UN says that it is possible that Saddam did have WMDs

General chitchat, advertisements for other services, and other non-Cantr-related topics

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:25 am

If you're saying I'm not a Social Liberal then I would say you are correct, Missy. Moore is definitely not a Libertarian (Libertarians seem to hate him as much as Bush) and he has been known to attack Libertarian ideals just as much as Conservative ideals. Though Libertarians would still defend Moore's right to say what he will as per the Bill of Rights and respect that though which I fully agree with. Moore can say whatever he likes. Doesn't mean I have to agree with him.
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:32 am

Psycho Pixie wrote:
jeslange wrote:@Missy: I think people tend to confuse Libertarian and Liberal because they both share the root "liber," which comes from the latin "free."

Classical liberalism, which many U.S. founding fathers upheld, revolves around little government influence, whereas modern day liberals want government to have a strong hand in economics and especially in social issues. Liberal in this modern context is understandably confusing.

Libertarians are the modern day version of classical liberalists. A short version of the general concensus amongst this group is that the U.S. gov has only the rights specifically laid out in the Constitution. Anything else would make the gov "too big."


so going by this idea here...

A libertarian wants less government control, basically wants more freedom of the peoples choice.

whereas a liberal wants the government to be more in control... therefore it wants the government to have more freedom to act apon the people.

am I right?

Psycho Pixie. the truely libertarian, by any definition.


Yes, for the Libertarian part.

The Liberal part is sort of iffy. They belief that government should fully regulate the economy (varying degrees of this though depending on party, ideals, and platforms) for the benefit of the people though this might mean that government comes to control everything (ie. Communism though not originally envisioned by Lenin). It really depends on what part of Social Liberalism we are talking about.
User avatar
jeslange
Posts: 2719
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 2:54 pm

Postby jeslange » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:00 pm

I think the confusion between libertarians and anarchists comes simply from the impression that many people get that libertarians want less and less government, as a matter of critical principle.

"Less and less and less government" is not a principle of libertarianism. If government is operating within its rights, then there is no need to downsize it. They see society as individuals with fundamental rights that must be protected. Formal government exists only to protect said rights. Ex: Gov is expected to protect against outside systems. If the gov is doing anything that is not specifically to protect those individuals rights, then the gov itself is the threat, and is more and more likely to violate those rights the bigger it is. Libertarians also believe in high levels of responsibility amongst the populace. It's not the gov's job (or right) to make you play fair. It's yours, as is the responsibility to keep the gov in check, which includes the use of force if it is necessary.

An enduring push for less and less gov, as a matter of principle, would be a function of anarchists, because they believe there is no rightful capacity for (formal) government to function in at all. Anarchists are communitarians. They think society should be born of naturally close-knit, egalitarian communities.

So, Libertarians in the modern context want less government until such point as the gov operates only in protecting the fundamental rights of individuals. Anarchists want less government until such point as it doesn't exist at all, and a new "natural" system can emerge.
User avatar
Psycho Pixie
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:40 am
Location: Corona, like the drink, but not mexican

Postby Psycho Pixie » Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:29 pm

I am libertarian...


i am prochoice, and pro guns. :) does that make me bad?
Here I am. BITE ME. or not, in fact, never mind, dont want some wacko taking me up on the offer. Only non wacko's may apply for bite allowance.. no garentee that you will be granted said allowance, but you can try.
User avatar
Pirog
Posts: 2046
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:36 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Postby Pirog » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:16 pm

Do you mean classical liberals as the ones who thought it was neat with no social nets at all, allowing child labor in the coal mines in England etc?

A liberal society with no social concern becomes horrible. Only the strong survives...

i am prochoice, and pro guns. does that make me bad?


What is the point of being pro guns?
From an outside perspective that feels like a hopelessly outdated right.
What are you afraid of, indians trying to steal your cattle? :)
Eat the invisible food, Industrialist...it's delicious!
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:43 pm

Pirog wrote:Do you mean classical liberals as the ones who thought it was neat with no social nets at all, allowing child labor in the coal mines in England etc?

A liberal society with no social concern becomes horrible. Only the strong survives...

i am prochoice, and pro guns. does that make me bad?


What is the point of being pro guns?
From an outside perspective that feels like a hopelessly outdated right.
What are you afraid of, indians trying to steal your cattle? :)


Classical Liberals would be against children working in coal mines. I think out two definitions are different.

Libertarians believe that the social concern should be up to the people rather than the government forcing it upon the people. If people want to donate their hard earned money to charities to help the unfortuante then they can but if they don't want to then they shouldn't be forced to as the government does with taxing them to fund social programs.

The point about pro-arms is the right to defend yourself. Governments can become corrupt and turn against the people and the belief is that the people should be able to defend themselves even against their own government or if the government can't defend them then they can defend themselves. Self defence is not an outdated right because in the end you are the only one that can truly defend yourself, family, home, and way of life.
User avatar
Pirog
Posts: 2046
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:36 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Postby Pirog » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:15 am

Classical Liberals would be against children working in coal mines. I think out two definitions are different.

Libertarians believe that the social concern should be up to the people rather than the government forcing it upon the people. If people want to donate their hard earned money to charities to help the unfortuante then they can but if they don't want to then they shouldn't be forced to as the government does with taxing them to fund social programs.


And if people doesn't show such willingness and concern?
Then you have sick and old people dying since they can't take care of themselves. Without laws giving the workers any rights on the market there would soon be people working practically for free...and even child labor.
There is a reason that the traditional liberalism switched over to social liberalism...people started to understand that total freedom can create horrible injustices.

And that is what I meant about Americans believing more in social darwinism than Europe. You see poor, uneducated people living in ghettos and say "lousy bastards...why don't they get themselves a job", not thinking about that there may be reasons for people losing hope in themselves or the system.
(It should be noted that this is a huge generalisation...just so you know)

If I have understood correctly what you mean by Libertarian I merely see it as an excuse for being selfish.

The point about pro-arms is the right to defend yourself. Governments can become corrupt and turn against the people and the belief is that the people should be able to defend themselves even against their own government or if the government can't defend them then they can defend themselves. Self defence is not an outdated right because in the end you are the only one that can truly defend yourself, family, home, and way of life.


Hehe, that sounds so incredibly American :)
I get your point, I just find it strange. Countries without a population armed to their teeth are managing fine...so does the risk of your government trying to turn on it's own people (not a very big risk) outweigh all the bad things that comes from all the guns lying around?
Eat the invisible food, Industrialist...it's delicious!
User avatar
Pirog
Posts: 2046
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:36 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Postby Pirog » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:22 am

This my sound extremely arrogant, but it feels like you Americans hesitates to "upgrade" your laws (like the ineffective and unfair election system, the right to bear arms etc.) just because you lack a long history to fall back on...

Americans often boast about being the oldest democracy etc., but in many cases it really shows that it is the oldest...since many other democratic countries have established more modern and realistic democratic systems...
Eat the invisible food, Industrialist...it's delicious!
User avatar
nitefyre
Posts: 3528
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:29 am
Location: New York City
Contact:

Postby nitefyre » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:32 am

The United States of America is a Democratic Republic. So we are a republic, not a Democratic Union. You should get that straight first. The Electorial College which elects the President of the United States has been effectively choosing Presidents based on regional polls of the People. This is probably one of the best representations, and least corrupt methods available. Mind you the American People do not always use their right to vote, and also, the American People may not be able to choose the correct authority for the executive, though it does rely highly on them. This is a check and balance that effectively borrows on our Representative Democracy. The most direct form of our Representation comes in form of the House of Representatives and Senate, who have the strongest powers in checking and balancing the Judicial and Executive powers of the US. The United States has survived for over 200 years as such, and it has continually updated laws, and its Constitution even alllows for Amendments to change what is ineffective. Such Amendments include the 13th abolishing slavery-and hence, we can keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights constant, thanks to our ability to amend and adapt.


I love how some persons like saying the United States likes going into poor countries and tell people how to do things. But Pirog, thats exactly what your doing to the United States of America.
Xarin
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:06 pm

Postby Xarin » Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:35 pm

I was linked to this thread by someone to better explain libertarianism. This is largely for the benefit of Pirog, but of course, anyone else who reads it is more than welcome to benefit from it. ;)

(Note, this is simplistic, but I'm going to sleep soon, so that's all you get) ;)

What is libertarianism?

Libertarianism is the only possible political philosophy for anyone who follows the belief that it's unacceptable and immoral to use violence on a person or steal from a person unless that person first uses violence on or steals from someone else. Or, as the Wiccans say, "An it harm none, do as thou wilt."

To elaborate, government acts through violence. Every single action of government can only be accomplished through violence. Thus, libertarians are generally against government action.

Taxation is theft, enforced by threat of government violence. This makes taxation an immoral act, along with all government services supported by taxation.

Regulation of guns, drugs, gambling, prostitution and many, many other things require the use of violence to force ones will upon those who won't comply. This makes government regulation an immoral act.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Government action = immoral. And the more people a government action affects, the more immoral. Local town governments are generally acceptable, but federal action is not.

As for the U.S. election system... it definitely needs some change. We need to implement instant runoff voting as soon as possible, return selection of Senators to the state governments and change The House of Representatives to be voted on at a national level, with seats given based on percentage of the vote, so that everyone actually has SOME representation rather than the none most people have. Of course, I'm guessing Pirog was actually referring to the electoral college, which is something that doesn't need to be changed. The U.S. is still a confederacy at its core, no matter how much power the federal government has usurped from the state. The bulk of the power is SUPPOSED to rest in the hands of the states, as the very name of our country shows. The electoral college keeps the smaller states, like Wyoming, from being completely ignored in favor of giant states such as California. Getting rid of it would be the equivalent of giving China and India two fifths of the votes in the U.N., or basing European Union voting on population.
Chrissy
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Chrissy » Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:02 pm

Since this topic is additionaly about Saddam, I wanted to mention that this morning on CNN they said that after September 11, and before we went to war, Russian intelligence shared information and facts with the U.S. intelligence, that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks in not only the U.S., but also other countries. I thought that was interesting.

Chrissy
User avatar
Psycho Pixie
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:40 am
Location: Corona, like the drink, but not mexican

Postby Psycho Pixie » Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:16 pm

pro gun.... the reason many people are still pro gun is beacuse YES we are afraid someone will steal from us.... figurativly speaking. not cattle or other old stuff, no. I grew up in an area that had a few nasty nasty gangs, IF more people owned guns, and publicly displayed them, do you think those gangs would have done as much harm as they did? HELL NO.

I dont think that you should be able to buy a gun in a day with no background check, but I do believe everyone has a right to defend themselves. If gang members were not sure which old lady walking down the road had a gun in her nitted sweater, they would leave people ALONE.


Psycho Pixie
Here I am. BITE ME. or not, in fact, never mind, dont want some wacko taking me up on the offer. Only non wacko's may apply for bite allowance.. no garentee that you will be granted said allowance, but you can try.
User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:53 pm

Pirog wrote:This my sound extremely arrogant, but it feels like you Americans hesitates to "upgrade" your laws (like the ineffective and unfair election system, the right to bear arms etc.) just because you lack a long history to fall back on...

Americans often boast about being the oldest democracy etc., but in many cases it really shows that it is the oldest...since many other democratic countries have established more modern and realistic democratic systems...

i completely agree. americans are always so proud of their democracy... to the point that they viciously fear change. it's insane how resistant the average american is to change. and it drives me insane. it's the same twisted sense of patriotism that makes people think it traitorous to criticize the administration. a perfect trivial example is "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. regaurdless of whether it belongs there (it doesn't by the way) every politician in the country immediately opposed it's removal because people would see them as unpatriotic if they didn't. improving the pledge is not unpatriotic! updating laws is not unpatriotic! arrrrggg!!!

that sort of mindset is practically beaten into us with all the continuous praise we hear describing how visionary the whole thing was 200 years ago. 200 years ago? yes, it was visionary. is that relavent now? no.
DOOM!
Xarin
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:06 pm

Postby Xarin » Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:35 am

kroner wrote: i completely agree. americans are always so proud of their democracy... to the point that they viciously fear change.


And you think Europeans don't? Interesting. Hey, you know what? I bet I could find good rationalizations to equate ANYONE'S actions with some kind of fear! Let's try it!

"Europeans fear freedom and responsibility, so they empower the government to take more and more control over their lives, since they're so afraid to do it themselves."

Wow, that was EASY! How about this? Don't insult people just because they disagree with you. You never know, you could be wrong. (Unless, of course, you're too arrogant to believe this possible. If so, please ignore me... well, I guess, if you were, you would anyway, now that I think about it.)
User avatar
Pirog
Posts: 2046
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:36 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Postby Pirog » Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:14 pm

Nitefyre>

I love how some persons like saying the United States likes going into poor countries and tell people how to do things. But Pirog, thats exactly what your doing to the United States of America.


That is an insanely bad comparison.
I'm a single person discussing matters on the Internet based on how I would like to see USA act. How can you ever compare that to a whole country using military and political power to force other countries into doing what they want?
That is very childish...

Xarin>

Thanks. I still think that such a society would become horrible though.

Chrissy>

Yeah, or you can take George Bush's words for it.
"I still claim that Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein was linked, because Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein are linked"
That man has such a way with words :lol:

Psycho Pixie>

But in a country where you couldn't buy guns as easily those gang members wouldn't be armed in the first place.
Having a cold war strategy where both criminals and their potential pray gets more and bigger guns to feel safe doesn't feel like a very good idea to me.
Eat the invisible food, Industrialist...it's delicious!

Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest