Democrats v Republicans

[davjohns 1]

Just for discussion - I have a rule of thumb that says people's intent is best interpreted from their actions and not their words.

Based on actions, it is my interpretation that the two dominant parties in the US work thusly:

Democrats - Want to take my money away. Give it to people who vote / think like they do. Tell me how to live my life, talk, think, have sex, pray, etc. Often fail to live up to their stated ideals. Tend to lie and blame others when they get caught. Think they are right about everything, and anyone who disagrees with them must be evil or stupid. Aren't particularly interested in facts unless they comport with pre-conceived theories.

Republicans - Hmmm....Ditto.

Who to vote for? Who to vote for? Who to vote against?

Me? I identify most with the Libertarian philosophy (if not the party).

Are you gay? Be the best gay person you can be. I don't want anyone telling me how to have sex either.

Like drugs? So long as you don't harm anyone else, can take care of your obligations and don't expect me to pay for your care; knock yourself out. Alcohol is a drug, by the way.

Tired of it all and want to take the suicide option? Arrange the funeral, pay your debts off and report to the morgue.

Prostitution? Somebody always pays anyhow.

Want to pray to Cthulu at midnight while dancing around a fire painted green and singing showtunes? Please post video on youtube.

Don't like what's on TV? Have you really watched everything available on video? Take control of your own TV and leave everyone else's alone.

Want to be married to someone of the same sex or a hundred people? Why should the government care? Why should I? And King David (beloved of God) had hundreds of wives and concubines, so the religious argument isn't swaying me.

The Golden Rule in the original Hebrew is: Whatever is harmful to you, do not do to others. That's all I ask. I will not interfere wtih your life. Leave me alone as well. As long as neither of us is hurting another, what does it matter? And try to help out the next person if you can. It's good for your character.

Now - there's a little of something for everyone in there. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, you can now start telling me how I should think, talk, have sex, pray, etc. You know you want to.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[idrankwhat 0]

I'm a liberaltarian so I agree with you on pretty much all of what you wrote. But I also recognize that our government has an important role in maintaining the integrity of the United States. How does your philosophy deal with food/product safety, roads, borders, aviation, and general sustainability issues such as energy and the environment? Also, what about financial industry regulation? We just came very close to a complete financial collapse that would have devastated our country were it not for heavy handed government interference. Effective government regulation of our casino economy would likely have prevented such a close call. I'm not trying to tell you how to think but how does a "live and let live" society work when the golden rule is considered a laughable hindrance to higher quarterly earnings reports?

[quade 4]

Quote

The Golden Rule in the original Hebrew is: Whatever is harmful to you, do not do to others. That's all I ask.

Unfortunately, too many other people are simply going to say, "Screw you buddy. It's all about me." The Golden Rule is a great ideal, but it's naive to think it's all that's required.

Fortunately we have something to fight against that encoded into our DNA. No matter what part of the planet you go to and no matter how civilized or not, people form groups to help ensure group survival. Government is simply a larger form.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

This is a funny post, especially in the context of someone who is a Commissioned Officer in the Army...and therefore expected to bring forth a set doctrine, which, among other things, mandates behavior, actions, and even thought to a degree.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your post, and even agree with most of it, but I was just citing the irony score that's all...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[davjohns 1]

"How does your philosophy deal with food/product safety, roads, borders, aviation, and general sustainability issues such as energy and the environment? Also, what about financial industry regulation?"

And that is where I diverge from the Libertarian party. Government has certain necessary functions. However, I notice the two parties rarely quibble over how those necessary functions should be executed. They quibble over gay marriage, sex, censorship, and a multitude of areas that I just don't want any government goofing around in. I just want to see government limited to those areas that can't be handled at a level closer to the individual. For instance: why do we have a Secretary of Education? The feds take my money and say they will give it back if I agree to teach my child the way they (in their infinite wisdom) think I should. Just one example of both parties telling me how to run my life despite the fact that I am not hurting anyone.


"Unfortunately, too many other people are simply going to say, "Screw you buddy. It's all about me." The Golden Rule is a great ideal, but it's naive to think it's all that's required. "

Agreed. That's why I don't care for the Golden Rule in English. You will note that the Hebrew version is basically to not hurt other people. That's far easier than the English version. The English version says that since you would like everyone to serve you, you should serve everyone else (paraphrased). Clearly that is unworkable. But 'harm no others' is pretty straight forward. Typically, when you break that one, we lock you up.


"This is a funny post, especially in the context of someone who is a Commissioned Officer in the Army...and therefore expected to bring forth a set doctrine, which, among other things, mandates behavior, actions, and even thought to a degree."

Not that much. I live my life by pretty conservative values. And most military do likewise. However, I am sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. Give it a read sometime. It does not mention drugs, sex, sexual preferences, tax credits to influence how you live, forcing you to teach your children what the government thinks you should, pornography, or a whole host of things that the government meddles in today. And both parties meddle in these things.

Here's an interesting example: not long ago, congress had hearings about drug use in baseball. BASEBALL! Exactly what is the compelling governmental interest in baseball? It is a game. It has a regulating body. The players are paid for talent and a desire to push the envelope of human performance (I know that's a bit debateable, but give me a little there). If the players are willing to subject themselves to the side effects of drugs in order to earn substantial paychecks and the fans are willing to pay for tickets and memorabilia; let them! Why is congress busy failing to balance the budget or address pressing matters in order to have hearings about baseball? Both parties were perfectly happy to participate in this waste of our money in order to tell us how our leisure time should be regulated.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Like drugs? So long as you don't harm anyone else, can take care of your obligations and don't expect me to pay for your care; knock yourself out. Alcohol is a drug, by the way.

At any age? You are okay with your daughter shooting heroin as long as her grades don't suffer? How about an 8 year old using their allowance to buy coke, are you ok with that?

If not, at what age are you ok with drug use?

How about sex, if a 56 year old wants to have sex with a 13 year old and the 13 year old consents, are you ok cause there are two consenting people involved?

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Like drugs? So long as you don't harm anyone else, can take care of your obligations and don't expect me to pay for your care; knock yourself out. Alcohol is a drug, by the way.

At any age? You are okay with your daughter shooting heroin as long as her grades don't suffer? How about an 8 year old using their allowance to buy coke, are you ok with that?

If not, at what age are you ok with drug use?

How about sex, if a 56 year old wants to have sex with a 13 year old and the 13 year old consents, are you ok cause there are two consenting people involved?

Another perfectly valid point. We have decided as a society that people need to reach a certain age of maturity before they come into their full rights. I think that is self-apparent and should be continued. Obviously underaged persons are unprepared to make these decisions and to allow them to do so would cause them harm. Now, to be fair, plenty of adults seem unprepared to make good decisions as well. I would recommend letting those people suffer the consequences of their actions. It's a great teacher.

Let me be clear: some claim they are Libertarians when they are truly anarchists. As I posted above, there are some minimal needs for government and regulation. I just think there are lots of things the government and it's parties get involved in that have no governmental interest. I think this can be traced to two parties that both want to regulate how others live. In this matter, I see little to distinguish them from each other.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like drugs? So long as you don't harm anyone else, can take care of your obligations and don't expect me to pay for your care; knock yourself out. Alcohol is a drug, by the way.

At any age? You are okay with your daughter shooting heroin as long as her grades don't suffer? How about an 8 year old using their allowance to buy coke, are you ok with that?

If not, at what age are you ok with drug use?

How about sex, if a 56 year old wants to have sex with a 13 year old and the 13 year old consents, are you ok cause there are two consenting people involved?

Another perfectly valid point. We have decided as a society that people need to reach a certain age of maturity before they come into their full rights. I think that is self-apparent and should be continued. Obviously underaged persons are unprepared to make these decisions and to allow them to do so would cause them harm. Now, to be fair, plenty of adults seem unprepared to make good decisions as well. I would recommend letting those people suffer the consequences of their actions. It's a great teacher.

Let me be clear: some claim they are Libertarians when they are truly anarchists. As I posted above, there are some minimal needs for government and regulation. I just think there are lots of things the government and it's parties get involved in that have no governmental interest. I think this can be traced to two parties that both want to regulate how others live. In this matter, I see little to distinguish them from each other.

So exactly at what age is some one mentally prepared for heroin use?

[wmw999 2,588]

If it's legal and regulated, then probably at the same age that one is prepared for alcohol use or even tobacco use. It's a stupid thing to do, but we let people smoke, have unprotected sex, and do plenty of other stupid and self-destructive things.

Quite frankly, heroin is probably less damaging than meth. Both are bad. Tobacco is bad; meth and heroin are probably worse. Does that mean that we make them illegal (thereby putting a whole lot of expensive infrastructure around regulating them) or tax the shit out of htem (thereby putting a whole lot of expensive infrastructure that recovers some of its cost around htem).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If it's legal and regulated, then probably at the same age that one is prepared for alcohol use or even tobacco use

I think having one beer or one cigarette or one shot of heroin are slightly different.

And "tax the shit out of them" has the same effect as makin them illegal.

[wmw999 2,588]

Contrary to what my mother said, one shot of heroin doesn't make you an addict. It's definitely addictive, but it takes more than one exposure.

I haven't done it, but I know people who have. In the spirit of experimentation, it's another drug. In the spirit of escaping from your problems, it's a more expensive one than alcohol, but it tends to make you less aggressive when you're high, rather than more aggressive (which alcohol does).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)