Forum Replies Created
March 14, 2013 at 8:51 pm in reply to: A few things I feel would add value to the LC product #19747
I would agree with the audio assessment given above. I find I’m a much more visual learner than auditory learner, especially when it comes to complicated subjects like math and economics. I need pictures to understand concepts. Still love the site and the overall concept, but Mr. Slagle is not alone in his opinion. Will the market respond??? Haha, time will tell…
And I guess that brings me back to my previous assertion that if nobody is right and everybody is right, wouldn’t the most correct path be the one that respects human life, does not initiate violence, and allows each individual to live according to his/her beliefs without coercion? Isn’t that the most preferable version of truth?
Haley11, you say, “What I realized ultimately is that there is no truth anymore.” Is that TRUE?
Well, there is truth and then there is the interpretation of truth. An example might be: “The US is in debt”. True statement. Almost nobody will debate that. BUT it’s the interpretation of it that gets muddy. The left will say, “Yes we’re in debt but if we just raise taxes on the rich and end our wars, we can manage it.” And the right says “Yes we’re in debt, if we can just fire Big Bird and stop funding abortion and throw granny off the cliff while maintaining our Orwellian platform of Peace through Strength and balance the budget in another 40 years, everything will be fine.” And then you have the libertarians/Austrians “Yes we are in debt! We need to address it now, not in 40 years!! We predicted this crisis, we saw it coming, why are you ignoring us! Cut the military, fire Big Bird, lower taxes, yes all of it!!!”
So what is truth? The left has Krugman vindicating their point of view, we have the Austrians and supposedly history on our side. I don’t know what the Right has going for them. Who’s right and how do you determine who’s right?
I think the information era has been a boon for liberty, but it has also muddied the waters too. Now with information about pretty much everything literally at our fingertips, everyone can find an expert, a historian, an article, a something that will corroborate their view point. So how do you ever determine what is truth?
Which is I guess a way of affirming the original statement, that there is no reality, only perception.
I’m not necessarily advocating an amendment, more like a law akin to the DOMA. It could still be cheekily called the same thing though 😉
I guess as I’m sitting here reasoning this out I’m realizing it might be counterproductive even from that angle. The states could still nullify it I suppose. And it might further politicize an issue that shouldn’t be political to begin with, making it a certainty that the leftist voters out there are only voting on 1 or 2 issues while ignoring the big picture (although that wouldn’t be far from what’s happening now anyway). Now candidates would have to campaign on whether or not they would repeal the REAL Defense of Marriage Act much like they have to meticulously outline their stance on Roe v. Wade and this just turns into a sideshow circus and only ensures that real issues like the Fed and all of our wars will never be debated.
But, what else can you do when it’s clear that government isn’t going to magically decide it doesn’t need to be in the marriage equation at all and miraculously turns it over to individuals?
I’m finding that’s the problem with a lot of libertarian solutions is that many of them can’t be implemented without basically going back to 0 and starting over. Secession…?
I am entirely for gay marriage or whatever you want to call it. The State has no business dictating who you love or how you love. That being said, since the State is already so engrained in the marriage question, this is one subject where I think a federal initiative would benefit.
I say this because when I was trying to convince some of my liberal friends that a Ron Paul presidency wouldn’t mean an outright ban on gay marriage as many of the other Republican candidates advocated, and that RP would leave it up to the states to decide, a gay friend of mine laid bare some facts I had not previously considered.
He went to university overseas and fell in love with a foreign man while there. If gay marriage were left up to the states, it still does not allow his partner to emigrate to the US on a spousal visa because that is a federal issue, not a state issue. He also brought up the issue of filing taxes. While at the State level they could file a joint tax return, when they do their federal return they would have to do a completely different tax return because the federal government doesn’t recognize gay married couples like they do heterosexual couples.
If the role of government is to protect liberty, then the freedom to marry who one chooses and to not be treated differently for this just because the person you love is of the same sex needs to be protected not only at the state level but at the federal level. This should hold true whether you think this is a lifestyle choice or whether you believe people are born this way. Like other choices, libertarians do not believe the State can regulate and legislate people from making bad choices. If you believe homosexuality is merely a choice and not innate, adhering to libertarian doctrine means still accepting this and protecting this choice as on the basis of any morally questionable choice an individual makes that does not harm any other individual such as how libertarians advocate for drug legalization.
