This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Here come the LP lies again - implying that polls say I am winning.
A desparate party that failed to land a much more qualified Ron Paul.
Libertarians - Republicans without morals, so desparate to keep their name alive, they brought in marxism. Just rename your party the Marxist party. Our Constitution's preamble must disgust a libertarian.
Conclusion: the only true libertarians are Republicans. Proactive in taking out Saddam, mid-east's Hitler, before he became a powerful Hitler.
Hearing gravel blather on in favor of socialized medicine and an empowered EPA environmentalist gestapo like some kind of aging marxist douchebag, I have come to conclude that gravel isn't his last name, it's what's between his ears. I'm voting for Root in Denver, and contributing $20 bucks to him online right now, to make sure he beats this loser, and the Republican infiltrator (Barr) as well. We need a real libertarian on the ballot on Nov 4, 2008! ROOT FOR AMERICA!!!!
True libertarianism is anarchism, everything else is a varying degree of statism, but Gravel is especially statist. Rothbard's probably rolling over in his grave with such an imposter even considering the candidacy of LP nominee, but the LP is/was a failure anyways.
Dejacque coined the term not Proudhon. In fact Dejacque used it to criticize Proudhon for his support for ownership of the product of labor and an economy based on the market.
You want to repeal the civil rights act, let the corporations take over America, and let the military become privitized. What you are advocating is fascism. You know that right?
You're right. Mike Gravel is definately not your candidate. I put my trust in the people I elect and the constitution not in corporations.
I agree with the hate-crimes legislation though. Every crime against someone is hate crime.
I really know your are not a Libertarian. The party wants to repeal civil rights legislation and hate crimes, not just me. The party wants complete privatization of services not just me. Read the 2004 platform and you will realize that not only is Gravel not my candidate he is not a Libertarian Party candidate, which was my whole point from the start.
You classical liberals love stealing words, don't you. Liberterianism has always been about anarchism and socialism, until the classical liberals stole the word. Same goes for anarchism. Here's some news for you.. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. But you guys had to steal the word "Anarchism" as well. It's pathetic
Classical libertarianism and capitalism have always been compatible with some type of libertarianism. Left-libertarianism is the socialist right-libertarianism is more capitalist. If you look at Agorism is is considered left by some and right by others but is centered on capitalistic markets. Do not buy into Noam Chomsky small-minded assumption that a society driven by personal interest has no room for mutualism. It is a flawed assumption...
Chomsky.. maybe it is you that is making the assumptions. Look up Joseph Dejacque, he's the one that coined the word and he was an anarcho-communist. Nobody said anything about Chomsky, so stop making assumptions. I'm talking about where the word came from and what it originally meant. Classical liberals completely butchered the word Libertarianism and what it really meant
"personal property, property in land, buildings, workshops, shops, property in anything that is an instrument of work, production or consumption." is what he wanted right? You can have that with capitalism and communism. The right is valid extension of personal property rights taking Dejacque's idea of personal property to an even greater extreme.
The difference being that Dejacque and other lefts ascribe to his idea that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature" while rights believe that it is the product of labor that satisfy that need. The two schools of thought are not far from each other.
No, those on the right ascribe to what I mentioned in that scenario. They can buy property, not labour on it but profit from the labour of others. They don't even believe the workers have the right to the product of their labour. Does a factory worker have the right to the product of his labour in an anarcho-capitalist society? NO.
"right to product of labour" is a leftist view and it goes against the exploitive nature of capitalism
The product f a workers labor is not the product nut the wage. A factory worker works all day not for a car but for money to then obtain what is needed. I would rather be guaranteed that wage as a trade for my product than the product of my specific labor. Regardless that trade makes the wage a product of his labor.
That's not the rights to product of his labour. The factory worker has no rights the product of his labour in a capitalist society.
Product of labour = thing he helped create from his labour.
How anaracho-capitalism is an oxymoron. To allow individuals to own land that they do not live on or labour own is a form of statism. Right now the state owns the territory called the US and it's tenants (US citizens) pay rent. You get the same thing in anarcho capitalism.
The simple idea of allowing individuals to own land where others would labour on whil the capitalist profits off of their labour is statism. The capitalist (state) determines your salary (you can always quit/migrate) but unless you can create your own state, you'll always be a slave to the private states.
The market determines your wage unless trust or monopolies do. If a owner pays to little other pay more. If an owner pays to much the business is hurt and wages have to go down to sustainable level. The owner is a slave to a market as well.
Libertarianism is not the lack of personal property, that is communism, but the freedom to acquire what you want with respect to others. Déjacque believed this was achieved through communism other argue capitalism yields this.
He believed people should be entitled to having what you need. Libertarianism is being able get what one needs. Dejacque thought shared ownership of everything, communism, yields this and it is very easy to see how. Capitalist see capitalism as a way to get what one needs freely but without the assumption one is entitled to it. The freedom not assumption of ownership has become to be the crux of libertarianism. The shared ownership is derived from an already existing economic system, communism.
first of all, communism is NOT an ecomonic system. Secondly, capitalism does not ensure one has rights to what they need. Someone who doesn't have a lot of capital can only try to get what they need by selling their labour at a substantially lower rate to the capitalist. The workers are dependent on these private states owned by the capitalists. Their only options are to migrate from one private state to another in hopes of better compensation for their labour.
What if I believe I am being short changed by my community. What if I feel like I need more food than I am alloted. I have no recourse but to move to another community in hopes of getting more. At least capitalism allows one to possibly gain more without moving.
And what if you're being short changed by your employer and feel like you need more money to buy food than what you are alloted. You have no recourse but to TRY and get hired by another company. You can always help out the farmers if food production is low in an anarchist society since everything would be worker-run and property is legitimate as long as you're labouring on it. Key difference, you have a choice, in capitalism.. the capitalists choose.
Who decides what is short changed? Who decides who is to suffer from re-distribution? These questions answered no doubt by councils or some democratic body. Fine, but how long do you help? With capitalism the rise in food prices would create incentive to move into the farming sector due to rising wages. As more farming creates more supply then prices fall. Then jobs move out of farming and the cycle repeats without artificial stimulation. It does require a educated or skilled population, though.
And in an anarchist society, the low production of food would create an incentive to move into the farming sector due to -- low production of food. As more farming creates mor supply, then people move out of farming and the cycle repeats. Here's the difference.. the capitalist is making huge profits at the expense of the food crisis.
The worker is payed higher wages. Workers and owners in related industries make more money. Capitalism is communal because everyone does better when some do better. The profits one gets is not against anarchy. It does not enforce submission or dominance. The worker and owners still cannot exist without each other. Money is not the measure of worth in a capitalistic society but individual ability. One with more money is not better but greedier. One with more work ethic is better...
..The concentration of wealth seen is a result of Mercantilism not the Laissz-faire philosophy that are needed for free markets. Instead of hording money as if there is little left they should re-invest the money into business charity, and the community assured that the market will bring more money and corporate power would be dismantled by private interest. The concentrated wealth would not be as much of a problem.
It is not like greed and discontent will go away because people share. With capitalism everyone is limited by what the can get by the same factors, how much money that can gain. Communism the limit is set by the community. This is more arbitrary but more forgiving which is why charity is a important component of capitalism. Every capitalist is free to share his or her wealth.
And for your information.. Dejacque was criticizing Proudhon in that wiki article.. an anarchist, but also an anti-capitalist, hence "Property is Theft!"
Assuming you read that from wikipedia, you forgot the part before that where he said "he sought to abolosh "personal property, property in land, buildings, workshops, shops, property in anything that is an instrument of work, production or consumption"
Let me give you a scenario. Man with a lot of money can buy property, get workers to labour on this property and he profits from their labour. In capitalism that is accepted, in anarchism, libertarianism, etc.. it's not.
He profits from selling a product not the labor. He trades money for labor at an even rate. The product is then sold at an even rate. It just so happen that something made has a lower value than an already made product. The sum profit is how a different laborer gerts what he needs. Like a grocer when spent on food or a banker when the money is put in the bank...
Right.. the capitalist sells the product of the workers labour. That's called exploitation. The worker has no right to the product of his labour, the capitalist does. Therefore the capitalist gets the worker to produce a product at a cheaper labour, takes his product and sells it at it's market value, reaping the profits.
And to further the anarcho-capitalism = oxymoron statement. I'll quote Iain MacSaorsa
Therefore, far from being anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalism are just capitalists who desire to see private states develop, states which are strictly accountable to their pay masters without even the sham of democracy we have today. Therefore, a far better name for "anarcho"-capitalism would be "private state" capitalism, at least that way you get a fairer idea of what they are trying to sell you."
I still do not understand to state claim. You act as if the owners work to together to create some homogeneous world. That is a trust and not true free capitalism. Free capitalism has different people in charge of different resources. In communism people share this responsibility. In capitalism one looks after the resource, using it for production or maintaining maintenance, and others use money as a trade for abdicating responsibility...
The extra money paid is to cover the organizational costs. The time and labor used to put together and maintain a business. You would agree the owner is entitled to something for his labor. Owning a business is not hands off or easy.
Really, and who decides how much should go to cover the organizational costs? The capitalist.. the owners. Guess how much they pay themselves. The workers have no control over the product of their labour, their wage is set by the owners and the owners set their own wages too... usually substantially higher. Just look at the income gap between factory workers and factory owners.
The market decides. The trade price - cost of labor = managerial cost. The factories make lots more as a result of trusts. All of the businesses set wages too low or prices too high. In such a case workers or consumers should demand a fair deal because that is not a a free market. It is a trust born of corruption that communist and socialist are not immune to.
The market may suggest a price, but it doesn't decide. This is why you have different salary rates for people working in the same trade. Furthermore, when the company the workers work for makes enormous profits, the workers have no say on how those profits should be distributed.
That is part of the contract. One agrees they have no say over profit because they understand their labor yield wages not a product. The profit is the wage that the owner is payed not the worker. Different salary rates are part of finding the market price. People do not know the price so some pay more and others pay less and where the salaries finally fall are the market price, often a range not an exact number.
