RRC Archives

Uncle Big Green, just out of curiosity, are you a libertarian.
An appropriate response may be dependent on your answer.

meetVa, yes I am - or at least that's how I vote. the LP is the political party which is least hostile towards self ownership.

don't worry, Paul. I'll get back to you. MVa's question only required a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

UBG, you may be right about not having a right to climb in the gym: it's a priviledge that you purchase. i was off there.

i still say, however, if you want to live in a society that protects your right to liberty (your right to life is not the purpose of government and, with that view, it' not surprising you're a libertarian), you'll need to pay taxes that will pay for labor and materials to secure such rights. it's a fact of governments. this argument may be a little weak but look at it like this: without taxes, there'd be no roads to transport the timber, no subsidies on foresting, no cops to ensure the timber wasn't stolen, and, most importantly, no assurance that someone wouldn't come to you and fight you off of your land.

with respect to self-ownership, i think the libertarians weaken it. how do the current systems show aggression toward self-ownership?

i have to admit, i'm pulling a decent amount of this from rousseau's the social contract (and the majority of it i would recommend to everyone). i'm betting you see living in society as giving up the natural freedoms people would have without a society and government. i may be wrong, but i don't think i'm far off. it sounds to me like you'd like your own place in the woods were you could grow your own food, make your own clothes, never see your neighbors, and keep all you reap. it's not quite that simple. without a government protecting your right to property, it becomes survival of the fittest (or the one with the most ammo). i'll stop there just because i may be starting off on argument that you aren't even on the other side of.

and, sadly, i don't currently work. at least not the kind you get paid for i'm setting routes for free.. slave labor

kato wrote:"...lie that he hasn't been going around claiming that Sadam was behind the 9/11/01 attacks."

Do you have an example?

I'm guessing that you don't follow the news much:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... .al.qaeda/

Cheney told CNBC that cooperation included a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to Sudan, where bin Laden was based prior to moving his operations to Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda members in bomb-making and document forgery.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

The panel's [9/11 Commission] findings were released two days after Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 4G9GV1.DTL

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government," Cheney said in an interview on National Public Radio. He cited "documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rachman Yasin, who was part of the team who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary," Cheney said. "I'm very confident there was an established relationship there."

tomdarch wrote: I'm guessing that you don't follow the news much:

Nice straw man.

I have seen a number of articles like the ones you posted. I guess I draw a distinction between "involved with al-Q" and "behind 9/11".

Do you really think the fact that some Al Quaeda people were knocking on the door begging can be labelled as a "strong connection"? PUHLEASE. It's like you're a member of the Mormons if you open the door when they knock. If that's true I'm going to have to start shooting those starch shirted bastards.

No one will argue that Saddam was anything other than a loathesome dictator. But we went to war against the will of the world AND against the will of half the population of this country. The war was a mistake in the opinion of most of the humans that live on this planet. Personally I think we should've entered Afghanistan with full force and snuffed Al Quaeda. But all these arguments are moot (except as they show how Bush and buddies are arrogant fools) since we're already there and Al Quaeda now has millions of new converts waiting to be trained.

In the meantime I'm going to keep driving my little rice-burner to the Red instead of my truck because I'd like to feel I'm doing a little bit to reduce our dependency on non-renewable energy sources. Futile, I know, as I'm passed by Excursions and Yukons going 85mph with American and UK flags reducing their mileage even further.

The scary part about this is that, if you pay attention to the news, the supply of oil is dwindling at a rapid rate. Not only is it getting more and more expensive to extract oil from the ground it's getting more and more dangerous and expensive to protect the fields. We're racing towards the cliff and neither of these candidates has any plans for applying the brakes. At least Kucinich had energy as a central part of his campaign since it is, above all else, the most important problem the world and especially the US faces right now.

I think the problem is that Cheney is a member of the far-right Christian Coalition and they believe that "God will provide" and there will be a never ending divine source of oil for the righteous. Unfortunately that won't be the case. So in conclusion I would like to suggest we just say "fuck it" and use it all up as fast as we can. Then as the seas rise, coastal populations invade inner lands, and the cost of powering any kind of tool or vehicle moves out of the range of the 95% of us that own less than 5% of everything and the cops jail anyone that complains you'll look back on this rant and say to yourself, "Self, that Alan Evil was right. I would go buy him a beer if it was safe to leave the house."

See you in the Gorge!

http://www.dieoff.org/ Pretty sobering stuff unless you're a "believer."

I advocate a goal of America adapting a "Manhattan Project" emphasis on finding renewable energy sources, I have heard that over the years big oil has bought up research of this type, is it true I don't know but I feel the need for alternatives is every bit as vital to our (U.S.) future as developing nuclear weapons were during WW2 if not more so... but wait what do I know only Democrats or Republicans know how to run the show.

The big problem is people would have to give up their ridiculously huge v8 powered trucks, cars, and SUVs, stop using clothes dryers, switch to compact flourescent and LED lights, stop buying so much stupid, cheap, throwaway crap, and generally live a more reserved and eco-friendly life. That won't happen unless they're forced. Just the fact that ANYONE will drive a fucking Hummer proves we are a nation of fools.

Hummer question: Has anyone ever seen more than one person in a Hummer and has anyone ever seen the one person in the Hummer not talking on a cel phone while driving? Why in the world would anyone want to drive one of those things?

Alan Evil wrote:Why in the world would anyone want to drive one of those things?

Ah, someone who shares my distaste of Hummers and Hummer owners! http://www.sierraclubplus.org/hummerdinger/

I think the only time I ever smiled at the sight of a Hummer is when I saw one with this advertisement on the doors: