good ideas don't require government force

[rightwinger]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

The issue is when an individual is singled out because he is a minority

 

[dblack]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

The issue is when an individual is singled out because he is a minority

The issue is what those doing the singling out are empower to do. If government is doing it, all bets are off.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I cannot agree with the title of the thread.

It is a good idea for companies not to dump toxic chemical into our water supply, but it took government force to stop it from happening.

It is a good idea not to rob a bank, but what outside of government force stops anyone from doing so?

I suspect the OP is talking about the various "social engineering" goals that people are so eager to assign to government. Some people seem to think that if their goals for society are "good" then anything - including government force - is acceptable in pursing them.

With that I can agree 100%. I hate that our tax code is used for social engineering.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Really? You really want to go there? You really want to live in a city where no one enforces traffic lights or stop lights?

You must like living dangerously.

The owner of the roads enforces them, dumbass. It doesn't require government.

How do they enforce them?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

He refuses to allow you do use them if you don't follow his rules.

And if I tell him to pound sand and drive on it anyway?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You'll be looking down the business end of a shotgun. Companies that own roads will probably have their own enforcement division.

What you're deviously trying to get at is your belief that police will have to get involved. If the road owner doesn't provide his own enforcement, then that may be the case. However, that doesn't equate to government regulation. That's just enforcement of the owner's property rights.

Yes, enforcement. Sadly sometimes enforcement by the Govt is the only thing that stops things from happening.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[dblack]

I cannot agree with the title of the thread.

It is a good idea for companies not to dump toxic chemical into our water supply, but it took government force to stop it from happening.

It is a good idea not to rob a bank, but what outside of government force stops anyone from doing so?

I suspect the OP is talking about the various "social engineering" goals that people are so eager to assign to government. Some people seem to think that if their goals for society are "good" then anything - including government force - is acceptable in pursing them.

With that I can agree 100%. I hate that our tax code is used for social engineering.

While I can't speak for the OP, I'm taking the point of the thread to be that if your social agenda is really a good one, you'll have no trouble finding support for it voluntarily. And that if the only way to achieve your goals are with force, then maybe it's not such a great idea.

 

[whitehall]

Only the government has the power to "deny individual rights".

 

[bripat9643]

The owner of the roads enforces them, dumbass. It doesn't require government.

How do they enforce them?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

He refuses to allow you do use them if you don't follow his rules.

And if I tell him to pound sand and drive on it anyway?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You'll be looking down the business end of a shotgun. Companies that own roads will probably have their own enforcement division.

What you're deviously trying to get at is your belief that police will have to get involved. If the road owner doesn't provide his own enforcement, then that may be the case. However, that doesn't equate to government regulation. That's just enforcement of the owner's property rights.

Yes, enforcement. Sadly sometimes enforcement by the Govt is the only thing that stops things from happening.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not true. That's the only mechanism that you can imagine. Of course, Many libertarians are not against the government enforcing property rights. What they object to is government regulations and government regulatory agencies, which are unaccountable bureacracies that create laws without a vote by the public.

 

[FJO]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Those who feel that individuals aren't equal, can't claim to be defenders of the people, like the US elections where people in Wyoming get a vote 3 times as powerful as those in California or Texas.

In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.

So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.

If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.

And America would not be a Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Government is Good whenever it is really really important; just ask the right wing.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Those who feel that individuals aren't equal, can't claim to be defenders of the people, like the US elections where people in Wyoming get a vote 3 times as powerful as those in California or Texas.

In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.

So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.

If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.

And America would not be a Republic.

I think they were referring to the Electoral College. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3 times the vote of a person in Cali or Ny


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Those who feel that individuals aren't equal, can't claim to be defenders of the people, like the US elections where people in Wyoming get a vote 3 times as powerful as those in California or Texas.

In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.

So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.

If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.

And America would not be a Republic.

Well, I was referring to the Presidential election.

However, it's just as bad in the House or Senate elections.

But you don't see what happens.

Each seat is contested at FPTP. Which means that third parties can't win.

In Germany the AfD was able to go from being a new party in 2013 to being 3rd in the country in the national Bundestag by 2017. Impressive.

In the US it's impossible. In fact the third party in the US is the libertarians. They have 0 seats in Congress, they have never had the White House and never had a Supreme Court justice.

In the states they have one Senator and three lower house members out of 5,000 something. Totally pathetic.

You're looking at Wyoming the wrong way.

Imagine this.

A percentage of people are center left, a percentage center right, a percentage traditional left and right and a percentage further left and further right.

In Germany and other countries with PR they can CHOOSE who they want to vote for. In the US it's all about negative voting. They KNOW that a third party can't win the seat, because you need to get a MAJORITY in a small area.

In Germany the FDP gained ZERO seats in the FPTP part of the election, even though they gained 7% of the votes. Which means 7% of the people's wish wasn't granted. They would have had no representation.

With PR 10.7% of people voted for them. So, 3.7% of the people thought there was no point in voting for them in FPTP, so voted negatively for another party to not get in. But with PR they felt their vote ACTUALLY COUNTED.

So, with 10.7% of the vote they got 11% of the seats.


Do you understand that in the US about 50% of people aren't even being represented by the people they might wish to represent them simply because the system says "no, fuck off".

When people look at elections, like Putin's election and see how many votes he got, they think "fake election". Then look at the US election where 97.1% of the votes go to the two main political parties. It feel fake.

 

[Wry Catcher]

every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists claim we object to it being done at all

"the socialists"??? OMG help us, they are under our bed at night.

It's usually the socialists, yeah. Does seem "crazy" to you? Do you live under a rock?

