Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

I think the problem with "libertarians," at least in my area...

breamfisherbreamfisher Senior MemberPosts: 13,877 Senior Member
...is that so few actually are "libertarians." They generally fall into two groups:
1. People who want to legalize marijuana and maybe some other drugs, but are pushing for a loss of freedom in others. Some are even dominionists/theocratic.
2. People who are just anarchists.

Neither one really gives the libertarian movement a good name, IMHO. And they drive away people who probably fall into true libertarian lines because they're either too restrictive, or crazy unruly.
I'm just here for snark.
«134

Replies

  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    The organized ones are not that way, in my experience. I used to belong to the Libertarian Party of Florida and went to a few meetings back when I was voting for their candidates. Mostly decent people wanting to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    3. People that truly believe in self-governing. Not just for our own lives but for everyone else as well. This concept includes legalization (not just drugs) and a bit of anarchy. Anarchy defined as "absense of government".

    I don't mean removal of all government, but MASSIVE reduction in all aspects. The free market can replace many of the government services we feel we "need".

    As a simple example, we can eliminate restaurant inspectors. If you are concerned about your local diner, ask the manager if you can see the kitchen. If they refuse, do not eat there. There are 100s of internet boards that are used to post reviews of service and conditions. Yet we still pay corrupt inspectors.

    Extrapolate this concept into code inspectors, safety inspectors, health services, etc and move on from there.

    The biggest obstruction I foresee, is fear. Real freedom scares the ship out of most people.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    ...is that so few actually are "libertarians." They generally fall into two groups:
    1. People who want to legalize marijuana and maybe some other drugs, but are pushing for a loss of freedom in others. Some are even dominionists/theocratic.
    2. People who are just anarchists.

    Neither one really gives the libertarian movement a good name, IMHO. And they drive away people who probably fall into true libertarian lines because they're either too restrictive, or crazy unruly.

    Sounds like you're talking about Democrats.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Make My Day and CaliFFL, you're right about what true Libertarians believe, at least in my experience. The problem I've seen, at least with many who self-identify as "Libertarians" is that they're not really what they claim to be.

    To be clear, I don't have a problem with legalization and rolling back government (even though I work for it.) My thing is, if you look at what a lot of people claim to be and what they're really espousing, the two are in conflict. With libertarians, that creates all sort of "branding" issues where people become afraid to vote for a candidate not because of what the candidate espouses and believes, but because of what their supporters espouse and believe.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,953 Senior Member
    Dead on Bream.

    It seems to me that most of them want to be left alone to do whatever they want, but have someone else still be there to pick up the pieces. They walk around with blinders on (isolationists) and think that in their Pollyanna world everyone will leave us alone. The self styled "libertarians" that I have met are, for example, all for legalizing drugs, and then supporting programs to help addicted people. Where my version is legalize drugs, make anyone who wants to take them buy a 300.00 drug user card so that when they are laying on the sidewalk with a needle hanging out of their veins, Waste Management can get paid for picking them up.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    Dead on Bream.

    It seems to me that most of them want to be left alone to do whatever they want, but have someone else still be there to pick up the pieces. They walk around with blinders on (isolationists) and think that in their Pollyanna world everyone will leave us alone. The self styled "libertarians" that I have met are, for example, all for legalizing drugs, and then supporting programs to help addicted people. Where my version is legalize drugs, make anyone who wants to take them buy a 300.00 drug user card so that when they are laying on the sidewalk with a needle hanging out of their veins, Waste Management can get paid for picking them up.

    I'm okay with that scenario, most of the time the "legalize drugs" folks live in their own world where all that entails is the occasional recreational pot smokers. Morons cooking one pot Meth in their coat pockets, never gets addressed.
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    The Libertarian Party is actually the party of Jefferson. Gov should do what only gov can do. For details, see the Constitution. Nowadays that would be national defense ,highways, police, and education. Everything else is an intrusion into the private sector and can only hurt in the long run. Best example of that is social welfare programs which have created generations of dependents for the government and all but destroyed the free market system.


    Please excuse typos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history." - Ayn Rand
  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    The problem with Libertarian ideas today is that the two controlling parties will cherry pick only the ideas that help their agendas. That will not work and can make bad ideas worse. Freedom also includes opportunity to fail without a gov bailout.


    Please excuse typos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history." - Ayn Rand
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    I'm okay with that scenario, most of the time the "legalize drugs" folks live in their own world where all that entails is the occasional recreational pot smokers. Morons cooking one pot Meth in their coat pockets, never gets addressed.

    What is stopping that from happening today? Not a damn thing. With legalization, we eliminate the black market. There will be no need cook meth in cars and coat pockets. Cooks can make it SAFELY and sell it on an open market. Same as booze.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    What is stopping that from happening today? Not a damn thing. With legalization, we eliminate the black market. There will be no need cook meth in cars and coat pockets. Cooks can make it SAFELY and sell it on an open market. Same as booze.

    I usually tend to agree on many of your posts but this pure and complete utter nonsense.There's a big difference between having a few beers and firing up the glass pipe. Legalizing drugs is a fantasy that will create health issues the likes of which we cannot even begin to comprehend. There's already enough problems with alcohol abuse and addictions ie: drunk driving fatalities/homicide etc. so why on earth would we want to legalize meth or any other highly addictive drug? Have you ever had a relative destroy their life on that toxic chemical? Like many can attest, I have witnessed first hand what that devils brew can do to someone, and believe me, there is zero comparison between having a toke of weed or a shot of whiskey to smoking or slaming meth.
    Another case in point is if drugs are legalized, how does an employer screen and accept occasional/recreational (like there really is such a thing) meth/heroin/cocaine use? I can just picture an airline pilot who uses crack; "but since tests proved he used yesterday and not today it's perfectly safe to let him or her fly". In short, if we legalize drugs why not legalize theft, murder or rape?---because when someone is high on that crap that's what the end result commonly is.

    edit to add:

    Furthermore legalizing drugs will also add more government bureaucracy and even add bigger government by additional taxation and expanssion to big brother agencies such as ATF, IRS etc.. Isn't smaller government what Libertarians supposedly advocate? Legalizing drugs will only inflate government.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Make My Day and CaliFFL, you're right about what true Libertarians believe, at least in my experience. The problem I've seen, at least with many who self-identify as "Libertarians" is that they're not really what they claim to be.

    To be clear, I don't have a problem with legalization and rolling back government (even though I work for it.) My thing is, if you look at what a lot of people claim to be and what they're really espousing, the two are in conflict. With libertarians, that creates all sort of "branding" issues where people become afraid to vote for a candidate not because of what the candidate espouses and believes, but because of what their supporters espouse and believe.

    This can be said of almost any large group of people. The KKK identifies themselves as Christian, but this doesn't really "tarnish" the Christian brand.

    I believe the political establishment feels threatened by Libertarians expansion by draining their memberships. The GOP and Dems do their best to marginalize the LP by painting us as "drug addled anarchists" without an attempt to understand why we want legalization in the first place. It doesn't help our cause that we do in fact have members that are VERY vocal drug addled anarchists.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    bowserb wrote: »
    The Libertarian Party is actually the party of Jefferson. Gov should do what only gov can do. For details, see the Constitution. Nowadays that would be national defense and the Interstate highways. Anything else should be up to local municipalities or groups of citizens with civic duty in mind. Period.


    FIFY. :beer:
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    I usually tend to agree on many of your posts but this pure and complete utter nonsense.There's a big difference between having a few beers and firing up the glass pipe. Legalizing drugs is a fantasy that will create health issues the likes of which we cannot even begin to comprehend. There's already enough problems with alcohol abuse and addictions ie: drunk driving fatalities/homicide etc. so why on earth would we want to legalize meth or any other highly addictive drug? Have you ever had a relative destroy their life on that toxic chemical? Like many can attest, I have witnessed first hand what that devils brew can do to someone, and believe me, there is zero comparison between having a toke of weed or a shot of whiskey to smoking or slaming meth.
    Another case in point is if drugs are legalized, how does an employer screen and accept occasional/recreational (like there really is such a thing) meth/heroin/cocaine use? I can just picture an airline pilot who uses crack; "but since tests proved he used yesterday and not today it's perfectly safe to let him or her fly". In short, if we legalize drugs why not legalize theft, murder or rape?---because when someone is high on that crap that's what the end result commonly is.

    I can't remember the last time I saw this much emotion laden hyperbole.

    I know family members that destroyed themselves with meth. It was a CHOICE they made all by themselves. Not one law prevented them finding and abusing the drug. On the other hand, those SAME laws have prevented the rest of us from being secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    We already have junkies all around us. I prefer just junkies over a police state AND junkies.

    What stops an airline pilot from smoking crack today and testing clean tomorrow? ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING.

    What makes you think legalization will cause otherwise normal people to run out and smoke meth? Do you really believe the law is the only barrier between people and meth addiction?

    Believe it or not millions of us make good personal decisions without legal intervention.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    This can be said of almost any large group of people. The KKK identifies themselves as Christian, but this doesn't really "tarnish" the Christian brand.

    I believe the political establishment feels threatened by Libertarians expansion by draining their memberships. The GOP and Dems do their best to marginalize the LP by painting us as "drug addled anarchists" without an attempt to understand why we want legalization in the first place. It doesn't help our cause that we do in fact have members that are VERY vocal drug addled anarchists.
    I think the difference is, most people aren't as discriminating politically as they are religiously. Unless they're Muslim, then they're all the same. However, look at some of the stuff thrown around here... The political extremists are used to define what the majority believes. So with Libertarians (which few people really know about) they look at the whackos and say... "Those people? They're crazy!"
    I'm just here for snark.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    .

    As a simple example, we can eliminate restaurant inspectors. If you are concerned about your local diner, ask the manager if you can see the kitchen. If they refuse, do not eat there. There are 100s of internet boards that are used to post reviews of service and conditions. Yet we still pay corrupt inspectors.

    Yeah..... You lost me there.
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Yeah..... You lost me there.

    (laughing) I can just picture the public relying on the latest 'Le Cordon Bleu' snob to review the food quality at the local Burger King drive-thru. Haha!!

    CaliFFF: That big giant blue letter "A" on the white background is there for a reason. I'll take my chances with those jackbooted evil food inspectors over Hepatitis or E. coli any day of the week.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Libertarians represent a certain portion of the general bell curve that ranges from total government control of all aspects of our lives, and on the other end, anarchy. The "pure" libertarians simply want less government intrusion into our lives, which is what, I think, most of us would prefer.

    The question is, where do you draw the line?

    Calif says that restaurant inspectors aren't needed. Mmm, I disagree. Not everyone wants to go to a certain restaurant and then be taken on a kitchen tour and question the chef on the freshness of the shrimp, inspect the kitchen Gordon Ramsay style. Nor does everyone exactly know what to look for or ask about. I usually leave my oven thermometer at home when I go to a nice Italian or French or whatever restaurant and I really don't remember or know in the first place what temp food is supposed to be stored at. I suppose Calif does this on a regular basis?

    As for code inspectors? Whom among us is cognizant of, for example, structural building codes? Who is informed enough to go to a new building under construction and check on the size and welding pattern of the rebar mat prior to pouring? Or to determine the correct cantilever moment of angle for a 12th floor balcony that's supported by a W12x120 (or even knows what a W12x120 is)? Or the structural steel dual-guide tracks for elevator cars? Or inspect the concrete during a pour to ensure that there aren't voids?

    Or maybe inspectors who determine that the power company is sending us single-phase 120VAC instead of 320VAC 3-phase?

    I'm kind of guessing that most of us are reasonably okay about having competent professional inspectors whose job it is to determine these things on our behalf. Excesses and errors and fraud still occurs, sure. But generally, in a structured society with technology and airliners flying overhead and roads and bridges and trucks and cars and such, maybe having some inspectors isn't a bad idea overall.

    Few of us are capable of being food, structural, electrical, construction, transport, aeronautical, and piping engineers or inspectors to ensure that our lives are a bit more orderly.

    When we get a new gun, for example, do we take metal scrapings of the frame and other parts to analyze them in our home spectrographic labs to ensure that they're made of the right metal? Do we do the same for, say, cars or trucks we buy -- testing the tire rubber in our home chem lab, analyzing the piston alloy with our mass spec that we keep in the basement, right next to our low temperature fusion reactor?

