Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on August 02, 2004, 11:42:19 AM
-
Barring unimaginable revelations/occurances in the present race, I'll probably vote Libertarian.
Yeah, I could write in my dog, Chief, who's probably better at staying on task than either present candidate but even if millions of us wrote in say.... Voss.... it wouldn't really "send a message" to the two dipshirt parties that currently foul our political pool.
OTOH, a strong showing by the Libs might give the party bosses an idea of what the "swing" voters are after.
I like this, personally.
The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
Haven't totally decided, but I'm sure leaning that way.
Comments? Vitriol? Outrageous accusations? Slurs on my parentage?
-
What does this test have to say about your choice?
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/
-
Hmmmm. Let's say a group of homos move into the house across the street and start having daily Maplethorpian orgies on their front lawn in full view of your kids. What recourse would you have under a Libertarian government?
ra
-
Toad,
YOUR Dogs mom was a B It Ch! :D
Hmmm I agree with the Libertarian point of view, but I doubt they will ever be a viable 3rd party. It is a shame really. Even if elected the reps and dems in congress and the senate would make sure he was the worst president ever.
Hmmm I am thinking of getting one of those BBQs that have a side firebox, and a chimeney on the otherside and look kinda like a 55 galon drum? Are those good?
Like this one?
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001FX5HY.01-A1KDZ23Y0QWKQ3.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
-
Originally posted by ra
Hmmmm. Let's say a group of homos move into the house across the street and start having daily Maplethorpian orgies on their front lawn in full view of your kids. What recourse would you have under a Libertarian government?
ra
Better options than you would have under the Democrats :p
You would at least have the freedom to criticize and/or protest against them.
The Democrats would be the homosexuals having orgies on their front lawn as a tribute to their defenders: Bill and Hillary.
-
Originally posted by ra
Hmmmm. Let's say a group of homos move into the house across the street and start having daily Maplethorpian orgies on their front lawn in full view of your kids. What recourse would you have under a Libertarian government?
So, basically this government came in, established a dictatorship - circumvented the rest of the government (congress, house) and abolished all laws, regulations and ordinances?
Rather than going to the extreme that wouldn't happen, why don't you focus on something realistic to pose.
-SW
-
I'm with Toad on this one. In my eye the ideal situation would be to have a race as "too close to call". One week after results are in and confirmed as too close to call each presidential candidate gets a flintlock pistol and steps off 25 paces then turns and fires. Whoever lives is president. I'd put my money on Bush for the pre-emptive strike on Kerry in that one. Hell I would even pay money to go watch it.
-
Originally posted by ra
Hmmmm. Let's say a group of homos move into the house across the street and start having daily Maplethorpian orgies on their front lawn in full view of your kids. What recourse would you have under a Libertarian government?
ra
To take responsibility for your kids, be a pro-active parent, and put up a darn fence or hedge on your own property.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
So, basically this government came in, established a dictatorship - circumvented the rest of the government (congress, house) and abolished all laws, regulations and ordinances?
Rather than going to the extreme that wouldn't happen, why don't you focus on something realistic to pose.
-SW
There's nothing extreme about that example. Under Libertarian government most ordinances restricting private behavior on private property would be eliminated. So long as a person's behavior doesn't interfere with your basic rights to life and property, the government can't get involved. The example just shows that Libertarian government is not equiped to handle the basic requirements of a civil society.
ra
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
To take responsibility for your kids, be a pro-active parent, and put up a darn fence or hedge on your own property.
Yes, that sounds like the Libertarian solution.
-
An evil multinational corporation, unburdened by regulations or taxes, begins enslaving little children and eating puppies in order to benefit the top three executives who will earn $3 trillion this year alone without paying a cent because they use off-shore tax shelters.
Quick, RA! What recourse would you have under a Republican government?!?!?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
An evil multinational corporation, unburdened by regulations or taxes, begins enslaving little children and eating puppies in order to benefit the top three executives who will earn $3 trillion this year alone without paying a cent because they use off-shore tax shelters.
Quick, RA! What recourse would you have under a Republican government?!?!?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Buy stock??? :rofl :rofl
-
Hmmmm. Let's say a group of homos move into the house across the street and start having daily Maplethorpian orgies on their front lawn in full view of your kids. What recourse would you have under a Libertarian government?
Actually in this case the libertarian solution would be to use the common law doctrine of nuisance--which restricts others from using thier property in an unreasonable way that substantial impairs your quiet enjoyment of your own property. Money damages would probably abate the nuisance. The true market solution.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
An evil multinational corporation, unburdened by regulations or taxes, begins enslaving little children and eating puppies in order to benefit the top three executives who will earn $3 trillion this year alone without paying a cent because they use off-shore tax shelters.
Quick, RA! What recourse would you have under a Republican government?!?!?
-- Todd/Leviathn
The proper recourse would be to stop watching Michael Moore films.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Buy stock??? :rofl :rofl
Oh nooooooooooos! It's a privately-owned company!
What now! What now!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by ra
The proper recourse would be to stop watching Michael Moore films.
Are you suggesting that this scenario is ludicrous?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Are you suggesting that this scenario is ludicrous?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Yes. I assume you are implying that my example is ludicrous. It is not, just maybe a bit colorful. I didn't want to bore you. But the fact is under Libertarian government there can be no such thing as community standards or public decency. So long as you are not violating someone else's basic rights, you can do what you like. That kind of minimalism sounds good but it is not realistic. I would love to see a small nation experiment with Libertarian government. It would probably last about a month.
ra
-
Why not a vote of "no confidence"?
I thought the idea of a vote was to use it to select who you thought would be the best leader.
-
Originally posted by ra
Yes. I assume you are implying that my example is ludicrous. It is not, just maybe a bit colorful.
[/b]
Of course it's ludicrous, and it's every bit as ludicrous as my example.
I would love to see a small nation experiment with Libertarian government. It would probably last about a month.
I'm not a libertarian, so you don't have to convince me. But I do know hyperbole when I see it. We can all think up colorful and imaginative examples to make our points, but that doesn't make them real or valid. I can dream up examples to challenge the validity of any form of government, and they'll all seem equally as ludicrous as yours or mine.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
The libertarian nominee for president is Michael Badnarik. Just don''t want you pulling the wrong lever or anything :D
"Badnarik said the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress never declared war and unjustified because the Iraqi people weren’t responsible for the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks."
Watch out for that sky, Toad - he sounds like a lefty :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Why not a vote of "no confidence"?
I thought the idea of a vote was to use it to select who you thought would be the best leader.
Because that's not an option?
Kerry is far too liberal for my taste. Further, the entire plan so far has been for Kerry to present a "centrist" or "middle of the road" appearance which clearly is a major "makeover" for him. In short, I suspect this "makeover" is quite insincere and designed only to get him into 1600 Pennsylvania where he can then resume his "true self", the one that is the most liberal Senator.
As for Bush, I'd vote for him just on the Supreme Court issue. However, I also feel that there has to be responsibility and accountability. We collectively let the last President off the hook on that aspect of the office. I think it'd be a huge mistake to continue down that road.
*********
Etch, unlike an asteroid heading square at Gotham City or the incredible threat of THE CHINESE USING UP ALL THE WORLDS NATURAL RESOURCES TODAY!!!!!! ARGGGH!!!!!!!, I can have a teeny-tiny bit of influence in the upcoming election some 3+ months away. An influence that a lot of folks died to preserve, one I served to protect. I'm going to exercise that right/influence.
And be willing to discuss it. As soon as I decide what to do about this antibiotic-resistant bacteria that's creeping up on the world population even as we spe
-
I have a question. Has a libertarian ever won the presidential elections?
-
Originally posted by ra
Under Libertarian government most ordinances restricting private behavior on private property would be eliminated. So long as a person's behavior doesn't interfere with your basic rights to life and property, the government can't get involved.
ra
I absolutely 100% support that concept.
I grew up living in neighborhoods where you pretty much had the right to do whatever you wanted in your own yard. It's not pretty if the neighbor destroys his property with possible consequences to your own property values.
I now (for the moment) own a home in a deed-restricted community. Despite having a huge back yard that almost no one can see, I am not supposed to do anything with it beyond an approved fence. Tool sheds, regardless of size or quality, are specifically forbidden. I didn't get a two-car garage so I could use half of it storing lawn care tools, etc. My only alternative is to pay a service to do my yard for me. When I make enough to afford a kid and a maid, then I might consider a lawn service as well.
I have also lived in Navy barracks for many years.
Libertarian policies on individual freedoms are exactly what I want.
Unfortunately, some people think I will be happier if laws are passed to protect me from my fellow citizens by taking both of our freedoms/rights.
Everybody could live equally well and be equally safe with equal jobs if the government locked us all up in maximum security prisons and made us smash rocks in return for government contractor food and water. That is pretty much what it will be like for me if the socialists (dems) and federalists (reps) continue to empower our federal government with far more responsibilities than were needed or intended by the founding fathers.
Given the two-party system, I take the reps over the dems though :p
-
Originally posted by Toad
Barring unimaginable revelations/occurances in the present race, I'll probably vote Libertarian.
Toad, if only we had a strong truely Libertarian party here - I'll probably vote for them too.
Unfortunately, I can't see it. So I'll probably vote for Communists at the next elections. They are the only organised power that can oppose our beloved Kremlin dreamers ((C) H.G. Welles). You can call it a protest vote... :(
-
Of course it's ludicrous, and it's every bit as ludicrous as my example.
No, my example is not ludicrous in the least. Do you think there are no people who would be indecent (non-libertarian word) in view of their neighbors if there were no ordinances against it?
You don't want to discuss Libertarianism, and that is fine. But comparing my scenario to your baby-eating Republican corporation is just a dodge.
ra
-
Nope, not even close.
LIBERTARIAN PARTY HISTORY (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/libertarian_history.html)
So, it is clearly a "protest vote".
So, vote for tweedledum or tweedledummer; unless you want to make a protest vote.
;)
-
I now (for the moment) own a home in a deed-restricted community. Despite having a huge back yard that almost no one can see, I am not supposed to do anything with it beyond an approved fence. Tool sheds, regardless of size or quality, are specifically forbidden. I didn't get a two-car garage so I could use half of it storing lawn care tools, etc. My only alternative is to pay a service to do my yard for me. When I make enough to afford a kid and a maid, then I might consider a lawn service as well.
You voluntary moved into that neighborhood and bought the house knowing (presumably) about the restrictions. Even a libertairian government couldn't help you here.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
No, my example is not ludicrous in the least. Do you think there are no people who would be indecent (non-libertarian word) in view of their neighbors if there were no ordinances against it?
[/b]
Do you think that no corporation would engage in horrible, unethical business practices and tax evasion if the laws allowed it?
You don't want to discuss Libertarianism, and that is fine. But comparing my scenario to your baby-eating Republican corporation is just a dodge.
A dodge from what? You're discussing libertarianism, and I'm discussing the silliness of your example. I don't see how I'm dodging anything.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
A dodge from what? You're discussing libertarianism, and I'm discussing the silliness of your example. I don't see how I'm dodging anything.
Then tell me exactly what is silly about my example. How can you say the example is silly if you don't see how it pertains to libertarianism? What form of government would allow your baby-eating corporation example? Libertarian government would be forced to allow my front-yard orgy example.
-
Good, one less chance of someone voting for Kerry.
dago
-
If memory serves, Libertarians do not believe in publicly funded or provided education - they are for private education all the way. I have voted Lib in the past (as a protest vote) but the more I learned about them, I decided they were too far rightwing.
Thomas Jefferson felt strongly about the importance of public education to the helath of democracy. Makes sense to me, but don't take that as a polly anna endorsement of the current state of public education.
Nothing wrong in my book with a protest vote - the only wasted vote is the uncast one.
-
>>Etch, unlike an asteroid heading square at Gotham City or the incredible threat of THE CHINESE USING UP ALL THE WORLDS NATURAL RESOURCES TODAY!!!!!! ARGGGH!!!!!!!, I can have a teeny-tiny bit of influence in the upcoming election some 3+ months away. An influence that a lot of folks died to preserve, one I served to protect. I'm going to exercise that right/influence.
And be willing to discuss it. As soon as I decide what to do about this antibiotic-resistant bacteria that's creeping up on the world population even as we spe<<
No need to be shrill. I simply stated Badnarik's view of the war :D
What, you disaprove of it? Why don't you mail him your "chicken little" manifesto:aok
-
Originally posted by ra
What form of government would allow your baby-eating corporation example? Libertarian government would be forced to allow my front-yard orgy example.
I know what forms of government wouldn't allow it. I also know that your front-yard orgy example goes beyond ludicrous. Why not have a front-yard sacrificial altar? After all, Mayans used to consider it an honor to sacrifice themselves to the Gods; they'd play team sports, and the leader of the winning team earned the honor of ritualistic sacrifice.
The gory sacrifice would be done with all participants in agreement, thus it would not violate basic tenets of libertarianism. And it would be right there in the front yard for all the kids to see.
Silly libertarians. You can put up a fence, but can you keep out the horrifying screams of the sacrificed?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
You still haven't told me what is silly about my example. Now you've gone to the Mayans.
-
>>Etch, unlike an asteroid heading square at Gotham City or the incredible threat of THE CHINESE USING UP ALL THE WORLDS NATURAL RESOURCES TODAY!!!!!! ARGGGH!!!!!!!, I can have a teeny-tiny bit of influence in the upcoming election some 3+ months away. An influence that a lot of folks died to preserve, one I served to protect. I'm going to exercise that right/influence.
Thats funny and brings up a good point. How efficient do their manufacturing plants and companies have to run compared to companies in the US. I dont hear much about these sorts of things from the current administration. What I do hear is them saying that given a fair playing field etc... But the world is not a fair playing field at the moment. Not unless you actually make administrative efforts to make it so. Its comprised of mixed economies and social/class societies with vastly different mental viewpoints and agendas.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Hmmm I am thinking of getting one of those BBQs that have a side firebox, and a chimeney on the otherside and look kinda like a 55 galon drum? Are those good?
Like this one?
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001FX5HY.01-A1KDZ23Y0QWKQ3.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
I think I want one also.:aok
-
Originally posted by ra
You voluntary moved into that neighborhood and bought the house knowing (presumably) about the restrictions. Even a libertairian government couldn't help you here.
ra
Because to own a decent home I need a job. The home has to be reasonably close to the decent job. Nearly every home sold here in the last 20 years has been deed restricted because people more concerned about property values are building/selling/buying homes than people who appreciate having their own freedom. These same people always take security over freedom and apparently outnumber people that disagree. Otherwise, politicians that keep taking away more and more of our freedoms and rights wouldn't keep getting elected.
When guns are ultimately banned (as I am sure they one day will be), that will be the signal to me that the U.S. is no longer the country I was born in. If this happens in my lifetime, I will be facing some tough decisions. Will I be prepared to make my family suffer the consequences for strongly disagreeing with my government?
What country could I move to? I don't know of any with more freedom than I have now and isn't moving in the same poltical direction.
What alternatives do I have to moving?
I love the mythical country I was raised to believe in. I would love to see it become a reality instead of watching the whole idea slowly fading away. The founding fathers were less than perfect. But their basic beliefs were clear and they put their lives on the line to defend them. I put my life on the line to defend the Bill Clinton administration. It makes me sick to my stomach.
-
Well, I'd argue if there is one thing the US doesn't want, is a level playing field. But I'm no longer in the mood to argue politics. Seems a little silly at the moment.
-
Awright you BBQ hijackers!
I'll start another thread for you that shows you "the way". As it appeared to me in a dream about Badnarik's view of the war which led to my BBQing of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Fourtunately, I was able to expense my BBQ setup due to this concept.
Now, should I write in Chief the Labrador or support the only US 3rd party to ever be on the ballot in all 50 states in two consecutive Presidential elections?
-
Because to own a decent home I need a job. The home has to be reasonably close to the decent job.
Nevertheless, you weren't forced into anything. And the government wasn't involved in any way.
-
Originally posted by ra
You still haven't told me what is silly about my example. Now you've gone to the Mayans.
Your example is as silly as the Mayan one. It has no basis in reality. It is beyond the worst possible case and only feasible in your mind.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by ra
Hmmmm. Let's say a group of homos move into the house across the street and start having daily Maplethorpian orgies on their front lawn in full view of your kids. What recourse would you have under a Libertarian government?
ra
You live across the street from a guy who knows better then you do how you should live your life, and he can force you to live it his way too.
What recourse do you have when Ashcroft shows up ?