Finally a place for INGO libertarians

[dusty88]

No one is afraid of a 2 percent voting block...

One is not "scared" of turkey ticks...They just find them annoying because they are a tiny part of the world and yet are constantly trying to get under ones skin...

Your anology is a fail.

It is those that support government power that support parasitism. (unless you can tell me how it is that libertarians take your resources. I can, conversely, give you many examples of how Democrats and Republicans take my resources).

Again, why are you afraid of the opinions of a group that has no political power and, if it had it, would choose to give you more freedom for your own personal choices?

 

[indiucky]

Your anology is a fail.

As is your spelling..."Analogy" is the word you were looking for.....

I vote Libertarian in every election cycle...Usually just in local elections but I do vote for them..The more the Libertarian Party becomes the pro gun wing of the Democratic Party the less I support them....

Do you really think that folks are "afraid" of the Libertarian Party??? Seriously???

 

[dusty88]

Do you really think that folks are "afraid" of the Libertarian Party??? Seriously???

As you answered my original question, you know the context was questioning just why people ARE afraid of libertarian viewpoints, not suggesting that they should be (wasn't even considering the "party" issue).

It was you who suggested libertarians bother you like a parasite. Is it the existence of different viewpoints that bothers people ? As you say we certainly aren't able to gain much momentum for the principles ?

 

[indiucky]

As you answered my original question, you know the context was questioning just why people ARE afraid of libertarian viewpoints, not suggesting that they should be (wasn't even considering the "party" issue).

It was you who suggested libertarians bother you like a parasite. Is it the existence of different viewpoints that bothers people ? As you say we certainly aren't able to gain much momentum for the principles ?

Annoying...Libertarians are annoying..I am not bothered by the existence of turkey ticks...They are just annoying...Now do you understand??? It's not "their viewpoint" that's annoying...It's their imagined purity that is annoying....

 

[jamil]

He willingly trades liberty for security. That's not self reliance. You're right, he wants a little bit of self reliance. Or maybe a lot. Maybe 70%.



More is more, I agree. I'll take baby steps.

That doesn't make a person 'pro-liberty'. Their stance is based upon utility, not liberty. If we allow this particular liberty, will it be beneficial to the 'common good'? If the person thinks it will, then that activity is allowed. If the person thinks it won't, then that activity is not allowed.

More liberty may occasionally be a byproduct of this way of thinking, but it is not the driving force and it will be fleeting.



You're using the tyrannical status-quo as your starting point. Our government is bloated and intrusive beyond recognition. That's why you get to call everybody 'pro-liberty'. Sure, conservatives want more liberty than we have now. So do the liberals. There may be socialists whose ideas could ultimately result in more liberty in many areas than we have now. Does that make them 'pro-liberty'? No. They're just statists who want slightly less state than we have now.

An individual policy decision does not make someone pro-liberty or anti-liberty. The reasoning behind it does.

I have deadlines I need to meet so I don't have time to go point for point.

Having government at all is willingly trading at least some liberty for some security. Well, I suppose that is at least minimized if we do the IoF thing, which is impractical. Believe me, I find IoF very appealing. It's a clean principle. It just goes against human nature. People will always trade at least some liberty for at least some security. IoF is not a natural human inclination or humans would naturally adopted it.

In my estimation you're imagining a decision process of meting out scraps of liberty. That's just not reality. It's not how we got to where we are. We started out with more liberty, and as people found other people's liberty inconvenient for whatever reason, it has been whittled away using the force of government. But it's not like there's a government Department of Liberty Distribution where each person has to go to the liberty dispensary and prove his need to the Secretary of Liberty.

Things happen much more naturally than that, more cause and effect. House blows up. WTF! Someone was cooking some new kind of drug. Need a name. Let's call it Meth. Hey, that ****'s really bad. Better ban it. Those in favor? Eyes have it. Schedule 1. So yeah, in THIS world, the one with real living good and bad people, reacting to real life, pursuing real self interest, not the theoretical people concocted in the Mind of Ayn Rand while banging her co-author, if someone wants more liberty than there is now, I'll take that. They get to call themselves pro-liberty, and we can make our case to them about the rest.

