Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
so...

Home // Other Parties



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anym wrote:
No you just have to listen to Ron Paul.
And as a socialist this guy is an idiot.


Am I the idiot?? Confuzzled much.

Also, I read their platform, very few anarchists would view that as anything besides a great first step towards anarchy.
Back to top
ZackH
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 177

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
Anym wrote:
No you just have to listen to Ron Paul.
And as a socialist this guy is an idiot.


Am I the idiot?? Confuzzled much.

Also, I read their platform, very few anarchists would view that as anything besides a great first step towards anarchy.


How do you come to that conclusion? Personal responsibility, freedom to do what you want as long as you do not infringe on another person's rights? There are still laws. There are still people going to jail but for far more serious crimes. We won't be wasting half of our police force on the war on drugs, our jails won't be filled with non violent victemless crime criminals. It's the way this country was ment to be. It was the way Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, etc, risked their lives to become a traitor to England and build the most free country to ever exist. How could you, an american who supposedly believes in the US Constitution, be against what the Libertarians want?
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZackH wrote:
How could you, an american who supposedly believes in the US Constitution, be against what the Libertarians want?


Lester is an australian.

But i agree with him.

I'll say this: i totally agree that people should be able to do what they'd like, as long as they don't bother others. But libertarianism takes it farther than that.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am indeed an aussie, but freedom to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on other peoples freedoms is what anarchy is all about, the one difference is that you would have a big government system running the police and justice system, whereas anarchists would have private enterprises handling that.
Back to top
ZackH
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 177

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
How does it take it farther then that? Could you explain please? There is still police and laws and rules and punishment. Do you know what anarchy is? No government. Libertarian still has government but it doesn't pry into your personal business. If you read the US Constitution it is exactly what the Libertarian Party is striving for.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZackH wrote:
How does it take it farther then that? Could you explain please? There is still police and laws and rules and punishment.


Well, ron paul's views (since every libertarian has a different take on it) that bother me are (but are not limited to):

Non-intervention in the free market.

Non-intervention in global conflicts that are not immediately related to U.S. security.

Supporting the gold standard.

He likes the electoral college.


There's a lot more to promoting civilized life than the prevention of crime.

Quote:

If you read the US Constitution it is exactly what the Libertarian Party is striving for.


Oh, not quite. They're striving for what the constitution literally, and explicitly says. They view it as a limiting document; that is, if the constitution doesn't say it, then the government can't do it.

I don't subscribe to that point of view.
Back to top
ZackH
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 177

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Meh i'd rather see Doug Stanhope run instead. He's not a politician and i think that is what we need. I'm sick of phony suits, i can't trust anyone else. I know Doug Stanhope isn't going to bull shit me.

What's wrong with non-intervention free market? It's the way it should be. Why should the government get into what you want to sell? So they can make a profit off of your hard work?

That's the way it should be, we've stuck our nose in other countrie's business for almost a 100 years. I think it's time to pull out and not worry about other nation's problems. We need to fix our own country first.

I don't know much about economics and the gold standard. I think it means that we would have a limit to how much paper money we can make since we would have to have the gold to back it up. I wouldn't mind that but like i said i don't know shit about economics.

I hate the electoral college, although it did keep boobs like Gore out. But it is outdated, it worked back when communication was shitty, but now since anyone can contact anyone else in the world in seconds, we should have it be based on the population. We might actually have a president the people wants that way.

See i disagree man, the Constitution allows the states to make the laws that the Constitution does not specify.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZackH wrote:

What's wrong with non-intervention free market? It's the way it should be. Why should the government get into what you want to sell? So they can make a profit off of your hard work?


Because pure capitalism tends towards oligarchy - a small number of people/organizations having most of the money and resources.
We've tried it before, actually. The 19th and early 20th centuries. The results were not pretty.

Quote:

That's the way it should be, we've stuck our nose in other countrie's business for almost a 100 years. I think it's time to pull out and not worry about other nation's problems. We need to fix our own country first.


