• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC officials duped into approving first gay marriage

I don't call myself a libertarian, I lean that way, but call myself a conservative.


libertarianism is bad because just like Marxism, it ignores the human equation. For instance, when can a father start having sex with his daughter? 5? 9? 18? Never? A libertarian purist will come back with some lame ass stuff about when she can enter into contract - while ignoring that the monopoly of state power determines when a person is able to enter into contracts. oops - you just might be a statist afterall.

Before you get into an argument with yourself Socrates, try this. A libertarian would be fine with this if both of the people are rational. In courts, it's easy to see that the burden of proof on proving that the child is rational is on the parent. If he cannot prove that the child is rational, then he cannot engage in this because she does not know what is best for her.
 
Before you get into an argument with yourself Socrates, try this. A libertarian would be fine with this if both of the people are rational. In courts, it's easy to see that the burden of proof on proving that the child is rational is on the parent. If he cannot prove that the child is rational, then he cannot engage in this because she does not know what is best for her.

courts? You know who runs the courts? I'll give you a hint - it is contained in the word Statist.
 
courts? You know who runs the courts? I'll give you a hint - it is contained in the word Statist.

The role of the state is to enforce contracts and provide protection from agression. There are plenty of libertarians, all want either a minarchist state or anarchy. I'm a minarchist, but best defined by classical liberalism.
 
The role of the state is to enforce contracts and provide protection from agression. There are plenty of libertarians, all want either a minarchist state or anarchy. I'm a minarchist, but best defined by classical liberalism.

the role of government is to protect individual liberty. That is the piece minarchists have correct.

Your failure is in the application of government towards that end.

Government protects rights - the mob protects the government.

When 99% of us want to shut down a business that engages in prostitution but are told we cant because that is not the role of the state, then what happens? We overthrow the government and establish the one we want.

It is a fine balance between protecting rights, and giving the mob what they want. A balance that libertarian purists can't grasp as they throw around overused terms like statist. :2wave:
 
Giving the mob what they want? That's not freedom. If you don't want the prostitution business then don't go there. Freedom of association is a wonderful thing.
 
Giving the mob what they want? That's not freedom. If you don't want the prostitution business then don't go there. Freedom of association is a wonderful thing.

like I said - purists can't grasp the nuances. Freedom means squat when nobody is interested in protecting it.

I'll go back to the 5 year old example. Why is he not free to carry a gun while walking the streets in his underoos?

How about the guy that has been convicted of armed robbery?

In both cases, we are stripping people of their freedom.....and I'm quite comfortable in doing so. Give me a statist flag to drape myself in, I'll sleep just fine as a libertarian leaning statist.
 
You have two arguments going now: the pragmatism of intervention and mob rule. Let's deal with one at a time.
 
You have two arguments going now: the pragmatism of intervention and mob rule. Let's deal with one at a time.

you agreed with mob rule a minute ago.

The courts decide when a husband can boink a daughter. The courts operate in a manner agreeable to the mob. They elect those that nominate judges. They serve as the peers in jury trials, etc. etc. When our very government is under attack, only the mob can properly defend it.
 
you agreed with mob rule a minute ago.

The courts decide when a husband can boink a daughter. The courts operate in a manner agreeable to the mob. They elect those that nominate judges. They serve as the peers in jury trials, etc. etc. When our very government is under attack, only the mob can properly defend it.

I did not agree with mob rule. It's you who cannot grasp nuances.

The courts are only accountable to the law. You can counter back that the majority sets the law, but not quite. Because we have principles that cannot be violated, even when mob rule decides it wants something, and it violates that principle, it is not law. For instance, if we try to draft a law that only blacks will be drafted, it will immediately be shot down by the courts. The mob wanted it, but it will not get it.
 
I did not agree with mob rule. It's you who cannot grasp nuances.

The courts are only accountable to the law. You can counter back that the majority sets the law, but not quite. Because we have principles that cannot be violated, even when mob rule decides it wants something, and it violates that principle, it is not law. For instance, if we try to draft a law that only blacks will be drafted, it will immediately be shot down by the courts. The mob wanted it, but it will not get it.

Damn right I will counter back with reality. the law is an extension of the mob. When the mob wanted to allow slavery, we had slavery. When they wanted to treat women as property, they were property. If the courts don't give the mob what they want, the mob revolts.

Government does not exist in a vacuum - it has to give the people what they want. It will only be able to protect the rights that the people want protected. It's the sad truth and is why libertarianism is a joke - it fails to take the human equation into account just as Marxism does.

