Space battles since 2000
https://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/
Maybe, maybe not. I hadn't really though of identifying between the two - libertarian-ism on state vs federal levels - but just libertarian ideology as a wholeCamaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Sep 4 2012, 07:00 PM) (Sorry Masta, my ideology stops sharing much in common with yours below the Federal level).
Uh no, I am just saying that in this particular case the gun wielder had the knowledge to make explosives, which could have potentially been even worse.HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 4 2012, 05:03 PM) Ok so let me get this right, your argument for advocating against gun control is that if gun control is in place then people will switch to explosives?
For many reasons that Adept and our European friends point out, I don't feel that Libertarianism is an entirely workable system in general society. I feel it is just fine at the Federal level because I believe in a minimalist Federal government and States rights.Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Sep 4 2012, 06:18 PM) Maybe, maybe not. I hadn't really though of identifying between the two - libertarian-ism on state vs federal levels - but just libertarian ideology as a whole
if we break down individual issues and scenarios, well...it'd be a case-by-case basis.
That is more workable. Basically, like I have suggested before you feel the USA doesn't really work, and individual states would do better. (I know you prefer to stop short of that, but it seems like the logical conclusion of what you are saying).Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Sep 5 2012, 07:34 AM) For many reasons that Adept and our European friends point out, I don't feel that Libertarianism is an entirely workable system in general society. I feel it is just fine at the Federal level because I believe in a minimalist Federal government and States rights.
Explosives don't kill people. Explosions do.HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 5 2012, 05:03 AM) Ok so let me get this right, your argument for advocating against gun control is that if gun control is in place then people will switch to explosives?
You'd probably like Alaska. We have better hockey.Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Sep 4 2012, 05:45 PM) Don't get me wrong, I'd probably really like Alaska. I just don't think it's very libertarian.
The place would feel much like Northern Finland I suspect... Except your bears are way more dangerous.
/addition. The bit about selfishness being seen as a virtue was about libertarianism, not Alaska. I just realised that may not have been clear.
I should have said the Republican voter base in general rather than the super rich but you're right, from what I can gather on OpenSecrets it appears that a very large percentage of contributions to political campaigns come from the financial sector. They make small business owners and mid level professionals agree with policies that are detrimental to the population at large.NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Sep 4 2012, 06:19 PM) the poors are irrelevant to the affluent because most of the money made and spent in politics by the affluent today is detached from everything the poors would be spending their limited funds on - high-value financial transactions and, essentially, creating money and moving it around via securities, derivatives, commodities, and so on. it's the most efficient way of making money to date - why would you need to set up a large manufacturing base and then sell products when you could just move some digital numbers around with a cheshire cat grin as your and your company's bank accounts get bigger and bigger? from there, you can create holding companies, trade in thousands of different fields, commodities, and products and make even more money!
there are a number of firms dealing in staple crop (wheat, soy, corn, rice) commodities that are thrilled about the very recent drought conditions - which is very bad for low-income people since it means food prices for them go up which puts even more of a strain on their already-limited income - because it means their investments in these commodities are going to be worth even more money. while a decent human being would seek to keep the prices for these things down instead of cash in on environmental catastrophe, a decent human being probably wouldn't be in favor of slashing taxes so they could hold onto a few million more dollars while millions of people lose unemployment benefits, health care and welfare, either
gun control is well and good, but having guns is not the fundamental reason people like jared loughner, james holmes, or jeffrey johnson pull guns in public and seek to kill people - mental illness, likely derived from social stress, insecurity (personal as well as financial) and a feeling that they have nothing left to lose are the core of that problem. the galvanizing culture in the united states has been one that thrives on fear and paranoia, and it's compounded by a major political party whose solution for everything is to be divisive and blame society's problems on specific groups - muslims, illegal immigrants, blacks, hispanics, welfare recipients, drug users, and so on. an effective song and dance, certainly, but that charade is going to fall apart in a big, nasty way. it always does.