welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2012 U.S. Presidential Debates
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10281
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenshiro wrote:
Bart wrote:
So why is drunk driving so obviously in that limited number of things were liberty can be compromised ? Did you decide ?


I don't know. Maybe it isn't. I tend to think that it is, but I don't have all the answers - only my best guesses. Which is exactly why it makes so much sense to me to stress being pro-liberty so much at the federal level; by not coming down with a "but thou must" solution, the federal government allows states and cities and even private citizens to experiment with many different approaches - even ones such as full-on communism. If that's what a group of people want to do with their lives and their land, that's their right - as long as I'm not required by force to participate, I see no reason why it should be any of my business.


Guess better.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12136
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sulfur, mercury, lead, arsenic, CO2, fine particulates, and cadmium from coal burned in Texas don't respect state boundaries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10682
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenshiro wrote:
Bart wrote:
So why is drunk driving so obviously in that limited number of things were liberty can be compromised ? Did you decide ?


I don't know. Maybe it isn't. I tend to think that it is, but I don't have all the answers - only my best guesses. Which is exactly why it makes so much sense to me to stress being pro-liberty so much at the federal level; by not coming down with a "but thou must" solution, the federal government allows states and cities and even private citizens to experiment with many different approaches - even ones such as full-on communism. If that's what a group of people want to do with their lives and their land, that's their right - as long as I'm not required by force to participate, I see no reason why it should be any of my business.

I can tell you why. It's spelled out in my previous post. It's because the role of government is to protect people, to enable them to enjoy their freedoms. In order to do that individuals must give up rights which are contrary to the common good. It's why things like drinking are legal (fun, but can kill you) but drunk driving isn't (much more likely to kill other people with/instead of you). You don't have unlimited rights, nor should you. If you want to be totally free to do whatever you want whenever you want you can do that. You just forfeit the protections and comforts of society - move out into the woods and live off the land or something. Being a member of society means you have an obligation to it, to give as you take, rather than being a parasite (in this instance, someone who takes the comforts of society while refusing to do anything to support it).
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenshiro wrote:
by not coming down with a "but thou must" solution, the federal government allows states and cities and even private citizens to experiment with many different approaches - even ones such as full-on communism. If that's what a group of people want to do with their lives and their land, that's their right - as long as I'm not required by force to participate, I see no reason why it should be any of my business.

Just to be clear here: you're fine with a community voting itself Communist... just so long as they don't force those views on private citizens in the community?

Are you also in favor of calorie-neutral nutrition?
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12136
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

See, those private citizens can always move somewhere else if they don't like it. It's not like moving is expensive, disruptive, or any kind of burden. Jobs are out there just waiting to be had, and retirement plans always carry over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kenshiro



Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Sulfur, mercury, lead, arsenic, CO2, fine particulates, and cadmium from coal burned in Texas don't respect state boundaries.


I know.

nathan wrote:
Just to be clear here: you're fine with a community voting itself Communist... just so long as they don't force those views on private citizens in the community?

Are you also in favor of calorie-neutral nutrition?


No, I'm in favor of a community voting itself communist as long as I (or anyone) am not required to be a part of that community. Yes, moving is costly and difficult, but as long as it's legal I'll accept it as the best available compromise.

And I don't have a position on "calorie-neutral nutrition," except to say that it's not my place to tell you what to eat.
_________________
The question of our day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17122
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenshiro wrote:
mouse wrote:

how about, "the value of my house won't be impacted by the banks foreclosing on all my neighbors"? or "i won't be surrounded by sick people who can't afford health insurance, and my health insurance/health costs won't be increased because i have to pay for indigent people getting health care in the emergency room"? maybe "i won't have to worry about the state raising fees on everything, because the wealthiest 1% are now paying at least the same tax rate i am"? or "i don't have to worry about tripping over retirees who are living on the street because their social security got cut"?

no man is an island, my friend. unless you are rich enough to buy one and hire a security force to keep the little people at bay.


You're absolutely right that I do live in a society - a collective group of people working together to some extent to ensure survival and success - and that a certain amount of community-oriented thinking is appropriate and warranted for the betterment of all.

However, I also think that that community responsibility cannot be imposed by force upon someone without at the same time depriving the government of the very moral authority that it is relying on to make that judgement call. Community action must as much as possible be voluntary, or it is little more than indentured servitude.

What right do I have to tell you what to do with your house? What agent gave me the divine right to command you to go see a doctor in the first place if you don't want to? Who am I to tell you what kind of relationships your allowed to have, or the number of people that you're allowed to be involved with at one time? Once we begin compromising liberty in the name of community goodness, where do we stop? And who decides?


i was responding to your post saying you thought "what's in it for me" was a reasonable question. if you accept that you are port of a community, you are automatically accepting that everything is not about what is of benefit to you as the individual; sometimes it is about what is of benefit to the community.

but anyway, i was giving you examples of ways in which government regulation does, in fact, provide something for _you_. and in no instance was i talking about the government forcing you to do anything like what you say.
- the huge upsurge in foreclosures was due, in part, to banks lending money to people they _knew_ couldn't afford to repay the loan - in some cases, they encouraged people to borrow more money. banks used to have regulations that required them to set certain standards to who they loaned money to. then that seems to have gone away, and banks made bad loans, and then bundled them with good loans and resold them, and screwed over a lot of people that way. i want government regulation that says my bank can't screw me. how is that a limitation on my freedom?
- most people who don't go to doctors don't do so because no one ordered them to go, but because they can't afford to go - they can't afford insurance, or their insurance refuses to cover them. i don't want people who are sick when they don't want to be sick, but can't afford to get better. how is providing everyone with affordable healthcare equivalent to ordering people to go to the doctor? just because you have healthcare doesn't mean you _have_ to go to the doctor (my father always had great health insurance, and would only go to the doctor when he was too sick to fight being hauled there). how does making sure i can afford to take care of my health limit my freedom?

and where did i say anything about what kind or how many relationships you have? that is the one area of government control the conservatives want to increase - they are the ones who want to regulate who you can sleep with, in what position, and what you can or cannot do about the result.

i notice you don't address my comments about everyone paying their fair share, or allowing people to actually have the retirement they have been promised, and have worked towards. i guess even you can't see how making the many pay for the few is increasing anyone's freedom.

proper government can actually increase your freedoms - by freeing you from the fear of crime (everything from being mugged to being swindled by your bank), by freeing you from fear of poverty (because you or a loved one got sick and you were bankrupted by paying the bills, or because your company stole your pension), by freeing you from fear of discrimination (so you can get an education and fair pay and opportunities based solely on your abilities, and not influenced by your sex, or your age, or your race, or anything else not pertinent to what you do). proper government can increase your freedom by building good infrastructure - roads and power grids and potable water supplies - so you can go anywhere and do anything. proper government can increase your freedom by providing opportunities - by helping you get an education, by funding research that may open new fields, by - well, you would get the idea, except you have it firmly fixed in your head that all government does is say 'no', regardless of how many examples there are to the contrary.

and your position that community involvement _must_ be voluntary is sheer idiocy. taxes are a pretty basic way for the community to "force" everyone to be involved. you can see the results directly, you can feel the benefits directly - and yet how many people make a huge fuss about paying any sort of taxes, because it takes from "me" and provides assistance to someone else? how is insisting that everyone in the community with means contribute to that community somehow depriving the agency doing the insisting of moral authority? if the church insists that you not sin, than you follow the precepts of the church, and that you tithe to that church and assist it in its mission - does that mean the church has given up all its moral authority?

maybe you should spend a little more time studying what government actually does, and a little less listening to what fox news tells you it does.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenshiro wrote:
No, I'm in favor of a community voting itself communist as long as I (or anyone) am not required to be a part of that community. Yes, moving is costly and difficult, but as long as it's legal I'll accept it as the best available compromise.

So... so long as the US doesn't outlaw self-deportation, you've got no problem with any of Obama's future policies?

I'm impressed. I'm not sure I'd be quite so reasonable in my dissent.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9489

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So like, anarcho-communitarian-microfederalism?

I literally cannot wrap my head around the sociological prospect of the Kenshiro ideal
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10682
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think Kenshiro can either, given the depth of the thoughts he's expressed so far ("I don't know how it works, it just should").
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1172
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
So like, anarcho-communitarian-microfederalism?

I literally cannot wrap my head around the sociological prospect of the Kenshiro ideal


Would microfederalism be the same as minarchism?
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10682
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, silly, that's when a girl gets her first period.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kenshiro



Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nathan wrote:
Kenshiro wrote:
No, I'm in favor of a community voting itself communist as long as I (or anyone) am not required to be a part of that community. Yes, moving is costly and difficult, but as long as it's legal I'll accept it as the best available compromise.

So... so long as the US doesn't outlaw self-deportation, you've got no problem with any of Obama's future policies?

I'm impressed. I'm not sure I'd be quite so reasonable in my dissent.


Sortof. I'll leave the country if I have to, but as long as I'm here and I have a say in the government that governs me I intend to fight for as many of my liberties as possible; I do not, however, see it as my place to interfere with a government that is not my own, such as your local or state governments, for example. The federal government has jurisdiction over all of us, so I get a say in it's practices and I intend to monitor them closely and put my efforts towards keeping them from encroaching on anyone's liberties as much as possible, but state and local governments that I'm not a part of I feel I have no business interfering in. In a similar vein, and as an example of my thinking: when I found out that Him was pro-communism I was intrigued but I will admit that my guard was up. When I found out that he lives in Sweden, it became a null-issue. It's not my place to tell the Swedish people how to govern themselves.

Mouse: I'll get to you soon, I promise, but you've shared a lot of ideas that deserve a proper response, and that'll take me time to think out and write up, especially since I'm caught up in the process of moving into a new apartment at the moment. Please be patient with me - I'm enjoying your ideas and want to talk more about them, but it'll take me some time to do it properly.
_________________
The question of our day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9489

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

minarchists are what libertarians call themselves when they are out of the closet about accepting that there are circumstances in which government regulation is necessary for an operable government and society, so 'pretty much all libertarians but the anarcho-capitalists'

microfederalization is 'the effective end result of if libertarianism actually somehow got actually implemented' as opposed to an ideology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17122
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenshiro wrote:
The federal government has jurisdiction over all of us, so I get a say in it's practices and I intend to monitor them closely and put my efforts towards keeping them from encroaching on anyone's liberties as much as possible,


well, start by putting your efforts in to finding out whether the government is in fact infringing on anybody's liberties, rather than just accepting other people's say-so. caught something on the radio this morning - some woman was saying she didn't want the government forcing her to buy condoms, no clue where she got the idea that it was, or why it would even want to do such a thing.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
Page 22 of 23

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group