home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Political Party: Libertarians

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Libertarian Pary

Crap
58
78%
Not Crap
16
22%
 
Total votes : 74

Political Party: Libertarians

Postby Tom on Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:21 pm

shut up.
Last edited by Tom on Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tom
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7793
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: God's Hand

Re: Political Party: Libertarians

Postby chet on Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:24 am

Tom wrote:While I'm babbling about gun toting revolutionaries, I want to find out some thoughts on an idea I had about the 2nd amendment; right to keep and bear arms. Since it is a right afforded to us by the government, doesn't that mean that they have a legal obligation to furnish those weapons to us if we so desire? Hmm.. Mr. Muth goes to washington.


I'm nowhere near being a lawyer, but I took a class on the United States constitution. To make sure of what I'm writing, I grabbed my Meaning of the Constitution textbook.

I'm sorry, Tom, but this is not what the 2nd amendment would allow as it stands today. In fact, this amendment does not even apply to the states, which are free to regulate use and sale of firearms as they see fit. The 14th amendment, which was used to incorporate many of the amendments we use today to be at the state level, was never used to make this amendment apply to the states. The purpose of this amendment is actually to provide for the effectiveness of the militia, which would persumably protect the citizen against unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government. Courts have consistently held that the 2nd amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms, which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or effciency of a well regulated militia."

So the idea that the government would provide free arms to the people would never happen because the right of keeping a "well regulated militia", as stated in the amendment, is not protected at the state level and only prevents the federal government from disarming the national guard!

getting on topic with the poll though, I completely agree with the minimal form of government presented by them. After all, if history has taught us anything, it's that large government programs have always completely failed. Just look at the USSR or Cuba if you need any proof of this.

Not crap, but I can see what you mean about some people being nuts....

(I used my constitutional handbook for most of that information, so I dont know correct I am. Feel free to correct my mistakes!)
User avatar
chet
tired of birds
tired of birds
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:09 pm

Re: Political Party: Libertarians

Postby Tom on Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:52 am

chet wrote:
Tom wrote:While I'm babbling about gun toting revolutionaries, I want to find out some thoughts on an idea I had about the 2nd amendment; right to keep and bear arms. Since it is a right afforded to us by the government, doesn't that mean that they have a legal obligation to furnish those weapons to us if we so desire? Hmm.. Mr. Muth goes to washington.


I'm nowhere near being a lawyer, but I took a class on the United States constitution. To make sure of what I'm writing, I grabbed my Meaning of the Constitution textbook.

I'm sorry, Tom, but this is not what the 2nd amendment would allow as it stands today. In fact, this amendment does not even apply to the states, which are free to regulate use and sale of firearms as they see fit. The 14th amendment, which was used to incorporate many of the amendments we use today to be at the state level, was never used to make this amendment apply to the states. The purpose of this amendment is actually to provide for the effectiveness of the militia, which would persumably protect the citizen against unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government. Courts have consistently held that the 2nd amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms, which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or effciency of a well regulated militia."

So the idea that the government would provide free arms to the people would never happen because the right of keeping a "well regulated militia", as stated in the amendment, is not protected at the state level and only prevents the federal government from disarming the national guard!

(I used my constitutional handbook for most of that information, so I dont know correct I am. Feel free to correct my mistakes!)


Well, it sounds like most of the evidence you presented is precedent and not statutory, and those precedents don't seem to conflict with my idea.
I may ask one of my lawyer friends.
User avatar
Tom
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7793
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: God's Hand

Re: Political Party: Libertarians

Postby chet on Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:47 am

Well, it sounds like most of the evidence you presented is precedent and not statutory, and those precedents don't seem to conflict with my idea.
I may ask one of my lawyer friends.


You would have to goto the Supreme Court with a case arguing that the 2nd amendment is an necessary freedom of the citizens of the United States using the 14th amendment. And even then, they just couldnt stop you from owning arms if it was a "well regulated militia". It says nothing about giving you arms for your militia.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not on this one....

