Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chris Matthews

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cjppjc
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
    Well just to name a few that follow what you outlined, in my opinion of course: the Amish community, the Mennonite community, the Boy Scouts of America, myself. Jeez, no wonder I'm so boring, to be comparable to such groups...

    You're right that there is a need for some rules and laws. I'm not an anarchist, just a minarchist.

    Those are nice examples of people who don't bother other people. All laws are the result of subjective, and arbirtary morality. What is considered moral and right in one culture is detested and ridiculed in another. State sponsored punishment is another example. Most people in this country are sickened at some of the things done to criminals. But some of them are in favor of capital punishment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ghent12
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
    If some people were not crooks and violent, there would be no laws against fraud, theft, and violence. Fact is, I believe, many humans do not live by the golden rule, so in societies rules and laws are made to bring people into line.

    I don't think there are "innumerable exceptions" to what I stated. If I'm so obviously incorrect, please go to the trouble to enumerate say 20 examples.
    Well just to name a few that follow what you outlined, in my opinion of course: the Amish community, the Mennonite community, the Boy Scouts of America, myself. Jeez, no wonder I'm so boring, to be comparable to such groups...

    You're right that there is a need for some rules and laws. I'm not an anarchist, just a minarchist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Nickerson
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
    Perhaps you are misreading the second statement, or perhaps I am. Essentially, as long as you prescribe the right to life as absolute (or very nearly absolute, more on this later), you can state that any other rights you have can only be infringed upon if you allow it. You can voluntarily consent to a drug test as part of a contract for employment, but there is no justification to violate your privacy in a similar fashion without your consent.

    I say that the right to life should be considered very nearly absolute because I believe in self-defense up to the possibility of lethal force and the possibility of a Just War.

    There are innumerable exceptions to that broad generalization. However, as you allude to, the aforementioned ethical standards would be a justification for exercising government power. That justification does not extend to exercising further government power; only the amount necessary to ensure entities are not infringing upon the rights of others. Essentially, government should really only exist to avoid fraud, theft, and violence, and provide the necessary framework to perpetuate itself to meet only those ends. That's the minarchist libertarian ideal, at least.
    If some people were not crooks and violent, there would be no laws against fraud, theft, and violence. Fact is, I believe, many humans do not live by the golden rule, so in societies rules and laws are made to bring people into line.

    I don't think there are "innumerable exceptions" to what I stated. If I'm so obviously incorrect, please go to the trouble to enumerate say 20 examples.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ghent12
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
    It strikes me that the first statement is diametrically opposed to the second, or am I missing something? Probably am missing something. The problem with the first statement is that too many people, I believe, lack the capacity or willingness to determine when their actions are harmful/infringe upon others.
    Perhaps you are misreading the second statement, or perhaps I am. Essentially, as long as you prescribe the right to life as absolute (or very nearly absolute, more on this later), you can state that any other rights you have can only be infringed upon if you allow it. You can voluntarily consent to a drug test as part of a contract for employment, but there is no justification to violate your privacy in a similar fashion without your consent.

    I say that the right to life should be considered very nearly absolute because I believe in self-defense up to the possibility of lethal force and the possibility of a Just War.

    Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
    For the greater part as I see things there might be no or almost no laws if individuals (companies too) were capable of curtailing their activities when they infringe upon others. History says people/companies/institutions do not have the capacity to self-regulate.
    There are innumerable exceptions to that broad generalization. However, as you allude to, the aforementioned ethical standards would be a justification for exercising government power. That justification does not extend to exercising further government power; only the amount necessary to ensure entities are not infringing upon the rights of others. Essentially, government should really only exist to avoid fraud, theft, and violence, and provide the necessary framework to perpetuate itself to meet only those ends. That's the minarchist libertarian ideal, at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • ricket
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
    It strikes me that the first statement is diametrically opposed to the second, or am I missing something? Probably am missing something. The problem with the first statement is that too many people, I believe, lack the capacity or willingness to determine when their actions are harmful/infringe upon others.
    Not necessarily. They still agree with one another. If you are defining your own rights within your own "sphere of influence", those rights apply to yourself but not necessarily to society at large. They can be whatever you want, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to smoke, for example, as long as you are not doing it in a crowded restaurant that affects other people. You can drink yourself silly every night as long as you do not get into a vehicle to drive afterwards and kill someone by doing so. But by defining what individuals can do in their own private lives is removing their right to *individual* freedom (which no one is allowed to define except for the individual themselves. Kind of circuitous logic no doubt, but hey at least it makes sense to me!...well, maybe ;)

    Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
    For the greater part as I see things there might be no or almost no laws if individuals (companies too) were capable of curtailing their activities when they infringe upon others. History says people/companies/institutions do not have the capacity to self-regulate.
    Which is why it is necessary to define what people's rights *are* (so that they can more accurately be identified as having been violated) versus putting laws into place to allow rights to be exercised in certain times/places. Writing laws to "protect" individuals, allows for those in authority to assume power over granting rights and let's them abuse, and thus take away (since they "gave them" in the first place) rights for any financial/political/otherwise reason they desire.

    Brain. Not. Functioning today. Can't form. Complete sentences.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Nickerson
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by ricket View Post
    The reason for the unwavering support on principle from us paultards (and I consider myself one as well) is because it goes far beyond just a "principle". It's like trying to argue that people do not have the right to life. People have a fundamental right to be free and to live their lives the way they see fit (so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others). How anyone could ever legitimately argue that certain rights only apply to certain groups of people or only at certain times proves the point that they have never been on the "wrong" side of the granting of such rights. No one except the individual gets to decide when a right can be taken or given away.

    People tend to only react when the "right" that they hold for themselves as the most dear, is actually infringed upon. For me, that right includes my daily freedom and many activities that I do on a daily basis and includes freedom to do as I please as long as I am not hurting others. For many people, they do not stand up for themselves until they lose the one right they can't recover from: the right to life. When that right's infringed upon, there's no coming back.
    It strikes me that the first statement is diametrically opposed to the second, or am I missing something? Probably am missing something. The problem with the first statement is that too many people, I believe, lack the capacity or willingness to determine when their actions are harmful/infringe upon others.

    For the greater part as I see things there might be no or almost no laws if individuals (companies too) were capable of curtailing their activities when they infringe upon others. History says people/companies/institutions do not have the capacity to self-regulate.

    Leave a comment:


  • ricket
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by babbittd View Post
    One major difference between a so-called "paultard" and a person that is a cheerleader for one of the major parties is that Paul supporters don't waver on principle. That's the whole point.
    The reason for the unwavering support on principle from us paultards (and I consider myself one as well) is because it goes far beyond just a "principle". It's like trying to argue that people do not have the right to life. People have a fundamental right to be free and to live their lives the way they see fit (so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others). How anyone could ever legitimately argue that certain rights only apply to certain groups of people or only at certain times proves the point that they have never been on the "wrong" side of the granting of such rights. No one except the individual gets to decide when a right can be taken or given away.

    People tend to only react when the "right" that they hold for themselves as the most dear, is actually infringed upon. For me, that right includes my daily freedom and many activities that I do on a daily basis and includes freedom to do as I please as long as I am not hurting others. For many people, they do not stand up for themselves until they lose the one right they can't recover from: the right to life. When that right's infringed upon, there's no coming back.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slimprofits
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
    Hello, Who says you're not crazy? Maybe it's crazy to look, and listen to a politician and believe him. I'll drink a tall glass of that. If a draft Paul for President movement started would THAT be crazy? Would you support it? I would. Remember all those people who moved into primary states for him? Crazy? I don't think so. Love? Almost uncondition.
    One major difference between a so-called "paultard" and a person that is a cheerleader for one of the major parties is that Paul supporters don't waver on principle. That's the whole point.

    If Ron Paul started acting the fool and for example supported the TARP, he'd lose it all. But when other Republicans and Democrats act against their alleged principles in order to further the party, most of the cheerleaders aren't phased and in fact find ways to gloss over the transgressions. The "Everybody does it" defense comes to mind here, as does the always popular revision of recent history.

    Leave a comment:


  • flintlock
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Hey, new campaign slogan! "Crazy for Paul 2012, the new American Whig party". "Wig out with the Whigs". Okay I'll stop now.

    Leave a comment:


  • cjppjc
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by flintlock View Post
    Yeah, me too.

    But Paul does attract a crowd of kooks at times. That doesn't change the fact he's right as hell though. Just that crazy people like him too.

    Hello, Who says you're not crazy? Maybe it's crazy to look, and listen to a politician and believe him. I'll drink a tall glass of that. If a draft Paul for President movement started would THAT be crazy? Would you support it? I would. Remember all those people who moved into primary states for him? Crazy? I don't think so. Love? Almost uncondition.

    Leave a comment:


  • flintlock
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by jtabeb View Post
    Count me in as a "RPTARD" as well.
    Yeah, me too.

    But Paul does attract a crowd of kooks at times. That doesn't change the fact he's right as hell though. Just that crazy people like him too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slimprofits
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Kostric is an active member of the Free State Project. He's definitely one committed dude.

    The FSP, for folks that haven't heard of it, is a group that voted on a state to move to back in 2006 and they chose New Hampshire.

    http://www.freestateproject.org/nhinfo

    I get the feeling Metalman would dismiss the great Bill Hicks, if he were still with us today:

    Leave a comment:


  • cjppjc
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Dr. Paul comments

    Visit msnbc.com for Breaking" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News, and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy




    Oh I just can't do it.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...94610#32394610

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    to me Paultards are people drunk with an idealistic view of liberty and the way this country was designed...if that's true, pour me a tall glass.

    Leave a comment:


  • Serge_Tomiko
    replied
    Re: Chris Matthews

    Originally posted by metalman View Post
    so... chris mathews is a tyrant?

    who gets shot, then?

    you think these guys give a shit about this paultard's popgun?

    No, but their families might.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X