But it's an unfair contract because the worker does not have the same bargaining power as the owner. Do you think workers making $2 a day, 6 days a week doing extremely hard labour went into that contract under fair circumstances? See, anarchism = no rulers and no hierarchy. In capitalism, hierarchy exists and those at the top have more bargaining power, therefore the contract is made under unfair circumstances
What do you think unions are for? Labor has to organize to negotiate. It is stupid to let yourself get ripped off. Everyone has the right to assemble and negotiate like business people. If the labor pool dries up the owners are as screwed as the workers. Owners are as dependent on workers as workers are on owners.
Unions? You mean what Mises calls "destructionism"? It's very rare to see a classical liberal consider unions to be a good thing.
To quote Mises: "The labor unions are deadly foes of every new machine"
In fact, classical liberals argue continuously how unions are bad for workers and now you're going to tell me that they're a good thing for the workers? Which side are you arguing for again?
I'm arguing classical liberalism is related to libertarianism. The Libertarian Party nor all right-libertarians denounce unions. Classical liberals might not necessarily be Libertarians and Libertarians might not be classic liberals. You made that assumption not me.
Right libertarianism is an amalgam of different philosophies extending into ideas related to classic libertarianism, or left libertarianism, classic liberalism and other assorted system of philosophy like agorism or even gregorism to some extent. That is what I am arguing.
The money payed for labor is the product of that single worker's labor. The car is a result of all the worker's labor. In a communist society the workers share the cars created by all their labor. In a capitalist society money is used to stand in for labor on the rest of the car. The person makes an engine and then uses money to represent making the rest in capitalism while the combined work a team of 50 people do to make 50 cars is seen as equivalent to one person making a whole car.
The money paid for labour is NOT the product of that workers labour. That's like saying a slave given food by his master is the product of his slave work.
No because money has no value, food does. Money stands in as a resource, that is where the value comes from. I can take the money paid to me to buy the very thing I built or not. If you really owned what you produced people would own things like medical education but will not have a car. One may make a car door but that is no good alone. It is not that everyone is entitled to what they make but what everyone makes. I do not want the product of my labor as a waiter, I want food.
The worry that left-libertarians have of force being used in the form of ownership neglect that one can extend the same control with money or labor. Capitalism is voluntary, if wages are bad or products bad one can retreat and farm to provide for themselves. People can use boycotts and other pressures as well. Instead of a society that enjoys personal freedom because no one has the ability to use force freedom is achieved because everyone can use force but does not. Arguably a freer society.
"Capitalism is voluntary, if wages are bad or products bad one can retreat and farm to provide for themselves."
This assumes that the person has the capital to buy property to farm. A rather poor assumption, go to any third world country and see if anyone there has the "freedom" to choose where they want to work. That freedom is nothing but an illusion. It only exists for those with capital and property.
Libertarianism is respecting the freedoms of another with is the definition of classical libertarianism. Modern liberalism id very different. Anarchism is with out hierarchy and authority. Capitalism allows free movement through class and status. As a result everyone can be rich or poor so no one is special for being one or the other. The flaw is with modern America practices capitalistic fascism, corporatism, where the government props up business so business will scratch politicians back...
Oh.. and there is no "left libertarianism" and "right libertarianism".. there just is libertarianism and the classical liberal's bastardization of libertarianism.
It creates a system where those who already posses power or protected and those who might gain power are discouraged due to the threat to the status quo. I would argue is is harder to have a socialist anarchism due to the third party, state or workers group, to redistribute.(Note: Socialism does not included communism.)
And explain to me how privatization is fascism. Taking note that corporation exist thanks to government intervention, government subsidies create markets that do not need competition and government regulation and taxation often drives small business out(something I'm very familiar with).
Privatization is fascism. You're simply in favour of private states vs publically run states (I know we don't have the latter, but that's the theory anyway). Someone like Bill Gates can easily buy enough land to create his own private state, and many others with enormous wealth can do the same.
Yes but if some can compete with Gates he will be forced to sell some land because a competitor that a great profit he makes. If the market is free, not like today, competition can break up monopolies. At the moment it is true that many people have lots of money but that is a result of government subsidizes not competition. Wealth could be less concentrated than it is now. Privatization does create fascism when tied with government. Their has to be no government for a true market to exist...
If one is allowed to own many acres of land, do whatever he wants with that land (ie: build apartments, a transportation system, etc), and set laws on that land.. then this so called free-market system in the capitalist sense is not anarchism but private state capitalism. You can leave the land-owner's land just like you can leave the US.. only in that sense is it voluntary. But it's a private state nonetheless.
A person only owns that which he transforms and in doing so injects himself into that thing. One man cannot own many acres of land unless he works it. He cannot simply make a mercantile claim to all the land and have it. By the way freedom is not defined by what one can do, that is power, but by what one can think and do within his power. A state is an arbitrary barrier to freedom while property is a natural right that inhibits power.
You do not get it. I was pointing out that the state could ban it not that they should. Just because I defend the laws as written instead of advocate for government to change those laws does not mean I support them. No it means I can look at the situation without biasing it with my opinion. MY opinion is that benefits need to be gotten rid of but at the same time realize that state wording allows in may cases for the banning of "immoral behavior".
"The ultimate goal is a society without government."
All schools become private (allowing them to reject minorities), the military becomes private (disasterous as proven by Blackwater), hospitals become private (allowing them to reject minorities), and god knows how policemen and firemen get payed. America would turn into a corporate state, also known as fascism.
No, you do not seem to understand that part of freedom is being able to do something wrong and not doing it. Schools can be able to discriminate but will CHOOSE not to. That is the importance. They will be persuaded by logic not to discriminate on superficial reasons or at least see customers take their money elsewhere and the market will take care of the problem. Corporations have always been tied to government. Look at what we have now. Only when the government is removed will it get better...
"Schools can be able to discriminate but will CHOOSE not to."
You must not know what it's like to be a minority in america then. Everyone is descrinimated against. All it takes is a little brainwasing to get americans to do bad things. Such as what churches have been doing for thousands of years.
Exactly why education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army. If everyone is discriminated against how much more government do you want to protect everyone? I'm not concerned with what America is like now but working toward an America that does not need government legislating morality. You see discrimination and assume the constitution protect civil liberties when it really is Civil Rights legislation that the federal government derives that power form not the 14 amendment.
You are a liberal and so is Gravel. There is no need to be embarrassed. The problem comes from the fact that the I, nor the party, will not suffer a liberal. Phillies is having a hard enough time with his views, Gravel does not have a chance to slip into the Libertarian Party undetected. I think you joined this party without much research or we would not have had as much discussion regarding Party philosophy.
Well...whites are becoming a minority. Anyways, race should be viewed through a lens of institutionalization. It is rare to be declined seating in a restaurant on race. Denny's has been boycotted and harassed. With this pressure it went beyond what the courts forced it to do. It was not government intervention but public and financial pressure that changed the institution. It would be rare, not unheard of, to fall victim to a single racist individual. Even racists in the South were not singular.
As far as military contractors goes. If I hire Blackwater I would fire them if they behaved as they have. It is the government's callousness that has lead to a careless military in general. Now, Mr.Bush seizes power of the country with the military and there are no military contractors. What can I do but organize into guerrilla units and hope to survive...
On the other hand, if the state is unarmed and must use a military contractor and tries to seize power then the population can hire a different contracting company to fight back. A national military lacks that kind of redundancy.
Hospitals are already private. Free Clinics are the only government run health service centers. Hospitals do not even get subsidies from the government just mandates to treat people for free putting them out of business.
The reasons these private organizations cannot discriminate is because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Not only were public institutions subject anti-discrimination oversight but so were businesses. Owners could be sued if it was perceived that he or she discriminated in hiring. This creates "thought crimes" which end up getting you prosecuted not for an action but a perceived thought...
...It also legislated morality in it disallowed owners to reject applicants they thought immoral, in some cases based on sexual orientation but other based on criminal records or other valid reasons. It essentially dictated what a moral person was and created an umbrella for a lot of people to hide under in the name of helping a those who really needed it...
...To legally shield themselves owners set quotas that prove they were not racist. This results in more qualified applicants getting edged out by a person who fit a quota not already filled. Same reason Libertarians want open borders. And if you check the 2004 platform it calls for a repeal of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all other hate crimes, civil rights legislation. I know Gravel wants to expand hate crimes which is also not Libertarian.
"Marriage is an extension of religion. The state cannot tell a religion what it can do or not do."
False. Marriage has been with us far longer than religion. It's a term simply to define a unity between two people in love. The fundamentalist right likes to act like religion owns marriage. Please.
You're acting like our previous conversation never occurred. Churches cannot refuse to wed gays while being government funded.
Marriage is used to define a unity that comes through ceremony. It is true that homo-sapiens have been largely monogamous as a way to care and ensure survival of offspring but the ceremony has always been tied to some religious belief whether it be Christian or Pagan or Sumerian. Marriage and Love are concepts developed in society long after monogamy was common place in hominid species.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. Our form of marriage is governmental because we provide bennfits. It used to be only religious, but not anymore. I can't believe you think it is ok for government funded churches to descriminate. So you must belive that the the states have the right to ban interracial marriages as well?
Yes, the states have the right to keep government benefits from those they believe to be involved in immoral behavior. I did not write the states' constitutions. Marriage is not protected by the federal Constitution so it is possible, not okay, to ban it at a state level. You have to convince people it is not immoral. That is the goal not government intervention in the other direction. I'm sorry it was written like that.
It's absolutely amazing how people like you believe that any government funded institution are allowed to descriminate. Schools, hostpitals, Churches, and so on. I think you need to re-read the constitution. The mojorty of libertarians agree with me on this one. Once an institution is funded by the government it is no longer private. The descrimination from the church becomes descrimination on behalf of the government. Marriage inolves government bennefits.
Public schools cannot discriminate because they are government run. But that is why the government should get out of marriage and out of giving tax exempt status. That is the solution not the opposite, government oversight of all marriage, because the opposite requires government aggression. It is very simple. The ultimate goal is a society without government, not one where government grants you all your rights...
"But that is why the government should get out of marriage and out of giving tax exempt status"
OK! We already agreed on that one. The bennefits are there so you should agree that while they are there the government should not practice preferential treatment. When they are gone the bigoted churches and boy scouts can do whatever they want.
There should be no transition. The first chance benefits should be repealed for being unconstitutional. There is no need for a period where everyone gets them, just get rid of them. While they are their yes I think they should not discriminate but I do believe the way the constitutions are written they can. But benefits should be removed immediately at federal levels by a president or caucus of congresspeople and in state legislatures at the same time by similar minded politicians.
