The Libertarian Thread-No Political debates please!

[Rokkitsci]

I think many people are Democrats because they see them as being a lesser evil than letting the Republicans turn us into a failed and hideously frightening fundamentalist Christian Theocracy.

Would you care to open a thread to debate this subject - showing at least ONE example of what you are talking about??

If not, I will continue to ignore.

 

[chobie]

Would you care to open a thread to debate this subject - showing at least ONE example of what you are talking about??

If not, I will continue to ignore.

No thanks. I don't care to wrassle with a pig today.

 

[hucifer]

Flaming Libertarian here. Glad to see a few other Libbies here on the Disboards.

 

[Charade]

I think many people are Democrats because they see them as being a lesser evil than letting the Republicans turn us into a failed and hideously frightening fundamentalist Christian Theocracy.

Would that be with the states run by cardinals, the cities run by bishops (or would it be the other way around because I don't know who wields more power) and of course the Pope would move from the Vatican City to Washington DC.

 

[TXTink]

Bumping this one back to page one - I don't want it to die yet.

I am really interested in hearing ideas from the libertarians. I am a libertarian at heart, but at the moment have to make my decisions to vote for the "lesser evil" based on what I perceive to be the absolute danger than the Democrat party poses for our society. If not checked, they will transform us into another failed socialist welfare state with no natinal tradition of achievement or honor.

I pray for the time the Democrat party returns to the values of Truman and FDR, so that I can view both DEM and GOP as adequate protectors of America and can lend my weight to more libertarian ideals.

But for now, the boat is sinking. I choose to join my efforts to the ones who are bailing it out - not the ones doing the rocking.

ITA!

 

[artvandelay]

Another former Democrat, who's now a Republican, but shares a lot of ideas with Libertarians. I wish we could have less government in our lives. As a country, we need to stop turning to the government to solve all our problems and start solving them on our own.

 

[roger_ramjet]

Thanks for posting, fellow Libs(ertarians), now I don't feel quite so alone.

I'm wondering what many of you thought about the mess that accompanied the Schiavo case? I found that a very interesting and enlightening show of how things work in the US. Get enough people worked up about something and before too long, folks'll be calling for all sorts of craziness. The courts upheld the law, fortunately. One would think that governmental involvement in the issue was entirely taboo, but I suppose in the somewhat crazy, reactionary environment that exists here, that's hoping for a little much.

About ANWR - I'm not sure we can make any definite statements about the situation there. It's such a toss-up. I'm too much of a greenie at heart, sometimes. It's such a shame, to me, that we feel it's necessary to have to develop this wilderness for the sake of short-term gain - but having said that, if the short-term gain provided has no long-term consequences, it makes the decision that much easier to justify. We won't know until it happens, though, and that's what worries me. I certainly don't have a great deal of trust in oil companies' ability to manage what is a very fragile area.

 

[chobie]

Thanks for posting, fellow Libs(ertarians), now I don't feel quite so alone.

I'm wondering what many of you thought about the mess that accompanied the Schiavo case? I found that a very interesting and enlightening show of how things work in the US. Get enough people worked up about something and before too long, folks'll be calling for all sorts of craziness. The courts upheld the law, fortunately. One would think that governmental involvement in the issue was entirely taboo, but I suppose in the somewhat crazy, reactionary environment that exists here, that's hoping for a little much.

.

Careful now. Saying you agree with the courts upholding the law could get you branded as a"judicial extremest", which is almost as bad as being liberal.

 

[TDC Nala]

Just from reading posts on these boards, it looks like

Democrat = supporter of socialist welfare state

Republican= supporter of fundamentalist Christian theocracy

Doesn't much make me want to sign up with either. Isn't there middle ground somewhere?

 

[Rokkitsci]

I'm wondering what many of you thought about the mess that accompanied the Schiavo case? I found that a very interesting and enlightening show of how things work in the US. Get enough people worked up about something and before too long, folks'll be calling for all sorts of craziness. The courts upheld the law, fortunately. One would think that governmental involvement in the issue was entirely taboo, but I suppose in the somewhat crazy, reactionary environment that exists here, that's hoping for a little much.

About ANWR - I'm not sure we can make any definite statements about the situation there. It's such a toss-up. I'm too much of a greenie at heart, sometimes. It's such a shame, to me, that we feel it's necessary to have to develop this wilderness for the sake of short-term gain - but having said that, if the short-term gain provided has no long-term consequences, it makes the decision that much easier to justify. We won't know until it happens, though, and that's what worries me. I certainly don't have a great deal of trust in oil companies' ability to manage what is a very fragile area.

Actually, the "government" includes the legislative and executive branches as well as the judiciary. I presume you were referring to just the legislative branch in referring to the "government" getting involved.
There is no doubt that the courts had the final say in the Schiavo case and that all the appeals showed that the proper legal process had taken place. What I find a bit inconsistent is the view of some that the original court decision should stand unchallanged. I find that the same folks who took that position in the Schiavo case are the very ones who never believe the original court case settles anything in - for instance - murder cases. In these cases, appeals go on for decades. In fact, the presumption seems to be that there is is "obviously" an error in any proceeding that results in a sentence of death for another human being.
Another instance just leaps to mind. The original acquittal of the policemen invovled in the Rodney King case. Certainly there was nothing wrong with the legal process, but there was certainly wholesale rejection of the verdict by the same people who now think that the Schiavo case was settled eternally in the original finding.

In the Schiavo case, I believe the original court decision, however legally precise, was not morally just. There was just no real evidence that Terri Schiavo had ever expressed the directive attributed to her by her "husband."
The status of a "husband" who had taken another (common law) wife and started a completely different family seems to lose some of its standing. I won't belabor the various items that make it appear that there is at least an "appearance" of conflict of interest in the "husbands" recollection of Terri's desires.

I find it morally repugnant that a person totally detached from a disabled person has the right to dictate the end of that invalid's life when there are devoted family members ready willing and able to continue her care. I do not find it morally repugnant for the legislature to step in and try to find a remedy for this moral tragedy. I would find it reprehensible for the legislature to intervene in a case where only property rights or some policy difference was at stake. But here it was the issue of life or death measured in hours.

Personally, I would not want to be kept alive in the situation that Terri was in - IF it were CERTAIN that was the true condition. I think that some consideration should have been given to the numerous individuals who declaared that condition was NOT correct. In a case like this, I feel that it is really the start of the "slippery slope" argument to just discount all opposing testimony and declare that the original decision MUST have been totally correct.

I can imagine some estranged wife coming into the intensive care room where her husband is on life support from an automobile accident and declaring that "he would not want this == pull the plug" and proceed to collect the life insurance. Who can argue with her?? Based on what?? What if the guy's parents were there saying "give him a chance - let's do some therapy - we will pay for it." I know this is a lousy example - I just made it up. But I am sure there are really sticky situations that might arise if we allow someone to just "remember" what a injured person's life directives were.

As for ANWR - I am not so certain this environment is all that "fragile" to begin with. On whose authority do you declare this a fragile environment?

 

[Rokkitsci]

Just from reading posts on these boards, it looks like

Democrat = supporter of socialist welfare state

Republican= supporter of fundamentalist Christian theocracy

Doesn't much make me want to sign up with either. Isn't there middle ground somewhere?

LOL - Yep - you have to be careful of labels defined by people with oppising viewpoints.

However, I can assure you that I am no supporter of fundamentalist Christian theocracy. That is only one step better than a fundamentalist Muslim Theocracy. I would refute either.

All I want is an America that is true to its constitution - as written by the founders and amended by the legislature since. I do not want a nation ruled by a "judicial theocracy" which can just gaze at its navel and "decide" what the constitution means on a day - to - day basis to fit whatever the fad of the times happens to be.

I am all for changing the constitution with the process laid out for such fundamental change - the amendment process. That I can agree with. Anything that the nation decides to adopt is fine with me. If I don't like the result I will move to a better country - if there is one.

I vigorously object to having to be on guard every day for fear that some judge in California will suddenly decide that the constitution doesn't really mean what it has said for the past two hundred years. Now THAT is the definition of a THEOCRACY.

 

[FreshTressa]

Exactly. That is why I am not a republican. I am conservative, but I believe in personal freedom and a separation of church and state, as is laid out in the constitution.

Less government, more freedom, more personal responsibility, and more tolerance.

 

[Charade]

Just from reading posts on these boards, it looks like

Democrat = supporter of socialist welfare state

Republican= supporter of fundamentalist Christian theocracy

Well.. you got the first one right.

FCT (Fundamental Christian Theocracy) is the new buzz word of the day from those on the left.

What exactly does FCT mean?

Is there even such a place anywhere in the world today?

 

[tiggersmom2]

I'm wondering what many of you thought about the mess that accompanied the Schiavo case?

Simple for me. The government had NO business sticking their noses in that fiasco.

 

[Charade]

Simple for me. The government had NO business sticking their noses in that fiasco.

You would probably feel differently if you felt another part of the government was not protecting your rights.

 

[roger_ramjet]

Actually, the "government" includes the legislative and executive branches as well as the judiciary. I presume you were referring to just the legislative branch in referring to the "government" getting involved.
There is no doubt that the courts had the final say in the Schiavo case and that all the appeals showed that the proper legal process had taken place. What I find a bit inconsistent is the view of some that the original court decision should stand unchallanged. I find that the same folks who took that position in the Schiavo case are the very ones who never believe the original court case settles anything in - for instance - murder cases. In these cases, appeals go on for decades. In fact, the presumption seems to be that there is is "obviously" an error in any proceeding that results in a sentence of death for another human being.
Another instance just leaps to mind. The original acquittal of the policemen invovled in the Rodney King case. Certainly there was nothing wrong with the legal process, but there was certainly wholesale rejection of the verdict by the same people who now think that the Schiavo case was settled eternally in the original finding.

In the Schiavo case, I believe the original court decision, however legally precise, was not morally just. There was just no real evidence that Terri Schiavo had ever expressed the directive attributed to her by her "husband."
The status of a "husband" who had taken another (common law) wife and started a completely different family seems to lose some of its standing. I won't belabor the various items that make it appear that there is at least an "appearance" of conflict of interest in the "husbands" recollection of Terri's desires.

I find it morally repugnant that a person totally detached from a disabled person has the right to dictate the end of that invalid's life when there are devoted family members ready willing and able to continue her care. I do not find it morally repugnant for the legislature to step in and try to find a remedy for this moral tragedy. I would find it reprehensible for the legislature to intervene in a case where only property rights or some policy difference was at stake. But here it was the issue of life or death measured in hours.

Personally, I would not want to be kept alive in the situation that Terri was in - IF it were CERTAIN that was the true condition. I think that some consideration should have been given to the numerous individuals who declaared that condition was NOT correct. In a case like this, I feel that it is really the start of the "slippery slope" argument to just discount all opposing testimony and declare that the original decision MUST have been totally correct.

I can imagine some estranged wife coming into the intensive care room where her husband is on life support from an automobile accident and declaring that "he would not want this == pull the plug" and proceed to collect the life insurance. Who can argue with her?? Based on what?? What if the guy's parents were there saying "give him a chance - let's do some therapy - we will pay for it." I know this is a lousy example - I just made it up. But I am sure there are really sticky situations that might arise if we allow someone to just "remember" what a injured person's life directives were.

As for ANWR - I am not so certain this environment is all that "fragile" to begin with. On whose authority do you declare this a fragile environment?

I would certainly not deny anyone the right to have challenged the initial decision - that's certainly their right. What bothered me was that the legislative branch stepped in to make another law to try and sidestep the process in order to get the result they wanted. Even though it was pointless, given the power the new law gave to the federal court, I felt it was an unnecessary and somewhat insulting intrusion. Time and time again the law had been upheld, for all the same reasons. At any rate, the court case entirely around he-says/she-says scenarios and inane finger-pointing, and the courts really had no choice but to uphold the law. It didn't offend my morals that Mrs Schiavo was finally deemed beyond help, as sad as the case was. It seemed as though the vast majority of the medical community concurred with Michael Schiavo - in which case, opposing views wouldn't have much of a chance!

I don't declare ANWR fragile on any particular authority aside from my own, and what I've read about environments such as tundra. The fragility, in my humble and quite potentially aberrant opinion, is that the scarcity of resources that must inevitably exist in inhospitable terrain such as tundra ensures that life is more precarious than that which exists in fertile, climactically friendly regions. It's probably something I should look into further before I spout off too much more!

 

[roger_ramjet]

Better not let this languish on page ten...

 

[DisDuck]

Another libertarian chiming in to register his presence. I have been such since 1972 not knowing anyone's age but think I am one of the longer standing members posting here. So lived as a libertarian under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, etc. Hate labels as such since they don't fully describe one's belief system.

I am generally anti-both parties and sometimes am surprised that some Libs identify with Republicans. The party that likes to peep into your bedroom and your thoughts. In someways the 'moral' legislaturing that they want is more dangerous than the 'social' legislaturing of the democrats. The democrats might make me poorer financial but let me keep my private life mine. See my signature for a fully explanation of belief.

On judiciary and constitution. Read some of the Federalist Papers along with the writings of Jefferson and partners. They did not think the Constitution was a static document. It needed to be interpreted with the times. Sometimes an amendment was necessary; sometimes not. The idea of The Supreme Court doing constitutionality reviews is not actually written in so many words in any article/clause on judicial powers but was assumed. Do I like all decisions handed down NO but without some 'activism' we would still have The Dred Scott decision and No Brown vs. Board of Education.

As to Schiavo, there is plenty of medical evidence showing PVS condition and with no credible contrary evidence. The only 2 doctors to side with parents were not neurologists. If courts should not be the 'final' arbiture of disputes then who should be. Also, consider while the parents were willing to 'take care of' Terri they were not going to pay for it. Her care was being paid for by Medicaid (Social Welfare from the Democrats). So you and I were paying for her care from our taxes. That means to me (no taxation without representation) that I should have had a say in her level of care.

As for ANWR, don't really know enough to say. It looks like the disturbance would be minimal. However, I prefer nuclear since it is clean. Given today's state of knowledge plants can be built with better safeguards and more efficient then past plants. The 'greenies' have opposed Nuclear Power without any convincing arguments.

 

[caitycaity]

Hate labels as such since they don't fully describe one's belief system.

i have some very strong libertarian leanings (that make my liberal family and my conservative inalws look at me funny ), but i disagree with a lot of stuff that has been posted in this thread by other "libertarians". c'est la vie.

 

[DisDuck]

caity.. that's the whole point of libertarianism. you can hold any belief system you want; agree or disagree; as long as that belief system is not imposed on someone else. A very broad generalization, I know, but a good starting point.