Originally Posted by Justin '77

(gonna unite the two post-stings here, for the sake of... um... just because )
"I'd prefer to" -- more weaseling. As if, although you would much rather take the ethical course, the cold cruel universe (and whoever else you want to point the finger at and whine "his fault! not mine!!") not only does not allow you to make the ethical move, but literally and factually forces you to do things that, had any person done them by choice, would make them a monster. Happily, for the remnants of your conscience, you have no more autonomy in the matter than does any other non-willed robot.


So you chuck the grenade into the cafeteria; shed a (truly felt -- no, really, your heart is simply rending) tear or two for the totally-unavoidable and totally-not-your-fault innocents whose lives are ended (oh, that passive voice! salve of many a guilty soul!); and make sure to keep your stock of grenades well-replenished for the next times. If you only had some sort of agency over your own actions!


As I said above, and bears constant repeating, such are not the foundations on which a healthy society is built or maintained.

Dude, I wouldn't need a grenade for a nasty dude in a cafeteria who is within close proximity of me. As I pointed out, there are more preferable options and I'm capable enough to apply any one of them.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Fine. In lieu of bitching and bobbing and weaving, please feel free to straighten out the confusion. By what standard do you come to conclude that the bombings in Boston and the WTC and Pentagon attacks were wrongful, while the bombings of Fallujah and Wana and Miranshah and Damadola and Makeen and Sanzalai and Datta Khel and Mir Ali and so on, were not equally wrongful.

I haven't bitched, bobbed or weaved yet. I've been rather firmly positioned and setting you straight. The instigator/attacker is wrongful and the response is justified. This is the standard that America goes by and applies. BTW, it's also the standard that I was consistantly taught growing up and consistantly applied by every adult. If you notice, there's a breaking point (AND) which creates a social devide between the wrongful and the justified. Now, if you apply it to your question above you'll can plainly/clearly see the answer to your question.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Your 'caring' is worth exactly as much as you 'accepting responsibility' -- which is to say, nothing at all, except in whatever value the CO2 and moisture you expelled is stuff a plant can use to grow.

Dude, every time an American bomb is dropped we're accepting responsibility for its outcome in one form or another, at one place or another, at social gatherings and forums like this one, whether we like or not. Osama fucked up, he underested the resilience and resolve of the people of the United States.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Dude, every time an American bomb is dropped we're accepting responsibility for its outcome in one form or another, at one place or another, at social gatherings and forums like this one, whether we like or not. Osama fucked up, he underested the resilience and resolve of the people of the United States.

Actually, Osama has won. Look at homeland security, where we Americans are subject to over the top surveillance. We are the ones who have had many of our freedoms taken from us. Not to mention the tremendous amount of money spent so that we can not only be spied upon but also patted down at airports. All of this so called security couldn't even prevent two rag tag guys with some pressure cookers, from killing and maiming Americans. And the FBI had even been warned about one of them.

Way too many lives have been lost or destroyed in these perpetual wars. Too many enemies have been created by our folly. We are far from being the winners in this horrendous game of mass destruction.

PS: Osama also won when we went into Afghanistan. That's the country where empires go to die, ya know.

Received this after I wrote my most recent post.


“To A Louse…” composed in 1785 by the Scottish poet Robert Burns came to me:

“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us/ To see oursels as ithers see us!”

English translation:

“And would some Power the small gift give us/To see ourselves as others see us!”

What must the “ithers” in the Middle East theatre of the American Empire think of a great city in total lockdown from an attack by primitive explosives when Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis and Yemenis experience far greater casualties and terror attacks several times a week? Including what they believe are terror attacks by U.S. drones, soldiers, aircraft and artillery that have directly killed many thousands of innocent children, women and men in their homes, during funeral processions and wedding parties, or while they’re working in their fields.

Here’s what they are thinking: that America is very vulnerable and ready to shake itself upside down to rid itself and protect itself from any terror attacks. The Bush regime, after 9/11, sacrificed U.S. soldiers and millions of innocents in the broader Middle East, drained our economy, so as to ignore the necessities of saving lives and health here at home, and metastasized al-Qaeda into numerous countries, spilling havoc into Iraq and now Syria. We have paid a tremendous price in blowback, because of Mr. Bush’s rush to war.

Why is the reaction to the events in Boston viewed by some as bizarre? Our president said “We will finish the race.” Do we really think that the attackers are doing this to disrupt our pleasure in foot racing?

The attackers, be they suicide bombers over there or domestic bombers here, are motivated by their hatred of our invasions, our daily bombings, our occupations, our immersion in tribal preferences leading to divide-and-rule sectarian wars. Studies, such as those by the University of Chicago Professor Robert Pape, and former adviser to Barack Obama and Ron Paul during the 2008 presidential campaign, conclude that entry into paradise is not the motivation for these suicide bombers. What drives them is their despair and their desire to expel the foreign invaders from their homeland.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Never give the authorities a justification for changing the narrative. Look at the PATCO strike, when Reagan fired the air trafic controllers. They were striking first and foremost for additional staff, because they were overworked and afraid that they would get people killed. Did that ever come out? No. They got pilloried for being greedy, because they also asked for a raise.

In view of the rapaciousness of the elites and the servility of certain media (especially a propaganda channel whose name begins with the letter F) toward those elites, even trying to avoid a pay cut can be portrayed as "greed". Getting more air traffic controllers would have been good for ensuring that those already employed would get upward classifications on the job.

If they had stuck to the safety issues, they would have won.

In view of the current political climate, the common man must accept that he must suffer for the Master Class in the hope that things will be slightly better for his grandchildren -- at least until the political climate changes. It will take time before the most essential reforms of behavior among our economic elites will make those people (or their successors) more humane. Where is Bertholt Brecht now that we need him?

The same applies here. Don't give anyone the excuse to make you the bad guy. Stealing and destroying property only works if you are fully prepared to go to jail for your beliefs ... and even then it can backfire.

This is Political Action 101.

In short, don't be the reality behind the line "I fought the law and the law won." Cruelty to animals for profit reflects the bureaucratic cruelty toward working people.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Do you think political bootlicking and the mass bribing that is going on and being used on the left, is going to do better for sustaining our democracy? Mexico is OK to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Corporate America is almost 100% right-wing. Its dream politicians would be members of the Birch Society, and the dream electorate would accept whatever GOP Pravda (a/k/a FoX News Channel) says on behalf of the Master Class.

Originally Posted by Time Mage

Concerning the discussion between CX and Justin, there's a standard that I grew up which might help determine responsibility- Who threw the first punch? Or as Rambo might phrase it, who drew first blood?

That is certainly a standard. So... in her three years on the planet did Fatima Louqye somehow manage to throw the first punch at the United States? And if she didn't, then clearly retaliation on her behalf against those who did is not only justified, but in a sense obligatory. At least, per the standard now being claimed...

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Dude, I wouldn't need a grenade for a nasty dude in a cafeteria who is within close proximity of me. As I pointed out, there are more preferable options and I'm capable enough to apply any one of them.

More weaseling. "More preferable" means that the grenade-chuck is a preferable course of action, just not the most preferable among the several options. It's a cowardly dodge from a person who cannot even admit to himself that he is willing to knowingly engage in wrongful actions if it suits him.

I haven't bitched, bobbed or weaved yet. I've been rather firmly positioned and setting you straight. The instigator/attacker is wrongful and the response is justified.

Great. So what did any of the many blown-to-pieces Afghan or Yemeni toddlers do to instigate? Or are you saying that the responses of their avengers are justified? That would follow from the standard you claim, too.

And are you similarly saying that the 9/11 hijackers were justified in their retribution (in part retribution) against the entities that had a hand in causing the deaths of Bara Jalal a-Sha'er and Khalil el-Mughrabi a couple months earlier? The perpetrators were pretty clear that's what they were doing, after all.

[now the bobbing and weaving begins anew, eh?]

Originally Posted by Deb C

Actually, Osama has won. Look at homeland security, where we Americans are subject to over the top surveillance. We are the ones who have had many of our freedoms taken from us. Not to mention the tremendous amount of money spent so that we can not only be spied upon but also patted down at airports. All of this so called security couldn't even prevent two rag tag guys with some pressure cookers, from killing and maiming Americans. And the FBI had even been warned about one of them.

Way too many lives have been lost or destroyed in these perpetual wars. Too many enemies have been created by our folly. We are far from being the winners in this horrendous game of mass destruction.

PS: Osama also won when we went into Afghanistan. That's the country where empires go to die, ya know.

I bet there's as many government eyes focused on you as there are focused on me, zero.

PS: Osama is dead. He was executed in his home. Al Queda is contained and dealing with our bombs and special forces and the troops are now located in remote bases strategically positioned around them. I hope you have a large supply of kleenex because you're going to be crying for years to come.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Corporate America is almost 100% right-wing. Its dream politicians would be members of the Birch Society, and the dream electorate would accept whatever GOP Pravda (a/k/a FoX News Channel) says on behalf of the Master Class.

You kidding about corporate America being almost 100% right-wing, correct? Please tell me you don't believe this. Many in Obama's administration either represent, or represented, corporate America.

The beginning and end of libertarianism is the Non Aggression Principle. Everything else flows from this single idea, that people may not singly or as a group use force against another human being. The rest of it evolves from there.

A simple test to see if you are anything like a libertarian is your feelings about seatbelt laws. If you can find a way to rationalize seatbelt laws, you are no kind of libertarian (yet).

People have been indoctrinated into statism for their entire lives, and they believe that the violence of the state is the only just violence. It is unthinkable for most people to imagine that the state could ever be wrong. Misguided in its good intentions on occasion, but never wrong. And those who believe that state-sanctioned murder is always wrong are a tiny minority. They are even considered a growing danger to the state by an increasing number of people both in and out of the government.

And because most people are fine with murder, they are fine with all the other force employed by the state against the citizens. Once you have argued in extremis and passed that test in the human mind, everything else follows automatically. There is always a reason to murder, and there is always a reason to control the people for their own good. We require domination and herding or we will destroy ourselves, says our master.

Alone among political philosophies, libertarianism stands against the murderous state. And if you follow it to its logical conclusion, libertarianism argues for statelessness, or freedom from the state entirely. This is much too radical a notion for most people to entertain, so they satisfy themselves with "minarchy" rather than anarchy. But nobody knows what the future holds... perhaps one day humans will evolve beyond the need for Big Men to control people and murder them.

The main problem libertarians face these days as they attempt to fill out their philosophy into political terms is the attempts by existing, dying philosophies at co-opting the name "libertarian". There really is no left- or right-libertarian, it is its own creature. Some people may become enlightened and leave the left or right, but to saddle the new political philosophy with that baggage is to destroy it.

The Blue State model is dying. There is no disputing that at this point. The only questions that remain are how long the New Deal can hang on, and what kind of fallout will occur from its collapse. What will replace it?

Originally Posted by Deb C

You kidding about corporate America being almost 100% right-wing, correct? Please tell me you don't believe this. Many in Obama's administration either represent, or represented, corporate America.

Some found Barack Obama useful when the American economy was in rapid meltdown as in 1930. Even the Right is wise enough to recognize that the Great Depression was an unmitigated disaster even for the richest Americans, and that the economic meltdown beginning in 2007 had begun to shadow that of 1929 closely. They found the eventual winner of the 2008 Presidential election useful at least for stopping the meltdown and protecting their derrieres. Once he saved them they turned on him politically. Thus the Tea Party, essentially an effort to return to 3T politics and economics that had been good to the elites if to nobody else. Our economic elites seemed to act as if the economic meltdown of 2007-2009 was the Crisis.

In 2008 he needed their support. In 2012 he didn't. But for now we are stuck with people trying to maintain 3T economic policies even through their veto on decisive actions that they dislike. They still have the lifeblood of American politics -- cash to offer right-wing pols who promise to be their stooges. This Crisis Era can no more be solved with a reversion to Reagan-Bush-Bush politics and economics than could World War II be resolved with negotiations with the Axis Powers, the Great Depression be solved with the economic ethos of Calvin Coolidge, the Civil War be resolved with some muddled attempt to accommodate slavery, or the American Revolution be ended with declarations of fealty to George III.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

More weaseling. "More preferable" means that the grenade-chuck is a preferable course of action, just not the most preferable among the several options. It's a cowardly dodge from a person who cannot even admit to himself that he is willing to knowingly engage in wrongful actions if it suits him.

I eliminated it. End of discussion.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Great. So what did any of the many blown-to-pieces Afghan or Yemeni toddlers do to instigate? Or are you saying that the responses of their avengers are justified? That would follow from the standard you claim, too.

And are you similarly saying that the 9/11 hijackers were justified in their retribution (in part retribution) against the entities that had a hand in causing the deaths of Bara Jalal a-Sha'er and Khalil el-Mughrabi a couple months earlier? The perpetrators were pretty clear that's what they were doing, after all.

[now the bobbing and weaving begins anew, eh?]

I dunno, maybe their mom was fucking an Al Queda on the side or in close proximity of an Al Queda she had just got done fucking? or they just happened to be at the wrong people at the wrong place at the wrong time or accidently targeted and for those I'm sorry because babies aren't ever viewed as instigators. As far as the other, what happened prior to 9/11 really doesn't matter based on the standard. Evidently, they believed that it was OK to do what they did and start a war with America based on their standard.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

The beginning and end of libertarianism is the Non Aggression Principle. Everything else flows from this single idea, that people may not singly or as a group use force against another human being. The rest of it evolves from there.

A simple test to see if you are anything like a libertarian is your feelings about seatbelt laws. If you can find a way to rationalize seatbelt laws, you are no kind of libertarian (yet).

I can. I want the fool who fails to wear a seat belt when his vehicle is wrecked to get no more from my insurance company (and in turn those who pay premiums) than he would get had he had the injuries consistent with seat belt use. I have no desire to pay for the folly of someone else.

People have been indoctrinated into statism for their entire lives, and they believe that the violence of the state is the only just violence. It is unthinkable for most people to imagine that the state could ever be wrong. Misguided in its good intentions on occasion, but never wrong. And those who believe that state-sanctioned murder is always wrong are a tiny minority. They are even considered a growing danger to the state by an increasing number of people both in and out of the government.

Can you imagine any response other than war to the aggression of the Axis Powers? Were the British right to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by force? Do you believe that criminals should get away with evasion of trial and judgment if such is the necessary consequence of not making a violent arrest? Just imagine Ted Bundy being able to take his murderous spree to the next big college town that struck his fancy -- let me guess --- Austin, Texas?

And because most people are fine with murder, they are fine with all the other force employed by the state against the citizens. Once you have argued in extremis and passed that test in the human mind, everything else follows automatically. There is always a reason to murder, and there is always a reason to control the people for their own good. We require domination and herding or we will destroy ourselves, says our master.

War and law enforcement need not be murder. War turns all of the usual rules of human engagement upside down. We have some semblance of a civil society because of the police officer who can overpower a fugitive who has committed an armed robbery or who can fatally shoot someone holding hostages.

Murder by government, as done by the Axis Powers, is hardly to be approved by any but fascists.

Alone among political philosophies, libertarianism stands against the murderous state. And if you follow it to its logical conclusion, libertarianism argues for statelessness, or freedom from the state entirely. This is much too radical a notion for most people to entertain, so they satisfy themselves with "minarchy" rather than anarchy. But nobody knows what the future holds... perhaps one day humans will evolve beyond the need for Big Men to control people and murder them.

Except for military overkill, liberal societies don't do murder. I suggest that you consult the Democide pages by Rummell:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

He has a distinct libertarian bias.

The main problem libertarians face these days as they attempt to fill out their philosophy into political terms is the attempts by existing, dying philosophies at co-opting the name "libertarian". There really is no left- or right-libertarian, it is its own creature. Some people may become enlightened and leave the left or right, but to saddle the new political philosophy with that baggage is to destroy it.

Is there no such thing as "middle-of-the-road libertarianism"? Left libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists. For anarcho-syndicalism to work people must both be angels and good entrepreneurs. Right libertarians tend to become cat's-paws for reactionary interests who want the many to suffer for the few. Basically the bureaucratic, land-owning, and shareholding elites must be angels for such to work.

The Blue State model is dying. There is no disputing that at this point. The only questions that remain are how long the New Deal can hang on, and what kind of fallout will occur from its collapse. What will replace it?

A new order of extreme inequality in which people must sell their freedom to the first available bidder just to survive? No thanks. We are entering an era in which scarcity of any but the most blatant luxuries like prime real estate, gems, precious metals, products from endangered species, and unique objets d'art is no longer an economic necessity although economic elites need economic deprivation as a threat to people who demand more than those elites are willing to offer.

The Red State model in which the common man is helpless because he is atomized so that he cannot contest the demands of people devoid of mercy is itself a bad idea. What happens if humanity does not need bureaucratic elites analogous to the Soviet-style nomenklatura? What happens if people need work only five hours a day instead of eight for their sustenance but a ruling elite demands twelve with force behind that demand?

The non-white, non-Anglo, and non-Christian parts of the American middle class have shown contempt for such a model by voting against it. Such is the vanguard of the new America, one that has everything to lose in the event of the imposition of a new aristocratic order that offers all but itself the dubious pleasure of vicarious enjoyment of its excesses with the threat of worldly brutality and subsequent damnation for those who resist but "pie in the sky when you die" for those who accede to their own suffering on behalf of people who consider the bare survival of anyone not among themselves a privilege to be doled out grudgingly.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I can. I want the fool who fails to wear a seat belt when his vehicle is wrecked to get no more from my insurance company (and in turn those who pay premiums) than he would get had he had the injuries consistent with seat belt use. I have no desire to pay for the folly of someone else.

Just to comment on this, because I think it's the worst of all libertarian arguments, mostly because I think it's a libertarian minded law... Look, if you hit someone with your car and it's your fault... Let's say you're a trucker and the company's been shirking the laws on how many hours you're allowed to drive and you nod off, blow a red light and somebody T-bones your tire, ejects and faceplants right into your side breaking their neck and totally leaving a facemark in your side panel because they weren't wearing their seatbelt.

Now you're going to be charged with vehicular manslaughter and definitely will lose your CDL and the company is probably going to be sued for millions and spend years in court because that guy wasn't wearing his seatbelt.

Meanwhile if he had, he would have maybe gotten punched in the face with an airbag, doesn't eject and maybe got beaten up quite a bit. So now you are significantly less likely to lose your CDL, and the company is likely to have to pay out much, much less.

Seatbelts ensure that the onus is placed on the operator and not someone else and therefore is a very libertarian friendly law.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

The beginning and end of libertarianism is the Non Aggression Principle. Everything else flows from this single idea, that people may not singly or as a group use force against another human being. The rest of it evolves from there.

The libertarian principle is that it is OK for the strong to use aggression against the weak, as long as those strong folks are not employed by the government.

A simple test to see if you are anything like a libertarian is your feelings about seatbelt laws. If you can find a way to rationalize seatbelt laws, you are no kind of libertarian (yet).

I fail the test.

People have been indoctrinated into statism for their entire lives, and they believe that the violence of the state is the only just violence. It is unthinkable for most people to imagine that the state could ever be wrong. Misguided in its good intentions on occasion, but never wrong. And those who believe that state-sanctioned murder is always wrong are a tiny minority. They are even considered a growing danger to the state by an increasing number of people both in and out of the government.

The indoctrination going on today is libertarian economics. That is the only indoctrination going on. People believe that any state action is wrong, and they think government is the problem. So any private action is to be allowed, and that is what is ruining society and Planet Earth. Let people be as free as they wish to screw over other people; that's the dogma. Using the law to stop it is "violence."

And because most people are fine with murder, they are fine with all the other force employed by the state against the citizens. Once you have argued in extremis and passed that test in the human mind, everything else follows automatically. There is always a reason to murder, and there is always a reason to control the people for their own good. We require domination and herding or we will destroy ourselves, says our master.

I am a liberal, and I am not fine with murder by the state.

I think it is quite possible for state action under law to be voluntary. It just takes a people who understand that people depend on each other, that they are not mere individuals, that we need to observe standards of conduct, and that what affects one affects us all. A lot of state action is already voluntary. Where that breaks down, force is needed, but it does not need to extend to murder.

Alone among political philosophies, libertarianism stands against the murderous state. And if you follow it to its logical conclusion, libertarianism argues for statelessness, or freedom from the state entirely. This is much too radical a notion for most people to entertain, so they satisfy themselves with "minarchy" rather than anarchy. But nobody knows what the future holds... perhaps one day humans will evolve beyond the need for Big Men to control people and murder them.

Perhaps, but I doubt people will evolve beyond the need for organization of some kind, as long as people have different skills, for as long as there are any conflicting needs and desires that may arise among people, and I suppose for as long as people have needs and desires at all.

The main problem libertarians face these days as they attempt to fill out their philosophy into political terms is the attempts by existing, dying philosophies at co-opting the name "libertarian". There really is no left- or right-libertarian, it is its own creature. Some people may become enlightened and leave the left or right, but to saddle the new political philosophy with that baggage is to destroy it.

Libertarian is upper center on the graph.

The Blue State model is dying. There is no disputing that at this point. The only questions that remain are how long the New Deal can hang on, and what kind of fallout will occur from its collapse. What will replace it?

Economic democracy might be a cure for at least some of the problems that the New Deal solves. A post blue-state model can only work if supposed "libertarians" understand that most of the controlling, exploiting, destructive bosses are corporate and other private people who operate outside the state. There will need to be ways for workers, consumers and other citizens to supercede and control these bosses, and to protect those who are abused, neglected or ignored by them.

IMO a post-blue state can only be a green state.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

The beginning and end of libertarianism is the Non Aggression Principle. Everything else flows from this single idea, that people may not singly or as a group use force against another human being. The rest of it evolves from there.

A simple test to see if you are anything like a libertarian is your feelings about seatbelt laws. If you can find a way to rationalize seatbelt laws, you are no kind of libertarian (yet).

Rationalization in favor- Idiots have to told to put their seatbelts on and idiots drive cars and crash them the most and account for the bulk of injuries and dealths which requires a seatbelt law to keep our costs down. We pay for the police and fire departments that respond and the inceases in insurance costs as well. I don't need a seatbelt law myself and I think it's stupid. Unfortunately, we don't have idiot only streets and highways. So, we're stuck sharing roads with them and a seatbelt law. OK, I rationalized its need and acceptance which means I'm no kind of libertarian yet or ever.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

People have been indoctrinated into statism for their entire lives, and they believe that the violence of the state is the only just violence. It is unthinkable for most people to imagine that the state could ever be wrong. Misguided in its good intentions on occasion, but never wrong. And those who believe that state-sanctioned murder is always wrong are a tiny minority. They are even considered a growing danger to the state by an increasing number of people both in and out of the government.

To me, statism as you describe, sounds pretty far fetched for America when you take into account it's people and it's history. As far as foriegn influence over our government, that's a not so far fetched possibility. Especially, if you pay attention to what progressives say and talk about here. If you see the new Red Dawn and pay attention to what's being broadcasted over the speakers, it's a whole lot of progressive and very similiar to what you see being broadcasted here. BTW, I'm a believer in non aggression but in the real world we have to begin protecting ourself from abroad and the circle of our protection has to be broad. America is uniquely different than the rest of the world which is why we will always have enemies and groups that hate us abroad.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

And because most people are fine with murder, they are fine with all the other force employed by the state against the citizens. Once you have argued in extremis and passed that test in the human mind, everything else follows automatically. There is always a reason to murder, and there is always a reason to control the people for their own good. We require domination and herding or we will destroy ourselves, says our master.

Most people accept murder/killing as something that happens with people or during times of war when it's needed for defense. But, the act of murder itself is not widely tolerated or condoned.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Alone among political philosophies, libertarianism stands against the murderous state. And if you follow it to its logical conclusion, libertarianism argues for statelessness, or freedom from the state entirely. This is much too radical a notion for most people to entertain, so they satisfy themselves with "minarchy" rather than anarchy. But nobody knows what the future holds... perhaps one day humans will evolve beyond the need for Big Men to control people and murder them.

The main problem libertarians face these days as they attempt to fill out their philosophy into political terms is the attempts by existing, dying philosophies at co-opting the name "libertarian". There really is no left- or right-libertarian, it is its own creature. Some people may become enlightened and leave the left or right, but to saddle the new political philosophy with that baggage is to destroy it.

The Blue State model is dying. There is no disputing that at this point. The only questions that remain are how long the New Deal can hang on, and what kind of fallout will occur from its collapse. What will replace it?

Libertarianism isn't realistic for a large nation with cities and towns with an infrastructure that supports. As far as America, I believe the bulk of it isn't going to change alot and remain relatively stable and secure. As far as amount of fallout, well I'll just say, I wouldn't want to be in our major cities during the fallout.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Seatbelts ensure that the onus is placed on the operator and not someone else and therefore is a very libertarian friendly law.

While there are exceptions to every rule, seat belts do save lives. When there's an automobile accident, even a minor hit from behind at a traffic light, there can be much less injury with wearing a seat belt. ANd not all accidents are caused from someone else's mistake. Many a driver has run off the road or taken a turn too fast, then found themselves in a ditch or worse. Being thrown from a car has resulted in numerous fatalities that could have been prevented with the use of a simple restraint.

Then there's the whole issue of restraints for babies and children. I'd much rather have my child in a buckled down car seat than being projected through a windshield during an accident.

Originally Posted by Time Mage

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! Dudes (and Dudette,) aren't you all supposed to be on the same page as Libertarian Xrs? You guys should be the Three Amigos at this forum, not attacking each other.

*I* am finding this to be a *most* interesting dialog.

And that proves the point. People do not have a proper definition of morality to begin with, because true morality has been replaced in our minds with the false behavioral matrix imposed by some people onto others. The only true morality has to do with how we treat others, and exists between individual people. Everything else is an attempt to dominate you and control you for the benefit of someone else.

The point of the seatbelt example is to show how people think. Most people, like here, seem to think that other people's lives are the natural target of one's own personal preferences. Being a busybody in otherwords, is a good outcome.

Other people can be dominated to one's satisfaction through the fiction of a "society" and the fiction of the "social contract". And it naturally follows that if I have an interest in your life, I should have some say-so over how you live because it affects me. But because we have subrogated that power to dominate other people to something we call a government, which takes our ability to act for itself (monopoly on violence), now it is the government that decides how we live individually. So the Argument From Society is a fallacy because it is no longer you and I discussing things, it is a bureaucracy that rules by fiat, always.

I can imagine all sorts of situations that would require me and my government to control you, dominate you, steal from you, and coerce your behavior. Does that mean this is a good starting point for deciding how we should all live?

If we all spend our time deciding how to seize control of the government and impose our will on other people, what kind of world would we live in?

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

And that proves the point. People do not have a proper definition of morality to begin with, because true morality has been replaced in our minds with the false behavioral matrix imposed by some people onto others. The only true morality has to do with how we treat others, and exists between individual people. Everything else is an attempt to dominate you and control you for the benefit of someone else.

The world view that we are just individuals is wrong. We are interdependent on each other. Our lives do not end at our skins. If you disagree, try living without breathing and see how long you last. We are part of one ecology, which you guys tend to conveniently deny (your global warming denial, etc.).

The point of the seatbelt example is to show how people think. Most people, like here, seem to think that other people's lives are the natural target of one's own personal preferences. Being a busybody in other words, is a good outcome.

Society's needs.

Other people can be dominated to one's satisfaction through the fiction of a "society" and the fiction of the "social contract". And it naturally follows that if I have an interest in your life, I should have some say-so over how you live because it affects me. But because we have subrogated that power to dominate other people to something we call a government, which takes our ability to act for itself (monopoly on violence), now it is the government that decides how we live individually. So the Argument From Society is a fallacy because it is no longer you and I discussing things, it is a bureaucracy that rules by fiat, always.

We still have individual decisions; society does not live us. It is a balance of power, an inter-dependency.

I can imagine all sorts of situations that would require me and my government to control you, dominate you, steal from you, and coerce your behavior. Does that mean this is a good starting point for deciding how we should all live?

The right balance between the power of "me" to control and the power of "we" to control, is the goal. Thinking becomes easier when you grab simple solutions, like libertarian anarchism. Just blame government for everything; that makes it all easy.

If we all spend our time deciding how to seize control of the government and impose our will on other people, what kind of world would we live in?

Those who as individuals impose their will on other people, need to be directed by the people under law and human rights towards a better world. Leaving it up to individuals with money (a government program) is not a good basis for decision-making. We need to make decisions together, lawfully and respectfully, as needed.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I was thinking along the same lines. Government oversight was minimal. Trickle-down economics at work, most-likely (especially seeing that this was Texas, after all). But I hope there will be an investigation, and we'll know more what or who was responsible.

Many people make great decisions. Others, not so much. While some may choose to not drink/drug and drive, there are others who do. Should lives of the innocent be in jeopardy because some choose to not give a rat's booty if their irresponsible behavior puts the lives of others in danger? Laws don't deter all from irresponsible behaviors like this but it does have an impact on the majority.

Originally Posted by Time Mage

... James Madison once said, "If men were angels, there would be no need for government". My translation of this is, if everyone did what they're supposed to, there would be no need for laws and government. Maybe this is what the Straight (as in pure) Libertarian believes in. The problem is that we're probably a few evolutionary steps away from achieving angelhood. I believe the difference with a Republican Libertarian is that they have the more pragmatic belief in the laws, rights,and representations of a Republic.

The libetarian right tend to stand firm on the rights of businesses to do as they please, even when they impact the rights of individuals. That's the baloance. The liberatrian left leans the other way. Both tend to oppose most restirctions on sexuality and other victimless behaviors. So it comes down to favoring (or not opposing) private power, versus balancing private power with public power.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thinking becomes easier when you grab simple solutions, like libertarian anarchism.

Wow. So living taking full responsibility for your choices and actions, and absolutely without the expectation that anyone besides yourself will take care of your problems for you -- this is a simple way to live?

Is that why we keep children as insulated from that kind of an environment as feasible? Because we want to make their lives harder??