Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 06, 2019, 04:21:43 PM
But damn, you idiots! You funnel socialists right into power!
Change my mind.
Post by: Anthony on November 06, 2019, 04:31:32 PM
... except for Jim Logajan. I like Jim. And maybe asechrest, who has the tendency.
But damn, you idiots! You funnel socialists right into power!
Change my mind.
They are not Libertarians. They are Liberal/Progressive DEMOCRATS. That's why they no longer participate here. They can't back up their lies.
I am part Libertarian. Less government, more freedom, not anarchy, but limited government.
Post by: nddons on November 06, 2019, 04:57:19 PM
They are not Libertarians. They are Liberal/Progressive DEMOCRATS. That's why they no longer participate here. They can't back up their lies.It seems like we need to differentiate between Libertarians, and members of the Libertarian Party. It’s an issue similar to Conservatives vs Republicans.
I am part Libertarian. Less government, more freedom, not anarchy, but limited government.
But Becky, I agree with you. Libertarian party folks are a royal pain in the ass. I seem to recall a hearty debate I had with someone in the SZ back in the POA days. It might have gotten me a warning or suspension.
Post by: Rush on November 06, 2019, 04:57:53 PM
... except for Jim Logajan. I like Jim. And maybe asechrest, who has the tendency.
But damn, you idiots! You funnel socialists right into power!
Change my mind.
Can you be more specific? How do libertarians funnel socialists into power?
Post by: Lucifer on November 06, 2019, 05:00:37 PM
Can you be more specific? How do libertarians funnel socialists into power?
They split the vote, and siphon off votes that typically go to the conservative. Kentucky Governor race is an example. The Libertarian candidate siphoned off enough votes to throw the election to the democrat.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 06, 2019, 05:10:28 PM
They are not Libertarians. They are Liberal/Progressive DEMOCRATS. That's why they no longer participate here. They can't back up their lies.
I am part Libertarian. Less government, more freedom, not anarchy, but limited government.
I don't post much because I like to watch. ;)
Seriously though, I hesitate to post because it is time consuming to handle the follow-up. Also, consider your post - how would you respond if I called you a lying liberal progressive democrat? Well, take your response and simply assume I might respond similarly.
I'd be interested to know what triggered Becky's beef.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 06, 2019, 05:15:46 PM
They split the vote, and siphon off votes that typically go to the conservative. Kentucky Governor race is an example. The Libertarian candidate siphoned off enough votes to throw the election to the democrat.
Ah - well it is good to know the Libertarians are actually doing that well. Of course the Republican candidate should have left the race to allow the Libertarian candidate to win.
Many people bitch about how the Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats when it comes to government growth, but when a real alternative comes along the alternative is supposed to step aside in favor of the entrenched parties. Madness I say.
Post by: Lucifer on November 06, 2019, 05:29:58 PM
Ah - well it is good to know the Libertarians are actually doing that well. Of course the Republican candidate should have left the race to allow the Libertarian candidate to win.
Many people bitch about how the Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats when it comes to government growth, but when a real alternative comes along the alternative is supposed to step aside in favor of the entrenched parties. Madness I say.
Libertarians are not an alternative. They are a small fringe party that's never made much inroads in the political process. What their claim to fame typically is as stated previously, siphoning votes and enabling the leftist to gain office.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 06, 2019, 05:46:02 PM
They split the vote, and siphon off votes that typically go to the conservative. Kentucky Governor race is an example. The Libertarian candidate siphoned off enough votes to throw the election to the democrat.
Libertarians are not an alternative. They are a small fringe party that's never made much inroads in the political process. What their claim to fame typically is as stated previously, siphoning votes and enabling the leftist to gain office.
That.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 06, 2019, 05:51:40 PM
😡
Except for Jim.
Post by: Rush on November 06, 2019, 06:31:41 PM
Many people bitch about how the Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats when it comes to government growth, but when a real alternative comes along the alternative is supposed to step aside in favor of the entrenched parties. Madness I say.
This. The Republicans have failed to keep Big Government in check. They are allowing the socialist dems to make inroads for example, not revoking Obamacare when they finally had the chance despite their promises. Not supporting Trump, I could go on and on.
I am an ideological libertarian. Every election I must hold my nose and vote for the Republican for just the reason you (Becky and Lucifer) are saying; I don't want to "siphon" my vote away from the lesser of two evils. We are trapped in a two party system and both parties are the swamp. The Libertarian party is closer to the original intent of the Founders - there may be smaller parties that are even closer, Constitutionalists, but they're too small to count. Republicans talk a good game of getting government out of every minutia of our lives, but once in office they simply have not done it - not until Trump.
Jim is absolutely right; the libertarian platform would be just the change we need; a reversal of this march toward tyranny, but they will never be given the chance because too many people are afraid of handing the win to the other side. Trump did it right; he ran within one of the two parties. Make no mistake, Trump is no libertarian. But he is also no Republican; he used the Republican party to climb into the White House, and now he is doing a lot of the government shrinking the conservatives have been begging the Republicans to do for years.
The problem with the Republicans is they have lost their balls. It would serve them right to have a Libertarian siphon off the vote and put a Communist in power. Is that what it's going to take before the Republicans will stand up to the Communists (Democrats)? It will be too late then. We are one election away from losing this country completely.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 06, 2019, 07:12:31 PM
Come to it, the liquid references are apt. They siphon votes, usually from conservatives, which funnels Dems into power. Libertarians are drips.
😡
Anyway, if it is the Kentucky governor’s race result that has you angry, it sounds like a case of a candidate who was not liked even by his party:
https://twitter.com/TessaDuvall/status/1191924736659468288 (https://twitter.com/TessaDuvall/status/1191924736659468288)
Quote
Except for Jim.
Aw shucks. Blush.
Post by: Anthony on November 07, 2019, 02:21:02 AM
It seems like we need to differentiate between Libertarians, and members of the Libertarian Party. It’s an issue similar to Conservatives vs Republicans.
Good point. I have some Libertarian leanings but I vote Republican.
I had a conversation with a friend yesterday, and he said the Republican Party needs to die, and a new Party emerge. The Freedom Party. He may have a point. The Republicans are lost, don't have a message for the suburbs of the U.S. and have become Democrat Lite.
Post by: Rush on November 07, 2019, 05:54:39 AM
Good point. I have some Libertarian leanings but I vote Republican.
I had a conversation with a friend yesterday, and he said the Republican Party needs to die, and a new Party emerge. The Freedom Party. He may have a point. The Republicans are lost, don't have a message for the suburbs of the U.S. and have become Democrat Lite.
Pretty much what I’m trying to say. The Republican Party has too many career politicians. Both parties do: when they are elected their priority becomes getting re-elected. They are beholden to lobbyists and donors and don’t follow through with conservative promises when they campaigned. “Read my lips no new taxes.”
I wouldn’t know how to bring a third party into power. You’d have to reach a flashpoint where a majority of voters throw up their hands and reject both of the two main parties, and be willing to take a huge risk. I don’t think it’s going to happen. The power structure in DC is far too hardened. Ordinary citizens, both conservative and liberal, are too damn married to their ideology and now far too culturally divided to come together in a third party option (for freedom) and fight back against DC. They have us fighting each other when we ought to join and fight a bloated, tyrannical Federal Government.
Post by: Number7 on November 07, 2019, 07:00:25 AM
Post by: Rush on November 07, 2019, 08:05:19 AM
The current libertarian movement is a bunch of silly, Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, pretenders, pretending that they can have utopia without making substantive change other than standing on their make believe principles that resemble chaos more than logic.
That is probably true; it's been 40 years since I was involved directly. Reality has moved so far toward authoritarianism that the party platforms now sound like silly pipe dreams.
There's also the problem of people appropriating the term "libertarian". Some define it as virtual anarchy. Some define it in a way that's almost indistinguishable from communism, you know, the "ideal" communism, where there is no need for government because everybody just naturally behaves altruistically, and shares everything. (Bwa ha ha ha ha!) My version is close to Classical Liberalism.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 07, 2019, 08:10:03 AM
That is probably true; it's been 40 years since I was involved directly. Reality has moved so far toward authoritarianism that the party platforms now sound like silly pipe dreams.
There's also the problem of people appropriating the term "libertarian". Some define it as virtual anarchy. Some define it in a way that's almost indistinguishable from communism, you know, the "ideal" communism, where there is no need for government because everybody just naturally behaves altruistically, and shares everything. (Bwa ha ha ha ha!) My version is close to Classical Liberalism.
Post by: SoonerAviator on November 07, 2019, 08:58:14 AM
This. The Republicans have failed to keep Big Government in check. They are allowing the socialist dems to make inroads for example, not revoking Obamacare when they finally had the chance despite their promises. Not supporting Trump, I could go on and on.
I am an ideological libertarian. Every election I must hold my nose and vote for the Republican for just the reason you (Becky and Lucifer) are saying; I don't want to "siphon" my vote away from the lesser of two evils. We are trapped in a two party system and both parties are the swamp. The Libertarian party is closer to the original intent of the Founders - there may be smaller parties that are even closer, Constitutionalists, but they're too small to count. Republicans talk a good game of getting government out of every minutia of our lives, but once in office they simply have not done it - not until Trump.
Jim is absolutely right; the libertarian platform would be just the change we need; a reversal of this march toward tyranny, but they will never be given the chance because too many people are afraid of handing the win to the other side. Trump did it right; he ran within one of the two parties. Make no mistake, Trump is no libertarian. But he is also no Republican; he used the Republican party to climb into the White House, and now he is doing a lot of the government shrinking the conservatives have been begging the Republicans to do for years.
The problem with the Republicans is they have lost their balls. It would serve them right to have a Libertarian siphon off the vote and put a Communist in power. Is that what it's going to take before the Republicans will stand up to the Communists (Democrats)? It will be too late then. We are one election away from losing this country completely.
Agreed. If the Republican party hadn't become such a shit-show of gutless wonders, the Libertarian party wouldn't even have a enough of a foothold in any election to make a difference. Republicans threw fiscal conservatism out the window decades ago, so they're no better than Dems in that regard. Dems want to spend more tax money on social programs, Reps want to spend it on military.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 07, 2019, 09:08:57 AM
... Dems want to spend more tax money on social programs, Reps want to spend it on military.
shessh, consider how much of the federal spending is social programs and how much is DoD. The democrats certainly are outspending the republicans.
Post by: Rush on November 07, 2019, 09:17:29 AM
Well, that’s one reason the Libertarians don’t get traction. Too many versions of it. And because they’re often geeky and perhaps a little OCD, they can’t work with each other to get a shared version they all approve of.
There are some radicals that get bad press, the "sovereign citizen" types who go around making YouTube videos of themselves refusing to show driver's licenses to police. I think these idiots might be giving libertarians a bad name. Well here ya go:
Quote
While the so-called ‘Sovereign Citizen movement’ with its forays into violence and absurd legal arguments has gone completely off the rails, it would be a mistake to completely dismiss some its core tenets or accept without scrutiny the words of its critics. Many of the movement’s critics deliberately distort these tenets or simply ignore them in favor of highlighting the absurdities.
Long-time libertarians should be quite familiar with such deliberate distortion of core principles as they are routinely used against them by, what a coincidence, many of these same critics.
Libertarians and sovereign citizens share one such important core principle: an individual human being is a sovereign political entity – in fact it is the original such entity. All other subsequently created entities can only arise with the explicit permission and consent of the individual sovereigns. This is the foundational principle of the Declaration of Independence.
.....
There is absolutely no inconsistency or contradiction with the idea that individuals are sovereign political entities, and that collectively as ‘We the People’, voluntarily abdicate and delegate a portion of that sovereignty to another political body, in exchange for protection of rights and freedoms.
Proof of the legitimacy of this concept is that the 50 U.S. States have an identically analogous arrangement with the federal government, i.e. a portion of State sovereignty is delegated in exchange for the benefit of this new power exercised by States collectively.
The key for libertarians is to be cautious to not allow the baby to be thrown out with the bath water.
The baby is the core tenet that individuals are the original supreme sovereign political entity. We DO NOT relinquish that ultimate sovereignty merely because we acquiesce to or accept ‘citizenship’, whatever that means. We retain the sovereign right to demand that no government exceed its lawfully delegated authority, and ultimately if necessary dismantle the statist apparatus that refuses to abide by this demand. This is quintessentially libertarian.
That is why you’ll likely find that the critics of both libertarianism and the sovereign citizen movement are most often statists or those benefiting from statism, and in their own self-interest would much prefer this concept of sovereign citizen is forever and widely discredited.
from: https://www.quora.com/What-do-libertarians-think-of-the-Sovereign-Citizen-Movement
Becky, I know you're not a statist. So what put the bee in your bonnet over libertarians today? Are you scared for 2020? I feel that.
Post by: SoonerAviator on November 07, 2019, 09:19:26 AM
shessh, consider how much of the federal spending is social programs and how much is DoD. The democrats certainly are outspending the republicans.
Well take the SS/Medicaid/Medicare out of that number . . . DoD is the next biggest Federal budget expenditure. It's equivalent to a whole host of other "social" discretionary spending categories combined.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 07, 2019, 09:25:53 AM
There are some radicals that get bad press, the "sovereign citizen" types who go around making YouTube videos of themselves refusing to show driver's licenses to police. I think these idiots might be giving libertarians a bad name. Well here ya go:In our current political environment it is absolutely disastrous to dilute the conservative vote enough to put liberals in power. It is incredibly stupid to put an ideology, however noble and even correct it might be, ahead of the good and survival of our beautiful, constantly threatened Republic.
Becky, I know you're not a statist. So what put the bee in your bonnet over libertarians today? Are you scared for 2020? I feel that.
You and others are often posting that we’re one election away from losing the country entirely. Libertarians are a threat in 2020, yes. As they are in every election.
Post by: SoonerAviator on November 07, 2019, 09:42:58 AM
In our current political environment it is absolutely disastrous to dilute the conservative vote enough to put liberals in power. It is incredibly stupid to put an ideology, however noble and even correct it might be, ahead of the good and survival of our beautiful, constantly threatened Republic.
You and others are often posting that we’re one election away from losing the country entirely. Libertarians are a threat in 2020, yes. As they are in every election.
Lol, well maybe the Republicans shouldn't have such shitty candidates/incumbents. KY race was lost, not because of the Libertarian candidate siphoning votes, but because the incumbent Republican was so fucking awful that his own (R) constituents wouldn't come out and vote for him.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 07, 2019, 09:43:55 AM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 07, 2019, 09:47:50 AM
Lol, well maybe the Republicans shouldn't have such shitty candidates/incumbents. KY race was lost, not because of the Libertarian candidate siphoning votes, but because the incumbent Republican was so fucking awful that his own (R) constituents wouldn't come out and vote for him.As Jim pointed out, that appears to be true. However, they did elect a Republican AG in a landslide.
We fume a lot about Dims voting like lemmings, but for good or ill, you can’t accuse Republicans of doing that. We’re principled, dammit. Which is precisely why libertarians suck in Repub votes.
Post by: Rush on November 07, 2019, 09:49:16 AM
In our current political environment it is absolutely disastrous to dilute the conservative vote enough to put liberals in power. It is incredibly stupid to put an ideology, however noble and even correct it might be, ahead of the good and survival of our beautiful, constantly threatened Republic.
You and others are often posting that we’re one election away from losing the country entirely. Libertarians are a threat in 2020, yes. As they are in every election.
And this is why I vote Republican. But your thread title is you "hate" libertarians. That's a bit strong, makes me think you've come across some kind of mainstream media propaganda about libertarians. Personally, I can be angry at them if they dilute Trump's vote in 2020, but I don't "hate" them. They're promoting our founding idea of liberty. How can I hate that?
Post by: Username on November 07, 2019, 09:50:47 AM
Well take the SS/Medicaid/Medicare out of that number . . . DoD is the next biggest Federal budget expenditure. It's equivalent to a whole host of other "social" discretionary spending categories combined.And yet spending for defense is one of the very few things that the constitution says the federal government is allowed to do. All the social programs? Nope. But it's still a highly contested topic.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/spending-for-the-general-welfare
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 07, 2019, 09:51:32 AM
Well take the SS/Medicaid/Medicare out of that number . . . DoD is the next biggest Federal budget expenditure. It's equivalent to a whole host of other "social" discretionary spending categories combined.
<snort> the whole "discretionary"/"non-discretionary labelling is BS.
Every single dollar is discretionary.
Post by: Rush on November 07, 2019, 09:52:36 AM
As Jim pointed out, that appears to be true. However, they did elect a Republican AG in a landslide.
We fume a lot about Dims voting like lemmings, but for good or ill, you can’t accuse Republicans of doing that. We’re principled, dammit. Which is precisely why libertarians suck in Repub votes.
Good point. Republicans and libertarians actually think. They're better at critical analysis. Liberals and Dems vote on emotion and wishful thinking.
Hey, we can provide free healthcare for everyone and the money will just grow on trees - nevermind the national debt. Just tax everyone, they will stay put and pay up! They won't move their money overseas.
Mindless, simply mindless.
Post by: nddons on November 07, 2019, 12:59:45 PM
Well take the SS/Medicaid/Medicare out of that number . . . DoD is the next biggest Federal budget expenditure. It's equivalent to a whole host of other "social" discretionary spending categories combined.Yet that large blue portion of the pie chart is the ONLY power represented in the chart that is specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution.
Post by: SoonerAviator on November 07, 2019, 01:05:49 PM
And yet spending for defense is one of the very few things that the constitution says the federal government is allowed to do. All the social programs? Nope. But it's still a highly contested topic.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-1/spending-for-the-general-welfare
Allowed to do is one thing. Spending obscene amounts of money is another. Can't even count the number of stories where military officials said "we don't need any more of X item" yet the orders to defense contractors keep rolling in. Have 1,000 brand new M1 tanks sitting around and don't need more? Fuck it, let's keep the train rolling. F-22/F-23 platforms over budget by billions? No problem, cut another check. Plenty of Republicans getting rich off of defense company lobbyists. Repub or Dem, they all have their ties to the military industrial complex and people who work in that industry in their home state. No one is going to cut off the hand that feeds them. Both Defense and Social program spending should be slashed by large amounts, but that won't happen.
Post by: SoonerAviator on November 07, 2019, 01:09:28 PM
As Jim pointed out, that appears to be true. However, they did elect a Republican AG in a landslide.
We fume a lot about Dims voting like lemmings, but for good or ill, you can’t accuse Republicans of doing that. We’re principled, dammit. Which is precisely why libertarians suck in Repub votes.
Lol, horseshit. I know a whole host of people who vote (R) no matter how terrible the candidate/incumbent is. Religious zealot who spends more time worrying about how to enact laws about whether gays can marry than trying improving something meaningful . . . sure seems like a shoe-in for political office. Hell, we've had (R) politicians fighting for a decade over putting a monument of the 10 Commandments on the State Capitol grounds. The problem is, moron (R) voters will lap that shit up like it's "fighting the good fight" and vote party line.
Most R/D voters and politicians are just two sides of the same coin. They espouse different platform ideals, but in reality, operate in lockstep when it comes to legislation . . . and Libertarians are the bad guys, lol.
Post by: nddons on November 07, 2019, 01:40:42 PM
<snort> the whole "discretionary"/"non-discretionary labelling is BS.I TOTALLY agree. I had trust discussion with a Congressman once. He didn’t want to hear it.
Every single dollar is discretionary.
I term it “cowardly”/“not as cowardly” for Congress to touch.
Post by: nddons on November 07, 2019, 01:51:33 PM
Lol, horseshit. I know a whole host of people who vote (R) no matter how terrible the candidate/incumbent is. Religious zealot who spends more time worrying about how to enact laws about whether gays can marry than trying improving something meaningful . . . sure seems like a shoe-in for political office. Hell, we've had (R) politicians fighting for a decade over putting a monument of the 10 Commandments on the State Capitol grounds. The problem is, moron (R) voters will lap that shit up like it's "fighting the good fight" and vote party line.Bullshit. I’m no great defender of Republicans, but I despise mischaracterizations of Republican voters.
Most R/D voters and politicians are just two sides of the same coin. They espouse different platform ideals, but in reality, operate in lockstep when it comes to legislation . . . and Libertarians are the bad guys, lol.
You are emblematic of the pathetic populace that characterizes republicans as evangelicals. Frankly, that group has lost any power it may have once had.
Republicans support the bill of rights - all of them, not just a few. So when Republicans make an impassioned argument for freedom OF religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, or due process, it is doing so from a constitution-centric argument. Likewise regarding abortion. Being pro-life is not necessarily a religious position. It is a pro-science position.
Yes, in many cases Republicans have to hold their nose and pull the R lever. But that’s only because the D or L option is often bat-shit crazy and in the case of D’s likely damaging to our freedoms.
Post by: SoonerAviator on November 07, 2019, 02:18:40 PM
Bullshit. I’m no great defender of Republicans, but I despise mischaracterizations of Republican voters.
You are emblematic of the pathetic populace that characterizes republicans as evangelicals. Frankly, that group has lost any power it may have once had.
Republicans support the bill of rights - all of them, not just a few. So when Republicans make an impassioned argument for freedom OF religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, or due process, it is doing so from a constitution-centric argument. Likewise regarding abortion. Being pro-life is not necessarily a religious position. It is a pro-science position.
Yes, in many cases Republicans have to hold their nose and pull the R lever. But that’s only because the D or L option is often bat-shit crazy and in the case of D’s likely damaging to our freedoms.
Just as I despise mis-characterizations of Democrat or Libertarian voters. My experience with many Republicans is what it is, and they would vote party-line if Stalin himself were the candidate just because he had an "R" next to his name. Not all Democrats want to kill babies or take away gun rights. Not all Libertarians are anarchists or want to eliminate 100% of all taxes. Most people, regardless of the R/D/L/I by their name in the voting registry, are generally middle of the road and just want a government that doesn't waste taxpayer money on unnecessary bullshit. Pretending like every Democrat wants to move to socialism or wants to stomp on the BoR is absurd. You're letting the fringe color your perception, as if Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders/Warren were typical of the average Democrat desires. You don't think there weren't Dems who "held their nose" to vote for Hillary because they were faces with pulling the trigger for Trump? Pot meet kettle.
Just so we're clear, I'm registered independent. I think both R/D parties are filled full of corruption and part of the "swamp". There are just as many Republican politicians as Democrat politicians that get convicted of fraud/laundering/bribery, no one party is exempt because of their supposed "platform ideals". I don't for a minute believe that Republicans care a bit about fiscal restraint or protecting the Constitution. They grow government just as much as anyone.
Post by: Lucifer on November 07, 2019, 03:27:37 PM
My experience with many Republicans is what it is, and they would vote party-line if Stalin himself were the candidate just because he had an "R" next to his name.
So, are you holding back on the Nazi comments, or is this just the prelude?
Post by: SoonerAviator on November 07, 2019, 03:48:02 PM
So, are you holding back on the Nazi comments, or is this just the prelude?
Ah yes, because I use reductio ad absurdum it must mean that Nazi/Godwin's Law is soon to follow, right? Way to key in on that, it certainly addresses the comment well and offers solid rebuttal. ::) I suppose I should await some sort of "snowflake" comment as well, if we're just going to toss out stereotypes and baseless assumptions.
Post by: Anthony on November 07, 2019, 04:41:01 PM
Ah yes, because I use reductio ad absurdum it must mean that Nazi/Godwin's Law is soon to follow, right? Way to key in on that, it certainly addresses the comment well and offers solid rebuttal. ::) I suppose I should await some sort of "snowflake" comment as well, if we're just going to toss out stereotypes and baseless assumptions.
Relax, you're among friends. I agree with a lot of what you say, but also think Stan made some good points. I totally agree the Republicans are just big spending, big government Democrat LITE. Even Trump who I support signed the last two record breaking budgets. But what is he going to do? If he doesn't the Media and Dems scream he shut down the government and welfare mom's can't feed their children which is a lie, but......
Post by: Little Joe on November 07, 2019, 05:40:58 PM
Relax, you're among friends. I agree with a lot of what you say,Please remember that. (That goes to everyone; not just Sooner ...).
It may be true that Rs are a lot like D lite, but when it comes to socialization, I prefer "lite" to "heavy". And Yes, I will vote for almost any pol with an R beside their name over almost any pol with a D beside their name because voting for Ds to take over the country is voting for the ruination of our country. Not that some of them don't have good ideas, but they vote as a block for things I despise.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 07, 2019, 05:42:35 PM
"Libertarian" is used by most tutored libertarians to describe a philosophy founded on the "Non-Aggression Principle" (or NAP. Horrible name, IMHO because non-aggression implies pacifism, which it definitely is not. It really just means application of force is allowed only in response to force. There is more to libertarian philosophy than that of course - books have been written on the subject, but NAP is a core principle.) Application of that principle to government and to every person yields less government as a consequence, not as goal. Want government to do X? Then check to see if X would violate the NAP. Is a person allowed to do Y? Check to see if Y violates the NAP.
So while I admit it is a dubious generalization, I see "conservatives" as proponents of small government - but since there are no commonly agreed principles to determine what is sufficiently small, their goals can be shifted by the large government proponents who only have to be persuasive in the "rightness" of whatever expansion of government they are proposing. "Libertarians" have only to examine whether the large government proposals violate their principles like NAP.
So where conservatives have a vague goal that binds them, libertarians have a core set of principles that (theoretically) bind them. True - some who consider themselves conservatives probably already believe in the NAP concept, but probably haven't thought out all its consequences (e.g. involuntary taxation violates the NAP - so how to fund government services like police or justice system to enforce the NAP?)
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 07, 2019, 05:48:24 PM
Just as I despise mis-characterizations of Democrat or Libertarian voters. My experience with many Republicans is what it is, and they would vote party-line if Stalin himself were the candidate just because he had an "R" next to his name. Not all Democrats want to kill babies or take away gun rights. Not all Libertarians are anarchists or want to eliminate 100% of all taxes. Most people, regardless of the R/D/L/I by their name in the voting registry, are generally middle of the road and just want a government that doesn't waste taxpayer money on unnecessary bullshit. Pretending like every Democrat wants to move to socialism or wants to stomp on the BoR is absurd. You're letting the fringe color your perception, as if Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders/Warren were typical of the average Democrat desires. You don't think there weren't Dems who "held their nose" to vote for Hillary because they were faces with pulling the trigger for Trump? Pot meet kettle.I’m quite aware that both Ds and Rs have blind loyalties and blind spots and gradations of alignment with their party in general. I would say, though, that it’s Republicans who saw the need for what Trump could do as an outsider, and elected him even though he obviously didn’t share their values ... except one: love of America. Well, that and the need for swamp draining.
Just so we're clear, I'm registered independent. I think both R/D parties are filled full of corruption and part of the "swamp". There are just as many Republican politicians as Democrat politicians that get convicted of fraud/laundering/bribery, no one party is exempt because of their supposed "platform ideals". I don't for a minute believe that Republicans care a bit about fiscal restraint or protecting the Constitution. They grow government just as much as anyone.
My experience at caucuses is that most Rs give deep thought to their positions. My experience with Ds is that they may have an independent thought or two but their main MO is just to be against whatever Rs do or want to do. Resist, baby.
And yes, both parties have their flaws when given power. But look at the Dems currently in power!
THREE SOLID YEARS OF PUTTING THEIR LUST FOR POWER AHEAD OF WORKING ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Libertarians, by bleeding off R votes, can enable Dems to get power. And Dems in power are fucking heinous; change my mind.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 07, 2019, 06:00:53 PM
As I understand it, "conservative" seems intended (in modern usage) to describe a goal of less government. The definition of that "less government" goal is vague and seems to vary with each conservative.That’s really nice and all, and if everyone agreed on it and the country's government were structured to support it, fine and dandy. What, exactly, is the libertarian plan to bring this ideal state of existence about? Putting up goofus candidates who bleed off votes every four years isn’t exactly making libertarianism super popular.
"Libertarian" is used by most tutored libertarians to describe a philosophy founded on the "Non-Aggression Principle" (or NAP. Horrible name, IMHO because non-aggression implies pacifism, which it definitely is not. It really just means application of force is allowed only in response to force. There is more to libertarian philosophy than that of course - books have been written on the subject, but NAP is a core principle.) Application of that principle to government and to every person yields less government as a consequence, not as goal. Want government to do X? Then check to see if X would violate the NAP. Is a person allowed to do Y? Check to see if Y violates the NAP.
So while I admit it is a dubious generalization, I see "conservatives" as proponents of small government - but since there are no commonly agreed principles to determine what is sufficiently small, their goals can be shifted by the large government proponents who only have to be persuasive in the "rightness" of whatever expansion of government they are proposing. "Libertarians" have only to examine whether the large government proposals violate their principles like NAP.
So where conservatives have a vague goal that binds them, libertarians have a core set of principles that (theoretically) bind them. True - some who consider themselves conservatives probably already believe in the NAP concept, but probably haven't thought out all its consequences (e.g. involuntary taxation violates the NAP - so how to fund government services like police or justice system to enforce the NAP?)
And sadly, half the country apparently thinks the nanny state is ideal and they vote accordingly. You are not going to overcome that by promoting ideals already generally held by the other half of the country, especially because their ideals are reflexively rejected by the other half.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 07, 2019, 08:12:48 PM
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/libertarians-brag-about-throwing-kentucky-governor-election-to-democrat-your-tears-are-delicious/
Quote
... the Libertarian Party of Kentucky (LPK) is taking great pride in their role as anti-Republican spoiler. They are rubbing it in the face of Bevin voters, flaunting their role in handing the governorship over to a socialist liberal.
“In an ideal world, we elect Libertarian candidates and advance liberty. Failing that, we push mainstream candidates towards liberty to advance the cause,” the LPK wrote in a Facebook post on Tuesday night.
