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.
Would that not be hypocritical? Is not "very violent retaliatory force" exactly the opposite of "the non-aggression principle?"
No.
aggression: the action of attacking without provocation
Retaliation is provoked by initiations of force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
I completely disagree that initiation of force is always immoral. If I want to feed myself, I must initiate the use of force (as in when I hunt and fish). How can feeding one's self be construed as immoral?
I'm sorry. I was talking about human interaction. I think you are pulling my leg, right?
We've seen more and more Tea Party members claim to be "libertarian" (Rand Paul and even his father Ron before him) as well as past threads about Libertarian views. I went to decide for myself if there was a link and found this nugget in the Libertarian Party website
Now since the Tea Party really started in 2007 there have been more and more people saying that Republicans are RINOs because they aren't conservative enough and/or are not fiscally conservative. I've voted mostly Republican in 2008 and again in 2012 because I didn't think the Obama Democrats were the answer to problems. But now in 2014 I think the Tea Party and the conservative Libertarians who claim to be Republicans aren't the answer either. I personally want a moderate choice rather than just a far right choice or a far left choice like it has seemed the two parties have done. If given the choice, I may just end up voting for anyone but Hillary and a far-right candidate in 2016 (if both happen.)
What say you libertarians of C-D, are the libertarian Tea Partiers like Rand Paul hurting the Republican party more than helping it?
Ron Paul has always been a Republican, even running as an independent.
He doesn't even recognize himself as Libertarian. He feels the Republican party has compromised their principals to progressive ideology so much, there is only a one party system today.
Actually we formed a grassroot organized movement in 2006, for constitutional liberty and liked what Ron Paul had to say. Ron Paul labelled us the Taxed Enough Already, (TEA Party)
Rand Paul is a Constitutional Republican, like his dad. He's not an Establishment Republican and not Libertarian.
What does this even mean? The presidency is, at least in part, defined by what the president signs into law.
It should not be. At least not without a good understanding of what it means when a President signs a bill.
As the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch the President is responsible for the execution of all laws enacted by Congress. That does not mean the President has to like the law, or even sign the law.
Presidents should be defined by:
Leadership: Was the President able to work with Congress to get the President's agenda passed? Or did Congress thrust their agenda on the President? A good leader challenges the nation to perform tasks that may appear to be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Like JFK did with the manned-mission to the moon before the decade was out, or Reagan did with SDI, etc.
Foreign Policy: Did the President meet with foreign heads of state as equals? Or did the President defer to their authority? How many times did a President seek the use of military force against other nations? Was the President justified in the use of military force?
Domestic Policy: How are the laws enacted by Congress being implemented by the Executive Branch? Is the President preserving, protecting and defending the US Constitution?
These are the things that define a presidency, not acts of Congress. As I previously pointed out, the President does not even have to sign a bill for it to become law automatically. Nor will any President veto any bill that passes Congress with a veto-proof majority, no matter how bad it may be.
W was a RINO, and his handling of McCain-Feingold epitomized it.
Perhaps. He certainly could have vetoed the bill, but I do not recall what the political situation was at that time. He may have had legislation that he really wanted to have passed, and worked out a deal - no veto and they pass the bill he wanted. That kind of thing happens a lot.
aggression: the action of attacking without provocation
Retaliation is provoked by initiations of force.
Sorry, but the definitions of "aggression" and "retaliation" are considerably more encompassing than either of those two very narrow views you presented. You might want to take the time to read beyond just the first half dozen words in order to get a better understanding of what those two words actually mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
I'm sorry. I was talking about human interaction. I think you are pulling my leg, right?
Then you should have been more specific. Instead, you made a very generalized statement which turned out to be wrong.
"Initiations of force are always immoral, retaliatory force is moral."
If you had said "Initiation of force against another human being is immoral" and left it at that, I would have agreed. However, as you stated it in your post, it is wrong in both cases. No one has the right to revenge. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." By the way, Gandhi was also very aggressive in seeking India's independence, but not violent and never attacked anyone.
The only moral right you have when it comes to violence against another human being is in self-defense or in the defense of another - at the time the attack is occurring, not after-the-fact.
The Libertarian Party exists only because it is the one where disgruntled voters go whenever they don't like the direction their party is heading.
Back in it's early days, the Libertarian party was the home of the conservative wing of the Democratic party. When the party swung rightward, it became the home of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Eventually, the Democrats began doing well enough on their own at appealing to all it's factions the disgruntled left and went back to where they came from.
So now, it's a home for disgruntled Republicans. That's the way the Libertarians are; they always have a little sumpthin' for everyone. Once in a while, they do have a good candidate pop up for the moment, so I expect they will be around for a long time to come. But until peace-loving old hippies can embrace camo clad old gun nuts and go smoke pot while they shoot up the boonies, they will always be nothing but a bump in the road for the major parties.
The Libertarian Party exists only because it is the one where disgruntled voters go whenever they don't like the direction their party is heading.
Back in it's early days, the Libertarian party was the home of the conservative wing of the Democratic party. When the party swung rightward, it became the home of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Eventually, the Democrats began doing well enough on their own at appealing to all it's factions the disgruntled left and went back to where they came from.
So now, it's a home for disgruntled Republicans. That's the way the Libertarians are; they always have a little sumpthin' for everyone. Once in a while, they do have a good candidate pop up for the moment, so I expect they will be around for a long time to come. But until peace-loving old hippies can embrace camo clad old gun nuts and go smoke pot while they shoot up the boonies, they will always be nothing but a bump in the road for the major parties.
The Libertarian Party has never managed to get even 0.5% of the popular vote in any presidential race since their inception in 1972. I have to believe that there are a great many more than 0.5% who are disgruntled with the Republicans and the Democrats. I happen to be one of those "disgruntled voters" who does not vote for Republican or Democrat Presidents. I always vote, and I have never voted for a Libertarian candidate for President.
We've seen more and more Tea Party members claim to be "libertarian" (Rand Paul and even his father Ron before him) as well as past threads about Libertarian views. I went to decide for myself if there was a link and found this nugget in the Libertarian Party website
Now since the Tea Party really started in 2007 there have been more and more people saying that Republicans are RINOs because they aren't conservative enough and/or are not fiscally conservative. I've voted mostly Republican in 2008 and again in 2012 because I didn't think the Obama Democrats were the answer to problems. But now in 2014 I think the Tea Party and the conservative Libertarians who claim to be Republicans aren't the answer either. I personally want a moderate choice rather than just a far right choice or a far left choice like it has seemed the two parties have done. If given the choice, I may just end up voting for anyone but Hillary and a far-right candidate in 2016 (if both happen.)
What say you libertarians of C-D, are the libertarian Tea Partiers like Rand Paul hurting the Republican party more than helping it?
If you want to see a moderate get elected, why are you asking the libertarians whether the Tea Party is hurting the Republican Party?
That's like asking Michael Jordan if he thinks basketball players are paid too much.
If I am a libertarian myself then why in the world would I ever say yes, I think the libertarian wing of the party has too much power?
I'm sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. The question itself is perfectly fine. But addressing it specifically to libertarians? Makes no sense.
I did not "twist" anything. I posted the exact quote, verbatim. I cannot help it if you are so blinded that you cannot comprehend the truth when it is staring you in the face.
Your post is either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. Try posting the entire Libertarian platform. Maybe you would learn something other than how to twist words.
I'll use your twisting method from your post above to illustrate how easy this is;
Your post says "I... did twist". "I cannot help it". So you see how easy it is to pick words out of context? See how you actually said "I did twist" and "I cannot help it"? THOSE WERE YOUR EXACT WORDS.
The Libertarian Party exists only because it is the one where disgruntled voters go whenever they don't like the direction their party is heading.
.
You obviously don't understand the Libertarian Party at all. Try reading a little.
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.
