LIBERTARIANISM and Somalia

GDNet Lounge Community

Started by kindfluffysteve November 22, 2004 10:38 AM

38 comments, last by LessBread 19 years, 5 months ago

435

December 03, 2004 02:21 AM

Quote:Original post by kindfluffysteve
btw. I think its hillarious that when I post political things I get bad ratings. thanks guys. :)

You deserve your rating. It isnt because you post political threads its because of in threads such as these you post things such as

Quote:
Promit.

you guys are funny.

do you take it up the bum for bill or what like?

serious listen to yourselves.

______________________________________________________________________________________With the flesh of a cow.

Evil Bachus

214

December 03, 2004 03:10 AM

Boy am I sorry that I didn't find this thread sooner...

Your child pornography analogy is fundamentally flawed. You state that you don't need to understand libertarianism in order to despise it. You base that statement on the "fact" that you don't need to understand child pornography in order to know that it is wrong. The flaw is that you *do* need to understand what child pornography is before you can label it as "abhorrent". If you have no concept of pornography or that child pornography is pornography that involves minors or children, then you have no basis for any opinion. It's like saying, "I hate samophlanges!" What the hell is a samophlange? I have no idea and can thus have no valid opinion of one. Not to mention the fact that your hatred or abhorrence of child pornography is based on your culture, your moral values, and the laws of your country. Other cultures may feel that there is nothing wrong about sex with children*.

By stating that you don't need to understand libertarianism in order to attack it you are only deluding yourself. Without knowledge of the subject you're discussing you can offer no facts or valid opinions. You're merely yet another in a long line of internet trolls that has decided he is going to hate something for no reason whatsoever and has decided to brew up trouble on a forum that was created for another purpose entirely.

In other words, please shut up you stupid, stupid moron. Until you educate yourself you offer nothing to civilized discourse.

* Please note that I in no way support child pornography. Just trying to make a point here.

LessBread

1,415

December 03, 2004 03:20 AM

Quote:Original post by Flarelocke
True enough, although the problems the Articles had were due to the actions of the states, rather than any individuals in them. Specifically, the federal government relied for its operation on the contribution of the member states, and the failure of the states to do so made the Articles effectively worthless. No army could be mustered or debt repaid without funds. There were difficulties in trade due to the differring currencies, but no state was willing to forego its own currency. Basically no state wanted to relinquish money or power without a guarantee that it would not simply go to some other state. They needed some formal agreement on these points that was agreed to by all parties. The Articles could not apply because it was little more than an agreement to send delegates to a committee and did not require states to relinquish any power.

Wouldn't the actions of the states (or inactions) be the result of the aggregate actions of the most prominent individuals in each state? The men of wealth and of the state legislatures?

Quote:Original post by Flarelocke
It's not as if the founders were all of one mind. Jefferson was probably the most libertarian of the bunch, as was Madison to a lesser extent.

Jefferson owned slaves and didn't free them in his will the way that Washington did. That's a blot on his libertarian credibility.

Quote:Original post by Flarelocke
Indeed. The constitution does not (except in the amendments) restrict state power except to garner it itself. By deferring to the states, it sidesteps the whole issue.

The Consitutution probably wouldn't have been ratified without those provisions. What do you think of Ashcroft v Raich?

Quote:Original post by Flarelocke
It is bad for someone to take your money. It is bad for (n+1) people to gang up on you and take your money. Therefore it is bad for a democracy to take your money. Unfortunately, it takes money to keep people from taking other people's money, and so we force each other to pony up some small amount of taxes. We can't ask people to contribute if they know they'll receive the benefits anyway because then no one will contribute (on the assumption that enough other people will contribute to pay for the police). Thus, the use of force to extract taxes is unfortunate, but necessary. Any dollar of tax money used to some other end is a dollar that was extracted unnecessarily and therefore unjustly. Does this seem right to you?

Are you claiming that the only just taxes are those used to pay for the continued collection of taxes? That strikes me as a rather gross injustice. Have you considered that there are some public endeavors that only the government can undertake and that collecting taxes to pay for these activities is just?

Quote:Original post by Flarelocke
Democracy just happens to be the best (though imperfect) known way to keep the government from embezzling this tax money.

Is it democracy that prevents the embezzlement or is it checks and balances and public oversight?

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man

kindfluffysteve

100

Author

December 03, 2004 10:32 AM

Quote:
By stating that you don't need to understand libertarianism in order to attack it you are only deluding yourself. Without knowledge of the subject you're discussing you can offer no facts or valid opinions. You're merely yet another in a long line of internet trolls that has decided he is going to hate something for no reason whatsoever and has decided to brew up trouble on a forum that was created for another purpose entirely.

an example libertarian policy: absolute right to property

DO WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW WHAT THOUGHT PROCESSES (or not) GO INTO MAKING UP THAT POLICY?

of course not. we have something concrete. a policy, policy can be discussed. Thought processes, ideology behind it, is just fluff.

a policy lets you make projections on the future. if that future is something you dont like, then you oppose, as I do, libertarians. Libertarian policy is about serfdom and slavery and I have no tollerance for it.

In response I put forward that socialism and freedom go hand in hand.

who cares about reading ideological bibles? alls we need to no is policy and projection of policy - the whimisical woolly thoughts behind some peoples ideal policies are just worthless.

if you want freedom, you want socialism.

if you want libertarianism, you want what you cannot say out loud - Serfdom and Slavery. The police to protect the libertarians from their slaves and all that.

Quote:In other words, please shut up you stupid, stupid moron. Until you educate yourself you offer nothing to civilized discourse.

* Please note that I in no way support child pornography. Just trying to make a point here.

I know, the child porn example is an extreme example of the point I try to get across to you libertarain (half) people.

never the less, it is apt for the unchanging reasons I state above. You are a very stupid person.

It is typical of the libertarian internet faction to label everybody a troll who disagrees with them. their arrogance is astounding and knows no bounds. What more can we expect though from would be slavers and takers of freedom, would be destroyers of democracy?

libertarianism and somalia EU vs USA

kindfluffysteve

100

Author

December 03, 2004 10:41 AM

Quote:Original post by Ainokea
Quote:Original post by kindfluffysteve
btw. I think its hillarious that when I post political things I get bad ratings. thanks guys. :)

You deserve your rating. It isnt because you post political threads its because of in threads such as these you post things such as

Quote:
Promit.

you guys are funny.

do you take it up the bum for bill or what like?

serious listen to yourselves.

take it up the bum?

well yes, that post I made was at least 3 months ago and the thread had decended into a flame actually started by a moderator behaving improperly. but never mind that, it was a long time ago?

libertarianism and somalia EU vs USA

Desert Fox

277

December 03, 2004 11:27 AM

Quote:Original post by kindfluffysteve
if you want freedom, you want socialism.

And again I ask how the State taking money I have earned through my labor and giving it to those who have not is freedom? The problem with socialism is that it ignores that whole human drive issue, it deals in no way with motivation to do work. Communism/Socialism breeds apathy. The fact is that some inequality is good. It inspires people to work harder, to say to themselves "I'd rather be in that group, instead of that other, worse off group".

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry

polly

532

December 03, 2004 11:39 AM

MODs arent you going to ban this ass for this blatant flame bait?

EDIT: WOW! I've never seen a rating plunge so fast. LMAO!

Shannon Barber

1,684

December 03, 2004 11:56 AM

I want to, but I'm a self-proclaimed Libertain, so it's a conflict of interest. I'm confident another mod will dish out a punishment shortly.

I'd just like to call attention to how much "help" Somalia has received from socialistic states and how much "better" off the country is since the UN intervened. Consider their food distribution practices effectively gave control of food to the warlords further increasing their ability to coerce and control the public.

[Edited by - Magmai Kai Holmlor on December 3, 2004 4:56:39 PM]

- The trade-off between price and quality does not exist in Japan. Rather, the idea that high quality brings on cost reduction is widely accepted.-- Tajima & Matsubara

polly

532

December 03, 2004 12:06 PM

Here lies kindfluffysteve:

August 26 2004, 5:18:15 PM TO November 22 2004, 11:38:36 AM

Gone, but not forgotten.

LessBread

1,415

December 03, 2004 08:56 PM

Quote:Original post by Desert Fox
And again I ask how the State taking money I have earned through my labor and giving it to those who have not is freedom? The problem with socialism is that it ignores that whole human drive issue, it deals in no way with motivation to do work. Communism/Socialism breeds apathy. The fact is that some inequality is good. It inspires people to work harder, to say to themselves "I'd rather be in that group, instead of that other, worse off group".

There are different kinds of freedom. One approach to the question splits freedom into negative and positive frames. Negative freedom is the freedom to be left alone, to not be bothered by the government. Positive freedom is the freedom to do things, to be enabled by the government. So, taxing you to enable others falls into the category of positive freedom, even though it conflicts with the category of negative freedom.

Setting that aside, as it stands now you must be really pissed given that the government takes money that you have earned through your labor and gives it to those who are far wealthier than you who haven't done anything to deserve it! [grin]

Socialism does not ignore the human drive issue, it places more emphasis on a different set of human drives. Human beings are driven by more than just fear and greed. We are also driven by compassion and concern for others. The notion that socialism breeds apathy is pure rightwing stereotype and the notion that communism doesn't value work is a complete fabrication. What do you think the hammer and sickle symbolizes?

While I'm certain that some people are motivated by class envy, I don't think class envy is a healthy form of inspiration.

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man

LIBERTARIANISM and Somalia

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

LIBERTARIANISM and Somalia

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines