Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - For my Libertarian friends
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedFor my Libertarian friends

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 247248249250251 269>
Author
Message
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 17 2010 at 23:18
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Oh snap, are Teo and Pat going to agree on something while llama and I agree on the other side?

This is madness




It seems that way.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 07:38
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

I don't think harboring a fugitive should be a crime. Specially if said fugitive has not been tried and convicted yet. 

This leads me to another question:how come here in the US when a prisoner tries to flee and is captured they punish him? Even in my upside-down country it is recognized that any man's first instinct is to be free, and if one tries to break out of the cage, and is caught, he should be taken back to it, but not punished for doing what comes from that most human part of his nature. Yes, freedom is the natural state of man. 

(I just don't equate freedom with a total lack of government though if you will start implying that you libertines... Tongue)


I think the reason is twofold. One as llama said as a practical deterrent. One because law enforcement officers are petty and like to humiliate those who do not subject instantly to their will.

I like your argument, but merely being a part of one's nature is not to say that the activity is correct. I would agree that no punishment should be given. I think instead the intent should be to recoup the losses financially which enforcement incurred to chase and apprehend the suspect.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 07:55
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

I don't understand how harboring a fugitive could not be a crime. I would agree with llama that there are probably instances where I would feel it is ok to do so (like the NAAAAAAAAAZIS), but that doesn't affect the general legality of it.

Also, this thread got a lot more fun now that we've abandoned the pretense of having serious quote tree debates like in the early days, which are now over a year ago(!)


What crime are you committing? Who is harmed by you allowing Joe Criminal to stay in your house?

If the man hasn't even been convicted of a crime yet then it is especially dubious if we're really going to believe in guilty until proven innocent.

I think the notion that it should be a crime rests on these ideas we which attempts to equate the state's notion of justice with true justice.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 08:15
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

I need Pat to back me on this one. 



(I can't believe I just said that... Confused)


YOU NEED ME
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 11:07
Ron Paul introduced HR 6416, in case anyone still bothers contacting their Representatives about things.

Originally posted by Ron Paul Ron Paul wrote:


Before the US House of Representatives, November 17, 2010


Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation’s airports. We have seen the videos of terrified children being grabbed and probed by airport screeners. We have read the stories of Americans being subjected to humiliating body imaging machines and/or forced to have the most intimate parts of their bodies poked and fondled. We do not know the potentially harmful effects of the radiation emitted by the new millimeter wave machines.

In one recent well-publicized case, a TSA official is recorded during an attempted body search saying, “By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.” I strongly disagree and am sure I am not alone in believing that we Americans should never give up our rights in order to travel. As our Declaration of Independence states, our rights are inalienable. This TSA version of our rights looks more like the “rights” granted in the old Soviet Constitutions, where freedoms were granted to Soviet citizens – right up to the moment the state decided to remove those freedoms.


The incident of the so-called “underwear bomber” last Christmas is given as justification for the billions of dollars the federal government is spending on the new full-body imaging machines, but a Government Accountability Office study earlier this year concluded that had these scanners been in use they may not have detected the explosive material that was allegedly brought onto the airplane. Additionally, there have been recent press reports calling into question the accuracy and adequacy of these potentially dangerous machines.

My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.


Imagine if the political elites in our country were forced to endure the same conditions at the airport as business travelers, families, senior citizens, and the rest of us. Perhaps this problem could be quickly resolved if every cabinet secretary, every member of Congress, and every department head in the Obama administration were forced to submit to the same degrading screening process as the people who pay their salaries.

I warned at the time of the creation of the TSA that an unaccountable government entity in control of airport security would provide neither security nor defend our basic freedom to travel. Yet the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats then in Congress willingly voted to create another unaccountable, bullying agency – in a simple-minded and unprincipled attempt to appease public passion in the wake of 9-11. Sadly, as we see with the steady TSA encroachment on our freedom and dignity, my fears in 2001 were justified.

The solution to the need for security at US airports is not a government bureaucracy. The solution is to allow the private sector, preferably the airlines themselves, to provide for the security of their property. As a recent article in Forbes magazine eloquently stated, “The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility.” In the meantime, I hope we can pass this legislation and protect Americans from harm and humiliation when they choose to travel.



"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 11:56
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

You will not see much sympathy from me on the issue of so called "prisoners' rights."In my view, once you commit a crime (at least a serious crime, like murder or rape) you forfeit most of the claims you have towrds being treated with decency or dignity.
 
Agree.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 12:43
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

I need Pat to back me on this one. 



