General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2194301

    Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    In a recent discussion tangent, another TR member (thank you, vanessa@…) posted a link to a Libertarian Web site …..

    http://www.theihs.org/category.php/142.html

    …..that offered definitions and explanations of how different people viewed what it means to be a libertarian. I think it’s a great Web site, and probably not a coincidence that it’s sponsored by an organization hosted by George Mason University, home to one of my favorite “libertarian mentors”, the distinguished professor of economics, Dr. Walter Williams. And George Mason, himself, for those who may not know, is probably the oft’ forgotten “founding father”; his efforts were not only instrumental, but absolutely vital in writing and including what is probably considered the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, the first ten amendments, formally known as the Bill of Rights. George Mason’s [i]Virginia Declaration of Rights[/i] was the model for the [i]U.S. Bill of Rights[/i]. He not only wrote the aforementioned document, but insisted its contents be included in the new United States Constitution. Without George Mason, who knows how the United States would have progressed?

    (Note and disclaimer: An entire book could be written on the origins of any “Bill of Rights” document, and this is not intended to explore that avenue. Feel free, however, to include any information you think is missing and/or could be of interest. I will say this, however, as clarification and a disclaimer. George Mason modeled his Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) on the [i]English Bill of Rights (1689),[/i] which was modeled, in part, on the Magna Carta, and perhaps other historical documents as well. The difference, however, at least as I understand it, is that the [i]English Bill of Rights[/i] suggested that such individual liberty is endowed to the people by the crown, while the [i]United States Bill of Rights and Constitution[/i] suggested that such individual liberty is endowed to the people by the Creator, and that no “man-formed” government or monarchy could ever deny those rights. A person or government, in essence, can’t take away that which it does not have the power or the authority to give.)

    The definition that I believe is the closest to defining the true libertarian principle is this: [i][b]”The libertarian, or ‘classical liberal’, perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by ‘as much liberty as possible’ and ‘as little government as necessary’.”[/i][/b] Obviously, the sentiment most debated and/or viewed differently is, [i]as much as possible,[/i] and [i]as little as necessary[/i]. I wonder if George Mason, himself, or Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison ever uttered such a sentiment? If they didn’t say those exact words, their actions (and other words) certainly enforced and emulated them. (See quotes below.)

    For the first 150 years of its existence, the United States of America dedicated itself to the principles of individual liberty. Even in considering the nation’s historical shortcomings, such as slavery and the suppression of women’s rights, the underlying principle of individual liberty was the driving force that instituted change. Unfortunately, today, while there are no slaves to individual “masters”, we are all slaves, of sorts, to all the other masters. When the fruits of one’s labor is taken, by force, only to be given to another who did not labor, that’s tantamount to institutionalized slavery. In the very least, it’s contrary to the basic principle of individual liberty.

    Being a true libertarian in today’s United States (and today’s world, or so it seems) is like being the odd-man out. I’ve debated the issue on numerous occasions, and have heard things like, [i]no man is an island[/i], or other such sentiments. Or I’ve heard things like, [i]what will happen if all taxes are abolished?[/i] But these retorts only show how being a libertarian is misunderstood. Of course, it goes without saying, greater things can be accomplished together rather than alone; but that’s doesn’t mean teamwork is synonymous with a collective. In fact, any “collective” society throughout history has either faltered or failed. And any “individualist” society throughout history has excelled — until, that is, it became a collective. And, of course, no rational libertarian is advancing the abolition of all taxes, but only those that support social programs, not the ones that support the true functions of government and the defense of our nation. And then there’s the “caring” argument. People advocate government give-away programs under the guise of “caring”. These people don’t really “care”, however, but instead they only want to maintain the appearance of “caring”, or they’ve been duped into such a false sense of “caring”.

    Any and all collective systems in the United States have either failed or are well on their way to failing. Do you believe, for example, for even a minute, that the current Social Security system is either fair or equitable (not to mention “right”)? Have you considered that poverty, in both real numbers and percentages, was in a continual decline, every decade of the country’s existence, until the “war on poverty” was created? Have you considered that government dependency only creates more government dependency, not less? A democracy (or republic) is doomed to fail, or so it is said, when the people figure out they can vote themselves favors from the public treasury. And one only has to look at all the “favors” Americans have voted themselves over the past six decades to see how individual liberty in America is doomed. I say it’s high time we not only reject the growth of any and all “collective” systems in the United States, but turn them around and strive for their eventual elimination.

    I sure do feel like the odd-man out, however, and resistance is indeed futile. I will be assimilated, whether I want to be or not. (So much for the concept of individual liberty.)

    George Mason, we’ve failed to uphold the principles upon which our great nation was founded. We’ve failed to honor the sacrifices made by you, your family, and your countrymen. We’ve failed to continue the true spirit of the great experiment called the United States of America. And to paraphrase Yogi Berra, George Mason would be turning in his grave if he was alive today to see how we’ve ruined what he (and others) started. If I could ask you one question, Mr. Mason, it would be this. Is it too late to turn back now; and if not, how can we do it?

    More questions:

    Why are so many people so afraid to take full advantage of individual liberty?

    Why are so many people determined to deny others their individual liberty?

    By what right or authority does one person take the fruits of another’s labor? (Any time you vote in favor of ANY social program, that is, in essence, exactly what you are doing.)

    Who might be the current day “George Mason”?

    Is it too late to turn back? If not, how could it be done?

    And consider this. If a person stands up for such a principle, and absolutely refuses to “be assimilated” into the “collective”, he will not only be considered an odd-ball, and he will not only have lost his individual liberty, but he will also lose his freedom, as he will be arrested and locked up. (So none dare do it, for fear of the government.)

    How is it possible we’ve fallen so far?

    Quotes:

    [i]When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson[/i]

    [i]”That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson[/i]

    [i]”I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson[/i]

    [i]”To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson[/i]

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3142807

      Addendum – Addition to my original message

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

      I strongly suspect, in fact I’m convinced (without proof), that the current immigration debate (the “silent debate”) is tied into the probability of a total Social Security system collapse. Our illustrious elected officials don’t dare touch the social security problems. For if they do, our equally illustrious voters will remove them from office (or not put them there to begin with).

      I’ve heard estimates upwards of tens of millions of people being redefined from illegal to legal immigrant status. Am I the only one who suspects that this unprecedented allowance for immigration is for the sole purpose of shoring-up the eventual failure of Social Security? The “boomer generation”, people who have paid the most but stand to gain the least, will be retiring in droves in the coming years. They (we) will all be expecting an equitable return on their (our) investment. (See note below.) It has to come from somewhere, lest it be denied as promised.

      At its beginning, there were upwards of 35 people paying into the Social Security system for every one receiving from it. Today, the ratio is three (or four?) to one. Moreover, their approximate three percent tax was (is) nowhere close to the current fifteen percent SS tax rate. In the very near future, it will be two to one (and at what rate?). When will it be one to two? And who will pay for those people?

      If I’m correct in my suspicion, that most politicians favor some sort of amnesty and legalization for those illegals who are already here for the purpose of adding to the tax-base (primarily for the support of Social Security), it will fix nothing, but rather only delay the inevitable.

      This is a classic illustration of how a collective system is doomed to fail, and how an “individualist” system, although not perfect, is better than any other alternative.

      Note: If I had a choice, I would accept today, a full Social Security refund, in the form of a one-time cash payment, of every dollar I paid into Social Security (plus the dollars paid by employers on my behalf), plus a very reasonable 5 percent annual rate of return, for the understanding that I would never receive ANY Social Security benefits for the rest of my life, regardless of how long that might be. Give me back what I paid, don’t take any more, and we’ll just call it even.

      • #3112500

        Ok I’ll bite

        by stephencairns ·

        In reply to Addendum – Addition to my original message

        I liked your note. Very magnanimous. Reminds me of a Blues song “I never said I was a millionaire, what I said was I have spent more money than a millionaire. If I’d kept all the money I’d spent, I’d be a millionaire a long time ago” sorry cant remember where exactly thats from.

        What you are suggesting sounds like utopia. A land where everyone is successfull and can stand on there own 2 feet. Truly the American Dream.

        But I see no provision for people that can’t. Lets ignore the people who won’t work for a moment. ( there will always be some) But what about the people who can’t?

        lets have a really contrived example.
        The sucessfull entrepreneur who has worked his way out of the orphanage built up a great company and then is hit by a car and has a stoke on the way to hospital(Paralysed, cant speak), his company goes bankrupt and so inexplicably does his insurance company, he finds his financial adviser has been a bit too entreprenerial and his investments go bad. He ‘s been too busy with his company to ever get married.
        So where does that leave him in your ideology? (hey, I said it was contrived)

        • #3112483

          There is no “provision for people that can’t”. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Ok I’ll bite

          …and that’s the premise on which we might disagree.

          I don’t see it as the role of government to “provide” for ALL people who either can’t or choose not to provide for themselves.

          Charities used to provide for people who can’t, and kind souls made those charities possible. And necessity forced those others to provide for themselves, the ones who would otherwise choose not to if they didn’t have to.

          Your way forces others to be “charitable” on your terms. My way makes it a choice for people to be charitable on their own terms.

          Your way gives people an excuse to not provide for themselves. My way compels people to provide for themselves.

          What did James Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison say on this issue? Go ahead, answer THAT question. What did they say about it? Were they right, or were they wrong? And why?

        • #3112461

          Your premise

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to There is no “provision for people that can’t”. . . . .

          Relies on people choosing to be charitable. The Current US society doesn?t inspire me with confidence.

          What happens if people choose not to be charitable? (You may wish to look at medieval Europe).

        • #3112456

          You are ignorant. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Your premise

          …of American society. You are not an American. If you think Americans are not charitable, you think incorrectly. You have probably never even been here. You weren’t educated in the true sprit and intent of “America”. You cannot possibly understand, unless you strive for the same things I do. In short, you are not part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.

          America IS NOT a land bordered by two oceans. America is the principle that individual liberty should NEVER be compromised.

          Bottom line: I don’t care what kind of society you want for yourself in Australia. But this is not Australia. Moreover, you don’t know or understand the first thing about me.

        • #3112447

          I know about you

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to You are ignorant. . . . . .

          by what I have read and it does not paint you as a charitable person, quiet the contrary. The American (US) society is not portrayed as one of selfless charity but one of indulgence which in itself is a selfish act (this I know from experience) for proof of this watch a popular American movie (I might suggest American Pie but I would not wish that kind of torture upon anyone, even you Max 🙂 ).

          As for a totally selfless culture to use as an example, I can?t provide one. I have a premise that humans are selfish animals.

        • #3112440

          WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I know about you

          You are doing it AGAIN!

          You have ADMITTED that you gain your knowledge of America and Americans through its MOVIES!

          HAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA!

          What a JOKE!

          You just proved your TOTAL ignorance, dude.

          Oh yea, you’re the guy who formed ALL your opinions about Vietnam on …. which movie was that? Apocolipse Now?

          Ignorance epitomized = YOU.

        • #3112430

          This IDIOT presents the movie, American Pie. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I know about you

          …as his “proof” to what life in the United States is really like.

          Oh my. I must stop laughing. I’ll give myself a heart attack if I don’t stop laughing.

          Are ALL people in Australia this stupid?

          Stop laughing, Max. Stop ….. Stop ….. Stop …..

        • #3112358

          Max Message level reached

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I know about you

          As Neil said “How Ironic”.

          Max, if you don?t like the way American society is portrayed by [b]American[/b] media, do something about it. I for one would like to see far less “American Pie” type movies but people still keep watching them.

          How have you tried to dissuade me of my ill opinion of US culture (there?s an oxymoron in there somewhere). By insults not by fact, you have not offered me any reason to believe differently. Time and time again you have posted selfish and self righteous comment (I have done the same) but then turned around and demanded we recognise you as a saint (I will admit to being as arse at times).

          Now I know the difference between a people and a person. You are a person, not a very nice person but still a person, the USA population are a people. Many Americans here have given me good opinions of the US, JD, Mae, even TJ who after getting off on the wrong foot to begin with manages to come across as a sincere and genuine person. Whist I don?t necessarily agree with everyone here I can have a civil discussion with them (Deepsand and I have a disagreement on civil armament, heated but civil), you on the other hand seem to get off on winding people up. Maxwell Edison if that is your real name, you are little more than an enlightened troll and are quickly losing the enlightened part

          If you want to convince me I’m wrong provide evidence I am quiet open minded, insults only prove me right and good sir, the burden of evidence is on you.

          All this being said, I’ll say again. I don?t hate Americans, I seriously dislike your president most Americans I have met are good people. I?d like to make it known that I see a distinction between Max and the US in general.

        • #3112270

          You are just so WRONG in so many ways!

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to I know about you

          Max has consistantly been exactly what he says he is. The meaning of “charitable” is not to carry someone along but rather to encourage someone to their own feet. Give a man a fish and you feed him one time. TEACH him to fish and you feed him forever. That there is some ill-conceived notion that “charity” can only be performed by doing FOR rather than doing WITH is outrageous.

          When, in another thread, I mentioned that I have been fundraising for a cancer foundation, Max was right there at the table as we plotted something to sell for fundraising purposes. Did he send a check? None of your business! That is private information between myself and my supporters. What he PUBLICALLY chose to do was get behind an EFFORT. What Max has been saying is that he will HELP- not HANDOUT. I don’t see any problem with that. He has also said that it must be a choice. I agree. I don’t care to support certain types of charities. But I am FORCED to support them through taxation. I believe that I should have the right to direct my charitable donations to those efforts that I wish to give my support to.

          Max’s facility with language may cause someone without equal facility to see him as hard. That would be wrong as well. In my experience, he has always been willing to explain himself or further clarify IF HE IS ASKED. He will however give as good as he gets when attacked. And frankly, that looks like survival around here to me.

          Finally, Hollywood has no true depiction of what it is to be an American. To use a REALLY bad movie as an example is, at best, laughable.

        • #3112155

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to I know about you

          .

        • #3112107
        • #3112081

          Some people

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I know about you

          don’t have to go around parading their charity to obtain laurels, which they then rest upon. apparently you are accustomed to dealing with those who do. How very sad.

        • #3112057

          In other words (tig)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I know about you

          Charity is (voluntarily) giving a needy person what they need, and sometimes what they need is a kick in the ass! 🙂

        • #3112048

          adunlap, I think…

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to I know about you

          …that is probably the best paraphrase there is.

          I think that it is just useless to keep carrying the load for those who don’t wish to pull themselves up. I think it is a dis-service. And I refuse to see someone who has made no effort whatsoever to help themselves as somehow noble or worthy. I guess that means I am not a nice person. I’m over it.

          Darn, thought it would take longer! (Thanks NeverBusted- love the quote!)

        • #3110882

          As I have said in this disussion

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I know about you

          I am not above admitting when I have been an arse 🙂 . Max?s attitude gets under my skin and can easily send me flying off the deep end. Although your post was pretty tongue in cheek, there is a lot of misunderstanding about Australia.

          Starting on the Aussie film industry, we have many great films that have just never had the backing to go international like “The Castle” and “Crackerjack”. I’m sure there are many great canuk films I have never seen. American Pie, I chose this because I see people emulating what they see in the movie, in Australia (remember that I’m a lot younger than you blokes so I am closer to the damage). We’ve recently released Kadoka, which is an Australian war movie, I think you’ll find it the equal of “Saving Private Ryan” with regards to the Australian spirit. “Saving Private Ryan” was a good movie and I would say the same about “Patton” but that movie was more about the man than the American spirit. And don?t get me started on Steve Irwin, we can?t stand him.

          As for charity, Perth Western Australia gave 3 mil AU$ to charity last year. Considering we have a population under 1 million. We give just as much per capita, just remember we’re one tenth your size. Australia has many good philanthropists, just not as many glory hogs.

          To a member of the eastern bloc, a state line had guards at it that fired real ammunition (a state line to them was the border between East Germany and Poland) so no wonder they were amazed.

          It was Russia?s policy of giving guns and money to everyone who said they were a communist that bankrupted the Soviet Union, the US just took the glory.

          The first time we trusted the Americans to launch an Aussie into space the shuttle blew up. Australia is currently the world leader in biotech and agricultural technology.

          Ahh, the beach if only I could find one without sand. The thing I like most about Australian beaches is that I can find one with absolutely no one else on it even if I have to go 1500 KM’s to get there. Lakes are fun too, but the weather in Michigan leaves a little to be desired (for some reason I don?t like swimming in sub-zero temperatures).

          Buying a gun at wal-mart? OK this is something I’m glad we don?t do that in Australia. Over here you need to get a license for firearms (Not difficult to get mind you, as long as you?re a mentally stable person). Deepsand and I have had this discussion and I think you will be from the same camp so let?s agree to disagree from the start. Never felt the need to carry a weapon concealed or otherwise. I did used to own a few weapons myself, until I moved into the city and just didn?t use them anymore (I can?t take pot shots at pedestrians).

          I’m not really anti-gun just anti-idiot so some basic restrictions I see as necessary. This being said I believe that if you give an idiot anything, the humble spoon for example he will do something idiotic with it.

          My main problem with the current US administration is how they have handled Iraq, I just can?t see bush taking any responsibility. I wouldn?t have a leg to stand on if bush had of said “OK people we screwed up, now lets just get on with the task of fixing things” which pretty much sums up what I think of the war in Iraq. I’m not the kind of person who likes to rub things in (I know a lot of people don?t think like that). Before Iraq I didn?t give two hoots about GWB.

          Well, as for travel. I eventually intend to visit the US. I actually want to bike it (Harley not push bike) across the US. At the moment however I would probably visit Europe before the US (two reasons, I am somewhat paranoid about surveillance but mainly because there?s just more things I want to see in Europe).

        • #3110875

          Hey mjwx, about gun restrictions

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I know about you

          We DO have a lot of restrictions.

          (speaking from personal knowledge in Michigan)
          If you wish to purchase a handgun, you have to go to the local cop shop and get a “purchase permit”. They do a full background check BEFORE you get the permit. You then have 15 days to purchase your handgun. If you do not purchase this handgun, you are STILL REQUIRED to come back with the permit, used or not and turn it back in. If you get a handgun, it is inspected, and the numbers are run to make sure it isn’t stolen. IF it all passes, they register that handgun to you.

          If someone wants to use your handgun, they have to be right with you. If they are NOT with you, they have to go through and get a purchase permit, fill it all out, and within the 15 days bring it back and turn in the unsued purchase permit.

          We now have a “shall issue” policy to get a concealed carry permit. You have to take training classes, and then can carry your handgun. There are many public places this gun can still not go, and there is a ZERO tolerance rule on booze. One drink and you are in jail.

          Rifles, they do that at the store. You fill out a form, they electronicly submit it to the feds, and you will hear back within three days, but often if your record is clean (like mine) you get your reply within an hour.

          Transporting a firearm. If you do not have a carry permit, it HAS to be locked in your trunk, unloaded, with the ammunition NOT stored with the firearm. You can also ONLY have this with you if you are directly on your way to or from hunting or a valid shooting range.

          The USA is NOT the wild wild west, and the vast majority of all shootings are NOT done by the lawful gun owners. With more and more places giving the concealed permits, the crime rate has gone down as the crooks don’t know who has a gun and who doesn’t, so it takes away the easy marks.

          There are many more restrictions, but these are the main ones.

          If you are thinking about that assnugget M Moores movie where he shows himself walking into a bank, signing his name and walking out with a rifle, he VERY convenently neglects to mention that he had all his paperwork filled out three days in advance so it was all cleared with all the background checks. AND who is going to VERYIFY who they are, take that empty rifle, and then hold up the bank? Shows the stupidity of that fat bausterd, and the stupidity of his followers. He will NOT give you an accurate view of the US.

          How this clears up some of the confusion, peer me if you have ANY questions you would like more background on.

        • #3110809

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to I know about you

          This has been NeverBusted.

          Goooood day!

        • #3110792

          Steve Irwin

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I know about you

          We’ll swap him for a hot dog and a coke.

          JD, Here we have to go through the pistol procedure for rifles and shotguns as well (been through it twice myself, pistol, rifle but not shotgun), you get profiled to see if your dangerous as well as an eye test. What may surprise people is that I disagree with some of the restrictions on weapons. For example I agree with the ban on assault rifles (AK’s and M16) but some weapons like the M14 (I understand there is a version for semi-auto mode only) and historical weapons. What person in there right mind would rob a bank with a SMG their dad got in WWII (not someone in their right mind).

          As for Moore, I find his films political infomercials. I do so hate adverts, especially one that goes for 2 freaking hours.

          NeverBusted, I’ll admit the glory hogs comment was a bit below the belt.

          If anyone over there wants to see a good example of the Aussie film industry I recommend “The Castle” and “Crackerjack”, both comedies that anyone with a sense of humour should enjoy. I didn’t mean it to be condescending, just informative. I think the quote “a people divided by a common language” applies to the pacific as well.

          [i]”You probably won?t see NeverBusted in too many political discussions.”[/i]

          Your are a far smarter man then I, I should stay out of political discussions but sometimes I can?t help it. “We can?t talk about politics, I guess we’ll have to talk about religion “. 🙂

        • #3110742

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to I know about you

          I?ve had fun.

