The Ron Paul that Ron Paul does not want you to know
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Again, be my guest.
NO .. I heard what you said .. now I want you to show it to me.
What I see is a law to protect the lives of children, some of whom have been killed brandishing toy guns.
On August 23, 1998, Michael Jones, a 16-year old boy, was shot 17 times and critically wounded by two police officers in Brooklyn, New York while riding a bicycle because he had a water gun that looked like a 9mm MP5 submachine gun.
On April 3, 1998 a 3rd grade boy took and displayed an small loaded 70-year old real gun in Queen’s Elementary School. The principal delayed notifying the police because he thought it was a toy gun, and did not think it could have created a real disaster.
In December 1995, police almost shot at a 10-year-old boy hiding in the bushes pointing a gun at them. The gun turned out to be a toy.
On Memorial Day, May 29, 1995, in Carson Park, California, Freddy Palacio, a 12-year old, was shot twice by a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy who mistook the $2 toy gun for a .22 caliber pistol.
In October of 1994, Nicholas Heyward Jr., a 13-year old boy, and straight-A student of Brooklyn, NY, was shot in the chest and killed by a police officer when he was playing with his toy gun.
Jamiel Johnson, a 16-year old boy, was shot and wounded on the same day, and in the same city as above, for the same reason
In 1987, a 12-year old boy was shot and killed by a police officer in San Francisco. His toy gun was mistaken for real gun.
In 1983, a 5-year old boy was shot and killed at his home, by an Orange County Police Officer because he was holding a toy gun.
Studies show that most children younger than eight can not reliably distinguish a toy gun from a real gun.
In 1990,according to statistics from the U.S. Bureau Of Justice, between January 1985 and September 1989, police departments nationwide have reported confiscating 31,650 imitation guns, during crime-related incidences.
The law was enacted to protect the lives of children while this group of libertarians were musing in ideological idiocy and unconcerned about victims.
Replace it with what? .. Blackwater? .. Won't the dynamics and cost be the same if not greater? What oversight is he proposing, if any at all? You don't know and you're a libertarian.
He rarely gets around to the actual POLICY of his beliefs. Just quick to point out what he doesn't like because it might cost him a nickel.
I'm saying I don't have a clue what Paul is proposing other than get rid of government, and seemingly, neither do you.
I'm not looking for any candidate to agree with 100% of my beliefs, but what I'm hearing from Paul is stupid as hell to the nth degree. They sound like more of his "tongue in-cheek academic musings" because there is little or NO policy behind them.
Last edited:
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Again, be my guest.
Got it covered check above.
As for the toy gun ban there is a victim. Children. Countless children have grown up including myself playing with such toys. I have noticed that most if not all toy guns sold now are painted with bright neon colors to avoid being mistaken for actual guns. Are you suggesting children not be permitted to even play with them? Interestingly enough I do not believe there is any widespread law forbidding toy gun makers from making the realistic looking. They made the change because it is good PR and wanted to make a product parents would feel comfortable buying. So in this case the market actually did some good.
What are the statistics of kids being killed by police for mistaken guns. Obvioulsy one single death is a tragedy but it is also knee jerk reaction to seek to ban all items that cause death.
If we looked at things that way a better bet is to ban alcohol. It kills an incomparable amount more people than toy guns.
Got it covered check above.
As for the toy gun ban there is a victim. Children. Countless children have grown up including myself playing with such toys. I have noticed that most if not all toy guns sold now are painted with bright neon colors to avoid being mistaken for actual guns. Are you suggesting children not be permitted to even play with them? Interestingly enough I do not believe there is any widespread law forbidding toy gun makers from making the realistic looking. They made the change because it is good PR and wanted to make a product parents would feel comfortable buying. So in this case the market actually did some good.
What are the statistics of kids being killed by police for mistaken guns. Obvioulsy one single death is a tragedy but it is also knee jerk reaction to seek to ban all items that cause death.
If we looked at things that way a better bet is to ban alcohol. It kills an incomparable amount more people than toy guns.
Show what to you? IH8 went to the dnc site and saw nothing on child protection laws specifically in the platform. I guess we can apply everything they suggest to children.
And thus a law making it a misdemeanor to sell look-alikes would be better applied than a law that banned every single sale of any toy gun whatsoever. Red squirt guns, such as they were giving away, would not fool anybody, don't look like guns, don't even think about coming near to looking dangerous and, unless a crate fell on them, haven't killed any children than I know of. The law was over-reaching, it was very clear to me. I like squirt guns, my children and I have fun with them all the time.
The law that was enacted was over-reaching. No toy guns whatsoever? Not even funny looking squirt guns? Give me a break.
Which is why I point out that he advocates study before any such repeal. You would rather panic over a ridiculous assertion that he wants to take everything away by magic with a wave of his "Presidential" wand (one that he doesn't have, nor likely will ever get), without regard to anybody in Congress or the Senate. That he doesn't advocate replacing them or studying their efficiency. You keep suggesting that he has no "policy" behind what he advocates, yet I keep pointing out that study is a policy.
Rubbish. We have given time and again explanations that you refuse to even suggest exist, then you disingenuously simplify and state that all libertarians are for something that clearly they are not "all" for. If I attempted to justify remarks about a person of pigmentation in such a stereotyping simple approach I would be justifiably rebuked.
I disagree, he puts at least as much as many of the candidates on the other side who advocate... Oh let's say healthcare. A seventeen point plan without the iotic explanation of every suggestible minute circumstance? OMG!!!
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Who in the hell told you that the DNC was liberal? Try real liberals like the Green Party and look up their "Children's Agenda"
'dems some real fancy words.
But to those who suffered under Jim Crow laws, your fancy words were absolutely meaningless. Fortunately, people with good sense recognized the time for words was long overdue and they took action to right the course of this nation which had become an embrassment, a contridiction in terms to the rest of the world.
NO .. I just have an understanding of history. A history that said when left up to the states, uniformity in regulation and enforcement is absent and poor states like Mississippi had a horrific record of enforcement.
Those children were AMERICANS first, not Mississippians.
This is yet another example of the lack of any socio-ethical responsibility in the libertarian mind.
Leave it up to "charity"
Leave it up to states
Just don't bother or charge me for it.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Thank you brother .. and no it ain't so.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Who in the hell told you that the DNC was liberal? Try real liberals like the Green Party and look up their "Children's Agenda"
Regardless the DNC didn't talk about rights of children so they must not recognize them just like the Libertarian party doesn't. So will you say the Democratic party doesn't support child labor laws. If you will say this I'll leave you alone on this one.
But even if you don't consider Democrats to be liberal you cannot with a straight face say they don't support child labor laws.
'dems some real fancy words.
But to those who suffered under Jim Crow laws, your fancy words were absolutely meaningless. Fortunately, people with good sense recognized the time for words was long overdue and they took action to right the course of this nation which had become an embrassment, a contridiction in terms to the rest of the world.
And rightfully so. I fully support people fighting for their rights. That is what this nation is all about. But you have sidestepped my response. What does people fighing for their civil rights have to do with government instituted programs to create racial equality? The people who fought against the injustice are responsible for the wrongs of the past being partly righted. The government had to acquiesce to their demands. Government would never have done the things the civil rights movement accomplished without civil disobedience.
NO .. I just have an understanding of history. A history that said when left up to the states, uniformity in regulation and enforcement is absent and poor states like Mississippi had a horrific record of enforcement.
Then it is up to Mississippi to bring about reform. The more progressive minded states of the nation have for decades been supporting these failed states. This gives them no incentive to clean up their act and allows them to continue their own backward ways without suffering consequences.
Diversity in government policy is a benefit to our nation not a hindrance. States can approach solving problems in various ways that have varying level of effects and can cater them to their demographics. When we institute a unitary approach to solving problems we lose the opportunity to a thoroughly explore solutions as we can under the federal system and thus may be saddled with solutions not as good or not as considerate of smaller demographic needs.
This is yet another example of the lack of any socio-ethical responsibility in the libertarian mind.
Despite what you may believe humans are individual creatures. Even when acting as a group still maintain individual identity. This socio-ethical responsibility you speak of is nothing but the result of the ethics of individuals measured in mass.
I resent the assertion that I lack ethics because of what political philosophy I find most appropriate. Frankly I find violence and force to be among the most unethical things especially when created as a social construct.
I am beginning to get a feel for you and your positions. You appear to be closest to socialist in philosophy.
This is my problem I have with such philosophies. I am also well acquainted I used to be an adherent of some Trotskyist ideas.
You seem to advocate a centrally planned state in which the course of society is planned. Now unless you propose this state be governed as an Athenian democracy (which by the way would never implement such practices) the problem is that this will inevitably be managed by an elite. Thus once the course has been decided every man, woman and child is an agent of this elite to achieve their grand designs of what a society must be. Their individual wishes be damned.
This is a gross violation of the rights of an individual and is tyrannical in nature as it threatens those who do not comply with the design of the elite with force as it has become criminal.
Truly just societies do not operate under such a paradigm they must operate under the principles of shaping society by using one's own freedoms especially freedom of speech, the press and association.
Socialists will inevitably abandon these limitation and call for a police force to enact their will. Like Maximillian Robespierre the engine of their liberation will create their own new tyranny.
Regardless the DNC didn't talk about rights of children so they must not recognize them just like the Libertarian party doesn't. So will you say the Democratic party doesn't support child labor laws. If you will say this I'll leave you alone on this one.
But even if you don't consider Democrats to be liberal you cannot with a straight face say they don't support child labor laws.
'dems some real fancy words.
But to those who suffered under Jim Crow laws, your fancy words were absolutely meaningless. Fortunately, people with good sense recognized the time for words was long overdue and they took action to right the course of this nation which had become an embrassment, a contridiction in terms to the rest of the world.
And rightfully so. I fully support people fighting for their rights. That is what this nation is all about. But you have sidestepped my response. What does people fighing for their civil rights have to do with government instituted programs to create racial equality? The people who fought against the injustice are responsible for the wrongs of the past being partly righted. The government had to acquiesce to their demands. Government would never have done the things the civil rights movement accomplished without civil disobedience.
NO .. I just have an understanding of history. A history that said when left up to the states, uniformity in regulation and enforcement is absent and poor states like Mississippi had a horrific record of enforcement.
Then it is up to Mississippi to bring about reform. The more progressive minded states of the nation have for decades been supporting these failed states. This gives them no incentive to clean up their act and allows them to continue their own backward ways without suffering consequences.
Diversity in government policy is a benefit to our nation not a hindrance. States can approach solving problems in various ways that have varying level of effects and can cater them to their demographics. When we institute a unitary approach to solving problems we lose the opportunity to a thoroughly explore solutions as we can under the federal system and thus may be saddled with solutions not as good or not as considerate of smaller demographic needs.
This is yet another example of the lack of any socio-ethical responsibility in the libertarian mind.
Despite what you may believe humans are individual creatures. Even when acting as a group still maintain individual identity. This socio-ethical responsibility you speak of is nothing but the result of the ethics of individuals measured in mass.
I resent the assertion that I lack ethics because of what political philosophy I find most appropriate. Frankly I find violence and force to be among the most unethical things especially when created as a social construct.
I am beginning to get a feel for you and your positions. You appear to be closest to socialist in philosophy.
This is my problem I have with such philosophies. I am also well acquainted I used to be an adherent of some Trotskyist ideas.
You seem to advocate a centrally planned state in which the course of society is planned. Now unless you propose this state be governed as an Athenian democracy (which by the way would never implement such practices) the problem is that this will inevitably be managed by an elite. Thus once the course has been decided every man, woman and child is an agent of this elite to achieve their grand designs of what a society must be. Their individual wishes be damned.
This is a gross violation of the rights of an individual and is tyrannical in nature as it threatens those who do not comply with the design of the elite with force as it has become criminal.
Truly just societies do not operate under such a paradigm they must operate under the principles of shaping society by using one's own freedoms especially freedom of speech, the press and association.
Socialists will inevitably abandon these limitation and call for a police force to enact their will. Like Maximillian Robespierre the engine of their liberation will create their own new tyranny.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Thank you brother .. and no it ain't so.
As I have said it is more likely that I share more with Paine, Madison and Jefferson than you or Cypress.
As I have said it is more likely that I share more with Paine, Madison and Jefferson than you or Cypress.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I have no problem with YOU believing that.
It is, except this law wouldn't allow that, would it?
So, suggesting a law that actually deals with the problem is somehow "evil" to you? You clearly don't read a single thing and just assume my position. What is it with liberals and this tendency? Is the faux outrage too hard to keep if you actually read what I said?
Rubbish. See above. I suggested a law that would actually take care of the problem and allow more freedom for both the children and the parents.
Are you seriously suggesting that these people were not parents? That none of them might be parents taking the same position I take?
There was a better law than making it a misdemeanor to sell any toy guns at all. That is over-reaching.
Yes, advocating a policy to study the efficiency of government and take out the overspending is a policy.
You once again take the bumpersticker and read it and assume that is all of his position. He states, during the debates, that removing these things wholesale would be a huge mistake and that studying where and how to best cut the fat is his position, but heck stating a position isn't stating a position in your world.
Yet you apply big "L" libertarian ideology to a person who isn't even part of the party then suggest that is his position without regard to his statements in debates or even any real study of his position, other than some story over a decade old, not even in the archives of the newspaper it is attributed to, about his newsletters in which we get three sentences of what has to be thousands of words.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I see you suffer from the same delusion. The DNC is not remotely liberal
It doesn't have to be. You say that if a platform doesn't mention the rights of children it doesn't believe they exist. Thus the DNC also doesn't oppose child labor. Are you prepared to back such an assertion.
Back down it was a silly assertion to make that clearly is shown to be a fallacy when using the same standard to judge other groups. You can easily say the DNC is not liberal but it nonsense to say that they don't support child protection.
Did you miss the part about the RESIDENTS BERATING PARTY OFFICIALS for doing such a stupid ass thing. Do the RESIDENTS have nthr ight to determine for themselves without getting permission from you or the Libertarian Party what THEY see in the best interests for THEIR CHILDREN?
That is there right as it is the right of the LP to protest. We all have freedom os speech and assembly do they not. Do you think the counter protesters automatically show the will of the people and even so does the will of the people automatically override the right of a minority. Does this group of counter protestors have the right to string me up and throw me in a cage if I have a watergun fight with my son?
If you and YOUR CHULDREN like to play with guns that's your problem and up to YOU to decied.
That's right. So you would agree with us that the law is bad and it should be up to the members of the community to decide what they want to do not the police.
I can't imagine that any parent who has lost a child to a toy gun incident gives a damn about what you think about them. Nor did the RESIDENTS.
The point is that you don't really give a shit about the children killed. Ideology is m ore important. People who saw a need to take action took any and every measure they could. Was it "over-reaching" .. who cares? the lives of children were at stake.
That's a pretty vicious statement to make and completely unfair.
Do you support the prohibition of alcohol? What would you say to a mother who has lost a child to a drunk driving incident who accuses you of not giving a damn about kids because you won't outlaw alcohol.
The situation is analgous. Come out and support the banning of anything that can potentially kill a child. Swimming pools, alcohol, amusement park rides and I will laud you for your consistency. Otherwise I think you should withdrawal such a caustic statement.
I have no problem with YOU believing that.
You write me off casually but I am willing to back up my assertion will you? Considering that Paine, Jefferson, and Madison along with Locke are the four political voices I draw the most inspiration from I can't help but laugh at an assertion that I have little to do with their ideology.
It doesn't have to be. You say that if a platform doesn't mention the rights of children it doesn't believe they exist. Thus the DNC also doesn't oppose child labor. Are you prepared to back such an assertion.
Back down it was a silly assertion to make that clearly is shown to be a fallacy when using the same standard to judge other groups. You can easily say the DNC is not liberal but it nonsense to say that they don't support child protection.
Did you miss the part about the RESIDENTS BERATING PARTY OFFICIALS for doing such a stupid ass thing. Do the RESIDENTS have nthr ight to determine for themselves without getting permission from you or the Libertarian Party what THEY see in the best interests for THEIR CHILDREN?
That is there right as it is the right of the LP to protest. We all have freedom os speech and assembly do they not. Do you think the counter protesters automatically show the will of the people and even so does the will of the people automatically override the right of a minority. Does this group of counter protestors have the right to string me up and throw me in a cage if I have a watergun fight with my son?
If you and YOUR CHULDREN like to play with guns that's your problem and up to YOU to decied.
That's right. So you would agree with us that the law is bad and it should be up to the members of the community to decide what they want to do not the police.
I can't imagine that any parent who has lost a child to a toy gun incident gives a damn about what you think about them. Nor did the RESIDENTS.
The point is that you don't really give a shit about the children killed. Ideology is m ore important. People who saw a need to take action took any and every measure they could. Was it "over-reaching" .. who cares? the lives of children were at stake.
That's a pretty vicious statement to make and completely unfair.
Do you support the prohibition of alcohol? What would you say to a mother who has lost a child to a drunk driving incident who accuses you of not giving a damn about kids because you won't outlaw alcohol.
The situation is analgous. Come out and support the banning of anything that can potentially kill a child. Swimming pools, alcohol, amusement park rides and I will laud you for your consistency. Otherwise I think you should withdrawal such a caustic statement.
I have no problem with YOU believing that.
You write me off casually but I am willing to back up my assertion will you? Considering that Paine, Jefferson, and Madison along with Locke are the four political voices I draw the most inspiration from I can't help but laugh at an assertion that I have little to do with their ideology.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
The question was about LIBERALS and my response was "be my guest" to find out what LIBERALS think about children and their specific need for protection. You went to the DNC which is like asking what Floridians think about sunburn, then you go ask some eskimos. I'm not a democrat. Go ask a democrat what they think about children.
Although I will say that democrats don't advocate removing governmnet protection of child labor laws which has worked marvelously for many years.
The US passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Jim Crow laws vanished.
Laws and oversight was enacted to ensure equal opportunity, doors were opemed, and non-whites and women began to fill the void that had been kept from them.
Doors to colleges and universties began to open.
Now, perhaps you have an issue with the resulting effects .. and I'll be honest with you .. I don't really care. I'm black, went to college in the early 70's, have a degree, chose my own career path, work in the corporate environment as I have for a lot of years, had the ability to take 3 years off to work in the US Congress, had my own business.
Seriously, I don't really care what your problem is with government and equality. Those who've come before me didn't have the opportunities I've had. I'm not a damn bit smarter than they were, but the doors were kicked open for me. In many instances government was the impediment to equality, so why shouldn't government take corrective action to ensure it.
Blacks have only been relatively free in America for 42 years and when I hear people talk about "I'm for equality .. but government shouldn't do anything about it" .. I toss that bullshit in the "yeah right" garbage dump of twilight zone musings. No offense.
There are real people with real lives at stake.
There are real children in Mississippi and they needed protection .. FIRST and FOREMOST.
I apologize if I've offended you, but you then argue against any socio-ethical responsibility.
I don't really care about labels. You can call me a socialist if you choose, but that's not what I call myself. I'm a liberal. A bleeding-heart proud liberal. I do not believe the individual is the most important element in society. You can claim all the "individualism" you want, but you are a product of your society. You didn't get here by yourself.
I believe in oneness, politically and spirtually.
There is a giant gaping hole in the concept of democracy .. it's called MONEY. Inject enough money in a democratic system and it becomes a pluotcracy, no longer controlled by he will of the people, but controlled by he who has the money.
Last edited:
Okay, then you agree that if it were up to Libertarians, ALL the best parts of the New Deal would be overturned. They'd get rid of prohibitions on child labor, the minimum wage, and federal laws protecting collective labor bargaining rights.
That was my point from the beginning. Libertarians would not support Federal prohibitions on Child Labor, or monuments or medals for Rosie Parks or George Washington.
So we agree.
Except, in this statement, you ignore the fact that the vast majority of libertarians would not be against the laws of the states doing exactly the same thing.
So saying they'd advocate overturning all of these laws, and not to replace them at the state level you would be incorrect and also a bit disingenuous. Most constitutional libertarians believe that such laws should be handled by the states.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
The question was about LIBERALS and my response was "be my guest" to find out what LIBERALS think about children and their specific need for protection. You went to the DNC which is like asking what Floridians think about sunburn, then you go ask some eskimos. I'm not a democrat. Go ask a democrat what they think about children.
Since you are not a democrat you feel you can't speak about them thats fine. I would appreciate holding the same standard with the libertarian party then. You aren't one and can't speak about their plaform either. I am a registered libertarian and I say we support child protection laws done at the state level. So there you go happy?
Now, perhaps you have an issue with the resulting effects .. and I'll be honest with you .. I don't really care.
What are you trying to imply here?
Seriously, I don't really care what your problem is with government and equality. Those who've come before me didn't have the opportunities I've had. I'm not a damn bit smarter than they were, but the doors were kicked open for me. In many instances government was the impediment to equality, so why shouldn't government take corrective action to ensure it.
I think we need to explore more where either of us stand with such an issue. I doubt you know where I do and I'm not sure where you do either. Equality is a broad buzz word. It can mean different things for every single person you ask. I will say that in the instances that government has ever been an impediment it is incumbent upon it to remedy the problem.
Blacks have only been relatively free in America for 42 years and when I hear people talk about "I'm for equality .. but government shouldn't do anything about it" .. I toss that bullshit in the "yeah right" garbage dump of twilight zone musings. No offense.
You misunderstand if you think I don't think government has any responsibility. I have wrote frequently on these boards about what should be done. You and I may disagree about to what extant we should pursue such goals. Obviously even you wouldn't advocate anything in the name of equality.
There are real children in Mississippi and they needed protection .. FIRST and FOREMOST.
Children in Mississippi are most likely protected by state labor laws as well. This is because federal authority in commerce regulation only extends to business that reaches a certain size. However I doubt businesses that only have 5 employees can ignore child labor laws.
I apologize if I've offended you, but you then argue against any socio-ethical responsibility.
Its fine I think you misjudge the implications of what I say that is all. It is because of my high ethical standards that I reject initiation of force against others even if it is for the public good. Gandhi would agree with me.
As for rejecting socio-ethical responsibility I don't. Obviously a philosophy that rejects violence and force used against individuals or groups is concerned with society. A just society cannot exist is the rights of individuals are not safeguarded. Group rights only come from the individual rights that make up its constituent parts.
I don't really care about labels. You can call me a socialist if you choose, but that's not what I call myself. I'm a liberal. A bleeding-heart proud liberal. I do not believe the individual is the most important element in society. You can claim all the "individualism" you want, but you are a product of your society. You didn't get here by yourself.
Every memeber of society is equally important. And just because five people agree that what they want is more important that what one other persons concerns are doesn't make it so. Every member of society is to be respected and if a group or individual come into conflict that path that requires the least force is to be chosen. We do owe much of what we have to society but we do not pay this debt back by submitting to ownership. I will not be owned. You must understand this.
I believe in oneness, politically and spirtually.
I somewhat accept this but understand also there are subsets of the whole and one can bind themself to these subsets or even create one at will. We are not a hive we are a social animal but we are somewhere in the continuum between the termite and the leopard.
There is a giant gaping hole in the concept of democracy .. it's called MONEY. Inject enough money in a democratic system and it becomes a pluotcracy, no longer controlled by he will of the people, but controlled by he who has the money.
I agree there is a simple solution in my opinion. Forbid any holder of public office or any candidate for one from accepting any gift whether cash, object or service. This is not a violation of the rights of office holders because it is a condition to hold office not citizenship or simply living here.
Since you are not a democrat you feel you can't speak about them thats fine. I would appreciate holding the same standard with the libertarian party then. You aren't one and can't speak about their plaform either. I am a registered libertarian and I say we support child protection laws done at the state level. So there you go happy?
Now, perhaps you have an issue with the resulting effects .. and I'll be honest with you .. I don't really care.
What are you trying to imply here?
Seriously, I don't really care what your problem is with government and equality. Those who've come before me didn't have the opportunities I've had. I'm not a damn bit smarter than they were, but the doors were kicked open for me. In many instances government was the impediment to equality, so why shouldn't government take corrective action to ensure it.
I think we need to explore more where either of us stand with such an issue. I doubt you know where I do and I'm not sure where you do either. Equality is a broad buzz word. It can mean different things for every single person you ask. I will say that in the instances that government has ever been an impediment it is incumbent upon it to remedy the problem.
Blacks have only been relatively free in America for 42 years and when I hear people talk about "I'm for equality .. but government shouldn't do anything about it" .. I toss that bullshit in the "yeah right" garbage dump of twilight zone musings. No offense.
You misunderstand if you think I don't think government has any responsibility. I have wrote frequently on these boards about what should be done. You and I may disagree about to what extant we should pursue such goals. Obviously even you wouldn't advocate anything in the name of equality.
There are real children in Mississippi and they needed protection .. FIRST and FOREMOST.
Children in Mississippi are most likely protected by state labor laws as well. This is because federal authority in commerce regulation only extends to business that reaches a certain size. However I doubt businesses that only have 5 employees can ignore child labor laws.
I apologize if I've offended you, but you then argue against any socio-ethical responsibility.
Its fine I think you misjudge the implications of what I say that is all. It is because of my high ethical standards that I reject initiation of force against others even if it is for the public good. Gandhi would agree with me.
As for rejecting socio-ethical responsibility I don't. Obviously a philosophy that rejects violence and force used against individuals or groups is concerned with society. A just society cannot exist is the rights of individuals are not safeguarded. Group rights only come from the individual rights that make up its constituent parts.
I don't really care about labels. You can call me a socialist if you choose, but that's not what I call myself. I'm a liberal. A bleeding-heart proud liberal. I do not believe the individual is the most important element in society. You can claim all the "individualism" you want, but you are a product of your society. You didn't get here by yourself.
Every memeber of society is equally important. And just because five people agree that what they want is more important that what one other persons concerns are doesn't make it so. Every member of society is to be respected and if a group or individual come into conflict that path that requires the least force is to be chosen. We do owe much of what we have to society but we do not pay this debt back by submitting to ownership. I will not be owned. You must understand this.
I believe in oneness, politically and spirtually.
I somewhat accept this but understand also there are subsets of the whole and one can bind themself to these subsets or even create one at will. We are not a hive we are a social animal but we are somewhere in the continuum between the termite and the leopard.
There is a giant gaping hole in the concept of democracy .. it's called MONEY. Inject enough money in a democratic system and it becomes a pluotcracy, no longer controlled by he will of the people, but controlled by he who has the money.
I agree there is a simple solution in my opinion. Forbid any holder of public office or any candidate for one from accepting any gift whether cash, object or service. This is not a violation of the rights of office holders because it is a condition to hold office not citizenship or simply living here.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
The obvious difference is the democrats do not advocate removing government protection or safety nets. The very obvious difference. If they were, I would ask them where the protection of children would come from as well.
First, I doubt if any of the protestors gave a damn about what you and your son choose to do. They were protesting about THEIR children, some of whom have been KILLED. How is it that dead children isn't sinking through to you?
DEAD CHILDREN
You're talikng about ideology, they're talking about ..
DEAD CHILDREN
NO .. I don't agree to any such thing. I agree that you can play with your children with a toy gun if you choose in spite of the law. The law has provisions for brightly colored toy guns and says nothing about a father playing with a toy gun on his own premises. If you're arguing that you have a "right" to do whatever you want to do, that's your decision. You can smoke a joint if you choose in spite of the law. That's up to you.
Perhaps it was unfair. I apologize .. but
DEAD CHILDREN
I don't get it.
I'd say to het that getting killed while driving drunk is self-induced.I'd ask her to what extent has she taught her child to avoid achohol, especially while driving. A 9 year-old child being blasted by the police because they thought he had a gun is quite different.
Fortunately, most humans are blessed with common sense.
There are restrictions on pool use and children.
There are restrictions on sale of alcohol to children.
There are restrictions on height size and amusement park rides.
Ok .. shower me with your "lauding".
[
Paine believed in social security and government ACTION to secure equality.
Jefferson believed that freedom from corporations was basic human right.
Jefferson and Madison believed that the Constitution was flawed because it did not protect basic human rights .. thus the Bill of Rights.
I believe in all that. But they are men, mortal men, and being so, flawed. We both can come a way with bits and pieces of them to support what we believe. I consider myself a Jeffersonian, brilliant man. But Jefferson had slaves, thus obviously, I don't agree with everything about him.
I make no claim to John Locke, who was in my opinion, too connected to the bible and too fixated on property. I gladly give you Locke.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Okay, then you agree that if it were up to Libertarians, ALL the best parts of the New Deal would be overturned. They'd get rid of prohibitions on child labor, the minimum wage, and federal laws protecting collective labor bargaining rights.
That was my point from the beginning. Libertarians would not support Federal prohibitions on Child Labor, or monuments or medals for Rosie Parks or George Washington.
Libertarians would not have initiated such programs. Now that they exist many of them would take time to disentrench. Repealing the federal minimum wage wouldn't be a huge concern because simply not increasing it would slowly return to free market levels.
Despite what you may think libertarians are not up all night tossing in their bed thinking of how to terminate child labor laws. And as I have said getting rid of federal child labor laws wouldn't matter much. I'm sure every state has them in place as well. It makes more sense on the state level anyway since the fed is restricted to business it has authority to regulate under interpretation of interstate commerce.
That was my point from the beginning. Libertarians would not support Federal prohibitions on Child Labor, or monuments or medals for Rosie Parks or George Washington.
Libertarians would not have initiated such programs. Now that they exist many of them would take time to disentrench. Repealing the federal minimum wage wouldn't be a huge concern because simply not increasing it would slowly return to free market levels.
Despite what you may think libertarians are not up all night tossing in their bed thinking of how to terminate child labor laws. And as I have said getting rid of federal child labor laws wouldn't matter much. I'm sure every state has them in place as well. It makes more sense on the state level anyway since the fed is restricted to business it has authority to regulate under interpretation of interstate commerce.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
The obvious difference is the democrats do not advocate removing government protection or safety nets. The very obvious difference. If they were, I would ask them where the protection of children would come from as well.
Child labor laws do not have an anolgous protection in reference to adults though. If someone said get rid of medicaid it would be legitimate to assume unless otherwise stated this affected children. There isn't something like that that applies to child labor.
First, I doubt if any of the protestors gave a damn about what you and your son choose to do. They were protesting about THEIR children, some of whom have been KILLED. How is it that dead children isn't sinking through to you?
DEAD CHILDREN
You're talikng about ideology, they're talking about ..
DEAD CHILDREN
There is a serious disconnect here. When you see people advocate for Marijuana legalization do you assume they are trying to say you have to smoke it? The same is true with the water pistols. They aren't saying those families have to buy them they are saying they should be allowed. How is advocating the freedom to do something equate to forcing someone to exercise that freedom. It doesn't.
NO .. I don't agree to any such thing. I agree that you can play with your children with a toy gun if you choose in spite of the law. The law has provisions for brightly colored toy guns and says nothing about a father playing with a toy gun on his own premises. If you're arguing that you have a "right" to do whatever you want to do, that's your decision. You can smoke a joint if you choose in spite of the law. That's up to you.
Come on. If someone mugged you by holding a gun at your head would it be any solace to you that you could choose not to turn over your money and be shot. Saying you are free but then we'll lock you up if you do what we don't like is not freedom at all. Surely you understand that.
As for being able to do it in your own home you can't because you can't buy any toy gun whether its bright pink or not.
I'd say to het that getting killed while driving drunk is self-induced.I'd ask her to what extent has she taught her child to avoid achohol, especially while driving. A 9 year-old child being blasted by the police because they thought he had a gun is quite different.
No you misunderstand I'm talking about child victims of drunk driving. Many drunk driving victims are not drunk themselves I'm sure you are aware.
There are restrictions on pool use and children.
Obviously not enough. Are you aware more children die every year from swimming pools than by firearms and far more than being killed for being mistaken for having a gun.
By your logic they should be outlawed. Dead children after all.
Do you support dead children?
There are restrictions on sale of alcohol to children.
No once again I'm talking about victims of drunk driving done by others who are drunk not the children themselves. Are you doing this on purpose.
Why avoid preventing dead children?
There are restrictions on height size and amusement park rides.
Children die despite these restrictions. Again we should ban them or do you like dead children?
Ok .. shower me with your "lauding".
You had to agree to ban them and your misunderstanding of the alcohol question needs to be revisited.
Paine believed in social security and government ACTION to secure equality.
Do you know why he advocated social security? As for equality he advocated legal equality. I support both and I support Paine's reasons for Social security it differs from modern liberals reasoning.
Jefferson believed that freedom from corporations was basic human right.
He didn't say it in such simplistic terms. He feared their powerful influence through money and manipulation of currency. He did not oppose corporations per se only their bad behavior.
I agree with this. You do understand that government today is a huge enabler of corporate misbehavior right?
Jefferson and Madison believed that the Constitution was flawed because it did not protect basic human rights .. thus the Bill of Rights.
I'm puzzled where did you get the idea that libertarians don't support the bill of rights. From what I have seen we support it more than liberals do. From the first to the tenth. Many liberals pretend the 2nd and 10th don't exist. Conservatives ignore the first fourth eighth and ninth. You both ignore the fifth to a degree. We honor them all. I cherish the Bill of Rights as one of the greatest documents ever created.
Ah a Jeffersonian. Jefferson also advocated limited government, the preminence of the states, the right to violently rebel against government, and avoiding entangling alliances with other nations.
Here is a Jefferson quote:
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
I fully agree with that 100% but I doubt you would. Saying that Jefferson is divorced from my politics is simply wrong. Jefferson was the diametrical opponenent of Alexander Hamilton a man whose legacy the modern day liberals have embraced. I find modern liberals to be much more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian.
I make no claim to John Locke, who was in my opinion, too connected to the bible and too fixated on property. I gladly give you Locke.
Locke influened the other three though and is one of the root political thinkers of the enlightenment along with Hobbes and Rousseau.
Child labor laws do not have an anolgous protection in reference to adults though. If someone said get rid of medicaid it would be legitimate to assume unless otherwise stated this affected children. There isn't something like that that applies to child labor.
First, I doubt if any of the protestors gave a damn about what you and your son choose to do. They were protesting about THEIR children, some of whom have been KILLED. How is it that dead children isn't sinking through to you?
DEAD CHILDREN
You're talikng about ideology, they're talking about ..
DEAD CHILDREN
There is a serious disconnect here. When you see people advocate for Marijuana legalization do you assume they are trying to say you have to smoke it? The same is true with the water pistols. They aren't saying those families have to buy them they are saying they should be allowed. How is advocating the freedom to do something equate to forcing someone to exercise that freedom. It doesn't.
NO .. I don't agree to any such thing. I agree that you can play with your children with a toy gun if you choose in spite of the law. The law has provisions for brightly colored toy guns and says nothing about a father playing with a toy gun on his own premises. If you're arguing that you have a "right" to do whatever you want to do, that's your decision. You can smoke a joint if you choose in spite of the law. That's up to you.
Come on. If someone mugged you by holding a gun at your head would it be any solace to you that you could choose not to turn over your money and be shot. Saying you are free but then we'll lock you up if you do what we don't like is not freedom at all. Surely you understand that.
As for being able to do it in your own home you can't because you can't buy any toy gun whether its bright pink or not.
I'd say to het that getting killed while driving drunk is self-induced.I'd ask her to what extent has she taught her child to avoid achohol, especially while driving. A 9 year-old child being blasted by the police because they thought he had a gun is quite different.
No you misunderstand I'm talking about child victims of drunk driving. Many drunk driving victims are not drunk themselves I'm sure you are aware.
There are restrictions on pool use and children.
Obviously not enough. Are you aware more children die every year from swimming pools than by firearms and far more than being killed for being mistaken for having a gun.
By your logic they should be outlawed. Dead children after all.
Do you support dead children?
There are restrictions on sale of alcohol to children.
No once again I'm talking about victims of drunk driving done by others who are drunk not the children themselves. Are you doing this on purpose.
Why avoid preventing dead children?
There are restrictions on height size and amusement park rides.
Children die despite these restrictions. Again we should ban them or do you like dead children?
Ok .. shower me with your "lauding".
You had to agree to ban them and your misunderstanding of the alcohol question needs to be revisited.
Paine believed in social security and government ACTION to secure equality.
Do you know why he advocated social security? As for equality he advocated legal equality. I support both and I support Paine's reasons for Social security it differs from modern liberals reasoning.
Jefferson believed that freedom from corporations was basic human right.
He didn't say it in such simplistic terms. He feared their powerful influence through money and manipulation of currency. He did not oppose corporations per se only their bad behavior.
I agree with this. You do understand that government today is a huge enabler of corporate misbehavior right?
Jefferson and Madison believed that the Constitution was flawed because it did not protect basic human rights .. thus the Bill of Rights.
I'm puzzled where did you get the idea that libertarians don't support the bill of rights. From what I have seen we support it more than liberals do. From the first to the tenth. Many liberals pretend the 2nd and 10th don't exist. Conservatives ignore the first fourth eighth and ninth. You both ignore the fifth to a degree. We honor them all. I cherish the Bill of Rights as one of the greatest documents ever created.
Ah a Jeffersonian. Jefferson also advocated limited government, the preminence of the states, the right to violently rebel against government, and avoiding entangling alliances with other nations.
Here is a Jefferson quote:
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
I fully agree with that 100% but I doubt you would. Saying that Jefferson is divorced from my politics is simply wrong. Jefferson was the diametrical opponenent of Alexander Hamilton a man whose legacy the modern day liberals have embraced. I find modern liberals to be much more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian.
I make no claim to John Locke, who was in my opinion, too connected to the bible and too fixated on property. I gladly give you Locke.
Locke influened the other three though and is one of the root political thinkers of the enlightenment along with Hobbes and Rousseau.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I would ask the same of any political party, organization, or person who advocated that government was an intrusion. Democrats do not believe that, libertarians do.
Same standard
What I'm saying is that words and thoughts can not remedy hundreds of years of oppression. Commitment and action are required. Why you, or any libertarian would have a problem with the necessary action required to remedy the horror is beyond me. You can't say, as Paul does, that you're for equaity but against the responible actions to ensure it.
Perhaps you can explain how one can make such statements and be against the Civil Rights Act at the same time. No matter how you cut it, that makes no sense.
It's simple. If the state can't, won't protect its children, the fedreal government must.
All mechanisms of change is force. Even the non-violent actions of Ghandi and Dr. King. Their actions forced the status quo to adapt, forced businesses to open to all, forced the gobernmnet to take action, forced the racists to the back of the bus, forced foreign governments to give India hte right to self-governance.
Force iis what controls human nature. Laws are force. Without force, we would revert to Darwinism and the law of the strongest. All living things, partcularly animals, use force to maintain society.
Force is a sign of evolution. The further you go back into human history, less force equates to more barbaric. Force is not necessarily evil or counterproductive to a better human society. Our environment, our planet is changing. Force will be required to do something about it and the critical something cannot be left to individuals to decide.
Individuals can never be more important than the whole, nor can the future or security be left to individuals. Every member of society should be respected, but no individual can be more important than every other member of society.
It's not a matter of being owned and more a matter of responsibility and sacrifice.
We are Americans and have a responsibility to each other. It's why so many of our brave young men and women are being blown to hell in Iraq. It's not about agreeing with the war, it's about their commitment and responsibility to the whole of America .. for which they have paid the ultimate sacrifice.
I agree with you .. but Ron Paul does not.
Great conversation my brother, but my wife is staring at me wondering who the hell am I talking to that's keeping me from taking her to pick up her car.