I don't live under a rock, and I know that the use of the terms socialism and socialists in this context are nothing more than fear mongering.

Much like the use of the term "far left", those who use these terms don't define and can't explain what they mean when using these terms. In short, they are used as pejoratives to convince other to be scared, and to hate.

 

[dblack]

every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists claim we object to it being done at all

"the socialists"??? OMG help us, they are under our bed at night.

It's usually the socialists, yeah. Does seem "crazy" to you? Do you live under a rock?

I don't live under a rock, and I know that the use of the terms socialism and socialists in this context are nothing more than fear mongering.

Much like the use of the term "far left", those who use these terms don't define and can't explain what they mean when using these terms. In short, they are used as pejoratives to convince other to be scared, and to hate.

And when it's not being used that way, when it's part of a legitimate debate about the role of government, writing it off as "fear mongering" is a convenient dodge, no?

 

[bendog]

every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists claim we object to it being done at all

"the socialists"??? OMG help us, they are under our bed at night.

It's usually the socialists, yeah. Does seem "crazy" to you? Do you live under a rock?

I don't live under a rock, and I know that the use of the terms socialism and socialists in this context are nothing more than fear mongering.

Much like the use of the term "far left", those who use these terms don't define and can't explain what they mean when using these terms. In short, they are used as pejoratives to convince other to be scared, and to hate.

And when it's not being used that way, when it's part of a legitimate debate about the role of government, writing it off as "fear mongering" is a convenient dodge, no?

What legit debate? LOL

Nature abhors a vacuum.

 

[dblack]

every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists claim we object to it being done at all

"the socialists"??? OMG help us, they are under our bed at night.

It's usually the socialists, yeah. Does seem "crazy" to you? Do you live under a rock?

I don't live under a rock, and I know that the use of the terms socialism and socialists in this context are nothing more than fear mongering.

Much like the use of the term "far left", those who use these terms don't define and can't explain what they mean when using these terms. In short, they are used as pejoratives to convince other to be scared, and to hate.

And when it's not being used that way, when it's part of a legitimate debate about the role of government, writing it off as "fear mongering" is a convenient dodge, no?

What legit debate? LOL

Nature abhors a vacuum.

The debate over whether social engineering is a proper role of government.

 

[bendog]

"the socialists"??? OMG help us, they are under our bed at night.

It's usually the socialists, yeah. Does seem "crazy" to you? Do you live under a rock?

I don't live under a rock, and I know that the use of the terms socialism and socialists in this context are nothing more than fear mongering.

Much like the use of the term "far left", those who use these terms don't define and can't explain what they mean when using these terms. In short, they are used as pejoratives to convince other to be scared, and to hate.

And when it's not being used that way, when it's part of a legitimate debate about the role of government, writing it off as "fear mongering" is a convenient dodge, no?

What legit debate? LOL

Nature abhors a vacuum.

The debate over whether social engineering is a proper role of government.

I realize that. The debate becomes meaningless when abstract theory is applied to actual events

 

[Wry Catcher]

I cannot agree with the title of the thread.

It is a good idea for companies not to dump toxic chemical into our water supply, but it took government force to stop it from happening.

It is a good idea not to rob a bank, but what outside of government force stops anyone from doing so?

I suspect the OP is talking about the various "social engineering" goals that people are so eager to assign to government. Some people seem to think that if their goals for society are "good" then anything - including government force - is acceptable in pursing them.

With that I can agree 100%. I hate that our tax code is used for social engineering.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

If you mean, "the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society" I can agree.

In terms of the use of deception to manipulate individuals into believing tax reform recently passed will benefit all American Taxpayers equally, I agree 100%.

 

[bendog]

I cannot agree with the title of the thread.

It is a good idea for companies not to dump toxic chemical into our water supply, but it took government force to stop it from happening.

It is a good idea not to rob a bank, but what outside of government force stops anyone from doing so?

I suspect the OP is talking about the various "social engineering" goals that people are so eager to assign to government. Some people seem to think that if their goals for society are "good" then anything - including government force - is acceptable in pursing them.

With that I can agree 100%. I hate that our tax code is used for social engineering.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

If you mean, "the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society" I can agree.

In terms of the use of deception to manipulate individuals into believing tax reform recently passed will benefit all American Taxpayers equally, I agree 100%.

Exactly so. Basque attempts to have it both ways. The term is "alternative facts."

 

[FJO]

the smallest minority in the world is the individual. those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Those who feel that individuals aren't equal, can't claim to be defenders of the people, like the US elections where people in Wyoming get a vote 3 times as powerful as those in California or Texas.

In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.

So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.

If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.

And America would not be a Republic.

I think they were referring to the Electoral College. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3 times the vote of a person in Cali or Ny


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So, are you saying that Wyoming abuses the fact that they are a state with small population, i.e. minority?

The Electoral College assures that even 'minority' states have a voice.

Kind of like affirmative action.

 

[Wry Catcher]

every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists claim we object to it being done at all

"the socialists"??? OMG help us, they are under our bed at night.

It's usually the socialists, yeah. Does seem "crazy" to you? Do you live under a rock?

I don't live under a rock, and I know that the use of the terms socialism and socialists in this context are nothing more than fear mongering.

Much like the use of the term "far left", those who use these terms don't define and can't explain what they mean when using these terms. In short, they are used as pejoratives to convince other to be scared, and to hate.

And when it's not being used that way, when it's part of a legitimate debate about the role of government, writing it off as "fear mongering" is a convenient dodge, no?

It can and should open it up to a legitimate debate, of course. The fact is we live in a mixed economy, one which allow many freedoms but goes short of allowing dangerous & harmful activities and fraud to go unregulated. Agreed?