        • #3111984

          Assult weapons

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I know about you

          The “Assult weapons” bans are political and meant to show the mindless masses that they are doing something.

          There is NOTHING more assulting in close range than a 12gage shotgun firing 00buck. It isn’t called a “room clearer” for nothing. You get it in a hallway, forget about it.

          The final thought is that it isn’t the law abiding citizen that goes through the legal process to get these firearms that are the problem. It is the person that buys them on the street, which is already illegal. How does this alledged ban on the legal sale of firearms stop the illegal sale?

          You would take mine from me because some criminal (that the police should already have locked up) MIGHT break in and steal them? You should not own a car, because someone might steal it and use it in a crime. Most getaway cars ARE stolen cars, don’tchaknow?

          I hope you see how silly the chest beating about this all is by the politicians.

        • #3111822

          Huge Mistake in believing that media is accurate.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I know about you

          I say that the Local VFW hall is a better place to get the real skinny than any movie.

          The other places you should visit are churches, and the town halls. Get away from the cities and watch neighbors helping people. I took a 48″ xp394 Husquevarna and helped a neighbor take down a 50 foot maple tree.

          American’s are extremely generous with time and money. We are willing to help those who are trying, or truly unable, but we are not willing to help those who will not help themselves. As a religious quote it is: “He who will not work shall not eat.” The welfare for incorrigibles is a violation of my (and many others) religious beliefs.

        • #3111814

          Assault weapon ban is a political action not rational action,

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I know about you

          Most of the assault weapons that were banned used a .223 slug which hits with very little power. It isn’t good for Big Game. My .55 with 435 Grain slug is much more effective, and dangerous weapon. even with a very slow cyclic rate of fire.

          Only people who don’t know weapons think of what most people think of as assault weapons as really dangerous M16s,AR15s, and CAR15s. I’d take an old M1 or M14 with its 7.62X59mm and 158 grain slug, and put more lead in the air, with 6 shots than a 30 round clip of .223. Precision fire with my old bolt action Springfield 1903 from 1000 yarda is more effective than 20 M16s at the same distance. I can shoot 5 rounds in 10 seconds and hit all targets from that distance with no wind. If the wind is against the M16s and I have the 1803, I can just add notches to the buttstock.

        • #3111762

          I make the distinction between

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I know about you

          a soldiers weapon and a good hunting weapon.

          Now to explain Australia?s ban on assault weapons. Yes this was a political move but it has some sense to it (at least to Aussies). The ban came after the Port Arthur massacre
          http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/
          where 35 people were shot and killed by one not so sane Martin Bryant with an AR15 assault rifle. Australia had never seen a massacre so indiscriminate and violent that action had to be taken to prevent it happening again. In the 10 years since Port Arthur we have not had another 30 people spree killing, I don?t even think we have has a 10 people spree killing.

          Hopefully I have adequately explained our perspective on the ban. I understand that Americans think very differently about gun laws and I respect that (I’d be a bit hypocritical about asking you to respect our laws and perspective if I did not do the same). I’ve had discussions regarding this ban with Americans before to no avail for either side so I’m going to file this one under cultural differences.

          In my opinion the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle is the difference between a car and a tank, one is a mode of transport for everyday use and the other is a weapon of war.

        • #3111757

          Bull, it is a political action.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I know about you

          The real issue is freedom. The 2nd amendment was supposed to be the reset button on the Constitution. With every law passed at the federal level, we wave bye-bye to freedom.

          The assault rifle is not a long distance rifle. the shooter had a modified weapon. The point is I have legal weapons. An M14 with full auto of 300 rpm is legal with 15 rounds of 7.62X59MM. with 20 round mags it requires a different license.

          An M14 is about 10x more powerful than a M16/AR15 type weapon. The problem isn’t guns, it is the people who use them improperly.

          For example, if someone walks in my door unexpectedly, they would find themselves greeted with multiple shotguns, .45s, etc. not to mention the dog… Big Dog, a rottie… I have escorted an unwanted census taker, several local police and sheriff patrol members and several FBI agents off the property. All of them understand private property much better after I had them reminded in court.

          The local judge said I was a major league jerk, but I was right by the letter and spirit of the law. He fined the FBI guys $40.00 & cost for tresspassing, however, he let the locals go. Each time he reminded, and remanded them that they can’t just enter someone’s house or come on someones property without permission, cause, or warrant.

        • #3111706

          A political action with popular support

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I know about you

          Democracy in action, well at least constitutional monarchy in action. This wasn?t a political stunt to win votes both parties supported the ban. Most Aussies I know agree with the ban. To us (Aussies), the freedom to own guns is leveraged against someone else?s freedom to live.

          Shooting deaths and shootings in general are very rare here in Australia, and the rate of homicides has remained steady of the decade of 1990 (the ban on assault weapons was in 1995).

          Contrary to popular opinion Australians don?t live in the tyrannical grip of criminals, very few places in Australian cities are unsafe to visit. I have said before, this is just anther difference between our two countries and in the different ways we live our lives. I don?t think I have much of a chance of convincing you that the ban is good and I can say you have no chance convincing me it is bad. We can argue the point or agree to disagree.

        • #3111695

          Owning guns in the USA

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I know about you

          The reasons to own guns in the USA are for self-protection and/or to take them up against an invading enemy (the latter not as significant in today’s world), but to also take them up against a government that gets tyrannical.

          [i]”The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”[/i]
          -Thomas Jefferson

          Not that it’d make a hell of a lot of difference against the likes of smart bombs and today’s military weaponry, but in such a drastic case, a lot of the military and national guard units would switch sides anyway — weapons and all.

          Disclaimer: No, I don’t own any guns, nor have I ever. (But I sure do wish a teacher at Columbine High School would have had one.)

        • #3111686

          To Max

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I know about you

          That I already know but thanks for taking the time to explain it all the same. We seemed to have gone off on the gun control tangent again.

          Ironically in regards to gun laws we both view each other as being liberal, I view the US as being too liberal (as in libertarian) and a few Americans view Australia as too liberal (as in democrat). Don?t mean anything by it max, I just find the semantics to be a bit humorous.

          Australia and the US. I think we will always do a few things differently. Well if you (US) like to have guns around well that?s your choice (and would much appreciate the same kind of respect in return).

          BTW, I once was a gun owner, still have a rifle license too. Just don?t get out of the city much these days.

        • #3113344

          The better solution than a ban would have been a well armed populace.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I know about you

          The could have defended themselves or revenged their loved one immediately.

          The chance of a murderer getting executed is slim unless they are in Texas. Their they now have an express lane!!!

          If you shoot a lawyer it should be for public health reasons.

        • #3113337

          Are you dumb enough to believe popular is right?

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I know about you

          Look before you leap.

          In this case what is popular, gives us immorality and a biased repression of the people who say that acting immorally is wrong. People don’t appreciate being told that they are immoral or wrong. Just because it is popular, it may be very well be wrong.

          Bill Clinton is an ordained minister as is Jimmy Carter. From Bill’s actions his religion didn’t even make it skin deep. It was his alternative avenue to political power. Can anyone say with a straoght face that Clinton’s actions were moral or honest? Bush is at least apparently hones and moral.

          Carter I am hoping is repenting for his past indescretions. I suspect that he may live a long time if he has to atone for his recent oral utterings.

        • #3111668

          I’m smart enough to beleive

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I know about you

          that if Martin Bryant had a Winchester 303 instead of a AR15 he would have only killed 5 or 6 and not 35. What would he have done if he had an AK 47 or MP 5. Just to keep it in perspective 35 is roughly 300% of Tasmania?s (state where you’ll find Port Arthur) total murders per year.

          By popular, I meant it had the support of the people which as I understand it is how a democratic society works. Perhaps I used the wrong word. I have been down the Assault weapons road before, but I’ll go down it again.

          A well armed populace would just lead to more Port Arthur-like massacres. As I have said Martin Bryant was [b]not[/b] a stable individual, but he was able to easily obtain an assault weapon which he then used to kill 35 people.

          There are more Martin Bryant?s unfortunately, what this ban has done is prevent the future Martin Bryants from doing as much damage. It would be far more invasive to ones freedoms to psychologically profile every Australian and weed out/remove any potential spree killers than to restrict the sale of firearms. More people with guns in public area’s mean more people get shot. I don?t view more people dead as a better solution. People who kill don?t think about their actions until they are sitting in a jail cell so giving them more dangerous weapons is asking them to do more damage before they can get to that cell.

          Firearm restrictions in Australia have not been used to prosecute the farmer (or other type of general citizen) who keeps an old semi-auto in his gun cabinet. It has been used to prosecute the gang member or bikie who has 5 AK 47’s. Whilst it may look restrictive to you, we are not a people that go overboard and so it doesn?t worry us.

          I have plenty of ammunition on the subject but I am trying to be friendly, we have our solution for our “Bryants” and we find it works quiet well. The USA is a different state and you have your solution for your “Bryants”.

        • #3111626

          Mjwx, it’s also about responsibility

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I know about you

          Libertarianism is also about responsibility, both personal and social.

          How, you ask?

          My personal responsibility is to take care of myself and plan for the future. If I wish to have a nice home, eat daily, and buy all those neat toys, then I must work. If I wish to retire before I die, then I must save and invest. It is flat wrong that my earnings are taxed to support somebody who will not or cannot work.

          My responsibility to society is to give back what I have been given. Do I give to charity? Yes. Do I help when possible? Yes. Should I be [b]forced[/b] to support people unwilling or unable to support themselves? No. Like Max, I believe that coersion to charity is wrong.

          As for your basing your view of American society on American media, you obviously forget that Rupert Murdoch has been here…the media is no longer about news, but about entertainment.

        • #3111599

          mjwx… please read the whole of this post

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to I know about you

          Gun control is not the point. The point is defining rules of responsible behaviour. Martin Bryant was a powder keg looking for a place to go off. And while I sympathise deeply for the loss of life, the gun in his hand did not make him a killer. HE made HIMSELF a killer with a DEVICE in his hand. I have owned a hand gun since 1992 or so. .38 cal, Taurus 85CH. Never found it necessary to kill any one or anything with it. Thank God.

          A couple-few years ago I was diagnosed with a particularly virulent type of cancer. I had also been out of work for awhile. I had been doing odd jobs but nothing that would get me more than hand to mouth. They decided to slash my unemployment to nothing at about the same time that someone stole my identity and put me so deeply in debit that I will never see my way out. Came the day that I lost my home- on my 41st birthday (literally) and had to throw myself on the mercy of the State.

          I was told that they would provide medical services that they would bill me for later- they did and are- I couldn’t pay them fast enough, they garnish my wages- but I was on my own for a place to live as there were no places I could go- I had earned too much in the preceeding five years. Within the next 30 days, I lost one breast, my home, my cats, and my self respect. I had an interview the day they did emergency surgery on my breast. I had to decline. I was told that emergency surgery wasn’t a good enough excuse to decline an interview.

          Does this sound like a classic case of what we put social programmes in place FOR?

          I was told when I went to ask for assistance that if I had a child or two out of wedlock, they would have paid my rent and my medical expenses (hefty) for as long as I met the requierments. All I had to do was produce some children. I have NEVER been able to have children.

          I spent a year LITERALLY on the street, while in chemo and trying to find my feet. I dug ditches for a days wage, I detailed cars, I baled hay I washed dishes. I determined who I am and what I am made of and CHOSE to live. I found myself surrounded by those that the “social programmes” are there to help. They play this country like a violin. And it disgusts me.

          I will NEVER support another “social programme” as long as I am able to live. I pray that I am able to understand with clarity when something is right or wrong. I hope to never confuse issues.

          I owned that Taurus until a few months ago when I needed to give the State more than I had after rent and heating (I live in the Midwest- heating is an issue when the temps are 40 below). I sold it to a respectable dealer that I researched.

          For all that I had been through, it never occurred to me to use that weapon to harm another living person. It never occurred to me to use that weapon on myself.

          The Martin Bryants of the world will not be stopped by laws. People like me are.

          I am so very sorry that Austrailia has had to endure the Columbines. We do understand what you have been through. A loss of 35 people is rough- they were friends, neighbours, people of people you knew. I understand it. But consider- I went through h3ll in a way that few will ever understand. And you don’t know my name beyond my TR ID. Nor would you. I have done nothing wrong- gun or no.

          Edited- because…

        • #3111439

          Tigger Two, you have had a tragic life

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to I know about you

          Before you dismiss welfare systems altogether, I should tell you that if you had lived in Australia, you would have been entitled to, in order one after the other:

          1. Unemployment benefits.
          2. Sickness benefits.
          3. Disability pension.

          On any of these government benefits, the Medicare program introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government more than 30 years ago would have paid for almost all your medical expenses. Yes paid outright — not paid for by yourself after the event.

          Two and a half years ago I was admitted to hospital suffering heart failure. I was in hospital for 10 days and it didn’t cost me a single cent. Surgery was recommended but I did not consider it to be necessary at that time. However if I had undergone surgery, that too would have cost me nothing.

          I live in one of the wealthiest and most politically conservative areas in Sydney. I have NEVER heard a single individual suggest that welfare programs should be abolished. I have NEVER heard a financially secure person complain about subsidising, through their personal income tax, people on welfare.

          So I would suggest that you don’t reject the concept of government welfare altogether, but rather compare America’s system with that of other Western countries and see how they differ.

        • #3111409

          TiggerTwo, you have had an inspiring life

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I know about you

          To be faced with such adversity, and to have the seemingly insurmountable obstacles facing you, such as the ones you’ve described, and for you to persevere and make the choices you did is indicative of the courage and determination you obviously have. How people face adversity is more indicative of their true character than just about anything else, and you’re probably even stronger as a result. Greater strength is built by resistance, not by surrender; and you did not surrender, you did not admit failure, but rather persevered where weaker people would have given up. I don’t think there’s anything you couldn’t achieve. I’m both impressed and inspired by your courage and strength.

        • #3111404

          Not tragic- Challenging perhaps

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to I know about you

          I understand that there are differences in the delivery systems between Austrailia and the US. But that is not the point of this discussion nor the point of my previous post.

          That I am a living example of the point that Max is making regarding personal liberty is really moot.

          What CAN and SHOULD be gleaned from all that is that I can state unequivically that (a) a person with a gun and NO desire to harm others, likely WON’T- regardless of circumstance and (b) no social programme will impact one way or another a person who is determined.

          Laws and programmes are not the determining factor. Individual character IS.

          My character is not the result of any political mandate or social programme. It is the result of parenting that taught me personal responsibility. Perhaps that is the point. That we are each responsible for ourselves and our lives.

          An odd final thought- I cannot give to another what I do not first have. Yet the State, in its wisdom TAXED my day wages- even though those wages were LESS than poverty level.

          Editd for typo

        • #3111392

          Thank you Max

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to I know about you

          I don’t remember anyone telling me that by my existance I was entitled to a pain free life. I do recall my father working three jobs while he attained his engineering degree- he had five children and a wife who had to be a stay at home mother (those five kids). He never backed off from a challenge. I learned by his fine example.

          And there is the crux of the matter. To an advocate of social programme- I am pathetic. I believe that “tragic” was actually the word used. To you, I am an example of what a person is able to accomplish when faced with adversity. I prefer that view.

          That which does not kill us makes us stronger. One thing that came from all that was that I could indeed accomplish anything I chose to.

          Thank you for hearing the intended message- we ARE each responsible for ourselves. Law does not change us, but rather we are changed by the way we choose to live.

        • #3111360

          TT – Time for me to chime in

          by j.lupo ·

          In reply to I know about you

          I heard you too. For the religous here, I was taught not only “that which doesn’t kill us only makes us stronger” but that “god never gives us more than we can handle”. Ok, I had to add it and I see nothing wrong with that view.

          TT is living proof of it and I wish more would take that approach. Having watched my Mom raise 3 girls by herself after my “father” walked out, sold the house out from under her (I don’t want to elaborate on that one), and so many other hardships, including Cancer, cataracs (sp?), knee replacement, diabetes, high blood pressure (I wonder why?), and now the beginning of altzheimers, it just is obvious that you not only are a survivor of such but you are a terrific person who gives more than they ever receive.

          To me, people like TT and my Mom are the role-models we should be looking toward. They teach us about staying positive, finding solutions, not dwelling on problems, and so many more things.

          My sincerest respect to TT.

        • #3111351

          Tig

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I know about you

          As a Mud person I would slap you so hard that my hand would hurt. (Mud people slap to show respect for each others strength, harder the slap, more respect,) Since I am not, I merely say “Character is its own just reward. and you are blessed very abundantly.”

          God Bless you Tig.

        • #3112793

          TJ and JLupo

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to I know about you

          Between the site issues and my own need to think, I apologise that it took me so long to get to this post.

          I appreciate your positive and caring support. Writing that post was very difficult but seemed the only way I could clarify why I believe that social programmes are not the answer in this society and why banning something (in this case weapons) doesn’t work to modify behaivior.

          I was sickened that Julian only read tragedy in all of that and I had to take that thought into a corner and wrestle with it. Makes me sad really that someone only sees why the social programme should be extended instead of seeing that I became a better person for the experience. It is just so WRONG to rob someone of the experience that may be the epiphany of their life.

          I am so truly grateful for your enncouragement. Thank you so much for your kindness.

        • #3112762

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to I know about you

          .

        • #3113733

          T2

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I know about you

          The Taurus CH85 (.38 cal revolver?) would be totally legal in AU as long as you have sat your pistol license and have a safe to keep it in. But that?s beside the point.

          I am a cynical person but that only makes me want a better world more.

          Jules explained our Medicare system well enough, but the point I am trying to make is that not all social programs are the evil wealth distribution schemes that max makes them out to be. Some are investments in industries to promote growth (agriculture, technology, R&D) and some are economic stabilization (preventing a section of your economy from falling over from drought or shortage for example).

          I do not agree that welfare should be abolished but the system needs to be redesigned completely not to benefit the bludgers. It’s on my list of thing to overhaul.

          I’d make a lot of changes if I were PM. a few amongst them would be. Reform IP laws, if a lawsuit can?t be sorted out in three days (devices/software may be torn apart to prove/disprove the case) the case should be thrown out of court. Movie and music rights remain in the hands of the artists and distributors “rent the rights” from them. I would also start a few armament industries in AU to supply our army, $1 each for a 5.56 is far too much its no freaking wonder we have a bullet shortage.

          Well that?s my rant for today.

        • #3112168

          Charity

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Your premise

          US society is VERY charitable to those who are genuinely needy. It is not charity, however, to subsidize laziness. In fact it is a disservice, not only to yourself and the lazy person, but to all of society!

          It used to be that communities took care of their own. (taking care of means providing what is needed. Not necesarily cash.) They were uniquely qualified to determine the needs, as they were there and could see it. People who had genuine needs were taken care of. People who were simply lazy were told to get a job! People generally did not try to scam this system, as it would be difficult for a community member to pull it off, and the result would be that you were cut off. These people who were cut off started travelling around to take advantage of other communities’ good will and they would for awhile and get cut off.

          This went on until they ran out of places to go where people were not on to them so finally they turned to the government, who didn’t know these people and how they were, and Welfare was created.

          Naturally, the tax burden created by this Welfare left the communities less able to help as many truly needy as they would have liked, so they got added to the system too, which in turn caused taxes to be raised even higher, etc.

          This obviously must stop, but it’s already long past the point where it can be stopped painlessly. There’s no avoiding it: some hard decisions are going to have to be made, and some people are going to be offended. That’s just too bad. As was stated in another thread not too long ago, “You do not have the right to not be offended”.

          I will ponder some potential solutions and get back to you.

        • #3112429

          Excuse my ignorance

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to There is no “provision for people that can’t”. . . . .

          As an English Australian I dont know what you had before your social security system or even when it was introduced. I can only judge what happened from the english perspective and I’d assume that the english and american were different as I think that the american system would be different from then and now.
          In england we had work houses, asylums, debtor prisons, slumms, soaring crime rates, and good doses of disease to keep the population down and if anyone got too upity we’d ship em off to Oz.

          So what was America like pre social security ?

        • #3112415

          Famlies. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Excuse my ignorance

          Families were both the strength and cornerstone of life in America. I had both the pleasure and the advantages of being perhaps the last generation of American children who were raised in a home with both parents and a grandparent. When my grandparents could no longer care for themselves, their kids (my parents) paid them back for all their hard work by taking care of them. That’s just how it was done.

          Also think of China or Japan. How do you see them having done it? Families are the strength of a nation, not social programs.

          1940s, 1950s America, before all of those “social programs”, was nowhere close to what you described.

        • #3110930

          Families

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to Famlies. . . . .

          I agree with you families are a great strength.

          The big family unit seems to have fractured these days. People move rounds so much keeping the family together is hard. As the number of children decrease the burdon on them to support prior generations increases.
          Incidently I was talking to a Nigerian guy on work experience in England once. He had decided to take another wife when he got home. When I asked him why he explained it as this. More wifes gives more children, when we are old and cant work then the burden of supporting us on each child is less.

          But do you think that it would work to return to a pre welfare system, without the family unit to support it?
          Do you think the family unit would come back because of it?
          What is the reason (telling me to mind my own business is perfectly ok on this one) that you have not continued the multi generation family yourself?

        • #3110889

          I think…

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Families

          That if personal responsibility were more prevalent, one might see a return to the family unit. Not holding my breath, however. The things that have grown up in place are too pervasive.

          Not all of us are able to bear offspring. This is a hardship in that we who do not, also do not have the family unit to fall back on. I am fortunate that my partner’s family CAN provide that- he has a son from a prior marriage. And we have each other.

          A return to a pre welfare system is almost a requirement at this point. The current system is rewarding irresponsible behaivior and has little incentive for the individual to grow to a point where they can survive without welfare. A single mother almost CAN’T go through the stages to better herself because the minute that she makes a dime more than the welfare allows, she loses her benefit. If she is only making enough to pay the rent but not the utilities, she is screwed.

          And I KNOW from personal experience how the system works. Poorly at best. Emergency aide for the individual who needs assistance immediately and for only a short time does not exist in any meaningful fashion. But if you have a history of irresponsibility, the State will pick up your tab.

        • #3110884

          Who said that I “have not continued the multi generation family myself”?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Families

          I never said that. Why did you make such an assumption?

          The fracturing on the family unit is not “because” of everything else, but rather “everything else” has caused the family unit to fracture.

          Your reasoning is bass-ackwards.

        • #3110821

          families

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to Families

          I apologise Max
          you said that “I had both the pleasure and the advantages of being perhaps the last generation of American children who were raised in a home with both parents and a grandparent. ”
          The “had” fooled me I stand corrected and I will take your answer as ‘mind your own business’

          I was not suggesting why the family unit has fragmented only that it seems to have fragmented.

          but you did not answer my question of do you think that it would work to return to a pre welfare system, without the family unit to support it?

          way back in the mid 1800’s people in England were realising that Family, Church and Charity could not provide adequate support for everyone. Ok thats England and I belive that America probably has a tighter community spirit, but do you think welfare could be just swiched off?
          We all know it has to be switched of at some point.
          We all know its broke.
          The question is more of how do we switch it off and what consequences would you put up with?
          Or how can we fix it?

        • #3110817

          No – Not “MYOB” – I’ll answer your question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Families

          I just wanted to clarify that I didn’t fit your conclusion. My generation of kids was, perhaps, the last to have a grandparent living with them, at least it was pretty common in the late 50s and early 60s. Soon thereafter, all the way to the present day, it’s almost unheard of.

          My parents are both living (both ~90), and still live in the same house we grew up in. My brothers and I have actually had discussions about where one or both of them might go when they are no longer capable of caring for themselves. And now, we all spend a significant amount of time doing things for them. I drive about 600 miles (one way) every other month (or more) and spend 5-6 days just hanging out with them, doing whatever might be needed. Any of us would take them in and do whatever is necessary to provide for their care and comfort. It’s just that it hasn’t come to the point where that kind of decision has had to be made. If we can’t do it ourselves, for some reason, we’d pay the cost of providing the care.

          I will admit, however. With people living longer, they are faced with ailments that make it most difficult, and at times impossible, on their care givers, nothing like when I was a boy. My grandmother died in her early 70s, so we weren’t faced with those kinds of things. She was confined to a wheelchair, though, and we had to get “creative” around the house so she could navigate her way around. The upside, of course, was that we got to play in her wheelchair when she wasn’t using it!

          When I suggested what I did, I do realize there are exceptions. Generally speaking, however, families caring for each other has become a thing of the past, or so it seems. And that just adds to the problems facing society as a whole. Society caring for people should always be the last resort, not the first expectation.

        • #3110813

          Society caring for people ..

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to Families

          Should always be the last resort. I agree.
          600 miles away from you folks, thats hard. I’m 12000 miles away, only get to see them once a year.

          I’m wondering if economic necessity, work availability or family ties kept families together. Have our expectations of personal freedoms changed? is that why families are not so tight knit?

        • #3111887

          Returning (tig)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Families

          “A return to a pre welfare system is almost a requirement at this point. ”

          I think so to. And yes, it’s [b]going[/b] to be painful (so is having a rotten tooth extracted). But none of our country’s documents that I know of declare that a pain free life is a basic human right.

          “Emergency aide for the individual who needs assistance immediately and for only a short time does not exist in any meaningful fashion.”

          It used to, until the government came in and took away much of our means of providing it.

        • #3111877

          Fragmented (Stephen)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Families

          “I was not suggesting why the family unit has fragmented only that it seems to have fragmented.”

          One of the big reasons was the designation of the male as being not important to a family except as a source of income… the “Walking Wallet Declaration”! This had a secondary benefit to the government since keeping as many men as possible down lessens the chance they’ll be able to rise up and overthrow this failed excuse for a “Great Society”.

        • #3111866

          re:Society (Stephen)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Families

          “is that why families are not so tight knit?”

          The world is a much busier place than it used to be. You have to schedule the visits to grandma’s between karate practice and soccer practice. And grandma actually has to be home (as opposed to galavanting around the country as grandparents seem to do more of than they used to 🙂 ).

        • #3111711

          adunlap

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to Families

          “A return to a pre welfare system is almost a requirement at this point. ”
          Agreed
          “I think so to. And yes, it’s going to be painful.”
          Agreed
          So how would you dismantle it?
          1. Would you slowly reduce the taxes and the payments (possibly not at the same rate) allowing society to pick up the pieces.
          or
          2. Would you switch it off overnight?

          I think no 1 is possible but it must be slow, we are talking years.

          Option 2 I think would lead to riots. (might be a win win win. save money, reduce population, employ people to carry out the dead. JOKE!!)

          So, do you think it could be done? which method would you suggest?

        • #3113351

          Steps (Stephen)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Families

          First step is to completely overhaul the tax system. Make it conducive to business (Businesses don’t pay taxes anyway, they just pass along the cost to the consumers). The friendlier to business it is, the more business will grow (or start), the more employees they’ll need, etc. As employment picks up, proportionally reduce the number of government employees in “human services” fields as the number of “customers” drops.

          Next we have to begin breaking cycles. Enact or modify policies to emphasize the unnacceptability of child neglect, defining specific minimum standards for living conditions the parents must be able to provide if they wish to remain parents.
          Violation of this policy as a result of criminal acts by the parent should be treated as additional criminal acts.

          (to be continued…)

        • #3113274

          Steps (cont’d) (please feel free to add your own)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Families

          I would also like to see the elimination of most upper management levels of “human services departments”, replacing them with elected boards of citizens, not unlike school boards with respect to responsibility and authority.

        • #3113079

          adunlap your steps

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to Families

          So you are going for the slow reduce the population till you get back to full employment approach? Could take a long time but it could work.

          Just want to clarify a few things.

          “completely overhaul the tax system. Make it conducive to business”
          do you mean by that to simplify or lighten the tax load on business (and tax payer?) by transfering (some of?) the burden to consumers? taxed at the rate you spend?
          Or do you mean just reduce the taxes, take the hit that the government will not be able to fund anything and wait till the economy catches up?
          or just just reduce the tax level at the same level the economy improves?

          “defining specific minimum standards for living conditions the parents must be able to provide if they wish to remain parents”
          “remain parents” does that mean removing their children or stopping them becoming parents?
          if remove then where to?
          Who defines the minimum standards?
          Surely the minimum standards are a loving supportive environment? How would you legislate or even measure that?
          or do you define the minimum standards as food clothes, shelter, $x spending money, provision of health and pension and empoyement insurance?

          “Violation of this policy as a result of criminal acts by the parent should be treated as additional criminal acts”
          lost me here.
          Do you mean that if you attempt to raise children in a sub standard environment you are a criminal or do you mean that if you do something criminal and have children there will be an additional charge?
          Does being in jail automaticaly confer neglect of the family? even if the family is financially (and emotionaly) sound otherwise?

          Do you feel that this second step in any way conflicts with the Libitarian view point?

          I like your step 1 depending on how you implement it. I have huge reservations on step 2. In Australia what you are suggesting has been tried. They ran a policy up till quite recently of removing children from there families for “their own good”. There are a lot of very angry people and broken families as a result.

          Incidentally, do you know of any first world countried that do not have some form of social security?

        • #3111620

          Clarify

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Families

          [i]”completely overhaul the tax system. Make it conducive to business”
          do you mean by that to simplify or lighten the tax load on business (and tax payer?) by transfering (some of?) the burden to consumers? taxed at the rate you spend?[/i]

          Transfer ALL of the burden to consumers (they pay it ALL anyway… business just includes it in the cost of their product or service). Read more about it at http://www.fairtax.org . Keep current funding (for now).

          [i]or just just reduce the tax level at the same level the economy improves? [/i]

          Effectively… because once employment picks up, consumer spending will increase, and more money would be going to the government. Some combination of reducing the ‘rate’, paying debt, and refunding the excess would be in order.

          [i]”defining specific minimum standards for living conditions the parents must be able to provide if they wish to remain parents”
          “remain parents” does that mean removing their children or stopping them becoming parents?[/i]

          I meant the former, but I can imagine if the problem gets much worse, the latter will become an acceptable and appropriate remedy.

          [i]if remove then where to?[/i]

          Foster care. Temporary in the case of misfortune, permanent in aggregious cases.

          [i]Who defines the minimum standards?
          Surely the minimum standards are a loving supportive environment? How would you legislate or even measure that?
          or do you define the minimum standards as food clothes, shelter, $x spending money, provision of health and pension and empoyement insurance?[/i]

          There can be a broad national standard… a guideline, so to speak, but locally it would be determined by the board. You can’t put a $ amount on it, one because the cost of living varies greatly from one area to the other, and two, some families will choose to pool resources, live with grandparents, etc. Certainly conditions which would qualify legally as neglect or child endangering could be construed as substandard without much thought.

          [i]”Violation of this policy as a result of criminal acts by the parent should be treated as additional criminal acts”
          lost me here.
          Do you mean that if you attempt to raise children in a sub standard environment you are a criminal or do you mean that if you do something criminal and have children there will be an additional charge?[/i]

          Perhaps an example is in order. Your kids haven’t eaten in three days because you were mugged and all of your money taken. In this case the failure to feed your children would not be a criminal act. However if you spent the food money on illegal drugs, it would.

          [i]Does being in jail automaticaly confer neglect of the family? even if the family is financially (and emotionaly) sound otherwise?[/i]

          No.

          [i]Do you feel that this second step in any way conflicts with the Libitarian view point?[/i]

          No. Adults have the right to choose to be stupid all they want, but they don’t have the right to impose the consequences of their stupidity onto someone else (not even their own children).

          [i]I like your step 1 depending on how you implement it. I have huge reservations on step 2. In Australia what you are suggesting has been tried. They ran a policy up till quite recently of removing children from there families for “their own good”. There are a lot of very angry people and broken families as a result.[/i]

          I would submit that the families who would fail these minimum standards is already broken. Naturally, there would have to be some leeway for genuine misfortune, but the only way you’re going to break these cycles of generations of abuse and neglect is to actually break them. As I said before, nobody said it was going to be painless.

        • #3111613

          Re: steps

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Families

          I also like your steps, but there are two requirements that must be met for them to work:

          First, the “sperm donor” mentality that infects society as regards the father must be eliminated (I think you called it the “walking wallet”). No matter what the sociologists and feminists say, male children emulate after the available male role models. Need proof? How many gang members came from two-parent families where neither parent was a gang member? Statistics here:

          Second, much as people laughed at Hilary, it does take a village. Children are society’s responsibility. There were a lot of things I could have done as a child/teenager that I didn’t do because I knew it would get back to my Mom.

        • #3111598

          Clarity

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to Families

          Wish there were more levels available here.

          “”Do you feel that this second step in any way conflicts with the Libitarian view point?””

          “No. Adults have the right to choose to be stupid all they want, but they don’t have the right to impose the consequences of their stupidity onto someone else (not even their own children).”

          and the children do they have a say in this?

        • #3111597

          Stephen read

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Families

          this earlier post:

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=196739&messageID=2051512

          Only because I can’t say it all agian.
          Until someone goes there, you truly have no idea.

        • #3111537

          Children (Stephen)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Families

          “and the children do they have a say in this?”

          Not in the literal sense, obviously (most 5 year olds would then demand ice cream for dinner every night 🙂 ), but the community must hear and heed their cries for help.

        • #3112739

          Families can be most repressive of liberties

          by jevans4949 ·

          In reply to Famlies. . . . .

          – Ask any Moslem who becomes a Christian. The pressure placed on them to conform is incredible.

          Not that Moslems are unique in this respect.

          A thing I find fascinating about American society is that, while the libertarian principle does provide an environment where people can set up their own communities with their own rules (although within limits), these communities quickly develop sytems forcing conformity to these norms. E.g., the Pilgrim Fathers left Europe to find religious freedom, but the state they founded was responsible for the Salem Witch Trials. At one level, the US Civil War itself was the imposition of (Northern) values on the Southern states. Then there was the pressure on the Mormons to abandon polygamy.

          Not to say that I am in favour of slavery or polygamy, just that a libertarian should be able to cope with them.

        • #3111342

          Well that just says it all. Let’s ban families. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Families can be most repressive of liberties

          ….and all become wards of the state.

        • #3111341

          Well that just says it all. Let’s ban families. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Families can be most repressive of liberties

          ….and all become wards of the state.

        • #3112410

          Moreover, the presumption of individual liberty. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Excuse my ignorance

          …in America is that it is endowed by the Creator, not by man, not by government. (Perhaps that’s why most “socialist” societies lean towards godlessness. See note.) Therefore, by what authority does a person presume to be entitled to the fruits of another’s labor. That’s the basis of the question. Not any anecdotal stories or examples.

          Note: Even if a person does not believe in a Creator, a person is born into the world with certain inherent rights, the most basic of which is the right of control over him or her own self. Who dares to presume otherwise? And by what authority? That’s the very basic, underlying principle.

          An individualist, with such a belief, can live his or her own life without forcing anyone else to capitulate. The collectivist-thinker, however, when he/she presumes to assimilate ALL people into the collective, must, by definition, force others who disagree into capitulation. How can this not be seen as absolutely abhorrent?

        • #3112070

          Interesting

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Moreover, the presumption of individual liberty. . . .

          that they claim that the religious are trying to shove religion down people’s throats, yet they use exactly the same methods to force people into their collective.

        • #3112925

          Unfortunately

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Moreover, the presumption of individual liberty. . . .

          There are way too many who truly believe that they have some “right” to define your life and how you will be allowed to live it.

          I learned a long time ago to steer clear of such people as the concept of agree to disagree is not in their lexicon.

          Their biggest problem is that they want capitulation on their terms and only on their points. Unfortunately that veiw is generally short sighted.

          I don’t DO assimilation. I refuse to conform to what is referred to as “the norm”. I believe I can do better than that.

        • #3112465

          Double post

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Ok I’ll bite

          As you were,
          Carry on.

        • #3112464

          I was hoping people wouldn?t feed the troll

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Ok I’ll bite

          But seeing as you did, let me explain max to you (if you don?t know already). This is the same as the “important questions” thread he started a few weeks ago. Different words but the intent is the same. Max either didn?t get the answers he wanted or wants more. Either or, I didn?t want to feed him.

          As for your example, Maxwell cares not. But this is the kind of person welfare is there to support. Adsorbing the undesirables (those who don?t want to work) is a necessary evil of helping those who need it.

          Max is opposed to any kind of welfare or social program, such as support for University/Collage students and the farm subsidy programs.

          I’ll for Maxwell’s benefit, explain why I think these programs are beneficial. They are not redistributions in wealth as much as investments in the economy. I’ll start with students. A well educated workforce produces more high technology goods which have a greater profit margin than low technology goods which need to be produced in large quantity to produce a significant profit. High technology goods are worth more because you need highly educated people to produce them. Higher education means higher wages must be paid which in turn filters back in to the economy as goods and services are purchased. Clear, good.

          Farm subsidies. When a primary producer has a bumper crop they have no need for subsidies but when harvests are less than perfect what happens. A farmer gets paid once a year, when he sells his crop. That single payment has to purchase everything he needs for his next crop, pay the wages of his workers for the year (or term of employment) and fill the tank with petrol/put food on the table for a year. What will happen to farms if they go bankrupt? It will become cheaper to import most of if not all food. Now this would mean a boost for Australia?s agricultural industry but it means that it takes 2 to 3 times as long to get food from Aussie farms to Maxwells plate and the price of that plate of food goes up for Maxwell. Let me explain how, regardless of the base product cost it will take longer to import, it has to spend longer in customs and takes away jobs from hard working Yanks. Longer freight = costs more. Longer time in transit = more quality is lost from perishable goods. Fewer jobs in US = less money added to your economy. Buying food from outside US = money leaves US. Still confused?

          I’d like to see Social program spending Vs military spending since 1965. War cost more than peace and I’m quiet sure Vietnam racked up quiet a bill (not counting human life, which Mr Edison cannot have a price associated with it). There is one redistribution program that I believe should be abolished which you have made no mention of. Fuel subsidies. The US govt subsidizes the fuel you put in your car, I would very much like the US to pay as much for fuel as other countries (I don?t care weather your fuel price goes up or ours comes down).

        • #3112453

          Before I answer your post. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I was hoping people wouldn?t feed the troll

          …let me ask you this. If I can show that “social spending” in the USA, has not only been more than “military spending”, in both real dollars AND the percentage of GDP, but many, many times more, would you change your opinion and/or admit that you’re ignorant and wrong?

          (Hint: Be very careful before you answer this question. I know what I’m talking about, while you, an Australian, don’t know diddly squat about our budget.)

        • #3112450

          I may be australian

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Before I answer your post. . . . .

          and I would wager that you know as much as me about you nations budget.

          If you bothered to read my post I said “I’d like to see”

        • #3112446

          If you’d like to see. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I may be australian

          …then don’t take my word for it, but LOOK IT UP.

          Hint: Internet search key words.

          Budget of the United States 1965.

          Budget of the United States 1995.

          In 1965, 60 percent of the USA budget went to military spending, while 15 percent went to social prgrams. In 1995, 15 percent of the USA budget went to military spending, while 60 percent went to social programs. Want that in real dollars? Do the math.

          Look it up for yourself. You wouldn’t believe me anyway!

        • #3112443

          I know nothing about you (except)

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I may be australian

          But I know A LOT about the budget of the United States.

          (Except: You’re an ass.)

        • #3111921

          Fuel subsidies

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I was hoping people wouldn?t feed the troll

          When GWB decided to offer 5cent gas in Iraq, it was at a cost of $1.50 epr gallon to Americans.

          the current estimated cost of fuel for teh military vehicles in Iraq is $100.00 per gallon, as it is shipped into Iraq and not purchased there. So with a Humvee getting 5MPG, it costs the US tax payers $500.00 to get across town.

          Spending 500 billion to blow up a forein country that was supposedly becoming an imminent danger to the USA (based on false intelligence), is far more acceptable to people like Maxwell than paying for Grandma Hapshaw’s hip surgery because her family is unable to eke out a fair living, or educating the morons that are running tomorrow’s America. But hey, that’s Maxwell’s America, good thing the rest of teh country does feel that way.

          One day the people will get control of the country again and self servient zealots like Max will again become a thing of the past. Until one day the right will rise again.

        • #3110979

          “(there will always be some)”

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Ok I’ll bite

          That’s the problem. The bureaucrats can’t tell the difference between “can’t” and “won’t”. That’s why the decision, and the means, should not be in their hands. There’s also the efficiency issue. By the time the money goes into the government and back out, over half of it is gone!

          “So where does that leave him in your ideology?”

          At the mercy of the good people of the community, exactly where he should be.

        • #3110925

          There will always be some!

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to “(there will always be some)”

          Social security was meant as a safety net. To catch those that all other means missed. Its kind of evolved since as people have assumed that ‘they can go on the social, i dont need to help’ and so there has been a bigger burden on it than was ever expected.

          But look in your local area, in your community, that bum on the corner begging, (no not the one that goes back to a his house every night, the other one that lives in the park, with the broken nose and the drie blood on his face) what happened to him? how did all these systems fail?
          Your there, is he a cant or wont?
          Have you shown him any mercy?

          Human nature has a strong ‘me first’ drive. Bet when you go shopping you look for the best quality at the cheapest price? me too. Did you think of the shop owner or the producer? no? me niether.
          But we also have a strong ‘Humanitarian’ drive (always think that word is a bit of an oxymoron).
          we dont want to see people dieing for lack of food. We want to help. Do you always do something about it? no? me niether.

          so its always a battle between the 2 sides.
          Left to its own devices I wonder with enforcement I wonder which side would win?

        • #3110877

          Your premise is STILL WRONG!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to There will always be some!

          You asked how the “system” failed the guy on the corner with dried blood on his nose, blah, blah, blah….”

          THE “SYSTEM” DID NOT “FAIL” HIM!

          He failed himself.

