Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[JakeStarkey]

What is "good and moral and decent" remains subject to the cultural standard and law.

The government is governed by the legislators that you and I elect, so if anything or one is being strange it is you with the silly comment of "strange way of dictating". If you are concerned about corporate corruption, libertarianism is the last way you want to go.

Contumacious cares nothing about "civil liberties". He cares about only one thing, really. That is the government not forbidding him to do whatever he wishes to do, which was the major failure of the Roman Republic.

Well if a person does what ever he wants to do, and it is good and moral and decent when doing it, then why would our government be it local, state or federal stand in a persons way of doing just that ? You see our government now has a strange way of dictating what we can and cannot do anymore, and the noose is getting tighter and tighter around our necks. They are doing this to shift balances of power in America, and to protect corporate interest, where as we have not the America in which we have had in the past, but a little is still allowed of it, just so the the people will be let down easy instead of hard, and this until the generational change comes about in which they long for finally.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, I am sure you started out as such a nice guy but the rest of the world just would not cooperate. Once a jerk, always a jerk.

Only to willfully ignorant, sniveling, hand-wringing little collectivist looter snots like you.

I didn't just show up here yesterday, if you can't say something horrible you don't say anything at all. It is what you and the rest of the libertarian crowd have in common here, all attack, all of the time. We know you all get off on being horrible to people, it's the entire point of being an internet libertarian, you never ever have to defend your policies because they will never be attempted in the real world.

You may not have showed up here yesterday, but you still have the acrid blend of ignorance ant arrogance that makes puny little looting losers like you not woth the time of day it takes to address you seriously.

In fact, the common street hooligan has a couple of attributes on you...He actually has the spine to rob me to my face and will probably only shake me down once....You're so gutless that you have to get politicians to do your dirty work for you, and no matter what you get it will never ever be enough.

So go suck a bag of dicks, you cowardly little worm.

 

[emilynghiem]

We cannot have individuals making their own determination of what are law and morality, then applying it to others.

For instance, consider the individual who wanted to have sexual relations with a young teenager and even younger children. We can't leave to deranged individuals to make those decisions.

That's why we have trial by jury, tyrant buttpipe.

jurors don't determine the law. they determine the facts.

THAT is what the juries are for.

man you make a lot of noise

Dear Jillian: Your statement illustrates how people have lost their sense of empowerment, where the government is SUPPOSED reflect the will and consent of the people, why people running political parties and bad govt can continue running over people for ignorance.

1. First of all, what FIJA teaches is that in criminal cases, the jury has the right to vote by conscience, to judge the law as well as the facts, and to question or even disregard instructions by the judge/lawyer if this interferes. They cite the case of Willian Penn, who by the "letter of the law" had preached an "illegal religion" and was clearly fit to be punished by the laws at that time; instead the jury refused to convict, and was sequestered and even tortured in an attempt to coerce them otherwise. But they insisted the First Amendment trumped the local laws, and refused. So all citizens have this right, but we act like we don't.

Jillian I am going to stop here.
There are two more levels I could take this idea, of people serving as the final check on govt, but I don't think you believe even in #1 much less #2 below. And where I believe in equality under #3 you already said you think that level of Peacemaking is a complete pipe dream and not even possible, so you can just stop reading here and blow off the rest....

Thanks, Jillian!
======================================================
2. Secondly, in general, laws including and especially the Constitution are a "social contract" between people and government. Contracts are not legally binding without "consent." So in truth, the people, whom the government is supposed to represent, have the "inalienable" right to defend our religious freedom and beliefs from imposition, including by govt.
We have the right to DEMAND that our consent be respected and protected under law.
However, we sell out this right all the time; every time we accept to "overrule" the consent of some other person or party, then we lose the authority to demand respect for OUR consent.

So on some level, the people RETAIN full right to check and balance govt directly; the final check on govt is ALWAYS the people, and if we forfeit this right, we deserve the govt we get.

Again, this is where we are today. We are so used to seeking majority rule to dominate the opposing side or party, we don't recognize we have just undermined our own defenses. If we don't respect the consent of others, how can we ask to enforce that standard for ourselves?

Plus the political parties use this fear to pander to voters and make the problem worse.
We depend more and more on political party leaders to rally enough support to roll over whatever dissension is threatening to us, instead of resolving the conflict causing division.
So we lose more and more power, and problems get worse and cost us more and more
NOT to solve but to sell hype, paying for campaigns or govt or lobbying WITHOUT fixing it.

There are no shortcuts to stopping this trend. It will take work to teach and train people and groups to start "taking back" responsibility for government, and fixing things ourselves.

The first step is to teach people what are the standards of govt and laws, and not tolerating anymore abuses of govt or political power outside the intended purpose of govt. Anything else should be kept private, like funding your own programs instead of imposing these as public.

Most people aren't ready to try to govern themselves completely independently.
So I would start by having people govern themselves through their respective parties,
support and fund their own programs and agenda that way.

===================================================
3. P.S. I take it a step further, like the Sheriff who decided not to enforce a law he deemed was unconstitutional by the Second Amendment (and since he had sworn to uphold the Constitution, he put that above the law he deemed was in violation). I believe in resolving conflicts between religious and political beliefs by CONSENSUS, through conflict resolution and/or separating people under the policies of their choice to support and fund so there is no imposition by one group over another. I believe this standard of respect for "consent of the governed" would restore the rule of law, and stop this trend of abusing majority rule to try to dominate over or exclude people or groups of differing beliefs, which should be equally protected by law. The greatest strength and worst weakness with this standard, is that it requires people to respect the consent of others equally as themselves in order to invoke it.
Clearly, this is almost unthinkable in an environment of competing to be the bigger bully.
In theory, it would immediately stop rewarding political bullying, since that is clearly coercion and not consent. On the other hand, so few people are able to operate by consent, it would completely flip the power structure around where decision-making ability would fall to the moderators and facilitators who can work with conflicting groups to reach a consensus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You describe your self in your last paragraph, Oddball: how ironic.

You guys merely yell. America rejected libertarianism a century ago, along with its political rival, communism.

Only to willfully ignorant, sniveling, hand-wringing little collectivist looter snots like you.

I didn't just show up here yesterday, if you can't say something horrible you don't say anything at all. It is what you and the rest of the libertarian crowd have in common here, all attack, all of the time. We know you all get off on being horrible to people, it's the entire point of being an internet libertarian, you never ever have to defend your policies because they will never be attempted in the real world.

You may not have showed up here yesterday, but you still have the acrid blend of ignorance ant arrogance that makes puny little looting losers like you not woth the time of day it takes to address you seriously.

In fact, the common street hooligan has a couple of attributes on you...He actually has the spine to rob me to my face and will probably only shake me down once....You're so gutless that you have to get politicians to do your dirty work for you, and no matter what you get it will never ever be enough.

So go suck a bag of dicks, you cowardly little worm.

 

[occupied]

Only to willfully ignorant, sniveling, hand-wringing little collectivist looter snots like you.

I didn't just show up here yesterday, if you can't say something horrible you don't say anything at all. It is what you and the rest of the libertarian crowd have in common here, all attack, all of the time. We know you all get off on being horrible to people, it's the entire point of being an internet libertarian, you never ever have to defend your policies because they will never be attempted in the real world.

You may not have showed up here yesterday, but you still have the acrid blend of ignorance ant arrogance that makes puny little looting losers like you not woth the time of day it takes to address you seriously.

In fact, the common street hooligan has a couple of attributes on you...He actually has the spine to rob me to my face and will probably only shake me down once....You're so gutless that you have to get politicians to do your dirty work for you, and no matter what you get it will never ever be enough.

So go suck a bag of dicks, you cowardly little worm.

Why did you have such a problem with my characterization of libertarianism as a moral rationalization for being a paranoid hateful prick when you are demonstrating those qualities so beautifully?

 

[bripat9643]

No they wouldn't, moron.

They would say that "bripat is a useful idiot."

Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan would tell you that you are full of shit.

They would tell you exactly the opposite.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why did you have such a problem with my characterization of libertarianism as a moral rationalization for being a paranoid hateful prick when you are demonstrating those qualities so beautifully?

