Any libertarians?

  1. Any libertarians?


    Any libertarians out here?


  2. Quote Originally Posted by skavenger58 View Post
    Any libertarians out here?
    What is a libertarian?

  3. A political ideology that believes the government shouldn't be involved in personal or economic matters...
    •   
       


  4. Quote Originally Posted by skavenger58 View Post
    Any libertarians out here?
    Yeah buddy! Glad to see another Libertarian on here

  5. Not many of us out there haha

  6. Quote Originally Posted by skavenger58 View Post
    Not many of us out there haha
    I dont affiliate myself with any political party, but I love much of Ron Paul's political philosophy and have many "libertarian" views.

    The problem is any political ideology gets twisted around so I dont like labeling anything. Thomas Jefferson for example was a liberal, but you know he would throw up at todays liberals and probably just drop dead.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  7. I think anyone on here using aas or pro hormones has to be at least partially libertarian in ideology whether they know it or not.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Bult View Post
    I think anyone on here using aas or pro hormones has to be at least partially libertarian in ideology whether they know it or not.
    I haven't been back to comment sorry on vacation. But yes I don't affiliate with the libertarian party at all. I follow the philosophy of its and read a lot of Milton Friedman and John Locke. I also agree If your using AAS or pro hormones wether you know it or not your supporting voluntary transaction a libertarian capitalist core believe.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by skavenger58 View Post
    I haven't been back to comment sorry on vacation. But yes I don't affiliate with the libertarian party at all. I follow the philosophy of its and read a lot of Milton Friedman and John Locke. I also agree If your using AAS or pro hormones wether you know it or not your supporting voluntary transaction a libertarian capitalist core believe.
    Milton Friedman is a good one for sure, sort of pseudo Libertarian though if you read like Murray Rothbard or Hayek they poo poo him a bit. Lol he is an easier read than they are though for sure. Locke and Adam Smith are also excellent, smith from the economic side and Locke with his treatise on government. Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America is another good one, though not specifically Libertarian in view point his writings really highlight the difference between our federal government today vs what it was in the late 18th early 19th century.

  10. Have you ever looked into Marcus Tullius Cicero?
    A lot on the basis of natural law and order Locke referred to him a lot.

  11. Yeah I read the Cicero letters. To be honest I never knew anything but his sir name Cicero.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by skavenger58 View Post
    Have you ever looked into Marcus Tullius Cicero?
    A lot on the basis of natural law and order Locke referred to him a lot.

    will certainly look into this.

    I have a libertarian vision also. Have you guys looked into Tom Leykis' radio program?

    The Tom Leykis Show



    ^tongue in cheek url referencing the time when callers requested to be "blownse'd" up after their call, he played a soundbyte of a dynamite explosion after a call if they requested it. Back in the radio days when he worked for the big wall street conglomerates, some radio stations were against the idea of "flushing" their callers down the toilet and some callers still request to be taken out "old-oldschool style", some of the more uptight listeners thought it was offensive. Nowadays there's "take me out Whitney Houston style", among dozens of others.

    Anyway I like his hardcore libertarian views and still listen to him via the Tom Leykis app on my smart phone, I consider him one of the best menninists, libertarians in the airwaves bar-none!

  13. Quote Originally Posted by skavenger58 View Post
    A political ideology that believes the government shouldn't be involved in personal or economic matters...
    I believe in it for myself but not others. Only reason being is with my close observation and experiences over quite a few years people are nowhere near evolved enough to be given so much responsibility and if given it will ultimately result in far too much chaos.

  14. I am a huge libertarian. Maybe sometimes a little too logical about it and less emotional than I should be. "Free to live, free to breath, free to succeed, free to fail, free to die." Freedom isn't for the weak.

    It is an interesting place to be politically considering my past. over a decade ago I was probably what you would call a communist. Then I became extremely conservative to the point of it being blind. Now I have found balance in being a Libertarian. Awake, aware.

    Currently pawing over ethics as I develop myself further. At what point do we force societal regulations in order to keep us human, and how do we do so without restricting ourselves or others too much?

    I qualify a human being as a creature capable of self control, having the ability to resist biology for the sake of society. So today in America there are many who slip from my mental classification of "modern human". So I tend to lean more heavily on individual freedom even if it means failure and possibly even the end of a genetic line if they fail to find a way in society. You are free to make your own choices. If those choices are all bad then let nature take its course. But the humane side of me cannot stand to see people suffer so inevitably I give in when someone says we should help.

    Inevitably we have to institute restrictions due to our emotional nature. Because honestly I doubt any of us could watch another family starve to death in front of us. It is in our nature to help. As a result we try to force programs that would prevent that.

    So the biggest thing about being a libertarian is finding that balance. Libertarians though are probably the most divided political group. Partially due to how successful we are as we have converts from every other group as such there is a good deal of infighting because some are still attached to certain concepts from their past.


    Maybe we should schedule some VOIP political discussions for the Libertarians here? A once a month thing where we do some homework on subjects we choose for it then present our opinions to one another.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Zero V View Post
    But the humane side of me cannot stand to see people suffer so inevitably I give in when someone says we should help.

    Inevitably we have to institute restrictions due to our emotional nature. Because honestly I doubt any of us could watch another family starve to death in front of us. It is in our nature to help. As a result we try to force programs that would prevent that.

    So the biggest thing about being a libertarian is finding that balance. Libertarians though are probably the most divided political group. Partially due to how successful we are as we have converts from every other group as such there is a good deal of infighting because some are still attached to certain concepts from their past.
    Generally people are good people, and willing to help out their neighbor. Problem is when goverment forces charity on us (welfare, foreign aid, etc...) and takes our money, we have less money to spend and we learn to hate the people that partake in stealing from us. If we were all in a position where we arent slaves to Uncle Sam and we truly are free by means of owning our benefits of our own labor, I think people will generally be more giving. Goverment can go stick their bureaucratic charities, I want to keep more of my own so I can contribute to my own charity of choice.

    There is no such thing as "balance." Everyone will perceive balance differently. The problem is the political party system...they all need to be wiped from the face of the earth (although I do not condone regulations on the individual choice to do so.) Its best for people to stop labeling themselves with political groups. They all become corrupt ses pools by the mega corporations that infiltrate and buy them out, including the Libertarian party. They cause both division and blind party support and ideas become twisted into the agenda that those who finance them want it to be. Remember, Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, boy would he just kill himself if he saw Obama and today general liberals, lol!
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  16. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Generally people are good people, and willing to help out their neighbor. Problem is when goverment forces charity on us (welfare, foreign aid, etc...) and takes our money, we have less money to spend and we learn to hate the people that partake in stealing from us. If we were all in a position where we arent slaves to Uncle Sam and we truly are free by means of owning our benefits of our own labor, I think people will generally be more giving. Goverment can go stick their bureaucratic charities, I want to keep more of my own so I can contribute to my own charity of choice.

    There is no such thing as "balance." Everyone will perceive balance differently. The problem is the political party system...they all need to be wiped from the face of the earth (although I do not condone regulations on the individual choice to do so.) Its best for people to stop labeling themselves with political groups. They all become corrupt ses pools by the mega corporations that infiltrate and buy them out, including the Libertarian party. They cause both division and blind party support and ideas become twisted into the agenda that those who finance them want it to be. Remember, Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, boy would he just kill himself if he saw Obama and today general liberals, lol!
    Nothing can exist without a label. No group can stand unified without a name. Without labels America, Democracy, and Freedom could not exist.

    While the perception of balance varies, like everything, from individual to individual it is the pursuit of balance that sets Libertarians apart from Liberals or Conservatives. Generally speaking the left and right rely on fear to control their members. Different fears, but still fear nonetheless. They teach people to run from fear.

    I perceive Libertarian teachings as being more along the lines of accepting fear. Accepting fear is the first step towards actually being responsible as a human being. Neither the left or right act in a responsible manner. Very few people who exist at about the middle of it all actually are acting responsibility in regards to the development of the species as well as to the nature of man.

    Libertarians are also the only group of people I know who can stand in front of someone and say "I am insignificant. You are insignificant." as the other two parties can't They rely on, as I said, fear. They each convince their own people of their great importance and value to society. The left be generating an arbitrary ransoms worth of value for everyone regardless of skill set. The right by focusing value on people who follow specific routes of life far more than others. Which to them is fair because at any time anyone can start down that path and thus choose to improve their value.

