Even I May Vote 3rd Party!

Started by Yawn, January 07, 2013, 05:49:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

CubaLibre

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 01:27:01 PM
This reminds me of the old saw "I can be just as dedicated to God without going to church, as everybody who does".

Technically, possible.  With normal human nature, very rare and unlikely.

People need the structure and discipline of a tangible system, and the support / accountability from others.

Show me the "Godly" man who hasn't gone to church in 5-10-20 years....I'll show you the guy who rarely thinks of God and has justified many, many shortcuts and excuses, for his tattered behaviors.

There are a few people out there who would pray and worship daily, and form all their other behaviors accordingly without any external influence.....but they are FEW and FAR between.  People are rife with failings and imperfections, even the really good ones.  And with no help, most won't defeat these things.
It's one thing to seek morality from religious faith. It's another to use the state to impose that morality upon others. It's entirely possible to have faith and live "by the Book", as they say, without recurring to statist enforcement of your moral codes.

And the same applies to pretty much every type of philosophy, not just religious.

Shooterman

#46
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 02:27:34 PM
See, Shooter, you are linking defense spending to war.  We can have defense spending to protect the homeland.  You are just being emotional and not being rational.

No where have I advocated not spending money for defense. Our national posture on defense requires we spend untold dollars maintaining a presence throughout the world. That is for one purpose; fight the enemy ( whoever that may be today, it may change tomorrow )  there and whup any body's ass if we don't like what they do )

Bring our people home and defend the homeland and let the world do as they wish. The unsaid caveat is if they fokk with us, shame on them. China and Russia excluded of course because we surely don't want to awake the Dragon and the Bear at the same time.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Shooterman

Quote from: Solar on January 09, 2013, 04:20:59 PM
Wrong, they were charged with protecting American interests here and abroad.
Case in point, Barbary Pirates.

Case in point. Jefferson sent the Marines to take care of the Barbary Pirates, conditionally on the approval of the Congress. Once the problem was solved, the Navy and Marines came home.

What was our interest in Europe during WWI? What was Our interest in Korea? Vietnam? Kuwait? Iraq? What is our continued interest in a 11 year old war in Afghanistan?

I would suggest those troops could very easily be protecting our interest on the Southern Border.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Yawn

#48
Quote from: CubaLibre on January 09, 2013, 11:19:20 AM
The dichotomy between morality and libertarianism is a false one. The libertarian does not reject a moral code, just the idea that the state should be used to impose that moral code on others.

"You shall not murder", "You shall not steal" is not "imposing your morality" on others in your nation?

THIS is an example of why I could never be Libertarian. They pick and choose what THEY define as morality.  Of course they would accept THOSE moral laws, but would reject laws against adultery, recreational drugs, and sodomy.

No, the Founders were not at all the same as today's Libertarians. They reject the Founder who said, "Our democracy can only serve a just and moral people. It can serve no other."

CubaLibre

Quote from: Yawn on January 09, 2013, 06:17:00 PM
"You shall not murder", "You shall not steal" is not "imposing your morality" on others in your nation?
Those are absolute, not relative examples. The thief, the murderer, and the rapist attack the rights of the individual and his or her property. Therefore, there is no room for such behavior in a civilized society.
Quote
THIS is an example of why I could never be Libertarian. They pick and choose what THEY define as morality.  Of course they would accept THOSE moral laws, but would reject laws against adultery, recreational drugs, and sodomy.
With regards to sodomy and adultery, not only would laws against such be impossible to adequately enforce, but the state wouldn't be as effective as education of the populace.

As for drugs, my views here have changed due to the failure of prohibition. I believe that, again, education of the populace about the dangers of drugs would be more effective than prohibition. Like we do with cigarettes.

Quote
No, the Founders were not at all the same as today's Libertarians. They reject the Founder who said, "Our democracy can only serve a just and moral people. It can serve no other."
Sounds to me like that statement speaks more about a just and moral people being more likely to cherish the rights and freedoms granted to them, and not taking them for granted. I doubt they were talking about the creation of laws.

TowardLiberty

Libertarians pick and choose what they define as morality?

Is that right?

All along I thought libertarians had a systematic theory of morality rooted in self ownership, individual autonomy, and private property?