          Bottom line” People ARE RESPONSIBLE, in the very least, for themselves (if mentally and physically able). To think otherwise, presumes that other people are. And then, if you consider the burden of being “responsible” for others who choose to shun that responsibility makes it harder for a person to take responsibility for himself, then the answer is obvious.

          You’re working backwards, man. Don’t start with a conclusion and then try to find ways to justify it, but rather rest firmly on a basic principle, let it be your guiding light, and just let the chips fall where they may.

          (By the way, I once offered a job to a guy holding the sign, [i]will lwork for food.[/i] He never showed up the next day for the job, but he did scam me out of 20 bucks to “hold him over”.)

        • #3110840

          will work for food

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Your premise is STILL WRONG!

          i offered to take him in the shop across the road, he just wanted the money, so he turned it down.

          didn’t even ask him to do work. was going to just buy him lunch.

          and it is also a FACT that the people on the streets are not there because of any lack of system to provide assistance. there ARE shelters that get you off the street and on your feet. if they choose not to use them, oh well. can’t save someone that doesn’t want to be saved.

        • #3110823

          will work for food?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to will work for food

          naw a true libertarian would say will work to earn the priviledge of living 😉

          You are right jd, I have spent 6 years doing volunteer work with groups helping homelss people.
          The majjority choose not to go into the “system” to get themselve into a better place, they are exactly where they want to be.
          outside and addicted to at least one narcotic, most likely infected with both H.I.V. and Hepititis C.

          I have no sympathy for their placement, and the best they will get from me is a meal.
          [ try, I cooked christmas dinner for 400 of them with one group I volunteered for. Yup, I did 1/2 the cooking usually, but that day I was the only cook. ]

        • #3110816

          doesn’t want to be saved

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to will work for food

          Like I say some are cant some are wont.
          There are genuine cases and there are not.

          Maybe all your hostels are free over there. Across here they cost money. I cant see anyone getting far on a half eaten burger and cold coffee.

          So why are they on the streets?
          some are there because they have mental illness and are benefitting from care in the community.
          Some are there becuse they can make more money begging thsan they can be bothered working in any other way. Probably some are there because they LIKE eating out of bins and sleeping on cold concrete.
          And some are there because they have just got too use to it.

          So these people are not taking advantage of what the state provides? Is that not what you are wanting? Are these people not the very essence Libetarian?

        • #3110697

          Yep

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to will work for food

          “can’t save someone that doesn’t want to be saved.”

          That is also one of our liberties.

        • #3112012

          re: stephen

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to will work for food

          One of the other problems is that when the do-gooders see someone who doesn’t live to what they think are appropriate standards, they must be mentally ill.

          “You can’t live in a shack in the woods, killing rabbits and squirrels and eating them, growing vegetables, and harvesting nuts and berries from the forest! That’s not civilized! There must be something wrong with you! You need a government program to help you! And if you don’t want it, then you are obviously mentally ill and we will force you to take it! It’s for you own good, you know!”

          Did you ever think that some people might just want to be left alone?

          Also, isn’t is much easier to be a do-gooder when you’re doing it with someone else’s money?

        • #3111754

          I have offered an Axe and $8/hr to take down trees

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Your premise is STILL WRONG!

          They usually don’t show up, or give up within 3 hours and they only do 15-20 minutes of real work…

          I have went out and done as much in 5 -15 minutes as they do in 3 hours, and they want $20,00 for booze or drugs…

        • #3111971

          Totally wrong

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There will always be some!

          Social security began as effectively a rich-man’s program (the average working stiff died before being able to collect, the pampered rich typically lived longer). It was a bad program when it was created, and it still is.

          “Your there, is he a cant or wont?
          Have you shown him any mercy? ”

          Funny you should mention that, what with me living right across the street from a park and all.

          First, since we (the neighborhood) rid the park of the drug dealers, the bums don’t get beat up any more.

          Second, I provide what is needed, in the amount needed, insofar as is within my ability to provide (which is greatly hampered due to the government theft of 60% of my wages!).

          “Human nature has a strong ‘me first’ drive. Bet when you go shopping you look for the best quality at the cheapest price? me too. Did you think of the shop owner or the producer? no? me niether.”

          It depends. For services and durable goods, I typically stay in the same places for loyalty’s
          sake… they treat me well, and I appreciate it and want businesses with those values to stay in my community. A lot of things aren’t avbailable here though (it’s a small town), and when I’m out of town, I shop price and value, as you said.

          “We want to help. Do you always do something about it? no? me niether.”

          I ALWAYS do something. But it DOESN’T always involve money (mine nor someone else’s).

        • #3111966

          I have started making my boys aware of this

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Totally wrong

          the difference between saving a few bucks going to borgmart and visiting the locally owned shops. Once the locally owned ones are gone, there will no longer be a NEED for low prices to get you into borgmart. Are people really that stupid that they can’t see this? Yes, they are that stupid.

          You can’t save everybody, and giving every penny I earn away would not solve the worlds problems, but it would add another family in need of assistance.

          Raising my family to be productive members of the community is the single best thing I can do for the community. Provide a future workforce with morals and standards. This workforce is the future tax base.

        • #3111933

          Just wait.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I have started making my boys aware of this

          Once your children are on their own, you may think your job as a parent is over. It’s not. It’s just beginning 🙂

        • #3111818

          I started to become aware of that

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I have started making my boys aware of this

          during the divorce discussion. From hearing what other people have and are going through, the only thing that changes is the address. That and the addition of more little hearts to care for. (and worry over)

    • #3112493

      Thanks, Max.

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

      More reasons not to support the Bush administration.
      [i] When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson[/i]
      The entire planet rightly fears the current US administration and their tactics at seeking what they deem peace.

      [i]”That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson[/i]
      the current administration believes big brother should monitor the people, not too much rom for self governance when the Electric Eye is always there.

      “You think you’ve private lives
      Think nothing of the kind
      There is no true escape
      Im watching all the time

      Im made of metal
      My circuits gleam
      I am perpetual
      I keep the country clean

      Im elected electric spy
      Im protected electric eye

      Always in focus
      You cant feel my stare
      I zoom into you
      You dont know Im there

      I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
      My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove” – JP – Electric Eye

      [i]”I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson”[/i]

      I am assuming that you don’t find an unjustified invasion utilizing thousands of your military’s finest and billions of your citizens tax dollars to be wasting people’s labo(u)rs under the pretense of saving them.

      “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson

      But to take billions in tax dollars from the millions who oppose the war so as to fund the war, is not compelling men to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors.

      Why? Because, it’s the USA dammit, the government overrules all, no matter how twisted the story.

      I dont see how you could have voted for him twice, especially when you support so many values that Bush doesn’t. As you say, you oppose many of his policies, now you support the philosophies he has opposed too.

      Yet you call this most unevolved display of blind patriotism your ‘CORE VALUES’,d that you based your life upon. To further the Bs, you insist others are inconsistent, are on teh fence, are not sure of thier thoughts etc. One thing I am dead form on, I have not supported the war since the beginning because of how it was justified. You can’t seem to figure out whether you support the right or left, maybe it’s teh middle, hang on…what middle ground?

      It was Kerry that you suggest ‘flip-flopped’ isn’t it?

      • #3112485

        Oz – I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Thanks, Max.

        I support the Bush administration and what they’re doing in the realm of foreign policy and the war on Islamo-Fascism. On the other hand, there’s very little that I support on the domestic front. But it’s not just the current Bush administration, but Clinton before him, and Bush (41) before him, and even Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, and especially Presidents Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt. And the congresses, both Democrat and Republican. And the courts who make policy from the bench instead of interpreting the rule of law of our land as it was intended to be.

        So no, I don’t “blame” President Bush or the Bush administration as much as I “blame” the aforementioned people — and the following:

        American voters for their narrow-sightedness, and their greed and selfishness for presuming to be entitled to that which they did not earn, and for the short-sightedness they possess for failing to see the stage of failure they have set for future generations.

        I “blame” the media for perpetuating such an agenda.

        I “blame” the past forty years of Democrat insistence, and Republican capitulation to instill more and more collectivist programs.

        I “blame” the rest of the world (Most of it, that is. See note below.) for continuing to try their socialist and collective societies, even though they have failed time and time again.

        Note: It’s interesting that most of the nations of eastern Europe, the ones who have only recently been freed from the clutches of communism, are almost all following a road that advances more individual liberty and less collectivism.

        Your message is a clear illustration of what’s wrong with politics and governance today. You look for anything and everything to criticize the “Bush administration”; however, it’s not founded in core principle, but rather partisanship, contempt and hate. Why can’t people just rest on their principles, and let the chips fall where they may? Maybe it’s because they have no principles. Or maybe they haven’t really thought about them — or been taught to think that way. Or maybe it’s because they can’t justify articulating them.

        I’m not a bit surprised that no one is willing to challenge mine with opposing views of their own. Admitting that a person feels justified in taking, by force, if necessary, something that does not belong to them is not only difficult to justify, but probably painful to admit.

        • #3112457

          I do blame bush

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Oz – I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again

          as the old say goes “the buck stops here” or more so it stops with the man in charge and that man is Dubya.

          Remember that it was Dubya that started the war and wants to start another.

          So each man who has died in the conflict has his death attributed to GWB.

          As for collectivist societies, the Ancient Greeks conquered the ancient world. They were so collectivist that Alexander had his troops marry the local women to integrate them into Greek society. Militaristic societies destroy other societies Max. Also please explain why china, a communist state is the worlds biggest economy. Go and visit Eastern Europe and see how inaccurate your ?facts? are.

          Now I don?t care which side of the political spectrum the US elects, to me they are as bad as each other but get rid of Dubya and his cronies.

          Also Max, don?t blame the rest of the world because they don?t agree with you. The US is not under foreign influence. Any hole you are in now is one dug with your own hands.

        • #3112449

          Unless you presume to be an American

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I do blame bush

          I don’t really care what you think or believe. I’m discussing issues that have an affect on people living in the United States, on American citizens, not those who neither know us, understand us, or are not one of us. I’m not looking for your opinion, Julian’s, Neil’s, Oz’s or any other non-American.

          You will probably follow your standard operating procedure, however, and try to take your usual ignorant and stupid digs at me. But I don’t really care. In short, bug-off, mate. You’re nothing but a royal pain in the ass. (But that’s your intent, isn’t it?)

        • #3112445

          4 Australian lives

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Unless you presume to be an American

          that makes him my problem.

          If you are only looking for american opinions dont post on an international forum.

        • #3112441

          You’re like the little kid. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to 4 Australian lives

          …who’s not invited to a party, but insists on making his presence known.

          I don’t care about you, what you think, or what you say. Get a clue, loser.

        • #3112361

          I’m sorry

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to You’re like the little kid. . . . .

          did I miss something,

          How did the loss of life become a childish issue?

          Then again I’m not the one who started two threads because I don?t agree with the world. Childish Indeed.

          4 Australians along with 2500 US service people, a senseless waste of human life. I truly am sorry if my humanity confuses or irritates you but you?re just going to have to deal with it.

          Clue indeed, Human life indeed has a price in Maxworld.

        • #3111911

          But

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You’re like the little kid. . . . .

          Others are supposed to be concerned about who you are what you think and what you do? Loser???

          Why, Max? Do your global policies and f-ups now only apply to Americans that share your opinion? You’re gettign too old for this, time to bronze your keyboard and call it a day.

        • #3111918

          That’s the part Max, and others, don’t comprehend

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to 4 Australian lives

          While his country is screwing itself up and takign from it’s own, nobody else cares or even has a right to voice an opinion. In fact, I care VERY little who runs America or what the socialist standards are in America, that’s not my problem and I didn’t vote for it anyway.

          But when the US administration is performing its dog and pony show in an international forum, costing lives of those in other countries, guess what, it IS other people’s business.

          If the US kept to itself it wouldn’t matter, but they don’t. They make their business everyone elses business, and feel that is just fine (‘If they don’t like it, screw them’ attitude)but if anyone utters anythign about America (unless it’s praise) they get all pissy and say it none of their business.

          Hypocrisy, makes the US go around.

        • #2602551

          China, socialism

          by mikiel ·

          In reply to I do blame bush

          Mjwx,

          Not sure what marrying the subjugated has to do with collectivism, but you?re right that militaristic governments tend to be very heavy-handed with the citizenry and individual rights ? the opposite of what you?d think a libertarian would want.

          (I?ll purposely not touch the hot Bush topic.)

          I think China is the world?s biggest economy because it has, like, one fourth the world?s population. At that size, it?s hard to go wrong with any government economy-wise. I do see its economy getting better and better as it becomes more capitalist. It?s only just now going through its industrial revolution.

          As for European socialist systems ? I share Maxwell Edison?s bias. I think that the massive socialist bent leads to many people working under the table and/or not working as hard as they could due to not getting much more take home pay when their salary increases (due to high taxation). There?s not much (or as much) incentive to try to work/earn more.

          The socialist medical system seems to yield the same or similar levels of quality (as the U.S. capitalist medical system). However, it also seems to yield very, very long waiting lists. (You see a similar result in rent-controlled apartments ? anywhere that free trade is perverted. Well, with rent control you also have a drop in quali…) However I?m still wrestling with a good solution to the U.S.?s many un- or under-insured (of which I used to be one). Perhaps that?s just a necessary side-effect of capitalism (or insurance companies).

          Not sure why Maxwell seems to dismiss comments from people outside the U.S. I think it?s very enlightening to hear from people working under alternate economic systems ? especially when discussing economic and social systems.

        • #3111930

          And there tou go again

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz – I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again

          you are the only one who has principles because you vote for what you believe in. Everyone else is blind and uneducated enough to make rash, thoughtless decisions.

          I don’t know what country you are hoping to be living in, but you shoul drealize, majority opinion is all that is needed in your most valued system of government. That majority will not always favour your views, in fact I think you will find you are the mionority more often than not.

          But hey, it’s people’s personal hatred for America, all the other countries full of safe, happy citizens that support their government’s focus that is the problem.

          Since when do other countries have an impact on the US? You do what you want to do when you want to so it and just attack anyone (verbally of physically) who feels otherwise.

          Ever heard of democracy, Max? Your core values decribe a dictatorship, of course not your government’s dictatorship (that’s what you oppose), that wouldn’t allow you freedom to do as YOU want, but a dictatorship in that YOU get to decide how you live, what constututional rules you are obligated to follow, what funding and support you should personally ofer your country (I think next week I’ll give them nothing, I need more money fo myself) because YOUR system of government is the best yet.

          What you demonsatrate as libertarian views are simply self-centered ways to look after Maxwell and f*** anyone else who can’t make it on their own.

        • #3111693

          Democracy is not. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to And there tou go again

          ….two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

          No person should be oppressed or otherwise infringed upon by a vote of the electorate.

          Your message is dripping with distractions, distortions, and lame attempts to discredit, avoiding the issue entirely (as usual).

        • #3113139

          What else

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Democracy is not. . . . . .

          HOw could I possibly expect a reasonable reply from one such as yoruself? How could you possibly reply without some flaming instead, it’s not in your nature.

        • #3113096

          I didn’t flame you in that message

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What else

          Post what I said, and point out what you consider a flame. This is just another usual dishonest diversion attempting to discredit. What you posted was total B.S.

        • #3111394

          Okay, but first learn to read

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I didn’t flame you in that message

          I didnt say you flamed ME, per se, but said ” How could you possibly reply without some flaming instead, it’s not in your nature.”

          Now, what do I consider some flaming that you simply couldn’t resist?

          [i]”Your message is dripping with distractions, distortions, and lame attempts to discredit, avoiding the issue entirely (as usual).”[/i]

          Sorry, I must have misread, you were merely slamming and discrediting my comments, not “some flaming instead”

          Yoru comprehension skills have proven to be the root of most of your poorly worded comments or knee jerk replies, perhaps you should start reading and understanding what you are reading before claiming to be so ‘in the know’.

          Perhaps if you understood what you read more often, you would have entirely different political views too.

          No, I’m not flaming you or anything else, just adding observations and suggestions.

        • #3112880

          Okay, Oz. Whatever you say, dude.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I didn’t flame you in that message


          .
          .
          .
          .

        • #3167819

          So put up or shut up

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I didn’t flame you in that message

          Too often yu are quick to discredit with no basis to support your claims. I proved where you had done some flaming, you feel that wasn’t trying to flame/discredit/banish what I had said?

          Sho wme how your comment was not a flame, I showed you how it was. Your only reply is the witless, ‘whatever dude’.

          I can only say you concede the point and I was correct in my post, yet you try so hard to make it not seem that way. A fear of being corrected or not always right, well done nice retort.

      • #3112469

        Something that must have been too obvious for you OZ

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Thanks, Max.

        [i]” When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson
        The entire planet rightly fears the current US administration and their tactics at seeking what they deem peace.”[/i]

        The “entire planet” are NOT [b]the people[/b] so what they fear or don’t has nothing to do with this statement. But good attempt at a Bush slam. You tried. Maybe next time.

        • #3112462

          I will admit it. I’m a coward

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Something that must have been too obvious for you OZ

          I am a coward. I feel like a coward.

          I believe with all my being that it’s wrong, immoral, and contrary to both the intent and spirit of our “American experiment”, and it’s at odds with the intent of the original constitution, that our government — the government of Jefferson and Madison — will take the fruits of one person’s labor for the purpose of giving those fruits to another who did not earn them.

          If I wasn’t a “coward”, I’d stand-up for my principles and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to be assimilated. (But I’m not alone. There are a lot of us out there.)

          If I had the courage of Jefferson, Madison, and Mason, I’d refuse to participate.

          However, I would spend the rest of my life rotting away in prison. So am I really a coward, or just a realist?

          I ask this, however. How does that (rotting in jail for refusing to capitulate) fit the definition and the spirit of guaranteeing the rights of individual liberty?

          The answer: It doesn’t.

        • #3112439

          coward or realist?

          by stephencairns ·

          In reply to I will admit it. I’m a coward

          Your country was born out of revolution, of people who would stand up and say no!
          So you claim their ideals but not their actions.

          But you say there are others with exactly the same feelings as yourself. Its a shame that your principles will not let you assimalate with them and do something about it.

        • #3112436

          That’s the $64,000 question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to coward or realist?

          How to find those others with exactly the same feelings as myself, and find a way for my principles (our principles) to convince and/or work (not assimalate) with them and do something about it.

          I know who we are, but we keep getting out-voted? It’s like two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner? And we’re the sheep!

        • #3112251

          The problem is

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to That’s the $64,000 question

          people with no sense of personal responsiblity learned that they could vote to get your money. They trade being subserviant to a politican in exchange for THEM using the “government” to forcibly take what they have no right to.

          This also saves the people with NO sense of personal responsiblity from having to come directly to you and beg or steal directly from you, so they don’t have to be embarrassed in public for being leaches on society rather than being a productive part of it.

        • #3112110

          – (double post) disregard

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The problem is

          .

        • #3112109
        • #3112150

          So you keep getting outvoted

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to That’s the $64,000 question

          as do Poms, Aussies, Kiwis and anyone else who lives under a two-party system but cannot align comfortably with either party.

          There IS no easy solution. Australia doesn’t have your problems because — while I am no great fan of John Howard or his treasurer Peter Costello — they do keep coming up with budget surpluses.

          History is most definitely not one of my strong points, but I think I can say with some degree of validity that things will only get better when they become so bad that there is a revolution of some kind.

          What form this revolution might take, or how far it may be into the future, of course I don’t know. But you are most certainly stuck with your current political situation — I might even refer to it as an impasse — until things get so bad that people ARE prepared to give their lives to make a significant change.

          Would you put your life on the line for what you believe, if it came to the point of a revolution? If you would not, then you are no more than a balloon full of not air.

        • #3110967

          “….a balloon full of not air…..”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So you keep getting outvoted

          That was funny. I’ll have to remember that one.

        • #3111475

          What a pathetic tactic

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to So you keep getting outvoted

          referring to an obviously understandable typo to avoid addressing the question.

          So I will ask you again. Would you put your life on the line for what you believe?

        • #3111349

          Max already has, when he was in the service

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to So you keep getting outvoted

          Weather he knew it or not. He put his country above his own safety. He could have run to Canada or Australia, but he served.

          When did you put your butt in harm’s way?

        • #3112918

          How about this for a “tactic”?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So you keep getting outvoted

          Yes

        • #3112908

          tjsanko@… – Yes, I did know

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So you keep getting outvoted

          And actually, at the time I was in the service (1972 through 1978), my life was at MORE risk in the United States. I used to ride a motorcycle (in uniform) to base, and TWICE I was harassed and literally run off the road by hippie-types shouting anti-war crap at me. Another time, while I was minding my own business having dinner at a bar and grille (again, in uniform, but at a different duty station, one with no base support), I was “strongly advised” by the bartender to hurry and finish eating because most people there did not like GIs, and I should leave for my own safety. Contrast that to today, where I have actually gone to a restaurant manager, gave him a $50 bill, and told him to “advise” that GI and his family that somebody else paid for his dinner.

          The types I encountered in the 70s are the same types of people who, today, are actually helping our enemy.

          And get this, while Julian wonders if I am willing to put my life on the line for the things I believe in, the one thing I espouse the most is doing that very thing, living one’s life without the “presumed safety” of dependency on the government. If you ask me, it’s the government-dependency proponents, like Julian, who are the real chicken-$hits — afraid to go through life without their crutch.

          Don’t you just love his smarmy messages?

        • #3112901

          Max and TJ

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to So you keep getting outvoted

          I find it facinating that Julian would even ask this question.

          But then, in my personal opinion, he is a weasel. But that’s just MY opinion.

          Max, I am so sorry that for all that you did to serve this country, it was at a time when the country was too stupid to realise what that meant to them. You wearing the uniform meant that others had the freedom to do idiotic things- like try to run you off the road.

          I, for one, am d@mned grateful to anyone who wears that uniform, past and present. Without them, we would have no ability to stand as a nation.

          Incidentally- I did notice that Julian has never been in the service. As far as I am concerned, that kind of disqualifies him in this discussion.

        • #3112893

          RE: Agressiveness towards those in the military

          by faradhi ·

          In reply to So you keep getting outvoted

          I am just barely old enough to remember that time. I was five when my father was stationed in Virginia Beach. It was the worst duty station that he was assigned.

          My mother had a very diffcult time finding a job because she was the wife of a sailor. (which was needed raising 5 kids on an enlisted mans salary) My parents had to send my older sister, brother and me to private school because the public schools treated the children of military badly. It is the only time I remember my father coming home with bruses.

          I heard stories of some people not bring their families because they did not have room in Military housing and they could not find an affordable apartment. Luckly, that was our shortest station.

          My father has told me dozens of other stories.

        • #3110973

          It’s a delicate balance

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to That’s the $64,000 question

          Give enough (money, time, work) to help, but not so much that you hurt your ability to help in the future.

        • #3111905

          I’m one of the others.

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to That’s the $64,000 question

          I agree with you completely. I know there has to be some form of government, some services have to be provide. national security, roads, waste disposal etc. but using tax dollars to provide for those that are unwilling to provide for them selves is a waste of money. I am not an expert on any of this, and don’t claim to be, but I would love to have all the social security i have paid refunded to me. while there at it they could end the income tax and change it to a national sales tax.

        • #3111843

          Even providing for the genuinely needy

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I’m one of the others.

          is a waste of tax dollars. Administrative costs eat over half (closer to two-thirds!) of everything the government takes in. If I give a needy family $100 worth of groceries, they’ll get $100 worth of groceries. When the government takes my $100, the needy family only gets about $35 worth of groceries.

        • #3112169

          Yes of course you are a coward

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to I will admit it. I’m a coward

          wasting your time and ours by ranting on in these forums where very few people take you seriously any more. In fact I am amazed that there are still a few people who actually think you are rational and honest.

          Although many great reforms have been effected by people “rotting in jail,” I would not expect you to inconvenience yourself to that extent. However you have a highly paid job and you hate the media.

          Simple solution. Publish your own newsletter. You can easily afford to get it started and you will easily attract advertising revenue from other conservatives or libertarians.

          If you spent the time you waste here actually reaching out to people who live OUTSIDE the cosy TechRepublic cacoon, you might start to get a few converts and support.

          I believe it was Lao Tzu who said “A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.” (or words to that effect).

          You have not demonstrated that you are prepared to take even the first step. Rant and rave here all you like, but you are achieving nothing.

          Max, several years ago I decided to be a part of the solution and not just an onlooker. This eventually led to me publishing my own news and current affairs website (currently dreadfully out of date) which I happen to know reaches many people around the world.

          If you don’t have the technical knowledge to build a website, I would guarantee that Oz would be more than happy to build it for you, and gratis.

          DON’T waste your time criticising the media. Publish your own media. I am deadly serious about this. It is something that is completely within the bounds of your financial situation and available time.

          In other words, get up (off your ass) or shut up.

        • #3112096

          Touche’ Julian – You are correct on (most) counts

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Yes of course you are a coward

          Your first paragraph is just one of those “discredit” or “distract” retorts I mentioned in another message. You may believe those things about me, but not only do I ignore such criticisms, I actually get quite a bit of support from others, both in these forums and by private email. A lot of people, most importantly yours truly, simply disagree with you.

          As to the rest of your message, I have no reply, except to say that you are absolutely correct. I will say this, however. My “ranting” on this particular Web site, although perhaps not the best use of my time, hasn’t been a total waste of it, since I do know, without a doubt, that I’ve touched some people, given others cause to think about such things, and, perhaps, even changed a mind or two. And it might speak for itself to point out, as an example, that yours isn’t the only Web site to reprint some of my writings.

          Besides, there may be a reason for my “ranting” on this site. There’s a lot to be said for preparation and practice for the real thing. When the opportunity presents itself, and when the time is right, I believe I’ll be prepared.

        • #3111907

          So how about Americans in opposition?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Something that must have been too obvious for you OZ

          There seem to be more opposed than for these days, but they don’t matter because they are ALL left wing loonies I suppose.

          When your country plays it’s retarded games on a a national playing field, guess what, it IS everyone’s businss, that’s the point you idiots just don’t seem to comprehend.

          Good try at a Bush slam? Nobody needs to TRY to slam Bush, hes a global laughing stock, a scary one but a laughing stock all the same.

          No wonder nobody takes America seriously anymore, at one time you were like the big, dumb cousin that was good for putting up the tire swing, now you are just a menace to the world while the everyone looks on at you shaking their heads and wondering when you’ll wake up.

        • #3111886

          Um, Oz

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to So how about Americans in opposition?

          This discussion was an exploration of what constitutes the Libertarian party. There are plenty of Bush Bash threads, this was never intended to be one of them.

          If you want to engage in a discussion regarding Mr. Bush, I would apreciate it if you did so in a forum focused on that discussion.

          Thank you.

        • #3111864

          What you missed

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Um, Oz

          or perhaps have become so used to you are blind to it, is the hypocrisy of Max’s statements here in comparisson to his suport elsewhere. MAx, decided to bring up all the famous quotes that discount his common opinions. I pointed out his hipocrisy, now you see that as Buch bashing?

          Gawd, ANYTHING not in total agreement with Americans is seen as bush bashing now?!

          He stands here and spews his pro republican crapo day in and day out, then he claims he has a libertarian viewpoint, that completely counters what he claims ar ehis core values and opposes teh government which he defends.

          Sorry mate, but that was not off topic at all. You just can’t seem to see how a political standpoint would have any relation to your current government’s actions?

        • #3111857

          I was at least polite

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to What you missed

          You were less so. I said nothing to you in that post that desreved a flame back response.

        • #3111781

          LOL that wasn’t a flame

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I was at least polite

          ee I was being somwhat restrained. You woul dhave very different opinions if you had been here a couple of years ago, it was insane.

          I was offering my reply in more of an astonished tone. ‘Not another one’ if you get my drift.

        • #3111876

          Then keep wondering

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to So how about Americans in opposition?

          because we have a government were we do something called “voting” (you may have heard of it) there are not more people against the current administration than for it. The “left wing loonies” are just more shrill, and mimicking what your ranting about, so that is all you hear.

          Had you been actually a part of this conversation, you would have seen that the quote is talking about the citizens of a country, and how they feel about their government. You are right, because this is what the quote is about, you and the rest of the world DON’T matter.

          Are there other aspects that you have a valid place to speak up? Of course, and you take them and more. This is not one of those cases.

          No wonder people don’t take YOU seriously anymore? You can’t even follow along with a simple discussion.

          I accept your apology for speaking out of line on something you are not versed on.

        • #3111858

          Time for you to take your meds?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Then keep wondering

          “Had you been actually a part of this conversation”
          Sorry, do we now title posts and invite certain like minded peers only? Better let teh editors of TR know so they can monitor the boards for nonAmerican comments. It makes it easier to feel like your comments are supported that way too , right?

          You go on about voting, what a laff, what do Americans know about voting other than they can’t seem to do it without screwing up the entire system. Next time, think of somethng you have been proven good at, that would be a brief post too wouldn’t it? TR’s shortest thread.

          I offer no apology at all for anything I have said now or ever on TR. I have no reason to apologize for having or sharng an opinion, regardless of whom or what it was with respect to.

          As for suggesting this is an American only thread, try again and give your head a good shake you arrogant putz. If I was to post something for ‘Canadians only’ you would all go to town on it, ‘this is a public forum’ ‘if you dont’ want my opinion, too bad, STFU’, ‘you posted in a ppublic forum,waaaaa’. So don’t even begin to put the initial touches on suggesting this does not concern me nor is any of my business.

          Ever heard of peer mail or even email? Judging by your comments here, I would not be shocked to hear you hadn’t.

          You also samake comment as Max used ot back in the day, third patry comments suggesting you and ‘all the others’ think this or that about me. Guess what, I have a newsflash for you, I get those letters about you and many others here too. Don’t be so f****n’ arrogant as to think you are the only one who has side conversation with peers here. We have even had one peer here that woul dplay two people against each other just to watch them flame each other. For someone who claims to know what’s going on, you sure dont come across as very bright, or at least that’s what everyoe tells me about YOU, LOL. What a fool.

        • #3111850

          Again, not reading the posts

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Time for you to take your meds?

          I never said you COULDN”T join the discussion, just that obviously you were a part of a different discussion because that was NOT the context of the quote that was being discussed. HAd you decided to read what the conversation was about and commented on that, find and dandy.

          The qoute was not an amercian quote either, but you weren’t paying attention enough to know that. It was about the population of ANY country, and how THEY feel about their government.

          And I am the one that needs meds?

          I will even repost it for you so you won’t have to take so much effort to get back on track.

          [i]When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson[/i]

          You know, as in “We the people”?

          Hmmm, I make a comment that directly reflects a handful of people opinion about you, compared to you making a comment on the ENTIRE WORLDs opinion of the ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? First, it doesn’t surprise me that you didn’t catch that, and second it shows you to be a bigger a$$ to think your arrogant statement makes you any brighter than me? At least I am not the only fool around here.

          [i]You also samake comment as Max used ot back in the day, third patry comments suggesting you and ‘all the others’ think this or that about me[/i]

          You mean like you just did about the world opinion?

          Or did you forget you just got done writing that a few minutes ago?

        • #3111777

          Not too quick with the sarcasm are you.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          ‘We the people’, yes that’s exactly what I meant.

          The people of America, the people that make up the country.

          As far as the entire world, I have yet to meet mroe than a handful of people globally that would think otherwise. The resent of anything American is far greater than the American’s resentment of France or even teh Middle East for that matter. America is just a bad word in most places, yes MOST places, around the ENTIRE WORLD.

        • #3113324

          (Oz) Yet…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          … your siblings and cousins and sons and daughters are practically beating down the door to come here…

        • #3113109

          Are they?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          I had no idea, they could come and live with me anytime. How’s cousin Paul? I haven’t heard from him in a while, I had no idea he was trying to get into the USA, nor anyone else for that matter. WHICH of my cousins, aunts, uncles etc are trying to get into the US to no avail? I call Bullspit because I know as a fact you are wrong.

          I don’t know what sources you get this info from but believe me, just because people somewhere in the world appear to be clamboring for America, they do the same for Canada, Australia and heaps of other countries too. We just don’t get it in our heads that the entire world wishes they were Canadian.

          P.S. When you say AMERICA to most Europeans, they think NORTH AMERICA, and not necessatily the USA.

          The US is the US, America is seen as Canada/USA/Mexico, NORTH AMERICA.

          Anyone I have known who actually did move to teh US from Europe (it was worthwhile in the late 70’s and early 80’s)has since moved elsewhere stating it was not what they had expected at all.

          It’s a great dog and pony show, but the truth and reality soon sinks in.

          Is America not a desireable country? NOOOOO of course not. America is a great country, with some great people. There are so many other places to go too though. Don’t kid yourself by thinking America is the place to be and everyone wishes they were there, I think they must spew that garbage to you guys to keep you from seeking refuge somewhere else.

          I suppose that’s why so many returning soldiers have since moved to Canada and started peace organizations in an attempt to get other GI’s to speak out when they return. Sure some of the gun toters have a blast, but there are many coming back with stories abotu how people are allowed to shoot civilians and not be reprimanded.

          There’s a whole lot of things you have no reason to be proud of these days, I’d be pretty quiet if I was American, but I certainly wouldn’t be shouting from the treetops about how great the country is.

        • #3111614

          The population

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          is growing faster than (births minus deaths), so yes, they are.

        • #3111391

          No wonder you get all these wierd conclusions in the USA

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          Because there is an noticable influx of immigrants to teh USA, then the USA is where everyone wants to live???

          What kind of bassackward mentality is that? What a retarded conclusion!!!

          this fits my favorite idiotic conclusion from Monty Pythons, ‘All fish swim, therefore all that lives in the ocean is a fish.”

          Man you guys are priceless sometimes! What a self infatuated lot you all are. 🙂

        • #3111380

          Emigration? People leaving America for a better life.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          Here’s an interesting article from an American Expat now living in teh Canary Islands.

          Apprentrly there is all this talk about teh immigration as that is tracked, but emigration is not. They don’t note how many people EAVE America for a better life.

          http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=59&story_id=25958&name=Why+Americans+leave+their+country

          Of course, you can take the easy way out. Ignore the comments, flame the writer and the fact that he left America fr a better life, but then again there’s reality.

          Why is it always one sided with America and never three dimensional, do they not teach people to look at multiple angles there? It just doesn’t mke sense how his mass loss of a thought process has taken over your population.

        • #3111353

          No more wierd than

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          those who claim the US is wrong to spread democracy using the ‘number of countries against it’ as an argument.

        • #3113055

          Especially adunlap

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          when you consider who many of those countries are, and what their financial stake was to appose any and everything.

          Again, look at the countries that are in charge of human rights in the UN and tell me we should give a rip about what they think?

          We keep hearing OZ railing about the Americans not seeing more than one side, but we don’t ever hear more than one side from him either. Just happens to always be on the OTHER side, is all.

          Consistantly.

        • #3112983

          Some people are afraid

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          of the US, but not for the reasons they state. They are afraid because they think that our success means their failure. Especailly the socialist types. They (and most of us too actually) haven’t caught on to the fact that a country’s strength is not in its government (no matter what form), but in its people. All forms of government are inherently evil. That’s not to say than anarchy should rule everywhere, but that government must be tightly controlled so that it cannot move contrary to the will of its people. Obviously we’re not quite there yet.

          I truly have every confidence that ‘people’ will eventually win out. The only questions are how long will it take, and how bumpy the road will be.

        • #3112934

          adunlap, spreading democracy

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          Nobody opposes spreading democracy, nobody opposes helping another country disarm terrorists and build a democratic nation…at least I don’t if that’s what you were suggesting.

          People do oppose FORCING democracy by initiating wat on all citizens good friend or foe. People do oppose invading a country and no tonly disarming terrorists but in some cases repeating their horros and killing thousands of innocent citizens also. Peope do oppose forcing you rway of governingn on another country…at least I don’t if that’s what you were suggesting.

          Especially when democracy is not the whole reason nor the justification given and supported for years now, to invade Iraq.

          Your own president went against his own word when he invaded Iraq, he had previously agreed to the use of force if needed to finish inspections.

          Your comments were refreshing in comparison to the usual flames though, thank you.

          If you were talking to someone else, oops, my bad. 🙂

        • #3112923

          jd the other side

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          Actually everyone was basically on the same side until you went against your word and invaded Iraq.

          As far as one side vs teh other.

          I am definitely on the majority vote here, and if we were to take the world and govern it with democratic principals (like the UN was supposed to be) that you feel are so important to have, then you would not be at war. the democratic vote would have been against th einvasion and perhaps, now several years later, it woul dhave been decided that an invasion was necessary….an allied invasion. this may have happened even in a few weeks/months, but you just couldn’t wait, oh well, have fun in Vietnam again. Your troops weill be there until they get tired and too thin, when they leave Iraq will slowly resort back to the nation it chooses to be, as has Afghanistan.

          You need to look back every now and then. The troops in Afghanistan are experiencing problems with the Taliban just as if the war had just began. The Afghan government (that was so trumphantly left in charge) has ousted the women, and does little to stop the Taliban. in their eyes, it’s better to have the Taliban in control than America.

          Will this repeat after 10 years of war in Iraq with tens of thousands dead? Well done.

        • #3112881

          Nobody

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Again, not reading the posts

          except those who benefit from the status quo. There are a lot of rich and powerful people around the world who don’t want anybody trying to climb [i]their[/i] mountain.

    • #3112357

      Much to my consternation…

      by mickster269 ·

      In reply to Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

      I find myself being pulled by all camps.

      Let me preface this, by saying that I was raised by parents that many of you would considere “Hippies”. My Dad was a draft dodger, and I spent some time in Canada because of that. I participated in anti-Vietnam War marches as a child. I worked for Ted Kennedy during his run for Presidency in 1980. I was (and still am) a Buddhist.

      I also enlisted in the US Army. I was trained to be a Software Programmer – But I spent time in Haiti whne we were called in in ’93.

      So I’ve been all over the spectrum.

      ” When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

      I fear the Bush Administration. They are running rampant over the common man’s Rights, according to the Bill of Rights. They are ignoring the 4th Amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.) If they think you might be suspected of “terrorist” actions, then they don’t need no warrant. They’ll search your house, tap your phones, examine your bank accounts. You are guilty, until proved innocent.

      Bush and his cronies want to tell me who I can love (Marriage Amendment), How I can protest (Flag Burning Amendment), and who I can worship (Faith-based program support.. If I ain’t Christian, I ain’t getting Federal Monies).

      Then, the freakin’ Dems want to hand money out to every sot that can’t figure out how to survive on thier own. I’mm all for extending a helping hand to those that have troubles – Breakfast for school kids, etc. But good grief, if they can’t find a job in 90 days, cut their damn welfare off.

      I want to help those that need a hand up – but I don’t want to tell them how to run thier lives. I want to support soup kitchens, but I don’t want to make that a person’s way of life.

      I want to preserve the National Parks, and I don’t want a “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska.

      Before I ramble on more… I think the two biggest problems with the USA (internally) is that we don’t want to take the blame for our actions, and we want to tell others how to live.

      ::sighs::

    • #3112112

      A misconception people have

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

      I’m not accusing you of this, jd (since you’re not doing it), but so many people in these threads use the “selfish” charge against me, or other such nonsense, and obviously believe that my motives are to protect “my money”. What a crock! What I’m trying to protect is the financial stability of the United States. And what I’m also trying to protect is the last realistic hope for individual liberty to maintain some semblance of a foothold in the United States. If the United States falls to socialism (under any misleading name or justification one wishes to call it), what hope is there for the future of our country? Russian Premier Nikita Kruschev was right. We’re destroying ourselves from within. (And for people who don’t know what I’m talking about, that’s proof that our illustrious public school systems are not teaching history, as it should be taught, and are not teaching the true concepts of individual liberty’s struggle against global socialism. If anything, the public school systems have been advancing socialism, not rejecting it.)

      We have, in the United States, at least according to the last estimates I’ve heard, upwards of 20 TRILLION dollars in unfunded mandates. That means money we’ve promised to pay, but by carrying forward current budget projections, those funds aren’t available. Social Security spending will absolutely skyrocket in the next decade or two, not to mention Medicare. Add on to that all the other social give-away programs — funding for every aspect of a person’s life from womb to tomb — wasteful and unnecessary pork projects, and other voter bribes ….. I mean promises to voters to give them something, and the United States government is committed to spending an absolutely astounding amount of money on domestic social programs. The money spent on the war in Iraq, as a comparison, is a mere fraction of what we’re facing. And what people just refuse to acknowledge is that these funds must first be taken from a person who earned them. Am I selfish? Well, if wanting to leave a financially sound country to my kids and grandkids is selfish, then you bet your ass I am. And if anyone is not “selfish”, by that definition, then their either stupid or a bona fide socialist — or both.

      We’re losing the fruits of our labor.

      We’re losing our right to speak freely.

      We’re losing our right to worship as we see fit.

      We’re losing our rights to personal property.

      We’re losing our rights to self-determination.

      We’re losing our rights to make personal decisions.

      And on and on it goes. But when a person brings these things to light, he’s faced with a plethora of criticism in every way possible except as it pertains to the REAL argument. No one will retort the principle of this issue, and no one can provide a valid counter-argument. I admit it, I’m trying to come across as the preverbal big brute who walks into a bar looking to pick a fight, knowing that he’ll kick anyone’s butt who tries. NOBODY will debate me on the true and genuine principle of individual liberty, and how it’s being totally trashed in the United States to the point of becoming non-existent. Instead of debating the REAL issue, people divert, try to discredit, deny, and/or distract. The “selfish” retort is all of them. The “blaming Bush” (for something else) argument is a distraction ploy. Come on, you big-bad socialist thinkers. Put up your mental dukes and let’s have it out! I challange any one of you to stay on-track, and debate the merits of socialism versus the merits of individual liberty — no distractions, no diversions, only true and genuine debate. And I want to debate an American, because I don’t care what they do in Canada or Australia.

      I would spend every penny I have or will ever earn, to restore, for my kids and grandkids, and for your kids and grandkids, the true concept of individual liberty in the United States. Perhaps we need another revolution. How could such a revolution be orchestrated, but one without a shot being fired in anger? We’ve all heard the rhetoric (usually from the left) about wanting to “take our country back”. Well, what they want “back” wasn’t even close to what our country ever was or intended to be. It is I who want to take our country back — back to the true concept of individual liberty being the law of the land.

      • #3112097

        “Blame Bush”

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to A misconception people have

        this stupidity of trying to blame the President for any and everything that has gone wrong in any walk of life is going to cost Michigans Gov Granholm her re-election bid. We have one of the WORST unemployement stats in the country, and she has passed this off that it is “All since President Bush took office”. Sorry sweetcheeks, but Bush doesn’t run the state, you do. And how does that account for the NATIONAL rate to be GREAT?

        It will be good to have her gone. She ran on two platforms, schools and the environment. They were also the first two things she cut when she got elected.

        I know Max, maybe if you use more 😀 and 😡 in your posts, people would like you better? ;\

        • #3112089

          Using emoticons

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “Blame Bush”

          I’ve never used one, not even once. And it’s not by accident, either. I want my words to accurately reflect any emotion or feeling behind them. If I don’t come across as intended, I need to work on how I string my words together. Something’s not as funny, for example, if I have tell someone it’s intended to be funny.

          Some people might misunderstand my intent, from time to time, but all too many of them are just using divert or distract tactics. (Notice how many people “diverted” to Bush, when this discussion topic is unrelated to any one person.)

          So no, I don’t think you’ll see any emoticons in my messages any time soon. Besides, how can I accurately point out that someone is being an idiot if I put a smiley face behind it?

        • #3112023

          For the “feel gooders” out there

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Using emoticons

          then they will get lots of warm fuzzies while they are being shown they are being id10t’s. 😀

          See how nicely that works?

        • #3110940

          Yup – emoticons

          by j.lupo ·

          In reply to For the “feel gooders” out there

          can re-enforce a particular point without using Caps, which I find very helpful when I can get them to work. I too work very hard to write effectively; however, I find I use the cruch (sp?) of emoticons. I have been told my humor is very dry and so without a little help people can’t always tell I am joking. 😉

          They also can’t tell when I am being sarcastic, angry – oh yeah that one they get. 🙂

        • #3110879

          tone

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Yup – emoticons

          is hard to convey.

          I just think Max needs some fuzzy little bunnies all over his posts. That will distract the [b]REAL[/b] wingnuts long enough to read what he wrote BEFORE going off on a rant completely unrelated to what he wrote. 😀

        • #3112068

          We really NEED her monument

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to “Blame Bush”

          to tax dollar stupidity over I-94 too. 🙂 🙂 🙂 Ah… who cares ‘f anyone likes ME. That’s why I’ve got dogs!

      • #3112090

        Hear, Hear!

        by tig2 ·

        In reply to A misconception people have

        Yes- deliberatly mis-spelled.

        I appreciate the clarification, Max. It was precisely as I anticipated from you.

        I cannot believe that people don’t get this. Worse, instead of engaging in debate by viewpoint, what I have seen rampant in this thread has been knee-jerk, “I disagree, now I shall flame you”, HORESH*T! What did I miss? When did the customs regarding intellectual debate devolve to this?

        It is sickening to me that everyone brought their preconceived notions to this discussion based on their personal opinion of a man they have never met but didn’t bother to READ and UNDERSTAND what he wrote.

        Perhaps if you have never lived in the US, you cannot appreciate that there WAS a time when the social programs weren’t necessary because society was self sufficient. I am hearing other Americans in this thread agree with Max that we shouldn’t have to fund programs that we don’t believe in. Is it a cultural thing?

        Quit with the attack posts, already. Max’s original post spoke eloquently about what being a Libertarian is and why it is important. For anyone unaware, I asked Max about it to begin with. The only reason that I didn’t post immediately was because he gave me so much good material to read and understand FIRST.

        • #3112084

          Thanks again, Tig2 – And it WAS you. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Hear, Hear!

          I started this discussion by saying, “In a recent discussion tangent, another TR member (thank you, vanessa@…) posted a link to a Libertarian Web site …..”

          That was one of your tangents, vanessa@… posted that link for you, and you did ask me to expand on my libertarian views. This discussion was intended to do just that.

        • #3112082

          Still wading through a lot of good information but…

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Thanks again, Tig2 – And it WAS you. . . . .

          I find that the person that started me thinking down that track was likely correct. What I find baffling is that Libertarian of today reads very similar to Republican of 20 odd years ago. Somewhere along the line, something fundamental shifted in the party.

          Incidentally, I can give you some pretty raw stories about how “social support” programs really work. I will never again advocate social programs as a result.

        • #3111893

          If they still

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Hear, Hear!

          don’t understand what you mean. They should pick up the book “Crimes Against Logic”

      • #3113600

        Well Said

        by jingle2 ·

        In reply to A misconception people have

        As America slides closer and closer to the edge of socialism, many of us are becoming alarmed at the lackadaisical attitude of much of the populace. Our troubles are compounded by the overwhelming rush of illegal aliens giving birth at our hospitals and walking the tab, getting free schooling and health care and making demands of our system that they didn’t even earn the right to argue over. Combine that with the awful results of President Johnson’s War on Poverty, with the re-enslavement of the majority of blacks in the nation, and the loss of the sense of responsibility to understand our country, how we got here and how we can keep it. It’s amazing that we managed to keep it together long enough for the Soviet Union to fall to pieces. We can only hope that the average American is fed up enough with this mess that we clean out the House and Senate these next election cycles, and that we put in some clear headed businessmen and thinkers that are FOR our country instead of FOR lining their pockets from their vantage point in Washington. Full speed ahead.

    • #3110885

      Another violation of personal liberty

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

      .
      The following message applies here as well.

      http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=195659&messageID=2049140

      JD proved your insurance claim was bogus, and I can show that the rest of your argument is bogus.

      I learned to drive before seat belts were standard accessories in cars. (well, I learned in an old car that didn’t have them.) When it became mandated in the mid to late 60s, I remember the public awareness campaign encouraging people to use them. The little jingle is still with me today, after all these years.

      “Buckle up for safety, buckle up. Buckle up for safety, always buckle up. Keep your seat belt snug, give an extra tug. Buckle up for safety, buckle, buckle, buckle up.”

      And do you know what? People DID buckle up. Especially when it became obvious that by using them, one’s life was placed in less risk.

      Then it became mandated that kids be buckled up.

      Then it became a secondary offense if the driver didn’t.

      Now it’s a primary offense if you don’t.

      This is an extremely egregious violation of a person’s right to choice, right to self determination, right to privacy, and to one’s individual liberty.

      It’s being used, not to “save lives”, but to generate revenue and to control the population. Once a person is pulled over for a “seat belt” violation (and, of course, it’s one person’s word against another’s), anything is open to “investigation”.

      You are an absolute fool if you are willing to give up your personal rights under the guise of “protecting you from yourself”.

      The same people who are up-in-arms (disingenuously, in my opinion) about the NSA infringing on personal rights in order to protect the nation from another terrorist attack, have no problem, whatsoever, with the egregious violations of personal rights under the guise of protecting an individual against himself. How crazy is that?

      • #3110766

        Oh no! I agree with Max!

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Another violation of personal liberty

        (with reservations, of course).

        I believe that wearing a seatbelt is likely to decrease the level of my injury in any crash – less so in these days of airbags, admittedly – so I tend to be in favour of wearing them. Rear seat belts prevent my passengers, especially children, from becoming missiles in the event or a shunt – and rear airbags are not common over here.

        So, I never drive without my seatbelt and if you are a passenger in my car you buckle up or I don’t start – particularly if you’re a rear seat passenger sitting behind me! But that is my choice in my car and so my rules. If you are so stupid as to want to drive [b]your[/b] car unbelted, then go ahead. I’ll even be a passenger if I can buckle up. I will worry a little about your common sense unless you have an airbag.

        I was biker for twenty years and I (nearly) always wore a helmet, but, you want to ride a motorbike and feel the wind in your hair, then go ahead.

        I want traffic cops to be spending their time stopping [b]other[/b] people doing things that are dangerous to [b]me[/b] – driving under the influence, talking on hand-held cellphones, running red lights, etc, etc.

        Even with our centrally-funded social medical system – where you might argue it justifiable to target groups who contribute to their own misfortune – government shouldn’t start to legislate as it doesn’t know where to stop. The UK government have done smokers and car-drivers and are now kicking off against fatties.

        [b]I know![/b] I really would like to lose some weight but stopping crisp adverts on TV before 9pm isn’t going to do it.

        OK. Now for my questions. You’ll probably think them a bit stupid, but try to answer them.

        How, in general, do you feel about making seat belts/harnesses/child seats or whatever compulsory by law for children?

        Does a Libertarian father make his children wear a setbelt or does he allow them the freedom to choose not to wear one?

        Is there an age at which your childrens’ Libertarian right to choose to be stupid outweighs your parental right to protect them?

        just asking…

        • #3110744

          FRAME THAT LAST TITLE!!!

          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to Oh no! I agree with Max!

          [i] It may never happen again![/i]

          :p

          GG

        • #3110734

          Protecting children

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Oh no! I agree with Max!

          Children arguably are a different story. They are not mature enough to understand the “what if’s”, so can not make a rational choice on their own.

          Child safety seats and such are good ideas.

          I can’t claim to say when your personal rights to stupidity overweight child protection laws, but then again, I am not a Libertarian (yet). The beliefs are in line with most of my thinking, more so than many in the Republican party, but I am realistic enough to know that all a third party does is take votes away from the party it is closest to and hands the election to the other end of the spectrum. This IS how Wild Bill Clinton go in office in the first place. Ross took enough votes from Bush sr. to hand it over.

        • #3111923

          Protecting?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Protecting children

          Most laws involving children are simply methods that the government can use to get more money out of us (after all, it can’t be bad….. it’s “for the little children”). That’s why, for example, the overwhelming majority of the time, the custody of the children in divorce is given to the parent with the lowest income (that way there will be more child support ordered, and the government’s cut will be bigger).

          If they were really interested in the safety of children, they would remove abused and neglected children from their parents and never give them back! But, like many other phases in the law books “the best interest of the child” is just lip service (in this case it really means “best interest of the state”).

        • #3111870

          While not a big fan

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Protecting?

          of the WAY the government does MOST things, I HAVE to believe that MANY of the programs really are intended to be good?

          Support, the “friend of the court” wanted me to give the EX a token amount of support, even though we have equally shared physical custody. Why? Because they get money based on the number of claims they handle. I KNOW that the best interest of the children is NOT what these agencies are looking at. To give full custody to a welfare mother over a working dad (I have seen this) because with her not working, she has TIME to take care of the kids? How about which is a more healthy environment for the child to grow up in?

          Thank GOD that at least in Michigan things are changing because of major lobbying groups for mens rights.

          Specifically to seatbelts and car seats for babies, do you think that is in THEIR best interest? I do.

        • #3111831

          Babies.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to While not a big fan

          I do too, I just am cynical of the government’s reasons, especially when it comes to “human services” of any kind. They have a vested interest in “being needed”.

        • #3111947

          BLIZZARD IN HELL: Global Warming Suspected

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Oh no! I agree with Max!

          Sorry that you agree with me, Neil, but it?s bound to happen from time to time.

          Your questions:

          [i]”Does a Libertarian father make his children wear a seatbelt or does he allow them the freedom to choose not to wear one?”[/i]

          It?s my political philosophy that leans libertarian, not my parenting philosophy. As a parent, to put it in political terms, I believe in a dictatorship. (See parenting note below, which is included in my answer to your last question.) Since I’m responsible for my kids, I decide, not the kids. Some things are non-negotiable. My son wears his seatbelt — end of story. (Besides, now that it?s ?the law? in my state, I don?t want to be inconvenienced and/or taxed …. I mean, fined, when our local Police Department decides to launch one of its revenue generating drives …. I mean one of their ?click it or ticket? efforts.)

          [i]”How, in general, do you feel about making seat belts/harnesses/child seats or whatever compulsory by law for children?”[/i]

          Regardless of which way a person answers this question, some sort of undesirable outcome will result. Which bad choice do you want to make? Do I want innocent children to be placed at risk? Of course not. Do I want the government determining what is risky and/or what a parent may or may not do? Of course not. Therefore, this is a case where I don?t ask what I want, but what I want more.

          It?s a difficult question, because when we have a society in which other people decide how one’s kids should be raised, protected, cared for, etc., it runs the risk of opening the floodgates of government interference in child rearing, and it means that someone else gets to decide what may or may not be “the responsible” thing to do, regardless of the issue. Do we protect kids from the actions and behaviors of their stupid parents? Who gets to define what may or may not be stupid? And what about those people, the lawmakers and/or the voters, who do decide such a thing? Are there any ?stupid parents? among that group of people? Of course there are. Do we give those other people, some of whom are obviously stupid, decision-making power over every parent just to make sure they have decision-making power over stupid parents — especially considering these people just might be stupid parents themselves? I don?t think so.

          The emotional way to answer your question is to make it a law to buckle-up children. The rational way to answer the question, however, is to acknowledge that it?s just not their decision to make. Doing something ?for the children? has become a common battle cry of the political left. Doing it ?for the children? seems to be their reason for everything. The Kennedys didn?t do a great job raising their children, unless you think dysfunctional drunks and debauchers is a good outcome. Those people have no business sticking their noses into my business. If it means we give stupid parents the right to be stupid parents, then so be it.

          Different parents allow their kids to take different risks. It?s not only with seatbelts, but bicycle helmets and skateboards as well. What about the kids who ski or rock climb? What about playing sports, such as the American version of football? If we let the government and the voters (some of whom are stupid, you know) decide that some things are too risky, then we open the door for allowing them to decide about all things that might be risky. Therefore, it gets to my initial question, what do I want more? And while I want innocent kids to be protected from their stupid parents, I want more for all parents to be protected from stupid lawmakers.

          Disclaimer: While I?m against a law, I?m all in favor of encouragement, public service announcements, and so on. Most ALL parents will be responsible. Don?t punish, stigmatize, or insult the responsible ones, in order to deal with the irresponsible ones.

          [i]”Is there an age at which your childrens’ Libertarian right to choose to be stupid outweighs your parental right to protect them?”[/i]

          This answer falls under the category of my basic parenting philosophy. Yes, a dictatorship, of sorts, but one that also gives responsibility to the kids as they become capable to handle such responsibility. A parent has (or should take) full and total responsibility for their kids from the start. The challenging aspect of that, however, is not ALWAYS taking and keeping that responsibility, but letting it go, knowing when to let it go, and, perhaps, even reigning it back in when necessary.

          In the early stages of development, that child isn’t capable of taking enough responsibility to even feed himself or go to the bathroom by himself. Eventually, a parent relinquishes that kind of responsibility to the kid. Pretty soon, the kid becomes responsible enough to cross the street, to ride his bike without supervision, and so on. If gets especially challenging with teenagers, because they want all sorts of leeway to be responsible for themselves, but sometimes they just can?t handle it yet.

          I even explain it in these terms to my own son (and to the other teenage boys that I work with in the scouting program). The goal of a parent, at least in my estimation, is to reach the point when ALL responsibility can be passed on to the kid, so that when the kid reaches adulthood, he/she is released into society as a responsible adult. Personally, I probably have a tendency to give more, not less. I?ve found that kids, generally speaking, will try to meet the expectations placed upon them. (And this is why you should NEVER expect a child to fail!) I?ll give (relinquish) as much responsibility as the kid shows he?s not only willing to accept, but also capable of accepting.

          If my son, for example, wants to take full and total responsibility for managing his own schoolwork without checking and monitoring from me, fine, I?ll give it to him. However, I expect him to get ALL A?s and B?s, keep his GPA at around 3.2 or better, and not get any bad reports from his teachers. If he does that, it?s all his. If he falls short of what?s expected of him, I?ll reign it back in and start monitoring what he does and how he does it. I have this approach with just about everything.

          In the case of seatbelts, the rule is that when he drives my car, he wears a seatbelt. If he ever gets a ticket for not doing it, he knows he?ll lose the right to drive my car. I have another rule, by the way. He will never get into a car when the driver has been drinking ? NEVER. And I?ve made a deal with him. If he ever finds himself in such a position, regardless of the circumstances, he should call me to come and get him, regardless of where he is or the time of day/night; and if he does, he will never get into any trouble for doing it, regardless of the circumstances.

          Personally speaking, I think I?m well on the way to releasing a responsible adult into society. At sixteen, he takes on a lot of responsibility himself, and although not perfect, he handles it pretty well. And I think he’ll always choose to wear his seatbelt.

        • #3111929

          Again, you make a very good argument..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to BLIZZARD IN HELL: Global Warming Suspected

          I agree, opening the floodgates to allow lawmakers dictate how we raise our children is frightening.

          However, couldn’t this (seatbelt issue) fall under a negligence category? I don’t think there is any doubt that a parent who leaves a toddler alone should be charged with a crime. Or parents who take spanking to a physical abuse stage. What makes this so different? All these things can lead to serious injury or death.

          It takes so little for a child to be injured in a car. A few months ago, we went out to dinner and after we pulled in the parking lot, my son took his seatbelt off. Neither his father or I noticed that it was unbuckled. Now, we’re traveling at ‘parking lot’ speed, and someone whipped their car around and was nose to nose with us. My husband slammed on the brakes and Joey flew into the back of my seat. Fortunately, he was just shook up and not hurt. Had he been more toward the middle, he could have flown between the seats and been seriously injured. Needless to say, he understands now that the seatbelt stays fastened until the car is parked.

          Max, I really do understand and agree with most of what your saying. I just don’t think requiring carseats and seatbelts for infants and children is in the same league with extreme sports.

        • #3111875

          Your example shows how a responsible parent. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Again, you make a very good argument..

          …could be punished (fined) for being forgetful or distracted. In my state, you’d be fined $100 for what you described. I’m sure you don’t deserve such a thing.

          I can’t argue against the logic of using a seatbelt. Of course it makes sense. I use them myself. But this nannyism imposed on people by government has to stop somewhere, or it’ll never stop. Actually, it’s already gone too far — and that’s why we’re having this discussion.

        • #3111871

          By the way, I don’t believe in spanking. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Again, you make a very good argument..

          ….I never did spank my son, not even once. I don’t believe in it.

          Actually, come to think of it, I don’t think anybody should spank their kids. You never know when a parent might go too far, so we must not allow it to happen at all.

          I think I’ll start a petition drive and/or lobby my lawmakers to have a law to outlaw spanking, and that would define any and all forms of spanking as child abuse.

          It’s “for the children”, you know.

        • #3111854

          Max..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to By the way, I don’t believe in spanking. . . . .

          Like you, I do not believing in spanking. I think it’s bullying and lazy, there are better and more productive ways to discipline. And I think people who spank very small children should stick their hands in a blender.

          With that being said, if you DO choose to spank, then you also make the choice of going from discipline to abuse. (although personally, I don’t think that’s a far stretch). However, the seatbelt issue is different. If you don’t put your infant in a car seat and an accident, totally out of your control, causes your infant to turn into a little baby rocket and crash through the windshield, then you are guilty of neglect. No different than leaving a two year old unattended for a week, or something of the sort. Maybe that’s not the best comparison, but it’s in the ballpark.

          And yes, had Joey been injured(or not)and we were fined, I would have paid it without complaint, the fact that we didn’t notice he had already taken off his seatbelt doesn’t make us any less responsible.

        • #3111851

          By the way. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max..

          …you did know that my “spanking” message was sarcasm, didn’t you? (Maybe jd is right, and I should use those smiley faces.)

        • #3111840

          Nope..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Max..

          I took you at your word. Oh well, Max, this will just have to be something else we disagree on..

          Of course, on my spreadsheet, the columns are titled “I’m right” and “he’s wrong” 🙂

          Please note..smiley face added..

        • #3111836

          Mae – But we do agree. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max..

          that spanking isn’t a good way to discipline kids! And we actually always agree to disagree with everything we disagree on, don’t you agree?

        • #3111832

          huh?

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Max..

          Mr. Edison, you are confusing me. Did I misread something? Argh.

          I’m going to change my mind about spanking. You need a good one.

          And the first person to turn that into a sexual thing gets a thump on the head..

        • #3113385

          Spanking isn’t always the answer…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to By the way, I don’t believe in spanking. . . . .

          I have rarely resorted to spanking.

          I believe that several times it was necessary for my kids to be spanked for their own good.

          I have 4 very good kids.

          The daughter (oldest) refused to stop biting younger brother (12 months 2 weeks younger) She would go berserk and bite him wickedly. She was punished repeatedly by many other means. Until she was 6 we didn’t spank her, even biting back wouldn’t do it. (John tried) Mel was 5’5″ 155# at age 10. John was small and 70 pounds at 10th birthday. (now a 20 yr old 6’+ 150# still growing) It took several episodes with the belt to convince her not to bite. Son John one year for endangering
          all of us. Temper tantrums in two year olds are dangerous, only to themselves. Adults, and adolescents others can hurt or kill others.

          Just because someone gets more attention, or is smarter than you it is no reason to bite.

          Sorry OZ. That goes for you too. I’d take the belt to you, but you’d probably get arroused.

          The purpose of discipline isn’t to enforce your will on your child, it is to build a foundation of discipline that will bless them their entire life.

        • #3113321

          Me too

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Spanking isn’t always the answer…

          I rarely spank, I think using too often and it has less impact. But I reserve the right. And I do think some peopel take it too far and injure the child, physically or mentally.

          I have 3 good kids. But one got in the habit of undoing their seatbelt and opening the door when the car was moving. After escalating up the punishments, we went to spanking and the lesson stuck. Same thing with fighting.

          I haven’t spanked one of them in 3 or 4 years. They are currently 12, 10 and 8.

          Its one of those things, before I was a parent I swore I would never spank. I still try to keep it as a last resort, and never in anger. But as long as its used judiciously, I think it can be a benefit – like many things it can be abused in the wrong circumstances.

          james

        • #3113258

          I just

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to By the way, I don’t believe in spanking. . . . .

          point to the successful people in the community and ask “Were you ever spanked as a child?”

          Yes, it, like anything else, can be overdone. A good parent doesn’t overdo it. A good parent also shouldn’t be restricted from doing something a bad parent does.

          I remember second grade… if one kid got caught with chewing gum, we all stayed in from recess… it was bad policy then, and it’s worse when the government does it to adults.

        • #3111551

          You Betcha.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I just

          Dead on!

        • #3111550

          Hmm

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to I just

          So..if a good parent shouldn’t be restricted from doing something a bad parent does..doesn’t that mean that the good parent would do bad parent things and then become a bad parent?

        • #3111531

          Mae

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I just

          Yes, I can see where that didn’t come out exactly right.

          How about:

          A good parent shouldn’t be restricted from doing something responsibly that a bad parent does irresponsibly.

          (something similar could be said about most of the restrictions the government places upon us.)

        • #3111521

          I knew

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to I just

          what you meant..I just couldn’t help myself. 🙂

          I definitely have my opinions on spanking, but to each his own. I don’t think a person’s views on the subject makes a good or bad parent and I think children can grow up happy and healthy either way.

          I STILL contend that parents who don’t secure their children in a moving vehicle are negligent..

        • #3111504

          Actually it’s worse.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I just

          Negligence implies not knowing what one should have known. This is more along the lines of wanton disregard!

        • #3111862

          How in the heck did any of us survive OUR childhood?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Again, you make a very good argument..

          I NEVER wore a seatbelt when I was a kid. In fact, I even – GASP – rode in the back of pickup trucks! One of the highlights of my childhood is when I was flying down the highway in an MGA convertible (a 1958 model, I believe), with an older sister driving, and FOUR of us kids piled inside. Of course, the top was down, even though it was the dead of winter, and the car was designed to only hold two passengers, but who cares? It was a blast!

          Damn, if all these protections are to save the children, how in the heck did any of my generation survive? We weren’t saved. We should all be dead!

        • #3111853

          No kidding..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to How in the heck did any of us survive OUR childhood?

          and no one wore head gear when riding a bicycle, either. I don’t know any statistics on this, but I’d be willing to bet that a lot of children have escaped serious injury since they’ve become more popular.

          And just because we escaped serious injury, doesn’t mean that precautions are worthless. As far as I’m concerned, there is no excuse for neglecting the safety of your children.

        • #3111846

          It’s interesting that. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No kidding..

          …I present a flawless argument, one that nobody can possibly disagree with, one based on sound principle and reasoning, but it’s not convincing enough to change someone’s mind.

          I think it shows that we’ve become an issue driven society, not a principle based society. It shows how emotion can trump reason. It doesn’t matter that two different issue decisions might be in contradiction to a common principle.

          Kinda’ like stealing. Is it right or wrong? Or does it depend on the circumstances?

          The role of government is not to be the parent of the nation’s children. I’m sure you would agree. I’m willing to rest on that principle, and let the chips fall where they may. You’re not. But you’re not alone, and that what makes these kinds of debates frustrating. I think it’s sad, however, when principle loses to issues. And I think that’s why our country is in such a domestic mess. (And global mess as well, for that matter.)

        • #3111837

          A bike helmet saved my life

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to No kidding..

          I hear all the time from other riders that they don’t need a helmet because they ride well and they dont fall.

          Well about 15 years ago(in my late 20s) I was riding down a road with a large number of parked cars along it. Someone backed out of a laneway without seeing me, and I had nowhere to go since there was a car in the oncoming lane. I hit the car and then fell to the pavement. My head was last to hit but smacked down hard, shattering it on the sidewalk. I walked away with a sprain and some road rash, and a throbbing headache. Could have been much worse.

          I am with you on making kids wear helmets and seatbelts – if they haven’t reached the age of consent, then they don’t have the capacity to make their own rational decisions, and I would prefer not to make them pay for their parents mistakes.

          And while I am in favour of adults making rational choices, and paying for the consequences of their actions, I’d have to see other laws change before repealing the laws.

          How about this. No mandatory laws. But give the insurance companies (boo hisss) the ability to descriminate. If you are wearing your seatbelt – fine and dandy. If you aren’t you are on your own. Cause I don’t want to pay higher premiums for YOUR stupidity. I feel the same way about smoking by the way. If you get lung cancer, dont charge the insurance company and raise my rates.

          Well perhaps I exagerate for effect. I’m more of the love the sinner, hate the sin type.

          But there are doctors in Canada who will exclude smokers from transplants because smokers have a lower rate of transplant success. If I were on the transplant list for an organ more precious than any material good, and I am given this gift, shouldn’t I do everything I can to make it a success. If I don’t want to do that, shouldn’t I let someone who will – after all they don’t give kidney transplants to people who drink heavily.

          Something to think about.

          James

        • #3111835

          Yes..it IS frustrating.. :)

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to No kidding..

          Okay. If a parent leaves an infant or toddler alone, is that neglect? And if so, are the laws regarding that neglect valid? Or is that intruding?

          If you believe that it is the parents right to leave a child to fend for themselves, I will accept what you are saying. I might not agree, but I will accept it. If you agree that there SHOULD be laws against neglecting a child, why on Earth would requiring a carseat or seatbelt be excluded?

          By the way..I KNOW I’m not going to ‘win’ this debate, I will freely admit that I am not at your level when it comes to debating skills..but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna quit.

        • #3111824

          Mae, on this you are absolutely correct

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to No kidding..

          Unfortunately, regardless of the laws that are made, or the social programmes designed to protect children, or anything else, bad parents abound.

          When I was teaching High School I had a student that had been molested by a family member. Obviously against the law- but it was a family member.

          She was the perfect student, 4.0 GPA, graduated first in her class, full ride scholarship to a UC (University of California), and bulemic through High School. And suicidal after her first semester in college.

          And I have to say, her parents were guilty of not understanding, not knowing the core issue, feeling helpless to do anything because they honestly feared that they would lose their daughter because SOMEONE ELSE had done something wrong. And they did what they thought was right- got her psychiatric help, tried to be supportive. She tried to kill herself over Spring Break anyway. Not (Praise God) successfully- she was found in time.

          Sometimes the laws do more harm than good. You can’t legislate good parenting. But you can make laws that are so frightening that the average person doesn’t understand them, doesn’t understand that THEY won’t be held accountable for another person’s actions.

          My former student is doing well, majored in International Business, speaks French, Italian, Spanish, German, Japanese, and Phillipine. Found a wonderful man, has a couple of cats and is a rising star in her work world. She tells me that she wants to get her MBA. I am thankful that she was able to get the help she needed.

          You KNOW to protect your son. So many, despite programs, don’t or won’t. As has been pointed out regarding gun control, the law abiding citizen will care and comply. They would have anyway. The non law abiding citizen will simply NOT care.

        • #3111766

          Including too many things under one umbrella

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No kidding..

          When is the charge of racism not really racism? Well, in today’s world, about 99 percent of the time the charge is made.

          When is neglect not really neglect?

          Too many things are being placed under the umbrella of something else in order to justify a desired end result or, in this case, a flawed argument.

          Do I think leaving a toddler home alone for three days and three nights is neglect? Of course I do. Do I think leaving a toddler alone in a backyard with nothing but grass and a six foot privacy fence for three minutes constitutes neglect? Probably not. How about if there’s a swimming pool in the back yard? Well, that probably is, but if the child drowns in the pool, the parent probably wouldn’t be charged with neglect.

          A home has stairs, but the parents don’t buy a gate to prevent the toddler from falling down the stairs. There ought to be a law, right?

          A home has an electrical socket and a screwdriver laying on the coffee table (quite a visual!). There ought to be a law, right?

          A home has a cabinet under the sink that holds some very inviting-looking cleaning solvents, but there’s no block on the cabinet. There ought to be a law, right?

          Stupidity does not equal neglect. Failing to buckle-up a child is stupidity, not neglect.

          If we had a law against everything stupid, we’d all be in jail.

        • #3111761

          Mae – Don’t change your mind

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No kidding..

          I really don’t want you to change your mind. People like you make sure that too many things don’t fall through the cracks. People like me make sure the cracks don’t get too big. Finding balance is the challenge. And out of all the people who disagree, I have no problem with the balance you and I seem to have found.

          (I’m not exactly sure what that means, but it sure sounded good. …… Place a smiley face here.)

        • #3113381

          Change my mind?

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to No kidding..

          Not a chance. Why would I when I’m right?

          You make a good point with your electrical outlets and screwdrivers and such, you really do. And I agree, leaving a child in a fenced in back yard for a few minutes probably isn’t a bad thing. (would never happen at my house, because my husband is an over-protective freak) However, I still contend that neglect is neglect. That being the car seat/seat belt issue being in the same ballpark as leaving a child alone. And there isn’t ANY way anyone could convince me that people don’t know how important it is to secure children while in a moving vehicle. Hell, they have programs to GIVE away car seats if you can’t afford one.

          I think the difference is, accidents happen. Even car wrecks can’t always be avoided, however, NOT securing your child is not an accident, it’s willful neglect.

        • #3113267

          This constitutes neglect, but no charges filed

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No kidding..

          .
          http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/14926060.htm

          What does that say?

          It’s a good thing for the mother that the baby died in a car seat. If there wasn’t a car seat, this mother would be in deep doo-doo. (Yes, sarcastic, but intended to make a point.)

        • #3111849

          Well Max we didn’t have to dodge Dinosaurs

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to How in the heck did any of us survive OUR childhood?

          I remember when it was legal to ride in the back of a pickup, but illegal to sit on tailgate (when it was down) while the truck was driving down the road. Some of us did anyway. Darwin would have something to say about that.

          But it gets better….I rode on a plow once. Was helping a farmer with the field and needed more weight on the plow to get through thick muck. Instead of going back for a few concrete blocks, I sat on the plow. If I had fallen forward there is no doubt in my mind that I would have been sliced in two.

          Does anyone remember a Volkwagen 411? Bigger than a Beetle, but still small. In high school one of my friends had one, and we packed 11 of us into it for a 8 block drive to a local pizza place.

          Growing up in farm country you learn to have respect for heavy equipment and big animals. Otherwise we would be dead.

          James

        • #3111755

          Times have indeed changed

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Well Max we didn’t have to dodge Dinosaurs

          Some things are for the better, but others are not. I’m not sure, however, how to tell them apart.

          I grew up in a mid-sized city in the mid-west. (Hint: The city and state often got confused!) When I was 10 years old, I would ride the bus, alone, dozens of miles, clear over to the farthest suburb or to the town at the end of the line, just to explore. (Another hint: I could have walked up to Harry Truman’s front porch, knocked on his door, and had a little chat with the former president — if only I knew then what I know now.) I got my first real job when I was in the 5th grade. I got my second real job when I was in the 7th grade. At times, I did both jobs simultaneously. I was driving a car at fifteen, one that I bought with my own money; and I worked on it myself to keep it going. I got picked-up by the local cop as well (who knew me by first name), when I was fifteen for driving without a license. He called my parents to come and get me — after, of course, he gave me the chewing out of a lifetime.

          It’s amazing what we did as kids, things that are almost unheard of today — and things that might even get our parents arrested and land us in foster homes! Like I said, I don’t know how to tell the difference between what’s good about that and what’s bad.

        • #3111395

          Max

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Well Max we didn’t have to dodge Dinosaurs

          I lived in Kansas City for a little over a year. (Blue Springs, actually). I don’t know if it was because I really disliked my job while I was there, but I don’t have a lot of fond memories of KC. I did like the West Port area, and we saw some good shows at the Grand Emporium.

        • #3111508

          Ah well childhood :)

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to How in the heck did any of us survive OUR childhood?

          We could play on the streets, seek and hide blind-man, football, hockey, etc etc.
          2 or 3 bicycles every ten minutes, 1 bike every 20 minutes, a car every hour. Yes streets were crowded in those day’s. 😀

          Well I remember we had a station-wagon where the back windshield could be down. We hanged out on the bar, while dad drove us to the beach, with our dog next to us. Had lots of fun and all went well. If you would try to do it these days we all would be like mashed potatoes by the time we reached the beach.

          Times have been changing very quickly. And things we did as kids can’t be done now-a-day’s. Some for the good some for the bad but I think that none of the kids of now nor then will look back and think “what a rotten childhood I had”.

          Rob

        • #3112882

          Especially

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Ah well childhood :)

          if they like the person that childhood helped to create!

        • #3111033

          The Fundamental Contradiction of the Democratic Nanny State

          by themonster ·

          In reply to BLIZZARD IN HELL: Global Warming Suspected

          “And what about those people, the lawmakers and/or the voters, who do decide such a thing? Are there any ?stupid parents? among that group of people? Of course there are. Do we give those other people, some of whom are obviously stupid, decision-making power over every parent just to make sure they have decision-making power over stupid parents — especially considering these people just might be stupid parents themselves? I don?t think so.”

          This is the one that’s always stumped me. I have gone so far as to name it “The Fundamental Contradiction of the Democratic Nanny State”, and it is basically your above line of questioning boiled down to this:

          How can a person who is not competent to make decisions in his own life, or on behalf of his children, walk into a polling place and through some mystical transubstantiation become an infallible judge of how EVERYONE’s life should be lived, whether via direct enactment of the laws in question via referenda, or be electing representatives to do it on his behalf?

          It seems to me that there are two broad classes of people who buy into this mentality:
          1. Those who have been persuaded that they truly aren’t competent to make these decisions, and need Nanny to keep them safe and secure.
          2. Those who think they’d make good Nannies.

          Lest anyone interpret this diatribe as a partisan attack against Big-D Democrats (who want the government to be your Mommy), the exact same logic applies to the Big-R Republicans (who want it to be your Daddy). I would prefer that people just grow the hell up.

          In closing, I’ll leave you with the money line from Sunshine, by Jonathan Edwards: “He can’t even run his own life; I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine!”

        • #3167006

          I’ve got another one for you.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The Fundamental Contradiction of the Democratic Nanny State

          Children’s services gets a report of abuse or neglect, severe enough to warrant removal of the children. It goes to court and the court declares the mother unfit. The court then asks the mother [i][b]”Is there a relative or someone else you prefer the children be placed with?”[/b][/i]

          Does anyone see the logical flaw(s)?

      • #3110735

        You’re right..

        by maecuff ·

        In reply to Another violation of personal liberty

        That is crazy. I don’t like being told what to do to protect myself. I’m all grown up and can make those decisions for myself, thank you.

        With that being said…

        I cannot STAND to see a moving car with a child standing in the back seat or sitting on someone’s lap in the front seat. If the parent can’t or won’t protect these children, then someone should. I’m sure an argument can be made regarding individual parent’s responsibility toward their children and accepting responsibility when their children shoot through the windshield of a car. But these kids aren’t objects. They are humans, they aren’t owned by their parents. And when they are so very young, they CAN’T make the decision to be safe. I guess, the parent could be tried and sent to jail if their kids launches from the car and splatters on the road, but that doesn’t do much for the little human being who didn’t deserve to have that happen in the first place.

        As far as adult go, If its your choice to not protect yourself, I say don’t wear a helmut, safety belt, whatever. Same goes for choices regarding alcohol, drugs..unless you are impaired and harm another person, have at it.

      • #3111928

        More interesting stuff

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Another violation of personal liberty

        Look up “Libertarian” and “Liberal” in the dictionary. The definitions aren’t that far apart. The real world is obviously not a dictionary though 🙂

        • #3111924

          When the term Liberal was originally coined

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to More interesting stuff

          It was “pro business”, as the status quo was the landed gentry aristocracy. The Liberals in England were those who sought to open up commerce and create a free and open market. The conservatives were mostly the titled and rich who did not want change.

          So the position vis a vis change isn’t different, just the goalposts have moved for the ideals of liberty.

          James

        • #3111856

          Yes, it is interesting. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to More interesting stuff

          …how “liberal” has come to mean something different. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat! There’s no way that today’s Democrat Party is the party of Jefferson — not even close.

        • #3113299

          and

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yes, it is interesting. . . . . .

          The Republicans aren’t exactly Abe Lincoln either 🙂

      • #3111753

        Australia has a lot of nannying laws

        by mjwx ·

        In reply to Another violation of personal liberty

        The ones I have the most problems with are the ones based on “morals” which dictate that certain movies cant be watched. Now I’m all for an advisory commission to put ratings on the cover to help parents decide what is and is not suitable. Most of these moralistic nanny laws are based in Christian ideals (but let?s not get into a religious argument here). The government has no business restricting the sale of literature (movies books and music) based on their moral code.

        Now as for personal stupidity, this used to be punishment enough for itself. Then people started crying about (helmets seatbelts ect…) and for the most part it was not the victims or parents of victims that did the crying. The phrase “the empty can rattles the most” applies to these people. I find stupidity can separate the wheat from the chaff. Oddly enough I agree with you, I think anyone with half a brain would.

        Now, I find regulation of products, such as your car for safety is needed as not all companies can be trusted to work in the customer?s best interest. Rules must be set for things to ensure manufactures aren?t making a dangerous product (not wealth distribution amongst the industry).

    • #3112782

      One conclusion…

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

      Max,

      Being a Libertarian is a losing proposition. This is and probably always will be a two-party system, and as others have said, the best that can be hoped for is a role as spoiler. I think the thing to do instead, is join the one of the two parties that is closest to your beliefs, and lobby hard for adoption of the best of the Libertarian platform into the platform of your chosen party. Perhaps then, the middle majority will actually have a say in things.

      • #3112779

        I agree 100 percent. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to One conclusion…

        …and that’s why I’ve said, on many occasions, that although I’m a libertarian in principle, I’d never vote for a libertarian candidate. I still hold out hope that the Republican Party can still be converted (or reverted), from within, to its more libertarian-leaning core principles and roots of Barry Goldwater. He was the last one, at least at the “presidential” level. On a lower level, so was Newt Gingrich; and so is Tom Tancredo. So perhaps there’s hope.

        • #3111337

          There’s always hope.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to I agree 100 percent. . . . .

          Do you need references and links? I don’t think you do.

          Where’s that blog? (poke)(prod)(kick)

          Tomorrow, Tomorrow
          I love you, Tomorrow.
          You’re only a day a-waaaaaaay!

          (I had to do it. It’s the caffeine.)

        • #3111329

          I understand. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to There’s always hope.

          Maybe the sun’l come up

    • #3111249

      Charity or social welfare?

      by colonel panijk ·

      In reply to Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

      It occurs to me that the reason we have shifted over the burden of taking care of those less fortunate from charity to government may be this: as our personal wealth has increased (in general), we become more and more uncomfortable with those we see begging in the streets. We are more comfortable with (or perhaps, resigned to) the government dipping into our pockets (taxes) to pay social benefits than having to face the guilt over our good fortune and dip into our own pockets to pay directly for the needy (charity). That is, we’re another step removed from having to deal with the needy.

      I’m not saying that public social welfare programs are better than private charity, or vice-versa. I really don’t know how to call this one. Certainly, only some far-out fringe type is happy to pay for those who simply [i]refuse[/i] to work. For the rest of the [i]truly[/i] needy, we can ask, “Why were social welfare programs put in place?” The answer, most probably, is that private charity was unequal to the task. This may have been an artifact of the widespread destitution in the Great Depression, and no longer valid.

      If we were to eliminate welfare, food stamps, Social Security (try touching [i]that[/i] third rail, Mr. Politician!), and all other entitlements, could private charity pick up the burden? Are we going to put anyone who refuses to work up against the wall and ventilate them? What constitutes “able but unwilling”? If I’m trained as a programmer, but unable to find work because my job has gone to India, should I be forced to do some work I can’t stand (“Would you like fries with that?”)? Should the government pay to retrain me into some other professional work, or is that forbidden by Libertarian principles?

      What if people were not willing to donate sufficient amounts to charity to take care of the needy? Do we let them starve? What constitutes “sufficient” — enough to leave them clothed in rags and barely alive, or enough to have a somewhat “decent” standard of living? I get the impression that pre-welfare state, the former condition was more likely, especially if someone didn’t have close family to take them in. Is the Libertarian Credo “God wills your suffering” or is it “There but for the Grace of God go I”?

