The Liberal vs. Conservative Issue
Am I the only one disturbed by this constant back and forth between the two in the political arena? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of certain conservative ideas, but they do also make some valid arguments. As do liberals. I've said my fair share about the conservative ideas I think are completely ridiculous, but I try not to generalize anymore, because I've learned that when both sides act in this way, it causes more division than any real good. Both sides have unrealistic views about the other in many regards. This two-party system and the war that it is waging has and is still seriously retarding necessary growth/progression/reform in this country. I don't think it's good to be at either extreme, but rather somewhere in the middle with wisdom from both sides.
Are people following certain ideas and "values" simply because it seems to embody their party, and not necessarily because they've objectively thought everything through on the issues?
Have people become more concerned with the success of their party than the American population as a whole?
This butting of heads and unwillingness to compromise is completely childish and inappropriate when considering the main scheme of things, is it not? I'm glad we're starting to see small compromises here and there, but we have a long way to go. I once said and felt that if a certain portion of the country wanted to secede from the Union that they should do so, but now I realize that we need a more balanced way to approach our country and its needs (again, a happy middle).
What are your thoughts on the matter?Interesting that you should post this today. I just watched a really interesting TED talk on this whole left-right dichotomy and what liberals and conservatives could learn from each other if they'd be willing to take a look at what common ground they do have.
I do get a little confused because in the UK Liberals ARE Conservatives with the hard edges rubbed off a bit. Carry on.
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I've seen two different videos from TED. They were pretty interesting.
Oh well no doubt we are all a bunch of stiff-necked people.
Where do you believe the compromise needs to start?Fascinating points.Perhaps at the end of the day, we need to realize that whether directly or indirectly,every man and woman in politics is in it for their own personal gain and we can't get away from that and just have to accept it...
There's too many who aren't willing to bend a little. Like me.....
OOps.I have abandoned the GOP for a more conservative approach. Donotfear is right we should not bend simply to get along, I reject everything democrats have thrown out because it involves less freedom. I am seeing the same thing from the GOP and now I'm looking for that group that is for more liberty.
Yea, I mean, why would we want to compromise or anything like that....
Why do you think a compromise is good? When both sides come from stupid positions the compromise will be equally stupid.
Ah yes, why try to find common ground when you can just act like a little child and cry that you might not get everything you want.
Not really understanding what I said are you?
I think Cody understands you very well indeed.
Don't think so or he would have responded differently.
You keep using words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
I know you want me to say "Yea, go even more conservative, that'll show 'em! Those stupid liberals!"
It's just that it isn't the right answer...I don't want you to say that, I'm ok with you not saying anything at all!
So you want everybody to ignore you, and nobody else to say anything!
You haven't quite got the hang of forums and debating have you?All that from I'm ok if he doesn't say anything?
Plus the comment about ignoring anything you said.
I give options, up to you what you want to do.
No I get it....you're acting like a spoiled child who didn't get everything she wanted.
Rather than compromise, I'd rather use the term consensus. Same difference perhaps but consensus involves both sides agreeing on something, which might sound like compromise to a lot of you but is a way of hitting the people with things that the most people, on either side, will feel comfortable with.
Life shouldn't be a battle between left and right.You're right, it shouldn't be. It should be a battle between liberty and authority.
But if you have consensus, you have liberty, it might not be the liberty that you like but it will be the liberty that most like.
That's false.
If the consensus is to enslave the populace, put them in prison, and take away their liberty, that cannot be liberty. By definition, it cannot.
Liberty is objective, not subjective.And how likely is it that the populace would want imprisonment? That's consensus.
Doesn't matter. Consensus doesn't create liberty. If the consensus is imprisonment, that's the exact opposite of liberty.
The point you should have inferred from what I said is "Consensus does not equal liberty." You took a wrong turn somewhere.Actually, it's you who have taken the wrong turn! We were discussing compromise, not liberty.
You brought up that we shouldn't be fighting between left and right. I said we should be fighting between top and bottom(on political charts).
You were wrong John, and I wasn't off-topic with what I said. Do you ever admit being wrong?Yes, when ever I realise that I was wrong. What about you?
Yeah, and I've done so on these forums.
I asked because, when I pointed out that you were wrong, you deflected into saying it's not likely, then saying I'm off-topic.But you didn't prove me wrong, you just stated your opinion that I was wrong, which I disagreed with!
Isn't being able to disagree an important liberty?Yes, I proved you wrong. You said consensus = liberty. If that were true, then a consensus of 'imprison the populace' would = liberty. But it doesn't.
Or, are you saying that imprisonment = liberty?
I proved you wrong, but you ignored what I said and changed the subject.So from that we conclude that one half of the population oppressing the other half equals liberty!
No, we don't.
That's the whole point. YOU said that consensus equals liberty. If the entire population comes to consensus and gives up its rights, that's not liberty. It's consensus, but not liberty.
Are you just trying to argue my side now?
@Josak. Yes, but they don't have the right to surrender other people's rights.
True liberty is impossible in current "civil" society, though. Sorry. It would take all power out of the hands of the government and put it all into hands of the people. This is not really human-like. By history's example, we like to create these excessively large societies, and the only way to run them is to give up certain freedoms by introducing some form of authority, be it a secular "government" or religious in nature. To seek true freedom is to seek the days when every family only worried about themselves. It would be back to the days when I could harm you without being tried in a court, and the only justice would be for someone in my family to take you out. It's up to you to decide whether a life style like that would be better or not. Ask yourself if the liberty you seek is worth the cost. Its consequences would be more massive in nature than I think people realize. Most people aren't even mature or self-sufficient enough to healthily survive in a truly "free" place. Again, whether this truth is a bad or a good thing is up to you. Some might say, "survival of the fittest." I would say, how do you know that you are the fittest and that you would survive? To tell the truth, in some ways I would personally enjoy true freedom. However, I can see the domino effect that would nearly instantly take away the security that people experience every day (that they're mostly unaware of) that exists within the type of society we have currently.
Law and courts do not violate absolute liberty. Laws against aggression, and to resolve contractual disputes are necessary for the running of society, but liberty does not have to be curtailed to produce such things.
In a truly free society, why should government or anyone be able to regulate anything I do ? You're pretty much making my point. Some type of regulator/regulation has to be present to draw the lines that people can or cannot cross. So the question is more do we want big or small government, because true liberty is only known in the wild.
A private court system would do the task aptly, no government required!
Who are you thinking of? Somebody like G4S who were charged with security at the Olympic Games last year and failed so miserably that in the end they had to be bailed out by the government?
They've also proved that they can't keep prisoners under lock and key and yet you think they would manage to dispense justice!
And what private organisation would provide such a service, funded by who?G4S is a government-granted monopoly. It was not subjected to the demands of the market that weeds out incompetence in the long-term. Private courts would have paying customers who demand a quality service, with greater accountability to its customers than any government court could hope to have.
The last bit of this article goes into greater detail about how it might work:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.htmlSo the people using the courts would be the people paying for the courts! How is that different from what we already have?
And reading your link it would appear that the courts would have no jurisdiction over people who weren't clients of that court!
There is nothing in there about the corruption found in much private enterprise or any protection against courts going for the most profitable verdict.
I'm not convinced.
Currently, government enacts a violent monopoly over the dispute-resolution market. Customers cannot, in the event of an unjust ruling (like the most profitable verdict), relieve their funds and possibly find a better court to go to. Corruption, rather than an incentive, would be a detriment to their business. In the event that the aggressor is using another court, in a free society, the courts will have to work together, as is explained in the article.
Since we are not exactly living in a paradise of justice, I think the burden of proof that their court system works lies on the statist.
Sure, until one of the private cout's customers decided that the private court ruled incorrectly, and refused to abide by the ruling (and there'd be no way to enforce that court's ruling in your libertarian paradise, because there'd be no police--oh, except the private ones--which basically means that the folks with the wealth would always win, because they'd control the biggest sticks.
Libertarianism is just like communism: it would work perfectly if only people were really rational beings rather than greedy status-seekers.Again, the private police forces would be subject to customer demand, unlike what we have now where they are, using their violent monopoly (that is what government is folks, hardwire it into your brain), simply corporate-government goons rather than justice protectors.
Libertarians do not deny greed, but wish to create a society that provides as little violent power for the greedy to wield as possible; the ultimate aim being to make every action voluntary.unlike what we have now where they are, using their violent monopoly (that is what government is folks, hardwire it into your brain), simply corporate-government goons rather than justice protectors.
No, government is not by definition oppressive. your absolutist dogmatic arguments are worthless.
Libertarians do not deny greed, but wish to create a society that provides as little violent power for the greedy to wield as possible; the ultimate aim being to make every action voluntary.
So how do you deal with the fact that the people who are already wealthy would be at a very big advantage over those who are not wealthy yet in this libertarian paradise? And the fact that it would be in the interests of the already-wealthy to hire their own private armies to protect them from (and enforce their will upon) the non-wealthy (who, not having wealth, would have no recourse)?
Libertarianism is the functional and moral equivalent of communism: both are great ideas in theory; neither work as advertised in the real world.
The government defines itself by its monopoly of aggression in a given geographical space. It is the legalised, centralised expropriation of private property (taxation), that enforces law and bureaucracy on un-soliciting individuals. When looking for aggression, look for the man with the gun. Any individual who wishes to withdraw their consent from the government is subject to imprisonment. In order for government to be voluntary, we would need to be able to withdraw without molestation. This is not the case, so we have to conclude that government is violence.
Most people's answer to this blatancy is that it is 'necessary violence', which is what we are dealing with here.
-----
Those who are already very wealthy are still subject to consumer demand. Bill Gates, even though he is exceedingly wealthy, still has a vested interest in keeping his customers happy. Just so long as there isn't a mechanism for him to force his service upon the population, he will have to cater to them (by not pandering to wealthier groups, etc.). The best mechanism for enforcement is the government, as you can expropriate funds for your armies under the pretence of 'national security' instead of having to provide an actual service to people, so then the question must be: how exactly do we prevent government from arising?
My answer to that is: good question, but we don't need an immoral system in place whilst we think of how we do that.The government defines itself by its monopoly of aggression in a given geographical space. It is the legalised, centralised expropriation of private property (taxation), that enforces law and bureaucracy on un-soliciting individuals.
So you subscribe to the self-serving nonsense that all taxation is theft.
Good to know. Nothing you have to say beyond this is of any value, because it comes from an anti-social, morally bankrupt premise. Further, the rest of your arguments are patently untrue and therefore equally invalid.
Any individual who wishes to withdraw their consent from the government is subject to imprisonment.
That may have been the case in the former Soviet bloc (they built walls to keep their people in, and didn't let them leave. In the US, and pretty much the entire world at this point, you're free to withdraw whenever you want. You can go; nobody will stop you; nobody will imprison you for leaving the country.
In order for government to be voluntary, we would need to be able to withdraw without molestation. and you can, whenever you want. Off you go!
This is not the case, so we have to conclude that government is violence.
Only if the government will force you stay if you try to leave; it won't. Stop pretending that it will--you're making yourself look foolish.
Just so long as there isn't a mechanism for him to force his service upon the population, he will have to cater to them (by not pandering to wealthier groups, etc.).
In the absence of a government that upholds the rights of all, the only thing Gates (or any other wealthy entity) has to do is hire some armed thugs. There's no government to prevent this, so the Microthugs can go around smashing all the linux systems and saying stuff like "This would never have happened if you were using a Microsoft server. Think about it." and unless the linux users have enough money to hire enforcers of their own, it'll keep happening until Microsoft has a monopoly. Or, if the linux guys can afford their own thugs, then there'll be a wee war until one group triumphs or they decide on boundaries/territory, which is just as bad--no freedom of choice.
so then the question must be: how exactly do we prevent government from arising?
Only sociopaths would agree with that assertion.
we don't need an immoral system in place....
I agree, but you seem to have a very odd idea about what is and isn't a moral system.
"Only if the government will force you stay if you try to leave; it won't. Stop pretending that it will--you're making yourself look foolish."
I think he is talking about succeeding from the Union. American's have tried leaving before, Lincoln started a war over it. In the last election a few states his the 100 k mark on a petition to succeed from the United States, do you think if they decided to leave the military would just let them? Or if a person living in American suddenly decides to stop paying taxes, what would happen? Would the government come to arrest that person?
"Good to know. Nothing you have to say beyond this is of any value, because it comes from an anti-social, morally bankrupt premise. "
Jeff don't try to take the moral highground with the Federal Government, you will lose.
-Gitmo-Bonus Army-Manning-Civil War-Indian's
Take your pick and there is lots more where that came from.I think he is talking about succeeding from the Union. American's have tried leaving before, Lincoln started a war over it.
No he didn't. The first shots were fired at Federal troops, not by them.
Plus, anyone who wants to leave the US may do so. They're just not allowed to take any of the USA's sovereign territory with them.
Or if a person living in American suddenly decides to stop paying taxes, what would happen? Would the government come to arrest that person?
Yes, and rightly so. A person living in the USA benefits from the USA's infrastructure, law and order, public services (like the national weather service, coast guard, law enforcement, public education, etc) and therefore should kick in to support those things.
Jeff don't try to take the moral highground with the Federal Government, you will lose.
-Gitmo-Bonus Army-Manning-Civil War-Indian's
Take your pick and there is lots more where that came from.
I never said the USA was perfect. It never has been. It is, however, continuously improving, and is certainly better than any system in which the richest get to hire private armies to enforce their will. Your libertarian paradise, however, is fundamentally flawed, and would inevitably spiral down into a kind of feudalism.
Im writing this on my phone so please excuse the formatting issues if there are any.
If I were to subscribe to the notion that nothing a particular person says has worth, I would base it on their method of argument ahead of the content. There are many ideas I find absurd, but I would take an absurd idea explained validly ahead of a good idea backed up by ad-hominem, e.g. calling someone a 'sociopath'.
Regardless, taxation is theft. The core of our disagreement lies in what is 'sovereign'. True freedom for the libertarian would be to use their private property as they see fit. Since the government has no righttful claim over any individuals property it has no right to impose taxation on an unsoliciting individual, regardless of what 'services' it provides. It is as morally bankrupt as the highwayman claiming ownership of your person and demanding a 'duty' for the privilege.
Once this has been established, the absurdity of the idea that we need one monolithic agent of violence that has no consumer power, to protect us from many competing agents of power subject to consumer demand becomes clear.How wrong can anybody be!
Like it or not, you agree to taxation by living in a democracy.
If you don't like being taxed vote for a candidate who opposes taxation. When you can't find one stand for parliament yourself.
Government does not impose taxation, it is charged with providing services and needs money to provide those services and who else but the user should pay for those services?What service is the government providing for me on my property? They tax me on it. Therefore theft!
I have no children in school but I pay school taxes. Therefore theft!
I have to pay registration for my my vehicle that is supposed to pay for road use but I cannot drive on a toll road without paying for its use. Not to mention that my tax dollars payed for the toll roads construction. Therefore theft!The government provides tons of services on your property, for example if your house catches fire people will come onto your property and attempt to save you and or your possessions.
You may have no children in school but you still benefit from the fact that schools exist, for example they educate the engineers who deign the bridges you use. Plus you probably did use the school system at some point.
Registration covers some road use, some for certain areas requires more funding and those have tolls so that people who use them pay rather than everyone (as it would be if they simply raised registration costs) weirdly you were just complaining about being charged for something you don't use and are now complaining about other people not having to do that for he road they don't use...
Wonderful bit of hypocrisy there.If my house catches fire? Hasn't yet don't expect it ever will. But I have been paying property taxes for years.
The public school system is not has not and never will teach engineering!
Registration is supposed to cover road use!
TheftBut f your house should catch fire or be burgled or anything, you'd be happy then to use the services that you pay for. Tell me, do you insure your car against accident, have you ever claimed and do you consider the premiums to be theft?
There isn't an engineer in the world who does not have a basic education, you know, reading and writing, arithmetic, that sort of thing. And do you not like your shop assistants to have at least a basic grasp of arithmetic, or even basic keyboard skills?
As for roads, would you really be happy if they only used revenue from vehicle registration to build and look after roads? You promise you wouldn't complain if you had only dirt tracks to drive along and fifty mile detours because there wasn't enough money to build that bridge?I really wouldn't be happy to use a flawed service, if my house were burgled then the service failed to provide security. You may say that then it becomes a chore of recovering stolen items and that results in more failure according to statistics. The fact that my house has never been broken into you may say is a result of great protection but the facts are that it is actually because there is someone always here and I have very large dogs.
Engineering is not taught in the public school system.
I was taxed when the toll roads were built, they are mine.You didn't answer my question, do you consider your car insurance premiums to be theft?
I take it then that you think engineers have no basic education.
You really believe that because you were taxed when the roads were built you have no further obligation to keep them in good condition!The fact that my house has never been broken into you may say is a result of great protection
Not necessarily "great protection" but rather a general acceptance of the rule of law. Most people don't try to rob you not merely because robbery is wrong but also because (and this is where the power of government works in your favor) people who make a living by burglary are increasingly likely to be caught and punished.
but the facts are that it is actually because there is someone always here and I have very large dogs.
No, the facts are that you haven't been burgled because I keep a banana in my ear. You haven't been burgled, have you? See how well it's working?
In a lawless land without government, a group of immoral people with guns could take whatever you own without fear of reprisal from the government. In this country, fear of government reprisal keeps immoral people from banding together and taking your stuff.
Engineering is not taught in the public school system. No, but math and physics are, and those are the foundations of engineering.
I was taxed when the toll roads were built, they are mine.
Oh, so you object to public assets being seized and privatized?
Good. Then you don't really think we should abolish the government, and you do believe in promoting the general welfare.
So you never deal with anybody who has received an education!
I don't know what it is like in the US but vehicle tax in the UK (and fuel tax) only covers a tiny proportion of road building and maintenance, the rest is covered out of general taxation, which being a none driver at the moment I could object to, but I don't because I realise roads are for the general good of us all. Without roads we would go hungry and have to make do without all the little things that add up to 21st century life.
@john
This is avoiding the problem that the government had not acquired the property it legislates justly, it has simply declared itself so on the notion that it is 'democratic'. But imaging that the electoral system isnt a sham that promotes candidates that favour powerful special interests over principled ones, the idea that the majority has the right to rule over the minority is a morally bankrupt one in the first place.
Also, 'whether you like it or not' implies it has an absolute right whether solicited or unsolicited - we therefore have to conclude that governmen isnt aggressive.It is in fact solicited and desired by the vast majority who are not willing to compromise all those benefits for the sake of the very few who don't want such a system, instead they are freely allowed to leave, simply out of convenience since doing it any other way would be too complex and thus deny them the system they want. Those people (the vast majority) as a unified group seized land some time ago and declared themselves the sovereign owners of it, they declared certain rules on their land, just as with private property owned by an individual, people can respect those rules or leave.
Just because you happen to be born on that land does not change the premise btw, it does not give you the right to enforce rules on it except by the methods agreed upon by the owners of it (the majority) which is voting, lobbying etc.So you think the minority have the right to rule over the majority!
Who is morally bankrupt here ?In what context? Because in some cases they do.
Oh in most cases they do!
Doesn't make it right though.
It was in response to Innersmiff's claim that the majority ruling over the minority was morally bankrupt.
"No he didn't. The first shots were fired at Federal troops, not by them."
Check your history. A few southern states left the Union. Fort Sumpter is in South Carolina and SC is one of the states that left. The Federal Troops (hardly any there at the time) at Fort Sumpter were asked to leave the fort because it was no longer in Union soil. They refused and Lincoln sent more troops to Fort Sumpter as well as having it reinforced.
The point here is that Fort Sumpter was no longer in Union Soil. Lincoln was fresh into the office and states were leaving the Union like a sinking ship. So what does he do? Sends troops to a powder keg in the hops of starting a war. He did and all the states that left were brought back to the United States. Slavery was mainly brought into the mix to keep Europe out of the war.
if a person living in American suddenly decides to stop paying taxes, what would happen? Would the government come to arrest that person?
Yes, and rightly so.
So you admit the government is one of violence. "Do this or else""No he didn't. The first shots were fired at Federal troops, not by them."
Check your history. A few southern states left the Union. Fort Sumpter is in South Carolina and SC is one of the states that left.
Perhaps, but Fort Sumpter was the property of the Federal Government.
The Federal Troops (hardly any there at the time) at Fort Sumpter were asked to leave the fort because it was no longer in Union soil.
You mean the Federal troops were asked to give away Federal property without compensation because one party to an agreement unilaterally withdrew from the agreement without the consent of all parties to the agreement?
Basically, you just argued that theft is okay, as long it's a State government stealing from the Federal government.
The point here is that Fort Sumpter was no longer in Union Soil.
No, Fort Sumpter was still federal property: the Federal government never consented to give it away, nor to sell it. The rebels tried to take it by first by intimidation, then by force, both of which are considered immoral by most libertarians. Why do you think intimidation and force are okay in this instance?
Slavery was mainly brought into the mix to keep Europe out of the war.
That's a false statement. Take a look at the various declarations of secession from the rebel states:
Georgia:
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Mississippi:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
South Carolina:
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who*, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
*that is, they're letting Black people be citizens and vote! Outrageous! And they're voting for people who don't like slavery! IMAGINE!
Texas:
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy.
So don't try to pretend that the Civil War was about anything other than the South's hypocritical insistence upon having the freedom to enslave Black people.
So you admit the government is one of violence. "Do this or else"
Nope. It's a government of voluntary participation in, and enjoyment of the benefits of, American society, the price of which is paying your taxes. You can chose not to participate--that is, you may leave--at any time. But since you live here, you consent to being governed by our government. Since you consent to being governed, then you consent to paying the taxes your government levees. If you object to those taxes, you have the right to petition our government, you have the right to run for office yourself, you have the right to use your freedoms of speech and the press to argue for a new tax code, and you have the right to leave the country if none of these works and you can't bear to pay the taxes that come with your consent (that is, your free choice to continue living here).
Now, if our government made it a habit to use force to prevent you from leaving the country, then you'd have a case for taxes=theft. But it doesn't, so you don't. You aren't forced to pay US taxes. But if you live here and try to avoid paying your taxes (which you consented to by living here), it's only right that the government should enforce the agreement, because you reneged on it.
Proof our government isn't a violent one.
http://www.infowars.com/law-enforcement … ant-women/@Josak. The minority who wish not to pay and receive the services do not relieve the service of anybody else who wishes it. Libertarians and statists could live peacefully if they simply allowed it. "You can leave" is not adequate seeing as one has the right to do with their private property as they will. If what you are saying is true, that a majority of people seized a portion of land and declared it sovereign, that this is right and the majority have the right to dictate to the minority, it would mean that property does not belong to the individual at all. If we are to accept private property at all we have to reject the notion of a 'sovereign' state, as it is simply aggression.
If a group of people got together, bought a piece of land to build a society and delegated certain areas for people to live in (let's call it a commune), there would be nothing wrong with the notion of a 'tax' or 'maintenance fee' for essential services, and any rules governing what people do on those pieces of land. However, this is not what the government is. Government claims the right over other people's person and property.
@John
No man may rule over another. This is the only just, and equal, system.That system would not be in any way shape or form practical, would police have to inquire whether you are a libertarian before they help you? If you were tried would you just be found guilty without the costs of providing you a fair trial? It's preposterous.
That is in fact more or less what nations do, the US for example purchased much of the modern nation from Indian tribes and the French and took the rest by conquest (how we feel about right of conquest is a separate issue) and then imposed rules upon those who chose to live there, private property remains subject to the sovereign ownership of the land it is on, hence it can be claimed by eminent domain and hence the law still applies on it. So when you are on US soil you are ON US SOIL and thus essentially on national property administrated by it's people through a democratic system.But how would you stop that happening? With no enforcement, no control, who would actually stop somebody from taking on the role of ruler, even if that role only included finances?
Unless of course you are touting socialism, but I somehow don't think so.
@Josak
Obviously the state would need to relieve their violent monopoly over the 'services' it provides to make it at all moral, but there are ways individuals can protect themselves and resolve disputes without the governmental systems. This issue of practicality, though, has no bearing on our argument about whether the government is aggressive or not. I could imagine some ways in which competing police forces could work peacefully, just as competing security companies can today, as well as competing court systems. However, I differ from the socialist central planners in that I don't presume to know exactly how a society should run, beyond knowing that every transaction needs to be voluntary. At the risk of sounding cheesy, mankind has an extraordinary capacity for working things out peacefully when given the chance. As I've said before, it is about providing the best environment for good instead of good through aggression.
When you've claimed ownership over a piece of land (avoiding, for the moment, the fact that the US still had no right over the indian's land unless they bought it with consent from every single land-owner there), you cannot claim that the collective owns the country and then deign to provide 'private property' to people who live there. It is a contradiction. One can only claim property if you have the absolute right over it. Presuming that the individual in question acquired their property justly, any attempt to appropriate funds for services provided by any entity is theft. The only way one could hope to counter this is to say that, either, A. what we call 'private property' isn't property at all and simply part of what the true owners of the land (government) deign to give us in exchange for services, or B. private property doesn't exist at all.
Since the government did not acquire the land justly, A cannot be true. B gets into a whole other topic that I'm sure only communists will want to debate. I don't see Comrade Joe around here, so I'll pass on that debate for now, I'm hungry.
@John
Of course there is enforcement, but no monopoly of enforcement (it's funny, most that occupy left of centre take issue with monopoly, except in the most important services. No, no, those services need a monopoly, and a violent one too). In order to have enough funds to build an army to threaten society with oppression, an entity will need to provide a service to customers to persuade them to part with their money. Live by the consumer, die by the consumer, and if the entity does something their customers don't like, they simply need to withdraw their funds, debilitating them. The government doesn't have this problem seeing as they just steal it. Withdrawing funds in the face of illegal wars and drone strikes will land you in prison.Okay Kiddies History lesson time.
The American Civil War.
The south has slaves and the North had indentured immigrants and slaves. Lots of tension had been brewing between both sides. Republican President Lincoln was elected into office and various states started leaving the Union.
Now Lincoln wasn't going to abolish slavery but he did want to stop the spreading of it. He ran for office on a platform of prohibiting slavery from spreading west. Before you go all ga-ga gogo for Dishonest Abe here's a quote from him. "“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people"-Lincoln
Because he wanted to stop the spread of slavery southern leaders recognized this as a possible beginning to the end of slavery. A bit of background. The south didn't have the population that the North had and needed slave populations for the workforce. The north also had a large amount of indentured servants (slaves) as well as black slave.
Whereas Lincoln didn't want to end slavery he did want to preserve the Union. The war started in 61 and Lincoln introduce the Emancipation Proclaimation in 63. Now why the large gap?
Europe.
Britain was in favor of remaining neutral (at first). They had enough on their plate with Napoleon III’s ambitions in Europe and Bismarck’s rise in Germany. The Union sent diplomats to Britian to assure them this was an internal conflict and that no outside help was need.
The Union at this time was desperately trying to stop Europe from recognizing the South as a different nation. Which lead to the Trent Crisis.
When the war first broke out, Cotton shipments stopped coming from the United States. Which really sucked for Britain because 40 percent of its cotton came from the US. In November of 61, southern leaders sent 2 diplomats via Britain Merchant Vessel to Britain to offer friendly trading..aka cotton. As well as talk about various trade agreements which would of made Europe have to recognize the South.
Lincoln couldn't have that. So he ordered his troops to fire on a neutral Merchant vessel/mail boat...the army overtook the vessel took hostage of the two diplomats. Sure no diplomats made it to Britain at that point but he also almost started a war. Attacking a friendly nations merchant vesse/mail boatl is frowned upon for some reason.
So diplomatic relations started to deteriorate between American and Britain. A year later it was still a stalemate and blockades were really pissing off those who wanted Cotton. So Britain made a decree end to war soon or they will get involved. And they didn't like the United States in fact they had started making warships and supplying Enfield muskets. Google the USS Alabama if you want to know more on that.
Lincoln was in a pinch. A war with Britain would be too much and the South would probably win out. So Lincoln did the Emancipation Proclaimation and introduced the civil war as a war about slavery. What this did, is make it so that if Britan wanted to fight the USA they would have to be supporting the cause of slavery. (Remember this war had been raged for 3 years so far).
Britain had outlawed slavery years back and wouldn't get involved and withdrew support. Although they would of benefited greatly from a fractured United States.
So there you have it folks. Lincoln started a war because he didn't want states to leave. Had brother kill brother and only introduce slavery to keep out of the war.I love revisionist history.
The Confederate states split because they were concerned that Lincoln was going to ban slavery, no one is arguing Lincoln was perfect but he WAS anti slavery which was hugely progressive thing for it's time in the US (something supposedly freedom loving libertarians shove under the carpet while supporting a government that went to war because it feared losing the right to deprive others of their liberty by owning them). The Emancipation Proclamation obviously had political benefits but many of Lincoln early writings reveal he had wanted to pass such a bill for a long time and saw an opportunity to do so where it would not be immediate political suicide (it was risky anyway).
So to sum up we have a Confederate nation excersizing it's right to self determination, that is moral and fine, but then we have a nation attempting to minimize and eventually abolish slavery against a side which wants to retain and even expand the practice of owning people and their children when they are born. Now obviously that is a greater abuse of basic human liberties than denying a nation that had never previously existed it's right to self determination yet we re somehow supposed to believe that the confederates were in the right? Utter Rubbish.
Even from the specific libertarian view one side supports personal freedom far more than the other.This is going to be fun.
Okay Kiddies History lesson [correcting] time.
The American Civil War.
The south has slaves and the North [used to have] indentured immigrants and slaves [but emancipated them, recognizing that it is hypocritical to insist upon liberty for oneself but to enslave another]. Lots of tension had been brewing between both sides. Republican President Lincoln was elected into office and various states started [illegally and unilaterally seceding from] the Union.
Now Lincoln [didn't like] slavery but he did want to stop the spreading of it [and would tolerate its continued existence in the South if it meant preserving the Union]. He ran for office on a platform of prohibiting slavery from spreading west. ....
Because he wanted to stop the spread of slavery southern leaders recognized this as a possible beginning to the end of slavery [and therefore were willing to go to war to preserve their freedom to own slaves]. A bit of background. The south didn't have the population that the North had [unless you counted the slave population] and [felt like they] needed slave populations for the workforce. The [border states] also had a [significant, but comparatively small] amount of indentured servants (slaves) as well as black slave.
Whereas Lincoln did[] want to end slavery [but] he did want to preserve the Union [more]. The war started in 61 and Lincoln introduce the Emancipation Proclaimation in 63. Now why the large gap?
[There really wasn't a gap; it was more of a ramp.]
[As early as his 1861 'State of the Union' message, Lincoln endorsed legislation to emancipate slaves. In January of '62, Speaker of the House Stephens called for emancipation. In March of the same year, Congress passed a law forbidding the Army from returning escaped slaves to their owners. In April, Congress passed a law to the effect that any owner who freed his slaves voluntarily would be paid by the government. Shortly afterward, all slaves in DC were emancipated. In June '62, Congress outlawed slavery in the territories.In July of '62, Congress passed a law to liberate slaves owned by rebels.]
[Finally, after the Union victory at Antietam, Lincoln felt that he could issue an emancipation proclamation from a position of strength, and did so.]
Britain was in favor of remaining neutral (at first). They had enough on their plate with Napoleon III’s ambitions in Europe and Bismarck’s rise in Germany. The Union sent diplomats to Britian to assure them this was an internal conflict and that no outside help was need.
The Union at this time was desperately trying to stop Europe from recognizing the South as a different nation. Which lead to the Trent Crisis.
When the war first broke out, Cotton shipments stopped coming from the United States. Which really sucked for Britain because 40 percent of its cotton came from the US. In November of 61, southern leaders sent 2 diplomats via Britain Merchant Vessel to Britain to offer friendly trading..aka cotton. As well as talk about various trade agreements which would of made Europe have to recognize the South.
Lincoln couldn't have that. So he ordered his troops to fire on a neutral Merchant vessel/mail boat...the army overtook the vessel took hostage of the two diplomats. Sure no diplomats made it to Britain at that point but he also almost started a war. Attacking a friendly nations merchant vesse/mail boatl is frowned upon for some reason.
So diplomatic relations started to deteriorate between American and Britain. A year later it was still a stalemate and blockades were really pissing off those who wanted Cotton. So Britain made a decree end to war soon or they will get involved. And [while] they didn't like the United States [and] in fact they had started making warships and supplying Enfield muskets. Google the USS Alabama if you want to know more on that. [they were also leery of supporting the slaveowning Confederate States, having already abolished slavery in the British Empire in 1807.]
Lincoln was in a pinch. A war with Britain would be too much and the South would probably win out. [But, as the North had been ramping up toward emancipation anyway, and had fortunately just won a victory at Antietam,] Lincoln did the Emancipation Proclaimation and [made it even more official: not only was] the civil war a war about [the South preserving] slavery [it was also about the North abolishing it]. What this did, is make it so that if Britan wanted to fight the USA they would have to be [not only] supporting the cause of slavery [but also actively fighting against a nation working to end it]. (Remember this war had been raged for 3 years so far).
Britain had outlawed slavery years back and wouldn't get involved and withdrew support. Although they would of benefited greatly from a fractured United States.
So there you have it folks. [The South] started a war because [they wanted to have the freedom to own slaves. And Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was merely the next logical step in a long series of steps leading to nationwide emancipation].
There, fixed it for you.
Come off of it. Your trying to turn it around and say the war was about slavery when it was only an issue to keep Europe out of the War. Give me names of papers, not imaginary papers conjured out of thin air by Josak the almighty/ If the Union were so upset about keeping humans as slaves, then why were at least 4 Union states during the civil war still slave states?
History is written by the victors. I'm sure in the future when people are reading about the History of the United States during the turn of the century they will read about Gitmo as an entirely different way then those tortured there.
"(something supposedly freedom loving libertarians shove under the carpet while supporting a government that went to war because it feared losing the right to deprive others of their liberty by owning them)."-Huh? What libertarians are you talking about? If you are talking about the libertarians in this forum we are not (or at least I'm not) supporting the Confederancy, only their right to leave the United States and bashing Lincoln for starting a war and being hailed a hero for it.*Sigh* we can go round and round all day arguing about what people's intentions were, whether Lincoln wanted to emancipate the slaves before the war (he certainly passed lots of pro slavery legislation before the emancipation declaration) but we are simply guessing. The solid facts are that the civil war lead to the victory of a nation that ended slavery while the confederacy sought to retain it thus being the greater good.
Quick Josak and Jeff the history channel did an article supporting my previous posts. You should jump on and tell those historians they have history wrong.
They are saying Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist and that the civil war wasn't about slavery. They also go on to say that once the Emancipation Proclamation "happened" Lincoln allowed for several Union States to still own slaves and whats more Lincoln allowed some Confederate areas to have slaves in the hopes of gaining the support of the whites..
http://www.history.com/news/5-things-yo … ancipationYou are using the "Ancient Aliens" Channel to back your argument? Good luck with that
You're quoting the "History" channel? The same channel that brings you such great programming as Ancient Aliens and 35 programs devoted to the end of days?
Weak Josak. Then again leftist never have been good at admitting when they are wrong...."It's all Bush's fault."
Come off of it. Your trying to turn it around and say the war was about slavery when it was only an issue to keep Europe out of the War.
We don't have to prove Lincoln wanted to end slavery from the get-go. It's a non-issue. Read the declarations of secession published by the seceding states: they say right in them that those states are worried that sooner or later, the preponderance of public opinion is going to turn against slavery, and therefore they want to leave the Union in case the Union tries to take away the freedom to own slaves.
The South went to war to preserve slavery, and only to preserve slavery! That was the only so-called "states' rights" issue at hand.
If the Union were so upset about keeping humans as slaves, then why were at least 4 Union states during the civil war still slave states?
That's a situation of realpolitik. It's like saying if the US is so gung-ho to bring democracy to benighted foreign countries, why doesn't it invade China and change the regime there? There's a whole lot more people being repressed in China than in Iraq. Why? Because if the US started a preemptive war with China, it'd be a really hard war to win, and nobody would be on our side. Plus, Iraq is weak and has oil. So we pick on Iraq.
Why didn't the Union emancipate the slaves in the border states? Because then some of the border states might have seceded, too, making the war even harder. Much better to emancipate most of the slaves now, and the rest of them later, than try to emancipate all of them now, and fail to emancipate most of them. That's not hypocrisy, mate. That strategy.But Jeff we aren't talking about the Souths reasons for leaving the Union only the Unions aggressive tactics of not allowing free nations to PEACEFULLY leave the Union. This discussion wasn't about slavery nor was it about the south, the reason for the history lesson was to show you that Lincoln was willing to pit brother against brother to stop nations from leaving the Union and not a noble cause of stopping slavery.
Whats-more he was also willing to possibly start a war (Trent Crisis) with the British to stop 2 PEACEFUL diplomats from the Confederacy by firing on a Mail/Merchant Vessel.
"Now, if our government made it a habit to use force to prevent you from leaving the country, then you'd have a case for taxes=theft."-Jeff
You know even though I think I did a pretty good job at showing the aggressive side of America here, I'm sure you don't see it that way. So let me use an example that i should of used in the beginning. Japanese Interment Camps. They were forced to pay taxes while in those camps. Many lost their businesses, homes, etc. Many came home after the war and found squatters living in their homes/businesses the Government in most cases sided with the Squatters.
I wonder if we have any American citizens being tortured in Gitmo right now being forced to still pay taxes on things they own in the United States.But Jeff we aren't talking about the Souths reasons for leaving the Union only the Unions aggressive tactics of not allowing free nations to PEACEFULLY leave the Union.
Um...yes we are. The Southern states saw the writing on the wall: sooner or later, the USA will affirm that it's not okay to enslave people, and then we'll have to free our slaves, start paying them in exchange for their work, and stop . Freedom for black people? Screw that!
Now, every slave-owning person in the South was free to leave the United States. They were not, however, free to take pieces of the United States' sovereign territory with them when they left.
This discussion wasn't about slavery nor was it about the south,
Yeah, it is. You really want it not to be, because as soon as we talk about the South (you know: the ones who were willing to 1) reneg on a contract and 2) steal property at the point of a gun and 3) fight a war to preserve their freedom to enslave black people) your argument that the war wasn't really about slavery falls to pieces.
Whats-more he was also willing to possibly start a war (Trent Crisis) with the British to stop 2 PEACEFUL diplomats from the Confederacy by firing on a Mail/Merchant Vessel.
You could also argue that said vessel was violating US sovereignty, since it was entering US territory against the express orders of a US Navy vessel. Remember, the issue of whether the so-called CSA was a sovereign nation is moot, since Great Britain had not yet recognized the legitimacy of the so-called CSA (nor was it a legitimate government). Therefore, you should blame the captain of that UK vessel for not respecting US sovereignty, not the US for enforcing it.
"Now, if our government made it a habit to use force to prevent you from leaving the country, then you'd have a case for taxes=theft."-Jeff
You know even though I think I did a pretty good job at showing the aggressive side of America here, I'm sure you don't see it that way.
True.
So let me use an example that i should of used in the beginning. Japanese Interment Camps. They were forced to pay taxes while in those camps. Many lost their businesses, homes, etc. Many came home after the war and found squatters living in their homes/businesses the Government in most cases sided with the Squatters.
I never said the US government was perfect. It has acted very badly in the past, and it's to be hoped it will act less badly in the future. When people are angry and scared, they do stupid and hateful things. It's to be hoped that we'll learn from the stupid and hateful things we've done in the past, so we won't repeat them in the future.
I wonder if we have any American citizens being tortured in Gitmo right now being forced to still pay taxes on things they own in the United States.
What would they pay those taxes with?
"What would they pay those taxes with?"-You
Not sure, what did the Japanese pay their taxes with when they were forced to pay taxes in the interment camps?
"Um...yes we are."
Actually we are not. Check the OP if you don't believe me. The reason for me bringing up the civil war was due to Innermiffs comment...since your memory seems to be selective let me quote it for you.
" In order for government to be voluntary, we would need to be able to withdraw without molestation. This is not the case, so we have to conclude that government is violence."
Now obviously we are seeing the civil war as two very different incidents. You see it as a minor rebellion and I see it as states leaving the Federal Government to form their own nation. It's the type of people that "would" secede from a nation that formed our government to begin with. What makes our Rebellion just and their's unjust. Sure your going to argue slavery made their Rebellion unjust but to that...simply read that link I posted...and I'll post again.
http://www.history.com/news/5-things-yo … ancipation
Lincoln wasn't going to free slaves, it was a political ploy to keep Europe out of the war. Sure they might have left because they thought he was going to ban slavery (eventually) but that still doesn't negate the facts that the Free Union had slaves during and after the war, and that Lincoln allowed Confederate area to have slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation. That right there shows Lincoln didn't really care about slavery otherwise he would of demanded all states be free states...he didn't instead he went to war over slavery yet once he won allowed slavery to not only exist in Union States but also in Confederate States. Please.
Confederacy attempts to peacefully leave, Lincoln starts a war.
Mistake of being Japanese-American during WW2. Held in prison camps and forced to pay taxes.
Mistake of being in American first. (Indians) given small pox blankets, moved around a few times especially if some precious mineral was found in their designated areas and lets not forget a few of the Indian massacres.
Yep...your right Jeff our nation is totally not a violent one and actions like Gitmo-torture camps are showing how our nations are developing into a much more civilized nation...we keep our Unconstitutional interment camps outside the United States now...keeps the questions down and it's easier to bury the bodies.Actually we are not. Check the OP if you don't believe me. The reason for me bringing up the civil war was due to Innermiffs comment...since your memory seems to be selective let me quote it for you.
" In order for government to be voluntary, we would need to be able to withdraw without molestation. This is not the case, so we have to conclude that government is violence."
Yeah, but your premise is false. If a contract is voluntary, then we can withdraw without molestation, right? But try to break a lease. You can't just unilaterally withdraw from a contract without the other party having a thing or two to say about it.
Lemme put it to you in terms you'll understand:
The South unilaterally (and therefore illegally) withdrew from the Union, and tried to seize Union property, first by coercion (of which, unless I'm mistaken, you disapprove) and then by violence (ditto). Since the South initiated aggression, the Union was well within its rights to respond with force. (Or do you think that we don't have the right to fight back against aggression?)
Now that we've settled the silly argument about who started the war, we can move on to reasons for fighting it.
The South was clearly fighting to preserve their freedom to enslave Black people. It says so in their declarations of secession. Deny it if you will, but it's a matter of historic fact.
Now, about Lincoln's goals? We agree that he didn't particularly like slavery. I think we also agree that he liked preserving the Union more than he hated slavery--or at least, was pragmatic enough to see that forcing the issue might be detrimental to the Union (and later, to the Union's chances of victory against the South). But as time progressed, he and his fellow Northern politicians took step after step to emancipate more and more slaves. You can say the Emancipation Proclamation was an act of opportunism, and it's possible that doing it exactly then was also prompted by the desire to keep Britian out of the war. But given the continual and progressive effort by the Union to emancipate more and more slaves over the course of the war, you have to recognize that--timing aside--the Emancipation Proclamation was not a single act of desperation but part of a deliberate, long-term progression toward nationwide emancipation.
Your facts about when the EP was issued (and about the Trent affair) are essentially correct (or at least, I do not dispute them). But they aren't the only facts, nor are they the only ones that are important. If you look only at the evidence you present, it's easy to come to the conclusion that nobody in the North cared about slavery, and they only made it an issue when it looked like GB might help the South. But if you look at pretty much anything that happened between when the South started the Civil War and when the EP was issued, you'll see that the EP was just one step on a path that the Union had been walking for a very long time already.