Now I am told that it is all subjective, arbitrary and whimsical!

Who would of thunk it?!

Yawn

#51
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 09, 2013, 07:21:08 PM
Libertarians pick and choose what they define as morality?

Is that right?

All along I thought libertarians had a systematic theory of morality rooted in self ownership, individual autonomy, and private property?

Now I am told that it is all subjective, arbitrary and whimsical!

Who would of thunk it?!

Clearly not you.  Now try to keep up. I laid it out clearly so even a stoner SHOULD be able to follow. Let's try this again (keeping in mind that ALL law is based in Morality)

1) Do you support laws basically stating "You shall not murder"?  Yes, No

2) Do you support moral laws stating, "You shall not steal"?  Yes, No

NOW tell me if you support those moral laws stating....


3) "You shall not commit adultery"?  Yes, No

4) "A man shall not lie with a man as a man lies with a woman"?  Yes, No


Now, you can (and should) make the case that the Feds shouldn't be involved in these laws, but which should the states be allowed to enforce????

CubaLibre

The law of God is infinitely greater than the law of man, and does not require the law of man to validate it.

The law of man should deal with protecting the natural rights of man. The law of God deals with living by a higher standard, rejeting our sinful tendencies, and trying (for nobody can fully achieve the goal) to apply the moral codes outlined in God's law to our everyday lives. Legislation is not needed to accopmlish any of this.

That said, the state governments should theoretically be able to enact and enforce any laws they see fit. In practice, though,  the concept of state sovereignty has become warped beyond recognition, so I am not sure if this would be feasible today. Or in the foreseeable future, given the current and potential future situation of the SCOTUS.

AndyJackson

Quote from: CubaLibre on January 09, 2013, 04:28:28 PM
It's one thing to seek morality from religious faith. It's another to use the state to impose that morality upon others. It's entirely possible to have faith and live "by the Book", as they say, without recurring to statist enforcement of your moral codes.

And the same applies to pretty much every type of philosophy, not just religious.
I was just responding to the idea that anybody can have a personal moral code that's the equivalent of established religion or laws.

They can't, don't, and won't.

A tiny % may be able to achieve something like this.  But not enough to stave off anarchy, corruption, and so on.

Just the 60's-70's  idea that religion is irrelevant is already wreaking havoc on society.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the decline of the last 45 years, and its genesis.

AndyJackson

I'm not sure that one can legitimately seperate God's law and man's law.  In the history of man's law and enumerated rights, it's always based in some variation of God's law and the fact that human rights are derived from God, not man or his machinations.

Unregulated partying, adultery, and bungholery will wreck a civilization (ie family and community) more quickly than murder or theft.

They are insidious, ever growing, yet "cool" when you let things slide that way, while murder and theft will always be on somebody's radar and unacceptable.

Now having said that, I'm OK with drug legalization for the practical reasons I stated.

But there still needs to be some sort of tangible moral code that is delivered by something other than people's whims.

AndyJackson

Quote from: Shooterman on January 09, 2013, 05:45:03 PM
Case in point. Jefferson sent the Marines to take care of the Barbary Pirates, conditionally on the approval of the Congress. Once the problem was solved, the Navy and Marines came home.

What was our interest in Europe during WWI? What was Our interest in Korea? Vietnam? Kuwait? Iraq? What is our continued interest in a 11 year old war in Afghanistan?

I would suggest those troops could very easily be protecting our interest on the Southern Border.
Is this the period where the Marines earned the moniker "leathernecks", because they actually wore leather collars to protect against the prevalence of swords in the muslim offensives ?  I always liked that little historical note.

But I  still have to reel in disbelief at your questions on our involvements.  In Korea we actually helped to stop the Chinese (communist) stealth sacking of Asia, and had great sucess militarily.  We pursued the same goal in Vietnam, and would have had the same success, if not for the new wave of America's internal traitors.  In the Korean War era, it was still fashionable to support your country and it's efforts to help others, or fight various despotic killers.  Vietnam, nah......the mentally ill, self absorbed, childish wave of liberalism had gained it's footing.

Kuwait was a simple effort to stop Hussein from continuing a habit of sacking / warring with his neighbors.  Not hard to divine the meaning, value, or philosophy of that.

Iraq and Afghanistan are parallel to Korea and Vietnam, in that they were pursued in order to halt the spread of Islamic terrorism / jihad.  It's not as though we don't see it growing and moving around the globe.

Same with WW2 and the cold war.  Two emerging philosophies, naziism and communism, that would either be given carte blanche to grow acorss the globe.....or not.

Now I fully understand the waste, politics, and for-profit problems of the military-industrial complex.  But this is a structural concept, rather than  self-interest-survival in light of global threats.

Should we just let the Israel-Arab-Muslim situation blow up however it will  ?  You know that the only eventual outcome, if we withdraw and stand aside indifferently, is a nuclear exchange and last-man standing outcome.  Is this better than our involvement ?

I laugh at all the new boogeymen in the liberal AND libertarian lexicon.....neocon, neoconservative, paleoconservative, etc.

Exactly WTH are these, besides what they've always been going back to the 1800's  ?  The USA has always had a moral or self-protection imperative in global involvements.  There's nothing new under the sun, just the ridiculous PR and propaganda that gets rewritten by each self-serving little clique.

The fact that the joooooooos are always in the mix, underscores this.

CubaLibre

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 08:10:40 AM
I'm not sure that one can legitimately seperate God's law and man's law.  In the history of man's law and enumerated rights, it's always based in some variation of God's law and the fact that human rights are derived from God, not man or his machinations.
There is certainly truth in that statement. If, after all, you believe that your rights come from God (as I do), then any laws taken to protect those rights would borrow heavily on the law of God (for example, theft, which is the forcible taking of property that is rightfully mine and which I have a right to).

Quote
Unregulated partying, adultery, and bungholery will wreck a civilization (ie family and community) more quickly than murder or theft.
Social ostracism is far more effective than legislation in these cases. The community is better equipped to deal with local issues than the state or federal government.

Quote
They are insidious, ever growing, yet "cool" when you let things slide that way, while murder and theft will always be on somebody's radar and unacceptable.
Education and social ostracism is the most effective way to deal with the situation. Arrest and prosecution is a terrible idea, logistically.

QuoteNow having said that, I'm OK with drug legalization for the practical reasons I stated.

But there still needs to be some sort of tangible moral code that is delivered by something other than people's whims.
The moral code wouldn't be driven by people's whims. Established belief systems would carry on. People turn to their religious institutions for moral guidance. They do not (and should not) turn to the government. 

Nor is it right for a group to apply its moral code to the laws of the nation, and especially a nation where the majority can change the government to their whim...

AndyJackson

I still think you're assuming that people in general will all decide to do what's right and good.  Of their own volition, no prompting.

I think that 3 or 4 people out of 100 may do this.

And the rest will fall into selfish tangents.

Solar

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 10, 2013, 09:19:03 AM
I still think you're assuming that people in general will all decide to do what's right and good.  Of their own volition, no prompting.

I think that 3 or 4 people out of 100 may do this.

And the rest will fall into selfish tangents.
Andy, please use the quote function, thanks.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TowardLiberty

#59
Quote from: Yawn on January 10, 2013, 02:28:10 AM
Clearly not you.  Now try to keep up. I laid it out clearly so even a stoner SHOULD be able to follow. Let's try this again (keeping in mind that ALL law is based in Morality)
You made a comment about libertarians, am I not a libertarian?

And are you sure all law is based on morality?

Where is the morality in tax law? In drug laws? In laws that redistribute wealth?
Quote

1) Do you support laws basically stating "You shall not murder"?  Yes, No

2) Do you support moral laws stating, "You shall not steal"?  Yes, No

Yes to both.

Quote

NOW tell me if you support those moral laws stating....


3) "You shall not commit adultery"?  Yes, No

4) "A man shall not lie with a man as a man lies with a woman"?  Yes, No

Are we talking about morals here or laws? I do not personally believe adultery is moral but I also would not have a law against it, for that would be immoral.

The law can have no say about what consenting adults do without tossing out morality and justice.
Quote

Now, you can (and should) make the case that the Feds shouldn't be involved in these laws, but which should the states be allowed to enforce????

I thought we were talking about morals and libertarians....