+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Boortz on the Midwest Tornadoes (/thread-222203.html)
Pages: 1 2
- Motown Bronco - 05-14-2003 09:25 AM
Another good Boortz column today...
-------
OK, SO YOU DON
- Rebel - 05-14-2003 09:55 AM
Listening to him right now on the internet. Awesome isn't he?
I would particularly like to see this:
[quote][b]Question: "Mr. President, what about the people who lost their homes and didn
- RochesterFalcon - 05-14-2003 11:35 AM
Most of the money might go to cover local government costs. It will be in this case:
<a href='http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/0514story1_news.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/0...ory1_news.shtml</a>
- Rebel - 05-14-2003 01:58 PM
RochesterFalcon Wrote:Most of the money might go to cover local government costs. It will be in this case:Then it's a local problem, not a federal problem. If I want to give money to a Kansas charity, fine. I damn sure don't want the money taken from me by force of the Federal government.
<a href='http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/0514story1_news.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/0...ory1_news.shtml</a>
- RochesterFalcon - 05-14-2003 02:18 PM
Ever?
The federal government should sit on its hands after an earthquake?
- just say no roy - 05-14-2003 06:39 PM
RochesterFalcon Wrote:Ever?Only in a national tragedy.Yes that includes earthquakes.I believe pollitics are local up to a point but local governments should do a better job of balancing the check book to help cover the loses in it's own state.
The federal government should sit on its hands after an earthquake?
- RochesterFalcon - 05-14-2003 07:22 PM
But here is the thing. Earthquakes tend to happen in the west. It becomes a political football. Why should Easterners be required to dump all this money into the west when people know darned well earthquakes will happen out there?
We have snow storms, ice storms, tornadoes... it may sound like pork, but these events really do burden communities.
I don't think there are easy answers on this kind of thing.
- Rebel - 05-14-2003 07:28 PM
RochesterFalcon Wrote:But here is the thing. Earthquakes tend to happen in the west. It becomes a political football. Why should Easterners be required to dump all this money into the west when people know darned well earthquakes will happen out there?If you build your home at the base of a volcano, KNOWING it's a volcano, should you have the right to get the government to take money from me to pay for your irresponsible decision?
We have snow storms, ice storms, tornadoes... it may sound like pork, but these events really do burden communities.
I don't think there are easy answers on this kind of thing.
- just say no roy - 05-14-2003 08:14 PM
RochesterFalcon Wrote:TheBut here is the thing. Earthquakes tend to happen in the west. It becomes a political football. Why should Easterners be required to dump all this money into the west when people know darned well earthquakes will happen out there?Thats true but we have major floods on the east coast and North Carolina is sitting on one of the biggest faults in the country.God forbid an earthquake ever happens here. The best answer i can think of is for these communities to prepare as well as they can to lesson the burden on all of us.
We have snow storms, ice storms, tornadoes... it may sound like pork, but these events really do burden communities.
I don't think there are easy answers on this kind of thing.
- GDawgs88 - 05-18-2003 09:06 PM
RebelKev Wrote:Listening to him right now on the internet. Awesome isn't he?I'm not a big Boortz fan. He's a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.
- Rebel - 05-19-2003 06:19 AM
GDawgs88 Wrote:So.....you are for the government telling us how we can run our lives?RebelKev Wrote:Listening to him right now on the internet. Awesome isn't he?I'm not a big Boortz fan. He's a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.
- RochesterFalcon - 05-19-2003 06:32 AM
Quote:So.....you are for the government telling us how we can run our lives?
Are you an anarchist?
- Motown Bronco - 05-19-2003 11:40 AM
I'm not a big Boortz fan. He's a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.[/quote]
That's why I like him. :D
- Motown Bronco - 05-19-2003 11:53 AM
RochesterFalcon Wrote:I don't wish to speak on behalf of RebelKev, nor do I claim to know his political leanings. But I thought this might be a good place to clear up some misconceptions of libertarian ideals as it relates vis-a-vis to "anarchy".Quote:So.....you are for the government telling us how we can run our lives?
Are you an anarchist?
I'd like to copy/paste a post by a hard-core Libertarian I found on a blog (I don't consider myself a Libertarian, per se, but share in many of their ideas). It clears up issues that stem from the perception that Libertarian = Anarchy.
------
Libertarianism is about securing natural rights.
It's true. Societies change. The founders could hardly imagine our society today back in 1776. Technologies change, cultures change, the ethinic makeup of society changs. The myths we hold dear, the songs we sing, the heroes we admire, and the beauty we discover all change with the seasons of generations.
But there are certain inherent aspects of simply being human that hold true no matter how many revolutions around the sun the Earth experiences. They are constant and immutable with the passing of time. These are natural rights. They are called natural because they arise simply as a consequence of the nature of man, independent of time, political boundaries, governments, or cultures.
Most people would agree that no matter what date the calendar says, it's unjust to kill someone in cold blood. Or beat them up without provocation. Or steal their stuff. Or pee on their lawn. Natural rights are these boundaries that ought not to be crossed by anyone. They are barriers against force or fraud.
If we start from a "state of nature" like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes did in creating philosophies that directly influenced the founders, we might imagine a land without government in which two neighbors, Smith and Jones, live side by side in a neighborhood of many. On the whole, they probably get along, and respect each other. But due to the imperfect nature of man, conflicts arise. (Announcement: Libertarianism fully acknowledges that man is not perfect.)
For example, Smith might try to shoot Jones without provocation. Thus libertarians espouse the right of Jones to arm himself to protect himself from such potential advances. Perhaps though, Jones would like to get on with his life and career instead of constantly being worried about bandits like Smith trying to shoot him. So libertarians espouse the creation of a police force. The sole purpose of the police would be come to the defense of Jones against the intiation of force by people like Smith. Libertarians would be against the police initiating force against anyone; otherwise the police would be no different from Smith. Most of us can probably agree that no matter what year it is, man has a natural right not to have force initiated upon him.
Perhaps Smith and Jones and the rest of the neighborhod get along fine, with occasional conflicts that the police takes care of. However, the cannibals from Canada try to rape, pillage, and plunder the neighborhood. The police are too weak and disorganized to defend against this initiation of force by the cannibal Canadians against the residents of the neighborhood. So libertarians propose a specialized force called the military whose sole job is to deal with outside invaders. (Announcement: Libertarianism fully acknowledges that man is not perfect and society needs a military to ward off invaders.) However, if the military intiates force against the neighborhood, they are no better than the cannibals no matter what uniform they wear or what flag they raise.
Perhaps Smith and Jones get along for the most part. However, Smith has a weeping willow tree on the border of his property that has grown mostly into the air above Jones's property and every fall Jones's yard is buried a foot deep in fallen leaves. Jones believes that Smith is aggressing against his property and wants Smith's tree cut down. Jones believes that since the tree is on his property, he is not aggressing against his property. They both believe in the vigorous defense of natural rights, but disagree as to whether Jones's rights are being violated. So libertarians propose courts backed with the enforcement power of police to handle such disputes. (Announcement: Libertarianism fully acknowledges that man is not perfect and courts need to exist to settle disputes on the interpretation of ever-enduring natural rights.)
Perhaps Smith is a devious mofo and steals Jones's TV. Libertarians believe that procedures involving the courts and police need to exist that if can be proven that Smith did indeed defraud Jones of his TV, i.e., violate his natural rights, that Smith can be punished and Jones can be given appropriate resititution. (Announcement: Libertarianism fully acknowledges that man is not perfect and is often times devious enough to defraud others; hence they hold that police and courts are needed to bring about punishment and restitution.)
So libertarians believe that in such a state of nature, imperfect man conflicts with other imperfect men. They believe that there needs to exist a monopoly called the government in order to protect man's natural rights, which include his life, his liberty, and his property. There is nothing having to do with anarchy here. It is anarchy libertarians try to protect man against.
If natural rights are protected, voluntary relationships take place. But only if natural rights are protected.
I just wanted to make that clear: To prevent the condition of anarchy, libertarians espouse a mechanism called governmentt that protect natural rights, which are everlasting as the sands of time pass through the hourglass.
- RochesterFalcon - 05-19-2003 12:22 PM
"Anarchy" was my hyperbole in response to his. I have a fair sense of what it means to be a liberterian. But while being against "government telling us how we can run our lives" sounds nice, it actually hints at an extreme beyond libertarianism.
- Rebel - 05-19-2003 07:21 PM
RochesterFalcon Wrote:"Anarchy" was my hyperbole in response to his. I have a fair sense of what it means to be a liberterian. But while being against "government telling us how we can run our lives" sounds nice, it actually hints at an extreme beyond libertarianism.Good response MO.
RF, it seems as if you are just going to disagree with me with anything I say. Hell, I could say the sky is blue..... If it's not against the law, and many laws are unconstitutional, I don't see any reason why a select few, usually the religious right when it comes to social freedom, has the right to tell me how I can have sex. Yes, there is a law in GA that states one can only have sex in the missionary position. This, IMO, has caused many divorces as, uhh, that gets kinda old.
Of course, the left is starting their social freedom interfering as well trying to outlaw home-schooling.
I am a Libertarian and don't trust either of your main parties. ...but I trust the Republicans more because they, in all honesty, aren't ran by their kooks like the Dems are being ran by Socialists.
- Rebel - 05-19-2003 07:24 PM
RochesterFalcon Wrote:But while being against "government telling us how we can run our lives" sounds nice, it actually hints at an extreme beyond libertarianism.Wait a minute, you are FOR the government telling us how to run our lives even if it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights?
Hmm, have you ever thought about giving Cuba a consideration for your retirement?
- RochesterFalcon - 05-19-2003 07:42 PM
Quote:If it's not against the law, and many laws are unconstitutional, I don't see any reason why a select few, usually the religious right when it comes to social freedom, has the right to tell me how I can have sex.
Liberals didn't put that law on the books.
Quote:Of course, the left is starting their social freedom interfering as well trying to outlaw home-schooling.
Where? Has this ever happened? I'm sure the the notion that Democrats want to take away the right to home school makes a good bogieman grist for right-wing fundraising newsletters, but this isn't a serious issue.
Here in New York, these are the only bills I can find that remotely involve home schooling:
A simplification of oversight requirements:
<a href='http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A04598' target='_blank'>http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A04598</a>
A tax credit for related expenses:
<a href='http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05253' target='_blank'>http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05253</a>
A guarantee of access to public school programs (such as interscholastic athletics and gifted and talented programs) for home schooled children:
<a href='http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S01011' target='_blank'>http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S01011</a>
Better find another bogieman.
Quote:Wait a minute, you are FOR the government telling us how to run our lives even if it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights?
Well, the addition of that clause, "even if it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights," changes everything.
Laws involve social control. Period. To grant a right is to also grant the responsibility upon others to respect that right, and this is a form of social control.
Every government tells us how to run our lives to some degree. Governments that do not do so cannot be properly called government. To wit: Iraq, May 2003.
- Rebel - 05-19-2003 08:25 PM
1. Yes, I know Liberals didn't put that law on the books. What part of, "I don't like the religious right anymore than I like the Socialist left" do you NOT understand?
2. Home-schooling is on the verge of being outlawed in California, which, as you know, is on the Left Coast.
Government is not there to dictate how we live out lives. Read the US Constitution some time, you might learn something. As long as we are not interfering with another's rights, the government has no right telling us how we live. ...and yes, I also believe that Mormons should be allowed to have more than one wife as long as that's in their religion and they can support them without government support.
- RochesterFalcon - 05-19-2003 10:21 PM
Quote:1. Yes, I know Liberals didn't put that law on the books. What part of, "I don't like the religious right anymore than I like the Socialist left" do you NOT understand?
What part of "run on sentence" don't you understand?
Example:
If it's not against the law, and many laws are unconstitutional, I don't see any reason why a select few, usually the religious right when it comes to social freedom, has the right to tell me how I can have sex.
I couldn't make heads of tails of this. I certainly don't know how I was supposed to understand that this meant "I don't like the religious right anymore than I like the Socialist left."
Quote:2. Home-schooling is on the verge of being outlawed in California, which, as you know, is on the Left Coast.
Link?
Quote:Government is not there to dictate how we live out lives.
Every right and every law constitutes a regulation on our lives. Regulation is what government does. Most of the argument is about how much regulation. This got started when you suggested you were against all government regulation. I stand corrected.
Quote:Read the US Constitution some time, you might learn something.
I don't need lessons in constitutional law from the likes of you.
Quote:As long as we are not interfering with another's rights, the government has no right telling us how we live.
Okay smart guy... where does the constitution says that?
What you are presenting is a political ideal, one rooted in 18th century political philosophy and one I have quite a bit of common ground with you on, actually. But you aren't presenting the constitution.
Quote:...and yes, I also believe that Mormons should be allowed to have more than one wife as long as that's in their religion and they can support them without government support.
You do see, don't you, that this position is incompatable with the idea of not allowing government to dictate how we live our lives?
Why the restrictions on when you would allow polygamy? Why, for instance, must someone be Mormon in order for you to allow them to be a polygamist? Doesn't this amount to "government tell(ing) us how to live?"
<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 19 2003, 10:29 PM-->