Liberterians - Political Thread

[GogglesPisano]

WARNING: POLITICAL THREAD

(TB: Please keep them short&sweet)

I am growing increasingly dissatisfied with both major parties and am interested in learning more about the libertarian platform.

Socially I am liberal. I believe the government shouldn't be telling us how to live our lives (helmet laws, blue laws, anti-porn laws, anti-sodomy laws, affirmative action, seatbelt laws, drug war, Pat Robertson ...)

I do believe strongly in environmental protection, national defense (though I'm not sure ignoring the UN is such a good idea,) and product safety (I cringe at the idea of not having a powerful FDA, FAA ... and leaving safety up to "the marketplace")

I believe strongly in fiscal conservatism (while keeping monopolies in check.) I think worker safety/conditions should be handled by unions.


What the hell am I anyway?

 

[jergar999]

Confused!

Just kidding. I am kind of in the same boat as you are, I seem to go back and forth on a lot of issues and haven't found a party with a platform that follows my beliefs. There is probably a local office where you are for the Liberitarian Party. Try contacting them, I'm sure someone would be happy to speak to you about their beliefs.

 

[Timebuilder]

Wilco.

The problems I have with the Libertarian model are these, for starters:

It seems that this party is very much in favor of a 100% self-styled version of freedom, with no cultural imperatives to provide guidance. It's very much like the sixties, where the mantra was "do your own thing". That sure sounded good, until doing your own thing came to mean experimenting freely with drugs, so-called "alternative lifestyles", and a general shift away from personal responsibility.

This does not mean, by ANY stretch of the imagination, that we should have a moral code that is the exclusive suggestion of a religion, however, America does have a secular moral code that is based on the foundational beliefs of the Judeo-Christian heritage that most of us share.

As a representative republic, we decide through legislation which additions and deletions we choose to make to our basic laws that touch on the area of morality. Sometimes the court usurps this responsibility, and in so doing perverts the process of self governance. From what I see of the Libertarian party, there is too great an emphasis on leaning in the direction of what I call cultural anarchy, and too great a willingness to accept whatever moral code any individual should choose as being either healthy or benign to the nature of our society.

Under the influence of over 40 years of democrat representation, which includes the heavy influence of the AFL-CIO and the trial lawyers, we have shifted to a more highly regulated society than any previously seen. A woman can spill hot coffee on herself, and there is a successful lawsuit mounted, with no one able to stop such absurdity. Every product must carry a silly disclaimer now. I remember when it was my own personal responsibility to determine if I had sufficient skill and knowlege to use a particular product without causing myself harm. We had no huge judgements, and insurance rates were low. Now, a used Bonanza is insured by the same money that was its original purchase price!

Finally, any third party, at this time, serves only as a "spoiler" party. It's too bad, but that is the political reality. Look at how Ross Perot brought us Bill Clinton. He drew off just enough votes from Bush senior to put Clinton into office. While we can heartily debate the pros and cons of the result, we must agree that is was Perot, the spoiler candidate, that really decided the election by siphoning off dissatisfied voters.

Some of the Libertarian platform is attractive, as I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the constitution. Socially, they seem too liberal for my taste, and could lead to an America that looks too much like Europe.

Hope that wasn't too long for you.

 

[172driver]

It's very much like the sixties, where the mantra was "do your own thing". That sure sounded good, until doing your own thing came to mean experimenting freely with drugs, so-called "alternative lifestyles"

I remember when it was my own personal responsibility to determine if I had sufficient skill and knowlege to use a particular product without causing myself harm.

Do you see the apparent contradiction in these two statements? Drug users and those who live alternative lifestyles believe they have sufficient skill and responsibility to live the way they do but you have a problem with that. Maybe had you experimented a little more in your youth, you would be a little less narrow minded. I have met far more 'alternative' people who 'live and let live' and 'do unto others' (supposedly Christian values) than I have Christians.

 

[Timebuilder]

Do you see the apparent contradiction in these two statements? Drug users and those who live alternative lifestyles believe they have sufficient skill and responsibility to live the way they do but you have a problem with that.

We are talking about, or at least I was talking about garden variety, legal products. Things like lawn mowers and coffee makers. Neither I nor the people you mentioned have a carte blanche to do as we wish outside of a society based on anarchy.

I have a reasonble belief that I can run a lawnmower without 12 labels to keep me from cutting my toes along with the grass. This is not the same thing as thinking that I can safely ingest a variety of chemicals just because "I think I can". I have a problem with alternative lifestyles that are immoral by the standard of our society, and spread, by their free practice, the greatest plague of modern times.

Hopefully, that makes it a little more clear, and less of a contradiction. You will only be confused if you look at this without context.

 

[enigma]

here ya go

http://www.lp.org/

 

[FN FAL]

Socially I am liberal. I believe the government shouldn't be telling us how to live our lives (helmet laws, blue laws, anti-porn laws, anti-sodomy laws, affirmative action, seatbelt laws, drug war, Pat Robertson ...)

What are you talking about? Democrats have passed and have attempted to pass, some of the most ludicrust laws that I have ever seen.

I'll make a deal with you, I'll let you suck your way to China, Africa, Europe or where ever the heck it is that you feel suits your life style and you stay the hell out of my gun safe. Deal?

"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign." - Bill Clinton running for US Representative in 1974

"I misled people" - Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky address (Translation: I lied to the American people)

"I issued a number of denials to people I thought needed to hear them" - Bill Clinton, Grand Jury Testimony (Translation: I wanted to cover it up so I lied to you- even under oath)

"I am trying to be honest with you and it hurts me. Now..." - Bill Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony (We know all too well)

 

[bart]

check out the free state project.

 

[kevdog]

It's very much like the sixties, where the mantra was "do your own thing". That sure sounded good, until doing your own thing came to mean experimenting freely with drugs, so-called "alternative lifestyles", and a general shift away from personal responsibility.

TB - I thought you smoked crack.

 

[Timebuilder]

Hmmm. Come to think of it, I did have some contact with "crack" in the sixties.


I think it belonged to a cheerleader named Heather. As we used to say back then, she was fine.

 

[dmspilot00]

A woman can spill hot coffee on herself, and there is a successful lawsuit mounted, with no one able to stop such absurdity.

McDonalds admitted that it had known for 10 years that it was serving its coffee way too hot (nearly boiling), and that it had known there was a high risk of serious burns from its coffee. McDonalds admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why.

The woman in question, Ms. Liebeck, was a 79-year-old retired sales clerk. She received third degree burns (the most severe) to her groin and related areas. As a result of her injuries, she spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years. Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald's about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000. McDonald's countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer.

McDonald's had several other chances to settle the case before trial: At one point, Liebeck's attorney offered to settle for $300,000. In addition, days before the trial, the judge ordered both sides into a mediated settlement conference where the mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000. McDonald's refused all attempts to settle the case.

The jury found that the woman suffered $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medical costs and disability. The award was reduced to $160,000 since the jury determined that 20 percent of the fault for the injury belonged with the woman for spilling the coffee.

Based on its finding that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages; essential to the size of the award was the fact that at the time McDonald's made $1.35 million in coffee sales daily.

Based on the facts, Corporate America's and much of the media's trivial portrayal of the case is deceptive and disgraceful. They have painted a misleading picture of a "legal horror story" when in fact, the case demonstrates a legal system that punishes corporations for misconduct and protects consumers who may be victims of their wrongdoing.

 

[Caveman]

The fact that you defend this lawsuit tells me that you are either a lawyer or the concept of personal responsibility is completely foreign to you. COFFEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT!

 

[Timebuilder]

The jury found that the woman suffered $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medical costs and disability. The award was reduced to $160,000 since the jury determined that 20 percent of the fault for the injury belonged with the woman for spilling the coffee.

Let's say that the woman had never purchased coffee at Mac Donald's. After 79 years of living, she would know that a pot of coffee that sits on a burner (she remembers the days before the benign "Mr. Coffee" machine) is going to be VERY hot, and too hot to drink right away. I myself regularly purchased this company's coffee without injury.

Now let's say that she HAD purchased Mac Donald's coffee before. If the coffee had been "too hot" for ten years, then she knew exactly what to expect in terms of coffee temperature.

That means that the responsibility was 100% hers and hers alone for being unable to properly control her cup of coffee and prevent the spill.

It is disturbing that she was injured, I agree. However, it would never cross my mind to blame anyone except myself if I had been similarly injured.

The additional information you have provided helps to underscore the lack of personal responsibility the woman exercised by her legal action.

If she had been burned because she had been served a cup of acid, then yes. She would not be the responsible party. Coffee, however, is often "too hot" to drink immediately after serving. On my way to work, I liked the fact that I could only sip at my cup, and it was still warm when I arrived at work.

But it's still my fault if I spill the darned thing.

 

[GogglesPisano]

What are you talking about? Democrats have passed and have attempted to pass, some of the most ludicrust laws that I have ever seen.

I'll make a deal with you, I'll let you suck your way to China, Africa, Europe or where ever the heck it is that you feel suits your life style and you stay the hell out of my gun safe. Deal?

"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign." - Bill Clinton running for US Representative in 1974

"I misled people" - Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky address (Translation: I lied to the American people)

"I issued a number of denials to people I thought needed to hear them" - Bill Clinton, Grand Jury Testimony (Translation: I wanted to cover it up so I lied to you- even under oath)

"I am trying to be honest with you and it hurts me. Now..." - Bill Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony (We know all too well)

I had the nagging fear there would be some sort of insulting post from an angry arch-conservative who feared for his gun.

By the way, what exactly does "ludicrust mean?"

I'll bet you money that most of the "family value" laws (decency, anti-porn, anti-alcohol, anti-drug ...) were passed by CONSERVATIVES intent on telling people how to run their private lives.

By the by, what does Bill Clinton's quotes have to do with this discussion, other than the "I hate liberals, America love it or leave it, Bill Clinton is the antiChrist, keep your hands off my guns ... blah blah blah..." rant.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

information is power
impeach 'em all

 

[Timebuilder]

I'll bet you money that most of the "family value" laws (decency, anti-porn, anti-alcohol, anti-drug ...) were passed by CONSERVATIVES intent on telling people how to run their private lives.

You must mean "conservatives" like the founders, the framers of our founding documents.

Even in their personal letters, they support the idea that America can only survive as a moral country. This stems from the founding idea (revolutionary by today's "anything goes" mentality) that our freedom and success is based on the blessings of God, and that we can only be a thriving nation if sufficient number of us choose to exercise our freedom to follow His ways. We are not forced to do this, but our laws reflect the bias toward morality that the founders knew we must have as a nation.

There is only one authority who can tell us how to run (our) private lives. We can choose to follow His way, or not. Our civil restraints, our laws of behavior, are ALL based on these ideas.

 

[FN FAL]

Our civil restraints, our laws of behavior, are ALL based on these ideas.

And Jesus said, Let not no man drill a hole in his HK-93, where soeth he wouldeth like to install a push pin lower, becauseth the BATF deems thateth creates a machine gun, so sayeth the Lord.

Yea...sure. All laws spew forth from the bible.

If that is true, next time you go to church ask your preacher why Jesus/Moses/God, or whoever...deemed that AOW's transfer on 5.00 dollar treasury tax vs 200.00 dollars for an SBS, SBR, silencer, or machine gun. I'll bet your preacher don't know the answer to that question.

Most dumb ass street cops don't even know that according to the BATF technical branch, drilling a hole in the reciever of HK semiauto rifles to install the paddle mag release or to facilitate installing a push pin lower, creates a machine gun...even though the hole itself doesn't even come close to making the gun full auto. Does that make them street cops guilty of not following and knowing God's word? Then damb them all to hell, cause they be ignorant of the word of the Lord.

 

[FN FAL]

By the way, what exactly does "ludicrust mean?"

Ludicrust is from a Mad TV skit on Mike Tyson.

And if you don't like guns, you better steer clear of the Libertarian party. Ever heard of Posse Comitatus?

though I'm not sure ignoring the UN is such a good idea

What the hell am I anyway?

Based on those two comments alone, I'd say you're a...a...ludicrust dork.

 

[Big Duke Six]

Like a ship without a rudder...

...this thread is drifting a little off course.

Goggles' question is one increasingly asked by more people every day. We are becoming more and more polarized, politically, as a nation with every election. TB's comments go a long way toward shining a light on things, but I just wanted to finish the observation FN FAL made by illustrating more of the confusion in Goggle's very own stated views. This is no offense toward any of you guys - I think this makes great conversation while we pass a little time here.

Goggle's quote: "Socially I am liberal. I believe the government shouldn't be telling us how to live our lives (helmet laws, blue laws, anti-porn laws, anti-sodomy laws, affirmative action, seatbelt laws, drug war, Pat Robertson ...)"

I didn't catch it until FN's first post, but the gunman is right: Goggles has a few contradictions in there. If you are socially liberal, then you ARE for helmet laws, affirmative action and seat belt laws (gotta protect the chilllll-ren)( I actually flew her in my airplane once - aaagggh!). You are also for gun control, abortion, unlimited immigration, high taxes on the "rich", fairly high levels of welfare, smoke-free bars and teaching us how to masturbate.

I believe the Conservative views lean toward things like anti-sodomy laws, lower taxes, the drug war and at the edge, Pat Robertson (we've got him, you've got Jesse and Al).

OK, my cover is blown. I usually vote conservative but do not necessarily agree with some of their planks. I don't personally agree with the drug war as it is playing out now for example. I don't think abortion should be made illegal but I do agree with the recent ban on partial-birth abortions. Porn is a neutral area I believe. Its not really been touched by either party, and everyone agrees children should not be involved in anyone's sex lives. I am all for opportunity, but we really need to get a handle on immigration. I could go on...

I am fairly open minded most of the time, but what keeps me voting conservative is the staunch belief that I should ALWAYS be able to protect myself and my family and that the government shouldn't automatically count 50% or more of what I make as theirs. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Timebuilder]

Yea...sure. All laws spew forth from the bible.

Well, if you want to quote accurately, make a second attempt.

I am telling you that our laws, an adaptation of british laws at the time of the founding of our nation, are based on the moral framework suggested by the Bible, which also has several ideas about civil government. If we do not like the regulatory laws passed under a blanket vote because they were empowered by congress to do so, then we must petition our elected officials to make a change.

The ability of certain areas of our government to make law outside of congress has beeen well established and tested. It has its pros and cons. If enough people are against it, that will change. Most of the public likes the idea on an FCC, FAA, EPA, BATF, FBI or any of the other "alphabets" in DC that we could name, even if some of don't.

The largest, most overriding idea, right out of Genesis, is that of obedience to law and the consequences of disobedience. That theme is carried forward throughout the books of Moses, the pentatuch, and illustrate Man's desire to rebel against authority and the consequenses that are his when he does so.