Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

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

124»

Replies

  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,910 Senior Member
    ......I'd recommend very strongly anti government libertarians spend some time in foreign countries too poor to afford much government. After a few weeks being unable to drink the water, flush toiletpaper down the toilet, driving on terrible unpaved roads or paved roads full of potholes and shopping at the local open air market for unrefrigerated meat crawling with flies, you might better appreciate that big, inefficient government can still sometimes be better than tiny, inefficient government.
    Poor example.....Most of those countries you speak of are run by despots, who for the most part suck all of the wealth out of the people who live there while also taking international welfare, and use the money on themselves to live like millionaires, and at the same time use repressive tactics to keep everyone in line.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    I'm not an anti-government libertarian and I'm not talking about any other country but the USA. There is sufficient evidence in our history to suggest that state and local governments were handling sanitation needs and taking care of their poor well enough, long before we became a welfare state, and stopped enforcing our immigration laws.
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    bowserb wrote: »
    One point to Mr CaliFFL. Actually, the way things are going, that one point might turn out to be game, set, and match.

    I'm still looking for affordable farmland. Problem is too many gentleman ranchers buying up land with their oil money.

    Hang in there man. It took us well over a year of intense searching to find the right place.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    bowserb wrote: »
    You can have trade with all the world...without being the police force for all the world, and certainly without the dubious mission called "Nation Building."
    etc etc etc

    bow you make some excellent points and you've got the numbers to back them up. Thanks for the good info and feedback.

    I've never been a gung-ho "commit with boots on the ground" supporter ever, and part of this is due to my never having been in the military -- didn't want to be (during Vietnam) and I gladly pursued my civilian government employ at Greenbelt Md during that time in lieu of being drafted. I freely admit to that.

    I am generally torn between the idea of the US kicking butt vs the idea that few causes are worth shedding US blood to fix the problem. Each conflict needs to be carefully evaluated on all sides before committing a single US military life to the job.

    For example, I'm still unpersuaded about our committing ground troops (and US lives) to Afghanistan. I clearly understand the idea of drawing a line in the sand and preferring to fight battles there instead of here. But I also question whether that whole rotten sand-heap of a country is worth one US troop life.

    But I also believe that SOME conflicts need a US troop presence (Iraq is one I agree with). And I also am very committed to defense of Israel against Iran and Syria and others. And the "textbook" Libertarian set of principles seems to think the opposite.

    As I've said repeatedly (to some deaf ears), I agree with SOME libertarian principles, just not all and not to the degree that I'll cease voting for conservative Republicans and switch to Libertarians.

    A couple years back, one of our gang here said that (and I paraphrase) when we "saw the light" that we'd then bow down to Ron Paul and ask for his forgiveness. Sorry, I bow down to no one, at least no politician. That sort of single-person loyalty smacks a bit of hero worship and is way out of line, as I see it.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Having been on the receiving end of some of those health department inspections while growing up around the restaurant business, I can definitely attest to the fact that money talks where an inspector is concerned, but a bottle of whiskey that finds its way into his car during a visit will usually assure a good rating. Ditto for barbershops and other businesses that must undergo periodic licensing checks.
    Jerry

    Teach, you're right about the excesses and corruption and under the table influence and payoffs in the restaurant inspections, and this is absolutely to be eliminated and like any corruption, is not necessarily a proof that the original concept of government inspections is wrong, just that it can be corrupted.

    Re. the restaurant thing and private judging bodies, as some here were discussing as alternate to government inspection, thinking about it more, I realized that it's actually what we already have, albeit in a more informal way. Look at the Zagat guide and all the local newspaper or website reviews about best/worst restaurants. And in fact I've done exactly what is recommended, checked online for food critic or customer reviews.

    I still think that there's a correct role for basic health-level inspection of restaurants and other public places by government employees. And of COURSE this needs to be policed such that corruption is not a factor. After all, if we had "private" rating companies, there's absolutely zero guarantee that they would also not be susceptible to contributions and such.

    But the government inspections should only be minimal to ensure basic food safety (proper storage temp, clean kitchens, etc). Just a simple "you won't die if you eat here" will suffice.

    And then let the public make decisions about which restaurant to patronize via online reviews, customer ratings, and word of mouth. And I realize that this is exactly how I choose a restaurant or other public business (car repair, shooting range, whatever).
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    bowserb wrote: »
    A third party has a hard time in national elections, because the system was designed to prevent 3rd parties of getting the presidency. The Electoral College system was originally intended to prevent fast talking salesmen from getting into the White House. Now, its only remaining function is to prevent a third party candidate from getting into the White House--fast talking or not. Ross Perot could have been elected, except that too many people were afraid that voting for Perot would put Clinton in the White House. As it turned out, they were right...but some say that's only because they didn't vote for Perot.

    A number of alternatives to the Electoral College have been suggested. The obvious, but expensive, alternative is to have a general election and then a runoff between the two highest popular vote winners. A cheaper alternative is called the Automatic Runoff. With that, in the general election, you vote your first and second choices. That way the "runoff" is accomplished in one election. You can vote Libertarian, but then you say, if the Libertarian candidate is third, then you want the Republican. It could work, but it would undermine the control that the two major parties have over this country, so the people in control will not allow it.

    Good comments, but not absolutely true. The electoral system has a very significant advantage, although not as originally designed but how it's worked out nowdays:

    It forces candidates to spread their campaign across the entire country and it prevents the most populous states from "ganging up" to force the election. In many recent Republican victories, it was because central states and southern states had a cumulative electoral total that over-shadowed California and New York.

    We we were to go to a straight popular vote, candidates would focus exclusively on the huge cities and we would never see another Republican elected.

    Specifically regarding Perot, I'd say that most people didn't vote for Perot simply because they didn't believe in his ideas or have confidence in him, personally. One critical problem with almost all 3rd party candidacies is that they tend to be fixed upon the individual who's running and not the principles of the party.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Would you like me to use a hammer to pull out those nails keeping you on that cross, Sam?

    That's just plain rude, bream. When did I rattle your cage or say something offensive to you personally in this thread? Ah, I forgot -- bream's one of the primary bandwagonneers here.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Minor point: in Full Metal Jacket, "Charlene" (D'Onofrio's rifle) was an M14.

    True. I don't think they had M16s then, right? Or if they did, not a lot of them.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,871 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    True. I don't think they had M16s then, right? Or if they did, not a lot of them.
    Trained with M14s, transitioned to M16s in-country.
    samzhere wrote: »
    That's just plain rude, bream. When did I rattle your cage or say something offensive to you personally in this thread? Ah, I forgot -- bream's one of the primary bandwagonneers here.
    Hey, you want to play the "poor, persecuted Sam" card, you have to be ready to be called on it.

    You've been rude and condescending to others, then whine victim when they respond. As I said to you in another thread (which you seem not to have read)...

    Would you like to know why your posts generate so much angst? It's because of this: we go through the time to research things and post our findings, and you blow it off as being irrelevant or unresearched, while your counter-argument has minimal to no facts or data to support it. Your posts are filled with a haughty disregard for other forum members who maybe, on the off-chance, might know what they're talking about because they've either looked up the information or they have personal experience. Instead you're too hard-headed to consider that information, and derisively dismiss those ideas because they don't fit your preconceived ideas about how things occur. You're not here to debate or discuss topics when you do it, you just want us to accept your word as factual or true and move on. In short, you do what you accuse others of. You're a hypocrite, Sam. Your arrogant nature and demeaning words turn people off to engaging in discourse with you because they just get tired of going to all the work to bring in conflicting ideas and being told they're wrong out of hand. When confronted with that, why should we bother to enter into discourse with you?
    I'm just here for snark.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    We chose to buy rural property instead of wasting money on "fine" dining.

    Self sufficiency is a virtue. I will not defend it to an urban apartment dweller.

    Now, ya see, that's a perfectly legit and well defined statement and it cuts all the excess away. It's a choice you make.

    I also agree with the positives of being as self sufficient as possible, even if I don't exactly consider it a virtue. It's just that I think it's justified to purchase things rather than produce them on my own. My having the wherewithal to make that purchase is also an aspect of self sufficiency.

    And yeah, I got the little negative tweak you put with "apartment dweller". But hey, I've been teasing you about being a goober isolationist, so your comeback is perfectly fine.

    Y'see, gang, Cali is perfectly capable of coming to his own defense, both factually and sarcastically. Jumping on the bandwagon when I've not said anything about you personally is in some sense implying that Cali is not able to take care of stuff, but he is. Kudos.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,910 Senior Member
    From Wikipedia: The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is the United States military version of the AR-15 rifle. The rifle was adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst, and full-automatic fire.[6] Colt purchased the rights to the AR-15 from ArmaLite, and currently uses that designation only for semi-automatic versions of the rifle. The M16 fires the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge. The rifle entered United States Army service and was deployed for jungle warfare operations in South Vietnam in 1963,[7] becoming the U.S. military's standard service rifle of the Vietnam War by 1969,[8] replacing the M14 rifle in that role. The U.S. Army retained the M14 in CONUS, Europe, and South Korea until 1970. Since the Vietnam War, the M16 rifle family has been the primary service rifle of the U.S. armed forces.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,910 Senior Member
    .............My question to you would be to show an example of a highly successful economy that survives without a "large" (relative of course) and at least semi-competent government.

    How about Switzerland?
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    While I agree with you that government is almost never as efficient or effective as it should be or needs to but that is not sufficient to prove that we're better off without whatever government function you want to eliminate.

    I'd recommend very strongly anti government libertarians spend some time in foreign countries too poor to afford much government. After a few weeks being unable to drink the water, flush toiletpaper down the toilet, driving on terrible unpaved roads or paved roads full of potholes and shopping at the local open air market for unrefrigerated meat crawling with flies, you might better appreciate that big, inefficient government can still sometimes be better than tiny, inefficient government.
    The Libertarians are not anti-government. They just want government limited to those functions that only a government can do effectively. National defense, roads and highways, water and sewer, public safety, and public education...these are things that need to be done for everyone and paid for by everyone. Problem now, is that the people are looking to government to do everything for them, and that's how government has grown out of control.
    "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
    My question to you would be to show an example of a highly successful economy that survives without a "large" (relative of course) and at least semi-competent government.
    Not sure I agree, but here is a list I found:
    http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html
    I tried copy/paste of the top ten, but the format was messed up. From 1 to 10, I see: Estonia, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, Iceland, Bahamas, United Kingdom, US, Cyprus, and New Zealand. Down at the bottom, from the bottom up: North Korea (159th), Libya, Cuba, Myanmar, Laos, Turkmemistan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Syria, and Vietnam.

    The rankings are overall with Economic Freedom, Govt and Tax, and Individual Freedom averaged. Not all the same. For example, Hong Kong was first in both Economic Freedom and Govt and Tax, but 71st in Individual Freedom.
    "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
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