jason_ Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Something to consider if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump: http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/06/donald-trump-thinks-kelo-style-eminent-d And if you're not familiar with the Kelo v The City of New London, it's a landmark property rights case that I think all Americans should be outraged about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I'll take it a step further and claim that political voting itself is the initiation of the use of force. So to address the problem at it's source, I'd make the opening line "If you're thinking about voting... look in the mirror." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper_Heart Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Tramp is not perfect, but he is the best candidate that can win. Bern will be impeached in year, Clinton and every one else will be Obama #2(Who was Bush #2(Who was Clinto #2(...))). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_ Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 If you're thinking of voting, every presidential candidate supports taxation - which is a violation of property rights. I don't know why this would be a negative towards Trump and a positive towards everybody else. If you're basing it on principles all the candidates unsurprisingly fail. Unfortunately Rand Paul dropped out, but there is and has not been a Libertarian candidate and we're in the situation of slaves voting for a slave master. I wanted to share some of what I found in my research -- which included watching the first season of The Apprentice . I think this election will be important because we're headed for economic trouble and I fear that if one of the polarized candidates (Sanders <-> Trump) is elected they will view it as a mandate to push their agenda hard. I very much hope it's not Sanders as I don't want the US to move any closer towards socialism, yet a candidate with little focus on the Constitution is also something to fear. Trump's opinion on the Kelo v City of New London case demonstrates a lack of that focus or understanding, or respect of the Constitution. In my own opinion, I think that a personality like Trump's is exactly the sort we want to have market discipline and not the legitimized power of coercion. I know there's checks and balances, but there is still lots of power in the office of the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_ Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 Tramp is not perfect, but he is the best candidate that can win. Bern will be impeached in year, Clinton and every one else will be Obama #2(Who was Bush #2(Who was Clinto #2(...))). I'm not sure Trump's the best candidate, and I doubt Sanders would be impeached -- although Congress may give him a seriously hard time implementing his retarded ideas. If Hillary Clinton isn't going to prison, I'd offer that up for consideration of why Sanders wouldn't be impeached. That chain of presidents you brought up also shows how corrupt the system is and that it's about to collapse under the weight of it's own bullshit. I'll take it a step further and claim that political voting itself is the initiation of the use of force. So to address the problem at it's source, I'd make the opening line "If you're thinking about voting... look in the mirror." I'm looking in the mirror. I've never bought the lesser of two evils argument, but consider this: You can vote for candidate A who promises to hurt 1,000 people, or for candidate B who promises to do worse to 10,000 people. Of course, you can choose not to vote, but that may produce a more negative outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 you can choose not to vote, but that may produce a more negative outcome. Inaction doesn't produce anything. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_ Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 Inaction doesn't produce anything. I'd disagree. Inaction at one's job could produce a pink slip or other disciplinary action. To the extent we can make choices, we choose between different outcomes, even when the choice is not to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Inaction at one's job could produce a pink slip or other disciplinary action. The source of the pink slip/disciplinary action is not inaction, but actively violating your contract with your employer. For every action you engage in, you're not engaging in every other possible action. To try and assign responsibility to inaction would short circuit immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_ Posted February 6, 2016 Author Share Posted February 6, 2016 The source of the pink slip/disciplinary action is not inaction, but actively violating your contract with your employer. For every action you engage in, you're not engaging in every other possible action. To try and assign responsibility to inaction would short circuit immediately. Cast as citizens, we have the option to vote. Would you say choosing not to vote has no consequences? A useful exercise is sometimes to think at the extremes. What if everyone voted? What if no one did? What about 50%? Wouldn't you agree each one of these scenarios yields different consequences? Assigning responsibility to inaction is called negligence. If one does not have the capacity to act, then I would agree it would not be fair to hold them responsible; this is not the the case with eligible voters. Do you have an argument for choosing not to vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Cast as citizens, we have the option to vote. Would you say choosing not to vote has no consequences? Part of the reason I avoid minutia is because it avoids obfuscation. If my position is that inaction incurs no responsibility, then of course it would be my position that NOT VOTING* incurs no responsibility. *You poison the well when you say "choosing not to vote." Also, the word citizen is referring to somebody solely in the context of somebody else's claim of ownership of them. You know when we, as PEOPLE have the option to vote? When Taco Bell opens their doors to provide products/services and I'm free to decline. Even those who do not vote are not free to decline the edicts of whomever gets votes. Suggesting that there is choice only serves to mask, protect, and perpetuate the evil that is carried out in the name of the State. If you find fault in my position, I welcome you to identify where I've erred. Just asserting the opposite is not an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grithin Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Insanity:- "I'll take it a step further and claim that political voting itself is the initiation of the use of force. So to address the problem at it's source, I'd make the opening line "If you're thinking about voting... look in the mirror.""- "I'm looking in the mirror. I've never bought the lesser of two evils argument, but consider this:"Forums are ultimately ineffective for many reasons, the the above are examples. And, what does the above represent?- the ability to continue a topic either - away from the initial topic - in ignorance of logic that should have ended the topic- the dominance of those who chat and argue emotionally over reasoned postsInsanity #1: "voting itself is the initiation of the use of force":No force is exerted upon anyone unwillingly by voting, and voting does not "support the system". The system has and will continue despite huge numbers of non-voters, and despite a <20% approval rating. If you want to use your insane logic of 'the gun maker is culpable for murders by guns', then you have to actually look at how the system is supported, and then blame people who conform to those supports, the main ones being:- paying taxes- following the law- using the country's currencyBut, not doing one of those is actually difficult, unlike not-voting.Insanity #2: "lesser of two evils"This failure to understand the notion of "lesser of two evils" by saying "never bought..." is a result of a failure to understand the situation. It tends to be a misunderstanding that:- if you support the lesser of two evils, you are still supporting evilSo, if you don't vote, evil loses? No, someone still gets elected regardless, they just are potentially more evil. You need to understand that, in this particular situation, (and it varies depending on the situation), it is a matter of decreasing the amount of evil.This is completely different from the situation in which, for example, there are two evil companies, one being more evil, so you decide to buy stock in the lesser of the two evil companies. In this situation, there is no guarantee of the success of one of the companies and you are voluntarily buying stock into one, and therefore supporting/increasing evil - you have the option to put your money elsewhere.There is an actual argument regarding a potential fallacy of "lesser of two evils" when applied to politics, but that has to do with where you spend your time, and is much more abstract and pointless to discuss here since, as evidenced by our postings, we are very bad at choosing wise ways to spend time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 He basically just said "I'm for liberty, which is why we have the constitution, but that constitution allows us to infringe on liberty in this case." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_ Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 WHOOPS! Hi Michael, Thanks for sharing the link. I think most people expect that candidates from within the political system would be for things like seizure and taxation. The reason I posted the link was two fold. To show that Donald Trump is not a libertarian candidate, and to point out the Kelo case, which I think should disturb every American. I give it to Mr. Cruz for answering the question if he's for a border wall straight -- he usually dances around questions. Personally, I don't want to live in a gated country or even a gated community. I want people to feel welcome. Speaking about welcoming, in your recent video with Stefan you mentioned you've decided not to vote. I welcome you to share your reasons why in my thread on the subject https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46439-voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils/ I'm still undecided on the matter, and would like to read why you've made the decision to not vote. Thanks again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 No such thing as just compensation for someone being forcefully kicked off their land. If it was just compensation they'd take the offer willingly. If you have to force them it says it was unjust because they turned down the deal as insufficient compensation for their home and land, which they may have owned for generations. Setting such a negative precedent is bad for the general welfare's rights and morality. It's stealing for private interests plain and simple. The projects are also frequently paid for or 'subsidized' financially by the taxpayers meaning the project was viewed by the free market as not worth the costs or a bad plan as it would not provide sufficient service for the cost. I hate eminent domain and anyone who peddles that crap. Ted Cruz really rubs me the wrong way when he talks. He's in a pretty nasty position of pedaling false liberty and justice and trying to claim semi-libertarian or libertarian status. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_ Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 No such thing as just compensation for someone being forcefully kicked off their land. If it was just compensation they'd take the offer willingly. If you have to force them it says it was unjust because they turned down the deal as insufficient compensation for their home and land, which they may have owned for generations. Setting such a negative precedent is bad for the general welfare's rights and morality. It's stealing for private interests plain and simple. The projects are also frequently paid for or 'subsidized' financially by the taxpayers meaning the project was viewed by the free market as not worth the costs or a bad plan as it would not provide sufficient service for the cost. I hate eminent domain and anyone who peddles that crap. Ted Cruz really rubs me the wrong way when he talks. He's in a pretty nasty position of pedaling false liberty and justice and trying to claim semi-libertarian or libertarian status. Beard, I think you've made some excellent points that I agree with. Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I think there is a difference when using eminent-domain for a private owned business compared to using eminent-domain in trying to protect the American people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I think there is a difference when using eminent-domain for a private owned business compared to using eminent-domain in trying to protect the American people. How do you protect people by stealing from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 How do you protect people by stealing from them? You're with your grown daughter Lucy facing a monster. Lucy has a gun but won't give it to you. Do you steal the gun and use it to protect you both from the monster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 And what difference do you see there? Are you going to make an argument for supporting one over the other, or...? The difference is the intention. The keyword was trying. How do you protect people by stealing from them? I was implying it for the people who are willfully accepting to partake in the government system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 So as long as I intend to do something nice for you, it's ok to steal your stuff? Cool, send me your address please. Again, I am implying this to the people who doesnt consider it as theft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 You're with your grown daughter Lucy facing a monster. Lucy has a gun but won't give it to you. Do you steal the gun and use it to protect you both from the monster? depends on how good of a shot we both are. That's not really analogous to the government, though. At best, they are a worse shot than we are. Also, I'm going to be carrying a gun too if there are "monsters" in the area, and if she's carrying, she is probably pretty good with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts