Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

Americans have just lost the right to a fair trial


Saffire

Recommended Posts

That leaves out the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, the soldiers' belief in ending chattel slavery and wage slavery, which brings us to today. Ending global slavery and wage slavery is still an ongoing fight, please support the efforts for reform and justice:

About Global Exchange | Global Exchange

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for World Revolution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So it's over

R.I.P. Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately he couldn't live forever to protect American and it's Constitution.

 

I just joined and I'm just skimming through the forums and I found this sort of funny. I take APUSH and I recently had to do a project on whether or not Abraham Lincoln's actions violated civil liberties, which in my opinion, did, so I'm not very sure what you would be hoping for if Abraham Lincoln was alive right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But what if you don't value logic? A lot of people don't. What if you value faith more than logic?

then you really have no place in any rational debate.

 

Whether you are an atheist or not - saying something that is impossible to know with such arrogance is a sign of someone with a small mind.

Doesn't this just refute your 'what if you value faith more?' question?

 

note: I do admit that Saffire hasn't been as relentless in his criticism of faith as most other libertarians I know have. So props to him!

he really doesn't mention it at all, certainly hasn't in this thread. Libertarianism has nothing to say about 'correct' religious beliefs. The vast majority of libertarians I know are devout Christians.

 

 

They don't care that a lot of people actually think the opposite.

why should anyone?

 

Saffire will tell you that a purely free market guarantees the most correct and the most efficient use of resources. Even if this is true, what if you don't value efficiency above all else? What if you value your own form of morality higher than you value sheer efficiency and productivity?

I...I just don't see the necessary dichotomy...

 

- Libertarians can't empathise with difference of opinion. They simply can't understand why anyone might dare to think differently.

haha, believe me that this is not limited to libertarians, you could say the same of anyone propagating any ideology. Unless you're a relativist, its only rational to choose and defend one worldview above others. The crime is not in not empathizing with other opinions, but not playing by the rules of civilized debate. You're just venting your hatred of particular individuals who have pissed you off by spouting paragraphs full of offensive generalizations.

 

A libertarian cannot tell you that you are wrong. It's a difference of a opinion.

Just because there's a difference of opinion does not mean one cannot judge something to be wrong. You've spent this whole post saying that libertarianism is wrong, and you don't see jay pulling the bullshit 'it's just your opinion' card.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you value your own form of morality higher than you value sheer efficiency and productivity?

 

Then you convince others that your morality is correct and results in greater happiness for everyone.

 

But it's not productive to make threats against peaceful people, because this arrangement is simply "might makes right".

 

Saffire will tell you that a purely free market guarantees the most correct and the most efficient use of resources. Even if this is true, what if you don't value efficiency above all else?

 

Efficiency at producing what?

 

I do value efficiency (because I think waste is bad). But how do we know what is wasteful? How do we know what's efficient? We base these assessments on the end-goal of production.

 

How do we know what to produce? We can know based on what people are willing to pay for (voluntarily).

 

The second force enters into the equation (taxation, regulation, etc), the connection between consumers and producers is severed. The producers are rewarded for being wasteful, and end up spending a lot of money on attracting politicians and trying to get them elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because there's a difference of opinion does not mean one cannot judge something to be wrong. .

 

Never said it couldn't - I was telling someone why it isn't worth debating with Saffire. He doesn't care what you think at all and just wants to push what is in his own head and doesn't think about anything other than it.

 

You've misinterpreted what I was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the warm welcome. I feel that this new privlege that the government has will only harm the United States relations with other countries. An incident where the US arrests a foreigner without reason will cause world-wide controversy and overall just tarnish the reputation of the country. I hope it's appealed soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said it couldn't -

Quote:

A libertarian cannot tell you that you are wrong. It's a difference of a opinion.

 

??? :shrug:

 

 

You've misinterpreted what I was saying.

How else could one interpret it?

I was telling someone why it isn't worth debating with Saffire. He doesn't care what you think at all and just wants to push what is in his own head and doesn't think about anything other than it.

Your statement referred to 'libertarians', not just Saffire. So please, own up to your impassioned monologue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

 

In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.

 

The legislation has drawn severe criticism from civil liberties groups, many Democrats, along with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who called it “a slip into tyranny.” Recently two retired four-star Marine generals called on the president to veto the bill in a New York Times op-ed, deeming it “misguided and unnecessary.”

 

“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”

 

The president defended his action, writing that he signed the act, “chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.”

