Libertarianism

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Quantum Windbag, Jun 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,017
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    How do efforts to keep guns out of the hands of whoever you think is crazy keep people safe?

    As for fertilizer bombs, that is the least of the concerns of government. Did you know that hydrogen peroxide is a highly volatile explosive, and that it is can be used as rocket fuel? That you can make poison gas with common household chemicals that are available in any grocery store?

    It is not the job of the government to protect you from random acts of violence because doing so would require the government to monitor everything you do.
     
  2. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,017
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    Labeling GMOs, it it were honest, would require everything to be labelled because almost everything we eat is the product of centuries of genetic modification. That is simple truth, and anyone who wants to require that GMOs be labelled is going to massively expand the power of government to interfere in our food supply by redefining organic and forcing companies to comply with arbitrary, and unnecessary, regulations.

    By the way, I expect people to lie, even in commercials, which is why I look around and learn as much as possible before I buy.
     
  3. Circe
    Offline

    Circe Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,202
    Thanks Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Aeaea
    Ratings:
    +319

    I've never heard of one of these crazies or terrorists using a hair bleach bomb........

    I think if hydrogen peroxide were actually good for that, it would have happened.

    As a farmy type, I do know that ammonium nitrate (what Tim McVeigh used, and the Times Square bomber tried to use) is a real problem. You cannot buy even one fifty-pound bag without registering and so on. They want to know where ALL of it is going, and it had better be on somebody's field.

    There are a lot of things that people aren't allowed to have because crazies and criminals DO misuse them to kill people en masse. Dynamite is one: when I moved in here we found a dynamite keg and blasting caps in the basement: but it's an old house. You can't imagine people removing stumps that way now! Dynamite is controlled and we have to grind out stumps or live with them.

    Should people get to freely own machine guns and grenades and shoulder-fired rockets to take to the airport and ping away at jet planes on their day off? Is it okay if people manufacture ricin and culture salmonella? How about cannon?

    I would say giving people free access to the materials we KNOW some of them use to kill lots of people, blowing up dams and underwater tunnels freely --- that's a challenge for libertarianism as a system.
     
  4. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,017
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    Maybe they prefer things that are less explosive for a reason.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdXjJgDL14c"]Hydrogen Peroxide Bomb - YouTube[/ame]

    As for dynamite, you can still buy it and use it to blow stumps because it is perfectly legal. It is actually easier to buy dynamite than it is to buy a fully automatic weapon in most places in the US.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2013
  5. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,013
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    Such controls are against libertarian thought. I would say though that no pure government in any form can exist. While controls are, for the most part, against libertarianism U would support (and I think most libertarians as well, basic controls over very deadly substances. Essentially, the trading of nuclear weapons is not going to be legal. Nor will the ownership of active SAM sites. I don’t think that libertarians in general are going to go for complete removal of all controlled substances particularly when many of those, like anthrax, do not have any use outside the harm of your neighbors.

    Ammonium nitrate is different, of course, as it has a use outside of the harm of others but, like I said, I would support some controls on some substances even though that is not an entirely libertarian concept.
     
  6. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,013
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    I would add that not only does libertarianism not go against laws that require honesty but rather it almost requires it. In smaller economies, where a products reputation is critical, such things might not matter that much as the consumers test and reject products that are not honest but in an economy of this size and scope, not to mention with products that take large sums of resource like cars and homes, purposefully making incorrect statements about a product can and should be illegal.
     
  7. PaulS1950
    Offline

    PaulS1950 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,353
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Littletown, USA
    Ratings:
    +238
    The libertarian philosophy is one of personal freedom and personal rights.
    You are free to think and act any way you want AS LONG as you don't interfere with the freedoms and rights of others.

    The whole concept that laws against guns is wrong. We have laws that make it illegal for felons and the insane from buying guns - just like we have laws against speeding - neither stops people from breaking the law. We can't prevent free people from breaking the law but we can prosecute them when they do. Many times felons are caught with a gun - that is a felony - but the gun is confiscated and no charges are filed. the reason we have criminals loose on the streets is that we don't prosecute them. It seems that someone wants the criminals out there for some reason - maybe it is to make it easier to convince people that guns are bad. That could also be the reason we rarely hear about the 1.5 to 3 million times a year the citizens protect themselves against criminals. If we were reminded 3 million times a year that guns do good it would far outweigh the 8000 or so murders a year wouldn't it.

    A libertarian federal government would not interfere with your personal choices - if you want to be a protected species then move to a State that believes in doing that - like California or New York or Illinois. If you would rather be an individual and a bit more self sufficient then you can live in the other states.
     
  8. MDiver
    Offline

    MDiver Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    217
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Auburn, WA
    Ratings:
    +535
    I can't see myself ever voting Libertarian. Basically, it's like the desires of children. They want to have their cake and eat it to, all the time, as the saying goes.
    If Libertarianism were to rule, we could kiss our national parks, national forests, state forests and delicate wetlands goodbye, as businesses and ranchers/farmers would want to reduce them from being pristine areas, to malls, apartments, condos, more ranches and communities.
    Under Libertarianism, if an individual wants to pollute his property, that's okay, even if it pollutes water sources under the property. Wildlife? Goodbye. Pristine forests? Goodbye. FDA? Goodbye. Social programs for the elderly? Goodbye.
    I consider Libertarianism to be the extreme right of Republicanism.
    Too much liberty isn't necessarily a good thing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. PaulS1950
    Offline

    PaulS1950 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,353
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Littletown, USA
    Ratings:
    +238
    You obviously have no concept of what the Libertarian platform is.
    The national parks are in place and protected areas that the population wants to keep the way they are. It is beyond the scope of the Libertarian government to takes those areas away from the people.

    If you harm someone by polluting or developing an area the law will prosecute you for that - whether it is a federal law or a state law.

    State parks are not run by the federal government nor can they be sold or developed without the state's consent.

    You have formed your opinions on baseless rumors and not on the reality of what is. I suggest you go to the Libertarian Party website and learn the facts before you try to define that party.
     
  10. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    If this is the reason libertarians are being called anarchists, it's a reason based on ignorance - because that doesn't fit the definition of anarchy at all.

    But you're right in pointing to the rejection the kind of government you are advocating as a 'libertarian' position. We do reject the notion that government should run society; that it should be used to enforce societal mores and standards outside the protection of individual rights; or that it should push us to be 'well ordered and thriving'. It should be up to the people to decide their own personal moral preferences, and pursue their own personal visions of the 'good life', free from state coercion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page