(I can't believe I just said that... Confused)


YOU NEED ME

You are big brother?? Shocked
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 12:46
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Ron Paul introduced HR 6416, in case anyone still bothers contacting their Representatives about things.

Originally posted by Ron Paul Ron Paul wrote:


Before the US House of Representatives, November 17, 2010


Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation’s airports. We have seen the videos of terrified children being grabbed and probed by airport screeners. We have read the stories of Americans being subjected to humiliating body imaging machines and/or forced to have the most intimate parts of their bodies poked and fondled. We do not know the potentially harmful effects of the radiation emitted by the new millimeter wave machines.

In one recent well-publicized case, a TSA official is recorded during an attempted body search saying, “By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.” I strongly disagree and am sure I am not alone in believing that we Americans should never give up our rights in order to travel. As our Declaration of Independence states, our rights are inalienable. This TSA version of our rights looks more like the “rights” granted in the old Soviet Constitutions, where freedoms were granted to Soviet citizens – right up to the moment the state decided to remove those freedoms.


The incident of the so-called “underwear bomber” last Christmas is given as justification for the billions of dollars the federal government is spending on the new full-body imaging machines, but a Government Accountability Office study earlier this year concluded that had these scanners been in use they may not have detected the explosive material that was allegedly brought onto the airplane. Additionally, there have been recent press reports calling into question the accuracy and adequacy of these potentially dangerous machines.

My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.


Imagine if the political elites in our country were forced to endure the same conditions at the airport as business travelers, families, senior citizens, and the rest of us. Perhaps this problem could be quickly resolved if every cabinet secretary, every member of Congress, and every department head in the Obama administration were forced to submit to the same degrading screening process as the people who pay their salaries.

I warned at the time of the creation of the TSA that an unaccountable government entity in control of airport security would provide neither security nor defend our basic freedom to travel. Yet the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats then in Congress willingly voted to create another unaccountable, bullying agency – in a simple-minded and unprincipled attempt to appease public passion in the wake of 9-11. Sadly, as we see with the steady TSA encroachment on our freedom and dignity, my fears in 2001 were justified.

The solution to the need for security at US airports is not a government bureaucracy. The solution is to allow the private sector, preferably the airlines themselves, to provide for the security of their property. As a recent article in Forbes magazine eloquently stated, “The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility.” In the meantime, I hope we can pass this legislation and protect Americans from harm and humiliation when they choose to travel.




Clap


I got to know Ron Paul when he appeared a couple of times in (of all places) Bill Maher's show, a few years ago. I actually liked him. Though I saw him, politically, as too frail in this world of cannibals. 
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 16:09
Ron Paul's position seems to be it's OK if you are felt up, subject to questionable radiations, and anal probed as long as it's the private sector (privates ector?) doing it to you. 

Edited by Slartibartfast - November 18 2010 at 16:12
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 17:42
If it's done by the private sector, customers who won't like to be touched can choose not to fly and eventually airlines will start offering "no-touch" fares... Some airlines will apply the no-touch policy to all their flights, thus attracting customers who don't want to be touched at all. 

But then these would be the airlines favored by terrorists... This poses a problem. 

Really, besides what I just said, what is so much better about being touched by the private and not the public sector? 
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 18:48
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:



Really, besides what I just said, what is so much better about being touched by the private and not the public sector? 


The private sector is more experienced and competent.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 18:50
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

If it's done by the private sector, customers who won't like to be touched can choose not to fly and eventually airlines will start offering "no-touch" fares... Some airlines will apply the no-touch policy to all their flights, thus attracting customers who don't want to be touched at all. 

But then these would be the airlines favored by terrorists... This poses a problem. 


This is based on the assumption that terrorism is foiled by grabbing people's crotch.
Back to Top
jammun View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 19:05
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:



Really, besides what I just said, what is so much better about being touched by the private and not the public sector? 


The private sector is more experienced and competent.
Well hell yes, that lap dancer at the strip club can touch me anywhere, anytime.  Maybe TSA needs to hire a few of those.
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 19:26
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

If it's done by the private sector, customers who won't like to be touched can choose not to fly and eventually airlines will start offering "no-touch" fares... Some airlines will apply the no-touch policy to all their flights, thus attracting customers who don't want to be touched at all. 

But then these would be the airlines favored by terrorists... This poses a problem. 


This is based on the assumption that terrorism is foiled by grabbing people's crotch.

Well, if it's a man and you squeeze really hard... Tongue
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 22:29
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

If it's done by the private sector, customers who won't like to be touched can choose not to fly and eventually airlines will start offering "no-touch" fares... Some airlines will apply the no-touch policy to all their flights, thus attracting customers who don't want to be touched at all. 

But then these would be the airlines favored by terrorists... This poses a problem. 

Really, besides what I just said, what is so much better about being touched by the private and not the public sector? 

That's like saying, besides the difference in taste, appearance, scent, and texture what is the difference between an apple and an orange? Well yeah if I can't mention things like taste I guess I would say nothing is different between an apple and an orange.

The feedback mechanism which exists in the private sector is what is important. The heterogeneity of product is what is important in the private sector. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 22:52
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

You will not see much sympathy from me on the issue of so called "prisoners' rights."In my view, once you commit a crime (at least a serious crime, like murder or rape) you forfeit most of the claims you have towrds being treated with decency or dignity.
What the hell? No, everybody deserves decency and dignity, and I would think that a pro-lifer would understand that. I am open to disagreements about what decency and dignity mean for people in a maximum security prison, but Sheriff Joe is a f**king a****le who should be in prison himself.
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


What crime are you committing? Who is harmed by you allowing Joe Criminal to stay in your house?

If the man hasn't even been convicted of a crime yet then it is especially dubious if we're really going to believe in guilty until proven innocent.

I think the notion that it should be a crime rests on these ideas we which attempts to equate the state's notion of justice with true justice. 
Obstruction of justice, you are preventing the trial of the person from going forward (if he hasn't yet been convicted) or preventing him from serving his sentence. You are hurting the state because you are making them use more resources to attempt to catch him and you are potentially allowing him to commit another crime, and it would obviously be hurting someone if you did. And then you would be an accessory to that crime.

The quotes from the TSA guy and woman who lost her mother in 9/11 really upset me. I would be absolutely happy to get on a plane with people who weren't pornoscanned or felt up, shut the hell up. And why did they even quote that woman? Did they call her, did she volunteer? Either way, why did they think anybody would care at all what she has to say about anything? I honestly don't even really care about 9/11 anymore: of course it was tragic, but 11 times that many people died in traffic accidents last year. And that's 3600 people less than 2008: we saved an entire 9/11 with aggressive safety laws and improved safety design! I bet you approximately that many people will die in traffic accidents in NYC itself before we start building the new tower at Ground Zero since we're too busy with symbolic grief-w**king to do anything. And Jody (or if there's anybody else on this forum who has a personal connection to 9/11), if you're reading this, I don't mean to disrespect your nephew's memory, but I hope you can see the point I am intending to make.

And yes, I know I have no soul.
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 22:56
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:


And yes, I know I have no soul.


I burned the rest of my humanity away recently. Brofist.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2010 at 23:35
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

 
Obstruction of justice, you are preventing the trial of the person from going forward (if he hasn't yet been convicted) or preventing him from serving his sentence. You are hurting the state because you are making them use more resources to attempt to catch him and you are potentially allowing him to commit another crime, and it would obviously be hurting someone if you did. And then you would be an accessory to that crime.

Hurting the state is a crime? It can't be. The state doesn't exist; it's not a person. It's no more wrong to harm the state than harming a cause. Hell you not serving in the military is hurting the state. Me reading Anarchist literature is hurting the state. These things can't be crimes.

You're not an accessory to a crime for letting someone stay in your house and lying to the cops about it, in my book anyway. 

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2010 at 01:22
Said it before, at least yall on here are true.

I can't help but laugh when people (OK college kids) get all libertarian about very specific issues.

There's this FB group with people all up in arms because a bunch of state governments...meh just see for yourself.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=153878914657475&index=1



For Freedom?
And location: America!

And a bunch of hardcore partiers/politically uncaring friends of mine are into it.
Gotta love how its about an alcoholic beverage. Wonder how many really care or are just peeved about this damn drink being taken away.

"Drink Hard. Drive Fast. But not at the same time. LOKO FOR MY LIFE" is a wonderful example of it.

"Im a huge fan of the Four Loco!!!!! not because i drink it...i find it repulsive, but the ladies love it and it gets the party booomin!! caffine/alchohol combo is the party mix, redbull/vodca ...etc.... SO LETS GET FADEY FOUR LOCO STYLEY....oh and who said outlaw beef instead? I hate you."


Another sterling example....
Sorry, people piss me off LOL
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2010 at 02:00
 
Funny/sad TSA public service parody


Time always wins.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 247248249250251 269>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.414 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.