# Libertarianism



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 22, 2013)

I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it. 

Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.


----------



## oldfart (Jun 23, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.
> 
> Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.



I suggest that you have chosen a fool's errand.  There is no way any one person can be cognizant of everything everyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" (or any other political label) has written.  You are inviting an acrimonious and never-ending bitchfest about who is a "true libertarian".  Better to state and defend what you believe and leave others to speak for themselves.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 23, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.
> ...



Even before the internet I could have done this because I know how to find things. 

I am not trying to defend true libertarianism, I am trying to prove that people who pretend they actually studied libertarianism and came to a reasoned and well thought out conclusion based on their research didn't actually do that. So far no one has even tried to prove me wrong.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 25, 2013)

All you have to do is go to the Libertarian party website and compare their platform to the other political platform. To summarize the Libertarian Point of View:

 1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.



2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.



3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.



4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 29, 2013)

No matter who is getting slaughtered outside the US, libers will not want us to send any kind of aide.

I find that to be cold.  I don't understand how anyone, with any morals, can turn their backs on children in the crossfire b/c the most powerful and greatest nation ever will have to spend money.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 29, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.
> 
> Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.



My one complaint would be the intermingling of anarco-capitalists calling themselves libertarians.

Unfortunately for me, they actually do fall into the libertarian political worldview BUT it gets confusing when dealing with those that are not libertarians because they want to lump ALL libertarians into anarco-capitalist views when that is clearly not true.  

The number of times that I have seen people demand that libertarianism and anarchy are essentially the same thing is staggering.  A complete misrepresentation of the underlying concepts.


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.
> 
> Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.




THIS is a great idea, QW.

Anybody can practically say anything for or against LIBERTARIANISM since there is NO AUTHORIZED AUTHORITY  to define what libertarianism really is, what it really believes, etc.

I've know libertarians who were basically heartless misanthops, who clearly had no idea how humans actually think or work, and who cling to this LABEL merely as a cover to give their hatred for ALL HUMANS some *philosophical cover.*

Then too I've known or read things from people ALSO claiming to be Libertarians that made great sense.

So when someone tells me they are libertarian, that tells me exactly NOTHING about what they REALLY are.

I can and DO say the same of people claiming to be liberals, or conservatives, incidently.

These labels really mean _ nothing_ you or I  can truly  depend on.


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> All you have to do is go to the Libertarian party website and compare their platform to the other political platform. To summarize the Libertarian Point of View:
> 
> 1.0 Personal Liberty
> 
> ...




The trouble with that approach is the Libertarian Party does NOT speak for all people calling themselves libertarians.

It is perfectly competenet to speak for itself and its members, *but it does NOT define the entire class of people calling themselves LIBERTARIANS.*


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.
> ...



Yup.

I have been guilty of that, myself since the first people I met who claimed to be libertarians also were _Randian school objectivist libertarians._

They did not believe in any form of government AT ALL.

Now in my wold view, those people are called ANARCHISTS.

Only in the world there are people who call call themselves ANARCHISTS who are basically crypto communists.

POLITICAL LABELS...these do NOT serve any of us, folks.

They are mostly DESIGNED to confuse us rather than help us.

It is NOT until one gets down to *specific policies *that one can begin to truly understand what  person REALLY is.

POLITICAL LABELS are worse than worthless since they confuse us into thinking that people are what they are _NOT_


----------



## PredFan (Jun 29, 2013)

I don't know why so many people have so much trouble with the concept that, like democrats and republicans, libertarians are composed of people who have variations on the same theme. One does not have to toe the libertarian party platform line completely in order to be a libertarian.

But the OP is correct. Too many people here TOTALLY misunderstand Libertarians and there are too many threads building strawman armies misrepresenting Libertarians.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 29, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> All you have to do is go to the Libertarian party website and compare their platform to the other political platform.


Thanks for providing these summaries. 


> To summarize the Libertarian Point of View:
> 
> 1.0 Personal Liberty
> 
> Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to *accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make*. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.


Given what is stated in #1 above everyone who professes to be a Libertarian should be an ardent supporter of gay marriage since that is clearly the choice of consenting adults. Furthermore this sentence clearly states that people must "accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make" so it would appear that Libertarians would be in favor of universal background checks and all in favor of holding Zimmerman responsible for the "choice he made" to shoot Martin.


> 2.0 Economic Liberty
> 
> Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A* free and competitive market* allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


As far as #2 regarding economic Libertarianism is concerned the deregulated free market concept has failed on at least 3 occasions. The Founding Fathers understood the need for government regulation which is why they included the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The only issue is the degree to which government can impose regulations rather than that there should be none whatsoever. So in that respect the Founding Fathers were not libertarians. 


> 3.0 Securing Liberty
> 
> The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.



Given what is stated in #3 it seems as though all Libertarians should be card carrying members of the ACLU. The Founding Fathers would probably have agreed wholeheartedly with this principle and also belonged to the ACLU. They would probably have agreed with #4 below too.


> 4.0 Omissions
> 
> Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval




Not sure how others interpret those statements but that is my opinion on what they mean for what it is worth. Doubtless there are others who see things differently but this was not meant as a criticism of those who hold different views but rather just an observation on what are the clearly stated principles of Libertarianism.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 29, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> No matter who is getting slaughtered outside the US, libers will not want us to send any kind of aide.
> 
> I find that to be cold.  I don't understand how anyone, with any morals, can turn their backs on children in the crossfire b/c the most powerful and greatest nation ever will have to spend money.



That's because you believe in half truths. Libertarians don't believe in not sending aid. They believe private charities are more effective and less corrupt. When government cuts a check, they are much less accountable for how that money gets spent. Nine out of ten dollars typically goes to some fat cat's wallet.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jun 29, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.
> ...



Except the only reason they do that is to annoy you. It's not that the issue is confusing for them, it's that it distracts from any real issues and puts you on the defensive arguing about semantics. It's the same reason they call us isolationists.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 29, 2013)

You have made several misconceptions about what libertarians believe and how that fits into their worldview.  As has been stated, libertarians are varied in their so I cannot speak for all of them but I can speak for myself and about the majority of libertarians that I know (discounting the anarcho-capitalist ones as I am not clear on the ability for that reality to work) 



Derideo_Te said:


> Given what is stated in #1 above everyone who professes to be a Libertarian should be an ardent supporter of gay marriage since that is clearly the choice of consenting adults.


And that is generally the position that libertarians hold.  In that, most have one of two views &#8211; that government should recognize gay marriage or that government should not recognize marriage at all.  The latter view is more widely held and adheres to libertarian core values.


Derideo_Te said:


> Furthermore this sentence clearly states that people must "accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make" so it would appear that Libertarians would be in favor of universal background checks and all in favor of holding Zimmerman responsible for the "choice he made" to shoot Martin.


No, that is utterly against libertarian views.  More background checks is a form of prior restraint and libertarians are pretty all against government trading citizens as criminals without cause.  You are completely backwards in libertarian thought with that statement.

Further, Zimmerman is not that simple.  He has a right to walk down the same street as Martin as long as he did not accost him.  IF he accosted him, then he is responsible.  If martin did the attack first, then he is not.  That is all about who initiated force which, indecently, is how current law works and why Zimmerman is going to trial.  He thinks that he can prove Martin attacked him and if he can then he did not do anything wrong.  That is unless you thing walking down the street behind someone is wrong.



Derideo_Te said:


> As far as #2 regarding economic Libertarianism is concerned the deregulated free market concept has failed on at least 3 occasions. The Founding Fathers understood the need for government regulation which is why they included the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The only issue is the degree to which government can impose regulations rather than that there should be none whatsoever. So in that respect the Founding Fathers were not libertarians.


Again, you fail to understand what a free market means.  Anarcho-capitalists do want unfettered markets but for the most part, libertarians are not against basic regulations as those are required to keep a free market free.  A monopoly &#8211; the end result of all unfettered markets, is anti-free market.  Basic regulation is not against libertarian philosophy.

I would reiterate that libertarians are not all anarchists.  A completely unregulated market is an example of anarchism.  That might fall under libertarianism bit in the same manner that a square is a rectangle.  Not ALL rectangles are squares and the majority of libertarians are not anarchists.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jun 29, 2013)

editec said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



One cannot be a "Randian Objectivist" and an anarchist. Ayn Rand hated anarchists and expelled them from her Objectivist philosophy.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 29, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Given what is stated in #1 above everyone who professes to be a Libertarian should be an ardent supporter of gay marriage since that is clearly the choice of consenting adults.
> ...



Not really true. Few libertarians would be "ardent supporters" of gay marriage. They are often for marriage equality in reverse; meaning no government sanctions of any marriage.


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



What do you call a person who believes that NO GOVERNMENT is the only fair and just society>

I call those people ANARCHISTS since that word means *NO LEADERS*

However \, just to conbfuse the issue, in Europe a whole school of people calling themselves ANARCHISTS exist who DO BELIEVE in government, only NOT the ones that currently exist.

See the problem here?

SEMANTICS....MOST of the debates here are NOT about reality, they're about what to CALL reality.

_He's a communist, she's a gun nut, he's a libertairian, she's a liberal. it's all nothing more than bla bla bla fucking bla bla bla._

All sound and fury signifying WHAT exactly?

NOTHING.

If you cannot agree on what a word ACTUALLY MEANS, then using it is bound to make any discussion a forking waste of time.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 29, 2013)

^^^

Speaking of semantics. Way to pretend that libertarians are nothings that don't have beliefs with any sort of validity.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 29, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I did mention that was the more widely held view.  The crux of the issue for liberals is that being against gay marriage is not supporting equality.  I was dispelling the myth that libertarians are being bigoted in that regard.  They, for the most part, do NOT support a system where the government recognizes one marriage and then rejects another.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 29, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > No matter who is getting slaughtered outside the US, libers will not want us to send any kind of aide.
> ...



Im not talking about sending food and mosquito nets.

I'm talking about stopping children from being killed on conflicts.

every liber has said;  "What's that country have to do with us?" when I said we need to go in and do something.


That's an ice cold look on actual life.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jun 29, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



And how many children die directly from our intervention, and then indirectly from the chaos that ensues as a result of our intervention? Then these children are always chalked up to "collateral damage."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jun 29, 2013)

I choose not to make the situation worse, which is what inevitably happens. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya. How many times do we have to see this scenario play out?


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 29, 2013)

]
I really thought they were called that. Is there a proper name or do you call them Tea Partyers?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 29, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> You have made several misconceptions about what libertarians believe and how that fits into their worldview.  As has been stated, libertarians are varied in their so I cannot speak for all of them but I can speak for myself and about the majority of libertarians that I know (discounting the anarcho-capitalist ones as I am not clear on the ability for that reality to work)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for the clarifications. When you stated "government should not recognize marriage at all" did you mean all levels of government including local, state and federal?

90% of the people support universal background checks. Does this mean that it is only Libertarians who are the remaining 10% who oppose them? Would that be a fair estimate for the number of Libertarians?

You are correct that GZ had the right to walk down the street just as TM did. The subsequent altercation was the result of one or the other being accosted. However that was not the point that was being made. GZ owned a gun and under what was stated as being the Libertarian principle he was/is entirely responsible for that weapon and what he did with it. That principle should not change even if he was accosted by an unarmed TM.

Thank you for drawing the distinction between "Anarcho-capitalists" and Libertarians as far as economic regulation is concerned. It is a term that I was unaware of until now but it makes sense. 

I appreciate you taking the time to provide these distinctions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 29, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.
> ...



That is exactly my point. Libertarianism, at its heart, is about liberty. That fits a pretty broad spectrum of philosophy, yet people keep insisting it is only about eliminating government, and insist that no libertarian ever thinks about all the different problems they think they see. They don't even take the time to understand that Ayn Rand, who they see as an anarchist, was actually in favor of some government regulation.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 29, 2013)

In my mind this whole question of who or what a libertarian is or believes can be stated very simply.

*It is the federal governments job to follow the constitution.*

There are two major commands that the federal government should follow:
1. most important is to protect the rights of the individual and the states which gave the federal government its powers.
2. Protect and defend the citizens and member states from foreign attack.

you can pervert power to "protect people from themselves" but that is not within the powers granted to the federal government. It is not the job of the federal government to dictate who can marry, that is left to the state. The federal government can enforce that all contracts, including marriage, that are valid in one state must be accepted in all states as equal protection under the law of the constitution.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 29, 2013)

editec said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If they didn't believe in any government they were not objectivists, they were anarchists. Objectivism sees the government as a necessary part of the social order.



> The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. *The government acts only as a policeman that protects mans rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.*



Introducing Objectivism - The Ayn Rand Institute


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Given what is stated in #1 above everyone who professes to be a Libertarian should be an ardent supporter of gay marriage since that is clearly the choice of consenting adults. Furthermore this sentence clearly states that people must "accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make" so it would appear that Libertarians would be in favor of universal background checks and all in favor of holding Zimmerman responsible for the "choice he made" to shoot Martin.



This is exactly the kind of argument I was thinking about when I started this thread. You argue that your position is that the only correct one from what you think libertarians believe, and then conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is not a libertarian, and use that justify your refusal to understand libertarians. 

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Just like it is possible to be gay and oppose ssm, it is also possible to be libertarian and oppose it because of the actual, real world, consequences on the scope of the government. Many libertarians see this, and hope that forcing society to bight the bullet will, ultimately, lead to smaller government.

There Is No Libertarian Argument Against Gay Marriage | Thoughts on Liberty

The Best Libertarian Argument Against Gay Marriage - Greenville Post | Greenville Post

The Libertarian Gay Marriage Paradox - Reason.com



Derideo_Te said:


> As far as #2 regarding economic Libertarianism is concerned the deregulated free market concept has failed on at least 3 occasions. The Founding Fathers understood the need for government regulation which is why they included the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The only issue is the degree to which government can impose regulations rather than that there should be none whatsoever. So in that respect the Founding Fathers were not libertarians.



This is one of the times I wish I could reach through the internet and smack someone upside the head with a sledgehammer.

There are no examples in history of a market completely divorced from government control. Just to demonstrate how positive I am of this, feel free to provide your three examples, whatever you think they are.

That said, what makes you think the Libertarian Party wants a completely unregulated market? The very quote you are basing your absurd position on envisions a role for the government in markets.



Derideo_Te said:


> Given what is stated in #3 it seems as though all Libertarians should be card carrying members of the ACLU. The Founding Fathers would probably have agreed wholeheartedly with this principle and also belonged to the ACLU. They would probably have agreed with #4 below too.
> 
> 
> > Why should libertarians support an organization that believes in using the government to take away people's rights to free association?
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 29, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



The one detail that annoys me more than anything else. I have a few problems of my own with Rand, but it annoys me to deal with people who totally misrepresent her views on government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 29, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



If people want to march off and defend other people they see as being oppressed, they should be free to do so. The problems is that when a government does it, even ours, the end result is another government that is built on force of arms and oppression.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > You have made several misconceptions about what libertarians believe and how that fits into their worldview.  As has been stated, libertarians are varied in their so I cannot speak for all of them but I can speak for myself and about the majority of libertarians that I know (discounting the anarcho-capitalist ones as I am not clear on the ability for that reality to work)
> ...



Libertarians oppose universal background checks because they understand the mechanism that would be required to enforce it. It would require the government being able to search any home, business, or  property, at any time, without a warrant, to be sure their are no unregistered guns and no materials to put one together. They would also be empowered to stop everyone in public and conduct a spot check to be sure you are not carrying a weapon, or in possession of something that could be used to manufacture said weapon. They would also impose restrictions on computers and printers, and all manufacturing, in order to assure that no one is making new weapons that they are unaware of. 

They would retain that power forever. 

I am pretty sure that no one, including you, actually supports universal background checks, so stop throwing out polls that don't actually ask about universal background checks like they prove something.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 29, 2013)

editec said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I am sorry but I have to disagree with you here.  I have addressed the exact statement from you before.  The terms are useful in communicating your base belief and political stance in an succinct manner.  If I had to spell out my political beliefs in full anytime that I spoke to a new person about politics I would have little time for anything else.  The explanation might take hours.  Instead, one word effectively projects what I am with some details described after to refine my political worldview.  Rejecting ALL political words because they do not have very precise definitions is as useless as demanding that no one ever use the word car because that does not convey the exact vehicle that you might be driving.  Instead, you would have to recite the engine, number of doors, horsepower, wheelbase and tire size etc etc each time you wanted your friend to hop in and take a ride.

The attacking of people based on complete misconceptions of political ideologies are NOT due to the use of terms like conservative, liberal and libertarian.  That would occur no matter how accurate we described our political worldviews.  That is based on the division and the need for low information people to justify their position by making the opposite evil or abhorrent.  You do not need to do all the legwork if the other side is obviously insane.  You need even less legwork if you can convince yourself that the other side is insane by closing your eyes and yelling really loud.  THAT is the problem with labels, not the labels themselves but what people do with them and would continue to do even if you never used another label again.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 29, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Thank you for the clarifications. When you stated "government should not recognize marriage at all" did you mean all levels of government including local, state and federal?


It varies by each libertarian as there is a lot of similarity when dealing with the federal but more debate exists within the state and local level where greater powers should be vested.  Generally though, I think that libertarians mean ALL levels.  Realize that this does not preclude contractual agreements that go with marriage.  The thousand &#8216;rights&#8217; that come with marriage can be mostly conveyed within a contract &#8211; even something standard that could have slight changes based on the individual marriage.  The main difference would be the complete removal of benefits conveyed to a married couple that those who are single do not obtain.  Things like tax breaks and kickbacks.  Those are generally abhorrent in a libertarian worldview. 


Derideo_Te said:


> 90% of the people support universal background checks. Does this mean that it is only Libertarians who are the remaining 10% who oppose them? Would that be a fair estimate for the number of Libertarians?


Not really.  I know a LOT of libertarians (certainly more than 10 percent of those that I know) but I am not deluded enough to actually think that we number that high across the nation.  The voting population shows that to be generally false even though some STILL vote for the republican no matter how asinine that seems to be.

As far as the 90 percent &#8211; I think that figure is garbage as it is based off a generic question and NOT real legislation.  When actual legislation is up for review, it is never popular.


Derideo_Te said:


> You are correct that GZ had the right to walk down the street just as TM did. The subsequent altercation was the result of one or the other being accosted. However that was not the point that was being made. GZ owned a gun and under what was stated as being the Libertarian principle he was/is entirely responsible for that weapon and what he did with it. That principle should not change even if he was accosted by an unarmed TM.


Yes and no.  Realize that once GZ was attacked, he was still responsible for the use of the gun but it would not confer liability or be illegal &#8211; protection is a basic right.  In that light, GZ was fully justified in shooting Martin and would deserve no jail time or financial repercussion.  That would be different if, say, a round missed and hit another.  Now he has caused harm that was NOT justified and fully culpable for damages and jail.  Even by accident, his fault.

Now, if Martin did NOT start the altercation of GZ did something that forced it (like telling martin he was going to kill him or pulling his weapon as through he was going to use it) then he is fully culpable and should spend the rest of his life in prison for it (or at least a damn good chunk of time).  


Derideo_Te said:


> Thank you for drawing the distinction between "Anarcho-capitalists" and Libertarians as far as economic regulation is concerned. It is a term that I was unaware of until now but it makes sense.
> 
> I appreciate you taking the time to provide these distinctions.



I appreciate someone that actually cares enough to listen and/or offer counterpoints.  

I had another debate here a week ago with a libertarian that was an anarcho-capitalist and it made debate difficult until he let loose that he ascribed to that political worldview.  It makes things simpler if you are accurate as well as succinct, something libertarians so not do enough and causes to damn much strife.  That problem is self-inflicted and I REFUSE to be part of it.

It is nice to say something and not be countered with insults and demands that my worldview is untenable because I am an anarchist.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 29, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



And there is the reality of that.  Those that think war is some humanitarian undertaking have no concept of what actually occurs in war.  People burn to death, limbs are blown off, children watch their parents torn apart, and parents watch babies die in their hands.  It is horrific.  There is no humanitarian war and there is no good in war at all.  We should only go to war because we MUST, never because we want.

The current practice of nation building has not worked even once but we do not learn our lesson and all we do is create hate and angst against ourselves while not serving our interests.  Such is a terrible idea.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 30, 2013)

That's just pure feel goodery nonsense. All wars have their pros and cons. The ones that have where the pros outweigh the cons; those are the good wars.

That said, the last three presidential administrations have had sinister motives and our military endeavors have largely been negative imo.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for the clarifications. When you stated "government should not recognize marriage at all" did you mean all levels of government including local, state and federal?
> ...



The Libertarian position as provided and clarified has much that is good about it. Where I see the problem is not with genuine Libertarians like yourself but that you are being associated with anarcho-capitalists and other extreme fringe groups who claim to be Libertarians too. 

Unfortunately this "guilt by association" problem is pervasive in politics. All Liberals are vilified because a kid is sent home for wearing an inappropriate t-shirt by some well meaning, if not too bright, teacher. Moderate conservatives are treated as "traitors" because they don't toe the hardline Tea Party stance. 

The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden". This is possible as long as we reject those who are looking to "divide and conquer" as the means to gain political power. The motto of "e pluribus unum" means that combined we are united and capable of greatness. It is a disservice to our children and grandchildren to allow petty differences tear us apart and bring this nation to it's knees.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 30, 2013)

I think it's a misnomer to state that the libertarian position is especially focused on the state of wars. Libertarians are neither for or against war as an absolute position. Libertarians are for freedom and no unnecessary government intervention in people's affairs.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 30, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> That's just pure feel goodery nonsense. All wars have their pros and cons. The ones that have where the pros outweigh the cons; those are the good wars.
> 
> That said, the last three presidential administrations have had sinister motives and our military endeavors have largely been negative IMO.


It is not feel goodery nonsense.  It is FACT.  War is horrible and what happens when you go to war is one of the travesties of this world.  

The things I described happen to thousands.  The number of people that die unjustly is staggering and it takes mountains to justify such atrocities.  I never stated that no wars should be fought though.  I will NOT call the good wars.  They are not good IMHO, but they were NECESSARY.  WW2 was necessary.  It was horrific as other wars but there was a greater need hanging in the balance.  In that respect, there are wars that MUST be fought. 

The key difference is that these modern wars are not necessities, they are nation building.  When you fight a war, there is no objective outside of killing your enemy.  You worry about rebuilding after, when you are not fighting a war.  Iraq, we never went in there with the intention of utterly destroying our enemy and look where that got us  mired in this bullshit.  The same thing happened in Vietnam.  We held back, tried to fight with other objectives in mind.  War does not go well when you are not willing to put it all on the table.



TheGreatGatsby said:


> I think it's a misnomer to state that the libertarian position is especially focused on the state of wars. Libertarians are neither for or against war as an absolute position. Libertarians are for freedom and no unnecessary government intervention in people's affairs.


Did anyone really make that claim though?  I am against needless war  something that the Rs and Ds are addicted to.  I think that the same could be said of most libertarians.  I dont think many are against ALL war as there are times where fighting ends up being the only real solution.  Most of us are determined that self-defense be a big part of that though rather than aggressive wars.  Afghanistan is an example of that for me.  I believe that was a valid and just war  they struck first and we needed to defend ourselves.  If we just bother to actually fight that war rather than move on and trat that as a sideshow.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> The Libertarian position as provided and clarified has much that is good about it. Where I see the problem is not with genuine Libertarians like yourself but that you are being associated with anarcho-capitalists and other extreme fringe groups who claim to be Libertarians too.
> 
> Unfortunately this "guilt by association" problem is pervasive in politics. All Liberals are vilified because a kid is sent home for wearing an inappropriate t-shirt by some well meaning, if not too bright, teacher. Moderate conservatives are treated as "traitors" because they don't toe the hardline Tea Party stance.
> 
> The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden". This is possible as long as we reject those who are looking to "divide and conquer" as the means to gain political power. The motto of "e pluribus unum" means that combined we are united and capable of greatness. It is a disservice to our children and grandchildren to allow petty differences tear us apart and bring this nation to it's knees.


We all have our extremes.  As said earlier in response to editc, people use those not because that is accurate but because it is easy to justify your own beliefs when you are arguing against a crazy concept.  There is no self-reflection in that and no need to adjust your worldview to assimilate new ideas or challenges.  

I can believe in anarchy as long as I think that all liberals and conservatives want slaves and actually eat babies for lunch every day.  Never mind that it is false, I can get that feel good I am right feeling because I dont actually have to think about how the positions that I am holding are weak, they straw men set up are so bad that they are obviously worse.

