libertarian

@spruce112358 said
I was in the Libertarian Party for about 10 years and ran for office locally. So I know something about this.

There are two kinds of libertarians: anarchists and minarchists. Minarchists feel that a small government is necessary, so yes, defense and justice are important functions. Anarchists believe that, one day, all of government will be privatized and taxes elimin ...[text shortened]... ed the government down.

It threw the split in the party into sharp relief. And I left after that.

So how do you square this away????

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State wants to live at the expense of everyone". Frederic Bastiat

@averagejoe1 said
So how do you square this away????

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State wants to live at the expense of everyone". Frederic Bastiat

Well I believe the next step is agreeing on what government is for.

What is attractive about libertarianism is the rejection of the idea that "government exists to do good things for everyone": build homes, feed everyone, hand out computers, provide free health care, give everyone hand jobs, etc.

Government exists to protect all our rights equally. Free markets should take care of most of our physical needs.

@spruce112358 said
Well I believe the next step is agreeing on what government is for.

What is attractive about libertarianism is the rejection of the idea that "government exists to do good things for everyone": build homes, feed everyone, hand out computers, provide free health care, give everyone hand jobs, etc.

Government exists to protect all our rights equally. Free markets should take care of most of our physical needs.

You are correct, all goes without saying. Of course, the Constitution clearly sets out what government is for. Do you know that the states created the government, not the other way around. If you regard the provisions therein, you will see why SCOTUS threw abortion back to the states. It provides for that in the Constitution. This is the type of thing that Trump presidency will clean up.

@zahlanzi said
the same way was pointing a gun at everyone you meet before they attack you isn't defense

Of course it is. It may not always be a good defense or a smart defense, but it's definitely a defense (if the intent is defensive, of course).

Walking around with a holster or a gun-like bulge in a dangerous area is quite a common technique, and is based on the same principle.

@wajoma said
No one is saying 'libertarian utopia' except the boot lickers putting up their stupid tired strawman to burn down, weeee, weeee.

Libertarian military policy is non-interventionist, defense only. What's called supposed defense now equals hundreds of bases all over the world. Like spruce I don't think you want to discuss the issue seriously. A quick google would have rendered your bait OP redundant.

I don't think you have any idea what you mean by justice in the context of libertarian government. So you answer like this to say you don't want to answer because you think I am unserious.

I am serious. You tell me what justice includes.

@wildgrass said
I don't think you have any idea what you mean by justice in the context of libertarian government. So you answer like this to say you don't want to answer because you think I am unserious.

I am serious. You tell me what justice includes.

Justice. The punishment meted out by a society for failing to Follow the Golden Rule, or for coveting and actually obtaining the stuff of other people without consent, with intent to own same. Or, for electing a person for the sole reason to take money from those who have earned it, using it to pay the debts of others, whether the recipients thereof are losers or not.
I think that about covers it. Thumbs will be appreciated. (up)

You think I am unserious too!

@shavixmir said
Are you suggesting a deterent isn’t a defensive technique.

Hogwash to that, sir.

you can call everything defensive then.

all the wars the US starts, all the coups it funds, all the weapons it sells to terrorists.

@sh76 said
Of course it is. It may not always be a good defense or a smart defense, but it's definitely a defense (if the intent is defensive, of course).

Walking around with a holster or a gun-like bulge in a dangerous area is quite a common technique, and is based on the same principle.

"Of course it is. It may not always be a good defense or a smart defense, but it's definitely a defense"
words have no meaning to you, huh.


"Walking around with a holster or a gun-like bulge in a dangerous area is quite a common technique, and is based on the same principle."
Yet that isn't what I or the OP was saying, is it? A gun in a holster is somewhat different than a gun waved at someone. The same way it makes a difference if a US military base is located in Texas or in Turkey or Japan.

But I am sure you wouldn't mind Russia opening bases in Cuba, right? They are defensive after all

@averagejoe1 said
Justice. The punishment meted out by a society for failing to Follow the Golden Rule, or for coveting and actually obtaining the stuff of other people without consent, with intent to own same. Or, for electing a person for the sole reason to take money from those who have earned it, using it to pay the debts of others, whether the recipients thereof are losers or not.
I think that about covers it. Thumbs will be appreciated. (up)

You think I am unserious too!

The beauty of the golden rule is that it is different for each person.

Wajoma is talking about (but not explaining) government providing justice.

@averagejoe1 said
You are correct, all goes without saying. Of course, the Constitution clearly sets out what government is for. Do you know that the states created the government, not the other way around. If you regard the provisions therein, you will see why SCOTUS threw abortion back to the states. It provides for that in the Constitution. This is the type of thing that Trump presidency will clean up.

"Do you know that the states created the government, not the other way around."

I hardly think you want to hold up the morals of the states to scrutiny.

Let's take Virginia. The State of Virginia began as a private company, stealing land, ethnically cleansing indigenous people, importing poor women to be wives (i.e. for sex) and buying slaves from ships that had been plundered. Virginia later fought an all-out war that killed hundreds of thousands to defend slavery. Very questionable beginnings.

The Federal government has a less sullied history. It truly begins with the Constitution, an amazing document which stands on its own merits, thank goodness. But the Constitution is not all-encompassing, and, though very good, is not perfect.

As for abortion, SCOTUS declared that settled, and then reversed itself. That threw the question to the states, but that's not where it belongs. Congress should have defined 'when you become a US citizen' long ago, but has not. They will, soon, unless I miss my guess.

It is a federal not a state matter, and 50 different standards will serve no purpose. We need one.

@sh76 said
Of course it is. It may not always be a good defense or a smart defense, but it's definitely a defense (if the intent is defensive, of course).

Walking around with a holster or a gun-like bulge in a dangerous area is quite a common technique, and is based on the same principle.

We don't have the right to place others at risk without their consent.

Examples:
Drunk driving. Let's say you manage to drive home without killing anyone. It is still wrong because you put everyone on the road at risk.

Pointing a gun at someone. The other person is 'at risk' because he doesn't know if it is loaded or what you intend.

Producing anthrax in your basement. Everyone is in the neighborhood is at risk because you might be careless or intend harm.

Walking into a shopping mall with an AR-15. Gauge by the number of panicked mothers scrambling armloads of kids to the exits whether you have 'placed anyone at risk without consent.'

So whether or not it is defensive is beside the point. Putting others at risk without consent is wrong and a violation of their rights.

@spruce112358 said
We don't have the right to place others at risk without their consent.

Examples:
Drunk driving. Let's say you manage to drive home without killing anyone. It is still wrong because you put everyone on the road at risk.

Pointing a gun at someone. The other person is 'at risk' because he doesn't know if it is loaded or what you intend.

Producing anthrax in your b ...[text shortened]... s beside the point. Putting others at risk without consent is wrong and a violation of their rights.

Sober driving also puts others at risk.

@wildgrass said
The beauty of the golden rule is that it is different for each person.

Wajoma is talking about (but not explaining) government providing justice.

What? How can 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' have any but one meaning?

@averagejoe1 said
What? How can 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' have any but one meaning?

It's subjective. Try imagining a court room where every crime is judged based on whether the defendant would have wanted someone else to do that to them.

@wildgrass said
Sober driving also puts others at risk.

I consent to the risk of you driving sober because 1) it's not very high, relatively speaking, and 2) I want to drive sober myself.