Freedom loving gun-owner seeks political party…
- Thread starter StrikeFire83
- Start date
- Status
Regarding the religion thing...
I there is a good deal of misunderstanding about it, and that both "sides" LIKE it that way. There is, however, a rational way to look at things, and the results really aren't so scary.
Soybomb talks about it being wrong to be forced to pay for anyone's religion. I'd totally agree. And furthermore, tax-exempt status for churches appears to me to be a violation of the First Amendment, because it is "a law respecting an establishment of religion." Why? The tax code, which is legislation passed by Congress, has to answer the questions "What is a religion?" and "What is a church?"
However, I'd also agree that, "It does not state anywhere in the first amendment that religion cannot be a part of government nor that religion cannot influence government," at least within certain bounds.
For example, we have laws against murder, slavery, etc. At least some of these laws have their origins in religious beliefs. Religion clearly has influenced our government. One might be able to trot out all sorts of statistics to justify what we as a society agree is morally wrong. But such principles as "every individual is equal before God" have had a strong influence on our social mores, and on our laws. In the modern Western tradition, that principle comes from Martin Luther, and I don't think anyone would throw it out because it is "informed by religion."
I there is a good deal of misunderstanding about it, and that both "sides" LIKE it that way. There is, however, a rational way to look at things, and the results really aren't so scary.
Soybomb talks about it being wrong to be forced to pay for anyone's religion. I'd totally agree. And furthermore, tax-exempt status for churches appears to me to be a violation of the First Amendment, because it is "a law respecting an establishment of religion." Why? The tax code, which is legislation passed by Congress, has to answer the questions "What is a religion?" and "What is a church?"
However, I'd also agree that, "It does not state anywhere in the first amendment that religion cannot be a part of government nor that religion cannot influence government," at least within certain bounds.
For example, we have laws against murder, slavery, etc. At least some of these laws have their origins in religious beliefs. Religion clearly has influenced our government. One might be able to trot out all sorts of statistics to justify what we as a society agree is morally wrong. But such principles as "every individual is equal before God" have had a strong influence on our social mores, and on our laws. In the modern Western tradition, that principle comes from Martin Luther, and I don't think anyone would throw it out because it is "informed by religion."
trapperjohn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 567
i am afraid part of the reason you will never find a group is that your wants are contradictory.
You claim to love and want freedom but would deny people the freedom to barter for wages (you want a government to dictate what peoples wages are).
In your desire to not be exposed to other peoples religion you want to have a government deny the religious freedom of others who want to express their religion.
If you want a government that stays out of your business you ought to try to get a government that stays out of other peoples business, even if you dissagree with those people.
You claim to love and want freedom but would deny people the freedom to barter for wages (you want a government to dictate what peoples wages are).
In your desire to not be exposed to other peoples religion you want to have a government deny the religious freedom of others who want to express their religion.
If you want a government that stays out of your business you ought to try to get a government that stays out of other peoples business, even if you dissagree with those people.
Zundfolge
Member
I generally hate "+1" posts, but...
trapperjohn +1
trapperjohn +1
squarooticus
Member
As much as I disbelieve that this is possible with any government that can employ force to enforce obedience, I have to say, "hear, hear!" A little less hypocrisy would go a long way toward restoring some of our lost liberty.
Kyle
stevelyn
Member
Folks make a big issue with the Libertarian's open borders platform.
Understand that if we magically had a Libertarian majority govt tommorrow, open borders wouldn't be public policy until all entitlement programs were axed taking away the incentive for freeloaders to come into the country.
Understand that if we magically had a Libertarian majority govt tommorrow, open borders wouldn't be public policy until all entitlement programs were axed taking away the incentive for freeloaders to come into the country.
Exactly.
Remember, the United States is what she is today, largely because of several waves of immigrants who came here to work hard and seek their fortunes by working hard.
That helps the economy grow, which buoys all of us. No one need fear hardworking immigrants, except for native freeloaders.
However, as long as the system incents an influx of freeloaders, then we can't have open borders. I don't think many Libertarians would disagree.
mljdeckard
Member
(putting on my Nomex suit, I know I'm about to need it,)
The only real problem I have with the LP is that it's full of libertarians. The platform works better for me than any other, but (this is the boo part,) when I go to the gun shows and see the folks running the membership drive table, they, um,..........give me the willies. Good folks to be sure, just kind of....fringy.
I like the fringe. I like being able to be an independent, and not have any party take my vote for granted. BUT, I also acknowledge that the reason I have a fringe to dwell in at all is the fact that the two major parties blanket so many issues, there isn't a lot of fringe left. If we DIDN'T have the two-party system, nothing would get done. It would all be fringe.