We are all statists. Accept it and find an ideology that works with human nature. I personally suggest the platform espoused by Ron Paul (that one's for Jallman). :mrgreen:

But more importantly, drop the statist shtick. You sound like a high school kid when you throw that overused buzz word around.
 
Damn right I will counter back with reality. the law is an extension of the mob. When the mob wanted to allow slavery, we had slavery. When they wanted to treat women as property, they were property. If the courts don't give the mob what they want, the mob revolts.

Except that these things weren't ended by majority vote.

Government does not exist in a vacuum - it has to give the people what they want. It will only be able to protect the rights that the people want protected. It's the sad truth and is why libertarianism is a joke - it fails to take the human equation into account just as Marxism does.

But when the majority votes to trample the rights of the minority, then rights are not protected. That's why we have laws.

We are all statists. Accept it and find an ideology that works with human nature. I personally suggest the platform espoused by Ron Paul (that one's for Jallman). :mrgreen:

And that's a form of libertarianism. Libertarianism is not anarchism.

But more importantly, drop the statist shtick. You sound like a high school kid when you throw that overused buzz word around.

And an ad-hominem to finish it off.
 
Except that these things weren't ended by majority vote.

so what? When did I say anything about a simple majority? Looking back, I used an example of 99%.

But when the majority votes to trample the rights of the minority, then rights are not protected. That's why we have laws.

Our laws constantly trample the rights of the minority. As Ayn Rand famously stated, there is no greater minority then the individual.

And that's a form of libertarianism. Libertarianism is not anarchism.

No, his belief in the constitution is not a form of Libertarianism.

And an ad-hominem to finish it off.

It's great advice. For your own sake, take it. High School/College doesn't last forever.
 
so what? When did I say anything about a simple majority? Looking back, I used an example of 99%.

That doesn't ensure that freedom is respected.

Our laws constantly trample the rights of the minority. As Ayn Rand famously stated, there is no greater minority then the individual.

I'm pretty sure that Ayn Rand would not support mob rule over individual freedom.

No, his belief in the constitution is not a form of Libertarianism.

It really is. He supports the liberties and freedoms of the people of this country more than anyone else in congress. He even ran once with the libertarian party.
 
That doesn't ensure that freedom is respected.

that is because all freedom is not, has not, and never will be respected.

It really is. He supports the liberties and freedoms of the people of this country more than anyone else in congress. He even ran once with the libertarian party.

He leans libertarian, as I do, but he is not a Libertarian. He has even been asked, and will reply with a no.

Political Parties are collectivist by nature. Yes, he ran as the nominee in 1988. Big woop.

Explain for me how an actual libertarian would ever support DOMA as Ron Paul did.
 
that is because all freedom is not, has not, and never will be respected.

It can be achieved, and we should always aim to acienve it.

He leans libertarian, as I do, but he is not a Libertarian. He has even been asked, and will reply with a no.

Political Parties are collectivist by nature. Yes, he ran as the nominee in 1988. Big woop.

Explain for me how an actual libertarian would ever support DOMA as Ron Paul did.

My goal is not to show that a person is a pure libertarian. It doesn't achieve anything.
 
It can be achieved, and we should always aim to acienve it.

sorry but no. I don't wish to live in a society where people can masturbate on the edge of their property simply because they aren't initiating violence.


My goal is not to show that a person is a pure libertarian. It doesn't achieve anything.

I'm not sure what your goal is. It seems to be to lobby for mods to remove the libertarian lean if they aren't pure enough for you.
 
Can I just say that I will never, ever, ever rip on your for our "who's the better conservative" pissing contests again after reading this kid's posts?
 
sorry but no. I don't wish to live in a society where people can masturbate on the edge of their property simply because they aren't initiating violence.

What a person does in the privacy of his own property is his business. You don't want to be told what you can do in the bedroom, do you?

I'm not sure what your goal is. It seems to be to lobby for mods to remove the libertarian lean if they aren't pure enough for you.

I'm trying to get you to realize that libertarianism isn't as crazy as you make it out to be, despite what jallman says and how he attempts to show his superiority by just referencing me and not even talking to me.
 
What a person does in the privacy of his own property is his business.

99% of us disagree. See my edge of yard voyeurism example above.

You don't want to be told what you can do in the bedroom, do you?
ummmm......sometimes :mrgreen:

I'm trying to get you to realize that libertarianism isn't as crazy as you make it out to be

But then you go and try to defend things that the vast majority of society prefers to live without. Almost nobody is interested in protecting and preserving your version of a free society.
 
99% of us disagree. See my edge of yard voyeurism example above.

But why should you have any say in what he does as long as he's not hurting anyone?

ummmm......sometimes :mrgreen:

Yeah, ;), but not by the government.

But then you go and try to defend things that the vast majority of society prefers to live without. Almost nobody is interested in protecting and preserving your version of a free society.

That's not much of an argument. Appealing to the majority proves nothing.
 
But why should you have any say in what he does as long as he's not hurting anyone?

Masturbating while leering at my daughter may not be physically hurting anybody, but I have no desire to live in such a society, nor does pretty much anybody else outside of degenerates and emotionally handicapped individuals.

That's not much of an argument. Appealing to the majority proves nothing.

The majority is required to successfully defend the government from invasion. You are so eager to setup a pure free country you fail to see that nobody wants to live in what you seek to create. Nobody is interested in protecting your version of government from being overthrown, so what’s the point in trying to establish it?
 
Masturbating while leering at my daughter may not be physically hurting anybody, but I have no desire to live in such a society, nor does pretty much anybody else outside of degenerates and emotionally handicapped individuals.

Freedom of association means that if you don't like him then you don't have to have anything to do with him.

The majority is required to successfully defend the government from invasion. You are so eager to setup a pure free country you fail to see that nobody wants to live in what you seek to create. Nobody is interested in protecting your version of government from being overthrown, so what’s the point in trying to establish it?

Because the majority usually doesn't know what is best for itself. We're not all experts on everything.
 
Freedom of association means that if you don't like him then you don't have to have anything to do with him.

Sorry but your defense is weak. My yard is right next to his property. My daughter has no choice but to watch him fondle himself because he is making sure that he stays within eyeshot of her while he does so. Her only option is to not play outside. What a wonderful Utopia you have created in your pursuit of total freedom (rolls eyes)

Here is the reality of how it goes down – it becomes anarchy essentially. Because the government can’t ban this perverts actions outright, what I do is beat the ever living crap out of him. Then I stand trial and am found not guilty because 99% of us don’t want to live in such a society and the jury sides with me. The courts become horrible inefficient because the majority that make up the court system are being prevented from getting the government they want but still can see right from wrong. So we live in a society where the written law and the observed law are completely at odds with one another.

Because the majority usually doesn't know what is best for itself. We're not all experts on everything.

What circular idiocy. The majority are the driving force that created the government we had, and they are the reason we have the government we have. You live in some unrealistic vacuum where people are just going to sit around and accept a government that they don’t agree with.
 
Sorry but your defense is weak. My yard is right next to his property. My daughter has no choice but to watch him fondle himself because he is making sure that he stays within eyeshot of her while he does so. Her only option is to not play outside. What a wonderful Utopia you have created in your pursuit of total freedom (rolls eyes)

He cannot force her to associate with him. You are still choosing to ignore that.

Here is the reality of how it goes down – it becomes anarchy essentially. Because the government can’t ban this perverts actions outright, what I do is beat the ever living crap out of him. Then I stand trial and am found not guilty because 99% of us don’t want to live in such a society and the jury sides with me. The courts become horrible inefficient because the majority that make up the court system are being prevented from getting the government they want but still can see right from wrong. So we live in a society where the written law and the observed law are completely at odds with one another.

I can't say it better than Socrates: "Not so, my simple friend, but because you will refute me after the manner which rhetoricians practise in courts of law. For there the one party think that they refute the other when they bring forward a number of witnesses of good repute in proof of their allegations, and their adversary has only a single one or none at all. But this kind of proof is of no value where truth is the aim; a man may often be sworn down by a multitude of false witnesses who have a great air of respectability. And in this argument nearly every one, Athenian and stranger alike, would be on your side, if you should bring witnesses in disproof of my statement-you may, if you will, summon Nicias the son of Niceratus, and let his brothers, who gave the row of tripods which stand in the precincts of Dionysus, come with him; or you may summon Aristocrates, the son of Scellius, who is the giver of that famous offering which is at Delphi; summon, if you will, the whole house of Pericles, or any other great Athenian family whom you choose-they will all agree with you: I only am left alone and cannot agree, for you do not convince me; although you produce many false witnesses against me, in the hope of depriving me of my inheritance, which is the truth."

What circular idiocy. The majority are the driving force that created the government we had, and they are the reason we have the government we have. You live in some unrealistic vacuum where people are just going to sit around and accept a government that they don’t agree with.

Where do you get the assumption that what is right and good lies with what the majority wants?
 
He cannot force her to associate with him. You are still choosing to ignore that.

She can't turn off her ability to see what is in front of her, you are choosing to ignore that. You want to paint strict libertarian philosophy as not crazy, but you are defending crazy behavior.


Where do you get the assumption that what is right and good lies with what the majority wants?

right and good is irrelevant in this discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom