Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2013, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,840 posts, read 9,157,947 times
Reputation: 13779

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Libertarians understand that the Constitution grants certain things to the government and other things it doesn't.
^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
All I have seen is vague reasons on how libertarian ideology would work and it usually consists of people saying less or no governing and more freedoms, which really don't mean anything when trying to apply that to real life.

The closest I have seen is that the country should be run like small rural towns.
Anybody who's actually lived in small rural towns knows very well that they are in many ways far more tyrannical and corrupt than large urban areas. The folks with $$$ and "connections" tend to get their way whether that's good for everybody else or not. It's why so many people leave -- and have been leaving for more than a century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2013, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,048,869 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
^^^


Anybody who's actually lived in small rural towns knows very well that they are in many ways far more tyrannical and corrupt than large urban areas. The folks with $$$ and "connections" tend to get their way whether that's good for everybody else or not. It's why so many people leave -- and have been leaving for more than a century.
Now that sounds more realistic on how a libertarian government would be run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,163,032 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
No. I'm not. I'm disagreeing with your claims and repudiating the perspectives you're putting forward. You want your comments to be blindly accepted - that's natural, but unreasonable.
Look, you haven't repudiated anything whatsoever. You just keep repeating over and over about how libertarians are supposedly selfish and greedy. But you never produce any evidence whatsoever to prove it. You make this statement because you assume that any person who doesn't support government sponsored charity, must necessarily be selfish and greedy.

You refuse to even ask yourself whether or not the government is even achieving the goals it has set for itself. Or whether or not the government taking over the responsibility of society might actually change the psychology of society for the worse.


You just continue on your tirade about how, a person must be selfish if they don't want to give 50%+ of their income to the government. Ignoring the fact that the government has a track record of being wasteful, corrupt, and ineffective.


I would be happy to give away half my income to help people. And I do already. But I simply do not want to give that money to the government. Because I have seen how the government handles basically everything, and it does a horrible job. And I think in almost all cases, it is actually hurting people instead of helping them.


I'm not religious, but my favorite quote from the bible is from the book of Matthew....

'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’



That is one of the driving motivations of my life. As a result, I almost always have people living with me(for absolutely free, though they have to listen to me preach sometimes). And so it pisses me off to no end that people like yourself get on here and call me selfish and greedy.

Even if you say that you aren't saying that I am selfish and greedy. You are certainly arguing that libertarianism itself is selfish and greedy. The problem is that, you only want to see what is on the surface. Because you refuse to separate intentions from results.

I recognize that an argument that the government should not help those in need, sounds selfish. But is the actual result selfishness? I recognize that wanting the government to help those in need, sounds unselfish. But what is the actual result?


In my view of history, a more libertarian government makes people less selfish. And a more socialist government actually makes people more selfish.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html

I mean, the time in US history where we had the most charitable activity. Also coincides with the time in US history where the government played basically no role whatsoever in the welfare of the people. And I believe that if we were to return to a more libertarian world. You would see the amount of philanthropy and volunteerism in this country absolutely skyrocket.


I mean, I at least know for a fact that that would be the case with myself. I assume that you would increase your efforts as well in the absence of government?

Think about how much greater it would feel, and how much more you might do. If instead of just sending a check to the IRS once a year. You were more free to use your money to directly help people, all year long. And you would actually be able to see that what you were doing was actually helping.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,858 posts, read 8,163,032 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Anybody who's actually lived in small rural towns knows very well that they are in many ways far more tyrannical and corrupt than large urban areas. The folks with $$$ and "connections" tend to get their way whether that's good for everybody else or not. It's why so many people leave -- and have been leaving for more than a century.

I highly doubt people have been leaving small towns as a result of wealthy people getting their way all the time. And that statement doesn't stand up to criticism.


The reality is that, the people leaving small towns are doing it because small towns tend to have few opportunities for work. But on the flipside, people are moving to small towns for the "quality of life". Especially to raise their children in a safe environment.


