(11-12-2012 04:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, this is reality. There is no movement towards absolutism in the socialist sense within the american left, at least none that is taken seriously. There is an absolutism in place in the american right. Given the choice, how do you choose the later rather than the former?

I don't choose the latter. I just said that I don't. I've said repeatedly that I don't. I've got at least three posts on this thread saying that I don't. You're putting words in my mouth.

Then I apologize, from your posts you seem to support republican policy more than democratic policy. Regardless, much of the self-described libertarians do as I've stated above, and it's a line of reasoning I don't understand.

You are making a mistake thinking that OwlNumbers really belongs to any political party.

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, a tax increase isn't comparable to the loss of your total civil liberties. I'll agree that total and complete taxation of ones income could theoretically result in the same outcome, but we're nowhere near that, and conflating a tax increase which still puts us well below the average Western worlds total taxation as a percentage of their GDP as that is disengenuous. It's the same as someone who states that a policy which increases the level of socialist policies in the US is !SOCIALISM! and implies the same negative repercussions that are seen towards wholly socialistic societies. It isn't a fair comparison, and isn't intellectually honest.

Like hell it isn't. This is exactly how incrementalism is rationalized.

You draw the line now, or it gets blurred and you end up on the wrong side of it before you know it.

I totally disagree with everything you wrote, and do so in the strongest possible terms.

So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

You support a President who signed the NDAA - a bill that erases the right to a fair trial, which has been the cornerstone of every alleged "free society" in the Western world since the Magna Carta was created some eight centuries ago. That's about as much of a "total removal" of civil liberties as I can imagine. Without that fundamental right, other civil liberties like gay marriage are merely frivolities.

You've stated that your basis of support for him includes his tax and economic plans, which reduce economic freedom for some. Essentially, you are okay with a total removal of civil liberties for all BECAUSE he also will incrementally decrease economic freedom for some. That's much worse.

(11-12-2012 02:04 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 12:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think that someone going to prison for smoking marijuana is a much larger civil liberties concern than whether or not you're going to have to pay a tax to fund another person healthcare. One is a removal of monetary funds, the other is a removal of a persons entire right as a citizen. I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

This.

I'd be a libertarian voter if actual freedom was higher on the ladder than "don't take my money"

So many on the right seem more than happy to lock people up for smoking pot while saying that paying for someone's cancer treatments is anti-American totalitarianism. I'm not saying change your stance on fiscal issues, but you'll get a lot of moderate liberals like me if you flip flop those around and work on actual freedom issues first.

Funny, considering you voted for a guy who is to the far right of Pat Robertson on the issue of marijuana legalization.

Using force to keep you from doing something is the same as using force to make you do something. They're both wrong.

(11-12-2012 04:19 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Bill Kristol has admitted defeat to the liberty movement:

For four brief minutes on bull**** mountain, the skys cleared ... the heavens opened ... and truth rained down from above. Even uber-neocon Bill Kristol briefly uttered truth.

Maybe 2012 is the apocalypse.

(11-12-2012 04:48 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, a tax increase isn't comparable to the loss of your total civil liberties. I'll agree that total and complete taxation of ones income could theoretically result in the same outcome, but we're nowhere near that, and conflating a tax increase which still puts us well below the average Western worlds total taxation as a percentage of their GDP as that is disengenuous. It's the same as someone who states that a policy which increases the level of socialist policies in the US is !SOCIALISM! and implies the same negative repercussions that are seen towards wholly socialistic societies. It isn't a fair comparison, and isn't intellectually honest.

Like hell it isn't. This is exactly how incrementalism is rationalized.

You draw the line now, or it gets blurred and you end up on the wrong side of it before you know it.

I totally disagree with everything you wrote, and do so in the strongest possible terms.

So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

You support a President who signed the NDAA - a bill that erases the right to a fair trial, which has been the cornerstone of every alleged "free society" in the Western world since the Magna Carta was created some eight centuries ago. That's about as much of a "total removal" of civil liberties as I can imagine. Without that fundamental right, other civil liberties like gay marriage are merely frivolities.

You've stated that your basis of support for him includes his tax and economic plans, which reduce economic freedom for some. Essentially, you are okay with a total removal of civil liberties for all BECAUSE he also will incrementally decrease economic freedom for some. That's much worse.

The left was angry about some of the previsions in that bill.

