-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Drudge tonight
- Thread starter GaryO
- Start date
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
In what respect?
The world is going further down a road we won't be able to turn around from. I can't tell what is more disheartening, British held hostage, NOW (an assbackwards group) supporting Clinton, Giuliani as our GOP candidate, San Fran banning plastic bags, or the fact that we in this nation care more about American Idol than our own President.
I continue to stand by my premise that the Roman Empire had a woderful run and then a collapse, let me just say that the US is on the same self-destructive path.
No one takes personal responsibility for their actions and yet wants the government to help them out. Hell abortion is a perfect case in point.
We are no longer allowed to express our 1st amendment right if it does not agree with the Demoncrats (Poverty Pimps). You can express it as long as it has to do with the environment, how bad the war is, and how we need to further distribute wealth to the poor and helpless of society. Unfortuantely gun rights will slowly dissolve with this faction in power.
Communism killed 100 million people let's give it another chance.
The world is going further down a road we won't be able to turn around from. I can't tell what is more disheartening, British held hostage, NOW (an assbackwards group) supporting Clinton, Giuliani as our GOP candidate, San Fran banning plastic bags, or the fact that we in this nation care more about American Idol than our own President.
I continue to stand by my premise that the Roman Empire had a woderful run and then a collapse, let me just say that the US is on the same self-destructive path.
No one takes personal responsibility for their actions and yet wants the government to help them out. Hell abortion is a perfect case in point.
We are no longer allowed to express our 1st amendment right if it does not agree with the Demoncrats (Poverty Pimps). You can express it as long as it has to do with the environment, how bad the war is, and how we need to further distribute wealth to the poor and helpless of society. Unfortuantely gun rights will slowly dissolve with this faction in power.
Communism killed 100 million people let's give it another chance.
Last edited:
I am not as pessimistic but these issues are why I am a libertarian. Lots of people give me crap about being libertarian but if more liberty loving people would stand up for what we want then things could change or at least stabilize. I don’t think libertarians need to take over but we could get some people in government to stand up for our rights. Conservatives need to stop relying on the republicans b/c guys like Guliani and Bloomberg are getting more and more popular and they are not our friends.
I agree to an extent
I believe that less government is better. The more I look the better the libertarian point of view looks to me. I still have some moral concerns with the libertarian stance but at the end of the day at least our rights remain protected.
I believe that less government is better. The more I look the better the libertarian point of view looks to me. I still have some moral concerns with the libertarian stance but at the end of the day at least our rights remain protected.
My opinion on the moral issue is that I do not agree with all the libertarian view points but a libertarian society allows you the choice to develop your own morals not have them imposed by the government.
The moral problems you have with libertarianism might go away if you really thought thru some of the positions. I am going to make an assumption here and guess that one of the "moral problems" you are referring to is the drug thing.
I never realized until last year that I was really a libertarian at heart. I started reading - a lot - and this has only solidified my libertarian leanings.
If you want to spend a lot of time reading I suggest you first try going to www.lewrockwell.com. You will find a lot that you may disagree with - and some of the authors may seem like they have gone off the deep end at times - but keep at it and you will start to understand their viewpoint.
Butler Schaffer is one that I like a lot - he seems to have a consistent moral position:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html
If you want a very satirical viewpoint on the infringment upon our rights by the government read some Vin Suprynowicz - he has some books out - which you can find on Amazon - and he also writes and is online if you look:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz-arch.html
One of the people running for president - Ron Paul - also posts his writings on lewrockwell - it is worth reading thru what he writes - he is one of the only candidates that actually has the balls to state what his position is without trying to hide behind politcal BS:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
I never realized until last year that I was really a libertarian at heart. I started reading - a lot - and this has only solidified my libertarian leanings.
If you want to spend a lot of time reading I suggest you first try going to www.lewrockwell.com. You will find a lot that you may disagree with - and some of the authors may seem like they have gone off the deep end at times - but keep at it and you will start to understand their viewpoint.
Butler Schaffer is one that I like a lot - he seems to have a consistent moral position:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html
If you want a very satirical viewpoint on the infringment upon our rights by the government read some Vin Suprynowicz - he has some books out - which you can find on Amazon - and he also writes and is online if you look:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz-arch.html
One of the people running for president - Ron Paul - also posts his writings on lewrockwell - it is worth reading thru what he writes - he is one of the only candidates that actually has the balls to state what his position is without trying to hide behind politcal BS:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
Well I am not sure that drugs are a moral issue, probably more like abortion, and gay marriage. But I would like to hear what the moral issues are, maybe we could help?
Many conservitives have a problem with libertarians b/c our stance on things like gay marriage is to do what ever you want just don't hurt anyone else. Many in the GOP can't get past ideas like that.
Many conservitives have a problem with libertarians b/c our stance on things like gay marriage is to do what ever you want just don't hurt anyone else. Many in the GOP can't get past ideas like that.
I agree.
Corporate regulations are a must to protect the health, well being, safety, and rights of the individual citizen.
I could care less what John Doe does with his boyfriend/husband. And if Jane Doe wants to OD on crack so be it. I don't agree with it and I think it's wrong but it's not my place (or the governments) to tell people they can't do it.
I'm more of a cross between a democrat and a libertarian (If that's possible...). I support certain social programs, although I do think many of them are abused and/or mismanaged, most of them have good intentions. I also am for smaller government and greater individual rights.
If the gay marriage thing is the moral issue at question I have come to see it like this.
Why do we have a "problem" with gay marriage in this country to begin with? The problem comes from the fact that the government has become the real regulator of marriage - not churches or society. You may get married in a church - true, but it is the government that requires the marriage license and really regulates who can get married. Churches can also "regulate" if you will - who they marry, but if your church will not marry you then you can always find another church. Not so with the government. So what has happened is the the homosexual lobbies have used their power to change the GOVERNMENTAL laws to say that it is alright to allow gay marriage - they have actually gone so far as to change things to the point where they are almost forcing the churches to perform gay marriages - or run afoul of hate crime laws.
In a libertarian world - the way I understand it, the government - and therefore the homosexual lobbies and all of their supporters - would not have this power. If you wanted to get married - you could go down to your local church and get married. If the church in your community would not do that - and remember that churches historically have been reflective of the communities values as a whole - not the government - then you would have to move to another community who would perform your gay marriage - or you would have to make an appeal to your community - a non-coercive (because it would not be governmental - backed by force of arms appeal) a non-coercive appeal to your community.
Look at the history of the gay rights and gay marriage movement - it has almost exclusively been a movement of the gaining of governmental power - the coercive implementation of laws benefitting homosexuals - in most cases in direct opposition to the wishes of the communities who have had to implement these laws. The Catholic adoption agency thing recently is a good case in point - instead of abiding by government regulations that made them adopt out children to gay couples they got out of the adoption business altogether. In a libertarian world the government would not have this kind of power - if you did not want to adopt out a child to a gay couple then so be it. Maybe there would be another agency who would - but you would not be able to force a Catholic agency to do it against their beliefs.
Why do we have a "problem" with gay marriage in this country to begin with? The problem comes from the fact that the government has become the real regulator of marriage - not churches or society. You may get married in a church - true, but it is the government that requires the marriage license and really regulates who can get married. Churches can also "regulate" if you will - who they marry, but if your church will not marry you then you can always find another church. Not so with the government. So what has happened is the the homosexual lobbies have used their power to change the GOVERNMENTAL laws to say that it is alright to allow gay marriage - they have actually gone so far as to change things to the point where they are almost forcing the churches to perform gay marriages - or run afoul of hate crime laws.
In a libertarian world - the way I understand it, the government - and therefore the homosexual lobbies and all of their supporters - would not have this power. If you wanted to get married - you could go down to your local church and get married. If the church in your community would not do that - and remember that churches historically have been reflective of the communities values as a whole - not the government - then you would have to move to another community who would perform your gay marriage - or you would have to make an appeal to your community - a non-coercive (because it would not be governmental - backed by force of arms appeal) a non-coercive appeal to your community.
Look at the history of the gay rights and gay marriage movement - it has almost exclusively been a movement of the gaining of governmental power - the coercive implementation of laws benefitting homosexuals - in most cases in direct opposition to the wishes of the communities who have had to implement these laws. The Catholic adoption agency thing recently is a good case in point - instead of abiding by government regulations that made them adopt out children to gay couples they got out of the adoption business altogether. In a libertarian world the government would not have this kind of power - if you did not want to adopt out a child to a gay couple then so be it. Maybe there would be another agency who would - but you would not be able to force a Catholic agency to do it against their beliefs.
Dear one, you can't support social programs AND smaller government...that's almost an oxymoron.
There is a lot of waste and corruption in our government. If these social programs were run by competent people I'm sure you could help more people for half the money (and half the government).
The government just needs to go on a STRICT diet. Sure social programs cost money and that requires taxes, but if you trim the fat and the waste you could do more and cut taxes. Sure some benefits would be cut, but cut by cutting out the people who don't need to be living off the system and are just taking advantage.
Well said CALSDAD,
Here is one thing people should think about when it comes to social programs and charity.