Personally, I dont like that way of doing things.  My time here would be an utter waste if that is what I did though there are MANY posters that seem to like that train of thought.  Unfortunately, we all have to deal with the overly extreme within our own political ideologies.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jun 30, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The Libertarian position as provided and clarified has much that is good about it. Where I see the problem is not with genuine Libertarians like yourself but that you are being associated with anarcho-capitalists and other extreme fringe groups who claim to be Libertarians too.
> ...



Some of the most important players in the history of the libertarian movement were anarchists. Were they too "overly extreme" that you would reject them rather than "deal" with them?


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ^^^
> 
> Speaking of semantics. Way to pretend that libertarians are nothings that don't have beliefs with any sort of validity.



YOu are somewhat confused, GG.


 My point was that people calling themselves LIBERTARIANS are have many beliefs.

As to those beliefs having or not having any validity?

That is all on you dude, as I made no such charge regarding their beliefs.

In principle I am a libertarian, sport, and I can assure you I hold that my beliefs are entirely VALID.

Trouble is that my version of libertarianism and yours may not agree on many points.


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



If you are TRULY a devotee of Rand then I need not remind you of the philosophical schism in that school of thought.

And yes one of those factions believes that no government is necessary.

Do feel free to do some reading if you doubt that such "Randians" exist

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...50,d.dmg&fp=9b1e3558ed1bd8da&biw=1920&bih=955


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 30, 2013)

Libertarians know exactly what they believe. That's what happens when you believe in time tested principles. And you're one to talk? Your Republicans positions are fully adjustable to their circumstances and audiences.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 30, 2013)

editec said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^
> ...



Actually, I think libertarian views are quite clear in their construct. Some libertarians are pure libertarians and others just believe or want practice much of the concepts. For instance, a pure libertarian would want to have no government sanctioned marriages. Many libertarians would consider it a time cherished institution and bend and not be against government sanctioned marriage. I don't think I'm quite as hardcore as many. But, I think that the world would be rid of the nonsense in a pure libertarian system.


----------



## Auteur (Jun 30, 2013)

Libertarianism is in the province of naive dreamers, and the not so naive at the upper ends of the business community who hijack such movements for personal gain.

Clearly, those with only self-interest in mind would do better with less regulation and less government. Is it surprising then that political movements that tend toward the far right receive generous help from such groups?

In any society, there is a basic dichotomy between individual rights, and community rights. This is even more pronounced today in our more complex and interconnected world than it was in the past.

Should a person have a right to drive a car anywhere and anytime they like? Why not, nothing wrong with that per se. And if everyone in Manhattan over the age of 16 is now doing so, what do we have? An illustration of the need for government and regulation.

Why should government stick their nose into marriages? It sounds idealistic to be free of any constraints, but in fact there are practicalities involved. If separation occurs, division of assets and child custody can be a messy thing to sort out. Without a legal framework, it would be the strongest taking all.

Lots of coal in the world. From an individuals perspective, it would be tempting to use coal to heat their home, it's cheaper than oil. And as far as that goes, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But what if everyone does this- what happens to global warming, to air pollution? That's why we have government, and myriod laws and regulations, distasteful as that may be to some, who yearn for a  John Wayne western movie type of world, in which wise and self-reliant folks all do the right thing spontaneously.


----------



## Sactowndog (Jun 30, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> All you have to do is go to the Libertarian party website and compare their platform to the other political platform. To summarize the Libertarian Point of View:
> 
> 1.0 Personal Liberty
> 
> ...



I tend to lean Libertarian but I am distressed by their refusal to admit not all markets are well formed and that big businesses often pairs with government to limit people's rights.  Allowing business unfettered ability to act in any manner leaves to enslavement via fiat.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 30, 2013)

First; Libertarians are rarely naive and their platform allows for the state governments to have those powers not denied them by the constitution nor granted to the federal government by the constitution.

Libertarians are not anarchists - they agree with the limitations on the federal government decreed by the constitution and the rights of the states to govern themselves according to the constitution.

The federal and state governments have no control over the rights and freedoms of the individual. That is the way the constitution is laid out. The only way a person can lose their rights or freedom is by breaking the law - basically by abusing rights and freedoms to infringe on or trample the rights and freedoms of others. When a person does that they forfeit their rights until after they serve their time. (the law currently states that after ten years of good citizenship their rights can be restored and I tend to agree with that)

Businesses are not "constitutional individuals" and thus can be controlled by the states. The federal government is not granted that authority by the constitution unless the product or service is sold beyond the states borders.

The constitution only provides limited power to the federal government and only restricts the state governments from interfering in the rights and freedoms of the individual. Beyond that point the states have the power to regulate businesses within their state as the people require. Remember that we have a Republican form of government where the government is supposed to make decisions based on the popular vote as long as it does not interfere with the rights and freedoms of the individual.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 30, 2013)

Well, I am one of the 10% of the population that has never smoked dope or used any illegal drugs and I am a Libertarian. I believe in the constitution and the bill of rights just as most Libertarians do.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 30, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I thought I was clear  we all have to deal with them.

Some of the greatest ideas come from that extreme when tempered with common sense application.  The problem that we face with those on the far edge is getting some to compromise hardline values with actual implementation.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Precisely. The Constitution was the  compromise that this nation was founded upon. Without compromise everything is going backwards. It is time to drop the hardline stances and find common ground again.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jun 30, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



My point, however, is that you act as if the anarchist-wing of libertarianism is essentially a crazy nuisance that libertarians in general would be better off without. When, in many respects, without the anarchists modern libertarianism would look very different. For example, without Murray Rothbard does libertarianism even exist today? He was instrumental in founding the Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, and the Mises Institute. Not to mention all of the people inspired by his ideas, who otherwise might never have become interested at all. Ron Paul would still exist, of course, but without Rothbard there's hardly a framework for Ron Paul to fall back on.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> The Libertarian position as provided and clarified has much that is good about it. Where I see the problem is not with genuine Libertarians like yourself but that you are being associated with anarcho-capitalists and other extreme fringe groups who claim to be Libertarians too.



Interesting, you think the problem is that libertarians are associated with people you do not like. The real problem is that you are still insisting on a definition of libertarianism that is completely divorced from reality. There is no such thing as a real libertarian because no two libertarians agree on 100% of the issues. If we applied that standard to Democrats, for example, they would have to kick the socialists in Minnesota out of the party.



Derideo_Te said:


> Unfortunately this "guilt by association" problem is pervasive in politics. All Liberals are vilified because a kid is sent home for wearing an inappropriate t-shirt by some well meaning, if not too bright, teacher. Moderate conservatives are treated as "traitors" because they don't toe the hardline Tea Party stance.



I have a simple solution for that, stop doing it. If you stop applying different standards to people you disagree with because they associate with people you don't like and start treating them as individuals you will find that you can actually learn from everyone.



Derideo_Te said:


> The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden".



Is that the reality, or just the reality you want?



Derideo_Te said:


> This is possible as long as we reject those who are looking to "divide and conquer" as the means to gain political power. The motto of "e pluribus unum" means that combined we are united and capable of greatness. It is a disservice to our children and grandchildren to allow petty differences tear us apart and bring this nation to it's knees.



Yet you support the most divisive political figure in America since Abraham Lincoln. "E pluribus unum" actually means one from many, it implies that our differences are what give us strength, not us all fitting into the same post partisan utopia. Utopias do not exist, and never will, even if I enjoy imagining them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2013)

editec said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Please point out where I said I was a devotee of anyone.

I do not doubt that there are people who claim to follow Rand who have totally ignored what she actually taught anymore than I believe that there are people who call themselves educated who totally reject the idea that Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. That is not what I said, I said that I have a problem with people, like you, who insist that Rand believed in anarchy, and that anyone who is an objectivist is an anarchist.

That means my problem is with you, not with reality, because you are the one that is insisting you beliefs trump reality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2013)

editec said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Like when you redefine Randian to mean anarchist?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Libertarians are such a mess they dont know what they believe.  It tends to center on being allowed to smoke pot and run businesses.



While there are some libertarians who do not actually know why they believe, I doubt there is anyone who doesn't know what they believe. I think the problem here is you expect every libertarian to believe exactly the same thing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Libertarianism is in the province of naive dreamers, and the not so naive at the upper ends of the business community who hijack such movements for personal gain.
> 
> Clearly, those with only self-interest in mind would do better with less regulation and less government. Is it surprising then that political movements that tend toward the far right receive generous help from such groups?
> 
> ...



Another illustration of people not understanding the concepts that they are actually trying to discuss. The simple fact is that everything you have discussed is covered by the libertarians principle of non aggression. Taken to its ultimate conclusion non aggression actually prohibits all forms of pollution, even smoking in public and having light from your flashlight come onto my property.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 30, 2013)

So there we have it.  Libertarianism believes that business should be free from regulation and coercion.  But they cannot pollute at all. So they will have to be subject to strict regulation to prevent them from infringing on others' rights not to have pollution (which part of the Constitution specifies the right of non pollution?).

This is the problem with libertarianism: everything is based on perceived "rights" that exist nowhere and therefore can be constantly invented.  Eventually all these rights contradict each other and it becomes a free for all with each one claiming the msot right to whatever.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> So there we have it.  Libertarianism believes that business should be free from regulation and coercion.  But they cannot pollute at all. So they will have to be subject to strict regulation to prevent them from infringing on others' rights not to have pollution (which part of the Constitution specifies the right of non pollution?).
> 
> This is the problem with libertarianism: everything is based on perceived "rights" that exist nowhere and therefore can be constantly invented.  Eventually all these rights contradict each other and it becomes a free for all with each one claiming the msot right to whatever.



That is a problem with thinking that libertarians don't understand the issues. There is a lot of debate about the non aggression principle, and how to apply it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 30, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > So there we have it.  Libertarianism believes that business should be free from regulation and coercion.  But they cannot pollute at all. So they will have to be subject to strict regulation to prevent them from infringing on others' rights not to have pollution (which part of the Constitution specifies the right of non pollution?).
> ...



translation: Libertarianism is a muddle.

Pretty much what I maintained at the outset.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 30, 2013)

Yes, this is the CDZ.  I have violated no rules here.

It is relevant because you are attacking libertarian thought when you stand in the same pool.  There is nothing wrong with libertarians having a range of political worldviews as that is actually preferable to complete agreement without real debate.  That does not make libertarianism a &#8216;muddled&#8217; as you claim.  That is a silly argument.  ALL political persuasions have a varied degree of views and libertarianism is no different in that respect.

So far, you have been given several examples of views already, some held by large majorities of libertarians.  Just because you choose not to understand where we are coming for does not mean that the libertarian philosophy is devoid of any positions any more than conservatives are devoid of any positions.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 30, 2013)

There are varied degrees of views and there are different interpretations.  And then there are outright howlers and contradictions.  Libertarianism is filled with the last. as you yourself demonstrated.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 30, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



No more of a muddle than the debate between conservatives is.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 30, 2013)

The libertarian party does not take any stand on issues that are outside the constitutional powers of the federal government. Those issues are best decided by the people in their respective states or by the individuals residing in those states. Look closely at the body of the constitution and the 10th amendment.

The people who belong to the Libertarian Party have the individual freedom, rights and responsibility to make those choices both for themselves and the states. The party defends the rights and freedoms of the individual and of the states.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The libertarian party does not take any stand on issues that are outside the constitutional powers of the federal government. Those issues are best decided by the people in their respective states or by the individuals residing in those states. Look closely at the body of the constitution and the 10th amendment.
> 
> *The people who belong to the Libertarian Party have the individual freedom, rights and responsibility to make those choices both for themselves and the states. The party defends the rights and freedoms of the individual and of the states.*



So is the Libertarian Party "defending" the "individual freedom and rights" of women to "make those choices" regarding issues like abortion "for themselves"?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 30, 2013)

It is not a power granted to the federal government. 
The Libertarians will fight for the rights and freedoms of all citizens


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> It is not a power granted to the federal government.
> The Libertarians will fight for the rights and freedoms of all citizens



Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 30, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> It is not a power granted to the federal government.
> The Libertarians will fight for the rights and freedoms of all citizens



Does that include the unborn?  Do Libertarians support euthanasia, which is certainly outside the fedgov's power?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a power granted to the federal government.
> ...



Libertarians have differing views upon abortions as that's a moral issue. As it is; what you consider 'rights' are not what libertarians consider 'rights.' If someone was paying your house payments, all of the sudden, you'd call that a right.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 30, 2013)

Excuse me, but are libertarians screwing up the system? Oh, that'd be Dems and Republicans. Libertarians follow the Constitution first and foremost. Dems and Republicans do not. Libertarians believe in freedom while Republicans and Democrats think it's perfectly okay to trounce every amendment. 

You're just bitter because the moral wings of your GOP party are migrating to libertarianism. Be bitter, but the migration is on and your party is dying. And all the lies and politics you throw at it, won't change that reality.

For instance, calling libertarianism, Obamaism is as grand of a lie as you can throw out there. This is why Republicans and Democrats are all becoming Repulicrats. Two party system? Try a one party system mascarading as a two party system.


----------



## The2ndAmendment (Jul 1, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> but I can speak for myself and about the majority of libertarians that I know (discounting the anarcho-capitalist ones as I am not clear on the ability for that reality to work)



Anarcho-Capitalism has been proven to work between nations for centuries, because there didn't exist any global government to interfere with the policies between nations, including protective tariffs. Notice that I am personalizing entire nations, I'm not referring to individuals.

The question is whether or not this could work on a local government level or an individual level.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 1, 2013)

Libertarians arent screwing up the system because they exist mostly as an internet phenomenon.  It's easy to sit off away from power and make grand declarations of principles.  Governing is much harder.  WIth a confused system based on "rights" that are nowhere enumerated and lacking answers to basic questions libertarians have bought themselves a place in the gallery of poltical obscurity forever.  Get used to it.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

I guess you've convinced yourself that you're all that. Too bad, there's about as much truth to your belief as libertarianism equaling Obamanism. Republicanism equalling Obamanism is much closer to the truth. Despite their rhetoric, they walk lock step with him on almost everything.

Regarding, these issues that are allegedly not enumerated; actually they're very finitely enumerated. The Constitution very clearly states what powers the federal government has and that the rest are states issues. You just willfully allow yourself to be big brother's puppet in the name of your allegedly small government party that is anything but a small government party. 

And libertarians don't just talk and do what they want. They walk the walk. That's why NM governor, Gary Johnson cut taxes 14 times and raised them never.

You can be mad about libertarians, who actually have values based on something. Or you can continue with your childish us vs. them Republicrat crap while the festering problems perpetuate. And that's all it'll ever be at best for a Republican. But, some of us believe in something and we're not willing to make any more excuses for where we're at. We believe that the Constitution is magnificent when properly adhered to. But, you enjoy your crony government in lieu of that.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 1, 2013)

The trouble with 'freedom' is one never knows what it means for libertarians? I have never heard of any libertarian fighting for freedom for all people. Libertarianism often sounds like an apology for the status quo, 'I got mine...'  My views on libertarianism are well known on the board.  The article quoted at bottom, while a bit OT, is worth a read.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...od-books-on-libertarianism-3.html#post7425296

Libertarian Flame:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html

*"Egalitarians thus differ from libertarians in advocating a more expansive understanding of the social conditions of freedom. Importantly, they view private relations of domination, even those entered into by consent or contract, as violations of individual freedom. Libertarians tend to identify freedom with formal, negative freedom: enjoying the legal right to do what one wants without having to ask anyone else's permission and without interference from others. *This definition of freedom neglects the importance of having the means to do what one wants. In addition, the definition implicitly assumes that, given the material means and internal capacity to do what one wants, the absence of interference from others is all one needs to do what one wants. This ignores the fact that most of the things people want to do require participation in social activities, and hence communication and interaction with others. One cannot do these things if others make one an outcast. A libertarian might argue that freedom of association entails the right of people to refuse to associate with others on any grounds. Yet, a society embodying such an unconditional right hardly needs physical coercion to force others to obey the wishes of those with the power to exclude others from participation in social life. The same point applies to a society in which property is so unequally distributed that some adults live in abject dependence on others, and so live at the mercy of others. Societies that permit the creation of outcasts and subordinate classes can be as repressive as any despotic regime."   'What Is the Point of Equality?'  Elizabeth S. Anderson   What Is the Point of Equality?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> The trouble with 'freedom' is one never knows what it means for libertarians? I have never heard of any libertarian fighting for freedom for all people. Libertarianism often sounds like an apology for the status quo, 'I got mine...'  My views on libertarianism are well known on the board.  The article quoted at bottom, while a bit OT, is worth a read.
> 
> [



Less Government, More Freedom. How hard is that to understand? And libertarians are consistent. For you to assume otherwise is just you playing politics. 

And not 'I Got Mine'; more like 'I don't need you taking mine.' Ninety-nine percent of government is a sham. Libertarians get that a Constitutional framework allowed us the ability to prosper. Everybody else tramples it and then whines that they're being oppressed.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 1, 2013)

It is the only part that speaks of rights, as I said earlier.
I don't "believe in the Constitution."  The COnstitution is not a religion.  I think the Constitution represents the best form of gov't available (or used to anyway).  But it is not based on "rights" of individuals.  It is based on a limited national government answerable to either the people directly or the states as sovereign entities.  It is a political document, not a philosophical one.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

I guess the part in big letters - WE THE PEOPLE in an earlier document, The Declaration of Independence, just  went right over your head. Our country was founded on the rights of the individual. We're not a collective. We never were meant to be a collective. 

The Constitution is the backbone of the system. And yes, that includes the Bill of Rights. If you're unwilling to adhere to it, then you don't deserve your rights. The Constitution is literally the people's document.


----------



## SayMyName (Jul 1, 2013)

In case you missed it...



PaulS1950 said:


> All you have to do is go to the Libertarian party website and compare their platform to the other political platform. To summarize the Libertarian Point of View:
> 
> 1.0 Personal Liberty
> 
> ...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 1, 2013)

The2ndAmendment said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > but I can speak for myself and about the majority of libertarians that I know (discounting the anarcho-capitalist ones as I am not clear on the ability for that reality to work)
> ...



And that is central to that position.  I dont think it can because the power scale is totally different when you start going to the national scale.  People and nations do not resemble each other in any respect at all.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

As long as the federal government operates within the bounds of the Constitution then the sky is the limit. The reality is we are a very corrupt nation now. And the Constitution is written for a nation with enlightened masses; not self glazed morons.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 1, 2013)

And there is the real truth.  Republicans don&#8217;t like libertarians even though the core values are very close simply because they have not sold their values as republicans have.  The I am going to take my ball and go home line is used all the time against libertarians from republicans because they cannot stand the fact that most libertarians refuse to vote for the continued corrupt politicians that keep coming out of the system. 
&#8216;
Where the R&#8217;s have sold out and are now willing to accept any and all lies that the republican party feeds them (while, indecently, acting exactly like the democrats in legislation) the libertarians are no longer willing to take that bullshit.  Unfortunately, as long as republicans are willing to back democrats, nothing is going to change.  Fortunately, more and more of them are refusing to play.  Eve3ntually, the Republican Party will either change or die.  I, for one, can&#8217;t wait for that day.

As a side note, it is funny that Rabbi rails against the reality that the libertarians have no power because they are not getting politicians in power when, in fact, that is how we garner the power in the first place.  There would NEVER be any split or change in the parties if we did as they suggest, vote the ticket because it is better than the other guy.  The more people break away and show that is unacceptable, the more the politicians need to take notice and change or die out.  The ball gains momentum as it rolls along as well.  So, in a way, he is right.  We do not have the influence now to change much BUT it is gaining and this is EXACTLY how we get that power.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 1, 2013)

Sure, but the constitution is NOT an anarcho-capitalist document.  That is a fact\.  It does provide for government and that is counter to anarchy.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 1, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> The trouble with 'freedom' is one never knows what it means for libertarians? I have never heard of any libertarian fighting for freedom for all people. Libertarianism often sounds like an apology for the status quo, 'I got mine...'  My views on libertarianism are well known on the board.  The article quoted at bottom, while a bit OT, is worth a read.



*XXXXXXX*

YOU consider &#8216;freedom&#8217; to be the enforced equality of government.  That is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination.  Libertarians actually fight for freedom, not equality in outcome.  There is a massive difference and the most stark reality is that the libertarians believe that &#8216;equality&#8217; you seek is achieved by brining everyone down to the level of the lowest rather than raising others up.  I believe that history supports that contention.

The idea that libertarians do not fight for freedom for all is false and I doubt that you can find a single libertarian that fight against universal freedom.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 1, 2013)

Well, "Republicans" is a big tent.  Do you mean Republicans like John McCain or do you mean Republicans like Rand Paul?
The truth is that on economic matters Republicans and narco libertarians are almost exactly aligned.  When it comes to social matters the social conservative wing of the GOP is diametrically opposed to the narcos.
Your statement: it is funny that Rabbi rails against the reality that the libertarians have no power because they are not getting politicians in power when, in fact, that is how we garner the power in the first place. Makes no sense.  The national parties are agglomerations of different interests, all of them jockeying for influence within the party. Currently the old Left has the Democratic party in thrall, having beaten out the Clinton moderates.  The old East Coast GOP, the party of Nixon and Rockefeller, mostly has control over the GOP, beating out the West coast Reagan/Goldwater Republicans.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Well, "Republicans" is a big tent.  Do you mean Republicans like John McCain or do you mean Republicans like Rand Paul?
> The truth is that on economic matters Republicans and narco libertarians are almost exactly aligned.  When it comes to social matters the social conservative wing of the GOP is diametrically opposed to the narcos.
> Your statement: it is funny that Rabbi rails against the reality that the libertarians have no power because they are not getting politicians in power when, in fact, that is how we garner the power in the first place. Makes no sense.  The national parties are agglomerations of different interests, all of them jockeying for influence within the party. Currently the old Left has the Democratic party in thrall, having beaten out the Clinton moderates.  The old East Coast GOP, the party of Nixon and Rockefeller, mostly has control over the GOP, beating out the West coast Reagan/Goldwater Republicans.



I'll say it's a big tent. That tends to happen when you're not constricted by silly things like the Constitution.

Actually, on economic matters; Republicans and libertarians are miles apart. Libertarians know that the income tax and social security are unconstitutional. Nor, do libertarians tend to support the Fed Reserve. In fact, I believe there official policy to abolish it.

Now that's a stark difference. Do you know what the difference is between Republicans and Democrats? Not much.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



At no point did I imply that anarchy was a Constitutional construct. At no point to be clear. The Constitution allows for socialism or whatever have you. But, it is to be done at the state level. The compulsive powers that the Federal government has granted unto itself are destructive in their nature. That is why they were have very limited powers. In fact, in the early days of the country, the president had less power than the governor of a state.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 1, 2013)

Additional amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikisource, the free online library


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 1, 2013)

Libertarians may hold personal opinions on matters outside the edict of the powers of the federal government but the party does not take any stand on those matters outside the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution.

The constitution is supported by many documents, one of which is the declaration of independence. It goes to the mind of the founders and provides insight into the document. Even the supreme court uses the declaration and the federalist papers in some of their decisions.


----------



## Circe (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden".



Why not? We may as well consider the impoverished a burden -- I suppose that's what you mean by "less fortunate" though you could consider anyone who got caught for a crime as less fortunate, too, like Bernie Madoff.  The impoverished ARE a burden, obviously. The high crime, the slums, etc. And more of a burden in a liberal society if everyone is expected to pitch in to support them, though that support never fixes their problems, of course.

Libertarians, if I understand correctly, think the poor can be a burden on their own time, not ours. They are responsible for themselves, and if their families or private charities wish to help them in some way, fine, but no government involvement.


----------



## Circe (Jul 1, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> I think it's a misnomer to state that the libertarian position is especially focused on the state of wars. Libertarians are neither for or against war as an absolute position. Libertarians are for freedom and no unnecessary government intervention in people's affairs.




That's not true, is it? Libertarians would be in favor of defensive war, with a government leading that effort. 

The social-work wars, aggressive wars, and foreign power-projection wars of recent decades were none of them defensive wars, however, and were 100% unnecessary. And therefore wrong and immoral.

We did have to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan, but after we lost Tora Bora and he fled, we should have found a way to get out of that sandpit -------------------- or made war on Pakistan, where he actually was all that time. That would have been a reasonable defensive war, hitting Pakistan for sheltering bin Laden, and making sure of killing him, whatever it took. He did bomb New York and planned to do worse.

Bin Laden was the only just, defensive cause for war we have ever had since WWII!! All the many others were totally unnecessary.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden".
> ...



Yup. Exactly true. And while that may sound heartless; it's not. Waste is dramatically cut with government out of the picture. More people are physically, spirituall, emotionally and mentally prosperous and are even more incentivized to care out of gratitude for what they have. Instead, we have a bitter where's mine culture and is self perpetuating nightmare.


----------



## SayMyName (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden".
> ...



Burden is subjective. Under Libertarianism, you are only a burden to those who support you, and in that case, you are not a burden, because they are free to support you. Charity is only charity and goodwill when freely given, not taken by the guns of government.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

Well a libertarian wants the same rights for all worldwide. And since our wars have not generally been about that despite some clever window dressing; I think that libertarians have largely been against most wars. But my point was that libertarians aren't pure pacifists by definition.


----------



## Circe (Jul 1, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The simple fact is that everything you have discussed is covered by the libertarians principle of non aggression. Taken to its ultimate conclusion non aggression actually prohibits all forms of pollution, even smoking in public and having light from your flashlight come onto my property.



That's actually a very interesting issue to me --- the question of what IS "harm." In Libertarianism you should be free as long as what you do doesn't harm others. 

Well, just how tightly does the law, government, etc. define "harm"? There are a lot of great complainers in the world, always calling the law on their neighbors for this reason, that reason, but mainly for the reason that they are bad-tempered and have feelings of entitlement. 

Needs thought.


----------



## Circe (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?



Libertarians aren't a real political party, or even a group organized as much as the Tea Party, so I don't suppose there is a "fight." Libertarianism is more a one by one thing, at this point. 

However, it seems obvious to me that libertarianism includes abortion rights! How could it not? Darn.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?
> ...



Because in the view of many; it's killing a separate life.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



Not intentionally, FA_Q2. The objective of the question is to determine the true extent to which Libertarians are willing to go to stick to their principles. For instance I am opposed to racism in all it's forms but I will uphold the right of white supremacists to say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent I may find it to be. The principle here being the right to free speech. When it comes to the principle of upholding rights then either you do or your don't.

As far as women having access to abortions is concerned they are legal whether you or I agree with them. Since women have that right then I have a duty to uphold their right because failing to do so means that I am surrendering my own rights too. The Libertarian principle is stated as the support of individual rights. Abortion is a right just like all the others that were covered by the 10th amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and for those who feel as you do you are free not to have one. However the principle remains the same and either it must be upheld or it means that you are willing to sacrifice your own rights.

Whatever rights you surrender you are never going to get back. Our right to privacy was taken away by the Patriot Act. How many more of our rights are you willing to give up? Isn't the whole point of being a Libertarian that you uphold individual rights?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



All of that flowery speech to ignore the premise that another person's life is on the line. I mean come on. Use your head.


----------



## Circe (Jul 1, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Libertarians aren't a real political party, or even a group organized as much as the Tea Party, so I don't suppose there is a "fight." Libertarianism is more a one by one thing, at this point.
> ...




It's not a separate life until the life is separate.

As long as the life is not separate from the woman concerned, libertarianism applies. IMO.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



The fetus only has whatever rights the woman concerned is willing to give it pre-viability.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



FYI the term "person" in the legal sense does not apply to a fetus until after it is born. Only at that stage does the "person" have constitutional rights of their own. The State can choose to grant a fetus 3rd trimester rights but it cannot force a woman to sacrifice her life for that of the fetus.

Some women will die if they are denied 3rd trimester abortions. That is something that many anti-choicers prefer to ignore. Are you willing to sacrifice their lives because of a "potential life" that might not even survive the pregnancy?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



According to the law a fetus is not a person. However, not all libertarians agree with that viewpoint.

And we can get into 'exceptions' but that's really a tangent from what you were arguing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> The trouble with 'freedom' is one never knows what it means for libertarians? I have never heard of any libertarian fighting for freedom for all people. Libertarianism often sounds like an apology for the status quo, 'I got mine...'  My views on libertarianism are well known on the board.



You have never heard of Barry Goldwater? Let me guess, you think he was a rich white guy who hated blacks and wanted the government to control everyone.

By the way, if you are all for freedom for everyone why do you support Obamacare, which is the exact opposite of freedom?
I deleted the rest of your post because it, like you, has no idea what the concept of debate is. This thread is where you present a challenge to me to prove  that libertarians have not discussed an issue you think is important, and I prove you wrong. It is not where you come in and copy the same lies you have repeated everywhere else, and then ignore the multiple people that come in and show you that they are lies. If you want to do that go start your own thread in a forum where copying other people's words counts as thinking.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 1, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



So why dont you answer the question, if you know?


----------



## Circe (Jul 1, 2013)

It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues. 

If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.

I'm just starting to read about libertarianism, but surely the rights of women can't be exempt from this political philosophy in favor of enslaving women to some male idea of privileging unborn fetuses or concepti over free women. That's just conservatism a la Santorum, in which women aren't to be allowed either birth control or abortion, because men want to dominate women. That's a pretty awful way to think, IMO, and I'm not going to believe that has anything to do with libertarianism unless my reading shows me differently -- which I don't expect it will.

Experts: am I right? Are abortion rights for women a normal part of libertarianism as you have read?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The simple fact is that everything you have discussed is covered by the libertarians principle of non aggression. Taken to its ultimate conclusion non aggression actually prohibits all forms of pollution, even smoking in public and having light from your flashlight come onto my property.
> ...



Of course it needs thought, and lots of people have thought about it. I think this guy gets into the exceptions and explains why you cannot always say it is wrong to initiate aggression, but he might be going too far in saying that we should ignore the non aggression principle entirely.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Because I don't want to put words into your mouth. But, since you seem to be beckoning me to presume, then I will. You likely think the sixteenth amendment grants the right for the federal government to have an income tax. But, it does not.


----------



## SayMyName (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.
> 
> If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.
> 
> ...



As I have always understood it, and to which I subscribe, in this age of birth control, it is not an issue, really.

Abortion is a persons right. At the same time, a doctor has a right to say, "Yes," or "No."


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The principle of liberty and privacy does not mean people get to commit murder out of the public eye and expect to get away with it. If a libertarian thinks it is murder to abort a child then they are being principled when they oppose it. Just because their principles are different than yours does not mean they are not principled, something even you should understand.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



That is what makes it interesting, I fully believe that a inborn baby is a separate life. Strangely enough, I am pretty sure you believe the same thing, and would be willing to support murder charges if someone killed a baby that the mother wanted 30 minutes before the delivery of the baby. The only real question is, when does it become a separate life. Science tells me that life starts before birth, not after it, so I will play it safe and push it back further than that just to be safe.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Women do not give people rights anymore than governments do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



For your information, the word person is a legal concept that applies to the fetus whenever the courts say it does. It is entirely possible for the court to treat a fetus as a person under one circumstance, and turn around and declare the same fetus, at the same gestation point, is not a person under others.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.
> 
> If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.
> 
> ...



In theory they should be but it appears as though in practice this is not the case. Standing on principle is easier said than done. It is always the difficult choices that separate the sheep from the goats. No offense intended by that figure of speech.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.
> 
> If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.
> 
> ...



It's funny how you're putting these spins on it like 'religious structures' or 'conservative moralism.' It's simple. When did libertarians only start believing 2/3 of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If you believe that a fetus is a life then you are honor bound to protect him or her. That life deserves the same rights as everyone else, does it not? 

If you're arguing that people are only responsible for their own actions because its their bodies then by all means, child abandonment would be justifiable based upon not wanting to put stress upon one's body. 

Being libertarian doesn't mean that you have to forget that we have basic inherent humanitarian obligations to one another.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 1, 2013)

As this thread demonstrates too well there is no debating a belief system that like communism or socialism are idealized versions of a political and social system. Libertarians believe, same as the communist or socialist or whatever believe. How much for instance is too much regulation, or how big should government be, or what does freedom mean when you cannot find a decent job. In the end there is no simple answer and libertarianism offers none either. Vague pronouncements about freedom are meaningless outside of social reality. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50564-libertarianism-in-a-nutshell-ii.html

A few more links for the doubters: 

"Libertarians believe, therefore, that we are singularly inept as a group. Assuming for a moment that the proposition is true-- there is a lot of evidence for it -- *a cynic would propose that the reason we are collectively incompetent is that we are individually incompetent as well....*Libertarians, however, are optimists. I cannot fault them for this; I have written elsewhere about the importance of optimism in any human scheme, even to the point of self-deception. Nonetheless, libertarians assume, as most people do, that there is a way out of any given dilemma; their self-deception may consist of believing that what we cannot accomplish collectively, we can more effectively do individually." Why I Am Not a Libertarian

*"The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected.* There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument...The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all..." Why is libertarianism wrong?

"Libertarianism is a philosophy of individual freedom. Or so its adherents claim. But with their single-minded defense of the rights of property and contract, *libertarians cannot come to grips with the systemic denial of freedom in private regimes of power, particularly the workplace.* When they do try to address that unfreedom, as a group of academic libertarians calling themselves Bleeding Heart Libertarians have done in recent months, they wind up traveling down one of two paths: Either they give up their exclusive focus on the state and become something like garden-variety liberals or they reveal that they are not the defenders of freedom they claim to be." Let It Bleed: Libertarianism and the Workplace ? Crooked Timber


"Libertarians - anarchists who want the police to protect them from their slaves."  Kim Stanley Robinson


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.
> ...



Exactly what "liberty" does a fetus have? If a pregnant women commits a heinous crime must she remain free because imprisoning her would deny her fetus the right to "liberty'?

Furthermore the fetus is incapable of "life" pre-viability. The woman is the one who is providing the fetus the means of "life". That you see it as having an "independent life" all its' own with separate constitutional rights is going to result in some serious unintended legal consequences.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2013)

Circe said:


> It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.
> 
> If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.
> 
> ...



Really? What if I provided you with scientific proof that life begins at 13 weeks, 3 days, 6 hours after conception? Would it be conservative moralism to insist that the baby has all the same rights as an adult at that point? 

(Not: I do not have proof of that, I just pulled the number out of the air.)

It is a difference of opinion on how to apply the non aggression principle to a life that cannot speak for itself. There are atheists who oppose abortion, this is not a religious issue to everyone.

https://www.facebook.com/AtheistsAgainstAbortion


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



Not according to doctors.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 1, 2013)

Ooo - The evil big business argument. As if they come close to a corrupt government. If people don't like big business, they can stop buying the product. Big government has the power to oppress. Just look at state of medicine. The prices are artificially high due to government laws; not big business. I guarantee you that medicine was never meant to be one-fifth of the economy. But, once you erase market options and insert these phony underpayments that everyone has to pay, that's why it's all messed up; and all at the hands of government pretending they're regulating their 'fairness.'


----------



## Misty (Jul 2, 2013)

Circe said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?
> ...



I believe libertarians are pro choice but only because they believe in less government control of the individual. 

I hate abortion but I do believe a woman should have the right to choose. 

I also believe that true feminists would want to be in charge of and PAY for their own birth control cuz that's a choice too.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 2, 2013)

^^^
Actually. Corporations have all those things b/c politicians are bought and paid for (IE Big government). Without their political favors, they'd have to operate on the level; just like the rest of us.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 2, 2013)

Ron Paul was a hardcore warrior for 30 years. And Gary Johnson lowered taxes 14 times while never raising them. You got any more nonsense to spew? Or will that be all for today?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 2, 2013)

Ron Paul consistently traded his ideology for votes and show did Johnson. what did you forget about all the pork they loved

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 2, 2013)

The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the USA.
It has had members elected to congress in some states and to the US congress.
There have been Libertarian governors as well.
The Libertarian party has as its platform the constitution - whether it is the state constitution or the federal constitution they follow the constitutional limits on government and taxation.
They allow each individual to have their own opinions on topics not associated with the respective constitution. The Party does not try to influence issues other than those that are provided for in the constitution because that is the privy of the people and not the government.
For more information that is both informative and accurate see:

Our History | Libertarian Party


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 2, 2013)

You could be sure if you took the time to visit the party's website listed above.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 3, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Ron Paul consistently traded his ideology for votes and show did Johnson. what did you forget about all the pork they loved



Love?

RP was clear that the people elected him to serve their interests. If the federal government syphons millions of your dollars away, of course your going to try to get some of it back.

Meanwhile, republicrats like you support guys like Rick Santorum who take big pharma money to jack up prices. Don't pretend like you care about the waste.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Not intentionally, FA_Q2. The objective of the question is to determine the true extent to which Libertarians are willing to go to stick to their principles. For instance I am opposed to racism in all it's forms but I will uphold the right of white supremacists to say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent I may find it to be. The principle here being the right to free speech. When it comes to the principle of upholding rights then either you do or your don't.
> 
> As far as women having access to abortions is concerned they are legal whether you or I agree with them. Since women have that right then I have a duty to uphold their right because failing to do so means that I am surrendering my own rights too. The Libertarian principle is stated as the support of individual rights. Abortion is a right just like all the others that were covered by the 10th amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and* for those who feel as you do you are free not to have one. * However the principle remains the same and either it must be upheld or it means that you are willing to sacrifice your own rights.
> 
> Whatever rights you surrender you are never going to get back. Our right to privacy was taken away by the Patriot Act. How many more of our rights are you willing to give up? Isn't the whole point of being a Libertarian that you uphold individual rights?





Derideo_Te said:


> Given that you have not provided a legitimate basis for Libertarians to forego their principle of upholding individual rights in this regard must we assume that you are now conceding the point?


First, you seems to be unaware of how *I* actually feel about this which is strange considering I am in another thread coving this exact subject with you.  This was a discussion on libertarian thought on the matter.  I may be a libertarian BUT I do not speak for them all and there was a variety that I covered in my post.

As has been stated, they are not forgoing their principal one iota.  As a matter of fact, they are adhering to it.  You still have refused to acknowledge that there is another party here that is involved and there are rights for the unborn that need to be taken into account for those that believe the unborn to be another person.  Further, this right that you speak of is not a right in that sense anyway.  It was a mandate by the court that itself did NOT recognize that a mother has a blanket right to abort.  AGAIN, this is NOT a libertarian/left/right issue.  There are SPECIFIC personal beliefs that factor in here across the entire spectrum.  By claiming that libertarians not supporting abortion rights are sheep rather than goats is an attempt to cram YOUR personal beliefs into the libertarian concept.  

QW pointed out, correctly, that if you feel abortion is the murder of a child then it simply goes without saying that it would not be allowed.  Further, it is worthy to point out that the vast majority of libertarians DO see this as a tenth amendment concept to be taken care of by the states as you pointed out the tenth applies.  I have a feeling though that you would still call that breaking their values if the state did ban abortion.  Again, it needs to be stated that most libertarians are actually pro-choice even giving the above BUT it must be stated that such a stance is not really related to political ideology but much more closely related to personal beliefs about personhood.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 3, 2013)

Circe said:


> It seems to me abortion rights are one of the clearest libertarian issues.
> 
> If someone decides against the rights of the living person, the woman, that can't possibly be libertarianism! It would be conservative moralism, right? Or religious strictures from some particular faith.
> 
> ...


First, the bold is off base.  That has nothing to do with the pro-life movement.  That is simply how the pro-choice movement puts it in order to demonize the opposition.  Please do not stoop to that level.

Second, even with the demonization, you are correct that the pro-life stance has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism.  It is a rare stance within the movement anyway because of the opposition against federal power though you will find more that think the states themselves should ban the practice.  Either way, that is not a libertarian stance but a personal one that has no conflict with libertarianism depending on how the individual views and treats life.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 3, 2013)

Circe said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The simple fact is that everything you have discussed is covered by the libertarians principle of non aggression. Taken to its ultimate conclusion non aggression actually prohibits all forms of pollution, even smoking in public and having light from your flashlight come onto my property.
> ...


This is why harm is a really crappy term to use in this situation.  The reality is that harm is FAR too subjective in that manner.  I prefer, and have always used, infringe on rights rather than harm.  That term, while referring to a MASSIVE number of things, is quite a bit less fuzzy.


----------



## SayMyName (Jul 3, 2013)

It's best just to go an read their own works and the website of the Party itself. Libertarians can be found active in both major parties, and voting this or that way because of stands on economic or social issues, but, for the most part, it is only because their feelings on the choices between two perceived evils that in fact make up one huge Demo-Republican cabal.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 3, 2013)

Actually, it's a very realistic statement. Politics is a big money sport now. There may be just a handful of Congressmen who are fresh and idealistic and not so tainted. But, that's it. Senators, you bet your ass they're corrupt. They didn't get to where they are by being anything but shrewd. 

Look at the perpetual problems that we have. Do you think they'd be so bad if the Congress was upright? In fact, the public every so often gets so sick of it and buys into that 'small govt' line the Republican feed them. Then they do nothing and lose power the very next cycle an then the Dems do another decade or so of all the nonsense they want while Republicans cry about how corrupt they are while voting for virtually all their nonsense. You don't get the game yet? You really have faith in Republicans? Oh, you're ever so useful to Republicans.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 3, 2013)

Not really. Bush/Obama has mimmicked Hoover/FDR on a great many levels. And Lincoln was really a Reagan. Did some 'heroic' things while stomping the Constitution but otherwise being a memorable, charismatic Republican leader.

What has changed? Weaponry is much more deadly. Technology is much more intrusive despite its great helpfulness. 

I'd say the biggest change is corruption. Just within the last 30 years, we've seen this country go from at least fairly honorable to perhaps the most corrupt nation. That's a reflection of our amoral society. The apathy of our culture has hit a pinnacle. It used to be that at least a few weeds were rooted out and it was a cautionary tale. But now, it's cart blanche. And even the villains ultimately end up being heroes. And heroes are villainized. These be perilous times for sure.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

Abortion should not even be up for legislative discussion. It's a moral and ethical issue left exclusively to the doctor and the patient relationship. Libertarians aren't in agreement on this, however. Plenty of them object to the notion with discussion of laws in place regarding the issue.


----------



## Circe (Jul 3, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Abortion should not even be up for legislative discussion. It's a moral and ethical issue left exclusively to the doctor and the patient relationship. Libertarians aren't in agreement on this, however. Plenty of them object to the notion with discussion of laws in place regarding the issue.




Well said. I suggest this is impolitic for Libertarians to get into: libertarianism is on the rise due to the real collapse of the GOP, and they could eat the Republicans' lunch if they scoop up the fleeing women who are looking for somewhere politically to stand that ISN'T socialist. The GOP is throwing us away, and we're the majority: this could be libertarians' moment of opportunity.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

And...it should not be. There is no way to create a law to stop abortion and that's the only position legislatively that there is. Otherwise, there is no issue. 

I can be against abortion and also be agaisnt legislating abortion laws. Because the reality is, someone will perform them regardless. And it takes a significant bend in logic to find any reason to force people on something they will do regardless. Take drugs for instance. How is that illegal status working out? We have jails filled to the brim with vistimless crimes and yet, people still grow/manufacture/sell/use drugs.

It's an argument lost a long time ago.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 3, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Abortion should not even be up for legislative discussion. It's a moral and ethical issue left exclusively to the doctor and the patient relationship. Libertarians aren't in agreement on this, however. Plenty of them object to the notion with discussion of laws in place regarding the issue.



Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 3, 2013)

That's sort of (my) point. Many libertarians don't see abortion as victimless.


----------



## Circe (Jul 3, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.



Are they pro-life for themselves, or against other people they don't know?

That is, do they have a moral position for themselves, or are they trying to force other people with laws? 

The latter doesn't sound libertarian to me.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion should not even be up for legislative discussion. It's a moral and ethical issue left exclusively to the doctor and the patient relationship. Libertarians aren't in agreement on this, however. Plenty of them object to the notion with discussion of laws in place regarding the issue.
> ...



I know. I happen to be one of them in defense of life. However, I do not believe that the issue will ever be resolved. Therefore, it should not be up for legislation. At the very best, let the citizens of a statee or locale decide if they will allow them. Some will, some wont and those who want/need to have one can have it done in places where they aren't barred. People that are heavily invested in the issue who are in an area that performs them have options too. It is never going to get any better than that. Period.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 3, 2013)

Circe said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.
> ...



It's 100 percent libertarian if that person believes that fetuses have the same rights as any other child. We've already proven that fetuses feel pain.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

Circe said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.
> ...



Exactly right. You can have a position on the issue and realize that forcing others is only going to lead to more conflict. I can stand right here and say my piece and those who have a different stance can have their way too.

Then the issue is best left up to the individual and the doctor.That also means that govt. isnt funding abortion clinics with taxpayer money either. They stand on their own merits.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 3, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



I f'ing hate the issue to be honest. But I'd be more pissed if it wasn't for the fact stupid people are aborting the most fetuses. I mean, I'm pretty Libertarian. But, there's something to be said for Darwinism.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I completely agree. Abortion is one issue I absolutely despise, It's a double edged sword and there is no winning it from any position that I can see. Hence, I'm of the stance that it's best left to the doctor adn the patient.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 3, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



there is a position you win by... thats the position of not wanting innocent life snuffed out.


----------



## Circe (Jul 3, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> It's 100 percent libertarian if that person believes that fetuses have the same rights as any other child. We've already proven that fetuses feel pain.




That would be a pretty silly belief, however, given that a fetus, unlike a child, is attached by a placenta to a woman and is wholly dependent on her body. A child could be given to you to take care of.

You being given fetuses to take care of would not work well. 

So probably it's not the same thing as a "child."

If you can't take care of the situation yourself, it's probably not your business. 

What about birth control? Do you believe women don't have a right to stop potential citizens from being conceived and implanted?

Why are some so-called libertarians so eager to plaster laws all over womens' bodies? And only women. Otherwise, they're all for Freedom!! For men, that is.

Never mind, rhetorical question, it's the usual attempt to oppress and dominate women, and it's why libertarianism probably won't go anywhere after all. I was hoping, but. Some libertarians are indistinguishable from fat, male, white, old, Southern state lawmakers.


Not that there's anything wrong with that............


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 3, 2013)

How is not wanting innocent babies to die oppressing and dominating women? I sure as hell am not allowed to kill someone what makes her different?.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

And thats the crux of the entire argument. Is the fetus a citizen and thus protected by the law and as such, is abortion murder. Well, from a biological standpoint, even the most well versed doctors and others hold different perspectives on it. Is there a time frame when a fetus is grown enough to be considered a person? Does the woman have any say over her body?

This is the argument that goes round like a record and in the end, it's slashed into two groups (and those who hold no position). They will be doing a legal tango over the issue for many decades to come under the current circumstances.

It's best left to the state. I'd prefer leaving it to the doctor/patient relationship. It's a complex issue with no certainty in any direction. My only gripe is when government uses tax dollars to fund clinics who perform them.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 3, 2013)

Can you come up with one such law that is tenable that would be the example of &#8216;oppressing&#8217; men as you claim they are doing to women.

I think a valuable point here is nature has called and made that determination.  Women have the babies.  Simple as that and if we are to protect those babies then those laws are going to affect women.  There really is nothing to be done about that.

I can think of a single law though and it is right down this ally.  If a woman chooses not to have an abortion THEN the man is screwed.  He has ZERO choice in the matter.  For the next 18 years, he is legally bound to care for that child or pay the woman.  

If the man wants an &#8216;abortion&#8217; or to be disconnected from the child there is no options for him while the woman simply gets to abort the child.  Further, if he really wants the child and the woman decides she does not, oh well.  Better luck next time.  So yes, there are laws that exist right now that &#8216;opress&#8217; the man and FORCE the man to carry a financial burden for the child that he does not want to be enslaved to for 18 years against his will.  

And you know why that law exists for him while the mother gets off with an abortion and no consequence for it: basic biology.  She has the child in her body and he does not, she gets that call where he gets 18 years without any choice in the matter.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 3, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> I f'ing hate the issue to be honest. But I'd be more pissed if it wasn't for the fact stupid people are aborting the most fetuses. I mean, I'm pretty Libertarian. But, there's something to be said for Darwinism.



Unfortunately, Idiocracy is closer to the truth than I would like to admit.  Abortion does not balance that reality by a million leagues.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Why are some so-called libertarians so eager to plaster laws all over womens' bodies? And only women. Otherwise, they're all for Freedom!! For men, that is.
> ...



A solid point.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 3, 2013)

Circe said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Plenty of libertarians are pro-life. Plenty.
> ...