Anyone have any input?
User avatar
chet
tired of birds
tired of birds
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:09 pm

Postby whiskerando on Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:21 pm

After all, if history has taught us anything, it's that large government programs have always completely failed


rural electrification?

polio vaccination?

most of the new deal?

lots of government programs have failed, not all.
whiskerando
"amarillo slim" preston
"amarillo slim" preston
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: virginia

CRAP :WF: 2

Postby JC Keane on Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:59 pm

No comment
JC Keane
newbie
newbie
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: NY,NY

Postby tonhtubra on Sat Jul 17, 2004 2:43 pm

I vote CRAP.

I am all for supporting third parties, unless it is the Libertarian party. They scare the bejeesus out of me. Partly because i agree with intern that we need some restrictions placed on us because there are many who are only kept in line because there are repercussions for their actions. They also scare me because of some of the people affiliated with them.

I am registered in Boulder County in Colorado, yes the Boulder County of Boulder, CO - which means lots of hippies and ultra conservatives. I can't remember if it was the 2000 or 2002 election, but there was a Libertarian challenging the incumbent dem for sheriff. He said his three influences as to how to be sheriff were some other sheriff in southern colorado - who was the only registered libertarian sheriff in the nation, the lone ranger, and Andy Griffith!!! One of his policies he said he would institute, you would only be punished for drunk driving if you caused an accident!!!!
User avatar
tonhtubra
scout
scout
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 2:24 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO

Re: CRAP :WF: 2

Postby SchnappM on Sat Jul 17, 2004 10:59 pm

JC Keane wrote:No comment
Thank you.
User avatar
SchnappM
pinocchio
pinocchio
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 8:51 am

Re: Political Party: Libertarians

Postby joshsolberg on Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:30 pm

Tom wrote:
chet wrote:
Tom wrote:While I'm babbling about gun toting revolutionaries, I want to find out some thoughts on an idea I had about the 2nd amendment; right to keep and bear arms. Since it is a right afforded to us by the government, doesn't that mean that they have a legal obligation to furnish those weapons to us if we so desire? Hmm.. Mr. Muth goes to washington.


I'm nowhere near being a lawyer, but I took a class on the United States constitution. To make sure of what I'm writing, I grabbed my Meaning of the Constitution textbook.

I'm sorry, Tom, but this is not what the 2nd amendment would allow as it stands today. In fact, this amendment does not even apply to the states, which are free to regulate use and sale of firearms as they see fit. The 14th amendment, which was used to incorporate many of the amendments we use today to be at the state level, was never used to make this amendment apply to the states. The purpose of this amendment is actually to provide for the effectiveness of the militia, which would persumably protect the citizen against unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government. Courts have consistently held that the 2nd amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms, which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or effciency of a well regulated militia."

So the idea that the government would provide free arms to the people would never happen because the right of keeping a "well regulated militia", as stated in the amendment, is not protected at the state level and only prevents the federal government from disarming the national guard!

(I used my constitutional handbook for most of that information, so I dont know correct I am. Feel free to correct my mistakes!)


Well, it sounds like most of the evidence you presented is precedent and not statutory, and those precedents don't seem to conflict with my idea.
I may ask one of my lawyer friends.


Hi. I am a lawyer. I'm no constitutional law expert, but this is a pretty easy one, so I'll give it a shot: There is a distinct difference between a "right" afforded by law, and a "duty" imposed by law: a right such as this one is a guarantee against government action, whereas a duty is a guarantee that the government will act in a specified manner. The answer to your question comes from this distinction: the 2nd Amendment creates a right, but it does not create a duty, so no, unfortunately for all the gun-toters, you don't get a free gun from the federal government by invoking the 2nd Amendment.

As for the poll topic: total crap. If you really think "the free market" (fnrr,fnrr, fnrr!) can provide for the needs of people better than a government, compare your telephone service before deregulation with your telephoen service now. Or have dealt with the rolling power blackouts in California after the energy deregulation.

Josh Solberg "The Commie"
If it wasn't for landlords, there would have been no Karl Marx.
User avatar
joshsolberg
dag hammarskjöld
dag hammarskjöld
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby John W. on Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:07 pm

Crap. Who picks up the garbage? Who maintains the highways? Private companies? Then what... there is an all-too-easy potential for mafia-like circumstances. Business needs to be regulated, otherwise you have children working 14-hour days for almost no money.
User avatar
John W.
Guardian Diety of the Planet
Guardian Diety of the Planet
 
Posts: 5564
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 6:38 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: Political Party: Libertarians

Postby steve on Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:24 pm

Tom wrote:I'm all for charity, but on a personal level.

Tom! This is bullshit! You do not know how or have the ability to put poor people in the hospital if they cannot afford to go on their own, so your impulse to personal charity is meaningless! Meaningless!

I am typing in shouts because I hear this all the time, and it is bullshit! For how many people have you paid medical bills, Tom? Poor people who you stumbled across and found to be sick and then took to the hospital and paid for, from your charity. How many?

None? Then please shut up about welfare and such!
steve albini
Electrical Audio
sa at electricalaudio dot com
Quicumque quattuor feles possidet insanus est.
User avatar
steve
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9135
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:25 pm
Location: chicago

Postby chet on Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:51 pm

whiskerando wrote:
After all, if history has taught us anything, it's that large government programs have always completely failed


rural electrification?

polio vaccination?

most of the new deal?

lots of government programs have failed, not all.


I should have added more to this when I first said it. Shame on me. It was stupid for me to say that they ALWAYS fail; this is not true. Sometimes they are necessary too, if the individuals could not provide the service for themselves privately (laws to protect people stealing from or killing each other, public transit in places where it runs at a loss, etc.)

I just think the government does have its hands into things that it doesnt really need to, or has a right being in (could be be done more efficiently privately, kills some personal freedoms, a host of other reasons...), and a reduction of some of these services would certainly be a good thing.

That should clarify things.

- Chet
User avatar
chet
tired of birds
tired of birds
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:09 pm

Postby Johnny 13 on Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:06 pm

I vote Libertarian pretty regular, tho I mix it up if I like someone else, or the Libertarian candidate holds unlibertarian views (Like Jerry Kohn who was running for Senator in IL last election).

There are a lot of politically blind Libertarians, especially in regard to the environment, but of all the party platforms refuced to their mission statements, theirs is the one I am most fond of.

Straight party voters suck more than anyone.

(Badnarik was pretty awful too, but I do not like Kerry, and there was no chance in hell I was voting for Bush).
Marsupialized wrote:I think vegans should be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives
User avatar
Johnny 13
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
Saint Who Rules w/ Extensive Magnanimity
 
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 6:11 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Political Party: Libertarians

Postby Tom on Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:10 pm

steve wrote:
Tom wrote:I'm all for charity, but on a personal level.

Tom! This is bullshit! You do not know how or have the ability to put poor people in the hospital if they cannot afford to go on their own, so your impulse to personal charity is meaningless! Meaningless!

I am typing in shouts because I hear this all the time, and it is bullshit! For how many people have you paid medical bills, Tom? Poor people who you stumbled across and found to be sick and then took to the hospital and paid for, from your charity. How many?

None? Then please shut up about welfare and such!


You're 100% correct. I've never stumbled across a poor person and taken them to the hospital and paid their bills. I can't recall a time where I have stumbled across a poor and visibly sick person at all, but I'm sure it's happened. If I saw an extreme situation that demanded immediate attention I would certainly assist in taking them to a hospital. If I had the means to ensure their bills would be covered, then I would like to think I would do so. I suppose I like to think a lot of things though.

Giving personal offerings outside of what is required by us through government isn't part of our culture. It should be. It isn't because people feel that their contributions through their taxes are sufficient. They aren't. Because people are forced to invest in this system abstractly, they do not see the results of their contributions and feel that their money is being wasted.

Maybe I'm being overly idealistic, but I really believe that if there was a constant appeal by the leadership of our communities to help our neighbors, people would do so and we would have a better society for it.
User avatar
Tom
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7793
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: God's Hand

Re: Political Party: Libertarians

Postby stewie on Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:54 pm

Tom wrote:Giving personal offerings outside of what is required by us through government isn't part of our culture. It should be. It isn't because people feel that their contributions through their taxes are sufficient. They aren't. Because people are forced to invest in this system abstractly, they do not see the results of their contributions and feel that their money is being wasted.


Sounds like a job for The Policy Tree!
User avatar
stewie
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6804
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 10:43 am
Location: Near Boston

Postby unarmedman on Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:45 am

Maybe I'm being overly idealistic, but I really believe that if there was a constant appeal by the leadership of our communities to help our neighbors, people would do so and we would have a better society for it.



I agree, this would be ideal.

The problem is power - all government systems involve power, they just distribute it to different places.

Either the government has too much power, or the corporation. Either way, too many poor sick people wind up in the hospital without their bills getting paid.

Our current administration seems to want to have it both ways - a large government, along with tax breaks & an energy bill that does nothing to stem rising energy costs...

...probably why our nation is so badly in debt!
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
User avatar
unarmedman
forced to change shirt
forced to change shirt
 
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:28 pm

Postby Gramsci on Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:11 am

If you're talking about the US Libertarians, crap.

More interest in economic "liberty" than social "liberty", which in my book if far more important. Anyone that claims to be a Libertarian and then votes for the Republicans is a hypocrite and an asshat level 6.
clocker bob may 30, 2006 wrote:I think the possibility of interbreeding between an earthly species and an extraterrestrial species is as believable as any other explanation for the existence of George W. Bush.
User avatar
Gramsci
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10249
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:43 am
Location: The People's Republic of Tufnell Park

Postby Gramsci on Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:13 am

unarmedman wrote:
...probably why our nation is so badly in debt!


Funny how this happens more under rightwing governments, isn't it?

Social Democratic parties have always been better economic managers than the right.
clocker bob may 30, 2006 wrote:I think the possibility of interbreeding between an earthly species and an extraterrestrial species is as believable as any other explanation for the existence of George W. Bush.
User avatar
Gramsci
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10249
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:43 am
Location: The People's Republic of Tufnell Park

Postby Linus Van Pelt on Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:02 am

unarmedman wrote:The problem is power - all government systems involve power, they just distribute it to different places.

Either the government has too much power, or the corporation.

This is key. I want libertarians to read this quote, or something very much like it, until they either are not libertarians anymore, or realize that they just <3 corporations that much.
Again:
unarmedman wrote:The problem is power - all government systems involve power, they just distribute it to different places.

Either the government has too much power, or the corporation.

People want economic freedom. They want to control their own money, and their own economic lives. This will not happen. The question is, do you want policy to be made by entities who, practically by definition, are motivated by nothing more or less than profit for themselves, or do you want the decisions to be made by an entity who, at least in theory (and to some small extent in reality), is actually accountable to the people, and is actually charged with "promoting the general welfare" and such? Does the government always do a good job? Clearly not. Will a corporation ever do a good job at anything that doesn't end in profit for them? Also, clearly not.

Crap.

ETA: Hey, Here's This.
Why do you make it so scary to post here.
User avatar
Linus Van Pelt
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
Humankind's Greatest Musical Genius
 
Posts: 4251
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:01 am
Location: Peninsulam Amoenam

Postby Andrew L. on Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:58 am

Andrew L.
Eternal Bosom of Hot Love
Eternal Bosom of Hot Love
 
Posts: 3318
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:33 pm
Location: Alien Residency

Next

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], steve and 13 guests