I would like to understand form a libertarian perspective what should be the role of government and how should it be funded?

(11-12-2012 05:50 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:48 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, a tax increase isn't comparable to the loss of your total civil liberties. I'll agree that total and complete taxation of ones income could theoretically result in the same outcome, but we're nowhere near that, and conflating a tax increase which still puts us well below the average Western worlds total taxation as a percentage of their GDP as that is disengenuous. It's the same as someone who states that a policy which increases the level of socialist policies in the US is !SOCIALISM! and implies the same negative repercussions that are seen towards wholly socialistic societies. It isn't a fair comparison, and isn't intellectually honest.

Like hell it isn't. This is exactly how incrementalism is rationalized.

You draw the line now, or it gets blurred and you end up on the wrong side of it before you know it.

I totally disagree with everything you wrote, and do so in the strongest possible terms.

So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

You support a President who signed the NDAA - a bill that erases the right to a fair trial, which has been the cornerstone of every alleged "free society" in the Western world since the Magna Carta was created some eight centuries ago. That's about as much of a "total removal" of civil liberties as I can imagine. Without that fundamental right, other civil liberties like gay marriage are merely frivolities.

You've stated that your basis of support for him includes his tax and economic plans, which reduce economic freedom for some. Essentially, you are okay with a total removal of civil liberties for all BECAUSE he also will incrementally decrease economic freedom for some. That's much worse.

The left was angry about some of the previsions in that bill.

I would like to understand form a libertarian perspective what should be the role of government and how should it be funded?

Yes, the left was so angry, they turned out in almost the same levels as 2008 for Obama! That will show him! Given his comments on getting a mandate to raise taxes, he clearly sees the election as an endorsement of all his policies, including those in NDAA (that he is vigorously fighting the courts to keep).

As for the second part, that's way too in depth to be discussed in this thread. I think you're also probably just trying to change the subject, instead of genuinely being interested.

(11-12-2012 06:02 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 05:50 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:48 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Like hell it isn't. This is exactly how incrementalism is rationalized.

You draw the line now, or it gets blurred and you end up on the wrong side of it before you know it.

I totally disagree with everything you wrote, and do so in the strongest possible terms.

So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

You support a President who signed the NDAA - a bill that erases the right to a fair trial, which has been the cornerstone of every alleged "free society" in the Western world since the Magna Carta was created some eight centuries ago. That's about as much of a "total removal" of civil liberties as I can imagine. Without that fundamental right, other civil liberties like gay marriage are merely frivolities.

You've stated that your basis of support for him includes his tax and economic plans, which reduce economic freedom for some. Essentially, you are okay with a total removal of civil liberties for all BECAUSE he also will incrementally decrease economic freedom for some. That's much worse.

The left was angry about some of the previsions in that bill.

I would like to understand form a libertarian perspective what should be the role of government and how should it be funded?

Yes, the left was so angry, they turned out in almost the same levels as 2008 for Obama! That will show him! Given his comments on getting a mandate to raise taxes, he clearly sees the election as an endorsement of all his policies, including those in NDAA (that he is vigorously fighting the courts to keep).

As for the second part, that's way too in depth to be discussed in this thread. I think you're also probably just trying to change the subject, instead of genuinely being interested.

What is a voter supposed to do? Vote for the Republican who would've signed the bill without reservation? Vote for the libertarian who is way too extreme on other matters? No candidate was perfect, not even a third party.

(11-12-2012 06:07 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 06:02 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 05:50 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:48 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

You support a President who signed the NDAA - a bill that erases the right to a fair trial, which has been the cornerstone of every alleged "free society" in the Western world since the Magna Carta was created some eight centuries ago. That's about as much of a "total removal" of civil liberties as I can imagine. Without that fundamental right, other civil liberties like gay marriage are merely frivolities.

You've stated that your basis of support for him includes his tax and economic plans, which reduce economic freedom for some. Essentially, you are okay with a total removal of civil liberties for all BECAUSE he also will incrementally decrease economic freedom for some. That's much worse.

The left was angry about some of the previsions in that bill.

I would like to understand form a libertarian perspective what should be the role of government and how should it be funded?

Yes, the left was so angry, they turned out in almost the same levels as 2008 for Obama! That will show him! Given his comments on getting a mandate to raise taxes, he clearly sees the election as an endorsement of all his policies, including those in NDAA (that he is vigorously fighting the courts to keep).

As for the second part, that's way too in depth to be discussed in this thread. I think you're also probably just trying to change the subject, instead of genuinely being interested.

What is a voter supposed to do? Vote for the Republican who would've signed the bill without reservation? Vote for the libertarian who is way too extreme on other matters? No candidate was perfect, not even a third party.

It would have been signed regardless of who was in office, but it was more than a one issue election, and yes I still enthusiastically voted for Obama.

But the missing link to me is that it is never clear what libertarians would do in the situations they complain about if they were running the country. I agree with many of their social stances, but do not know what they would do and how they would manage the government.

In my opinion taxes are needed to fund general needs. I do not see how they would be any different if they ran Washington.

Ron Paul was consistent in his votes, but they never went anywhere.

Of the 2 stools of the republican party (Wall Street - Religious right - Libertarian) - the religious right seems to have the largest and most enthusiastic voting block.

(11-12-2012 06:34 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 06:07 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 06:02 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 05:50 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:48 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  You support a President who signed the NDAA - a bill that erases the right to a fair trial, which has been the cornerstone of every alleged "free society" in the Western world since the Magna Carta was created some eight centuries ago. That's about as much of a "total removal" of civil liberties as I can imagine. Without that fundamental right, other civil liberties like gay marriage are merely frivolities.

You've stated that your basis of support for him includes his tax and economic plans, which reduce economic freedom for some. Essentially, you are okay with a total removal of civil liberties for all BECAUSE he also will incrementally decrease economic freedom for some. That's much worse.

The left was angry about some of the previsions in that bill.

I would like to understand form a libertarian perspective what should be the role of government and how should it be funded?

Yes, the left was so angry, they turned out in almost the same levels as 2008 for Obama! That will show him! Given his comments on getting a mandate to raise taxes, he clearly sees the election as an endorsement of all his policies, including those in NDAA (that he is vigorously fighting the courts to keep).

As for the second part, that's way too in depth to be discussed in this thread. I think you're also probably just trying to change the subject, instead of genuinely being interested.

What is a voter supposed to do? Vote for the Republican who would've signed the bill without reservation? Vote for the libertarian who is way too extreme on other matters? No candidate was perfect, not even a third party.

It would have been signed regardless of who was in office, but it was more than a one issue election, and yes I still enthusiastically voted for Obama.

But the missing link to me is that it is never clear what libertarians would do in the situations they complain about if they were running the country. I agree with many of their social stances, but do not know what they would do and how they would manage the government.

In my opinion taxes are needed to fund general needs. I do not see how they would be any different if they ran Washington.

Ron Paul was consistent in his votes, but they never went anywhere.

Of the 2 stools of the republican party (Wall Street - Religious right - Libertarian) - the religious right seems to have the largest and most enthusiastic voting block.

Well, that's the thing. It's easy to make a principled stand when you don't have to actually govern and you know everyone else will make the tough decisions.

(11-12-2012 04:34 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:33 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  But, this is reality. There is no movement towards absolutism in the socialist sense within the american left, at least none that is taken seriously. There is an absolutism in place in the american right. Given the choice, how do you choose the later rather than the former?

I don't choose the latter. I just said that I don't. I've said repeatedly that I don't. I've got at least three posts on this thread saying that I don't. You're putting words in my mouth.

Then I apologize, from your posts you seem to support republican policy more than democratic policy. Regardless, much of the self-described libertarians do as I've stated above, and it's a line of reasoning I don't understand.

You are making a mistake thinking that OwlNumbers really belongs to any political party.

Yes...Owl clearly has as much dislike for the 2 gangs as I do.

(11-12-2012 06:07 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  What is a voter supposed to do? Vote for the Republican who would've signed the bill without reservation? Vote for the libertarian who is way too extreme on other matters? No candidate was perfect, not even a third party.

You realize just calling everyone who doesn't share your views an extremist doesn't actually make them so, right? It just makes you look childish. When you support a candidate who gives himself the right to indefinitely detain or even kill American citizens without due process, you help to normalize that kind of governance. That seems pretty extreme to me. But Gary Johnson wanting to balance the budget is whacko!

(11-12-2012 06:37 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Well, that's the thing. It's easy to make a principled stand when you don't have to actually govern and you know everyone else will make the tough decisions.