Hey Occupied: It goes both ways.
As much as you might paint a group with a large negative brush,
the same favor can be returned unto you, when someone assumes what you
are about by negative association with a group.

If you don't like being painted negative by association,
you can break that pattern by not doing it yourself.

I would MUCH prefer to see the independent activists, not just Occupy by also Libertarian, Green, Tea Party, etc, break from this pattern altogether, especially if we expect to make any program breaking the deadlock between Republicans and Democrats by mutual fingerpointing.

Why not focus on the strong points of Libertarians, and bring out the good points of Occupy and Tea Party activism? Couldn't we get more done by concentrating on points of agreement?

 

[Oddball]

Why did you have such a problem with my characterization of libertarianism as a moral rationalization for being a paranoid hateful prick when you are demonstrating those qualities so beautifully?

Helpful hint: When painting with the broad brush, make sure the bristles are pointed away from you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They would also call you the "prince of fools" as well as "useful idiot" and "willing tool."

No they wouldn't, moron.

They would say that "bripat is a useful idiot."

They would tell you exactly the opposite.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They were pointed right at you, willing tool.

Why did you have such a problem with my characterization of libertarianism as a moral rationalization for being a paranoid hateful prick when you are demonstrating those qualities so beautifully?

Helpful hint: When painting with the broad brush, make sure the bristles are pointed away from you.

 

[bripat9643]

My social compact is very much the cultural understanding and obligation to which American born are indebted.

Sorry, Fakey, but simply getting born doesn't impose obligations of any kind on me. That's a basic legal principal as well as a moral principal. Of course, we all know how much you despise morality.

Libertarianism claims to be amoral, which is a lie. You are, in fact, immoral.

But that is your problem.

I seriously doubt you can quote any libertarian making such a claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It does, and whether you deny it is no defense in court.

Tred carefully.

My social compact is very much the cultural understanding and obligation to which American born are indebted.

Sorry, Fakey, but simply getting born doesn't impose obligations of any kind on me. That's a basic legal principal as well as a moral principal. Of course, we all know how much you despise morality.

Libertarianism claims to be amoral, which is a lie. You are, in fact, immoral.

But that is your problem.

I seriously doubt you can quote any libertarian making such a claim.

 

[occupied]

Why did you have such a problem with my characterization of libertarianism as a moral rationalization for being a paranoid hateful prick when you are demonstrating those qualities so beautifully?

Hey Occupied: It goes both ways.
As much as you might paint a group with a large negative brush,
the same favor can be returned unto you, when someone assumes what you
are about by negative association with a group.

If you don't like being painted negative by association,
you can break that pattern by not doing it yourself.

I would MUCH prefer to see the independent activists, not just Occupy by also Libertarian, Green, Tea Party, etc, break from this pattern altogether, especially if we expect to make any program breaking the deadlock between Republicans and Democrats by mutual fingerpointing.

Why not focus on the strong points of Libertarians, and bring out the good points of Occupy and Tea Party activism? Couldn't we get more done by concentrating on points of agreement?

I am not even talking political views so much here as the example the libertarians set for themselves on this board, almost without exception they are terribly rude and abusive to everyone who does not just ditto their extreme statements. I am not familiar with you so I am not going to just lump you in with the rest but as far as most of the interactions I have had with self-described libertarians go I would not join such a group of souless assholes under any circumstances.

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

My guess is that the strict Constitutional true Libertarian party has been hijacked by the liberturds who's main focus is "legalizing" drugs and making a buck by selling them to our kids. The freaking cowards hide behind legitimate politicians and pretend that they have the same values as the Tea Party.

You obviously don't know jack. The Libertarian Party officially endorses legalization of drugs. You seem to think the Libertarian Party is supposed to some purist version of the Republican party, if such a thing is possible.

 

[bripat9643]

Social Compact is a fact.

That you are wrong about it is a fact.

Move along, parasite.

Nothing you believe is a fact, Fakey. One sure indication that a given statement is a lie is the fact that you posted it.

 

[bripat9643]

You, like all of us, have been raised on the Social Compact's cultural and national function.

