FINALLY! Nader calls for UNITY to overthrow

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ralph Nader's America: Impeach Obama, decriminalize drugs, libertarians & progressives unite!

FINALLY!!!

One of the people on my list I would trust to start a mixed ticket and pro-liberty movement, and sure enough, Nader comes out saying what needs to be done and is already happening.

nader is a malignant twit

Hey jillian:

At least Nader was instrumental in the legislation
that created OSHA, Consumer Protection, the
Environmental Protection Agency and Safe Drinking Water Act.

Biography of Ralph Nader - Learn More About Ralph Nader

He is credited for creating these major reforms in govt
WITHOUT holding an office in order to do so,
but as a citizen and consumer advocate who organized group efforts
to get these things passed and done.

What better example do we have that citizens can implement
govt reforms without depending on electing party leaders to do it for us?

How is that being either "malignant" or "twit"

That's a strong example as any I can give
how NOT to be a twit or a helpless victim
or let "malignant" politics get in the way of getting something done yourself!!!

has nothing to do with him being a malignant twit and a megalomaniac.

sometimes people start believing their own press and become pieces of garbage.... like Nader did.

and for the record, the car he targeted in unsafe at any speed had a couple of problems that could have been fixed. he didn't need to destroy a brand. he only did so for his own self-aggrandizement.

now you can stop foaming at the mouth.

Perhaps.

But the issue was more than fixing a car’s defects.

The issue was also a corporate culture with nothing but contempt for the safety of its customers, the arrogance of that corporate culture, and those who defended unscrupulous corporations motivated by the wrongheaded notion that necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures were ‘unnecessary.’

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's often counterproductive in terms of educating because they fight one another on who gets to claim libertarianism.

That is so fucking true.

We need a universal definition of libertarianism. Take a crack at it.

 

[percysunshine]

 

[emilynghiem]

It's often counterproductive in terms of educating because they fight one another on who gets to claim libertarianism.

That is so fucking true.

We need a universal definition of libertarianism. Take a crack at it.

Ha ha Bootney Lee Farnsworth
I just picture the irony of libertarians who believe in civil liberties all taking liberty in interpreting libertarianism by their own individual liberty, and not mandating one universal definition of libertarianism from the top down. Which would contradict what they believe in!

Reminds me of the Unitarian Universalist. They want to be so universally inclusive they can't pin down their beliefs in concrete absolutes or it might leave somebody out!

In each group I've looked into whether religious or political affiliation, there are (a) fundamentalist letter of the law types that just want to reject anything that isn't consistent or acceptable by their beliefs. They don't care to negotiate or correct, it's either yes or no. (b) those who want to lead and establish what they envision and believe in and (c) those who follow someone else's lead, and either follow leaders who do (b) or get stopped by objectors who do (a).

All groups I see still have challenges to accommodate their members in groups a, b, c regardless if they ever agree fully on certain points. I find it's more important to learn to manage differences and conflicts rather than depend on or demand a universal agreement that may or may not ever happen.

As long as people have support in groups to get to the goals they want to achieve, they don't have to agree . They just have to agree how to resolve points causing objection or rejection, so they can still operate and move in constructive directions even where they don't agree

It still makes me smile to imagine a bunch of libertarians, ranging from free wheeling and dealing anarchists types to diehard Constitutional objectors, agreeing on universal definitions rules or principles. I would assume that some of them could reach a central enough agreement, while there would still be outliers with some objecting and refusing to resolve issues while others just Tagalong and follow the lead of others. Every group has that so I'd assume the libertarians would too!

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's often counterproductive in terms of educating because they fight one another on who gets to claim libertarianism.

That is so fucking true.

We need a universal definition of libertarianism. Take a crack at it.

Non-intervention works for me.

Really, liberty should never be spoken or written absent the word responsibility.

Personally, I'm against the idea of government-over-man.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I just picture the irony of libertarians who believe in civil liberties all taking liberty in interpreting libertarianism by their own individual liberty, and not mandating one universal definition of libertarianism from the top down. Which would contradict what they believe in!

