Why are there no mainstream libertarian parties? Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT | |
We do want a rational debate on the issue. However, you've shown that you in particular don't want a rational debate. Mostly this is shown by your name calling, idiotic appeals to emotion ("a sea of blood" on my hands, IIRC) and unworkable and unconstitutional proposal of firearms confiscation. The reason the firearm rights lobby is powerful is because people like me make sure to get out the vote, and vote against any politician who threatens our rights. | |
Really? So the US government earns the money it makes? Then why do they need to take money from my paycheck?
First of all social systems do not require the government, for several millennia private individuals made agreements with each other to take care of the collective in times of trouble and all without government interference (except in those times when the government forced the "times of trouble" to occur). Second of all my firearms actually save tax payers a shit ton of money. You live in the Netherlands so you may not realize this but in this world there is a little thing called "wildlife" and because the US has so much "wildlife" there population has to be culled occasionally to prevent "overpopulation". I kill about 100 wild pigs every year (it used to be a lot more but college has gotten in the way) and, along with other hunters, we save BILLIONS of dollars in property. What's more we do it for an extremely low cost and get our real money selling the pigs. Then we have all of the other animals we kill to prevent them from hurting other people (wild dogs) and to prevent the spread of disease. Then you have the money we save people by defending them and ourselves (and the various potential crime deterrents). Then you have all the R&D we civilians do to give the military and police better and cheaper equipment. Then you have all the training we give to LEOs and soldiers both in and outside the US. Then you have all the money we save foreign gun owners by making guns and ammo cheaper. Then you have all of the arms the US government sells to foreign nations (none of which would be possible if we were selling guns are HK and FNH prices) which saves them a lot of money. And on.
Yeah, you guys in the pro-violence lobby really need to wake up. Sorry but you cannot live in your anti-gun dream world forever. | |
The moment you are arguing gun laws on an international forum with people who live their lives in countries without easy or even any access to firearms, that sentence becomes rather dumb. You can make all the arguments you want about how gun regulations wouldn't work in the USA or would increase deaths, not reduce them, because of the amount of guns already in circulation and in criminal hands or whatever. Regardless of the merit or lack thereof of such arguments, you can't extend that argumentation to other countries where strict gun-regulations have been in place for many years and work quite nicely, places where we actually do live quite happily in an "anti-gun dream world". | |
You realize that I was saying that because of Blablahb's asinine descriptor, right?
No country on earth is an anti-gun dream world. Find me a country without guns (none). Find me a country with very very few guns (Lithuania but I doubt anyone would categorize that country as a dream world, and on). Find me a country with only a few guns (OK) and how are they (so lala). There is no dream world anywhere in this world. | |
I'm no expert on the Weimar Republic, though it's one of my favourite eras of history. From what i studied in school, i can say that there were loads of reasons it failed, a shit constitution being one of them. The way the multiparty system was set up lead to heaps of political instability, particularly in hard times -which there were many of for the Germans. I mean if Grand Coalition had been just a single moderate party, perhaps the German government might not have collapsed at the worst possible time. If the German Reichstag had been more stable and reliable, if the parties had a more defined personality, perhaps the German people might not have spurned democracy. More likely though, in my opinion, the Junkers would have managed a return to monarchy. | |
It was your term, meant to poke fun at strict gun-regulations. It's not what Blablahb was arguing for just because he was arguing against lax regulations as influenced by the American gun lobby. That's called a false dichotomy. Do you see why I applied the term to real world examples of places with much, much stricter regulations now, despite them not literally being an "anti-gun dream world"? | |
From what I remember (and it's been a while since history lessons, mind), it had mostly to do with lacking protections of separation of power. For one thing, the term "Führer" as used by Hitler was installed as a combination of the "Reichskanzler" and "Reichspräsident" (at least early on), so basically Hitler could take upon himself several roles of power which were supposed to be separate (but not protected as such). The German democratic government disbanded itself piece by piece until it was gone, all perfectly legal within the established rules at the time. The Weimar republic, while being a real democracy, lacked the ability to defend itself from anti-democratic influences, which is why Germany was rebuilt as a militant democracy after WW2. | |
No, it was my phrase meant to poke fun at Blablahb's irrational belief in the power of absence and of the government. As I just said, I do not believe that the anti-gun dream world exists, so obviously it was not mean to be applied to the real world.
What? Have you ever seen any of Blablahb's posts? BTW try not to group the "gun lobby" together like that. To someone who works with a few of the groups it makes you sound ignorant when you group all of us together (I like Remington's guns but fuck their lobbyists).
Considering how wrong you are about what I was saying the answer is no. You saw what you wanted to see and not what was there. Back off and wait for the next anti-gun topic to come up (it has already been 3 days since the last one so we are overdue).
So you are saying that those countries are beacons of pure bliss and greatness? No? Then I will stick with my so-so assessment.