As it stands, my friend and his partner are living in Australia as they can both get temporary visas there while they try and figure out their future. Also, my husband is Australian and when looking at spousal visa requirements for me to move to Australia, I noticed that the Australian government is fully accepting of gay married couples trying to get spousal visas for their partners. So it seems the U.S. is behind other nations in this regard.
Going back to the original poster, libertypunk, I don’t think this question should shake your confidence in your beliefs about libertarianism. Indeed, I myself have been struggling with this question quite a bit, but within my own head and not in a debate with someone else.
I started down this journey to libertarianism because of my desire to know what “the truth” is. As a former Obama supporter and typical “sheep”, I spent a lot of time trying to debunk claims from the right about Obama. What I realized ultimately is that there is no truth anymore (was there ever?). Both sides have “facts”, “economists”, “professors”, and the like on their side supposedly validating their side and conversely proving the other side wrong.
So if all sides are correct theoretically, meaning we can reach identical means via different paths, the Republican, Democrat, or libertarian path, then isn’t the path that takes the moral high ground, promotes non-violence and voluntary associations as opposed to force and coercion, the most preferable one?
I think “we” win by winning the moral argument. Just like everyone now acknowledges that slavery is morally wrong, we must start changing minds that force and violence to achieve political ends is also wrong.
While not a blog, Sibel Edmonds Boiling Frogs Post http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/ is a great source of news from independent and worldwide sources, cutting through the MSM BS. She’s a fan and supporter of Ron Paul and the site offers access to some great podcasts and other opinion pieces apart from a daily news roundup of stories frequently censored by the MSM. She is a government whistleblower, has a great book out about her experience fighting the US Gov, and relies solely on subscriber and user donations to fund her site so as not to taint any of the news and information that gets disseminated on her site. Very worthwhile to check out.November 8, 2012 at 9:06 pm in reply to: The Founders Weren't Isolationists Nor Libertarians #14929
No, not overly long at all, a great point-by-point refutation. Thanks so much!November 8, 2012 at 7:39 pm in reply to: The Founders Weren't Isolationists Nor Libertarians #14927
Haha, 2 professor replies! Awesome!
No, I’m certainly aware of Ron Paul’s foreign policy principles and know that these neocons are (deliberately) misconstruing his words and ideas about isolationism vs. non-interventionism. I was asking for clarification on some of the finer points that the article talked about that were masquerading as “facts”.
As there were many such “facts”, I know it’s challenging to refute all of them in a concise manner. I’m working my way through a bevy of books and obviously the courses here but there’s only so much I can do at once, so sometimes I need to rely on the quick and well-informed responses of the Liberty Professors instead! Thanks!
Maybe some of Gerard Casey’s new logic courses will help too 😉
Speaking of bubbles, what will the student loan bubble look like when it pops? What would make it pop? Any time frame predicted?
I posted this link on Tom Wood’s page on FB and he directed me over here to Jeffrey and anyone else who might want to weigh in. This lady correctly asserts that QE3 won’t help but has different reasons for why it won’t than the Austrian school of thought and offers other suggestions about how to improve the economy, including the literal helicoptering down of money.
She also states repeatedly that the only reason we have inflation and stock market surges is not because the money supply has increased (she claims it hasn’t because any money created by QE doesn’t get lent out), but because of the psychological *expectations* of what QE is supposed to do.
Anyway, here is the link. I’d appreciate help in understanding why she’s wrong. Thanks!
I guess I’ve stumped the professors!
For the sake of not starting another thread since this one is already titled “U.S. Constitution”, I would like to ask another Constitution-related question that has been posed to me about the Elastic Clause (or Necessary and Proper clause). Doesn’t it sort of make the notion of enumerated powers a bit moot? Can’t it be (and hasn’t it been) broadly interpreted, at least in intellectual circles if not in actual judicial decisions, much like the “general welfare” clause? Thanks!