Reminds me of the Unitarian Universalist. They want to be so universally inclusive they can't pin down their beliefs in concrete absolutes or it might leave somebody out!

In each group I've looked into whether religious or political affiliation, there are (a) fundamentalist letter of the law types that just want to reject anything that isn't consistent or acceptable by their beliefs. They don't care to negotiate or correct, it's either yes or no. (b) those who want to lead and establish what they envision and believe in and (c) those who follow someone else's lead, and either follow leaders who do (b) or get stopped by objectors who do (a).

All groups I see still have challenges to accommodate their members in groups a, b, c regardless if they ever agree fully on certain points. I find it's more important to learn to manage differences and conflicts rather than depend on or demand a universal agreement that may or may not ever happen.

As long as people have support in groups to get to the goals they want to achieve, they don't have to agree . They just have to agree how to resolve points causing objection or rejection, so they can still operate and move in constructive directions even where they don't agree

It still makes me smile to imagine a bunch of libertarians, ranging from free wheeling and dealing anarchists types to diehard Constitutional objectors, agreeing on universal definitions rules or principles. I would assume that some of them could reach a central enough agreement, while there would still be outliers with some objecting and refusing to resolve issues while others just Tagalong and follow the lead of others. Every group has that so I'd assume the libertarians would too!

It is not necessary that we agree on everything. It is only necessary that we all agree that we should be free.

Do you agree?

 

[emilynghiem]

I just picture the irony of libertarians who believe in civil liberties all taking liberty in interpreting libertarianism by their own individual liberty, and not mandating one universal definition of libertarianism from the top down. Which would contradict what they believe in!

Reminds me of the Unitarian Universalist. They want to be so universally inclusive they can't pin down their beliefs in concrete absolutes or it might leave somebody out!

In each group I've looked into whether religious or political affiliation, there are (a) fundamentalist letter of the law types that just want to reject anything that isn't consistent or acceptable by their beliefs. They don't care to negotiate or correct, it's either yes or no. (b) those who want to lead and establish what they envision and believe in and (c) those who follow someone else's lead, and either follow leaders who do (b) or get stopped by objectors who do (a).

All groups I see still have challenges to accommodate their members in groups a, b, c regardless if they ever agree fully on certain points. I find it's more important to learn to manage differences and conflicts rather than depend on or demand a universal agreement that may or may not ever happen.

As long as people have support in groups to get to the goals they want to achieve, they don't have to agree . They just have to agree how to resolve points causing objection or rejection, so they can still operate and move in constructive directions even where they don't agree

It still makes me smile to imagine a bunch of libertarians, ranging from free wheeling and dealing anarchists types to diehard Constitutional objectors, agreeing on universal definitions rules or principles. I would assume that some of them could reach a central enough agreement, while there would still be outliers with some objecting and refusing to resolve issues while others just Tagalong and follow the lead of others. Every group has that so I'd assume the libertarians would too!

It is not necessary that we agree on everything. It is only necessary that we all agree that we should be free.

Do you agree?

I believe in free choice yes.
In Constitutional terms, this concept of free will can be expressed as
Free exercise of religion (within the context of the right peaceably to assemble and to petition for
Redress of grievances )
Civil liberties (and not to deprive people of liberty without due process of laws)
Consent of the governed
No taxation without representation
Equal protection under the laws
No discrimination by Creed

So just stating we need to be free
comes with a check on it, where we still cannot exercise our freedom to the extreme of imposing threatening or infringing on the equal rights and protections of others, or that violates their consent and or beliefs.

Even when I bring up consent of the governed as the spirit of social contracts law and govt, then ppl argue what if a murderer or rapist doesn't consent to being stopped or punished , then how can govt laws on safety and security be enforced? What if they argue they should be free to rape or kill?

And then I cite religious freedom that such person's can kill people who agree and share that BELIEF that killing can be legal if the parties CONSENT (otherwise no, you can't impose your beliefs against the beliefs of others who don't agree to be killed and don't agree it should be legal)

And Then THAT gets into the question of who is mentally competent or is someone sick or disabled and unable to Consent out of fully informed free will? When is someone being coerced such as an underaged, mentally impaired or inebriated person who was not fully or freely consenting?

Natural Citizen I've had this conversation about agreeing on Constitutional terms and principles with Republicans Democrats anarchists communists libertarians etc. I can usually get ppl to agree it would be beneficial to set up districts to run and govern themselves locally and democratically like school campuses . But as for the policies and group platforms that ppl choose, I find they are best left to define and choose that for themselves. I wish we could all agree on central language (and I posted examples of standard ethics here: www.ethics-commission.net) but in practice the major parties can't even embrace and accept the fact they represent two schools of thoughts or political beliefs: those who believe in establishing collective policy will and agreement through govt and those who believe in limited govt and maximizing the will and liberty of the people.

The liberals call it protecting free choice but they rely on govt as the central authority to establish this .

Those who believe free will comes from God tend to cite free exercise of religion indirectly which they teach as existing independent of govt.

The secular version of that is civil liberty that requires due process of law before depriving someone of freedom.

And we haven't begun to address what constitutes a legal person, does this include
Unborn who can't give consent
Corporations or state entities
Person's convicted or incarcerated
Immigrants or undocumented residents
Minors under 18 and should they be treated as adults with legal responsibility when they don't have fully mature brains or fully informed rights yet

What gets me is people don't agree to respect each other's consent and freedom yet. They still believe in bullying each other for power. How is domination by majority rule over the minority "consent" if it violates beliefs of dissenting objectors?


So I'm back to just letting each person define their own beliefs and being subject and limited to that!

And under each system people have a different term or standard for how they define "freedom" where it still respects ppl equally.

In general I say that justice is a balance between peace and freedom. You can't abuse freedom to cause a breach or disturbance of the peace by threatening the security of others. And you can't impose peace and security by collective authority so much that you deprive ppl of civil liberty or freedom without due process to prove someone committed or intended abuse and needs to be curbed or deprived of freedom to protect themselves or others equally.

So I cite the first amendment that includes free speech free press free exercise of religion and right to petition within the bounds of the right "peaceably to assemble " (as including the right to peace security and due process).

But no I haven't found ppl who all agree on the same language for this. They tend to form their own groups within groups.

I believe we are all under and invoking the same natural laws, but can't even agree on language to express that due to diversity of personal experience and preference. Like local dialects within a language or ethnic tribe.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I just picture the irony of libertarians who believe in civil liberties all taking liberty in interpreting libertarianism by their own individual liberty, and not mandating one universal definition of libertarianism from the top down. Which would contradict what they believe in!

Reminds me of the Unitarian Universalist. They want to be so universally inclusive they can't pin down their beliefs in concrete absolutes or it might leave somebody out!

In each group I've looked into whether religious or political affiliation, there are (a) fundamentalist letter of the law types that just want to reject anything that isn't consistent or acceptable by their beliefs. They don't care to negotiate or correct, it's either yes or no. (b) those who want to lead and establish what they envision and believe in and (c) those who follow someone else's lead, and either follow leaders who do (b) or get stopped by objectors who do (a).

All groups I see still have challenges to accommodate their members in groups a, b, c regardless if they ever agree fully on certain points. I find it's more important to learn to manage differences and conflicts rather than depend on or demand a universal agreement that may or may not ever happen.

As long as people have support in groups to get to the goals they want to achieve, they don't have to agree . They just have to agree how to resolve points causing objection or rejection, so they can still operate and move in constructive directions even where they don't agree

It still makes me smile to imagine a bunch of libertarians, ranging from free wheeling and dealing anarchists types to diehard Constitutional objectors, agreeing on universal definitions rules or principles. I would assume that some of them could reach a central enough agreement, while there would still be outliers with some objecting and refusing to resolve issues while others just Tagalong and follow the lead of others. Every group has that so I'd assume the libertarians would too!

