Good for you. Now you just need to decide where you stand on what topics and go from there.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I might just be a libertarian
- Thread starter Babo
- Start date
Lank
NES Member
Rage Against the Machine are commies
THIS is the Libertarian theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdegjWkZW4Q
Or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h6136zZq6I
FF to 1:57
Ok, not really Slayer. Just wanted to play it
![[devil2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/017.gif "Devil2 [devil2]")
Last edited:
pastera
NES Member
Focus on the dealers - make the drugs legal with minimal regulation to insure no poisonous product and no more problems
None - if you are a habitual danger to society you should be removed from that society until such time you can act properly
See solution to 1 - legal with health check compliance
ZERO social programs - immigration problem solved
Treat every one the same and allow two persons to enter a civil contract - Get out of the business of interfering with my beliefs (marriage is a tenant of faith)
1. Do neither.
2. Good question.
3. See 1.
4. The only problem is non-enforcement. Send them all back to country of origin, with the paperwork on how to legally become a citizen. It has worked up until what, the 90's?
5. Do away with the tax incentives. Marriage should be between individuals and their religious beliefs, not the government.
Recruiting Libertarian State Legislative Candidates - MA
also read:
http://www.dailypaul.com/229782/massachusetts-district-8-provisionals
Last edited:
Agreed on all points. When i read your 5 questions I was thinking. .. crackpot can't be a libertarian if he thinks these are the business of .gov. then i saw that they were trick questions. Number 4 is especially good at determining whether people prefer freedom or control.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
False. Marriage and civil unions are entirely different and both need to be respected.
Che Guevara tshirt wearing douchebags indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h6136zZq6I
FF to 1:57
Ok, not really Slayer. Just wanted to play it
Awesome Slayer song.
But the reality is that "god hates us all" would make more sense if you took it one step further and realize that in fact there is no god.
Some people have trouble with this. YMMV. This is not atheism thread, so no hijack intended. Just saying the world makes more sense that way when you look around.
I like this report by Stossel on Liberterianism.
Note: Listening to douchebag from NJ Christie will make you vomit.
Last edited by a moderator:
CrackPot
NES Member
PaulR
NES Member
Gov. should be out of the business of both of them. Marriage is between two people and maybe their church of choice. State shouldn't be involved at all.
Jason Flare
NES Member
The deal with most of these issues, including marriage, is that the state in involved because it uses taxes to fund some portion of them. For example, if someone dies, some portion of their social security goes to the spouse.
Once the economic aspect is removed from the equation most people couldn't give a crap. The death knell to Liberty was the Social Security Act when, through economics, it became everyone's business whether they wore a seat belt, a helmet, or ate healthy food, because not acting within those laws meant the taxpayer could bear a burden in the event of death, injury or ill health.
I've been giving this a lot of thought myself. I find myself gravitating toward fellas like Rand Paul more and more. No, I have not become a "flaming libertarian". The reason I think I'm going to change my affiliation is because I've realized that I have had to compromise, as a strong conservative, with the RHINO conservatives we have in our party now that are more socially liberal anyway. I so much want them to be more red-meat conservatives but they are typically not. Take a guy like Scott Brown. If he's running against a uber liberal in MA, rest assured I'd vote for him over a liberal but I'd be holding my nose to some extent. Brown is NOT a strong conservative at all but someone who uses the conservative label but is much more liberal in his stands than I'd like for him to be. It bothers me a lot, actually.
However, if I were to gravitate toward the libertarian party platform, I'd be compromising my political feelings with them as well. I don't embrace a lot of the more extreme views that libertarians have but, their party encourages a broader array of political outlooks. In other words, with conservatives, I feel like I need to push really hard on the accelerator to make it go where I want to go. I'm constantly complaining that they are way too soft on so many issues and refuse to stand for their core platform. With libertarians, I'm finding myself pulling my foot back on the accelerator to "slow down" some of their ideas. They are a bit too extreme for me on some issues, however, they don't bother me as much as the conservatives constantly kissing the liberal's asses to garner votes. I really thing that the libertarian views are attracting more and more old-fashioned conservatives to their ranks just because their platform is so strong and undiluted by social liberals. To be called a staunch conservative today is to be essentially where a middle-of-the-road liberal was back in the 60s....Kennedy's days. The days of the "Goldwater Conservative" are long gone and you're labeled a weirdo by even your fellow 'conservative' metrosexuals today.
So, I'm now I'm more and more comfortable with that party and I don't squirm with I hear Rand Paul or any other libertarians speak. Seems to me that more and more people like the fact that he's not diluting his positions to garner support but, in fact, reinforcing his positions from the libertarian perspective and people like the fact that he stands for something. Oh....one more thing. Should a guy like Rand Paul ever be elected president, don't think it would be a walk in the park for libertarians. They would have to deal with a congress and senate just like any other president. So, while a libertarian might have his views on many subjects, the congress will be the tempering agent. It would be interesting, however. At least I don't think a libertarian president would follow the path that this current knucklehead is following.
Rome
However, if I were to gravitate toward the libertarian party platform, I'd be compromising my political feelings with them as well. I don't embrace a lot of the more extreme views that libertarians have but, their party encourages a broader array of political outlooks. In other words, with conservatives, I feel like I need to push really hard on the accelerator to make it go where I want to go. I'm constantly complaining that they are way too soft on so many issues and refuse to stand for their core platform. With libertarians, I'm finding myself pulling my foot back on the accelerator to "slow down" some of their ideas. They are a bit too extreme for me on some issues, however, they don't bother me as much as the conservatives constantly kissing the liberal's asses to garner votes. I really thing that the libertarian views are attracting more and more old-fashioned conservatives to their ranks just because their platform is so strong and undiluted by social liberals. To be called a staunch conservative today is to be essentially where a middle-of-the-road liberal was back in the 60s....Kennedy's days. The days of the "Goldwater Conservative" are long gone and you're labeled a weirdo by even your fellow 'conservative' metrosexuals today.
So, I'm now I'm more and more comfortable with that party and I don't squirm with I hear Rand Paul or any other libertarians speak. Seems to me that more and more people like the fact that he's not diluting his positions to garner support but, in fact, reinforcing his positions from the libertarian perspective and people like the fact that he stands for something. Oh....one more thing. Should a guy like Rand Paul ever be elected president, don't think it would be a walk in the park for libertarians. They would have to deal with a congress and senate just like any other president. So, while a libertarian might have his views on many subjects, the congress will be the tempering agent. It would be interesting, however. At least I don't think a libertarian president would follow the path that this current knucklehead is following.
Rome
Not sure why you say libertarian's views aren't diluted by social liberals. To me socially liberal means not caring what gays do, what drugs people put in their item bodies, etc. i.e. libertarian
Maybe you are referring to social programs (the government dole)?
and Libertarians are anti environment?
That's like saying Republicans are anti-whatever the D's are claiming today
We ALL need clean air, earth and water
What I mean is, I think we need some government guidance (laws) to help protect the environment. Not everybody is as conscientious as you or I or others might be.
I was thinking this as well. Almost an unstoppable force there, if they can get over themselves and let the mind rule instead of egos.
First of all I'm not THAT socially liberal. That's one aspect of Libertarians that I have to squint hard at. Maybe I can explain it this way.
My problem with the current liberal social views is that they are forcing me to adopt and validate what their view is of 'normal' behavior. I won't do that. I can't. The fine-line between that attitude and the libertarian social view is "live and let live". They don't "endorse or validate" that lifestyle, they simply ignore it allowing those who wish to practice that lifestyle to do so but don't ask for special dispensation and shoving it down my throat. I know this seems like a very blurry line and I'll admit that it pretty much is but it's the way I have to approach things today. There are no more "old line" conservatives out there. We're all going to die out in the next 20 or so years. Being a conservative will really resemble more the libertarian platforms today than the conservative platforms of just 30 years ago. The liberals have seen to it that being a conservative means you want filthy water, hate children and women and old people, and are constantly chasing a buck over the bodies of the population.
I'm also not socially liberal when it comes to drugs being readily available. I don't really know the in-depth story there with Libertarians except to know that Colorado is quite an experiment. Ironic, too, since Libertarianism was born in Colorado not that too long ago. Let's see where all that goes as more and more of the population is exposed to the results of all that dope. I agree, however, that the "war" on drugs has been a huge waste of money because it was never fought properly with the proper assets and the demand here has never abated so the demand remains and the sources will fill the void. Hmmmmm.....almost seems like a typical capitalist scenario: demand and supply.
I'm still exploring, not ready to make the leap but I have not left the conservative party......they've left me. Many others feel the same way. Want proof? Just look at what the leaders are holding up as potential candidates for governor: Mr.Caspar Milquetoast himself, Foley. Give me a break. Malloy will eat him alive this time.
Rome
My problem with the current liberal social views is that they are forcing me to adopt and validate what their view is of 'normal' behavior. I won't do that. I can't. The fine-line between that attitude and the libertarian social view is "live and let live". They don't "endorse or validate" that lifestyle, they simply ignore it allowing those who wish to practice that lifestyle to do so but don't ask for special dispensation and shoving it down my throat. I know this seems like a very blurry line and I'll admit that it pretty much is but it's the way I have to approach things today. There are no more "old line" conservatives out there. We're all going to die out in the next 20 or so years. Being a conservative will really resemble more the libertarian platforms today than the conservative platforms of just 30 years ago. The liberals have seen to it that being a conservative means you want filthy water, hate children and women and old people, and are constantly chasing a buck over the bodies of the population.
I'm also not socially liberal when it comes to drugs being readily available. I don't really know the in-depth story there with Libertarians except to know that Colorado is quite an experiment. Ironic, too, since Libertarianism was born in Colorado not that too long ago. Let's see where all that goes as more and more of the population is exposed to the results of all that dope. I agree, however, that the "war" on drugs has been a huge waste of money because it was never fought properly with the proper assets and the demand here has never abated so the demand remains and the sources will fill the void. Hmmmmm.....almost seems like a typical capitalist scenario: demand and supply.
I'm still exploring, not ready to make the leap but I have not left the conservative party......they've left me. Many others feel the same way. Want proof? Just look at what the leaders are holding up as potential candidates for governor: Mr.Caspar Milquetoast himself, Foley. Give me a break. Malloy will eat him alive this time.
Rome
So basically, if I can paraphrase, what you're saying is you're anti-freedom, because you don't like something it shouldn't be allowed?
That was a bit of a tough read read but is that what I got from it?
yep.
I'm not anti-freedom at all. I apologize for not making myself more clear. It's only because I am still struggling with how the libertarians approach things as opposed to the conservatives of which I've been apart for so many decades. I see the conservative party being heavily diluted and struggling to stay effective. I seen the libertarians garnering more and more support and strength. I guess I'm just tired of continuously defending myself and simply want to be left alone. To say, however, that I'm anti freedom is a bit heavy and I don't think I deserved that! As I said, I don't give a crap about what someone else wants to do with themselves. I do, however, become concerned when I'm being ordered to accept, embrace, and validate something that I do not agree with. As far as I understand it, being a Libertarian does NOT mean you embrace every single iteration of society you can come up with. You allow others, however, to have the freedom to do what they wish as long as it doesn't encroach on your life. That's the ultimate freedom in my book.
Rome
Rome
You don't have to embrace or validate drugs or lgbt people at all, just tolerate the idea that if someone embraces a lifestyle associated with either it's none of your business or the business of an arbitrary government agency. These are issues that there should be few, if any, laws governing.
I just love all the freedom loving people who want freedom on their terms.
We do not have to agree with everyone's private lifestyle choices, we simply have to accept that not everyone will live life exactly as we do and choose.
Freedom is being allowed to find your happiness wherever you may so long as there is no harm brought to another.
Freedom is an idea whose time has come...
We do not have to agree with everyone's private lifestyle choices, we simply have to accept that not everyone will live life exactly as we do and choose.
Freedom is being allowed to find your happiness wherever you may so long as there is no harm brought to another.
Freedom is an idea whose time has come...
Once govt is out of the picture, the gay marriage crowd has no argument.
The euphoria will wear off once you realize what !@#$holes most people are about imposing their opinions and religion at gunpoint...
But, glad you came out of the closet...![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
DO NOT USE VIOLENCE (outside self defense) TO IMPOSE YOUR OPINION
Everything else is in the noise or you are just a pissed off Democrat or Republican.
and I will not demand that you agree either.![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
But, glad you came out of the closet...
Nope, don't let them impose that BS on you... There is only one thing to know:Babo said:
DO NOT USE VIOLENCE (outside self defense) TO IMPOSE YOUR OPINION
Everything else is in the noise or you are just a pissed off Democrat or Republican.
and I will not demand that you agree either.
Government has a role in a free society and classic libertarian principles recognize that. Property rights are a fundamental component of liberty and defense of life and property is a needed governmental function even in a libertarian society. I would limit the environmental role to clear defense of property rights, excluding vague aspirations (e.g., stopping an upstream polluter, but not just generally enforcing wetlands laws that have no direct link to evident harm). Having said that, the cure may be worse than the disease. Giving government power is always going to result in some amount of abuse. No easy answers here.
What he said...
The wanton destruction of the environment by those shielded from consequence is a big problem that requires vigorous protection of property rights.
The trouble is that the "regulatory" approach often results in:
1. Moral Hazard: "if the government doesn't stop me, it must be ok right?"
2. Unintended Consequence: News reports 50 gallons of Benzene dumped in river by X - EPA shows up and finds 500 gallons from all those who showed up for a "consequence free" dump on blamed on whomever gets caught (no, I am not kidding, this is not a one-time occurrence).
3. "Connected Few" get consequence free pollution. Lobby hard enough and either "the government" (aka: taxpayers) will pay for it or you will get off with a slap on the wrist or re-incorporate under a new name while your shell company files bankruptcy and lawyers spend decades trying to chase you down, if they can at all.
So, first, to discuss what _should_ be done, you have to recognize:
a. The current system is broken
b. The "cleanup" has been as much, if not much more, social that it has been regulatory
c. The real problem is the ability to destroy individual or community property without bearing the full cost - fix that and _most_ problems of pollution are kept to a dull roar, even better than they are today.
Instead we have a regulatory scheme written by the corrupt and the ignorant. Who will allow malicious destruction while killing small business over cosmetic pollution that has no long term/macro impact.
Don't let statists control the narrative with strawmen...