      I’m not happy about paying taxes, and I’m furious about waste, fraud, corruption, and mismanagement in government social welfare programs. Can they be cleaned up and run efficiently, limited to those who truly deserve help, and helping only to the point of a “decent” lifestyle (plus help in (re)training to get a good job)? Or should we dump the whole burden on private charity and expect people to dig into their pockets voluntarily? What happens if they don’t? Do [b]you[/b] want to face swarms of hungry beggars?

      I just don’t know what the answer is. Would I pay the same amount out-of-pocket for the two systems? Would tax deductions continue for charitable donations? Is one system more or less demeaning to the recipient than the other? Does anyone care? If charity handouts are more demeaning, does that drive better behavior (i.e., getting out there and looking for a job)? After 70 years of New Deal and 40 years of Great Society, could it be done? Or have our “lower” classes rotted away like Russian society did under 70 years of Communism?

      • #3111233

        wrong on some very basic points

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Charity or social welfare?

        To start, it is convenent to have this lable “less fortunate”. Your fortune is based on YOUR efforts, correct? People that do not put forward that same effort do not DESERVE the same fortune.

        Guilt? No one in their right mind should EVER feel guilty for doing something well. If you lied and cheated your way to wealth, ok, you got some guilt to deal with. Those of us that busted out butts to get what we have DESERVE everything we can get.

        Would we give away as much if the government wasn’t TAKING it away from us? Again, way off the point. If you have more money, you SPEND more money. If you spend more money, people that sell the services you buy are prosperous and THEY spend money.

        Us keeping the money flowing in our communities is what creates jobs for those that want them. Those that don’t want them, you throw them a life saver. They don’t grab that life saver, they sink.

        If you notice, back in the fifties and sixties, there were a lot of poor people. They were hard working people and proud people that did what it took to get by and raise their families. Not with welfare, but hard work.

        Now there is a handout to every bum, so is it any wonder that americans ARE becomeing the laziest people in the world? ANYONE out there that is unemployed that watches migrant workers out in the feels should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Anyone on ANY form of government support because they “can’t find a job” while there are jobs americans are too friggen lazy to take? Disgusting.

        And it is DIRECTLY the Democrats FAULT for this loser mentality that is rotting this GREAT country, by instilling the vicitimization syndrom on them. It isn’t their fault they are complete failures and didn’t finish school and now can’t/WON’T get a job.

        The NEW DEAL is a raw deal, and things have gotten worse, not better.

        • #3169193

          Eh?

          by colonel panijk ·

          In reply to wrong on some very basic points

          Calm down, JD. You’re frothing at the mouth.

          [i]less fortunate[/i] Well, that’s the conventional, uh, euphemism for “lazy bastards”. If someone won’t [i]try[/i] at all, I agree that they should starve to death. But if they have various “problems” and handicaps, even someone smart and ambitious may well find themselves out in the cold. These P&Hs may include being the “wrong” race, going to crummy schools, having rotten parents, being mentally ill to some degree, etc., etc. There [i]are[/i] people out there facing huge hurdles. They deserve at least a little sympathy. That doesn’t cover everyone without money — some are just lazy and deserve to be screwed over.

          [i]Normal[/i] people tend to feel a bit uncomfortable when confronted with disadvantaged people. Call it guilt, or call it something else, but if you see a beggar in a wheelchair don’t you feel a bit sorry for them? NOWHERE did I say that someone should feel guilty simply for doing a good job! Some people [i]are[/i] vastly overpaid for what they do (most any CEO, for example) and should feel guilty , especially if their huge and unwarranted paycheck means that the mailroom clerk has to survive on minimum wage.

          [i]If you have more money, you SPEND more money.[/i] Ah yes, how good it is that trickle-down economics (Reaganomics) is still alive and well. I suppose that if you buy a Rolls-Royce instead of a Chevy, the homeless veteran down on the corner will magically be showered with money? If all that extra wealth tended to flow into the local economy, where it would do the “little people” some good, I would agree with you. However, extra wealth tends not to end up in local hands. Sad, but true. If you [i]do[/i] spread it around locally, that’s wonderful. My observation is that if you have twice as much money as the next guy, you’re not going to buy twice as many cheeseburgers at the local burger shop. Instead, you’ll spend it on upscale stuff and actually [i]reduce[/i] local spending.

          I can’t disagree that the welfare state [i]as presently implemented[/i] has destroyed traditional personal values and work ethic. People [b]do[/b] need to get an education, get trained, and get their butts out there to do an honest day’s labor. Sure, there are plenty of jobs — picking lettuce, for example. Does that mean that anyone who’s been laid off should head for the Imperial Valley and work alongside the Mexicans for sub-minimum wage? I don’t think anyone should be forced to take [i]any[/i] available job, but should try to get something fitting their skills, and get retrained if there’s nothing available. Of course, that retraining would likely be paid for with taxpayer dollars, wouldn’t it?

          [i]DIRECTLY the Democrats FAULT[/i] Yawn. How many years have we had Democratic administrations in the last half century, versus how many Christian-Nazi (oops, I mean Republican)? You can’t pin all the blame on the Demos. The overall culture has its problems too.

        • #3168008

          It seems Colonel

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Eh?

          that I had misjudged you, and I am sorry.

          You had seemed like a total wacko, and it appears not to be entirely the case.

          [b]”directly the Democrats Fault”[/b] to back that up, what party is it that pushes the welfare state? That is what I was refering to. This welfare state does not lift people up, it keeps them down and trading welfare checks for votes. An intentionally created peasent class, if you will. Where do you think the “overall culture” that you speak up CAME FROM?

          Mind you, the Republicans have many problems of their own, but that is not one of them. I am disgusted with both, for different reasons.

          In Michigan, if you are a “displaced worker” (shop closes down) you CAN get FREE retraining paid for by the state. That is an investment in the workforce that is a very valid expense.

          We have many worker programs for people that are mentally retarded. They get REAL jobs, and learn to live a real life on their own.

          sub-minimum wage? What is that? I think you should WANT ANY JOB that allows you to pay your bills. After you have that taken care of, then you have the luxury of looking for bigger and better. I got to where I am now, raising a family of four, working in a shop for $6.50 an hour, and whatever side jobs I could pick up. Oh yeah, put myself through college at the same time. My no means am I from a silver spoon family, and now have a fairly comfortable life. Oh yeah, at $6.50 an hour, it turned out I made too much money to get any kind of help from the government. I know people making more that got assistance, but back then I seemed to have too fair of skin. Things were really messed up, and the hard working people that just needed a HAND, are denied. People sitting on their a$$es though get a full ride. Time to put a time limit on that free ride.

          Trickle down. Buying MORE local products is good. Sorry, I don’t go for the fancy imports, and I don’t do my shopping at Borgmart. I even hit the local pharmacies over the chains, and local markets over the chains. A trait I am teaching my boys.

      • #3111226

        I can prove that if a person is held accountable for their actions…

        by tig2 ·

        In reply to Charity or social welfare?

        That they may chose to find finer stuff in them.

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=196739&messageID=2051512

        I know from direct experience that social programmes do NOT accomplish what they set out to do and in fact create people who learn how to play the system through personal irresponsibility. It is the responsible person that pays their way.

        If real values are taught from the cradle, the “needy” become people in hardened circumstance for a short time. They are the ones tht have the wherewithal and the drive to make a better life for themselves. As long as the system rewards laziness and sloth, that is what we will continue to see.

        Please take the time to read the link and then tell me if I am wrong.

        Edited for typo

        • #3168495

          I would submit…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I can prove that if a person is held accountable for their actions…

          “I know from direct experience that social programmes do NOT accomplish what they set out to”

          … that they accomplish [b][i]exactly[/i][/b] what they set out to (though that is entirely different than what they [b][i]claim[/i][/b] they are trying to accomplish).

      • #3111124

        You fail to address a very common misconception. Wanna’ try?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Charity or social welfare?

        Define “the needy”. Now identify people who are recipients of government social programs (any program that gives money, goods or services paid for by other people) who are not “the needy”. If you want to have a reasonable conversation on the matter, those two things must be differentiated between, because they fall under completely different categories.

        Our government spends in the neighborhood of 1.5 trillion dollars (or more), combined, on both groups of the aforementioned people. Divide our 300 million population into that number, and you’ll come up with an average of $5,000 (or more) spent on every man, woman, and child in the United States — each and every year — on “social programs”. Now I can’t answer this question, but how many of the 300 million could be eliminated from being defined as “needy”? I might eliminate 90 percent — or more, probably eliminating 95 to 99 percent. After all, 95 percent of our population is working and/or are dependents of those working people. And out of our 130 million (give or take) tax return filed every year (many of which are joint returns), did you know that about 40 million of them don’t pay any federal income taxes at all?

        We could go on and on illustrating the lunacy of our social programs, especially when people (like you?) try to pigeon-hole all of them into programs for “the needy”. If only “the needy” were recipients of such funds, they’d be receiving somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000 a year in money, goods or services. The point being, obviously, more than just “the needy” are recipients of government dollars.

        Back to my first question. Define “the needy”, and how many “needy” people live in the United States — AND are U.S. citizens (do we even want to go there)?

        My definition of “the needy” might be, any person who would die, or runs a high risk of dying, without assistance from others. And I might guess (no numbers to substantiate it), that might be one percent of our population. Wait a minute, it’s probably more than that because the government, by taking SO much of people’s hard-earned dollars, actually creates more “needy” people because they restrict (or make impossible) a person’s full ability to care for him or her self. And consider this: We actually have less money, as a society (whether that be through government or private organizations) to provide for “the needy” because so much of it is taken and given to those who are not.

        My point, however, is to illustrate that those who group ALL government social programs into “the needy” group are either EXTREMELY naive’ or EXTREMELY dishonest and disingenuous. Which one are you, or do you want to change your story?

        • #3168577

          Uh, Max

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You fail to address a very common misconception. Wanna’ try?

          $5,000 is what the needy person gets. The other $45,000 is administrative costs 🙂

          [oops! That should read $145,000]

        • #3169192

          Agreed, not all welfare goes to the needy

          by colonel panijk ·

          In reply to You fail to address a very common misconception. Wanna’ try?

          Most welfare goes to corporations, big farmers, military contractors (remember $600 toilet seats?) and other wealthy owners of the government. Relatively little gets to people who genuinely need help because they’ve been dealt a bad hand in life. For “social welfare” programs, it’s true that some amount too much goes to those who don’t deserve it. Note that no one was ever able to track down the “welfare queen” that Ronnie liked to rant about. Does money get wasted? Sure. It was just reported that a huge chunk of the money passed out by FEMA after Hurricane Katrina went for things other than basic food and shelter. I don’t like it, and obviously you don’t either, but at least I’m not foaming at the mouth.

          This society needs to strike some sort of balance between giving a helping hand to those who [i]truly[/i] need it, while not handing out taxpayer dollars to outright thieves. I wouldn’t mind paying taxes so much if I knew that it was being spent efficiently, and going only to those who needed it and not to fat cats. I suspect that’s the real reason you libertarians are so heated up — not that the destitute are being helped but that so much is wasted in the process. At least, that would be the [i]rational[/i] way to look at it.

        • #3169172

          You STILL don’t get it

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Agreed, not all welfare goes to the needy

          You are so far from understanding my point, that it’s a waste of time to continue this discussion. You are either a total and complete idiot, or so far down the denial trail that there’s no hope for you.

          Hint: Spare us the usual rhetoric. Try reality for a change.

        • #3169250

          Another hint

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Agreed, not all welfare goes to the needy

          It appears to me that your rhetoric IS your reality. If so, you are living in a fog.

          Question: For argument’s sake, consider me one of the “fat cats” to whom you refer. And for argument’s sake, consider YOU one of the “needy”. By what authority, and by what justification, should I be forced to give anything to you? And by what authority, and by what justification, should you be entitled to receive anything from me?

          Another hint: Did you know that Warren Buffet personally (not business) receives dollars taken from you and me?

        • #3168044

          This society.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Agreed, not all welfare goes to the needy

          “This society needs to strike some sort of balance between giving a helping hand to those who truly need it, while not handing out taxpayer dollars to outright thieves.”

          You should bone up on your social history. The truly needy were having their needs met by their local communities all along. Welfare was invented for those who either took advantage of the good will of their comminities to the point where they were cut off, or didn’t like the kind of help they were getting from the communities.

          Then, later, needy people were added to the program because due to the increase in taxation, communities no longer had the resources to help the truly needy, and it’s been snowballing ever since.

          Eventually government services will consume every dollar made in this country unless something is done. And frankly, the longer we wait, the harsher the solution is going to have to be.

        • #3168017

          The Great Society

          by jingle2 ·

          In reply to This society.

          I repeat a portion of my earlier posting – Mr. Lyndon Baines Johnson and friends were architects of the greatest set of enslavement laws our country has ever seen. In the name of improving the lot of “the needy” we turned a large portion of African-American families into “the needy” in order to assuage the guilt of a handful of rich senators and congressmen. we piled them into the ghettos of the future – we told them that if they had more children we would give them more money – we told them that if the father left they would get a bigger check. What did we get? A harvest of large, fatherless families, with no role-models, no breadwinners and more reasons for the rich senators and congressmen to feel guilty. These young, fatherless men with no clue of how to be a man gathered together to become thugs and criminals, crackheads and lost. Is it any wonder that the influx of illegal aliens has been so easy. We train people not to work, not to excel, not to care about each other. As far as the reins of govt under the Democrats – they started all this mess. John Kennedy today would be considered a moderate Republican – he and Zell Miller would likely agree on a lot of issues. Jimmy Carter, for all his self-effacing was a miserable failure as president – he just added his white man’s guilt to the pile and kept the nightmare going – more ghettos, more poor and more anger stoked by the white man’s guilt. Reagan was a breath of fresh air by comparison. Unfortunately, in the meantime, Republicans forgot their zeal and discovered the joys of prostitution. They continue today with almost as much cluelessness as the Democrats. The only difference between the R’s and the D’s today is the mess of sickos that ride the coattails of the D’s who want to rule over you and me – because they understand their own superiority and realize they are the saviors of the world. When the man on the street finally got a chance to stir things up – what did he get? Ross Perot…great. It is time to turn the Senate and the House – pretty much completely. They are so incestuously ingrown that they are unable to know right from wrong, up from down, or even remember why they were sent to Washington in the first place. It’s not too late – but it’s awfully close.

        • #3167949

          Agree on JFK

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The Great Society

          He was actually trying to undo some of the damage created by FDR after the depression and it’s my personal suspicion that that played as big a role in his assassination as anything else. Brother Bob was of a similar mind and sufferred a similar fate. Brother Ted saw the writing on the wall and started leaning more to the left hoping he’d be spared. It worked.

          Disenfranchising men (as many as possible) is a big part of their plan to maintain the status-quo. Take them down, keep them down, and they’re less of a threat. They’ve done a good job of it. They’ve drained them of the resources to do things the “right” way, leaving it so that if they try to do what they can, they look like crackpots or criminals, demonizing them in the minds of those who [b]can[/b] do something.

          Men are like dogs in some respects. They are generally loving and loyal to a fault…. unless you kick them. They’ll only take so much abuse before they lose their reason to be loyal and lovable. Then they start roaming around in packs, with the obvious dangers and consequences.

          People are worried about the gang situation now. What are they going to do when the problem is a hundred or a thousand times bigger?

          I’ll tell you exactly what they’ll do. They’ll declare that these thugs and criminals should be eradicated because they do not belong in our society…. they’re not productive, they consume resources that could be put to better use, etc.

          Ironic isn’t it?

      • #3168472

        Perhaps

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Charity or social welfare?

        we need a new kind of deduction.

        What if when you gave $100 directly to a needy family (all properly documented, of course) that it would reduce by $100 the amount that family could get in government assistance, and would also reduce your tax bill by $100?

        • #3167079

          As a needy person…

          by jingle2 ·

          In reply to Perhaps

          I would like to sign up to receive $100 from at least 10,000 people. I will properly receipt all monies received and provide documentation. This way you can assuage your guilt and make me wealthy, all in the same move. What more could you ask for – absolution for you, big bucks for me. I also have a few kids who need to sign up…

        • #3167025

          Excellent!

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to As a needy person…

          You have exactly displayed the nature and scope of the current problem, as well as the mentality that led to it.

          Well Done!

        • #3167847

          Exactly why

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Excellent!

          i don’t give the guy on the corner any money. How do i know the previous 9,999 people didn’t.

        • #3167438

          You’re right

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Exactly why

          That’s why the resources for giving help should be under community control. The community [b]knows[/b] who in their community needs help, what kind of, and how much help they need.

        • #3167380

          I don’t give money to the guy on the corner

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Exactly why

          Cause if he has an abuse problem, giving him money is facilitating his addiction.

          I give to United Way and similar groups. They will give him food and shelter.

          James

    • #3168046

      my take on libertarians

      by viztor ·

      In reply to Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

      What are some of the things people complain about today? Outsourcing and excessive compensation to CEOs. These are problems because we live in an oligarchy, with government for sale to the highest bidder. Adam Smith did not believe in a totally unfettered market. There needs to be a series of checks and balances in society. Now that the capitalists have neutered government, we’re seeing the consequences. Libertarians have noticed the desire of “conservatives” for total social control, and tried to distance themselves from that, but still buy most of the old arguments. The tax-and-spend liberal is dead! Long live the borrow-and-spend conservative!

      And now, back to your normally scheduled discourse.

      • #3167920

        Scapegoats

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to my take on libertarians

        CEOs are merely a distraction… one of many demons created by (mostly) liberals to draw attention away from what’s really going on. You could take the entire salary of every CEO in the country and it wouldn’t make one percent of what the government steals from the people. They will continue to do so as long as the people take the bait.

      • #3167909

        excuse the repeat

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to my take on libertarians

        I got ‘Site problem’ and assumed it hadn’t posted.

    • #3167976

      Not exactly a libertarian but…

      by dr_zinj ·

      In reply to Being a Libertarian in Today’s United States

      Government, Federal, State, and Local, should be reduced to the absolute minimum.

      The government should NOT be in the social welfare business. Politicians complain that people don’t save enough. Well, why should they when their rich Uncle Sam will bail them out? Government in the U.S. has done it’s best to turn people into dependents on the government. The old, “dog not biting the hand that feeds it” gambit. The anti-gun lobbiests doing their damnest to ensure that said dog’s teeth are pulled. And court system rulings married with psychobable from experts basically saying that people aren’t responsible for their actions. Sounds like a perfect recipe for making an entire nation of impotent people.

      Our current president has done more to damage world opinion of the United States than any group of people since the creation of our nation. And he, and our elected federal representatives have done more to destroy personal liberty than any other group in the history of our nation too. The saddest part is that the American people not only let them, but in many cases urged them to do so. America, well on its way to becoming a nation of people who will never become responsible adults.

      • #3167957

        The only thing worse than Bush…

        by jingle2 ·

        In reply to Not exactly a libertarian but…

        …would have been John F. Kerry presiding over this mess. He thinks you’re incapable of thinking for yourself – he and Hillary would make a great Pres/VP combo – they both think you are stupid and can’t take care of yourself. George has his issues and the loss of freedoms is much more severe with John F and company than with Bush. The govt snooping into my banking habits and cell phone calls is not so un-nerving to me as the collection of guns at gunpoint by National Guardsmen in the aftermath of Katrina. I saw a video of some law enforcement/guard types wrestle a .38 away from a little old lady (in her own home) – “for her own protection.” Yeah, right. So many of our problems wouldn’t be problems if our elected reps had been doing their jobs. Govt needs to get back to basics and get out of micro-managing our lives.

      • #3167314

        World Opinion!?!?

        by cryan2457 ·

        In reply to Not exactly a libertarian but…

        Nice rant. Not that I don’t agree with the first half, but the non-sequiter of the second is astounding.
        There are Nice Little Theoretical viewpoints possible as revisionist little “l” libertarian ways of commenting on the ways to conduct a war. Like “if we weren’t then they wouldn’t have ” – useless. We are at war, and unless you have an idea how to allow complete domestic freedom and liberty while denying information or cover to the enemy, then learn to compromise. And get over it.
        Intellectual purity is the justification of all the “great” freedom movements – like the Pogroms of the Czar, the Cheka (USSR), even the French Terror.
        Gee, I used to be an intellectually pure small & big “L” libertarian. Until I had children, and worries began about the world I would leave them.

        As for world opinion, let them reproduce with themselves. I will trade with them, and not ask that they like me or insist that I like them. And I am fully willing to kill them if they won’t respect my right to be left out of their issues or problems. The old “your right to swing your fist wildly ends at my nose”.

        Lastly, don’t even begin to blame G.W.Bush unless you want to get into a discussion about Jimmah Carter and Billy-Bob Clinton and Johnny Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Tricky Dicky. The “government” is a collection of people and an accumulation of actions. The issues started long ago and the system has been perverted to permit us to live our lives without having to face consequences.

Viewing 8 reply threads