The Advocates for Self Government cited a study showing that the money the government spends on social programs is divided two ways, 1/3 goes to the people who need it and 2/3 goes to the government offical who run it (salary, pension, and other benefits) while private charities are the exact opposite with 2/3 going to the people and 1/3 going to the organization. Private charities are also much faster and more efficient at getting help where it is needed.
IMHO our tax money would be much better spent by the private charities then the self serving government. Everything the government does is slow and filled with red tape, and you for the most part are stuck with it. But with private organizations if you are not getting what you want then just tell them to get lost and try somebody else.
One important thing to remember is the politicians do things to get votes while private charities do it b/c they actually want to help.
Here is one thing people should think about when it comes to social programs and charity.
The Advocates for Self Government cited a study showing that the money the government spends on social programs is divided two ways, 1/3 goes to the people who need it and 2/3 goes to the government offical who run it (salary, pension, and other benefits) while private charities are the exact opposite with 2/3 going to the people and 1/3 going to the organization. Private charities are also much faster and more efficient at getting help where it is needed.
IMHO our tax money would be much better spent by the private charities then the self serving government. Everything the government does is slow and filled with red tape, and you for the most part are stuck with it. But with private organizations if you are not getting what you want then just tell them to get lost and try somebody else.
One important thing to remember is the politicians do things to get votes while private charities do it b/c they actually want to help.
Here is a very good example of how the interference of government has changed what most of us would perceive to be an open and shut case of "too bad - you shouldn't have been doing that":
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/behreandt2.html
This is written from a libertarian viewpoint - and makes a good analogy of how our property rights have been invaded - immorally - by government interference.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/behreandt2.html
This is written from a libertarian viewpoint - and makes a good analogy of how our property rights have been invaded - immorally - by government interference.
Last edited:
reinbeau
NES Member
+1. I've said this before - while Greg and I are married in the eyes of everyone, we had a JP on the bridge over Chicora Lake in NH. No religion involved. It's a civil agreement between two people who are in love. That's what marriage boils down to - if you want your union blessed by a religious group then do so.
The argument you just made above is the standard time-worn argument always made by liberals, communists, socialists, fascists, etc thru-out time. If only the government had better people running it, if only government agents were competent, if only you give the govt. all the power your lives will get better, if only we kill off all of the Jews everything will be fine, if only you let us pass these laws the world will be paradise, if only we could get rid of all of the guns there will be no more murders, if only you give us more tax dollars we will finally be able to fix all that is wrong with society. If only - if only if only.
Can you give me just one example when this has ever happened?
The founders of this country knew all of these arguments - they were well versed in history - and had just had a revolution against a tyrannical regime (less tyranical by the way than the one we are currently living under now) - they also knew the classic history of Rome and Greece and all those that had come in between. Which is why they did not trust the government - at all. They saw some government - very limited - as a necessary evil. No more however than was absolutely necessary.
As somebody pointed out above - when govt does charity 1/3 goes to the recipients - and 2/3 goes to the govt. When private charities handle the same thing the ratio is reversed - I have heard cases of where something like 90% of the money going thru a charity makes it's way out to the recipients - why? Because private charities must actually do what they say they are going to do - or people just don't send them money. If they screw up - the money can dry up very quickly - and guess what - the chariity is gone posthaste - and the problem is solved.
When govt. runs a program they can f*** up all they want - and guess what - the politicians will vote them more money to solve the problem, you the taxpayer might complain about it - and write your congressman and so forth - but you CANNOT withhold the money to force a solution to the problem. Why? Because if you do not pay the men in black suits come and take you away. Libertarians rightly recognize this as armed robbery. The govt forces your compliance by armed force in the end. If you do not believe this then go do an experiment - try withholding the percentage of your income taxes that goes to programs you do not support - and send the govt a nice little letter with your tax return explaining why. Let us know how well that works out for you. Now try telling the charity of your choice why they are not receiving any more money from you when they do things you do not agree with - please note the difference in the responses.
reinbeau
NES Member
Yep, we did, on April 19, 2003. Greg used to climb Chocoura (oops, misspelled it before) every Thanksgiving, he loves it up there.You got married here in NH? OMG, congratulations! That's wonderful.![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
I've told you before, we're going to MaineSo when are you moving up here? Come on, you're practically natives! Get up here!![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Western Maine is nice, and as long as you stay away from the coast it's relatively inexpensive (compared to here, that is).
reinbeau
NES Member
And you can always come over to visit us in Maine!Maine? Boo! Hiss! Come to NH! You can always drive over to Maine if you need to.
Of course we'll shop in NH, but I married a Mainer (well, technically speaking, he was born in Maine and lived in Maine when I lured him down here.....he did grow up in E. Rochester, NH)!