It's telling that you see whether or not to sign a bill ending a citizen's right to a fair trial as a "tough decision." Or were you talking about Obama killing an American kid?

dcCid Wrote:It would have been signed regardless of who was in office, but it was more than a one issue election, and yes I still enthusiastically voted for Obama.

Not ironic at all that you have already condemned people for something you can't prove...

And, yes, you've already made it clear you're okay with anything Obama does because he still wants to take more of the rich people's money.

(11-12-2012 06:07 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 06:02 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 05:50 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 04:48 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 03:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So you're more worried about an incremental decrease in your fiscal liberty than TOTAL REMOVAL of ones civil liberties?

You support a President who signed the NDAA - a bill that erases the right to a fair trial, which has been the cornerstone of every alleged "free society" in the Western world since the Magna Carta was created some eight centuries ago. That's about as much of a "total removal" of civil liberties as I can imagine. Without that fundamental right, other civil liberties like gay marriage are merely frivolities.

You've stated that your basis of support for him includes his tax and economic plans, which reduce economic freedom for some. Essentially, you are okay with a total removal of civil liberties for all BECAUSE he also will incrementally decrease economic freedom for some. That's much worse.

The left was angry about some of the previsions in that bill.

I would like to understand form a libertarian perspective what should be the role of government and how should it be funded?

Yes, the left was so angry, they turned out in almost the same levels as 2008 for Obama! That will show him! Given his comments on getting a mandate to raise taxes, he clearly sees the election as an endorsement of all his policies, including those in NDAA (that he is vigorously fighting the courts to keep).

As for the second part, that's way too in depth to be discussed in this thread. I think you're also probably just trying to change the subject, instead of genuinely being interested.

What is a voter supposed to do? Vote for the Republican who would've signed the bill without reservation? Vote for the libertarian who is way too extreme on other matters? No candidate was perfect, not even a third party.

The GOP had one early in John Huntsman. They rejected him because he was not a neocon, ran down the middle and MADE sense. Many think that Obama tap him for CIA chief.

(11-12-2012 07:02 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 06:07 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  What is a voter supposed to do? Vote for the Republican who would've signed the bill without reservation? Vote for the libertarian who is way too extreme on other matters? No candidate was perfect, not even a third party.

You realize just calling everyone who doesn't share your views an extremist doesn't actually make them so, right? It just makes you look childish. When you support a candidate who gives himself the right to indefinitely detain or even kill American citizens without due process, you help to normalize that kind of governance. That seems pretty extreme to me. But Gary Johnson wanting to balance the budget is whacko!

(11-12-2012 06:37 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Well, that's the thing. It's easy to make a principled stand when you don't have to actually govern and you know everyone else will make the tough decisions.

It's telling that you see whether or not to sign a bill ending a citizen's right to a fair trial as a "tough decision." Or were you talking about Obama killing an American kid?

dcCid Wrote:It would have been signed regardless of who was in office, but it was more than a one issue election, and yes I still enthusiastically voted for Obama.

Not ironic at all that you have already condemned people for something you can't prove...

And, yes, you've already made it clear you're okay with anything Obama does because he still wants to take more of the rich people's money.

S you think McCain would not have signed it. Unfortunately it was a bill that got wide bipartisan support.

I never said I am ok with anything Obama does, or has done. But I do believe that people are entitled to healthcare, and that there is a role for government.

For those that want to know about the Libertarian Platform check out the website.

http://www.lp.org/

(11-12-2012 07:26 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 07:02 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 06:07 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  What is a voter supposed to do? Vote for the Republican who would've signed the bill without reservation? Vote for the libertarian who is way too extreme on other matters? No candidate was perfect, not even a third party.

You realize just calling everyone who doesn't share your views an extremist doesn't actually make them so, right? It just makes you look childish. When you support a candidate who gives himself the right to indefinitely detain or even kill American citizens without due process, you help to normalize that kind of governance. That seems pretty extreme to me. But Gary Johnson wanting to balance the budget is whacko!

(11-12-2012 06:37 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Well, that's the thing. It's easy to make a principled stand when you don't have to actually govern and you know everyone else will make the tough decisions.

It's telling that you see whether or not to sign a bill ending a citizen's right to a fair trial as a "tough decision." Or were you talking about Obama killing an American kid?

dcCid Wrote:It would have been signed regardless of who was in office, but it was more than a one issue election, and yes I still enthusiastically voted for Obama.

Not ironic at all that you have already condemned people for something you can't prove...

And, yes, you've already made it clear you're okay with anything Obama does because he still wants to take more of the rich people's money.

S you think McCain would not have signed it. Unfortunately it was a bill that got wide bipartisan support.

I never said I am ok with anything Obama does, or has done. But I do believe that people are entitled to healthcare, and that there is a role for government.

emphasis added...access or just healthcare in general? In other words you think people have a "right" for me to pay for their healthcare or do you just think they have a "right" to healthcare?

Guys I was working in my yard yesterday and I was contemplating this question and at the end............ It's a resounding yes and if anything I think D's are maybe a little too jubliant in picking at the scab. R's do the same thing when tweaking the faction in the D's big tent. As long as the R's think the political calculus works in their favor it will survive. You know they have people crunching numbers in a back room somewhere. I think they will stay together for at least two more presidential election cycles. I've never seen a presidential campaign hang their hat on pro choice as much as Obama did this cycle so something is in the numbers but libertarian and and the religious right will co exist.

(11-12-2012 07:26 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I do believe that people are entitled to healthcare, and that there is a role for government.

Entitled to access to healthcare, or entitled to have someone else pay for healthcare?
If if entitled to have someone else pay for healthcare, then how much healthcare should that someone else pay for? And who gets to decide? And on what basis?
And what is the proper role of government?

I do believe that access to health care is a right. I don't believe that "free" health care is a right. Nothing is truly free, and I don't think that anything you have to take from someone else (and forcing someone to pay someone else to provide you healthcare is taking from someone else) can be a right. I do believe that a certain level of health care for every person in society benefits society as a whole. You give your kid all the shots before sending him/her to school, but ultimately your kid is going to be healthier if all the other kids at school have had their shots too. This neighborhood effect makes it justifiable for government to fund a basic level of health care for every person. Note I said fund, not provide.

(11-13-2012 08:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 07:26 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I do believe that people are entitled to healthcare, and that there is a role for government.

Entitled to access to healthcare, or entitled to have someone else pay for healthcare?
If if entitled to have someone else pay for healthcare, then how much healthcare should that someone else pay for? And who gets to decide? And on what basis?
And what is the proper role of government?

I do believe that access to health care is a right. I don't believe that "free" health care is a right. Nothing is truly free, and I don't think that anything you have to take from someone else (and forcing someone to pay someone else to provide you healthcare is taking from someone else) can be a right. I do believe that a certain level of health care for every person in society benefits society as a whole. You give your kid all the shots before sending him/her to school, but ultimately your kid is going to be healthier if all the other kids at school have had their shots too. This neighborhood effect makes it justifiable for government to fund a basic level of health care for every person. Note I said fund, not provide.

I look at it in a little different light. I do not believe that healthcare is a right or necessarily a role government must play. However, I do believe it is in a nation's interest to have a healthy populace to be a productive and innovative workforce. The question is how you balance those two viewpoints.

(11-13-2012 09:50 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I look at it in a little different light. I do not believe that healthcare is a right or necessarily a role government must play. However, I do believe it is in a nation's interest to have a healthy populace to be a productive and innovative workforce. The question is how you balance those two viewpoints.

I'm not quite seeing how that differs from what I wrote. I balance the two by saying basic health care provided universally and paid for by government, with people free to supplement.

(11-13-2012 08:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 07:26 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I do believe that people are entitled to healthcare, and that there is a role for government.

Entitled to access to healthcare, or entitled to have someone else pay for healthcare?
If if entitled to have someone else pay for healthcare, then how much healthcare should that someone else pay for? And who gets to decide? And on what basis?
And what is the proper role of government?

I do believe that access to health care is a right. I don't believe that "free" health care is a right. Nothing is truly free, and I don't think that anything you have to take from someone else (and forcing someone to pay someone else to provide you healthcare is taking from someone else) can be a right. I do believe that a certain level of health care for every person in society benefits society as a whole. You give your kid all the shots before sending him/her to school, but ultimately your kid is going to be healthier if all the other kids at school have had their shots too. This neighborhood effect makes it justifiable for government to fund a basic level of health care for every person. Note I said fund, not provide.

I agree Owl...I have no problem with contributing to "basic" healthcare for Americans. We piss away plenty of cash all over the place to finance a system the could do this. I love my neighbor...I just don't feel I should be stolen from to pay for every need they have.