There's an amendment for that already, the fourth. The problem is that requiring constitutionality of legislation doesn't mean anything if the judiciary doesn't defend it, and when it comes to this the courts are totally fucking useless.
"You seem to miss the fact", "you do not seem to understand", "you fail to recognize" — not only is that obnoxious, but the reality is simply that we don't agree, which actually relates closely to my original point that libertarian ideology is concerned with individual freedom and conservative ideology is not. As you say, that's true of progressive ideology as well, true enough, but that doesn't mean that progressives and conservatives don't have a different mindset, they do.
"The fact of the matter is that any group of people that does not have a common set of moral principles is unable to function as a unit." I don't want to function as part of some unit, that's the whole point. And I couldn't disagree with you more that "distributing the tools of violence" leads to chaos. Indeed, decentralized power is the only way to avoid oppression, but again, that difference of opinion suggests that I as a libertarian believe in individual freedom and you as a conservative do not — or, perhaps, that you believe individual freedom is incompatible with law and order and that the latter should prevail.
Thanks for the exchange, I think I've made all the points I could usefully make in one conversation and more would just be repetitious. The last word is yours, if you wish.
This is exactly what I mean. When you use terms like "our society", "societal benefits", "shared set of moral principles", and "traditional moral consensus", you're demonstrating a collectivist mindset that's extremely different from one that's concerned with individual freedom. I appreciate that you advocate persuasion and recognize that conservatives can't impose their particular flavor of morals on others through force, but the way you put it makes it sound like you only advocate this because you think it won't work, not because it's antithetical to liberty.
I was raised by progressives in an overwhelmingly progressive community, and had a similar experience to yours moving from that to libertarianism. I think you know, then, that while some libertarians seek no government, the majority of libertarians call for a very limited government that sticks to national defense and a criminal justice system that addresses only crimes with actual victims and civil dispute resolution.
Without addressing the issue that most politicians who say they're conservative really aren't, conservatives may be good when it comes to individual freedom in the economic sphere and in some other cases, like the right to self defense. But they are not standing up for individual freedom when it comes to other social issues, such as immigration, drug use, prostitution, and gay rights.
That last one is a good example of how the three ideologies really differ. Progressives think gay marriage should be legal. Conservatives think it shouldn't. But only libertarians ask why government is in the marriage business in the first place. The mindset is simply different from either of the others.
Exactly so. It's for this reason that I wish those on the left would stop referring to the system we currently have as "capitalism". It's not even close, it's corporatism, and that's very different, and vastly inferior. Now, if those on the left don't like capitalism either, then that's their prerogative, but those on the left and the right who are not part of the establishment should recognize that corporatism is their mutual enemy, and that it should be rooted out first, and differences settled afterwards.
It's inane comments like this that make me wonder what could be accomplished if people with differing ideologies would actually try to understand one another rather than just assuming that those who disagree with them must be evil or stupid.
The worst part about this is that the DA office doesn't seem to understand that "Stand Your Ground" is just an affirmative defense against a crime, not a magic spell that means someone can't be arrested.
If only the same applied to fair use as a defense against charges of copyright infringement!
You're right, but that doesn't change the fact that OP's characterization of the market for desktop Linux as "4 basement dwelling slashdot nerds" is ignorant with a cherry on top.
Stoplights are overrated. I've lived in a country-with-an-r that has zero of them, the Commonwealth of Dominica, which has a total population of about 69,000 people. People there get by just fine without them. And once you see that you can have a successful country with a population like that, and that those who work in government are far less insulated from the people they supposedly represent, it raises the question whether all the centralization of power we see in the U.S. (and, in fairness, most of the rest of the world) is really all that advantageous for Joe Sixpack.
No argument here. To continue the Fairfax County, Virginia example, it's comprised of nine districts, all of which are easily large enough to be counties themselves. So, your turn, although you're probably realizing by now that there's basically no limit the amount of decentralization with which I'd happily agree.:-)
Fair enough. I'm probably thinking this way because I grew up spending Christmas and summers with relatives in New Hampshire, so that's what I think of as "next to Massachusetts", as opposed to other (relatively) high tax states like R.I. or New York.
First, detach all counties with a population of 500,000 or more to be separate states. Then do what you say. If the people of North Dakota can handle state functions, there's no reason the people of, say, Fairfax County, Virginia with twice its population couldn't do the same. And, generally speaking, the closer government is to people, the more responsive it is. (I say generally speaking because I realize one could trot out examples of how "you can't fight city hall", but I'd rather try that than fight Congress or even a state legislature!)
Hmm. But if intent doesn't matter, then anything controversial is flamebait, and there's even less point to Internet conversations than there is already.
Slashdot Mirror
There's an amendment for that already, the fourth. The problem is that requiring constitutionality of legislation doesn't mean anything if the judiciary doesn't defend it, and when it comes to this the courts are totally fucking useless.
He, uh, meant Internet years. Or something.
"You seem to miss the fact", "you do not seem to understand", "you fail to recognize" — not only is that obnoxious, but the reality is simply that we don't agree, which actually relates closely to my original point that libertarian ideology is concerned with individual freedom and conservative ideology is not. As you say, that's true of progressive ideology as well, true enough, but that doesn't mean that progressives and conservatives don't have a different mindset, they do.
"The fact of the matter is that any group of people that does not have a common set of moral principles is unable to function as a unit." I don't want to function as part of some unit, that's the whole point. And I couldn't disagree with you more that "distributing the tools of violence" leads to chaos. Indeed, decentralized power is the only way to avoid oppression, but again, that difference of opinion suggests that I as a libertarian believe in individual freedom and you as a conservative do not — or, perhaps, that you believe individual freedom is incompatible with law and order and that the latter should prevail.
Thanks for the exchange, I think I've made all the points I could usefully make in one conversation and more would just be repetitious. The last word is yours, if you wish.
This is exactly what I mean. When you use terms like "our society", "societal benefits", "shared set of moral principles", and "traditional moral consensus", you're demonstrating a collectivist mindset that's extremely different from one that's concerned with individual freedom. I appreciate that you advocate persuasion and recognize that conservatives can't impose their particular flavor of morals on others through force, but the way you put it makes it sound like you only advocate this because you think it won't work, not because it's antithetical to liberty.
I was raised by progressives in an overwhelmingly progressive community, and had a similar experience to yours moving from that to libertarianism. I think you know, then, that while some libertarians seek no government, the majority of libertarians call for a very limited government that sticks to national defense and a criminal justice system that addresses only crimes with actual victims and civil dispute resolution.
Without addressing the issue that most politicians who say they're conservative really aren't, conservatives may be good when it comes to individual freedom in the economic sphere and in some other cases, like the right to self defense. But they are not standing up for individual freedom when it comes to other social issues, such as immigration, drug use, prostitution, and gay rights.
That last one is a good example of how the three ideologies really differ. Progressives think gay marriage should be legal. Conservatives think it shouldn't. But only libertarians ask why government is in the marriage business in the first place. The mindset is simply different from either of the others.
I'm not one of her followers, but I think Ayn Rand made a good point when she said that in a compromise between good and evil, evil always wins.
Exactly so. It's for this reason that I wish those on the left would stop referring to the system we currently have as "capitalism". It's not even close, it's corporatism, and that's very different, and vastly inferior. Now, if those on the left don't like capitalism either, then that's their prerogative, but those on the left and the right who are not part of the establishment should recognize that corporatism is their mutual enemy, and that it should be rooted out first, and differences settled afterwards.
You're confusing conservatives with libertarians.
It's inane comments like this that make me wonder what could be accomplished if people with differing ideologies would actually try to understand one another rather than just assuming that those who disagree with them must be evil or stupid.
Are you nuts? Do you want the aliens to come destroy us in response to such an obvious act of war?
The worst part about this is that the DA office doesn't seem to understand that "Stand Your Ground" is just an affirmative defense against a crime, not a magic spell that means someone can't be arrested.
If only the same applied to fair use as a defense against charges of copyright infringement!
You're right, but that doesn't change the fact that OP's characterization of the market for desktop Linux as "4 basement dwelling slashdot nerds" is ignorant with a cherry on top.
They're called "other countries", and in some of them, desktop Linux use may not be a majority, but it's more than a rounding error.
Stoplights are overrated. I've lived in a country-with-an-r that has zero of them, the Commonwealth of Dominica, which has a total population of about 69,000 people. People there get by just fine without them. And once you see that you can have a successful country with a population like that, and that those who work in government are far less insulated from the people they supposedly represent, it raises the question whether all the centralization of power we see in the U.S. (and, in fairness, most of the rest of the world) is really all that advantageous for Joe Sixpack.
No argument here. To continue the Fairfax County, Virginia example, it's comprised of nine districts, all of which are easily large enough to be counties themselves. So, your turn, although you're probably realizing by now that there's basically no limit the amount of decentralization with which I'd happily agree. :-)
Fair enough. I'm probably thinking this way because I grew up spending Christmas and summers with relatives in New Hampshire, so that's what I think of as "next to Massachusetts", as opposed to other (relatively) high tax states like R.I. or New York.
First, detach all counties with a population of 500,000 or more to be separate states. Then do what you say. If the people of North Dakota can handle state functions, there's no reason the people of, say, Fairfax County, Virginia with twice its population couldn't do the same. And, generally speaking, the closer government is to people, the more responsive it is. (I say generally speaking because I realize one could trot out examples of how "you can't fight city hall", but I'd rather try that than fight Congress or even a state legislature!)
Oh nothing against them personally. But considering the state's nickname is "Taxachusetts", better to be on the other side of the state line is all.
Hmm. But if intent doesn't matter, then anything controversial is flamebait, and there's even less point to Internet conversations than there is already.
Uh-uh. No one would be better off joining with Massachusetts.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with the post, it was moderator malpractice to call it flamebait.
Not that I disagree with anything you said, but somehow I feel like I just read an excerpt from the Bene Gesserit handbook.
Higher if they're hot chicks, since those are all fake accounts too.
OMG! Ponies!
Not far off, actually....
For that kind of money it would be cool if someone could deploy a statite.