|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| There is no "refuting" VistorQ. |
Except in my last reply, where I changed my position in agreement with Kuros 
| Quote: |
| The guy will go on forever no matter how much evidence is stacked on in front of him. Check out the birther thread for evidence. |
You've got nothing, least of all evidence. You have neither brains nor knowledge enough to refute anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:30 am Post subject: More fun poking the lunatic in a cage with a stick |
|
|
| I must admit that I'm not well read on the subject of libertarianism. However, visitorq's post fail to inspire confidence. He attacks others while dodging legitimate objections and concerns and preaching his own crazy conspiracy theories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ghostrider wrote: |
| I must admit that I'm not well read on the subject of libertarianism. |
No kidding. And yet that didn't stop you from posting a bunch of defamatory, disparaging crap about it. Says way more about you than it does about libertarianism... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| There's simply no compelling reason to mandate skirt lengths in public meaningfully beyond indecent exposure levels. |
On second thought, I agree. I guess what I meant was that most libertarians would consider communities having indecent exposure laws to be reasonable (instead of just having everyone run around nude anywhere, even with children around). At the same time I also have no problem with nudist communities doing their thing, if that's what they want. But beyond that, people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. Anything like Burqa bans I'm against.
| Quote: |
| As for banning booze in a town/county, yes its constitutional, but its terrible policy. As a practical matter it corrupts law enforcement and often makes them the primary dealer of alcohol. |
I assumed he just meant banning consumption of alcohol in public places (which I'm not necessarily for, but I could see how some communities would be). If he meant banning it altogether, including sale or even possession, then yeah I'm completely against that.
| Quote: |
| Libertarianism is not exactly the same as Constitutionalism. |
True. |
Actually if a county wants to make cockamamie laws regarding alcohol or skirt lengths or getting a horse drunk or whatever, fine.
I think alcohol banning is a terrible idea, but I support the right of a town or county to ban it. Let me be clear these kind of laws stop at the county level. State and National laws on such matters should not be made.
One of the keys of democracy is to enable people to make laws that you disagree with, but you support because you are enabling them to exercise political power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Actually if a county wants to make cockamamie laws regarding alcohol or skirt lengths or getting a horse drunk or whatever, fine. |
It's a debatable point... There's basically two ways to make laws: one is to list a few basic things that are outright illegal (like murder, theft, fraud etc.) and everything else is legal (at least on one's own property). The other is to legislate every single thing that is allowed or not, down to the cockamamie issues you mention.
I'm no legal expert, but I would guess most libertarians would be in favor of the former (while possibly allowing for bylaws applying to public spaces), not the latter. Having the government regulate how much toilet paper you're allowed to use, how late your children are allowed to stay up, or how many pork chops you can eat in a month is not very conducive to liberty...
Obviously, I'd rather have the law decentralized away from the federal (and even state) level as much as possible, but I don't just accept automatically that it's okay for municipal governments to pass whatever laws they feel like. The issue of the government infringing on personal liberties still remains quite complicated.
| Quote: |
| I think alcohol banning is a terrible idea, but I support the right of a town or county to ban it. Let me be clear these kind of laws stop at the county level. State and National laws on such matters should not be made. |
Again, I'd rather the decision be made at a county level than a federal level, but what is the justification for even a county to ban alcohol?
| Quote: |
| One of the keys of democracy is to enable people to make laws that you disagree with, but you support because you are enabling them to exercise political power. |
Where do you draw the line? Arbitrarily? How about if one county wants to ban guns (which has already happened in some cases) or allow slavery? (extreme example, but there you go). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Obviously, I'd rather have the law decentralized away from the federal (and even state) level as much as possible, but I don't just accept automatically that it's okay for municipal governments to pass whatever laws they feel like. The issue of the government infringing on personal liberties still remains quite complicated.
|
Well, you lost the debate over 200 years ago. The states voted in favor of the US Constitution which created a powerful, central government. The US Constitution created a system of government in which federal law trumps state and local law. The people that wanted a more decentralized system of government in which the states had most of the power lost the debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ghostrider wrote: |
| Well, you lost the debate over 200 years ago. The states voted in favor of the US Constitution which created a powerful, central government. The US Constitution created a system of government in which federal law trumps state and local law. The people that wanted a more decentralized system of government in which the states had most of the power lost the debate. |
Are you capable of posting even a single statement that isn't complete and utter malarkey? Seriously, you know nothing of history and are just spewing nonsense. The US Constitution specifically enunciates states rights, and the supremacy clause only applies to constitutionally authorized powers of the federal government. It does not mean the federal government can just do whatever it wants. No doubt that is too much for someone like yourself to grasp though...
