Ron Paul Wins All of Maines delegates to the RNC in Tampa Romney wins ZERO

[JimBowie1958]

No, that is not OK either; why would it be?

I do have a grip; at least I realize that there are people who love me and would be sorely injured if I died before my life's duty was done.

Completely beside the point. The point was that those people do not have the right to take YOUR right to do so away. You might hurt those that are close to you by leaving them but that does not factor into taking your right away to do so.

Lol, Dude, *I* made the counter-point earlier in the thread, so please dont tell me what my point is, OK?

What I am trying to reign in some is this popular (among libertarians anyway) argument that no one else is affected if I destroy myself.

For most people this is simply not true. And yes, I think that the need to avoid this injury justifies people using the law or other means to save their loved ones.

If my child or wife were addicted to some shit, I would rent a cabin out somewhere, read up on the affects of the addiction and withdrawal, and take them, by force if necesary, out to that cabin and hold them there till they were free of the physical addiction. The mental and spiritual part is another thing altogether. Some people just want to die so bad they will choose self-destruction every time. But I would do this for that one chance before they are gone for ever.

If you dont get that then it seems you have never understood what love is.

 

[SniperFire]

It looks like Rabbi went to the Sniperfire school of libertarian philosophy.

A constitution that guarantees the rights of then individual is a protection against totalitarianism.

Yes it is. Another good reason why Libertarianism cannot exist, because you require totalitarian restraint against the people creating 'impure' legislation / amendment.

A government that would allow personal liberty to be subverted to the will of the majority is by definition totalitarian in nature.

WRONG. Said gubmint would be a pure democracy.

When you violate someone else rights you should lose yours.
When you assault someone you are violating their rights and would lose your rights.

What we have today, give or take.

The government should not allow a majority to pass a law that would steal my money and give it to others in the form of welfare

You are a totalitarian.

, any more that it can pass a law that says a religion must provide birth control.

We have specific protections on religious freedoms. Specific protections against taxation for the greater good, no.


They also should not be able to decide what I do with my own body. If I want to die I should be allowed to. If I want to do drugs I should be allowed to. I should also be responsible for the consequences of those actions. If family members are being adversely affected then they can pressure me to stop and encourage me to get help just like now. No one is claiming that making drugs legal will solve all of societies ills.

Driving while intoxicated will still be illegal, selling drugs to kids would be illegal.

You pick and choose which dangerous activities are to be illegal because of the risk it poses to society, just like we do today. More Libertarian theory fail.

The argument that libertarians are against zoning laws is ridiculous as well. I have small kids and I don't want a liquor store or porn store next their school.


You pick and choose which dangerous activities are to be illegal because of the risk it poses to society, just like we do today. More Libertarian theory fail.

Kids should have rights too and they should be protected.

Welcome to the nanny state.

There is a way to compromise and allow certain businesses to have their rights and allow for the protection of children too. One of these ways is zoning laws.

Welcome to the nanny state.

Prostitution is a good example. Making it legal with a permit would allow for some regulation of it to the benefit of all.

And if a local population decided not to provide zoning at all, that would be their choice. Just trying to protect the children as you indicated above, you know!


You could make it illegal in the streets and legal in brothel then have the placement of the brothel subject to approval from a zoning board. I think most libertarians would see this as a good compromise and giant leap in the right direction.

Maybe I am wrong in that but personally I think some regulation is necessary to protect the rights of individuals.

No, you are right. You have just described how we arrived at the nanny state of today. Of course, you have also just proved to all why Libertarian is an exercise in mental mastrubation and cannot work in the real world. Congratulations!

Nobody wants a toxic waste dump next to the cities water supply. We just have to be smart and work together and try to find a way for everyone to win.

There you go with that appeal to group think greater good legislation that shuts down brothels, crack houses, etc!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, that is not OK either; why would it be?

I do have a grip; at least I realize that there are people who love me and would be sorely injured if I died before my life's duty was done.

Completely beside the point. The point was that those people do not have the right to take YOUR right to do so away. You might hurt those that are close to you by leaving them but that does not factor into taking your right away to do so.

Lol, Dude, *I* made the counter-point earlier in the thread, so please dont tell me what my point is, OK?

What I am trying to reign in some is this popular (among libertarians anyway) argument that no one else is affected if I destroy myself.

For most people this is simply not true. And yes, I think that the need to avoid this injury justifies people using the law or other means to save their loved ones.

If my child or wife were addicted to some shit, I would rent a cabin out somewhere, read up on the affects of the addiction and withdrawal, and take them, by force if necesary, out to that cabin and hold them there till they were free of the physical addiction. The mental and spiritual part is another thing altogether. Some people just want to die so bad they will choose self-destruction every time. But I would do this for that one chance before they are gone for ever.

If you dont get that then it seems you have never understood what love is.

No one is arguing whether or not you will affect someone else, like a loved one, from destructive behavior. We are referring to the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Affecting someone can be done without drugs. I could have a bad temper and affect my loved ones by yelling at them when over something that is not their fault.

So I ask again, who gets to decide what "harm" is? If it goes all the way to the LOLberal view, then we should probably set up some check points to test people's patience. We dont want them "harming" someone else after all.

That is the difference here. We are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are not granted the right to be free from all of the obstacles, pitfalls and dangers that liberty presents.

If I break up with my girlfriend, I could cause her emotional harm. Should we get a law in place to make sure I am punished should this occur? There are a lot of ways people's behaviours can affect others. That does not mean that it has infringed on their constitutional rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who is going to stop them if they're committed to doing so?

Hemingway, Jim Morrison, Steve Howe....Nobody could stop them from destroying their lives.

The key word is "committed"

But at least you're admitting that there is collateral damage to society. That's one step.

I'm admitting that "collateral damage to society" is yet another completely nebulous and subjective liberoidal strawman.

Good job...Your application to the DNC is in the mail.

You think there's no damage to anyone else when a guy with a family who's employed decides to go on a cocaine bender? Really?

 

[The Rabbi]

It looks like Rabbi went to the Sniperfire school of libertarian philosophy.

A constitution that guarantees the rights of then individual is a protection against totalitarianism. A government that would allow personal liberty to be subverted to the will of the majority is by definition totalitarian in nature.

When you violate someone else rights you should lose yours.
When you assault someone you are violating their rights and would lose your rights.

The government should not allow a majority to pass a law that would steal my money and give it to others in the form of welfare, any more that it can pass a law that says a religion must provide birth control. They also should not be able to decide what I do with my own body. If I want to die I should be allowed to. If I want to do drugs I should be allowed to. I should also be responsible for the consequences of those actions. If family members are being adversely affected then they can pressure me to stop and encourage me to get help just like now. No one is claiming that making drugs legal will solve all of societies ills. Driving while intoxicated will still be illegal, selling drugs to kids would be illegal.

The argument that libertarians are against zoning laws is ridiculous as well. I have small kids and I don't want a liquor store or porn store next their school. Kids should have rights too and they should be protected. There is a way to compromise and allow certain businesses to have their rights and allow for the protection of children too. One of these ways is zoning laws.

Prostitution is a good example. Making it legal with a permit would allow for some regulation of it to the benefit of all. You could make it illegal in the streets and legal in brothel then have the placement of the brothel subject to approval from a zoning board. I think most libertarians would see this as a good compromise and giant leap in the right direction. Maybe I am wrong in that but personally I think some regulation is necessary to protect the rights of individuals. Nobody wants a toxic waste dump next to the cities water supply. We just have to be smart and work together and try to find a way for everyone to win.

So any move by the majority that restricts the rights of a minority is ipso facto a totalitarian state?
Then congrats, bucko, because you live in a totalitarian state. You even propose more totalitarianism with your absurd prostitution zoning. You are restricting the right of people to traffic in women. You are ipso facto a totalitarian.
This post exposes the gross hypocrisy and muddled thinking of the narcos, who somehow think that all restriuction on freedom is bad until they face some common problem and then propose more restrictions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Completely beside the point. The point was that those people do not have the right to take YOUR right to do so away. You might hurt those that are close to you by leaving them but that does not factor into taking your right away to do so.

Lol, Dude, *I* made the counter-point earlier in the thread, so please dont tell me what my point is, OK?

What I am trying to reign in some is this popular (among libertarians anyway) argument that no one else is affected if I destroy myself.

For most people this is simply not true. And yes, I think that the need to avoid this injury justifies people using the law or other means to save their loved ones.

If my child or wife were addicted to some shit, I would rent a cabin out somewhere, read up on the affects of the addiction and withdrawal, and take them, by force if necesary, out to that cabin and hold them there till they were free of the physical addiction. The mental and spiritual part is another thing altogether. Some people just want to die so bad they will choose self-destruction every time. But I would do this for that one chance before they are gone for ever.

If you dont get that then it seems you have never understood what love is.

No one is arguing whether or not you will affect someone else, like a loved one, from destructive behavior. We are referring to the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Affecting someone can be done without drugs. I could have a bad temper and affect my loved ones by yelling at them when over something that is not their fault.

So I ask again, who gets to decide what "harm" is? If it goes all the way to the LOLberal view, then we should probably set up some check points to test people's patience. We dont want them "harming" someone else after all.

That is the difference here. We are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are not granted the right to be free from all of the obstacles, pitfalls and dangers that liberty presents.

If I break up with my girlfriend, I could cause her emotional harm. Should we get a law in place to make sure I am punished should this occur? There are a lot of ways people's behaviours can affect others. That does not mean that it has infringed on their constitutional rights.

You really think there's no difference between yelling at someone and intentionally absenting himself from work and family life through drug use? Really?

 

[SniperFire]

The key word is "committed"

But at least you're admitting that there is collateral damage to society. That's one step.

I'm admitting that "collateral damage to society" is yet another completely nebulous and subjective liberoidal strawman.

Good job...Your application to the DNC is in the mail.

You think there's no damage to anyone else when a guy with a family who's employed decides to go on a cocaine bender? Really?

There is nothing practical about Libetarianism as a way to run government.

See: Deadwood

But it is a pleasant exercise in mental masturbation for it's idyllically foolish adherents.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm admitting that "collateral damage to society" is yet another completely nebulous and subjective liberoidal strawman.

Good job...Your application to the DNC is in the mail.

You think there's no damage to anyone else when a guy with a family who's employed decides to go on a cocaine bender? Really?

There is nothing practical about Libetarianism as a way to run government.

See: Deadwood

But it is a pleasant exercise in mental masturbation for it's idyllically foolish adherents.

That pretty much sums it up right there. This is why Ron Paul draws most of his support from people with no real world experience. Easy solutions and bumper sticker slogans don't work well in a complex world.

 

[Seawytch]

Ron Paul winning those states just proves that Paul Heads have nothing else to do on their weekends...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Lol, Dude, *I* made the counter-point earlier in the thread, so please dont tell me what my point is, OK?

What I am trying to reign in some is this popular (among libertarians anyway) argument that no one else is affected if I destroy myself.

For most people this is simply not true. And yes, I think that the need to avoid this injury justifies people using the law or other means to save their loved ones.

If my child or wife were addicted to some shit, I would rent a cabin out somewhere, read up on the affects of the addiction and withdrawal, and take them, by force if necesary, out to that cabin and hold them there till they were free of the physical addiction. The mental and spiritual part is another thing altogether. Some people just want to die so bad they will choose self-destruction every time. But I would do this for that one chance before they are gone for ever.

If you dont get that then it seems you have never understood what love is.

No one is arguing whether or not you will affect someone else, like a loved one, from destructive behavior. We are referring to the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Affecting someone can be done without drugs. I could have a bad temper and affect my loved ones by yelling at them when over something that is not their fault.

So I ask again, who gets to decide what "harm" is? If it goes all the way to the LOLberal view, then we should probably set up some check points to test people's patience. We dont want them "harming" someone else after all.

That is the difference here. We are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are not granted the right to be free from all of the obstacles, pitfalls and dangers that liberty presents.

If I break up with my girlfriend, I could cause her emotional harm. Should we get a law in place to make sure I am punished should this occur? There are a lot of ways people's behaviours can affect others. That does not mean that it has infringed on their constitutional rights.

You really think there's no difference between yelling at someone and intentionally absenting himself from work and family life through drug use? Really?

Strawman.

Shocker. The person "absenting hinself from work and family life through drug use" is not infringing on the rights of others. That is, unless gubmint makes the rest of us pay for this persons deliberate absent mindedness. That person is also granted liberty, the same as anyone else. You're trying to argue moral implication as the role of gubmint. Which, of course, makes you nothing shy of a LOLberal with progressive tendencies.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one is arguing whether or not you will affect someone else, like a loved one, from destructive behavior. We are referring to the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Affecting someone can be done without drugs. I could have a bad temper and affect my loved ones by yelling at them when over something that is not their fault.

So I ask again, who gets to decide what "harm" is? If it goes all the way to the LOLberal view, then we should probably set up some check points to test people's patience. We dont want them "harming" someone else after all.

That is the difference here. We are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are not granted the right to be free from all of the obstacles, pitfalls and dangers that liberty presents.

If I break up with my girlfriend, I could cause her emotional harm. Should we get a law in place to make sure I am punished should this occur? There are a lot of ways people's behaviours can affect others. That does not mean that it has infringed on their constitutional rights.

You really think there's no difference between yelling at someone and intentionally absenting himself from work and family life through drug use? Really?

Strawman.

Shocker. The person "absenting hinself from work and family life through drug use" is not infringing on the rights of others. That is, unless gubmint makes the rest of us pay for this persons deliberate absent mindedness. That person is also granted liberty, the same as anyone else. You're trying to argue moral implication as the role of gubmint. Which, of course, makes you nothing shy of a LOLberal with progressive tendencies.

He's not infringing on the rights of his family? He's not infringing on the rights of his employer? Really?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Explain how he is infringing on their rights?

Stop asking bullshit questions and actually do the work. Put down WHY you think this hypothetical man is infringing on their rights.

 

[FA_Q2]

You really think there's no difference between yelling at someone and intentionally absenting himself from work and family life through drug use? Really?

Strawman.

Shocker. The person "absenting hinself from work and family life through drug use" is not infringing on the rights of others. That is, unless gubmint makes the rest of us pay for this persons deliberate absent mindedness. That person is also granted liberty, the same as anyone else. You're trying to argue moral implication as the role of gubmint. Which, of course, makes you nothing shy of a LOLberal with progressive tendencies.

He's not infringing on the rights of his family? He's not infringing on the rights of his employer? Really?

Really. Your family and employer have no 'right' to your presence. I see that you completely fail to understand what a right is. Not surprising as you think it is your right to define what I can do with my own body and where I need to be.

 

[The Rabbi]

Explain how he is infringing on their rights?

Stop asking bullshit questions and actually do the work. Put down WHY you think this hypothetical man is infringing on their rights.

THey don't have the right to his support? The employer doesnt have the right to his services, which he has contracted for?
This isn't going to be easy for you because you've obviously not thought it through very well.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, they do not have the right to his support, comrade. The employer has the right to fire an absent minded employee and cancel the contract. A family has the right to pursue their goals outside of this absent minded soul. They do not have the right to his services. Neither does the employer. Unless you want to begin arguing in favor of slavery. It appears YOU are the one who has not thought this through.

You really are a big gubmint psuedo-conservative neoliberal.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they do not have the right to his support, comrade. The employer has the right to fire an absent minded employee and cancel the contract. A family has the right to pursue their goals outside of this absent minded soul. They do not have the right to his services. Neither does the employer. Unless you want to begin arguing in favor of slavery. It appears YOU are the one who has not thought this through.

You really are a big gubmint psuedo-conservative neoliberal.

Really? No one has a right to expect people to keep their commitments? This is narco-libertarianism in a nutshell--no one owes anyone anything. It is the irresponsibility of the narcos that makes people turn off from them. They talk about personal responsibility but that is merely lip service The truth is they are mere hedonists. And **** that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, really, comrade. You are a big government statist neoliberal that believes that government should exact social obligations onto people. I'll bet the idea of patience check points excites you. That is how LOLberals view things. Safety over liberty.

OK, I'm now done entertaining your neoliberal thought process. Just be sure, you're no conservative. You're a nanny stater. Congrats.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, really, comrade. You are a big government statist neoliberal that believes that government should exact social obligations onto people. I'll bet the idea of patience check points excites you. That is how LOLberals view things. Safety over liberty.

OK, I'm now done entertaining your neoliberal thought process. Just be sure, you're no conservative. You're a nanny stater. Congrats.

blahblah It's all about MMMEEEEE!!!
Hedonist narco libtard. You're hardly a conservative. Actually you aren't at all.

 

[SniperFire]

Yes, really, comrade. You are a big government statist neoliberal that believes that government should exact social obligations onto people. I'll bet the idea of patience check points excites you. That is how LOLberals view things. Safety over liberty.

OK, I'm now done entertaining your neoliberal thought process. Just be sure, you're no conservative. You're a nanny stater. Congrats.

Well, it's not like your way hasn't been tried in the past!

 

[SniperFire]

Yes, really, comrade. You are a big government statist neoliberal that believes that government should exact social obligations onto people. I'll bet the idea of patience check points excites you. That is how LOLberals view things. Safety over liberty.

OK, I'm now done entertaining your neoliberal thought process. Just be sure, you're no conservative. You're a nanny stater. Congrats.

blahblah It's all about MMMEEEEE!!!
Hedonist narco libtard. You're hardly a conservative. Actually you aren't at all.

These freaks are hardcore Liberals.

I don't get why they don't do their leg-humping on the Democrats where they belong.