Printable View
True that! But if my home/town is struck by a natural disaster, or my crops fail....or I want to dictate how the women in my country act (heads down, subservient, respectful of the decisions of the christian males of the government) then, it's all good!Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
So, you think teaching that the world is only 5 thousand years old, or that evolution is a liberal lie, or re-writing history to suit the republican christian right agenda will put us 'on tract' with the world? Well, maybe with some of the world, like North Korea or the Taliban version of the world. No thank you. It's actually been the interference of ignorant people that has kept us from competing with the world in education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Do you really think food safety/labeling laws should be handled by each state? Really? Insurance? You think each state should dictate standards? wow! You don't actually plan to go 50 miles beyond your home do you!
You never said which laws/regulations/standards you would turn over to the states and why. Give me an example and the reason it would be better for the people.
You only say that it 'used' to be that way. Yeah, when the population of the country was much much smaller, and more 'scattered' in scope. But these laws/regulations/standards were nationalized for a reason. THEY DIDN'T WORK! It was a mi sh mash of standards that was all over the map over the country.
We are a mobile society. I want to know that if I move from one state to another, I know what to expect in education, food/water safety, health care standards...you know, being a member of one country, the UNITED STATES of America.
The problem I see with the libertarian view is, there is not a single example of a successful society in the world with these policies in action. Not one! Not. One! Show me where this form of government is in action and successful and I'm certainly willing to take a look. But there isn't one. It's all in Ron Paul's, and Ayn Rands heads. It's fiction. It's a dream of a perfect society that's actually not perfect.
My country is not a social experiment. It works and is the envy of the world because of what it is..right now. Not Liberian, not right wing theocracy, not total democracy. It is a blend of what works. Somehow, someway, we have achieved a good blend. But that doesn't mean we can't tweak it, or fiddle with it. But those who want to trash it, or drown it in a bathtub are not for this country. They are traitors to what we have and have some other agenda which they will not disclose but only say, 'Trust Me'.
Libertarians do not love America. Because they don't want America. They want some Ayn Rand utopia that could never really exist. We must fight against these people taking America and turning it into their vision.
To be honest, there are large aspects of libertarian ideologies that I like. There are others that I do not like.
THere are a lot of different kinds of libertarians -- and it's really important to understand these differences.
For example, there are libertarians who do believe that there should be a federal government and that the federal government should manage a lot of things because some communities are simply not capable of managing it on their own due to circumstance (natural disasters are a great example).
There are other libertarians who believe in a more socialized aspect to things. For example, the power company would be owned by the people, the power going to the people, and any power sold to other states/countries/whatever would then go into a fund spread among the people. It's pretty much pure socialism. Noam Chomsky talks a lot about this sort of libertarianism (btw, I find old Noam really interesting, but often quite confusing).
Anarcho-libertarians tend to be considered the "most extreme" -- who basically believe that there should be no government and focus on individual sovereignty as the starting point for everything (which is great concept, honestly), and that we will all just be good people and figure it out without the need for any sort of government at all. I'm not quite sure how that would work. A lot of folks in this camp like to talk about "family" -- but my family doesn't work that great, so I"m not so enamored. LOL
From there, though, I would say that I do find some libertarian ideas really interesting and valuable. The more "mainstream" libertarians (such as the Cato Institute) is really a form of economic liberalism (which we then call conservative -- so confusing). And they leave the social aspects simply to the given states -- not a federal issue or whatever. But, I don't know if civil rights quite work that way -- or they don't seem to anyway.
It seems to me that Rand falls much closer to the anarcho-libertarian camp than his father does, but I can't say so much what Ron Paul is up to. He's been consistent in his politics, and he seems to be economically liberal (which is to say conservative in our common language), and he's also socially liberal, but would prefer all of that stay out of politics as far as I can tell (which means to not legislate on anything such as abortion, legal marriage, etc) and that everyone would just have natural legal rights.
And, our country is a social experiment. It has been from the very beginning. IN a way, all countries are social experiments. We get together and we try things and some things work and some things don't. That's just life.
LOL Peggy, if you're happy with bland mediocrity and willing to "fight against these people" who believe in a more individualized opportunity, then by all means let a centralized government rule every aspect of your life. But wishing it upon everyone else seems a little mean spirited dontchathink? ;-)
Have you ever contemplated the irony of self-styled liberals usurping the concept of libertarianism, stealing it's name and then turning it's back on the ideology?
Quote:
So, you think teaching that the world is only 5 thousand years old, or that evolution is a liberal lie, or re-writing history to suit the republican christian right agenda will put us 'on tract' with the world? Well, maybe with some of the world, like North Korea or the Taliban version of the world. No thank you. It's actually been the interference of ignorant people that has kept us from competing with the world in education.
I think religious liberty is an important aspect of a civilized society and that religious/political persecution is uncivilized and undemocratic. I know that a centralized government forcing a point of view or ideology is uncivilized and undemocratic. Perhaps you disagree?
Quote:
You never said which laws/regulations/standards you would turn over to the states and why. Give me an example and the reason it would be better for the people.
Everything outside the realm of interstate commerce, foreign treaties and national defense. Those are the only reasons a collection of sovereign states would gather together as a collective entity. Do you think England or France or Germany should give up their sovereignty in subservience to the European Union?
Quote:
But those who want to trash it, or drown it in a bathtub are not for this country. They are traitors to what we have and have some other agenda which they will not disclose but only say, 'Trust Me'.
Libertarians do not love America. Because they don't want America. They want some Ayn Rand utopia that could never really exist. We must fight against these people taking America and turning it into their vision.
Wow, just wow.
No. You are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
The marketplace can promote plenty of bland mediocrity on it's own and it can impose it pretty well and frankly be plenty intolerant of true human individuality.Quote:
LOL Peggy, if you're happy with bland mediocrity and willing to "fight against these people" who believe in a more individualized opportunity, then by all means let a centralized government rule every aspect of your life. But wishing it upon everyone else seems a little mean spirited dontchathink? ;-)
they are mostly probably civil liberties people, and they have as much claim as anyone to civil liberties.Quote:
Have you ever contemplated the irony of self-styled liberals usurping the concept of libertarianism, stealing it's name and then turning it's back on the ideology?
why even have that? Why gather together as a collective entity for that but not to address the fact of say excessive smog from one state which just pollutes as much as it wants, ignoring all state boundaries, and rudely crossing into and polluting another state?Quote:
Everything outside the realm of interstate commerce, foreign treaties and national defense. Those are the only reasons a collection of sovereign states would gather together as a collective entity.
Funny, that sounds exactly like what the fringe says about progressivesQuote:
Originally Posted by peggy
"Traitors".... The penalty for treason, of course, is death.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
It is to be expected that Peggy would go down that road. Because that's what leftists are particularly good at - killing those who disagree with them, after dehumanizing them, and naming them enemies of the State.
http://dukeengagecambodia.files.word...2034388000.jpg
Never again, Peggy, never again.
Dude! Peggy is not Pol Pot.
It's true. That's a mega slippery slope argument.
There's a great article in a blog that a friend shared that describes how we are really all liberals. It's really brilliantly written, and it talks about how of our two parties, one focuses on "this aspect" of liberalism vs the other party focusing on "that aspect" of liberalism.
But what has happened (particularly with the rise of theocons) is a rise of traditional conservatism -- which is antithesis to liberalism (the idea on which the US is founded).
The blog explains it nicely and gives you buzz-words to look up on Wikipedia (and further) if you would like. The only real problem with the blog, in my opinion (which can undermine it's intelligent discussion points) is the name-calling of his governor. Still, the other information makes a lot of sense and helps clarify things.
4 quarters, 10 dimes blog
Rolling Stone also has a great article about the myth of big vs small government that has some interesting ideas.