 

Senior administration officials, who asked not to be named, told ABC News, “The president strongly believes that to detain American citizens in military custody infinitely without trial, would be a break with our traditions and values as a nation, and wants to make sure that any type of authorization coming from congress, complies with our Constitution, our rules of war and any applicable laws.”

One official explained that President Obama does believe, however, that American citizens can be temporarily detained, and that the military has the right to capture and hold any citizen who is engaged in conflict against the United States. If various provisions in the law prove unworkable, the president could go back to Congress to ask for changes.

 

“The president is going to adhere to the policies that he has held over the last three years, making sure that none of these congressional provisions impede the ability of the counterterrorism and military professional from keeping the country safe,” the official said.

 

I'm feeling safer already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President's signing statement on NDAA:

 

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.

 

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill-signing-statement/

 

Happy New Year :hat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, it's much easier to just kill them with a drone. :)

 

Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.

 

Aww traditions! Values!

 

It would also break the law: the US Constitution.

 

Oh, and now I've got two 4-star generals who agree with my interpretation of the bill. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A libertarian can't tell anyone they are wrong because libertarian rhetoric isn't testable. It's never been implemented and it's all hypothetical. So a libertarian telling me that the free market is always going to work and everything will work out fine is sheer opinion. There is no fact behind this - it's just what they think. They can only speculate as to what will happen.

 

This isn't true. There are many examples of libertarian policies being implemented and working effectively. For instance:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjuvXdqKM0M]Glenn Greenwald on Drug Decriminalization in Portugal - YouTube[/ame]

 

and

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5bfQrfTZJM]When Governments Cut Spending - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo0h_AR_lJM]Does stimulus spending work? - YouTube[/ame]

 

 

- Libertarians aren't in favour of ensuring equality through outside interference.

 

This is true, but we believe this is the case because it's a fallacy that the government is an "outside" agent. Government is comprised of individuals who are members of the society itself. So governments are just self-interested monopolists of coercion.

 

 

- Libertarians believe the free market is inherently good and can only improve things.

 

We have a neutral view of the market itself. The "free market" is merely individuals trading.

 

We have a negative view of coercion.

 

- Libertarians value their own brand of logic above everyone else.

 

There are no alternative "brands" of logic.

 

- Libertarians ask weighted questions in attempts to convince others that they too are libertarians.

 

Unless you use physical force against peaceful people in your own personal life, you are acting as a libertarian. You might espouse views in favor of statism, though.

 

- Libertarians want to get rid of public spending.

 

And taxation.

 

- Libertarians believe coercion is always wrong.

 

Again: any argument in favor of coercion against peaceful people is just "might makes right".

 

- Libertarians don't value the idea of a collective.

 

Only individuals act. Human beings are biologically independent, and economically interdependent.

 

- Libertarians will not empathise with difference of opinion and are in favour of only one solution to all governance problems.

 

Wrong. Libertarians enjoy the idea of decentralization and sovereignty. We value experimentation in various types of governance and rule sets.

 

Statists use force to squash those who wish to live under different rules.

 

You're just looking to pick a fight. Your initial response to me involve you picking out three sentences that I wrote and trying to twist me words against me. If you don't want to respond wholesale, don't bother. I have no interest in debating semantics and I don't care if you think that I implied the things you are suggesting. I didn't. End of story.

 

Pot calling Kettle black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/facepalm.

 

You're really not with it today, are you?

meanie pants!

 

 

A libertarian can't tell anyone they are wrong because libertarian rhetoric isn't testable. It's never been implemented and it's all hypothetical.

This just isn't true. Libertarians draw upon the same political and economic history to support their arguments as any other political faction. References to the 'founding fathers' is so rampant among American libertarians because at that point in history the country did operate in accordance with certain Lockean principles. So yes, the libertarian ideology has been implemented and empirically observed to a fair degree.

 

But this is all tangential to my comment...

 

 

Non-libertarians make the choice to happily live in a society under a governance not because we agree and support everything a government does - it's because, that at the end of the day, it's our preferred option. A libertarian cannot tell you that you are wrong. It's a difference of a opinion.

My point was, just because something is your preferred option, does not make it ethically permissible or philosophically viable. It is never enough to appeal to 'preference' alone. One must justify the choice, and off the cuff, I can imagine some very wrong justifications for a worldview or an action.

 

Result: when certain conditions are satisfied, a libertarian CAN tell you that are wrong. Which is to say, there are solid grounds on which to say that one IS wrong, apart from speculation.

 

 

So a libertarian telling me that the free market is always going to work and everything will work out fine is sheer opinion. There is no fact behind this - it's just what they think. They can only speculate as to what will happen.

