Really, I'm just in to yonivorism and applying the common-sense principles instilled in me by my parents. Can't say I'm in the market for finding a "label" that fits what I believe.
Specifically, what are your stances on the following "hot-button" libertarian issues regarding civil liberties:
Agree or disagree with warrantless wiretapping
Agree or disagree with national ID
Agree or disagree with using the "states secret" privilege to throw cases, instead of just evidence, out of court
Agree or disagree with no-knock raids
Agree or disagree with preventive (not preemptive) war
Lat me address this again.
How can you say that? Please show me any single example I advocate authoritarianism over libertarianism.
Please explain. You jump to conclusion. , my youngest daughters boyfriend is from Mexico. Just because my view on "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is different from others, does not make me a racist. I actually respect most the Hispanics I know. They are hard working people. they can teach liberals a thing or two. I just agree with the cons utional provisions of Article 1, section 8: "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." Thing is, we have such laws, and they are ignored. The laws are their for a reason. I do not advocate dismissing the liberties of others, but allowing illegal immigration takes away from out publi moneys, and thus, takes away from everyone who pays taxes.
Yes, I am a proud pot smoker. l I also love peyote.
Please take your head out of your ass and start thinking.
In what way? Showing how stupid the radical elements of libertarians are? I agree. that doesn't mean that all are.
I think if you do honest research, you will find the majority of those who call themselves libertarians believe in doing what they want as long as it doesn't infringe upon others.
That is not authoritarian.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-14-2009 at 04:11 PM.
I don't know... all the Objectivists I've met are pretty much bat e-loony.
Why should a warrant have to be issued if there is sufficient probable cause? You either take action or not. Why do small minded people think that only a judge can make that decision?
Depends on the purpose. There is no need for any such thing for buying items, or selling, etc. However, if only a certain person has the right for a certain activity, what's wrong with insuring for the common good that the person has that right?
Depends on the type of case. In regular civil or criminal cases, that would be insane. However, there are specific cons utional grounds referring to battlefield type cases that such things do not apply.
Only with very strong evidence.
Do you think that a libertarian viewpoint includes advocating anarchy like some like to claim?
Absolutely. We have the right to "provide for the common defense."
I agree with pretty much everything here. I don't know how many 'convenience abortions' there are, but ever since my wife has become pregnant, I've felt a growing care/concern for our soon-to-be-born child. She had a small complication and on the way to the hospital, I was ridiculously nervous.
In my head, logically speaking, it didn't make sense. It's not like I met him yet, and if something were to happen, Karla and I could try again. However, it feels as if I've already poured my hopes and dreams into this child that will be. It's disconcerting and uplifting all at once.
Great white bat e?
That's not being a true libertarian. There are a lot better terms than can be used in that instance. That's what the majority of that was about.
We could start on your support of various George W Bush policies posted above ^
The funny thing is that you still got completely pwned on your whole 14th amendment argument. So now it's a separate debate about illegal immigration? Well, I guess progress is good.
In other words, against the normal libertarian position. And are you aware exactly what a warrant is?
Libertarians are vehemently opposed to a national ID, because of the possibility of abusing the system and how much damage it could do.
Yes, but in the past, the "state secrets" privilege was only used to disregard that EVIDENCE, not to throw out the case itself. Again, libertarians are (mostly) against this new interpretation.
Define "very strong evidence"? Do you not think that this power will be abused? That people in the higher echelons will press lower members to lower the bar for "strong evidence"?
That's not a mainstream libertarian issue.
Again, against the majority of libertarians. Nations can find any excuse to justify war, if they so choose. "Nation-building" or "spreading democracy" should surely not be one of them.
Note that, of all these situations, you didn't firmly disagree with any of them, the closest being the no-knock raid.
Also, you're VERY willing to look at what concentrated power can do, and willing to overlook the abuses that could occur (for instance, on the national ID subject and warrantless wiretapping). It doesn't occur to you that even if it would be more effective to fight crime, it may not be moral/right to do so.
This is why I don't consider you a libertarian. You may agree with them on fiscal issues, and you're willing to give ground on some social issues (marijuana legalization/decriminilization, gay marriage), you don't agree with many of the civil liberty positions that libertarians hold.
Welcome to 'fatherhood'. It really changes things. This song comes to mind:
My eyes swell up when I hear this song.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-14-2009 at 04:35 PM.
Jewish Liberal lies!
I know you asked WC but, these are the types of questions I like to debate in the context of how they agree with my ideology. So, with that…
I disagree with warrantless wiretapping of U. S. Citizens – whether they be home or abroad. I think the Cons utional protections against unreasonable search and seizures applies no matter their location. Now, having said that, I do not believe the same rights extend to non-citizens, either domestically or abroad. And, if the government, whose chief duty (in my estimation) is to preserve the Republic believes there are individual, non-citizens, determined to do us harm I would hope they would employ whatever methods are at their disposal to thwart that effort. If in the course of their intelligence gathering, a person on whom they’ve ins uted a “warrantless wiretap,” initiates a communication to or receives a communication from a U. S. Citizen, I would be comfortable with the government retaining that information so long and as long as it was determined to be relevant to the principal cause of protecting the country.
I think everyone present in this country should have to be able to prove they are rightfully here and eligible to participate in the benefits of this country…from voting to the receipt of en lements.
How you do that is irrelevant to me. Right now, a National ID card seems to be the most unobtrusive way.
Frankly, I don’t understand the objections. I can’t drive without a license. Or, fix your plumbing without one, for that matter.
I don’t believe the government should have to compromise valuable intelligence assets in order to gain a criminal conviction. This is one of the main reason I’m in favor of just hunting down terrorists and killing them. I’m not interested in putting them on trial But, where you must – ie. A U. S. Citizen terrorist arrested at home (because, I’d kill ‘em if I found them in another country), -- I think national security must be weighed against the need for a criminal conviction.
In the context of the War on Drugs? Disagree.
In the context of most other crimes where you need an element of surprise to either prevent the commission of a crime, the destruction of crucial evidence of that crime, or the escape of a felon; I’m in favor if it is determined that a “no knock” raid is the most effective way to accomplish that. Sometimes you have to rely on professionals to do their jobs right.
I also believe when these raids go wrong, those responsible should be held accountable and prosecuted if they commit crimes or violate rights.
And, I’ll say, I’m somewhat sympathetic to the idea that a person who opens fire from inside a structure, at the confusing outset of a raid, should be somewhat indemnified against charges of murder should they find a target. This is particularly true of these no knock drug raids.
Many drug criminals don’t view their crimes as warranting a coordinated task force take down so, when the door come busting down, that it is the police might not be the first thing that crosses their mind…it just as well could be their compe or. And, self defense is, I believe, an affirmative defense in these situations.
If it can be shown the occupant of the raided structure new it was police coming through the door, however, all bets are off. And, in the case of other felons (over which I imagine a no knock raid would be warranted or called for), I have less understanding for them shooting back.
Agree. Apocalyptic weapons are more prevalent, accessible, and concealable than ever before. If my government believes a nation poses a existential threat, I say obliterate them.
In the only case we have, so far, Iraq; I have no heartburn over the invasion and overthrow of the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein. His international insults were long, egregious and unanswered for. His atrocities against his own people were worse. It’s a good thing he’s gone and if other nations don’t like it (which I truly doubt – rhetoric aside), ‘em.
Thanks. I'm scared and excited. It feels like I'm about to jump out of a plane... but the freefall will be 18 years, and the parachute portion will last the rest of my life.
Convenience abortions are pretty much anything not related to a "duress" abortion. One that's sought in response to forced intercourse (incest or rape) or because the survival of the mother is in question.
Yes, I think abortions sought so a woman won't have the hardship of raising a child is a convenience abortion.
How insensitive of me. Good luck with the baby! And, congratulations.
you will find fatherhood to be one of the easiest endevours.
you will be consumed with doing everything that is right. your entire role in life will skyrocket.
congrats!
Thanks Yoni.
I agree with what you said above. However, FISA already allowed warrantless wiretapping for foreign countries, before being 'updated' to provide loopholes to track US citizens as well.
The US now uses deep-packet inspection with certain keywords to pull email that's su ious. The problem I see with allowing it in order to 'protect the country', is because that's such a nebulous term.
As well, lots of other problems get generated. Who's watching the people doing the searching; who has oversight? How will the American public know if they are abusing their privileges? Etc etc.
On a broader scale, look at the National Security Letters and how many requests went out. Out of some 500+ requests, I believe not ONE of them was denied. Doesn't that seem fishy? Glenn Greenwald, who now writes at Salon, does a good job of keeping track of this stuff.
Many libertarians don't agree with driving licenses either, frankly. But again, it's an issue of possible abuse. We already require a form of ID at a voting station, so why require a different one? If people start making fake forms of these new IDs, what's the difference? What type of info gets puts on these IDs, and who has access to that database?
This is a good article explaining why a national ID would be a poor choice. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9142
I'm in favor of killing terrorists on a battlefield, say, if they've got a gun. Once they are captured though, and the threat removed, certain protections should kick in. But innocence before guilt is not just for citizens; our Founding Fathers thought that innocence before guilt is ESSENTIAL for a fair judiciary, and I agree with them.
Same here.
The no-knock raids actually were started, I believe, due to this reasoning, but in the context of drugs. (Ie. dealers were flushing their stash). I think that no-knock raids should be abandoned... if police want to find evidence that badly, then just stake out the house and bust down the door when you know they're not home.
Easier said than done, though. After all, the cops are doing their job. Reminds me of the Feres Doctrine, whereby soldiers can't sue their doctors for malpractice. And I agree with the other related comments below this.
Again, this goes against mainstream libertarianism.
Ah understood. I think I'm still ok with an abortion, provided it's done within the first month or two. I'm still gauging my feelings on the subject. I wouldn't say I was ever cavalier about it, but I will say I used to believe the right of a woman to her own body was relatively absolute. As I've grown older, I've come to question those beliefs, and becoming a father (well, soon) is also forcing me to reflect based on new emotions. It's in flux.
No offense taken! Thanks! The baby will be born late October or so, then off to her family and mine during November, then I get stationed in Hawaii early December. It will be quite a busy time for me!
Look at the bigger picture.
A girl can find out if she's pregnant by peeing on a little dealy and never tell anyone.
If a woman doesn't want to have a pregnancy then she'll find a way to do that. By banning abortion all you're doing is setting up a black market for abortions which would be nowhere near safe. Either that or you'd have girls taking a handful of pills early in their pregnancy shooting for an ejected fetus.
I do think that adoption should be incentivized for both the mother and the prospective adopting family though.
This is another concern of mine as well. Let's face it; there are some women who will do pretty horrific things like that. However, should the law allow them to do such? The answer isn't clear, by any means, and then you get into that tug of war between rights of the fetus and right of the woman.
It's not an easy issue by any means, to my mind.
De nada.
I think the federal government is going to do whatever is necessary to fulfill it's obligations under the Cons ution, as it sees them. In doing so, they've created a lot of programs that are subject to abuse. But, to be honest with you, they're no more vulnerable that any other government program...from the IRS to the DMV.
It's not a matter of "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about," as much as it's "they're so afraid another terrorist attack is going to slip through the cracks, if you're doing nothing wrong, they don't care."
I'm a little concerned with local law enforcement exploiting federal homeland security laws to tackle their own agendas but, again, no different that how they've exploited federal drug laws to enrich their budgets with seized property and money. It's disgusting and I'm more worried about that phenomenon than I am with federal intelligence agencies worrying over more than whether or not I'm conspiring with al Qaeda to commit an act of terrorism.
That's just me. I understand and appreciate the counter position. I just don't think they have enough manpower and motivation to worry about much else other than national security.
I'll read the article later. Frankly, I think the answer is in biometrics. We already employ them for government services as well as some commercial enterprises. And, there's not much chance of you not having your fingerprint with you. The databases are easy to construct and maintain and encrypt. When you register to vote, you leave a fingerprint. When you vote the finger you bring with you is compared to the one you used to register.
My argument is that you're confusing criminality with acts of war. In the case of terrorists, they are operating outside the normal conventions of war, they don't identify with a nation-state and they wear no uniforms.
Capturing them only leaves you with the problem of what to do with them when you're done with them...as Obama is finding out. I say that unless it is believed they possess actionable intelligence which could prove useful, they should be summarily executed on the battlefield. If they're worth interrogating, do so -- extract whatever you can and, then, kill 'em.
I will give props to President Obama for ordering the assassination of that asswipe in Somalia today. That was a bold move. And, frankly, I don't know what distinguishes that guy from any other terrorist around the globe. The President should issue a standing order to kill them all on sight.
They aren't conscripts in the regular sense of a nation compelling or recruiting them to serve in the military. In most cases -- enough to where I wouldn't lose any sleep -- they voluntarily join the forces aligned against us and have dedicated there lives to martyrdom for the cause of killing Americans, in particular, and infidels in general. I say we help them reach that objective...without, of course, allowing them to take any innocents with them.
I would agree but, sometime you're after a live person.
I wasn't necessarily talking about holding the cops who performed the raid. If a raid goes bad because of poor planning, sloppy homework (like getting the wrong house), it's not usually the cop with the door ram that's made the mistake.
And, I'm not concerned about that.
Amen. I never look to others and their way of thinking for validation or clarity. Waste of time to stand on another (wo)man's thoughts and insights.
Not for clarity? Just as I stand on the backs of great inventors when I use a microwave, so I will read philosophy; to look at the world from different perspectives and 'try them on', so to speak. I can then choose to reject or follow what I read. I don't think it's a waste of time, as I've learned to think differently about some subjects, based on other people's insights.
It doesn't hurt to try one's own ideas on for size either.
I never know quite what I think about something until I start to put it in words. More than occasionally, the result is flawed or mistaken in some way, and I end up in a different place from where I started. Having others to bounce things off of is indispensable, but one shouldn't take oneself for granted either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