That you don't like it is entirely irrelevant.

The fact that you believe it is what's irrelevant.

What the heck is a "national function?"

I love the idiocies you invent, Fakey. The best entertainment I get all week.

 

[Oddball]

Why did you have such a problem with my characterization of libertarianism as a moral rationalization for being a paranoid hateful prick when you are demonstrating those qualities so beautifully?

Hey Occupied: It goes both ways.
As much as you might paint a group with a large negative brush,
the same favor can be returned unto you, when someone assumes what you
are about by negative association with a group.

If you don't like being painted negative by association,
you can break that pattern by not doing it yourself.

I would MUCH prefer to see the independent activists, not just Occupy by also Libertarian, Green, Tea Party, etc, break from this pattern altogether, especially if we expect to make any program breaking the deadlock between Republicans and Democrats by mutual fingerpointing.

Why not focus on the strong points of Libertarians, and bring out the good points of Occupy and Tea Party activism? Couldn't we get more done by concentrating on points of agreement?

I am not even talking political views so much here as the example the libertarians set for themselves on this board, almost without exception they are terribly rude and abusive to everyone who does not just ditto their extreme statements. I am not familiar with you so I am not going to just lump you in with the rest but as far as most of the interactions I have had with self-described libertarians go I would not join such a group of souless assholes under any circumstances.

Or maybe we're just sick of ignorant and bigoted little freebooter creeps like you, who claim their ignorance as wisdom, and don't wish to bother mollifying your bigotry any further.

But I guess you never heard that you get what you give, huh?

 

[occupied]

Hey Occupied: It goes both ways.
As much as you might paint a group with a large negative brush,
the same favor can be returned unto you, when someone assumes what you
are about by negative association with a group.

If you don't like being painted negative by association,
you can break that pattern by not doing it yourself.

I would MUCH prefer to see the independent activists, not just Occupy by also Libertarian, Green, Tea Party, etc, break from this pattern altogether, especially if we expect to make any program breaking the deadlock between Republicans and Democrats by mutual fingerpointing.

Why not focus on the strong points of Libertarians, and bring out the good points of Occupy and Tea Party activism? Couldn't we get more done by concentrating on points of agreement?

I am not even talking political views so much here as the example the libertarians set for themselves on this board, almost without exception they are terribly rude and abusive to everyone who does not just ditto their extreme statements. I am not familiar with you so I am not going to just lump you in with the rest but as far as most of the interactions I have had with self-described libertarians go I would not join such a group of souless assholes under any circumstances.

Or maybe we're just sick of ignorant and bigoted little freebooter creeps like you, who claim their ignorance as wisdom, and don't wish to bother mollifying your bigotry any further.

But I guess you never heard that you get what you give, huh?

You've already amply demonstrated the default tone of argument for the board's libertarian contingent, no need to keep on proving me right.

 

[Oddball]

I am not even talking political views so much here as the example the libertarians set for themselves on this board, almost without exception they are terribly rude and abusive to everyone who does not just ditto their extreme statements. I am not familiar with you so I am not going to just lump you in with the rest but as far as most of the interactions I have had with self-described libertarians go I would not join such a group of souless assholes under any circumstances.

Or maybe we're just sick of ignorant and bigoted little freebooter creeps like you, who claim their ignorance as wisdom, and don't wish to bother mollifying your bigotry any further.

But I guess you never heard that you get what you give, huh?

You've already amply demonstrated the default tone of argument for the board's libertarian contingent, no need to keep on proving me right.

No, what I've demonstrated is the board's general contempt for bigots, ignoramuses and liars of all political stripes.

But please carry on with your victimhood act...It's really the only card in your hand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You silly goof. Try that on the police officer. "Officer, I don't like that, and so I won't do that. Please, please put down that extension rod. Ow, Ow, Ow. I will be a good widdle boy."

You are such an idiot.

You, like all of us, have been raised on the Social Compact's cultural and national function.

That you don't like it is entirely irrelevant.

The fact that you believe it is what's irrelevant.

What the heck is a "national function?"

I love the idiocies you invent, Fakey. The best entertainment I get all week.