Home | Community | Message Board

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Twirling]
    #2969725 - 08/05/04 08:11 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

So the biggest question I have, is how do either Nader or Badnarik plan on winning this election?




They don't. They do, however, allow those dissatisfied with the two majority powers to show in the plainest way possible which direction they would prefer to see the US government take.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Phred]
    #2969730 - 08/05/04 08:12 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

the point is that the system is only as strong as its weakest link. Individuals will always be corruptible. Just because something isnt supposed to happen, doesnt mean it cant or wont happen. As long as people act primarily in self-interest, there will always be coercion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969734 - 08/05/04 08:13 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Without government or some other form of social agreement there cannot be corruption. Corruption is the willful circumvention of the agreed upon norms of behaviour by a person entrusted with upholding the norms of that social contract. Corruption is not the action of a common thief, which is what your truck driver is. Now if you were to say that selfishness is human nature, I wouldn't argue at all, but I think you have to be put in a position of trust to be considered corrupt. If any act of selfishness is corrupt then the word has no meaning


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969745 - 08/05/04 08:16 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
the point is that the system is only as strong as its weakest link. Individuals will always be corruptible. Just because something isnt supposed to happen, doesnt mean it cant or wont happen. As long as people act primarily in self-interest, there will always be coercion.




Ahem...

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Please explain to us how this is an example of any of the following:

-- corporate welfare
-- the penalization of purchasers of products with a certain point of origin
-- crony capitalism with those in government positions
-- market promotion of established industries by the government
-- funding by the government of favored industries' research at the expense of the taxpayer





--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969754 - 08/05/04 08:17 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Ah.

So when you asked, "what mechanism of libertarian government will keep these things from happening naturally? " you weren't really asking about "these things", you were asking about some other things none of us reading the thread had any idea you were thinking about; things which had nothing whatsoever to do with government action.

Got it.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2969764 - 08/05/04 08:20 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

how is a libertarian government going to prevent the kind of elitist alliances against the common man which tend to naturally form over time? IE- organized crime, back-scratching politics, cronieism, special interests groups, and even corporate welfare? Didnt we once have a constitution that prevented such things, as has that constitution not been repeatedly violated over the natural course of human events? It took 200 years for a libertarian republic to collapse into what is basically a communist empire. If you were to set up a new government, what mechanism would be put in place to ensure this does not happen again?

not only that, but how is a weak central government going to be able to offer the necessary protection against the initiation of force to everyday citizens? Even our current orwellian arrangement cant even come close to preventing most crime. How is a less restrictive, less intrusive system going to do a better job of this?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Phred]
    #2969780 - 08/05/04 08:26 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

So when you asked, "what mechanism of libertarian government will keep these things from happening naturally? " you weren't really asking about "these things", you were asking about some other things none of us reading the thread had any idea you were thinking about; things which had nothing whatsoever to do with government action.





well organized crime isnt much different from government.

I mean, its easy to get the employee of a private business (ie- a trucking company) to break the rules if you cut him in on enough dough to make it worth his while to look the other way. How is the government any different? Whats to keep the independantly wealthy from carrying representatives around in their pocket, like so many nickels and dimes?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969784 - 08/05/04 08:26 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
what mechanism of libertarian government will keep these things from happening naturally?




If these things happen, it's not a libertarian government. It's sort of like asking how can a pacifist keep from becoming a murderer. Well, if a man who formally was a pacifist decides to take the life of another...

When people look to the government to do things, they are looking to give more power to the government, more power means more power to be corrupted and used by the unscrupulous towards their own ends. When we resort to force by proxy, granting the government power to do our bidding not by persuasion but by might, we sow the seeds of corruption of the government, providing levers of power ready to be manipulated.

Laws and Constitutions are what people usually look to to keep governments in check. However, the history of the United States demonstrates that these are at best a drag on the grasp for power by government, not guarantees - they may slow the growth of the state, but all seem doomed to failure. More than just laws, there must be generally accepted traditions and modes of behavior which act against the tendency of states to grow. We can slap the U.S. constitution onto an Iraqi state, but the chance that it will follow the evolutionary path of the U.S. (which sprang from Anglo Saxon/Western European cultural roots) seems to be rather slim. What is really required is a change in the hearts of men to renounce the initiation of force in all endeavors - a cultural or societal change, to deal with one another as beings to be reasoned with instead of bullied.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Edited by Evolving (08/05/04 08:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Evolving]
    #2969792 - 08/05/04 08:28 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

What is really required is a change in the hearts of men to renounce the initiation of force in all endeavors - a cultural or societal change, to deal with one another as beings who can be reasoned with instead of bullied.