I know that voting these days is like choosing between Beastmaster III at 3am on Cinemax, and Beastmaster II at 2:30 on HBO. There is no winning. There are only degrees of losing. I HATE George Bush for: Dropping the Microsoft anti-trust suit, making government bigger than ever, taking for granted that America will understand WHY he has his foreign policy, not fighting back when the extreme left throws mudballs at him, not saying in so many words that the '94 assualt weapons ban was an unjustified infringement of rights, failing to resolve the single biggest hurdle in protecting America, (resolving the turf war between the FBI and CIA,) refusing to grow a pair on illegal immigration, and being so myopic in the war on terror as to fail to adapt. (Rumsfeld syndrome.)
So, walk away. Specialize. Take your loyalty and support away from the mainstream. Just remember. Every vote you put away from the republican party is a vote that Clinton, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, et al don't have to overcome. I'm sure everyone who voted for Ralph Nader, and let Gore and Kerry LOSE feels like they did the right thing by putting Bush in office.
The only real problem I have with the LP is that it's full of libertarians. The platform works better for me than any other, but (this is the boo part,) when I go to the gun shows and see the folks running the membership drive table, they, um,..........give me the willies. Good folks to be sure, just kind of....fringy.
I like the fringe. I like being able to be an independent, and not have any party take my vote for granted. BUT, I also acknowledge that the reason I have a fringe to dwell in at all is the fact that the two major parties blanket so many issues, there isn't a lot of fringe left. If we DIDN'T have the two-party system, nothing would get done. It would all be fringe.
I know that voting these days is like choosing between Beastmaster III at 3am on Cinemax, and Beastmaster II at 2:30 on HBO. There is no winning. There are only degrees of losing. I HATE George Bush for: Dropping the Microsoft anti-trust suit, making government bigger than ever, taking for granted that America will understand WHY he has his foreign policy, not fighting back when the extreme left throws mudballs at him, not saying in so many words that the '94 assualt weapons ban was an unjustified infringement of rights, failing to resolve the single biggest hurdle in protecting America, (resolving the turf war between the FBI and CIA,) refusing to grow a pair on illegal immigration, and being so myopic in the war on terror as to fail to adapt. (Rumsfeld syndrome.)
So, walk away. Specialize. Take your loyalty and support away from the mainstream. Just remember. Every vote you put away from the republican party is a vote that Clinton, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, et al don't have to overcome. I'm sure everyone who voted for Ralph Nader, and let Gore and Kerry LOSE feels like they did the right thing by putting Bush in office.
squarooticus
Member
This is what many people refer to as "cognitive dissonance."
Do you want big government with a lot of power over people (whether exercised for "good" or not) or not? A government powerful enough to take Microsoft to court for abusing its "monopoly" (you know, the one consumers gave it for giving them what they want?) is powerful enough to take away your guns and tax you into the poor house. You can't have it both ways.
Put another way: choose one: freedom or government-enforced justice.
FWIW, I have been a Linux user for 12 years and a software developer for 25 years (of my 30), so I hate Windows as much as the next power user. But I understand that liberty shouldn't stop at my front door or be limited to those things I agree with.
Cheers,
Kyle
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
I'd like my own country. Leaveustheheckalonia. Neutral and by whatever its citizens bring or buy.
EmGeeGeorge
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 806
+1 to armedbear...
"Exactly. Remember, the United States is what she is today, largely because of several waves of immigrants who came here to work hard and seek their fortunes by working hard.
That helps the economy grow, which buoys all of us. No one need fear hardworking immigrants, except for native freeloaders.
However, as long as the system incents an influx of freeloaders, then we can't have open borders. I don't think many Libertarians would disagree."
"Exactly. Remember, the United States is what she is today, largely because of several waves of immigrants who came here to work hard and seek their fortunes by working hard.
That helps the economy grow, which buoys all of us. No one need fear hardworking immigrants, except for native freeloaders.
However, as long as the system incents an influx of freeloaders, then we can't have open borders. I don't think many Libertarians would disagree."
limbaughfan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 323
One word:Libertarian
mljdeckard
Member
Microsoft defines monopoly. They have demonstrably and deliberately squashed the competion at the cost of consumer choice and value. They should be at least penalized. I'm for hands-off business, but not to the point where one company can control a critical industry. (I could care less about their money, let them make as much as they want.)
The way in which the government is bigger is mostly Homeland Security. Amid all the hoopla and new cabinet position, I still don't know a single thing that the government can do MORE effectively than it could BEFORE 9-11, or Katrina for that matter. If it were EFFECTIVE, I would keep my mouth shut. But all they have done is create another beurocratic process that has infused itself into every other federal agency, with negligible (if any) enhancement to our safety and security. I think they would have done better to fill in the cracks of existing agencies. Now it's another agency and cabinet post that no future president will want to go on record to undo it.