    I'm saying that Calif doesn't think we need code inspectors or other government officials for things like restaurant standards. I however disagree.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Back in the ancient days, even in prehistoric times, people weren't self-sufficient. Primitive tribes had division of labor, some who were greater athletes as hunters, artisans back home making the neat Clovis point arrowheads, some cooking stew, some caring for children, and so on.

    Nobody has the ability these days to live totally without any structural support from others in society. Unless you choose of course to be a hermit and live alone in the deep woods. Which is fine, so long as you don't need a computer for internet access, I guess.

    Where we draw the line is for ineffective or overly intrusive government into our daily lives. And libertarian views are generally equivalent to those of most true conservatives in that aspect.

    Where I find a problem with Libertarians is what I might call too much of a "head in the sand" or isolationist reaction to world politics and national ventures, some financial, but most military.

    Whom among us would not realize that the Marshall Plan was elemental in restoring economic peace to Europe, particularly Germany. Many scholars believe (and I partly agree) that the overly punitive measures against Germany after WW1 were instrumental in the advent of WW2.

    It was the rebuilding efforts of the US and Britain (and Canada and others) who created in Germany and Japan two solid allies for overall democracy, even if their flavors of democracy may be more socialistic than we prefer.

    Myself, I'm still conflicted regarding our involvement so deeply in Afghanistan or Iraq. History may show that it was a good thing, it may show otherwise. I cannot decide and tussle with this daily in my mind. I believe in fighting the Taliban and oppression but I also don't like to squander American troop lives for nothing. I am however pretty much sure that totally ignoring Afghanistan would have been a disaster.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    With regards to CaliFFL's post about restaurants, that's pretty much EXACTLY how Milton Friedman would argue for deregulation, the idea being that market forces acting with an informed consumer base would force providers of goods to behave in a manner that is currently regulated.

    His economic theories were espoused, maybe not by name, by one Ronald Reagan when he began pushing for deregulation. He was also a Nobel Prize winner and his economic theory antithesis was one John Maynard Keynes. The European economist whose theories are espoused by one Barack Obama.

    Edited to add: the other alternative, and I believe one that Friedman would welcome, would be industry self-regulation, whereby the industry itself sets up standards and practices that provide a good, safe product for consumers. Kinda like the SCUBA industry has.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Yeah..... You lost me there.

    Ok, why? If my restaurant example seems too radical a reduction of government, I'm open to other suggestions. Nearly everyone on this forum talks about shrinking government, but I've yet to see any examples or ideas. I believe a free market will govern itself. Successful business owners go out of their way to satisfy customers. My idea is just a customer-based extension of that concept.

    Next, trying to equate a five star diner critiquing a Burger King franchise is ridiculous. I'm not talking about menu selections, I'm talking about service and conditions. Burger King franchises are periodically inspected by the parent corporation. The inspections are much more stringent than the health inspector. Since Pelagic Kayaker is from California, he mentions the ratings on the entrances of restaurants. I'll bet he doesn't know that the inspectors in California only show up every three years, or take bribes, or that many restaurants simply download and print the white sheet with the big blue letter A. Investigative reporters have shown this over and over even when I lived in Long Beach. If the government ran system doesn't work, why not try a private sector solution?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    ...
    Myself, I'm still conflicted regarding our involvement so deeply in Afghanistan or Iraq. History may show that it was a good thing, it may show otherwise. I cannot decide and tussle with this daily in my mind. I believe in fighting the Taliban and oppression but I also don't like to squander American troop lives for nothing. I am however pretty much sure that totally ignoring Afghanistan would have been a disaster.
    I'm less conflicted about Iraq and Afghanistan. We saved Iraq oil...for China. Now we're trying to do in Afghanistan, with kid gloves, what the Russians couldn't do with brutality in ten years.

    And my objection to foreign wars extends to the one during which I was a volunteer (U.S. First Infantry Division 1967-68): Vietnam. What did that accomplish, other than the deaths of 58,000 Americans and shortened lives for 3,000,000 other Americans (statistics show Americans who served in Vietnam die on average 7 years younger than Americans overall) who served, plus ultimately creating another class of immigrants to the U.S.--immigrants who get U.S. voting ballots in Vietnamese, because forty years later, they still don't speak English!

    These are the wars that Libertarians object to. American lives lost. American dollars thrown away. And after all is said and done, millions more people hating Americans.

    Rant over.
    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history." - Ayn Rand
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    What is stopping that from happening today? Not a damn thing. With legalization, we eliminate the black market. There will be no need cook meth in cars and coat pockets. Cooks can make it SAFELY and sell it on an open market. Same as booze.
    I must have dozed off. Are we now allowed to make booze and sell it on the open market? Voters in WA and CO legalized pot. Now the states are trying to figure out the nightmare of regulating manufacture, distribution, quality control, enforcement of legal age, impaired driving, that pesky federal prohibition, and most important taxing the s**t out of it. If the Feds decide to enforce their laws they will use their usual methods. How many of you remember the national 55mph speed limit? A few states refused. The Feds threatened to withhold infrastructure and education funding until they complied. The states were quickly brought to "heel"!
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I'm saying that Calif doesn't think we need code inspectors or other government officials for things like restaurant standards. I however disagree.

    I'm not saying these are not needed. I'm saying that we the people can supply the expertise.

    Example: When I have bought homes, (in three different states) I paid a private contractor to inspect EVERYTHING. Attics, basements, crawl spaces, well pumps, roofs, breaker panels, even the health of the forest on my current property. No government agency required.

    Why can't this system (or something similar)work all of the time?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Anyway, regarding libertarians vs Libertarians... Much of the general libertarian philosophy is a good thing and, as I said, consistent with conservative principles: smaller and less intrusive government, therefore lower taxes. The government we end up with will be more efficient and responsive to local needs and less prone to overuse and corruption.

    The most prominent Libertarian we've recently had was Ron Paul and he was, in my opinion, spot on with his ideas nationally, with some doubts I have regarding legalization of drugs. It was his international policy of laissez-faire that I took to issue, particularly his lack of support for Israel and his policy of glad-handing Iran (at least I perceived it that way).

    This discussion has taken a drug-legalization turn... I'm pretty much against the policy of legalizing drugs other than maybe weed. I've had too many friends who've fried their brains on meth or coke or heroin, and yes, back in the day, acid or hash, to be neutral to this.

    Yes we legalize alcohol but we regulate drunk driving and take measures against sale to minors and such. Alcohol use is pretty much ingrained in our cultures worldwide however and the huge leap of power that drugs like meth or coke have beyond alcohol is a reason to ban them. Addiction isn't a sometimes thing with crack, it's almost a certainty.

    So... I generally agree with many libertarian ideas but I do not agree with the legalization of drugs nor do I agree that we can ignore international threats to democracy. Of course, like all things, there are degrees of intervention and enforcement and governmental authority that can be debated.

    We simply do not live in a world where it's okay for anyone to do what anyone wants with zero regard for others in society. It's a delicate balance between individual freedom and group security and that pendulum swings back and forth continually.

    Yes we've got the Bill of Rights but it's balanced against the common good. I don't need to remind you of the primary example of this, Oliver Holmes' statement that freedom of speech doesn't give one the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater.

    In recent years the pendulum has swung too far toward the "group security" side and needs to swing back toward the "individual freedom" side.

    I'm practical about things like cars and guns and elections. If y'all can provide me with examples of 3rd party (Libertarian, etc) candidates WINNING elections other than state rep or an occasional US rep, I'll be interested to know. But results show that voting for 3rd party candidates statewide or nationally is a small percent of the votes cast.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I'm not saying these are not needed. I'm saying that we the people can supply the expertise.

    Example: When I have bought homes, (in three different states) I paid a private contractor to inspect EVERYTHING. Attics, basements, crawl spaces, well pumps, roofs, breaker panels, even the health of the forest on my current property. No government agency required.

    Why can't this system (or something similar)work all of the time?

    You're saying that you employ private consultants to inspect restaurants before you eat there? And I'm specifically mentioning this because you used restaurants yourself as an example. Tell us, how do you exactly decide if a restaurant is okay to eat in?

