Libertarians Vs. Conservatives

[Denny Crane]

Stossel Rocks.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/s...ertarians-vs-conservatives-sunday-10pm-et-fbn

WAR ON DRUGS: Libertarians think the war on drugs is nuts. Adults should be free to do what they want with their own bodies. Congressman Allen West disagrees.

GAMBLING: Likewise, I say it ought to be your choice whether you want to gamble. Alex McFarland of the American Family Association says I'm wrong.

GAY MARRIAGE: Most libertarians don't care whom you marry. Want to marry someone of your own gender? Fine. In fact, most libertarians don't see why government is involved in marriage at all. But "What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense" author Ryan Anderson says marriage must be a union between a man and a woman.

PROSTITUTION: Sex is OK. Making money is OK. But sex for money? Not OK. We libertarians ask, why? I don't see a problem with paid consensual sex between two adults. But Fox News contributor Monica Crowley says, "the social cost is far too high."

MILITARY POWER: Libertarians want less military spending and less involvement in other countries' problems. Conservatives like Ambassador John Bolton support the war in Iraq and say that if Iran is about to get a nuclear weapon, we need to use military force. We gently debate.

IMMIGRATION REFORM: I think immigrants are great for America. Fox Business Channel host Lou Dobbs says he does too, but we need to "make decisions about who we want to work in this country."

MY TAKE: F.A. Hayek wrote an essay "Why I'm Not A Conservative." He argues that "the conservative regards it as his mission to "civilize" others - not by voluntary and unhampered intercourse but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government."

As usual, Hayek was on to something. America benefits when conservatives speak out against immoral behavior. But shaming is one thing, force of law is another. Using law means people with guns demand that everyone behave the way the majority thinks they should.

We ought to be able to do anything that's peaceful. We should be allowed take drugs, gamble, pay for sex, and do self-destructive and immoral things-as long as we don't directly harm anyone else.

 

[MickZagger]

Denny, whats with all the pop-ups.

 

[Denny Crane]

There are no popups, or at least there shouldn't be.

What popup ads are you seeing?

 

[MickZagger]

I keep on having a tuxedo one rise from the bottom. I even have adblocker plus.

 

[MickZagger]

qualitilink? Powered by boost?

 

[Denny Crane]

I've never seen that ad on the site.

Sounds like malware. You got it from some other site?

Can you post a screen shot of the ad?

 

[MickZagger]

I've never seen that ad on the site.

Sounds like malware. You got it from some other site?

Can you post a screen shot of the ad?

I don't know how to do that

 

[Denny Crane]

windows? http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/features/snipping-tool

 

[MickZagger]

windows? http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/features/snipping-tool

Downloaded. I'll give you a snap shot as soon as the opportunity presents itself. By the way, Denny what kind of anti-virus do you recommend. This Norton ain't doing the trick.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't run windows anymore. Don't need a virus scanner for the mac.

When I did run windows, I ran Microsoft Essentials.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security-essentials-download

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i got some a few months ago here, like the little ones on the bottom, but only on my phone

 

[Denny Crane]

These are the NBA's ads on the Blazers' pages. I don't run any adblocker nor do I see any popups.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i heard the new android update is kinda buggy with that too

 

[MarAzul]

Stossel Rocks. <<< Yep, Generally agree with his take except as noted.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/s...ertarians-vs-conservatives-sunday-10pm-et-fbn

WAR ON DRUGS: Libertarians think the war on drugs is nuts. Adults should be free to do what they want with their own bodies. Congressman Allen West disagrees.
>>> I more or less agree although I think it is rather dumb. But I don't agree that they should be sold and selling to kids should mean jail and no key.

GAMBLING: Likewise, I say it ought to be your choice whether you want to gamble. Alex McFarland of the American Family Association says I'm wrong.
>>> I don't care.

GAY MARRIAGE: Most libertarians don't care whom you marry. Want to marry someone of your own gender? Fine. In fact, most libertarians don't see why government is involved in marriage at all. But "What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense" author Ryan Anderson says marriage must be a union between a man and a woman.

>>>> I thought Oregon added a sane amendment to it's Constitution, defining Marriage as being between a man and a woman but our Lesbian AG did not defend this rather sane definition. So I don't see why government is involved in marriage at all. I wrote my Senator to
see if he could introduce a bill to take the State entirely out of the business and leave it strictly as a church matter.