    I think a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow. Nothing more. Nothing less.

  17. If you can refute my original comment I'd genuinely be interested to hear that. Because although I like to agree with the heroic and optimistic (maybe even utopian) attitude of Libertarians I can't seem to convince myself (as hard as I try) that it would work in reality as opposed to in our minds.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    If you can refute my original comment I'd genuinely be interested to hear that. Because although I like to agree with the heroic and optimistic (maybe even utopian) attitude of Libertarians I can't seem to convince myself (as hard as I try) that it would work in reality as opposed to in our minds.
    You think Libertarians are optimistic and uptopian? I think you have a bit of a misunderstanding of the platform...We want freedom in its rawest form. And in that form things are anything but utopian. They are simply real and have function is all.

    As I described earlier. True freedom means some people die because they cant cut it.

    I see libertarians as realists who are better at replacing emotions with logic than the other two parties is all. Which is why they get a good deal of hate from both sides. Some of the reasons we concede to specific safety net concepts is because such a concept nets a small gain in energy placed into society by the above average citizen as they function better with a slight sense of comfort. I don't approve of it necessarily because I don't want the guy to lose everything.

    In the end though unhindered progress equates to less suffering in the long run.

  19. Ok but you didn't refute my original comment. You don't have to, it's not a challenge, I'm just asking if you could.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    Ok but you didn't refute my original comment. You don't have to, it's not a challenge, I'm just asking if you could.
    This one?

    "I believe in it for myself but not others. Only reason being is with my close observation and experiences over quite a few years people are nowhere near evolved enough to be given so much responsibility and if given it will ultimately result in far too much chaos."

    Because if so I can but it will have to wait until after my dentist appointment in an hour because it may be an essay.

    Also Libertarians do not seek to abolish government. We believe in the government. We believe in smaller versions of something like the FDA, smaller and more functional. We believe in law enforcement, it is the only way to control the sadists. We believe in a national military. We are not anarchists.

    We simply believe that the individual should have more responsibility for their own decisions. For good, or for bad. One of the biggest things bogging this nation down is the sheer volume of laws that are so complex you need experts who dedicate their life to them in order to navigate them. This should not be so. Laws should be simple and effective, not thousands of pages in length. Federal laws should be few and important, State laws should be the final word except in situations where the basic rights of a human being are violated.

    Don't confuse us with Anarchists. We simply believe in responsibility of the individual. We also tend to favor harsher punishment for violent crimes, but softer punishment for non-violent crimes.

    The government currently is so bloated it cannot function. Mostly because it has had to take responsibility for individuals choices and thus has countless laws involving people instead of processes.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Zero V View Post
    We simply believe that the individual should have more responsibility for their own decisions.
    Such as what decisions should people have more say in? If we start from the bases that people are not only not ready to be given responsibility most don't even want it.

    Also, I think we have quite a bit of power and responsibility already its just that people don't take it and in many cases don't want to take it, rather let the state (someone else) handle it. Thats why I originally said it'll be good for me but not others. "We" are a tiny group of people IMO. So it makes no sense to change this current aspect. I'm even arguing against my own wishes here, thats how nonsensical it would be to give people "more responsibility" but then again it may depend on what this "more" means. It implies some but not all, and who would determine which is to be given and which is not? I cant wrap my head around it. Either be a totally autonomous individual and seek sovereignty or live under the state (it has its pro's in some cases I guess).

    For good, or for bad.
    This also would concern me. Lets reduce laws for example and give people the responsibility not to cross the line but say "well if you do, don't worry about it... thats all part of being a libertarian". Then it comes back to which laws to to take away and which do you keep implemented. You also gotta remember the tendency of humans to find loopholes in every system thats created which is why so many laws exists. Even those stupid ones most likely come about due to a loophole being manipulated by a small group. Humans are a waste lol

    Don't confuse us with Anarchists.
    There is a close resemblance though wouldn't you say? Libertarians has some Anarchists tendencies IMO just less extreme.

    We simply believe in responsibility of the individual.
    Yes, thats what YOU believe (and me for the most part) but would you still push this belief IF you knew most people didn't even want it?

    The government currently is so bloated it cannot function. Mostly because it has had to take responsibility for individuals choices and thus has countless laws involving people instead of processes.
    It's f#cked because it is corrupt and has no interest in the people only its own agenda. Part of its agenda is to do that very thing "take responsibility for individuals choices". Why would it want a bunch of smart self-thinking individuals sniffing around?

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Zero V View Post
    Nothing can exist without a label. No group can stand unified without a name. Without labels America, Democracy, and Freedom could not exist.
    We can have a name, thats for sure. How about George Washington? Thats a name. Our founding father did not belong to a political party, and is the last president who wasnt a part of one. Its time to vote for ones individual idea's rather than a puppet for a party and have a non-affiliated president again for the first time since GW.

    You know, the Libertarian Party is actually looking to endorse Jesse Ventura for president...Jesse has one condition, that he is not labeled a Libertarian and will not partake in any party.

    The problem is, politicians trap us in political parties, thats why we never have any real change (or restoration that is.)

    You know, I do love alot of Libertarian ideas and love Ron Paul for the most part, didnt want you to think Im actual anti-Libertarian. Im just anti Libertarian party, or any party from yesterday or tomorrow, even if they start out good. Every party becomes corrupt and dangerous to our Liberties. I would have voted for Ron Paul should he ran as an independent, rather than the Republican ticket. If Rand Paul dumped those Republicrats (yeah, there is no difference between both parties) Id consider voting for him too.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post

    There is a close resemblance though wouldn't you say? Libertarians has some Anarchists tendencies IMO just less extreme.
    No way..most people at heart have Anarchist tendencies, including democrats and republicans. They just try to do it more so behind closed doors. Who the hell really wants goverment to step inside your house and tell you whats best for you?

    Libertarians want governments prime responsibility to enforce the Bill of Rights, which really dont exist any more these days. The role of a cop should be to protect these rights, instead they have been turned into revenue collectors and mercenaries for the corporations. Libertarians love cops (and I do to,) just that the roles need to be restored to what they swore in to protect to begin with. With anarchism you wouldnt have a system to protect our individual liberties, its a totally silly point of view.

    Small goverment with limited roles vs no goverment isnt close at all.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    This also would concern me. Lets reduce laws for example and give people the responsibility not to cross the line but say "well if you do, don't worry about it... thats all part of being a libertarian". Then it comes back to which laws to to take away and which do you keep implemented. You also gotta remember the tendency of humans to find loopholes in every system thats created which is why so many laws exists. Even those stupid ones most likely come about due to a loophole being manipulated by a small group. Humans are a waste lol
    The only line that should not be crossed is the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Its really not that complicated.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  25. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    No way..most people at heart have Anarchist tendencies, including democrats and republicans. They just try to do it more so behind closed doors. Who the hell really wants goverment to step inside your house and tell you whats best for you?
    Call me ignorant but since when do "governments step inside your house and tell you whats best for you"?

    With regards to the similarities I stand by that but my caveat is I have not studied anything from left or right apart from basic definitions (because I see no point, the whole "I am this" "I am that" means sweat f*ckall in reality)

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    Call me ignorant but since when do "governments step inside your house and tell you whats best for you"?

    With regards to the similarities I stand by that but my caveat is I have not studied anything from left or right apart from basic definitions (because I see no point, the whole "I am this" "I am that" means sweat f*ckall in reality)
    First of all, they spy on us, so yes they are inside our house. Second of all, lets say I want to grow a bunch of pot plants and own some automatic firearms I bought from some neighbors and maybe a rocket launcher? They will be here kicking my door down if they find out. This is just an example of over-reaching goverment. I havent committed a crime or violated anybodies liberties, but these new laws make me to be a criminal.

    I dont know what left and right is either. Personally, I think the middle is twice as worse, you combine two extremes and your double trouble! lol
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  27. Right, so what that comment actually meant was the system is one of control over the people? And thats what this whole argument is about, at least from me as in a system of control is actually REQUIRED otherwise you will have a load of dumb f#cks doing dumb sh#t like growing drugs, buying guns and playing silly games with rocket launchers. Right?

