Home› A Moving Train

misconception about Libertarianism

mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
edited August 2013 in A Moving Train
I have perceived there to be a misconception on libertarianism that needs to be addressed.

Penn Jillette says it nicely here, wish I had the whole video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... lt8#t=163s

highlights

"Every situation...in every problem you come up with, I would like to have one of the first questions to be, can we solve this problem with more freedom rather than less. Sometimes the answer is no..."

watch the whole thing if you can, he brings up some good points about political discussion we could all learn from in the beginning portion. I just highlighted when he talks about his philosophy when faced with a problem, political or not.

Most libertarians don't believe we can legislate ourselves to a better society. They don't believe that government always makes things better, they don't believe Gov't needs to be involved in everything. They do believe that your community has a responsibility to help its members. But that doesn't have to mean creating a government program, it means we should be doing it ourselves (a little Utopian I know). It isn't about letting the rich run rampant over the rights of the individual, it isn't about hating the poor, it isn't about having everyone fending for themselves.

Trust is a big factor in it I suppose. I trust society to not fall apart if the reigns are let out a bit. I trust people to be more naturally good than bad. I trust too much probably, but I would rather think the best of my neighbors than think the worst.

So please, stop thinking that Libertarians want everyone out there fending for themselves, no police, no safety net for those down on their luck, no gov't of any kind. That is anarchy and it is a different set of beliefs.

But enough from me, make up your own mind about libertarianism, but just do it from a point of view that sees it for what it is and not the extreme nature you want it to be.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    i think for the most part i share similar desired outcomes as a libertarian ... i think the biggest difference is how we get there ... what i appreciate most from the majority of libertarians on this board is their capacity to think critically and be objective ... which is fundamental if collectively we are to make things 'better" ...
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    I define it as we want limited government as defined by the Constitution. I don't really know if that defines me as a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist, I can live being either. I do not agree with the Libertarian open border garbage though. No government is anarchy, as there is someone on this site that gets the two confused.

    That being said we don't need government to build roads!
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,095
    unsung wrote:
    I define it as we want limited government as defined by the Constitution. I don't really know if that defines me as a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist, I can live being either. I do not agree with the Libertarian open border garbage though. No government is anarchy, as there is someone on this site that gets the two confused.

    That being said we don't need government to build roads!

    Who would you have build the roads?
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    When I was going to vote last time around, having voted both parties in the past
    and being disappointed with both candidates for President,
    I googled what I wanted and didn't want from government. Up came Libertarian.
    So I chose Gary Johnson after I researched him a bit.

    I like your words/explanation here it is clear...
    Most libertarians don't believe we can legislate ourselves to a better society. They don't believe that government always makes things better, they don't believe Gov't needs to be involved in everything. They do believe that your community has a responsibility to help its members. But that doesn't have to mean creating a government program, it means we should be doing it ourselves (a little Utopian I know). It isn't about letting the rich run rampant over the rights of the individual, it isn't about hating the poor, it isn't about having everyone fending for themselves.

    Thanks for the link too, he's a favorite person and I agree!

    "optimism and trust and love of people" beautifully stated
  • PU38569PU38569 Posts: 260
    There are like a dozen variants of anarchism. Some actually end up looking quite similar to authoritarianism when you take a few steps back.

    I'm all for the enduring spirit of the individual to be the master of his own domain, but from a practical aspect; without government to build roads in 2013, some private equity firm is going to, and we're going to end up on tip toe-ing 12 steps back in the course of human societal development back into the feudal system.Althought many occupy wall streeters would argue that we are effectively already there....

    But for all the USA bashing one can consume oneself with, it sure beats Somalia.

    That's not to justify inaction; but just to provide context
    This is a birthday pony
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    PU38569 wrote:
    There are like a dozen variants of anarchism. Some actually end up looking quite similar to authoritarianism when you take a few steps back.

    I'm all for the enduring spirit of the individual to be the master of his own domain, but from a practical aspect; without government to build roads in 2013, some private equity firm is going to, and we're going to end up on tip toe-ing 12 steps back in the course of human societal development back into the feudal system.Althought many occupy wall streeters would argue that we are effectively already there....

    But for all the USA bashing one can consume oneself with, it sure beats Somalia.

    That's not to justify inaction; but just to provide context


    what, would be we paying 14 dollars to cross a bridge if private equity firms did it? oh wait, the poor bastards in NYC already do :lol:

    The government taking a few steps back will not send us back to the feudal system though.

    Libertarianism isn't the absence of gov't though, the Somalia comparison I have seen before and it certainly isn't the same thing
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    The building roads thing is out of control...
    we got them going no where.
    And our current administration is expanding roads we just don't need.
    I get people are working but I'm sure they could work at something we really need.
    They put in a divided four lane not far from here and took away peoples backyards.
    Not their property per say but right up to their fences. Yuck.
    And when I choose to go over that way I swear not a car is on that thing
    any time of the day. Just dumb. Actually it is more sad than dumb.

    Now would it be different and better if we had a Libertarian in charge?
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661
    I think the tea party wants to go to the libertarians because they can't gain any control at the GOP. Just a thought out loud.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    pandora wrote:

    Now would it be different and better if we had a Libertarian in charge?


    Better is certainly debatable, and it probably wouldn't be 'better' in the short term. But different is a certainty ;)
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Go Beavers wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    I define it as we want limited government as defined by the Constitution. I don't really know if that defines me as a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist, I can live being either. I do not agree with the Libertarian open border garbage though. No government is anarchy, as there is someone on this site that gets the two confused.

    That being said we don't need government to build roads!

    Who would you have build the roads?

    LOL, I don't know... a road construction company?
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,616
    unsung wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    I define it as we want limited government as defined by the Constitution. I don't really know if that defines me as a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist, I can live being either. I do not agree with the Libertarian open border garbage though. No government is anarchy, as there is someone on this site that gets the two confused.

    That being said we don't need government to build roads!

    Who would you have build the roads?

    LOL, I don't know... a road construction company?
    paid for how?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,095
    unsung wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    I define it as we want limited government as defined by the Constitution. I don't really know if that defines me as a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist, I can live being either. I do not agree with the Libertarian open border garbage though. No government is anarchy, as there is someone on this site that gets the two confused.

    That being said we don't need government to build roads!

    Who would you have build the roads?

    LOL, I don't know... a road construction company?

    And how would this look different than what's currently happening?
  • PU38569PU38569 Posts: 260
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    PU38569 wrote:
    There are like a dozen variants of anarchism. Some actually end up looking quite similar to authoritarianism when you take a few steps back.

    I'm all for the enduring spirit of the individual to be the master of his own domain, but from a practical aspect; without government to build roads in 2013, some private equity firm is going to, and we're going to end up on tip toe-ing 12 steps back in the course of human societal development back into the feudal system.Althought many occupy wall streeters would argue that we are effectively already there....

    But for all the USA bashing one can consume oneself with, it sure beats Somalia.

    That's not to justify inaction; but just to provide context


    what, would be we paying 14 dollars to cross a bridge if private equity firms did it? oh wait, the poor bastards in NYC already do :lol:

    The government taking a few steps back will not send us back to the feudal system though.

    Libertarianism isn't the absence of gov't though, the Somalia comparison I have seen before and it certainly isn't the same thing

    Bridge crossings within New York city boroughs are free. It's the bridges and tunnels from NJ that cost money. Not to say that NYC has solved the riddle of how to master the management of public property... their "secret" is simply very high taxes. But just for the sake of the record...

    I agree, the government taking a few steps back would not send us to the feudal system. The absence of government would.

    My point on Somalia was in reference to the absence of government, not as a representation of Libertarianism.

    So it looks like we just agree like on almost everything. Except the NYC bridge thing.

    :corn:
    This is a birthday pony
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,053
    From what I understand of Libertarianism, I get the impression that the expression of Libertarianism by some who apply the label to themselves has changed as much as the concept itself is misunderstood. It has become more political for one thing and less philosophical. In some cases I get the feeling that the original sense of responsibility implicit in true libertarianism has been thinned out by certain people who would use it for personal desires or so-called freedoms- not all, of course, but maybe enough to change how it is viewed.

    People or groups of people often tend to grab onto something that is partially appealing to themselves and amend or distort and vary it to suit their needs. For example, some members of the Tea Party like to quote Edward Abbey who said, “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” I'm fairly certain Edward Abbey would not appreciate being quoted by the Tea Party. I'll look into that.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    polaris_x wrote:
    i think for the most part i share similar desired outcomes as a libertarian ... i think the biggest difference is how we get there ... what i appreciate most from the majority of libertarians on this board is their capacity to think critically and be objective ... which is fundamental if collectively we are to make things 'better" ...
    I'd think anyone who supports libertarianism has a deeper understanding of socio-political ideology than your average bear...I don't remember it getting much (if any) classroom time in grade/high school, at least not in my day. I think it's safe to say that anyone who digs deep enough to study the tenets of pretty much any ideology, is more prone to critical thinking...so...cause or correlation?

    The problem with all ideologies is we can never achieve a pure form of any of them....the libertarians have it right as to why that's the case - the current power structure, beginning with the banking system, has GOT to undergo a massive overhaul before anything can change in this world, period. The people behind the bildebergs, cfr, trilateral, ICG, chatham house, the brookings institute etc etc are our true global leaders. And whether the political climate swings left or right, they will continue to rig the game in their own favour regardless of what anyone else wants or needs. Laws and regulations are written or undone in their interests only.

    Every time I get into this kind of philosophical thought pattern, the only way out I can see is a complete collapse of western society and a fresh start....which would probably be doing most of the rest of the world a favour.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    Have been traveling or I would have jumped in on this earlier.

    I think the Penn video makes a good case for Libertarianism. I'm sure there are Libertarians who subscribe to the brand of Libertarianism he describes. My problem is that there are many who do not, and that they are vocal. Perhaps they are not the majority and that is a misconception on my part but it often feels that way.

    The text quoted in the OP:
    "Every situation...in every problem you come up with, I would like to have one of the first questions to be, can we solve this problem with more freedom rather than less. Sometimes the answer is no..."

    is not a bad question to ask. Penn goes on to describe an in-progress rape or an individual about to be executed as instances where the answer would be no. And of course he is right. But I often find myself debating so-called Libertarians where the answer to that question is ALWAYS yes. The example I would give is the TSA. Of course the TSA is not perfect, but there are Libertarians who have made it a prime target because it allegedly violates their rights. How would airline safety ever be a situation where the answer to Penn's question is yes? It would never be...yet the fight rages on.

    The question often asked instead is "How does this violate my rights?" Context and goal do not matter, only a rigid and unbending devotion to their idea of what the Constitution means. That is my problem with Libertarianism.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    JimmyV wrote:
    Have been traveling or I would have jumped in on this earlier.

    I think the Penn video makes a good case for Libertarianism. I'm sure there are Libertarians who subscribe to the brand of Libertarianism he describes. My problem is that there are many who do not, and that they are vocal. Perhaps they are not the majority and that is a misconception on my part but it often feels that way.

    The text quoted in the OP:
    "Every situation...in every problem you come up with, I would like to have one of the first questions to be, can we solve this problem with more freedom rather than less. Sometimes the answer is no..."

    is not a bad question to ask. Penn goes on to describe an in-progress rape or an individual about to be executed as instances where the answer would be no. And of course he is right. But I often find myself debating so-called Libertarians where the answer to that question is ALWAYS yes. The example I would give is the TSA. Of course the TSA is not perfect, but there are Libertarians who have made it a prime target because it allegedly violates their rights. How would airline safety ever be a situation where the answer to Penn's question is yes? It would never be...yet the fight rages on.

    The question often asked instead is "How does this violate my rights?" Context and goal do not matter, only a rigid and unbending devotion to their idea of what the Constitution means. That is my problem with Libertarianism.

    As Unsung pointed out earlier, that is probably more of a constitutionalist thought pattern. while they share many beliefs, they do not share all of them.

    The TSA is an interesting example to many simply because it is a gov't agency that has the power to assume guilt before innocence. If the police had the same power as the TSA there would be an uproar of epic proportions coming from everywhere. I would have no problem with whatever security a private company wanted to do, as it is an assumed aspect of purchasing a ticket, but a federal agency is different.

    So My answer would be, less gov't involvement, more private security, as it used to be, and more accountability for those private security firms. I don't like handing over an ability for the gov't to assume everyone is guilty. But that is simply a philosophical process, if someone could show me why the TSA is more efficient than private security performing federally mandated processes than I would probably change my mind.
    I don't feel more safe/less safe now than I did before 9/11. I don't believe the TSA is going to be the difference between a plane getting hijacked or not any more than the old security used to do.

    With a gov't agency that is only 10 years old, processes and procedures are bound to push the envelope until there is a middle ground found.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    I like talking about the TSA as I do have a problem with it. But my problem exists because it is the government doing it and not a private company. And please save the rebuttal that the airlines would cut corners, only be concerned about the bottom line, not care, etc. Private companies can guard nuclear plants successfully, and the company is held highly responsible to ensure regulations are followed. Cutting corners does not happen.

    No matter how you view it people are searched without cause. The Constitution is what the government can or cannot do, not what the people can or cannot do.

    But then again that's probably why I don't fly.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    Have been traveling or I would have jumped in on this earlier.

    I think the Penn video makes a good case for Libertarianism. I'm sure there are Libertarians who subscribe to the brand of Libertarianism he describes. My problem is that there are many who do not, and that they are vocal. Perhaps they are not the majority and that is a misconception on my part but it often feels that way.

    The text quoted in the OP:
    "Every situation...in every problem you come up with, I would like to have one of the first questions to be, can we solve this problem with more freedom rather than less. Sometimes the answer is no..."

    is not a bad question to ask. Penn goes on to describe an in-progress rape or an individual about to be executed as instances where the answer would be no. And of course he is right. But I often find myself debating so-called Libertarians where the answer to that question is ALWAYS yes. The example I would give is the TSA. Of course the TSA is not perfect, but there are Libertarians who have made it a prime target because it allegedly violates their rights. How would airline safety ever be a situation where the answer to Penn's question is yes? It would never be...yet the fight rages on.

    The question often asked instead is "How does this violate my rights?" Context and goal do not matter, only a rigid and unbending devotion to their idea of what the Constitution means. That is my problem with Libertarianism.

    As Unsung pointed out earlier, that is probably more of a constitutionalist thought pattern. while they share many beliefs, they do not share all of them.

    The TSA is an interesting example to many simply because it is a gov't agency that has the power to assume guilt before innocence. If the police had the same power as the TSA there would be an uproar of epic proportions coming from everywhere. I would have no problem with whatever security a private company wanted to do, as it is an assumed aspect of purchasing a ticket, but a federal agency is different.

    So My answer would be, less gov't involvement, more private security, as it used to be, and more accountability for those private security firms. I don't like handing over an ability for the gov't to assume everyone is guilty. But that is simply a philosophical process, if someone could show me why the TSA is more efficient than private security performing federally mandated processes than I would probably change my mind.
    I don't feel more safe/less safe now than I did before 9/11. I don't believe the TSA is going to be the difference between a plane getting hijacked or not any more than the old security used to do.

    With a gov't agency that is only 10 years old, processes and procedures are bound to push the envelope until there is a middle ground found.

    I don't believe they are assuming guilt before innocence. I believe they are following uniform, one-size-fits-all security protocols intended to keep all air passengers safe. I am not sure that is the best way to go, but I do believe it has kept passengers safe since 9/11. Despite attempts to gut it at every turn, it has succeeded in its mission.

    I do believe, without doubt, that when faced with budgetary concerns a private company would skimp and cut corners. I believe cut corners directly led to the Lockerbie bombing. As that bombing did not happen in the U.S. there are some who believe that it does not belong in this discussion. I disagree wholeheartedly.

    I don't feel more or less safe than before 9/11 either. But feeling safe to me is not the point. There are results we can point to (i.e. = no lost planes) that indicate the TSA, along with other government security agencies, are succeeding at their mission.

    Question: How does a private security firm equal more freedom? Regulated or not, I would think that equals less freedom, not more.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    unsung wrote:
    please save the rebuttal that the airlines would cut corners, only be concerned about the bottom line, not care, etc. Private companies can guard nuclear plants successfully, and the company is held highly responsible to ensure regulations are followed. Cutting corners does not happen.

    This kind of mindset - that because something has not (allegedly) happened yet it can not ever happen - scares me more than anything.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    JimmyV wrote:

    I don't believe they are assuming guilt before innocence. I believe they are following uniform, one-size-fits-all security protocols intended to keep all air passengers safe. I am not sure that is the best way to go, but I do believe it has kept passengers safe since 9/11. Despite attempts to gut it at every turn, it has succeeded in its mission.

    I do believe, without doubt, that when faced with budgetary concerns a private company would skimp and cut corners. I believe cut corners directly led to the Lockerbie bombing. As that bombing did not happen in the U.S. there are some who believe that it does not belong in this discussion. I disagree wholeheartedly.

    I don't feel more or less safe than before 9/11 either. But feeling safe to me is not the point. There are results we can point to (i.e. = no lost planes) that indicate the TSA, along with other government security agencies, are succeeding at their mission.

    Question: How does a private security firm equal more freedom? Regulated or not, I would think that equals less freedom, not more.

    I guess if you see no distinction between a gov't agency searching anyone at any time in an airport and a private security firm doing it, we don't have much to talk about on the subject. we can agree to disagree on that.

    I am fine with airport security, I just don't think a federal agency needed to be created to achieve the same level of success. None since isn't a good enough result as their can be many reasons as to why that is, not simply the TSA existing.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    JimmyV wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    please save the rebuttal that the airlines would cut corners, only be concerned about the bottom line, not care, etc. Private companies can guard nuclear plants successfully, and the company is held highly responsible to ensure regulations are followed. Cutting corners does not happen.

    This kind of mindset - that because something has not (allegedly) happened yet it can not ever happen - scares me more than anything.

    we agree on that, we are just scared of different things happening :lol:

    I am scared that the gov't will move from Airport security to the streets of Anytown, USA with the same charge. Assume everyone is guilty and search anyone at anytime for any reason.

    so I guess it boils down to who's ox is being gored
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    I don't believe they are assuming guilt before innocence. I believe they are following uniform, one-size-fits-all security protocols intended to keep all air passengers safe. I am not sure that is the best way to go, but I do believe it has kept passengers safe since 9/11. Despite attempts to gut it at every turn, it has succeeded in its mission.

    I do believe, without doubt, that when faced with budgetary concerns a private company would skimp and cut corners. I believe cut corners directly led to the Lockerbie bombing. As that bombing did not happen in the U.S. there are some who believe that it does not belong in this discussion. I disagree wholeheartedly.

    I don't feel more or less safe than before 9/11 either. But feeling safe to me is not the point. There are results we can point to (i.e. = no lost planes) that indicate the TSA, along with other government security agencies, are succeeding at their mission.

    Question: How does a private security firm equal more freedom? Regulated or not, I would think that equals less freedom, not more.

    I guess if you see no distinction between a gov't agency searching anyone at any time in an airport and a private security firm doing it, we don't have much to talk about on the subject. we can agree to disagree on that.

    I am fine with airport security, I just don't think a federal agency needed to be created to achieve the same level of success. None since isn't a good enough result as their can be many reasons as to why that is, not simply the TSA existing.

    I don't think anyone in any airport in America is being searched "at any time". You walk in, you pass through security, you go on with your life. No one is being stopped and asked to show their papers randomly throughout the terminal. That a government agency is in charge of that security is a positive to me. I would be much more concerned with a private security agency searching my bags and knowing my personal information.

    I give credit for none since because if there was one since - and there will be - opponents would point to it as a reason why the TSA has failed. If we are going to give blame and no credit then I think the standard is unfair.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    please save the rebuttal that the airlines would cut corners, only be concerned about the bottom line, not care, etc. Private companies can guard nuclear plants successfully, and the company is held highly responsible to ensure regulations are followed. Cutting corners does not happen.

    This kind of mindset - that because something has not (allegedly) happened yet it can not ever happen - scares me more than anything.

    we agree on that, we are just scared of different things happening :lol:

    I am scared that the gov't will move from Airport security to the streets of Anytown, USA with the same charge. Assume everyone is guilty and search anyone at anytime for any reason.

    so I guess it boils down to who's ox is being gored

    True enough. :lol:
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    JimmyV wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    I don't believe they are assuming guilt before innocence. I believe they are following uniform, one-size-fits-all security protocols intended to keep all air passengers safe. I am not sure that is the best way to go, but I do believe it has kept passengers safe since 9/11. Despite attempts to gut it at every turn, it has succeeded in its mission.

    I do believe, without doubt, that when faced with budgetary concerns a private company would skimp and cut corners. I believe cut corners directly led to the Lockerbie bombing. As that bombing did not happen in the U.S. there are some who believe that it does not belong in this discussion. I disagree wholeheartedly.

    I don't feel more or less safe than before 9/11 either. But feeling safe to me is not the point. There are results we can point to (i.e. = no lost planes) that indicate the TSA, along with other government security agencies, are succeeding at their mission.

    Question: How does a private security firm equal more freedom? Regulated or not, I would think that equals less freedom, not more.

    I guess if you see no distinction between a gov't agency searching anyone at any time in an airport and a private security firm doing it, we don't have much to talk about on the subject. we can agree to disagree on that.

    I am fine with airport security, I just don't think a federal agency needed to be created to achieve the same level of success. None since isn't a good enough result as their can be many reasons as to why that is, not simply the TSA existing.

    I don't think anyone in any airport in America is being searched "at any time". You walk in, you pass through security, you go on with your life. No one is being stopped and asked to show their papers randomly throughout the terminal. That a government agency is in charge of that security is a positive to me. I would be much more concerned with a private security agency searching my bags and knowing my personal information.

    I give credit for none since because if there was one since - and there will be - opponents would point to it as a reason why the TSA has failed. If we are going to give blame and no credit then I think the standard is unfair.

    I was stopped inside the airport, Miami, boarding a plane and my bag was searched at the ticket counter. I had already gone through security in Minneapolis, through the international security check point at the Miami airport and was then searched while waiting in line to board my flight to Mexico.

    I cannot believe I am the only one this has happened to. If I am I withdraw my complaint and will apply for work at the TSA!
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    mikepegg44 wrote:

    I was stopped inside the airport, Miami, boarding a plane and my bag was searched at the ticket counter. I had already gone through security in Minneapolis, through the international security check point at the Miami airport and was then searched while waiting in line to board my flight to Mexico.

    I cannot believe I am the only one this has happened to. If I am I withdraw my complaint and will apply for work at the TSA!

    Oh, the "random" search that you get "flagged" for? I was not aware they are still doing that. If so I agree. That is an unreasonable search. And I don't think that particular search has ever prevented anything. Completely for show.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    JimmyV wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    please save the rebuttal that the airlines would cut corners, only be concerned about the bottom line, not care, etc. Private companies can guard nuclear plants successfully, and the company is held highly responsible to ensure regulations are followed. Cutting corners does not happen.

    This kind of mindset - that because something has not (allegedly) happened yet it can not ever happen - scares me more than anything.


    I don't need a giant federal government overlord to make me feel safe. It actually has the opposite effect.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    unsung wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    please save the rebuttal that the airlines would cut corners, only be concerned about the bottom line, not care, etc. Private companies can guard nuclear plants successfully, and the company is held highly responsible to ensure regulations are followed. Cutting corners does not happen.

    This kind of mindset - that because something has not (allegedly) happened yet it can not ever happen - scares me more than anything.


    I don't need a giant federal government overlord to make me feel safe. It actually has the opposite effect.

    The government is a convenient boogieman. Live in the country, enjoy all the benefits and protections of the country, rail against the government. That will never make sense to me. I am not saying love it or leave it. I am saying the government is a big reason why our way of life is possible. I think enjoying that way of life while blaming the government for all ills makes no sense. If you want to call that constitutionalism, fine. I don't agree with that ideology at all.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • PU38569PU38569 Posts: 260
    brianlux wrote:
    From what I understand of Libertarianism, I get the impression that the expression of Libertarianism by some who apply the label to themselves has changed as much as the concept itself is misunderstood. It has become more political for one thing and less philosophical. In some cases I get the feeling that the original sense of responsibility implicit in true libertarianism has been thinned out by certain people who would use it for personal desires or so-called freedoms- not all, of course, but maybe enough to change how it is viewed.

    People or groups of people often tend to grab onto something that is partially appealing to themselves and amend or distort and vary it to suit their needs. For example, some members of the Tea Party like to quote Edward Abbey who said, “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” I'm fairly certain Edward Abbey would not appreciate being quoted by the Tea Party. I'll look into that.

    Agreed. Many of these tea-party whiners were the same ones mindlessly droning out "you should support your president" or "you should support your troops" in response to anti-war dialogue during bush/Cheney.

    When it's a white republican president it's "you're not being a team player" and when its a black democrat it's all the sudden "don't tread on me".....

    Where was that crap when the Patriot act was being passed?
    This is a birthday pony
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661
    PU38569 wrote:
    brianlux wrote:
    From what I understand of Libertarianism, I get the impression that the expression of Libertarianism by some who apply the label to themselves has changed as much as the concept itself is misunderstood. It has become more political for one thing and less philosophical. In some cases I get the feeling that the original sense of responsibility implicit in true libertarianism has been thinned out by certain people who would use it for personal desires or so-called freedoms- not all, of course, but maybe enough to change how it is viewed.

    People or groups of people often tend to grab onto something that is partially appealing to themselves and amend or distort and vary it to suit their needs. For example, some members of the Tea Party like to quote Edward Abbey who said, “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” I'm fairly certain Edward Abbey would not appreciate being quoted by the Tea Party. I'll look into that.

    Agreed. Many of these tea-party whiners were the same ones mindlessly droning out "you should support your president" or "you should support your troops" in response to anti-war dialogue during bush/Cheney.

    When it's a white republican president it's "you're not being a team player" and when its a black democrat it's all the sudden "don't tread on me".....

    Where was that crap when the Patriot act was being passed?

    +100
Sign In or Register to comment.