| Author | Message | ||
     Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5818 Registered: 1-2003  |
Attacks? Please. You told me I am incapable of understanding things. I can understand without agreeing. If I have attacked you, please cite it, and I will apologize. You might be right about certain types of checkups. In fact, I am sure you are. The fact is that I believe, though I cannot prove, that people would be worse-educated if their parents had to shoulder the costs. You cannot disprove that, either, so it is left to opinion. I am not here to prove you wrong. I am here to provide my opinion and ask about yours. You are mistaken if you believe that stating an opinion shows the speaker proves anyone to be wrong. Opinions are not wrong or right. I hope you can take the time to answer my recent question to you. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 954 Registered: 7-2004 |
"private charities" See, this is the great advantage Libertarians have in a debate. Libertarians can argue till the cows come home, for example, that private charities will solve all problems. The goodwill of the people. The problem is that it's all fantasy. Since it's never actually been tried even a little bit, it's all hypothetical postulating. And who has the upper hand in debating real-world practicalities versus fantasyland hypotheticals? It's a house of cards. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 528 Registered: 3-2004  |
The goodwill of the people. The problem is that it's all fantasy. Since it's never actually been tried even a little bit, it's all hypothetical postulating. yes, because private charities dont exist and have never done anything for anyone. tom: i dont mean attacks like aggressive rude ravings. i apologize for the misunderstanding. however, just writing opinions without the ability to question those opinions is not a discussion, its oration. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 955 Registered: 7-2004 |
"because private charities dont exist and have never done anything for anyone." Not at the expense of government programs. See, this is what I mean that a Liberatarian can argue anything he wants and seemingly get away with it. You have absolutely no idea what would/could happen if government intervention program were replaced solely by private charities because it's never happened anywhere. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5820 Registered: 1-2003 |
none of you will ever be able to wrap your heads around the thought that people who decide to have children shoud be responsible for them. Please take note of your rudeness in saying the above. It is also non-sensical, because your use of the word "should" is a value judgement, indicating that this obligation is a matter of opinion. We just don't agree. That is not a failure to see fact, and it does not indicate any sort of inability. If you pay attention, you'll notice I'm actually a pretty good listener. I question my own views every day. Now, do you have any thoughts on whether it makes sense to elect someone to carry out a collective decision or viewpoint? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 529 Registered: 3-2004 |
it isnt rude to state what has proven already in this thread. there is a general inability for alot of you to question your belief that other people should be responsible for your personal reproductive choice. as to your election question. i believe a republic is the best governmental choice and not a democracy. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 530 Registered: 3-2004 |
You have absolutely no idea what would/could happen if government intervention program were replaced solely by private charities because it's never happened anywhere. i will give you a moment to research this false claim before i post again. if you choose to stand by this statement you are going to look foolish. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5821 Registered: 1-2003 |
Just because I don't choose to agree with you doesn't mean I am incapable of it. It's like saying I am incapable of acknowledging that cherry ice cream is the best. If you believe the people can elect a candidate in their interests, doesn't it mean they are asking the elected official to do their collective will? And isn't the official doing his job if he does what they want him to do? | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 956 Registered: 7-2004 |
Local: First of all, you're not winning any supporters to your cause -- and you seem to care about the Libertarian Party's growth and future -- with your antagonistic and testy responses. Just seems like bad salesmanship. Second of all, please stay off my rented government property, or I may have to find a cat and exercise my second amendment rights. As for looking foolish, as you like tell everyone who responds to you, just keep writing. | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 1806 Registered: 7-2001  |
Libertarian, The form of government you have chosen to live under allows you the right to vote for elected officials who ultimately vote on how your tax dollars are spent. You can try and affect what the money is spent on, but that is the extent of your power. The majority of people seem to believe in the value of public education and are not ready to turn over the responsbility for educating children to private charities. You should be ready to spend the rest of your life postulating on the unfairness of supporting other peoples children, because it isn't going to change. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 138 Registered: 11-2003 |
local - you'll first have to repeal the law compelling children to be enrolled in school until age 16. This would ensure parents have the choice to send their children to school only if the wanted to and they could afford enrollment costs (or rely on private charity). Sounds great, right? Hell, while we're at it, why even require parents to be resposible for their children. The little shits should take some personally responsibility. right? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 532 Registered: 3-2004 |
As for looking foolish, as you like tell everyone who responds to you, just keep writing. i have never said that. since you did not choose to address your false charity statement i can only assume you have discovered how wrong you were and have chosen to ignore it as it undoes your argument. Hell, while we're at it, why even require parents to be resposible for their children. The little shits should take some personally responsibility. right? when unable to discuss a viewpoint rationally and with facts it is easy to rely on sarcasm and silliness. If you believe the people can elect a candidate in their interests, doesn't it mean they are asking the elected official to do their collective will? And isn't the official doing his job if he does what they want him to do? you misunderstand the difference between a democracy and a republic. for example, this country is not a democracy. You can try and affect what the money is spent on, but that is the extent of your power. this is blatantly incorrect and a defeatist atitude. You should be ready to spend the rest of your life postulating on the unfairness of supporting other peoples children, because it isn't going to change. again defeatist and untrue. many things have been changed in this country through the efforts of the majority and the minority. a loud minority in this country right now are effecting huge changes, ie; fundamentalists. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 534 Registered: 3-2004 |
Are We a Republic or a Democracy? by Walter Williams (January 5, 2005) Summary: We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic. [www.CapMag.com] We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic. The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution -- two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights. In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government. How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III. The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states. Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 535 Registered: 3-2004 |
Ayn Rand said: "Why do they always teach us that it's easy and evil to do what we want and that we need discipline to restrain ourselves? It's the hardest thing in the world--to do what we want. And it takes the greatest kind of courage. I mean, what we really want." "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 1809 Registered: 7-2001 |
Libertarian, It's not defeatist in my eyes because I don't agree with your goals. And while I'm well aware of the history of our country I'm extremely confident that the viewpoint you espouse will not make headway. You of course are welcome to continue spitting into the wind | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 957 Registered: 7-2004 |
Local: I'm just curious how I'm supposed to respond to your claim that charities, instead of government programs, work. You called me foolish, but did not offer a counterpoint except to say I'm wrong. Now I'm at a loss, though I am noticing a trend that you refuse to answer direct questions while simultaneously belittling the person asking the question...and reframing the argument to some ridiculous notion about having kids. "when unable to discuss a viewpoint rationally and with facts it is easy to rely on sarcasm and silliness." Wow. As Janay might say, talk about projecting. With you as a champion of the cause, I'm sure Libertarianism is going to have a long and healthy road ahead. Yes, that was sarcasm. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 537 Registered: 3-2004 |
I'm extremely confident that the viewpoint you espouse will not make headway. You of course are welcome to continue spitting into the wind fastest growing political party in the nation. get ready cause we are coming. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local: I'm just curious how I'm supposed to respond to your claim that charities, instead of government programs, work. You called me foolish, but did not offer a counterpoint except to say I'm wrong. Now I'm at a loss, though I am noticing a trend that you refuse to answer direct questions while simultaneously belittling the person asking the question i wasnt belittling you, merely giving you a chance to retract your statement. it is patently false. you threw that comment out like it was a fact when in reality it was an unresearched belief that bolsters your opinion. i will give you a small example of a private charity that has replaced a government agency and works. the central park conservancy. there are plenty more if you need more examples. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 538 Registered: 3-2004 |
It's not defeatist in my eyes because I don't agree with your goals i agree, but that is not what you said. you spoke of the limited power of the people to make change. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 960 Registered: 7-2004 |
The Central Park Conservatory works WITH the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation. It is a partnership, one that is both public and private. They have a management contract from the city that can be revoked if they don't meet certain financial and contractual standards. | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 1811 Registered: 7-2001 |
i agree, but that is not what you said. you spoke of the limited power of the people to make change. No that's not what I said. I was referrng to limited power of your specific ideas. I believe that individuals can create amazing change. They just have to have a powerful and hopefully moral idea. |