Lincoln wasn't going to free slaves, it was a political ploy to keep Europe out of the war.
Then why did the Union take step after step to free more and more slaves even before the EP was released?
That still doesn't negate the facts that the Free Union had slaves during and after the war,
I've already addressed this: it's all about realpolitik. You accomplish what you can, when you can.
and that Lincoln allowed Confederate area to have slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation.
You mean the states where the people were in rebellion and Lincoln was having a heck of a time enforcing American law? Yeah, that's the same as "allowing."
That right there shows Lincoln didn't really care about slavery otherwise he would of demanded all states be free states.
No, that right there showed that Lincoln was good at strategy.
yet once he won allowed slavery to not only exist in Union States but also in Confederate States.
For about six days. Then he was assassinated. It's pretty hard for a dead guy to emancipate anybody, even if he did just win a war over the issue.
Confederacy attempts to [renege on an agreement, and then steal Union property first through intimidation then through violence], Lincoln [answers force with force].
There, fixed it for you.
Mistake of being Japanese-American during WW2. Held in prison camps and forced to pay taxes.
Agreed: that was a mistake. It was wrong.
Mistake of being in American first. (Indians) given small pox blankets*, moved around a few times especially if some precious mineral was found in their designated areas and lets not forget a few of the Indian massacres.
Agreed: that was wrong, too.
Yep...your right Jeff our nation is totally not a violent one
A strawman. I never said our nation never committed an act of violence. I merely refuted your argument that taxes are theft. But rather than accept this, you're moving the goalposts and bringing other issues (unrelated to taxation) into the argument (which, ironically, is the exact thing you've accused me of, but which I didn't do).
Sure, but neither side is going to get the perfect society that they wish for.
Therefore, their needs to be compromise and consensusCompromise on what?
I agree if you mean compromise on how to help the economy legitimately, how to help people create better jobs or "create" jobs instead of just hiring more people for panels to figure out how to push Obama's agenda through. Heck, I'd consider it a great step forward if our leaders would figure out a way simply for people to KEEP their jobs or regain their jobs they had before the carp hit the fan, instead of worrying about "creating" jobs (which is simply another stupid word that the Left keeps using to throw everybody off).
It would be okay to compromise on how to do a lot of things!
But not on the things that are actually moral principles.
It sickens me that there's all the hoopla about "morality" coming from the Left (and a tendency to ignore from the Rights sometimes even), when in fact this Nation's leader has openly advocated for the most immoral practices ever backed from the top position in the world (the White House).
So, no, you'll not find me in the mood to "compromise" on anything until he shuts his nasty mouth or recants his position about the biggest and baddest holocaust of any American era--------baby killing.
He first said that's an issue above his pay grade.
Well, if that's how he wants to see it, then everything else is above his pay grade too. His checks need to start bouncing. And they would, if it was up to me.
What? Anyone want to say hey see her attitude?---no wonder there's no compromise? You would be right. What do ya want me to do?---ignore it? Not gonna happen. The man is supposed to represent all the people as best he can. He's ignored a large part of the population-----------unborn children and those of us who believe they should be given the same opportunity we've had and that he had---------a chance to LIVE.
His carp, his attitude, would tee off a saint. You can see him on tv trying to scold Israeli citizens about how the Palestinians have "a right" to a Country of their own too. And all the while, he doesn't give a whit if little babies ever see the light of day, much less grow up to choose to fight against Palestine rocket-launchings into an American ally's neighborhoods. He thinks he has the right to walk onto a stage and tell not only America, but every other Nation, what to do, but he doesn't even think a baby has the right to grow up to walk, period.
So, no, I have no respect for him nor for those who've seen what he's like and still think he's God's gift to America. The man and his cronies reek of greed, selfishness, and ignorance, and they don't deserve the positions they're in. There's no way I could "compromise" with the leaders of a Party like that. They need to give it up and give America back to the people who believe in Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as intended in the Constitution--------happiness as in normal humanity living with each other in kindness and honesty and morals, not happiness as in greedy ideas that infringe upon other people's ideas.
Go ahead, keep calling for "compromise". I sincerely hope the GOP does NOT compromise its principles. 'Cause if they do, they're heading for being just as bad as Obama and his cronies.Ok, so you're against abortion. That's your right.
Fortunately, in this country, we are all given the right to choose how we will live our life. What you consider immoral may not be immoral to someone else. Who are you to judge?It would be okay to compromise on how to do a lot of things!
But not on the things that are actually moral principles.
I sincerely hope the GOP does NOT compromise its principles. 'Cause if they do,...they'll continue alienating more and more Americans who understand what true morality really is, and they'll be on the fast track to a very principled--and morally bankrupt--state of irrelevancy.
That'd be great.So glad I'm not the only one who sees that
30 out of 50 Governors are republican!
As of November 2012, the Democratic Party held the majority in 18 state houses and the Republican Party held the majority in 30 state houses. The Oregon House of Representatives was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Nebraska has only one chamber and is counted under the state senate pages.
Two Presidential elections with bad candidates will not doom the Republican party! Only bowing down to bad legislation will accomplish that.No, the continuing cavalcade of bad candidates (in no small part pushed forward because the even more morally bankrupt Tea Party turned out in huge numbers for the GOP primaries) and continued adherence to policies that have proven not to work will accomplish (and is in fact accomplishing) that.
This does not mean that conservatism is bad--there have been some truly great Americans who were conservative. The problem is that for the past 12 years or so (or possibly longer) the conservative movement in America has been co-opted by its own lunatic fringe. The GOP has turned its back on things like science and knowledge and reality in favor of dogma, and pursuing policies that have proven not to work, all the while claiming to be the party of "liberty" but doing their best to use the power of government to crush the liberties* of anyone they don't like.
*The only thing of any value that you've said in this thread was the bit waaay at the top where you said that the GOP isn't really in favor of liberty. They aren't. They're in favor of state control of stuff that doesn't affect anyone but the participants, and no state control over stuff that could kill or bankrupt you without your participation. Buncha fools. The GOP used to be respectable.That any you have to consider that most conservative states are also the least populated. Population density also explains their majority in the House as well.
What does the population matter? Please explain that.
For example, Republicans received 1.5% fewer votes than Democrats for Congressional seats in the last election but because of low population density areas that the GOP control need representatives Republicans control Congress even though most Americans voted for Democrats in Congress, understand?
Well.....
As any 7th grade social studies teacher will tell you...
Presidents are elected based on the outcome of the EC. The electors are given to the candidate that gets the most votes in any given state. Therefore, if a majority of a state goes for the GOP, the GOP candidate wins that state regardless of population density.
However,
The House of Representatives are determined by districts. Therefore, if enough people in a certain part of the state vote for a certain party, that party gets the seat. In other words, if 1,000 people were R's and 1100 people were D's, the R's could still gain a majority in the House from that state simply by districting where there were higher concentrations of R's as opposed to D's.
As it relates to the governors...
If 25 states have 1 million people each and 1 state has 26 million people, the majority could very well believe one thing, yet they wouldn't be represented fully in Congress because of population density.
Does that cover it?So those Representatives really didn't get the most votes? Is that what you are telling me?
It is about pride and prejudice, not the novel nor the movie.
Pride - not giving in, just wanting to win an argument
Prejudice - preconceived notion that there are sets of behavior correlated to being a Democrat or a Republican
The ability to debate issues rather than preconceived notion about a political party.
In essence, it is the general to particular kind of reasoning which make it difficult to debate issues.I am no political scholar, but here is my humble view. Why do we have to attach labels to each other? Can I not have personal views that are mine and that may connect to some views of one side and some views of the other? I have been accused at one time or another of being both liberal and conservative...which shows you how willing people are to pigeon hole me just because I may have expressed a certain view of things. One view about one thing does not make me all one thing or all another. If we all took time to realize that there are many shades of gray in people's thinking, we might learn to be more tolerant of one another. Certainly what we've been doing the past few years is not working, so maybe it's time to take a step back and reassess ourselves. Just sayin'.
Consensus is not liberty. You could say Hitler had the support of the people...except you'd be hard press to find a Jew that enjoyed that liberty.
But he didn't have the support of the Jews, therefore no consensus.
No, not one bit did it stop me. I had to go out.
Hitler didn't rule by consensus, he had the Gestapo who eliminated any political opposition. I thought that was common knowledge and so did not think it worthy of comment, obviously I was wrong.I was talking about Hitler. It aint all about you
Sorry, that wasn't obvious by your reply. Maybe you should have responded to the post that I responded to, rather than my response.
You said But he didn't have the support of the Jews, therefore no consensus.
To which I replied That sure stopped him didn't it?
I'll explain (Not sure why)
Even though you say he didn't have a consensus it did not stop him from doing what he did!
I hope that is clear.Ah, I see. I'm so used to you disagreeing with me that I was thrown off course when you did agree with me.
I thought that was common knowledge and so did not think it worthy of comment, obviously I was wrong.
You can't assume that folks on here actually know anything, no matter how common that knowledge might be.
Also is it even possible to compromise on some issues?
Take the latest gun control issue. They want to ban Assault Rifles, and 15 round mags. Now how do you compromise on this issue...remember compromise means that both parties give something up. By the Conservative side saying sure you can ban assault rifles but let us keep larger then 15 round mags, only one side has given anything up. UYou're right, for the gun issue 'compromise' means all gun control, no gun rights.
Universal background checks, and do away with restricting SBRs and suppressors.
I'd be fine with that compromise.Let's poke a few holes (possibly) in that compromise.
Who decides who is safe to own guns...and who isn't?
We have how many people in the Armed Forces that are returning from the war...now many of these soldiers are going to be seeking mental health help, PTSD, and various other disorders. How would you feel as a soldier if you got told you could either seek counseling (then disqualified for owning a gun) or not and be able to own a gun?Or....a *COMPROMISE*
You get counseling for your issues, you may be able to get a gun on a case-by-case basis.
Universal background checks and mental health checks before owning a gun......I think those are things that we can all agree on.
I'll only agree to it if SBRs and suppressors are removed from NFA
Seeing as there are already laws regulating them....why not
No, that's my point. Removing the regulations they are currently under.
Then you aren't getting them out from under NFA.
That's like saying 'I'll compromise with you, but you don't get any of the demands you asked for.'Haha, I know......in all seriousness, I have to do proper research to really make a good argument......however, whenever you place a financial impediment to getting something, it causes people to think just a little longer about whether or not they really need that gun.
Doesn't matter, NFA is unconstitutional, 2A isn't about 'need'(that's subjective).
The point is, there is never any 'compromise' in the direction of gun rights.Well sure, if you think that gun owners have the right to use their guns without restriction. The Constitution says a lot of things, but it doesn't say you have the right to own cannons and machine guns without any type of oversight.
It says I have the right to keep and bear arms, which absolutely includes SBRs and machine guns, and that my right can't be infringed. Requiring me to get approval from a sheriff is an infringement.
The only firearms civilians should be allowed to own are the firearms that were available in the mid-18th century. Only then does the 2nd Amendment make any sense at all.
So you're OK with civilians having a rifle that can fire 15 bullets in under 5 seconds?
Is the 1st Amendment limited to talking and writing letters, or does it extend to email/text/phone calls?Unless we've suddenly been transplanted into a terrible horror movie, a phone call has never killed anyone.
Super high-tech automatic rifles, however, kill as many people as you have bullets.
The way I read it, the 2A basically says that people need guns because the US might need to form a militia in a hurry and the people need their guns for fighting.
I also believe that the 2A says nothing about establishing rules to own a gun only that it won't infringe on your right to carry a weapon in general.
It's sort of like how you can drink alcohol if you are over 21, but you still might have to show ID to make a purchase and a bartender can cut you off if you drink too much. You have the right to do it, but not the right to do it to a point where you could put yourself or others in danger.
And to be fair, there is a lot more than just the tax that you have to deal with when you get that type of a weapon. In some cases its illegal to have them at all. So, in a way, that is a compromise.
I don't mean to be rude here Cody but I'm going to post the definition of the word Compromise. I don't think it means what you think it means.
An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
That's like saying 'I'll compromise with you, but you don't get any of the demands you asked for.'
No, that's what's called a counter-offer. That's negotiation, which is part of the process of compromising.Lol, no. If you're not making concessions on your side, it's not a compromise, at all.
"We're not going to give you anything" isn't a concession.
That's your opinion, but it isn't the facts of the case.
Lol, whatever.
So, the right wants lower spending, and the left wants higher taxes. You consider it 'compromise' to raise taxes without cutting spending? Lol!No, that's not compromise. Compromise is the right lowers spending a bit less and the left raises it a bit less.
Since when we're we talking abut taxes....I was talking about our gun debate
But as far as taxes, there is a plan among members of Congress that would cut an equal amount of spending compared to the amount of revenue being raised.Because you are saying that two sides can compromise with only one side making concessions.
Nevermind that the definition of compromise is both sides making concessions.
I didn't realize that concept was so difficult to grasp.Huh?
There is a plan in Congress that combines spending cuts with tax increases....that's a compromise.
In our gun debate, I said that I would make it legal for anyone to own an SBR as long as they paid the tax without any interference.
What part of either of those things isn't a compromise...?
Seems to me that first of all as civil servants they are way over paid, by us. Second they are talking about unemployment and social security as entitlements, which we have paid into. Any yet, they feel
they are entitled to great medical coverage, more vacations than I ever had in a life time, vote in raises behind closed doors, instead of asking us if they deserve a raise. And perks, that are paid for by our tax dollars, meanwhile we
are treated like the bottom feeders in the big pond. Hmmmm something smells fishy to me!Is this similar to your assertion that Obama voted against the Iraq war?
Like the guy above said, moderation is key. I think the trouble occurs when you have the extremes from both sides arguing over issues.
Innersmiff, government isn't intrinsically violent. It attracts the sort of people who think they know better and who sometimes use government in a violent way, but to paraphrase, guns don't kill and neither do governments, it's the people holding the guns and the people holding the power.
What makes you believe that a private police force would be any less violent than a state force? Surely you've had experience of private "security" forces? They generally make the state police look like pussy cats. Don't tell me that the "consumers" wouldn't allow it. If the likes of Bill Gates or similar was to establish a police force he would be the only client and as long as they pleased him they could do what they like.
Police forces attract a certain kind of person and private or state the same people would be attracted to either.
Government is highly flawed but we don't solve that by introducing another equally flawed system with a lot less control over it.Government is not strictly speaking, an entity, but an action: the exercise of monopoly of force. Large organisations can commit good or bad acts, and the act of claiming right over other people's property is aggressive. Since this is the assumption, no matter which party is in power, no government can claim to be un-aggressive.
Bill Gates has to provide the funds to run his police force for any length of time, and in a free market the only way to establish these funds is to provide a service to consumers. Any use of his force that goes against consumer demand will result of withdrawing of funds and therefore no police force. It simply won't be in any rich person's interest to become a gangster simply because there is no government.
Security agencies might not be the friendliest of institutions, but they do not have the legal right to declare war and tax us to bail out irresponsible banks, amongst other tyrannies the government claims to have the right to perform, so they're a million times better than the government in my book.
Police forces are not in their nature aggressive. We must do all we can to ensure that they are not aggressive, but creating a monolithic agent of aggression is counter-moral and counter-productive. I trust any institution that I can choose whether I give money to over an institution that gives me no choice at all.I think you view the world not as it is but as you would like it to be.
However good the intentions police forces would still attract the sort of people who seek power over others, business men however good they may appear to be would still find ways of not being good if that was their desire and without some government control they would find it easier.
To continue to use Bill Gates as an example (and only a fictional example) if he decided to establish his own police force, firstly, without any sort of government control how would you know it was his force and secondly how exactly would you deprive him of funds remembering that already if you buy a PC even one without any of his products installed, you still pay his company a fee.
No, you haven't convinced me of a way the world would work without some form of government, least ways not one I'd like to live in.Just look at Somalia....pretty much ends the debate right there
Ah yes, Somalia, the country with increasingly better standards of life than any of its statist neighbours.
Poorest nation or earth equal with the Congo. Outperformed economically by the vast majority of African nations, highest crime rate in the world and growing. Lowest life expectancy in the world and falling.
Not to mention frequent gross abuses of human rights.
Bringing up Somalia is a lazy, get-out-of-jail-free card way of attempting to debate libertarians - if you don't accept 'look at the Soviet Union!' as an adequate rebuttal of Socialism you shouldn't attempt to place Somalia as the ultimate proof of the failure of liberty. Not only does it mis-represent what libertarians are arguing for, the facts don't match up. I gave you a long list of quality of life statistics that have improved, and exceeded that of its statist neighbours, since statelessness arrived in Somalia last time you brought it up, and I didn't receive a response.
Firstly, I'm assuming your 'economic growth' measure is GDP. If it is, you're not going to be very convincing. GDP does not discriminate between frivolities and actual economic growth. A huge bulk of African GDP comes from their irresponsible spending on things like palaces for the Kings' multiple wives. You have to look at individual metrics, like access to healthcare and average income. These are almost all improving. Your stat on life expectancy is completely wrong too. Since statelessness arrived in Somalia, life expectancy has increased from 46 to 50. Check out the bottom ten countries for life-expectancy: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-te … tancy.html
Somalia is a good 8 years or more better off than those extremely statist countries.
As for human rights abuses . . . come on, the last time a state was in place in Somalia, the populace were being massacred. Is that preferable?
But, despite all of that, libertarians are not arguing that statelessness will automatically bring a utopia - we say that absolute liberty provides the best environment for peace and prosperity in the long term, or, "The absence of a State is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to achieve the free society." Somalia is, after all, a developing country and still recovering from the savagery of the previous dictatorial regime. The question is: is the state a viable solution for Somalia? Considering most statist countries in Africa are high-poverty, high-crime, and suffer high human-rights abuses, and the fact that almost all the important metrics are improving since statelessness in Somalia, we have to conclude: 'no'.
More info:
http://www.independent.org/publications … sp?id=1861
http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI
Hopefully we can put 'WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO SOMALIA THEN??
' argument to bed now.if you don't accept 'look at the Soviet Union!' as an adequate rebuttal of Socialism you shouldn't attempt to place Somalia as the ultimate proof of the failure of liberty.
First of all, the USSR's failure isn't a rebuttal of socialism at all. It's a rebuttal of communism. If you want to see an example of how socialism works, look at Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. You've got happy, healthy citizens, and you've got enterprise as well (Ikea, Erickson, Lego, etc). Second, Somalis isn't an example of the failure of liberty. It's an example of the inherent problems with anarchy. Sure, there's more access to wifi, but there's also the fact that a lot of Somalia's GDP comes from piracy.
Since statelessness arrived in Somalia, life expectancy has increased from 46 to 50.
And there's no freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc, except what each individual can defend. If the local group of badass enforcers decide you're a threat, they can burn down your business, and unless you have a lot of friends willing to risk the displeasure of those same local badasses, you're pretty much screwed.
Plus, piracy.
Considering most statist countries in Africa are high-poverty, high-crime, and suffer high human-rights abuses, [i]and the fact that almost all the important metrics are improving since statelessness in Somalia, we have to conclude: 'no'.[/i]
But you're also forgetting that in places like Norway, Sweden, Iceland (especially Iceland) etc, you've got a state, and you've got greater prosperity, lower crime, few if any human rights abuses, and an almost total absence of poverty, as well as the freedom to build a vibrant, dynamic business without the fear of the local warlord burning your workshop to the ground with impunity. This didn't happen overnight, either. It's been a long time a-building.
Hopefully we can put 'WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO SOMALIA THEN??' argument to bed now.
Why would we? Seriously, if Somali-style liberty is so awesome, why would any libertarian in his right mind want to hang around in this oppressive, tyrannical, dystopian country when they could hop a plane and head for paradise?
Off you go! I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms and wil have built a prosperous business within a year of your arrival. Because Somalia's a perfect environment for free enterprise. Heck, I'll even invest $50 in whatever business you want to start. Serious offer. You go to Somalia and start your business in that Eden of Freedom(tm), and I'll invest $50 in it. We can call it a share in your business (whatever it might be) which will pay an annual dividend after the first year, and which I can sell for whatever I can get for it, or we can call it a bond, which will be redeemable for a reasonable markup after five years, plus an additional percentage for each year after that. Whatever.
If we are talking about limiting agents of power, why are you apparently dead set against limiting the power of the government? It claims absolute legal power over everyone's life and property, with essentially no recourse. Except that every 4 years or so we get to put an X in a box to signify which of satan's minions we want to control our lives. Private police forces do not operate under the illusion that they are 'sovereign' and that it is your duty that you pay them. They also require constant upkeep therefore requiring their efforts to be in the public interest so they can get any revenue at all. Bill Gates, despite his incredible wealth, depends on customers constantly buying his products. Any upset to the service he provides will result in a loss of revenue. And frankly, you can't keep something like that a secret, especially with the presence of a free press.
No, you aren't talking about limiting agents of power, you are talking about replacing them with more unscrupulous agents of power.
I am not dead set against limiting the power of government, I am against removing government and returning us to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries where unregulated businesses such as you are in favour of regularly killed their customers - often with their victims collusion. Have you never heard of outbreaks of cholera and typhoid caused by contaminated water supplies, of people poisoned by tainted food? Those are the things you are arguing for!
Government does not have absolute power over lives and property. If it does it doesn't exercise that power, it still allows us to live as we like if we don't impinge too much on other people in most cases. And as for property, take all your possessions into your back yard and burn them, nobody from the government will come and tell you you can't. Demolish your house and unless it is a listed building, don't expect anybody from the government to come and tell you to rebuild it.
Private police forces would bow to the highest payer, if that wasn't you you could forget all about withholding your payment, they'd probably come and throw you in a private prison for doing so.
I take it you didn't actually read what I said about Bill Gates! He doesn't depend on his customers, his customers depend on him, apart from the levy you pay him when you buy a PC, do you not think his company has the power to make your life very difficult?
And why on earth do you think that the press would be any freer than it isn't at the moment? Would Murdoch pack it in? Would any of the press barons? No, instead they would run wild.without a restraining hand.I'm struggling to see how multiple smaller agents of power that have to compete with each other based on consumer demand is somehow more dangerous than one monopoly of absolute legal power. I just can't see it. I think what sets you off on the wrong track is that you believe that the state is the ultimate law and order provider. You don't believe there is incentive for anybody to act peacefully unless there is a central agent of aggression. Time and time again I've pointed out that as an economy grows, more resources can be put into satisfying more of our desires, including safe water and food. We can not honestly compare the teething problems of the industrial revolution with our more economically developed world today, where consumers and workers expect these things as a given, regardless of whether it is enforced or not. Instances today where standards are not up to scratch are more often than not due to government interference. If not, there clearly isn't a demand for it!
In addition, what is honestly stopping Bill Gates from raising an army now? Is it simply because there is a government? Say he managed to overthrow the government - who the heck would support him?
Finally, what evidence is there that the state is an effective deterrent to warlord-ism? Increased statism in Iraq has done absolutely nothing to stabilise and de-warlord the country, neither has it in Syria or Mali. Where is the evidence to prove your assumptions?.
Government exercises its absolute power over us by taxing us and violating individual rights. Whether we solicit it or not the government presumes to have the right to steal our property and impose rules on us. That is absolute power, even if they only exercise some of it. The fact that they allow some freedom, like being able to burn your house (woo! Go freedom!), is not evidence that they are not aggressive.What? Multiple smaller agents of power like local authorities, local gas and electricity companies run by those local authorities, yeah, bring it on.
Those teething problems of the industrial revolution as you so quaintly put it weren't teething problems, they were unfettered and uncontrolled capitalism. Same as would happen now given half a chance.
Do you read your local newspaper at all? Do you see the frequent stories about eating houses that appear clean and respectable until the public health inspectors enter and find indescribably bad conditions in the kitchens? That is the truth of your unfettered capitalism. And how on earth do you put those conditions down to government interference?
And as for your comments about the government "stealing" off us, how about you "stealing" your education off us, "stealing" our roads off us, "stealing" your protection off us, "stealing" your health care off us.
Bah.No, read what I said, "based on consumer demand". Government agencies wouldn't know consumer demand if it slapped them on the face. I do, however, concede that smaller government agencies working together are more preferable than a monolithic state, but all talks of states rights and nullification are met with cries of "neo-confederate" by most statists.
That unfettered and uncontrolled capitalism was working through those problems before any regulation came in to allegedly curb them, suggesting that regulation has little effect on it. But you're kind of supporting my point that the state can't hope to curb problems like this - even under our current situation of a large state with numerous regulations, there are eateries with poor conditions. Show me the evidence that the state is helping.
I don't want your "education", "protection" and "healthcare" so don't force me to pay for them. Roads I'd be perfectly willing to pay for with tolls, as and when I use them.
Related Discussions
- 9
conservative vs liberal
by SparklingJewel 14 years ago
these are excerpts from an email from Liberty Central...one of many conservative groups on the move for Liberty in the elections...........................How do we know liberals are getting desperate? Because they are throwing around baseless accusations about leading conservative groups. Like...
- 22
Why is the liberal media making such a big deal about the sequester cuts?
by billd01603 11 years ago
Why is the liberal media making such a big deal about the sequester cuts?They are not cuts, but a lessening of the rates of increase.
- 62
Jesus was a libertarian
by James Smith 11 years ago
This is partially a joke - everyone thinks Jesus agrees with them. A question to consider though: although Jesus advocated compassion, charity and liberty, he did not advocate the use of violence to achieve any end, whether it good or bad, i.e. a bad cannot make a good. If we are to believe in the...
- 88
Just one belief separates Conservatives and Liberal?
by Tim Mitchell 21 months ago
I read an interesting article this morning. It is from Scientific American. It boils down to one 'belief' separating Conservatives from Liberals. It is as quoted; "We find instead that the main difference between the left and right is the belief that the world is inherently hierarchical....
- 34
Republicans Promise to Continue Total Obstructionism Against Clinton
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
Congressional Republicans just promised to deny Hillary Clinton any honeymoon period and will continue their stated "Party over Country" policy of total obstruction of our Democratic President. To make their blockade more effective, they also promise to investigate Clinton for...
- 94
Describe the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
by Allen Donald 12 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.