«12. . .3,5583,5593,5603,5613,5623,5633,564. . .3,6073,608»
First, in my (and many others as well) opinion, Rand Paul Libertarian is an oxymoron. However, part of my libertarian belief is that along with having freedom of action, one also has responsibility for the consequences of one's actions. Given the fact that a child is a product of actions taken by the parents, the responsibility for properly raising that child falls squarely on their shoulders.
Would libertarians support a ban on all forms of corporal punishment?
Yes, it could be considered aggression. Children have limited rights in their own regard.
Sib addressed most fallacies very well, but I'll respond to this one, because it's an outright lie.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/imgLib/20101220_mironlarge.jpg
Why do statists hate empirical evidence so much? Because it disproves their arguments.
Later ancaps have taken issue with this particular part of The Ethics of Liberty. It is inconsistent with Rothbard's general theory, because birthing a child automatically means they have a legal obligation to take care of it, unless they give it to somebody else.
Post self-deleted by Cosmo kramer.
The corporate income tax is a destructive, useless tax that hampers American competitiveness, destroys workers' wages and erodes economic growth. It is anti-business, anti-worker and anti-poor people. It should be abolished immediately - an idea that most economists and economic studies support. Lowering the top rate to 9% would actually be revenue neutral, according to one study, which shows just how economically destructive this tax is.
hai gaiz
honduras proves that libertarianism doesnt work
TAKE THAT ronpaulicans
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/my_libertarian_vacation_nightmare_how_ayn_rand_ron_paul_their_groupies_were_all_debunked/
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to insult or intimidate someone based on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity nor is it freedom to incite hatred or violence. Your rights end when other people's welfare or safety are affected.
And I don't want to outright ban guns, just further restrict ownership to only valid reasons.
This is why I consider myself a social progressive not a libertarian. I don't think we need to repeal the 1st amendment, just interpret it differently as many countries have.
That is exactly the kind of speech that needs to be protected. This is only a short step away from restrictions on criticizing the government. "Obama is..."
Hate speech.
"Valid" reasons.
I want a gun. That is as valid as any.
You hate freedom and every post shows it. Empirical evidence is not relevant to you. The fact that gun restrictions in the US have not worked, do not matter. The fact that gun crime is inversely correlated with gun ownership rates, does not matter. The fact that the welfare state has been an utter failure does not matter.
So in other words, we should have freedom of speech except when it hurts muh feels. Actually, you do have the right to be bigoted towards other people. The First Amendment is not there so you can talk about the weather, it's there so you can say controversial and even offensive things. How the hell does being bigoted affect someone else's welfare and safety? Creating a hate speech law would just put more power in the hands of government and leave the definition of "discrimination" to unelected bureaucrats to misuse and abuse. And the plain writing of the First Amendment pretty much contradicts everything you're saying: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Shall. Make. No. Freaking. Law. It's as plain as the writing. The same goes with the Second Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
How clear does that have to be to you? You don't support civil liberties at all - you're an open opponent of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Your proposals are blatantly illegal, empirically unfounded and anti-American. It's useful idiots like you who think you're doing good things for Social Justice™, but end up giving more power to the government to spy on people, to expand the Drug War and to allow police officers to kill more people. It's people like you who have inadvertently created the police state and the endless war that's been a hallmark of the Bush and Obama administrations.
It seems that this guy and most "progressives", who should be more appropriately be called neo-feudalists, openly hate and oppose everything America was founded on. I used to think that soc-dems were pragmatists, but now I know better. They are deeply ideological statists that want bureaucrats to have as much control as humanly possible, despite the fact that all evidence and all data has shown that this leads to disastrous outcomes for all parties involved.
http://tinyurl.com/o357n8o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI
Freedom of Speech does not include speech you happen to disagree with. You are clearly vile person - please go away as I find your speech "insulting".
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to defend freedom (including Freedom of Speech) against totalitarians such as Atlanticatia. We must be prepared to fight against such people - to the death.
Honduras has not had an even vaguely free market government in many decades - the real "nightmare" there is endless regulations that drive the poor into the Black Economy (or out of the country entirely - vast numbers of Hondurans now live in the United States, Cuba is closer to Honduras but "oddly enough" few Hondurans choose to emigrate there).
As for Salon.com - I have never known them to tell the truth about any subject, so I do not click on their links any more.
If people have voluntary sexual intercourse (rape is another matter) they consent to the consequence of that intercourse - a child.
They consent to the moral obligations of having a child - feeding and caring for that child (no abortion or infanticide by starving the child to death.
If people really are incapable of looking after a child then other people or voluntary institutions (such as Churches or local Humanist Associations) have a moral duty to step in and look after the child.
A child is not property - property is the claim of the mind to objects, a human is a subject (a person) not just an object.
A reasoning will (a self) can not claim a child's body - because there is already a self in the child.
The self of the child, him or her self.
Well, I missed a good debate here. Oh well but, the 1st and 2nd amendments are important considering what they were written for.
I would and I am sure most Libertarians would.
(Also, the Hyatt Islands needs to allow others to post on their RMB. I miss posting on there).
Another reason why the US was never, ever Keynesian in the post-war period: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Federal_Funds_Rate_1954_thru_2009_effective.svg/640px-Federal_Funds_Rate_1954_thru_2009_effective.svg.png
Continually rising interest rates don't exactly stimulate demand, or at least not according to Keynesian theory. Economic policy in the post-war era was largely determined by a mix of populism and pragmatism. There was never a consensus of the type seen in the UK.
Just the Facts: Myths and Causes of Income Inequality
http://www.justfactsdaily.com/myths-and-causes-of-income-inequality/
"Summarizing the facts above, personal income inequality has not risen for half a century, and the rise of household income inequality stems from family disintegration driven by changing attitudes toward sex, marital fidelity, and familial responsibility."
Freedom of speech does not, and has not, existed at any point in history. This is because the 'freedom of speech' we describe is unattainable, because it directly interferes with freedom of expression. If a man insults another man, should he have the right to kill the other man? If not, than he is not free to express himself as he feels. If he does, than the other man does not have the freedom to talk as he feels. Choosing only one or the other cancels out both, because speech is expression, and a person may express themselves through speech. It is best to just lay down direct rules on what is and what is not acceptable, to avoid this paradox.
"This bill is far wider in scope than expected. This post-Snowden national security law will not only cover the “snooper’s charter” legislation on tracking individual web and social media use but also the security services’ powers of bulk interception of the content of communications. It will also ”provide appropriate oversight and safeguard arrangements”."
aren't you the guy that just voted for a government set to, well, pretty much try and ban hate speech and trample all over people's rights and privacy? i mean, glass houses, all i'm sayin'.
I don't know what that first thing is supposed to come from, but yes, I am. All of the British political parties are horrid opponents of civil liberties. Labour brought in the anti-terror laws and wants to ban "Islamophobia" (which isn't even a thing). At least the Tories managed to scrap national ID cards and halve the detention without charge period to 14 days.
But I maintain that the Conservative Party has never, ever been my party. I voted for them simply because they are the least worst option. I will continue to criticise them, their weak "austerity" policies and their woefully authoritarian attitude towards pornography and terrorism.
if "austerity" is already alienating scotland and threatening to fúck up nothern ireland i'd seriously hate to see what you think actual austerity would be
«12. . .3,5583,5593,5603,5613,5623,5633,564. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
