Conservative or Libertarian?

[Accountable]

Conservatives (small c), what distinguishes you from libertarians (small l)? What choice(s) do you believe the people can't be trusted to make?

 

[dt3]

It's very difficult to cram all the libertarian ideas/philosophies into one box. What form of libertarianism are you referring to

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I personally don't want the government making any decisions for me, that's NOT what they are there for.

I also don't want to continue to fund them making decisions for others either. My belief whatever political party you might align it with, is simple, the government is there to UPHOLD the Constitution, provide a stable political structure that EFFICIENTLY handles the business of a large country, such as rendering aid to countries that need it, programs that help the needy here, support for our military and veterans, a basically to kiss babies and shake hands with other leaders.

Beyond that, stay the fuck out of my bedroom, my church and my gun cabinet.....


Maybe I set my standards a little too high....Somewhere, at some point Washington DC became a full time job...THAT is where we the people handed over the keys to the kingdom


/Rant off.....for now

 

[satinbutterfly]

I personally don't want the government making any decisions for me, that's NOT what they are there for.

I also don't want to continue to fund them making decisions for others either. My belief whatever political party you might align it with, is simple, the government is there to UPHOLD the Constitution, provide a stable political structure that EFFICIENTLY handles the business of a large country, such as rendering aid to countries that need it, programs that help the needy here, support for our military and veterans, a basically to kiss babies and shake hands with other leaders.

Beyond that, stay the fuck out of my bedroom, my church and my gun cabinet.....


Maybe I set my standards a little too high....Somewhere, at some point Washington DC became a full time job...THAT is where we the people handed over the keys to the kingdom


/Rant off.....for now

Seriously. :homo:

 

[Alien Allen]

I personally don't want the government making any decisions for me, that's NOT what they are there for.

I also don't want to continue to fund them making decisions for others either. My belief whatever political party you might align it with, is simple, the government is there to UPHOLD the Constitution, provide a stable political structure that EFFICIENTLY handles the business of a large country, such as rendering aid to countries that need it, programs that help the needy here, support for our military and veterans, a basically to kiss babies and shake hands with other leaders.

Beyond that, stay the fuck out of my bedroom, my church and my gun cabinet.....


Maybe I set my standards a little too high....Somewhere, at some point Washington DC became a full time job...THAT is where we the people handed over the keys to the kingdom


/Rant off.....for now

We do not have conservatives any more.

They are just liberal lite who spend just as bad. They want control over us the same as liberals but just in a different way.

If you want to see what a Libertarian is like then Ron Paul is the one you could look at. If the guy had an ounce of charisma he would probably be president today. People were ready for real change. With Obama it will be pseudo change and just more of the same shit we have had for far too long...

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

We do not have conservatives any more.

They are just liberal lite who spend just as bad. They want control over us the same as liberals but just in a different way.

If you want to see what a Libertarian is like then Ron Paul is the one you could look at. If the guy had an ounce of charisma he would probably be president today. People were ready for real change. With Obama it will be pseudo change and just more of the same shit we have had for far too long...

Did you even read my post


I simply stated what I stand for....I might start my own frickin political party:ninja

You ever thought that?

 

[Minor Axis]

Thread Revival!

Rand Paul really lost me when he argued that individual liberty (Libertarianism, the political movement) allows for wholesale discrimination, such as who you have the right to admit or deny entrance into your restaurant, your transportation offered to the public, or whatever you want. Of course when he was pressed, he tried to back pedal way from his views. This idea was reinforced when I watched the movie, "The Help" yesterday, taking us to a society where wholesale bigotry, discrimination, cruelty, and second class people was the norm.

Now the good debate is that should government be passing laws that outlaw discrimination or should we just allow the prevailing attitude to take charge? Look at the South. It took a civil rights movement and Federal Intervention to change things. Have they changed for the better? I would argue that for equal rights, they have.

 

[Accountable]

Thread Revival!

Rand Paul really lost me when he argued that individual liberty (Libertarianism, the political movement) allows for wholesale discrimination, such as who you have the right to admit or deny entrance into your restaurant, your transportation offered to the public, or whatever you want. Of course when he was pressed, he tried to back pedal way from his views. This idea was reinforced when I watched the movie, "The Help" yesterday, taking us to a society where wholesale bigotry, discrimination, cruelty, and second class people was the norm.

Now the good debate is that should government be passing laws that outlaw discrimination or should we just allow the prevailing attitude to take charge? Look at the South. It took a civil rights movement and Federal Intervention to change things. Have they changed for the better? I would argue that for equal rights, they have.

I can see how you would get that, considering your filters. Unless you're talking about something really recent, Rand didn't backpedal. Government agencies, facilities and services - true public services - should never be and should never have been discriminatory against any citizen. But private businesses are private property, and private property must be respected. If a businessman wants to make the phenomenally stupid business decision to cut off a source of revenue, it should be his right. Let public pressure and other market forces punish him. We don't need the federal government stepping in to micromanage in this way (or in any other way, for that matter).

As for changing things for the better, yes, they bettered the lives of white business owners, but they bankrupted black business owners, and stripped black neighborhoods of one of the two primary models for success that they had. It could have been done without violating property rights or devastating the very people they claimed to be helping.

 

[itsmeJonB]

i know a few small c's, but them bitches can be big c's especially when they wont let my blow my l all over their t's

 

[Alien Allen]

Good points ACC

Public versus private does matter

I wish some mega wealthy person would fight the smoking laws at private businesses. I do not smoke but if I own a business I should be able to smoke at it.

And again the friggin congress does not have to abide but the same damn laws. From what I saw in a report a couple weeks ago it reeks of smoke in some offices.

How the hell do we get congress to abide by the same laws they enact anyway??

 

[Tim]

...But private businesses are private property, and private property must be respected. If a businessman wants to make the phenomenally stupid business decision to cut off a source of revenue, it should be his right. Let public pressure and other market forces punish him. We don't need the federal government stepping in to micromanage in this way (or in any other way, for that matter).

This argument might work in large communities and cities but it completely falls apart in small towns and locals.
Let's take Ambrose GA as an example. It has a population of 330 people and isn't near any major cities or towns. So what if the only grocery store is owned by a white guy who doesn't want blacks shopping their. Now since it's privately owned, do you believe that he has the right to refuse blacks? It's not like the town would support two grocery stores and the black residence wouldn't have the means to shop anywhere else. And this is one example of thousands across the country.

 

[Tim]

Good points ACC

Public versus private does matter

I wish some mega wealthy person would fight the smoking laws at private businesses. I do not smoke but if I own a business I should be able to smoke at it.

And again the friggin congress does not have to abide but the same damn laws. From what I saw in a report a couple weeks ago it reeks of smoke in some offices.

How the hell do we get congress to abide by the same laws they enact anyway??

The no smoking in public places is enacted by states and locals. There isn't any federal law that prohibits it...

In the United States, Congress has not attempted to enact any nationwide federal smoking ban. Therefore, smoking bans in the United States are entirely a product of state and local criminal and occupational safety and health laws.

 

[itsmeJonB]

The no smoking in public places is enacted by states and locals. There isn't any federal law that prohibits it...

you forgot the source

 

[Tim]

Wikipedia under public smoking bans...

It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I was hoping he would come back and show me where there are any federal laws on public smoking. I couldn't find any

 

[Accountable]

Wikipedia under public smoking bans...

It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I was hoping he would come back and show me where there are any federal laws on public smoking. I couldn't find any

No smoking in the military. Doesn't count, but it's still federal & has the force of law.

 

[Accountable]

This argument might work in large communities and cities but it completely falls apart in small towns and locals.
Let's take Ambrose GA as an example. It has a population of 330 people and isn't near any major cities or towns. So what if the only grocery store is owned by a white guy who doesn't want blacks shopping their. Now since it's privately owned, do you believe that he has the right to refuse blacks? It's not like the town would support two grocery stores and the black residence wouldn't have the means to shop anywhere else. And this is one example of thousands across the country.

And what if the grocery store owner said he'd rather shut his doors and move to a larger community to run his store as he sees fit? What then? Should the gov't force him to stay and serve all the public so that the whole town, black and white, wouldn't have to go without?

 

[Tim]

No smoking in the military. Doesn't count, but it's still federal & has the force of law.

That's not a federal law imposed on citizens. When you are in the military, you are property of the US government.

And what if the grocery store owner said he'd rather shut his doors and move to a larger community to run his store as he sees fit? What then? Should the gov't force him to stay and serve all the public so that the whole town, black and white, wouldn't have to go without?

Not at all. If they move out, then there WOULD be a need for another store. It's completely different if any given service IS the only one available to a given community.

I thought we went over this once before in another thread. Where we talked about public business verses private.

Good example is a private club/bar where you have to pay a membership fee to belong. Since it's not open to the public (meaning Joe Q Public cannot just walk in and get service) then they can impose any rules they wish. But when the business IS a public business, then you need to serve the public interest. A good example of this is a restaurant. You may own it, but it's not a private business. You must apply for permits (public permits) and you must be inspected by public officials.

 

[Accountable]

That's not a federal law imposed on citizens. When you are in the military, you are property of the US government.

Well I said it doesn't count.

Not at all. If they move out, then there WOULD be a need for another store. It's completely different if any given service IS the only one available to a given community.

Couldn't that grocer decide to become a private club, like a Sam's Club? What then? I'm trying to figure out where you draw the line that declares that people no longer have the right of private property.

 

[Alien Allen]

The no smoking in public places is enacted by states and locals. There isn't any federal law that prohibits it...

A New Smoking Ban In Federal Buildings

Published: August 10, 1997

President Clinton today outlawed smoking in all Federal buildings in the executive branch, but his order did not banish smokers from Government-owned doorways and courtyards.

 

[Minor Axis]

I can see how you would get that, considering your filters.

Your priceless. In this case my filters are for equality, something we all have a right to. Living in a society, do you have a problem with "me" vs "we"?

Unless you're talking about something really recent, Rand didn't backpedal. Government agencies, facilities and services - true public services - should never be and should never have been discriminatory against any citizen. But private businesses are private property, and private property must be respected. If a businessman wants to make the phenomenally stupid business decision to cut off a source of revenue, it should be his right. Let public pressure and other market forces punish him. We don't need the federal government stepping in to micromanage in this way (or in any other way, for that matter).

As for changing things for the better, yes, they bettered the lives of white business owners, but they bankrupted black business owners, and stripped black neighborhoods of one of the two primary models for success that they had. It could have been done without violating property rights or devastating the very people they claimed to be helping.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion about equal rights. You believe your liberty allows you to discriminate, I don't. It is ALL about "me" as an individual compared to "we" as a society. The price of living in a society is to loose some of your personal liberty. And I'm not talking about who you choose as your friends, or who you invite into your house. I'm speaking of businesses open to the public. In no way shape or form is it better if business owners can discriminate against people based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, age, political beliefs, or religion. What you promote is a giant can of worms catering to prejudices, something mankind should be striving to over come. For civil rights, it just did not happen on its on. It took a proactive Federal Government.