misconception about Libertarianism

mikepegg44

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.

mikepegg44

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

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

JimmyV

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.

JimmyV

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

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.

mikepegg44

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!

JimmyV

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.

unsung

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.

JimmyV

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.

PU38569

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?

Last-12-Exit

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

JimmyV

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.

There is plenty of truth in the statement above. The responsibility part does seem to be often forgotten.

unsung

PU38569 wrote:

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 pretty much entirely incorrect. The TEA Party started when Bush had the first bailout and it was ignited by a Ron Paul MoneyBomb in Dec of 2007. I can't recall anyone from that original group defending Bush. It didn't become neo-con for a couple of years. All of us that were involved in the beginning roll our eyes as to what it has become.

As far as the PATRIOT Act I've always been against it, even though the TEA Party did not exist when it was signed into law. That's probably a good reason why the TEA Party did not protest it.

And speaking of mindlessly droning, where did the anti-war left go?

Go Beavers

unsung wrote:

PU38569 wrote:

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 pretty much entirely incorrect. The TEA Party started when Bush had the first bailout and it was ignited by a Ron Paul MoneyBomb in Dec of 2007. I can't recall anyone from that original group defending Bush. It didn't become neo-con for a couple of years. All of us that were involved in the beginning roll our eyes as to what it has become.

As far as the PATRIOT Act I've always been against it, even though the TEA Party did not exist when it was signed into law. That's probably a good reason why the TEA Party did not protest it.

And speaking of mindlessly droning, where did the anti-war left go?

My memory and any reference I can find identifies February 2009 as when the tea party people started up. You can't deny the connection that it was a response to Obama being president, and not actually about policy.

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

unsung wrote:

PU38569 wrote:

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 pretty much entirely incorrect. The TEA Party started when Bush had the first bailout and it was ignited by a Ron Paul MoneyBomb in Dec of 2007. I can't recall anyone from that original group defending Bush. It didn't become neo-con for a couple of years. All of us that were involved in the beginning roll our eyes as to what it has become.

As far as the PATRIOT Act I've always been against it, even though the TEA Party did not exist when it was signed into law. That's probably a good reason why the TEA Party did not protest it.

And speaking of mindlessly droning, where did the anti-war left go?

My memory and any reference I can find identifies February 2009 as when the tea party people started up. You can't deny the connection that it was a response to Obama being president, and not actually about policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bNiDx7qTjA

PU38569

Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...

I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.

But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).

But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Sludge Factory

PU38569 wrote:

Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...

I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.

But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).

But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

What I am readying from your post above is "I was wrong, now watch me move the goal posts so as to appear not to be completely wrong".

JimmyV

Sludge Factory wrote:

PU38569 wrote:

Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...

I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.

But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).

But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

What I am readying from your post above is "I was wrong, now watch me move the goal posts so as to appear not to be completely wrong".

Yes and no. Since we are told regularly that the Tea Party does not resemble the original 2007 Tea Party, it isn't totally wrong to say this version did begin with the election of Obama. These people would not be protesting President McCain because he did not represent a black muslim manchurian candidate determined to redistribute all wealth and destroy America from within.

Sludge Factory

JimmyV wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

PU38569 wrote:

Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...

I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.

But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).

But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

What I am readying from your post above is "I was wrong, now watch me move the goal posts so as to appear not to be completely wrong".

Yes and no. Since we are told regularly that the Tea Party does not resemble the original 2007 Tea Party, it isn't totally wrong to say this version did begin with the election of Obama. These people would not be protesting President McCain because he did not represent a black muslim manchurian candidate determined to redistribute all wealth and destroy America from within.

Then specify your version. When one says the "Tea Party started in 2009...:, that is factually incorrect regardless of what version you are referring to. If one says something like "The Tea Party that was hijacked in 2009" that would be more accurate and then we wouldn't have these issues.

JimmyV

Sludge Factory wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Yes and no. Since we are told regularly that the Tea Party does not resemble the original 2007 Tea Party, it isn't totally wrong to say this version did begin with the election of Obama. These people would not be protesting President McCain because he did not represent a black muslim manchurian candidate determined to redistribute all wealth and destroy America from within.

Then specify your version. When one says the "Tea Party started in 2009...:, that is factually incorrect regardless of what version you are referring to. If one says something like "The Tea Party that was hijacked in 2009" that would be more accurate and then we wouldn't have these issues.

I don't think we really have an issue now.

PU38569

Sludge Factory wrote:

PU38569 wrote:

Ok... Yes 2 guys standing in a front lawn in Eugene Oregon with a tea party sign in 2007 is pretty damning evidence.....but aslan knows of a deeper magic: a 7 year old girl played tea party with stuffed teddy bear in a backyard in Peioria IL in 2004. Yeessss.... Earth shattering...

I think what we were getting at was that when it became a somewhat relevant nationally identifiable "movement" was when Obama was in office.

But at the same time, there are like 100 tea party variants. It's really just code for "whiny provincial loudmouth" (per the Oxford English dictionary).

But yes, based on the 2004 backyard event between Miss Penelope and Mr. Snugglebuttons, in which tea, although imaginary, was served (much like the value that the tea party brings to human civilization), we should ask Wikipedia to rewrite their heavily bibliographicized tea party web page because it is erroneously stating 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

What I am readying from your post above is "I was wrong, now watch me move the goal posts so as to appear not to be completely wrong".

then you need to re-read it