An Inconvenient Truth (for Libertarians)

[Scout26]

Thou hast insulted the Infallible Ronpaul !!!   Heretic!!!  Unbeliever!!! Blasphemer!!!


 

[Balog]

Azred: so you're in favor of 1. absolutist federalism, even to the point of allowing genocide if that's what that state wants and 2. you've totally given up on the system. Gotcha.

So if you don't vote, and you have no hope of any change, why the hell are you arguing politics?

[AZRedhawk44]

Azred: so you're in favor of 1. absolutist federalism, even to the point of allowing genocide if that's what that state wants and 2. you've totally given up on the system. Gotcha.

So if you don't vote, and you have no hope of any change, why the hell are you arguing politics?

Heck, Saudi Arabia doesn't let women vote or go out in public without their faces covered.  I guess we should nuke them into submission to be like Iowa, huh?   After all, if Federal mandate is good, then global mandate is moar gooder.


Compulsory laws implemented over people that don't believe in those laws require violence to enforce them.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes. So do laws against murder. What's your point?

[Balog]

Heck, Saudi Arabia doesn't let women vote or go out in public without their faces covered.  I guess we should nuke them into submission to be like Iowa, huh?   After all, if Federal mandate is good, then global mandate is moar gooder.


Compulsory laws implemented over people that don't believe in those laws require violence to enforce them.

I think you've moved beyond LIBERTARIANISM to straight up anarchism. Good for you. Might want to stop pretending you would support any form of .gov though.

[MechAg94]

If you want to create a Federal level mandate for this particular type of murder, why aren't you creating one for every other type of murder?  Handle it at the State level.  Like jaywalking.  We don't have federal jaywalking laws.  Why have federal murder laws?

The reason social conservatives (who are not libertarian) want a Federal solution to abhorshins is because they want to IMPOSE their will on those they disagree with, where they cannot win on the battlefield of ideas.  They want to impose a ban on California abhorshins and New York abhorshins, though they live in Virginia or South Carolina.

I figured I head to respond this is gem since is flat out wrong IMO.
Most conservatives would be fine with state level laws on abortion with no federal oversight.  We can't do that because the Supreme Court made it a federal issue with Roe vs Wade.  I think it would be a great idea to get rid of that decision and go right back to each state regulating it as they wish.  If anti-abortion advocates then want to ban it in all 50 states, they can try.  At least then it is a little closer to a local issue rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.  I am not even pro-life and I can see that position easily enough.  I don't see why you can't. 

[Perd Hapley]

The reason a federal solution is called for is because it is problem created by the federales, who usurped state authority.

Please defend this assertion.  How did the feds create the problem?  SCOTUS hearing what should have been a State issue and decided by the State Supreme Court?  That confirms my assertion that federal involvement is unnecessary and we don't need any federal laws on the matter and only need State laws that address this form of murder.

You defended the assertion obvious fact yourself, and then exposed your own absurd (and ill-informed) caricature of social conservatives.

If you want to create a Federal level mandate for this particular type of murder, why aren't you creating one for every other type of murder?  Handle it at the State level.  Like jaywalking.  We don't have federal jaywalking laws.  Why have federal murder laws?

The reason social conservatives (who are not libertarian) want a Federal solution to abhorshins is because they want to IMPOSE their will on those they disagree with, where they cannot win on the battlefield of ideas.  They want to impose a ban on California abhorshins and New York abhorshins, though they live in Virginia or South Carolina.

You keep digging yourself a deeper hole, here.  

[Balog]

To respond to Micro's point from earlier, it is indeed true there is no theoretical necessity linking big tent small L libertarianism and social conservatism. But the current reality is that all the L leaning poli-critters we have now are part of the so-con movement that internet LIBERTARIANS are so eager to jettison. In reality as opposed to theory, so-cons are the most effective libertarians. Which is kinda the point of the whole article.

[roo_ster]

But the current reality is that all the L leaning poli-critters we have now are part of the so-con movement that internet LIBERTARIANS are so eager to jettison. In reality as opposed to theory, so-cons are the most effective libertarians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AlHIxZyJHg4#t=10s

[MicroBalrog]

Is Alan Gura a social conservative?

Or Tom Palmer?

[Balog]

Is Alan Gura a social conservative?

Or Tom Palmer?

Are they elected officials?