Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

...Yes. In the context of their policies and laws regarding guns, their crime rates, and the comparative amount of violence there, and justifications for it.

I must remember that there aren't any telepaths up in this bitch.

[Vikarion]

I feel that the ruling does not represent the 300 million people in this country. Unfortunately for right-wing libertarians, not everyone wants to have such an extreme limited government that doesn't protect its citizens, and as a public service, the police shouldn't even think twice about protecting someone.

Not to derail, but there aren't actually a lot of places left for right-wing libertarians to go, while there are plenty of countries with more leftist-authoritarian policies.

[Dex_Kivuli]

Not to derail, but there aren't actually a lot of places left for right-wing libertarians to go, while there are plenty of countries with more leftist-authoritarian policies.

The trouble with that kind of comparison is that it's always relative.

The beauty part Vik, is that we economically liberal people are taking over. WE'RE WINNING!! These days, there are so many presumptions AGAINST government intervention, and economic theory is so prevalent in policy making (even post GFC), that interventionist approaches are the exception rather than the norm.

I think if you look around there world, governments are moving more and more to our way of thinking (read: the RIGHT way of thinking   ). China is becoming more and more economically liberal (relative to where it was). Countries are increasingly liberalising trade policies and reducing regulations on business (again, in general, but not in all cases).

PS: Re police forces. I am a hard-core (really, really hard core) economic libertarian. Minimum gov't for me, please. But even I advocate a role for government provision in the case of police forces. Services like the police force give what are called 'public goods': they produce something that everyone can enjoy simultaneously, without being able to exclude anyone. What they produce is a safer society, on average. Maintain property rights. Reduce crime and the (edit for clarity: increase the) sense of well-being. It's fine - and efficient - for the government to pay for this through taxation.

[orange]

I feel that social programs are necessary for such a large population, we're almost at the 350 million mark in the United States, and not letting the government assist the public is almost negligent.

I feel that because of that number the United States government should not be involved in social programs.  This does not mean that the Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts, etc or New York City, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, etc governments cannot do so; I think they should if their constituents are willing to pay the local taxes to fund said programs.

My father worked for two of the largest law firms in the world, and was screwed over not by lack of work ethic, but by management perks that higher ups wanted to keep. Long story short, corporations don't have oversight; the government does, that's their job, and it's been their job.

This very much depends on how the corporation/company is owned.   A publicly traded entity is answerable to its shareholders.  All entities are dependent on its employees willingness to continue to work for them and the customers willingness to buy their product over a competitors.  Not enough employees left they were being screwed over by the management to strike out on their own and form their own company in competition with their former employer.

I would promote a more limited government when there was an extremely small number of citizens, but no major nation wouldn't have social programs designed to help with issues other than children.

I disagree entirely.  I want to push responsibility for running and funding programs down to the lowest levels possible.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, I am going to say something very, very important.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed such that the people can rise up against a tyrannical government.

It can be argued that it is legal under the United States Constitution for the private citizens of the United States to own and practice the operation of not only automatic rifles, but also armored vehicles and combat capable aircraft.

The act of registering weapons on a national scale can be construed as hindering this goal.

All of this being said, US policy has evolved since the framers produced the document.  The Civil War demonstrated the policy of the US Federal government to enforce its will on the States through force of arms and its victory began the decline of State forces

Also, the US Army and US Air Force are unconstitutional entities.  The two entities should be downsized and their roles taken over by the States (see National Guard & militias).

Anarcho-capitalism
In such a system, I think local communities will form basic governments.  Overtime these communities will ally and partner with neighbors to achieve larger scale goals and gain efficiencies in their pursuit of their common interest.  Government, control, and power should spring from the local level up.

The role of large scale governments, like the United States or European Union, should not be to control their component parts nor act as a means to spread the wealth of its component parts around.  Instead, these governments should focus on projects that the component parts simply cannot do on their own.

[Benjamin Shepherd]

That's too extreme. You're essentially calling for a hardcore form of libertarianism. I find that not having a unified federal government leads to each state acting as its own little "empire", with confusing differences between each state's laws.

Also, no, citizens do not have the right to operate their own military vehicles. This strict constitutionalist approach is unrealistic, and cannot be operated by today's standards.

[Boma Airaken]

Interesting. Benjamin likes the idea of Switzerland. Well Ben, you do realize that you will be REQUIRED to own a machine gun there (assault rifles are not fully automatic) right?

[Boma Airaken]

Oh and on the topic of social programs, I support them as long as we get the 50% of US citizens who get back in refunds more than they pay actually have to pay taxes.

I am one of those people, and it is frustrating as fuck that I do not contribute. Which is one of the reasons that I refuse 100% of the social programs that I am eligible for.

[orange]

Also, no, citizens do not have the right to operate their own military vehicles. This strict constitutionalist approach is unrealistic, and cannot be operated by today's standards.

Do citizens of a nation have a right to overthrow a government they find to by tyrannical?

It is a foundational question in regards to the United States.

I disagree, a strict constitutional interpretation can operate in the modern world.

If we operated more strictly in line with the constitution, Congress may actually have to take on responsibility for national actions, such as declarations of war.  Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all examples of Congress not following its constitutional responsibility and instead passing the responsibility to the executive branch.

Another the example I have already provided.  The United States Army and United States Air Forces as they are currently established are unconstitutional.

For the sack of this discussion, the Air Force will be rolled into the Army (my fellow Blue suits can pound sand).  The constitution grants Congress the right to maintain a Navy and raise an Army.  The Navy is to act as an expeditionary force and protect US interest abroad, while an Army is raised in defense of the nation or for very large scale conflicts.

As a check against the abuse of Congress granting the President excessive powers, the majority of the nation's military was intended to be controlled at the State level.  In order to raise sufficient forces for a prolonged war in a foreign land, the national government would be required to get not only the buy-in of Congress, but also all the State's such that they release their forces to the national government.

That's too extreme. You're essentially calling for a hardcore form of libertarianism. I find that not having a unified federal government leads to each state acting as its own little "empire", with confusing differences between each state's laws.

I am calling for governance to be pushed down to the lowest level practical.

A Federal Senator from Massachusetts does not understand the educational, transportation, or medical needs of a resident of Mobile, Alabama.  The resident and his neighbors understand their needs and what they are willing to pay to have those needs met.

Citizens in Montana, Nebraska, Delaware, and Hawaii do not have a need or desire to pay for local route 565 repairs in west Texas, nor do the roads in west Texas need to be repaired on the same schedule as those in Montana, Nebraska, Delaware, and Hawaii.  Or, famously, a bridge in Alaska for maybe a few hundred people was paid for by 350 million.

There are excellent examples of a good federal program and these tend to be constitutional.  Both the Postal System and Interstate System can be found in the Constitution (Congress shall have the right to establish post offices and post roads).

Most importantly the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or the people any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States or prohibit the states from exercising.

There is nothing to stop towns, cities, counties, or states from setting for themselves a standard "higher" than that established by the Federal government.




For the Europeans, consider how the EU is growing and look at the United States today, 200 years after a group of 13 States united in common cause.  The demands of the Union, of Paris or Berlin, may cause other member states to find themselves unable to fulfill obligations to its citizens.

[Z.Sinraali]

Oh and on the topic of social programs, I support them as long as we get the 50% of US citizens who get back in refunds more than they pay actually have to pay taxes.

I am one of those people, and it is frustrating as fuck that I do not contribute. Which is one of the reasons that I refuse 100% of the social programs that I am eligible for.

I can agree with this in a certain sense. Using the tax code to conduct social policy is profoundly inefficient. But, it works in the United States because everybody loooooves tax cuts. Hell, it's the reason most of those much-derided pages are in there.

[hellgremlin]

Where the hell is Istvann's? I must know for the lulz.

I took this test a few times before. It comes up with pretty wildly different results each time. This is probably because I have values all over the place. I guess you could call me social lib/fiscal con, but that doesn't really fit the bill either.

To give an example of my views, I'll go with American presidents, since our Canadian politicians are all boring doughboys. Bush II was widely considered to be a titanic sputtering idiot, and I violently disagreed with his position on stem cell research and attempts to blur the line between church and state... but I felt that his foreign policy and response to 9/11 was absolutely inspired. Simultaneously, while I like Obama, I am growing more and more frustrated with his limp-wristed approach to DADT and Gitmo. He rolled into office riding the biggest wave of popular support I've ever seen, and largely pissed it away squabbling.

I voted conservative in the last major Canadian elections, because I wanted to see the long gun registry scrapped. Since the party failed in this task, I'll be giving the liberals my next vote. I basically don't have an entrenched loyalty either way, and vote for whomever seems most likely to get good things done.

[Benjamin Shepherd]

Slowly Istvaan opens up, and slowly we wait until the strike.

You should start the Cheap Suits Party. Do whatever you can to find cheap suits. /failhumorisfail

[hellgremlin]

Kind sir, there is a great difference between cheap suits, and suits bought cheap. My suits are bought cheap, but unless Zegna, Baumler and Armani have become tacky in the last decade, they are most definitely not cheap suits!

[Dex_Kivuli]

* Dex_Kivuli chuckles to himself

It's interesting to note the IC demographics of people taking certain lines of argument in this thread 

[Valdezi]

Yeah, I'm not sure to what extent the discussion is helpful, because it largely stems from irreconcilable political differences.

I, for the most part, am in agreeance with Ben on most issues here, but my disagreement with others on social liberatarianism, gun control and economic interventionism comes from a differing worldview from Dex and Boma, among others.

For example, I agree with Dex that economic liberatarianism is becoming the dominant ideal in western democracy, but I argue that lack of governmental control over mortgage lenders largely caused the GFC and that countries that are more stronigly regulated suffered less, but there is little doubt that Dex will disagree and interpret the economic data differently.

My point is, while I think it's interesting to discuss our differences, we will never agree on the finer points.

I also, like Dex, think it's hilarious how much our character's beliefs mirror our own. Mammal, philosophically and politically, is very much myself. Personality wise, not as much.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

[mod]No personal attacks on other members, no flaming.[/mod]