PROSTITUTION: Sex is OK. Making money is OK. But sex for money? Not OK. We libertarians ask, why? I don't see a problem with paid consensual sex between two adults. But Fox News contributor Monica Crowley says, "the social cost is far too high."
>>> I don't care. Except the pimps need to be jailed

MILITARY POWER: Libertarians want less military spending and less involvement in other countries' problems. Conservatives like Ambassador John Bolton support the war in Iraq and say that if Iran is about to get a nuclear weapon, we need to use military force. We gently debate.
>>> This is the main business of the federal Government in my view and I prefer that we always have overwhelming force available for this nation to use. However, I don't want to
see it used for the next two years due to the lack of adequate leadership.

IMMIGRATION REFORM: I think immigrants are great for America. Fox Business Channel host Lou Dobbs says he does too, but we need to "make decisions about who we want to work in this country."

>>> Immigrants were great for America, it built the nation. Now we are on track to match China when everyone first knew it had too many people.

MY TAKE: F.A. Hayek wrote an essay "Why I'm Not A Conservative." He argues that "the conservative regards it as his mission to "civilize" others - not by voluntary and unhampered intercourse but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government."

>>>Civilize others? I suppose that mean Iraq. Screw it, I don't care if they have a democracy. My Countrymen? When my government sticks to the Constitution and my fellow citizen follow the law, I am quite happy.

As usual, Hayek was on to something. America benefits when conservatives speak out against immoral behavior. But shaming is one thing, force of law is another. Using law means people with guns demand that everyone behave the way the majority thinks they should.

We ought to be able to do anything that's peaceful. We should be allowed take drugs, gamble, pay for sex, and do self-destructive and immoral things-as long as we don't directly harm anyone else.

If you add to the last sentence the addition qualifier, raise you children, don't allow them to become feral children. Then I will be happy with you, I will not ask what you do.

 

[crandc]

And yet, the "libertarian" caucus in the Republican party has supported a "personhood" law to ban abortion under all circumstances and ban most forms of birth control, and the "libertarian" caucus has also voted for constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.

I thought Oregon added a sane amendment to it's Constitution, defining Marriage as being between a man and a woman but our Lesbian AG did not defend this rather sane definition.

So you do favor the state deciding some people's love is worthy of respect but others is not?

Which is why I don't really consider them libertarians. At least not the libertarians I have known, with whom I disagreed on a lot but at least they were not obsessed with regulating vaginas and calling it freedom.

and why does spell check not recognize "vaginas"?

America benefits when conservatives speak out against immoral behavior.

Define immoral

We ought to be able to do anything that's peaceful.

Yet you called it "sane" to ban marriage equality. OK, not all marriages are peaceful but I don't think that is your point.

 

[Denny Crane]

https://www.lp.org/platform

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.


Libertarian has nothing to do with pro life or pro choice. If you are religious, you'll likely be pro life.

 

[MarAzul]

And yet, the "libertarian" caucus in the Republican party has supported a "personhood" law to ban abortion under all circumstances and ban most forms of birth control, and the "libertarian" caucus has also voted for constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.

So you do favor the state deciding some people's love is worthy of respect but others is not?

Which is why I don't really consider them libertarians. At least not the libertarians I have known, with whom I disagreed on a lot but at least they were not obsessed with regulating vaginas and calling it freedom.

and why does spell check not recognize "vaginas"?

Define immoral

Yet you called it "sane" to ban marriage equality. OK, not all marriages are peaceful but I don't think that is your point.

Defining the word Marriage has nothing to do with your question.

 

[barfo]

and why does spell check not recognize "vaginas"?

Because they all look a little different?

barfo

 

[Mediocre Man]

And yet, the "libertarian" caucus in the Republican party has supported a "personhood" law to ban abortion under all circumstances and ban most forms of birth control, and the "libertarian" caucus has also voted for constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.

So you do favor the state deciding some people's love is worthy of respect but others is not?

Which is why I don't really consider them libertarians. At least not the libertarians I have known, with whom I disagreed on a lot but at least they were not obsessed with regulating vaginas and calling it freedom.

and why does spell check not recognize "vaginas"?

Define immoral

Yet you called it "sane" to ban marriage equality. OK, not all marriages are peaceful but I don't think that is your point.

Picking a fight that's not there

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, because I didn't want to throw my vote away

 

[Denny Crane]

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, because I didn't want to throw my vote away

Exactly.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Socially, Libertarians are decent folk. While they lack actual human empathy, their rigid set of personal beliefs emulates the sensitivity of a truly concerned citizen. Fiscally, that same set of rigid beliefs is a recipe for disaster, and their ability to trick gullible liberals into softening their stance on regulation has reaped benefits for very few, and chaos for the rest.

 

[Denny Crane]

The term "deregulation" really means "reregulation." Instead of removing regulations, congress just changes them. There are still regulations in place.

Libertarians don't want to trick anyone into softening their stance on regulation. They want to eliminate regulation.

Another great article by Stossel:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_reregulation_mantra.html

The Reregulation Mantra?

Is deregulation is the culprit? It can't be. There was no relevant deregulation in the last 25 years. Meanwhile, highly regulated institutions eagerly bought risky government-guaranteed mortgages, stimulating excessive housing construction and an unsustainable price bubble.

Deregulation wasn't the problem, and reregulation isn't the solution.

It's intuitive to assume that regulation prevents problems, but it's rarely true.

 

[MarAzul]

The term "deregulation" really means "reregulation." Instead of removing regulations, congress just changes them. There are still regulations in place.

Libertarians don't want to trick anyone into softening their stance on regulation. They want to eliminate regulation.

Another great article by Stossel:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_reregulation_mantra.html

The Reregulation Mantra?

Is deregulation is the culprit? It can't be. There was no relevant deregulation in the last 25 years. Meanwhile, highly regulated institutions eagerly bought risky government-guaranteed mortgages, stimulating excessive housing construction and an unsustainable price bubble.

Deregulation wasn't the problem, and reregulation isn't the solution.

It's intuitive to assume that regulation prevents problems, but it's rarely true.

Government regulation is NOT the solution, it is the problem.

Government policy prodded regulated lending institution to lend money in the form of FHA ready mortgages.
These lending institutions regulated to as they are had no skin in the game to determine the value of the property or the worthiness of the mortgagee. The mortgages were FHA ready and therefore marketable by policy and regulation. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the principal movers of this disastrous plan. This coupled with the unwise deregulation of eliminating Glass–Steagall regulation, leaving commercial banks to be commingled with investment banks which dabble in the worthless securities created from worthless mortgages created by regulation, while being protected by FDIC regulation
A total fucking prescription for disaster. And the shit did indeed hit the fan.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Government regulation is NOT the solution, it is the problem.

Government policy prodded regulated lending institution to lend money in the form of FHA ready mortgages.
These lending institutions regulated to as they are had no skin in the game to determine the value of the property or the worthiness of the mortgagee. The mortgages were FHA ready and therefore marketable by policy and regulation. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the principal movers of this disastrous plan. This coupled with the unwise deregulation of eliminating Glass–Steagall regulation, leaving commercial banks to be commingled with investment banks which dabble in the worthless securities created from worthless mortgages created by regulation, while being protected by FDIC regulation
A total fucking prescription for disaster. And the shit did indeed hit the fan.

Didn't you say you thought the gov't should put more responsibility on fathers. That would be gov't regulation . ..

 

[MarAzul]

Didn't you say you thought the gov't should put more responsibility on fathers. That would be gov't regulation . ..

Where did I say this? It must have been a typo.
I did say Society needs to put the burden on dad. That was the prime motive in creating the institution of marriage. Many good things are done by human society, not many by government.
Well on the other hand, perhaps I did not say it, just alluded to the idea.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Where did I say this? It must have been a typo.
I did say Society needs to put the burden on dad. That was the prime motive in creating the institution of marriage. Many good things are done by human society, not many by government.
Well on the other hand, perhaps I did not say it, just alluded to the idea.

I will propose a change in the law to help with the issue of young guys shooting people.
I think it is a sensible change and should not conflict in anyway with the Constitution.

When any person is unlawfully harmed by a minor, the father of the minor, or the legal guardian if the father is deceased, shall be held accountable as if he personally cause the harm. Unless the minor is 15 or more years old, in which case the court will determine whether the father or the minor, or both are to be held accountable for the harm.

Fathers can not abandon nor divorce themselves from this responsibility unless another guardian legally assumes responsibly for the actions of the minor.

If you shoot your gun, you shall be responsible for the result, any gun period.


Perhaps fathers may need a little help from society and the law in dealing with a child with mental problems, no doubt he and mothers do now.

Sound familiar . . .

 

[MarAzul]

I will propose a change in the law to help with the issue of young guys shooting people.
I think it is a sensible change and should not conflict in anyway with the Constitution.

When any person is unlawfully harmed by a minor, the father of the minor, or the legal guardian if the father is deceased, shall be held accountable as if he personally cause the harm. Unless the minor is 15 or more years old, in which case the court will determine whether the father or the minor, or both are to be held accountable for the harm.

Fathers can not abandon nor divorce themselves from this responsibility unless another guardian legally assumes responsibly for the actions of the minor.

If you shoot your gun, you shall be responsible for the result, any gun period.


Perhaps fathers may need a little help from society and the law in dealing with a child with mental problems, no doubt he and mothers do now.

Sound familiar . . .

Oh well, I stand by that completely. All Societies rely on government at some level to enforce the rules and laws of the society, as well as grant the privileged. and protect the rights of the members.

This function of government is hardly comparable the bazaar regulation of the Financial Business sector or the draconian non Representative regulation practiced by the EPA.

Holding the father responsible for his children has long been recognized in Natural law and the Law of Nations. It seem to be only missing our current free society. Citizens free to be untethered and allow to bring forth feral children while the government muddles in business as never imagined let alone authorized by the governed.

A few excerpts from the Law of Nation to give you the idea.

"If a person is capable of rearing a family, let him marry, let him be attentive to give his
children a good education: — in so doing, he will discharge his duty, and be undoubtedly in the road to salvation."

"As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it."

(It seem the US has found a way around needing children. Just have the President promise citizenship to all those that come from where ever.)

" The right to use force.
This right is a perfect one, — that is to say, it is accompanied with the right of using force in order to assert it. In vain would nature give us a right to refuse submitting to injustice, — in vain would she oblige others to be just in their dealings with us, if we could not lawfully make use of force, when they refused to discharge this duty. The just would lie at the mercy of avarice and injustice, and all their rights would soon become useless."

It should be obvious to all that there are far to many feral young men left to their own council, free to tramp the rights, including the right to Life of far too many of our countrymen and their children. Blaming the mindless firearm for this atrocious behavior is clueless, the fathers of these
misbegotten feral soul must be held accountable. The courts can do the accounting, but society must teach the duty and demand the behavior.


So the precedent is long standing support enforcing the rule that fathers are responsible for their children and all citizens have reason to expect their government to enforce the rule.

 

[Denny Crane]

Libertarians believe in laws and government. We just oppose forcing any person to do something against his will. And a contract is to be enforced, even if a person changes his mind (requires a kind of force to enforce it).

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Oh well, I stand by that completely. All Societies rely on government at some level to enforce the rules and laws of the society, as well as grant the privileged. and protect the rights of the members.

This function of government is hardly comparable the bazaar regulation of the Financial Business sector or the draconian non Representative regulation practiced by the EPA.

Holding the father responsible for his children has long been recognized in Natural law and the Law of Nations. It seem to be only missing our current free society. Citizens free to be untethered and allow to bring forth feral children while the government muddles in business as never imagined let alone authorized by the governed.

A few excerpts from the Law of Nation to give you the idea.

"If a person is capable of rearing a family, let him marry, let him be attentive to give his
children a good education: — in so doing, he will discharge his duty, and be undoubtedly in the road to salvation."

"As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it."

(It seem the US has found a way around needing children. Just have the President promise citizenship to all those that come from where ever.)

" The right to use force.
This right is a perfect one, — that is to say, it is accompanied with the right of using force in order to assert it. In vain would nature give us a right to refuse submitting to injustice, — in vain would she oblige others to be just in their dealings with us, if we could not lawfully make use of force, when they refused to discharge this duty. The just would lie at the mercy of avarice and injustice, and all their rights would soon become useless."

It should be obvious to all that there are far to many feral young men left to their own council, free to tramp the rights, including the right to Life of far too many of our countrymen and their children. Blaming the mindless firearm for this atrocious behavior is clueless, the fathers of these
misbegotten feral soul must be held accountable. The courts can do the accounting, but society must teach the duty and demand the behavior.

So the precedent is long standing support enforcing the rule that fathers are responsible for their children and all citizens have reason to expect their government to enforce the rule.

So there are times gov't regulation is a solution . . . which I think goes against Libertarians views.