The way in which the government is bigger is mostly Homeland Security. Amid all the hoopla and new cabinet position, I still don't know a single thing that the government can do MORE effectively than it could BEFORE 9-11, or Katrina for that matter. If it were EFFECTIVE, I would keep my mouth shut. But all they have done is create another beurocratic process that has infused itself into every other federal agency, with negligible (if any) enhancement to our safety and security. I think they would have done better to fill in the cracks of existing agencies. Now it's another agency and cabinet post that no future president will want to go on record to undo it.
Zundfolge
Member
Bovine Scat.
I can do absolutely EVERYTHING one can do on a Windows machine on a non-Windows machine and not use one single line of Microsoft code doing it.
MacOS, UNIX, Linux (which is free), all of them have plenty of software available (often for free) and are actually SUPERIOR operating systems than Windows.
And its been that way for over the last decade.
Just because most people are too dumb to figure out that there are other OSs out there, doesn't mean that Microsoft has anything even CLOSE to being a monopoly.
The myth of the Microsoft Monopoly is another Hegelian Crisis used to give government more power and destroy the free market.
+1 Zundfolge
There is not a single major Microsoft product I can think of that doesn't have a viable competitor or three.
You can do anything you need to without using a single one of their products, and some people do. The fact that changing to other products is perceived by many businesses as more expensive than just doing simple upgrades doesn't change that. Microsoft has been in a position for a while now, where any misstep means loss of market share. They couldn't really gain any, and every time there's a new security hole or bug, someone, somewhere switches to Linux or Solaris servers, Linux or Mac workstations, Apache web servers and Firefox browsers, Oracle or MySQL databases, even alternatives to Office and Outlook.
If Microsoft defines a monopoly, then "monopoly" just means "really good at producing and marketing software."
Do I think it's the best? Usually not. But are they forcing anyone to use it? No. Do you have to use it? Nope. If you think you do, you're FAR too ignorant to be passing judgment about the software business.
There is not a single major Microsoft product I can think of that doesn't have a viable competitor or three.
You can do anything you need to without using a single one of their products, and some people do. The fact that changing to other products is perceived by many businesses as more expensive than just doing simple upgrades doesn't change that. Microsoft has been in a position for a while now, where any misstep means loss of market share. They couldn't really gain any, and every time there's a new security hole or bug, someone, somewhere switches to Linux or Solaris servers, Linux or Mac workstations, Apache web servers and Firefox browsers, Oracle or MySQL databases, even alternatives to Office and Outlook.
If Microsoft defines a monopoly, then "monopoly" just means "really good at producing and marketing software."
Do I think it's the best? Usually not. But are they forcing anyone to use it? No. Do you have to use it? Nope. If you think you do, you're FAR too ignorant to be passing judgment about the software business.
mljdeckard
Member
I have been a mac person for 15 years. But Microsoft still has the market cornered, and they act aggressively to prevent competitors to exist. They install their software in a way as to prevent other software from operating on the vast majority of all computers sold in the world. (Or did, before they got busted.) It is not the responsibility of the consumer to learn how not to use windows, if Microsoft is actively working to make sure they can't find it in the first place. No other company or revolution has existed in the same capacity to the same scale before. If Microsoft requires no regulation of any kind, then NO industry or company needs regulation of any kind.
(I'm done.)
(I'm done.)
Panthera Tigris
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 314
Around here it seems the only things taxes go for are stupid pro sports. Taxes should never be used for sports, IMO. When the police are short handed because it's claimed there's no budget for them, yet 10 million dollars is given to the local pro football teamto build their stadium in addition to stadium taxes, I start to question that taxes are necessary. Seems to me they certainly are not going where they are intended.
OP
OP
StrikeFire83
Member
Ilbob, you have made many cogent points, however your attempts to twist what I said about the 1st Amendment simply fail.
Let’s look at the text in question: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
And here’s what I said about it: “1st Amendment Primacy. (IE, Wall between church and state...freedom OF and FROM religion”
Nowhere did I say that my rights trump others peoples’. For someone who claims to champion individual liberty and self-solvency, your desire to have me subsidize other people’s religions is odd.
I don’t want a red cent of my tax money to send Johnny to Catholic school, or Achmed to Koran school, or Chiam to Tora school, and the first amendment provides that I shouldn’t have to.
However, the Bush Administration takes my money, and puts it into his unconstitutional “faith based initiative” which of course means it goes solely to Christian churches, mostly evangelical ones at that.
If you can’t admit that’s a violation of the 1st Amendment and flies in the faces of everything the framers intended, then you need to take the blinders off.
Let’s look at the text in question: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
And here’s what I said about it: “1st Amendment Primacy. (IE, Wall between church and state...freedom OF and FROM religion”
Nowhere did I say that my rights trump others peoples’. For someone who claims to champion individual liberty and self-solvency, your desire to have me subsidize other people’s religions is odd.
I don’t want a red cent of my tax money to send Johnny to Catholic school, or Achmed to Koran school, or Chiam to Tora school, and the first amendment provides that I shouldn’t have to.
However, the Bush Administration takes my money, and puts it into his unconstitutional “faith based initiative” which of course means it goes solely to Christian churches, mostly evangelical ones at that.
If you can’t admit that’s a violation of the 1st Amendment and flies in the faces of everything the framers intended, then you need to take the blinders off.
Zundfolge
Member
Yet you've been running Macs for 15 years? How is this possible if Microsoft kept competitors from existing? I just entered in that previous sentence typing on a Macintosh running Firefox ... I don't have a single piece of Microsoft software on my machine right now and I do every thing I want to (in fact the only reason I'm not running Linux is because I am a professional Graphic Designer and Adobe hasn't made Linux versions of their products ... but I don't need Windows to run Photoshop).
Thats more BS.
I've run machines with Windows, Linux and currently I'm on a Mac and I've NEVER had a piece of software that wouldn't install or run because of another piece of Microsoft software. Plus every machine I've run Linux on came preinstalled with Windows ... Windows did nothing to prevent me from installing Linux (and in a couple of cases, dual booting Linux and Windows).
Yes, it is. You have to CHOOSE to buy a machine with Windows installed, or buy a copy of Windows if you want to use it. If you don't like Windows, there are plenty of options out there that don't involve sending money to Redmond WA.
Windows was created by Microsoft. Just because its the most successful operating system doesn't mean that they should have to give it away or allow its competitors access to their code and markets any more than Hank Reardon should have had to give away the formula to Reardon Metal.
I can see your point (although I think thats a bit of a mountain out of a molehill), however I don't think government should be taking money from ANYONE to give to ANYONE, nor should the Federal Government have ANYTHING to do with educating our children.
Oh and don't get me started with tax subsidies to sports teams (and the use of Eminent Domain Theft to build their stadiums).
Tom Bri
Member
Libertarian answers
To Evan Price.
Libertarians do have answers to the things you mention, you just have to read a little deeper into what they write about themselves, not just what others say about them.
For example, Libertarians as opposed to anarchists, do believe some government is needed, so there has to be some way to fund it.
Poor folks down on their luck do need help. Ever heard of the Red Cross, the Shriners, the Salvation Army?
To Evan Price.
Libertarians do have answers to the things you mention, you just have to read a little deeper into what they write about themselves, not just what others say about them.
For example, Libertarians as opposed to anarchists, do believe some government is needed, so there has to be some way to fund it.
Poor folks down on their luck do need help. Ever heard of the Red Cross, the Shriners, the Salvation Army?
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
How about that.
A self-deconstructing post.
--------------------------
Primary characteristics of a monopoly
* Single Sellers
A pure monopoly is an industry in which a single firm is the sole producer of a good or the sole provider of a service. This is usually caused by a blocked entry.
* No Close Substitutes
The product or service is unique in ways which go beyond brand identity, and cannot be easily replaced (a monopoly on water from a certain spring, sold under a certain brand name, is not a true monopoly; neither is Coca-Cola, even though it is differentiated from its competition in flavor).
* Price Maker
In a pure monopoly a single firm controls the total supply of the whole industry and is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price, by changing the quantity supplied (an example of this would be the situation of viagra before competing drugs emerged). In subtotal monopolies (for example diamonds or petroleum at present) a single organization controls enough of the supply that even if it limits the quantity, or raises prices, the other suppliers will be unable to make up the difference and take significant amounts of market share.
* Blocked Entry
The reason a pure monopolist has no competitors is that certain barriers keep would-be competitors from entering the market. Depending upon the form of the monopoly these barriers can be economic, technological, legal (basic patents on certain drugs), or of some other type of barrier that completely prevents other firms from entering the market.
Yes, my source was Wikipedia, but the source jibes with what I learned in econ.
Lupinus
Member
I personally come closest to the Libertarian platform and consider myself a conservative libertarian.
About the only issue I outright disagree with is the borders.
About the only issue I outright disagree with is the borders.
Autolycus
Member
Should children be forced to work? I ask that because everyone who attacks welfare recipients should look at who is on welfare. I believe that 70% of the people who benefit from welfare are usually children. Meaning under age 18.
squarooticus
Member
This is the wrong question. The right question is, "Should someone be allowed to steal my property with the help of a group of armed thugs?"
If that group of armed thugs were anyone but the government, you would say "no." I say "no" all the time. We are not that far apart, so my natural next question would be why you think property rights violations under force are ever acceptable.
Once you answer these questions the way I do, you need to look for solutions among the remaining possibilities.
Cheers,
Kyle
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked