is out there. I'm not sure why you keep disagreeing with my points after I've posted many links to support what I'm saying and everything you've said is based off of personal experience (I must default to this since you haven't posted any links backing up your claims), which you are letting trump the REAL data and information that I am providing to support my argument. You need to set your personal bias about these drugs (which stems from the government lies and propaganda) aside and look at the facts.

You mentioned that pot became illegal because the people all agreed on the morality of it being bad. Well what if the government (and some rich tycoons) lied to you about it to make you think it was? I mean what if tomorrow the government came out and started demonizing milk? Making up story after story about how bad it is for you. You currently know that milk isn't bad for you, so would you agree with making it illegal on moral grounds based on a bunch of lies? Because that is what happened with marijuana. Even drugs like coc aine have been grossly exaggerated in their harm (not to say that coc aine isn't harmful, but it isn't as bad as government makes it out to be). By the way, I realize that I told you earlier about how marijuana became illegal without sourcing it. Here is a FANTASTIC article about how it became illegal and how propaganda and lies were used to do so.

How Marijuana Became Illegal

I suggest you read the whole article then come back to me and tell me how immoral and society damaging pot is. I already know how it will go down though, you won't have a leg to stand on because EVERY single one of your reasons for not liking the plant is because of or based on a lie or myth about the plant.

Now these previous three paragraphs, while a relapse back to the drug topic, are mentioned to help develop the point I'm going to talk about now. So now we have this big discussion about America's degrading morals. I have just outlined a specific case where our morals were misguided in the past thanks to some big business interests that are upheld to THIS day because people like you refuse to become educated on the truth. Yet you turn around and complain about the degrading morals in America when other Americans start seeing through the duplicity and speaking out against it or using the plant.

But if I can point out BLATANT lies about one thing that America considers immoral, that raises the question about other issues we consider immoral. We can do this song and dance for everything from sex to gambling. I mean we can have another several page conversation talking about the farce that is media censorship of sex, cuss words, and violence, since that is another hot topic that people like you bring up when talking about our degrading morals.

This is why your premise about a more moral America falls flat on its face. First off, it just doesn't exist or can happen, humans have always been immoral and trying to legislate it or hide it is like sticking your finger in a giant hole in a dam. It's just a concealed bid to try to force your views (misguided that they are thanks to the government and other high power structures like religion) on others. Many of these morals are built upon lies and deceit. You can extrapolate this point to say that if these morals were built on lies and deceit, then they were never morals to begin with, but just some asshole's idea of how humans should behave that was sold to the public using snakeoil salesmenship.

nwtrucker
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

P.P.S. "societies evolve and adapt"?? They grow, get bigger, stronger. Then they decay and they die.. Every time, without fail.

Because its the same pattern over and over
Slavery becomes widespread, money consolidates to the few, lifestyle of the average citizen dwindles to a point of apathy, ignorance becomes rampant, and finally, collapse.

The question is, can we learn from the past? Seems not, because we are demanding to do it again.
"outsourcing" is the new slavery, modern deregulated capitalism is doing a awesome job consolidating the wealth, wages stagnate as jobs dry up and services increase, ignorance and apathy is already setting in.

Explain how social conservative ideas would counter this, or are you simply playing the role as guide to the inevitable fall. We share the same view of the historical problem, it seems we have a difference of opinion on the solution to the problem. I do say though that your way has been tried over and over since the days of Rome.

You're on the Libertarian side of Liberal...?

And you don't support Libertarians...

Well, you're liberal. There's a little explanation right there.

Since you've already been torn to shreds by a few people here, I'll be brief.

I'm an Anarchist.

And I am a Libertarian.

How can someone advocate the Constitution while claiming to be an anarchist...?

Simple.

Under our current situation, where everyone is pulling the strings and orchestrating tribal wars between different races, countries, genders and religions, I consider none of their rules to be legit. I call myself an Anarchist because I defy all rules that others apply to me, and here in America, the Constitution is not what applies to me. Its the fabricated, overbearing laws being passed by our government.

Now, if those laws were to be abolished or defeated, and the Libertarians were to somehow put the Constitution back on the throne where it belongs, then the law of the Constitution would then apply to all of us once again, myself included, and I would no longer be an anarchist.

Basically, I am an Anarchist because our current laws are unjust.

And I am a Libertarian because I believe if the Constitution were to be put back into power, our laws would be agreeable and just.

There's a quote I invented to sum it up.

Anarchy over tyranny, order over anarchy.

Basically, I take no one's side but my own, until liberty prevails.

Everything beyond that is tribalism and fabricated to keep us fighting.

reply to post by gamesmaster63


I agree! I agree! HELLO?

A moral code is not enforceable by a gov't without contribution by it's citizens.

I could care less what two people do in their bedroom. Not that there's any law forbidding it anyway, so why even mention it??

Law do get made-whether Libertarians approve or not-be they based on the morals of the society or not.

Laws that reflect the moral code of that society, at a guess, are more acceptable by the majority than those that do not reflect those morals.

You and a couple or other seem to cite two examples, pot and gays. Are there no "laws" that you agree with? That align with your morals?

Immigration laws? Fraud laws? Child porn laws? How about voter registration laws? Drink as much as you want? Drive as fast as you want? Term limitations?

Or merely the Constitution "Laws". Anything else might, potentially, infringe on your "free choice"?

Frankly, the more I read these posts, the more the whole Libertarian concept confuses me...not that I'm very smart.

nwtrucker
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.