Duh. You want me to write a nice long post on an off topic discussion? There is no need for that. Blablahb brought it up and now you insist on continuing it for whatever reason. | |
Of course. And while extremely harsh towards American gun regulations as currently installed as well as the gun lobbies, I have never seen him argue for an "anti-gun dream world". It's just that what he considers sensible gun-regulations is so far removed from what you do that the difference might as well be one of different worlds.
I'm not going to differentiate when it's irrelevant to the point.
Okay, whatever. Then don't use such wording that distorts Blablahb's position.
No, but I consider living in them better than living in the USA; even in (very small) part due to our stricter gun-regulations. | |
Bit of an understatement. For example, take this case. Regardless how you feel about guns in citizen hands, surely you can agree that an 18 year old single mother (recently widowed) shooting a home intruder in defense of herself and her child is an ok thing, right? Not for him. I believe he called her a "vile murderess" and threw around ad hominem attacks at anyone who disagreed with him. That, and he has proposed unconstitutional and un-workable solution to the gun issue, like an absolute ban on civilian ownership of weapons. When I asked how (many times over, I might add) I received no response. | |
The argument shouldn't be one of simply legality and gun rights, but what we would do if we decided to criminalize gun ownership at this point. Frankly, I'm against the idea of a random, untrained citizen having a weapon, but I can't begrudge their desire to defend themselves when we have guns out on our streets. If we didn't have such crimes occurring within our boarders, then I could actually support eliminating gun ownership rights, but neither is likely to actually occur within my lifetime. | |
This is why I support personal ownership of nuclear weaponry. Never mind some wimpy little handgun, that's REAL crime-deterrent! | |
So he is in favor of his world where guns are outlawed for civilians (and he considers himself anti-gun). His world does not exist and cannot exist without knocking the entire world back about a millennium. Sounds like an anti-gun dream world to me.
It is quite relevant when you consider the fact that some gun lobbies agree with him. Bill Ruger (of the gun manufacturing company Ruger) actually supported the High Capacity Magazine Ban (among other things) and when he didn't get it he still lobbied to make sure HIS companies guns did not get on the banned list (and he had enough friends to get it done).
I didn't. You have though.
And your belief by itself is not going to change my assessment of (anything) those nations. | |
Well how Germany transitioned to dictatorship is a complicated story. My opinion is that the flawed constitution a major reason for its failure, though one of many. It could be reasonably argued that it was the key irreplaceable factor, though i personally don't think it is. It comes down to, again, personal interpretation on what were the key factors and how they fit together. History is like that. But i am interested in how it was taught in Germany. Were you directly taught that the constitution was main factor? Was article 48 the main focus? Having gone through NSW's education system i well aware how politics affects the teaching of our county's history. | |
In 50AD the Roman Blahblahbus could have written that there's no need to consider what Christians believe in, "reality" is that Christianity is just a Jewish cult: a "paper construct". It's of no independent merit outside outside Judaism and all Christians are just Jews. Communists are socialists. Social democrats are socialists. In your oft-stated erroneous opinion, the Nazis were socialists. So by your logic in this thread, there are no useful differences between Partij van de Arbeid, the Nazis, and Stalinists. Does that seem like a useful view of "reality" to you? If someone has an ideology you want to discuss, you need to tackle that precise ideology. Not some other ideology that may be somewhat related to it, and not even if somewhere the two are placed under the same umbrella term. | |
Did I just hear "taxation is theft"? Cuz I think I just heard taxation is theft. | |
And I have, since I have adressed the main tendencies of libertarians. For instance their tendency to force their religion onto other people at the expense of the freedom of those people. Quite frankly your reasoning strikes me as odd. Reality isn't changed by what is written in a book. Someone could also write "Nationalism does not involve waging wars". Would that mean the first and second world wars never happened? Obviously not. Likewise libertarism is still what I outlined it to be, even if a few excuse-artists and an author think differently about it. If they feel so strongly, they should take to the public and reclaim the term. But as long as people like Rand & Ron Paul define libertarism, it will be exactly what I outlined it to be, for instance opposed to civil rights and religious freedom.
To be able to provide the services needed in any civilised society. Or in the case of the US, provide only a small part on those services. If you disagree so vehemently, you have been given the freedom to renounce citizenship and emigrate elsewhere more agreeable to your views, of course. But my guess is if you get run over by a truck tomorrow, you'll be all too happy those services exist, even if you choose to deny it now. Or perhaps the more blunt version someone once put forward: Because you're not the only person on this planet. | |
And where has that happened?
They don't outline it. Libertarianism existed long before those two were even born and even today there are plenty of different Libertarian groups.
In other words it is my fucking money (like I said to begin with) that they are taking to provide services that YOU think are necessary. Sorry but kicking down peoples doors for having a bag of pot is an unnecessary service in my opinion.
Actually I have insurance that would pay for that.
Maybe you should take that to heart and realize that not everybody wants what you want. | |
Give me all the bacon and eggs you have. | |
You're printing your own? | |
And the cops arresting an axe-murderer is kidnapping. | |
I am making my own wealth. Without that money is just paper. | |
And I assume, in the making of your vast "wealth," you have done it all by yourself with nary an iota of help from society. You haven't used a public road, or attended a public learning institution, or eaten any food you didn't grow yourself, or taken any medicine you didn't brew up in your bathtub. | |
So you are saying that I own nothing and everything I produce belongs to society? That the government owns everything and I have no right to the fruits of my labor? Let me put it to you simply, IT IS MINE. I allow it to be taken because I am a part of this society and I am giving it money to function. I owe nothing to the society that it does not give back to me in turn. If I am to remain in a society I expect to come out even. NOTHING I do is owed to society, I allow the wealth that I create to be taken to maintain the society and no more. | |
There's a nifty strawman. Where did I say that? Protip: I didn't. I didn't come even remotely close to saying anything of the sort.
Bullshit. The fact that not a single iota of "wealth" is created in a vacuum means you goddamn well DO owe something to society. | |
See earlier posts. All current libertarian politicians in the US do.
They do define libertarian politics, since they ARE libertarian politics. Like I have said before: reality > theory. Don't like that, then start a movement to steal away their voters. But I can tell you something: you'll fail. You'll fail because libertarians really agree with those ideas of being quite selective about who gets freedom and who doesn't. | |
No. The society only owes me what I put in and I only give it what I expect to receive in turn. It is a simple market transaction. My labor is due to ME. It has nothing to do with society. If I withdraw from society then it losses my abilities and the wealth I would have gained in the future and I loose any advantages I might have gained. The society does not have any control over me, without force, UNLESS I allow it. What exactly do I owe society if I do not want anything from it? That is where your argument gets fucked up. If I owe to society without any expectation of return then I do not own my wealth and everything I earn does not belong to me and instead it belongs to society. | |
Given the fact that you have yet to mention an actual Libertarian that is hard to believe.
Prove that Ron and Rand Paul are not only Libertarians but also major players in Libertarian politics (you are aware that there is an actual party right?
You have no idea who is a Libertarian (or libertarian) and who isn't. Ron Paul is not a libertarian or a Libertarian. The Libertarian Party defines the party platform not Ron Paul. | |
Oy vey. In the case of "not wanting anything from society," unless you live in outer space, you really don't have any control over that. You are protected by a military, a police force, etc. One cannot opt out of these arrangements unless you move to an unclaimed island in the south Pacific, and good luck "building wealth" there out of fucking coconuts. It seems to me that you want all of the benefits of society with none of the responsibility. | |
Unless you can be entirely self-sufficient, and I mean entirely - no using anything someone else created, such as roads you didn't build, food you didn't grow, power you didn't produced yourself, etc. - then you need things from the society, like it or not. And as long as you're using any of the aforementioned, you damn well do owe something to the society. | |
You forgot the most important thing, knowledge. Being self sufficient would require you to forfeit all knowledge you have acquired through society. We owe pretty much everything to societies of the past. Without the knowledge acquired, stored and passed on by society we would still be living in caves. | |
Irrelevant. Y'all are shooting right past my point.
You really should stop trying to assume what my views are because you continue to make an ass of yourself. The money I give to society I expect to receive back in turn. In other words I view it as a market transaction.
No, I owe something to the people that make and provide it. A society is just a group of people. The society can have a contract that details services rendered in exchange for something else but unless a service is rendered there is no reason to give anything (without the use of force at least). I give money to this American society so that I can receive services. If I did not receive services then what is the point of the society taking my money? I think you guys really need to take a step back and think about what I am saying because y'all are shooting right past the point. Society:
Society did not create knowledge, humans did.
Which is due to people not the confederations we formed. | |
No it isn't. Everything I do is because of me. If decided to just lounge around and do nothing with my life are you saying that that is because of society? Of course not, that is my choice. If I decide to build wealth with my money then that is also my choice. Human action is not a societal construct (unless you are arguing for a authoritarian state but even then).
First of all I am not an Objectivist. Second of all you have fucked up and assumed my views before and I would suggest you stop trying to pigeon hole people because it is moronic. Third of all if you have nothing of value to say then stop cluttering my inbox. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT | |
Your money? Who are you? The US central bank? If not, it's just a silly thing to say.
They pay for the burials and medicare bills of the victims of your firearms lobby, to name just one example of where it works the other way around. They probably don't want to pay for the victims of your firearms lobby. I know I wouldn't want to pay taxes knowing it'll be spent on something that could be prevented if gun freaks took their responsibility and stopped taking other people's money through the hospital bills and deaths their guns cause.
If you want to get rid of social systems, be prepared to accept that will work the other way too. And that means you'll be handing in all your firearms because they're a costly burden on US society, and it's wrong for you to take other people's money from them.
Oh, and I'm not going to get into any dumb and predictable gun debate. The pro-violence lobby is unreasonable to the point where calling rational debate with gun freaks 'talking to a wall' would mean that walls feel offended.
Which is exactly what I did. I'm just not going to dismiss reality because some guy with his head in the clouds wrote a pamphlet saying "I want it to be something different".