The centralization of power that allows the federal government to basically do whatever it wants took place during the Civil War, through the use of brute force (when the ex-lobbyist for big railways, the fascist-corporatist President Lincoln, and his butcher generals waged total war against Americans in the south), and had nothing to do with what the founding fathers had in mind 200 years ago. In no way was Lincoln's overstepping of the boundaries of his authorities "constitutional". Quite the contrary. It was utterly tyrannical (taking place during a major war, as always), and transformed the nation into an imperialist system (the result of which can be seen today).
Kind of like how Obama can just declare an illegal war of aggression (because he says he had a UN mandate ) and claim he has the authority, even though it directly violates the constitution (which asserts that war must be declared by Congress). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ghostrider wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Obviously, I'd rather have the law decentralized away from the federal (and even state) level as much as possible, but I don't just accept automatically that it's okay for municipal governments to pass whatever laws they feel like. The issue of the government infringing on personal liberties still remains quite complicated.
|
Well, you lost the debate over 200 years ago. The states voted in favor of the US Constitution which created a powerful, central government. The US Constitution created a system of government in which federal law trumps state and local law. The people that wanted a more decentralized system of government in which the states had most of the power lost the debate. |
A powerful, central government limited by enumerated powers. There is no Federal police power. I repeat: there is no Federal police power.
Visitorq and I lost this debate not 200 years ago but only 70 years ago. Almost all Federal powers are premised on an exceedingly expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court created two tests which revolutionized the balance of power and turned a Federalist system into a de facto Nationalist system. The first was the substantial economic effects test. The second was the aggregate effects test. The first test states that the Federal government may regulate anything that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The second test states that any activity which IN THE AGGREGATE might have a substantial economic effect does have an economic effect. So, the Supreme Court basically said: take any activity, even if confined to your home. If we multiply it and blow it up a hundred-fold, then it becomes a Federal matter.
And thus the enumerated powers doctrine was destroyed. Not through amendment. But through judicial review.
But many people disagree that this is the way it should be. This is the argument visitorq and I are losing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My avitar speaks volumes as to my leaning. Let's all hope Rick Perry wins the Republican primary and hands Obama his pink slip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just took the political compass test again.
Same results as last time. Very slightly to the right (0.62) and substantially libertarian (-5.12). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Economic Left -2.50
Social Libertarian -5.74
Huh, according to this test I'm more socially libertarian than Kuros. Just don't trust those corporations is all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Are you serious? Are you accepting this "Somalia-is-an-example-of-a-libertarian-state" nonsense? There are so many problems with this: Somalia is torn by tribal strife and double-cursed by religious warfare. Its a bullshit premise and if you won't call him on it I will. |
Somalia positively thrived under anarchy, relatively speaking.
After the collapse of state power in 1991 child death rate decreased rapidly, and life span started to increase slowly. The latter phenomenon takes place only in three countries of �black� Africa after 1990. As for child death rate, Somalia has moved from the 37th place to the 17th (of 41) during the period of anarchy. There is also an improvement in child immunization.
The growth of economic activity can be proved by development of telecommunications in Somalia. For the period of anarchy, Somalia has moved from the 20th to the 8th place as per the level of stationary telephone system development. Somalia holds the 16th place according to the level of cell-phone connections and the 11th as per the Internet availability.
In many African countries telecommunications are controlled by state monopolies, which slow down the development. It takes three days to install a telephone line in Somalia, and several years in neighbor Kenya. The prices are also quite moderate: 10 US dollars per month for unlimited local calla and 50 cents per minute for international calls. The Internet connection costs only 50 cents per hour. Cell-phones are cheaper and work better that anywhere else in Africa.
http://eastwest-review.com/article/somalia-anarchy-order-part-ii
Before Somalia descended into anarchy, it suffered the brutality of a military dictatorship (the Barre regime) who tried to impose "scientific socialism". Violence in Somalia is now comparable to neighboring African nations (with stronger central governments). |
How's the libertarian paradise that is Somalia doing these days?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14211905 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just took that political compass test as well
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
Comrade Fox, you're more left-wing than me, I'm impressed. And I'm more libertarian than Kuros too, apparently - that's a scary thought  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, Somalia is a little too statist for my liking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
