LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Guinness]

Justify it however you want, but being responsible for the murder of millions is not the same as thinking that your way of ruling is the right way of ruling. You believe that your way is the right way without question... how is that different? I know, everyone would live a life that doesn't effect others.... except that is a practical impossibility.

What you seem to consistently fail to understand is that I do not propose a system of ruling.

[Guinness]

Do you think Obama thinks he is all knowing

Based upon every decision he has made, yes I do. Why else would he propose such sweeping powers for the Federal Reserve? Why else would he sign the stimulus bill? Why else would he propose the health care "reforms" he's proposing? I'm basing my judgment upon empirical evidence. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

[Guinness]

So did Reagan and likely many many other world leaders.

Were you expecting me to argue this point?

Most brutal? Who cares? I think he was bad enough to make the current comparisons ridiculous, regardless of what guys like Stalin and Pol Pot did.

Really? Who cares who killed more people? And you're suggesting we should wait until such a person begins to kill people before we oppose his philosophy?

Fine, but you apparently don't realize that Hilter has been an icon of pure evil over the past 60+ years. Comparing him to another person insinuates that that person is also a grand and unrelenting evil in the seat of power.

Again, what if people stood up to Hitler before he began killing people? Or Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?

[doublem]

Do you think Obama thinks he is all knowing

Based upon every decision he has made, yes I do. Why else would he propose such sweeping powers for the Federal Reserve? Why else would he sign the stimulus bill? Why else would he propose the health care "reforms" he's proposing? I'm basing my judgment upon empirical evidence. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Don't most people think they are right when they make a decision? I find it funny that Obama and Bush are the only two that fall into that category. Most people in life think what they are doing is right. Why would he propose "reforms", well that is generally what happens when things don't work.

[MWB]

Justify it however you want, but being responsible for the murder of millions is not the same as thinking that your way of ruling is the right way of ruling. You believe that your way is the right way without question... how is that different? I know, everyone would live a life that doesn't effect others.... except that is a practical impossibility.

What you seem to consistently fail to understand is that I do not propose a system of ruling.

You seem to fail to read my posts in a comprehensive way. Your belief (or "way" as I put it in my post), as you've stated before, is that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on others. My point is that this belief is a practical impossibility, something I've stated before and you seem to fail to understand.

[Guinness]

Don't most people think they are right when they make a decision? I find it funny that Obama and Bush are the only two that fall into that category. Most people in life think what they are doing is right. Why would he propose "reforms", well that is generally what happens when things don't work.

Oh, did you want me to list each president I think has come to the office with a dictatorial mindset? It'd be easier to make a list of those who didn't.

It's not the executive's job to "fix" things.

[Corvidae]

Were you expecting me to argue this point?

Yes, unless you think Reagen was also Hitler. Else wise you made no point with your original statement.

And you're suggesting we should wait until such a person begins to kill people before we oppose his philosophy?

No. Didn't say it, didn't suggest it.

To paraphrase that congressman from MA who I normally don't care for, I feel that continuing this conversation would be like trying to have a dialog with a dinning room table. Granted, this particular dinning room table thinks that many people are as bad as Hilter.

[Guinness]

Justify it however you want, but being responsible for the murder of millions is not the same as thinking that your way of ruling is the right way of ruling. You believe that your way is the right way without question... how is that different? I know, everyone would live a life that doesn't effect others.... except that is a practical impossibility.

What you seem to consistently fail to understand is that I do not propose a system of ruling.

You seem to fail to read my posts in a comprehensive way. Your belief (or "way" as I put it in my post), as you've stated before, is that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on others. My point is that this belief is a practical impossibility, something I've stated before and you seem to fail to understand.

How do you know? We've never done things the way I'm suggesting we do them - that being, letting you, me, and everyone else live their lives according to their own means so long as they do not encroach upon others -- never. Just look at all the successes your way (controlling other people) have brought us. Look at Prohibition. Look at the drug war. Look at our foreign policy. Look at our welfare policy. Sure, you'll disown half of these things, but they're all a product of the system of rule you propose.

[Guinness]

Were you expecting me to argue this point?

Yes, unless you think Reagen was also Hitler. Else wise you made no point with your original statement.

And you're suggesting we should wait until such a person begins to kill people before we oppose his philosophy?

No. Didn't say it, didn't suggest it.

To paraphrase that congressman from MA who I normally don't care for, I feel that continuing this conversation would be like trying to have a dialog with a dinning room table. Granted, this particular dinning room table thinks that many people are as bad as Hilter.

I think Reagan thought, just like Bush, Obama, and any number of presidents for more than a century, that he knew what was best for people.

You're choice to discontinue the discussion. I respect and understand that. But I stand by the assertion that opposing a philosophy, if not a current practice, that is akin to Hitler's is neither crazy nor hyperbolic.

[MWB]

We've never done things the way I'm suggesting we do them - that being, letting you, me, and everyone else live their lives according to their own means so long as they do not encroach upon others -- never.

You really think it is possible to live in a country this diverse and with this many different backgrounds, philosophies, ways of living, etc to have people NEVER encroach on another person? And again, as I've asked before, who is deciding what is encroachment? One person's encroachment wouldn't be the same as everyone else's. It's a utopia you're talking about.

Just look at all the successes your way (controlling other people) have brought us. Look at Prohibition. Look at the drug war. Look at our foreign policy. Look at our welfare policy. Sure, you'll disown half of these things, but they're all a product of the system of rule you propose.

My way? Didn't realize I had a way. Once again, thanks for attributing things to me that I haven't proposed.

[doublem]

And why do you think that is? Because no one wants to live in the world that you suggest, that is the irony of Libertarian philosophy, very few people want it, and if they do, they can't get enough people to live the way they want, so it is impossible in reality to ever have any type of Libertarian "government"

[Guinness]

You really think it is possible to live in a country this diverse and with this many different backgrounds, philosophies, ways of living, etc to have people NEVER encroach on another person? And again, as I've asked before, who is deciding what is encroachment? One person's encroachment wouldn't be the same as everyone else's. It's a utopia you're talking about.

No, I don't think it's possible for even 2 people to live together without one encroaching upon the other's rights. That's why I believe in a government that prosecutes such encroachments. How many times do you want me to say that?

What I don't believe in is a government that interferes in our day to day lives; that literally steals from people at the point of a gun in order to give the loot to another group of people under arbitrary circumstances; that creates moral hazards in economic decisions to perpetuate their own power, and then has the gall to turn around and blame the consequences of those acts on the free market... and on and on...

My way? Didn't realize I had a way. Once again, thanks for attributing things to me that I haven't proposed.

Yes, your way. You're consistently here advocating for government run health-care and all manner of immoral, confiscatory acts. I'm sorry if phrasing it that way is offensive to you, but it's honest -- every action government takes is at the point of a gun. That is government, by definition.

[Guinness]

And why do you think that is? Because no one wants to live in the world that you suggest, that is the irony of Libertarian philosophy, very few people want it, and if they do, they can't get enough people to live the way they want, so it is impossible in reality to ever have any type of Libertarian "government"

I'm doing my best to encourage people to want to be free.

[doublem]

And why do you think that is? Because no one wants to live in the world that you suggest, that is the irony of Libertarian philosophy, very few people want it, and if they do, they can't get enough people to live the way they want, so it is impossible in reality to ever have any type of Libertarian "government"

I'm doing my best to encourage people to want to be free.

And know we see why Libertarianism is no different then any other ideology because you want people to think just like you.

[Guinness]

And why do you think that is? Because no one wants to live in the world that you suggest, that is the irony of Libertarian philosophy, very few people want it, and if they do, they can't get enough people to live the way they want, so it is impossible in reality to ever have any type of Libertarian "government"

I'm doing my best to encourage people to want to be free.

And know we see why Libertarianism is no different then any other ideology because you want people to think just like you.

No, I don't. I want people to be free, and I don't want them to enslave me or to be slaves themselves.

Edit to add: Maybe you are right - maybe I should submit to the "ideas" of others... even when those ideas enslave me. Maybe I should submit to the concepts of governance of others, even when those concepts subjugate me. You see, what I propose does not enslave or subjugate anybody. Can you say the same? Can you advocate the things you advocate without stealing from other people? Can you advocate the things you advocate without forcing behaviors -- even seemingly noble behaviors -- upon other people?

[MWB]

You really think it is possible to live in a country this diverse and with this many different backgrounds, philosophies, ways of living, etc to have people NEVER encroach on another person? And again, as I've asked before, who is deciding what is encroachment? One person's encroachment wouldn't be the same as everyone else's. It's a utopia you're talking about.

No, I don't think it's possible for even 2 people to live together without one encroaching upon the other's rights. That's why I believe in a government that prosecutes such encroachments. How many times do you want me to say that?

What I don't believe in is a government that interferes in our day to day lives; that literally steals from people at the point of a gun in order to give the loot to another group of people under arbitrary circumstances; that creates moral hazards in economic decisions to perpetuate their own power, and then has the gall to turn around and blame the consequences of those acts on the free market... and on and on...

My way? Didn't realize I had a way. Once again, thanks for attributing things to me that I haven't proposed.

Yes, your way. You're consistently here advocating for government run health-care and all manner of immoral, confiscatory acts. I'm sorry if phrasing it that way is offensive to you, but it's honest -- every action government takes is at the point of a gun. That is government, by definition.

First off, no, it's not at gunpoint, literally or otherwise. You and anyone else has a choice to not put up with it. You are free to move away. This isn't a "love it or leave it" statement, it's just that no one is forced at gunpoint to be here if they don't want to be.

Secondly, in the health care debate I said that I was intrigued by a single payer system. I didn't consistently advocate for the health care bill or even a single payer system. I tend to debate the pros and cons. And if people are making wildly untrue statements I'll refute them. Just because I refute something does not mean I believe in the opposite of what I refute. So no, it's not really honest to say that I advocate all manner of immoral things.

Thirdly, who decides what is encroachment? Government with existing laws? New laws? There will ALWAYS be debate as to what is encroachment and what is not.

[Guinness]

First off, no, it's not at gunpoint, literally or otherwise. You and anyone else has a choice to not put up with it. You are free to move away. This isn't a "love it or leave it" statement, it's just that no one is forced at gunpoint to be here if they don't want to be.

Don't pay your income tax and see if it's at gunpoint or not. You don't really think they'll negotiate with you when they find you "guilty" of maintaining possession of what is rightly yours, do you?

And as a matter of fact, it is a "love it or leave it" statement. Since when are people obliged to countenance immoral, evil actions?

Secondly, in the health care debate I said that I was intrigued by a single payer system. I didn't consistently advocate for the health care bill or even a single payer system. I tend to debate the pros and cons. And if people are making wildly untrue statements I'll refute them. Just because I refute something does not mean I believe in the opposite of what I refute. So no, it's not really honest to say that I advocate all manner of immoral things.

Just understand that you are intrigued by a system that denies choice and will be paid for through the confiscation of people's property, both in the present (through taxation/theft), and in the future (via printing/borrowing). One injustice does not amend another.

Thirdly, who decides what is encroachment? Government with existing laws? New laws? There will ALWAYS be debate as to what is encroachment and what is not.

Agreed there will always be debate. The key is to keep government limited, and to continue to educate people.

[doublem]

But one of the keep principles of Libertarianism is that people should be free as long as it doesn't infringe on others, but you need to encourage people to be free, becasue "our" idea of freedom is less then your idea of freedom, so we have to change our mind, for your ideals.Seems pretty much like every other system going. Most people don't think taxes are stealing, most want some kind of safety net for social programs, only the way you define these terms that find them so immoral. It's really a pointless debate becasue there isn't much room for any other position besides yours.

[MWB]

First off, no, it's not at gunpoint, literally or otherwise. You and anyone else has a choice to not put up with it. You are free to move away. This isn't a "love it or leave it" statement, it's just that no one is forced at gunpoint to be here if they don't want to be.

Don't pay your income tax and see if it's at gunpoint or not. You don't really think they'll negotiate with you when they find you "guilty" of maintaining possession of what is rightly yours, do you?

And as a matter of fact, it is a "love it or leave it" statement. Since when are people obliged to countenance immoral, evil actions?

Secondly, in the health care debate I said that I was intrigued by a single payer system. I didn't consistently advocate for the health care bill or even a single payer system. I tend to debate the pros and cons. And if people are making wildly untrue statements I'll refute them. Just because I refute something does not mean I believe in the opposite of what I refute. So no, it's not really honest to say that I advocate all manner of immoral things.

Just understand that you are intrigued by a system that denies choice and will be paid for through the confiscation of people's property, both in the present (through taxation/theft), and in the future (via printing/borrowing). One injustice does not amend another.

Thirdly, who decides what is encroachment? Government with existing laws? New laws? There will ALWAYS be debate as to what is encroachment and what is not.

Agreed there will always be debate. The key is to keep government limited, and to continue to educate people.

A. Your statements about being forced to do something are not true. You have a choice. If you want, you can move to another country.... that is your choice. I'm not saying you don't have a right to stay here and argue and fight for change, but that's your choice. You can also choose not to pay taxes and go to jail. They are all choices that you make.

B. I'm well aware of what I'm intrigued by.

When you say that your way is the right way, and the only way, you are doing the same thing that you slam politicians for. You are saying that you know what is best for everyone.... just that your "best" is to let people do what they want. Different philosophy, same authoritarian stance.

[Guinness]

Would either of you care to explain how it is "authoritarian" to wish not to be ruled, nor to wish to rule over others? Would either of you wish to explain how setting people free is enslaving them? How is actual freedom (instead of the phony freedom you seem to advocate) some how imposed by force? Is this seriously what stands for a good argument on your side of the debate? Does that really make any sense, even to you?

By your definitions, there is no such thing as freedom, because even freeing people (or encouraging them to be free) is a type of captivity. It defies logic. If I convince you that you should not be ruled by someone, I've somehow enslaved you to my way of thinking... You guys are seriously going to cause a logic-aneurysm. Wouldn’t this “slavery of freedom” be the best kind of slavery, tho’?

doublem says that "most people don't think that theft is stealing". Well, most people are clearly wrong. Income taxation is not only theft, it's a form of slavery. If I confiscated 100% of the fruits of your labor, under what condition would you consider yourself? Clearly this is a form of slavery, tho' obviously not chattel slavery because you at least maintain a pretense of freedom of movement, etc. So what if I confiscate just 40% of the fruits of your labor? Doesn't that essentially make you 40% slave? You might suggest that there is some permissible limit to which we all should submit to the confiscation of our labor. Who sets that limit? What if it is I who sets that limit, and I decide that you both must pay 95% income tax? Would you object? Would you not be justified in your objection? The answer, obviously, is to not impose an income tax at all, as any other system will inevitably impose upon someone, just as my system imposed upon you. Government was well-enough funded in this country (barring the Civil War... don't get me started ) for a century without the income tax.

MWB, your statements in favor of captivity of those who oppose your policies are shameful... I'm sorry. You're suggestion that people who oppose immoral practices are free to leave this country are ironically reminiscent of pro-war sentiments at the onset of the Iraq war. Those who opposed the Iraq war were told by pro-war people, "love it or leave it"... I'm sorry, but those who favor immoral acts should be the one's leaving a country that is based upon law and individual liberty, not those who stand up for it. It's not a bloody matter of "choice". It's a matter of righteousness.

[Ron`]

I can tell you that I have recently seen it in action for both of my offspring here in PA. In one case they came begging later when the nepotistic hire split on them. I suspect it will happen with the other too... Anyone can get on the sub list if qualified, all districts are dying for subs and my daughter subbed for two years here. Some districts will not hire their own subs as they have a hard time keeping subs that will show.

Yes, I know that some districts won't hire from sub lists. It doesn't take away from any of the other stuff I said above though. It simply isn't "a fact" that all or even most teachers are hired from nepotism. Certainly there is some of that though. And when you say you child lost out to someone because of nepotism.... what was the tie? They knew someone on the board? I certainly don't think it is good policy to hire someone just because you know them, but if there are two equally qualified people, will you go with the person you know or the one you don't know?

In both cases it involved nepotism with members of the board or local political officials. Not direct offspring, but family still.

[bh]

No, I don't think it's possible for even 2 people to live together without one encroaching upon the other's rights. That's why I believe in a government that prosecutes such encroachments. How many times do you want me to say that?

Guinness as you know I fairly libertarian in my beliefs like you, but for the sake of discussion I have a few questions for you. If the government still has powers to prosecute "encroachments" then we still have a ruling system, no? Someone still will have power and be in charge. So we will still have rules are rulers to follow. Sometimes you seem to be arguing for complete freedom, but really it's only freedom to a point. Also what makes you so sure that a minarchist form of government would be superior to the current system? I like freedom and want as much as I can get, but I'm not 100% absolutely sure that my thoughts and ideas jive with reality. I just want to hear what evidence you have that makes you thoroughly convinced it would work.

[MWB]

No, I don't think it's possible for even 2 people to live together without one encroaching upon the other's rights. That's why I believe in a government that prosecutes such encroachments. How many times do you want me to say that?

Guinness as you know I fairly libertarian in my beliefs like you, but for the sake of discussion I have a few questions for you. If the government still has powers to prosecute "encroachments" then we still have a ruling system, no? Someone still will have power and be in charge. So we will still have rules are rulers to follow. Sometimes you seem to be arguing for complete freedom, but really it's only freedom to a point. Also what makes you so sure that a minarchist form of government would be superior to the current system? I like freedom and want as much as I can get, but I'm not 100% absolutely sure that my thoughts and ideas jive with reality. I just want to hear what evidence you have that makes you thoroughly convinced it would work.

You've made my point much better than I did.

[bh]

Do you think Obama thinks he is all knowing

Based upon every decision he has made, yes I do. Why else would he propose such sweeping powers for the Federal Reserve? Why else would he sign the stimulus bill? Why else would he propose the health care "reforms" he's proposing? I'm basing my judgment upon empirical evidence. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Sure he thinks he is all knowing and this is the problem. These people in congress and Obama are not health care experts, are not economists, are not army generals, not successful business owners, and they think that they are as knowledgeable in all these areas as the experts are. I think most bad laws come from ignorance that they are trying to do right. They really believe in their hearts that they are doing what is best for people, but often they don't think things through and it ends up becoming something worse than the original problem. Really the problem is the system where people can make laws about areas that they know nothing about. That's where the constitution was supposed to limit the types of laws that could be made.

[MWB]

MWB, your statements in favor of captivity of those who oppose your policies are shameful... I'm sorry. You're suggestion that people who oppose immoral practices are free to leave this country are ironically reminiscent of pro-war sentiments at the onset of the Iraq war. Those who opposed the Iraq war were told by pro-war people, "love it or leave it"... I'm sorry, but those who favor immoral acts should be the one's leaving a country that is based upon law and individual liberty, not those who stand up for it. It's not a bloody matter of "choice". It's a matter of righteousness.

Your statement: People are forced at gunpoint to do things by the government.
My statement: If you don't like the system you have several choices, each with it's own consequence within our current system.
Your response: You favor captivity or want people to leave when they don't like something in this country.

You take statements and you jump to conclusions based on things that were never stated or insinuated. Where did you get that I was in favor of captivity for those who oppose things? I said you, like everyone else, have a choice. With every choice comes a consequence. While it may not be a desirable consequence, the current one for not paying taxes could be jail time. Just because I've stated that it's what would happen does not mean that I'm in favor of people going to jail when they oppose policies. You also conveniently left out that one of the choices I listed was that people can work to change things. I guess that didn't fit into your thoughts that I want everyone jailed who doesn't give into government. And then, ironically, you say it's me who should be leaving the country, since you've already said that I'm in favor of immoral acts. So are you also shameful?