I stand by my thread title.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 07, 2019, 08:36:11 PM
Quote
Next time you hear the tax cuts blamed for the deficit, note this: “...in the 2019 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, federal revenues increased by $133 billion (or 4%), but spending spiked by $339 billion (or 8%), driving up the deficit by $205 billion.”
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 07, 2019, 08:46:36 PM
Post by: Rush on November 08, 2019, 04:29:04 AM
Plus, libertarians are creepy, twisted ideologues, and probably many are seriously along on the autism spectrum.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/libertarians-brag-about-throwing-kentucky-governor-election-to-democrat-your-tears-are-delicious/
I stand by my thread title.
Here’s a comment from that link:
Quote
as a former libertarian who voted for ron paul, this new libertarian party is a bunch of low life scum working for the democrats and open borders and legalizing pedophilia. they are scum and should be ashamed, and anyone voting against trump and for libertarian is a vote for the leftists / democRATs who are seditious slanderous libelous treasonous traitorous enemies within. i spit on the libertarians if they make maga/kag lose.
Like I said, I haven’t been in the loop in a long time. It looks like the problem is stupid young ‘uns. (Or old people who have morphed into idiots). Open borders? (I don’t buy the legalizing pedophilia accusation.) If a libertarian throws in with the Democrat over a fiscal conservative in an election then they don’t understand their own purported philosophy.
On the other hand, follow the Facebook link and read the rest of the post. The LPK candidate would have stepped aside if Bevin had supported any of the pro-freedom actions listed. On the other other hand, he supposedly did do a couple of those things and the libertarians lied about it.
The libertarians need to infiltrate the Republican Party instead of opposing it for just this reason. Learn from the communists, who took over the Democrat Party that way. Under no circumstances can we allow fiscal collectivists (Democrats) to win, because down that way lies death to our nation. Shame on them for cheering a Dem win.
Post by: nddons on November 08, 2019, 05:42:22 AM
Please remember that. (That goes to everyone; not just Sooner ...).This is the thing. I voted for a democrat or two in my day. Paul Simon from Illinois was in the Senate for 12 years from 1985-1997. Decent man, but the key was that his liberal positions, while wrong, weren’t radically destructive or tyrannical like the democrats of today.
It may be true that Rs are a lot like D lite, but when it comes to socialization, I prefer "lite" to "heavy". And Yes, I will vote for almost any pol with an R beside their name over almost any pol with a D beside their name because voting for Ds to take over the country is voting for the ruination of our country. Not that some of them don't have good ideas, but they vote as a block for things I despise.
I also voted for Ross Perot, once. He did the same thing that libertarians do in a general election. Prevent the conservative from winning. I didn’t make that mistake the second time.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 08, 2019, 06:16:01 AM
The libertarians need to infiltrate the Republican Party instead of opposing it for just this reason. Learn from the communists, who took over the Democrat Party that way. Under no circumstances can we allow fiscal collectivists (Democrats) to win, because down that way lies death to our nation. Shame on them for cheering a Dem win.
There’s an interesting thought. It’s possible that a strengthened Republican Party, with the more appealing elements of libertarianism, might begin to catch on as being more true to our founding principles.
Again, though, we have to know the enemy. And the enemy (half the country) worships the ideal of a nanny state. I don’t see how we walk that back, until the starry-eyed nanny staters actually have to live under the nanny hammer and begin to envision something better.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 08, 2019, 06:17:58 AM
This is the thing. I voted for a democrat or two in my day. Paul Simon from Illinois was in the Senate for 12 years from 1985-1997. Decent man, but the key was that his liberal positions, while wrong, weren’t radically destructive or tyrannical like the democrats of today.Curious why you didn’t vote for Simon’s R opponent.
I also voted for Ross Perot, once. He did the same thing that libertarians do in a general election. Prevent the conservative from winning. I didn’t make that mistake the second time.
Mind you, bizarre Rs do show up on ballots occasionally. My theory is that the weirdest of them are libertarians trying to pass themselves off as Republicans. 🤣
(Need to insert here again that I like Jim 😊)
Post by: Anthony on November 08, 2019, 06:22:50 AM
I’m hoping Trump gets on that when he’s safely installed in his second term. I’m certain he has ideas and plans for the spending/debt problems. It’s not a revenue problem.
We have had RECORD Federal Tax Revenue under Trump due to the expanding economy. Dems never admit, or recognize that tax RATE cuts can increase tax Revenue. They are either brainwashed, stupid, or just don't want to admit it.
Post by: Number7 on November 08, 2019, 07:01:56 AM
We have had RECORD Federal Tax Revenue under Trump due to the expanding economy. Dems never admit, or recognize that tax RATE cuts can increase tax Revenue. They are either brainwashed, stupid, or just don't want to admit it.
If you're a communist (they call themselves democrats) then you must know that MATH IS HARD.... and therefore RACIST.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 08, 2019, 07:08:36 AM
If you're a communist (they call themselves democrats) then you must know that MATH IS HARD.... and therefore RACIST.
Oh, math is LITERALLY racist in my state.
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/10/11/seattle-schools-lead-controversial-push-to-rehumanize.html
Also, pretty much everywhere else.
https://moonbattery.com/?s=Math
Post by: SoonerAviator on November 08, 2019, 08:06:24 AM
Relax, you're among friends. I agree with a lot of what you say, but also think Stan made some good points. I totally agree the Republicans are just big spending, big government Democrat LITE. Even Trump who I support signed the last two record breaking budgets. But what is he going to do? If he doesn't the Media and Dems scream he shut down the government and welfare mom's can't feed their children which is a lie, but......
Hope I wasn't coming off as "worked up", lol. I get that this site can sometimes turn into a Republican echo-chamber just due to the demographics. I'm just trying to espouse an opinion that it's useful to be a bit more objective about how we view other political parties. Blaming Libertarians for a Republican loss essentially says that the R-party wasn't strong enough to win on its own. When your party sees fit to have a crappy candidate in the race, you reap what you sow. Can't blame Libertarians for siphoning votes away because the other candidates were seen as the "lesser evil". As far as Trump and the budgets, he could at least start pretending like he gives a crap about the spending problem. Obviously we all (should) know that the President doesn't make the budget decisions anyway, but at least coming forward with a plan would be prudent. Like you said, showing any cuts to military or social services will just send the media into a frenzy about how he's abandoning our allies or our at-risk families. Every President before him has dealt with the same thing when faced with budget cuts, but Trump will likely deal with a bit more vitriol than past Presidents no doubt (not that he didn't bring most of it on himself).
Please remember that. (That goes to everyone; not just Sooner ...).
It may be true that Rs are a lot like D lite, but when it comes to socialization, I prefer "lite" to "heavy". And Yes, I will vote for almost any pol with an R beside their name over almost any pol with a D beside their name because voting for Ds to take over the country is voting for the ruination of our country. Not that some of them don't have good ideas, but they vote as a block for things I despise.
I can understand the idea that you'd want to vote for potentially smaller changes than sweeping ones. The problem that we find ourselves in (which was warned against by the Founding Fathers) is the descent into a 2-party system. If Republicans adopted more Libertarian/Constitutionalist values, we probably would be having this discussion. I mean, it's not like Republicans are always on the right side of social issues (criminal justice reform, marriage equality, etc.) so sometimes it's okay to vote D (or other party) if that's the biggest concern for that particular voter.
Post by: Rush on November 08, 2019, 08:15:41 AM
There’s an interesting thought. It’s possible that a strengthened Republican Party, with the more appealing elements of libertarianism, might begin to catch on as being more true to our founding principles.
