ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Libertarians & the ban

milwood

milwood

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Perhaps this thread should be relocated to a discussion of politics, but it is pertinent, given the impending PH/PS ban. The Libertarian Party maintains that defending individuals' rights (liberties) are what the founding fathers had in mind when they broke from the monarchy in England and established the USA. The firm belief that no government has the right to dictate what we choose for ourselves is essentially the message. Those of us about to have yet another liberty ripped from us are probably more Libertarian (ideologically) than we know, no matter what our political affiliations. Its a small party, pretty wacky on some issues, but at the heart of it, its probably more American in spirit than any of the others. In fact, from an ideological point of view, it seems that the architects of our Constitution and Bill of Rights were all libertarians.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Perhaps this thread should be relocated to a discussion of politics, but it is pertinent, given the impending PH/PS ban. The Libertarian Party maintains that defending individuals' rights (liberties) are what the founding fathers had in mind when they broke from the monarchy in England and established the USA. The firm belief that no government has the right to dictate what we choose for ourselves is essentially the message. Those of us about to have yet another liberty ripped from us are probably more Libertarian (ideologically) than we know, no matter what our political affiliations. Its a small party, pretty wacky on some issues, but at the heart of it, its probably more American in spirit than any of the others. In fact, from an ideological point of view, it seems that the architects of our Constitution and Bill of Rights were all libertarians.
I agree with almost everything that the libertarian party says and stands for. I do, however, think that they carry over belief systems of our founding fathers that would not be applicable to these days in the world. (i.e. non-interventionism and open borders). All strong organisms adapt to their new environments, so must our system of government. For our safety and to maintain the quality of life we worked for, we must control out borders and we must intervene when necessary on threats because there is no longer enough distace to separate us from danger on this plant. Technology closed that gap...

But, their ideals on the government staying small and staying the hell out of my life and my decision making is great. The government should stick to protecting and serving us, not dictating our decisions.
 

Strateg0s

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
You can't eat your cake, then have it too.

To the extent you demand the government serve you, you forfeit your own freedom to make your own decisions. Government services inherently usurp individual decision-making. Occasionally this is good, SEC, anti-trust laws, etc. Usually it is pleasantly destructive of the character of the people.

Government can protect the people without being overly intrusive in matters which are irrelevant to defense. The much-maligned Patriot Act is actually a good example of this, with its many built-in checks against abuse. I'm sure many people disagree, but I'm also sure that most of these people have no idea of the actual content of that which they are criticizing...
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
You can't eat your cake, then have it too.

To the extent you demand the government serve you, you forfeit your own freedom to make your own decisions. Government services inherently usurp individual decision-making. Occasionally this is good, SEC, anti-trust laws, etc. Usually it is pleasantly destructive of the character of the people.
I understand you must forfeit some rights when you place power in others' hands, but we should have some control over them and they should be relevant to the powers we grant the government.
Government can protect the people without being overly intrusive in matters which are irrelevant to defense.
Exactly where I was going with this. What does sexual orientation, AAS usage, etc have to do with protecting the general population or defense???
The much-maligned Patriot Act is actually a good example of this, with its many built-in checks against abuse. I'm sure many people disagree, but I'm also sure that most of these people have no idea of the actual content of that which they are criticizing...
Oh, I'm sure they've never read about the PATRIOT Act, or even READ the PATRIOT Act. People just like to say "look at guantanimo!" because that's what the ACLU, MoveOn.org, and CNN say..LOL. But whatever makes people boats float, right? :p
 
wastedwhiteboy2

wastedwhiteboy2

Board Supporter
Awards
1
  • Established
Look at guantanimo. Its BS that those soldiers are in trouble for that crap. they were terrorist that tried to kill US soldiers, embarrassment should be a minimum. what happens when they take prisoners. we lose our heads.

I like the patriot act.
 

Jeff

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
What, you mean we are not all card carrying members of the libertarian party? ;)
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
To milwood: Yes, Libertarians oppose the ban. While I am a Libertarian it's the same as having the help of a pocket poodle if you're being chased by wolves. Libertarian philosophy is spot on, the Libertarian Party is pretty irrelevant right now. Plus opposition to the ban doesn't make one a Libertarian, I think few people here would find anything they'd identify with ideologically with in that philosophy. Many people here who have a problem with the government taking their 'roids away have absolutely no problem with the government taking someone's weed away. They'll argue that their drug is different. Usual argument is steroids are used to improve oneself, weed isn't, stuff like that. Few if any will see the ultimate principle of self ownership is what's at issue, and that it requires a defense of someone being able to use whatever substances they want regardless of the effects and purposes of those substances, and whether or not we agree with the ultimate end for the person who chooses to use.
To kwyckemynd00: You can't invite the government into other people's lives but keep it out of your own, here or abroad. It's in or out. As far as borders are concerned, it's a problem without a clear solution. It takes a massive state apparatus to maintain open borders and the incentive to cross them, just as a big an apparatus as it takes to close them. Private property and the unquestioned right to defend it is a good solution, as is ending the various government handouts that are available to illegals. Basically you need to hit a balance where the benefits of immigrating legally outweight those of illegal immigration, and where the costs of the former are also significantly lower than the latter. Basically this leads to a situation where those of good intent take the easy legal route, and the fewer who have ill intent towards our country are easier to target and deal with. Compound this with getting the government out of its major role as owner of tons if not most of the land west of the Mississippi and you get results. It's harder to cross a pissed off neighbor's yard than it is our borders. It would also lead to fewer people abroad being pissed at us if we'd stop interfering with their lives at our convenience.

To Strateg0s: Antitrust law is not good, it's economic protectionism and has been since its inception. Monopolies and cartels can't exist without government intervention in their favor, they fall apart from competition not only from other companies but from within. Thomas DiLorenzo has written much and well on this subject, I'd reccomend reading some of his stuff, and even listening to some of his recorded lectures from The Mises Institute. Here's a link to one of his articles: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=436&id=73 His recordings are available at that site too, I'd reccomend the one entitled The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation. You'll find similar articles there as to the essential uselessness of the SEC: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=308&id=73, http://www.mises.org/etexts/insidertrading.pdf.

As for the patriot act, I have read bits of it. Some, but very little makes sense. For example floating wire taps are a common sense thing, it's stupid that law enforcement should have to get a warrant and approval to tap every phone a person has, and all they have to do is pick up a new cell phone to avoid the tap. But then there's also bits that say the government can search your house and never let you know. Not so good. There's also little to no way to stop the judges who need to approve many of the measures in the Patriot Act from becoming rubber stampers, signing off on damn near everything that's presented to them.

However what bothers me most is that it never occurs to people to question why the bill was available so quickly. Basically similar but more disjointed bills had been presented to congress before and shot down because of consitutional concerns. There was always an excuse, usually the war on drugs, used for expanding government powers in such a way. It was mostly wrong pre 9/11, it's wrong post 9/11 too. It's one thing to introduce legislation to correct idiotic rulings that offer criminals more protection under the law than their victims ever have, the Patriot Act is another thing entirely.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Look at guantanimo. Its BS that those soldiers are in trouble for that crap. they were terrorist that tried to kill US soldiers, embarrassment should be a minimum. what happens when they take prisoners. we lose our heads.

I like the patriot act.
Yeah, the prisoner deal with Abu Grahib was a big huge joke, too. Who cares they were being forced to wear dog collars and lay on each other naked; they still have their heads!! Yeah, its not right, but its not too big of a deal to me personally. Funny how that was more important to the media than beheadings of Americans AND they made a much larger deal out of it than the deaths of hundreds of russian children, the server injury of nearly a thousand, all by radical islamic terrorists...Our media is a joke.

re: PATRIOT Act
I'd agree we should probably go through the PATRIOT Act with a fine tooth comb, considering the legislators passed the bill so quickly.

But, they way it's presented by the left (namely the ACLU and MoveOn.org) is just ridiculous. They're practically telling you that if you look at a cop wrong, you could be called a terrorist, have your house "setup" then raided, and then you can be will be held indefinatey without a lawyer.

I mean, come on! I guess "in theory" anything is possible. But you've got to give our officers of law some credit! They're not all a bunch of assholes hell bent on this giant government control conspiracy headed by every crooked person who the public happens to elect to office.

It's that unfortunate balancing act. We want the government to protect us, so we have to give them power and then HAVE FAITH that they wont abuse it. If they do, in a democracy, we should be able to pass an initiative that revokes the act. I have faith in Democracy. Just not those who make government so large that Democracy is only a facade.

So yes we should revise certain portions of it to make sure there are checks and balances involved, but it's just simply not what the far left make it out to be...Hell, I don't even know what they have against it other than the fact that it passed under Bush...If it passed under Clinton, they'd diefy it. I mean, they claim to be about personal freedom and civil liberties but they've done more to limit our rights than anybody (outside of aborition and illegal immigration--which really cannot be considered a right b/c they're illegal!!)
 
milwood

milwood

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
wow...nice to see some thoughtful people around here. It is a good discussion. Freedom is a pretty touchy subject at times. Although registered Libertarian, I often vote for one of the big 2 so my vote is counted. I hope everyone takes the time and effort to vote. After all, that is perhaps the greatest liberty of them all; the right to make a decision about leadership and have it counted. Should never be taken for granted. Thanks for the insight, CDB.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
But, they way it's presented by the left (namely the ACLU and MoveOn.org) is just ridiculous. They're practically telling you that if you look at a cop wrong, you could be called a terrorist, have your house "setup" then raided, and then you can be will be held indefinatey without a lawyer.
The problem is that anytime you give the government power, they abuse it. I know of no exception to this rule. At first the PA will be used to go after terrorists. Then narcs will notice how useful some of those provisions and expanded powers are to them, and a judge will allow them to use the law. Then it will start to be used against common criminals.

I mean, come on! I guess "in theory" anything is possible. But you've got to give our officers of law some credit! They're not all a bunch of assholes hell bent on this giant government control conspiracy headed by every crooked person who the public happens to elect to office.
They don't have to be. The most horrifying events in history are often perpetrated by rather benign people all in the name of the public good.

It's that unfortunate balancing act. We want the government to protect us, so we have to give them power and then HAVE FAITH that they wont abuse it. If they do, in a democracy, we should be able to pass an initiative that revokes the act. I have faith in Democracy. Just not those who make government so large that Democracy is only a facade.
I for one would rather protect myself and/or hire someone or a group to do so.

So yes we should revise certain portions of it to make sure there are checks and balances involved, but it's just simply not what the far left make it out to be...Hell, I don't even know what they have against it other than the fact that it passed under Bush...If it passed under Clinton, they'd diefy it. I mean, they claim to be about personal freedom and civil liberties but they've done more to limit our rights than anybody (outside of aborition and illegal immigration--which really cannot be considered a right b/c they're illegal!!)
It passed under Bush with the near universal approval of both houses, so I don't think that's it. I think they have very genuine, some no doubt over blown concerns.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
wow...nice to see some thoughtful people around here. It is a good discussion. Freedom is a pretty touchy subject at times. Although registered Libertarian, I often vote for one of the big 2 so my vote is counted. I hope everyone takes the time and effort to vote. After all, that is perhaps the greatest liberty of them all; the right to make a decision about leadership and have it counted. Should never be taken for granted. Thanks for the insight, CDB.
I think the chances that your vote will be the deciding vote in any election are about 1 in 15 million. Vote your conscience.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
The problem is that anytime you give the government power, they abuse it. I know of no exception to this rule. At first the PA will be used to go after terrorists. Then narcs will notice how useful some of those provisions and expanded powers are to them, and a judge will allow them to use the law. Then it will start to be used against common criminals.
The domino theory is always valid as a theory, that's why I do agree that the Act should be revised in order to make sure that proper checks and balances exist. I'm just not too worried about it effecting me directly. If i was breaking the law, I guess I'd have more reason to worry...
They don't have to be. The most horrifying events in history are often perpetrated by rather benign people all in the name of the public good.
I'm sure that's true (although I can't specifically come up with one situation off the top of my head), but that person doing something for the common good would have to have tyrannical powers. It's possible here, but it's not going to be the PATRIOT Act that did it. It will be when / if socialism becomes popular in the US (socialism IMHO is just basically people giving their leaders facist powers) or a right wing facist group (yes for all of you out there who don't know you can be facist on both the left and the right!!) takes control. This act doesn't determine how we live our everyday lives, it just gives the government law enforcement powers that many of which should have been given long ago and some of which need to be put in check. Once we have universal healthcare and everyone works for the government, then I'll be worried. Much more so that by this act.
I for one would rather protect myself and/or hire someone or a group to do so.
That only goes as far as situations you personally can control. Drunk driving by another person, you cannot control, terror attacks, you cannot control, etc, war, uncontrollable, etc, etc, etc. Most dangerous situations a person can control, but the most dangerous (also statistically unlikely) cannot be controlled and that's what I want the government to control. Hell, if I get in a fight, I don't want the government to baby me and protect me. I want protection against islamic-radicals, gang violence, intoxicated people in PUBLIC, etc.
It passed under Bush with the near universal approval of both houses, so I don't think that's it. I think they have very genuine, some no doubt over blown concerns.
I know it was passed in a very bipartisan manner, but can you image what kind of hell the democrats would have got for opposing the act? They did it becuase 9/11 happened and now that it's been made popular as a means of turning people away from Bush and the repubs, they're against the act. The ACLU probably is genuine about their concerns, but I'm POSITIVE that they're extremely exaggerated as a means to turn voters away from Bush and to create animosity toward him.

Moral of story: Should we put the PATRIOT Act under the microscope: yes. Is it a horrible act and a great intrusion on our personal freedoms and a danger to us: more than likely, no.
 

Number 5

Member
Awards
0
i used to like the liberatarian party ideas, but then i heard their presidential candidate, michael badnarik, give an interview and realized that actually i wasn't even close to being a liberatarian. the guy was nuts.

he wants to ban weight training in prisons because he thinks it makes prisoners more dangerous. he blamed the columbine school shooting on ritalin, and he was so gung ho about gun rights that he claimed we wouldn't need much of a police force if every one was just given guns. he also defended people's right to have assault weapons on the basis that he wanted his grandmother to have an assualt weapon in the house to defend herself. the guy just sounded way too radical and downright crazy to me.

you can find an audio file of the interview here: http://www.whyy.org/91FM/RadioTimes.html (just type 'badnarik' in the search box and the interview should come up).

-5
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
The domino theory is always valid as a theory, that's why I do agree that the Act should be revised in order to make sure that proper checks and balances exist. I'm just not too worried about it effecting me directly. If i was breaking the law, I guess I'd have more reason to worry...
There's the key point. How long before the government decides to make something illegal that you do? The government is populated by lawyers, and to be blunt they make the laws they need to achieve the ends they desire.

I'm sure that's true (although I can't specifically come up with one situation off the top of my head), but that person doing something for the common good would have to have tyrannical powers. It's possible here, but it's not going to be the PATRIOT Act that did it. It will be when / if socialism becomes popular in the US (socialism IMHO is just basically people giving their leaders facist powers) or a right wing facist group (yes for all of you out there who don't know you can be facist on both the left and the right!!) takes control. This act doesn't determine how we live our everyday lives, it just gives the government law enforcement powers that many of which should have been given long ago and some of which need to be put in check. Once we have universal healthcare and everyone works for the government, then I'll be worried. Much more so that by this act.
It's all part and parcel of the same thing: advancing government power over individuals. At base, there's no difference. Surrender it here or there, on health care or your right to walk down the street without having to show your papers, the overall effect will be the same.

That only goes as far as situations you personally can control. Drunk driving by another person, you cannot control, terror attacks, you cannot control, etc, war, uncontrollable, etc, etc, etc. Most dangerous situations a person can control, but the most dangerous (also statistically unlikely) cannot be controlled and that's what I want the government to control.
If the more efficient and innovative private market can't control it, you can rest assured the government can't do **** either.

I know it was passed in a very bipartisan manner, but can you image what kind of hell the democrats would have got for opposing the act? They did it becuase 9/11 happened and now that it's been made popular as a means of turning people away from Bush and the repubs, they're against the act. The ACLU probably is genuine about their concerns, but I'm POSITIVE that they're extremely exaggerated as a means to turn voters away from Bush and to create animosity toward him.

Moral of story: Should we put the PATRIOT Act under the microscope: yes. Is it a horrible act and a great intrusion on our personal freedoms and a danger to us: more than likely, no.
More than likely yes. Whether it's used that way now, it will be in the future. There has never in history, never, been an example of a well restrained government program. There has never been a law whose nature and original intent was not greatly expanded either by activist judges or an overzealous law enforcement system. Many people used to talk about the drug exception to the Fourth Ammendment. We now have a law that sets the stage for the terrorism exception to that Ammendment. These laws will be abused and those abuses will not be confined to those suspected of terrorism.

As for the liberals using it to drum up support for their candidate and to chip away at Bush's votes, you're right. It's the same nonsense with regard to the draft bill. It was introduced by a Democrat and they blame it on Republicans. However don't allow election year politics to blind you to a true danger. It's that old line about trading liberty for security, and no one questions why fighting terrorism requires the government be able to search my or your house without telling us, which they now can. This link goes to a politcal cartonn that expresses the idea perfectly I believe: http://www.libertyartworx.com/ironic_curtain.html
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
i used to like the liberatarian party ideas, but then i heard their presidential candidate, michael badnarik, give an interview and realized that actually i wasn't even close to being a liberatarian. the guy was nuts.

He wants to ban weight training in prisons because he thinks it makes prisoners more dangerous. he blamed the columbine school shooting on ritalin, and he was so gung ho about gun rights that he claimed we wouldn't need much of a police force if every one was just given guns. he also defended people's right to have assault weapons on the basis that he wanted his grandmother to have an assualt weapon in the house to defend herself. the guy just sounded way too radical and downright crazy to me.
Hence my point that most people who agree with this or that point which may sort of be Libertarian will not find themselves to honestly be Libertarian. I'm listening to the interview right now and haven't heard a thing I disagree with.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
he wants to ban weight training in prisons because he thinks it makes prisoners more dangerous.
No,he made the valid point that it's rather dumb to take people who aren'tbehaving properly and allow them to back up their antisocial behavior with physical power. I see no problem with people lifting weights in prison so long as they also show some commitment and progress towards rehabilitation. So dangerous thug with a record of random violence and idiocy should not be in the gym or watching cable TV on the tax payer's dime.

he blamed the columbine school shooting on ritalin,
Problem is he's right about ritalin. There is evidence that shows it ain't always a cure all. The problem though isn't the drugs necessarily as it is the quickness with which they are prescribed by gung ho better children through chemistry types.

and he was so gung ho about gun rights that he claimed we wouldn't need much of a police force if every one was just given guns. he also defended people's right to have assault weapons on the basis that he wanted his grandmother to have an assualt weapon in the house to defend herself. the guy just sounded way too radical and downright crazy to me.
That's a blatant misquote. The interviewer asked whether or not he'd want an 80 year old grandmother to own an assault weapon and he said yes, she should have the freedom to do so because it was the surest way for her to protect herself. He wanted the assault weapons ban to expire because it was unconstitutional, which he said repeatedly.
 

Number 5

Member
Awards
0
No,he made the valid point that it's rather dumb to take people who aren'tbehaving properly and allow them to back up their antisocial behavior with physical power. I see no problem with people lifting weights in prison so long as they also show some commitment and progress towards rehabilitation. So dangerous thug with a record of random violence and idiocy should not be in the gym or watching cable TV on the tax payer's dime.
i'm guessng that weight training can be important part of the rehabilitation process for some of these guys. i find the idea that people become significantly more dangerous or violent because they weight train a little far fetched and reflective of the guy's bias and lack of sound reasoning.

Problem is he's right about ritalin. There is evidence that shows it ain't always a cure all. The problem though isn't the drugs necessarily as it is the quickness with which they are prescribed by gung ho better children through chemistry types.
ritalin is probably overprescribed and i'm not trying to argue that it's not, but again i find it far fetched that he blames the columbine shooting on it. even his suggestion that it's a significant menace to society is not credible in my opinion and he certainly did not offer any convincing arguments on the matter.

That's a blatant misquote. The interviewer asked whether or not he'd want an 80 year old grandmother to own an assault weapon and he said yes, she should have the freedom to do so because it was the surest way for her to protect herself. He wanted the assault weapons ban to expire because it was unconstitutional, which he said repeatedly.
he had many reasons for defending gun rights, and i'm not an advocate of taking those rights away, but i did not find his reasoning sound. he did suggest (as one reason) that less gun control would result in less crime because criminals would be afraid to attack people if everyone was packing a piece, which to me sounds like the wild west i.e. not really a safe and crime free society.

his suggestion that grandma would need an assault rifle to defend herself from a robber at 2 am is also ridiculous. especially the imagine of it, lol. i think a pistol or a shotgun loaded with rocksalt should be enough for home defense purposes.

also, his examples about switzerland and cities with high gun crime rates despite strict gun laws did not convince me because there are other factors which account for the low crime rates in switzerland, and the reason those cities he mentioned have strict gun control laws was probably a result of the high gun crime rates there rather than the cause.

as i said, i agree with parts of what michael badrik said and some of the liberatarian ideals, but he did not strike me as a reasonable person because of his simplistic and naive arguments on matters.

-5
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
There's the key point. How long before the government decides to make something illegal that you do? The government is populated by lawyers, and to be blunt they make the laws they need to achieve the ends they desire.


It's all part and parcel of the same thing: advancing government power over individuals. At base, there's no difference. Surrender it here or there, on health care or your right to walk down the street without having to show your papers, the overall effect will be the same.


If the more efficient and innovative private market can't control it, you can rest assured the government can't do **** either.


More than likely yes. Whether it's used that way now, it will be in the future. There has never in history, never, been an example of a well restrained government program. There has never been a law whose nature and original intent was not greatly expanded either by activist judges or an overzealous law enforcement system. Many people used to talk about the drug exception to the Fourth Ammendment. We now have a law that sets the stage for the terrorism exception to that Ammendment. These laws will be abused and those abuses will not be confined to those suspected of terrorism.
All of the above, I'm pretty much in complete agreement with you.
As for the liberals using it to drum up support for their candidate and to chip away at Bush's votes, you're right. It's the same nonsense with regard to the draft bill. It was introduced by a Democrat and they blame it on Republicans. However don't allow election year politics to blind you to a true danger. It's that old line about trading liberty for security, and no one questions why fighting terrorism requires the government be able to search my or your house without telling us, which they now can. This link goes to a politcal cartonn that expresses the idea perfectly I believe: http://www.libertyartworx.com/ironic_curtain.html
Personally, that bolded area is one aspect of the Democratic party that I despise! This is not just some fad, it has been a continuous trend with them and it's the most dishonest, dispicable thing I've ever heard of inside of the USA. It sounds like something you'd hear of happening inside of the former USSR.

