View Full Version : 5 Basic Questions For The Libertarians Among Us Who Didn't Vote Republican
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever?
2. Do you want to do completely do away with property taxes?
3. Do you believe that as long as an individual is not incarcerated he or she should be able to own a firearm, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
4. Should there be no driving laws of any kind?
5. Should we make it policy not to defend allies both continental and also those overseas?
Thank-you to any, yes even you J-Dub, who participate in this hopefully positive and educational dialog. No fighting please.
justin_247
11-11-12, 13:48
I voted for Romney, but I have to say that these are silly questions for a "conservative" to ask.
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever?
Some are necessary, but most are not. Firms will adopt best practices based upon whether they are successful or unsuccessful. They don't need the government to tell them which to follow.
2. Do you want to do completely do away with property taxes?
Yes, property taxes are a violation of private property rights. You are essentially renting land from the government, instead of actually owning it. You don't pay your taxes, they can come in and take "your" land.
3. Do you believe that as long as an individual is not incarcerated he or she should be able to own a firearm, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
There needs to be some limits, but once a person has served out their sentence, why are they still being punished? Do you think a person who had a DUI when they were 18 should never be able to own a firearm again? If not, then you need to re-examine your premises. Many laws are based simply upon what moral standards and issues are in vogue at any one time, and therefore should not be seen as objective.
4. Should there be no driving laws of any kind?
Most driving laws are not enforced. So why have them?
5. Should we make it policy not to defend allies both continental and also those overseas?
No, I disagree with libertarians on this issue.
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever?
No.
2. Do you want to do completely do away with property taxes?
No.
3. Do you believe that as long as an individual is not incarcerated he or she should be able to own a firearm, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
Unfortunately, no. (The system will always allow violent predators out, but I'd like to see non-violent felons have most of their rights returned.)
4. Should there be no driving laws of any kind?
No.
5. Should we make it policy not to defend allies both continental and also those overseas?
No.
Thank-you to any, yes even you J-Dub, who participate in this hopefully positive and educational dialog. No fighting please.
Any other questions? :)
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever?
Such as?
2. Do you want to do completely do away with property taxes?
Yes.
3. Do you believe that as long as an individual is not incarcerated he or she should be able to own a firearm, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
Non-violent - yes
aggravated/violent - no
4. Should there be no driving laws of any kind?
Of course there should be driving laws. Im not an anarchist. I believe in the rule of law....I even enforce it.....go figure.
5. Should we make it policy not to defend allies both continental and also those overseas?
YES, and furthermore we should END all foreign aid. Every penny to every country immediately. (Yes even the beloved israel).
We need to be worried about US.
FYI Im not a libertarian. Im a conservative that doesnt have a party affiliation. Conservative foreign policy, spending, government intrusion in one's life. No, I do not believe in being the world's police force, or telling people what they can or cant do in their home. I also dont believe in the welfare/nanny state we've become.
Which is why I dont identify with either the dems or reps.
Belmont31R
11-11-12, 15:24
1. The role government should have in a free market economy is to enforce contract law...it should not be there to punish or bail out certain segments of the private sector AKA picking winners and losers. Government should not be subsidizing certain segments of the population as in corn (ethanol and forcing it into our cars) or solar panels.
Though it does say in the Constitution the government can promote the sciences, arts, and trade. I think things like DARPA and NASA do more good than the harm spending money on them results in as do our interstate roads.
2. Yes. There is no such thing as owning property if not paying the government a black mail payment every year results in your property being confiscated.
3. Yes. If people are released from prison then to me the government is saying they are fit to be in society again, and since I also do not believe in background checks then you also have to support released felons owning firearms. Theres nothing, now, keeping a released felon from buying a gun through a private party sale. To me it's the same thing with pedophiles. By having the sex offender database, and every mom checking some website to see if a pedophile moved in next door, we're saying they are unfit to be in society. They should be locked up to where they either no longer a threat to society. This kinda 2nd class citizen thing is a sham.
4. I think freedom of movement is a right but as new methods of travel have been developed our glorious government has decided they are all privileges. We already have a method in the Constitution to revoke people's rights, and it's called due process. The government is using calling things, like driving & flying, privileges so they don't have to meet the due process criteria in revoking people's ability to do things like drive or fly on an airplane. When the government can do anything they want, because they don't have to abide by due process, we get things like the no fly list (which Holder wants to apply to the NICS check) or people getting their licences to drive revoked because they wouldn't get their blood drawn on the side of the road. They can set conditions and make you give up rights to do what the vast majority of people have to do everyday to get by and live their life. So unless you want to walk everywhere the rest of your life then you are forced to give up basic protections and rights. Even then walking is getting eroded with things like stop and frisk in NYC, for example.
Another example is having to get a permit (permission) for a protest to be lawful. In a lot of places, unless you secure a permit first (which you have to pay for and agree to their requirements) then the protest is deemed unlawful and police can use force against you to end the protest.
I don't like the government setting conditions, and requiring people to give up their rights to do basic things like travel or gather in a group.
5. Self defense of a nation is one thing...but intervention when our national security is not at risk isn't something I support. The only condition I'd agree to outside of national defense is to stop genocide.
National security would be where theres a clear threat to our nation or trade with other countries. So while not a domestic threat directly, something like blocking sea lanes in international waters or imprisoning American crew members would be grounds for action since it impedes our economic freedom. What a nation does within its own borders shouldn't be any of our concern as long as they stay within their borders (genocide aside).
I don't agree to things like Libya or Syria which don't impose a threat to our national security. After 9/11 Quadafi gave up his WMD program and there was no reason for our intervention. But another nation simply having WMD's isn't enough, IMO. Before we act there should be a clear intent to use them (not just some talking head making empty threats). I don't think we have the right, as a nation, to dictate to other countries what they can and can't have.
As far as protecting our allies it should only be done under "strict scrutiny" type of guidelines. WW2 would be an obvious example where our actions were justified. Playing nation building and picking winners and losers in internal conflicts is not something we should be doing. I'm sure if things got violent here people on the right wouldn't be too happy about China coming over to help the liberals/commies. The same works in reverse.
If you want something specific, like Iran, it's none of our business what weapons they build until they actual show intent to use them (and as I said some talking head/saber rattling doesn't qualify).
Libertarians don't believe in sitting with our thumb up our ass as nukes start flying somewhere else, or turning a blind eye to the world in general. Just that our foreign policy of picking winners and losers, and supporting dictators when it suits us at the time but comes back to bite us in the ass (Saddam) doesn't benefit us long term. An argument can be made for the Shah of Iran leading to the current Iranian government. If you don't believe the government knows best for us here at home how can they know whats best for foreign countries?
