so you guys believe in a small government, minimum interference, etc etc. Good, so does everyone. (Whoever doesn’t , gets a rusty hacksaw, stat. BChad I am looking at you.)
Now… how do you account for the real reality that people can be totally stupid and hurt not only themselves but those around them? Or is libtertarianism like CAPM, a coherent and logical theory that, most unfortunately, does not actually work? But apart from that, it’s great.
Two examples. One. Gun control is a big topic in US. I assume libertarians would want people to be able to keep guns (correct me if I am wrong.) However, Number of guns and gun deaths (both per capita, NOT total) are almost 100% correlated. US has the highest, followed by Switzerland, followed by Western European countries, and of course Japan has the least of both. All these countries have totally different social and political milieus. So without getting into emotional debates about 2nd amendment and such, the fact is, more guns per capita = more deaths from guns per capita. Now what? Let people kill each other because the theory demands it? Kind of like Abraham’s (IIRC) decision to sacrifice his son on the altar because his God demanded it.
Two. Drug legalization. Some drugs, like regular (non-GMOed non-concentrated) marijuana would cause no more societal harm than liquor. Less, probably. But some, like meth, cause people to commit crimes ranging from burglaries to murder. Right now, the user base is smaller because they are illegal and the laws are enforced. Take that away and we could turn into 19th century China. We shouldn’t, and people should be able to handle them, and Netherlands has done it, and so on. But knowing Americans, we will, because we supersize everything, good and bad. Obviously, you can still prosecute the crimes, but is it wise to foster an atmosphere where more crimes can be committed easily?
“How do you account for the reality that people can be stupid and hurt thesmselves?” Is it government’s job to protect people from themself?
“And those around them?” Libertarians believe in private property rights and enforceable contracts. No libertarian believes you should be able to hurt others–intentionally or not. Your interpretation of the Libertarian platform is wrong.
On guns: Yes–we have the right to bear arms. Believe it or not, it’s in the Constitution. Just like the right to free speech. But to your data–where did you get it? Bowling for Columbine? Did you look for gun ownership/death rates in Israel? The middle east? South America? Is correlation causation? Does more gun ownership automatically lead to more gun deaths? I think that if you did an honest analysis, you would probably find there’s very little correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.
Do you have any data on how many crimes have been prevented because a would-be victim had a gun? Or how many crimes have been deterred because the would-be attacker was afraid his victim had a gun? Look these statistics up (if there are any) and get back to us.
On drugs: Again, is there any reason why we should protect people from themselves? And crimes, from burglaries to murder, are illegal and punishable under the libertarion platform. The crime isn’t being high–it’s the burglary/murder. Just like it’s not a crime to be a drunk, but it’s a crime to beat your wife while you’re drunk.
Since we’re on the subject of guns and drugs–look up rate of drug usage among Americans and among the Dutch. It’s illegal to do drugs in America, but it’s legal in the Netherlands. Ergo, drug-induced crimes should be outrageously higher in the Netherlands, right? According to your gun-control logic, it should.
And according to your drug-control logic, outlawing guns would lead to less gun-induced deaths. Tell me–how has outlawing drugs reduced drug violence in the US?
It seems like your reasoning is flawed, your logic is bunk, and your two arguments work contrary to each other. You should probably go back to backmasking Beatles records for Satanic references. You’d be more productive that way.
Outlawing drugs can reduce drug violence…if you have the stomach to enforce it. Like Singapore which has a death penalty for possession. The notion that government enforcement is ineffective is pretty weak. In many cases government insiders may well be simultaneously acting against the government’s own policies (illegal immigration - think US couldn’t end it if it wanted to?).
Just out of curiosity–what is everyone’s political affiliation? I identify mostly with the Libertarian party. But I find myself at odds with them very frequently. But they’re better than any other platform out there.
It seems like most people live in CA or NYC, which makes me believe you’re all Democrats. But you’re also CFA Charterholders/Candidates, which makes me believe you’re Republican.
I voted in the last election. the only reason I did was because my local school district was having a bond election. I voted for anybody who wasn’t Republican or Democrat in all the other races.
I’m cool with people not voting…so long as they never voice their opinion about anything political while abstaining. If you’re completely disinterested in politics and don’t want to vote, that’s fine. But if you have strong opinions about something and don’t vote, that’s not cool. Don’t bitch about the way things are run then don’t participate in choosing who runs them.
Hmm. Couple things there. 1) I don’t vote because I don’t believe in the current state of the political field and I choose not to support it. I view voting as an implicit act of support and am hoping by abstaining until I get candidates I do support that eventually someone may decide to go after the alienated voting base. It’s unlikely to work, I know, but that’s my idealistic stance. 2) Some of the issues I’m vocal about didn’t really exist in a singificant manner at the time of the election. 3) Lets take gun control as an example. I am obviously vocally pro gun, but I wouldn’t want to vote republican for president because I’m also pro gay-marriage and more democratic on social issues. I also don’t trust a republican not to start a war, which I view as a far more costly risk event than any budget issue. I also refuse to ever vote for any politician that will continue to allow the Cuban embargo to persist and thus starve civilians over a grudge. So I’m on the sidelines until I find a candidate that supports what I view as a centrist stance.
You’re never going to find a candidate that aligns perfectly with your views. If you want to call it choosing the least-bad candidate, that’s fine.
Weigh your priorities and vote for the guy that’s supports what you care about most. Not voting at all is just taking your ball home when you don’t like the game.
1.) I really like the “implicit support” argument. I’ve said that before many times.
2.) Whether I vote or not, I filed an income tax return and paid taxes on April 15. If I finance the government, I have the right to complain about it.
3.) Whether I vote or not, I’m still subject to government rule. If I’m subject to the government, I have the right to complain about it.
4.) I spent five years in the United States Marine Corps. If that doesn’t give me the right to complain about the government, then I’m not sure how checking an anonymous ballot does.
So no, I do not agree with your “No vote = no voice” position.
However, similar to BS, I also have no faith in the system, especially as long as we have two political gangs in power. I have never (and doubtful that I ever will) support a Democrat or Republican candidate. It seems like they are more interested in pursuing the interests of their party rather than pursuing the interests of their citizens.
Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll do what I choose with my vote, thank you very much.
If they want my balls, they can change the game.
I will not support a political party system I view as corrupt, I do not believe the ends justify the means, and I pretty much support Greenman’s stance 100%.
You’re telling me I have to buy sh*tty products because why? A boycott is a pretty simple concept, whether or not it works, and our nation could use a few more idealistic stances. How does it change anything, if I choose to boycott, let people who feel the way you do vote your hearts out, and yet remain vocal about what I want? Not being vocal or having an opinion, would specifically be contrary to my objective and undermine my stance.
I don’t need a candidate that aligns perfectly with my views,l but I DO need one that isn’t a sh*tty byproduct of a sh*tty system.
^ Or they could just start going after the silent voters by changing up their candidates. Which logically they would begin to do once the silent base becomes large enough.