You do know that the libertarian party is extremely pro abortion right?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

what i am saying is that I find it uniquely ironic that neocons are pro-life and also pro foreign entaglements talking about protecting life. it's like being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty or vice versa.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

LP Chair: Not Pro-Life or Pro-Choice but Individual Choice | Libertarian Party

LP Chair: Not Pro-Life or Pro-Choice but Individual Choice
posted by Staff on Apr 20, 2012 
WASHINGTON - In response to the abortion restrictions signed into law in Arizona this month, Libertarian Party Chair, Mark Hinkle, issued the following statement:

&#8220;Like so many others, Libertarians wrestle with the moral issues associated with abortion.  While our party includes a significant number of people who describe themselves as pro-choice, nearly as many members describe themselves as pro-life.  In my own view, however, there is no conflict: the best way to respect life is to prevent government from interfering with individual rights.



1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 3, 2013)

Abortion does not only affect woman. FAQ2 even provided example of how the laws can and do involve a man's choices too. Otherwise, you seem to be of the stance that men believe women to be subhuman or subordinates. That may be true of some, but your broad brush strokes lend you nothing in your argument. Which appears to be moving away from the libertarian belief on abortion and into a whole new realm.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 3, 2013)

It is strictly a male v female fight? You should tell the Susan B Anthony List, they have the ridiculous idea that some women are pro life.

National Pro-Life Women Leaders | SBA-List


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 3, 2013)

You do know that some of those "bad laws" are actually proposed by women, don't you?

By the way, what makes a law that prohibits people like Gosnell from being able to kill babies who are born alive bad?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 3, 2013)

Making laws that punish people who violate other people's rights may not sound libertarian, but it is probably better than allowing blood feuds.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 3, 2013)

Sure BUT rights can be defined.  &#8216;Hurt&#8217; cannot as that is a subjective term that affects everyone differently.  That is why rights are better.  They are not subjective as they are universal to all people.

That does not solve all the problems with defining and setting lines but it does clear up the inherent ambiguity that comes with an internal word like hurt.


----------



## Circe (Jul 4, 2013)

What about the problem of "harm"?  We know a lot of people carry on with tremendous assertions of entitlement about the supposed harm others are doing to them while they live their normal lives -- second-hand smoke, light pollution, noise pollution, livestock getting loose ---- I once had a guy come over here shrieking up at the window because a little peachick no bigger than a young hen got on his lawn; I ate him up and ran him off. A friend of mine had a neighbor come over bitterly complaining about her chickens supposedly getting on their lawn --- turned out it was wild turkeys from the forest. There's a lot of people who are just mean.

It's a real problem when people get weird about claiming other people are harming them in ways the majority would not think was a harm.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 4, 2013)

To the OP... the problem with naming a thing is that when the name becomes successful, divisive forces will hide under their banner to give themselves cover.  Socialist, Marxist, Anarchists, ... if people don't get their way under their chosen world view they will just pretend to join the enemy and then redefine their enemies stated goals as their own.  

Is it no wonder then that Constitutional Conservative Capitalists (Americans) have no group.  Americans are left to run from party to party looking for any party that will defend their right to life and liberty.  The libertarians start getting just a bit of momentum.. and boom out come the anarchists to insist that liberty requires anarchy... boom out come the authoritarians of the democrat and republican parties to declare all libertarians as nut cases...

Create a group call the tea party that extolls a return of our Constitutional  Rights.. and boom out come the vile scum that change the name to a sex act, and declare that the tea party group as Neo-Nazis and Racists.  Why?  In part because the neo-nazis and racists do their best to subvert and take over any movement, but mostly because the authoritarians are making up lies to provide cover for their income stream and vile acts they are perpetrating on the American people.


----------



## Circe (Jul 4, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Wow Circe, I put it to you that those people you are talking about are not men. They may have the right parts, but just being "male" does not make a person a man.



Well said, and of course I appreciate your saying that.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 4, 2013)

because you don't wish to pick sides does not mean you are superior it just means you can't make up your own damn mind

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2013)

There is no law anywhere, even in all the laws against abortion, that actually requires a woman to raise a child. It is perfectly legal for a woman to walk out of a hospital and leave the baby in the maternity ward if she decides she doesn't want to have anything to do with him.

There is, on the other hand, no corresponding law that enables a man who gets a woman pregnant off the hook if he decides he does not want a child. These laws, which you claim are unfair to women because they were written by men, are clearly biased against men, even though they were written by men.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 4, 2013)

Except in the rare criminal case, both men and women have full choice of whether to risk a pregnancy resulting from their, um, pleasurable activities.   And, in my opinion, both bear equal responsibility for the care, security, education etc. of any offspring that result as they both accepted the risk.

The woman's responsibility is a bit different since she is the only one who can become pregnant.  In the pure libertarian world, the choice to risk or become pregant should be her choice and her choice alone, but once she makes the choice and a pregancy occurs, there are two lives involved and not hers alone.

However, if the law allows her to relinquish all parental rights to the child she gives birth to and hand him/her over to others to care for, the same right should be afforded the father.  If the woman expects help from the father, she needs to be very careful and selective about who she risks pregnancy with.    

And either who relinquish personal responsibility for the life they created should sign away their parental rights once and for all and forever.  That allows a loving couple to adopt that child without fear and without stress to them and the child if the birth parents have a change of heart.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 4, 2013)

You're welcome numan.  What I described is exactly the way it was before the federal government started meddling in the process including making single motherhood profitable for so many and before our court system became so corrupted.   But it must take talent to interpret it as an opium dream without realism.


----------



## Intense (Jul 4, 2013)

*Just a reminder. Zone 1 Posting Rules apply here. No Name Calling, No Flaming. Try to stay on topic. Thanks. *


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 5, 2013)

Intense said:


> *Just a reminder. Zone 1 Posting Rules apply here. No Name Calling, No Flaming. Try to stay on topic. Thanks. *



then you should move it so we can freely speak the truth about the libertarian movement.


----------



## Circe (Jul 5, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



This point doesn't make a lot of sense in context, because it seems to be pro-abortion for the benefit of men --- whereas the argument has generally been anti-abortion, again because that's what men want.

However, how would you deal with this sort of issue as a Libertarian? The guy who knocked her up wants her to have an abortion; she won't, and so the State sticks him with child support for the next 18 years.


----------



## Circe (Jul 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> There is no law anywhere, even in all the laws against abortion, that actually requires a woman to raise a child. It is perfectly legal for a woman to walk out of a hospital and leave the baby in the maternity ward if she decides she doesn't want to have anything to do with him.



That's not true. That's why the police are always looking for women who abandon babies. You can't do that; it's against the law.

Well, for women. Men abandon their babies all the time, of course.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > *Just a reminder. Zone 1 Posting Rules apply here. No Name Calling, No Flaming. Try to stay on topic. Thanks. *
> ...



If you can't speak the truth without insulting people it probably isn't the truth.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Oh I can do just that but can people handle the truth without being insulted???? that is the real question. I have found most libertarians have thin skins like progressives.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2013)

Circe said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > There is no law anywhere, even in all the laws against abortion, that actually requires a woman to raise a child. It is perfectly legal for a woman to walk out of a hospital and leave the baby in the maternity ward if she decides she doesn't want to have anything to do with him.
> ...



Did you not read what I actually said? I am not talking about dumping the baby in a dumpster and walking away, I said she could walk out of the hospital and leave it in the maternity ward. Every single state has a safe haven law, and the women hating state of Texas was the first one to pass one.

Speaking of Texas, did you know that anti abortion law that was recently filibustered there was written by a woman?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



That is because progressives are the exact opposite of libertarians. They prefer state power to individual liberty, and are willing to sacrifice others in order to make their version of the world wins out.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So that means they both have thin skins?????  They are not like progressives you think except that they both hate the US military and want drugs hookers and abortion legal and easy to get. You want to know the real difference between the two? It isn't taxes... Its one want one monolithic government the other want several powerful governments ... yet each think they know what better for everyone. Now all libertarians may not be like this yet the party is.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Progressives don't hate the US military at all. They understand that the military is in the business of destruction rather than construction. The military should only ever be used as a last resort as opposed to the GOP who believe that the use of force is the only approach to every problem no matter what it might be.

Libertarians remind me of an old saying about the Irish.  They don't fully understand what it is that they actually want but they are willing to die fighting for it.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



There seems to be an implication that libertarians are war hawks and that 'progressives' (not that there is such a thing) are not. Sorry bro, but Dems are at the heart of our wars. Meanwhile, the likes of Ron Paul have been saying to get the f out of all of these phony wars and military interventions.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 5, 2013)

Circe said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Because you are still demanding that we examine this issue from the slanted (and completely incorrect) view that it centers around bad men that only want to enslave women.

Again and again I have stated why that is untrue, given examples and even pointed out that there are women in this issue on both sides (and another poster even points out that a law written by such a woman).  

If you look at this objectively from the standpoint where legislators are simply trying to deal with a VERY difficult problem when they are asked to balance the right of a new person of life and the right for a woman to control her own body it stops conflicting entirely.  Legislators are balancing those rights (at least the ones that are not trying to outright ban abortions altogether) and that means there are some points where a woman simply has no more options to abort (post 20 week bans on abortion for instance) and the reality that a man, who does not actually carry the child, is simply going to have to deal with the subjugation as he was a part of creating that life and has obligations to it.

You are the one that is saying that somehow the legislation must be fair and that there cannot be any enslavement of the woman while ignoring the fact that the man is not only enslaved here but has NO say in it whatsoever.  At the end of the day, we simply must acknowledge that men are NOT the same as women.  They are going to have slightly different responsibilities as one is biologically ties to birth and the other is not.  There is nothing that we can do about that, it is biological reality.  The man has no say in abortion; the woman has to deal with certain restrictions on abortion.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Are you sure you want to stick with that version of the facts?

1900  China. May 24 to September 28. Boxer Rebellion American troops participated in operations to protect foreign lives during the Boxer uprising, particularly at Peking. For many years after this experience a permanent legation guard was maintained in Peking, and was strengthened at times as trouble threatened.[RL30172]

1901  Colombia (State of Panama). November 20 to December 4. (See: Separation of Panama from Colombia) US forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances.[RL30172]

1902  Colombia.  April 16 to 23. US forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war.[RL30172]
1902  Colombia (State of Panama). September 17 to November 18. The United States placed armed guards on all trains crossing the Isthmus to keep the railroad line open, and stationed ships on both sides of Panama to prevent the landing of Colombian troops.[RL30172]

1903  Honduras. March 23 to 30 or 31. US forces protected the American consulate and the steamship wharf at Puerto Cortes during a period of revolutionary activity.[RL30172]
1903  Dominican Republic. March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak.[RL30172]
1903  Syria. September 7 to 12. US forces protected the American consulate in Beirut when a local Muslim uprising was feared.[RL30172]
190304  Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Twenty-five Marines were sent to Abyssinia to protect the US Consul General while he negotiated a treaty.[RL30172]
190314  Panama. US forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21, 1914 to guard American interests.[RL30172]

1904  Dominican Republic. January 2 to February 11. American and British naval forces established an area in which no fighting would be allowed and protected American interests in Puerto Plata and Sosua and Santo Domingo City during revolutionary fighting.[RL30172]
1904  Tangier, Morocco. "We want either Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." A squadron demonstrated to force release of a kidnapped American. Marines were landed to protect the consul general.[RL30172]
1904  Panama. November 17 to 24. U.S forces protected American lives and property at Ancon at the time of a threatened insurrection.[RL30172]
190405  Korea. January 5, 1904, to November 11, 1905. A guard of Marines was sent to protect the American legation in Seoul during the Russo-Japanese War.[RL30172]

190609  Cuba. September 1906 to January 23, 1909. US forces sought to protect interests and re-establish a government after revolutionary activity.[RL30172]

1907  Honduras. March 18 to June 8. To protect American interests during a war between Honduras and Nicaragua, troops were stationed in Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortes, San Pedro Sula, Laguna and Choloma.[RL30172]

1910  Nicaragua. May 19 to September 4, 1910. Occupation of Nicaragua U.S. forces protected American interests at Bluefields.[RL30172]

1911  Honduras. January 26. American naval detachments were landed to protect American lives and interests during a civil war in Honduras.[RL30172]

1911  China. As the Tongmenghui-led Xinhai Revolution approached, in October an ensign and 10 men tried to enter Wuchang to rescue missionaries but retired on being warned away, and a small landing force guarded American private property and consulate at Hankow. Marines were deployed in November to guard the cable stations at Shanghai; landing forces were sent for protection in Nanking, Chinkiang, Taku and elsewhere.[RL30172]

1912  Honduras. A small force landed to prevent seizure by the government of an American-owned railroad at Puerto Cortes. The forces were withdrawn after the United States disapproved the action.[RL30172]
1912  Panama. Troops, on request of both political parties, supervised elections outside the Panama Canal Zone.[RL30172]
1912  Cuba. June 5 to August 5. U.S. forces protected American interests in the province of Oriente and in Havana.[RL30172]
1912  China. August 24 to 26, on Kentucky Island, and August 26 to 30 at Camp Nicholson. U.S. forces protected Americans and American interests during the Xinhai Revolution.[RL30172]
1912  Turkey. November 18 to December 3. U.S. forces guarded the American legation at Constantinople during the First Balkan War[RL30172]
191225  Nicaragua. August to November 1912. U.S. forces protected American interests during an attempted revolution. A small force, serving as a legation guard and seeking to promote peace and stability, remained until August 5, 1925.[RL30172]
191241  China. The disorders which began with the overthrow of the dynasty during Kuomintang rebellion in 1912, which were redirected by the invasion of China by Japan, led to demonstrations and landing parties for the protection of U.S. interests in China continuously and at many points from 1912 on to 1941. The guard at Peking and along the route to the sea was maintained until 1941. In 

1927, the United States had 5,670 troops ashore in China and 44 naval vessels in its waters. In 1933 the United States had 3,027 armed men ashore. The protective action was generally based on treaties with China concluded from 1858 to 1901.[RL30172]

1913  Mexico. September 5 to 7. A few marines landed at Ciaris Estero to aid in evacuating American citizens and others from the Yaqui Valley, made dangerous for foreigners by civil strife.[RL30172]

1914  Haiti. January 29 to February 9, February 20 and 21, October 19. Intermittently U.S. naval forces protected American nationals in a time of rioting and revolution.[RL30172] The specific order from the Secretary of the Navy to the invasion commander, Admiral William Deville Bundy, was to "protect American and foreign" interests.[citation needed]

1914  Dominican Republic. June and July. During a revolutionary movement, United States naval forces by gunfire stopped the bombardment of Puerto Plata, and by threat of force maintained Santo Domingo City as a neutral zone.[RL30172]
191417  Mexico. Tampico Affair led to Occupation of Veracruz, Mexico. Undeclared Mexican-American hostilities followed the Tampico Affair and Villa's raids . Also Pancho Villa Expedition)  an abortive military operation conducted by the United States Army against the military forces of Francisco "Pancho" Villa from 1916 to 
1917 and included capture of Vera Cruz. On March 19, 1915 on orders from President Woodrow Wilson, and with tacit consent by Venustiano Carranza General John J. Pershing led an invasion force of 10,000 men into Mexico to capture Villa.[RL30172]

191534  Haiti. July 28, 1915, to August 15, 1934. United States occupation of Haiti 19151934 US forces maintained order during a period of chronic political instability.[RL30172] During the initial entrance into Haiti, the specific order from the Secretary of the Navy to the invasion commander, Admiral William Deville Bundy, was to "protect American and foreign" interests.[citation needed]

1916  China. American forces landed to quell a riot taking place on American property in Nanking.[RL30172]

191624  Dominican Republic. May 1916 to September 1924. Occupation of the Dominican Republic American naval forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.[RL30172]

1917  China. American troops were landed at Chungking to protect American lives during a political crisis.[RL30172]
191718  World War I. On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war with Germany and on December 7, 1917, with Austria-Hungary. Entrance of the United States into the war was precipitated by Germany's submarine warfare against neutral shipping and the Zimmermann Telegram.[RL30172]
191722  Cuba. U.S. forces protected American interests during insurrection and subsequent unsettled conditions. Most of the United States armed forces left Cuba by August 1919, but two companies remained at Camaguey until February 1922.[RL30172]

191819  Mexico. After withdrawal of the Pershing expedition, U.S. troops entered Mexico in pursuit of bandits at least three times in 1918 and six times in 1919. In August 1918 American and Mexican troops fought at Nogales, The Battle of Ambos Nogales. The incident began when German spies plotted an attack with Mexican soldiers on Nogales Arizona. The fighting began when a Mexican officer shot and killed a U.S. soldier on American soil. A full scale battle then ensued, ending with a Mexican surrender.[RL30172]
191820  Panama. U.S. forces were used for police duty according to treaty stipulations, at Chiriqui, during election disturbances and subsequent unrest.[RL30172]
191820  Soviet Union. Marines were landed at and near Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American consulate and other points in the fighting between the Bolshevik troops and the Czech Army which had traversed Siberia from the western front. A joint proclamation of emergency government and neutrality was issued by the American, Japanese, British, French, and Czech commanders in July. In August 7,000 men were landed in Vladivostok and remained until January 1920, as part of an allied occupation force. In September 1918, 5,000 American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel and remained until June 1919. These operations were in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and were partly supported by Czarist or Kerensky elements. [RL30172] For details, see the American Expeditionary Force Siberia and the American Expeditionary Force North Russia.

1919  Dalmatia (Croatia). U.S. forces were landed at Trau at the request of Italian authorities to police order between the Italians and Serbs.[RL30172]
1919  Turkey. Marines from the USS Arizona were landed to guard the U.S. Consulate during the Greek occupation of Constantinople.[RL30172]
1919  Honduras. September 8 to 12. A landing force was sent ashore to maintain order in a neutral zone during an attempted revolution.[RL30172]

1920  China. March 14. A landing force was sent ashore for a few hours to protect lives during a disturbance at Kiukiang.[RL30172]
1920  Guatemala. April 9 to 27. U.S. forces protected the American Legation and other American interests, such as the cable station, during a period of fighting between Unionists and the Government of Guatemala.[RL30172]
192022  Russia (Siberia). February 16, 1920, to November 19, 1922. A Marine guard was sent to protect the United States radio station and property on Russian Island, Bay of Vladivostok.[RL30172]

1921  Panama and Costa Rica. American naval squadrons demonstrated in April on both sides of the Isthmus to prevent war between the two countries over a boundary dispute.[RL30172]

1922  Turkey. September and October. A landing force was sent ashore with consent of both Greek and Turkish authorities, to protect American lives and property when the Turkish nationalists entered &#304;zmir (Smyrna.[RL30172]
192223  China. April 1922 to November 1923. Marines were landed five times to protect Americans during periods of unrest.[RL30172]

1924  Honduras. February 28 to March 31, September 10 to 15. U.S. forces protected American lives and interests during election hostilities.[RL30172]
1924  China.  September. Marines were landed to protect Americans and other foreigners in Shanghai during Chinese factional hostilities.[RL30172]

1925  China. January 15 to August 29. Fighting of Chinese factions accompanied by riots and demonstrations in Shanghai brought the landing of American forces to protect lives and property in the International Settlement.[RL30172]
1925  Honduras. April 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected foreigners at La Ceiba during a political upheaval.[RL30172]
1925  Panama. October 12 to 23. Strikes and rent riots led to the landing of about 600 American troops to keep order and protect American interests. [RL30172]

192633  Nicaragua. May 7 to June 5, 1926, and August 27, 1926, to January 3, 1933. The coup d'état of General Chamorro aroused revolutionary activities leading to the landing of American marines to protect the interests of the United States. United States forces came and went intermittently until January 3, 1933.[RL30172]
1926  China. August and September. The Nationalist attack on Hankow brought the landing of American naval forces to protect American citizens. A small guard was maintained at the consulate general even after September 16, when the rest of the forces were withdrawn. Likewise, when Nationalist forces captured Kiukiang, naval forces were landed for the protection of foreigners November 4 to 6.[RL30172]

1927  China. February. Fighting at Shanghai caused American naval forces and Marines to be increased. In March, a naval guard was stationed at American consulate at Nanking after Nationalist forces captured the city. American and British destroyers later used shell fire to protect Americans and other foreigners. Subsequently additional forces of Marines and naval forces were stationed in the vicinity of Shanghai and Tientsin.[RL30172]

1932  China. American forces were landed to protect American interests during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai.[RL30172]
1932 - United States. "Bonus Army" of 17,000 WWI veterans plus 20,000 family cleared from Washington and then Anacostia flats "Hooverville" by 3rd Cavalry and 12th Infantry Regiments under Gen. Douglas MacArthur, July 28.

1933  Cuba. During a revolution against President Gerardo Machado naval forces demonstrated but no landing was made.[RL30172]

1934  China. Marines landed at Foochow to protect the American Consulate.[RL30172]

1940  Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia,  Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, and British Guiana. Troops were sent to guard air and naval bases obtained under lease by negotiation with the United Kingdom. These were sometimes called lend-lease bases but were under the Destroyers for Bases Agreement.[RL30172]

1941  Greenland. Greenland was taken under protection of the United States in April.[RL30172]
1941  Netherlands (Dutch Guiana). In November, the President ordered American troops to occupy Dutch Guiana, but by agreement with the Netherlands government in exile, Brazil cooperated to protect aluminum ore supply from the bauxite mines in Suriname.[RL30172]
1941  Iceland. Iceland was taken under the protection of the United States, with consent of its government replacing British troops, for strategic reasons.[RL30172]
1941  Germany. Sometime in the spring, the President ordered the Navy to patrol ship lanes to Europe. By July, U.S. warships were convoying and by September were attacking German submarines. In November, the Neutrality Act was partly repealed to protect U.S. military aid to Britain. [RL30172]

194145  World War II. On December 8, 1941, the United States declared war with Japan in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Germany declared war against the United States.[RL30172]

1945  China. In October 50,000 U.S. Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 U.S. forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.[RL30172]
194549  Occupation of part of Germany.
194555  Occupation of part of Austria.
194552  Occupation of Japan.
194446  Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines during World War II and in preparation for previously scheduled independence.[citation needed]

194547  U.S. Marines garrisoned in mainland China to oversee the removal of Soviet and Japanese forces after World War II.[3]
194549  Post-World War II occupation of South Korea; North Korean insurgency in Republic of Korea[4]

1946  Trieste (Italy). President Truman ordered the increase of US troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed US Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia..[citation needed] Earlier U.S. naval units had been sent to the scene.[RL30172] Later the Free Territory of Trieste, Zone A.

1947 - Greece. U.S. Marines land in Athens and assist in the re-establishment of monarchy and the arrest of Greek Communists.

1948  Jerusalem (British Mandate). A Marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the U.S. Consul General.[RL30172]
1948  Berlin. Berlin Airlift After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the U.S., British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.[RL30172]
194849  China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans.[RL30172]

195053  Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. US forces deployed in Korea exceeded 300,000 during the last year of the conflict. Over 36,600 US military were killed in action.[RL30172]
195055  Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the U.S. Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.[RL30172]

195455  China. Naval units evacuated U.S. civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.[RL30172]

195564  Vietnam. First military advisors sent to Vietnam on 12 Feb 1955. By 1964, US troop levels had grown to 21,000. On 7 August 
1964, US Congress approved Gulf of Tonkin resolution affirming "All necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States. . .to prevent further aggression. . . (and) assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) requesting assistance. . ."[Vietnam timeline]

1956  Egypt. A marine battalion evacuated US nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.[RL30172]

1958  Lebanon. Lebanon crisis of 1958 Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of President Camille Chamoun to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside. The President's action was supported by a Congressional resolution passed in 1957 that authorized such actions in that area of the world.[RL30172]


195960  The Caribbean. Second Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect U.S. nationals following the Cuban revolution.[RL30172]

195975  Vietnam War. U.S. military advisers had been in South Vietnam for a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position of the Saigon government became weaker. After citing what he termed were attacks on U.S. destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf, President Johnson asked in August 1964 for a resolution expressing U.S. determination to support freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia. Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, expressing support for "all necessary measures" the President might take to repel armed attacks against U.S. forces and prevent further aggression. Following this resolution, and following a communist attack on a U.S. installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543,000 military personnel by April 1969.[RL30172]

1962  Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30, the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.[RL30172]

1962  Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about U.S. nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.[RL30172]
196275  Laos. From October 1962 until 1975, the United States played an important role in military support of anti-Communist forces in Laos.[RL30172]

1964  Congo (Zaire). The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.[RL30172]

1965  Invasion of Dominican Republic. Operation Power Pack. The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent 20,000 U.S. troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.[RL30172] A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

1967  Israel. The USS Liberty incident, whereupon a United States Navy Technical Research Ship was attacked June 8, 1967 by Israeli armed forces, killing 34 and wounding more than 170 U.S. crew members.
1967  Congo (Zaire). The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.[RL30172]

1968  Laos & Cambodia. U.S. starts secret bombing campaign against targets along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the sovereign nations of Cambodia and Laos. The bombings last at least two years. (See Operation Commando Hunt)

1970  Cambodian Campaign. U.S. troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.[RL30172]

1972 - North Vietnam - Christmas bombing Operation Linebacker II (not mentioned in RL30172, but an operation leading to peace negotiations). The operation was conducted from 1829 December 
1972. It was a bombing of the cities Hanoi and Haiphong by B-52 bombers.