You didn't ask but I'll give a summation on social issues. I think the WOD is a failure, and the government uses various War on _______ to erode our rights here at home. The WOT led us the Patriot Act, TSA, DHS, and an overall massive increase in domestic spying on American citizens. The NSA is sifting through people's emails, texts, and phone calls all without a warrant. The War on Drugs has led to things like asset forfeiture which is done without a warrant, and it's on the person who had their stuff legally stolen to prove they aren't a criminal. The War on Poverty has led to trillions of dollars being legally stolen via taxes in forced wealth redistribution.
The only taxes I support are 'use' taxes. Obviously the gov has to pay for roads, so taxing gas which is used on the roads to pay for it is ok. Same thing with national parks (which is a fee) but if you want to use the facilities then you ought to pay for them. Same thing with schools. If you send your kids to a government funded school, then pay for it. Simply owning something is not grounds for taxation. I'm kinda iffy on sales tax. If the government didn't spend so much money on social spending, and education was paid for by those who use it...then we wouldn't need a sales tax...or at least a very small one to pay for things like LEO/FF. You can pay for things like 911 like they do now, with taxes on telecom services. If you don't have a phone, and can't call 911, then you aren't paying the 911 tax because you don't have a phone bill.
With use taxes people are a lot more concerned about how the money is spent. Here, we pay for schools with various taxes, a lot of which are property taxes so everyone with property (and indirectly those who rent) pays for the schools if they have kids that go there or not...the cost of public schools is so spread out things like building multiple stupid ass $25 million dollar HS football stadiums becomes a lot less important to each individual tax payer. If people had to pay the actual cost of sending their kids to school they wouldn't be so eager to build stadiums like we have. I don't know what the ratio is, but say its 1 in 3 property tax payers actually have kids in school, the cost is split 3 ways, which means the people who support idiotic stadiums for their little star football player only pay 1/3rd of the true cost. If the school district segment on their property tax bill is now 2k, and instead they had to cut a check every year for 6k (while ending the property tax the school district levies) they would probably be a lot more aware of what the district is spending money on. That means no mega stadiums that only a small percentage of the students actually use. Our current tax structure allows for glutinous public spending because the cost is spread out, and there's always that rich guy who can afford a little more. No one actually wants to pay for the services they get, and instead look to other people to pay for it.
Use taxes, in a broader sense, mean that no matter how much the government spends it doesn't effect people directly unless they want to partake in what the spending bought. So if you don't want to pay for roads...don't buy taxed gasoline or drive on gov funded roads..but I don't think people would support that because most people want more out than they put in, and that leads to things like class warfare and division. In Europe, say Germany, while it's not exactly a use tax system they actually pay for their systems. With a population of 80 million plus, they have a Federal deficit of 35 billion this year. With say, 320 million Americans, that would be an equivalent of our Federal government having a deficit of around 130 billion just doing mental math. So obviously our tax structure has resulted in what I described where everyone wants more than they put in, and it's always the other guy who has to get the tax increase. Thats why there's not much support for a flat tax because it would widen the tax man's net. With a flat tax, if the government needs more money, then everyone's taxes go up. The progressive tax system fosters and encourages class warfare. Just look at the current focus on "rich people paying their fair share".
So if you look at what Romney wanted to do, and what I support there's not much in common, and if you look at the actual numbers he put out was barely better than Obama on things like spending, he supports the progressive income tax, Federal funded public education, the various War on _______ liberty eroding policies, intervention oriented foreign policy, and a host of other things. If people want to lament on why a libertarian wouldn't vote for Romney just far much of a difference do you think someone should have with a candidate before they can be 'justified' in not supporting them? I really can't think of anything that Romney supported which I agree with or that would sway me from voting 3rd party from a candidate who I agree with on 90% of the issues. If I ignored the candidates who best represent me, and was 'guilted' into voting for some other guy who I agree with on 10% of the issues, my views will never be represented in government or the polls.
_edited for clarity.
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever?
Regulations, a fiat currency, and a privately owned central bank are the root causes of the problems. Do away with regulations and force people/companies to suffer the consequences of their decisions and the market will solve the problems.
2. Do you want to do completely do away with property taxes?
Of course! Do you prefer the fuedal system we have now, where even if your property is paid for, you must pay rent to the "king"?
3. Do you believe that as long as an individual is not incarcerated he or she should be able to own a firearm, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
Yep. If they are still a danger to society, they should still be in prison. If they have "paid their dues", they should be free again.
4. Should there be no driving laws of any kind?
None. However, "assault" is a crime against a person. If I get mad and point a pistol at you, I have committed assault. If I drive like a dumb-ass and threaten you with my actions, I have committed assault. In either case, I should be thrown in prison.
If I pull my pistol when nobody is around, I have not threatened anybody. If I drive like a dumbass and nobody's around, I have not threatened anybody.
5. Should we make it policy not to defend allies both continental and also those overseas?
The ONLY use of force that is justfied is defensive.
If I preemptively kick in the door to some guy's house down the street and shoot him, because I think he "might be dangerous", am I in the right? Same could be said about something like the Iraq invasion. The Gulf War, where we defended Kuwait, or the post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan both leave a little more room for legitimate debate. Whether or not "entangling alliances" are a good idea is an issue that (in my mind) is debatable within the confines of the Constitution. Preemptively invading another country that has not done anything to you is just flat wrong in my opinion.
GTG, sounds like you and I want the same things but also understand sensible limitations and societal measures. Belmont, Justin and J-Dub believe we should do away with property taxes, so we'll start there. Though I somewhat disagree, great explanations by the way Belmont.
Regarding the property taxes, they are understandably disliked because one can lose their property of they aren't paid. I don't like that either, but what, if any, substitutive policy or law would you implement in their place in order to keep the basic needs of a modern city or town maintained?
For instance, how are schools and roadways maintained?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Safetyhit View Post
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever?
Some are necessary, but most are not. Firms will adopt best practices based upon whether they are successful or unsuccessful. They don't need the government to tell them which to follow.
The thing that's typically forgotten in these kinds of discussions is that it's truly just as pie-in-the-sky as any liberal socialist utopia. Why? Because a majority of people today are lethargic and apathetic and will gladly eat a poop sandwich handed to them by the government than take the time to make their own PB&J even if you put the tools right in front of them to do it.
The biggest problem with libertarianism is the average citizen. Businesses will have no incentive to do the right thing because they will quickly find what they already know to be true but are restricted by regulation from testing fully - that they can abuse the heck out of the consumer and still get business because enough consumers are too lazy to be "inconvenienced" to switch brands or providers, so there will always be a market for crappy service and poor products. If the government doesn't regulate it, that's what will happen, guaranteed.
The only place that wouldn't happen is in the libertarian idealistic state that doesn't exist, where everyone understands free market economics and has the energy, fortitude, and most of all the self discipline to be an educated consumer and act like it.
Unless and until the country is split down societal lines and we were freed of all the socialists and liberals, any attempt at libertarian or free-market economics will not work. The irony will be when the failure of it (were it attempted) is used to support the claim that the entire ideology is faulty, when it fact the failure would be due to the mindset and actions of the citizens who were raised to rely on government.
I have to admit this no driving laws is new to me. How can you have no driving laws? Does that mean stop lights? Speeding through school zones in the morning? Ride a motorcycle up the wrong direction on the Interstate? Park the 'ol Winnebago in the passing lane and have lunch?
I have to admit this no driving laws is new to me. How can you have no driving laws? Does that mean stop lights? Speeding through school zones in the morning? Ride a motorcycle up the wrong direction on the Interstate? Park the 'ol Winnebago in the passing lane and have lunch?
All of the above = "assault" or "reckless endangerment" or something akin to pointing a gun at somebody, or closing your eyes and shooting blindly in the middle of a city.
Have you ever sat through a red light at 4 a.m. when there were NO other cars on the street? How frickin stupid did that make you feel? At the same time, wanna bet whether or not a cop would write you a ticket if you stopped at the red light, looked both ways, and then drove through it? Besides, statistically, there are a lot more collisions at red lights than at stop signs (where people are expected to use their brains). Stop signs = Freedom while red lights = unthinking obedience to the state.
Stop signs = Freedom while red lights = unthinking obedience to the state.
I missed your initial post so sorry for not addressing you with the others, was typing at the time. You are also certainly welcome to address the no property tax question I proposed regarding schools and roads.
As far as the red light issue, are you stating that all roadways, including congested major intersections, should be regulated by stop signs only?
I see, I just can't imagine no stop lights though. Just the PITA of having to stop at every intersection.
I live near a private school and it has been expanding quite a bit over the past several years. Located at an intersection. Only two was in and out of my subdivision by car. That intersection was really getting bad. traffic was backed up into the subdivision street and in both directions on the main road. They put a light in and now there is practically no waiting or backup in any direction.
Relaxed laws for special situations I can see, but no driving laws... that's impossible.
The thing that's typically forgotten in these kinds of discussions is that it's truly just as pie-in-the-sky as any liberal socialist utopia. Why? Because a majority of people today are (dumb-asses)...
"Utopia" would not be libertarianism, it would be anarcho-capitalism. However, since it is human nature for most people to defer to some degree of authority outside of themselves in virtually all circumstances, anarcho-capitalism is an unreachable goal. A libertarian society is the compromise we strive for as the least possible evil. Rather than a complete lack of coercion, it would be a world with very limited coercion.
People are dumb-ass wards of the state today because the coercive "rob from you and give to him" state has created a class of people who are dependent on this coercive system, and therefore do not have to take responsibility for their actions, or lack thereof. This is true from the banksters who get "bailouts", government employees, unions workers, all the way down to the infamous "Obamaphone" dirtbags. ALL are parasites, and the state helps them to feed off the hosts (honest, productive citizens) in order to maintain its control over the whole system.
Example: The welfare state has enabled the drug problem. If people had to take responsibility for their actions, they would either stay sober and productive, or they would starve. Why do you think there's virtually no drug-use problem in places like Mexico? Because on an individual level, you produce or you starve. The drug-use problem is a problem of demand, not of supply.
If it's one thing that libertarians are known for, it is making logical arguments in favor of liberty... the point that the Libertarian Party is often called a "debate society" rather than a real party that is trying to put people in office. We could go on and on and on forever on each individual issue, but every libertarian argument (to me) is based on this: If it is wrong for one individual to do it to another individual, then it is equally wrong for the govt to do it. That is the litmus test that everything should pass. The "how" to accomplish any desired goal should always be considered in reference to that litmus test, which is what the Bill of Rights was supposed to compel government to do.
Safetyhit and tb-av,
See my "litmus test" referenced in my last post. I can't claim to have all the answers, simply because I don't sit around all day puzzling out each question. I have faith that it could be done, though.
Schools? In my opinion public schools are one of the worst threats to individual liberty that exists, because they amount to "indoctrination centers" more than knowledge factories. They are the creators of unthinking supporters of an all-powerful state. See "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Education"
http://iwcenglish1.typepad.com/Documents/Gatto_Dumbing_Us_Down.pdf
Roads? Of course we all benefit from good roads. How much do roads cost? How does that compare to the overall amount of money the government spends? If you cut out all the horse-hockey that the government throws money at, you could use corporate taxes (fee for a special legal status that owners of the corp choose to participate in) to pay for these kinds of "essential" services.
Again, anarcho-capitalism is a lack of government, while libertarianism is merely a very limited amount of government which is ever striving to avoid coercion of the individual.
Edited to add: Stop lights vs signs - stop lights might be a good idea, but individual judgement and responsibility should go along with it. If I "run" a stoplight when there's zero traffic and I endanger nobody, I should not be punished. If I run a stoplight when it DOES endanger somebody, I should be thrown in jail for "assault" rather than simply getting a ticket. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand - you take away Rights and by doing it you take away responsibility.
Schools? In my opinion public schools are one of the worst threats to individual liberty that exists, because they amount to "indoctrination centers" more than knowledge factories.
This.
Private schools are the answer, not property tax funded Gov't schools.
Safetyhit and tb-av,
See my "litmus test" referenced in my last post. I can't claim to have all the answers, simply because I don't sit around all day puzzling out each question. I have faith that it could be done, though.
I actually agree with a lot of your thoughts... I've just never heard of the no driving laws concept before. I do believe the government is too deep in driving laws but "none" is just out there. All things considered I think the driving laws might be one of the few things the government does right. They are constantly trying to change speed limits to suit everyone. Traffic light calibration for traffic flow, right turn on red, left turn on red on one way street. In fact the only time I hear someone upset with driving laws it usually involves being at a red light in the middle of the night. When you have a system that actually works 95% of the time it seems counter productive to me to reduce it to zero just for the sake of saying ok the government is no longer involved. Some governmental overseeing is actually good, it actually does work, like say forum moderation.
Property taxes.... got four envelopes on my desk right now ... big black stamp on the front TAX BILLING .... I actually do consider a good portion of that to be HIGHWAY ROBBERY...
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever?
2. Do you want to do completely do away with property taxes?
3. Do you believe that as long as an individual is not incarcerated he or she should be able to own a firearm, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
4. Should there be no driving laws of any kind?
5. Should we make it policy not to defend allies both continental and also those overseas?
1). Few. Limited
2) Yes
3). Case-by-case basis reviewed and decided by a Judge
4). Traffic control devices are fine. I don't like drivers' licenses.
5) Unless they agree to pay us back for expenses incurred due to aiding them, then yes.
