Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A response rate of 57 people can hardly be considered representative of the super-intelligent as a whole.
Although I see that they support some ideas that are generally championed by Democrats:
"[SIZE=2]A public health care system that provides for the poor and the elderly was favored by a majority ranging from 67% to 74%, and doctor-assisted suicide was found acceptable by 76% of the respondents. An overwhelming 95% agreed that abortion should be legally available, with 49% opposing government restrictions of any kind."
[/SIZE][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]
Must be true. 57 people said so and it's on the internet.
I never said I wanted laws to keep you safe from yourself. That doesn't mean you can do anything you want. I don't want drugs in my neighborhood for MY benefit. A libertarian is free to go somewhere that they don't mind drug use and use drugs, however -- so long as I don't have to care when their drug use leads them to become homeless or overdose. See how it works?
Now a Conservative would have the values of "I don't want drugs on my property". Neighborhood, you just went into the Progressive collective realm.
Now a Conservative would have the values of "I don't want drugs on my property". Neighborhood, you just went into the Progressive collective realm.
Nope. As I said, you just have an incorrect understanding of both the Constitution and libertarianism. I'm for a decentralized government, not NO government. You should look these concepts up, particularly before you start telling people what to believe or not to.
I think common sense is required for individual liberty to be workable. A round peg that knows (or at least should) it is not going to fit in a square hole should try to find a round hole.
Sounds like a denial of individuality.
Quote:
It isn't about having power. It's about respect, courtesy, and common sense.
This I agree with. As such, I respect my neighbor's choices as long as he respects mine. Doing drugs in the privacy of his own home is none of my business.
Quote:
I think one reason liberties tend to be stripped away from people is because they abuse liberty when they have it and then some other holier-than-thou types decide they should have the authority to force everyone to comply with their idea of "right." Sadly, many folks are too stupid to handle liberty and then we get what we have now.
Agree here, as well. Though we may not respect such opinions or behavior, I think we should respect such people as human beings. To me, it comes down to, "Whatcha gonna do?" If we start to restrict such ideas, we become holier-than-thou, ourselves.
Quote:
Most people seem to think that liberty means doing anything you want to anyone--in essence, chaos (I won't use the word anarchy because the relationship between liberty and anarchy requires some actual research beyond a knee-jerk reaction). Those are the people who could not handle liberty because they do not understand liberty.
Agreed. I like the basic definition of anarchy; "society without law."
Quote:
And sadly, that's one of the unresolved issues in my mind: I'm an absolute supporter of individual liberty for all, but at the same time, I'm fully aware that maybe even a majority of the populace lacks the ability or understanding to handle the responsibility of having that individual liberty.
Agreed. Again, whatcha gonna do? Liberty also should mean that those who understand it, and accept the responsibility that it involves, shouldn't try to impose that understanding on others.
Neighborhood, you just went into the Progressive collective realm.
Not necessarily. At one time a community, in a certain regard, had an "unwritten common sense agreement"--at least smaller communities did. You go to a gold-mining town and you can expect all manner of debauchery. You go to a religious community, you expect a far different atmosphere.
And at one time, I'd assume that a drinking, womanizing, cussing, gambling, leather-hard miner would have sense enough to not want to live in that religious community. And I'd assume that a devoutly religious person from the religious community would not find the mining town all that appealing. Common sense. No law was written. It was common sense.
It seems many people do things these days that are not in their best interests or the best interests of the community simply to say that they can. That behavior is detrimental to liberty. Because the victims of that sort of stupid behavior will only put up with so much BS before they start shutting down personal liberties.
Not necessarily. At one time a community, in a certain regard, had an "unwritten common sense agreement"--at least smaller communities did. You go to a gold-mining town and you can expect all manner of debauchery. You go to a religious community, you expect a far different atmosphere.
And at one time, I'd assume that a drinking, womanizing, cussing, gambling, leather-hard miner would have sense enough to not want to live in that religious community. And I'd assume that a devoutly religious person from the religious community would not find the mining town all that appealing. Common sense. No law was written. It was common sense.
It seems many people do things these days that are not in their best interests or the best interests of the community simply to say that they can. That behavior is detrimental to liberty. Because the victims of that sort of stupid behavior will only put up with so much BS before they start shutting down personal liberties.
This is true, but the key words are, "At one time." Except in fewer and fewer communities (we have some here in Nevada), that time is long gone, never to return.
Time for a game of "spot the bad methodology". Whence the assumption that people who seek out an organization like TNS are a representative sample of very intelligent individuals?
So it's no different than when Democrats and/or Republicans use polls to "prove" smart people vote for them.
So it's no different than when Democrats and/or Republicans use polls to "prove" smart people vote for them.
Ehm - yes. Sample selection, it's a thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