The question then is, why are there so few opportunities for work in small towns? Is it because of some oppressive laws in this small towns, which are driving out all the jobs?


Look, the problem with small towns anymore. Is that more money leaves the small towns than enters them. The only small towns which can live in the current state of our economy. Are small towns which exist near some natural resource(coal, oil and gas, etc). Small towns near major universities, military bases, prisons, or some recreational activity(lakes, state/national parks, historical sites, casinos, etc). And then regional farming hubs(usually along a railroad track).

In truth, the vast majority of surviving small towns, rely heavily on government spending. The question really is, why are small towns suddenly so reliant on government spending? Why is so much more money leaving small towns than is coming into them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,048,869 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I highly doubt people have been leaving small towns as a result of wealthy people getting their way all the time. And that statement doesn't stand up to criticism.


The reality is that, the people leaving small towns are doing it because small towns tend to have few opportunities for work. But on the flipside, people are moving to small towns for the "quality of life". Especially to raise their children in a safe environment.


The question then is, why are there so few opportunities for work in small towns? Is it because of some oppressive laws in this small towns, which are driving out all the jobs?


Look, the problem with small towns anymore. Is that more money leaves the small towns than enters them. The only small towns which can live in the current state of our economy. Are small towns which exist near some natural resource(coal, oil and gas, etc). Small towns near major universities, military bases, prisons, or some recreational activity(lakes, state/national parks, historical sites, casinos, etc). And then regional farming hubs(usually along a railroad track).

In truth, the vast majority of surviving small towns, rely heavily on government spending. The question really is, why are small towns suddenly so reliant on government spending? Why is so much more money leaving small towns than is coming into them?
Probably because their libertarian ideology has failed them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 12:17 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,965,537 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
How is libertarianism different from anarchism except in degree? Both pretend that "government" causes people to behave badly when it's actually people behaving badly that requires "government" to restrict "freedom".
That's like saying how is liberalism any different than anarchism other than desgree? It says nothing. Everything can be compared to anything else depending on the degree.

Quote:
The real world is NOT the Kingdom of God where the lion lies down the lamb!
I suppose that is suppose to mean something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 12:19 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,965,537 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
^^^


Anybody who's actually lived in small rural towns knows very well that they are in many ways far more tyrannical and corrupt than large urban areas. The folks with $$$ and "connections" tend to get their way whether that's good for everybody else or not. It's why so many people leave -- and have been leaving for more than a century.
We are suppose to take this vast generalization as some proof of some point? A generalization based upon nothing at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 12:48 PM
 
Location: South Bay
1,404 posts, read 1,028,526 times
Reputation: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22 View Post
All you'd be doing is giving power that the state, which theoretically answers to the people to some extent, has and giving it to big business, who do not have to answer to anything as long as they are making a profit.

I know ideally many libertarians would see neighbors, charities and so on taking the place of what the government does but in practice that would just mean the unfortunate in America who didn't have family and friends to rely on would be impoverished. Not only that but it requires a centralized government to create many of the modern amenities we enjoy, at least the way the world works now. The only organizations that could offer something somewhat comparable would be big business so basically big industries would just become the new government.

Regulations on business exist for a reason. They prevent people from getting sick, and from being abused by their employers.
So far we see overlapping of regulations as the Federal government scrambles to expand to ridiculousness. The more entities that become involved in regulating a thing, the less it works. Regulatory overlap breeds waste. We need to delegate regulations to the states, rather than the federal government.

We want less big business in government, not more. We want special interest lobbyists to be trimmed as well. I think you're confusing our support of free market capitalism with crony capitalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 03:00 PM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,666,470 times
Reputation: 8793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Look, you haven't repudiated anything whatsoever.
You evidently don't know what the word "repudiate" means. Let me know when you're willing to accept that your preferences are unacceptable to most people, that only a few people really truly agree with your preferences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
You just keep repeating over and over about how libertarians are supposedly selfish and greedy. But you never produce any evidence whatsoever to prove it.
I suppose you also question when someone calls broccoli a "vegetable".

