View Poll Results: Why do we have to fill out this "Question" part, anyhow? That's kinda silly, right?
0 (complete statist) 2 2.53%
1-5 (libertarian notions) 0 0%
6-15 (libertarian leanings) 8 10.13%
16-30 (soft-core libertarian) 31 39.24%
31-50 (obvious libertarian) 18 22.78%
51-90 (medium-core libertarian) 9 11.39%
91-130 (hard-core libertarian) 6 7.59%
131-159 (nearly perfect libertarian) 0 0%
160 (You're scaring me here, man) 1 1.27%
Waaaa. Test only has "yes/no" options. I don't have opinions and this test discriminates against me. Waaaa. 4 5.06%
Voters: 79. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools
Old December 25, 2002, 06:23   #121
Ramo
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ramo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Fear and Oil
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
To what extent do you care about varying degrees of libertarianism in your life? Sure your philosophy is purist to the extent of not wanting any taxes...but in daily life, do you care about half a loaf?
Personally, it depends on the nature of the authority you're referring to. The smaller the usurpation of freedom, the less I care about it.
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Ramo is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 06:25   #122
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Goverments can't accept private charities or they'd be under obligations. So user fees - since everybody uses government services, everybody pays. That's just taxes.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 06:26   #123
Ramo
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ramo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Fear and Oil
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
How do you charge a user fee for national defense?
I have no clue. He'd probably say the answer is charity.
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Ramo is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 06:28   #124
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
well...what do you say?
TCO is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 06:31   #125
Ramo
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ramo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Fear and Oil
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
Goverments can't accept private charities or they'd be under obligations. So user fees - since everybody uses government services, everybody pays. That's just taxes.
I believe the point is that user fees are "voluntary." If you want, for instance, your property to be protected, you have to have help pay for the police. But you aren't in any obligation to by the state.
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Ramo is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 09:14   #126
Berzerker
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Berzerker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: topeka, kansas,USA
Posts: 8,164
Drogue, monopolies in the marketplace are rare and shortlived, but not when government establishes or protects them. You claim to be concerned about monopolies yet support a government monopoly over education. Your comments about health care and energy expose an unfamiliarity with market forces. If I have a monopoly over a service and start charging too much, I will not only anger my customers, I will be inviting competitition.

Consider what the medical industry has done with the aid of government. In the early 1900's there were many black colleges catering to blacks seeking an education in medicine. The AMA or it's equivelant of the time lobbied Congress and the various state legislatures to "license" doctors. Around the same time, universities teaching medicine became "accredited" (more government licensing) and black colleges were denied this license as those colleges with accreditation were limited in how many students could enroll each year. This allowed the AMA to limit supply thereby driving up the cost of demand, and black medical students suffered the most by being shut out. Inspite of this, medical costs remained relatively low until government got in the business of paying for it. Since then, medical costs have ballooned (what a surprise). Would that violate your definition of freedom?

Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. There is no such thing as "some" freedom, that is a concept promoted by people who don't believe in freedom but at the same time try to convince others, if not themselves, that they do in fact believe in freedom. Your argument that economic freedom should be denied would make us all slaves to those owning our labor. If your body belongs to you with regards to social or personal freedom, why does it cease belonging to you when you use your labor to make a buck?

Last edited by Berzerker; December 25, 2002 at 09:23.
Berzerker is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 13:03   #127
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
But is he smart enough to understand what a free-rider is? How do you charge a user fee for national defense? only way is a tax.
Can someone tell me why the US needs "national defense" in an age when a war on US soil is NOT going to happen?

Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a national defense one.

So, I can basically see no use for a military of any size in this day and age. No military means no costs, and hence we don't have to dump money down the drain any more.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 14:59   #128
Drogue
staff
Alpha Centauri PBEMNationStatesACDG Planet University of TechnologyACDG3 GaiansACDG The Human HiveACDG PeaceACDG3 SpartansACDG3 MorganACDG3 Data AngelsPolyCast TeamC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansCiv4 SP Democracy GameAlpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG3 CMNsACDG The Cybernetic Consciousness
Apolyton Knight (Off-Topic Co-Moderator)
 
Drogue's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford or Northampton, England
Posts: 8,116
Quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
There are no natural rights. There is society and the there are the best ways to govern it to the benefit of all of it's humans, those best ways vary in different sircumstances.

