[milwood]

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]

Originally Posted by milwood

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Strateg0s

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?

[wastedwhiteboy2]

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]

What, you mean we are not all card carrying members of the libertarian party?

[CDB]

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]

Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2

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.

Originally Posted by CDB

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 *******s 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]

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]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

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 *******s 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]

Originally Posted by milwood

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]

Originally Posted by CDB

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]

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]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

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 h