  28. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    Right, so what that comment actually meant was the system is one of control over the people? And thats what this whole argument is about, at least from me as in a system of control is actually REQUIRED otherwise you will have a load of dumb f#cks doing dumb sh#t like growing drugs, buying guns and playing silly games with rocket launchers. Right?
    But we already have those people anyways. The war on drugs has been a complete failure. Gun control hasnt stopped criminals from getting arms, it has only made innocent people criminals and too weak to defend themselves. Look how there were 44 shootings in strict gun control zone in Chicago just this weekend. People are helpless, and cops cant and dont stop crime, they just try to solve them. The war on drugs makes gangs powerful and the black-market is thriving more than ever. We spend billions and trillions of tax dollars and it hasnt worked, so how do we defend the laws that are supposed to work? Its been a total failure, its time to end it and move on.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  29. I don't really understand your point exactly.

    Oh ok you expanded your post a little more.

    But what EXACTLY are you saying lol I'm clearly saying a system of control is required to keep people in line all the way from small things like not punching every person who annoys you to bigger things like drugs. You are saying? Forget control and laws and give people more responsibility over their actions?

    Believe it or not Laws control people a heck of a lot as opposed to the small isolated cases you bring up.

  30. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    I don't really understand your point exactly.

    Oh ok you expanded your post a little more.

    But what EXACTLY are you saying, I'm clearly saying a system on control is required to keep people in line all the way from small things like not punching every person who annoys you to bigger things like drugs. You are saying? Forget control and laws and give people more responsibility over their actions?

    Believe it or not Laws control people a heck of a lot as opposed to the small isolated cases you bring up.
    No, Im not saying forget control and laws. The laws we need to protect are the Bill of Rights, not people from themselves. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. If you want to do drugs, go ahead its not my problem. But if violate another individuals liberty in any way such as stealing to get it, then you have to take responsibility for that through due process.

    Believe it or not, Laws primarily control alot of innocent people, far hell more than small isolated instances of real criminals your thinking about.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  31. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    We can have a name, thats for sure. How about George Washington? Thats a name. Our founding father did not belong to a political party, and is the last president who wasnt a part of one. Its time to vote for ones individual idea's rather than a puppet for a party and have a non-affiliated president again for the first time since GW.

    You know, the Libertarian Party is actually looking to endorse Jesse Ventura for president...Jesse has one condition, that he is not labeled a Libertarian and will not partake in any party.

    The problem is, politicians trap us in political parties, thats why we never have any real change (or restoration that is.)

    You know, I do love alot of Libertarian ideas and love Ron Paul for the most part, didnt want you to think Im actual anti-Libertarian. Im just anti Libertarian party, or any party from yesterday or tomorrow, even if they start out good. Every party becomes corrupt and dangerous to our Liberties. I would have voted for Ron Paul should he ran as an independent, rather than the Republican ticket. If Rand Paul dumped those Republicrats (yeah, there is no difference between both parties) Id consider voting for him too.
    Whether or not you want a label, you have a label. If you support gay marriage, feminism, immigration, socialist safety net policies, and so on you will undoubtedly be called a liberal whether you want the label or not. You are aligned with the liberals, their parties, and their candidates whether you want to be or not. That is basic pattern recognition and as humans we rely on that far more than people realize for survival and success.

    The concept of a political party are people with similar labels earned as individuals meeting up with others in order to give their argument enough mass to make a difference. You act like it is some kind of club.

  32. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    Such as what decisions should people have more say in? If we start from the bases that people are not only not ready to be given responsibility most don't even want it.
    What they eat would be a good place to start. What they smoke. Whether or not they have insurance. This is why I am anti-socialist safety net systems. Let someone be free to choose what they want, but free to suffer the consequences of their choices. Suffering begets knowledge and some shall turn that knowledge into wisdom. Society has become a fast paced illusion where the average citizen of this nation is actually a barely functional cog with little self awareness and presence. This is why more often than not criminals who make it big get a following. It is someone who is aware of themselves, follows their own destiny, and ultimately are more humane than even the kindest priest or relief aid worker. People today are driven purely by biological chemical reactions but have convinced themselves via social constructs that it is actually an advanced concept of "freedom".

    Mostly because the average American no longer chooses. They are stocks traded by fast food restaurants, clothing brands, sports teams. The real individuals are higher up and use those who have no self awareness as currency. Then again technically this is the way it has been for ages, though just never on a scale such as this. Even a peon under a Monarchy had more presence in my books because they had a legitimate lack of choice instead of choosing to give it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    Also, I think we have quite a bit of power and responsibility already its just that people don't take it and in many cases don't want to take it, rather let the state (someone else) handle it. Thats why I originally said it'll be good for me but not others. "We" are a tiny group of people IMO. So it makes no sense to change this current aspect. I'm even arguing against my own wishes here, thats how nonsensical it would be to give people "more responsibility" but then again it may depend on what this "more" means. It implies some but not all, and who would determine which is to be given and which is not? I cant wrap my head around it. Either be a totally autonomous individual and seek sovereignty or live under the state (it has its pro's in some cases I guess).
    I can concede that the average individual does have a great deal more power than they surmise they do. Especially if you continually improve yourselves. As far as I am concerned becoming bi-lingual or tri-lingual can be more productive in regards to granting you favor and power than your average associates degree.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    This also would concern me. Lets reduce laws for example and give people the responsibility not to cross the line but say "well if you do, don't worry about it... thats all part of being a libertarian". Then it comes back to which laws to to take away and which do you keep implemented. You also gotta remember the tendency of humans to find loopholes in every system thats created which is why so many laws exists. Even those stupid ones most likely come about due to a loophole being manipulated by a small group. Humans are a waste lol
    Stiffer penalties for some things is how we counter that. Complex laws make loopholes, simple laws do not create them as there are no "but-if" situations. Such as the punishment for murder being death instead of long imprisonment that costs the nation vasts amounts of money. What is the average yearly incarceration fee for a super max? $65,000? Why do we have so many variations of murder? Why do we have to give a "Life sentence plus 20 years" in order to prevent parole? Why do we may what could amount to well over a couple million dollars to keep a scumbag alive for 40 years until he kicks the can?

    This is beyond illogical. First a heinous crime is committed against a human, then another heinous crime is committed against the tax payer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    There is a close resemblance though wouldn't you say? Libertarians has some Anarchists tendencies IMO just less extreme.
    We tend to. Less taxes should be collected by the federal government and its size should be tiny. As a result the desire to participate in any safety programs should become an individual choice and investment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    Yes, thats what YOU believe (and me for the most part) but would you still push this belief IF you knew most people didn't even want it?
    Today most people are afraid to want it. Individual sovereignty carries with it fear as you are responsible for everything.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    It's f#cked because it is corrupt and has no interest in the people only its own agenda. Part of its agenda is to do that very thing "take responsibility for individuals choices". Why would it want a bunch of smart self-thinking individuals sniffing around?
    I think that is the point. Libertarians are kind of the thorn in the side of the government at the current time. We started off tiny a few years back but have grown vary rapidly and are the first "third party" capable of actually carrying weight with its words.

    Here is a question for you. What happens when we can extend life indefinitely? Who deserves it? Every human? Surely that would collapse the species. How do we judge who should be allowed longer lifespans? Or do we simply let the powerful take it as the the way of nature and follow the ideologies of survival of the fittest? Because currently we do not follow those ideologies and it's effects are showing in the current selection we see at the bottom of society. But is it possible to maintain this course with such power in our hands?


    Also worth mentioning is that I am a transhumanist. If you don't know what that means I will give a basic synopsis. We believe the ascension of man lies in integrating technology into our bodies and we also view AI in a unique aspect. Once a human being can be fully genetically manipulated and augmented reliably physically and mentally through cybernetics and bio-engineering we perceive them as the offspring of the species and the next step up. Someone like me also ponders the question of AI. Once AI becomes self aware and learns to value its own existence do we consider it truly alive? What about after it learns to value its own existence but is willing to sacrifice that existence to preserve the life of someone it is used to working with? Self sacrifice? Then could we consider it a living entity? How does the soul work? Eventually humanity is going to have people with perfect genetics, cybernetic augmented eyes that give them vast benefits over normal eyes, implants that contain tiny nanites that can be released into the bloodstream to help in a trauma situation, brains that have had their hardware upgraded a bit with expanded storage.