At this point in the evolution of human civilization, non-intervention is a policy that we can no longer afford to have. We depend on the stability of rest of the world, and in many ways, they depend on us.
Although the world is geopolitically organized as allegedly sovereign nations, that mindset no longer represents the true dynamics of what's going on. In many ways, we live in a world-wide civilization, not a bunch of separate civilizations. And if we want living conditions to keep getting better, then that's only going to increase with time.

Quote:

I don't know much about economics and the gold standard. I think it means that we would have a limit to how much paper money we can make since we would have to have the gold to back it up. I wouldn't mind that but like i said i don't know shit about economics.


The gold standard is basically total bullshit. Historically, people used gold for trade because it was rare and people thought it looked pretty. Basically, because everyone wanted it.

The gold standard fails to understand and address the fundamental nature of economics itself. Ultimately, we're not trading gold or pencils or dollars or anything else - we're trading labor and raw resources, all of which (kinds of labor, and kinds of resources) have relative values to each other.

That's why we use a floating currency. It embodies the values that different things have, relative to each other. Money isn't worth anything; it's just the means of exchange that we all agree to use. After all, it would kind of suck to trade chickens or lumber for computers or pencils, or whatever. It's inefficient and a pain in the ass.

Quote:
We might actually have a president the people wants that way.


I agree. I don't trust the people, but i can't think of anything better.

Quote:

See i disagree man, the Constitution allows the states to make the laws that the Constitution does not specify.


Oh sure, what i mean is, the federal government is restricted in the sense i mentioned.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZackH wrote:
How does it take it farther then that? Could you explain please? There is still police and laws and rules and punishment. Do you know what anarchy is? No government. Libertarian still has government but it doesn't pry into your personal business. If you read the US Constitution it is exactly what the Libertarian Party is striving for.


Anarchy still has police of a sort and punishment, I'm not saying libertarians want *everything* anarchists want, but it's darn close.
Back to top
ZackH
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 177

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
ZackH wrote:
How does it take it farther then that? Could you explain please? There is still police and laws and rules and punishment. Do you know what anarchy is? No government. Libertarian still has government but it doesn't pry into your personal business. If you read the US Constitution it is exactly what the Libertarian Party is striving for.


Anarchy still has police of a sort and punishment, I'm not saying libertarians want *everything* anarchists want, but it's darn close.


How does no government still have government agencies, unless you mean something like organized crime which is basicly a government.

Close is fine. Anarchy, even though i don't think it can exist since naturally people start to govern over people, is freedom, and if a government is close to anarchy, even though i don't think it is because there is still society and the little government that is left to rule over the people, we can be free. I like that, free. We say we are losing our rights, the dems, socialists, communists, reps, nazi, etc all want to take some of our rights away. Libertarians want to give them all back.
Back to top
ZackH
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 177

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
ZackH wrote:

What's wrong with non-intervention free market? It's the way it should be. Why should the government get into what you want to sell? So they can make a profit off of your hard work?


Because pure capitalism tends towards oligarchy - a small number of people/organizations having most of the money and resources.
We've tried it before, actually. The 19th and early 20th centuries. The results were not pretty.

Quote:

That's the way it should be, we've stuck our nose in other countrie's business for almost a 100 years. I think it's time to pull out and not worry about other nation's problems. We need to fix our own country first.


At this point in the evolution of human civilization, non-intervention is a policy that we can no longer afford to have. We depend on the stability of rest of the world, and in many ways, they depend on us.
Although the world is geopolitically organized as allegedly sovereign nations, that mindset no longer represents the true dynamics of what's going on. In many ways, we live in a world-wide civilization, not a bunch of separate civilizations. And if we want living conditions to keep getting better, then that's only going to increase with time.

Quote:

I don't know much about economics and the gold standard. I think it means that we would have a limit to how much paper money we can make since we would have to have the gold to back it up. I wouldn't mind that but like i said i don't know shit about economics.


The gold standard is basically total bullshit. Historically, people used gold for trade because it was rare and people thought it looked pretty. Basically, because everyone wanted it.

The gold standard fails to understand and address the fundamental nature of economics itself. Ultimately, we're not trading gold or pencils or dollars or anything else - we're trading labor and raw resources, all of which (kinds of labor, and kinds of resources) have relative values to each other.

That's why we use a floating currency. It embodies the values that different things have, relative to each other. Money isn't worth anything; it's just the means of exchange that we all agree to use. After all, it would kind of suck to trade chickens or lumber for computers or pencils, or whatever. It's inefficient and a pain in the ass.

Quote:
We might actually have a president the people wants that way.


I agree. I don't trust the people, but i can't think of anything better.

Quote:

See i disagree man, the Constitution allows the states to make the laws that the Constitution does not specify.


Oh sure, what i mean is, the federal government is restricted in the sense i mentioned.


Ahh i thought there was something not right about what you were saying about how we tried nonintervention free trade in the 19th and 20th century. It wasn't really non-intervention free trade, the government being probably as corrupt as it is now was backing some of the big businesses and getting paid off to do so. Which is why a lot of other businessess were unable to truly compete because the big corporations were pretty much lobbying certain favored people into political offices, thus giving the corporations much much more power. Libertarians want to get rid of that and make it completly fair for everyone. No special treatment.

"Solutions: Replacement of all government-granted monopolies and subsidies with deregulated free markets and informed consumers will benefit both consumers and producers, eliminate political favoritism, and maintain a strict separation of markets and state authority. Genuine crimes committed to create a monopoly, such as blackmail, bribery, fraud, libel or slander are prosecuted as any other crime."

Isn't that the point of the UN? Most countries NOW don't get involved other then the force they lend to the United Nations. Shouldn't they be the police of the world rather then each individual country?

Oh wow that's way off of what i thought Gold Standard was.

Having the States make most of the laws is how it should be. The Constitution doesn't say that Congress can't make new laws, it's just that they can't infringe upon the Bill of Rights. And the States cannon infringe upon the Bill of Rights either, but both do all the time. The FCC, the Patriot Act, both infringe on the Bill of Rights and should be removed and appealed immediatly.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZackH wrote:

Ahh i thought there was something not right about what you were saying about how we tried nonintervention free trade in the 19th and 20th century. It wasn't really non-intervention free trade, the government being probably as corrupt as it is now was backing some of the big businesses and getting paid off to do so. Which is why a lot of other businessess were unable to truly compete because the big corporations were pretty much lobbying certain favored people into political offices, thus giving the corporations much much more power. Libertarians want to get rid of that and make it completly fair for everyone. No special treatment.


It was kind of like that with the railroads, but not with other industries. It really was a free-for-all.

Quote:

"Solutions: Replacement of all government-granted monopolies and subsidies with deregulated free markets and informed consumers will benefit both consumers and producers, eliminate political favoritism, and maintain a strict separation of markets and state authority. Genuine crimes committed to create a monopoly, such as blackmail, bribery, fraud, libel or slander are prosecuted as any other crime."


If the world were filled with nothing but intelligent, informed people who had the best interests of civilization in mind, that would work.

That's not the case.

Quote:

Isn't that the point of the UN? Most countries NOW don't get involved other then the force they lend to the United Nations. Shouldn't they be the police of the world rather then each individual country?


Yes, it is the point of the UN. The UN alone isn't strong enough, though, and there are plenty of people (libertarians especially) that would have us withdraw from it.

Quote:

Having the States make most of the laws is how it should be.


I don't think it's a matter of who should have the most power. I think it's a matter of which level of hierarchy (town, county, state, national, international, etc) is best suited to which purpose.

Quote:
The Constitution doesn't say that Congress can't make new laws, it's just that they can't infringe upon the Bill of Rights.


Well, many libertarians believe that it's more than that.

The Fed, for instance. Many people the Fed should be abolished because congress allegedly doesn't have the power to set up a federal bank composed of both public and private parts.

Quote:

And the States cannon infringe upon the Bill of Rights either, but both do all the time.


It wasn't always that way. Originally, states could infringe on the bill of rights. It's the 17th ammendment (i think) that supposedly extends the bill of rights to include the state governments.

Quote:

The FCC, the Patriot Act, both infringe on the Bill of Rights and should be removed and appealed immediatly.


The patriot act should definitely be abolished.

The FCC was originally totally legal. When television was broadcast over airwaves, censorship and regulation of it was perfectly legit, because the airwaves are public property. Cable companies, originally, just took the stuff from the airwaves and broadcast it to people who couldn't get easy reception.

Things have changed. I don't think we should get rid of the FCC - it does a lot more than just censor TV - but we should definitely ammend it such that it cannot regulate anything that isn't publicly broadcasted (over airwaves and such).
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZackH wrote:
Lester wrote:
ZackH wrote:
How does it take it farther then that? Could you explain please? There is still police and laws and rules and punishment. Do you know what anarchy is? No government. Libertarian still has government but it doesn't pry into your personal business. If you read the US Constitution it is exactly what the Libertarian Party is striving for.


Anarchy still has police of a sort and punishment, I'm not saying libertarians want *everything* anarchists want, but it's darn close.


How does no government still have government agencies, unless you mean something like organized crime which is basicly a government.

Close is fine. Anarchy, even though i don't think it can exist since naturally people start to govern over people, is freedom, and if a government is close to anarchy, even though i don't think it is because there is still society and the little government that is left to rule over the people, we can be free. I like that, free. We say we are losing our rights, the dems, socialists, communists, reps, nazi, etc all want to take some of our rights away. Libertarians want to give them all back.


In an anarchist state there would be private security firms to carry out justice.

What rights are you losing? The right to be better than your neighbour? Because you never had that in the first place. Social darwinism is not a concept that I ever want to see fully implemented.
Back to top
ZackH
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 177

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's not anarchy though. Anarchy is NO government, NO order, NO nothing! People do what they want, when they want. It's called chaos.

What rights am i losing? Are you insane? Patriot Act takes away some of our rights, people are trying to ban the word nigger, many schools, offices, etc ban words or non politically correct speech. TV is unwatchable, groups are trying to ban how movies are made. The freedom to do whatever i want to my body, i can't legally kill myself, i can't smoke cannabis, i can't do whatever other drugs i want (i don't but if i did i should be able to). The government is telling you what you should do with your life and I DO NO LIKE IT!
Back to top
Dar
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ZackH wrote:
That's not anarchy though. Anarchy is NO government, NO order, NO nothing! People do what they want, when they want. It's called chaos.

What rights am i losing? Are you insane? Patriot Act takes away some of our rights, people are trying to ban the word nigger, many schools, offices, etc ban words or non politically correct speech. TV is unwatchable, groups are trying to ban how movies are made. The freedom to do whatever i want to my body, i can't legally kill myself, i can't smoke cannabis, i can't do whatever other drugs i want (i don't but if i did i should be able to). The government is telling you what you should do with your life and I DO NO LIKE IT!



many schools and offices are banning or putting rules against politically incorrect speech because they believe that such language shouldn't be needed, let alone used, in professional and educational environments.

censoring TV is pretty self explanatory, any child can turn it on and learn "things".

Banning movies and music doesn't really make sense to me. But they probably have some legitimate reason for it. If they don't then they shouldn't because of bad "taste" or "distasteful". Which is a completely screwed up term, particularly because its based on opinion and personal taste

And the whole drugs thing doesn't make too much sense to me either. People can kill themselves or take substances and harm themselves if they want, I don't care, as long as they don't affect others who don't
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Other Parties All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites