Caledvwlch
New member
Yeah, maybe now they are.
why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Yeah, maybe now they are.
you wouldn't say that if you'd ever had to sit through a full mass italian wedding
Caledvwlch
New member
A good reception can make up for the length and pain of the ceremony.
republicanchick
New member
yeh, thos libs are just SOOO selfless, aren't they?
they give not even HALF... not even probably 1/3 the money to charity that conservatives give...
and they are just SOOO generous to the unborn, aren't they?
moron city
republicanchick
New member
Deep down inside all liberals hate people.
They hate the human race.
They love abortion because it kills humans.
They love Muslim terrorists because they kill other humans
They fantasize about global warming because they hope it will kill humans
They hate REAL criminal justice because bad guys kill humans
etc. etc. etc.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I understand. My point wasn't that the RCC is consistent. My point was that its possible to be against abortion and torture at the same time.
Waterboarding is torture:
http://waterboarding.org/node/3
The CIA did other stuff to, like forcing people to stand on broken legs, leaving people to die of hypothermia in freezing rooms, and other stuff. You don't have to defend abortion or same sex marriage to realize that these types of techniques are ungodly.
I am uncertain how much physical pain is caused during abortion, probably depends on the method, so I'm not sure if it qualifies as "torture." Now, that's not to say that its moral in any case. Murder is wrong whether its torture or not.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
lol! Is this supposed to be a joke or are you serious?
What you and GO keep ignoring is the voices being silenced if you deny the public free access to the voting booth. In fact this whole mindset seems downright punitive.
:rotfl:
You just never know what you'll run into on TOL.
How exactly would you go about limiting this noble despot's authority?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
No, just that its immoral for some people to use the voting booth to take from others. Of course, that will not be completely eliminated unless an entirely privatized, voluntaristic society is implemented.
In theory minarchist monarchism is perfectly possible. I am not saying that such a system is likely or ideal. But the phrase isn't inherently a contradiction unless we're limiting "libertarian" to ancaps (which I don't like doing, though I know some who do.)
I agree that its unlikely. I wasn't proposing such a system. All I was saying is that "democracy" and freedom aren't inherently the same thing. Such a system, were it to somehow exist, would be more free and less of a violator of human rights than the US currently is.
Caledvwlch
New member
no memory of the reception :idunno:
musta bin an open bar
That and you had a lot of drinking to do to blot out the memory of the ceremony. :cheers:
Living in a free country means you'll as often as not disagree with the guy in the booth next to you. This isn't news.
Which ain't gonna happen.
Yes, in theory a perfectly noble benign dictator just might rule wisely out of the kindness of his heart. I think we both know how likely this scenario is.
I'd agree. But I'm not talking mob rule or the tyranny of the majority, either.
Ohno... :chuckle:
The past isn't necessarily prologue though or we'd still be ruled by kings.
I think that's a great metric.
I think they were more progressive in design than implementation, but as foundations go it was pretty darn good.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
See, here's the problem. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom.
Morally it must. Will it really? Probably not. Because people are evil and they love using democracy to steal from and control other people. This isn't just an arbitrary disagreement, although as an atheist I understand why you would think that. It drives me far more nuts when Christians think like you do on this.
Of course. My point wasn't that such a scenario was actually likely. But, it was an illustration that there's nothing intrinsic about "democracy" or "universal suffrage" that is an inherent human right. The fact that a hypothetical libertarian monarchy, unlikely though that would be, would be more respecting of human rights than the American situation proves that voting isn't a right.
Now, I could see how you could argue that letting everyone vote would practically lead to the average person having more freedom. I happen to think that's not true, but it theoretically could be true. But voting isn't actually a human right.
The problem is America currently is mob rule and tyranny of the majority. What I find odd is that you seem to disagree with this despite being a Ron Paul supporter and despite realizing that the system is in many ways an immoral charade.
The only reason this issue matters is because the constitutional republic failed. If the constitutional republic had succeeded in keeping government extremely small, voting wouldn't matter much.
Quincy
New member
I agree with you on many points and I just wanted to point out that the mob you speak of isn't even a real mob. It's a small majority portion of the group that is actually politically motivated, which gets as high as around 50% of voters during a heated election cycle.
Obama received just under 66 million votes, or so I've heard. That's <66 million, of the 153 million registered voters, of the 215 million people who are eligible to vote...... of the 316 million people here according to the census.
< 66 million people made the decision for all the others. T H A T S F R E E D O M B O Y S
Well again, I'm not strictly speaking talking about "democracy." I'd say open and free elections are very likely an offshoot of a free society--certainly as we understand the concept in the west, anyway.
And this is just flat-out bizarre. When I vote I'm not thinking about ripping anyone off, pal. I'm interested in getting semi-sane councilmen or state reps and the like. Who are these people you're imagining who only vote because they want some loot? Aren't these lazy hypothetical moochers the ones most likely not to get off their butts and vote?
You seem to have very odd ideas about what motivates people to actually vote.
Remove both from a given society and what kind of society do you find, more often than not?
What planet are you living on? You actually think the majority of the American people hold any influence whatsoever?:kookoo:
Not exactly as big a fan of the good doctor as I used to be.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Fair point. I suspect that a lot of people who don't vote, while less extreme than me, would probably sympathize with a lot of my points. They don't vote because they're disillusioned with both sides, don't see voting third party as a valuable use of time, and would like to be left alone. I am also well aware that government is manipulated by special interests.
But, my point would be, even if a genuine mob did all this, it wouldn't be OK.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
See, I don't think this is inherently the case. I would say the less influence government has on your life, and the more free you are to do what you like without other people forcing you to do otherwise, the more free you are. I don't think getting to vote for a master inherently makes you more free than otherwise.
Its not just "lazy moochers". Its also old people who vote for candidates who will keep the SS ponzi scheme going on forever, MIC loving people who want to "spread democracy" on everyone else's dime and who gives a crap about who dies, war on drugs proponents, etc.
The thing is, if only those who are actually paying for these things are able to vote, it does provide some incentive to do less of it.
My point wasn't really about you specifically. I believe I said in this thread that defensive voting is valid strategy, just not a "right."
See above.
This is a different question than whether its a right. I agree with what Nang originally said that male property owners should be the only ones that should be able to vote, because I believe doing that would lead to a less intrusive government than other policies. Women because of "mom culture" and non-property owning men because its easier to spend someone else's money than your own.
Not necessarily. For all I know all the elections are rigged. I don't know.
Why not?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
BTW: I'm not trying to suggest that limiting suffrage to property-owning males is actually something that we should try to pursue. It would only be a means to an end, and one that would likely be harder to attain than just going for the end directly. If anything I'd just fight to abolish the concepts of voting, taxation, and lawmaking all together and at the same time. The only time any enforcement of any law should be necessary is if someone asks for it because their rights have been violated, in which case private arbitrators can handle it.