But please get this point, my way of thinking does not allow that everyone is pro liberty, not that that should be a requirement before I'm allowed my POV. Being "pro-liberty" is not an exclusive club where you have to know the double secret pass code. It won't bother me a bit if someone who really wants more freedom than there is now calls themselves pro-liberty. I have no choir to please.

Oh, here's a mind blower. Let me stand back so I'm not splattered:

I am anti-abortion!

But I am opposed to banning abortion!



<GASP/> OMFG! HE can't call himself anti-abortion! Someone call the libertarian thought police! He invoked a label illegally!

 

[jamil]

I spent way more time with that than I intended. I must ban myself from INGO until I get my **** done.

 

[churchmouse]

I spent way more time with that than I intended. I must ban myself from INGO until I get my **** done.

OK....Temp ban

 

[dusty88]

I have deadlines I need to meet so I don't have time to go point for point.

Having government at all is willingly trading at least some liberty for some security. [/q]

No, not if government does the job of preserving individual liberty. That is a "security" that preserves liberty.


[q]But please get this point, my way of thinking does not allow that everyone is pro liberty, not that that should be a requirement before I'm allowed my POV. Being "pro-liberty" is not an exclusive club where you have to know the double secret pass code. It won't bother me a bit if someone who really wants more freedom than there is now calls themselves pro-liberty. I have no choir to please.

As a statement in and of itself, I see what you mean. I will submit though that whenever you start examining laws that appear to be a "necessary" infringement on liberty you can usually find that the result of that law was not necessarily the positive consequence that was predicted.

IOW, liberty almost always works to the benefit of the society and the honest individual.

 

[steveh_131]

Having government at all is willingly trading at least some liberty for some security.

This is not true. Anarchy is not maximum liberty. Anarchy simply exchanges government tyranny for non-government tyranny. Mob rule, etc.

A government can serve to maximize individual liberty if it is limited to two purposes: Protecting individual liberty from itself and from other individuals. This is the basis of the non-aggression principle.

But please get this point, my way of thinking does not allow that everyone is pro liberty, not that that should be a requirement before I'm allowed my POV. Being "pro-liberty" is not an exclusive club where you have to know the double secret pass code. It won't bother me a bit if someone who really wants more freedom than there is now calls themselves pro-liberty.

I suppose our definitions are simply muddled. The reality is that almost everyone thinks they value liberty. But when push comes to shove, most will always trade that liberty for security. Take the folks on INGO, for example. They think they value gun 'liberty' and the 2A. But most of them seem to still support 'common sense' gun control. The only difference is what they consider to be 'common sense'. Which guns are reasonable to own? Which free citizens are reasonable to own them? All up for debate.

If security trumps liberty, then call yourself pro-security. Not pro-liberty. That doesn't mean you don't like liberty, when it's comfortable for you. Or that you never vote for liberty. But it's not the ultimate goal in your policy decisions. Security is the ultimate goal, and liberty comes second.

Oh, here's a mind blower. Let me stand back so I'm not splattered:

I am anti-abortion!

But I am opposed to banning abortion!

You probably blew D-Ric's mind. Libertarians, on the other hand, shouldn't be surprised.

 

[D-Ric902]

You probably blew D-Ric's mind. Libertarians, on the other hand, shouldn't be surprised.

are you trying to be psychic again?

doesn't blow my mind at all, but I'll blow your mind apparently........ready.........

I dont want to ban abortion either. Anymore than I want to ban heart surgery, chemo, or prostate exams.

is your world so black and white that I can't be pro-life and not want to ban abortion?

I don't want to pay for it as a means of someone else's of birth control.
the government should have as much involvement as whether I get a colonoscopy or not.

 

[steveh_131]

are you trying to be psychic again?

I just didn't think you had that kind of depth.

So you oppose abortion morally but don't think it should be prohibited?

 

[D-Ric902]

I just didn't think you had that kind of depth.

So you oppose abortion morally but don't think it should be prohibited?

my niece had a child with Zwellweger (sic) syndrome. She is pregnant again and doing blood test to see if this one is positive.

Lily (the first) lived nine months and was a heart rending nightmare. If this one so positive and she decides with her doctor and husband to end it, I would support her.

if the alley cat next door gets knocked up by a one night stand then that is between her and whoever she believes in. To raise my insurance rates to pay for her decision is not something I can support.

I would much rather see an open adoption.

one is medical
one is convenience

one is a situation
one is a decision


which is the position of most pro-life people that I know of

 

[steveh_131]

So... prohibited... sometimes? Primarily if it affects your insurance rates?

Would you ban cigarettes? They affect your insurance rates. What about Big Gulp soft drinks?

 

[D-Ric902]

So... prohibited... sometimes? Primarily if it affects your insurance rates?

Would you ban cigarettes? They affect your insurance rates. What about Big Gulp soft drinks?

no,
medical procedure

if I want insurance to cover the procedure then buy it, if not then don't.
none of the governments business to force it on me


when did I say prohibit? And when did I say primarily?

I don't believe in abortion as a method of birth control and don't want to pay for someone else's due to it becoming a political issue

why do you want to "prohibit" or "allow" everything?

did I say I wanted to prohibit the hypothetical alley cat next door. No


I think I said it is between her and whoever she believes in. I don't want to pay for it, it's none of my business or fault in her condition.
That makes you turn me into a "Prohibitionist" again? Because I don't want to provide it?

the absolutist language used by some libertards is one of the major problems in taking them seriously.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm just trying to clarify, because you're going in circles.

You think the 'alleycat' should be allowed to abort her child, as long as you aren't forced to pay for it. Correct?

 

[D-Ric902]

I'm just trying to clarify, because you're going in circles.

You think the 'alleycat' should be allowed to abort her child, as long as you aren't forced to pay for it. Correct?

one of the worst words in politics is "allow"

the idea that everything is restricted by the government but what is allowed is revolting to me

if it is not "allowed" then it is "prohibited" is the preview of big government

I have stated twice now and will one more time
that is between her and whoever she believes in

your black and white world says that if I'm pro-life then I want to ban abortion in each and every case all the time anytime anywhere. That's what we used to call......stupid

I am pro life by advocating and supporting adoption and foster care. I don't want to provide, pay for, support someone else bad decisions. (A very Libertarian view)
and I don't want to turn this thread into an abortion thread

 

[Woobie]

Why is it Libertarians don't support prohibition of abortion based upon the non-aggression principle? Do they see the unborn as not a real person?

 

[steveh_131]

one of the worst words in politics is "allow"

the idea that everything is restricted by the government but what is allowed is revolting to me

if it is not "allowed" then it is "prohibited" is the preview of big government

I agree.

You're the one who supports prohibition of various items and non-aggressive activities, not me.

Why is it Libertarians don't support prohibition of abortion based upon the non-aggression principle? Do they see the unborn as not a real person?

Some are opposed to abortion for this reason. I tend to lean towards that side.

 

[rambone]

one of the worst words in politics is "allow"

the idea that everything is restricted by the government but what is allowed is revolting to me

Same here. That's why I don't support banning plants and substances. Prohibition is revolting.

 

[dusty88]

no,
medical procedure

if I want insurance to cover the procedure then buy it, if not then don't.
none of the governments business to force it on me

I think this is an example of how context presents a problem (ie due to mandates we are now paying for any procedures that have complete or partial insurance coverage, including your colonoscopy).

It is also an example of how some government growth begets mroe government growth.

Once everyone is forced to buy the same type of insurance, then the cost of insurance (healthcare and otherwise) is used as justification to mandate behaviors.

Similarly, when you legislate behavior, the result of the behavior is not considered the responsibility of the individual.