Is it time for a legitimate third party?

[Curried Goats]

Yep. Like stops signs. All laws are limitations on rights. How would you divide up control over land and resources?

That isn't what my point is about. My point is that while you complain about liberals and positive rights you also want a government that allows people to use force against others to serve their interests.

 

[dblack]

That isn't what my point is about. My point is that while you complain about liberals and positive rights you also want government to allow people to use force against others to serve their interests.

Okay - so you're trying to equate property rights with "positive liberties". Before you do that - you'll need to define it. As I said, to me it's incoherent as generally presented. What does it meant to you?

 

[Curried Goats]

Okay - so you're trying to equate property rights with "positive liberties". Before you do that - you'll need to define it. As I said, to me it's incoherent as generally presented. What does it meant to you?

I just going by what you said it meant to you. Using force against others to serve their interests.

 

[dblack]

I just going by what you said it meant to you. Using force against others to serve their interests.

Ok. Owning property doesn't force anyone to serve your interests. No more so than a law against punching someone in the face forces people to serve your interests. Would you call the right to not be punched in the face a "positive liberty"?

 

[Curried Goats]

Ok. Owning property doesn't force anyone to serve your interests. No more so than a law against punching someone in the face forces people to serve your interests. Would you call the right to not be punched in the face a "positive liberty"?

What? I'm confused by your example. A law preventing people from punching one another is about not allowing anyone to use force against anyone else and establishing a right to private property is about allowing and protecting a property owners right to use force against others. They are the opposite things. I disagree that owning property doesn't force anyone to serve anyone else's interests. The interest in private property is exclusivity. Using force against others to keep them away from what you want to keep for yourself fits exactly with your description of a positive liberty.

 

[dblack]

What? I'm confused by your example. A law preventing people from punching one another is about not allowing anyone to use force against anyone else and establishing a right to private property is about allowing and protecting a property owners right to use force against others. They are the opposite things. I disagree that owning property doesn't force anyone to serve anyone else's interests. The interest in private property is exclusivity. Using force against others to keep them away from what you want to keep for yourself fits exactly with your description of a positive liberty.

A law prohibiting someone from punching you in the face is exactly the same thing. It requires nothing from others, other refraining from punching you. Likewise, owning property requires nothing from others, other than staying off your property. If you could frame that as forcing people to stay off your property. But you could frame the punching thing as forcing people not you punch you. So I'm not sure what you think that gets you.

I'm fine with acknowledging that property rights is, at some level, and arbitrary line. All but the most extreme libertarian will acknowledge the legitimacy of a commons. Not everything is assigned to people as "property". The atmosphere, for example. So, somewhere between assigning every molecule in the universe as someone's property, and saying that the every molecule in the universe is "public property", we draw a line. Republicans want to draw that line inside a person's body, and claim the womb as state property. Hopefully we can agree that goes too far.

But where do you want to draw it? Do we have exclusive ownership over our bodies? Our clothes? Vehicles? Tools? Fruit trees?

It seems what you're complaining about is where we draw that line. Where do you want to draw it?

 

[bendog]

Is it time for a legitimate third party?

• Too much political divide on issues that could have a common middle ground?
• Our 2 current parties drive their own agenda, while the a unheard majorities voice is left unheard, seen, or advised.
• In today's political climate, how would a third party get a voice? We are not asking for a seat at the table, but rather, a voice that can be heard. Then let the dominoes fall.
• George Washington warned of political parties subverting the people and leading to despotism. This board that example where many on here, express desire to remove the other in totality.
• From Washington - "...The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
  
  All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
  
  However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion".
  
  Farewell Address (1796) | Constitution Center

  National Constitution Center Historic Documents Library record for Farewell Address (1796)

  constitutioncenter.org
• The above is where we are today. Do you disagree?
• Recent Gallup Poll (take it for what it's worth says that support of a third viable party is up 63%
  • Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%
• And, maybe there is another option; no parties, purely a stance and position.
• Has the country outgrown our political party system?

Maybe so. But in the past, third parties have just been assimilated into one or the other: balanced budget, for example.

But we do HAVE a 3rd party ... Trump. He's no more a small govt guy than Harris. He is a populist. And that may be why he wins, because the dems claim the progressive crown, but their policies don't seem to attract working families who make 80K, and their outreach to them is the child tax credit expansion .... I don't really think they have a clue that they are elitist. Obama had the same problem selling his govt program. They want better paying jobs, not govt programs. Trump's appeal is to bring back the union economy of 1970, although he's no friend of the right to strike.

What we don't have is a conservative party. Maybe we need Willam F. Buckley to rise on halloween.

 

[dblack]

What we don't have is a conservative party. Maybe we need Willam F. Buckley to rise on halloween.

I'd vote for his fucking corpse over Trump and Harris.

 

[Curried Goats]

A law prohibiting someone from punching you in the face is exactly the same thing. It requires nothing from others, other refraining from punching you. Likewise, owning property requires nothing from others, other than staying off your property.

The thing that makes it your property though is the force of law. My face is my face. I don't need a law establishing this to be my face. The force of law is required in the first place to establish anything as anyone's private property.

If you could frame that as forcing people to stay off your property. But you could frame the punching thing as forcing people not you punch you. So I'm not sure what you think that gets you.

What even makes private property a thing if not the force of law? Do I need the force of law to establish that I have a face? My face exists in contexts inside and outside of the law. Private property does not.

I'm fine with acknowledging that property rights is, at some level, and arbitrary line. All but the most extreme libertarian will acknowledge the legitimacy of a commons. Not everything is assigned to people as "property". The atmosphere, for example. So, somewhere between assigning every molecule in the universe as someone's property, and saying that the every molecule in the universe is "public property", we draw a line. Republicans want to draw that line inside a person's body, and claim the womb as state property. Hopefully we can agree that goes too far.

Who's doing this assigning of what molecule belongs to who? A group of self interested people?

But where do you want to draw it? Do we have exclusive ownership over our bodies? Our clothes? Vehicles? Tools? Fruit trees?

It seems what you're complaining about is where we draw that line. Where do you want to draw it?

I'm not complaining that we draw lines. You're the one crying about liberals. I'm a political hedonist. You can all get your fuck on. The only question is are we fucking violently or democratically?

 

[bendog]

I'd vote for his fucking corpse over Trump and Harris.

I'm just not sure we have a person willing to pit a conservative integrity to Trump's message. Lowry? lol

Reagan was a free trader, and most of us did just fine. I've never been sold on his fiscal policy that was more LEFT than Kennedy. But deficits haven't really hurt us .... though the day may be breaking. He was certainly no Goldwater, who didn't give shit if anyone had an abortion, but he wasn't too hot on deficits unless we had a real war, and not SE Asia.

There's no one in the gop with the stones, and the dems don't have a clue. I think the charge would have to be led from the right, because the dems have never been about conservatism.

 

[dblack]

I'm not complaining that we draw lines. You're the one crying about liberals.

I'm arguing against horseshit like a "right to healthcare" or a "right to a job" or a "right to get laid", or a "right to free shit". I don't see how you equate that with property rights, but it seems that's what you're trying to do. Anyway, seems esoteric and irrelevant to real work politics.

Anyway, I see you're starting to split my posts up and pick at each nit, and I'm not at all interested in the kind of circle jerk you have going on in that other thread.

I'm a political hedonist. You can all get your fuck on. The only question is are we fucking violently or democratically?

"Democratically" IS "violently". The conceit that it is not, is my biggest beef with Democrats.

 

[dblack]

I'm just not sure we have a person willing to pit a conservative integrity to Trump's message. Lowry? lol

Reagan was a free trader, and most of us did just fine. I've never been sold on his fiscal policy that was more LEFT than Kennedy. But deficits haven't really hurt us .... though the day may be breaking. He was certainly no Goldwater, who didn't give shit if anyone had an abortion, but he wasn't too hot on deficits unless we had a real war, and not SE Asia.

There's no one in the gop with the stones, and the dems don't have a clue. I think the charge would have to be led from the right, because the dems have never been about conservatism.

I think the downward spiral of the two party system prevents us from promoting consensus government. Things won't get better until we reject it.

 

[g5000]

I would love at least three parties if not four parties.

I've lived in countries with four parties.

They are more dysfunctional than we are.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm arguing against horseshit like a "right to healthcare" or a "right to a job" or a "right to get laid", or a "right to free shit". I don't see how you equate that with property rights, but it seems that's what you're trying to do. Anyway, seems esoteric and irrelevant to real work politics.

Horseshit as an argument isn't very compelling. If you don't want to see how property rights are about allowing property owners to use force against people who won't do what they want (respect their exclusive claim to resources) then that's really just on you for missing the obvious.

Anyway, I see you're starting to split my posts up and pick at each nit, and I'm not at all interested in the kind of circle jerk you have going on in that other thread.

"Democratically" is "violently".

I can see that we've reached the point of where belligerence takes over your ability to make arguments.

 

[g5000]

Is it time for a legitimate third party?​

Round about the year 2008, voters who registered as Independent began to be larger than either major party.

Nowadays, Independents vastly outnumber each party.

Clearly, the American people are fed up with both parties. They are sick of the bullshit.

However, this does not mean that Independents are all in harmony with each other. I'm a conservative and became an Independent after the 2016 election. I left because I believe in balanced budgets, small government, family values, a moral code, honesty, integrity, and a level playing field for all.

These are all things the GOP threw out the window a long time ago, and tripled down on being pure evil since 2016.

There are Independents who used to be Democrats. They are pro-choice and believe in big government.

There have been efforts to start a third party recently. The Forward Party, for example. But they went nowhere.

It takes a fuck ton of money to start a major party from the ground up, and right now the big money is happy with our current system which tilts the playing field in their favor. They have absolutely no reason to give that up.

The "elites", for lack of a better word, own both parties. No way they are going to allow some third party to come along and ruin that for them.

 

[dblack]

Horseshit as an argument isn't very compelling. If you don't want to see how property rights are about allowing property owners to use force against people who won't do what they want (respect their exclusive claim to resources) then that's really just on you for missing the obvious.

You're right. Calling "positive rights" horseshit, despite that fact that I've made clear, in numerous posts, why I think it's horseshit, isn't nearly as compelling as "it's just obvious".

I can see that we've reached the point of where belligerence takes over your ability to make arguments.

Obviously.

 

[Curried Goats]

You're right. Calling "positive rights" horseshit, despite that fact that I've made clear, in numerous posts, why I think it's horseshit, isn't nearly as compelling as "it's just obvious".

Obviously.

You haven't really shown how private property isn't also a positive right either. Its a right established through the force of law. It gives property owners the right to use force against people who don't do comply with their wishes and demands. You can't establish a clear difference between your interest in private property or someone else's interest in Medicare for all so you resort to horseshit as an argument.

 

[dblack]

You haven't really shown how private property isn't also a positive right either. Its a right established through the force of law. It gives property owners the right to use force against people who don't do comply with their wishes and demands. You can't establish a clear difference between your interest in private property or someone else's interest in Medicare for all so you resort to horseshit as an argument.

Mkay

 

[Curried Goats]

Mkay

I know.

 

[g5000]

What we don't have is a conservative party. Maybe we need Willam F. Buckley to rise on halloween.

Well, Trumptards would not be able to understand the first sentence out of Bill's mouth, for one thing. His vocabulary was leagues and leagues over their heads.

Furthermore, Chairman Bill would shred Trump to pieces and that would guarantee he would be instantly relegated to the RINO dustbin even though he is the actual founder of the conservative movement.

People say Jesus would be crucified by his followers were he to appear today. Especially by these MAGA Christians.

Just so with Buckley.