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 9394959697 269>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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: August 04 2010 at 19:53
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Well, the Prop 8 thing will likely make it to the Supremes.  Any predictions?


I predict Diana Ross will sing "Ain't No Mountain High Enough."  Tongue



Seriously, does anyone else find the US Supreme Court to be a conflict of interest in the first place?

The Supreme Court is a governmental body, and yet it gets to ultimately decide how to interpret a document that restricts the federal government.  Ermm

Stop, in the name of love. LOL


BTW to answer an earlier question about constitutionality, here's what the judge had to say:

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."


Edited by Slartibartfast - August 04 2010 at 19:54
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: August 04 2010 at 19:54
Originally posted by Proletariat Proletariat wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Proletariat Proletariat wrote:

^^^
equality, why would we want complete freedom? how would this benifit anyone? you can not just tear down a well established system and expect to find order... and least of all freedom. Just look to the french revolution to see what a complete dismantaling of many pillars of modern american government would be like.

Look to the French Revolution? So I should look to a tyrannical government with an overbearing government to see why freedom won't work?

Why wouldn't we want freedom? This will benefit the people who are preyed on by those in government. This will benefit the people, who want to express their freedom.


yes. look to what happens when systems are radically altered in the name of freedom. verry often we see the opposite.
freedom is good in a limited sence... not even libertarians want complete freedom. we are merely arguing where to draw the line

Why didn't that happen in America then?

Don't think you think the proximate cause of France's problem was giving despotic power to the government. How can you argument against freedom be the fruits of people having too little freedom. How do you argue for government while giving a prime example of an out of control government.

Yes libertarians don't want complete freedom. We want complete freedom except for the freedom to initiate force. That's not much of a difference.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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: August 04 2010 at 19:55
Originally posted by Proletariat Proletariat wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Proletariat Proletariat wrote:

^^^
equality, why would we want complete freedom? how would this benifit anyone? you can not just tear down a well established system and expect to find order... and least of all freedom. Just look to the french revolution to see what a complete dismantaling of many pillars of modern american government would be like.

Look to the French Revolution? So I should look to a tyrannical government with an overbearing government to see why freedom won't work?

Why wouldn't we want freedom? This will benefit the people who are preyed on by those in government. This will benefit the people, who want to express their freedom.


yes. look to what happens when systems are radically altered in the name of freedom. verry often we see the opposite.
freedom is good in a limited sence... not even libertarians want complete freedom. we are merely arguing where to draw the line


Your argument makes no sense. "There was once a revolution that ended in tyranny, therefore freedom is not desirable."

Where do you draw the line? Personally, I want to be able to keep the money I earn, I want to be able to open a bar and allow people to smoke in it, I want to be able to own a gun, I want to be able say what I want in public without fear of being thrown in jail, I want to be able to buy property and not have the government take it away from me because they think they can use it better than I can.
I may not do all of these things, but I want the option.
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: August 04 2010 at 19:56
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Well, the Prop 8 thing will likely make it to the Supremes.  Any predictions?


I predict Diana Ross will sing "Ain't No Mountain High Enough."  Tongue



Seriously, does anyone else find the US Supreme Court to be a conflict of interest in the first place?

The Supreme Court is a governmental body, and yet it gets to ultimately decide how to interpret a document that restricts the federal government.  Ermm

Stop, in the name of love. LOL


BTW to answer an earlier question about constitutionality, here's what the judge had to say:

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

I'm against the proposition, but I don't really agree with the argument here. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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: August 04 2010 at 19:58
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Well, the Prop 8 thing will likely make it to the Supremes.  Any predictions?


I predict Diana Ross will sing "Ain't No Mountain High Enough."  Tongue



Seriously, does anyone else find the US Supreme Court to be a conflict of interest in the first place?

The Supreme Court is a governmental body, and yet it gets to ultimately decide how to interpret a document that restricts the federal government.  Ermm

Stop, in the name of love. LOL


BTW to answer an earlier question about constitutionality, here's what the judge had to say:

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

I'm against the proposition, but I don't really agree with the argument here. 


Exactly.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2010 at 20:00
I've already given my opinion about marriage in the US at length, so I won't go into it again, but suffice it to say that this makes three people who don't agree with the argument.  The ruling makes no sense.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
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: August 04 2010 at 20:12
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
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: August 04 2010 at 20:14
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Nicely quoted, but I'm pretty sure most of us in this thread have copies of the constitution.
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: August 04 2010 at 20:15
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

OMG IS THAT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS I WAS TOTALLY JUST BLOWING SMOKE OUT OF MY ASS AND I HAVEN'T READ THAT ABOUT 1000 TIMES IN MY LIFE. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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: August 04 2010 at 20:26
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Lol... What a child.
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: August 04 2010 at 20:26
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

OMG IS THAT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS I WAS TOTALLY JUST BLOWING SMOKE OUT OF MY ASS AND I HAVEN'T READ THAT ABOUT 1000 TIMES IN MY LIFE. 

