11 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidI pretty much stand in line with them. If one wishes to go to a "doctor" with no
Which parts, besides the end of criminal laws against recreational drug use, do you oppose? Do you think, for example, that doctors should be able to practice medicine without licenses?
license, I have no problem with that, personally.
As far as pro-life is concerned, I would say it differently than they.
It all boils down to "what is a human life?". Obviously they have worded their
stance so loosely that one thinks that post term abortions are OK. I don't.
11 Aug 20
@handyandy saidIt pretty much stands for neutrality towards each other.
Tell us why.
What we see to day is mobs or groups of people ganging up to get
political advantage over everyone else, which means, they in control
decide who gets to be threatened by the force of law, so as to force people
to live in accordance to "morals" of the controllers.
We have seen times when the controllers were religious, for example, and
punishment for not obeying their "god's law" was sometimes death.
Want to live like that?
Basically, Libertarianism says that no such group can take power over individuals
but that philosophy is not very popular with the power pigs in America who
all want dearly to punish everyone with laws, that don't adhere to their policies
and their way of being. In other words, BOW to them. Be a SLAVE to them.
That is traditional politics and it sucks.
- Joined
- 06 Jul 20
- Moves
- 115
11 Aug 20
1 edit
@no1marauder saidSeems to me that it all comes down to this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule.
Actually, that didn't change it from the one adopted at the 2018 Convention but here it is (we'll see if it fits in one post):
PREAMBLE
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights ...[text shortened]... cting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.
11 Aug 20
@dendron saidYeah, that too.
Seems to me that it all comes down to this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule.
We all would have equal rights to do whatever we wish, barring hurting a person
or persons, or their property.
The right of your fist ends at the right of my chin
11 Aug 20
@earl-of-trumps saidYour goals are childish. Save them for a different planet if you ever decide to move.
We all would have equal rights to do whatever we wish, barring hurting a person
or persons, or their property.
11 Aug 20
@philokalia saidAbolition of private property would drastically reduce policing since a major job of the police is protection of private property.
Oh, OK, I am not that familiar with how these words are employed.
I think the abolition of private property would require some amount of policing or a crazy amount of consensus -- a consensus that would make it so we are basically living in an entirely different social reality that doesn't resemble what we live in at all, and so, in a sense, we might as well be talking about establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth.
It's a fun thought experiment, though.
12 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidSure, I can buy that, with this distinction, all primitive socities basically functioned without the concept of individuals owning private land or some means of production.
Without "private property" as opposed to "personal property"?
All men.
But I do not buy that all of them functioned in a very egalitarian way.
12 Aug 20
@athousandyoung saidBut... personal property remaining would create conflict, as would all these properties that I guess are now collectively owned needing to be policed.
Abolition of private property would drastically reduce policing since a major job of the police is protection of private property.
12 Aug 20
@philokalia saidWith an owner in every home there is automatically a natural defender there. That's one of the reasons people in the USA have legal access to guns. There's no need to collectivize.
But... personal property remaining would create conflict, as would all these properties that I guess are now collectively owned needing to be policed.
12 Aug 20
@philokalia said"As of 2017, the oldest known skeleton of an anatomically modern Homo sapiens is the Omo-Kibish I, which dates to about 196,000 years ago."
Sure, I can buy that, with this distinction, all primitive socities basically functioned without the concept of individuals owning private land or some means of production.
But I do not buy that all of them functioned in a very egalitarian way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
At what point do you think Man existed in bands that didn't function "in a very egalitarian way?"
12 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidYes, it's all very lovely until all the capital ends up in the hands of nine indolent trillionaires.
Actually, that didn't change it from the one adopted at the 2018 Convention but here it is (we'll see if it fits in one post):
PREAMBLE
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights ...[text shortened]... cting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.
12 Aug 20
@soothfast saidno no, free market will magically make them give good wages to the workers, offer good working conditions, prevent them from dumping toxic waste into rivers, make the banks offer fair conditions on loans and not cheat, and so on.
Yes, it's all very lovely until all the capital ends up in the hands of nine indolent trillionaires.
Free market will make them build roads and schools and hospitals (which are also run by free market rules)
Free market is magical
16 Aug 20
If you want to understand the easy way what the Libertarian Party stands for, read this:
In Durham campaign stop, Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen advocates end to big government
As a persistent rain fell, supporters of Libertarian presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen gathered in Durham on Saturday night to applaud the three-time candidate’s laments about the “too big, too bossy, too nosy and too intrusive” federal government.
“We need to put the decision-making power back into your hands, because you know what’s best for you,” she said, to cheers from the crowd of over 200 people at the Mystic Farm & Distillery. Most of the attendees were white and in their 20s or 30s — and most were not wearing masks or maintaining a 6-foot distance from other attendees.
------------------------
Limit government, not let it expand into the universe. Very simple, as life should be.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article244996385.html
16 Aug 20
@earl-of-trumps saidIt would sound a little more convincing if it wasn't coming from people too stupid to take simple, common sense measures to reduce the possibility of spreading a lethal disease.
If you want to understand the easy way what the Libertarian Party stands for, read this:
In Durham campaign stop, Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen advocates end to big government
[i]As a persistent rain fell, supporters of Libertarian presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen gathered in Durham on Saturday night to applaud the three-time candidate’s laments ab ...[text shortened]... should be.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article244996385.html