Home | Community | Message Board


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: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineTwirling
Barred Spiral
Male

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters
    #2968685 - 08/05/04 03:40 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Let's keep this as respectful & an open discussion as possible.


I really like a lot of what Nader has to say, like some of Badnarik represents (athough haven't read enough about him to support him entirely) but from a practical and realistic standpoint, neither one stands much of a chance against Bush or Kerry. I do understand that it's a very valid point the two party system has too much corparate influence and relies on the "long shot" arguement to keep a third party from being a serouis contender. My biggest concern is that, in a realistic sense, this election just doesn't seem to

I personally feel the third party should concentrate more on grass roots attempts, like the Green Party Mayor of New Paltz, a town near me. I think they'd have more success in rallying people to vote for them by focusing on Senate & House positions where there is more of a chance for an underdog. In this election, I think people are just too afriad to chance their vote for a 3rd party canadate who, statistically doesn't have much of any chance.

So the biggest question I have, is how do either Nader or Badnarik plan on winning this election? You can answer any of the other points I'm making here, but please answer this one.


--------------------
The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.


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: Twirling]
    #2968696 - 08/05/04 03:43 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

to be fair to the libertarian viewpoint:

just yesterday I was having an insane fantasy about what it would be like if Badnarik were allowed in the televised debates along with Bush and Kerry.  He would rip both of them new assholes. 

too bad it will never happen :frown:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTwirling
Barred Spiral
Male

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2968815 - 08/05/04 04:02 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

I defintely think it's unfair that third party canadates aren't allowed into the debates. It would be out of hand if every minor canadate would be allowed, but how open can an election be if only two partys are in control.


Which is probably the point....


--------------------
The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Twirling]
    #2968862 - 08/05/04 04:11 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Both Nader and Badnarik are intelligent enough to know they're not going to come close to winning this election. Or 2008, or 2012, or 2100 for that matter. But I think they want to do the right thing (which is exactly what their doing) and go out there and take small little steps towards some third party acceptance. It's going to be a long long time before America has truely open elections and isn't run by two sides of the same corrupted coin. So the message for now should be do what's right for your children and grandchildren... and maybe your great great great grandchildren will live to see some real democracy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Twirling]
    #2968971 - 08/05/04 04:34 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

It's obvious they're not going to win, they know that I'm sure. But as Michael Badnarik said, If you were in prison and had a 50% chance of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair, and only a 5% chance of escape, which are you going to choose?

Kerry and Bush are honestly not good choices, they won't help the country at all and we're mainly just trying to choose which one is less evil. Is that a good way to vote for the most powerful man in the world?

That said, I hope the 2008 election is between Dennis Kucinich for Democratic canidate and John McCain for Republican canidate. There would be no losing in that election. Too bad it won't happen


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

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: Twirling]
    #2968980 - 08/05/04 04:37 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

It's not about winning. It's about sending a message. Now, if I lived in a swing state, I'd be more concerned with toppling Bush. But since I'm in a solidly Democratic state, I can send a message to Washington by voting for Michael Badnarik and still be comfortable in knowing that I haven't helped Bush.


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


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

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: silversoul7]
    #2968993 - 08/05/04 04:41 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

I can send a message to Washington




you think they're listening? :lol:

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]
    #2969000 - 08/05/04 04:43 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Maybe not. But I bet they'd be more likely to listen if I was armed to the teeth.


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


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

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: silversoul7]
    #2969022 - 08/05/04 04:51 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

  :blah:

I risk my life every day fighting government oppression.  you're gonna vote libertarian  :handth:

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: silversoul7]
    #2969074 - 08/05/04 05:15 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

influenced by the loud mouthed libretarians on this board...poor ss7, just because badarnick (sp?) wants to legalize weed it doenst make him good...libretatian fiscal policies would ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer....the class divide would be larger than ever...then you'd see revolution....but maybe we need a good revolt, VOTE LIBERTARIAN

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Twirling]
    #2969320 - 08/05/04 06:21 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

So the biggest question I have, is how do either Nader or Badnarik plan on winning this election? You can answer any of the other points I'm making here, but please answer this one.

i'll be voting for a candidate i support. i won't be voting for one i won't. if i had to choose between either bush, kerry, or not vote at all, i wouldn't vote.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2969338 - 08/05/04 06:25 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

just because badarnick (sp?) wants to legalize weed it doenst make him good...

i'm sure that ss7 understands the multitude of other very good reasons to vote libertarian.

libretatian fiscal policies would ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...

well, you're half right.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekaiowas
lest we baguette
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2969346 - 08/05/04 06:27 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

so what does nader or the other guy have to say about our monetary system???

read if you dare to know truth


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

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: KingOftheThing]
    #2969359 - 08/05/04 06:31 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
libretatian fiscal policies would ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer....the class divide would be larger than ever...



I can understand in a true free market economy that the rich can get richer, likewise, the poor can also get richer. A quick examination of more free market economies will demonstrate more economic upward mobility than in those countries that are more socialistic or outright communistic. Your statement is unsupported by a comparison of economies that function within different political boundaries. In fact, more government controls (such as occupational licensing, high permit costs, and government regulations) inhibit the creation of wealth for those starting out with less, and protect those who are already established from new competition.

Please note that in a true free market there is no corporate welfare, purchasers are not penalized because products have a certain point of origin, there is no crony capitalism with those in government positions, there is no market promotion of established industries by the government, and there in no funding by the government of favored industries' research at the expense of the taxpayers. A free market is not a marriage of big business and government. What are often derided by the left as the evils of capitalism are in fact actions of corporatism or mercantilism - not a free market.


--------------------
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: Evolving]
    #2969616 - 08/05/04 07:43 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Please note that in a true free market there is no corporate welfare, purchasers are not penalized because products have a certain point of origin, there is no crony capitalism with those in government positions, there is no market promotion of established industries by the government, and there in no funding by the government of favored industries' research at the expense of the taxpayers




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

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]
    #2969635 - 08/05/04 07:47 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

The fact that the government is specifically excluded from doing any of those things.

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]
    #2969646 - 08/05/04 07:49 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

It requires a mechanism to make them happen. No mechanism at all is required to prevent them


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

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]
    #2969650 - 08/05/04 07:50 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Truck drivers are specifically excluded from handing over their cargo to organized criminals. But slip a few hundred dollar bills in a friendly truck driver's pocket, and he'll let you rob him, and tell his superiors it was a gang of heavily armed men and there was nothing he could do.

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]
    #2969659 - 08/05/04 07:52 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

No mechanism at all is required to prevent them





on this we disagree. I think corruption is part of human nature, no matter what kind of government (or lack thereof) exists.

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]
    #2969719 - 08/05/04 08:09 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

Truck drivers are specifically excluded from handing over their cargo to organized criminals. But slip a few hundred dollar bills in a friendly truck driver's pocket, and he'll let you rob him, and tell his superiors it was a gang of heavily armed men and there was nothing he could do.

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

I confess I am too stupid to see the relevance of your example to any of Evolving's points. Can you dumb it down for me... connect the dots?.

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: 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
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]
    #2970098 - 08/05/04 09:31 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

My father is a self-proffessed libertarian...

A lot of people are self-professed something or other. Hell, John F Kerry is a self-professed war criminal.

You will note my carefully-phrased statement --

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

I didn't say those who claim to be Libertarians are people who have decided to throw out the government. I said those who vote Libertarian are. Clearly your father, though enamored of Libertarian ideals, is not yet prepared to attempt to throw out the existing government system by voting against its representatives -- in this case Bush and Kerry. There are many on this board who feel as he does. Their argument is that it is better to keep Kerry out of the White House (an admirable goal, to be sure) than to vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate this time.

As you are well aware, I disagree. But those who feel (for example) that a strong policy against the Jihadists is a top priority (and even I must concede that Libertarian freedoms are kinda hard to enjoy once you've been blown up by a pocket nuke or even a truck bomb) judge it's better to stick with a president who has demonstrated he is on their side on this particular point.

Priorities, I guess.

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]
    #2970164 - 08/05/04 10:03 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

so, in a libertarian style government, what is to keep people like my father from voting in crooked politicians to act in their interest by slowly changing the government to be more coericive?

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]
    #2970174 - 08/05/04 10:08 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

People may vote as they wish. A libertarian society would put limits on the politicians, not the voters.


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


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

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]
    #2970297 - 08/05/04 10:49 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
so, in a libertarian style government, what is to keep people like my father from voting in crooked politicians to act in their interest by slowly changing the government to be more coericive?



The problem with all governments is that they are subject to crooked politicians and spineless people who will accept their edicts, even though they may be unconstitutional and/or wrong. That is why our government exists in it's present state. A vast number of things the National government does are blatantly unconstitutional. Can you tell us of anyway to keep a government within it's bounds via a constitution or some other means? Seeing as anarchy opens a people up to the first group of thugs willing to establish a new government... short of anarchy, how do we eliminate and/or minimize the accumulation of power that can be corrupted?


--------------------
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
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2970688 - 08/06/04 12:29 AM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
hmmmm... My father is a self-proffessed libertarian, but he's voting for Bush



Up is down, left is right, war is peace, freedom is slavery...

Quote:

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.



Not to offend you, but I would tell my father that he is a hypocrite (I have told my own father such things, that might be why I haven't spoken to him in 8 years). War is the biggest racket of the government and the actions most inimical to liberty are taken in the name of warfare (such as the Patriot Act). GW is keeping the price of oil high with tax money, debt and debt created currency (a tax on every dollar in circulation) going to fund the war machine and to foment unrest and uncertainty in the middle east. I don't know if this would provide any intellectual ammunition for you, but have you read,'War is a Racket'?

Is it just that your father's profit should come at the expense of future tax revenue, from people who do not yet have the right to vote?

