|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2006 : 11:47:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
THoR wrote: quote:
Are you enjoying your 'AlGore Tiny Toilet?'. Uncle Sam saw fit to dictate the size toilet you may have in your bathroom. And if the Libs had their way, only five of a kind would make a flush
I don't even know what this means. Look, if you want to debate over something, then take a stance and put up your argument. But if you're just going to toss in little one-liners that overgeneralize both the liberal and libertarian concepts of freedom, well that's just lame.
THoR.........
I know what you mean. Don't let those others get you down, I know you won't. They just don't understand, yet. Everyone is on a different level, it takes others longer to grasp situations. Some don't ever want to and that makes it tough for the rest of us.
Check out near the bottom of this web page...CuriousCreations.com, IMO that says it all (you may already know of it, "Uncelebrating the Fourth").
Good luck trying to talk to certain people they have a road block on their brains.
|
| Edited by - Snake on 03/08/2006 11:54:47 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 11:52:11 [Permalink]
|
Snake wrote: quote:
THoR.........
I know what you mean. Don't let those others get you down, I know you won't. They just don't understand, yet. Everyone is on a different level, it takes others longer to grasp situations. Some don't ever want to and that makes it tough for the rest of us.
Well there you go, THoR. You have the person who "wouldn't vote for a woman for president anyway" on your side. Hurrah!
(I know, I'm being smarmy. But nobody's actually talking about any issues in this thread, so whatever.)
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 12:57:42 [Permalink]
|
Does anyone else have the impression that "libertarian" is nothing more than a euphemism for "anarchist?"
In order to further hijack this thread, I meant to comment on something from a Daily Show episode a few weeks back, and this seems a good place to do it. It was about how "liberal extremists" really aren't all that progressive (banning "hate speech," for example). And it seems to me that "conservative extremists" are equally misbranded, what with their extraordinary spending and liberal use of Federal power (haha!). (And a "libertarian extremist" who's just an anarchist would fit here, too.) Taking the terms at face value, what would a real liberal or conservative "extremist" be like? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 13:07:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Are you enjoying your 'AlGore Tiny Toilet?'. Uncle Sam saw fit to dictate the size toilet you may have in your bathroom. And if the Libs had their way, only five of a kind would make a flush
Are you enjoying the internet? Wonderful government invention. And before you even try to claim that Al Gore said that he "invented it" check your facts. Add in that Newt Gingrich and Tim Berners-Lee give Gore LOTS of credit for pushing funding and research for Arpanet.
You sound like a typical know-it-all sophomore PoliSci major who grew up Upper Middle Class. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 15:57:17 [Permalink]
|
THoR, can you please insert a few carriage-returns above the picture in the opening post of this thread. As it is now, it's messing with the SFN home page layout. Thanks.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 01:10:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Does anyone else have the impression that "libertarian" is nothing more than a euphemism for "anarchist?"
From Why I am not a Libertarian, by Steven Dutch quote:
Overall, their stance on personal freedoms is "liberal," their stance on government spending and regulation is "conservative." In short, they combine the personal irresponsibility of liberals with the social, economic and environmental irresponsibility of conservatives.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 01:45:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Overall, their stance on personal freedoms is "liberal," their stance on government spending and regulation is "conservative." In short, they combine the personal irresponsibility of liberals with the social, economic and environmental irresponsibility of conservatives.
Which only proves that Steven Dutch and I have fairly opposite political points of view.
I see liberal personal freedoms and a true conservative (small gov style) stance on government to be the strong points of the liberals and conservatives.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 02:17:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dudequote:
Overall, their stance on personal freedoms is "liberal," their stance on government spending and regulation is "conservative." In short, they combine the personal irresponsibility of liberals with the social, economic and environmental irresponsibility of conservatives.
Which only proves that Steven Dutch and I have fairly opposite political points of view.
I see liberal personal freedoms and a true conservative (small gov style) stance on government to be the strong points of the liberals and conservatives.
Me to, and I have no problem with seeing myself as a conservative liberal.
The point is that where there is freedom, there is almost always abuse of this freedom. A political party or movement that deny or ignore this this is irresponsible. "Liberals" could be accused of irresponsibility on some issues "Conservatives" on other issues.
I cant say that I'm an expert on libertarian positions, but from what I hear and read they look like most other minor fringe parties without any chance of ever accomplishing anything.
They safely tout their suggested solutions to problems real or imagined without the risk that their ideas would some day would have to face reality. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 06:11:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
THoR wrote: quote:
Are you enjoying your 'AlGore Tiny Toilet?'. Uncle Sam saw fit to dictate the size toilet you may have in your bathroom. And if the Libs had their way, only five of a kind would make a flush
I don't even know what this means. Look, if you want to debate over something, then take a stance and put up your argument. But if you're just going to toss in little one-liners that overgeneralize both the liberal and libertarian concepts of freedom, well that's just lame.
There was a time in this country when the individual was responsible for his own life and his own future. It was a time when family, friends and private philanthropy gave a hand to those who had fallen on hard times. It was a time when the individual could run both his business and his personal affairs as he saw fit, freely reaping or suffering the consequences of his actions so long as those actions did not infringe upon the rights of another. People assumed responsibility for themselves, and, in return, enjoyed a level of freedom unknown by today's citizenry.
Today, big government is blamed for everything from our economic problems to a system of social services crumbling under its own weight. We blame the politicians for letting government become too bloated and inefficient, for imposing absurd mandates and prohibitions on business and upon the individual, for micro managing our lives and confiscating our earnings.
That blame is misplaced.
We, the people, are to blame. No one else. Not the politicians. Not the bureaucrats. To curse the inefficiencies of government is to curse the face in the mirror. The government sow, by its very nature, has a voracious appetite, but it would never have grown so large had we not overfed it. Our Constitution did not design government to do anything but implement the provisions and principles enumerated in the document. When society demands government assume functions outside that sphere, we are requiring it to do something for which it was not designed. And it performs those functions poorly and inefficiently.
As a country, we now legislate philanthropy instead of being charitable. Less than a third of the taxes which fund government social programs actually escapes the bureaucracy. To the government the welfare recipient is a number and everyone is treated alike. Conversely, individuals and private charities spend less than a third of receipts on administration. If someone is abusing the generosity of private charity, they can be dealt with on an individual level. Encouragement toward becoming self supporting is more compelling when the donor and recipient are face to face. Private assistance fights poverty while government welfare contributes to it by causing dependency, by discouraging job seeking and by eliminating the need for self sufficiency.
Today, we require government prepare us for our retirement instead of assuming that responsibility ourselves. Most who have contributed to Social Security for twenty or more years would now have a sizeable retirement account if they had been allowed to invest it into something as stable as a bond fund - even if it were with after tax contributions. This would be our money, not a government rebate in the form of a monthly check at retirement. The sum of the monthly payments made to today's average Social Security recipient will not be equal to the principal contributed. The cost of government administration is driving the program into bankruptcy.
As a country, we now legislate morality and common sense instead of practicing it. We allow the state to tell us what we may watch on television, how we can medicate ourselves, how we must keep records and run our business, even how and to whom it is permissible to make love. We have lost sight of the difference between that which government must do to insure domestic tranquility and that which should be left to the conscience of the individual. If I elect not to install a wheelchair ramp in my place of business, the marketplace will judge my punishment, not the state. If I wish to keep nitro tablets for angina or epi pens for anaphylaxis in my medicine cabinet, it is not the province of government to preempt that choice or tell me I must have its permission.
Government has the moral and Constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare, not provide it. To promote means to nurture, not coerce. When we, the people, through the instrument of our government use the threat of force and incarceration to make into law that which should be discretionary to the individual, we usurp the rights and good will of the individual. We create disrespect for those fundamental laws needed to preserve the peace. We diminish the authority of law in the 'real' world beyond the Potomac.
http://www.scribeslair.com/government.html - author THoR
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 06:18:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
Are you enjoying your 'AlGore Tiny Toilet?'. Uncle Sam saw fit to dictate the size toilet you may have in your bathroom. And if the Libs had their way, only five of a kind would make a flush
Are you enjoying the internet? Wonderful government invention. And before you even try to claim that Al Gore said that he "invented it" check your facts. Add in that Newt Gingrich and Tim Berners-Lee give Gore LOTS of credit for pushing funding and research for Arpanet.
You sound like a typical know-it-all sophomore PoliSci major who grew up Upper Middle Class.
So you REALLY believe the internet wouldn't exist if it were not for government? How quaint.
Yea MANY of the inventions we now consider commonplace were developed by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE (sic internet/universities) for consumption by the state pig...most of them military or space related.
You sound like a liberal arts major who grew up to be a practicing socialist. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/09/2006 06:20:22 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 06:37:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
You sound like a liberal arts major who grew up to be a practicing socialist.
Actually, that would be me (exchange 'arts' to 'computer science'). |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 08:34:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There was a time in this country when the individual was responsible for his own life and his own future. It was a time when family, friends and private philanthropy gave a hand to those who had fallen on hard times. It was a time when the individual could run both his business and his personal affairs as he saw fit, freely reaping or suffering the consequences of his actions so long as those actions did not infringe upon the rights of another. People assumed responsibility for themselves, and, in return, enjoyed a level of freedom unknown by today's citizenry.
Yeah, I think the "Grapes of Wrath" was written about that time period.
But seriously, I've heard that tired old line from soooo many libertarians. The welfare state was brought on by demand of the people. That's what we call democracy. And compared to a lot of Western nations, the US's socialistic concessions are rather moderate.
And they are necessary. For instance, take medical care: The normal laws of supply and demand do not apply because most people will do or give anything in order to stay alive. It is inhumane to allow health care to be totally run by the inhuman force of the market. Also, children. In a pure capitalistic state, if parents can't afford health insurance, the kids go without treatment. If the parents can't afford school tuition, the kids go uneducated. And a kid has no choice in the matter. And it benefits the entire society to not have a bunch of poor people dying in the streets and poor children growing up to be dumb as rocks.
Obviously we need some socialistic provisions. The real question is where to draw the lines, and going on some long rant about some picture perfect (and imaginary) idealized American past (The same past where blacks were slaves, Native Americans were decimated, and women were second class citizens. And you talk of freedom!)only makes your position look naive.
Only a radical paints a clearly moderate position as extreme. The majority and politicians like Hilary Clinton, who support a capitalistic base with socialistic institutions to help those who are abandoned by bad luck and the system are not socialists. They are moderates. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 10:18:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
quote:
There was a time in this country when the individual was responsible for his own life and his own future. It was a time when family, friends and private philanthropy gave a hand to those who had fallen on hard times. It was a time when the individual could run both his business and his personal affairs as he saw fit, freely reaping or suffering the consequences of his actions so long as those actions did not infringe upon the rights of another. People assumed responsibility for themselves, and, in return, enjoyed a level of freedom unknown by today's citizenry.
Yeah, I think the "Grapes of Wrath" was written about that time period.
But seriously, I've heard that tired old line from soooo many libertarians. The welfare state was brought on by demand of the people. That's what we call democracy.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
-Alexander Tytler
quote:
And compared to a lot of Western nations, the US's socialistic concessions are rather moderate.
And they are necessary. For instance, take medical care: The normal laws of supply and demand do not apply because most people will do or give anything in order to stay alive. It is inhumane to allow health care to be totally run by the inhuman force of the market. Also, children. In a pure capitalistic state, if parents can't afford health insurance, the kids go without treatment. If the parents can't afford school tuition, the kids go uneducated. And a kid has no choice in the matter. And it benefits the entire society to not have a bunch of poor people dying in the streets and poor children growing up to be dumb as rocks.
Obviously we need some socialistic provisions. The real question is where to draw the lines, and going on some long rant about some picture perfect (and imaginary) idealized American past (The same past where blacks were slaves, Native Americans were decimated, and women were second class citizens. And you talk of freedom!)only makes your position look naive.
Only a radical paints a clearly moderate position as extreme. The majority and politicians like Hilary Clinton, who support a capitalistic base with socialistic institutions to help those who are abandoned by bad luck and the system are not socialists. They are moderates.
Socialism FAILS every time it is tried. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/09/2006 10:19:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 10:46:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government... The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
It seems to me that no form of government that's ever been tried has been "permanent." Nice to note that at 228 years (or so), the U.S. is above average.
But, more importantly, what sort of non-democratic government would you prefer? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2006 : 11:42:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government... The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
It seems to me that no form of government that's ever been tried has been "permanent." Nice to note that at 228 years (or so), the U.S. is above average.
But, more importantly, what sort of non-democratic government would you prefer?
Actually, the US form of representative republic was modled partially on the Six Nations democracy which has been successful for over 800 years.
While not permanent, it does have a pretty good track record.
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/ |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
