- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If someone tells you they’re a Libertarian
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:55 am to Aubie Spr96
Posted on 5/27/20 at 9:55 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
It's been explained to you multiple times
You might want to actually read the thread before you comment, mensa. I'm the one who first mentioned that aspect of the death penalty in this thread.
Some of you clearly don't understand the difference between a position and an argument for a position. I'm sure as hell not going to bother attempting to explain it to you.
0
Posted on 5/27/20 at 10:36 am to Flats
quote:
Libertarianism as it's frequently sold by the "you want to enforce values and we don't" crowd doesn't exist, has never existed
Agree to disagree.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 12:23 pm to meansonny
quote:
Agree to disagree.
So where is it?
Posted on 5/27/20 at 12:39 pm to Jeb Busch Lite
They want same-sex couples to be allowed to have tax-free guns to protect their marijuana crop.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 1:32 pm to kingbob
quote:
God, you’re dense
I don't think he's the one missing what's right in front of his face.
quote:
Murder, is not consensual.
quote:
There’s a bigly difference between “morality” activities only effecting the consenting persons who partake in it and “morality” which involves voiding consent of a party.
Yeah, the big difference is that your values dictate that non-consensual activities are not o.k.
That's a moral value. And you are clearly stating that your concept of codification revolves around that moral value.
Given the depth of your responses so far I'm guessing you will make a sarcastic appeal to ridicule aimed at framing your value in this case to be a self-evident-how-could-it-be-any-other-way sort of viewpoint.
But there have been plenty of societies governed partially or fully on the basis of compelling non-consensual behavior. Including ours.
I've never agreed to pay income taxes. Nobody asked over 2 million American citizens whether they agreed to go risk death in Vietnam between 1964 and 1973. They just got a draft letter informing them of where to report for duty. I can't get out of jury duty by telling the bailiff that I don't consent to being compelled to sit on it.
I predict your next objection will be that these sorts of non-consensual mechanisms are exceptions to your general rule and are justified as being essential for our form of government to function and the preservation of our society.
And then we will be right back at what Flats said much earlier—the discussion isn't whether we codify moral values. Almost all laws are based on the codification of moral values. Hopefully you can see that by now. The disagreement is about which ones are essential or important enough to codify.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 4:44 pm to Flats
quote:
I don’t disagree, but it’s also an argument against fines, imprisonment and any other punitive action the government takes. If Paul doesn’t have a problem with all of those then he’s inconsistent and his larger philosophical context fails. “The government is fallible when it restricts our rights so it should never be allowed to restrict our rights” is a recipe for anarchy, not libertarianism or small government.
I’m glad we can find agreement on this first issue at least. As you yourself stated above, the very permanence of capitol punishment likewise would make any possible government error in administrating it permanent. It is indeed called the death PENALTY because death is permanent.
But as to your other point, Paul is making NO such argument that crimes should not be punished. I fail to see how you logically derive such a conclusion from Paul’s principled opposition to the death penalty. A core tenet of libertarianism is that transgression against the rights of others — whether by individuals or a government— is an immoral act. A criminal curtails his own rights to the extent that he has deprived other people of their rights.
At any rate, as a Toomer’s Corner refugee, I am glad to find you here with all the other castaways. I’m glad the TD politiboard has been so welcoming and accommodating of us all. I miss Toomer’s but this is a GREAT board. The admin and regs here should be proud of what they have built here,
This post was edited on 5/27/20 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 5/27/20 at 4:53 pm to DyeHardDylan
quote:
If you’re paying attention, you can only be libertarian. Government at all levels is enormously too big.
After the past 3.5 months, can anyone make a rational argument against this point? I’m sick and tired of getting squeezed from every conceivable level of government.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 4:53 pm to Jeb Busch Lite
quote:
How do you interpret that in today’s political climate?
That they don't stand for anything and don't have any core beliefs or values.
Posted on 5/27/20 at 5:55 pm to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
That they don't stand for anything and don't have any core beliefs or values.
Though it is a total misrepresentation of what libertarianism actually entails, wanting
“same-sex couples to be allowed to have tax-free guns to protect their marijuana crop” is standing for something.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News