Democracy or Security? Egypt

[pocketfullofshells]

1) It's not your property if you were worried about them ruining your veiw you should have bought the property or moved elsewhere.

2) They knew the risk of driving without a seatbelt thus they must live with the consequences.

I built my house first you build yours after...I don't like it...I can do what ever i want because its effecting my house now....?

2. OK so please tell me how you find out how much is my fault for hitting the car, and how much is theres for not having a belt on? Who decides that?

on 2nd thought don't...its getting way off what i was looking to talk about here...maybe a new thread if you want to keep this debate going?

 

[dogtowner]

I built my house first you build yours after...I don't like it...I can do what ever i want because its effecting my house now....?

2. OK so please tell me how you find out how much is my fault for hitting the car, and how much is theres for not having a belt on? Who decides that?

on 2nd thought don't...its getting way off what i was looking to talk about here...maybe a new thread if you want to keep this debate going?

Ap misunderstands the libertarian concept that you should be free to do as you wish so long as it does not infringe on the life liberty or property of another. If I decide to raise hogs in my backyard in suburbia, that infringes on my neighbor's property (smell, etc) so not ok. that car wreck that is your fault on the person sans seatbelt does nto work because the unbelte4d one IS infringing on your property (in this case your money).

Libertarian is about equality and fairness.

 

[GenSeneca]

Other: We should mind our own business and stop meddling in the political affairs of other nations. That includes withdrawing any military or financial support for dictators like Mubarak.

 

[steveox]

Error

 

[Apathy]

I built my house first you build yours after...I don't like it...I can do what ever i want because its effecting my house now....?

2. OK so please tell me how you find out how much is my fault for hitting the car, and how much is theres for not having a belt on? Who decides that?

on 2nd thought don't...its getting way off what i was looking to talk about here...maybe a new thread if you want to keep this debate going?

Its at the very core of the debate.. It is one of the two main questions here. Is mob rule a desirable form of government? If so should would interfere with other nations so they can acquire mob rule for their governments?

 

[steveox]

Mubarak should turn Egypt into a National Socialist government. Control the media which mean NO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Wiretap phones and ban internet service and cellphones are forbidden to use. Like how Hitler ran Germany. Arabs need to be controled they need to be leashed just like how dogs are put on leashes. Cause Dogs run wild and you need to control dogs.

 

[Apathy]

1)Ap misunderstands the libertarian concept that you should be free to do as you wish so long as it does not infringe on the life liberty or property of another. If I decide to raise hogs in my backyard in suburbia, that infringes on my neighbor's property (smell, etc) so not ok. that car wreck that is your fault on the person sans seatbelt does nto work because the unbelte4d one IS infringing on your property (in this case your money).

2)Libertarian is about equality and fairness.

1)Yes Im going to take the word of a neocon over life long Libertarians that believe in these values. In your strawman scenarios no rights of property have been violated. As for the smell do you own the air? As for the seat belt scenario Im going to have to ask you to re-key that in a literate and coherent way. My 7 year old nephew has more respect for the rules of the English language than you do.

2) Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Libertarianism is based on the rights of individual not equality and fairness.

People arent born equal some are smarter some are not so smart. So for true equality you would need to remove parts of the smart persons brain to make it equal. Or in the current government they give money to the person that has not been blessed with intelligence to try and even things out. As for fairness its not fair that smarter people make more money so logically we take their property and give it to the person making less money to make it fair. Equality and fairness is just an excuse for wealth re-distribution.

Life is not fair and we are not equal and it's not the job of the government to fix that.

 

[dogtowner]

1)Yes Im going to take the word of a neocon over life long Libertarians that believe in these values. In your strawman scenarios no rights of property have been violated. As for the smell do you own the air? As for the seat belt scenario Im going to have to ask you to re-key that in a literate and coherent way. My 7 year old nephew has more respect for the rules of the English language than you do.

2) Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Libertarianism is based on the rights of individual not equality and fairness.

People arent born equal some are smarter some are not so smart. So for true equality you would need to remove parts of the smart persons brain to make it equal. Or in the current government they give money to the person that has not been blessed with intelligence to try and even things out. As for fairness its not fair that smarter people make more money so logically we take their property and give it to the person making less money to make it fair. Equality and fairness is just an excuse for wealth re-distribution.

Life is not fair and we are not equal and it's not the job of the government to fix that.

No, we are not equal. But that does not mean one gets to lord over another as a result. So you make our rights equal and fair. You cannot start a hog farm next door to me infringing on my life and property. Liberty gets a ride in this instance.

If you wish to be a libertarian you really should understand it first. You're closer to an anarchist.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its at the very core of the debate.. It is one of the two main questions here. Is mob rule a desirable form of government? If so should would interfere with other nations so they can acquire mob rule for their governments?

last I checked we have democracy and not Mob rule.

your choices are...No government...quickly turns into who ever gets power rules over who ever and what ever they can...and you get little choice.

Rule of a autocratic leader who is picked with no input from the people

or a form of Democracy where the people have a say in there leadership.

I will take the one where I have a say. And that is what Egypt is pushing for right now...who knows what form in may take...but they will have more say in the end I think then they do now...as its about zero right now.

 

[Apathy]

1)last I checked we have democracy and not Mob rule.

2)your choices are...No government...quickly turns into who ever gets power rules over who ever and what ever they can...and you get little choice.

3)Rule of a autocratic leader who is picked with no input from the people

4)or a form of Democracy where the people have a say in there leadership.

5)I will take the one where I have a say. And that is what Egypt is pushing for right now...who knows what form in may take...but they will have more say in the end I think then they do now...as its about zero right now.

1)No we have a representative republic that is quickly turning into a mob rule.

2) Complete batsh1t, but anarchy is another subject all together.

3) You know better than that no one advocated anything of the sort.

4) Where the mob can select leader to rape and pillage the minority for them?

5) Frankly I don't care what the Egypt rebels do with there country if or when they get it. You shouldn't either you should respect their sovereignty.

 

[Apathy]

1)No, we are not equal. But that does not mean one gets to lord over another as a result. 2)So you make our rights equal and fair. 3)You cannot start a hog farm next door to me infringing on my life and property. Liberty gets a ride in this instance.

4)If you wish to be a libertarian you really should understand it first. You're closer to an anarchist.

1) No one said that wanker.

2) I dont believe I ever said some are entitled rights that others are not. Coming from someone who advocates a party who will deny gay couples the same rights they give to straight couples I find this quite ironic.

3) To say that is infringing on your property right is to say you own the air. Kind of a lame ass excuse to infringe on the property rights, if you don't like it you can move. If you do own you should also be able to justly be able to control the sound vibrations traveling through the air. So if you can hear someone say something you don't agree with by that same logic you can shut them up and claim to be defending your property rights.

4) Kind of funny just a couple days ago I was an Obama supporting commie bastard. Make up your mind will ya!

If you knew anything about Libertarians you would know the anarchist/minarchist debate has been going on among Libertarians for ages. All true Libertarians (big "L" at least, small "l" libertarians are usually just pissed of republicans e.g. Beck) have anarchist sympathies.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you knew anything about Libertarians you would know the anarchist/minarchist debate has been going on among Libertarians for ages. All true Libertarians (big "L" at least, small "l" libertarians are usually just pissed of republicans e.g. Beck) have anarchist sympathies.

I'm a big L libertarian who understands government's only role is the protection of individual rights and most of the people around here think limiting government to protecting the rights of individuals is the same thing as Anarchy.

 

[Apathy]

I'm a big L libertarian who understands government's only role is the protection of individual rights and most of the people around here think limiting government to protecting the rights of individuals is the same thing as Anarchy.

That would be the minarchist view. But the problem with minarchy is that it can quickly turn into something ugly.

How would the government defend rights? How would minarchists ensure that the government would defend and not violate the rights of individuals. The founders believed a constitutionally restricted government would solve the problem. But in practice its been proven not to work the government ignored the constitution and the people are ignoring it. How will you enforce the constitution on the government? The second issue is that the government can arbitrarily decide what your right are and what they are not. Take for example Schenck Vs. US the US Supreme Court decided his right to free speech no longer existed because they didnt like what he was saying.

 

[BigRob]

The beauty of being the outside party here is that we can currently play both sides.... we should not pick a side so to speak until it is absolutely critical.

Until then, we should continue doing what we are doing... supporting Mubarkak, but also supporting the protesters.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The beauty of being the outside party here is that we can currently play both sides.... we should not pick a side so to speak until it is absolutely critical.

Until then, we should continue doing what we are doing... supporting Mubarkak, but also supporting the protesters.

the writting is on the wall...take sides now or you just get lumped in as supporting the other. We made such a big deal about Democracy in the middle east...Fought wars for it...but its to hard to have the balls to say to a leader his time is up after 30 years and support democracy?

this is why people don't like us in the rest of the world...when push comes to shove...all our ideals get thrown aside if its in our interest overseas.