| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On February 20 2014 23:07 KwarK wrote: You think the left hate success and want everyone to be poor? I think the left thinks it's alright to look with disdain upon the productive and wealthy because of it but not politically correct to look with disdain upon the people who create no value and are poor because of it. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On February 21 2014 03:53 Gorsameth wrote: You don't legalize just to gain more taxes... Sometimes its not about money. Well yes that's not the only reason but it certainly doesn't hurt the case of those pushing for legalization. The trade is going to happen regardless of the legality of it they may as well collect their revenue. Or were you saying that it should not be legal at all, or that it should be legal for another reason? just curious. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21940 Posts
On February 21 2014 04:10 TheFish7 wrote: Well yes that's not the only reason but it certainly doesn't hurt the case of those pushing for legalization. The trade is going to happen regardless of the legality of it they may as well collect their revenue. Or were you saying that it should not be legal at all, or that it should be legal for another reason? just curious. For me legalization is about decriminalization. Its going to happen and its not overly unhealthy (no more then smoking/alcohol ect). If its made legal it should be because that is better for society not because a good amount of money is involved. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On February 21 2014 04:14 Gorsameth wrote: For me legalization is about decriminalization. Its going to happen and its not overly unhealthy (no more then smoking/alcohol ect). If its made legal it should be because that is better for society not because a good amount of money is involved. Perhaps the effect on society would be more measurable in other parts of the country, but in places like NY it has already been decriminalized. Unless you have intent to sell you're just going to get a fine for possession here, and probably nothing since the cops have better things to do. So to me the part that doesn't make sense is they've basically acknowledged it but still allow the money involved to flow to god knows where, other criminal enterprises, probably mexican cartels or whatever. The money part is the part that seems backwards to me. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 20 2014 23:20 nunez wrote: @wengandi 'stop saying rich are nazi's' reminded me of this article! godwin's law holds true. soruce i thought libertarians were more radical than your classical liberals? economic freedom is the end all be all, unlike your classic liberal. here's a relevant piece on your point on subsidies. source Yes, we are more radical, in the sense where radical is defined as 'striking at the root'. However, there were quite a few CL's who were far more radical than most libertarians today (e.g. Dunoyer, Bastiat, etc.). Also, what do you mean economic freedom is the end all be all? Are you saying libertarians don't hold passionate positions on other issues? For instance, libertarians started the NAACP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorfield_Storey), Anti-Imperialist League, protests against WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and yes, the Iraqi & Afghanistan Wars. We're bee-line staunch on all issues concerning human liberty. You'll notice that we're as much against the offenses of Nixon as we were Bush and Obama, and Wilson and Lincoln before them. We're not partisan hacks like a lot of so-called 'Progressives' and we understand the true consequences of Progressive policies like say...New Leftists (e.g. Gabriel Kolko, et. al. vis a vis Progressivism as the useful idiot for Corporate crack-down on competition and property rights). Anyways, at least you understand that both parties stand for the same non-sense. Little difference between them. Too many people pay attention to rhetoric and acting. They're conned by the shell-game and are played like rubes. Bicker between your fellow people while they steal all your property and liberties. NSA grows. CIA grows. CFR grows and the regular Joe is squeezed. Police Militarization and increased MIC largesse. Funnel money from around the country into DC and its suburbs. Meanwhile, average Joe in Montana or Idaha, or Vermont, or Maine see less of their property every pay-check. This is the real Class Warfare. Between those who live off taxation, and those who stolen from via taxation. This is the Classical Liberal idea of Class Warfare which was 'stolen' and co-opted by Marxists. Libertarians still believe in the old ideas. Of the tax-parasites, vs. the tax-payers. Between those who wield power and those who have little voice. Those who work for a living and those who live off the work of others (and no voluntary agreements are not *living off the work of others*) | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Just as pressure was building on President Barack Obama to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry oil from Canada to refineries in Texas, the project ran into another obstacle — and it came again from Nebraska. A judge's decision Wednesday to overturn a Nebraska law that allowed the pipeline guarantees the legal fight will continue for at least several more months. It also could leave Nebraska's decision in the hands of the state Public Service Commission, a little-known board that regulates natural gas lines, grain warehouses and recreational vehicles. The ruling was a victory for pipeline opponents, including environmentalists who say Keystone XL would carry "dirty oil" that contributes to global warming and Nebraska ranchers and farmers who fear it could hurt their water supply. TransCanada Corp.'s pipeline is critical in Canada's efforts to export its growing oil sands production. Supporters say it will create thousands of jobs and move the U.S. toward North American energy independence. At issue in Wednesday's ruling was a 2012 law that allowed Gov. Dave Heineman to approve the route through Nebraska. The governor's approval gave Calgary-based TransCanada the power to use eminent domain on landowners who deny the company access to their property. Three landowners filed a lawsuit saying the decision should have been made by the Public Service Commission. Lancaster County Judge Stephanie Stacy agreed. Attorney General Jon Bruning's office plans to appeal the ruling to the Nebraska Supreme Court. Source | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
ah ok. i thought the distinction between a classical liberal and a libertarian was the latters de-emphasis on democracy / social justice in favour of more emphasis on economic liberty. trying to come to terms with the terms is all. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 21 2014 05:22 nunez wrote: @Wegandi ah ok. i thought the distinction between a classical liberal and a libertarian was the latters de-emphasis on democracy / social justice in favour of more emphasis on economic liberty. trying to come to terms with the terms is all. Well, most classical liberals were opponents of democracy and favored codified Republicanism. The difference now-a-days is that libertarians have learned from classical liberal mistakes and/or naivete, and are far more anti-state than they were (e.g. we're more likely to be market-anarchists than they are...taking our views to their conclusion instead of making exemptions in our beliefs). Also, it would help to define 'social justice'. I don't think I've ever read a classical liberal approach of said term. We've always been individuals and define our beliefs on the basis of self-propriety vis a vis property rights, so justice in our view stems from individuals, not society. In other words, we emphasize all spheres of the conclusion of self-propriety. The same foundation we use to be against war, slavery, and for privacy, markets, etc. I think Lysander Spooner does a very good job bridging Classical Liberalism to libertarianism. Perhaps you would be interested in checking out his works. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 21 2014 05:29 Roe wrote: Just an honest question to Wegandi (or anyone libertarian-minded): why would opposing (or staying out of) WW2 or the Iraq/Afghanistan war result in more human liberty? In order to oppose war (fascist states conquering others) is not the logical response to go to war to end it? Bourne puts it better than I ever could. This can give you insights into the way libertarians tend to think. http://www.antiwar.com/bourne.php | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On February 21 2014 05:41 Wegandi wrote: Bourne puts it better than I ever could. This can give you insights into the way libertarians tend to think. http://www.antiwar.com/bourne.php Well actually I'm just interested in your opinion | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On February 21 2014 05:59 Roe wrote: Well actually I'm just interested in your opinion The short and sweet? War destroys any vestige of opposition to the State and its ideals. It inculcates homogeneity of opinion, of power, of all the views we oppose - of centralization and regulation of industry, of thought, et. al. It gives rise to things like the NSA and justification for ever increasing tax levies. It gives rise to notions of Nationalism and Patriotism tied to unflinching servility to any edict or position coming from the State. It is what gives rise to things like the Espionage Act. War also tends to be masked in lies and deceit. It erodes the disembodiment of the people from the Government, of intertwining the entire society with the State - we are one, and unity, and all that jazz. War enlarges the powers of the State, giving rise to more influence in society from this vile institution. Many of the edicts from war-time are never repealed post-war, and we're left with an increase of Statism and a loss for liberty. Similarly, War is indiscreet. Notions of property rights are vanquished, and mass destruction and violation of liberty arises. It views other humans with the same inalienable rights we have, as animals, to be disposed of. It also violates pretty much every libertarian ethos of justification for war. For instance, we can hardly be found innocent for what happened on 9/11 as it was the consequence of decades of international violations of liberty against middle-easterners. This is even before we talk about conscription and its ethos. What is slavery soon becomes de-facto Patriotic 'duty'. Boys served up as meat-bags to be used like pawns for some asshole power Elite. Industries based off the expropriation of property (MIC). This is just a small dose. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 21 2014 05:40 nunez wrote: @wengandi i will take a peep. found his collected works on online library. Spooner? I like Spooner, but I disagree when it comes to his influence on the modern American libertarian. The guy was way more radical (see: The Constitution of No Authority) and he had anti-capitalist tendencies that would make him anathema to most Americans who call themselves libertarian. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 21 2014 05:29 Roe wrote: Just an honest question to Wegandi (or anyone libertarian-minded): why would opposing (or staying out of) WW2 or the Iraq/Afghanistan war result in more human liberty? I think it's not a very good idea to throw an intervention that freed Europe from the Nazis and the Iraq war into one pot. I don't think many people oppose war in every circumstance. It's just that people are tired off seeing soldiers die in wars that essentially just happen for geopolitical reasons. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21940 Posts
On February 21 2014 07:22 Nyxisto wrote: I think it's not a very good idea to throw an intervention that freed Europe from the Nazis and the Iraq war into one pot. I don't think many people oppose war in every circumstance. It's just that people are tired off seeing soldiers die in wars that essentially just happen for geopolitical reasons. Made all the more funny by the fact that America was more or less forced into WW2 while it was the aggressor for Iraq/Afghanistan. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 21 2014 06:19 Wegandi wrote: The short and sweet? War destroys any vestige of opposition to the State and its ideals. It inculcates homogeneity of opinion, of power, of all the views we oppose - of centralization and regulation of industry, of thought, et. al. It gives rise to things like the NSA and justification for ever increasing tax levies. It gives rise to notions of Nationalism and Patriotism tied to unflinching servility to any edict or position coming from the State. It is what gives rise to things like the Espionage Act. War also tends to be masked in lies and deceit. It erodes the disembodiment of the people from the Government, of intertwining the entire society with the State - we are one, and unity, and all that jazz. War enlarges the powers of the State, giving rise to more influence in society from this vile institution. Many of the edicts from war-time are never repealed post-war, and we're left with an increase of Statism and a loss for liberty. Similarly, War is indiscreet. Notions of property rights are vanquished, and mass destruction and violation of liberty arises. It views other humans with the same inalienable rights we have, as animals, to be disposed of. It also violates pretty much every libertarian ethos of justification for war. For instance, we can hardly be found innocent for what happened on 9/11 as it was the consequence of decades of international violations of liberty against middle-easterners. This is even before we talk about conscription and its ethos. What is slavery soon becomes de-facto Patriotic 'duty'. Boys served up as meat-bags to be used like pawns for some asshole power Elite. Industries based off the expropriation of property (MIC). This is just a small dose. I'm not sure even the most staunch proponent of war (modern, of course) would dissagree with you about the evils of war (even if they disagree with specifics especially in your third paragraph). They would argue, though, that whatever war they're proposing, despite being an evil, would be a necessary evil in order to defend national interests. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- As West Virginia environmental regulators plan more steps in response to last month's coal-cleaning chemical leak into the Elk River and a coal-slurry spill last week, state inspectors were on the scene Wednesday of another mining-waste accident. Department of Environmental Protection inspectors reported a spill of polluted water from a former McDowell County slurry impoundment that had been reopened by a company re-mining the site for leftover bits of coal. DEP officials said runoff from melting snow overran the site's sediment control ponds, sending "blackwater" running into an adjacent creek. Source | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
herO vs Clem
Solar vs Clem
Zoun vs Spirit
Clem vs MaxPax
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Epic.LAN
BSL Team A[vengers]
Dewalt vs Shine
UltrA vs ZeLoT
LAN Event
BSL 21
BSL Team A[vengers]
Cross vs Motive
Sziky vs HiyA
LAN Event
BSL 21
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
