Why I will never support the Libertarians.

Well I didn't want to spout off uninformed. So I went back and reread your original post. And I see you pushing the moral code thing real hard. How nice that it is your moral code. Not some schmoe that has no idea of what made America great, and his moral code.

I'm glad you take a position on this. And I see that you say you are willing to make a stand. Draw a line here. It's my moral code or the highway. I'm so certain that this is correct I'm willing to destroy everything just so we can get back on track.

Just so you might know, it's not my belief that America got great because we hate homos, but rather the plunder of empire.

I'm glad you got the satire.

nwtrucker
reply to post by gamesmaster63

 

I agree! I agree! HELLO?

A moral code is not enforceable by a gov't without contribution by it's citizens.

I could care less what two people do in their bedroom. Not that there's any law forbidding it anyway, so why even mention it??

Law do get made-whether Libertarians approve or not-be they based on the morals of the society or not.

Laws that reflect the moral code of that society, at a guess, are more acceptable by the majority than those that do not reflect those morals.

You and a couple or other seem to cite two examples, pot and gays. Are there no "laws" that you agree with? That align with your morals?

Immigration laws? Fraud laws? Child porn laws? How about voter registration laws? Drink as much as you want? Drive as fast as you want? Term limitations?

Or merely the Constitution "Laws". Anything else might, potentially, infringe on your "free choice"?

Frankly, the more I read these posts, the more the whole Libertarian concept confuses me...not that I'm very smart.

We are citing pot and homosexuality because they are things that you have brought up, but since you seem to take offense to those now being mentioned, I will only say one more direct thing concerning either one of those.

You say you don't care about what occurs in other's bedrooms and there are no laws forbidding it. That is a falsehood, a simple Google search on Sodomy laws in the US will show that their are still 13 states with such laws on the books, even though SCOTUS declared them unconstitutional 10 years ago.

Concerning the other things that you mention. Most of those are laws that are a matter of public safety or personal property, not based on any moral imperative not defined by the "Golden Rule".

Also, I agree that some of those laws you have mentioned are valid and needed, but no law should be solely based on a moral code. It should be based on what is fairest for all. You talk about how our country was the greatest when our moral code was the strongest, but I don't think that that can be based on out moral codes, but on our own apathy and trust in government. One of the things our Founding Fathers most espoused was to not trust big government. That is our big fail, not our failure in following any specific moral code.

All I'm trying to say in the end is that governing from a humanist approachis more just and makes more sense than trying to govern from a moralistic approach. When you start talking about governing based on any religious moral base than you are talking about a Theocracy, and history has shown that Theocracies lead to corruption faster than almost any other form of government.

reply to post by Em2013


Fantasy land of Hollywood...Not reality!

reply to post by jaggers23


I'm confused on what you're talking about or maybe that's because you didn't reply to the right person?

Battery

ozwest
reply to post by tridentblue

 

I think you express the views of many people. I grew up in America for 23 years (Chicago, Albuquerque, Denver, San Fran) and am now a citizen of Australia. No place is perfect, but you guys have lost the plot there. The rest of the World is getting tired of your Zombie America crap. "No man is an island." The tide of humanity is turning against you. All you have left is bought-off politicians and corporate fascism. Please keep your military in check, for your sakes, and the rest of the world.

If you were here for so long, you should know that what the gov. does and what the people want are two different things. Do you think, we over here, LIKE looking that way to the world? That we ENJOY dang-near not being able to travel abroad anymore because of the way our gov. has handled our country? That if I'm talking to someone from another country, chances are that they don't like me automatically without even knowing me because I'm American? The "rest of the world" doesn't like it obviously, but maybe try being the one everyone hates and not being able to do anything about it. Much less fun. After all, we can't all just pack up and move across the world. I think maybe you're post should be directed at people that can actually control these things. Yeah, Ill make sure and keep our military in check. Right on top of it.... BTW, if you think, for one second, that if America wasn't doing some of the things it's doing that nobody else would take it's place and do the same that's just really naïve. Don't worry it'll be someone else's turn soon enough. Throughout history there has always been one. Sadly, at this point, I guess that's human nature. Not that it's right, at all.

But with the OP, I don't think any specific party / ideology is going to fix the system in itself. I think they all have their winning graces with certain issues, we just need more colabaration from everyone to bring those points together. But, that's a whole thread by itself.

~Peace

edit on 11/11/2013 by Battery because: spelling

edit on 11/11/2013 by Battery because: oops

edit on 11/11/2013 by Battery because: dag nammit....

Almost off topic, but one of the best replies I've read yet on this thread.

Many of the problems we are suffering from in America are SHARED by those civilizations who came before us, and rose to power rather quickly like we did.

Inflated economy, lack of morals, social degradation, political corruptedness, and a whole SLEW of problems that are NOT unique to the USA.

In fact, some civilizations, such as Rome towards its collapse, are pretty similar depictions of where we are right now.

The bottom line is, our country is dying a death by 1,000 swords. It isn't just one thing killing us, it is so many things, that attempting to focus in on any one thing is like trying to trying to put duct tape over a roof that is about to cave in from rain water. It just ain't gonna work.

Humanity is one BIG social experiment. Everything we are....everything we do, everything we've known, know, and will know, is all mankind experimenting in many different ways, trying to find SOME peace and stability in a world governed by change.