Trump reorienting Rs toward the working class is a good start. Many Republicans are also coming around to see the war on drugs is a failure and causing more harm than good, and criminal justice reform is no longer just a liberal cause. Also conservatives are becoming less willing to send kids to die in third world shit holes. These are all ways in which Rs are evolving toward erstwhile liberal and libertarian positions, however, it is essential the R party does not abandon free market economics, bringing us to.....
Quote
Again, though, we have to know the enemy. And the enemy (half the country) worships the ideal of a nanny state. I don’t see how we walk that back, until the starry-eyed nanny staters actually have to live under the nanny hammer and begin to envision something better.
Herein lies the great problem. Half the country now and possibly all the young generations henceforth, because our educational system is virtually 100% taken over by nanny staters. There is no possibility of reversing the headlong plunge into socialist collapse unless this changes. Same with mainstream media. But here is the thing about libertarians you don’t seem to recognize: they provide a pathway away from that, and such pathways are too rare and so precious where they exist. They are the tunnel through no man’s land between liberalism and conservatism.
It’s much easier to convince a liberal to consider learning something about libertarianism than it is to convince them to be open to reading or listening to conservatives. It’s well known that the best way to bring someone around to your point of view is to first find common ground. Too many liberals don’t know shit about economics. Get on their side with social issues, and that way you have their ear, then introduce them to free market concepts and the harm of economic collectivism.
This is probably the only true hope for libertarianism if it’s to help save our country, because it’s not going to save it by winning elections. And if it goes away (like you seem to want it to) convince me that conservatives and Republicans alone can win over the little miseducated kiddies, because I don’t see it.
I hear you about siphoning elections. But we are headed to socialism anyway. All the siphoning will do is get us there faster, but maybe the publicity will draw curious liberals - especially malleable youngsters - and maybe in the long run help draw people away from the far left.
We are in a situation now where Spock needs to jettison the fuel: Risk a faster orbit decay for a shot at saving ourselves.
Post by: nddons on November 08, 2019, 08:22:19 AM
Curious why you didn’t vote for Simon’s R opponent.Honestly, I don’t recall any warts on the GOP candidate at the time. I was pretty anti-establishment back then (see my vote for Ross Perot above), and was looking for a decent person. I actually met him on the street one morning in Chicago as I was walking from Union Station to my office. It was in front of the Civic Opera House. He didn’t have an entourage but had maybe one person with him. I just said “good morning Senator” as I waked past him, and he stopped to chat with me. It made an impression.
Mind you, bizarre Rs do show up on ballots occasionally. My theory is that the weirdest of them are libertarians trying to pass themselves off as Republicans.
(Need to insert here again that I like Jim)
Post by: Anthony on November 08, 2019, 08:25:54 AM
There is no logic in today's Progressives. It is all emotionally based, which of course will lead to failure. When we allowed them to take over the Media, Education, Entertainment, and now Social Media and Corporate America WE LOST. I see the people buying the McMansions they are building all over my area, and bringing their Progressive Democrat voting with them. "Successful", two income families that think they are oh so enlightened and evolved.
Post by: Rush on November 08, 2019, 08:42:07 AM
Rush, ^^^^^I remember that Star Trek episode, where Spock was alone in the shuttle. Was it the Galileo? lol! He did something illogical, out of desperation, but it actually was logical when you think about it.
There is no logic in today's Progressives. It is all emotionally based, which of course will lead to failure. When we allowed them to take over the Media, Education, Entertainment, and now Social Media and Corporate America WE LOST. I see the people buying the McMansions they are building all over my area, and bringing their Progressive Democrat voting with them. "Successful", two income families that think they are oh so enlightened and evolved.
Yes the Galileo Seven. He wasn’t alone, McCoy and others were with him, criticizing his flawless logic of course.
Post by: Anthony on November 08, 2019, 08:48:12 AM
Yes the Galileo Seven. He wasn’t alone, McCoy and others were with him, criticizing his flawless logic of course.
You're right of course. I forgot about that. Haven't seen that episode in a long time.
Post by: Rush on November 08, 2019, 08:57:19 AM
You're right of course. I forgot about that. Haven't seen that episode in a long time.
I use Star Trek as my default “put me to sleep” show when I’m not watching anything else.
Post by: Anthony on November 08, 2019, 09:13:54 AM
I use Star Trek as my default “put me to sleep” show when I’m not watching anything else.
Ha! I don't get it here. Wish I did. Between some of the abstract concepts and women in ridiculously short skirts, it is one of my favorites. :)
This is the episode.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708465/?ref_=tttr_tr_tt
Post by: Little Joe on November 08, 2019, 10:33:22 AM
Ha! I don't get it here. Wish I did. Between some of the abstract concepts and women in ridiculously short skirts, it is one of my favorites. :)I forgot how short those skirts were. I guess back then they were not all that uncommon though.
This is the episode.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708465/?ref_=tttr_tr_tt
Post by: Steingar on November 08, 2019, 01:15:01 PM
I doubt there have ever been a sufficient number of libertarians to sway a national election. The one who swayed national elections was H. Ross Perot. Swayed two of them, and put Bill Clinton in the White House twice.
Post by: Old Crow on November 08, 2019, 01:58:27 PM
The one who swayed national elections was H. Ross Perot. Swayed two of them, and put Bill Clinton in the White House twice.
I have often wondered if that was his intent all along.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 08, 2019, 02:17:36 PM
I forgot how short those skirts were. I guess back then they were not all that uncommon though.
Some history on their origin:
https://www.vintag.es/2013/05/mini-skirts-in-star-trek-1966.html (https://www.vintag.es/2013/05/mini-skirts-in-star-trek-1966.html)
I learned a few years ago that the Star Trek costume designer was gay, but he seemed to know how to design titillating costumes for women guest stars.
Attempt to be relevant to the thread: Libertarians have no objections to anyone wanting to wear miniskirts.
Post by: Little Joe on November 08, 2019, 03:03:44 PM
Spock carried out an act of desperation, which itself is illogical.I don't see it that way. It is logical to choose the most viable solution. Choosing a desperate act over certain death certainly sounds logical to me.
Post by: Rush on November 08, 2019, 03:31:48 PM
I don't see it that way. It is logical to choose the most viable solution. Choosing a desperate act over certain death certainly sounds logical to me.
KIRK: Mister Spock.
SPOCK: Captain.
KIRK: There's really something I don't understand about all of this. Maybe you can explain it to me. Logically, of course. When you jettisoned the fuel and ignited it, you knew there was virtually no chance of it being seen, yet you did it anyhow. That would seem to me to be an act of desperation.
SPOCK: Quite correct, Captain.
KIRK: Now we all know, and I'm sure the doctor will agree with me, that desperation is a highly emotional state of mind. How does your well-known logic explain that?
SPOCK: Quite simply, Captain. I examined the problem from all angles, and it was plainly hopeless. Logic informed me that under the circumstances, the only possible action would have to be one of desperation. Logical decision, logically arrived at.
KIRK: I see. You mean you reasoned that it was time for an emotional outburst.
SPOCK: Well, I wouldn't put it in exactly those terms, Captain, but those are essentially the facts.
KIRK: You're not going to admit that for the first time in your life, you committed a purely human emotional act?
SPOCK: No, sir.
KIRK: Mister Spock, you're a stubborn man.
SPOCK: Yes, sir.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 08, 2019, 03:42:06 PM
That must have occurred before Spock fell in love on that planet with the flowers that released a substance that triggered emotions. Because I believe THAT was the first time he committed a purely human emotional act.
Post by: Anthony on November 08, 2019, 03:57:25 PM
;D I agree ... purely logical!
That must have occurred before Spock fell in love on that planet with the flowers that released a substance that triggered emotions. Because I believe THAT was the first time he committed a purely human emotional act.
