Posted on 05/01/2002 9:09:03 PM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I agree, partially. I tend to think that the desire to travel 4000 miles to blow up one of our buildings would be greatly diminshed if we just left them them to their own devices.
There are some that would travel that far, refer to Pearl Harbor. But do you think that any amount of world policing/intervention would have stopped that?
EBUCK
That has been my general experience.
Yea like homosexual pedophile priests!
How truely pathetic of you.
Libertarian: One who does not commit or support initiation of force or fraud.
It's that easy.
And the Republicans that ran the farce called impeachment hearings are moral, ethical, and deep political thinkers? Those Republicans who had the power to allow evidence that would conclusively tie clinton with China and expose treason and treachery? Those same Republcans who covered up clinton's crimes for fear of exposing their own?
And what of those that support those Republicans who subverted justice?
You have irrational fears about what you imagine libertarians would do while I have a thorough, rational disgust for what Republicans already have done.
The shameless puke corps has been out in force on this thread, I notice.
Such a display of sophistry, outright lying, and general bamboozlement I haven't seen since perusing some marxist muck last week.
The Kheperas, ReaganMans, etc. of this world are sad and pathetic little beasts.
They are not worth the powder to blow them home to Hell.
Because we don't agree on a lot of issues. I agree with the Republican party some of the time and the Libertarian party at other times. As a matter of fact, party politics turns me away from political parties in general. Do you agree with 100% of what the Republican party stands for?
You ARE being sarcastic, right?
Libertarian's are anti-government, anti-military, anti-religion, anti-community and anti-society. Don't you libertarian pinheads get it, yet?!
You’re retarded.
You gloss over the point that this would have meant the hijackers would not have been armed with boxcutters but with their favorite firearms as well. At best this results in a bloody shootout.
The issue here is that the constitution is "made up" of two parts: The constitution itself, which is a list of things that the federal government may, or is required, to do and the bill of rights, which is a list of things that the government is prohibited from doing.
The is nothing prohibiting the taxpayer funding of religious activites, but more importantly, there is nothing in the constitution stating that it's the government's responsibility to do so, so it should not be allowed.
On the other hand, if a group of citizens wanted to do something that promoted one religion o ngevernment property (like a manger scene), there's no reason that they should be prohibited from doing so, as long as they bear the costs of the exhibit.
Mark
...
My interests are not, and only occasionally will be the same as yours.
So, in a case where our DO interests coincide, why is it unreasonable to call this circumstance a "collective interest"? You are quibbling over definitions--making a distinction without a difference.
When the British attempted to enforce their will upon the American colonies, did the colonists opposing them not have a collective interest in securing their liberty?
While the "General Welfare" clause in the preamble to the Constitution has been abused almost beyond recognition, it is not irrelevant. It is present precisely because there ARE collective interests--specifically the natural rights to which all persons are entitled. The Constitution is necessary and efficacious because of these interests. If there were no such thing as collective interests, then no social contract, no Constitution would be possible.
I think your Swiss watch is broken.
Doesn't sound like such a plane would be hitting any buildings....
Trafic laws are there to protect individual drivers. Trafic laws are there to clearly define "individual" rights of way in various driving situations.
Or perhaps you would like to quibble about the long and happy history of INDIVIDUAL (mine) charitable giving and large-scale philanthropy in this country -- acts of generosity often undertaken with the community-interested view of "making this a better place to live," and with beneficial results stretching decades after the act?
Until the fairly recent socialist coup (of which you seem to be a part of) all charity was a private concern regardless of benificiary. The fed was left out of funding such matters.
And, of course, you'd have to argue against the whole idea of Duty -- to country, state, family -- upon which our nation and our freedom were founded, and continue to depend. A more "community-interested" thing than a sense of duty would be difficult to find.
Again, purely private concerns. "I" am community orientated. I volunteer at the local Christian School. "I" participate in fund-raisers to make my community better. "I" volunteered to defend my country by joining the USMC. GET IT? "I" as an individual did/do these things of my OWN volition.
And, by golly, if you're going to deny the concept of community interest, you'd even have to argue against the fact that libertarianism has a strong "community interest" at its very core. To wit, not only are libertarians expected to protect their own rights, but for a libertarian society to work, they are also required to respectthe rights of others -- both individually, and in aggregate, which is certainly an example of "community interest".
Right, you do get it!!
In trying to ignore the idea of "community interest" libertarians pretty much have to give up everything but the profit motive, and even that's a dodgy proposition.
Crap, you lost it. Those that don't understand Libertarianism assume that our "individual" rights are counter to community-interest. Which is false, even according to your previous statement.
Libertarians are willfully blind on the idea of community service because, as often as not, they are trying to live according to Ayn Rand's objectivist creed, which denies the existence of "community interest." (Of course, the basis for this "objective" idea is utterly subjective -- but then, Rand's ideas are rife with such contradictions.)
The message you missed was that in the end, in the valley, the ultimate community-spirit arose, "live and let live". You also seemed to miss the point that greed ultimately serves the community by way of jobs, security, and profit for all that partake the producers credo. If you think community spirit is a gubment enforced "free ride for the weak on the backs of the strong" you are no better than Lenin or Clowntoon for that matter.
EBUCK
"American interests" is a nebulous term, but there are some cases where I believe that we can all agree that US interests are served... IMHO, I believe that "the war on terrorism" is a very good idea, however, I don't believe that it's being pursued anywhere near as ruthlessly or aggressivly as it should. The gulf war in 91? Well, I'm not 100% sure on that one, but keeping ME oil flowing at market prices is important to the economy of the US, so it may have been in the best interest of the US. Going after Hussain? I believe that the world owes Israel a huge "thank you" for taking out the nuclear reactor that the French were building him, all those years ago. He must never be allowed to gain possession of a nuke. That is in the interest of the US.
Mark
I'm not anti-government, I'm anti-big-government. I think you have Libertarians confused with Anarchists. As for the drug issue, why would you have decisions about what drugs are ok for you to take being made for you by those geniuses in Washington. Sounds like you need a daddy to keep you from getting in trouble. LMAOAABD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.