It is interesting, because it doesn't take a genius to realize that America is performing poorly right now, and by some estimates, on the verge of a collapse. What angers me, is THIS is precisely when everyone, and I mean EVERYONE suddenly becomes an authority on how to fix america, and what the causes of the problems are, OVERNIGHT. Suddenly everyone just magically KNOWS how our country got to this point, and how we can fix it. People give themselves too much credit.....and I'm sorry to say, I've literally listened to THOUSANDS of people go on and on about why America is failing, and what needs to be done....and not ONE person yet has impressed me with their "evaluation".

Even with a solid grasp on human history....and a great understanding of politics, socioeconomics, and American History, the problems our country is facing are multifaceted and challenging, in so many ways.

Anyway, this isn't being directed at the OP. Most of the stuff he said I disagree with, but many of the points I disagree with have already been discussed in this thread, so no point in covering them again.

Even though I don't agree with your "analysis" OP, I think this was a good thread

nwtrucker
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

I miss your point, the congress is still restrained by the Constitution, not the people. The laws restrain the people...and themselves, I suppose.

I get the congress is empowered by the Constitution, but also restrained by same. Isn't it the laws made by congress the vehicle to restraining the people? that's all I was saying.

My main point is some moral code, yes, imposition on a group is required for that group to function. Even the native American has an unspoken one, if I understand it correctly, It was "don't piss off more people than you befriend"....

The point is the consitution is a set of Principals regarding the conduct of life in these Unitied States. It is the spirit of the country and in that way does (or should constrain legislators; however in the case of lawyers it is the letter not the spirit). The Supreme Court is the final arbitor of wether or not any given law is in the spirit of the Constitution and we have seen (with the very pro business Court) that are not even attempting objective and balanced decisions in the Spirit of the Consitution.

In that sense it is the highest law of the land such as "love the lord your god" is the highest law for christians. And as such asked the question "what is your god" or "what is your constitution". We live in an age where we don't agree on definitions and that makes communication, effective law making and a level playing field near impossible.

reply to post by gamesmaster63


"What fairest for all??" You're kidding, right? Fair? Who defines it? What is fair" ?

One of the most over-used, abused and perverted concepts to arbitrarily be used to push an agenda. LOL.

It can be used by anyone, at any time and twisted to extol any argument. You'd base a governing body on it?

A political philosophy and the Libertarian party on it?

No wonder the Libertarian Party never got off the ground. It's about as nebulous as Obama and the Democrat's "change" mantra in 2008.

Even the Constitution doesn't qualify as "fair".

Even the Constitution could be described as a "moral code". it's sure closer to one than the idea of "fair". Oops, I guess makes the Constitution a theocracy in your books. (Joke!)

reply to post by FyreByrd


Ok. I see what your saying. Interpretations of the Constitution vary as much as definitions, or at least, the chosen definition that's suited to the argument being made by individual or group. So even the Constitution isn't the strongest common ground to base further agreement/s.

If everyone smoked pot without exception or was gay, also without exception- to use an overused example-then there'd be no disagreement in direction or "law" concerning either issue. Perhaps laws pertaining wouldn't even be required.

As neither is likely to happen, does my view of a more fundamental moral code, a basis for good-will, now becomes a catalyst for reaching agreement?

Even if we had the Founding Fathers in today's environment, could have an accord ever have been achieved? I think not.

Not due to more complexity, but due to less basic agreement.

reply to post by gamesmaster63


P.S. Re the sodomy Laws. I guess I should have worded it as current and enforced laws.

The number of old and out of date laws number in the thousands. Certainly not enforced and for most, unknown.

reply to post by nwtrucker

I guess that since your arguments have now devolved to personal insults I am done with this discussion. Good thread, but I will not be insulted.

reply to post by gamesmaster63


Insult? I debunk the concept of "fair". Not any person. If you choose to take that personally, then I'm fine with it.

Perhaps it's due to no valid rebuttal ?

The thread has taught me more about other viewpoints, perhaps you might learn from looking at it in a different light as well.

I would completely dump my views on the subject if I was shown that there was a better way to fix our mess....

ManFromEurope

Source

'nuff said. Even if some members here won't like it. But thats how it would run.

Mad max was not libertarian nor was it anarchist. It was hyper competitive,imperialistic,militant(going against the NAP) and tribal(hierarchical).

They had a hierarchical violence enforced political structure.So no. Not libertarian.

Star Trek was closer to a idealized libertarian society. (no money,free energy,free food, exploration,science and research based society, computers ran damn near everything,holodeck etc).
The planetary federation was not imperialistic and respected new ET species. The prime directive is very similar to the non-aggression principal.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Noam Chomsky said: "Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism." So, anarchism is central to libertarianism.

What kind of libertarian are we talking about, really? The socialistic libertarian or the capitalistic libertarian. Because THIS is the difference between my two pictures!

If you think about libertarianism as Star Trek, well - socialistic libertarian it is.
Otherwise, capitalistic libertarian.

Therefore, my picture stands it's ground.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


Star Trek is pretty close to an idealized minarchist society.
They still have a hierarchical structure of political power(but extremely decentralized and limited).
So it is not ideal anarchism nor is it pure libertarianism. But it is very close.
The borg is an almost perfect anarcho-communist/collectivist society. Even though they have authoritarian imperialist policies (assimilation or destruction).

A star trek level extreme minarchism is an ideal for mankind in the future.