Seriously, WHY are all the Mods here Ultra Libs?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

To even say all mods are liberal is tarded. I know of 2 I would cal conservative, Bill is Libertarian. Not the Coca-cola Libertarian who has no opinion about moral issues, a true libertarian who proactively wants gay marriage, etc.

I don't think that is a libertarian response. As somebody who leans libertarian myself I would like to see governement completely out of the business of regulating personal relationships--no state sanctioned marriage for anybody, we don't need it.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rhaig 0]

Quote

To even say all mods are liberal is tarded. I know of 2 I would cal conservative, Bill is Libertarian. Not the Coca-cola Libertarian who has no opinion about moral issues, a true libertarian who proactively wants gay marriage, etc.

granted it's been a while, but when I was being taught what a libertarian is (not the current non-lib viewpoint of lib's being anarchists), it was a lot about not wanting regulation on how we live our personal lives. what I personally do by myself or with other consenting adults, really is no business of the government, unless I'm involving an unwilling third party (either through personal or property interactions). The consequences of my actions are my fault and I need to deal with that. This is not anarchy, this is personal freedom and accountability.

for instance:
I don't think we should have laws allowing gay marriage. There weren't any laws that specifically forbade it, so it was allowed. Unfortunately, there was case-law established through lawsuits and some states began to forbid it. So those rulings need to be somehow nullified. The best we seem to be doing is trying to get laws established pointing the other direction.

we have too many laws that either aren't being enforced or are being enforced selectively. The last thing we need to do is put more laws on the books to stop people from doing something that doesn't interfere with other individuals.

--
Rob

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The differences between "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" extremists is a matter of details regarding what they wish to inflict upon the masses, and neither of them has much in common with the more centrist majority.

Regardless of the label one applies to a political stance, if it is not based on personal responsibility I am not interested.

you are bit more eloquent in saying what I'm always saying - still you'll be derided because you aren't regurgitating someone's bias

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

4 people in a row that call themselves libertarian with pretty much the same response to a very crappy definition of an 'activist/gov intrusive' version of some other philosophy being call libertarian.

I can't wait to hear how we are all wrong.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,442]

"Libertarian" is one of the new feel-good names. It means "I don't want anyone to get involved in things that are important to me" without necessarily meaning "but that doesn't mean everything"

There are too many axes for any of the terms to be really meaningful.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Remster 30]

Quote

4 people in a row that call themselves libertarian

To be honest, some of these have been declared libertarian by others... Not quite the same...

Remster

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

BTW, I never posted on AVSig, and am not even sure what it is.

AViation Special Interest Group. It was the computer forum for aviation folks before the internet. It used to exist in Compuserve, where you paid for access time by the minute. They now use a modern web site. I used to represent skydiving in there.

http://www.aero-farm.com/

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

There are too many axes for any of the terms to be really meaningful.

absolutely - labels are so much fun

(mostly, I'm just trying to point out that most of the discrepancies people have in what they call each other is not based on the actual beliefs, but in the personal opinion of what the poster claims the terms to mean - that's why focused discussions are so much more fun. And they lose interest as soon as the name calling starts - pretty much 4 or 5 posters hit it early, that's why most thread suck after about 3 posts. in some cases the first sentence)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

if you want right-wing moderators, then try http://www.stormfront.org

might be more to your liking. No one is making you come here.

I think a few of our posters around here are already there TK

[Bolas 5]

Quote

we have too many laws that either aren't being enforced or are being enforced selectively. The last thing we need to do is put more laws on the books to stop people from doing something that doesn't interfere with other individuals.

+1

Some are just unenforcable except in very certain scenarios as well.

Any law passed should be able to be consistently enforced for all as well as have justification of why it's needed and it's specific purpose so not to be used for other circumstances. This should be applied to all existing laws as well.

The "ducks have to wear pants on sundays" type laws need to go.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

"Libertarian" is one of the new feel-good names.

From what I see on these forums, a libertarian is a conservative without the balls to stand up for the whole platform.

They are generally very vocal against the left, yet when a misstep is pointed out on the right they state:

"I am a Libertarian"

[billvon 2,990]

>I don't think that is a libertarian response. As somebody who leans
>libertarian myself I would like to see governement completely out of the
>business of regulating personal relationships--no state sanctioned
>marriage for anybody, we don't need it.

I agree. Marriage should be performed by churches, ministers, family members who want to be the official, basically anyone who wants to do it (and who is agreed to by the people being married.) The government should limit themselves to setting up the civil union that occurs when someone gets married; that's it.

Unfortunately that's not what we have now. And if government is going to try to regulate it, then they absolutely cannot discriminate based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

"Libertarian" is one of the new feel-good names.

From what I see on these forums, a libertarian is a conservative without the balls to stand up for the whole platform.

They are generally very vocal against the left, yet when a misstep is pointed out on the right they state:

"I am a Libertarian"

What would you call those people? Libertarian Is Another Republican?

I noticed that right after the 2008 election, when it suddenly wasn't "cool" to be a Republican a lot of "Libertarians" suddenly showed up, yet they sure seemed to have the same sort of basic philosophy as modern right-wing Republicans; they just didn't want to be called that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

From what I see on these forums, a libertarian is a conservative without the balls to stand up for the whole platform.

That's fine, essentially, a libertarian isn't a drone for either party. You seem to think that equate to fewer balls.......

what's wrong with standing up for those parts you agree with and not standing up for the stuff you don't believe in? Even when some of each is from both parties and even, GASP, from your own values as an individual....

Fiscally conservative, and socially "mind you own business" doesn't fit either party if one is mindless enough to stand up for either party's "whole platform"

you seem to be saying "you're either with us or against us" well, mission accomplished

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I noticed that right after the 2008 election, when it suddenly wasn't "cool" to be a Republican a lot of "Libertarians" suddenly showed up, yet they sure seemed to have the same sort of basic philosophy as modern right-wing Republicans; they just didn't want to be called that.

certainly it can't be a situation where the last admin shifted so far away from libertarian values, that the libertarians just couldn't identify with them any more. The reps became more like the dems - spend and spend and spend, and push more social issues.

I think you're just pissed that they left the republicans, but still couldn't hold their noses enough to join your party which was still worse on libertarian issues. They'd rather splinter off than join either side.

and you wonder why the centrists and libertarians abandoned that ship??? They'd rather sit in a raft and float rather than climb aboard one of two sinking ships

it's still "with us or against us" with you guys - You're happy because you now are into the 10th year of GWB politics (on steroids) - hell, you now even have Georgie's general in charge again....

the fact that you can't see the difference between Republicans and Libertarians just highlights that you're looking at them from a distance. I can't see much difference between Reps and Dems, frankly.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rhaig 0]

Quote

he government should limit themselves to setting up the civil union that occurs when someone gets married; that's it.

agreed 100%. even a marriage between a man and a woman should have nothing to do with the civil union that is defined by today's marriage.

the officiant at a marriage of 2 people is empowered by the state to sign the marriage certificate, thus validating their civil union. There is no reason this should be limited to a man and a woman. (or even only 2 individuals)

--
Rob

[rehmwa 2]

Why even have a civil union - why does the government have ANYTHING to do with partnerships between two individuals. It just creates another demographic to legally bias for or against.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Why even have a civil union - why does the government have ANYTHING to do with partnerships between two individuals. It just creates another demographic to legally bias for or against.

I hear you.

but there are so many legal rights that accompany the civil union that we now call a marriage, that in our current system, there needs to be a legal document validating that union.

the "marriage" has nothing to do with the government or legal system. However if those two people want the same legal rights that accompany a traditional marriage (current definition that includes a civil union) they need to do the paperwork.

--
Rob

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I hear you.

but there are so many legal rights that accompany the civil union that we now call a marriage......

you didn't hear me

so what? delete the special rights and treat all individuals the same regardless of marital status

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Quote

From what I see on these forums, a libertarian is a conservative without the balls to stand up for the whole platform.

That's fine, essentially, a libertarian isn't a drone for either party. You seem to think that equate to fewer balls.......

what's wrong with standing up for those parts you agree with and not standing up for the stuff you don't believe in? Even when some of each is from both parties and even, GASP, from your own values as an individual....

Fiscally conservative, and socially "mind you own business" doesn't fit either party if one is mindless enough to stand up for either party's "whole platform"

you seem to be saying "you're either with us or against us" well, mission accomplished

And if items got discussed here on personal opinion, that would be great. But generally people get attacked for being liberals (or republicans).

What doesn't require balls is attacking the Democrats and then hiding behind the Libertarian Party. Which has accomplished nothing and doesn't have a single representative in any elected office, nor will it in any foreseable future.

It is like yelling you can do things better, knowing you will never have to prove it.

[billvon 2,990]

>delete the special rights and treat all individuals the same regardless of
>marital status

I think that's what he's saying.

Any two people start with the same rights. But through contracts you can give people 'special rights.' A simple example is a mortgage; you can sign a contract that gives you the right to live in a house. The bank then has the "special right" to demand money from you, or, failing that, to evict you from your house.

Marriage is a much more complex contract if you will. Right now it's all packaged up in one big box called "marriage" and includes rights of inheritance, rights pertaining to children (i.e. the father has visitation rights if there is a divorce and some say in the child's development.) You could do all that separately; write all sorts of contracts saying "yes you can have the car if we split up and I get the kids, I will not have sex with other women or I owe you half my belongings" etc etc. It would be a lot more paperwork, but would be functionally equivalent.

[quade 4]

Quote

so what? delete the special rights and treat all individuals the same regardless of marital status

It's not so much the "special" rights given to married people, but rather the "common law" rights such as shared property. The government needs to be a bit involved to avoid disputes when their are separations and deaths.

I do agree that all individuals should be otherwise treated the same.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

I hear you.

but there are so many legal rights that accompany the civil union that we now call a marriage......

you didn't hear me

actually... I did. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
***
so what? delete the special rights and treat all individuals the same regardless of marital status

yes. and if those individuals (man+woman, man+man, woman+woman or other combinations of more than 2 people) want to have legal rights that we currently associate with those between husband and wife, then they need to do the legal paperwork (civil union) that grants those rights.

--
Rob

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

I hear you.

but there are so many legal rights that accompany the civil union that we now call a marriage......

you didn't hear me

so what? delete the special rights and treat all individuals the same regardless of marital status

Interesting idea. Certainly bypasses all the gov't involvement over whom can marry whom (or what).

Individuals could still legally bind themselves to one another in a contract, but it wouldn't be state mandated.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

so what? delete the special rights and treat all individuals the same regardless of marital status

It's not so much the "special" rights given to married people, but rather the "common law" rights such as shared property. The government needs to be a bit involved to avoid disputes when their are separations and deaths.

I do agree that all individuals should be otherwise treated the same.

Not so much. If both or all are paying for something, their names are on it. If it's something one is paying for or owns outright, then their names are on it. It's fairly simple.

If one want to lay claim that the services or upkeep they provide entitles them to more than what they are paying for or own that needs to be done on a case by case basis.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.