Modern American conservatism and libertarianism

I am rather curious why so few of the good folks participating on the thread or answering the poll checked this as a conservative/libertarian belief:

Elected representatives should make all laws affecting the people materially.

Only 14 people checked that one. In my opinion only our duly and lawfully elected representatives are given authority to pass laws that require us to pay taxes or relinquish any other resources to the government or that affects how we will use our personal resources (wealth, property, etc.) Faceless, unelected bureaucrats or the courts should not be able to make rulings or regulations that have the force of law and affect our ability to use our personal resources (wealth,property, etc.) as we choose short of infringing on somebody else's right to do the same.

Agree or disagree.

 

Your brainwashing has been in the other direction, to believe that only the State can handle your interactions with your neighbor. My neighbors and I get along without lawsuits or government intervention. If the only reason your neighbors aren't living in vermin infested dumps is because the government is forcing them to be sanitary you must live in a terrible place. In the absence of government provided trash service do you think there wouldn't be any private alternatives? There is no libertarian belief or fallacy that everything can be solved by suing.

The no cost solution would be to talk to your neighbor about his vermin problem. If he's unreasonable you might then threaten to sue him. If he is adamantly unreasonable then you could sue him. The City services that you would use as an alternative to a lawsuit also cost money and they often aren't particularly interested in resolving your problem so you might have to sue your neighbor anyway. Of course if the government decides he is within his rights to do whatever you object to, then you're out of luck. If his vermin infestation is deemed to be legal by the local government then you have to live with it.

If we're talking about a private law society, the likely scenario is that you have insurance that includes arbitration, protective and enforcement services. Both you and your neighbor would have such insurance and the companies would hash out the results of the arbitration to insure their customers needs and responsibilities were met.

Nobody else would be paying for your lawsuit. It would be a private arbitration between you and your neighbor, most likely with a loser pays feature that would encourage people to avoid having to go to arbitration and work out differences on their own.

When the State fails to do something that needs doing do you just roll over and take it? Virtually every service the State does can be done better and cheaper on a private fee for service basis. In a private law society all the services that the government does poorly, including enforcement of arbitration rulings, would be done by private firms.

Meaningless anecdotes like your slum scenario where everybody lives in squalor and has to be forced to conform to societal norms? Pointing out that your comments were moronic wasn't puerile or ad hominem, it was descriptive. I didn't say your arguments were invalid because they were moronic, I said they were moronic and then explained why.

 

By the way, you failed utterly to address any of the points I made in the statement you replied to. You can shout "social contract" and engage in fallacious appeals to popularity all you want but can you defend the "social contract" as anything more than illegitimate government force?

 

Liberty is God-given, whereas license is the gift of the devil.

 

Such as 'drivers license?'

 

The BIZARRE illusion that the private sector can do everything "better and cheaper" has been DEBUNKED in the REAL WORLD!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ly-save-money/2011/09/15/gIQA2rpZUK_blog.html

But since that is your only argument that you have abjectly FAILED to substantiate that is Strike One!

The FALLACY that there will be some IMAGINARY "private law society" with "insurance that includes arbitration, protective and enforcement services" is absurdly ludicrous. You might as well just go back to FEUDALISM where ONLY the wealthy could afford to have their own "private law society" and their own "protective and enforcement services".

No sane and rational person is going to want to live in that kind of backwards society so that is Strike Two!

Then there is your abject failure to engage in Civil Discourse which is a violation of the PF Rules. That is Strike Three so you have effectively disqualified yourself from any further meaningful interaction on this topic as far as I am concerned.

Have a nice day!

 

I was asking for your opinion on same sex marriage. I'm not sure what exactly your opinion on same sex marriage has to do with my spirituality.

 

What about legalising the transport and sale of such deemed hazardous substances across state lines? Isn't that also the prerogative of the federal government?

 

You were the one that started talking about your spirituality. If you're confused it is your fault.

I will restate my position. The government shouldn't be involved.

 

Well I didn't talk about my personal spirituality, I talked about Christian marriage because you referred to
it as essentially no different to just two people agreeing to be married, as in the case of you and your husband.

 

What the POGO study looked at isn't privatization, its private contractors doing government work, for government. If the government is paying the bills and the private contractor is charging what the government agency will pay, costs will be higher than any other transaction. That is illustrated very well with the military industrial complex. Government is very bad at cost control and private businesses are very good at maximizing profit. The combination means exorbitant costs for government services. If you look at actual privatization where non private companies compete for the business of non government consumers, costs are far lower than in any sector involving government.

I didn't say there would be a private law society but if you want to look at functional libertarianism you have to be capable of engaging in thought experiments that go beyond what exists in the world today. Clearly you're not capable of understanding the concepts involved or the ramifications of actual libertarian principles. Do you consider yourself an exemplar of a sane and rational person or a spokesman for the community of the sane and rational? If you bothered to learn about the libertarian community you might find that there are a few sane and rational members of that group who would love to live in a private law society.

Accurately describing your statements isn't a failure to engage in civil discourse regardless of the very questionable application of the "flamebait" rule. You're free to abandon the argument, conceding the inadequacy of your claims and understanding but I'm not disqualified from anything except possibly in your unsupported opinion.

 

Thank you for one again establishing that the basis for your self disqualification is on a sound basis.

 

Yes my "self disqualification" is based on your inability to make a cogent argument.

 

Ironic projection duly noted FTR and ignored for obvious reasons given your absurdly implausible "private law society" with "insurance that includes arbitration, protective and enforcement services" drivel above.

 

So, still no valid argument? Not surprising, but you surely do know how to use those imojis, so why bother with thinking or reasoning?

 

It isn't. Whatever you do for marriage you can do that it doesn't matter.

 

So again dragging the train back onto the tracks. . . .

I am rather curious why so few of the good folks participating on the thread or answering the poll checked this as a conservative/libertarian belief:

Elected representatives should make all laws affecting the people materially.

Only 14 people checked that one. In my opinion only our duly and lawfully elected representatives are given authority to pass laws that require us to pay taxes or relinquish any other resources to the government or that affects how we will use our personal resources (wealth, property, etc.) Faceless, unelected bureaucrats or the courts should not be able to make rulings or regulations that have the force of law and affect our ability to use our personal resources (wealth,property, etc.) as we choose short of infringing on somebody else's right to do the same.

Agree or disagree.

 

Angling for a spot on my i-list, are ya?

 

Not sure what you're problem is. I'm just asking if you consider a drivers license as such a license is a "gift of the devil." Perhaps you think that a drivers license should be a liberty.

 

I miss the "Real Conservatives".
Neocons are NOT conservative.

Real Conservatives.






Anyone else miss those intellects?


Moi

​

 

It is different as it involves an all important third element without which the marriage is nothing.

 

The government?

 

That would be God. I guess you could say that the third element is the government in non-religious marriages, or the fourth element for religious marriages if they are also married under the state which most religious people are I think. Then you have your type of marriage where there is no third element of any sort. So surely you can see that not all marriages are the same.

 

for the second time what does that have to do with government recognizing marriage?

 

Absolutely nothing. Again, the only reason I'm talking about it is because you seemed to refer to religious marriage as essentially no different to just two people simply agreeing to be married, as in the case of you and your husband.