I am not a utilitarian as well, I am a quasi-utilitarian humanist. that is, I care only about the success of the human race and the happiness of humans. utilitarians care about animals.
I agree almost completely. I don't want animals mistreated (I'm against torturing them, or keeping mink in tiny cages for instance) but I don't particularly care about animal testing etc.

Sounds almost Darwinian (He should have one the Greatest Briton )
__________________
Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something

"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Drogue is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 15:14   #129
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd


Can someone tell me why the US needs "national defense" in an age when a war on US soil is NOT going to happen?

Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a national defense one.

So, I can basically see no use for a military of any size in this day and age. No military means no costs, and hence we don't have to dump money down the drain any more.
What would happen to Democracy elsewhere in the world if we abandoned it to its fate?

David, you seem to ignore the lessons of history.
Ned is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 15:17   #130
Drogue
staff
Alpha Centauri PBEMNationStatesACDG Planet University of TechnologyACDG3 GaiansACDG The Human HiveACDG PeaceACDG3 SpartansACDG3 MorganACDG3 Data AngelsPolyCast TeamC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansCiv4 SP Democracy GameAlpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG3 CMNsACDG The Cybernetic Consciousness
Apolyton Knight (Off-Topic Co-Moderator)
 
Drogue's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford or Northampton, England
Posts: 8,116
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Drogue, monopolies in the marketplace are rare and shortlived, but not when government establishes or protects them. You claim to be concerned about monopolies yet support a government monopoly over education. Your comments about health care and energy expose an unfamiliarity with market forces. If I have a monopoly over a service and start charging too much, I will not only anger my customers, I will be inviting competitition.
No, monopolies, in a completely unregulated economy, would be long lived. Since being a monopoly, it is relatively easy in most cases to put up barriers to entry. If you own the only sources of oil in the area, or the only piece of machinary that produces that product, it's very hard for competition to enter the market. The Government does not have a monopoly over education, you still have private schools (called public schools here strangely) so there is competition. I just don't think we should disband free education for all.

I'm all for destroying monopolies, but I think some things are too important to be solely in the hands of market forces. If what you said about monopolies being short lived, why would be need anti-trust laws?

Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Consider what the medical industry has done with the aid of government. In the early 1900's there were many black colleges catering to blacks seeking an education in medicine. The AMA or it's equivelant of the time lobbied Congress and the various state legislatures to "license" doctors. Around the same time, universities teaching medicine became "accredited" (more government licensing) and black colleges were denied this license as those colleges with accreditation were limited in how many students could enroll each year. This allowed the AMA to limit supply thereby driving up the cost of demand, and black medical students suffered the most by being shut out. Inspite of this, medical costs remained relatively low until government got in the business of paying for it. Since then, medical costs have ballooned (what a surprise). Would that violate your definition of freedom?
To be honest, I have no knowledge whatsoever of American medical licences or systems, so I can't comment. Here we have the NHS (National Health Service) and I'm very glad about that. Healthcare is too important for money to be an issue at the point of sale IMO.

Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. There is no such thing as "some" freedom, that is a concept promoted by people who don't believe in freedom but at the same time try to convince others, if not themselves, that they do in fact believe in freedom. Your argument that economic freedom should be denied would make us all slaves to those owning our labor. If your body belongs to you with regards to social or personal freedom, why does it cease belonging to you when you use your labor to make a buck?
There is some freedom. I have some freedom of speech. I can say what I want, although there are regulations on 'hate speech' (via insightment to racial hatred etc) and libel/slander. You may say that isn't free speech, but it's a damn sight freer than some countries, where opposition to the Government is banned etc. Hence we have some free speech, but not total free speech.

I have nothing against economic freedom, I just don't see it as very important, and in many cases, less important to me than equality.
__________________
Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something

"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Drogue is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 15:20   #131
Drogue
staff
Alpha Centauri PBEMNationStatesACDG Planet University of TechnologyACDG3 GaiansACDG The Human HiveACDG PeaceACDG3 SpartansACDG3 MorganACDG3 Data AngelsPolyCast TeamC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansCiv4 SP Democracy GameAlpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG3 CMNsACDG The Cybernetic Consciousness
Apolyton Knight (Off-Topic Co-Moderator)
 
Drogue's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford or Northampton, England
Posts: 8,116
Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd


Can someone tell me why the US needs "national defense" in an age when a war on US soil is NOT going to happen?

Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a national defense one.

So, I can basically see no use for a military of any size in this day and age. No military means no costs, and hence we don't have to dump money down the drain any more.
Why is a war on US soil not going to happen? Only because you have a large military. If you didn't, Iraq, or anywhere else, might just invade. What's stopping them if you have no military?

However I do think the US spends way to much on it. As a deterent, it does not need $400 Billion spent on it. Even just spending $100 Billion it would be enough to stop any country trying to invade IMO.
__________________
Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something

"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Drogue is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 15:29   #132
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Drogue, monopolies in the marketplace are rare and shortlived, but not when government establishes or protects them. You claim to be concerned about monopolies yet support a government monopoly over education. Your comments about health care and energy expose an unfamiliarity with market forces. If I have a monopoly over a service and start charging too much, I will not only anger my customers, I will be inviting competitition.

Consider what the medical industry has done with the aid of government. In the early 1900's there were many black colleges catering to blacks seeking an education in medicine. The AMA or it's equivelant of the time lobbied Congress and the various state legislatures to "license" doctors. Around the same time, universities teaching medicine became "accredited" (more government licensing) and black colleges were denied this license as those colleges with accreditation were limited in how many students could enroll each year. This allowed the AMA to limit supply thereby driving up the cost of demand, and black medical students suffered the most by being shut out. Inspite of this, medical costs remained relatively low until government got in the business of paying for it. Since then, medical costs have ballooned (what a surprise). Would that violate your definition of freedom?

Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. There is no such thing as "some" freedom, that is a concept promoted by people who don't believe in freedom but at the same time try to convince others, if not themselves, that they do in fact believe in freedom. Your argument that economic freedom should be denied would make us all slaves to those owning our labor. If your body belongs to you with regards to social or personal freedom, why does it cease belonging to you when you use your labor to make a buck?
Break out of the purity ****-size mindset for a second. I'm not debating wether ANY imposition is wrong. I'm asking wether worse impositions are...worse.

Surely confiscation of 1% of property is different (in effect on your life quality) than confiscation of 90%. Just like confinement for a day would be different than confinement for 20 years. Sure, you can say both are wrong. but to say both the same in effect? Crazy!
TCO is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 15:34   #133
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd


Can someone tell me why the US needs "national defense" in an age when a war on US soil is NOT going to happen?

Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a national defense one.

So, I can basically see no use for a military of any size in this day and age. No military means no costs, and hence we don't have to dump money down the drain any more.
So you see no reason for a military because you beleive we have no dangers. Does this mean that in a situation where there are dangers, you would support taxes for national defense? Does it mean that if someone establishes (perhaps they evaluate the threats differently) a threat, than taxes for defense are ok? Do you think threats are less likely to exist because of our strong power? That with weaker power, threats might emerge? Like bulllies avoiding a strong man...but emerging when they see easy pickings? It's a theoretical question...not a question about immediate spending decisions or geopolitics. I'm asking if you could ever imagine a danger? What if you were France or Belgium (or UK or Germany or USSR or Poland or Hawaii) in the 30's? Do you think there are ever threats requiring defense forces?
TCO is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 15:42   #134
Drogue
staff
Alpha Centauri PBEMNationStatesACDG Planet University of TechnologyACDG3 GaiansACDG The Human HiveACDG PeaceACDG3 SpartansACDG3 MorganACDG3 Data AngelsPolyCast TeamC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansCiv4 SP Democracy GameAlpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG3 CMNsACDG The Cybernetic Consciousness
Apolyton Knight (Off-Topic Co-Moderator)
 
Drogue's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford or Northampton, England
Posts: 8,116
Quote:
Originally posted by GP
Break out of the purity ****-size mindset for a second. I'm not debating wether ANY imposition is wrong. I'm asking wether worse impositions are...worse.

Surely confiscation of 1% of property is different (in effect on your life quality) than confiscation of 90%. Just like confinement for a day would be different than confinement for 20 years. Sure, you can say both are wrong. but to say both the same in effect? Crazy!
Exactly. Freedom is no absolute. Even Libertarians have conditions ([everyone is free] so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others) so to argue there is no ‘some freedom’ is silly. Every belief is on a scale, with extremes at each end. And very very few (if any) people are right at the extreme.
__________________
Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something

"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Drogue is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 15:55   #135
Bosh
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Bosh's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Hiding from the deadly fans
Posts: 5,650
68 here, always hard answering these sorts of things from a left-libertarian perspective, I ended up disagreeing with most of the policy questions (in a modern capitalist industrial society some kind of welfare state is pretty much inevitable) so most of my points came from the 5-pointer philosophical questions near the end.
What oh what is a minarcho-syndicalist to do
__________________
Stop Quoting Ben
Bosh is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 20:06   #136
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
What would happen to Democracy elsewhere in the world if we abandoned it to its fate?
What do I care? Hell, I don't even support democracy to begin with.

Quote:
David, you seem to ignore the lessons of history.
Actually I remember quite clearly that over 100,000 Americans died in WW1, over 400,000 died as a result of WW2, 38,000 died in Korea, and 56,000 died in Vietnam. And those are only the "major" wars - 600,000 American deaths in four different wars that we should not have fought in the first place.

Quote:
Why is a war on US soil not going to happen? Only because you have a large military.
Well, if the presence of a large military is the only thing that deters invasion, why are Canada and Mexico not occupied?

Quote:
If you didn't, Iraq, or anywhere else, might just invade. What's stopping them if you have no military?
Oh, that little thing called the Atlantic, that other little thing called the Pacific, and that other little thing called logistics.

GP,

Quote:
So you see no reason for a military because you beleive we have no dangers. Does this mean that in a situation where there are dangers, you would support taxes for national defense?
Irrelevant, but in that case, yes, a military would be useful, provided that it was voluntary in both personnel and funding.

Quote:
Does it mean that if someone establishes (perhaps they evaluate the threats differently) a threat, than taxes for defense are ok?
No, in the same way that even in the case of invasion, the draft is not OK.

Quote:
Do you think threats are less likely to exist because of our strong power? That with weaker power, threats might emerge?
No, quite the opposite - if we were weaker and less involved in interfering with other countries, threats would probably diminish. Look at Switzerland, Sweden, etc.

Quote:
Like bulllies avoiding a strong man...but emerging when they see easy pickings? It's a theoretical question...not a question about immediate spending decisions or geopolitics. I'm asking if you could ever imagine a danger? What if you were France or Belgium (or UK or Germany or USSR or Poland or Hawaii) in the 30's? Do you think there are ever threats requiring defense forces?
I think that those threats you mentioned were ultimately brought about by imperialism, prior warmongering, or other stupid foreign policies.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 20:49   #137
Dr Strangelove
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: USA
Posts: 3,197
Quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Drogue, monopolies in the marketplace are rare and shortlived, but not when government establishes or protects them. You claim to be concerned about monopolies yet support a government monopoly over education. Your comments about health care and energy expose an unfamiliarity with market forces. If I have a monopoly over a service and start charging too much, I will not only anger my customers, I will be inviting competitition.

Consider what the medical industry has done with the aid of government. In the early 1900's there were many black colleges catering to blacks seeking an education in medicine. The AMA or it's equivelant of the time lobbied Congress and the various state legislatures to "license" doctors. Around the same time, universities teaching medicine became "accredited" (more government licensing) and black colleges were denied this license as those colleges with accreditation were limited in how many students could enroll each year. This allowed the AMA to limit supply thereby driving up the cost of demand, and black medical students suffered the most by being shut out. Inspite of this, medical costs remained relatively low until government got in the business of paying for it. Since then, medical costs have ballooned (what a surprise). Would that violate your definition of freedom?

Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. There is no such thing as "some" freedom, that is a concept promoted by people who don't believe in freedom but at the same time try to convince others, if not themselves, that they do in fact believe in freedom. Your argument that economic freedom should be denied would make us all slaves to those owning our labor. If your body belongs to you with regards to social or personal freedom, why does it cease belonging to you when you use your labor to make a buck?
Numerous white medical colleges were forced out of business too. For example, at the turn of the century Virginia had 6 medical schools, but with the institution of basic requirements for medical education the number declined to only 2. The requirements weren't discriminatory, they merely required that certain subjects be taught in order to guarentee at least some minmum of quality among physicians. You should realise that many people aren't in a position shop around for a doctor. There are still many communities that have only one doctor serving them. Furthermore when you are sick you're not really in the mood to shop around.
__________________
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Dr Strangelove is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 20:53   #138
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
Floyd, your type of Libertarianism, in practice, would be exactly like Feudalism. There might not be a monarchy at the head of the state, but society would quickly degenerate into two levels... rich and poor. With rich land owners and poor people working for them. For hundreds of years, people suffered under a system like this. It sucks and its immoral.

Thomas Jefferson believed in public education so that the people could be educated enough to choose their leaders. Without Democracy, there's no way freedom would survive. So while the hypocritical ideologies of true Libertarianism might sound good in your head, they don't translate to the real world.
__________________
(\__/) "Sava is teh man" -Ecthy
(='.'=)
(")_(") bring me everyone
Sava is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 20:55   #139
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, if the presence of a large military is the only thing that deters invasion, why are Canada and Mexico not occupied?
Because of the US's military... DUH!
__________________
(\__/) "Sava is teh man" -Ecthy
(='.'=)
(")_(") bring me everyone
Sava is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 21:08   #140
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
There might not be a monarchy at the head of the state, but society would quickly degenerate into two levels... rich and poor.
I've never seen you or anyone else back up that assertion.

Quote:
With rich land owners and poor people working for them.
You really think a heavily industrialized nation would be transformed overnight into an agrarian one? Please.

Quote:
Thomas Jefferson believed in public education so that the people could be educated enough to choose their leaders.
Yes, and Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in gun control. Don't use quotes from people with whom you don't agree, and present those quotes of the proof that a particular idea is good.

Quote:
Without Democracy, there's no way freedom would survive.
Certainly you can see that democracy destroys freedom too, right?

Quote:
Because of the US's military... DUH!
*sigh* I see I'm going to have to explain it to you.

Look at things from Canada's perspective. They don't have a big military. By your logic, they should be threatened by the much larger US - or, for that matter, Iraq.

But that doesn't wash, the US has NOT occupied them, and Iraq is NOT in a position to threaten them. The point is, the presence or lack of a strong military is not the only, or even a major, reason for the threat level of a partiuclar nation.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 21:17   #141
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
I've never seen you or anyone else back up that assertion.
It's common sense and requires a logical interpretation of the cause and effect relationship of your so-called freedoms translated into the real world.
Quote:
You really think a heavily industrialized nation would be transformed overnight into an agrarian one? Please.
This has nothing to do with working on the land. The rich will own the land, the people will work for them. Not necessarily on farms, but in factories, or offices, or service related industries. Entepreneurialship as we know it will cease to exist.
Quote:
Yes, and Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in gun control. Don't use quotes from people with whom you don't agree, and present those quotes of the proof that a particular idea is good.
Don't even start this debate because you'll lose terribly. Number one, the technology of weapons has changed far too drastically. Sure, I'll agree with you. For 18th century muskets, Jefferson didn't believe in gun control. This is a far cry from the advanced killing machines that years of technological development has spawned.
Quote:
Certainly you can see that democracy destroys freedom too, right?
Absolute freedom isn't the most important thing in the world... by your argument, people should have the freedom to commit murder Democracy does have its flaws, but it's the best system.
Quote:
*sigh* I see I'm going to have to explain it to you.
Look at things from Canada's perspective. They don't have a big military. By your logic, they should be threatened by the much larger US - or, for that matter, Iraq.
Don't use logic as an argument because you aren't putting enough logical thought into this. The US isn't in the conquering business. They are in the spreading Democracy and liberation business. Mexico and Canada are free. DUH!
Quote:
But that doesn't wash, the US has NOT occupied them, and Iraq is NOT in a position to threaten them. The point is, the presence or lack of a strong military is not the only, or even a major, reason for the threat level of a partiuclar nation.
I'm going to pretend you didn't say this. This is borderline sig material. So you're saying that if a one country has a million nuclear weapons pointed at another, they don't feel threatened?

Please think a little more before you respond to me. I want to save you the embarassment of typing something that would be sig material.
__________________
(\__/) "Sava is teh man" -Ecthy
(='.'=)
(")_(") bring me everyone
Sava is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 21:37   #142
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
It's common sense and requires a logical interpretation of the cause and effect relationship of your so-called freedoms translated into the real world.
So I ask you to back something up and you reply "Common sense" - good argument there, buddy

Quote:
The rich will own the land, the people will work for them. Not necessarily on farms, but in factories, or offices, or service related industries.
So the poor don't currently work for those who are richer than them? I've yet to hear of a factory worker, or a salesperson, who is richer than his boss.

Quote:
Entepreneurialship as we know it will cease to exist.
That's a pretty bold statement, seeing as how there is no historical evidence from which to draw support for your assertion.

Quote:
Don't even start this debate because you'll lose terribly.


Quote:
Number one,
That phrase implies that there is a "number two", yet I don't see one.

Quote:
the technology of weapons has changed far too drastically.
So has the technology of making newspapers, yet you don't think the people who wrote the 1st Amendment would still believe in it?

Quote:
Sure, I'll agree with you. For 18th century muskets, Jefferson didn't believe in gun control. This is a far cry from the advanced killing machines that years of technological development has spawned.
Jefferson didn't believe in gun control because he wanted there to be a check on government and oppression. Obviously this applied to 18th/19th century technology, as that is when he was alive. Yet, there is no reason to assume he would not have the same position now - weapons technology has increased across the board, for both individuals and government.

You might argue that the individual is helpless against the government, making gun rights irrelevant, but that is also not true. Sure, if the army rolls 10 tanks up my street to come kill me, my rifle isn't gonna stop them. And, in 1806, if the US government had deployed 20 cannons to shell someone's house, that person couldn't resist effectively either.

But if I get a hundred or so heavily armed people together, I bet those hundred people can stop 10 tanks, just as enough people could be found to stop the government from using 20 cannons in the 19th Century.

And this doesn't even address the argument of police and law enforcement excesses, many of which COULD be stopped by heavily armed individuals.

Quote:
Absolute freedom isn't the most important thing in the world... by your argument, people should have the freedom to commit murder
I don't quite see how murder is an example of freedom, because your act of murder directly infringes on someone else's freedom. A proper example of freedom is drug use or gambling - those acts hurt no one.

Quote:
The US isn't in the conquering business.
No, more in the "subjugating everyone to its will" business, but I digress.

What you posted is precisely the point - the relative sizes of armies don't matter in this case, because regardless, the US isn't going to invade Canada.

Quote:
They are in the spreading Democracy and liberation business.
Really? Rather than pointing out examples from history of how that isn't true, which you already know because I've already pointed them out many times, as has Ramo and others, I'll just

Quote:
Mexico and Canada are free. DUH!
Mexico and Canada are free? Especially in the case of Mexico - a hugely corrupt government, especially on the state and city levels. And I wouldn't agree that Canada is truly free, either, because of a lack of economic freedom.

Now, on this point, people might point to an example that they see as irrefutable - Pearl Harbor. The Japanese sneak attacked the US Navy, and killed thousands of people. Didn't the US need a military to defeat Japan and defend themselves?

Yes, in order to fight a war, the US needed a military. What people who make that example miss, though, is that the US never should have been in Hawaii or the Philippines or Guam or Wake to begin with - or, for that matter, in California. Those places were acquired as a result of aggressive and imperialistic wars against weaker powers. Thus, the US became a victim of aggression as a direct result of their own blatant aggression.

Seems to me that the efficient solution would have been not to fight the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars. Then the US wouldn't have been in the Pacific at ALL, thus eliminating any possibility of a Japanese sneak attack.

Quote:
This is borderline sig material. So you're saying that if a one country has a million nuclear weapons pointed at another, they don't feel threatened?
And I take it you would feel safer if both countries had a million nukes pointed at each other? Why don't you ask people alive during the 1960s how that was?

Further, atomic weapons are a special case - there is no defense against them. If someone wants to badly enough, they can destroy your country and there's nothing you can do about it, provided they have enough nukes. More nukes doesn't make the situation any safer - in fact, it can make it worse.

A better example for you to use would have been a real example from history using conventional forces, not some contrived example you pulled out of your ass.

Quote:
Please think a little more before you respond to me. I want to save you the embarassment of typing something that would be sig material.
Actually, I'd put that last quote in my sig, but I like my current one, and their are length restrictions. Oh well.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 21:39   #143
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
Have you been drinking FLoyd? That's all I have to ask. Speaking of sigs... Boris used to have a great one about arguments... anyways, I'm going to follow its advice.
__________________
(\__/) "Sava is teh man" -Ecthy
(='.'=)
(")_(") bring me everyone
Sava is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 21:40   #144
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Coupla glasses of wine with Christmas dinner, like 5 or 6 hours ago.

Is that the best you can come up with?

Quote:
Speaking of sigs... Boris used to have a great one about arguments... anyways, I'm going to follow its advice.
Damn, looks like I win AGAIN
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 21:43   #145
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
These forums need a "sigh" smiley... anyways, don't think yourself a winner... I would abstain myself from argument with Dahmer about the immorality of eating human beings
__________________
(\__/) "Sava is teh man" -Ecthy
(='.'=)
(")_(") bring me everyone
Sava is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 21:48   #146
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Floyd, while aggressive actions may cause threats to emerge, don't you see that weakness may as well? Do you think every recipient of a war or invasion is guilty of imperialism or bad policies? Are you a pacificst? Do you think there are no evil people/countries in the world that may choose to pray on others? Also, Switzerland is a curious example considerning their emphaisis on defense and very serious national service and reserve system. (I worked there...and saw it.)
TCO is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 22:04   #147
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
Floyd, while aggressive actions may cause threats to emerge, don't you see that weakness may as well?
I would say that people acting aggressively causes a LOT more wars than people acting passively.

Quote:
Do you think every recipient of a war or invasion is guilty of imperialism or bad policies?
In recent (past few centuries) major wars, that's probably true. As to before then, I don't know enough about the period to comment, although in general, I can state that aggression causes war.

Quote:
Are you a pacificst?
Almost.

Quote:
Do you think there are no evil people/countries in the world that may choose to pray on others?
There are evil people, but I fail to see how you can label an entire group of people as "evil".

Quote:
Also, Switzerland is a curious example considerning their emphaisis on defense and very serious national service and reserve system.
And do you really think that their national service and reserve system deters invasion, or, for that matter, terrorism?

Hitler could have taken over Switzerland pretty easily, and Osama bin Laden could crash planes into buildings there. But I don't think the Swiss military/reserve system was much of a factor there, do you?
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 22:32   #148
Shi Huangdi
Emperor
 
Shi Huangdi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 4,213
"
Yes, in order to fight a war, the US needed a military. What people who make that example miss, though, is that the US never should have been in Hawaii or the Philippines or Guam or Wake to begin with - or, for that matter, in California. Those places were acquired as a result of aggressive and imperialistic wars against weaker powers. Thus, the US became a victim of aggression as a direct result of their own blatant aggression."

Mexican American War, AFAIK, was brought about because Texas rebelled and asked of its own free will to become part of the United States, and there was then a boundary dispute between Texas and Mexico. Why do you hold the Mexican claim that the boundary was the Nueces River as the correct one? And that war was what led to us having California.
__________________
"I'm moving to the Left" - Lancer

"I imagine the neighbors on your right are estatic." - Slowwhand
Shi Huangdi is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 22:36   #149
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
Why do you hold the Mexican claim that the boundary was the Nueces River as the correct one?
The problem I have with the war is not a minor boundary dispute. The US didn't really try to negotiate, or buy the territory, or anything of the sort. Personally, I don't know who was correct in the dispute, and that isn't the point.

The point is that the US used a border dispute as an excuse to conquer a vast swath of land and invade Mexico. If the US had simply chosen to attack and occupy the disputed regions, that's one thing - it's not the correct response IMO, but it is at least a measured and proportionate response. But the Mexican War was conducted very disproportionately to the dispute, which leads me to believe the dispute was simply an excuse.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old December 25, 2002, 22:54   #150
Shi Huangdi
Emperor
 
Shi Huangdi's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 4,213
The people of Texas rebelled of their own free will and then chose to join the US, as was their right. We were under no obligation try to buy the territoty or such since it was ours due to the annexation. Once Mexico made a play to reconquer Texas, war had begun and so we were then free to prosecute it.
__________________
"I'm moving to the Left" - Lancer

"I imagine the neighbors on your right are estatic." - Slowwhand
Shi Huangdi is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team