1973  Operation Nickel Grass, a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

1974  Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated U.S. civilians during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.[RL30172]

1975  Evacuation from Vietnam. Operation Frequent Wind. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported U.S. naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and US nationals from Vietnam.[RL30172]

1975  Evacuation from Cambodia. Operation Eagle Pull. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to proceed with the planned evacuation of U.S. citizens from Cambodia.[RL30172]

1975  South Vietnam. On April 30, 1975, President Ford reported that a force of 70 evacuation helicopters and 865 Marines had evacuated about 1,400 U.S. citizens and 5,500 third country nationals and South Vietnamese from landing zones in and around the U.S. Embassy, Saigon and Tan Son Nhut Airport.[RL30172]

1975  Cambodia. Mayagüez Incident. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported he had ordered military forces to retake the SS Mayagüez, a merchant vessel which was seized from Cambodian naval patrol boats in international waters and forced to proceed to a nearby island.[RL30172]

1976  Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1976, helicopters from five U.S. naval vessels evacuated approximately 250 Americans and Europeans from Lebanon during fighting between Lebanese factions after an overland convoy evacuation had been blocked by hostilities.[RL30172]

1976  Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American soldiers were killed by North Korean soldiers in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea while cutting down a tree.[RL30172]

1978  Zaire (Congo). From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.[RL30172]

1980  Iran. Operation Eagle Claw. On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six U.S. transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran.

1980 - U.S. Army and Air Force units arrive in the Sinai in September as part of "Operation Bright Star". They are there to train with Egyptians armed forces as part of the Camp David peace accords signed in 1979. Elements of the 101st Airborne Division, ( 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry) and Air Force MAC (Military Airlift Command) units are in theater for four months and are the first U.S. military forces in the region since World War II.

1981  El Salvador. After a guerrilla offensive against the government of El Salvador, additional U.S. military advisers were sent to El Salvador, bringing the total to approximately 55, to assist in training government forces in counterinsurgency.[RL30172]

1981  Libya. First Gulf of Sidra Incident On August 19, 1981, U.S. planes based on the carrier USS Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.[RL30172]

1982  Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132.[RL30172]

1982  Lebanon. Multinational Force in Lebanon. On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 800 Marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left September 20, 1982.[RL30172]

198283  Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On September 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.[RL30172]
1983  Egypt. After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt.[RL30172]

1983  Grenada. Operation Urgent Fury. Citing the increased threat of Soviet and Cuban influence and noting the development of an international airport following a coup d'état and alignment with the Soviets and Cuba, the U.S. invades the island nation of Grenada.[RL30172]

198389  Honduras. In July 1983, the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed U.S. military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.[RL30172]

1983  Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.[RL30172]

1984  Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a U.S. AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.[RL30172]

1985  Italy. On October 10, 1985, U.S. Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking.[RL30172]

1986  Libya. Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986) On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported on March 24 and 25, U.S. forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.[RL30172]

1986  Libya. Operation El Dorado Canyon. On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in the Libyan capitol of Tripoli, claiming that Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi was responsible for a bomb attack at a German disco that killed two U.S. soldiers.[RL30172]
1986  Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.[RL30172]

1987  Persian Gulf. USS Stark was struck on May 17 by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi F-1 Mirage during the Iran-Iraq War, killing 37 U.S. Navy sailors.
1987  Persian Gulf. Operation Nimble Archer. Attacks on two Iranian oil platforms in the Persian Gulf by United States Navy forces on October 19. The attack was a response to Iran's October 16, 1987 attack on the MV Sea Isle City, a reflagged Kuwaiti oil tanker at anchor off Kuwait, with a Silkworm missile.
198788  Persian Gulf. Operation Earnest Will - After the Iran-Iraq War (the Tanker War phase) resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased U.S. joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf to protect them from Iraqi and Iranian attacks. President Reagan reported that U.S. ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 21 (Iran Ajr), October 8, and October 19, 1987 and April 18 (Operation Praying Mantis), July 3, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.[RL30172] It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.[5]
198788  Persian Gulf. Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S.-flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran-Iraq War. The operation took place roughly at the same time as Operation Earnest Will.

1988  Persian Gulf. Operation Praying Mantis was the April 18, 1988 action waged by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

1988  Honduras. Operation Golden Pheasant was an emergency deployment of U.S. troops to Honduras in 1988, as a result of threatening actions by the forces of the (then socialist) Nicaraguans.
1988  USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655
1988  Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as the United States increased pressure on Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 U.S. military personnel already in the Panama Canal Zone.[RL30172]

1989  Libya. Second Gulf of Sidra Incident On January 4, 1989, two U.S. Navy F-14 aircraft based on the USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The U.S. pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.[RL30172]
1989  Panama. On May 11, 1989, in response to General Noriega's disregard of the results of the Panamanian election, President Bush ordered a brigade-sized force of approximately 1,900 troops to augment the estimated 1,000 U.S. forces already in the area.[RL30172]
1989  Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50100 U.S. military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 212 persons to train troops in the three countries.[RL30172]
1989  Philippines. Operation Classic Resolve. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1, Air Force fighters from Clark Air Base in Luzon had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay to protect the United States Embassy in Manila.[RL30172]
198990  Panama. Operation Just Cause. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.[RL30172] Around 200 Panamanian civilians were reported killed. The Panamanian head of state, General Manuel Noriega, was captured and brought to the U.S.

1990  Liberia: On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.[RL30172]
1990  Saudi Arabia: On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he launched Operation Desert Shield by ordering the forward deployment of substantial elements of the U.S. armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.[RL30172]American hostages being held in Iran.[RL30172] Staging point for the troops was primarily Bagram air field.

1991  Iraq and Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm: On January 16, 1991, in response to the refusal by Iraq to leave Kuwait, U.S. and Coalition aircraft attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait in conjunction with a coalition of allies and under United Nations Security Council resolutions. In February 24, 1991, U.S.-led United Nation (UN) forces launched a ground offensive that finally drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait within 100 hours. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991, when President Bush declared a ceasefire.[RL30172]

19911996  Iraq. Operation Provide Comfort: Delivery of humanitarian relief and military protection for Kurds fleeing their homes in northern Iraq during the 1991 uprising, by a small Allied ground force based in Turkey which began in April 1991.
1991  Iraq: On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.[RL30172]
1991  Zaire: On September 2527, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Kinshasa. American planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled evacuated American citizens.[RL30172]

1992  Sierra Leone. Operation Silver Anvil: Following the April 29 coup that overthrew President Joseph Saidu Momoh, a United States European Command (USEUCOM) Joint Special Operations Task Force evacuated 438 people (including 42 Third Country nationals) on May 3. Two Air Mobility Command (AMC) C-141s flew 136 people from Freetown, Sierra Leone, to the Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany and nine C-130 sorties carried another 302 people to Dakar, Senegal.[RL30172]

19921996  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Operation Provide Promise was a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Yugoslav Wars, from July 2, 1992, to January 9, 1996, which made it the longest running humanitarian airlift in history.[6]
1992  Kuwait: On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.[RL30172]

19922003  Iraq. Iraqi no-fly zones: The U.S., United Kingdom, and its Gulf War allies declared and enforced "no-fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. Often, Iraqi forces continued throughout a decade by firing on U.S. and British aircraft patrolling no-fly zones.(See also Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch) [RL30172]

19921995  Somalia. Operation Restore Hope. Somali Civil War: On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed U.S. armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution in support for UNITAF. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. U.S. forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II).(See also Battle of Mogadishu)[RL30172]

1993-1995 - Bosnia. Operation Deny Flight: On April 12, 1993, in response to a United Nations Security Council passage of Resolution 816, U.S. and NATO enforced the no-fly zone over the Bosnian airspace, prohibited all unauthorized flights and allowed to "take all necessary measures to ensure compliance with [the no-fly zone restrictions]."
1993  Macedonia: On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 U.S. soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.[RL30172]

1994: Bosnia. Banja Luka incident: NATO become involved in the first combat situation when NATO U.S. Air Force F-16 jets shot down four of the six Bosnian Serb J-21 Jastreb single-seat light attack jets for violating UN-mandated no-fly zone.

19941995  Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy: U.S. ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 U.S. military troops were later deployed to Haiti to restore democratically-elected Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from a military regime which came into power in 1991 after a major coup.[RL30172]

1994  Macedonia: On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the U.S. contingent in Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.[RL30172]

1995  Bosnia. Operation Deliberate Force: In August 30, 1995, U.S. and NATO aircraft began a major bombing campaign of Bosnian Serb Army in response to a Bosnian Serb mortar attack on a Sarajevo market that killed 37 people in August 28, 1995. This operation lasted until September 20, 1995. The air campaign along with a combined allied ground force of Muslim and Croatian Army against Serb positions led to a Dayton agreement in December 1995 with the signing of warring factions of the war. As part of Operation Joint Endeavor, U.S. and NATO dispatched the Implementation Force (IFOR) peacekeepers to Bosnia to uphold the Dayton agreement.[RL30172]

1996  Liberia. Operation Assured Response: On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered U.S. military forces to evacuate from that country "private U.S. citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy compound...."[RL30172]
1996  Central African Republic. Operation Quick Response: On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of U.S. military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private U.S. citizens and certain U.S. government employees", and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."[RL30172] United States Marine Corps elements of Joint Task Force Assured Response, responding in nearby Liberia, provided security to the embassy and evacuated 448 people, including between 190 and 208 Americans. The last Marines left Bangui on June 22.
1996-Kuwait. Operation Desert Strike: American Air Strikes in the north to protect the Kurdish population against the Iraqi Army attacks. U.S. deploys 5,000 soldiers from the 1ST Cavalry Division at Ft Hood Texas in response to Iraqi attacks on the Kurdish people.[citation needed]
1996 - Bosnia. Operation Joint Guard: In December 21, 1996, U.S. and NATO established the SFOR peacekeepers to replace the IFOR in enforcing the peace under the Dayton agreement.

1997  Albania. Operation Silver Wake: On March 13, 1997, U.S. military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania.[RL30172]
1997  Congo and Gabon: On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.[RL30172]
1997  Sierra Leone: On May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens.[RL30172]
1997  Cambodia: On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations. [RL30172]

1998  Iraq. Operation Desert Fox: U.S. and British forces conduct a major four-day bombing campaign from December 1619, 1998 on Iraqi targets.[RL30172]
1998  Guinea-Bissau. Operation Shepherd Venture: On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the U.S. Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.[RL30172]
19981999  Kenya and Tanzania: U.S. military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.[RL30172]
1998  Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach: On August 20, President Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.[RL30172]
1998  Liberia: On September 27, 1998, America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 U.S. military personnel to increase the security force at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia. [1] [RL30172]

19992001 - East Timor: Limited number of U.S. military forces deployed with the United Nations-mandated International Force for East Timor restore peace to East Timor.[RL30172]
1999  Serbia. Operation Allied Force: U.S. and NATO aircraft began a major bombing of Serbia and Serb positions in Kosovo in March 24, 1999, during the Kosovo War due to the refusal by Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to end repression against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. This operation ended in June 10, 1999, when Milosevic agreed to pull out his troops out of Kosovo. In response to the situation in Kosovo, NATO dispatched the KFOR peacekeepers to secure the peace under UNSC Resolution 1244.[RL30172]

2000  Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a U.S. Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.[RL30172]
2000 - Nigeria. Special Forces troops are sent to Nigeria to lead a training mission in the county.[7]
2000  Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.[RL30172]
2000  East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). [RL30172]

2001  On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals surveillance aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States and the People's Republic of China called the Hainan Island incident.

2001  War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, U.S. Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and "begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters."[RL30172]

2002  Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.[RL30172]

2002  Philippines. OEF-Philippines. January 2002 U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[RL30172]

2002  Côte d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d'Ivoire, U.S. military personnel went into Côte d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.[8]
[RL30172]

20032011  War in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal being "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States."[RL30172]

2003  Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War. On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 U.S. Marines into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the U.S. Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.[RL30172]
2003  Georgia and Djibouti. "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[9]

2004  Haiti. 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the U.S. Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH.[RL30172]

2004  War on Terrorism: U.S. anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[10]
2004present: Drone attacks in Pakistan
200506  Pakistan. President Bush deploys troops from US Army Air Cav Brigades to provide Humanitarian relief to far remote villages in the Kashmir mountain ranges of Pakistan stricken by a massive earthquake.
2006  Lebanon. U.S. Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[citation needed], begins evacuation of U.S. citizens willing to leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.[11][12]
2007  Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.[13]

2008  South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid,[14] helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia.

2010-11 War in Iraq. Operation New Dawn. On February 17, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that as of September 1, 2010, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" would be replaced by "Operation New Dawn". This coincides with the reduction of American troops to 50,000.

2011 - Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn. Coalition forces enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 with bombings of Libyan forces.

2011 - War on Terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is killed by U.S. military forces in Pakistan as part of Operation Neptune Spear.
2011 - Drone strikes on al-Shabab militants begin in Somalia.[15] This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.[citation needed]
2011 - Uganda. US Combat troops sent in as advisers to Uganda.[16]
2012 - Jordan. 150 US troops deployed to Jordan to help it contain the Syrian Civil War within Syria's borders.
2012 - Turkey. 400 troops and two batteries of Patriot missiles sent to Turkey to prevent any missile strikes from Syria.
2012 - Chad. 50 U.S. troops have deployed to the African country of Chad to help evacuate U.S. citizens and embassy personnel from the neighboring Central African Republic's capital of Bangui in the face of rebel advances toward the city.
2013 - Mali. US forces assisted the French in Operation Serval with air refueling and transport aircraft.
2013 - Somalia. US Air Force planes supported the French in the Bulo Marer hostage rescue attempt. However, they did not use any weapons.
2013 - North Korea crisis

Theodore Roosevelt 1901-1909  
William Howard Taft 1909-1913  
Woodrow Wilson 1913-1921  
Warren Gamaliel Harding 1921-1923  
Calvin Coolidge 1923-1929 
Herbert Clark Hoover 1929-1933  
Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1933-1945  
Harry S. Truman 1945-1953  
Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961  
John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1961-1963 
Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963-1969  
Richard Milhous Nixon 1969-1974  
Gerald Rudolph Ford 1974-1977  
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 
Ronald Wilson Reagan 1981-1989  
George Herbert Walker Bush 1989-1993 
William Jefferson Clinton 1993-2001  
George Walker Bush 2001- 2009 
Barack Obama 2009 - present


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



The implication was that Libertarians don't seem to know what they want. 

If you reread what I posted I was explicit that it was the GOP that were the war hawks ("*the GOP who believe that the use of force is the only approach to every problem*").


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



What? 

Most human beings have thin skins, it doesn't matter what their political beliefs are. In fact, from what I have seen in these posts, you are one of the people with a thin skin, which is probably why you think everyone else has one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I hate to defend the GOP, but that is absurd. If the GOP actually believed that force was the only solution to every problem they have implemented universal health care and nationalized every single industry in the country.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



today's libertarians are product of the appraiser they are taught they can have it all and not have to pay for it


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



That is not even a coherent thought.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



True.  The itemized list of military ordered into combat or potentially combative situations up there seems pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.  And certainly within the pages of history, we can find incidents in which both Democrats and Republicans exercised judicious restraint when they could have ordered the military to be involved.  In the 20th and 21st century it would be Democratic Presidents and Democratically controlled congresses who ordered us into WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.  The GOP can take their lumps for Afghanistan and Iraq.

But military action is not the only coercive process that government pushes onto us.  Everything from the mileage we are required to get with our automobiles to what kinds of toilet or light bulbs we are allowed to manufacture and/or install to what size soft drink we are allowed to buy or what kind of health care we are required to provide to our employees and provide for ourselves along with the threats of far more oppressive and expensive regulations still hanging out there, we are losing our freedoms, choices, opportunities, and options, chip by chip, law by law, push by push.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Okay. My bad for not fully reading that correctly. But still, there are way too many Dems at the heart of our wars for you to try and pretend that there is a stark difference. In fact, I'd argue that what the Dems do regarding wars is worse. Because they vote for the wars and then spend the entire time railing against the wars. That only puts soldiers' lives at risk and that is the height of irresponsibility.

Now, for your claim that libertarians don't know what they want regarding war; you gave no supporting details and it just seems like a frivolous claim.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 5, 2013)

^^^

I mean Biden even stated in the middle of the last VP debate that he didn't vote for the Iraq War even though he did. That's how short of memories they have regarding the wars they are voting to execute.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



As an Independent I am not about to defend the Dems. They were utterly spineless when it came to Iraq. That was unforgivable. 

My apologies for giving you the wrong impression regarding Libertarians and war. I didn't mention war at all in that quote about the Irish, I only mentioned a willingness to die fighting for something they didn't understand. This is based upon the thread where they claim to hold the principle of individual rights as sacrosanct but don't do so when the rubber meets the road. If you believe in a principle you must be willing to stand for it even when it means upholding something you might personally abhor. e.g. You might personally be pro-life but in principle you still uphold the right for others to obtain an abortion.

Libertarians don't seem to have the courage of their convictions in my opinion even though they claim that they do.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 5, 2013)

Libertarians believe in the Constitution. Wars are subjective in regards to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't state only go to war if X happens. So, libertarians will have varying views on the wars and that's healthy. But, libertarians are concerned with the violation of the Constitution in regards to the war. The president(s) have taken undue war powers and acted like he's a dictator that is allowed to use the military however he sees fit.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 5, 2013)

Libertarians are individuals who have the right and freedom to think for themselves. The libertarian party on the other hand has a platform that supports those rights and freedoms for the individual and supports only a federal government that is restrained by the actual constitutional powers granted to it by the states and the people. All other decisions are made by the people within their states and not at the federal level unless civil rights or freedoms are in question. 
The federal government has no power to decide whether a woman can abort a birth or not. The federal government has no power to decide who can marry whom but if the issue is brought forth on a human rights issue then they could choose to support it once a ruling has been made. I doubt the party will ever make a move to support or deny rights issues leaving it to the courts or the states to decide.
As an individual Libertarian I can choose to support or be against any matter that is not given to the federal government by the constitution. I could even take a stance against the constitution because as a citizen that is my right. I would be foolish to believe that the party would support my view but assured that the party would respect my individual right to have them.

This is not a complicated concept. There are republicans that vote fore gun control and democrats who vote against it. The party lines are party lines and do not necessarily extend to all the members of the party. The same is true of the Libertarians party except that the Libertarian party opposes actions that are taken when the power to take them is not granted by the constitution.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



What is it you are trying to say here? You have listed a catalogue of Monroe Doctrine interventions, short lived imperial notions, corporate security duty, national hubris, the suppression of anything perceived as against US business or geopolitical interests, and also the resultant suppression of the predictable backlash to such- with a few exceptions.

The US military, as in other similar countries, is at the mercy of contemporary political sentiments, and has been used shamelessly for such ends, in the case of the US, from the displacement of aboriginal inhabitants of the country, to the present miscalculation in Afghanistan. Glorifing these events is a complete whitewash of history.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You have now repeated that claim here even though it is baseless.  

It has already been explained to you about the abortion issue, because you disagree with libertarian ideals does not mean that they do not hold to them.  Aside from that, it is the sole issue that you have brought up against libertarian thought and not following convictions.

Essentially, your claim that libertarians don't do so when the rubber meets the road is completely based in bias.  You have not presented anything here to show that.  If you have another example, then please share it but the abortion issue is not a good example of that.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Auteur said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The original claim was &#8220;the GOP who believe that the use of force is the only approach to every problem no matter what it might be.&#8221;  The list and the presidential dates tell me that claim is false as the GOP and Democrats are not much different in the use of the military.  Both like to bomb now and ask question later.

This false thought that somehow the GOP is pro war and the liberals antiwar is pretty pervasive in today&#8217;s politics.  It ignores reality wholesale though.  The only reason that I can see for the continuation of this claim is because Bush screwed up recently and he was GOP.  That has given the liberals the chance to foist this on the GOP.


----------



## editec (Jul 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> To the OP... *the problem with naming a thing is that when the name becomes successful, divisive forces will hide under their banner to give themselves cover.*  Socialist, Marxist, Anarchists, ... if people don't get their way under their chosen world view they will just pretend to join the enemy and then redefine their enemies stated goals as their own.
> 
> Is it no wonder then that Constitutional Conservative Capitalists (Americans) have no group.  Americans are left to run from party to party looking for any party that will defend their right to life and liberty.  The libertarians start getting just a bit of momentum.. and boom out come the anarchists to insist that liberty requires anarchy... boom out come the authoritarians of the democrat and republican parties to declare all libertarians as nut cases...
> 
> Create a group call the tea party that extolls a return of our Constitutional  Rights.. and boom out come the vile scum that change the name to a sex act, and declare that the tea party group as Neo-Nazis and Racists.  Why?  In part because the neo-nazis and racists do their best to subvert and take over any movement, but mostly because the authoritarians are making up lies to provide cover for their income stream and vile acts they are perpetrating on the American people.





THIS is the problem that comes from thinking in terms of TEAMS.

LABELS in politics mislead more than they help people understand.

I have NO DOUBT that many Libertarians (as but one example) are reasonably sane people whose basic POV is that governments are too big and too powerful, but who also understand that government DO serve a good purpose. (but then, too so do many Dems, and Reps)

Sadly there is no single DEFINITION of what the term means, ergo, _anyone can claim to be a libertarian and no one, based solely on that label, can TRULY know what that person is really all about._

PROPAGANDISTS set out to DESTROY the language, folks. 

 They do so because if the language is destroyed the PEOPLE cannot even discuss the issues rationally.

If the PEOPLE cannot discuss the issues rationally, they can never achieve consensus about how to SOLVE the problems

We live in an AGE of propaganda.

The ONLY safe way to discuss issues is to DISCUSS the SPECIFIC ISSUE, and NOT to count on labels to explain it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The historical record is irrelevant to the *CURRENT* status quo. Yes, the *CURRENT* GOP is pro war. Senators Graham and McCain openly advocate for a preemptive war against Iran. That is on the record. The Bush Doctrine is still very much a part of the GOP mindset.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

editec said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > To the OP... *the problem with naming a thing is that when the name becomes successful, divisive forces will hide under their banner to give themselves cover.*  Socialist, Marxist, Anarchists, ... if people don't get their way under their chosen world view they will just pretend to join the enemy and then redefine their enemies stated goals as their own.
> ...



That is a real problem.  The solution, though, is not trying to eliminate words because that is asinine (I already addressed why and how) but people realizing that political ideologies are essentially compressed ways of speaking about your worldview and NOT teams.  As long as people think of the Republican team and the Democrat team we are going to end up with bullshit politicians.

When you think in terms of teams there is a concept of winner and loser.  You win when the other guy loses.  When will the American public wake up to the fact that you dont win jack shit when a politician (whether or not you voted for him) attains office.  There is no special prize coming to you in the mail.  You are not going to get a trophy or a medal.  You dont win in politics (as a voter).  You just attempt to put the person in there that will do the best job.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



Your talking out of your ass.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Okay, that's interesting. Thanks for that information, very interesting. I bet they chase the woman around for weeks, however, trying to get her to take it anyway.




> Speaking of Texas, did you know that anti abortion law that was recently filibustered there was written by a woman?



I'm sure the usual male oppressors got some woman desperate for male attention and approval to provide cover for them. That's the usual thing they do. It doesn't fool anyone.

The bottom line is that men get women pregnant and abandon or beat them or otherwise grossly maltreat them and then move heaven and earth to pass laws to force women to raise their get anyway, presumably because it's a male genetic instinct to reproduce via women, whatever they have to do to effect this. This is obviously incredibly wrong, and it would be a sign of unusual decency if the libertarian political philosophy treated women the same as men: as real people who were to be protected from state interference in their lives.

I am hoping to find libertarianism good for both sexes, not just for men and their guns. But I have been somewhat disillusioned by this thread, and how many so-called "libertarians" are in favor of stomping state laws all over women's bodies. 