It is not necessary that we agree on everything. It is only necessary that we all agree that we should be free.

Do you agree?

I believe in free choice yes.
In Constitutional terms, this concept of free will can be expressed as
Free exercise of religion (within the context of the right peaceably to assemble and to petition for
Redress of grievances )
Civil liberties (and not to deprive people of liberty without due process of laws)
Consent of the governed
No taxation without representation
Equal protection under the laws
No discrimination by Creed

So just stating we need to be free
comes with a check on it, where we still cannot exercise our freedom to the extreme of imposing threatening or infringing on the equal rights and protections of others, or that violates their consent and or beliefs.

Even when I bring up consent of the governed as the spirit of social contracts law and govt, then ppl argue what if a murderer or rapist doesn't consent to being stopped or punished , then how can govt laws on safety and security be enforced? What if they argue they should be free to rape or kill?

And then I cite religious freedom that such person's can kill people who agree and share that BELIEF that killing can be legal if the parties CONSENT (otherwise no, you can't impose your beliefs against the beliefs of others who don't agree to be killed and don't agree it should be legal)

And Then THAT gets into the question of who is mentally competent or is someone sick or disabled and unable to Consent out of fully informed free will? When is someone being coerced such as an underaged, mentally impaired or inebriated person who was not fully or freely consenting?

Natural Citizen I've had this conversation about agreeing on Constitutional terms and principles with Republicans Democrats anarchists communists libertarians etc. I can usually get ppl to agree it would be beneficial to set up districts to run and govern themselves locally and democratically like school campuses . But as for the policies and group platforms that ppl choose, I find they are best left to define and choose that for themselves. I wish we could all agree on central language (and I posted examples of standard ethics here: www.ethics-commission.net) but in practice the major parties can't even embrace and accept the fact they represent two schools of thoughts or political beliefs: those who believe in establishing collective policy will and agreement through govt and those who believe in limited govt and maximizing the will and liberty of the people.

The liberals call it protecting free choice but they rely on govt as the central authority to establish this .

Those who believe free will comes from God tend to cite free exercise of religion indirectly which they teach as existing independent of govt.

The secular version of that is civil liberty that requires due process of law before depriving someone of freedom.

And we haven't begun to address what constitutes a legal person, does this include
Unborn who can't give consent
Corporations or state entities
Person's convicted or incarcerated
Immigrants or undocumented residents
Minors under 18 and should they be treated as adults with legal responsibility when they don't have fully mature brains or fully informed rights yet

What gets me is people don't agree to respect each other's consent and freedom yet. They still believe in bullying each other for power. How is domination by majority rule over the minority "consent" if it violates beliefs of dissenting objectors?


So I'm back to just letting each person define their own beliefs and being subject and limited to that!

And under each system people have a different term or standard for how they define "freedom" where it still respects ppl equally.

In general I say that justice is a balance between peace and freedom. You can't abuse freedom to cause a breach or disturbance of the peace by threatening the security of others. And you can't impose peace and security by collective authority so much that you deprive ppl of civil liberty or freedom without due process to prove someone committed or intended abuse and needs to be curbed or deprived of freedom to protect themselves or others equally.

So I cite the first amendment that includes free speech free press free exercise of religion and right to petition within the bounds of the right "peaceably to assemble " (as including the right to peace security and due process).

But no I haven't found ppl who all agree on the same language for this. They tend to form their own groups within groups.

I believe we are all under and invoking the same natural laws, but can't even agree on language to express that due to diversity of personal experience and preference. Like local dialects within a language or ethnic tribe.

These are good fundmental questions. And points. But not without answer. It's been done. To be blatantly honest, though, I just don't know if it's worth it to have such a deep discussion about it here. It'd be buried in five minutes under a bunch of race threads or something.