Sent from my phone while I was on the toilet pooping
GTG, sounds like you and I want the same things but also understand sensible limitations and societal measures. Belmont, Justin and J-Dub believe we should do away with property taxes, so we'll start there. Though I somewhat disagree, great explanations by the way Belmont.
Regarding the property taxes, they are understandably disliked because one can lose their property of they aren't paid. I don't like that either, but what, if any, substitutive policy or law would you implement in their place in order to keep the basic needs of a modern city or town maintained?
For instance, how are schools and roadways maintained?
Don't get me wrong, I think the structuring of property taxes, as well as most other taxes is poorly managed. I simply concede that when properly managed, taxes are a convenient way to manage large pools of money that are necessary for the good of the community. I'd do away completely with any federal control of education. It's stupid to think some nitwit in DC can possibly know what's good for communities in rural Nebraska or urban areas in the West, much less that they're the same thing. Any schooling beyond basic reading, writing and arithmetic should be set by state and district standards.
As for traffic laws, I'd love to be left to decide what's safe and what's not. But all you have to do is drive anywhere for 5 minutes to see complete idiots on the public roadways. Those laws aren't for smart drivers. They're there to insulate smart drivers from really stupid ones.
I'm the same way on the other issues, a pragmatist. I may chafe at certain restrictions that shouldn't apply to me, but they're small potatoes when compared to the inconveniences of anarchy. :)
GeorgiaBoy
11-12-12, 11:53
Edited to add: Stop lights vs signs - stop lights might be a good idea, but individual judgement and responsibility should go along with it. If I "run" a stoplight when there's zero traffic and I endanger nobody, I should not be punished. If I run a stoplight when it DOES endanger somebody, I should be thrown in jail for "assault" rather than simply getting a ticket. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand - you take away Rights and by doing it you take away responsibility.
That adds a WHOLE lot of complication to something that isn't that complicated. Right now it is pretty simple: run a red light, get a ticket. Speed through a school zone, get a ticket.
Now you are saying that as long as you aren't "endangering" anyone, you shouldn't get a ticket. So are you saying as long as you avoid the cars in the intersection, you are GTG? If the school zone is in effect but you don't hit any children speeding through it, you are GTG?
Or does it depend on how far the kids are away from the roadway that determines whether you are endangering anyone? If the cars are 200 yards away from the intersection vs. 100 dictates if it is "safe" to run the red light?
IMHO you would just be making a pretty simple system so much more complicated. It would be up to YOUR discretion on what "endangering" is, then up to the courts if you dispute it. Too much wasted time and resources.
That adds a WHOLE lot of complication to something that isn't that complicated...
It's not complicated at all, it is merely exercising a little common sense. Things are not usually black or white.
Courts speak of a "reasonable and prudent individual" - a theoretical person who acts reasonably and prudently in a given situation. This "test" is applied all the time. Example: you shoot somebody in self defense, and in order to decide if you were justified, the court asks if a reasonable and prudent individual in the same situation, knowing what you knew at the time, would have chosen to shoot.
I'm not saying that you should not get a ticket as long as you don't hit anybody while running the red light. I am saying that if a reasonable and prudent individual would think it was okay to run the red light (4 a.m. and no other cars nearby) then you should not be punished. However, the flip side of that is that if you zoom through a red light in a way that IS dangerous (5 p.m. and cars all over the place), then you should get arrested for assault or maybe assault with a deadly weapon, since those actions DID in fact threaten the lives of other people.
Does it make sense that somebody slowing down to 2-3 mph, looking both ways, and then carefully rolling through a red light at 4 a.m. should be punished the same way as a person who aggressively drives through a red light at 5 p.m. in heavy traffic? If you answer "yes", then an extension of that same logic would favor banning all firearms from private possession: If some people use firearms to harm other people, then all people should be punished for owning firearms.
One size does NOT fit all, and I submit that attempts to remove this kind of common sense from the "law" is the root of most of what we call despotism or tyranny. Once you start down that slippery slope where rights and their concurrent responsibilities are taken away, in favor of an iron-clad mindless enforcement of "law" for its own sake, the only possible end result is absolute government control of all human behavior. You can't be "only a little bit totalitarian" any more than you can be "only a little bit pregnant".
That adds a WHOLE lot of complication to something that isn't that complicated. Right now it is pretty simple: run a red light, get a ticket. Speed through a school zone, get a ticket.
Now you are saying that as long as you aren't "endangering" anyone, you shouldn't get a ticket. So are you saying as long as you avoid the cars in the intersection, you are GTG? If the school zone is in effect but you don't hit any children speeding through it, you are GTG?
Or does it depend on how far the kids are away from the roadway that determines whether you are endangering anyone? If the cars are 200 yards away from the intersection vs. 100 dictates if it is "safe" to run the red light?
IMHO you would just be making a pretty simple system so much more complicated. It would be up to YOUR discretion on what "endangering" is, then up to the courts if you dispute it. Too much wasted time and resources.
The good news is though, they will be able to cut down on school crossing guards and there won't be any place for pan handlers at intersections. The lawyers will all be camped out there signing up clients for disputes.
They're there to insulate smart drivers from really stupid ones.
Which brings you back to your point on education. I agree we need more quality private education across all facets of life.
Does it make sense that somebody slowing down to 2-3 mph, looking both ways, and then carefully rolling through a red light at 4 a.m. should be punished the same way as a person who aggressively drives through a red light at 5 p.m. in heavy traffic? If you answer "yes", then an extension of that same logic would favor banning all firearms from private possession: If some people use firearms to harm other people, then all people should be punished for owning firearms.
What? That is completely out in left field.
This.
Private schools are the answer, not property tax funded Gov't schools.
You do realize that if we did away with public schools and therefore the requirement to attend them, there would be a very substantial portion of the population that would go either uneducated or very poorly educated, do you not? This in the now technologically advanced 21st century?
What impact do you suppose it would have on this nation if 40% to 50% of it's population was illiterate and also ignorant? How do you believe we would overcome this in a generation or two?
It's not complicated at all, it is merely exercising a little common sense...I'm not saying that you should not get a ticket as long as you don't hit anybody while running the red light. I am saying that if a reasonable and prudent individual would think it was okay to run the red light...
So who is to say what is "reasonable and prudent" discretion while driving if not designated by law? The local town's folk? You? And are you willing to trust the lives of yourself and your family on the road hoping everyone and anyone will excersise perfect or even good judgement?
Does it make sense that somebody slowing down to 2-3 mph, looking both ways, and then carefully rolling through a red light at 4 a.m. should be punished the same way as a person who aggressively drives through a red light at 5 p.m. in heavy traffic?
Of course it doesn't make sense. That's why you would either almost certainly either get a warning or have the charge downgraded in court. Common sense can work both ways and in such a case almost certainly would do just that if you don't mouth off to the officer.
Which brings you back to your point on education. I agree we need more quality private education across all facets of life.
Unfortunately, you can't educate the stupid out of a lot of people. It's ingrained in their DNA. :(
GeorgiaBoy
11-12-12, 14:33
Does it make sense that somebody slowing down to 2-3 mph, looking both ways, and then carefully rolling through a red light at 4 a.m. should be punished the same way as a person who aggressively drives through a red light at 5 p.m. in heavy traffic?
No, but the law is the law. But as long as you actually abide by the law and not run the red light, neither the person at 4 a.m. or the person at 5 p.m. will be getting a ticket or endangering anyone.
If you answer "yes", then an extension of that same logic would favor banning all firearms from private possession: If some people use firearms to harm other people, then all people should be punished for owning firearms.
Horrible, horrible analogy.
Regarding the property taxes, they are understandably disliked because one can lose their property of they aren't paid. I don't like that either, but what, if any, substitutive policy or law would you implement in their place in order to keep the basic needs of a modern city or town maintained?
For instance, how are schools and roadways maintained?
Schools should be paid for by those who enroll in them. If you have 10 kids you pay your fair share, if you have no kids - you pay nothing.
Roads should be paid by those who have drivers licenses.
It would be incredibly simple to charge people accordingly, same as with water and electricity use, based upon who uses what and how much.
There is NO NEED for property taxes as it eliminates true private property.
As for police, fire and emergency medical, everyone potentially uses all of them so everyone should simply get a county bill for the same amount.
What impact do you suppose it would have on this nation if 40% to 50% of it's population was illiterate and also ignorant?
I'd say that at least 50% of the population is already ignorant and functionally illiterate (thanks to public schools). Some evidence of this is the fact that Obama was reelected. It shows that these voters have virtually no concept of economics or history or morality.
Schools serve the purpose to "educate" toward a specific goal, that goal being to create compliant, productive, collectivist-minded workers. Actual thinking is frowned upon. Again, I refer you to this as a place to start -
http://iwcenglish1.typepad.com/Documents/Gatto_Dumbing_Us_Down.pdf
So who is to say what is "reasonable and prudent" discretion while driving if not designated by law? The local town's folk? You? And are you willing to trust the lives of yourself and your family on the road hoping everyone and anyone will excersise perfect or even good judgement?
Do I not already have to trust the lives of my family and myself to the judgement of other drivers? I would feel more comfortable if I knew those people all had to actually take responsibility for their actions - as in, go to jail for assault if they drive like assholes.
How is "reasonable and prudent" determined in any other court case? To some extent, it is left up to the officer at the scene. Beyond that, it is left to the court, or to the jury, depending on the severity of the act in question.
Again, what ALL of this boils down to is coercion (threat of force), or actual use of force. The goal of libertarianism is to prohibit as much coercion and use of force as possible, both between individuals and between the govt and citizens. Getting stuck on the minutiae of traffic law is silly. Taxes, gun laws, drug war... now there are things worthy of dwelling on.
No, but the law is the law...
You're a cop, aren't you. :D
Horrible, horrible analogy.
Not "horrible". A bit extreme I admit, but it IS an extension of the same logic. CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL... THE LAW IS THE LAW... etc.
Schools should be paid for by those who enroll in them. If you have 10 kids you pay your fair share.
What if you have 10 kids and can't pay your fair share? What if you have just one and can't? That kid ****ed for life by default due to their parent's financial shortcoming? Or what if dad loses his job halfway through the school year?
Roads should be paid by those who have drivers licenses.
Ok, so how much over and above the cost of license, registration and insurance should we pay to drive? Or maybe we do away with them also?
Should a person living in the suburbs help pay to upgrade city roads if they share a county? Or a state? Live with 5 miles maybe? Or should we pay per mile driven?
How would anyone anywhere possibly determine who should pay what? And please refrain from easily calculated utility payments where specific service is dispensed and regulated from a single source as they aren't relevant.
I'd say that at least 50% of the population is already ignorant and functionally illiterate (thanks to public schools).
If you honestly believe that there would be no difference, let alone a massive and possibly incalculable difference from what we have today then it will be difficult to take you seriously from this point forward.
Do I not already have to trust the lives of my family and myself to the judgement of other drivers?
Sorry bit this is one dimensional. You base the assessment on current driving laws and circumstances, not your theoretical ones.
What if you have 10 kids and can't pay your fair share? What if you have just one and can't? That kid ****ed for life by default due to their parent's financial shortcoming? Or what if dad loses his job halfway through the school year?
So other people have to put financial hardships on THEIR families and their kids do without to pay the way of those who had kids when they can't afford them? Basic welfare mentality.
Shitty solution but I guess county homes for those who have kids they can't provide for. But certainly don't reward them for having kids they can't provide for by giving them free shit.
Ok, so how much over and above the cost of license, registration and insurance should we pay to drive? Or maybe we do away with them also?
Whatever their share is. You pay for it either way, all I'm doing is specifically itemizing the payments and not involving the private property issue.
Should a person living in the suburbs help pay to upgrade city roads if they share a county? Or a state? Live with 5 miles maybe? Or should we pay per mile driven?
By state. Some states will be cheaper, some more expensive.
How would anyone anywhere possibly determine who should pay what? And please refrain from easily calculated utility payments where specific service is dispensed and regulated from a single source as they aren't relevant.
OMG you're right, it's impossible. Or we could just have everyone pay "cost of a kid" per kid when you enroll children in school and everyone who is licensed to drive pays to drive in their state. We already charge everyone, we are just divorcing these costs from private property and relating them directly to "kids in school" and "drivers on the road."
No need to make a simple thing complicated. If the .gov can figure what everyone owes in income tax individually based upon how much a household earns it should be childs play to divide up costs of building and maintaining roads among licensed drivers.
Safetyhit, and others...
If you favor collectivist coercion rather than individual liberty, and will spend all your energy here making excuses for it, I can't change your mind. It's obvious I'm wasting both of our time.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how people can supposedly revere the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence and then justify to themselves all kinds of things that piss on the spirit of those things simply as a matter of convenience. It is simply more convenient for most people to willingly give away personal liberty, in the name of "safety" and "order", than it would be to puzzle out ways to get by in the modern world while maintaining personal freedom.
That is truly sad because it is a symptom of a dead American Dream.
...
I give up. Adios.
OMG you're right, it's impossible. Or we could just have everyone pay "cost of a kid" per kid when you enroll children in school and everyone who is licensed to drive pays to drive in their state. We already charge everyone, we are just divorcing these costs from private property and relating them directly to "kids in school" and "drivers on the road."
Spare me the childish "OMG". I didn't post this thread to dictate, I posted it to discuss and also learn. Regarding property taxes, or lack thereof, are children the only criteria to how much a percentage one pays within their state, even if they live far outside a city?
If we include income, why would that be?
No need to make a simple thing complicated.
Such a comment indicates that you truly believe eliminating property taxes would be simple and practical for all. Since no proof exists of this concept anywhere that I know of, you seem to be trying to baselessly make something complicated seem simple.
That is truly sad because it is a symptom of a dead American Dream.
I give up. Adios.
Take your leave then because this is exactly what the thread doesn't need. Labeling myself and anyone else who disagrees with pure idealology as failed Americans will drive things south quickly.
PrivateCitizen
11-12-12, 17:09
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever?
No. There needs to be some regulations.
2. Do you want to do completely do away with property taxes?
Yes. If you must pay property taxes you can never be truly free and clear on land ownership.
3. Do you believe that as long as an individual is not incarcerated he or she should be able to own a firearm, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
No. Conviction in the public forum carries consequences. Felony convictions is probably the best place currently to draw a line. There is also a reasonable point at which one is 'mentally unstable' and it becomes a factor.
4. Should there be no driving laws of any kind?
Laws or moving violations? Seatbelt/Helmet laws? No. Speed limits? Locally determined (State, county, etc).
5. Should we make it policy not to defend allies both continental and also those overseas?
I reject this modern tie-in to Libertarianism. If you nationally sign a defense agreement, it should be honored. The notion that just because you may be a nation of 'Libertarians' does not preclude you from having allies.
Thank-you to any, yes even you J-Dub, who participate in this hopefully positive and educational dialog. No fighting please.
Anarcho-Capitalist personally, painfully aware I DO NOT trust others at the same level and thus a society like that is immensely impractical. Libertarian 2.0, I guess.
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever?
I want very few regulations on Wall Street. Not none at all, just very few.
2. Do you want to do completely do away with property taxes?
Yes. Violation of my right to own $h!7 I have paid for. I shouldn't have to pay rent to the federal government.
3. Do you believe that as long as an individual is not incarcerated he or she should be able to own a firearm, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?
Violent criminals committing violent crimes shouldn't own weapons. But if you had a DUI, why the problem?
4. Should there be no driving laws of any kind?
Is this something really advocated by a lot of libertarians? Because I believe in the rules of the road.
5. Should we make it policy not to defend allies both continental and also those overseas?
Who are these allies you speak of? I don't want to fund, defend, subsidize, or kneel to any other nation. I'll allow Israel an exception, on the grounds they'll actually back us up. Not that we should have our fingers in the middle-eastern pie until they threaten or attack us. At which point we should dedicate no more than a few weeks or perhaps two months utterly decimating their military and governmental capabilities, then leave without any apology.
Thank-you to any, yes even you J-Dub, who participate in this hopefully positive and educational dialog. No fighting please.
Just my stand.
Spare me the childish "OMG". I didn't post this thread to dictate, I posted it to discuss and also learn. Regarding property taxes, or lack thereof, are children the only criteria to how much a percentage one pays within their state, even if they live far outside a city?
If we include income, why would that be?
It seemed appropriate when you do things like suggest very simple things are far too complex to be implemented.
As for inside vs. outside the city, that really doesn't matter. If you go to School A you pay what it costs to go to School A, if you go to School B, you pay what it costs to go to School B. This would also let you pay for the school you prefer, according to your income. Schools would also be forced to operate more like a business and less like a government waste disposal unit for currency.
It would be a lot like joining the local gym, they decide what they need to operate and charge those who attend accordingly. If you have 10 family members who go to the gym, you pay for 10 memberships. If you have no family members who go to the gym, you pay nothing.
Such a comment indicates that you truly believe eliminating property taxes would be simple and practical for all. Since no proof exists of this concept anywhere that I know of, you seem to be trying to baselessly make something complicated seem simple.
And why wouldn't it be simple? Let's keep in mind your argument works both ways, since no proof exists there is no reason to expect it to be complicated. The only ones it would be difficult for are those currently getting a "free ride" at the expense of others.
But CURRENTLY, instead of funding these things directly, local government collects funding for everything via property taxes and then has to distribute those funds accordingly. I honestly can't think of a more convoluted way to do things than what is currently being done.
It is similar to paying for my happy meal at McDonalds when income tax is collected and then having the government pay McDonalds. Why do you believe paying a "country bill" for emergency services would be more complicated than the current method? Why do you believe paying for school enrollment directly would be more complicated? Why do you believe that paying for "roads and upkeep" directly would be more complicated than the current system?
At a minimum there would be an exact accounting and less opportunity for government waste or diversion of funds.
And finally, in the 60s we changed a LOT of things despite the complexities of doing them. And if we can create a Welfare State, I think eliminating property taxes would be extremely simple in comparison.
You do realize that if we did away with public schools and therefore the requirement to attend them, there would be a very substantial portion of the population that would go either uneducated or very poorly educated, do you not? This in the now technologically advanced 21st century?
What impact do you suppose it would have on this nation if 40% to 50% of it's population was illiterate and also ignorant? How do you believe we would overcome this in a generation or two?
We achieved 94% literacy in 1860 (among whites, of course, but they were the only ones allowed to be educated, not excusing the situation with blacks/slaves at the time but that was the world then) and government consumed 1% of GDP. We do not need federally mandated public schools which are regulated by the federal government, at any level. We need states to compete with one another economically and be driven to create the best possible educational systems for their constituents, not meet the federal testing mandates/regulations. With kids in public school, I get to watch those tests fail at maintaining a quality educational system. The demands of the free market economy would provide for a new educational system, privately owned and operated. Simply make educational facilities tax-exempt and make paying for schooling tax-exempt for families. When you create a market for affordable, quality education, schools will be created to meet demand.
It would be a lot like joining the local gym, they decide what they need to operate and charge those who attend accordingly. If you have 10 family members who go to the gym, you pay for 10 memberships. If you have no family members who go to the gym, you pay nothing.
How can you assess one's overall impact on society and it's vast array of resources as practically as that of a simple excercise facility?
Why no concern for the fact that a massive segment of our shared population will go with little to no education, therefore hindering our national potential tremendously? Or do you really believe that if school isn't mandatory, standards don't exist and a basic education must be paid for out of pocket that somehow everything will just work itself out?
And maybe most confusing of all, you'd expect that in this idealogical reality someone in southern Illinois would be content to foot the bill for Chicago? Wouldn't that go against your primary principle of paying only for what you use?
How can you assess one's overall impact on society and it's vast array of resources as practically as that of a simple excercise facility?
Why no concern for the fact that a massive segment of our shared population will go with little to no education, therefore hindering our national potential tremendously? Or do you really believe that if school isn't mandatory, standards don't exist and a basic education must be paid for out of pocket that somehow everything will just work itself out?
We already have a massive segment of the population with little or no education DESPITE the fact that we have already been forced to pay for it. People who are responsible and value education will find a way to pay for the children they have and their education. Those who don't never will and their children will suffer in many, many ways regardless of what we do or don't do.
But let me simplify this discussion.
I believe I am responsible for paying for the things "I" am responsible for and just as nobody should be forced to pay my way, I shouldn't be forced to pay for others.
I also believe that we could easily have a simple and equitable way for everyone to pay "what they owe" without violating property rights and without having to shoulder the burden of others. I do not believe socialism has any place in this country. It is destroying Europe, it will cause similar problems here.
The root problem is when citizens are forced to accept the burden of those with "less means" there will be a never ending line of those with "less means." They will always outnumber those who are looked to for support.
I understand you believe otherwise, so that probably leaves us with nothing further to discuss.
And maybe most confusing of all, you'd expect that in this idealogical reality someone in southern Illinois would be content to foot the bill for Chicago? Wouldn't that go against your primary principle of paying only for what you use?
Not confusing at all.
Cook county is Cook county. It can be an expensive place to live. Same applies to other counties. If you don't think the property taxes in Cook county take Chicago needs into consideration you are fooling yourself.
But if you want to break responsibility down by zip code, that is fine by me. You can apply individual responsibility on the state, county, city or zip code level.
We already have a massive segment of the population with little or no education DESPITE the fact that we have already been forced to pay for it.
Sounds just like the rather ineffective earlier comparison of trusting your family's life to the relevant safety of today's roadways as opposed to doing so on unregulated ones.
I believe I am responsible for paying for the things "I" am responsible for and just as nobody should be forced to pay my way, I shouldn't be forced to pay for others.
If that's the case then how can you possibly advocate someone in a rural area paying for a cities expenses via state shared responsibilities? This to any extent?
Sounds just like the rather ineffective earlier comparison of trusting your family's life to the relevant safety of today's roadways as opposed to doing so on unregulated ones.
That comparison wasn't made by me.
If that's the case then how can you possibly advocate someone in a rural area paying for a cities expenses via state shared responsibilities? This to any extent?
Asked and answered. "if you want to break responsibility down by zip code, that is fine by me. You can apply individual responsibility on the state, county, city or zip code level."
And finally, to repeat.
The root problem is when citizens are forced to accept the burden of those with "less means" there will be a never ending line of those with "less means." They will always outnumber those who are looked to for support.
I understand you believe otherwise, so that probably leaves us with nothing further to discuss.
That comparison wasn't made by me.
Doesn't matter, both are misguided comparisons using the unknown as a factor.
I understand you believe otherwise, so that probably leaves us with nothing further to discuss.
Not sure why you keep saying that but whatever, not looking to turn this into a private discussion anyway. Still your implication that I'm content with the status quo is completely false. Just because I know that such drastic changes won't be as simple or positive as you think they would doesn't mean I don't want us to find a better way.
Belmont31R
11-12-12, 20:31
As usual...libertarianism is devalued by those who don't understand it to make 'examples' of it like no traffic lights and other idiotic notions. Just like people accused Ron Paul of wanting to allow Iran to go nuke everyone in sight while we sit around ignoring everything. Thats not how this ideology works
Libertarianism is simply taking the collective out of government as much as possible. It's getting as close to anarchy (like no stop lights) while still maintaining a rule of law. Under this ideology government is viewed as evil but a nessessary evil so the goal is to reduce it at much possible.
As to the comment about what if someone has ten kids...are they ****ed for life? Well first we should ask who did the ****ing? The primary responsibility for those kids is on the parents not the community. If you accept that community has the responsibility to ensure a certain standard of education or way of life then the debate becomes 'how much' not 'why are we paying for them in the first place'. The first option is why we are where we are now because the debate is over the level of government (which now ensures a minimum standard of living, and turns 'forced charity into rights). If you want to dabble your toes into that pond don't be surprised if some goon from the depths comes up and pulls you in all the way by force or by acceptance.
A big part of the ideology behind libertarianism is the fact that when our country was founded the states were viewed as sovereign states who came together to form another entity which was enacted to perform functions that were more efficient if done together than individually. As young states, who just went through years of war, things like defense made more more sense to do together than each state looking out for themselves and themselves only. The Brits come back, and attack Boston everyone comes together to their aide. Not the Brits come back, attack Boston, and NY says FU. The Bill of Right's were added because there was obvious fear the Federal government would become what it has today, and I think they put such right's in there because in the back of their minds they knew nothing good lasts forever, and eventually the Federal government would become the superior to the states when it was enacted as the inferior.
So to all you people who want to accuse libertarianism to driving around without traffic signals you are dumb, ignorant, and don't have the slightest clue how our country was intended to operate. When was the last time you got pulled over for a Federal traffic offense by a local LEO? Traffic laws are states rights issues, and so is education. All these 50 states are supposed to be sovereign states fit to do what they want under what was agreed upon. The Constitution was ratified by representatives of each state. If those representatives had not ratified the Constitution we would have had a bunch of small individual countries in North America. No one there voted to have some big sis Federal government like we have today.
As usual...libertarianism is devalued by those who don't understand it to make 'examples' of it like no traffic lights and other idiotic notions. Just like people accused Ron Paul of wanting to allow Iran to go nuke everyone in sight while we sit around ignoring everything. Thats not how this ideology works
Libertarianism is simply taking the collective out of government as much as possible. It's getting as close to anarchy (like no stop lights) while still maintaining a rule of law. Under this ideology government is viewed as evil but a nessessary evil so the goal is to reduce it at much possible.
Guess you must have missed the numerous Libertarian posters in favor of no traffic lights or laws in this thread and also others before it. Evidently not all see it the same as you do, so trying to make anyone seem foolish for addressing these very real and also very short-sighted viewpoints is foolish unto itself.
The fact of the matter is that Libertarians come in all shapes and sizes. Some sensible, some not so much.
Doesn't matter, both are misguided comparisons using the unknown as a factor.
And that is true of ANYTHING new. The application of every new law and regulation has unknown factors.
Not sure why you keep saying that but whatever, not looking to turn this into a private discussion anyway. Still your implication that I'm content with the status quo is completely false. Just because I know that such drastic changes won't be as simple or positive as you think they would doesn't mean I don't want us to find a better way.
My problem isn't with somebody accepting a status quo, my problem is with somebody advocating socialism.
And you DO NOT know my changes won't be simple or positive, it is one of those "unknowns" you just mentioned. But there is no reason why they couldn't be simple and positive.
But the reason I think there is nothing further to discuss is you have fully explained your position and I have fully explained mine and you disagree with mine and I disagree with yours.
So I think we are done.
The fact of the matter is that Libertarians come in all shapes and sizes. Some sensible, some not so much.
Same can be said for Democrats, Republicans and every other group of people.
Belmont31R
11-12-12, 21:24
Guess you must have missed the numerous Libertarian posters in favor of no traffic lights or laws in this thread and also others before it. Evidently not all see it the same as you do, so trying to make anyone seem foolish for addressing these very real and also very short-sighted viewpoints is foolish unto itself.
The fact of the matter is that Libertarians come in all shapes and sizes. Some sensible, some not so much.
There isn't a single person in this thread who advocate for no traffic lights. The debate was if someone rolling, slowly, through a red light at 4AM should be punished as if they ran a red light at rush hour traffic. To me it's akin to the dumbass that sits at a light for 20 minutes never seeing another car because for whatever reason he never got a green light, and the cycle keeps skipping him. The 'law is law' folks, I guess, would just sit there for hours or something.
Not sure what 'prior' debates you are referencing.
If we want to talk about traffic lights some more...John Stossel had a good show and study on how traffic lights, in many cases, actually increase the amount of accidents. We seem to have presumptions about things in life, and traffic lights are one of them. For a while it was red light cameras.
There isn't a single person in this thread who advocate for no traffic lights. The debate was if someone rolling, slowly, through a red light at 4AM should be punished as if they ran a red light at rush hour traffic. To me it's akin to the dumbass that sits at a light for 20 minutes never seeing another car because for whatever reason he never got a green light, and the cycle keeps skipping him.
You know exactly what the overall viewpoint is I am referring to and the ridiculously lame 4AM red light scenario is little more than a ridiculously simplistic smokescreen designed to protect someone who really has no argument on a meaningful level in defense of eliminating traffic laws.
Personally I believe there is great potential for solid common ground among conservatives and libertarians so long as both remain practical and sensible, but both sides seem to fail miserably over and over at finding it due to their respective lunatic fringes.
Belmont31R
11-12-12, 22:11
You know exactly what the overall viewpoint is I am referring to and the ridiculously lame 4AM red light scenario is little more than a ridiculously simplistic smokescreen designed to protect someone who really has no argument on a meaningful level in defense of eliminating traffic laws.
Personally I believe there is great potential for solid common ground among conservatives and libertarians so long as both remain practical and sensible, but both sides seem to fail miserably over and over at finding it due to their respective lunatic fringes.
I guess it comes down to if you believe in 'zero tolerance' type things they do in schools now or have the ability to take things into context.
About a month ago we got stuck at a malfunctioning train crossing. Arms were down with lights flashing. People were driving over the grassed in median to turn around, and finally people were holding the arms up for people to drive through.
According the 'law is the law' people some of these people could be charged with felonies. I actually did call the non-emergency number for our sheriffs dept, and they said they referred it to Austin PD. It was about 15 minutes between when I called, and when we went through while someone was holding the arm up. People, prior to others holding the arms up, were even driving the wrong way in the opposing lane (which was empty) to kinda skirt through the arms.
Sometimes you have the accept the fact the law should be set aside in the name of common sense and prudence. You can't expect people to sit at a light, or a broken train crossing for hours until the 'law' gets there and does the same thing those people were doing. That was actually the second time I've been caught at a broken train crossing before, and the LEO who responded to the first one held up the arms. For whatever reason, in the second case, no one every showed up so people took matters into their own hands.
And no I don't 'really' know what you're talking about. No one in this thread said we should abolish traffic lights or laws. Like I said when was the last time anyone was pulled over for a Federal traffic offense? These are all state laws, and I've never met a libertarian who thought basic traffic laws were not ok. Not sure what you're getting at with 'you know the type' and other such nonsense. I've never met a single person who thought that.
If we want to talk about traffic lights some more...John Stossel had a good show and study on how traffic lights, in many cases, actually increase the amount of accidents. We seem to have presumptions about things in life, and traffic lights are one of them. For a while it was red light cameras.
Oh, I'm certain that an architect could rework many traffic situations for the better. Most are probably best the way they are for current practical purposes.
And no I don't 'really' know what you're talking about. No one in this thread said we should abolish traffic lights or laws. Like I said when was the last time anyone was pulled over for a Federal traffic offense? These are all state laws, and I've never met a libertarian who thought basic traffic laws were not ok. Not sure what you're getting at with 'you know the type' and other such nonsense. I've never met a single person who thought that.
Sometimes it's best to read through a thread before commenting on what other's did or didn't say. Check posts 2 and 6 again. I didn't pull that question out of the air, it's been the topic of discussion numerous times here before when talking about libertarianism.
Look as also stated on the first page I think that you provided some great analysis in your initial post. You seem to be an educated and also level headed individual who provides a valuable perspective on the matter. Steyr as well. Don't agree with 100% of everything either of you said, but it sure makes one think.
Does anyone know of a successful politician anywhere in the country who successfully ran on a mixed libertarian/conservative ticket, perhaps as an independent if not one of the latter two?
Sometimes it's best to read through a thread before commenting on what other's did or didn't say. Check posts 2 and 6 again. I didn't pull that question out of the air, it's been the topic of discussion numerous times here before when talking about libertarianism.
Look as also stated on the first page I think that you provided some great analysis in your initial post. You seem to be an educated and also level headed individual who provides a valuable perspective on the matter. Steyr as well. Don't agree with 100% of everything either of you said, but it sure makes one think.
Does anyone know of a successful politician anywhere in the country who successfully ran on a mixed libertarian/conservative ticket, perhaps as an independent if not one of the latter two?
You mean like Rand or Ron Paul???
theblackknight
11-13-12, 16:08
1. Do you want no regulations placed on banks/Wall Street of any kind whatsoever? NO
2. Do you want to do completely do away with property taxes?
IDK
3. Do you believe that as long as an individual is not incarcerated he or she should be able to own a firearm, regardless of the severity of their criminal past or demonstrated mental state?This is serious?
4. Should there be no driving laws of any kind?WUT?
5. Should we make it policy not to defend allies both continental and also those overseas?give them a chance for a while
Thank-you to any, yes even you J-Dub, who participate in this hopefully positive and educational dialog. No fighting please.
These seem like some pretty extremist questions. How do I have a feeling someone will be like"ok well see, your really just a republican, vote some our gun grabber next time.
justin_247
11-13-12, 18:30
Regarding the property taxes, they are understandably disliked because one can lose their property of they aren't paid. I don't like that either, but what, if any, substitutive policy or law would you implement in their place in order to keep the basic needs of a modern city or town maintained?
For instance, how are schools and roadways maintained?
Sorry, for some reason I did not get notified by e-mail that this discussion was continuing. But by responding to this, I will derail the thread. So I won't, for now.
justin_247
11-13-12, 18:32
Does anyone know of a successful politician anywhere in the country who successfully ran on a mixed libertarian/conservative ticket, perhaps as an independent if not one of the latter two?
Fusionism = a merger of libertarianism and conservatism by Frank Meyer. Was first used electorally by Goldwater, although was not successful until Reagan.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.