As far as the gov't being able to search our houses, maybe our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves. I dont know. I haven't read into enough to see if there is some sort of requirement--probable cause, etc--that they have to meet. I also don't think too many roadblocks should be thrown in the way of our officers and law enforcement agencies when they're trying to deter attacks or threats to US citizens. It's a catch-22, I guess. A couple things are for sure, the government shouldn't be able to raid our houses at their every whim and they shouldn't have to go through a labyrinth of legal steps to search a potential threat's home, either.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
i used to like the liberatarian party ideas, but then i heard their presidential candidate, michael badnarik, give an interview and realized that actually i wasn't even close to being a liberatarian. the guy was nuts.

he wants to ban weight training in prisons because he thinks it makes prisoners more dangerous. he blamed the columbine school shooting on ritalin, and he was so gung ho about gun rights that he claimed we wouldn't need much of a police force if every one was just given guns. he also defended people's right to have assault weapons on the basis that he wanted his grandmother to have an assualt weapon in the house to defend herself. the guy just sounded way too radical and downright crazy to me.

you can find an audio file of the interview here: http://www.whyy.org/91FM/RadioTimes.html (just type 'badnarik' in the search box and the interview should come up).

-5
I like everything the guy says / stands for, except for the ridiculous ideas of open borders and his stance on terrorism, essentially pullin the Michael Moore saying that there is no terrorist threat, and what does exist the USA is directly responsible for.

Personally, if I was a burglar and I knew that I could be lit up by an assault weapon if I broke into someone's house, I'd definately second guess myself. LOL. Look at states with lenient gun laws and then find the correlation with their crime rates. Then look at places like Washington DC which has the highest crime rate in the country and take a look at their gun laws. There's a definate correlation between the two. However, there also is--for some odd reason--a lack of "diversity" of races in these lenient gun states and in these states and cities where laws are strict, there is more diversity, so that could account for the crime as well. However, you've also got to consider. What makes you think that just because guns are illegal that the "criminals" won't acquire them anyway....LOL...criminals are those who break the law!! Why would the obey guns laws??
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
i'm guessng that weight training can be important part of the rehabilitation process for some of these guys. i find the idea that people become significantly more dangerous or violent because they weight train a little far fetched and reflective of the guy's bias and lack of sound reasoning.
Lack of sound reasoning where?

ritalin is probably overprescribed and i'm not trying to argue that it's not, but again i find it far fetched that he blames the columbine shooting on it. even his suggestion that it's a significant menace to society is not credible in my opinion and he certainly did not offer any convincing arguments on the matter.
I would say that doctors and psychiatrists, more often than not working for the state, that are drugging kids at a dangerously high rate with substances that have known, sometimes severe side effects, is a very large menace. It's hard to offer convincing arguments when the host is talking over you and you have limited time to begin with. I'll find some articles on the subject from his point of view if you like.

he had many reasons for defending gun rights, and i'm not an advocate of taking those rights away, but i did not find his reasoning sound. he did suggest (as one reason) that less gun control would result in less crime because criminals would be afraid to attack people if everyone was packing a piece, which to me sounds like the wild west i.e. not really a safe and crime free society.
Now this is faulty reasoning, and more than a few studies support his point, a major one done by John Lott and presented in his book More Guns, Less Crime. To paraphrase a famous quote, gun control laws are akin to trying to control wolves by requiring people to leash their dogs. The Wild West nonsense has never happened when gun control laws have been loosed or done away with entirely, though it's a common refrain from gun controlers that the world will turn into a blood bath if anyone who wants to can own a gun. The fact remains that shall issue states and counties have significantly lower crimes rates. The fact remains that there are a few places where gun ownership is required, and their crime rates are remarkably low compared to the rest of the country.

The reasoning is simple: A person who is willing to point a gun at another human being and say, "Give me your money or I'll kill you," or, "Spread your legs or I'll kill you," or, "I'm gonna kill you just for the fun of it," is not going to become a CPA because the government says they can't have a gun. Those who are willing to violate the most sacred and universal laws like Thou shall not kill will not respect the smaller bits of code, like Thou shall not kill with a glock. The people who obey gun control laws are by nature the ones you don't have to worry about, and by their obeying all they do is raise their profile as victims because they are now unarmed. Ask any guy where to get a gun, and chances are he may have an idea there's a gun store somewhere in his area. Ask a criminal and you'll get a few sources, all illegal, and no gun control law in the history of this country has been able to change that.

So it's very simple. There's a problem with the wolves, so we tell the populace to leash their dogs and be at the mercy of the wolves, or we respect the right of all people to defend themselves and let them keep their dogs for protection, leashed or not as they see fit.

his suggestion that grandma would need an assault rifle to defend herself from a robber at 2 am is also ridiculous. especially the imagine of it, lol. i think a pistol or a shotgun loaded with rocksalt should be enough for home defense purposes.
I'd say it's very nice of you to make that decision for everyone else in the country.

also, his examples about switzerland and cities with high gun crime rates despite strict gun laws did not convince me because there are other factors which account for the low crime rates in switzerland, and the reason those cities he mentioned have strict gun control laws was probably a result of the high gun crime rates there rather than the cause.
There's tons of evidence to dispute this, one major piece mentioned above, John Lott's work. When you track levels of crime over time there is a clear link between gun control laws and rising and lowering rates of crime. He also goes beyond that in his book to bridge the gap between correlation and causation. I used to be in favor of gun control. I was put in a position where I had to defend that view with evidence, and after getting my ass whipped in a debate and actually looking at the evidence that's out there, more specifically the heavily manipulated nonsensical BS favored by the gun control crowd, I completely abandoned that point of view.

as i said, i agree with parts of what michael badrik said and some of the liberatarian ideals, but he did not strike me as a reasonable person because of his simplistic and naive arguments on matters.
Simple and naive? Not by a long shot. I'd reccomend more reading as far as the philosophy goes. LewRockwell.com and mises.org are good starting points, the former for general philosophy and the latter for explicitly economic points.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I like everything the guy says / stands for, except for the ridiculous ideas of open borders and his stance on terrorism, essentially pullin the Michael Moore saying that there is no terrorist threat, and what does exist the USA is directly responsible for.
Open borders is a debatable issue within the party. Murray Rothbard, probably one of the greatest Libertarians that ever existed, wasn't for flat out open borders. As far as the terrorism goes though, a lot of it is of our own making. We've been fucking around in the middle east since the fifties, and each time we've almost always left a lot of people dead and worse off than before. If you'll allow me some liberal quoting from an article which basically summarizes the situation in the middle east quite well:

1949--Syria
Defeat in the war against Israel discredits the ruling French-allied civilian regime. American agents and interests take the opportunity to provide support to Colonel Husni az-Zaim in a coup against the civilian regime. American agents call az-Zaim "our boy" and "Husni," but when they arrive to inform the new dictator whom to appoint as his ambassadors and cabinet, az-Zaim orders them to "stand at attention" and to address him as "His Excellency." Syria turns against the U.S. and descends into a series of coups and counter-coups and police-state government by quasi-military regimes.

1952--Egypt
American influence and assistance backs the conspiracy of Gammal Abdel Nasser's Free Officers to oust the Egyptian royal family, the British post-colonial client regime in Egypt. The U.S. expects Nasser to support Washington's anti-Soviet alliance in the Middle East, dubbed the Baghdad Pact, but he turns against the U.S. U.S. agents support Colonel Mohammad Naguib's attempt to overthrow Nasser, as well as later assassination attempts.
In 1956, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles rescinds pledges of foreign aid for the Aswan Dam project. In response, Nasser uses this as a pretext to nationalize the Suez Canal, and uses its toll revenue to fund the dam. Britain, France, and Israel in response launch a joint invasion of Egypt with plans to occupy the Suez Canal. Arab support for the U.S. reaches its highest point when President Eisenhower, out of a distaste for European colonialism and European intervention in the Middle East, pressures the invading forces to abandon their invasion of Egypt.

1953--Iran
After the government announces plans to grant the Soviet Union a territorial oil franchise in Northern Iran, modeled on the British one in the south for the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a local leader named Mohammed Mosaddeq leads the successful popular movement to oppose the grant to the Soviets and pushes further to nationalize all foreign oil facilities. Mosaddeq's popularity and influence increase to the degree that the shah appoints him prime minister.

Faced with economic and political turmoil, the shah attempts to remove Mosaddeq but is met with mobs and mass public demonstrations, causing the shah to flee the country. The CIA then backs Mosaddeq's opponents, who then overthrow his administration and sentence him to house arrest for the rest of his life. The shah is restored and becomes America's best friend and now controls the nationalized British oil facilities as well. Eventually, opposition to the shah's autocracy and U.S. political domination, as well as the Savak--the U.S.-trained Iranian secret police--grows into a nationalist revolution to oust the shah and the West, and in 1979, Iran too turns against the U.S.

1958--Iraq
In opposition to the British-client Iraqi regime, and in opposition also to Nasser's growing influence in Iraq, the bloodthirsty Colonel Kassem spearheads the American-supported military coup to overthrow the Iraqi royal family. The king and crown prince and most of the royal family are executed, and the prime minister is murdered by a mob. Years later, after Kassem has alienated all his allies except the Soviet Union and is overthrown and executed in 1963, United States support swings to a small group called the Ba'th Socialist Party. After many twists and turns, coups and elections, coups and revolutions, Saddam Hussein emerges as president of Iraq in 1976 after leading the coup that, with American insistence, installed that regime in 1968.

1958--Lebanon
After the Iraqi monarchy is overthrown, the president of Lebanon requests U.S. military intervention to save his tottering regime from insurrections of United Arab Republican sympathizers. U.S. Marines arrive the next day in Beirut. Lebanon enters into a thirty-five-year period of instability and civil war.

1969--Libya
In 1959, oil is discovered, which transforms the country. To elbow out the British, American support flows to a young reformist colonel in the Libyan army, Muammar al-Khadafy, who, once in power, turns against his U.S. sponsors, under the pretext of Western exploitation of Arab oil. He confiscates and nationalizes oil facilities and assets, including those of the local Jewish and Italian communities.

1980--Iraq
With the Islamic revolution in Iran, the U.S. tilts toward Iraq and Saddam Hussein as its proxy against the Iranians. Iraq and Hussein become America's front line in its attempt to crush the Islamic revolution in Iran. Armed and financed by Uncle Sam, Saddam invades Iran in 1980. The war would last for eight years and kill nearly a million people. Iraq is given advice and intelligence from the CIA and the Pentagon, and U.S. and British administrations provide Iraq with chemical and biological weapons-making knowledge and materiel to use against the Iranians. We all know how this turned out, but this time was different. The U.S. turned on Saddam.

1983--Lebanon
With the country invaded by Israel and under threat of Syrian domination, American Marine "Peacekeepers" are shipped to Beirut. Opposition to their presence leads to the suicide bombing of the barracks. Some 309 Americans are killed, including the CIA's Mideast staff. In 1985, Lebanese CIA agents detonate a truck bomb in Beirut in an attempt to assassinate Sheikh Fadlallah, leader of the Hezbollah faction suspected of blowing up the American barracks two years earlier. Eighty-three civilians are killed and 240 wounded; Sheikh Fadlallah walks out of the mosque fifteen minutes later.

1986--Libya
In retaliation for the terrorist bombing of a Berlin nightclub that killed a U.S. soldier, President Reagan bombs Libya, causing 130 deaths, including civilians near the French embassy. Khadafy's own residence is targeted, killing his adopted infant daughter, in an attempt to assassinate him. Libya is deliberately chosen as the target because it lacks defenses against air bombing. A few months later, the U.S. admits to arms-trading with Iran, a state that the U.S. openly calls an instigator of "international terrorism," and one that is an ally of Libya. Arab cynicism about U.S. intentions and trustworthiness could only increase. The bombing of Pan Am 103 is considered revenge for these attacks on Libya.

1991--Iraq & Kuwait
After the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, informs Saddam that the U.S. would have no opinion on Iraq's occupation of its "nineteenth province," the U.S. seizes the opportunity to justify its post-cold war internationalism by dubbing Saddam the "new Hitler." After mass slaughter and defeat, crippling sanctions and daily bombardment follow to persuade the Iraqi people that perhaps they would be better off without Saddam. Other observers, however, believe that the sanctions exist to prop up the price of oil.

1995--Afghanistan
The U.S. covertly aids the Taliban militia in its drive to end the post-Soviet-Afghani civil war. The U.S. sides with fundamentalist forces in Afghanistan--but not in Egypt, Algeria, or Saudi Arabia, where they are tortured and suppressed--in a foreign theater of the U.S. drug war. The U.S. government and the fundamentalist opposition to drugs would conjoin in an alliance to drive out Central Asian opium production.

1996--Iraq
President Clinton instructs the CIA to support and aid the Iraqi opposition forces in an operation to finally do away with Saddam Hussein. Iraqi exiles and refugees are trained and armed in the northern no-fly zone to descend on Baghdad. Sympathetic army generals within the regime are cultivated to assassinate Hussein, and efforts to destabilize Iraq begin--such as random car bombings as well as bombings of civilian public places.This plot collapses, however, as Saddam's spies have infiltrated the Kurds. Many Kurds back Saddam and turn on the U.S.-Kurdish faction. CIA agents in Kurdistan run for their lives, abandoning allies and tons of equipment and documents, and the network within Iraq is exposed and eliminated. This catastrophic failure leads to the firing of CIA chief John Deutch. Commentator Eric Margolis dubs this "Clinton's Bay of Camels," after JFK's Bay of Pigs fiasco.

1998--The Sudan & Afghanistan:
President Clinton, in the midst of impeachment, rocket attacks camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, ostensibly to punish suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the bombing of two American embassies in Africa.

After 1945, the U.S. schemed to eject the bankrupt British and French colonial empires in the Middle East--to elbow out Soviet influence, but, more likely, to secure political control over its oil. America's Oil Raj, as some commentators call the interdependent network of political, monetary, and military relationships--mirroring Britain's collection of territories and petty kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent--consists of the old imposed artificial colonial client states created by Britain and France. Outside of this "Oil Raj" exists a trade-sanction regime that the U.S. maintains on Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and, until recently, India and Pakistan--all some of the poorest places in the world.

The Cycle Continues

The U.S. sends billions in financial and military aid to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan each year to prop up these regimes against "fundamentalist" popular Islamic movements (which are the only way dissent can be expressed in these regimes, since Islam is the only thing these rulers can't outlaw). The U.S. also gives political support to corrupt and oppressive dictatorships, such as exist in Algeria and Tunisia. Everywhere, the U.S. favors and aids the status quo of political repression and dictatorship. This hypocrisy is what fuels Arab and Muslim anger.

Foreign Affairs commentator Eric Margolis noted recently the continuing cycle of American political involvement in the Middle East. He points out that in nearly every decade since the mid-fifties, a president of the United States has faced a challenge of a Muslim peril, an Arab or Muslim bogeyman that is everywhere and nowhere--Nasser, Khomeni, Khadafy, Saddam, and, now, bin Laden. And every time, the results have been the same: U.S. demonizes this single man, only to watch him grow into a popular hero of the Arab masses--the Arabic or Islamic David that dares to stand up and confront the U.S. oil dominion over the Arab world and the economic and political distortion that the US leaves in its wake.

Now, the cycle is beginning again with Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Osama bin Laden. And it has been reported that in the Middle East over the past few years, Osama has become the most common name for newborn boys.
 

Number 5

Member
Awards
0
Personally, if I was a burglar and I knew that I could be lit up by an assault weapon if I broke into someone's house, I'd definately second guess myself.

<snip>

What makes you think that just because guns are illegal that the "criminals" won't acquire them anyway....LOL...criminals are those who break the law!! Why would the obey guns laws??
right now in most states (?) you can buy a shotgun without a license, so when a burglar breaks into some ones house he knows the person might have at least a shotgun. now they also lifted the ban on assault rifles, which is okay with me by the way, but i seriously doubt that it will cause a single burglar to reevaluate when to rob a house or not because now they might be a little bit likelier to face an assault rifle instead of just a shotgun or some other weapon.

i've never said that making guns illegal will prohibit criminals from acquiring them, just that badnarik did not do a good job defending his case for the reasons i mentioned previously and thus i do not trust him.

he was also very extreme on some issues. i'm not 100% sure since it's been a while since i listened to the interview, but i believe he suggested that once a criminal gets out of jail he should have the right to buy a gun legally if he wants to because he's done his time and if he's not rehabilitated then he should not be let out. this is great in theory, but in reality we don't know whether these guys are rehabilitated or not when they get out (and obviously we can't keep them in forever either), so it would make sense to me that they'd have to wait a few years, at least until their parole is over, before they'll be allowed to purchase guns again.

-5
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
he was also very extreme on some issues. i'm not 100% sure since it's been a while since i listened to the interview, but i believe he suggested that once a criminal gets out of jail he should have the right to buy a gun legally if he wants to because he's done his time and if he's not rehabilitated then he should not be let out. this is great in theory, but in reality we don't know whether these guys are rehabilitated or not when they get out (and obviously we can't keep them in forever either), so it would make sense to me that they'd have to wait a few years, at least until their parole is over, before they'll be allowed to purchase guns again.
Several points come into this argument, which I used to disagree with but am now in line with what he said.

1) If the released con wants a gun, he'll get a gun, legally or illegally.

2) Libertarians would not be flooding our prison system with all those dangerous weed smokers and other nonviolent criminals. A good way to put it is that in a Libertarian society there would be far fewer laws, but those remaining would be taken dead seriously.

3) Given point 1, futility, and point 2, that it'd be easier to keep true criminals in prison once we stop locking up ridiculous amounts of people for petty bullshit, it'd be a lot easier to be sure that a person gets released when they're ready to be back in society, and not just when we need more room for some hippie who got caught in a sting selling more than x amount of weed or LSD, etc.
 

Number 5

Member
Awards
0
Lack of sound reasoning where?


I would say that doctors and psychiatrists, more often than not working for the state, that are drugging kids at a dangerously high rate with substances that have known, sometimes severe side effects, is a very large menace. It's hard to offer convincing arguments when the host is talking over you and you have limited time to begin with. I'll find some articles on the subject from his point of view if you like.
lack of reasoning in the sense that he just asserted that ritalin was responsible for the columbine school shooting. i do not remember him offering any evidence or quoting studies when the host confronted him about it.

as for the articles, if it's published in a highly respected peer reviewed journal, then i'll gladly take a look. otherwise i'll just take the hypotheticals into consideration for what they are worth, but i'm not going to put much weight on any given expert's words unless it's backed by a reputable publication because there's just too much bullshit out there for me to go over and try to pass some amateur judgement over.

Now this is faulty reasoning, and more than a few studies support his point, a major one done by John Lott and presented in his book More Guns, Less Crime. To paraphrase a famous quote, gun control laws are akin to trying to control wolves by requiring people to leash their dogs. The Wild West nonsense has never happened when gun control laws have been loosed or done away with entirely, though it's a common refrain from gun controlers that the world will turn into a blood bath if anyone who wants to can own a gun. The fact remains that shall issue states and counties have significantly lower crimes rates. The fact remains that there are a few places where gun ownership is required, and their crime rates are remarkably low compared to the rest of the country.
if badnarik had made this case on the interview i would have been much more symphetic to his stance, but he didn't. also, i'm aware of many (general) arguments for and against gun control and since i haven't been convinced by either side yet, i'm on the fence on this one, or more precisely, i'm against gun control until some one shows me it lowers crime because i really hate it when the government takes people's rights away without full researched and properly motivated reasoning reasoning.

The reasoning is simple: A person who is willing to point a gun at another human being and say, "Give me your money or I'll kill you," or, "Spread your legs or I'll kill you," or, "I'm gonna kill you just for the fun of it," is not going to become a CPA because the government says they can't have a gun. Those who are willing to violate the most sacred and universal laws like Thou shall not kill will not respect the smaller bits of code, like Thou shall not kill with a glock. The people who obey gun control laws are by nature the ones you don't have to worry about, and by their obeying all they do is raise their profile as victims because they are now unarmed. Ask any guy where to get a gun, and chances are he may have an idea there's a gun store somewhere in his area. Ask a criminal and you'll get a few sources, all illegal, and no gun control law in the history of this country has been able to change that.
this reasoning is okay, but other side is that when cops go around to take care of domestic disputes for example they'd rather be the only ones with the guns. however, you may be right that more guns = less crime, i'm not here to argue otherwise, and to reiterate, i'm really just claiming that badnarik sounded extreme and somewhat nuts - if you disagree then play that interview to some of you friends that that fit the average american catagory (not already liberatarian) and see what they think. and even if he's right on every issue, the fact that he wasn't able to come across as a reasonable sounding person, in my opinion at least, makes him less trustworthy.

I'd say it's very nice of you to make that decision for everyone else in the country.
i have no problem with anyone owning assault weapons, i've used one myself when i was in the military, and they are great for killing people especially, but if you are NPR and you are asked whether you want your grandma to have the assault weapon, then maybe instead of saying 'you bet your ass i do so she can defend herself against the guy creeping through the windown at 2 am' (or something to that effect), i think he should have just made the case that even grandma should be allowed to own one if she wants it for defense or for hobby purposes, but making the case that she needs it to defend her home does sound riddiculous to me, but maybe i'm alone on this one - to each his own.

There's tons of evidence to dispute this, one major piece mentioned above, John Lott's work. When you track levels of crime over time there is a clear link between gun control laws and rising and lowering rates of crime. He also goes beyond that in his book to bridge the gap between correlation and causation. I used to be in favor of gun control. I was put in a position where I had to defend that view with evidence, and after getting my ass whipped in a debate and actually looking at the evidence that's out there, more specifically the heavily manipulated nonsensical BS favored by the gun control crowd, I completely abandoned that point of view.
i'm not familiar when lott's work. i'll take a look at the stuff you posted later. i'd like to know his background though and whether his statistical analysis was published in any peer reviewed journal?

Simple and naive? Not by a long shot. I'd reccomend more reading as far as the philosophy goes. LewRockwell.com and mises.org are good starting points, the former for general philosophy and the latter for explicitly economic points.
bro, his arguments sounded simplistic and naive, to me at least. i have not made the claim a single time that his philosophies are wrong, but he did not make a good case for them and to me it sounded like he was just offering a bunch of examples and loose/extreme sounding arguments to make his case without any awareness that these have to be put in the right context and backed up by proper statistical research to show that the correlation holds when we control for other factors.

-5
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Open borders is a debatable issue within the party. Murray Rothbard, probably one of the greatest Libertarians that ever existed, wasn't for flat out open borders.
Exactly why I can still call myself a libertarian. It is very debatable.
As far as the terrorism goes though, a lot of it is of our own making. We've been fucking around in the middle east since the fifties, and each time we've almost always left a lot of people dead and worse off than before. If you'll allow me some liberal quoting from an article which basically summarizes the situation in the middle east quite well:
I know of our screw-ups and our interventions in the middle east, but I say when everyone looks to the root of the problem, they never look "at the root". They're going back far in time, but not far enough.

The Jews were given land after WWII, right? Right. Now, whether you think that was the right decision or not will decided whether you think we are justified to have screwed around in the middle east or not, because of this event:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#Background

"On May 14, the British Mandate expired. The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the Soviet Union, the United States, and many other countries.

Over the next few days, approximately 10,000 Lebanese, 60,000 Syrian, 4,500 Iraqi, 50,500 Egyptian, 60,000-90,000 Transjordanian troops and unknown number of Saudi and Yemenite troops entered the former Mandate. Together with the few thousand irregular Arab soldiers, they faced an Israeli Zionist army numbering 30,000-35,000. Both sides increased their manpower over the following months, but the Israeli advantage grew steadily."

These hundreds of thousands of Arabs invaded Israel and thus our troubles began. Because they were hell bent on the ethnic cleansing of the middle east (look at Darfur) and they were upset the Jews had this little chunk of land we were forced to support the long suppressed jews. Yes, I know the jews started stealing land. The arabs attack, the jews respond, prevail and expand. Now, if the arabs had never done anything to the Jews and the Jews were stealing land from them, it would be a different story, IMHO. But I think they were justified. All anyone ever refers back to is the Dier Yassine Massacre, but worse **** is done to the israeli's all the time. The Jews were pissed and some soldiers pulled a stupid maneuver. That's nothing compared to sending in hundres of thousands of soldiers to ethnically cleanse another race. I personally believe we are justified in supporting Israel and the Europeans and the Arabs need to re-evaluate their position, IMHO. Yes, we could have just let the Jews get massacred, again...

EDIT: Honestly, look at the manpower and the firepower the Jews were up against. It's a wonder they're still a nation!!

EDIT AGAIN: Signs of ethnic cleansing?? Simple immigration of Jews to escaper European persecution resulted in violence:

"The area to the west of the Jordan became the center of Zionist aspirations for a Jewish homeland or state, and gradually saw a large influx of Jewish immigrants escaping persecution in Europe.

This immigration drew immediate and violent opposition from local Arabs."

--Same article as cited above.

If you want to go back as far as post WWII when Europeans occupied many arab territories, that was the direct result of the Ottoman Empire!! The problem is not us, it's them and the fact that the "elite" think we're not allowed to respond to their advances or prepare to protect ourselves from future adavances. It's the radical political ideology and it's not going anywhere!!!!!

I really hope more people could get educated on this matter, they'd have a much better idea of what's going on in the middle east and why.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
bro, his arguments sounded simplistic and naive, to me at least. i have not made the claim a single time that his philosophies are wrong, but he did not make a good case for them and to me it sounded like he was just offering a bunch of examples and loose/extreme sounding arguments to make his case without any awareness that these have to be put in the right context and backed up by proper statistical research to show that the correlation holds when we control for other factors.
-5
I'd say that's a limitation of format more than not. I get your NPR point, but he's not going to convince any of that crowd anyway. I would have done the same; strong forcefull opinions with no compromise.

As for Lott's work, I'm not sure which journal he published in, I just read his book. I'm aware of two attempts to dispute his finding, both of which were either abandoned or failed. and both are mentioned on his website. I believe you can find the link through the American Enterprise Institute's page, as that's where he's currently employed.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I really hope more people could get educated on this matter, they'd have a much better idea of what's going on in the middle east and why.
As do I, however it doesn't deny the central point that we'd be better off now had we never gotten involved in the first place.
 

Number 5

Member
Awards
0
As for Lott's work, I'm not sure which journal he published in, I just read his book. I'm aware of two attempts to dispute his finding, both of which were either abandoned or failed. and both are mentioned on his website. I believe you can find the link through the American Enterprise Institute's page, as that's where he's currently employed.
i just had a look at the site and he's got some interesting articles over there that are worth looking at. i didn't recognize the name when you first mentioned it, but after checking the site i realize that i do know of him and in fact i almost met him a few years ago to discuss this very topic.

actually his work was the reason why i stayed neutral on the gun control issue even though my natural instinct would have been to assume that more guns would equal more crime. he's definately a reputable source.

-5
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
As do I, however it doesn't deny the central point that we'd be better off now had we never gotten involved in the first place.
And that, again, is the debatable part. If we didn't get involved, would the Jews eventually have been massacred, again? Would the world be better? Well never know though, huh?
 

serengo

Member
Awards
0
i used to like the liberatarian party ideas, but then i heard their presidential candidate, michael badnarik, give an interview and realized that actually i wasn't even close to being a liberatarian. the guy was nuts.

he wants to ban weight training in prisons because he thinks it makes prisoners more dangerous.

-5
Why should my tax dollars buy weights for prisoners to work out? I am still buying equipment to finish off my home gym, I'm in agreement, but mostly because it's prison, not spring training camp.

I agree with a zealous pro-gun stance also, simply because incrementally gun rights are going out the window. Again agreement but for different reasons.

I agree these guys often come off sounding nutty. That's really the problem with the Libertarian party, they sound like they are out of the mainstream. However the reasoning that Individual rights should remain with the individual. States have given over too much to the Federal Gov't and that the Federal Gov't should only do those things that cannot be accomplished by the states, (Interstates Highways, Border protection and Military) and have usurped the States by means of the commerce act holds true.
 

Number 5

Member
Awards
0
Why should my tax dollars buy weights for prisoners to work out? I am still buying equipment to finish off my home gym, I'm in agreement, but mostly because it's prison, not spring training camp.
Well your argument is perfectly reasonable here if you feel that prisoners should just sit sit there and do their time. I think the idea though is to rehabilitate them and for this purpose they are given access to some activities - books, basketball, weight training, tv or such.

To agree with Badnarik's argument on this though I think you would have to answer affirmatively both questions below whereas I would not.

Would you want the already existing weight training equipment removed from prisons?

Do you think weight training makes prisoners significantly more dangerous and violent?

-5
 

serengo

Member
Awards
0
Well your argument is perfectly reasonable here if you feel that prisoners should just sit sit there and do their time. I think the idea though is to rehabilitate them and for this purpose they are given access to some activities - books, basketball, weight training, tv or such.

To agree with Badnarik's argument on this though I think you would have to answer affirmatively both questions below whereas I would not.

Would you want the already existing weight training equipment removed from prisons?

Do you think weight training makes prisoners significantly more dangerous and violent?

-5
Yes, remove the weight equipment and sell it on ebay, give me back my tax dollars.

It's not that weight training makes them more dangerous, I think they need something to take out the frustration, beat each other up, or better yet push ups, pull-ups and sit ups. That way it doesn't cost me anything.

I am for programs that are low or no cost to taxpayers, we pay enough to put them there. The libertarian would also argue that the bulk of them are there on drug charges and should not be there in the first place.

TV, Books, educational materials, I'm ok with it as long as the tv's are donated, I don't think I should pay for cable tv though. I think there are plenty of free books to go around. Distance education can be had pretty cheap, spend your licence-plate stamping money on it.
 

INFOHAZARD

Member
Awards
0
To milwood: Yes, Libertarians oppose the ban. While I am a Libertarian it's the same as having the help of a pocket poodle if you're being chased by wolves. Libertarian philosophy is spot on, the Libertarian Party is pretty irrelevant right now. Plus opposition to the ban doesn't make one a Libertarian, I think few people here would find anything they'd identify with ideologically with in that philosophy. Many people here who have a problem with the government taking their 'roids away have absolutely no problem with the government taking someone's weed away. They'll argue that their drug is different. Usual argument is steroids are used to improve oneself, weed isn't, stuff like that. Few if any will see the ultimate principle of self ownership is what's at issue, and that it requires a defense of someone being able to use whatever substances they want regardless of the effects and purposes of those substances, and whether or not we agree with the ultimate end for the person who chooses to use.
To kwyckemynd00: You can't invite the government into other people's lives but keep it out of your own, here or abroad. It's in or out. As far as borders are concerned, it's a problem without a clear solution. It takes a massive state apparatus to maintain open borders and the incentive to cross them, just as a big an apparatus as it takes to close them. Private property and the unquestioned right to defend it is a good solution, as is ending the various government handouts that are available to illegals. Basically you need to hit a balance where the benefits of immigrating legally outweight those of illegal immigration, and where the costs of the former are also significantly lower than the latter. Basically this leads to a situation where those of good intent take the easy legal route, and the fewer who have ill intent towards our country are easier to target and deal with. Compound this with getting the government out of its major role as owner of tons if not most of the land west of the Mississippi and you get results. It's harder to cross a pissed off neighbor's yard than it is our borders. It would also lead to fewer people abroad being pissed at us if we'd stop interfering with their lives at our convenience.

To Strateg0s: Antitrust law is not good, it's economic protectionism and has been since its inception. Monopolies and cartels can't exist without government intervention in their favor, they fall apart from competition not only from other companies but from within. Thomas DiLorenzo has written much and well on this subject, I'd reccomend reading some of his stuff, and even listening to some of his recorded lectures from The Mises Institute. Here's a link to one of his articles: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=436&id=73 His recordings are available at that site too, I'd reccomend the one entitled The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation. You'll find similar articles there as to the essential uselessness of the SEC: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=308&id=73, http://www.mises.org/etexts/insidertrading.pdf.

As for the patriot act, I have read bits of it. Some, but very little makes sense. For example floating wire taps are a common sense thing, it's stupid that law enforcement should have to get a warrant and approval to tap every phone a person has, and all they have to do is pick up a new cell phone to avoid the tap. But then there's also bits that say the government can search your house and never let you know. Not so good. There's also little to no way to stop the judges who need to approve many of the measures in the Patriot Act from becoming rubber stampers, signing off on damn near everything that's presented to them.

However what bothers me most is that it never occurs to people to question why the bill was available so quickly. Basically similar but more disjointed bills had been presented to congress before and shot down because of consitutional concerns. There was always an excuse, usually the war on drugs, used for expanding government powers in such a way. It was mostly wrong pre 9/11, it's wrong post 9/11 too. It's one thing to introduce legislation to correct idiotic rulings that offer criminals more protection under the law than their victims ever have, the Patriot Act is another thing entirely.
WHile I'm not about to endorse the abandonment of all anti-trust law, as for the rest of it :goodpost:
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
WHile I'm not about to endorse the abandonment of all anti-trust law, as for the rest of it
Thanks bro. As for the anti trust issue, I used to agree. It's unbelievable how far I've drifted from what I used to believe. But, bottom line is that the more I read pro and con on that specific issue, the less and less the pro side made sense. In fact right now it makes no sense. Right now and over it's history antitrust law has been used to protect less efficient businesses (often small too) from more efficient businesses. If you look at many of the industries that wre targeted during the first antitrust campaigns, such as the meat industry, the companies that were accused of monopolizing were lowering prices dramaticall faster than other companies in the same industry. Monoplies are supposed to raise prices, and in the end this makes sense logically.

If a man's competitor was raising prices he wouldn't complain to the government. Either he could raise prices too and form an informal or formal cartel, or he could undercut his competitor's prices and get those customers shopping with him. Either way it's a win win situation for the business. However, if his competitor is lowering prices and he just can't stay in business while charging the same or less, he definitely will complain to government for some special intervention to subsidize his less efficient business.

Now there is the predatory pricing line, which on it's face is absolute nonsense. It goes like this: a company will lower prices to ridiculous levels to drive out all competitors and then raise prices. Try selling that to your boss, 'cause this is what it would sound like: "Hey boss, let's take a loss on sales of this product that we make for long enough to put everyone else out of business, then I guarantee you we can raise prices to astronomical levels and no competitor will ever come onto the market to challenge those prices. Oh, and those losses we'll just have to eat for a few years, basically however long it takes to put everyone else out business." If you presented that line to your boss, you'd get fired and put into an institution. But weirdly enough people buy this predatory pricing argument, mostly because they don't understand what a price is and who sets it.

A more recent example was the antitrust suit against Microsoft. There are other options for operating systems out there, Windows is number one because by action (that's what they buy) it's what consumers have chosen. That gives Microsoft an edge in the market which allows them to bundle this or include that, but there's nothing unfair or uncompetitive about it. That is the nature of competition. All those other companies were essentially just pissing and moaning that with their budget and methods they simply couldn't do better in any way that mattered to consumers. That doesn't mean Microsoft was uncompetitive, it means those other companies were losing in the competition and, as usual, tried to bring in the government to "level the playing field," or in other words punish and hinder the winner.

I think the main problem is people these days have a weird idea what constitutes competition. It's reflected in steroid using body builder vs nonusers. I've often heard it state that using steroids is somehow cheating or unfair. Nonsense. The builders who use them found an effective tool which they learned to use and are willing to accept the risks. This approach lets them achieve superior results. Just because a natural guy can't or won't use AAS doesn't make the guy who does less of a competitor. Were we to take the anticompetitive argument to it's extreme, all caloric intake of pro body builders and all sports competitors should be controlled to be sure everyone was playing on a "level playing field" nutritionally. Multivitamins would be banned. Those with superior genetics would have to be hindered in some way to make sure they don't have any unfair advantages over their less genetically gifted competitors, etc.

Once more I reccomend DiLorenzo's lecture The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation, available in the audio video section of the Mises Institute's website for an overview. It's an eye openning thirty or forty minute lecture. As a reccomentation I've never found a more valuable resource on the web except for exrx.net as The Mises Institute's website.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
...
I think the main problem is people these days have a weird idea what constitutes competition. It's reflected in steroid using body builder vs nonusers. I've often heard it state that using steroids is somehow cheating or unfair. Nonsense. The builders who use them found an effective tool which they learned to use and are willing to accept the risks. This approach lets them achieve superior results. Just because a natural guy can't or won't use AAS doesn't make the guy who does less of a competitor. Were we to take the anticompetitive argument to it's extreme, all caloric intake of pro body builders and all sports competitors should be controlled to be sure everyone was playing on a "level playing field" nutritionally. Multivitamins would be banned. Those with superior genetics would have to be hindered in some way to make sure they don't have any unfair advantages over their less genetically gifted competitors, etc.....
Simply awesome! LOL. That analogy works perfect.
:goodpost:

100% agreement on anti-trust laws.
 

Similar threads


Top