:lol: good luck.  Keep preachin that philosophy and you might get nailed to a tree as a reward :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969795 - 08/05/04 08:29 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

Didnt we once have a constitution that prevented such things, as has that constitution not been repeatedly violated over the natural course of human events? It took 200 years for a libertarian republic to collapse into what is basically a communist empire. If you were to set up a new government, what mechanism would be put in place to ensure this does not happen again?

Jefferson was of the opinion that the citizenry would have to "throw the bums out" (paraphrase) every twenty years or so because of just this tendency.

As for a mechanism to prevent it from recurring -- perhaps Jefferson's solution is the only one. Seriously.

On the other hand, one suggestion which has been voiced numerous times over the years is that no new piece of legislation may be passed into law unless it clearly demonstrates which section of the US Constitution justifies said law. Another suggestion along the same lines is that the US Supreme Court must clear each new piece of legislation before it becomes law (using the same criterion listed above) rather than the current practice of the court reacting to constitutional challenges years (or decades, or even never) down the road.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969822 - 08/05/04 08:35 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

As far as I can tell the only thing different on your list under a libertarian gov. would be the corporate welfare. There would be other differences but they're not on your list. There are always going to be criminals and corrupt politicians.

Buddy, you are insane if you don't think 99% of possible crime is prevented by our government. Do you think this is the wild, wild west? If it wasn't for cops people like you would be slaves of people like me


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Phred]
    #2969858 - 08/05/04 08:42 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Jefferson was of the opinion that the citizenry would have to "throw the bums out" (paraphrase) every twenty years or so because of just this tendency.





yes, this is a good quote. The ancient Chinese understood this as well; they called it "the 200 year dynastic cycle". Different amount of time, but the same principle.

still, though, who decides to throw out the government? The people? How come they havent done it yet? And isnt it a contradiction to say that the only way to prevent government coercion is via the intiation of force against the government? Again, who decides? If we had a revolution in America right now, I would almost be worried that an even worse government would take the place of the current one. What garuntees does a foot soldier in said revolution have that his revolutionary leader wont do exactly the opposite of what he claims to fight for once he has gained power?

Quote:

On the other hand, one suggestion which has been voiced numerous times over the years is that no new piece of legislation may be passed into law unless it clearly demonstrates which section of the US Constitution justifies said law. Another suggestion along the same lines is that the US Supreme Court must clear each new piece of legislation before it becomes law (using the same criterion listed above) rather than the current practice of the court reacting to constitutional challenges years (or decades, or even never) down the road.





those sound like decent ideas, but I would worry that such a government wouldnt be flexible enough to deal with the ever-changing nature of life on Earth. What if something changed enough to render the constitution (or part of it) obsolete and harmful?


I am reminded of Franklin's quote, when asked what kind of government the constitutional convention had come up with: "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Well, obviously we didnt keep it. So if we're going to design a new republic, it should keep the failings of the old one in mind and try to accomodate them in its design. Then maybe we can postpone the inevitable collapse a little longer this time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2969878 - 08/05/04 08:49 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

. There are always going to be criminals and corrupt politicians.





but thats exactly my point.  How would a libertarian government prevent these kinds of people from gaining influence?  Self-interest isnt always the best fuel to keep the engine from getting deposits. 

Quote:

Buddy, you are insane if you don't think 99% of possible crime is prevented by our government. Do you think this is the wild, wild west? If it wasn't for cops people like you would be slaves of people like me 




well, I live in Dallas, so this kind of is the wild west :lol:  Tons of crimes out here go completely unreported and unchallenbed.  I literally see it every day.  Cops tend to show up about 6 hours after they are called.  And this is under two of the most capitalist municipal and state governments in the country.  Cops out here get paid so little, they always have their hands out.  That is, when they show up at all.  I cant depend on the cops for protection out here; I have to rely upon street justice and my own social network.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969886 - 08/05/04 08:51 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
:lol: good luck.  Keep preachin that philosophy and you might get nailed to a tree as a reward :smile:



Indeed, but it seems to be the only long term solution.  As long as we look towards the state as a means of plundering from our neighbor, seeing our fellow man as the means to our ends whether he likes it or not and inflicting our morality on others in the name of making them moral, we will only achieve divisiveness and an endless cycle of violence of either an overt or subtle nature.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969903 - 08/05/04 08:54 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

still, though, who decides to throw out the government? The people? How come they havent done it yet?

Those who vote Libertarian are people who have decided to throw out the government. This relates directly to the question that started this whole thread. The reason "the people" haven't done it yet is because so many people feel it is so important to defeat Bush (or Clinton or Johnson or Ford or whoever the villain of the moment might be) that they have convinced themselves that voting their conscience is wrong. It's much more important to "make certain that bastard doesn't get re-elected". This is of course a never-ending strategy.

Let's face it -- the majority of the regular posters in this forum could watch Kerry murder a black woman on a live television broadcast while screaming "Die, you nigger hoe!" and they would still vote for Kerry. Not because they think Kerry is a decent human being, but because they want so badly to see Bush gone that they'd vote for Kerry anyway rather than vote for real change to the system.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969933 - 08/05/04 08:59 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

How would a libertarian government prevent these kinds of people from gaining influence?

Gaining "influence" with whom?

In a Libertarian society, the only things politicians could be influenced into is perhaps rigging a bid for a new police station or an order for ten thousand Marine uniforms or a new aircraft carrier or the contract for the marble facade of the new courthouse. Note that no matter what kind of government is in place (yes, even Communism) the same possibilities exist.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2969957 - 08/05/04 09:04 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
And isnt it a contradiction to say that the only way to prevent government coercion is via the intiation of force against the government?



Government agents have already initiated force against the people and continue to do so on a daily basis.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Phred]
    #2970019 - 08/05/04 09:15 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Those who vote Libertarian are people who have decided to throw out the government.




hmmmm... My father is a self-proffessed libertarian, but he's voting for Bush (or at least thats what he said last time I talked to him). Why? Because my father has money in oil (most of which was originally invested a loooooong time ago), and he is confident in GW's ability to keep the price of oil high. Also, he likes the tax cut because he makes over $200,000 a year and he doesnt keep a lot of paper money; most of his assets are in stocks and real estate.

Now, i try to tell him that voting for these reasons isnt very libertarian, because he is using the coercive mechanism of the state for his own personal gain. His defense is that voting isnt an initiation of force against anyone. He is simply acting in his own best interest by speaking his opinion via the ballot.

I would appreciate your feedback on this arguement I have been having with my father. My father tends to change his opinion on this every day: I'm trying to convince him to do the right thing because he lives in Florida. Hopefully he will at least vote libertarian, as opposed to voting for Bush.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2970048 - 08/05/04 09:21 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

see man they just dont understand that straight libertarianism only looks good on paper, as does communism. in real life we need a balance, a economic system between the right and the left. everyone always wants to tilt the scales their way  :confused:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2970063 - 08/05/04 09:23 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
straight libertarianism only looks good on paper, as does communism. in real life we need a balance, a economic system between the right and the left.




:thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Nader got Bush elected bullshit LearyfanS 1,532 17 09/20/03 11:50 AM
by shakta
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,604 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* Nader endorses Camejo's bid for gubernatorial race wingnutx 1,086 10 08/14/03 07:06 AM
by z@z.com
* libertarianism
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
domite 11,652 131 09/23/03 03:26 PM
by Autonomous
* What are Libertarian ideals/views?
( 1 2 all )
FileSoup 4,060 32 09/03/03 12:05 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Ralph Nader
( 1 2 3 all )
mabus 3,425 51 02/23/04 08:05 AM
by Innvertigo
* Libertarian Party on WMD hearings... Anonymous 1,168 11 06/20/03 04:56 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Rasmussen Reports - Badnarik In Debates Ancalagon 1,356 17 07/27/04 04:24 PM
by Ancalagon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,971 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.