Incredible. Simply incredible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
You refuse to even ask yourself whether or not the government is even achieving the goals it has set for itself.
Wow. You simply cannot accept that this thread is about your preference - the corrupted partisan perspective that you prefer - support and condemnation. If you find yourself incapable of keeping to the topic, there's no sense in even granting you the respect of further reply. Alternatively, stop trying to evade criticisms of libertarianism. If you simply cannot stand to see them, then avoid threads about libertarianism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
You just continue on your tirade about how, a person must be selfish if they don't want to give 50%+ of their income to the government.
And the fact that you have to essentially lie by making up things for me to have said, as you did here, shows clearly the lack of integrity that you choose to practice in your inane effort to dodge condemnation of what you prefer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I would be happy to give away half my income to help people.
Given the disreputable nature of your participation in this thread, as I alluded to above, why should anyone believe anything you say about yourself? Regardless, no one is important enough to make a difference in the matter of this thread. You, like everyone else, are simply not significant enough, in the overall. It's pretty silly to try to make claims about libertarianism based on unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable claims you make about yourself. You aren't libertarianism.

It seems to me that you're just going to spew nonsensically tangential prattle in response to any message posted. After reading the inanely non-sequitur second half of your last missive, I'll remind you what I wrote above: "the private sector can do cheaper and better" - but they won't because libertarianism rationalizes and even claims to justify not doing so. Wake up and look around you at how those who claim libertarian bases for their action rationalize egoistic avarice. Stop burying your head in the sand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2014, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,282 posts, read 6,720,493 times
Reputation: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Look, you haven't repudiated anything whatsoever. You just keep repeating over and over about how libertarians are supposedly selfish and greedy. But you never produce any evidence whatsoever to prove it. You make this statement because you assume that any person who doesn't support government sponsored charity, must necessarily be selfish and greedy.

You refuse to even ask yourself whether or not the government is even achieving the goals it has set for itself. Or whether or not the government taking over the responsibility of society might actually change the psychology of society for the worse.


You just continue on your tirade about how, a person must be selfish if they don't want to give 50%+ of their income to the government. Ignoring the fact that the government has a track record of being wasteful, corrupt, and ineffective.


I would be happy to give away half my income to help people. And I do already. But I simply do not want to give that money to the government. Because I have seen how the government handles basically everything, and it does a horrible job. And I think in almost all cases, it is actually hurting people instead of helping them.


I'm not religious, but my favorite quote from the bible is from the book of Matthew....

'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’



That is one of the driving motivations of my life. As a result, I almost always have people living with me(for absolutely free, though they have to listen to me preach sometimes). And so it pisses me off to no end that people like yourself get on here and call me selfish and greedy.

Even if you say that you aren't saying that I am selfish and greedy. You are certainly arguing that libertarianism itself is selfish and greedy. The problem is that, you only want to see what is on the surface. Because you refuse to separate intentions from results.

I recognize that an argument that the government should not help those in need, sounds selfish. But is the actual result selfishness? I recognize that wanting the government to help those in need, sounds unselfish. But what is the actual result?


In my view of history, a more libertarian government makes people less selfish. And a more socialist government actually makes people more selfish.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html

I mean, the time in US history where we had the most charitable activity. Also coincides with the time in US history where the government played basically no role whatsoever in the welfare of the people. And I believe that if we were to return to a more libertarian world. You would see the amount of philanthropy and volunteerism in this country absolutely skyrocket.


I mean, I at least know for a fact that that would be the case with myself. I assume that you would increase your efforts as well in the absence of government?

Think about how much greater it would feel, and how much more you might do. If instead of just sending a check to the IRS once a year. You were more free to use your money to directly help people, all year long. And you would actually be able to see that what you were doing was actually helping.
You have to understand life for the leftist statist is about "fairness and emotion" not liberty and reason..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top