republicanchick
New member
yeh, 4 sure
big government = fewer freedoms
small gov = freedom
IT's as simple as that
anyone who says otherwise is living in fantasy world... la la land
++
why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
yeh, 4 sure
big government = fewer freedoms
small gov = freedom
IT's as simple as that
anyone who says otherwise is living in fantasy world... la la land
++
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
We agree on this.
Now, how do you reconcile a small and non-intrusive government with one that has the power to torture people?
How is it a human right?
Should three year olds be able to vote?
What's your basis for your view?
Voting is specifically a means to violate other people's rights. Ideally only voluntary governments would exist and thus "voting" in the common form we have it today wouldn't even exist.
If we insist on having a situation where some people have the right to coerce others and take other people's money, it would make sense to minimize that as much as possible. Limiting the voting to those who are being taken from is a means to that end. Keeping "mom culture" out of the voting process is to.
republicanchick
New member
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
what?
I literally cannot make the question simpler than it was...
republicanchick
New member
uh... yeh.. ok
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I cannot comprehend a level of stupidity that is unable to understand this question.
republicanchick
New member
ok, so I am stupid
wahhh... CL called me Stupid... wahhhhhhhhh
Oh well.
What is there to eat around here...?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
How can you support small and non-intrusive government, while also supporting giving that same government the authority to torture people?
Its a very simple question, if you can't even deal with it, you aren't worth having in a conversation.
But then, the only words in your vocabulary are "Obama sucks" and "Republicans are godly"
republicanchick
New member
Didn't politicize the faith, lived with a group sharing a common purse and told those in love with possessions to rid themselves of them. You think he'd have been fondly treated by the commentators at Fox?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I wasn't referring to abortion but I believe abortion is murder and those who commit it should be punished for murder. You can't just put everyone in your little boxes that say just because someone disagrees with the "conservative" position on torture (though really, my position is smaller government and more conservative) that they also support the torture/murder of unborn children. It just doesn't follow.
Didn't politicize the faith, lived with a group sharing a common purse and told those in love with possessions to rid themselves of them. You think he'd have been fondly treated by the commentators at Fox?
Probably not, but libertarians have no issues with any of that.
genuineoriginal
New member
Voting is not a right, it is a responsibility.
People like you (trolls) are incapable of understanding responsibilities.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Why is it that nobody is actually presenting ARGUMENTS on this issue?
Here's my argument.
Our rights are to life, liberty, and property. You can say that these aren't really "rights" in the absolute sense, since God can take them away, but rather derived from the duty each man has to another to follow the golden rule and not to murder, steal, or kidnap his fellow man. But no matter how you word it, there is, in some sense or another, a right to life, liberty and property which all moral people must protect. This right comes from the Golden Rule, the commands against stealing, murder, and kidnapping, the command not to lord it over each other like the gentiles do, Proverbs 3:30, and Romans 12:18 (this is not an exhaustive list.)
Voting, by contrast, is a means by which some men lord it over other men. In fact, it is typically a violation of other people's rights, certainly not a right in and of itself. There are cases of voting defensively, such as voting against a property tax increase, or voting for a relatively consistent opponent of government expansion such as Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. But even then, voting isn't a "right." Such an act, done for the right reasons, would be done with a mindset of wishing that voting made less of a difference than it does. That libertarians must vote defensively against those who would control them is not something that libertarians should be excited about, but something that they perform as a defensive measure while realizing it would be better if democracy did not exist and if everyone understood that the idea of "voting" to take other people's rights or to dictate to them is always immoral.
I wouldn't necessarily call voting a "responsibility" either, though I think that's better than calling it a right. I think principled non-voting is often a reasonable thing to do. And I don't think that people who never vote are sinning or evil. I think that's actually a far more reasonable thing to do than to vote either "D" or "R" (Unless the Republican is in the liberty movement, which most aren't.) I don't think its always the best strategy, but I don't think its necessarily evil . Not taking care of your family is evil, that's a violation of responsibility. Not voting is a tactical choice (assuming its for the same reasons as voting defensively as I discussed above, if you don't vote because you're lazy that's a different issue, though I've done that to primarily due to disillusionment with the "process.")
Voting is either a defensive means of combating tyranny or a means of increasing it. If it is used for the former, it is used with a recognition that it is only necessary because of people who use it for the latter. In the latter case it is despicable and evil. Its either an unfortunate necessity or a morally depraved evil. But never a "right."
Spare me. You've got an arrogant idea stuck in your head and you're just too stubborn or obtuse (or both) to realize how appalling your views on voting really are. At this point, nothing's going to get through your thick skull.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I really don't see how this is "appalling." I don't even get the intuitive reasons for this response, let alone the logical ones.
Why is voting a human right? Would a society where the government left everyone alone to practice their lives as they see fit and acted only to stop aggression against person or property yet was run by a non-elected monarch be in violation of human rights?
Granting access to the ballot only to home owners is a swell way of disenfranchising folks whose voices need to be heard. This strikes me as fairly obvious.
Well, define "aggression," for starters. And then explain the basis of a monarch's authority. It traditionally gets back to the divine right of kings, which as you could imagine is a non-starter for me.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Its not really "voices being heard" so much as it is the ability to enforce things.
I'm talking about the NAP. So, you can't physically harm other people or their property. Basically a libertarian monarchy. I'm not really trying to argue that this monarch would have "legitimate authority" (I'm a voluntarist after all, I don't believe conventional government authorities are ever legitimate) but I would suggest that it would be absurd to suggest that this monarch's existance would somehow be more of a violation of human rights than a more restrictive democracy despite the people living under him being freer. Unless you would assert that the right of the majority to rule is an essential component of "freedom", which seems like a bad definition of freedom to me.
republicanchick
New member
Didn't politicize the faith, lived with a group sharing a common purse and told those in love with possessions to rid themselves of them. You think he'd have been fondly treated by the commentators at Fox?
he was friendly with Zecceaus
and did NOT tell him that the 1/2 of his wealth he was going to give up was insufficient. No, he said that salvation had come to his house
republicanchick
New member
sure it does... 99% of the time
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I doubt that its that often. But, I'm not a democrat. So stop dealing with me as if I was one. I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church is against both abortion and torture as well. I'll look it up in a bit.