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.
I will respond this thread only because I cant read any more comments on libertarianism.
1. If you think SLOGANS are the reason you leave a party, and go to trump because you don't think he is full of them your just plain stupid.
The reason people are supporting Trump is becuase he is one big middle finger to the establishment.
Quote:
2. If you think Rand Paul and Ron Paul are a reason to leave the ideas of Libertarianism then you clearly have no hope of ever having smaller government.
You can go back and read where I originally had high hopes for Rand. If you watch his attacks on others his argument is "they are not the true Conservative". He is the only one getting the spying correct but I'm not looking for a " true Conservative".
Quote:
3. I believe this poster is nothing more then a troll, to complain about Rand Paul. When you are looking for LIBERTY in the sense of constitutional freedoms and smaller government you better be looking at thinkers LIKE the Pauls. At least they say what they mean. If you don't agree with constitutional government and individual liberty then sure your not going to be for a LIBERTARIAN LIKE PERSON and see only Slogans. IF you want more executive orders, more laws that ignore the constitution, and remove more liberty, more taxes, "social economic justice", more FEDERAL RESERVE and business bailouts and more police state government, you love the trump, bushs and clintons.
There is little reason to falsly attack someone getting 3% in the polls.
Quote:
Because they will continue to push the warfare and welfare,maybe not sanders just more welfare and socialist ideas which is not in anyway close to Liberty of the individual.
Rand has been wishy washy on the wars. Rand is no Ron.
The reason people are supporting Trump is becuase he is one big middle finger to the establishment.
You can go back and read where I originally had high hopes for Rand. If you watch his attacks on others his argument is "they are not the true Conservative". He is the only one getting the spying correct but I'm not looking for a " true Conservative".
There is little reason to falsly attack someone getting 3% in the polls.
Rand has been wishy washy on the wars. Rand is no Ron.
Is Trump really a middle finger to the establishment. :-) I think you believe the establishment doesnt want trump in the race. He is a good distraction, and keep you busy not looking at BUSHES issues and the they will take down trump when they are ready. Or they will ride it out and see if he chokes himself with his own words. Remember he threated 3 party run for a REASON. If Trump fails on his own, Then who do the media look too? WHO, WHO will be the RNC choice.... MMMM they will push Bush and the media will help right along.
Trump is like most rich men who can do whatever they want, has only one thing to protect and that is his money and name. Of which to him its a challenge to do both and enter politics. Because of that he will make alot of people happy and alot of people angry. IE a MEDIA story. A reality TV show in the republican party.
Now on to your other statements. Rand is Rand and he is not Ron Paul but if you look at Ron Paul and everything he ever said he has had a few changes from time to time on some ideas. But, Ron has a bigger and longer record to review. Rand also knows he has to bridge the gap between libertarian ideas and conservative ideas who are very much together on many subjects. Or lets say change the republican party to be closer to liberty and less toward neocon ideas. The pauls believe in most of the same things that ACTUALLY matter. That protect our liberty.
Rand is not washy washy on wars. I think he is thinking a no war solution doesnt mean that is a REALIST view of our enemies. Now the no war, peace, war is not the answer groups arent going to understand that. I think Rand would be the position to really REVIEW a war proposal before going and wouldnt be doing it for some business and or "interests" reasons.
Is Trump really a middle finger to the establishment. :-) I think you believe the establishment doesnt want trump in the race. He is a good distraction, and keep you busy not looking at BUSHES issues and the they will take down trump when they are ready. Or they will ride it out and see if he chokes himself with his own words. Remember he threated 3 party run for a REASON. If Trump fails on his own, Then who do the media look too? WHO, WHO will be the RNC choice.... MMMM they will push Bush and the media will help right along.
What the media might do really has nothing to do with me. I don't place my beliefs contingent on what the media might do. It's pretty rare when the person I voted for wins.
Quote:
Trump is like most rich men who can do whatever they want, has only one thing to protect and that is his money and name. Of which to him its a challenge to do both and enter politics. Because of that he will make alot of people happy and alot of people angry. IE a MEDIA story. A reality TV show in the republican party.
Are you trying save libertarianism or the Republican party? The party can go to hell for all I care.
Quote:
Now on to your other statements. Rand is Rand and he is not Ron Paul but if you look at Ron Paul and everything he ever said he has had a few changes from time to time on some ideas. But, Ron has a bigger and longer record to review. Rand also knows he has to bridge the gap between libertarian ideas and conservative ideas who are very much together on many subjects. Or lets say change the republican party to be closer to liberty and less toward neocon ideas. The pauls believe in most of the same things that ACTUALLY matter. That protect our liberty.
Rand has absolutely no chance. Is he better than the rest? Absolutely.
Quote:
Rand is not washy washy on wars. I think he is thinking a no war solution doesnt mean that is a REALIST view of our enemies. Now the no war, peace, war is not the answer groups arent going to understand that. I think Rand would be the position to really REVIEW a war proposal before going and wouldnt be doing it for some business and or "interests" reasons.
Now on to your other statements. Rand is Rand and he is not Ron Paul but if you look at Ron Paul and everything he ever said he has had a few changes from time to time on some ideas. But, Ron has a bigger and longer record to review. Rand also knows he has to bridge the gap between libertarian ideas and conservative ideas who are very much together on many subjects. Or lets say change the republican party to be closer to liberty and less toward neocon ideas. The pauls believe in most of the same things that ACTUALLY matter. That protect our liberty.
Rand is not washy washy on wars. I think he is thinking a no war solution doesnt mean that is a REALIST view of our enemies. Now the no war, peace, war is not the answer groups arent going to understand that. I think Rand would be the position to really REVIEW a war proposal before going and wouldnt be doing it for some business and or "interests" reasons.
For sexual harassment it would depend on what it is. If it's physical, that goes against the NAP. If it's just being rude, you're allowed to do that without being punished, but people would still think you're a jerk. With discrimination, same kind of thing. If you're just being rude, people can look down on you for it, but they shouldn't use force against you. Same type of deal with neo-nazis or other hateful groups. They can express ideas and opinions that are very rude and hurtful, but they have the right to do that without being punished for it...that's freedom of speech.
Yes but what of hate speech like Black Panthers saying "K*** whitey," Klansmen chanting "Death to blacks," or the West Boro Baptist Church holding signs reading "God hates f***." Or is it because it is merely words and "words don't hurt," they are allowed?
Quote:
They wouldn't be immoral necessarily, but would still be looked down upon. I think rudeness vs. true violations of your property rights (which includes your body) is a good way of looking at it. If someone makes you uncomfortable or offends you, it's rude and mean and nasty, etc. but that doesn't make it justified to use force against them. I'd say a good general rule is that you only use an equal amount of force, or the amount necessary to defend yourself.
So mental trauma from say sexual harassment, is not pain and suffering? It may not be physical but it does take a toll on the recipient. It has been found from a Florida State University that recipients of verbal abuse are more prone to being diagnosed as depressed. https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/ear...lt-depression/ But of course, libertarians don't care because there was no physical harm by the abuser.
Quote:
If you're harassed at work, they can still fire you or punish you for it because it's a private business. They can establish rules and you'll agree to them if you want to work there. You can always refuse the deal. The problem would be with people trying to force a business to have whatever rules they think the business should have. If the business doesn't have anti-harassment rules (which I'd be surprised about...wouldn't be a very attractive job and would be harder to employ people), you take the job knowing you're getting into that situation. You're also not forced to stay there once you get hired.
You aren't forced par-say but you need to find a job before you leave or have a considerable savings. Otherwise you wont have money to hold you over for the next job. In a libertarian world (unless it is based around social libertarianism) unemployment wouldn't exist (in some cases including unsafe workplaces you could be able to get unemployment.)
To the red, you do realize that unless someone is that hard on their luck if they heard stories of the company being evil unless they know someone working at the company stating there are a number of cases. There maybe one or two lone ones that may make the newspapers but you can say that is anecdotal evidence.
Yes but what of hate speech like Black Panthers saying "K*** whitey," Klansmen chanting "Death to blacks," or the West Boro Baptist Church holding signs reading "God hates f***." Or is it because it is merely words and "words don't hurt," they are allowed?
If it's an actual threat, then that's a problem. If it's just insults, you can condemn their ideas, but it would be wrong to forcefully punish them for speaking their mind.
Quote:
So mental trauma from say sexual harassment, is not pain and suffering? It may not be physical but it does take a toll on the recipient. It has been found from a Florida State University that recipients of verbal abuse are more prone to being diagnosed as depressed. https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/ear...lt-depression/ But of course, libertarians don't care because there was no physical harm by the abuser.
Im kind of thinking this over and I'm pretty sure actual mental trauma from true verbal sexual abuse would violate the NAP. The thing I'd be worried about is people who get called a name and want to treat it like they were abused. It isn't a violation of the NAP to hurt someone's feelings.
Quote:
You aren't forced par-say but you need to find a job before you leave or have a considerable savings. Otherwise you wont have money to hold you over for the next job. In a libertarian world (unless it is based around social libertarianism) unemployment wouldn't exist (in some cases including unsafe workplaces you could be able to get unemployment.)
To the red, you do realize that unless someone is that hard on their luck if they heard stories of the company being evil unless they know someone working at the company stating there are a number of cases. There maybe one or two lone ones that may make the newspapers but you can say that is anecdotal evidence.
There are sites like glassdoor that review companies and their work environment, so that type of thing would likely be more popular and widely used. People will want to know before they accept a job that they won't regret it...but you're always taking that risk. If your options are that limited and you're forced to take a bad job, you have to consider why you're in that position in the first place. It'll likely be your previous decisions that got you there, and now you reap what you sow.
Whether or not libertarians are consistent in their understanding of workplace coercion, there is little doubt that they are confused about or indifferent to its presence and reality.
Whether or not libertarians are consistent in their understanding of workplace coercion, there is little doubt that they are confused about or indifferent to its presence and reality.
Why do you say that? Seems like kind of a logical jump there.
No true Scotsman strikes again. Why must libertarians use this logical fallacy when bringing up what a "real" libertarian is?
It's not a logical fallacy.
Liberty and the use of force can't coexist. You can't be a little pregnant. You either are or are not.
An involuntary state is by definition the antithesis of liberty.
See T01013E's post on having dual conflicting baselines for your ideology. It's illogical and not worth the effort.
All statism boils down to is use of force against others in an involuntary society. Arguing over how or why to steal from someone and what to do with the money in the name of morality or common good makes no logical sense. It 's theft. The immoral act begins and ends there.
Whether or not libertarians are consistent in their understanding of workplace coercion, there is little doubt that they are confused about or indifferent to its presence and reality.
No, libertarians just don't want to use the involuntary state to shape society.
Right now, any form of workplace coercion can only be punished by rigid involuntary rules that may or may not have little impact on the wrong doers.
If we were freed from the shackles of involuntary statism folks could shape and mold society much more effectively (And 100% morally) by personal contracts and agreements.
The problem is you believe the state has set up rules to protect and punish. The state has set up rules to initiate force and profit...that's all.
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.