Side-stepping a debate on the nature of the free market, I think this is a bit unfair. Even Libertarians will concede that Keynesian economists had decent historical reasons for developing their views. You love to throw out 'just their opinion', without acknowledging that there are actual reasons underlying them.

 

It's like me trying to tell you that your favourite colour is yellow. It means nothing.

Teal. Weak analogy, because there is a fact of the matter. (My New Years resolution was to be less of a Nazi, so I won't hold it against you).

 

 

I can see you're having a slow time of things, so I'll help you out and quote all the things I claimed libertarians believe

 

*clutches heart*

 

 

 

 

 

- Libertarians aren't in favour of ensuring equality through outside interference.

Not via a violent monopolistic institution at least. But also understand that many Libertarians are strict voluntarists, and thus also encourage the development of charities and the voluntary coming together of communities and individuals to help the needy (some argue that this is as or more effective at alleviating poverty than taxation).

 

 

- Libertarians believe the free market is inherently good and can only improve things.

 

Wouldn't word it this way. More fair to say that a free market system, devoid of monopolies is better than conceivable alternatives.

 

- Libertarians value their own brand of logic above everyone else.

Logic is Logic. If you mean that libertarians prefer libertarianism to...not-libertarianism, then yes.

 

- Libertarians ask weighted questions in attempts to convince others that they too are libertarians.

:shrug: Not sure what this has to do with what they believe.

 

- Libertarians want to get rid of public spending.

Among other things, sure.

 

 

- Libertarians believe coercion is always wrong.

I think its possible to be a consequentialist and a libertarian, but its certainly bad.

 

- Libertarians don't value the idea of a collective.

Usually not, but as long as its a free, voluntary choice to participate in such a community. Nuttin' 'rong wit dat.

 

- Libertarians will not empathise with difference of opinion and are in favour of only one solution to all governance problems.

Wrong, you're just bigoted. :)

All of those things libertarians share. I hardly see how it is wrong of me to state this.

Again, I was responding to particular statements. Particularly the ones that say all libertarians, by definition, are stubborn, sophistic atheistic dicks who do not pay attention to any else's opinions, and prefer logic to faith...and stuff.

 

--

Since you never understood my point, I will clarify.

gimmememememememememe! :p

Because of these fundamental differences in world views - a debate with a libertarian is meaningless because it always boils down to these core points that non-libertarians do not agree with.

Not always, just your experience, come again. I have had at least one debate with a libertarian that was not meaningless. So suck it.

 

I don't really see why you had such a big problem with anything that I said.

because, imho, some of the things you said were incorrect. See above.

 

You're just looking to pick a fight.

(Sigh) the world we live in where a MAN!....dresses up like a BAT!...

 

Your initial response to me involve you picking out three sentences that I wrote and trying to twist me words against me.

You did not deny or clarify the sentences I quoted, and I thought I gave you ample context. chill out.

 

If you don't want to respond wholesale, don't bother. I have no interest in debating semantics and I don't care if you think that I implied the things you are suggesting. I didn't. End of story.

kk bye now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Obama, on January 21, 2009, I witnessed you pledge to protect the American constitution and the freedom and liberties of your people.

What more is there to say now than I am a lucky Australian? Living in a country where the government may be stupid, but not corrupt like you and your government.

 

Um no, we're getting pretty bad too, especially with how determined our politicians seem to be with being butt buddies of the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah berrywoman, it's frightening how these things slip by because the media is too busy talking about celebrities/sports/etc.

 

Bread and circuses...

 

"Keep Calm and Carry On"...

 

sad but true... :embarrassed:

 

 

isn't this just an extension of the Patriot Act??? Not that I was ever in real favor of that either but...

 

:\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um no, we're getting pretty bad too, especially with how determined our politicians seem to be with being butt buddies of the US.

 

Right, the US is currently setting up a marine base in Australia to protect us from China. We're paying for it with money we borrowed from the Chinese.

 

isn't this just an extension of the Patriot Act??? Not that I was ever in real favor of that either but...

 

I think the PATRIOT Act was mostly about spying and wiretapping, whereas this is mainly an effort to make it easier for the government to bypass due process (public trials, defense attorneys, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, the way the government works here is thus: there needs to be a victim of a law/government action in order for there to be a case against the law/government action.

 

So in theory, the government can write/pass whatever laws it pleases, and the people aren't allowed to challenge them unless and until someone actually has "standing" (a claim of victimization) to bring the case to court. I'm not sure how one would go about that when they're already in military custody, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...