You guys realize that Obama and Romney will both promote more government control

[Contumacious]

This is why you people don't matter.

Tell them girl.

We should invade the fuck out every countyry until our national debt is a quadrillion dollars. Hopefully when the system collapses a white dude will rule us in the name of god.

Hallelujah.

.

That is called bifurcation - 'the all or nothing' logical fallacy used by those who are getting their asses kicked in argument.


LOL

That is call stonewalling. The strategy consists of becoming incoherent when caught in a lie.


.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Take your beef up with John Locke not with me, he said it. He was a hugest statist though so good call.

And is John Locke the last word on liberty, or have there been others who built upon his original ideas since then?

Of course there have been other philosophers but many of them, myself included, still think his tacit consent argument is valid.

If tacit consent is valid then we have no basis on which to criticize the government on anything, because, by choosing to live within their arbitrary borders, we obviously consent to what they're doing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you think it matters who voted for Hitler and who didn't? After the war, a whole lot of Germans tried to absolve themselves of any guilt by saying it wasn't me, I didn't vote for those Nazis, I didn't want to go to war. Do you think all citizens are responsible for the actions of their gov't?

No, I don't. I don't think any citizens are responsible for the actions of their government. You could make the case that those who voted for such and such are responsible, but it could be argued that they were simply bamboozled. How many people who originally voted for Hitler understood exactly what was going to happen? Are they then responsible? I don't think so.

I take the opposing view, the citizenry ARE collectively responsible to be informed and involved in their gov't, and make the best decisions about who the vote for; which I suspect back then the germans did not do. In this country, the nominees are chosen in the primaries and the electees are chosen in the general elections; if a bad apple gets in there, that's on us. And if we don't kick his/her ass outta there at the first opportunity, that's on us too.

So then my question is: If I didn't vote for such and such am I still then responsible for that person's actions while in office?

 

[PredFan]

Right? They're not that different.

Yes they are.

Foreign Policy is damn near identical.

Wrong.

Obama prefers controlling people via economics

True

Romney via social issues.

No.


One out of three, you aren't doing so hot.

 

[Contumacious]

No, I don't. I don't think any citizens are responsible for the actions of their government. You could make the case that those who voted for such and such are responsible, but it could be argued that they were simply bamboozled. How many people who originally voted for Hitler understood exactly what was going to happen? Are they then responsible? I don't think so.

I take the opposing view, the citizenry ARE collectively responsible to be informed and involved in their gov't, and make the best decisions about who the vote for; which I suspect back then the germans did not do. In this country, the nominees are chosen in the primaries and the electees are chosen in the general elections; if a bad apple gets in there, that's on us. And if we don't kick his/her ass outta there at the first opportunity, that's on us too.

So then my question is: If I didn't vote for such and such am I still then responsible for that person's actions while in office?

Yep.

Ask the families of the victims of Pan Am Pan Am Flight 103, ( Lockerbie bombing) and the 09/11 retaliatory attack.

.

 

[Wiseacre]

No, I don't. I don't think any citizens are responsible for the actions of their government. You could make the case that those who voted for such and such are responsible, but it could be argued that they were simply bamboozled. How many people who originally voted for Hitler understood exactly what was going to happen? Are they then responsible? I don't think so.

I take the opposing view, the citizenry ARE collectively responsible to be informed and involved in their gov't, and make the best decisions about who the vote for; which I suspect back then the germans did not do. In this country, the nominees are chosen in the primaries and the electees are chosen in the general elections; if a bad apple gets in there, that's on us. And if we don't kick his/her ass outta there at the first opportunity, that's on us too.

So then my question is: If I didn't vote for such and such am I still then responsible for that person's actions while in office?

This is not a personal issue, you personally are not responsible for how anyone else votes, in your state or any other. Nor are you personally responsible for the actions your gov't may take. But you are collectively responsible for keeping abreast of the news and speaking or writing about your concerns or disagreements with what's going on. And you are collectively responsible for hold our elected officials accountable, and doing your part to make them aware of your dissatisfaction. Perhaps you've heard the saying "You get the gov't you deserve". There's a lot of truith in that.

 

[Nightson]

I completely agree. I was just illustrating their preferred means of control.


As far as Iraq... that'll never be over, we have a massive billion dollar base there, somebody has to staff it.... heheheee

Who's we? I don't have a base anywhere.

Collective "we", the USA. If it were up to me, ***we*** wouldn't have any bases except inside our borders.

Unfortunately, love it or leave it, the cost of maintaining "our" way of life inside the fish bowl includes both economic and military conquest and repeated demonstration of force capability. A 21st century national policy of Isolationism would be suicide. Empire or not, U.S. supremacy, read: across the board survival, depends on offshore military might and shall from here on out to the end.

 

[LibertyLemming]

And is John Locke the last word on liberty, or have there been others who built upon his original ideas since then?

Of course there have been other philosophers but many of them, myself included, still think his tacit consent argument is valid.

If tacit consent is valid then we have no basis on which to criticize the government on anything, because, by choosing to live within their arbitrary borders, we obviously consent to what they're doing.

When did I ever say you couldn't criticize the government? You are trying to change the debate. Tacit consent means that by remaining in the USA as an adult and choosing to pay taxes, you consent to being part of the "we" that has a base in Iraq.

@Pred, man you showed me.

 

[Contumacious]

I take the opposing view, the citizenry ARE collectively responsible to be informed and involved in their gov't, and make the best decisions about who the vote for; which I suspect back then the germans did not do. In this country, the nominees are chosen in the primaries and the electees are chosen in the general elections; if a bad apple gets in there, that's on us. And if we don't kick his/her ass outta there at the first opportunity, that's on us too.

So then my question is: If I didn't vote for such and such am I still then responsible for that person's actions while in office?

This is not a personal issue, you personally are not responsible for how anyone else votes, in your state or any other. Nor are you personally responsible for the actions your gov't may take. But you are collectively responsible for keeping abreast of the news and speaking or writing about your concerns or disagreements with what's going on. And you are collectively responsible for hold our elected officials accountable, and doing your part to make them aware of your dissatisfaction. Perhaps you've heard the saying "You get the gov't you deserve". There's a lot of truith in that.

I see. Who the fuck pays the additional taxes? Whose liberty gets fucked when they decide to adopt Patriot Act and TSA type "laws"?!?!?

.

 

[g5000]

Right? They're not that different. Foreign Policy is damn near identical. Obama prefers controlling people via economics, Romney via social issues.

I actually have very little beef with Obama on his handling of foreign affairs. A Republican President would have dealt with Iran exactly the same way Obama is. One day, George Bush will probably even say that out loud.

Domestically, though, Obama is a train wreck. I don't think he has an economic bone in his body. He is the instrument of pain which should be causing the GOP to return to its principles.

Romney's nomination is evidence the GOP is a long way from doing that.
.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I take the opposing view, the citizenry ARE collectively responsible to be informed and involved in their gov't, and make the best decisions about who the vote for; which I suspect back then the germans did not do. In this country, the nominees are chosen in the primaries and the electees are chosen in the general elections; if a bad apple gets in there, that's on us. And if we don't kick his/her ass outta there at the first opportunity, that's on us too.

So then my question is: If I didn't vote for such and such am I still then responsible for that person's actions while in office?

This is not a personal issue, you personally are not responsible for how anyone else votes, in your state or any other. Nor are you personally responsible for the actions your gov't may take. But you are collectively responsible for keeping abreast of the news and speaking or writing about your concerns or disagreements with what's going on. And you are collectively responsible for hold our elected officials accountable, and doing your part to make them aware of your dissatisfaction. Perhaps you've heard the saying "You get the gov't you deserve". There's a lot of truith in that.

But who is this collective? It seems to be some arbitrarily defined group of people lumped together for no good reason. I'm an individual, not a collective. You can't judge me based on what others do.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course there have been other philosophers but many of them, myself included, still think his tacit consent argument is valid.

If tacit consent is valid then we have no basis on which to criticize the government on anything, because, by choosing to live within their arbitrary borders, we obviously consent to what they're doing.

When did I ever say you couldn't criticize the government? You are trying to change the debate. Tacit consent means that by remaining in the USA as an adult and choosing to pay taxes, you consent to being part of the "we" that has a base in Iraq.

@Pred, man you showed me.

No, I'm not changing the debate, I'm making a point within the context of the debate. You say we can criticize the government, but that by staying within that government's arbitrary borders I'm consenting to whatever they do. Those are two opposite positions that can't coexist. I can't both consent to and criticize the same thing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Right? They're not that different. Foreign Policy is damn near identical. Obama prefers controlling people via economics, Romney via social issues.

Hence my assertion that there is absolutely no difference between political pigeon hole group think parties

 

[Liberal]

Right? They're not that different. Foreign Policy is damn near identical. Obama prefers controlling people via economics, Romney via social issues.

Prepare for a lot of hate.

I don't agree with you personally, but people love to attack centerist libertarians on this forum.

 

[LibertyLemming]

If tacit consent is valid then we have no basis on which to criticize the government on anything, because, by choosing to live within their arbitrary borders, we obviously consent to what they're doing.

When did I ever say you couldn't criticize the government? You are trying to change the debate. Tacit consent means that by remaining in the USA as an adult and choosing to pay taxes, you consent to being part of the "we" that has a base in Iraq.

@Pred, man you showed me.

No, I'm not changing the debate, I'm making a point within the context of the debate. You say we can criticize the government, but that by staying within that government's arbitrary borders I'm consenting to whatever they do. Those are two opposite positions that can't coexist. I can't both consent to and criticize the same thing.

This is Kettle Logic now. You honestly believe that you can't criticize anything you endorse or agree to? That is absurd. That's like saying I can't bitch about my clothes itching me because I put them on. It would also imply that we only agree to things that are flawless because no body criticizes and so I guess we have no problems or a need for a forum anyway?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When did I ever say you couldn't criticize the government? You are trying to change the debate. Tacit consent means that by remaining in the USA as an adult and choosing to pay taxes, you consent to being part of the "we" that has a base in Iraq.

@Pred, man you showed me.

No, I'm not changing the debate, I'm making a point within the context of the debate. You say we can criticize the government, but that by staying within that government's arbitrary borders I'm consenting to whatever they do. Those are two opposite positions that can't coexist. I can't both consent to and criticize the same thing.

This is Kettle Logic now. You honestly believe that you can't criticize anything you endorse or agree to? That is absurd. That's like saying I can't bitch about my clothes itching me because I put them on. It would also imply that we only agree to things that are flawless because no body criticizes and so I guess we have no problems or a need for a forum anyway?

That would be the logical conclusion of "tacit consent."

 

[LibertyLemming]

No that would be some bizarro world where free thought and the ability to speak is censored completely. Without tacit consent we have no order or citizenry.

 

[asaratis]

Right? They're not that different. Foreign Policy is damn near identical. Obama prefers controlling people via economics, Romney via social issues.

Obama's control goes so far as to tax us into economic collapse and installation of Marxist ideals.

Romney plans to keep free enterprise alive.

FUCK OBAMA!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No that would be some bizarro world where free thought and the ability to speak is censored completely. Without tacit consent we have no order or citizenry.

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. Of course you can complain about something while consenting to it. You're physically able to do so and nobody's stopping you. The point I was making is that it makes no sense. If you consent tacitly to something, then complaining about it means nothing. It's cognitive dissonance.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I disagree. People consent to what they have to (government in this case) to survive and it doesn't rule out criticizing it.