Well, well, well, maybe if you had understood what you were reading in the first place...
(just kidding) LOL
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: August 04 2010 at 20:28
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

OMG IS THAT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS I WAS TOTALLY JUST BLOWING SMOKE OUT OF MY ASS AND I HAVEN'T READ THAT ABOUT 1000 TIMES IN MY LIFE. 

Well, well, well, maybe if you had understood what you were reading in the first place...
(just kidding) LOL

Cry I like insulting you but it's mean when you do it to 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
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: August 04 2010 at 20:28
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Hey Pat, MOM is old enough to speak for himself (which he just did).

Hey MOM, you say "f**k politicians" but you are making political statements anyway. f**k THESE politicians might be a better fit. You say "I'm all for freedom" yet you want a system where they left you alone, I insist, maybe people prefer what we've got (that's another debate).

I'm not arguig against freedom. I'm just arguing against the ideas you hae to obtain it and against the illusion that you are the one speaking for everybody and I'm some stalinist museum
Piece.
 
 
Again, we are putting words in my mouth.  I have said that your desired system would allow the personal beliefs of one or many (it doesn't really matter) to effect, through force (government), how everyone else lives.  Beyond that I did nothing more than assume that were you to be in charge of this system it would be your beliefs that would be imposed.
 
Sure, I am making a political statement (you happy?) but I also don't have, nor do I want, the power we've given to politicians.  Maybe this is my fault, maybe if I used the term "government official" instead of politician.  My position is that government officials are not any more qualified to make decisions regarding your everyday life than I am (I could always become a government official, by the way) or that Equality, Slarti, JJ, or anyone else are.  People shouldn't be given the power to control how you live simply because they have become part of the government.
 
You are directly arguing against freedom.  You may not be arguing against all freedoms but in that you believe that a group of people, or one person, should be able to legislate the social and economic actions of society as a whole then yes, you are arguing against freedom.  That's not calling you a stalinist, or anything, but you clearly either favor the central control of the few.  Whether the few act based on their own personal beliefs or those currently held by the majority doesn't matter, by the way, so it isn't about who has control (stalists, republicans, dems, anyone who wants to use government force to impose a set of beliefs instead of to protect the beliefs of all people) just that the ability to control exists.


Edited by manofmystery - August 04 2010 at 20:30


Time always wins.
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: August 04 2010 at 20:34
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

OMG IS THAT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS I WAS TOTALLY JUST BLOWING SMOKE OUT OF MY ASS AND I HAVEN'T READ THAT ABOUT 1000 TIMES IN MY LIFE. 

Well, well, well, maybe if you had understood what you were reading in the first place...
(just kidding) LOL

Cry I like insulting you but it's mean when you do it to me

OK wise guys, where is this in the constitution?  Not a fair question because you have the opportunity to look it up online. Tongue  I deliberately left out the citation as a test. 
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: August 04 2010 at 20:36
Is that serious question?

Amendment 14, Section 1
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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: August 04 2010 at 20:42
Not too serious.  What do you think of repealing the 14th?
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: August 04 2010 at 20:49
I've already stated my position. I think the protections it prescribes are good and necessary. It should not be repealed.

As for the citizenship issue, I don't think it gives illegal's children citizen status.

Now should it be amended to make the language clear about illegal's children's status? I don't know. I don't have much of an opinion on citizenship. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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: August 04 2010 at 21:33
You don't care for citizenship issues? You don't agree with a government saying you have rights and obligations in a particular territory? You haven't given it any though? It's strange to see you without an opinion on a matter that has strong implications for politics...
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: August 04 2010 at 21:59
So when was the 14th passed?  (Sorry I didn't really pay attention in history class and am too lazy to look it up.)  Wasn't this amendment to do with emancipation of the slaves, i.e., the South cannot rise again no matter what they think they gonna do?  I suppose if you give the Supremes (Stop! In the Name of Love) enough leeway, they'll do something with it.  After all, they can and did elect a Presidenet.
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
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: August 04 2010 at 22:17
Originally posted by jammun jammun wrote:

After all, they can and did elect a Presidenet.
 
 
Do not take this as an endorsement for W because I'm not a fan but come on, isn't it time we stopped being bitter about the 2000 election.  The Supreme Court's decision simply ended the ridiculous recount process that at no point showed Gore ahead.  The alternative was that the recounts continued on until enough ballots were "found" in someones trunk to give Gore the lead Wink.  No wait, things would've just gotten messier then


Time always wins.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 9394959697 269>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.438 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.