Quote:

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.



You are of course, correct and your father is wrong. The act of voting is no more an initiation of force than the act of handing a wad of bills to a hit man to carry out a contract, you are authorizing someone to initiate force on your behalf. You're father is rationalizing his actions.

I don't know if you care to or have already read the following, but...

'Is Voting an Act of Violence?' an interesting little essay.

'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience' - Henry David Thoreau


--------------------
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
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]
    #2972785 - 08/06/04 04:49 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Doctor J asks "What is to keep people like my father from voting in crooked politicians to act in their interest....?" They're not crooked if they act the way they said they would when your father voted for them. You may not like them and they may betray your father's trust, but if they do what he voted for them to do then they are not crooked (at the very least to him, he may have decided that it is in his interest for them to plunder a hospital trust fund but they have not betrayed him if they do).

You say that your father has alot of money in oil and that he has had it for a loooong time. I'm going to guess that means he has stock in oil co.s and that he is not a speculator. Did he really say he was voting for GWB because he knew he would keep oil prices high? Did Bush have his good friend Putin arrest the head of YUKOS to raise prices? Did his policies so stabilize the equities and interest markets that speculators, i.e. hedge and pension funds, jump into the energy futures markets desperate for action (at great peril, I might add). Did his almighty CIA disrupt the leftist government in Venezuela and endanger that source to create a shortage of production there or did the people just get sick of Chavez's hideous policies? (The CIA is either all powerful or incompetent. Please pick one.) Did his supposed great influence with the Saudi ruling family (his great friends, see Michael Moore)lead them to cut production to raise prices? They have actually increased production a great deal, put wells online ahead of schedule and not closed others.

Oil co.s make money whether the price of oil is up or down, depending on what position they have taken. Sometimes they don't make more with the price high. The price of oil co. stock is more based on public perception than on the price of oil. I also think it is imperative that people vote for what they see to be their interest, whatever it might be. They can be as misguided, in my unhumble opinion, as they want but they should vote for their interests and not what they think other people's interests should be. Unless they want to, of course.

I myself did not talk to your father and I would not ever judge anyone to be anything at all based on any report you made.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTwirling
Barred Spiral
Male

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Twirling]
    #2975510 - 08/07/04 01:45 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Good responses. I've figured they're both aware of their statisical unlikelyness of winning, it's just hard to know what answers (if there are any) are going to be in order to influence the system. Certianly making a stand is a good way of gathering awareness of these types of issues.

What I'd really like to see is better representation in the media of what's actually going on. Clearly all those news talk shows who try to act all "controversial" are more to influence people to feel opinionated and emotionally charged. Most of the analysis on the most major media programs are a joke. Which is why I love the Daily Show, it manages to not only entertain, but their journalism actually rips apart most of the poltical B.S.


I really don't know what to make of Kerry. I like a lot of things he's had to say and what I've seen of his public record. His voting for the War In Iraq & Patriot Act are really unsettling though.

I'm in NY, so I'd wager it's going to Kerry. I still don't know what I'm going to do.


--------------------
The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedeafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Twirling]
    #2975553 - 08/07/04 01:57 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

How much does being president actually mean, though?

I will not believe for one second that Bush makes any *real* decisions. No-one that stupid would be really in charge of America.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Twirling]
    #2975581 - 08/07/04 02:05 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

I really don't know what to make of Kerry. I like a lot of things he's had to say and what I've seen of his public record. His voting for the War In Iraq & Patriot Act are really unsettling though.

I'm in NY, so I'd wager it's going to Kerry. I still don't know what I'm going to do.



That'd be a safe wager. Perhaps the only politically good thing about New York is that the lesser of two evils argument does not apply. The Democrats are going to win by a fairly insane margine. With that said, I'd definitely suggest looking into voting for a third party. I'm not sure of your politics but voting for Kerry is telling the DNC that you approve of the things you listed, the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, and that you'd like some more of it. Vote third party and send a message.

Quote:

Which is why I love the Daily Show, it manages to not only entertain, but their journalism actually rips apart most of the poltical B.S.



Couldn't agree with you more.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTwirling
Barred Spiral
Male

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 2,468
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: Question To The Nader/Badnarik Supporters [Re: Ancalagon]
    #2975609 - 08/07/04 02:11 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Ancalagon said:
I'm in NY, so I'd wager it's going to Kerry. I still don't know what I'm going to do.



That'd be a safe wager. Perhaps the only politically good thing about New York is that the lesser of two evils argument does not apply. The Democrats are going to win by a fairly insane margine. With that said, I'd definitely suggest looking into voting for a third party. I'm not sure of your politics but voting for Kerry is telling the DNC that you approve of the things you listed, the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, and that you'd like some more of it. Vote third party and send a message..




I lean most towards the Green Party and Nader's platform, so it's a possibilty, but I'd like to wait and see before making any decision.

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

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds


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 0.037 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.