U.S. Politics: How bout them apples?

[thecryptile]

I think we've had this discussion before,

That post isn't really directed at you Borsabil, more at the Liberal Hivemind. They already think Libertarianism is about making the poor eat their own babies.

[Borsabil]

You must be a very bored, lonely soul to dedicate so much time not just to commenting in this thread but to trolling it for whatever reactions you're aiming for. I mean, that's just so sad and pathetic that I think from here on out instead of using the words, "sad, pathetic troll" I will just use your name since the two are now pretty much interchangeable.

Not at all, I'll try a logical and coherent argument with you AP, although you may reject the precepts hopefully you'll get where I'm coming from (though I somehow doubt it).

A great man once said, or words to the effect as I can't be assed looking up the exact quote, once the majority can vote themselves a living then they will always vote for a candidate promising largesse from the treasury, which ultimately leads to the collapse of any democratic system. It's the best argument against pure forms of democratic government. Limiting the franchise to those who have a direct stake in financing the government seems entirely sensible to me.

[awesome possum]

That post isn't really directed at you Borsabil, more at the Liberal Hivemind. They already think Libertarianism is about making the poor eat their own babies.

I don't think Libertarianism is about making the poor eat their own babies. I just think it's about mostly terrible, unsustainable, wouldn't-work-in-reality policies and ideas... though now that you mention it, making the poor eat their own babies is a terrible idea so it very well could fit into that tent.

Okay you got me. I'm just Borsabilling you.

Not at all, I'll try a logical and coherent argument with you AP, although you may reject the precepts hopefully you'll get where I'm coming from (though I somehow doubt it).

A great man once said, or words to the effect as I can't be assed looking up the exact quote, once the majority can vote themselves a living then they will always vote for a candidate promising largesse from the treasury, which ultimately leads to the collapse of any democratic system. It's the best argument against pure forms of democratic government. Limiting the franchise to those who have a direct stake in financing the government seems entirely sensible to me.

So your argument is that unmarried women don't work and don't have a direct stake in financing the government. What you're saying is you're not a troll... just not very smart.

Makes sense.

[Captain Oblivious]

Pretty sure the AUMF could be applied in these circumstances. I'm actually ok with taking about people that plot against us, or actively fight to do us harm. No different than a misguided German American fighting in WWII, they are the enemy, and should be taken as such.

No different except for the fact that virtually none of the circumstances are the same, you mean?

First of all what AUMF are you referring to?

Second, regardless of what anyone thinks of Al-Awlaki himself, he wasn't charged with a crime at any point and was murdered by a US drone in a country where we have no declared war.

Third, whatever anyone thinks of Al-Awlaki being a bad guy, there's no debate whatsoever that his 16-year old son was innocent....and yet he was murdered all the same.

[peterbound]

I think we've had this discussion before, the Libertarian Party are Republicans who like to smoke weed, there's good reason why Dr. Paul refused to have anything to do with them.

Anyway I should clarify, as I don't think my previous remark came out the way I intended. I think it perfectly legitimate for the government to apply standards when assessing people suitable for citizenship, one of which is to swear an oath upholding the constitution. It is my belief that Islam is completely incompatible with the US constitution, and that any serious believing Muslim must be denied citizenship on that basis. However for Muslims born here or converts then, though regrettable, there's nothing to be done except extend them the full protection of citizenship, even when they travel to far off countries and conspire against us.

should the same logic be applied the JW's? They refuse to uphold the constitution, swear an oath, or participate in government activities. Should they be denied citizenship? Or is it only folks you deem violent or dangerous? That's a pretty slippery slope.

Also, what oaths have you sworn to make this judgment call?

[peterbound]

No different except for the fact that virtually none of the circumstances are the same, you mean?

First of all what AUMF are you referring to?

Second, regardless of what anyone thinks of Al-Awlaki himself, he wasn't charged with a crime at any point and was murdered by a US drone in a country where we have no declared war.

Third, whatever anyone thinks of Al-Awlaki being a bad guy, there's no debate whatsoever that his 16-year old son was innocent....and yet he was murdered all the same.

First: 2001

Second: Your naiveté as to how that process works is cute.

Third: collateral damage sucks.

[thecryptile]

Maybe it should be like in Starship Troopers and you should have to serve in the Military to be able to vote. Bob Heinlein is probably the Greatest Libertarian Thinker anyway. Much better than Ayn Rand, John Locke and Thomas Payne.

[peterbound]

Maybe it should be like in Starship Troopers and you should have to serve in the Military to be able to vote. Bob Heinlein is probably the Greatest Libertarian Thinker anyway. Much better than Ayn Rand, John Locke and Thomas Payne.

I dig Heinleinian philosophy when it comes to service and citizenship. Being a military member may bias my opinion on that one, but I do think that all should serve in some capacity to be able to voice/vote an opinion on political matters. Otherwise, you've really got no (nor have ever had) any skin in the game.

[Borsabil]

I don't think Libertarianism is about making the poor eat their own babies. I just think it's about mostly terrible, unsustainable, wouldn't-work-in-reality policies and ideas... though now that you mention it, making the poor eat their own babies is a terrible idea so it very well could fit into that tent.

Okay you got me. I'm just Borsabilling you.

So your argument is that unmarried women don't work and don't have a direct stake in financing the government. What you're saying is you're not a troll... just not very smart.

Makes sense.

My argument is that a disproportionate number of single women are dependent on various forms of government dole, hence why voting Democrat is such a popular pastime amongst that particular demographic. And sure AP I fully recognize that there's not much to be done about it except wear the consequences. You I'm sure believe that money is somehow magically created by government, that other people are not required to work their backsides off to support the indigent. I'm arguing that such workers be given the franchise and that those dependent on their work be denied it. Not that this will ever happen, we're so far down the road of pure democracy that there's nothing to be done except prepare for the inevitable.

[peterbound]

My argument is that a disproportionate number of single women are dependent on various forms of government dole, hence why voting Democrat is such a popular pastime amongst that particular demographic. And sure AP I fully recognize that there's not much to be done about it except wear the consequences. You I'm sure believe that money is somehow magically created by government, that other people are not required to work their backsides off to support the indigent. I'm arguing that such workers be given the franchise and that those dependent on their work be denied it. Not that this will ever happen, we're so far down the road of pure democracy that there's nothing to be done except prepare for the inevitable.

Pretty big simplification of gender issues in terms of politics. The idea that they have a right to what they can and cannot do to their bodies, progressive thinking in terms of gender politics and pay, and a more liberal social platform has swayed the female vote to the Democratic side, not just your 'hand out' politics. If anything, I'd say that has a tiny role to play on how females vote.

[Borsabil]

Maybe it should be like in Starship Troopers and you should have to serve in the Military to be able to vote. Bob Heinlein is probably the Greatest Libertarian Thinker anyway. Much better than Ayn Rand, John Locke and Thomas Payne.

Constitutionalists would argue against any standing army, that a continental sized nation the size of the US could be well protected from invasion by citizen militias. Standing armies are there to project power overseas, an extrucuatingly unlibertarian stance. Besides members of the Armed Forces in a volunteer army are also salaried civil servants. Why should they be able to vote themselves better pay and conditions? They are not taxpayers, no government worker can be classified as a taxpayer.

[Borsabil]

Pretty big simplification of gender issues in terms of politics. The idea that they have a right to what they can and cannot do to their bodies, progressive thinking in terms of gender politics and pay, and a more liberal social platform has swayed the female vote to the Democratic side, not just your 'hand out' politics. If anything, I'd say that has a tiny role to play on how females vote.

Yes I'm sure you would think that but ultimately money trumps everything come snout counting time. It's the economy stupid, as a not so great man once said.

[Captain Oblivious]

First: 2001

Second: Your naiveté as to how that process works is cute.

Third: collateral damage sucks.

1- The 2001 AUWF was specifically for the perpetrators of 9/11 and anyone that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided' them. It was not for the indiscriminate use of drones to bomb individuals who the president decided he didn't like 10 years later.

2 - LOL. Right. I'm naive for thinking my government should be held accountable to it's constitution. Silly me....we should just be allowed to bomb whomever the fuck we please.

3- you realize that the 16-year old son was not killed with him, but in a seperate drone strike several weeks later while sitting in a cafe....along with 9 other civilians. But right...it's "colateral damage".

[peterbound]

1- The 2001 AUWF was specifically for the perpetrators of 9/11 and anyone that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided' them. It was not for the indiscriminate use of drones to bomb individuals who the president decided he didn't like 10 years later.

2 - LOL. Right. I'm naive for thinking my government should be held accountable to it's constitution. Silly me....we should just be allowed to bomb whomever the fuck we please.

3- you realize that the 16-year old son was not killed with him, but in a seperate drone strike several weeks later while sitting in a cafe....along with 9 other civilians. But right...it's "colateral damage".

All of that sounds about right. Glad we cleared that up.

[Borsabil]

should the same logic be applied the JW's? They refuse to uphold the constitution, swear an oath, or participate in government activities. Should they be denied citizenship? Or is it only folks you deem violent or dangerous? That's a pretty slippery slope.

Also, what oaths have you sworn to make this judgment call?

If Jehovah Witnesses refuse to uphold the US constitution then you're damned right they should be denied citizenship.

[Captain Oblivious]

They are not taxpayers, no government worker can be classified as a taxpayer.

As a government worker, who pays a shitload in taxes, I can only scrath my head at this statement.

[peterbound]

If Jehovah Witnesses refuse to uphold the US constitution then you're damned right they should be denied citizenship.

I ask again, what oaths have you sworn? Should you be denied citizenship?

ETA: What exactly do you do to 'uphold the constitution?', besides come to a forum dedicated to a book about dragons, and troll the fuck out of people?

[peterbound]

As a government worker, who pays a shitload in taxes, I can only scrath my head at this statement.

At least on this one, we can agree.

[thecryptile]

Constitutionalists would argue against any standing army, that a continental sized nation the size of the US could be well protected from invasion by citizen militias.

Yeah, agreed- Standing Armies are UnLibertarian and Inherently Tyrannical, as mechanisms of Coercive State Power they can't be anything else.

OTOH Citizen Militias are no good against Bugs and other Interstellar Invaders. Even in cislunar engagements they've been bested by Standing Armies, so it's doubtful the Citizen Militia could cauterize the Bug Threat at its' source.

Under the Heinlein system, there wouldn't be as many voters. Ender Wiggin would be one of the few who could vote and we all know what a Bleeding Heart he turned out to be. Juan "Johnny" Rico, a True Earth Patriot and Conservative, would just cancel out his vote everytime. So the Heinlein system wouldn't really be that different from the current one.

[Borsabil]

As a government worker, who pays a shitload in taxes, I can only scrath my head at this statement.

Nope you're not a taxpayer. If the government were to decide tomorrow to stop deducting taxes from it's workforce and simply pay you the amount of money, minus the 'tax', you get now the net effect on gov finances would be zero. Government workers paying tax is a fiction, it's transferring money from one bucket to another and nothing else.