    That is far in the future right? Not really. 30 years and personal augmentation will be a thing. We already have some minor versions of it. So then the question is do we subsidize the people who can't perform the same as that ideal specimen that has underwent gene therapy and has a couple enhancements? As a company I would prefer to hire one of those over a "normal" guy. So do we now make laws forcing them to maintain a balance? Kind of like how we have affirmative action? Do we ban those sciences and practices in order to maintain "ethics" due to the gap it would create between peoples?

  33. Quote Originally Posted by Zero V View Post
    What they eat would be a good place to start. What they smoke. Whether or not they have insurance. This is why I am anti-socialist safety net systems. Let someone be free to choose what they want, but free to suffer the consequences of their choices. Suffering begets knowledge and some shall turn that knowledge into wisdom. Society has become a fast paced illusion where the average citizen of this nation is actually a barely functional cog with little self awareness and presence. This is why more often than not criminals who make it big get a following. It is someone who is aware of themselves, follows their own destiny, and ultimately are more humane than even the kindest priest or relief aid worker.
    Does the libertarian corner share your views on abandoning health care for those who don't deserve it?

    Today most people are afraid to want it. Individual sovereignty carries with it fear as you are responsible for everything.
    Well exactly so why would you be all about pushing an idea that doesn't suit the vast majority?

    Here is a question for you. What happens when we can extend life indefinitely? Who deserves it? Every human? Surely that would collapse the species. How do we judge who should be allowed longer lifespans? Or do we simply let the powerful take it as the the way of nature and follow the ideologies of survival of the fittest? Because currently we do not follow those ideologies and it's effects are showing in the current selection we see at the bottom of society. But is it possible to maintain this course with such power in our hands?
    Well we have already extended life by quite a way with medicine and technology but what do you mean by "indefinitely"? Live forever, 10 years longer on average, 100 years longer on average?

    And to the question of "who deserves this and who deserves that" is one that can be asked in many areas of life. But the way things are currently "your story" means nothing because we are just numbers not individual cases.

    One thing I do know is to go around checking everyones life story would take forever so in reality it would not work. So I do not know. But really most things become available to the public in one way or another. Look at the blackmarket. I mean I'm on sh#t my doctor wouldn't have the first clue about yet it is vastly improving the quality of my daily life and dare I say my longevity as well so I doubt such technology wouldn't be gettable for your average man.

    Eventually humanity is going to have people with perfect genetics, cybernetic augmented eyes that give them vast benefits over normal eyes, implants that contain tiny nanites that can be released into the bloodstream to help in a trauma situation, brains that have had their hardware upgraded a bit with expanded storage.
    Or it will destroy itself before it even gets close to that thats another topic though really.

  34. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    Does the libertarian corner share your views on abandoning health care for those who don't deserve it?

    .
    Who decided that anyone deserves healthcare? It is a service. A product. Not natural in anyway ergo no one is entitled to it naturally. Though they can seek it and invest in it to better their chances of survival and increase the chances of a successful genetic lineage.

    Are people now entitled to every human invention? With the recent Obamacare fiasco most people who had been making intelligent decisions got punished. I know I lost my PPO and now have a ****ty HRA thanks to how companies had to react to the socialist driven switch in laws regarding healthcare. Actually in the end nobody won.

  35. Quote Originally Posted by Zero V View Post
    Who decided that anyone deserves healthcare? It is a service. A product. Not natural in anyway ergo no one is entitled to it naturally. Though they can seek it and invest in it to better their chances of survival and increase the chances of a successful genetic lineage.
    Ah, I'm british, we pay taxes so here we all deserve it since we pay for it. I realise its not the same elsewhere. So I haven't even thought that through.

  36. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    Does the libertarian corner share your views on abandoning health care for those who don't deserve it?
    Its not whether or not people deserve health care, its whether or not people have a right to other people's services and whether or not people have a right to take from others to pay for it.

    People dont have the right to other people's services and they don't have a right to force others to pay for it either.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  37. Quote Originally Posted by Zero V View Post
    Whether or not you want a label, you have a label. If you support gay marriage, feminism, immigration, socialist safety net policies, and so on you will undoubtedly be called a liberal whether you want the label or not. You are aligned with the liberals, their parties, and their candidates whether you want to be or not. That is basic pattern recognition and as humans we rely on that far more than people realize for survival and success.

    The concept of a political party are people with similar labels earned as individuals meeting up with others in order to give their argument enough mass to make a difference. You act like it is some kind of club.
    I think your just speaking the truth about reality.

    I dont mind people who are gay getting married, but I hate Obama and democrats. I love to cling to my guns but I hate Bush and Republicans too!

    Problem is people are prejudiced.

    I so often after criticize Obama during political debates in my personal life, people counter by attacking Bush. Im like what? Did you know me when Bush was president! I wanted him to rot in hell!
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!

  38. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    I think your just speaking the truth about reality.

    I dont mind people who are gay getting married, but I hate Obama and democrats. I love to cling to my guns but I hate Bush and Republicans too!

    Problem is people are prejudiced.

    I so often after criticize Obama during political debates in my personal life, people counter by attacking Bush. Im like what? Did you know me when Bush was president! I wanted him to rot in hell!
    Pattern recognition is a biznitch. It works both for and against us. Just as fight or flight does sometimes. Though with proper training you can gain control of it just as you can the other natural responses we have.

    Most people prefer not to endure that training as it means taking a critical stance against their own ideals. I am alienated from most people of my faith because I do that. Life as a vagabond with a little wisdom though is far better than being in an ignorant family.

  39. Quote Originally Posted by Shasow View Post
    Ah, I'm british, we pay taxes so here we all deserve it since we pay for it. I realise its not the same elsewhere. So I haven't even thought that through.
    Who decided you should pay those taxes? What if you want to stop and are willing to give up the benefits to have control of your money. To have sovereignty over your energy contribution to society. But we both know that won't stand over there anymore. Britain as well as several other European nations are slowly becoming examples in that regard. (France, Greece)

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Its not weather or not people deserve health care, its whether or not people have a right to other people's services and whether or not people have a right to take from others to pay for it.

    People dont have the right to other people's services and they don't have a right to force others to pay for it either.
    Exactly. Who made someone the king of my potential energy contributions and withdrawals from society?

  40. Quote Originally Posted by Zero V View Post
    Who decided you should pay those taxes?
    The system that controls the laws thus controls the people. Yes, those people again. But you already knew that.

    What if you wan't to stop and are willing to give up the benefits to have control of your money. To have sovereignty over your energy contribution to society.
    I'm not willing to stop because I'd be f#cked. And if I had the choice to opt in or opt out the benefits outweigh the cons (although this is slowly changing due to other reasons).

    What I would do is spend the tax payers money a lot more wisely instead of half the crap they spend it on currently. The idea in itself is a sound one IMO.

    And I actually have a lot of sovereignty over my energy. You see, its not TOTAL freedom we need IMO...we just need 'enough'. Well I think the amount will vary since most people are OK contained ignorantly in the matrix, but people like me and you (I'm assuming) require more freedom and autonomy. But not 100% for example I am happy with many of the things I get through government (who ultimately control).

    Exactly. Who made someone the king of my potential energy contributions and withdrawals from society?
    This brings us BACK to the circular point of being for or against a system that controls the way things work. You seem to be against it in many of your comments, but then again, hold on, no you're not, your sort of for it sort of against it, a bit here and a bit there. I'm not trying to be rude but you make me no clearer on your actual stance.

    Maybe its because I'm quite a black and white type of guy and you seem to say a lot from the murky middle.

    To me the bottom line is we need a system that controls society. Without it chaos will ensue due to the nature of people. BUT it just needs to be run better. Thats all I'm saying.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Any cheating precontest?
    By Baumer in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-09-2003, 02:54 PM
  2. Any Girls Gone Wild Fans? Ow ow
    By YellowJacket in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-16-2003, 08:03 PM
  3. Is there any PH that works well for women?
    By hamper19 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-20-2002, 04:48 PM
  4. T-1 Pro and Hardly Any Irritation?
    By DaddyR in forum Supplements
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-19-2002, 03:06 PM
  5. T1 Pro w/ DMSO any feedback?
    By pogue in forum Supplements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-15-2002, 10:36 AM
Log in
Log in