It was such a great series. The chemistry between Kirk, Spock McCoy and Scotty was great. I think that episode was called "Shore Leave", and the beautiful Emily Banks was the guest, short skirt hottie in that one.
Post by: Little Joe on November 08, 2019, 05:57:21 PM
I think that episode was called "Shore Leave", and the beautiful Emily Banks was the guest, short skirt hottie in that one.That whole series was quite visionary. Except for the women. Unless things change drastically, all the women will be husky porkers by then.
I hope things change.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 08, 2019, 09:01:00 PM
Plus, libertarians are creepy, twisted ideologues, and probably many are seriously along on the autism spectrum.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/libertarians-brag-about-throwing-kentucky-governor-election-to-democrat-your-tears-are-delicious/
I stand by my thread title.
Those libertarians were being jerks - no question. I’ve seen “your tears are delicious” used by younger guys on political forums mostly read by other libertarians (mostly in the comment sections after articles on reason.com.) They are being clueless in general but more so when using it on wider read forums.
Post by: nddons on November 09, 2019, 12:36:52 AM
Spock carried out an act of desperation, which itself is illogical.Yep.
I doubt there have ever been a sufficient number of libertarians to sway a national election. The one who swayed national elections was H. Ross Perot. Swayed two of them, and put Bill Clinton in the White House twice.
Post by: nddons on November 09, 2019, 12:44:28 AM
I have often wondered if that was his intent all along.I don’t think so. He was innovative, and not a career politician. He may have been delusional as a Reform party candidate, thinking he could win, and beat the two-party system.
If Trump ran as a third party candidate, that would have been equally delusional. But he saw Perot’s mistake, and ran WITHIN the Republican party. Genius.
Post by: Rush on November 09, 2019, 08:16:23 AM
Those libertarians were being jerks - no question. I’ve seen “your tears are delicious” used by younger guys on political forums mostly read by other libertarians (mostly in the comment sections after articles on reason.com.) They are being clueless in general but more so when using it on wider read forums.
The only people I’ve ever seen talk about delicious tears are gamers, which calls up images of basement dwelling adolescents. Hence my comment about young uns ruining the high ideals of libertarianism.
Post by: nddons on November 11, 2019, 03:14:10 PM
https://conventionofstates.com/news/republicans-libertarians-unite-in-supporting-convention-of-states-south-carolina?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=link&utm_content=text1&utm_campaign=
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 14, 2019, 10:35:33 AM
Post by: Rush on November 14, 2019, 11:15:31 AM
*sigh*
Post by: Anthony on November 14, 2019, 11:33:30 AM
And yet he’s right. One of my acquaintances is a left wing activist tranny and I was suggesting to her that being pro second amendment and carrying a firearm is one of the best ways gays (LBGTXYZ whatever) can protect themselves against violent hate attacks. Her reply was that her black belt in martial arts is what she will rely on if attacked.
*sigh*
Don't bring a black belt to a gun/knife/multiple attacker fight. Idiots. I bet she is anti 2A also, so wants to give up her rights as well as TAKE AWAY YOURS.
Post by: Steingar on November 14, 2019, 11:56:06 AM
Don't bring a black belt to a gun/knife/multiple attacker fight. Idiots. I bet she is anti 2A also, so wants to give up her rights as well as TAKE AWAY YOURS.
At close range a knife beats a gun most days. And I'd bet on a highly trained martial arts participant over a poorly trained assailant with a knife. Most hand weapons are only as good as the person using them.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 14, 2019, 12:04:04 PM
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4000.0;attach=1236)
Canadian Libertarian, eh? Cute!
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0120/0692/products/libertarian-plot-mug-2.jpg?v=1443541388)
Post by: Little Joe on November 14, 2019, 12:06:36 PM
At close range a knife beats a gun most days. And I'd bet on a highly trained martial arts participant over a poorly trained assailant with a knife. Most hand weapons are only as good as the person using them.I really hate to say it, but I agree with Steingar on this. With the caveat being on "highly trained". Most black belts have never really gone up against a real aggressor that really wants to hurt them. But a good, experienced black belt can disarm most armed assailants rather quickly. Unless they get killed first. ;)
Post by: Anthony on November 14, 2019, 12:21:48 PM
At close range a knife beats a gun most days. And I'd bet on a highly trained martial arts participant over a poorly trained assailant with a knife. Most hand weapons are only as good as the person using them.
I've taken some self defense courses as well as combat handgun courses. As others have said the key word is training. To be an effective knife fighter, or knife defender, you have to be willing to take cuts, sometimes REALLY bad ones. Most are not. The most effective way for someone to defend themselves from a person, a larger person, multiple attackers, etc. is with a gun. Often the attacker(s) run away at the sight of a gun, which is the best outcome for all. It also often does not get reported, unfortunately.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 14, 2019, 12:29:24 PM
I've taken some self defense courses as well as combat handgun courses. As others have said the key word is training. To be an effective knife fighter, or knife defender, you have to be willing to take cuts, sometimes REALLY bad ones. Most are not. The most effective way for someone to defend themselves from a person, a larger person, multiple attackers, etc. is with a gun. Often the attacker(s) run away at the sight of a gun, which is the best outcome for all. It also often does not get reported, unfortunately.
“God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.”
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 14, 2019, 01:27:51 PM
And who said that it has to be one or there other?
For those that carry a selfdefense firearm, there is no requirement to use it. However, it provides an option for selfdefense. In a lot of situations that option is much better than letting an assailant get up close.
Post by: Little Joe on November 14, 2019, 01:55:43 PM
In a lot of situations that option is much better than letting an assailant get up close.I realize that I may be in the minority here, but I think deadly force is often better than letting an assailant get away.
Post by: Anthony on November 14, 2019, 02:20:50 PM
I realize that I may be in the minority here, but I think deadly force is often better than letting an assailant get away.
If they are no longer a threat to me or my family, I am MORE than happy to let them get away, and allow the police to catch them. The bottom line is to deter, and stop the threat, not be judge, jury and executioner. YMMV.
Post by: Little Joe on November 14, 2019, 02:29:07 PM
If they are no longer a threat to me or my family, I am MORE than happy to let them get away, and allow the police to catch them. The bottom line is to deter, and stop the threat, not be judge, jury and executioner. YMMV.As I said, I know I am in the minority. But I have read just too many stories about chronic offenders finally raping or killing someone. I can't find the link now, but in our local paper about a year ago was a story about a rapist that had been caught. He had been arrested and leg go for various street crimes, many involving assault and breaking and entry. If someone had shot the bastard, that girl would not have been raped. The article said there were hundreds of known thugs on the street and when the cops arrest them, the courts let them go. I say shoot them in the act and we will all be better off. If I get to the point where I have to rob a convenience store or a pedestrian, I hope someone shoots me.
Post by: Anthony on November 14, 2019, 02:41:10 PM
As I said, I know I am in the minority. But I have read just too many stories about chronic offenders finally raping or killing someone. I can't find the link now, but in our local paper about a year ago was a story about a rapist that had been caught. He had been arrested and leg go for various street crimes, many involving assault and breaking and entry. If someone had shot the bastard, that girl would not have been raped. The article said there were hundreds of known thugs on the street and when the cops arrest them, the courts let them go. I say shoot them in the act and we will all be better off. If I get to the point where I have to rob a convenience store or a pedestrian, I hope someone shoots me.
This is a huge problem in all the big cities. DA's plea down crimes to get quick, no trial convictions. They live and die by conviction stats alone. The end result is that multiple FELONS do little or no jail time, including for gun charges, and other crimes. They get back on the street and just repeat the same types of crimes over and over. This is where the vast majority of gun related crime stats come from. Not school shootings, not "assault weapons". Inner city repeat offenders often Black, and often killing each other.