...You run to the government and ask them to legitimize you interests. Why not remove the government to freely pursue your interests? That is the difference between modern liberalism, Democrat or Green, and classic liberalism, Libertarianism. Gravel is a modern liberal and you seem to be as well. The Greens have the universal single-payer healthcare plan, a monthly guaranteed income and they advocate federal intervention in social issues. Now doesn't that sound better for you.
I don't run to the government to legitimaize my interests. I ask my government to enforce the constitution and equal rights for all. You want to get rid of government so America can be run by corporations and private companies. Trust me, corporatism/fascism is not pretty. Again, this is why there are no minorities in the republican party.
The government gave the rights of a person to corporations and mandated that they must seek profit for shareholders above all else. The corporation as we now it is a result of government interference. Before they were short term associations to complete complex building that required many craftsman, like bridges, by contract for a lesser price that contracting the different workers individually, usually for the government. See how corporations and government really go hand in hand.
Abortion rights have nothing to do with equality. People of all races can get or not get abortions. That questions relates to what life is. Marriage is an extension of religion. The state cannot tell a religion what it can do or not do, 1st amendment. As a result it is violating the churches rights to force them to marry a gay couple. Issuing marriage license is not a function of the federal government. It would increase government to make marriage a function of the federal government.
You act like Roe v Wade is in unanimous agreement. It has not decided what life is and frankly to beleive a court can dictate to people what something like life is then you are a tool for government.
People do not have a right to be treated equally in religious institutions only government institutions. This is why Boy Scouts can discriminate against gays. It is not a government institution it is a private one.
"People do not have a right to be treated equally in religious institutions only government institutions. This is why Boy Scouts can discriminate against gays."
The boy scouts are tax-exempt. Hello? Unconstitutional. Like I said. If an institution is government funded or tax-exempt it is obligated to treat all equally.
Tax exemption does not make the church liable to every government bureaucracy just as no other entity is. They should receive no government aide but while they do they are not under government jurisdiction. Otherwise everyone who got subsidies and government aide would be liable to government over sight, including social security checks and welfare recipients. I now the Founder never envisioned a federal government like that and definitely did not make private entities liable to the government.
"Otherwise everyone who got subsidies and government aide would be liable to government over sight, including social security checks and welfare recipients"
No. That is clearly unconstitutional. The governments job is to protect rights, not take away rights. Going into someones private home and telling them how to live their lives is completely different than a public government funded church being told not to descriminate.
A church is not public. A church is owned by clergy or a larger church groups. What you advocate is no different. That is the problem. You seem to draw the line to include some and not others by arbitrary standards. Going into a church and telling them how to observe their religion is no different then going into someone's house and telling them how to pray. You fall into this bleeding heart trap of helping those who are discriminated against but do not worry about discriminating against others.
Government funded churches and groups, such as the boy scouts, cannot descriminate. I can see now why there are almost no minorities left in the republican party. They use the same agument you do.
"You seem to draw the line to include some and not others by arbitrary standards"
Going into someones home and telling them how to pray is unconstitutional because they are on private property. That one's a no brainer.
Churches and the boy scouts are private property, also. A church uses tax exempt status to save money for rent and a poor person receives government money he then spends on rent. You would agree the apartment is private property but the church is not? That seems strange and arbitrary to me.
Tax exemption and marriage are different issues. They are exempt because the government grants exemption to "legitimate" religions. They would pay taxes if the government made them. On the other hand it would be in direct violation of the bible, in Christianity's case, for the government to force them to conduct gay marriage.
Churches, Mosques, Temples, and so on should not be tax exempt. Who decides whether or not the religion is "legitimate?" If a religion has only a few members we call it a cult. If it has a great number we call it a religion. It's nonsense. The government is picking and choosing which religions are legitimate. When their tax exempt status is removed they can do whatever the hell they want.
You are making my point. When ever their is government involvement there is discrimination or injustice. That is why government should not be involved in any social issue, including marriage or abortion. You are making my point. Government should abide by the non-aggression principal and stay out of social issues.
But you understand that banning abortion/gay marriage on the state or federal level is unconstitutional, correct? That is what Gravel stands for. Not letting big brother or little brother take away our freedoms.
On a federal level, yes. I'm not convinced that the federal constitution explicitly protects abortions rights, either. There is a argument of privacy that can be made but also one of "right to life" as a counter. Most state constitutions probably do not explicitly address the issue either. Depending on the wording it could be up to the legislature. In such a case the legislature should be filled with hands-off politicians who will stay out of the issue or debate and persuade others...
Roe v. Wade decided on that one. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 overwhelmingly. The baby is not an individual with rights, for it is part of her body. There are also womans health issues involved. Letting the states ban abortion is an act of aggression by the state.
Roe V Wade is arguably unconstitutional. It is more legislation than judicial decision. In the ruling the judges outline specific limits and situation where abortion may be allowed or prohibited. They should simply acknowledge whether the constitutions allows it and refer the rest to congress. Instead they closed the subject with a overreaching judicial decision that looks like legislation. I do not think abortion is explicitly addressed so, via the 10th, it is a state issue.
You keep citing the 10th and ignoring the 14th now, interestingly enough. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -U.S. Constitution.
If you were to argue that Roe v Wade is unnecessary because banning abortion is already unconstitutional, I would agree with you.
Some cite the 14th to protect the life of the fetus. The issue is for from resolved and the wording is too confusing to claim that is explicitly protects or prohibits abortion. The constitution must make it explicit and it is not explicit regarding abortion. If abortions is murder then the 14th does not apply. That is why the states who think it is murder fight so hard. To them the 14th does not allow one to kill a fetus.
...Gay marriage cannot be banned on a federal level without an amendment and a lot of religious rights are pushing for one. DOMA allows states to disregard marriages from other states. As a result it subverts language relating to bans or abolition. I would rule it unconstitutional because government should not be in the business of assessing relationships but it is up to the judges. Many states do allow for bans on immoral conduct but various ones have been struck down by courts...
But your whole argumentment is that Gravel doesn't not abibe by the non-aggression prinicple because of his pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion stances. It's the federal governments job to enforce the constitution.
The constitution neither explicitly prohibits nor protects abortion or marriage. Therefore the 10th amendment gives the powers to the states. They are not a federal issues as Gravel would make them. He would assign more power to the federal government that was not there before.
How can you cite the 14th amendment earlier in one of our arguments and then say it's ok for states to descriminate against gays and women? The states can't say I'm only giving tax bennefits to one group of people, that is unconstitutional. It's funny because people in favor of Jim Crow laws cited the 10th amendment. It's really despicable when people cherry-pick the constitution like this.
I never said it is okay for state to discriminate I said the federal constitution does not address it and wording in state constitutions may. 14th amendment protects people equally from the government. Government institutions cannot discriminate. That is why the Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, it was government. Marriage is a function of religion. The 14th does not give the federal government authority over churches, and if it did it would be in violation of the 1st amendment.
"Second making gay marriage legal at the federal level would coerce the states into accepting any form of marriage." How many other forms of marriage are there? If you are referring to multiple people getting married, the libertarian thing to do is let them live their lives how they want to.
Exactly but it is not Libertarian to use the government's coercion. I do not have a problem with any marriage but I have a problem with the government telling people what constitutes marriage, which is what it does when it gives out marriage licenses. We have to persuade everyone because a majority only oppresses the minority. Way to disregarde the rest of the statement regarding the non-aggression principal which is the most important part of Libertarianism.
Since marriage bennefits are there, while they are there, it is unfair to say only one group deserves them. You clearly said gay marriage goes against the non-aggression principle, not marriage itself. This is clear descrimination.
No, I said when ever the government issues licenses they are telling us what constitutes a marriage. You take the government out of all marriage and I mean ALL marriage. Please you are beginning to twist my words and you have obviously ignored all of what I said. You instead pick and choose and as a result I'm about done debating you. People can read the comments for themselves and the real Libertarians will now who is right.
"while they are there" is the problem with the emerging left-libertarians. Just because it is there does not mean you should use it. The Libertarian Party is one of principal not expediency. The principal of smaller government at the federal and state level. It just so happens that the constitution gives more power to the states than the federal government.
I never said because government bennefits are there that they should stay there. Now you are twisting my words. All I said is that while they are there they should not be used in discriminatory ways.
Exactly that is the problem. It will always be discriminatory as long as the government has to condone the relationship. You said since it is there everyone should get it. So do you give it to gays? That is fine. What about piligomy? What about inter-family marriage? As long as the government has the say discrimination will always exist. Instead let people enter into voluntary relationships without government intervention.
That's right. I have no right to tell poligimist they are wrong, and I'm right. Same with inter-family marriage. I agree on government bennefits being removed. We are not there yet though. Until we get there, we need not discriminate.
It is a dream to believe if the government allows something that will ever be phased out. Once gay marriage is accepted the next march for another type of marriage will start and no one will ask if government should even be involved. People should use this controversy to point out that government should not be involved but people are content to ignore the issue and grow the federal government.
Quick! Everyone vote for this political pariah who can somehow garner more than the lousy 1% he did in the primaries by exploiting the ballot access that was probably the factor that made him defect to Libertarians instead of the Greens, that or his misunderstanding of the Libertarian Party platform. He is not getting the nomination anyway so real Libertarians need not worry. The party faithful will not suffer his, nor Barr's, hollow defection.
You should try and debate his positions rather than making fun of him. You just look like a complete idiot. Please explain to me what a "real" libertarian is?
Read the party platform. Fair tax, not Libertarian. Universal healthcare, not Libertarian and most importantly he does not accept the non-aggression principal. All are serious problems for someone claiming to be part of the Libertarian Party.
What are you talking about? Gravel most definately accepts the non-aggression principle. As for his positions on universal healthcare, I view healthcare is an individual right. I don't agree with Gravel on the fair tax. Tell me a libertarian candidate who you think outlines the party platform.
Kubby, Smith, Ruwart would all be superior choices. It is obvious that Gravel does not support the non-aggression principal as demonstrated by his stances on abortion and gay marriage. Healthcare is not a right. A right is endowed by one's creator, in other words you are born with the capacity. One is born with the capacity to speak or defend one's self but not with the ability to care for one's health. If anything heath is extremely hard to gain and hardly guaranteed as a right is.
Oh, ok. I get it. You're from the fundamentalist Christian crowd. You personally believe that abortion is a human life, so others who don't view it as a human life have to live by the states fascist rules. Do you really think government (state or federal) should have the right to ban abortion? This will not decrease the number of abortions. There will just be more coat-hanger abortions, putting the mother at risk. I suppose you think they should be locked up for murder right? How libertarian.
I think every woman should have the right to choose. I do not think a fetus is alive until it meets the criterion for life and that does not really happen until birth. I do not think the federal government should coerce the states into anything. Instead the people of the state should be persuaded not forced. Then real freedom is achieved not government created freedom, which is a sham in reality. I do not like any religion either. I'm more a nature worshiper if anything.
That demonstrates further that you nor Gravel really understands the non-aggression principal. No aggression from people or the government EVER! Coercion may seem to fix the problem but it only causes more outrage. Roe v Wade has pitted the country against each other instead of allowing abortion to be accepted by each state gradually. As a result the opposition is even stronger now and decades have been wasted when persuasion could be used to change the people minds.
And if abortion is legalized federally what happens to state laws that create a double homicide if one kills a pregnant woman or if a doctor hurts the fetus? If the fetus is not living until birth then it is harder for the law to protect them from anything. Libertarians may have many different views on abortion but are tied by principal to keep government out of social issues. Some Libertarians violate this and use the government as long as it exists which will never get rid of government.
So I've read everything you said. You are clearly advocating the right of the state over individual rights. You are saying the government should not coerce states into accepting woman's rights/gay rights. Federal judges have every right (in my opinion) to make sure everyone is created equally and has equal opportunity. You believe rights should be left to the states. That does not sound like liberty to me, which is what the libertarian party is all about.
You are an idiot! One gives the power to the states so the people can decide what is best for them. 51% can cause change on a federal level, tramping on the rights of 49%. That is why the republic was created. Federal judges only have the right to rule on constitutional affairs. You seem to have no respect for the constitution or de-centralization of power. Read the platform, not the 2006 version, and you will really now what the Libertarian Party is about.
Calling someone an idiot doesn't really help raise the dialogue.
The states only have the right to descriminate against gays because of DOMA, which is unconstitutional by itself. The Courts ruled that the states could not enforce Jim Crow laws, completely ignoring what the south wanted. So unfair, eh? I believe federal judges should be able to step in on this one.
DOMA should be overturned by the Supreme Court because it violates the federal constitution. Jim Crow laws violated the 14th amendment and were rightfully struck down. Do not make unfounded replies. It makes it seem like you have nothing of substance to say.
The Founders advocated the state over the federal government also. The Libertarian Party was founded on the principals of the Democratic-Republican party, the party of Jefferson. Small limited government, de-centralized power was at the center of that party and this party. I have been a Libertarian since 8th grade and libertarian for longer. Do not tell me what the party is about when you obviously do not know.
Is it liberty for the federal government to tell you you have to carry out a wedding your religion condemns as immoral? Is it liberty for a doctor to be forced to carry out a procedure that he regards as murder? There are more people in this country than you and believe it or not some may agree with you while other do not at all. I agree that abortion and any marriage should be acceptable but the government cannot force others to accept what they find immoral. Then you are as bad as they are.
I'm not sure how you are connecting gay marriage to the non-aggression policy, so after you clarify, I would be glad to respond.
On healthcare, we can agree to disagree. Good health is something every american should have the right to. I don't view good health as being a reward for making money. There are many people of color who have a hard time making good wages in racist America.
America is racist? Give me a break, parts are but the majority is not, evidenced by Obama's success. Second making gay marriage legal at the federal level would coerce the states into accepting any form of marriage. This is a violation of the non-aggression principal. Government should not any marriage license because that implies the government can tell you who to marry or not to marry. A health does not fit the definition of a right so whether it should be a right is moot, it is not...
"America is racist? Give me a break." 20% of democrats ADMIT that race played a factor in their vote. Most who vote republican are racist, which can be reflected in what their presidential candidates looked like. The war on drugs is CLEARLY racist and doesn't look like it is going anay anytime soon. Since 1868 only 121 blacks have served in the U.S. Congress, and far less hispanics and asians.
Talk about speculation. Most people who vote republican are racist. What kind of bias statement is that!? Democrats where the segregationist. Eisenhower did a lot for de-segregation while Kennedy got elected courting segregationist. I'm tired of people using race as an excuse. I was at one time and the drug war is a institutionalization of that old racism. If it is or not get over it and move on. People thought i was a columbine type in high school but you do not see me bitching.
"Democrats where the segregationist. Eisenhower did a lot for de-segregation while Kennedy got elected courting segregationist."
The majority of Democrats also lived in the south and owned slaves, if you would like to go back to the dark ages. The parties have evolved dramatically. So you can't really compare modern democrats to those old and dead bastards. By te way, I think a large chunk of democrats are racist as well as I mentioned. LETS GET BACK TO THE PRESENT.
I agree but throwing accusations of racism, that are suspect, as support for an argument is not sound logic or good debate. That was my biggest problem with your statement of racism. Also, I do not think it is fair to judge the majority of the people by a poll or preconceived notions. That really is not fair. But it does not impact this debate, you are right.
...Regardless universal healthcare will create rising cost, as accessibility decreases, and falling quality, as the market stagnates with no competition. Universal healthcare makes expensive and poor quality healthcare for all. If you think people should have healthcare donate to a charity but do not coerce others with government power.
That must be why America is rated number thirty-seven by the World Health Organization and "socialized" France is rated number one. 18,000 people die in the US every year because they do not have healthcare. By the way, I do donate to charity, thank you very much.
I have heard that stat and have yet to have it explained to me. What are the criteria? How is a number applied to qualitative observations? Anyone who has taken a stats class knows how stats can be twisted or framed to get the result an examiner wants. When someone explains the stat maybe I will take it to mean something.
It is good that you donate to charity know you have to stop advocating everyone else be forced to donate which is what entitlement programs amount to, forced charity which takes money away from those who may need the charity(ie those just above the poverty line).
"I think it's a terrible signal to our young people about who black people are to have us constantly wrapped in the cloak of victimhood, and to have black leadership that in a knee-jerk fashion defends negative, dysfunctional behavior,". -Juan Williams. It is a perception of racism that dogs this country.
first: the most obvious point, which one is actually in the Libertarian party Mike (yes) Ron (no) open borders Mike (yes) Ron (no) legalize abortion Mike (yes) Ron (no) end the war on drugs Mike (yes) Ron (yes) end the IRS Mike (yes) Ron (yes) gambling Mike (yes) Ron (yes) prostitution Mike (yes) Ron (no answer) take the authority out of government mike (yes) ron (no) those are the facts...
I don't buy that Ron Paul is more libertarian than Gravel. Libertarian stands for liberty. Ron Paul is not for a womans right to make decisions about her own body, and he also thinks states should be able to ban gay marriage/civil unions/adoptions. Gravel will make sure the federal and state government will not infringe on our rights.
STATES RIGHTS is the only way to take back power from the tyrannical federal government: Mike...please lead the American people to invade their local governments and take back our power.
I don't know why you trust state government. Jim Crow laws were braught forward by the states not the federal government. Anti-gay laws were braught about by the states, and not the federal government. Slavery was allowed in certain states because of states rights. States Rights is not what libertarias should be for.
The fact that you think 'Jim Crow laws' could come 'back' exemplifies your arrogant elitism and ignorance about the contemporary south.
Belief that southern states getting the right to vote on important issues is dangerous extremely anti-libertarian.
Racism is based on collectivism, libertarianism is about individualism. Believing in states rights and legal equality of the races are not mutally exclusive.
I never said anything about not trusting the south. I don't trust most of the north on civil rights issues either. I also didn't say that I thought Jim Crow laws would come back. You are just putting words in my mouth. I was simply comparing Jim Crow laws to the anti gay laws being put forward. Only one state allows gay marriage and that is MA, which shows the danger of States Rights.
Once Libertarian principles are established, voting on what people can or can't do in the privacy of their own home will never be on the ballot, therefore the "right" of a state to ban activities will no longer be debatable at the government level. Libertarians correctly believe the rights of the individual trump the "rights" of the State, and said State should also be free from federal intervention. "Jim Crow" laws, etc. only came about due to the State believing it was over its citizens.
"Once Libertarian principles are established, voting on what people can or can't do in the privacy of their own home will never be on the ballot" - Thanks for the prediction lady cleo. Ron Paul libertarians do not believe that individual rights trump states rights as Ronny states quite clearly. So you're argument doesn't really hold up.
Remember it was the goverment, not people or businesses, who enacted segregationist laws. A modern day example would be immigration. Just look how laws have created such angst against those who seek a better life for themselves. These laws whip people into a frenzy against the law-breaker.
Under Libertarian principles, people of any race or nationality are free to do as they wish, as long as they are self-sustaining and do not infringe on the rights of others.
man you really kicked them in the ass. one brave ass mother fucker
oldhacks 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here come the LP lies again - implying that polls say I am winning.
A desparate party that failed to land a much more qualified Ron Paul.
Libertarians - Republicans without morals, so desparate to keep their name alive, they brought in marxism. Just rename your party the Marxist party. Our Constitution's preamble must disgust a libertarian.
Conclusion: the only true libertarians are Republicans. Proactive in taking out Saddam, mid-east's Hitler, before he became a powerful Hitler.
MoBushin04 3 years ago
Hearing gravel blather on in favor of socialized medicine and an empowered EPA environmentalist gestapo like some kind of aging marxist douchebag, I have come to conclude that gravel isn't his last name, it's what's between his ears. I'm voting for Root in Denver, and contributing $20 bucks to him online right now, to make sure he beats this loser, and the Republican infiltrator (Barr) as well. We need a real libertarian on the ballot on Nov 4, 2008! ROOT FOR AMERICA!!!!
libertarianjury 3 years ago
aha Root didn't get it asshole
mrpenguindude 3 years ago
Go Mike GO!!!
NatureLegalized 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
non economic libertarianism + economic libertarianism = true libertarianism
non economic faschism + economic libertarianism = conservatism
non economic libertarianism + economic faschism = socialism
non economic faschism + economic faschism = stalinism (aka psykoism)
MIKE GRAVEL is NOT a true libertarian - he is a socialist. If the LP elect him as candidate they might as well also have elected George W Bush.
Stay true to libertarianism - reject the impostor Mike Gravel.
donhoody 3 years ago
True libertarianism is anarchism, everything else is a varying degree of statism, but Gravel is especially statist. Rothbard's probably rolling over in his grave with such an imposter even considering the candidacy of LP nominee, but the LP is/was a failure anyways.
Agora. Anarchy. Action.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
And Proudhon's rolling his grave at Rothbard's idea of property rights and stealing the word "libertarianism".
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
Dejacque coined the term not Proudhon. In fact Dejacque used it to criticize Proudhon for his support for ownership of the product of labor and an economy based on the market.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
I know.. I mentioned that in our other conversation, along with the criticism by Dejacque. Both of them were anarchists
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
You want to repeal the civil rights act, let the corporations take over America, and let the military become privitized. What you are advocating is fascism. You know that right?
You're right. Mike Gravel is definately not your candidate. I put my trust in the people I elect and the constitution not in corporations.
I agree with the hate-crimes legislation though. Every crime against someone is hate crime.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
I really know your are not a Libertarian. The party wants to repeal civil rights legislation and hate crimes, not just me. The party wants complete privatization of services not just me. Read the 2004 platform and you will realize that not only is Gravel not my candidate he is not a Libertarian Party candidate, which was my whole point from the start.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
You classical liberals love stealing words, don't you. Liberterianism has always been about anarchism and socialism, until the classical liberals stole the word. Same goes for anarchism. Here's some news for you.. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. But you guys had to steal the word "Anarchism" as well. It's pathetic
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
Classical libertarianism and capitalism have always been compatible with some type of libertarianism. Left-libertarianism is the socialist right-libertarianism is more capitalist. If you look at Agorism is is considered left by some and right by others but is centered on capitalistic markets. Do not buy into Noam Chomsky small-minded assumption that a society driven by personal interest has no room for mutualism. It is a flawed assumption...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Chomsky.. maybe it is you that is making the assumptions. Look up Joseph Dejacque, he's the one that coined the word and he was an anarcho-communist. Nobody said anything about Chomsky, so stop making assumptions. I'm talking about where the word came from and what it originally meant. Classical liberals completely butchered the word Libertarianism and what it really meant
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
"personal property, property in land, buildings, workshops, shops, property in anything that is an instrument of work, production or consumption." is what he wanted right? You can have that with capitalism and communism. The right is valid extension of personal property rights taking Dejacque's idea of personal property to an even greater extreme.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The difference being that Dejacque and other lefts ascribe to his idea that "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature" while rights believe that it is the product of labor that satisfy that need. The two schools of thought are not far from each other.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
No, those on the right ascribe to what I mentioned in that scenario. They can buy property, not labour on it but profit from the labour of others. They don't even believe the workers have the right to the product of their labour. Does a factory worker have the right to the product of his labour in an anarcho-capitalist society? NO.
"right to product of labour" is a leftist view and it goes against the exploitive nature of capitalism
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
The product f a workers labor is not the product nut the wage. A factory worker works all day not for a car but for money to then obtain what is needed. I would rather be guaranteed that wage as a trade for my product than the product of my specific labor. Regardless that trade makes the wage a product of his labor.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
That's not the rights to product of his labour. The factory worker has no rights the product of his labour in a capitalist society.
Product of labour = thing he helped create from his labour.
How anaracho-capitalism is an oxymoron. To allow individuals to own land that they do not live on or labour own is a form of statism. Right now the state owns the territory called the US and it's tenants (US citizens) pay rent. You get the same thing in anarcho capitalism.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
The simple idea of allowing individuals to own land where others would labour on whil the capitalist profits off of their labour is statism. The capitalist (state) determines your salary (you can always quit/migrate) but unless you can create your own state, you'll always be a slave to the private states.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
The market determines your wage unless trust or monopolies do. If a owner pays to little other pay more. If an owner pays to much the business is hurt and wages have to go down to sustainable level. The owner is a slave to a market as well.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Libertarianism is not the lack of personal property, that is communism, but the freedom to acquire what you want with respect to others. Déjacque believed this was achieved through communism other argue capitalism yields this.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
You're getting Dejacque all wrong.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
He believed people should be entitled to having what you need. Libertarianism is being able get what one needs. Dejacque thought shared ownership of everything, communism, yields this and it is very easy to see how. Capitalist see capitalism as a way to get what one needs freely but without the assumption one is entitled to it. The freedom not assumption of ownership has become to be the crux of libertarianism. The shared ownership is derived from an already existing economic system, communism.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
first of all, communism is NOT an ecomonic system. Secondly, capitalism does not ensure one has rights to what they need. Someone who doesn't have a lot of capital can only try to get what they need by selling their labour at a substantially lower rate to the capitalist. The workers are dependent on these private states owned by the capitalists. Their only options are to migrate from one private state to another in hopes of better compensation for their labour.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
What if I believe I am being short changed by my community. What if I feel like I need more food than I am alloted. I have no recourse but to move to another community in hopes of getting more. At least capitalism allows one to possibly gain more without moving.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
And what if you're being short changed by your employer and feel like you need more money to buy food than what you are alloted. You have no recourse but to TRY and get hired by another company. You can always help out the farmers if food production is low in an anarchist society since everything would be worker-run and property is legitimate as long as you're labouring on it. Key difference, you have a choice, in capitalism.. the capitalists choose.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
Who decides what is short changed? Who decides who is to suffer from re-distribution? These questions answered no doubt by councils or some democratic body. Fine, but how long do you help? With capitalism the rise in food prices would create incentive to move into the farming sector due to rising wages. As more farming creates more supply then prices fall. Then jobs move out of farming and the cycle repeats without artificial stimulation. It does require a educated or skilled population, though.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
And in an anarchist society, the low production of food would create an incentive to move into the farming sector due to -- low production of food. As more farming creates mor supply, then people move out of farming and the cycle repeats. Here's the difference.. the capitalist is making huge profits at the expense of the food crisis.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
The worker is payed higher wages. Workers and owners in related industries make more money. Capitalism is communal because everyone does better when some do better. The profits one gets is not against anarchy. It does not enforce submission or dominance. The worker and owners still cannot exist without each other. Money is not the measure of worth in a capitalistic society but individual ability. One with more money is not better but greedier. One with more work ethic is better...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
..The concentration of wealth seen is a result of Mercantilism not the Laissz-faire philosophy that are needed for free markets. Instead of hording money as if there is little left they should re-invest the money into business charity, and the community assured that the market will bring more money and corporate power would be dismantled by private interest. The concentrated wealth would not be as much of a problem.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
It is not like greed and discontent will go away because people share. With capitalism everyone is limited by what the can get by the same factors, how much money that can gain. Communism the limit is set by the community. This is more arbitrary but more forgiving which is why charity is a important component of capitalism. Every capitalist is free to share his or her wealth.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
And for your information.. Dejacque was criticizing Proudhon in that wiki article.. an anarchist, but also an anti-capitalist, hence "Property is Theft!"
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
Assuming you read that from wikipedia, you forgot the part before that where he said "he sought to abolosh "personal property, property in land, buildings, workshops, shops, property in anything that is an instrument of work, production or consumption"
Let me give you a scenario. Man with a lot of money can buy property, get workers to labour on this property and he profits from their labour. In capitalism that is accepted, in anarchism, libertarianism, etc.. it's not.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
He profits from selling a product not the labor. He trades money for labor at an even rate. The product is then sold at an even rate. It just so happen that something made has a lower value than an already made product. The sum profit is how a different laborer gerts what he needs. Like a grocer when spent on food or a banker when the money is put in the bank...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Right.. the capitalist sells the product of the workers labour. That's called exploitation. The worker has no right to the product of his labour, the capitalist does. Therefore the capitalist gets the worker to produce a product at a cheaper labour, takes his product and sells it at it's market value, reaping the profits.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
And to further the anarcho-capitalism = oxymoron statement. I'll quote Iain MacSaorsa
Therefore, far from being anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalism are just capitalists who desire to see private states develop, states which are strictly accountable to their pay masters without even the sham of democracy we have today. Therefore, a far better name for "anarcho"-capitalism would be "private state" capitalism, at least that way you get a fairer idea of what they are trying to sell you."
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
I still do not understand to state claim. You act as if the owners work to together to create some homogeneous world. That is a trust and not true free capitalism. Free capitalism has different people in charge of different resources. In communism people share this responsibility. In capitalism one looks after the resource, using it for production or maintaining maintenance, and others use money as a trade for abdicating responsibility...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
I suggest you read Proudhon's "Property is Theft!" then.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
Err, read "What is Property?" by Proudhon.. to which he replies "Property is Theft!".
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
The extra money paid is to cover the organizational costs. The time and labor used to put together and maintain a business. You would agree the owner is entitled to something for his labor. Owning a business is not hands off or easy.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Really, and who decides how much should go to cover the organizational costs? The capitalist.. the owners. Guess how much they pay themselves. The workers have no control over the product of their labour, their wage is set by the owners and the owners set their own wages too... usually substantially higher. Just look at the income gap between factory workers and factory owners.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
The market decides. The trade price - cost of labor = managerial cost. The factories make lots more as a result of trusts. All of the businesses set wages too low or prices too high. In such a case workers or consumers should demand a fair deal because that is not a a free market. It is a trust born of corruption that communist and socialist are not immune to.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The market may suggest a price, but it doesn't decide. This is why you have different salary rates for people working in the same trade. Furthermore, when the company the workers work for makes enormous profits, the workers have no say on how those profits should be distributed.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
That is part of the contract. One agrees they have no say over profit because they understand their labor yield wages not a product. The profit is the wage that the owner is payed not the worker. Different salary rates are part of finding the market price. People do not know the price so some pay more and others pay less and where the salaries finally fall are the market price, often a range not an exact number.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
But it's an unfair contract because the worker does not have the same bargaining power as the owner. Do you think workers making $2 a day, 6 days a week doing extremely hard labour went into that contract under fair circumstances? See, anarchism = no rulers and no hierarchy. In capitalism, hierarchy exists and those at the top have more bargaining power, therefore the contract is made under unfair circumstances
SuperJesus316 3 years ago 3
What do you think unions are for? Labor has to organize to negotiate. It is stupid to let yourself get ripped off. Everyone has the right to assemble and negotiate like business people. If the labor pool dries up the owners are as screwed as the workers. Owners are as dependent on workers as workers are on owners.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Unions? You mean what Mises calls "destructionism"? It's very rare to see a classical liberal consider unions to be a good thing.
To quote Mises: "The labor unions are deadly foes of every new machine"
In fact, classical liberals argue continuously how unions are bad for workers and now you're going to tell me that they're a good thing for the workers? Which side are you arguing for again?
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
I'm arguing classical liberalism is related to libertarianism. The Libertarian Party nor all right-libertarians denounce unions. Classical liberals might not necessarily be Libertarians and Libertarians might not be classic liberals. You made that assumption not me.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Right libertarianism is an amalgam of different philosophies extending into ideas related to classic libertarianism, or left libertarianism, classic liberalism and other assorted system of philosophy like agorism or even gregorism to some extent. That is what I am arguing.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The money payed for labor is the product of that single worker's labor. The car is a result of all the worker's labor. In a communist society the workers share the cars created by all their labor. In a capitalist society money is used to stand in for labor on the rest of the car. The person makes an engine and then uses money to represent making the rest in capitalism while the combined work a team of 50 people do to make 50 cars is seen as equivalent to one person making a whole car.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The money paid for labour is NOT the product of that workers labour. That's like saying a slave given food by his master is the product of his slave work.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
No because money has no value, food does. Money stands in as a resource, that is where the value comes from. I can take the money paid to me to buy the very thing I built or not. If you really owned what you produced people would own things like medical education but will not have a car. One may make a car door but that is no good alone. It is not that everyone is entitled to what they make but what everyone makes. I do not want the product of my labor as a waiter, I want food.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The worry that left-libertarians have of force being used in the form of ownership neglect that one can extend the same control with money or labor. Capitalism is voluntary, if wages are bad or products bad one can retreat and farm to provide for themselves. People can use boycotts and other pressures as well. Instead of a society that enjoys personal freedom because no one has the ability to use force freedom is achieved because everyone can use force but does not. Arguably a freer society.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"Capitalism is voluntary, if wages are bad or products bad one can retreat and farm to provide for themselves."
This assumes that the person has the capital to buy property to farm. A rather poor assumption, go to any third world country and see if anyone there has the "freedom" to choose where they want to work. That freedom is nothing but an illusion. It only exists for those with capital and property.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
Libertarianism is respecting the freedoms of another with is the definition of classical libertarianism. Modern liberalism id very different. Anarchism is with out hierarchy and authority. Capitalism allows free movement through class and status. As a result everyone can be rich or poor so no one is special for being one or the other. The flaw is with modern America practices capitalistic fascism, corporatism, where the government props up business so business will scratch politicians back...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Oh.. and there is no "left libertarianism" and "right libertarianism".. there just is libertarianism and the classical liberal's bastardization of libertarianism.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
It creates a system where those who already posses power or protected and those who might gain power are discouraged due to the threat to the status quo. I would argue is is harder to have a socialist anarchism due to the third party, state or workers group, to redistribute.(Note: Socialism does not included communism.)
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
And explain to me how privatization is fascism. Taking note that corporation exist thanks to government intervention, government subsidies create markets that do not need competition and government regulation and taxation often drives small business out(something I'm very familiar with).
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Privatization is fascism. You're simply in favour of private states vs publically run states (I know we don't have the latter, but that's the theory anyway). Someone like Bill Gates can easily buy enough land to create his own private state, and many others with enormous wealth can do the same.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
Yes but if some can compete with Gates he will be forced to sell some land because a competitor that a great profit he makes. If the market is free, not like today, competition can break up monopolies. At the moment it is true that many people have lots of money but that is a result of government subsidizes not competition. Wealth could be less concentrated than it is now. Privatization does create fascism when tied with government. Their has to be no government for a true market to exist...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
A free market cannot have fascism because competition will always exist and diversity will as a result.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The very definition of a state is that it is non-voluntary. In a free market it would be called a private defense agency.
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
If one is allowed to own many acres of land, do whatever he wants with that land (ie: build apartments, a transportation system, etc), and set laws on that land.. then this so called free-market system in the capitalist sense is not anarchism but private state capitalism. You can leave the land-owner's land just like you can leave the US.. only in that sense is it voluntary. But it's a private state nonetheless.
SuperJesus316 3 years ago
A person only owns that which he transforms and in doing so injects himself into that thing. One man cannot own many acres of land unless he works it. He cannot simply make a mercantile claim to all the land and have it. By the way freedom is not defined by what one can do, that is power, but by what one can think and do within his power. A state is an arbitrary barrier to freedom while property is a natural right that inhibits power.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"There is no need for a period where everyone gets them, just get rid of them."
You were advocating for the state to be able to ban gay marriage before. I'm glad you came around.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
You do not get it. I was pointing out that the state could ban it not that they should. Just because I defend the laws as written instead of advocate for government to change those laws does not mean I support them. No it means I can look at the situation without biasing it with my opinion. MY opinion is that benefits need to be gotten rid of but at the same time realize that state wording allows in may cases for the banning of "immoral behavior".
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"The ultimate goal is a society without government."
All schools become private (allowing them to reject minorities), the military becomes private (disasterous as proven by Blackwater), hospitals become private (allowing them to reject minorities), and god knows how policemen and firemen get payed. America would turn into a corporate state, also known as fascism.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
No, you do not seem to understand that part of freedom is being able to do something wrong and not doing it. Schools can be able to discriminate but will CHOOSE not to. That is the importance. They will be persuaded by logic not to discriminate on superficial reasons or at least see customers take their money elsewhere and the market will take care of the problem. Corporations have always been tied to government. Look at what we have now. Only when the government is removed will it get better...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"Schools can be able to discriminate but will CHOOSE not to."
You must not know what it's like to be a minority in america then. Everyone is descrinimated against. All it takes is a little brainwasing to get americans to do bad things. Such as what churches have been doing for thousands of years.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Exactly why education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army. If everyone is discriminated against how much more government do you want to protect everyone? I'm not concerned with what America is like now but working toward an America that does not need government legislating morality. You see discrimination and assume the constitution protect civil liberties when it really is Civil Rights legislation that the federal government derives that power form not the 14 amendment.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
You are a liberal and so is Gravel. There is no need to be embarrassed. The problem comes from the fact that the I, nor the party, will not suffer a liberal. Phillies is having a hard enough time with his views, Gravel does not have a chance to slip into the Libertarian Party undetected. I think you joined this party without much research or we would not have had as much discussion regarding Party philosophy.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Well...whites are becoming a minority. Anyways, race should be viewed through a lens of institutionalization. It is rare to be declined seating in a restaurant on race. Denny's has been boycotted and harassed. With this pressure it went beyond what the courts forced it to do. It was not government intervention but public and financial pressure that changed the institution. It would be rare, not unheard of, to fall victim to a single racist individual. Even racists in the South were not singular.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
As far as military contractors goes. If I hire Blackwater I would fire them if they behaved as they have. It is the government's callousness that has lead to a careless military in general. Now, Mr.Bush seizes power of the country with the military and there are no military contractors. What can I do but organize into guerrilla units and hope to survive...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
On the other hand, if the state is unarmed and must use a military contractor and tries to seize power then the population can hire a different contracting company to fight back. A national military lacks that kind of redundancy.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Hospitals are already private. Free Clinics are the only government run health service centers. Hospitals do not even get subsidies from the government just mandates to treat people for free putting them out of business.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The reasons these private organizations cannot discriminate is because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Not only were public institutions subject anti-discrimination oversight but so were businesses. Owners could be sued if it was perceived that he or she discriminated in hiring. This creates "thought crimes" which end up getting you prosecuted not for an action but a perceived thought...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
...It also legislated morality in it disallowed owners to reject applicants they thought immoral, in some cases based on sexual orientation but other based on criminal records or other valid reasons. It essentially dictated what a moral person was and created an umbrella for a lot of people to hide under in the name of helping a those who really needed it...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
...To legally shield themselves owners set quotas that prove they were not racist. This results in more qualified applicants getting edged out by a person who fit a quota not already filled. Same reason Libertarians want open borders. And if you check the 2004 platform it calls for a repeal of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all other hate crimes, civil rights legislation. I know Gravel wants to expand hate crimes which is also not Libertarian.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"Marriage is an extension of religion. The state cannot tell a religion what it can do or not do."
False. Marriage has been with us far longer than religion. It's a term simply to define a unity between two people in love. The fundamentalist right likes to act like religion owns marriage. Please.
You're acting like our previous conversation never occurred. Churches cannot refuse to wed gays while being government funded.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Marriage is used to define a unity that comes through ceremony. It is true that homo-sapiens have been largely monogamous as a way to care and ensure survival of offspring but the ceremony has always been tied to some religious belief whether it be Christian or Pagan or Sumerian. Marriage and Love are concepts developed in society long after monogamy was common place in hominid species.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. Our form of marriage is governmental because we provide bennfits. It used to be only religious, but not anymore. I can't believe you think it is ok for government funded churches to descriminate. So you must belive that the the states have the right to ban interracial marriages as well?
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Yes, the states have the right to keep government benefits from those they believe to be involved in immoral behavior. I did not write the states' constitutions. Marriage is not protected by the federal Constitution so it is possible, not okay, to ban it at a state level. You have to convince people it is not immoral. That is the goal not government intervention in the other direction. I'm sorry it was written like that.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
It's absolutely amazing how people like you believe that any government funded institution are allowed to descriminate. Schools, hostpitals, Churches, and so on. I think you need to re-read the constitution. The mojorty of libertarians agree with me on this one. Once an institution is funded by the government it is no longer private. The descrimination from the church becomes descrimination on behalf of the government. Marriage inolves government bennefits.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Public schools cannot discriminate because they are government run. But that is why the government should get out of marriage and out of giving tax exempt status. That is the solution not the opposite, government oversight of all marriage, because the opposite requires government aggression. It is very simple. The ultimate goal is a society without government, not one where government grants you all your rights...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"But that is why the government should get out of marriage and out of giving tax exempt status"
OK! We already agreed on that one. The bennefits are there so you should agree that while they are there the government should not practice preferential treatment. When they are gone the bigoted churches and boy scouts can do whatever they want.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
There should be no transition. The first chance benefits should be repealed for being unconstitutional. There is no need for a period where everyone gets them, just get rid of them. While they are their yes I think they should not discriminate but I do believe the way the constitutions are written they can. But benefits should be removed immediately at federal levels by a president or caucus of congresspeople and in state legislatures at the same time by similar minded politicians.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
...You run to the government and ask them to legitimize you interests. Why not remove the government to freely pursue your interests? That is the difference between modern liberalism, Democrat or Green, and classic liberalism, Libertarianism. Gravel is a modern liberal and you seem to be as well. The Greens have the universal single-payer healthcare plan, a monthly guaranteed income and they advocate federal intervention in social issues. Now doesn't that sound better for you.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
I don't run to the government to legitimaize my interests. I ask my government to enforce the constitution and equal rights for all. You want to get rid of government so America can be run by corporations and private companies. Trust me, corporatism/fascism is not pretty. Again, this is why there are no minorities in the republican party.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
The government gave the rights of a person to corporations and mandated that they must seek profit for shareholders above all else. The corporation as we now it is a result of government interference. Before they were short term associations to complete complex building that required many craftsman, like bridges, by contract for a lesser price that contracting the different workers individually, usually for the government. See how corporations and government really go hand in hand.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"They are not a federal issues as Gravel would make them. He would assign more power to the federal government that was not there before."
Civil rights issues are federal issues. It's the federal governments job to ensure its citizens are being created equally under the law.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Abortion rights have nothing to do with equality. People of all races can get or not get abortions. That questions relates to what life is. Marriage is an extension of religion. The state cannot tell a religion what it can do or not do, 1st amendment. As a result it is violating the churches rights to force them to marry a gay couple. Issuing marriage license is not a function of the federal government. It would increase government to make marriage a function of the federal government.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"Abortion rights have nothing to do with equality. People of all races can get or not get abortions"
Obviously. It has to do with womens rights and womens health.
"That questions relates to what life is"
Roe v Wade dictated what a life is already.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
You act like Roe v Wade is in unanimous agreement. It has not decided what life is and frankly to beleive a court can dictate to people what something like life is then you are a tool for government.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
People do not have a right to be treated equally in religious institutions only government institutions. This is why Boy Scouts can discriminate against gays. It is not a government institution it is a private one.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"People do not have a right to be treated equally in religious institutions only government institutions. This is why Boy Scouts can discriminate against gays."
The boy scouts are tax-exempt. Hello? Unconstitutional. Like I said. If an institution is government funded or tax-exempt it is obligated to treat all equally.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Tax exemption does not make the church liable to every government bureaucracy just as no other entity is. They should receive no government aide but while they do they are not under government jurisdiction. Otherwise everyone who got subsidies and government aide would be liable to government over sight, including social security checks and welfare recipients. I now the Founder never envisioned a federal government like that and definitely did not make private entities liable to the government.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"Otherwise everyone who got subsidies and government aide would be liable to government over sight, including social security checks and welfare recipients"
No. That is clearly unconstitutional. The governments job is to protect rights, not take away rights. Going into someones private home and telling them how to live their lives is completely different than a public government funded church being told not to descriminate.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
A church is not public. A church is owned by clergy or a larger church groups. What you advocate is no different. That is the problem. You seem to draw the line to include some and not others by arbitrary standards. Going into a church and telling them how to observe their religion is no different then going into someone's house and telling them how to pray. You fall into this bleeding heart trap of helping those who are discriminated against but do not worry about discriminating against others.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Government funded churches and groups, such as the boy scouts, cannot descriminate. I can see now why there are almost no minorities left in the republican party. They use the same agument you do.
"You seem to draw the line to include some and not others by arbitrary standards"
Going into someones home and telling them how to pray is unconstitutional because they are on private property. That one's a no brainer.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Churches and the boy scouts are private property, also. A church uses tax exempt status to save money for rent and a poor person receives government money he then spends on rent. You would agree the apartment is private property but the church is not? That seems strange and arbitrary to me.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"Is it liberty for the federal government to tell you you have to carry out a wedding your religion condemns as immoral?"
Not when your church doesn't pay property taxes.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Tax exemption and marriage are different issues. They are exempt because the government grants exemption to "legitimate" religions. They would pay taxes if the government made them. On the other hand it would be in direct violation of the bible, in Christianity's case, for the government to force them to conduct gay marriage.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Churches, Mosques, Temples, and so on should not be tax exempt. Who decides whether or not the religion is "legitimate?" If a religion has only a few members we call it a cult. If it has a great number we call it a religion. It's nonsense. The government is picking and choosing which religions are legitimate. When their tax exempt status is removed they can do whatever the hell they want.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
You are making my point. When ever their is government involvement there is discrimination or injustice. That is why government should not be involved in any social issue, including marriage or abortion. You are making my point. Government should abide by the non-aggression principal and stay out of social issues.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
But you understand that banning abortion/gay marriage on the state or federal level is unconstitutional, correct? That is what Gravel stands for. Not letting big brother or little brother take away our freedoms.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
On a federal level, yes. I'm not convinced that the federal constitution explicitly protects abortions rights, either. There is a argument of privacy that can be made but also one of "right to life" as a counter. Most state constitutions probably do not explicitly address the issue either. Depending on the wording it could be up to the legislature. In such a case the legislature should be filled with hands-off politicians who will stay out of the issue or debate and persuade others...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Roe v. Wade decided on that one. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 overwhelmingly. The baby is not an individual with rights, for it is part of her body. There are also womans health issues involved. Letting the states ban abortion is an act of aggression by the state.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Roe V Wade is arguably unconstitutional. It is more legislation than judicial decision. In the ruling the judges outline specific limits and situation where abortion may be allowed or prohibited. They should simply acknowledge whether the constitutions allows it and refer the rest to congress. Instead they closed the subject with a overreaching judicial decision that looks like legislation. I do not think abortion is explicitly addressed so, via the 10th, it is a state issue.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
You keep citing the 10th and ignoring the 14th now, interestingly enough. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -U.S. Constitution.
If you were to argue that Roe v Wade is unnecessary because banning abortion is already unconstitutional, I would agree with you.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Some cite the 14th to protect the life of the fetus. The issue is for from resolved and the wording is too confusing to claim that is explicitly protects or prohibits abortion. The constitution must make it explicit and it is not explicit regarding abortion. If abortions is murder then the 14th does not apply. That is why the states who think it is murder fight so hard. To them the 14th does not allow one to kill a fetus.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
...Gay marriage cannot be banned on a federal level without an amendment and a lot of religious rights are pushing for one. DOMA allows states to disregard marriages from other states. As a result it subverts language relating to bans or abolition. I would rule it unconstitutional because government should not be in the business of assessing relationships but it is up to the judges. Many states do allow for bans on immoral conduct but various ones have been struck down by courts...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
But your whole argumentment is that Gravel doesn't not abibe by the non-aggression prinicple because of his pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion stances. It's the federal governments job to enforce the constitution.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
The constitution neither explicitly prohibits nor protects abortion or marriage. Therefore the 10th amendment gives the powers to the states. They are not a federal issues as Gravel would make them. He would assign more power to the federal government that was not there before.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
How can you cite the 14th amendment earlier in one of our arguments and then say it's ok for states to descriminate against gays and women? The states can't say I'm only giving tax bennefits to one group of people, that is unconstitutional. It's funny because people in favor of Jim Crow laws cited the 10th amendment. It's really despicable when people cherry-pick the constitution like this.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
I never said it is okay for state to discriminate I said the federal constitution does not address it and wording in state constitutions may. 14th amendment protects people equally from the government. Government institutions cannot discriminate. That is why the Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, it was government. Marriage is a function of religion. The 14th does not give the federal government authority over churches, and if it did it would be in violation of the 1st amendment.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
..and it is another case of needing the legislature to lean hands-off on the issue.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"Second making gay marriage legal at the federal level would coerce the states into accepting any form of marriage." How many other forms of marriage are there? If you are referring to multiple people getting married, the libertarian thing to do is let them live their lives how they want to.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Exactly but it is not Libertarian to use the government's coercion. I do not have a problem with any marriage but I have a problem with the government telling people what constitutes marriage, which is what it does when it gives out marriage licenses. We have to persuade everyone because a majority only oppresses the minority. Way to disregarde the rest of the statement regarding the non-aggression principal which is the most important part of Libertarianism.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Since marriage bennefits are there, while they are there, it is unfair to say only one group deserves them. You clearly said gay marriage goes against the non-aggression principle, not marriage itself. This is clear descrimination.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
No, I said when ever the government issues licenses they are telling us what constitutes a marriage. You take the government out of all marriage and I mean ALL marriage. Please you are beginning to twist my words and you have obviously ignored all of what I said. You instead pick and choose and as a result I'm about done debating you. People can read the comments for themselves and the real Libertarians will now who is right.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"while they are there" is the problem with the emerging left-libertarians. Just because it is there does not mean you should use it. The Libertarian Party is one of principal not expediency. The principal of smaller government at the federal and state level. It just so happens that the constitution gives more power to the states than the federal government.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
I never said because government bennefits are there that they should stay there. Now you are twisting my words. All I said is that while they are there they should not be used in discriminatory ways.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Exactly that is the problem. It will always be discriminatory as long as the government has to condone the relationship. You said since it is there everyone should get it. So do you give it to gays? That is fine. What about piligomy? What about inter-family marriage? As long as the government has the say discrimination will always exist. Instead let people enter into voluntary relationships without government intervention.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
That's right. I have no right to tell poligimist they are wrong, and I'm right. Same with inter-family marriage. I agree on government bennefits being removed. We are not there yet though. Until we get there, we need not discriminate.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
It is a dream to believe if the government allows something that will ever be phased out. Once gay marriage is accepted the next march for another type of marriage will start and no one will ask if government should even be involved. People should use this controversy to point out that government should not be involved but people are content to ignore the issue and grow the federal government.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Quick! Everyone vote for this political pariah who can somehow garner more than the lousy 1% he did in the primaries by exploiting the ballot access that was probably the factor that made him defect to Libertarians instead of the Greens, that or his misunderstanding of the Libertarian Party platform. He is not getting the nomination anyway so real Libertarians need not worry. The party faithful will not suffer his, nor Barr's, hollow defection.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
You should try and debate his positions rather than making fun of him. You just look like a complete idiot. Please explain to me what a "real" libertarian is?
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Read the party platform. Fair tax, not Libertarian. Universal healthcare, not Libertarian and most importantly he does not accept the non-aggression principal. All are serious problems for someone claiming to be part of the Libertarian Party.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
What are you talking about? Gravel most definately accepts the non-aggression principle. As for his positions on universal healthcare, I view healthcare is an individual right. I don't agree with Gravel on the fair tax. Tell me a libertarian candidate who you think outlines the party platform.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Kubby, Smith, Ruwart would all be superior choices. It is obvious that Gravel does not support the non-aggression principal as demonstrated by his stances on abortion and gay marriage. Healthcare is not a right. A right is endowed by one's creator, in other words you are born with the capacity. One is born with the capacity to speak or defend one's self but not with the ability to care for one's health. If anything heath is extremely hard to gain and hardly guaranteed as a right is.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Oh, ok. I get it. You're from the fundamentalist Christian crowd. You personally believe that abortion is a human life, so others who don't view it as a human life have to live by the states fascist rules. Do you really think government (state or federal) should have the right to ban abortion? This will not decrease the number of abortions. There will just be more coat-hanger abortions, putting the mother at risk. I suppose you think they should be locked up for murder right? How libertarian.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
I think every woman should have the right to choose. I do not think a fetus is alive until it meets the criterion for life and that does not really happen until birth. I do not think the federal government should coerce the states into anything. Instead the people of the state should be persuaded not forced. Then real freedom is achieved not government created freedom, which is a sham in reality. I do not like any religion either. I'm more a nature worshiper if anything.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
That demonstrates further that you nor Gravel really understands the non-aggression principal. No aggression from people or the government EVER! Coercion may seem to fix the problem but it only causes more outrage. Roe v Wade has pitted the country against each other instead of allowing abortion to be accepted by each state gradually. As a result the opposition is even stronger now and decades have been wasted when persuasion could be used to change the people minds.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
And if abortion is legalized federally what happens to state laws that create a double homicide if one kills a pregnant woman or if a doctor hurts the fetus? If the fetus is not living until birth then it is harder for the law to protect them from anything. Libertarians may have many different views on abortion but are tied by principal to keep government out of social issues. Some Libertarians violate this and use the government as long as it exists which will never get rid of government.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
So I've read everything you said. You are clearly advocating the right of the state over individual rights. You are saying the government should not coerce states into accepting woman's rights/gay rights. Federal judges have every right (in my opinion) to make sure everyone is created equally and has equal opportunity. You believe rights should be left to the states. That does not sound like liberty to me, which is what the libertarian party is all about.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
You are an idiot! One gives the power to the states so the people can decide what is best for them. 51% can cause change on a federal level, tramping on the rights of 49%. That is why the republic was created. Federal judges only have the right to rule on constitutional affairs. You seem to have no respect for the constitution or de-centralization of power. Read the platform, not the 2006 version, and you will really now what the Libertarian Party is about.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Calling someone an idiot doesn't really help raise the dialogue.
The states only have the right to descriminate against gays because of DOMA, which is unconstitutional by itself. The Courts ruled that the states could not enforce Jim Crow laws, completely ignoring what the south wanted. So unfair, eh? I believe federal judges should be able to step in on this one.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
DOMA should be overturned by the Supreme Court because it violates the federal constitution. Jim Crow laws violated the 14th amendment and were rightfully struck down. Do not make unfounded replies. It makes it seem like you have nothing of substance to say.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The Founders advocated the state over the federal government also. The Libertarian Party was founded on the principals of the Democratic-Republican party, the party of Jefferson. Small limited government, de-centralized power was at the center of that party and this party. I have been a Libertarian since 8th grade and libertarian for longer. Do not tell me what the party is about when you obviously do not know.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Is it liberty for the federal government to tell you you have to carry out a wedding your religion condemns as immoral? Is it liberty for a doctor to be forced to carry out a procedure that he regards as murder? There are more people in this country than you and believe it or not some may agree with you while other do not at all. I agree that abortion and any marriage should be acceptable but the government cannot force others to accept what they find immoral. Then you are as bad as they are.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
I'm not sure how you are connecting gay marriage to the non-aggression policy, so after you clarify, I would be glad to respond.
On healthcare, we can agree to disagree. Good health is something every american should have the right to. I don't view good health as being a reward for making money. There are many people of color who have a hard time making good wages in racist America.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
America is racist? Give me a break, parts are but the majority is not, evidenced by Obama's success. Second making gay marriage legal at the federal level would coerce the states into accepting any form of marriage. This is a violation of the non-aggression principal. Government should not any marriage license because that implies the government can tell you who to marry or not to marry. A health does not fit the definition of a right so whether it should be a right is moot, it is not...
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"America is racist? Give me a break." 20% of democrats ADMIT that race played a factor in their vote. Most who vote republican are racist, which can be reflected in what their presidential candidates looked like. The war on drugs is CLEARLY racist and doesn't look like it is going anay anytime soon. Since 1868 only 121 blacks have served in the U.S. Congress, and far less hispanics and asians.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Talk about speculation. Most people who vote republican are racist. What kind of bias statement is that!? Democrats where the segregationist. Eisenhower did a lot for de-segregation while Kennedy got elected courting segregationist. I'm tired of people using race as an excuse. I was at one time and the drug war is a institutionalization of that old racism. If it is or not get over it and move on. People thought i was a columbine type in high school but you do not see me bitching.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The country was at one time and the drug war is a institutionalization of that old racism, not me. I meant It but only typed I.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"Democrats where the segregationist. Eisenhower did a lot for de-segregation while Kennedy got elected courting segregationist."
The majority of Democrats also lived in the south and owned slaves, if you would like to go back to the dark ages. The parties have evolved dramatically. So you can't really compare modern democrats to those old and dead bastards. By te way, I think a large chunk of democrats are racist as well as I mentioned. LETS GET BACK TO THE PRESENT.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
I agree but throwing accusations of racism, that are suspect, as support for an argument is not sound logic or good debate. That was my biggest problem with your statement of racism. Also, I do not think it is fair to judge the majority of the people by a poll or preconceived notions. That really is not fair. But it does not impact this debate, you are right.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
...Regardless universal healthcare will create rising cost, as accessibility decreases, and falling quality, as the market stagnates with no competition. Universal healthcare makes expensive and poor quality healthcare for all. If you think people should have healthcare donate to a charity but do not coerce others with government power.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
That must be why America is rated number thirty-seven by the World Health Organization and "socialized" France is rated number one. 18,000 people die in the US every year because they do not have healthcare. By the way, I do donate to charity, thank you very much.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
I have heard that stat and have yet to have it explained to me. What are the criteria? How is a number applied to qualitative observations? Anyone who has taken a stats class knows how stats can be twisted or framed to get the result an examiner wants. When someone explains the stat maybe I will take it to mean something.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
It is good that you donate to charity know you have to stop advocating everyone else be forced to donate which is what entitlement programs amount to, forced charity which takes money away from those who may need the charity(ie those just above the poverty line).
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
"I think it's a terrible signal to our young people about who black people are to have us constantly wrapped in the cloak of victimhood, and to have black leadership that in a knee-jerk fashion defends negative, dysfunctional behavior,". -Juan Williams. It is a perception of racism that dogs this country.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
oldhacks 3 years ago
You forgot the most important one:
Non-aggression principal Mike(No)Ron(Yes)
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
gay marriage Mike(yes) Ron(no)
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
EARTH DAY
Last day of the donation week
watch?v=C6cIIfi_tUM
ChannelMikeG 3 years ago
I don't buy that Ron Paul is more libertarian than Gravel. Libertarian stands for liberty. Ron Paul is not for a womans right to make decisions about her own body, and he also thinks states should be able to ban gay marriage/civil unions/adoptions. Gravel will make sure the federal and state government will not infringe on our rights.
GRAVEL '08!!!
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
STATES RIGHTS is the only way to take back power from the tyrannical federal government: Mike...please lead the American people to invade their local governments and take back our power.
peepnklown 3 years ago
I don't know why you trust state government. Jim Crow laws were braught forward by the states not the federal government. Anti-gay laws were braught about by the states, and not the federal government. Slavery was allowed in certain states because of states rights. States Rights is not what libertarias should be for.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
The fact that you think 'Jim Crow laws' could come 'back' exemplifies your arrogant elitism and ignorance about the contemporary south.
Belief that southern states getting the right to vote on important issues is dangerous extremely anti-libertarian.
Racism is based on collectivism, libertarianism is about individualism. Believing in states rights and legal equality of the races are not mutally exclusive.
DeAnte85 3 years ago
I never said anything about not trusting the south. I don't trust most of the north on civil rights issues either. I also didn't say that I thought Jim Crow laws would come back. You are just putting words in my mouth. I was simply comparing Jim Crow laws to the anti gay laws being put forward. Only one state allows gay marriage and that is MA, which shows the danger of States Rights.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Once Libertarian principles are established, voting on what people can or can't do in the privacy of their own home will never be on the ballot, therefore the "right" of a state to ban activities will no longer be debatable at the government level. Libertarians correctly believe the rights of the individual trump the "rights" of the State, and said State should also be free from federal intervention. "Jim Crow" laws, etc. only came about due to the State believing it was over its citizens.
freeforall232 3 years ago
"Once Libertarian principles are established, voting on what people can or can't do in the privacy of their own home will never be on the ballot" - Thanks for the prediction lady cleo. Ron Paul libertarians do not believe that individual rights trump states rights as Ronny states quite clearly. So you're argument doesn't really hold up.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
"So you can have your Jim Crow laws back?" - suckitjesus2
"I also didn't say that I thought Jim Crow laws would come back" - suckitjesus2
DeAnte85 3 years ago
Yes. DeAnte - I said you want your Jim Crow laws back, I didn't say I thoght they would come back, you silly fool.
suckitjesus2 3 years ago
Remember it was the goverment, not people or businesses, who enacted segregationist laws. A modern day example would be immigration. Just look how laws have created such angst against those who seek a better life for themselves. These laws whip people into a frenzy against the law-breaker.
Under Libertarian principles, people of any race or nationality are free to do as they wish, as long as they are self-sustaining and do not infringe on the rights of others.
freeforall232 3 years ago