That has not been true of every poster, and I am more hopeful because of them that libertarianism will also be available to women. If it's a boys' club only like conservatism has become, it will never go any further, of course. Since women are the majority.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



No more than the democrats.

Not only were many dems on board with the Iraq war (or war would have never happened), Obama has done virtually the same exact things that Bush did.  Also, pointing out a few pro Iran war senators does not show anything really.  I do not believe that you can show the republican congressional members will support a war in Iran with anything even close to a majority.  Again, such a claim ignores democrat support for war actions as well as our current military campaigns all across the globe.  We are more involved in bombing campaigns today than we have ever been.  Even now, with Iraq closing, bombs are dropped EVERY SINGLE DAY around the clock with no breaks.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

Okay tired of the fucking arguing about abortion in here...



> 1.4 Abortion
> 
> Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.


 Platform | Libertarian Party

IE they are pro abortion they just hide behind the excuse of it is up to the individual if they should murder the unborn child....Now that's settled.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> We are more involved in bombing campaigns today than we have ever been.  Even now, with Iraq closing, bombs are dropped EVERY SINGLE DAY around the clock with no breaks.




The bombings have nothing to do with us! 

All the bombings are Iraqi vs Iraqi. Everyone knew this would happen, and here it is, that's all.

Arabs love bombing each other. Hey, let them alone to enjoy themselves. It has nothing whatsoever to do with us. 

Arabs LIKE killing each other: Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iraq ---- the more they kill each other, the better for the West, so no problem. And we don't have to feel guilty: we aren't doing it, they are. 

If we get involved, it's on us and far, far more get killed, because we are good at killing masses of people. If it's only them bombing and shooting each other, it's not our fault and I'd say that's the moral higher position.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

> 1.3 Personal Relationships
> 
> Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.


 they are pro homosexual marriage



> 2.2 Environment
> 
> We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources.  Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.


They also believe climate change is man made.

They are not conservatives.....


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm fine with setting abortion aside. It's a tedious issue even w/o arguing the libertarian vent on it.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> > 1.3 Personal Relationships
> >
> > Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
> 
> ...





I don't see what you are seeing. Both passages of text seem to me to take an agnostic view: this stuff is not for the state to make laws on. It's for people to do whatever suits them. 

Of course the climate is constantly changing: Earth used to have twice the CO2 we have now, and somewhat later, had mountains of ice covering much of the planet! To say that change occurs is not to say they believe in the silly "global warming" idea that is dying an ignominious death, but to say that it's not an issue to plaster with laws because somebody thinks this way or that way this week.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> I'm fine with setting abortion aside. It's a tedious issue even w/o arguing the libertarian vent on it.



Thats because it is the same as the progressives bent on it except they dont want tax payers to pay for it.... They still support dead babies.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > > 1.3 Personal Relationships
> ...



Why do you think religion has anything to do with conservatism?


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > I'm fine with setting abortion aside. It's a tedious issue even w/o arguing the libertarian vent on it.
> ...




I don't think you've quite got the concept of libertarianism, thanatos.

I'm a novice at it, but even I don't think libertarianism is about whether you support this law or that law........

It's about something else.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Why do you think religion has anything to do with conservatism?




It's okay to use the word "agnostic" in a secular, metaphorical way. And I'm talking about libertarianism, not conservatism. These are different.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think religion has anything to do with conservatism?
> ...



Agnostic is secular.....


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> I am hoping to find libertarianism good for both sexes, not just for men and their guns. But I have been somewhat disillusioned by this thread, and how many so-called "libertarians" are in favor of stomping state laws all over women's bodies.



Why?  Has even one single libertarian actually advocated for taking away abortion rights here?

I have been discussing how this has essentially nothing to do with actual libertarian philosophy and that abortion limitations are not inherently against pro-life positions.  That does not detract from the basic fact that the vast majority of libertarians are pro-choice.  Even many that find the practice particularly barbaric, libertarians have a distaste for government and that leads them to usually want it out of almost anything.


----------



## dblack (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> I'm talking about libertarianism, not conservatism. These are different.



Indeed they are. Radically so.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


First I got that from the party platform. Second if they want to act conservative they should have conservative values.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > We are more involved in bombing campaigns today than we have ever been.  Even now, with Iraq closing, bombs are dropped EVERY SINGLE DAY around the clock with no breaks.
> ...



Sorry Circe but you are flat out wrong.  We launch dozens of aircraft daily to drop bombs.


----------



## dblack (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> ... if they want to act conservative they should have conservative values.



Why would they want to do that?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



You must be strong to stay here in this evil country while those solders go out there are murder people to keep you safe....Er I mean enslaved right?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Second if they want to act conservative they should have conservative values.
> ...



Because they keep trying to become republicans even though they are pro confederates . They should go back to the democrat party.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Sorry Circe but you are flat out wrong.  We launch dozens of aircraft daily to drop bombs.



Not in Iraq. I think we'd have heard.

You may be thinking of Afghanistan and Pakistan.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



What does us murdering people abroad have to do with staying in this country? That's reducio absurdum.


----------



## dblack (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Heh... Maybe. With the phony 'two-party' system, many libertarians have concluded that the only way to advance the cause will be to take over one of the existing major parties. Seems reasonable to target the one that's floundering because its values no longer adequately represent the electorate.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



What is absurd is hypocritical bullshit he is spouting of the evils of this country while sucking up the freedoms those perceived evil afforded him. Like spoiled children who demand it all but never want to work for it.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > I am hoping to find libertarianism good for both sexes, not just for men and their guns. But I have been somewhat disillusioned by this thread, and how many so-called "libertarians" are in favor of stomping state laws all over women's bodies.
> ...




Certainly! Several. Anyone who decides that the law should protect fetuses from "murder,"  and protect concepti, sperm just united with ovum, or even a hopeful sparkle in some man's eye by piling a lot of laws onto women is obviously in favor of taking away abortion rights. 

Duh.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Thats what it is.... Your life sucks cause the two party system has kept you down,..... How about you for once understand that if they wanted to vote for most of what libertarians stand for all they have to do is vote democrat..... You are both almost the same party.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> You must be strong to stay here in this evil country while those solders go out there are murder people to keep you safe....Er I mean enslaved right?




Well, which is it? Are our soldiers killing women and children and burning villages on the other side of the planet to keep us safe (though how any of that keeps us "safe" is difficult to understand -- or believe) or is it to keep us enslaved? 

You seem somewhat ambivalent about whether we are being protected or enslaved. Maybe you shouldn't support our soldiers going to the other side of the world to kill poor primitive peoples until you decide that issue.


----------



## dblack (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Not sure what you're going on about here. But I tend to agree that libertarians shouldn't bother with the Republican party. Most of them are just big government neocons like yourself. Better to let the party die off and replace it.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You go right ahead and think that.... I think the republicans should return to their roots. The party of Lincoln.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Thanks for enlightening us with a typical Republicrat rationalization.

1. Even if we did enjoy the utmost freedom domestically, then that wouldn't justify all our nonsense overseas.
2. We don't have as much freedom as you pretend we do. The government is all up in our business about everything.
3. If our govt. is this corrupt, any freedom we have is surely waning. You're satiated by your morsels today. But, you'll be whining tomorrow when they all dry up.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



So Romney losing made you into a libertarian? I guess that makes since since you support rinos

Welcome to my nightmare


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You didn't have any real counter-point to those points, so you had to spin down the same stale avenues. I'll indulge you though. I said all along that I was a Paul supporter. You conveniently forget that. I supported Romney ahead of the others b/c he was the most honorable man and a man who worked well within the system. 

And I don't care if you call Romney a rino. I don't even know what that means anymore frankly. All Republicans are in the pocket of big business and government while stomping upon the Constitution.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > I am hoping to find libertarianism good for both sexes, not just for men and their guns. But I have been somewhat disillusioned by this thread, and how many so-called "libertarians" are in favor of stomping state laws all over women's bodies.
> ...



This is true.  One can be passionately libertarian (small "L"), as I am, and still be passionately pro life (which I also am) and still believe that there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to be involved in the issue of abortion or whether insurance companies cover contraception or whether public agencies hand out condoms.  The role of the federal government should be to protect the unalienable rights of the people.  And among those same rights is the intention that people govern themselves and make their own choices about what sort of society they wish to have.

If the federal government would stay out of it and ALL reproductive processes, as the Founders would have intended, society will decide on the issue of abortion.  Just as culturally we don't endorse public nudity except in very controlled environments. . . .just as culturally we don't condone butchering and eating dogs, cats, horses. . . .we as a culture will come to our own decisions about abortion.

The statists, of whatever party, do not trust the people with such decisions.

True libertarians do.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



Agree 100%.  Well said.

Odd that you and I disagree on the taxing and spending parts of our federal government yet agree 100% on issues of liberty.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 6, 2013)

But how we choose to tax and spend is as much a component of liberty as is the value our culture puts on life and protection of the children, born and unborn.  And just as the people will usually choose wisely and competently in all other matters as they form a society they want to have, left alone, they will choose wisely and competently in matters of abortion.

I want abortion to remain legal for those who MUST have one, but as a culture so rare that it is no longer an issue for anybody.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> But how we choose to tax and spend is as much a component of liberty as is the value our culture puts on life and protection of the children, born and unborn.  And just as the people will usually choose wisely and competently in all other matters as they form a society they want to have, left alone, they will choose wisely and competently in matters of abortion.
> 
> I want abortion to remain legal for those who MUST have one, but as a culture so rare that it is no longer an issue for anybody.



Again agree 100% thus the irony.

Yeah on the matter of abortion, I think the child needs an advocate to argue to a judge to spare the life of the child in cases where the abortion is done late term and / or just for convenience.  Convenience as a choice, IMO, should end when the child's heart is beating and/or some level of brain wave activity is present.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> You must be strong to stay here in this evil country while those solders go out there are murder people to keep you safe....Er I mean enslaved right?



This is nothing more than deflection and ad homonym.  Not appreciated at all.

By the way, I am one of those solders (actually airman but most dont make the distinction) so I really doubt you understand how and why I view our military in the light that I do.  I will state that it is asinine to think that all people in the country must either agree that our military actions are correct/justified or that we live in an evil nation.  That is a false dichotomy.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> Certainly! Several. Anyone who decides that the law should protect fetuses from "murder,"  and protect concepti, sperm just united with ovum, or even a hopeful sparkle in some man's eye by piling a lot of laws onto women is obviously in favor of taking away abortion rights.
> 
> Duh.



Yes, that was established but can you quote anyone that has said they support that?  Are you lumping my belief in limiting the gestational period under that concept?

I would find it rather disconcerting if you are behind abortion to the point that it should be allowed all the way up to and during the birthing process at 9 months.  If not, then please link one other poster in this thread that is libertarian and holds a view that you find disconcerting.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> But how we choose to tax and spend is as much a component of liberty as is the value our culture puts on life and protection of the children, born and unborn.  And just as the people will usually choose wisely and competently in all other matters as they form a society they want to have, left alone, they will choose wisely and competently in matters of abortion.
> 
> I want abortion to remain legal for those who MUST have one, but as a culture so rare that it is no longer an issue for anybody.



What would you think as a libertarian, Foxfyre, of the common practice in China and India and other places, of sex-selective abortion? Apparently this is the most common reason for abortion in those countries: they only want boys.

This is not a practice that has come to our shores much, except (I have read) among some Oriental populations in the West. 

It could easily come here, and may, soon. It seems to me that many strange new cultural practices present a problem for libertarians (men marrying men is certainly one of those!); some things seem a bridge too far, but how can you draw a line against freedom?


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly! Several. Anyone who decides that the law should protect fetuses from "murder,"  and protect concepti, sperm just united with ovum, or even a hopeful sparkle in some man's eye by piling a lot of laws onto women is obviously in favor of taking away abortion rights.
> ...



Great Gatsby. I think there are a few others, too. RKMBrown; see his post just above.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Its not really odd at all.  Fox and you have very similar concepts of what liberty truly is.  Like MANY libertarian views, the core concept is centered on maximized liberty and freedom but there are always different views on how to get to that liberty.  On social issues, that is a simple exercise  less government intrusion is better.  Most libertarians are going to agree with those processes/policies.  Tax policy is another ball of wax as the government is intruding  that what taxing is  and that leads to several different views.  In the end, we are all working to the same goals so _most_ fundamentals will be the same but tax policy is not so cut and dry.  That is guaranteed to lead to different concepts on what intrusion is the lesser one and that is a good thing.  More ideas means more things to try and the best way will show itself as long as we are all working to the same goals  in this case liberty.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Well said... odd was the wrong term.  Perhaps, frustrating or disconcerting


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> If the federal government would stay out of it and ALL reproductive processes, as the Founders would have intended, society will decide on the issue of abortion.  Just as culturally we don't endorse public nudity except in very controlled environments. . . .just as culturally we don't condone butchering and eating dogs, cats, horses. . . .we as a culture will come to our own decisions about abortion.
> 
> The statists, of whatever party, do not trust the people with such decisions.
> 
> True libertarians do.




I find the philosophical implications of this post fascinating. Do you see, Foxfyre, that you are assuming that the whole people will make ONE decision about a given issue? That is, the great majority will decide not to eat horsemeat, not to have abortions in X circumstances, not to go naked in public, etc.

However, even in this statist culture, there are nude bathing beaches and a whole area in San Francisco (I read) where homosexual men normally walk around quite nude. (I believe the city fathers are trying to stop that, but there have been protests.)

In a libertarian culture wouldn't there be even more diversity? The culture wouldn't make just one decision, but many. People would experiment wildly. Like in the '60s! I was reading a sci-fi by Charles Stross that had a lot of that -- people joining a group that did tissue culture of exotic animals to eat, people who grew horns and wings by using DNA transplants, people who became unisex --- Unsex, they called it. 

I don't see a libertarian society as making one common consensus culture, but wild experimentalism so that lots more possibilities open up. If a person doesn't like all this confrontational change, and wants laws against it, isn't that rather a traditionalist conservative position rather than libertarian?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



What part of my view on advocating for the life of a child was disconcerting?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But how we choose to tax and spend is as much a component of liberty as is the value our culture puts on life and protection of the children, born and unborn.  And just as the people will usually choose wisely and competently in all other matters as they form a society they want to have, left alone, they will choose wisely and competently in matters of abortion.
> ...



It is already here Circe.   It is almost a mathematical certainty in a culture in which abortion is passionately defended that many of the 1.2 to 1.5 million babies aborted each and every year in the USA are aborted because the parent(s) wanted a different sex.  It is only in recent years that we have had the capability to tell the parents early on what gender the baby is.

Left alone to govern themselves and work out the details for the society they wish to have, people usually form a culture beneficial to all.  Everybody doesn't want to live in a Mayberry, USA and everybody doesn't want to live in a Philadelphia or New York City.  But the Founders intended that people be able to form whatever sort of environment they preferred.

We either trust the people to govern themselves or we don't.

But we can't call ourselves libertarian if we think the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves and want the federal government to force them to form a 'proper' society.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



Hmm
To be honest, I cant find a single post where GG mentions what he believes in personally.  All the statements that I have seen him make are on the same lines as my original argument  that there are pro-life libertarians and it is not against the core principals in libertarianism.  I could be incorrect in his meaning though, Ill leave that to him to clarify if he so chooses.

RMK made a similar statement to mine as well, that there should be regulations in gestational periods.  He bases it off another metric (heart/brain action) that I think would place that at a far to short a period but the gist of that is the same.  As you did not state that you were lumping my personal stance into the disillusioning category, I will assume for now that you are not so opposed to that approach.  What is it about RMKs statement that is so different from my own then?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



LOL

Now THAT I can agree with!  You were VERY frustrating in that thread 

I am sure you were saying the EXACT same thing though!


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



True, but liberty does not extend to the right to take someone eles's liberty away from them.  Surely the killing of another human being (abortion in this case), for no other reason than convenience, is an act that takes away the liberty of the un-born child.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > If the federal government would stay out of it and ALL reproductive processes, as the Founders would have intended, society will decide on the issue of abortion.  Just as culturally we don't endorse public nudity except in very controlled environments. . . .just as culturally we don't condone butchering and eating dogs, cats, horses. . . .we as a culture will come to our own decisions about abortion.
> ...



Absolutely!

And that is what would happen too  there would be many different experiments in different ways of exercising government.  That is a good thing.  Not only that, but the most successful means of governing would quickly spread.  While consensus is not the correct word there, you would see much similarity as the best ways of running government were spread around and adopted.

It is worth noting though that in a libertarian system there would be fewer controls and laws taking your rights than there is now even with the diversity in ideas/governing.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Yeah in my mind, involuntary personal income tax crosses the line into a form of indentured slavery.  I just can't come up with a valid reason to excuse it.  Thus any discussion of it, and the folks on the other side are gonna see me as being angry, antagonistic, etc.  It's not the case.. but it will be read that way.  I suppose I need to find better terms that are less abrasive and perhaps even expiatory.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> What part of my view on advocating for the life of a child was disconcerting?



This:


> Yeah on the matter of abortion, I think the child needs an advocate to argue to a judge to spare the life of the child in cases where the abortion is done late term and / or just for convenience. Convenience as a choice, IMO, should end when the child's heart is beating and/or some level of brain wave activity is present.



Your ideas here assume laws to force all this and stop abortions. So much for_ Roe v. Wade_.....

"Convenience" is heavily subjective: if a horrible disgusting violent rapist jumped out of an alley in Boston and raped me when I was young -- this happened to a college friend of mine and I don't know if she ever recovered, it was all she could think about three years later, I know -- and I got pregnant and was forced to carry the fetus to term and decide whether to raise it because people said that was just an issue of "convenience," wow, that would be a true horror story. I'd rather other people, like some men somewhere who like to mind other peoples' business, not decide things like that for me. Let's let people decide that sort of thing for themselves. 

As for the brain wave/heart beating business, that sets a very early threshold that would stop abortions by law -- laws, laws, laws: aren't libertarians supposed to be against all these oppressive laws? Or is that just laws against guns that men don't like? There's a real problem about severely impaired fetuses close to birth. Trust me: you do NOT want to know the possibilities. I could tell you stories, but luckily for you, I won't. 

Best to leave it all to decision by the woman and her husband, if any, and her doctor. Doctors have seen accidents of nature before and they know what they are doing.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...




He wants specific laws that would outlaw most abortions. That seems to me the very antithesis of libertarianism.

You hate the idea of abortion (as is very emotionally appropriate for young parents; I especially never argue this issue with young women; I actually think it's probably bad for them. Really.)  but if I understand you correctly, you would not make laws against it. That's classic libertarianism, I believe ---- we don't have to approve of everything that's out there! Shouldn't, really.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > What part of my view on advocating for the life of a child was disconcerting?
> ...



Thanks for the response Circe.  My apologies.  My use of the term convenience was not intended to include rape victims. 

We already have laws that define a living human being as a person with a heart beat and/or brain wave activity.  No additional laws would be required for my proposal.

We already have laws that require an advocate be provided in a case against a person who cannot speak for themselves.  No additional laws would be required for this proposal either.

>>> severely impaired fetuses close to birth, accidents of nature etc.
Why would the advocate for a severely impaired fetus argue for that child to endure undue pain and suffering?  

Again I'm not sure why you are including rape and severely impaired fetuses in my use of the term convenience.  My example for convenience would be someone deciding at 5months along that they can't afford a baby right now.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

> Again I'm not sure why you are including rape and severely impaired fetuses in my use of the term convenience.  My example for convenience would be someone deciding at 5months along that they can't afford a baby right now.



If it happens to you I'll be glad to decide you have to gestate and raise the baby anyway, even if you don't want to.  But everyone else should decide on their own without your help --- or mine.




RKMBrown said:


> We already have laws that define a living human being as a person with a heart beat and/or brain wave activity.  No additional laws would be required for my proposal.
> 
> We already have laws that require an advocate be provided in a case against a person who cannot speak for themselves.  No additional laws would be required for this proposal either.



Very nice; the end of life laws. [  I never heard that argument before! 

I could argue that it's not the same because the fetus is attached to and dependent on the biological subtrate of the mother; but you could come back with the point that the dying person is also attached to and dependent on ICU equipment.

It does not persuade me, of course, but I think you have a keeper there.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



Most of the pro-abortion crowd, whether libertarian or not, refuses to acknowledge that the unborn child is a human life.  They refer to it as zygote, embryo, clump of cells, parasite. . . .anything other than a baby.  And they put all the value on a woman's right to do anything to it or with it that she wants to do.

Most of the pro life crowd, whether libertarian or not, sees each stage of human life, even from the zygote and embrionic phases, as no less critical to a human life than is any stage outside the womb is critical to a human life.  And if it comes to viability, that new born baby is no more viable without somebody else providing it warmth, nutrition, and other attendance to its needs than is the unborn child still within the womb.

So it all comes down to the value somebody puts on the life.  If you can convince yourself that it is not a human life, then it is okay to kill it.   But if it is a human life, no true libertarian could justify taking away that person's right to life unless the person voluntarily forfeits his/her right to life via his/her own choices/actions.

What libertarian objects to laws intended to protect our unalienable right to life and pursuit of happiness; i.e. laws that prevent others from commiting assault or murder with impunity, or from destroying or stealing our property with impunity, etc?  And yet what moral libertarian does not believe in relieving suffering of a dumb animal, even if that relief is via destroying it?  And should not the same compassion be extended to the unborn who has little or no chance for a happy, productive life; i.e. the severely damaged fetus, etc.?

But the paradox comes with those who are severely handicapped but who live happy, productive lives regardless.

No easy answers.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Most of the pro life crowd, whether libertarian or not, sees each stage of human life, even from the zygote and embrionic phases, as no less critical to a human life than is any stage outside the womb is critical to a human life.  And if it comes to viability, that new born baby is no more viable without somebody else providing it warmth, nutrition, and other attendance to its needs than is the unborn child still within the womb.


This, more than anything, really pisses me the fuck off.  I have argued against pro-choice people here many times about abortion because the majority of them take absolutely asinine positions on what a fetus is.  I support the right to choose BUT as the same time I look at that right and acknowledge that what I am supporting is the voluntary decision to kill another human for convenience.  I support the right not because I think it is a &#8216;medical procedure&#8217; or because I think that there is no value in the fetus.  Those positions are not only wrong but they exist solely for the comfort of those that make that choice without any moral fortitude.  I support it because I support rights and because the alternative is worse than the &#8216;solution.&#8217;  

Those that try and muddy the waters by morally justifying the act through bullshit terms though are low and anger me greatly.  If you have the balls to KILL your child, as that is exactly what you are doing, then at least have the balls to admit to yourself what you are doing.  You have the right and you have the means &#8211; at least be honest.


Foxfyre said:


> No easy answers.


Not when you are talking about life and death coupled with rights over your own body.  Those answers are never easy and if they become easy &#8211; watch out, you might have become a monster.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the pro life crowd, whether libertarian or not, sees each stage of human life, even from the zygote and embrionic phases, as no less critical to a human life than is any stage outside the womb is critical to a human life.  And if it comes to viability, that new born baby is no more viable without somebody else providing it warmth, nutrition, and other attendance to its needs than is the unborn child still within the womb.
> ...



you talk of moral outrage is it something bad and uet you can't bring yourself to call it s human life. what's pathetic is the cowardice of the pro-abortion crowd inition cludes the Libertarian Party. . who in its platform speaks of just trying to ignore it and hopes it goes away


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> you talk of moral outrage is it something bad enjoy it you can you can bring yourself to College human life. what's pathetic is the cowardice of the pro-abortion crowd inition cludes the Libertarian Party. . who in its platform speaks of just trying to ignore it and hopes it goes away


.
Youre going to have to try that again.  That is completely incoherent.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



I've made the case that being pro-life is not a means to invalidate people's rights as circe was claiming. Circe was aruging that the pro-life position was so diametrically not libertarian. And I said that's a load of crap. In fact, the libertarian platform allows for people on both sides of the issue.

A fetus has a heartbeat for f's sake. If anybody is anti-libertarian; it's the pro-choice side. Are we not for protecting everyone's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The argument was, well it affects the woman's body. So? The woman has the choice to not get pregnant in the first place. If I were saying that I was advocating on who could get pregnant and when, then that would be anti-libertarian. But, I'm not. I'm saying that the fetus is a living organism and a life. The fact that it is dependent upon the mother or whatever is inconsequential. Newborns are totally dependent on guardians also. Does that mean they don't get rights? Of course not. Fetuses should have less rights based upon the magic placenta?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



Thank you for the clarification.  I seen your arguments but was not sure that you actually ascribed to what you were talking about as we are discussing libertarianism.  Like I stated, many of my arguments earlier in this thread were of objective substance in relation to libertarianism, not personally held views.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Auteur said:
> ...



Kerry has been pretty vocal about supporting intervention in Syria yet you continue to insist the the GOP is the problem.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Maybe the problem is authoritarianism in both parties?  Just sayin.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



do you honestly think libertarians be different? it isn't the ideology it's the people in power. in ideology Republicans are for equal opportunity for all races and sexes and a strong respect for the Republic government from which this was founded to be. and yet when you look at many other Republicans in office they do not embody anything of the ideology


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The GOP platform is Democrat Lite. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll realize they aren't the answer.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



That is my point. There are some people who insist that only the other guys are bad because they would only use ultimate power for good. The problem is when anyone thinks they know what is best for someone else.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No.  Thus I'm thinking about calling myself a constitutional conservative.  It appears we have anarchists in the libertarian party who believe in some form of corporate authoritarianism, as if a corporate contract excuses their acts.  Yeah there's no way to create a group that won't be subverted by anti-liberty folks.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 6, 2013)

My issue with the libertarian platform is that is assumes that in matters of trade, employment and the environment, everyone will always do the fair and morally correct thing.  The employer won't take advantage of his position in hiring, people won't cheap out on pollution control to increase profits, companies won't sell unsafe or unreliable products or any of the other things that laws and regulations currently prevent them from doing.

Enough people are greedy, or venal enough to abuse the system completely.  That's why we have employment law in the first place, because companies routinely screwed over employees, companies made bad products and then went out of business to keep from being sued, and pollution killed people and destroyed communities.

Libertarianism doesn't address these issues in any way.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yes, but with the notation that people can devise a plan to actually do good for people. But, we certainly know that the govt help is a scam of all scams.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> My issue with the libertarian platform is that is assumes that in matters of trade, employment and the environment, everyone will always do the fair and morally correct thing.  The employer won't take advantage of his position in hiring, people won't cheap out on pollution control to increase profits, companies won't sell unsafe or unreliable products or any of the other things that laws and regulations currently prevent them from doing.
> 
> Enough people are greedy, or venal enough to abuse the system completely.  That's why we have employment law in the first place, because companies routinely screwed over employees, companies made bad products and then went out of business to keep from being sued, and pollution killed people and destroyed communities.
> 
> Libertarianism doesn't address these issues in any way.



Wrong.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the pro life crowd, whether libertarian or not, sees each stage of human life, even from the zygote and embrionic phases, as no less critical to a human life than is any stage outside the womb is critical to a human life.  And if it comes to viability, that new born baby is no more viable without somebody else providing it warmth, nutrition, and other attendance to its needs than is the unborn child still within the womb.
> ...



Just for clarification, the content of your post implies that you meant to say pro choice rather than pro life up there where I have it highlighted.?   If you did mean to say pro life, so be it, but I wanted to give you a chance to correct that before somebody plucks that line out of context and uses it to accuse you of something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> My issue with the libertarian platform is that is assumes that in matters of trade, employment and the environment, everyone will always do the fair and morally correct thing.  The employer won't take advantage of his position in hiring, people won't cheap out on pollution control to increase profits, companies won't sell unsafe or unreliable products or any of the other things that laws and regulations currently prevent them from doing.
> 
> Enough people are greedy, or venal enough to abuse the system completely.  That's why we have employment law in the first place, because companies routinely screwed over employees, companies made bad products and then went out of business to keep from being sued, and pollution killed people and destroyed communities.
> 
> Libertarianism doesn't address these issues in any way.



It assumes no such thing.

I haven't read the libertarian platform, but I can assure you that libertarians do think about the fact that people are not all good. Even Adam Smith recognized that some people are not good, he just argued that the invisible had of the market would actually discourage this type of behavior. Turns out that he was right about that, game theory has conclusively proven that consistently doing the right thing will actually bring better results than cheating.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 6, 2013)

Well, I must say that this thread has turned out to much more civil and enlightened (my dictionary didn't think "discussive" was a word) than others I have been involved in.

More on topic:
The libertarian Platform does not take a stand on individual morality because that would infringe on the individual freedoms and rights that they hold dear. Any single Libertarian is free to hold any opinion on those issues but the party will not deal with them because it falls outside the purview of the federal powers granted by the constitution. Under the Libertarian umbrella it could be decided by the states or the individual involved but not by the federal government unless it was argued in court as a civil rights issue.

That civil rights issue business has one major stumbling block as far as definition. The documents supporting individual rights and freedoms are defined as granted by the creator at birth where we now know that the life exists long before birth. How long before birth can the rights extend is the problem - both morally and legally.

Personally I am in favor of abortion within the first trimester and in cases where the mother's health is in jeopardy after that. Cases of rape, incest and special considerations make it even more difficult to lay down concrete rules that would apply in all cases. My person convictions cannot be willfully applied to others though and I acknowledge that the individual(s) involved are the only ones who can determine what they can live with. I am diametrically opposed to abortion as a form of birth control on moral grounds but again my morals may be different from the woman involved. Women should have the option and I believe that most women are capable of responsible choices for themselves.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> My issue with the libertarian platform is that is assumes that in matters of trade, employment and the environment, everyone will always do the fair and morally correct thing.  The employer won't take advantage of his position in hiring, people won't cheap out on pollution control to increase profits, companies won't sell unsafe or unreliable products or any of the other things that laws and regulations currently prevent them from doing.
> 
> Enough people are greedy, or venal enough to abuse the system completely.  That's why we have employment law in the first place, because companies routinely screwed over employees, companies made bad products and then went out of business to keep from being sued, and pollution killed people and destroyed communities.
> 
> Libertarianism doesn't address these issues in any way.



You are making the erroneous that libertarianism is the same as anarco-capitalism.  That is not true.  Libertarians are not anarchists and do not want all regulation eliminated.  Some buy into that but most do not go to the extreme edge.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> You are making the erroneous that libertarianism is the same as anarco-capitalism.  That is not true.  Libertarians are not anarchists and do not want all regulation eliminated.  Some buy into that but most do not go to the extreme edge.



No I am quoting one of the four main planks of the party platform:



> Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.



There is nothing there to protect the public from unscrupulous operators, from pollution or harm by irresponsible corporations, or to protect workers from those who would take advantage of their economic position to exploit the weak.

Free markets have proven to be disastrous for anyone but the wealthy, in country after country.  Free market capitalism reduces wages, while raising prices.  The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

And what about infrastructure?  Who builds that, how is it paid for, who owns it?  Without infrastructure, commerce cannot happen.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> ...I'm thinking about calling myself a constitutional conservative.  It appears we have anarchists in the libertarian party who believe in some form of corporate authoritarianism, as if a corporate contract excuses their acts.  Yeah there's no way to create a group that won't be subverted by anti-liberty folks.



Good. I was going to ask you if you thought you were a conservative of some form; I didn't see how you could be a libertarian. 

Let's see, conservatives come in various flavors (as do all the other political philosophies): traditional, statist, and constitutional, I think. I'm not sure if there are others.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> > Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing there to protect the public from unscrupulous operators, from pollution or harm by irresponsible corporations, or to protect workers from those who would take advantage of their economic position to exploit the weak.




That platform plank is about the role of government in the economic realm, but you are actually referring to government's role in protecting citizens from crime. That would be a different plank. If an unscrupulous company owner locks factory doors so that workers would burn up like in Bangladesh, I assume that would be a crime that the government would deal with and put him in the clink. If a company owner pollutes a river or the air people have to breathe, again, that would be an obvious crime: even China is waking up to all that, and they have a frankly cowboy economy.

I don't know what you mean by exploiting the weak, unless you mean not having a minimum wage. People can refuse the job, however. I never understand why people get upset about low wages in foreign countries --- those people STREAM in from the country fighting for those jobs! How bad can the wages be, you know? If they don't like the wages or conditions, assuming the conditions aren't frankly abusive or harmful, which would be an actionable crime, then they can choose not to work there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Well, I must say that this thread has turned out to much more civil and enlightened (my dictionary didn't think "discussive" was a word) than others I have been involved in.
> 
> More on topic:
> The libertarian Platform does not take a stand on individual morality because that would infringe on the individual freedoms and rights that they hold dear. Any single Libertarian is free to hold any opinion on those issues but the party will not deal with them because it falls outside the purview of the federal powers granted by the constitution. Under the Libertarian umbrella it could be decided by the states or the individual involved but not by the federal government unless it was argued in court as a civil rights issue.
> ...



Where does it say rights begin at birth?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > You are making the erroneous that libertarianism is the same as anarco-capitalism.  That is not true.  Libertarians are not anarchists and do not want all regulation eliminated.  Some buy into that but most do not go to the extreme edge.
> ...



That is because they are not talking about pollution there, they are discussing economics. This is what they say about the environment.



> We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources.  Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2013)

Circe said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > ...I'm thinking about calling myself a constitutional conservative.  It appears we have anarchists in the libertarian party who believe in some form of corporate authoritarianism, as if a corporate contract excuses their acts.  Yeah there's no way to create a group that won't be subverted by anti-liberty folks.
> ...



Yeah I just can't support the republicans.  Way too many democrats wearing republican hats.  Way to many war hawks.  Way to many religious right trying to make their religion the law of the land.  Way to many Bushes and Romneys and McCains.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 6, 2013)

In the federal papers it states the we are born with our rights, that they do not come from position, wealth or the government.

Look at what I wrote - "in the supporting documents"


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources.  Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. *Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife.* Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.



I would guess the bolded sentence is the enforcement clause, that government can stop people using common resources up and destroying them to the harm of everyone else. It is true that private industry has an AWFUL record of polluting if they can get away with it; so does government, for that matter. 

I am very interested in the issue of what should be defined as "harm to others" in a libertarian system. Creating a Love Canal so polluted that people who live there get cancer from it, has to be stopped by government. But the government insisting that no one develop land because there is a rare slug in a cave on the land? Or some bats? Or some little fish nobody cares about and that isn't important to the ecosystem, but happens to be rare? Hmmmmmm. That's probably government gone wild to control everyone and everything out of business.


----------



## Circe (Jul 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see, conservatives come in various flavors (as do all the other political philosophies): traditional, statist, and constitutional, I think. I'm not sure if there are others.
> ...



Conservative but not Republican. Got it. I tried out being a traditionalist conservative when I gave up on the Republicans in 2006, but that isn't working for me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> In the federal papers it states the we are born with our rights, that they do not come from position, wealth or the government.
> 
> Look at what I wrote - "in the supporting documents"



"Born with" does not mean they begin at birth, it just means they do not come from other sources.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I haven't read the libertarian platform, but I can assure you that libertarians do think about the fact that people are not all good. Even Adam Smith recognized that some people are not good, he just argued that the invisible had of the market would actually discourage this type of behavior. Turns out that he was right about that, game theory has conclusively proven that consistently doing the right thing will actually bring better results than cheating.



I agree that the majority want to "do well by doing good" as the exxpression goes, but there are enough people who will do whatever they can get away with unless their are consequences to actions in which people strive to take advantage of wealth and position and nowhere does that happen more frequently than in unregulated free markets, the incidents in Bangla Desh being the most recent examples.

The laws to protect the workers existed in Bangla Desh, as do building and zoning regulations but in actual practice are never enforced because they get in the way of companies doing business.  Hours before it happened, engineers warned that the building could collapse at any time and ordered everyone out, and yet employers forced their workers to remain.  Look at the incidents in North America during the Industrial Revolution when there were no workplace health and safety regulations in place and see how many workers were killed by the machinery, or in workplace fires.

Wherever and whenever business is unencumbered by well enforced health and safety regulations, workers die in large numbers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't read the libertarian platform, but I can assure you that libertarians do think about the fact that people are not all good. Even Adam Smith recognized that some people are not good, he just argued that the invisible had of the market would actually discourage this type of behavior. Turns out that he was right about that, game theory has conclusively proven that consistently doing the right thing will actually bring better results than cheating.
> ...



You keep missing the point.

Tell me something, if you are so sure there are always people who will ignore the rules why do you think the rules will make a difference? Did you know that there is actually a branch of mathematics that deals with this whole conundrum, and that it conclusively proves that, in the long run, the best strategy is to cooperate and to make the choices that benefit everyone, not just yourself? Successful business men actually understand this, which is why the people who are willing to do whatever it takes in order to win prefer to use the government to help them win in the short term. They actually design regulations that make it easier for them to get away with doing less by forcing everyone to adopt the same safety standard, which means that they do not have to adopt things that make it safer for everyone.

Ever wonder how the owner of the building got away with ordering the workers back into the building before the collapse even though the public was warned? Do you think it is remotely possible that the local government didn't notice an extra 3 stories added onto a building even though there were no permits for it? Think about that for a bit, and get back to me.

The laws that protect those people exist because the government is bigger than it needs to be. If we had a smaller government, and fewer regulations designed to protect business owners, you would be spending a lot less time complaining about the way business gets away with hurting people.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You are correct.  Thanks for pointing out my error.  My original post has been corrected as well.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > You are making the erroneous that libertarianism is the same as anarco-capitalism.  That is not true.  Libertarians are not anarchists and do not want all regulation eliminated.  Some buy into that but most do not go to the extreme edge.
> ...



That is not a problem with the libertarian platform but rather your understanding of it.  As other have pointed out, things like pollution etc are covered in other places.  You also seem to have ignored this part:

&#8220;and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.&#8221;

To protect voluntary trade, some regulation is required.  Infrastructure is also not part of this section and one of the basic jobs of government.  



Dragonlady said:


> I agree that the majority want to "do well by doing good" as the exxpression goes, but there are enough people who will do whatever they can get away with unless their are consequences to actions in which people strive to take advantage of wealth and position and nowhere does that happen more frequently than in unregulated free markets, the incidents in Bangla Desh being the most recent examples.
> 
> The laws to protect the workers existed in Bangla Desh, as do building and zoning regulations but in actual practice are never enforced because they get in the way of companies doing business.  Hours before it happened, engineers warned that the building could collapse at any time and ordered everyone out, and yet employers forced their workers to remain.  Look at the incidents in North America during the Industrial Revolution when there were no workplace health and safety regulations in place and see how many workers were killed by the machinery, or in workplace fires.
> 
> Wherever and whenever business is unencumbered by well enforced health and safety regulations, workers die in large numbers.



Free markets have proven no such thing.  What has proven disastrous is when government colludes with business.  The example you gave is such an instance.  Government makes rules and then exempts that big business from them, putting the workers in danger yet still managing to remove any alternatives or competition for that same business.  THAT drives down wages by eliminating jobs, drives up price by removing competitors and ultimately ends up with a rich few and a large underclass.

Free markets do the exact opposite.  We had free markets operate very successfully here for a LONG time.  They vaulted us to the position that we now hold.  Unfortunately, our free markets are turning into exactly what your example was about: big banks putting smaller ones out of business while the government uses your money to keep those rich people rich, car companies that do not produce a viable product propped up, new business startups being snuffed out through oppressive regulation and all around a government that looks the other way with businesses that are big enough to support the corrupt government.


----------



## Circe (Jul 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Wherever and whenever business is unencumbered by well enforced health and safety regulations, workers die in large numbers.



True.

So a libertarian government would have to have strong laws and enforcement procedures for public safety. Worker safety, food safety, drug safety. 

We know we can't trust business to police themselves; too many terrible "accidents" and corruptions have occurred, and not just in Bangladesh, either.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 7, 2013)

While I believe our legal system, along with the government it has created, has become seriously corrupt, self serving, and dangerously coercive, I do support the right to demand and receive damages due to the intentional negligence of another.  And while I resist most government mandates that order a business to do this or that, I don't have a huge problem with workers compensation laws that protect the employer as much as they protect the employee.  Or even a requirement that a minimum level of general liability insurance must be maintained in order to obtain a business license.  But keep this at state or local levels only.  Never federal.

But because the work comp premiums. as well as general liability premiums, are in part based on experience, i.e. the number of claims filed against a policy, plus the risks of cost when sued for negligence, there is a huge incentive for employers to maintain safe working conditions and require safe working practices by the employees.  And because one bad accident can wipe out all the premiums and more that the employer pays the insurance company, it is also a huge incentive for insurance companies to set their own rules for who they will or will not insure at a specific cost.

I have no problem with federal guidelines suggesting safe working practices and alerting employers to hazards.  But as a libertarian,  I have a huge problem with OSHA and other government agencies who presume to dictate HOW the employer must conduct his business.

Back in the days of sweat shops and deplorable working conditions, there was little or no risk of lawsuits for negligence for the employer and no insurance companies for him to keep happy.  Now there are.  The free market generally gets around to taking care of these things without handing over more and more power to government to dictate the sort of society we wish to have.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



that is funny seeing as libertarians are more Democrat light then the Republicans. heck with libertarians love affair with the Confederate they are old school Democrats


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> In the federal papers it states the we are born with our rights, that they do not come from position, wealth or the government.
> 
> Look at what I wrote - "in the supporting documents"



is that how you excuse you're support of abortion ?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



Old School democrats?  You mean as in when the democrats and republicans were one party?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 7, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



Except they are not.

Democrats are diametrically opposed to libertarian thought.  There is nothing similar at all between the two ideologies. 

Democrats are focused on society and governmental control over our lives.  They support, in general, grater control, huge regulatory agencies and all the government size/control that comes with it.  Libertarians believe in personal responsibility instead.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



There was a time in history that democrats believed in personal responsibility.  A long time ago in a place far far away.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 7, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Au contraire, it is the perfect example. But since you asked how about the example of universal background checks for all gun purchasers? As a Libertarian you are in favor of personal responsibility and accountability. How are you going to ensure that every single gun owner complies with that principle? If you allow just anyone to buy a gun without a background check you are enabling drug dealers, criminals and the mentally unstable to obtain lethal weapons. A real Libertarian should follow Reagan's advice of "trust, but verify". In other words you want everyone to be responsible and accountable but you know that the only way to make it happen is to apply universal background checks. 

So why aren't all Libertarians 100% in support of background checks?


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ever wonder how the owner of the building got away with ordering the workers back into the building before the collapse even though the public was warned? Do you think it is remotely possible that the local government didn't notice an extra 3 stories added onto a building even though there were no permits for it? Think about that for a bit, and get back to me.
> 
> The laws that protect those people exist because the government is bigger than it needs to be. If we had a smaller government, and fewer regulations designed to protect business owners, you would be spending a lot less time complaining about the way business gets away with hurting people.



I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this point.  I live in a country with a strong labour code and where workers have rights, and we don't see the kind of employee abuses that Americans have.  

The key is "well-enforced", and while the laws existed in Bangla Desh to protect workers, they are not enforced.  I can only think that either bribes were in play and/or no one enforces the building code and building owners and their tenants, do whatever they think will make them the most money.

You have vulture corporations like Monsanto which has moved many of it's more questionable operations to Third World countries where bribes are readily accepted and pollution is no big deal.

So no, I have no faith that public opinion and the market will stop this corporation from destroying food supplies for their own profit.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



That's right we can't trust everyone so we need to make slaves of everyone.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I would settle for them going back to believing in personal freedom.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Ask not what your country can do for you... has changed to:

I want what's mine, take it from that guy over there...


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 7, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > In the federal papers it states the we are born with our rights, that they do not come from position, wealth or the government.
> ...




I don't excuse my stand. I believe that women should have the choice but not for the purpose of birth control. We have reliable methods of birth control that prevent conception. We don't need to use abortion for birth control. If a young girl becomes pregnant before she can support (mentally and emotionally) a baby then abortion should be an option. If there is a risk to the mother's health or the pregnancy is due to illegal behavior on the part of the father then divorce should be an option.
It is less that I support abortion and more that I believe a woman should have the choice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



This is another example of you using the government to impose your personal religious beliefs on others.

Personal responsibility does not mean the government can force people to prove they are innocent of any wrongdoing before they do something that is legal. Doing so is no different than requiring people to prove they are not braking the law before you allow them to vote. My guess is you would, rightfully, raise holy hell states started requiring background checks before they let you vote.

You, of course, see one of those things as not being like the other, even though they are identical.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ever wonder how the owner of the building got away with ordering the workers back into the building before the collapse even though the public was warned? Do you think it is remotely possible that the local government didn't notice an extra 3 stories added onto a building even though there were no permits for it? Think about that for a bit, and get back to me.
> ...



What country do you live in? I only ask in order to prove to you that things are actually worse for workers wherever it is than you think they are here.

By the way, what imaginary abuses of employees do you think occur here?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 7, 2013)

When did we stop being a country that strictly enforced freedom of religion and instead became a country in which government permits freedom of religion unless certain people don't like it?

When did we stop being a country that strictly enforced free speech and instead became a country in which free speech is strictly enforced IF it is politically correct?  That we have a free press but the privacy of those who make their living that way are subject to intense government scrutiny and possible retribution?

When did we stop being a country that defended a right to bear arms and instead became a country in which the government increasingly encroaches on those rights except for those the government controls?

When did we stop being a country in which each citizen had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and instead became a country in which the government increasingly assigns the quality of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that we are required to have and forces us to provide that to others?

How much of the libertarian ideals and spirit remains, and how much of our liberty has been confiscated, never to be restored?  And who believes that the government will not continue to chip away at our liberties until none are left?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 7, 2013)

There are always going to be employers that do not follow the rules. I know because I worked for one, in a union shop, that completely disregarded the safety rules that our state has. I worked with the safety committee, the union, and the managers (the owner was an alcoholic and was never...available) for a period of over three years to correct the safety concerns. The answer I always got back was, "we've done it this way for twenty years and we aren't going to change it now." For every issue I found I also found an inexpensive repair that would solve the issue - I am not a complainer - I tend to solve problems. After three years of getting nowhere and three near fatal incidents I call the Labor and Industries and filed a request for an audit based on the issues that I had been listing for three years. The audit identified a lot more issues that were ordered corrected than I had asked for but the issues I had raised we solved with my recommended fixes. The company fixed the issues and paid no fine. I was provided with every sh!t job for the next year and when work slowed I was the one that didn't work. I got a better paying job as quickly as I started looking for one in another union shop that actually cared about the working conditions and their employees.
You don't need a big government to solve issues - all you need is someone who has the desire to do something to make things better. Most people would rather just complain.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> There are always going to be employers that do not follow the rules. I know because I worked for one, in a union shop, that completely disregarded the safety rules that our state has. I worked with the safety committee, the union, and the managers (the owner was an alcoholic and was never...available) for a period of over three years to correct the safety concerns. The answer I always got back was, "we've done it this way for twenty years and we aren't going to change it now." For every issue I found I also found an inexpensive repair that would solve the issue - I am not a complainer - I tend to solve problems. After three years of getting nowhere and three near fatal incidents I call the Labor and Industries and filed a request for an audit based on the issues that I had been listing for three years. The audit identified a lot more issues that were ordered corrected than I had asked for but the issues I had raised we solved with my recommended fixes. The company fixed the issues and paid no fine. I was provided with every sh!t job for the next year and when work slowed I was the one that didn't work. I got a better paying job as quickly as I started looking for one in another union shop that actually cared about the working conditions and their employees.
> You don't need a big government to solve issues - all you need is someone who has the desire to do something to make things better. Most people would rather just complain.



Imagine that, a union preferring the easy money to making noise about safety issues.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 7, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Because that is against libertarian values.  Interesting how, in one breath, government interfering with the control over your body is against libertarian views (in your mind) and then in the next breath government interfering in the free exchange of your belongings is also against libertarian though (again, in your mind).  

You must realize that your entire paragraph is nonsense.  Background checks are a form of government intrusion into the free exchange of goods and a direct infringement on your right to bear arms/self-defense.  There is no other way to see that.  You can argue that infringement is a valid and prudent.  You can argue that infringement protects others rights to safety and that those rights outweigh the infringement on your right to bear arms.  All those are debatable points.  However, it is NOT debatable that it is an infringement unless you are hopelessly mangling the definition of words.

By the way, the government does not &#8216;ensure&#8217; that you comply with personal responsibility.  That is, in fact, NOT personal responsibility.  What the government does is apply the force of law to those that fail that responsibility.  

In both of these items, you have failed to look at libertarianism objectively.  Instead, you have taken position that YOU hold and tried to force libertarian philosophy to adhere to them.  I am somewhat confused as to why you would do such a thing considering that you are not a libertarian.  Some of what you believe is simply not going to be compatible with this worldview.  This particular post is a clear example of that as in it you are forcing universal background checks around a philosophy that soundly rejects that type of governmental control.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > There are always going to be employers that do not follow the rules. I know because I worked for one, in a union shop, that completely disregarded the safety rules that our state has. I worked with the safety committee, the union, and the managers (the owner was an alcoholic and was never...available) for a period of over three years to correct the safety concerns. The answer I always got back was, "we've done it this way for twenty years and we aren't going to change it now." For every issue I found I also found an inexpensive repair that would solve the issue - I am not a complainer - I tend to solve problems. After three years of getting nowhere and three near fatal incidents I call the Labor and Industries and filed a request for an audit based on the issues that I had been listing for three years. The audit identified a lot more issues that were ordered corrected than I had asked for but the issues I had raised we solved with my recommended fixes. The company fixed the issues and paid no fine. I was provided with every sh!t job for the next year and when work slowed I was the one that didn't work. I got a better paying job as quickly as I started looking for one in another union shop that actually cared about the working conditions and their employees.
> ...



Easy money? what the ... are you talking about? There is very little "easy money" for a working stiff and we are all concerned for our safety. Not everyone agrees what should apply but when someone gets seriously injured or killed in the workplace I care. when there is are overhead cranes that have never been inspected or calibrated that is a concern. when people are hit by flying debris when a bearing explodes in a press I am concerned. When a 30 ton vehicle drops because wooden blocking is rotted from the inside and I am underneath it I am concerned.

I was concerned enough to buy some metal and build stands that could individually take that much weight and were still lighter and took less space to store than the rotten wood blocks that had to be stored outside in the rain. Unions are made up of the people who work for a living. The workers are the union and they have very limited power in the workplace beyond enforcing the legal contract they have with the employer. Nobody that I know wants to work in unsafe conditions. The union can't make those changes - all they can do is recommend the business follows the requirements set up by the state. Failing that we took the matter to the state and let them handle it.
You should try working on heavy equipment before you call it "easy money".


----------



## numan (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that, a union preferring the easy money to making noise about safety issues.
> ...


Perhaps some people prefer the easy phrases to the work of actually thinking.

.


----------



## Circe (Jul 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> So no, I have no faith that public opinion and the market will stop this corporation from destroying food supplies for their own profit.



Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.

That's a good libertarian issue. What if one company (Monsanto) is developing a product that lots of people want very much, highly productive corn, for instance, and other people with no evidence at all want to persuade people that it's poison, just because..........well, just because they are Luddites, I guess. 

I am for government regulation and laws against outright criminal exploitation and harm of the public, like running a food processing plant full of salmonella and rats --- we see that sometimes here!! And when there is a big illness outbreak, the government shuts the company down and there is an investigation, not least into how the inspectors didn't notice all that earlier. I just took some livestock to an auction last week and there was a sign up that this auction site would not accept "nonambulatory cattle." 

Well, duh.

But what if people are just nuts, and there is no evidence that X or Y is harmful? Genetically modified food, or "global warming" silliness, or excessive protection of an endangered lizard somewhere --- 

It seems to me that a libertarian government would want to establish that there actually IS harm going on. Some small group having a fit of the heebie-jeebies wouldn't trigger government action. There is too much of that now. No smoking in bars, all that.


----------



## Circe (Jul 7, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> By the way, the government does not ensure that you comply with personal responsibility.  That is, in fact, NOT personal responsibility. * What the government does is apply the force of law to those that fail that responsibility.*
> 
> In both of these items, you have failed to look at libertarianism objectively.  Instead, you have taken position that YOU hold and tried to force libertarian philosophy to adhere to them.  I am somewhat confused as to why you would do such a thing considering that you are not a libertarian.  Some of what you believe is simply not going to be compatible with this worldview. * This particular post is a clear example of that as in it you are forcing universal background checks around a philosophy that soundly rejects that type of governmental control*.



There is a terrible problem about madmen and terrorists getting guns and killing many people. Does libertarianism require that there is no way to put any roadblocks in their paths to blowing up and shooting lots of people? If not, then there is nothing to be done but tolerate a lot of carnage until another form of government (NOT libertarianism) is chosen by the people, because catching these people is not working: they nearly all suicide anyway. So there is no way to defend the public against madmen and criminals and terrorists getting guns and explosives like ammonium nitrate? I remember when I could buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer every year. One year (after Timothy McVeigh) I went into the feed store to get fertilizer and they said I had to have a government number!

I was indignant, but there are a lot of fertilizer bombs made even with these controls; how many would there be without controls? What do libertarians think about this problem of public safety, with crazies and evils getting free access to whatever they want for mass killings?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 7, 2013)

Circe said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > So no, I have no faith that public opinion and the market will stop this corporation from destroying food supplies for their own profit.
> ...



There is a fine line here.

In my libertarian world, it is okay to have laws the require truth in advertising so that the public can be informed.  Monsanto should be required to label its product as organic only if it truly is, to label its product as GMO or whatever.  But government should never have the power to tell Monsanto how it must conduct its business or what products it must produce.

But even in advertising, there is a gray area.  It is okay for a company to advertise its product as BEST when it isn't.  But it is not okay to advertise that it will cure cancer when it won't.

Laws against deliberate deception that could be injurious to people can be effectively enacted without removing all personal responsibility of buyer beware.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 7, 2013)

Circe said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, the government does not ensure that you comply with personal responsibility.  That is, in fact, NOT personal responsibility. * What the government does is apply the force of law to those that fail that responsibility.*
> ...


What laws stop those things now?


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 7, 2013)

Circe said:


> Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.
> 
> That's a good libertarian issue. What if one company (Monsanto) is developing a product that lots of people want very much, highly productive corn, for instance, and other people with no evidence at all want to persuade people that it's poison, just because..........well, just because they are Luddites, I guess. But what if people are just nuts, and there is no evidence that X or Y is harmful? Genetically modified food, or "global warming" silliness, or excessive protection of an endangered lizard somewhere ---



Monsanto is producing GMO seeds that kill bees, that don't reproduce, and that can't grow without Monsanto fertilizers.  And these seeds are cross pollinating with unmodified seeds, passing these traits along.

There are good and solid reasons why Monsanto seeds are banned in many countries in the world.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



I said union, not worker. The unions collected dues, yet did nothing about the safety issues, and even allowed the employer to retaliate against you after you pointed them out.


----------



## numan (Jul 7, 2013)

'
A serious problem is that, in our greed driven society, products are rushed onto the market before we know clearly what all the ramifications and consequences of the product are.

As our technological powers grow, along with the increasing interference in natural processes which have histories of millions of years, there will inevitably occur disasters of unimaginable scope.

*He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the Path of Wisdom.*
---_J.R.R. Tolkien, Council of Elrond_

*The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts.*
---_Paul Ehrlich_

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

numan said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Perhaps you have should go back and read his post, and then explain to me how my response is inappropriate.


----------



## Circe (Jul 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Monsanto is producing GMO *seeds that kill bees*, that don't reproduce, and that can't grow without Monsanto fertilizers.  And these seeds are cross pollinating with unmodified seeds, passing these traits along.
> 
> There are good and solid reasons why Monsanto seeds are banned in many countries in the world.



As a beekeeper, I have never heard that and I don't believe it.

Beekeepers have a lot of problems these days, but Monsanto isn't one of them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Define organic.

Are crops that have been bred for centuries to be easier to grow and to produce more food per acre organic? If so, why aren't crops that are another step in evolution less organic? Should organic be used to define only crops that grow wild without human intervention or care? Should I invite a farmer that actually understand the issues to drop by and educate you to prove that you really don't know enough to even think about discussing the issues?


----------



## Circe (Jul 7, 2013)

numan said:


> As our technological powers grow, along with the increasing interference in natural processes which have histories of millions of years, there will *inevitably occur disasters of unimaginable scope.*



Or not. 

A phrase like that reminds me of all the "it's not if, it's WHEN!!" assertions people make about this, that, and the other. 

As a rule, whenever people make future predictions like that, it's safe to assume that at least will never happen.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.
> ...



They are not, you are listening to idiots that have no evidence to back their positions up and have no idea what they are talking about. There are absolutely no reputable scientists that think that Monsanto's products are a danger to anyone or anything but starvation and world hunger.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> A serious problem is that, in our greed driven society, products are rushed onto the market before we know clearly what all the ramifications and consequences of the product are.
> 
> As our technological powers grow, along with the increasing interference in natural processes which have histories of millions of years, there will inevitably occur disasters of unimaginable scope.
> ...



What are you fantasizing about now? It takes years to bring new products that represent a chance to save lives to the market, yet dangerous ones somehow get instant approval? Can you give us some examples?


----------



## Circe (Jul 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...





It seems to me that a libertarian government should not take action against whatever is going on unless there is demonstrable, definite harm shown. People having wild-eyed prejudices against something because they are Druids or astrologers --- that should be left to the free market to sort out, certainly not to government interference.

That helps with the weird ideas brigade -- if they don't like something, let them buy something else -- but it doesn't help with the issue of what to do about fertilizer bombs and guns easily available to the crazy people.


----------



## Circe (Jul 7, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...




You do have a point there. I have some hopes that having to have a "government number" to buy ANY ammonium nitrate cuts down on the number of rental truck bombs. But I admit I don't know that. 

As for the current laws stopping crazies and terrorists from getting guns, well, they don't. We see that. 

It is a problem. It may be that non-governmental societal solutions will have to help out. Kids have started telling on other kids when they hear about plots to shoot up schools. I read about a kid who made a WAAAAAAAAAY over the top joke or sarcastic comment on Facebook about shooting up an elementary school and eating the hearts of kindergarten kids ----- it seemed obvious to me he was "joking" in very bad taste, but a gazumpteen people reported him to Facebook and to the police and he is now charged and facing trial!!! They took him straight out of his bedroom to jail. Okay, I can see that sort of societal action could calm some of this madness down, if we're lucky. Maybe.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Circe said:
> ...



So where did that hostility come from?  I thought the issue was libertarianism and its point of view.  Forgive me and I'll move on if I have misunderstood the topic. 

To me organic means free of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers that people don't want included in their foods.  And if somebody is going to advertise something as organic, they should not deceive the public that it was produced other than organically.   Personally I don't insist on organic in my food, but I do insist that it be free of salmonella or other poisons, and that it be properly handled and honestly labeled so that I know what I am buying.

GMOs are sufficiently controversial that I have no problem with them required to be labeled as such or even being banned where people don't want them or where they have been doing harm.   I don't know whether they should be banned outright or whether the millions who have been fed because of new innovations outweighs any downside to these products.

The point I intended to make, before QW branded me an ignorant fool unworthy of discussion in this thread, was that true libertarians do not have problems with laws against cheating or misleading or pushing products in a way to deceive.  I do not mind laws that require those producing products to provide an honest label so I know what I am buying.

I have a huge problem in government presuming to tell me that I have to buy 93% lean beef instead of 80% lean beef or the size of orange soda I can buy and such as that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

Circe said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



How do efforts to keep guns out of the hands of whoever you think is crazy keep people safe? 

As for fertilizer bombs, that is the least of the concerns of government. Did you know that hydrogen peroxide is a highly volatile explosive, and that it is can be used as rocket fuel? That you can make poison gas with common household chemicals that are available in any grocery store? 

It is not the job of the government to protect you from random acts of violence because doing so would require the government to monitor everything you do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Labeling GMOs, it it were honest, would require everything to be labelled because almost everything we eat is the product of centuries of genetic modification. That is simple truth, and anyone who wants to require that GMOs be labelled is going to massively expand the power of government to interfere in our food supply by redefining organic and forcing companies to comply with arbitrary, and unnecessary, regulations. 

By the way, I expect people to lie, even in commercials, which is why I look around and learn as much as possible before I buy.


----------



## Circe (Jul 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> As for fertilizer bombs, that is the least of the concerns of government. Did you know that hydrogen peroxide is a highly volatile explosive, and that it is can be used as rocket fuel? That you can make poison gas with common household chemicals that are available in any grocery store?
> 
> It is not the job of the government to protect you from random acts of violence because doing so would require the government to monitor everything you do.




I've never heard of one of these crazies or terrorists using a hair bleach bomb........

I think if hydrogen peroxide were actually good for that, it would have happened.

As a farmy type, I do know that ammonium nitrate (what Tim McVeigh used, and the Times Square bomber tried to use) is a real problem. You cannot buy even one fifty-pound bag without registering and so on. They want to know where ALL of it is going, and it had better be on somebody's field.

There are a lot of things that people aren't allowed to have because crazies and criminals DO misuse them to kill people _en masse_. Dynamite is one: when I moved in here we found a dynamite keg and blasting caps in the basement: but it's an old house. You can't imagine people removing stumps that way now! Dynamite is controlled and we have to grind out stumps or live with them.

Should people get to freely own machine guns and grenades and shoulder-fired rockets to take to the airport and ping away at jet planes on their day off? Is it okay if people manufacture ricin and culture salmonella? How about cannon? 

I would say giving people free access to the materials we KNOW some of them use to kill lots of people, blowing up dams and underwater tunnels freely --- that's a challenge for libertarianism as a system.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2013)

Circe said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > As for fertilizer bombs, that is the least of the concerns of government. Did you know that hydrogen peroxide is a highly volatile explosive, and that it is can be used as rocket fuel? That you can make poison gas with common household chemicals that are available in any grocery store?
> ...



Maybe they prefer things that are less explosive for a reason.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdXjJgDL14c"]Hydrogen Peroxide Bomb - YouTube[/ame]

As for dynamite, you can still buy it and use it to blow stumps because it is perfectly legal. It is actually easier to buy dynamite than it is to buy a fully automatic weapon in most places in the US.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 8, 2013)

Circe said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, the government does not ensure that you comply with personal responsibility.  That is, in fact, NOT personal responsibility. * What the government does is apply the force of law to those that fail that responsibility.*
> ...



Such controls are against libertarian thought.  I would say though that no pure government in any form can exist.  While controls are, for the most part, against libertarianism U would support (and I think most libertarians as well, basic controls over very deadly substances.  Essentially, the trading of nuclear weapons is not going to be legal.  Nor will the ownership of active SAM sites.  I dont think that libertarians in general are going to go for complete removal of all controlled substances particularly when many of those, like anthrax, do not have any use outside the harm of your neighbors.

Ammonium nitrate is different, of course, as it has a use outside of the harm of others but, like I said, I would support some controls on some substances even though that is not an entirely libertarian concept.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I would add that not only does libertarianism not go against laws that require honesty but rather it almost requires it.  In smaller economies, where a products reputation is critical, such things might not matter that much as the consumers test and reject products that are not honest but in an economy of this size and scope, not to mention with products that take large sums of resource like cars and homes, purposefully making incorrect statements about a product can and should be illegal.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 8, 2013)

The libertarian philosophy is one of personal freedom and personal rights.
You are free to think and act any way you want AS LONG as you don't interfere with the freedoms and rights of others.

The whole concept that laws against guns is wrong. We have laws that make it illegal for felons and the insane from buying guns - just like we have laws against speeding - neither stops people from breaking the law. We can't prevent free people from breaking the law but we can prosecute them when they do. Many times felons are caught with a gun - that is a felony - but the gun is confiscated and no charges are filed. the reason we have criminals loose on the streets is that we don't prosecute them. It seems that someone wants the criminals out there for some reason - maybe it is to make it easier to convince people that guns are bad. That could also be the reason we rarely hear about the 1.5 to 3 million times a year the citizens protect themselves against criminals. If we were reminded 3 million times a year that guns do good it would far outweigh the 8000 or so murders a year wouldn't it.

A libertarian federal government would not interfere with your personal choices - if you want to be a protected species then move to a State that believes in doing that - like California or New York or Illinois. If you would rather be an individual and a bit more self sufficient then you can live in the other states.


----------



## MDiver (Jul 8, 2013)

I can't see myself ever voting Libertarian.  Basically, it's like the desires of children.  They want to have their cake and eat it to, all the time, as the saying goes.
If Libertarianism were to rule, we could kiss our national parks, national forests, state forests and delicate wetlands goodbye, as businesses and ranchers/farmers would want to reduce them from being pristine areas, to malls, apartments, condos, more ranches and communities.
Under Libertarianism, if an individual wants to pollute his property, that's okay, even if it pollutes water sources under the property.  Wildlife?  Goodbye.  Pristine forests?  Goodbye.  FDA?  Goodbye.  Social programs for the elderly?  Goodbye.
I consider Libertarianism to be the extreme right of Republicanism.
Too much liberty isn't necessarily a good thing.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 8, 2013)

MDiver said:


> I can't see myself ever voting Libertarian.  Basically, it's like the desires of children.  They want to have their cake and eat it to, all the time, as the saying goes.
> If Libertarianism were to rule, we could kiss our national parks, national forests, state forests and delicate wetlands goodbye, as businesses and ranchers/farmers would want to reduce them from being pristine areas, to malls, apartments, condos, more ranches and communities.
> Under Libertarianism, if an individual wants to pollute his property, that's okay, even if it pollutes water sources under the property.  Wildlife?  Goodbye.  Pristine forests?  Goodbye.  FDA?  Goodbye.  Social programs for the elderly?  Goodbye.
> I consider Libertarianism to be the extreme right of Republicanism.
> Too much liberty isn't necessarily a good thing.



You obviously have no concept of what the Libertarian platform is.
The national parks are in place and protected areas that the population wants to keep the way they are. It is beyond the scope of the Libertarian government to takes those areas away from the people.

If you harm someone by polluting or developing an area the law will prosecute you for that - whether it is a federal law or a state law. 

State parks are not run by the federal government nor can they be sold or developed without the state's consent.

You have formed your opinions on baseless rumors and not on the reality of what is. I suggest you go to the Libertarian Party website and learn the facts before you try to define that party.


----------



## dblack (Jul 8, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> This is why  "Libertarians" end up being called "anarchists" because they reject all forms of reasonable and normal societal standards necessary for a well ordered and thriving nation.



If this is the reason libertarians are being called anarchists, it's a reason based on ignorance - because that doesn't fit the definition of anarchy at all.

But you're right in pointing to the rejection the kind of government you are advocating as a 'libertarian' position. We do reject the notion that government should run society; that it should be used to enforce societal mores and standards outside the protection of individual rights; or that it should push us to be 'well ordered and thriving'. It should be up to the people to decide their own personal moral preferences, and pursue their own personal visions of the 'good life', free from state coercion.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 8, 2013)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > This is why  "Libertarians" end up being called "anarchists" because they reject all forms of reasonable and normal societal standards necessary for a well ordered and thriving nation.
> ...



Government is the tool that people use to form a well-ordered society. Without government to "enforce societal mores and standards" there would be no fire fighters. There would be no roads or highways. There would be no currency. There would be no doctors, hospitals or pharmacies.  There would be no citizenship, borders or passports. There would be no "rights" either since the means to protect those rights requires a functioning legal system which is based entirely upon "societal mores and standards". You stated that Libertarians "reject the notion that government should run society" which means that you are advocating anarchy instead.


----------



## dblack (Jul 8, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I think we're in agreement that this is the view libertarians reject. Government is necessary to _facilitate_ society, to maintain and enforce laws that make it possible for us to get along in a pluralistic community. But it's not necessary for government to dictate what form that society takes. The details of the kind of society we create can, and _should_ in the libertarian view, be left up to the voluntary interaction of free people, and not a matter of coercive laws.



> Without government to "enforce societal mores and standards" there would be no fire fighters. There would be no roads or highways. There would be no currency. There would be no doctors, hospitals or pharmacies.  There would be no citizenship, borders or passports.



Well, I disagree. I don't think people are helpless to solve their own problems via voluntary cooperation. I could cite examples (my own neighborhood, in PA, relies on volunteer firefighters) but the point is largely ideological.



> There would be no "rights" either since the means to protect those rights requires a functioning legal system which is based entirely upon "societal mores and standards".



Libertarians don't reject a functioning legal system. But we believe the purpose and function of that legal system should be to protect our freedoms - not as a tool to bully people in the name of 'society mores and standards'. 



> You stated that Libertarians "reject the notion that government should run society" which means that you are advocating anarchy instead.



Well, then you're simply redefining the term, which makes meaningful conversation difficult. The idea that government should be limited to protecting our rights, rather than enforcing conformity for conformity's sake, is a well-established viewpoint. And while you may disagree with it, it's not anarchy by any commonly used definition.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I cannot think of a better argument against government than the one you just gave. I have never met anyone that lived in a well ordered society that wanted to go back to one because the authorization governments always end up repressing its subjects.


----------



## Circe (Jul 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> How do efforts to keep guns out of the hands of whoever you think is crazy keep people safe?



*XXXXXXX* 

The problem is not that it wouldn't work if it were done, the problem is that the government isn't actually DOING it. Crazies regularly get assault rifles no matter how psychotic they are: the Batman movie shooter, Adam Lanza, the Korean who shot up Virginia Tech. They were all known madmen, but had no problems getting guns. Certainly the process doesn't work if no one bothers to work it.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 9, 2013)

MDiver said:


> I can't see myself ever voting Libertarian.  Basically, it's like the desires of children.  They want to have their cake and eat it to, all the time, as the saying goes.
> If Libertarianism were to rule, we could kiss our national parks, national forests, state forests and delicate wetlands goodbye, as businesses and ranchers/farmers would want to reduce them from being pristine areas, to malls, apartments, condos, more ranches and communities.
> Under Libertarianism, if an individual wants to pollute his property, that's okay, even if it pollutes water sources under the property.  Wildlife?  Goodbye.  Pristine forests?  Goodbye.  FDA?  Goodbye.  Social programs for the elderly?  Goodbye.
> I consider Libertarianism to be the extreme right of Republicanism.
> Too much liberty isn't necessarily a good thing.



Obviously you have not bothered to read the last 22 pages that point out everything you just claimed as entirely false.  Please, get a handle on the thread before throwing out wild claims and empty attacks.


----------



## dblack (Jul 9, 2013)

One thing worth keeping in mind, regarding the overall political situation: even if our nation does move toward a more libertarian government, very few of the hardcore libertarian aspirations will be accomplished - even if we elect a purebred libertarian president. We won't suddenly abolish 95% of the laws on the books, taxes won't go away entirely and roads won't suddenly be sold to private interests.

Instead, we'd see a gradual transition to a freer society, with plenty of opportunity for deliberation and discussion of the particulars. I have a hard time viewing that as a bad thing.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 9, 2013)

dblack said:


> One thing worth keeping in mind, regarding the overall political situation: even if our nation does move toward a more libertarian government, very few of the hardcore libertarian aspirations will be accomplished - even if we elect a purebred libertarian president. We won't suddenly abolish 95% of the laws on the books, taxes won't go away entirely and roads won't suddenly be sold to private interests.
> 
> Instead, we'd see a gradual transition to a freer society, with plenty of opportunity for deliberation and discussion of the particulars. I have a hard time viewing that as a bad thing.



why would the country want to move towards a form of government that can't make up its own damn mind?


----------



## dblack (Jul 9, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > One thing worth keeping in mind, regarding the overall political situation: even if our nation does move toward a more libertarian government, very few of the hardcore libertarian aspirations will be accomplished - even if we elect a purebred libertarian president. We won't suddenly abolish 95% of the laws on the books, taxes won't go away entirely and roads won't suddenly be sold to private interests.
> ...



A form of government doesn't have a mind. People do, and they disagree. Libertarianism, as an ideology, is far, far, more cohesive and clear than anything Republicans and Democrats have to offer. We couldn't even have these kinds of discussions concerning the mainstream parties because don't dare offer any kind of clear vision of where they want to take things.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 9, 2013)

dblack said:


> ....Instead, we'd see a gradual transition to a freer society, with plenty of opportunity for deliberation and discussion of the particulars. I have a hard time viewing that as a bad thing.



It's hard for me to understand what loss of freedom occurred since libertarianism became the latest newfangled panacea for all that ails us. Maybe it is me, but I feel as free as a bird, only I wish I could fly too. 

I had never heard libertarianism called 'vulgar' but the comments below are interesting. I also include a comment from our first president which is telling. As for the imaginary free market, check this site out. See Japan for instance, especially if you buy Japanese cars.  2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers | Office of the United States Trade Representative

"Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether theyre defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles."

Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism: Vulgar Libertarianism Watch, Part 1

*"The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle."  *link above

and this too: Not Even a Bourgeois Freedom: Liberty of Contract in John Roberts?s America ? Crooked Timber


"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 9, 2013)

dblack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



let me make this easy for you you can't have everything selfish behavior is not a good quality a government is for all the people not just the burnouts.


----------



## Intense (Jul 9, 2013)

*Closed for Review.*


----------