So I get where you're coming from, but I'm just not going to go there.
Post by: nddons on November 14, 2019, 02:48:48 PM
As I said, I know I am in the minority. But I have read just too many stories about chronic offenders finally raping or killing someone. I can't find the link now, but in our local paper about a year ago was a story about a rapist that had been caught. He had been arrested and leg go for various street crimes, many involving assault and breaking and entry. If someone had shot the bastard, that girl would not have been raped. The article said there were hundreds of known thugs on the street and when the cops arrest them, the courts let them go. I say shoot them in the act and we will all be better off. If I get to the point where I have to rob a convenience store or a pedestrian, I hope someone shoots me.Are you willing to pay the price for eliminating this filth? An Anti-gun prosecutor makes YOU the criminal, where you can get arrested, are presumed guilty, risk prison, risk civil lawsuits, risk losing your family, friends, and job.
I would pull the trigger if I have to, but my preference would be to follow Anthony’s line of thinking. And trust me, I’m in your corner on this.
Post by: Little Joe on November 14, 2019, 02:57:28 PM
Are you willing to pay the price for eliminating this filth? An Anti-gun prosecutor makes YOU the criminal, where you can get arrested, are presumed guilty, risk prison, risk civil lawsuits, risk losing your family, friends, and job.Agreed. I stand by my statement that it would be better for all. But the laws and culture don't allow it so I wouldn't actually do it either. And I would regret it.
I would pull the trigger if I have to, but my preference would be to follow Anthony’s line of thinking. And trust me, I’m in your corner on this.
But how often do we all cheer and applaud when someone actually does stop a mugger or rapist or home invader with a lethal gun shot or machete chop (as I read about recently).
Post by: Anthony on November 14, 2019, 03:22:58 PM
Agreed. I stand by my statement that it would be better for all. But the laws and culture don't allow it so I wouldn't actually do it either. And I would regret it.
But how often do we all cheer and applaud when someone actually does stop a mugger or rapist or home invader with a lethal gun shot or machete chop (as I read about recently).
I have no problem when police or others HAVE to put down these violent, dangerous killers and rapists when they have to. It saves the taxpayer a lot of money and time for the trials, appeals, jail time, etc. A lot of times the know they are going to die, or even want to die by cop. There are some really sick monsters out there.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 14, 2019, 03:31:35 PM
I realize that I may be in the minority here, but I think deadly force is often better than letting an assailant get away.
It some ways, it would be better. But even some repeat criminals repent and turn from crime. Who are we to judge who is worthy to live and to die?
Carried to its logical conclusion, some might argue it's better to execute everyone convicted of a violent crime because it would eliminate repeat offenders. In fact, the criminal most likely to repeat their crimes are not the murders but those committing "lesser" violent crimes. (I'm not advocating this, just thinking about consequences)
Post by: Rush on November 14, 2019, 05:35:17 PM
It some ways, it would be better. But even some repeat criminals repent and turn from crime. Who are we to judge who is worthy to live and to die?
I'm a living organism with a hard wired survival instinct. That's who I am to judge.
Besides, the goal in self defense is not to kill, it's to stop an attack. Coincidentally, the amount of force necessary to stop an attack is often sufficient to cause death.
Quote
Carried to its logical conclusion, some might argue it's better to execute everyone convicted of a violent crime because it would eliminate repeat offenders. In fact, the criminal most likely to repeat their crimes are not the murders but those committing "lesser" violent crimes. (I'm not advocating this, just thinking about consequences)
I agree with your line of thought, thinking critically and analyzing.
Post by: Mr Pou on November 15, 2019, 06:00:54 AM
I'm a living organism with a hard wired survival instinct. That's who I am to judge.
Besides, the goal in self defense is not to kill, it's to stop an attack. Coincidentally, the amount of force necessary to stop an attack is often sufficient to cause death.
I agree with your line of thought, thinking critically and analyzing.
Three strikes and you're out seems to be a good rule in many things in life. Three shots at the ILS and you can't get in? Bug out to better weather. Three shots at a really strong Xwind and can't set it down? Bug out to a runway more in line with the wind.
Third violent crime? You're kicked off the planet. Done.
Post by: Rush on November 15, 2019, 06:11:28 AM
Three strikes and you're out seems to be a good rule in many things in life. Three shots at the ILS and you can't get in? Bug out to better weather. Three shots at a really strong Xwind and can't set it down? Bug out to a runway more in line with the wind.
Third violent crime? You're kicked off the planet. Done.
In theory I agree with this, but in practice there is a lot of prosecutorial misconduct and too many innocents on death row. It’s a dilemma.
Post by: Anthony on November 15, 2019, 06:41:50 AM
Three strikes and you're out seems to be a good rule in many things in life. Three shots at the ILS and you can't get in? Bug out to better weather. Three shots at a really strong Xwind and can't set it down? Bug out to a runway more in line with the wind.
Third violent crime? You're kicked off the planet. Done.
Totally agree! Great analogies. Ones we can understand.
Post by: nddons on November 15, 2019, 09:28:33 AM
In theory I agree with this, but in practice there is a lot of prosecutorial misconduct and too many innocents on death row. It’s a dilemma.Are there really? With all the resources available to someone who feels they were wrongly convicted, the endless appeals, etc.?
I know that it has happened, but I don’t think it’s prevalent. However I’ve never studied it.
I have changed my position on the death penalty, as I don’t support the state having that power, but I also don’t support ever letting these filthy killers, rapists, and molesters back out on the street, ever.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 15, 2019, 09:45:45 AM
At least with a life sentence, an innocent man has a chance to get out eventually. You can't make up for the lost years, but at least the guy isn't dead.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 15, 2019, 09:53:59 AM
At least with a life sentence, an innocent man has a chance to get out eventually.As many have.
Post by: Anthony on November 15, 2019, 10:13:44 AM
As many have.
Yes mainly due to DNA technology over the past twenty years or so, and that has made me change my tune on the Death Penalty as well. There have been many prisoners released after years and decades in jail because the Courts GOT IT WRONG.
Post by: SoonerAviator on November 15, 2019, 10:15:08 AM
Are there really? With all the resources available to someone who feels they were wrongly convicted, the endless appeals, etc.?
I know that it has happened, but I don’t think it’s prevalent. However I’ve never studied it.
I have changed my position on the death penalty, as I don’t support the state having that power, but I also don’t support ever letting these filthy killers, rapists, and molesters back out on the street, ever.
This is where I differ from Libertarians on death penalty. While I understand their viewpoint, I am also fine with using the death penalty in cases where it is IRREFUTABLE that they caused the death/harm that they were charged with. When there is video evidence of a man going into a school (or store, wherever) and killing innocent people, his death is warranted. There is no reason for recourse. However, in cases where there isn't an abundance of damning evidence/witnesses, the death penalty should be left off of the table in lieu of a life sentence.
Post by: Rush on November 15, 2019, 11:08:39 AM
Are there really? With all the resources available to someone who feels they were wrongly convicted, the endless appeals, etc.?
I know that it has happened, but I don’t think it’s prevalent. However I’ve never studied it.
I have changed my position on the death penalty, as I don’t support the state having that power, but I also don’t support ever letting these filthy killers, rapists, and molesters back out on the street, ever.
I don't know any actual statistics either. Like you I have reversed my position on the death penalty. I used to be for it but now, just like you, I don't like the state having the power. "The state" has become too big and corrupt. Also like you if there is no doubt some one did the crime, I don't want them out either, and in fact, fully support the "death penalty" at the point of the crime (by the victim, with their self defense weapon) when possible.