So Liberals...

[KRC]

Nocturnal Libertarianism?

734453[/snapback]

 

Nocturnal Conservatarianism.

[Orton's Arm]

I think what Simon and AD are referring to is not that there are specific viewpoints regarding the role of government in each philosophy, but that each person's individual viewpoint does not always fit neatly into a pre-defined philosophy.

 

Take me for example. I am between an old-school conservative and a Libertarian. I feel that the old-school conservatives do not go far enough in reducing the role of government, while the Libertarians take things too far. My personal viewpoint does not fit a specific political philosophy, but is a combination of philosophies. Therefore, I would answer "Neither" to your question, as well. Basically, it was a bad question. 

734284[/snapback]

Shame on you for encouraging AD in his uninformative ways! Your own response communicated the kind of information I'm interested in.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Nocturnal Libertarianism?

734453[/snapback]

 

Vampirical Conservatotaliberaziism.

[Chilly]

Shame on you for encouraging AD in his uninformative ways!  Your own response communicated the kind of information I'm interested in.

734496[/snapback]

 

I stood next to someone yesterday while I was waiting for my ride to show up. He lighted up a cigarette. Guess what I did? I move away when I started breathing second hand smoke.

 

Seriously though, I think I am trying to make my point in a bad way. I agree with you that we were founded on the principles of life, liberty and justice. In order to protect these principles, we need to have certain rights, protections, and rules. Does the public or the private owner get more sway? Why?

 

I look at it as a top-down hierarchy, where a policy can't violate one above it. The following is a set of guidelines that apply for legal adults only, and also applies only in the United States (obviously its not for foreign policy).

 

1.) Right to self determination of person and property - Above all else, people should be protected from imminent danger that they did not choose. This includes murder, but also includes stuff such as scams, robbery, etc. Most of our laws to protect one person from another would be based on this. Also, laws in which public land or the operation of the public government with representation, such as taxes, meet this criteria.

 

2.) Freedom from unjustified discrimination - Our founding fathers felt that at face value, everyone is equal. So in order to discriminate between people, there should be distingushing societal factors that do this. This provides protection from discrimination based upon such things as race and disabilities, because our society has accepted that they do not provide justification for discrimination.

 

3.) Freedom of private property - If you buy private property, you get to determine the policies and procedures that happen on your property, as long as it does not interefere with any other property holder's ability to do the same.

 

4.) Right to govern public lands - As long as a government is representative in some way of the people, then policies can be set for public lands.

 

5.) Right of self-determination - As long as all of the above qualities are met, you have the freedom to do as you please.

[X. Benedict]

Vampirical Conservatotaliberaziism.

734616[/snapback]

 

I dated one of those once.

 

After I was down a few pints of blood, she introduced me to her Mom and

we smoked spleef and watched Fox News together.

[Alaska Darin]

Oh common guys, granted he was looking to box you in a nice rhetorical package, but AD your answer "neither" was pretty lame. 

I gave it the amount of effort it deserved.

 

I think the question was more ignorant and lazy, all he had to do was do some research and properly gather an opinion.

There is that.

 

AD you must be loosing it, perfect chance to flip that question...liberal wanting all the answers spoon fed...or give him some examples, not everything, let some assumptions be made and then have chance to correct the inaccuracies.

 

Not enough sleep last night or just bored with the post.

Option B.

 

P.S. While I don't currently own a gun, I have been an NRA member, best darn training programs out there.  No where in the constitution does it say that guns cannot be regulated, banned no, regulated yes.  And while many liberals would like to ban them to address violence, regulation is better.  As tougher drunk driving laws have been enforced, DWIs have and deaths related have gone down significantly despite more drivers on the road.  Don't have recent stats, but the old 70s stat was 25,000 deaths a year due to cars and alcohol.  The last stat I saw, a couple of years old was that stats was down to 15,000. 

 

AD do you support any kind of gun regulation and if so what do you think would work?

734411[/snapback]

I don't support much regulation. The technology exists to use instant checks for all gun purchases that are made in legal stores, yet the government refuses to implement it. I support enforcing the laws that are already on the books, rather than adding more. Apparently that's too difficult.

[PastaJoe]

I don't support much regulation.  The technology exists to use instant checks for all gun purchases that are made in legal stores, yet the government refuses to implement it.  I support enforcing the laws that are already on the books, rather than adding more.  Apparently that's too difficult.

734845[/snapback]

 

I agree with instant checks and enforcing current laws. I don't want to eliminate gun ownership. There's a middle ground that most people would agree with, but the extreme elements on both sides of the issue control the debate and the majority of politicians won't legislate in the middle because it would upset both extremes.

[cromagnum]

I agree with instant checks and enforcing current laws.  I don't want to eliminate gun ownership.  There's a middle ground that most people would agree with, but the extreme elements on both sides of the issue control the debate and the majority of politicians won't legislate in the middle because it would upset both extremes.

734926[/snapback]

What is controlling law abiding citizens from attaining certain types of guns, going to accomplish...When criminals have the ability to aquire these weapons with laws or no laws...And if your refering to children who borrow daddy's gun and hurt people, thats pops fault...That's why you buy a secure gun cabinet along with a stern warning to your children you will kick their azz, if they attempt to steal your key to the lock...If that language bothers you, I'm sorry, it's just the way I was raised....Dad was a disciplinarion from being in the military, as his pop was the same from being in the military....And now I am just like my dad and his dad

 

What are your suggestions pasta? from a centrist point of a view, or what would be acceptable to both sides on this issue?

[ExiledInIllinois]

How did I miss this thread...

 

I would equate complete control to solitary 24 hours a day with no contact outside of the guard...

 

One guard... One prisoner.

 

Is this what goes on in the prison?

 

If not... It is not complete control.

[Orton's Arm]

Oh common guys, granted he was looking to box you in a nice rhetorical package, but AD your answer "neither" was pretty lame. 

 

I think the question was more ignorant and lazy, all he had to do was do some research and properly gather an opinion.

On the one hand, I could have spent hours digging through pages of AD's one-line put downs in an attempt to identify his political views. On the other, I could ask him to summarize his political beliefs. Which makes more sense?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the main purposes of government are as follows:

1. Maintain and improve the quality of the gene pool.

2. Fight terror with terror. Foreign armies should be afraid to invade, and would-be criminals should be too afraid of police to commit crimes.

3. Help establish fair play. This means having a simple, fast, inexpensive, fair, and predictable legal system, as well as addressing negative externalities and other flaws with the free market. (For instance, a pollution tax would force polluters to internalize the pollution cost they impose on everyone else. The government needs to get tax revenue somehow, so it may as well get as much of it as possible by taxing bad things.)

4. Ensure protection of human dignity. Liberals use this as an excuse to create a cycle of dependence and poverty. Such a cycle is not consistent with human dignity; and must be broken by requiring recipients of social services to have their tubes tied.

5. Common goods such as roads, bike paths, national forests, funding for basic scientific research, education funding, that sort of thing. I strongly feel school choice would be superior to the farce we call the American public school system.

 

A government which fulfills each of these tasks will enhance the strength and dignity of the nation it serves.

[/dev/null]

1. Maintain and improve the quality of the gene pool.

736009[/snapback]

 

<regis_philbin>

So Adolf, is that your final solution?

</regis_philbin>

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

On the one hand, I could have spent hours digging through pages of AD's one-line put downs in an attempt to identify his political views.  On the other, I could ask him to summarize his political beliefs.  Which makes more sense?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the main purposes of government are as follows:

1. Maintain and improve the quality of the gene pool.

2. Fight terror with terror.  Foreign armies should be afraid to invade, and would-be criminals should be too afraid of police to commit crimes.

3. Help establish fair play.  This means having a simple, fast, inexpensive, fair, and predictable legal system, as well as addressing negative externalities and other flaws with the free market.  (For instance, a pollution tax would force polluters to internalize the pollution cost they impose on everyone else.  The government needs to get tax revenue somehow, so it may as well get as much of it as possible by taxing bad things.)

4. Ensure protection of human dignity.  Liberals use this as an excuse to create a cycle of dependence and poverty.  Such a cycle is not consistent with human dignity; and must be broken by requiring recipients of social services to have their tubes tied. 

5. Common goods such as roads, bike paths, national forests, funding for basic scientific research, education funding, that sort of thing.  I strongly feel school choice would be superior to the farce we call the American public school system. 

 

A government which fulfills each of these tasks will enhance the strength and dignity of the nation it serves.

736009[/snapback]

 

Jeez, even AD wouldn't touch your beliefs and I consider him a conservative, libertarian type, but the operative word is libertarian....Your list is just plain old scary.

 

I am not going to touch most of what you say, but school choice is a farce unless it is between public schools. There are plenty of bad private schools and they cost way too much. When a local community assisted by the state and Feds puts its priorities on good schools, crime goes down, saving prison space, the number of police officers needed and a host of other services. Your statement still doesn't solve the problem of underfunded public schools. I would cut the miriad of pork barrel parochial projects that the feds and states fund and a little cut in military waste would help. I am not advocating raising taxes, unless obviously needed, but changing the percentage of its use and increasing it for education. I have seen areas where it works and where other priorities take over and education becomes a red head step child, always in line for cuts and yet is complained about for all the local ills.

 

Folks you can't have it both ways, poorely funded schools and good education. You get what you pay for. The funny thing is if you look at folks who send their kids to private schools and what it costs them. Most folks property taxes are a pitance compared to the costs of these schools. I can't afford $15,000 a year each for two kids for quality I want, so I moved to an area with slightly tax priorities on education. Crime is relatively low and business that complain about the tax rate just move to the next town, which is their choice and I understand it. I pay my property taxes, write them off on my Fed and save $26,000 a year in tuition costs. Simple economics.

 

If you pay less in taxes and don't have kids, please ignore this message, move to area with no kids and low taxes. Simple economic sense.

[Alaska Darin]

Jeez, even AD wouldn't touch your beliefs and I consider him a conservative, libertarian type, but the operative word is libertarian....Your list is just plain old scary.

You got that right. And that nutjob actually wonders why I won't give him the time of day.

 

I am not going to touch most of what you say, but school choice is a farce unless it is between public schools.  There are plenty of bad private schools and they cost way too much.  When a local community assisted by the state and Feds puts its priorities on good schools, crime goes down, saving prison space, the number of police officers needed and a host of other services.  Your statement still doesn't solve the problem of underfunded public schools.  I would cut the miriad of pork barrel parochial projects that the feds and states fund and a little cut in military waste would help.  I am not advocating raising taxes, unless obviously needed, but changing the percentage of its use and increasing it for education.  I have seen areas where it works and where other priorities take over and education becomes a red head step child, always in line for cuts and yet is complained about for all the local ills. 

 

Folks you can't have it both ways, poorely funded schools and good education.  You get what you pay for.  The funny thing is if you look at folks who send their kids to private schools and what it costs them.  Most folks property taxes are a pitance compared to the costs of these schools.  I can't afford $15,000 a year each for two kids for quality I want, so I moved to an area with slightly tax priorities on education.  Crime is relatively low and business that complain about the tax rate just move to the next town, which is their choice and I understand it.  I pay my property taxes, write them off on my Fed and save $26,000 a year in tuition costs.  Simple economics.

 

If you pay less in taxes and don't have kids, please ignore this message, move to area with no kids and low taxes.  Simple economic sense.

736503[/snapback]

Liberal fallacy. We spend more per student than any country in the world. Nothing more than a cry in the dark. Our schools changed the day the liberals started exploring children's "feelings", pretending that it's best to treat everyone exactly the same where education is concerned, and removed all but the most pedestrian discipline from taxpayer schools.

 

The federal government has no business in education.

[Chilly]

You got that right.  And that nutjob actually wonders why I won't give him the time of day.

Liberal fallacy.  We spend more per student than any country in the world.  Nothing more than a cry in the dark.  Our schools changed the day the liberals started exploring children's "feelings", pretending that it's best to treat everyone exactly the same where education is concerned, and removed all but the most pedestrian discipline from taxpayer schools.

 

The federal government has no business in education.

736558[/snapback]

 

I agree with everything up until the last statement.

 

Government has a place in Education, a country without a regulated education system is no country that I would want to be part of.

 

However, it should be *much* *much* better then it is, and most of the liberal plans aren't working.

[/dev/null]

However, it should be *much* *much* better then it is, and most of the liberal plans aren't working.

736638[/snapback]

 

Au contraire mon frere

 

the liberal's plan is working to perfection. they seek to level the playing field for all. so rather than have a few stellar students, some average students, and a couple dropouts our schools now produce graduates with little more than rudimentary knowledge of math and science. But hey, its not like America needs engineers or anything. We'll just outsource that kinda stuff. Besides, actually learning something might derail their self esteem engine

[Chilly]

Au contraire mon frere

 

the liberal's plan is working to perfection.  they seek to level the playing field for all.  so rather than have a few stellar students, some average students, and a couple dropouts our schools now produce graduates with little more than rudimentary knowledge of math and science.  But hey, its not like America needs engineers or anything.  We'll just outsource that kinda stuff.  Besides, actually learning something might derail their self esteem engine

736643[/snapback]

 

Heh.

 

One of the things I liked about GW's bro, Jeb, is hte institution of choice into public schools.

 

We'z need'z to get some'z comepTITition into the ShizNIT!

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Au contraire mon frere

 

the liberal's plan is working to perfection.  they seek to level the playing field for all.  so rather than have a few stellar students, some average students, and a couple dropouts our schools now produce graduates with little more than rudimentary knowledge of math and science.  But hey, its not like America needs engineers or anything.  We'll just outsource that kinda stuff.  Besides, actually learning something might derail their self esteem engine

736643[/snapback]

 

You are right... Self-esteem is what fuels (in a way) this whole geo-political mess we are in...

 

Americans need a little less self-esteem I would say.

 

What do you think yielding a bit to other nations that are historically on our side might do to that self-esteem?

 

Of course I am speaking nationally... But, you knew that.

[/dev/null]

Of course I am speaking nationally... But, you knew that.

736957[/snapback]

think nationally, act locally right

[sweetbaboo]

You are right... Self-esteem is what fuels (in a way) this whole geo-political mess we are in...

 

Americans need a little less self-esteem I would say.

 

What do you think yielding a bit to other nations that are historically on our side might do to that self-esteem?

 

Of course I am speaking nationally... But, you knew that.

736957[/snapback]

 

self esteem doesn't have to be developed through coddling

 

if so, that's not the self esteem you want flowing through the nation

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

self esteem doesn't have to be developed through coddling

 

if so, that's not the self esteem you want flowing through the nation

738131[/snapback]

 

Feminism and liberalism are two forces that have turned this country into a shadow of its former self.

 

They've both destroyed the nuclear family, they've emasculated aggressive, go-get-em type young men in hopes of propping up women. They've changed the academic environment so that the playing field is undoubtedly tilted toward girls.

 

It's no wonder young men nowadays are so effed up. The system's built to make them that way ON PURPOSE.

 

Granted, when feminism first came about, it was a noble ambition. Women SHOULD be equal to men. But now, like Affirmative Action, it's gone too far in seeking to redress old percieved wrongs and it's caused more problems than it's fixed. And that, boys and girls, is why liberalism is a mistake. it hurts more than it helps.