    Or do you have private engineering consultants inspect a building before you go inside? Or have a team of consultants check out the meat and veggies on sale at the store before you buy? Or hire chemists to test the fuel you use in your truck? Most of us don't have the time or wherewithal to do this but if you can, keen.

    Howzabout border control? Do we totally eliminate our border patrols and let the illegals run in (of course we're mostly doing that now) but totally quit this, and let everyone personally hire contractors to defend each home?

    All I'm saying is that it's kind of silly to go overboard with this independent existence thing, just as it's silly to be overdependent upon government.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    I must have dozed off. Are we now allowed to make booze and sell it on the open market? Voters in WA and CO legalized pot. Now the states are trying to figure out the nightmare of regulating manufacture, distribution, quality control, enforcement of legal age, impaired driving, that pesky federal prohibition, and most important taxing the s**t out of it. If the Feds decide to enforce their laws they will use their usual methods. How many of you remember the national 55mph speed limit? A few states refused. The Feds threatened to withhold infrastructure and education funding until they complied. The states were quickly brought to "heel"!

    Yes we are allowed to make booze and sell it. Jack Daniels ring a bell?

    You guys keep getting hung up on regulations and government interference. I'm talking about a true free market. Using WA and CO is a poor example of the free market. Those states are getting in their own way because the liberal mentality of taxing and regulating EVERYTHING to the nth degree.

    Let me simplify this a bit. Would you be opposed to me growing weed, or brewing moonshine, or picking mushrooms, or even cooking meth on my own property for my own personal comsumption? Just me, no one else. I'll stay out of the market place completely. Let the government control the public market as is done today.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Why can't this system (or something similar)work all of the time?
    I see what you are saying. Using the restaurant example, there is no reason that a private association couldn't fill the shoes of a health inspector, or a chain setting their own standards. With guns, we have SAAMI and it works well, motor oils use the API for their standards. These organizations do a great job of regulating the industry without government interference.

    I do see a need for stuff that makes more sense to be a monopoly (municipal water, sewer, stuff like that) that a fair, transparent and honest government could make better use of resources. I also see a need for stuff like zoning and building codes (many municipalities around here already contract with private companies to provide the inspection services).
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    The private restaurants can hire private inspectors to check them out and post the results. Or the restaurants can form an association of members who agree to a certain code of conduct and practices and hire inspectors to check the restaurants, then post the results.

    Again, it's like the SCUBA diving industry. The government's only inspection of the industry with regards to the actual diving itself is to inspect and license the private business that certify the tanks as safe. All the industry standards, practices, and whatnot are set and policed by... the industry. Those that can't hack it lose industry certification and get shuffled out.

    Border security is not relevant to Cali's point. He's talking about consumer goods.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,983 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    The biggest obstruction I foresee, is fear. Real freedom scares the ship out of most people.
    You got it! Most people don't want true freedom. Not even for themselves. They're called "Republicans" and "Democrats".

    Of course, Anarchy is a beautiful system that has zero chance of working in the real world. Hence the necessary evil of governments. Democrats, of course, think government is a good thing, today's Republicans do to for the most part.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    You're saying that you employ private consultants to inspect restaurants before you eat there? And I'm specifically mentioning this because you used restaurants yourself as an example. Tell us, how do you exactly decide if a restaurant is okay to eat in?

    Or do you have private engineering consultants inspect a building before you go inside? Or have a team of consultants check out the meat and veggies on sale at the store before you buy? Or hire chemists to test the fuel you use in your truck? Most of us don't have the time or wherewithal to do this but if you can, keen.

    Howzabout border control? Do we totally eliminate our border patrols and let the illegals run in (of course we're mostly doing that now) but totally quit this, and let everyone personally hire contractors to defend each home?

    All I'm saying is that it's kind of silly to go overboard with this independent existence thing, just as it's silly to be overdependent upon government.

    You criticize my ideas and call for smaller government but offer nothing of your own.

    The border example is dumb. The government is tasked with protecting the rights of its citizens. Border patrol, defense, and victim based law enforcement is a requirement. Interference with free markets is not a government responsibility, even though we have become dependant on it. Neither is telling adults what they can or cannot do in their own homes.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement