Texas House Democrats Walk Out of Session

[jvikings1]

2 minutes ago, Hestia said:

There's no reason to be condescending 🙂

I am simply disputing the policy, so if you don't want to have the conversation anymore, you can choose to stop replying. The fact is that this has been used for decades in some states, like Oregon and Washington. The website below shows that in the 20 years that Oregon has used it, they've only had 15 cases of fraud in their history. Hawaii was watched from 1982-2016 and only found 2.  Compare that with Heritage's collection of your own state of Kentucky has had 31, and my home state of Iowa has had 17 😄 The data just bears out that it is secure, and anything else is just guess work. 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/02/low-rates-of-fraud-in-vote-by-mail-states-show-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/

I wasn't being condescending, just stating an observation from your engagement with my comments. It is a good idea to fully understand one's comments before submitting a reply.

Those are documented cases, and do not catch ones that are not caught (and therefore documented). When you have messed up voter rolls, it makes it very difficult to catch cases of fraud. When you use methods that reduce proper trails, it also makes it difficult to stop fraud. Thus increasing security insures that those instances actually stay low.

[Hestia]

Just now, jvikings1 said:

Those are documented cases, and do not catch ones that are not caught (and therefore documented). When you have messed up voter rolls, it makes it very difficult to catch cases of fraud. When you use methods that reduce proper trails, it also makes it difficult to stop fraud. Thus increasing security insures that those instances actually stay low.

This is just guesswork. I could say the exact same thing about elections in Iowa or Kentucky. There's no proof behind either statement. 

[vcczar]

53 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Not from a liberty mindset. Voting allows people to infringe upon the rights of others, thus requiring restrictions should it be chosen as the method for a particular government. Thus, the "right" to vote must be infringed upon in such a circumstance in order to protect the inalienable rights (which are negative rights).

This just sounds very, very skewed to me. Voting also allows liberties, such as legalization and things like that. To argue voting as not a liberty sounds ridiculous. One should have the liberty to vote. Restrictions on voting for US Citizens are anti-liberty. Obviously disagreements occur because "life" "liberty" and "property" are vague terms, so anyone can define those interpretations by whatever makes them feel better or fits their agenda. 

[Zenobiyl]

Voting is certainly an inalienable right and liberty, the day it isn’t is the day we become a fascist/communist country

[jvikings1]

49 minutes ago, Hestia said:

This is just guesswork. I could say the exact same thing about elections in Iowa or Kentucky. There's no proof behind either statement. 

I'm not the one making an argument/claim, so I do not have to prove anything. Rather, I just have to poke holes in your arguments/statements to show there are other ways to address this issue.

[Zenobiyl]

[Dobs]

5 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Not from a liberty mindset. Voting allows people to infringe upon the rights of others, thus requiring restrictions should it be chosen as the method for a particular government. Thus, the "right" to vote must be infringed upon in such a circumstance in order to protect the inalienable rights (which are negative rights).

This seems like an argument for a benevolent dictatorship that defends liberty (however said dictator may define it- as long as he agrees with you) over a liberal democracy. As v said, very shifty. We have a Constitution to limit the government, that’s very true and very important. We have a Republic for a reason. But a despotic Republic is no republic at all and the right to political participation is among the most important of all of them.d

I believe you are the one with the distorted view of liberty my friend.

[pilight]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

But they're better parsed than usual. But, I guess you still need big pictures to break up books and articles to be digestible for you... 😛

You're the only person I've encountered who prefers 1000 words to a picture

[jvikings1]

7 hours ago, vcczar said:

This just sounds very, very skewed to me. Voting also allows liberties, such as legalization and things like that. To argue voting as not a liberty sounds ridiculous. One should have the liberty to vote. Restrictions on voting for US Citizens are anti-liberty. Obviously disagreements occur because "life" "liberty" and "property" are vague terms, so anyone can define those interpretations by whatever makes them feel better or fits their agenda. 

Once again, you are looking at things from your lens and not a libertarian/liberty/Lockian lens. Voting comes from the government, which people who fall under that branch consider evil (though a minimal government is a necessary evil). A monarchy which maximizes liberty would be preferred to a big government democracy.

[jvikings1]

4 hours ago, Patine said:

To be fair, Libertarianism, in it's modern incarnation (the original Greek philosopher, Enlightenment thinkers, and Jeffersonian politicians aside - the modern viewpoint, de facto, here), strongly supports the unchecked growth of big corporations, including privatizing a lot of current Government services to them, de-regulating their activities immensely, and allowing them an even freer hand to act, and in how they deal with their consumers and employees, and manage their dealings with each other (including setting up territorial monopoly agreements, non-competitive deals, and other things that screw over consumers), with no Government intervention, as long as they're not outright, LITERALLY, robbing people and such. This means that Libertarians, while vehemently claiming to oppose all tyranny, including, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Theocracy, Military Dictatorship, and all of that, or just simple power overreach, are actually aiding and abetting the most insidious and largely rising tyranny, and a very successful one, in our world today - the Corporatist Plutocratic Oligarchy. Now, I am NOT a Revolutionary Marxist, or even an Entryist Trotskyist, who wants to implement Communism or Hard Socialism by the ballot box, and Marx's views on Government and economics are nothing short of misguided and monstrous, and relying on the horribly naive idea of humanity abandoning greed as motivation, wholesale. But, I believe he was correct in pointing out big business and the industrialism as the massive threat to society, freedom, and all good things in the world they were becoming. He only called them out in terms of exploiting the workers and monopolizing the means of production, though. But the Plutocrats have become an enormity in so many different areas now, including one of their most toxic projections - the modern media. And most political parties and movements, other than the hard Marxist left and hard Islamist right in the world usually have their own set of corporatist and billionaire endorsers, so they play the political field like a piano. I am reminded of those dystopian movies from the '80's (almost all of the ones I speak of were in the '80's), where, instead of Neo-Fascism, Neo-Socialism, Theocracy, Military Wartime Powers That Never Ended, or something weird, the, "evil Government form," was an undisguised Corporatist Dictatorship. Movies like the Running Man, Bladerunner, the Robocop Trilogy, and others, and other media from the day, like the Cyberpunk 2020 RPG, and such. This is a very real and rising threat. And this is the growing form of tyranny Libertarianism not only supports the growth, but that an actual Libertarian Government would be little more than interim stepping for it to horribly into existence.

I cannot respond to everything said because there is too much here. But, I will point out the big business loves big government. Big government policies which squash smaller competition allow for government supported monopolies, which is exactly the thing you are railing against with this.

4 hours ago, Patine said:

This is basically saying, "the will of the people of a nation is irrelevant and that voting only instills tyranny. Only Libertarians understand or are capable of delivering liberty, and the Libertarian view of liberty is absolute and objective, and everything else is tyranny, and thus voting brings tyranny, because modern Libertarianism has never held Government. Everyone MUST have liberty, as defined SPECIFICALLY by Libertarians, whether they like it not (NO LIBERTY to decide on THAT one)." That sounds like, in the context of Libertarian doctrine, at least, the same basic mentality and tenor, as any other one-party state justifying why opposing points-of-view are DANGEROUS. Not to mention that lack of structure, hierarchy, security, and grounding in life and society are proven by anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists to be harmful in the long-term to humans and human societies, something Libertarians ignore, or, sometimes claim the opposite is true, and full freedom and liberty are the natural, preferred, and ideal states for human society and behaviour - a claim @Dobs made specifically with such as under-researched rhetoric a few weeks ago.

Structures and hierarchies are not necessarily against the libertarian concept. Voluntary associations are encouraged as the means for organizing society. If you wish to have a communist utopia that everyone buys into, that is allowed as long as things are not forced upon those people.

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I find it odd that someone who praises and claims to promote liberty, freedom, and guaranteed rights has just made this statement, that basically says only your viewpoint, as shared with your ideological fellows, has any validity or acceptability, and no other viewpoints should be tolerated or allowed any cache. A Fascist, Communist, Absolute Monarchist, or Theocrat could've have said a better pitch in the context of their own viewpoint any better... 😬

If you look back at the original comment the thread goes back to, the reply was about such a concept. Therefore, it is very proper to contain the conversation within such a mindset. Obviously, those who have a different worldview would disagree on the concepts, which would cause the conversation to go in a different direction.

[vcczar]

22 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Once again, you are looking at things from your lens and not a libertarian/liberty/Lockian lens. Voting comes from the government, which people who fall under that branch consider evil (though a minimal government is a necessary evil). A monarchy which maximizes liberty would be preferred to a big government democracy.

This is just...odd. 

[jvikings1]

3 hours ago, Dobs said:

This seems like an argument for a benevolent dictatorship that defends liberty (however said dictator may define it- as long as he agrees with you) over a liberal democracy. As v said, very shifty. We have a Constitution to limit the government, that’s very true and very important. We have a Republic for a reason. But a despotic Republic is no republic at all and the right to political participation is among the most important of all of them.d

I believe you are the one with the distorted view of liberty my friend.

Yes, a big government democracy is worse than an absolute monarchy which protects liberty, if you subscribe to the philosophy of libertarianism/liberty/Lockianism/and other similar views.

The fact that you believe a socialist democracy would be more liberty than a minimalist government with a single ruler proves that your version of liberty is nowhere near the libertarian/classical liberal lens that you claim to adhere to.  You also mistakenly associate the ability to participate in government with voting. There are ways to participate in government without casting a ballot. Petitioning those in power, organizing in support of something, holding a protest, etc. are all ways to participate in the governing process without voting.

Though none of this surprises me since you blindly supported a politician like Joe Biden.

Don't worry though, those active in the liberty community who actually get things done will continue to laugh at the ignorance displayed by those such as yourself, the LP, and Students for Liberty.

[Hestia]

25 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Once again, you are looking at things from your lens and not a libertarian/liberty/Lockian lens. Voting comes from the government, which people who fall under that branch consider evil (though a minimal government is a necessary evil). A monarchy which maximizes liberty would be preferred to a big government democracy.

 

15 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Structures and hierarchies are not necessarily against the libertarian concept. Voluntary associations are encouraged as the means for organizing society. If you wish to have a communist utopia that everyone buys into, that is allowed as long as things are not forced upon those people.

21 minutes ago, Patine said:

How can things not be forced upon the people if they're not voting for them? There's no way to know if they approve then. 

[jvikings1]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This is just...odd. 

And I could say the same about your continued support for big government policies, despite history proving them to eventually end in disaster

[jvikings1]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

How can things not be forced upon the people if they're not voting for them? There's no way to know if they approve then. 

There is a way to see if they approve. If the people are organizing, protesting, and potentially taking up arms, then the people are making their voice heard through more direct means.

But, I will point out that voting still provides a way for things to be forced upon others. It is just with the approval of the majority (or a strong minority).

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

There is a way to see if they approve. If the people are organizing, protesting, and potentially taking up arms, then the people are making their voice heard through more direct means.

But, I will point out that voting still provides a way for things to be forced upon others. It is just with the approval of the majority (or a strong minority).

But you could make the argument only 1% of people are actually protesting in most of those situations, so therefore it's rather unlikely that you would get a true reflection of the population's consensus. 

[jvikings1]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

But you could make the argument only 1% of people are actually protesting in most of those situations, so therefore it's rather unlikely that you would get a true reflection of the population's consensus. 

In that case, the overwhelming portion of the population is not dissatisfied. If things were worth making their voice known over, then that would happen.

What the majority wants does not dictate what happens if following a Lockian philosophy. Only whether natural rights are being respected or not.

[Dobs]

40 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Once again, you are looking at things from your lens and not a libertarian/liberty/Lockian lens. Voting comes from the government, which people who fall under that branch consider evil (though a minimal government is a necessary evil). A monarchy which maximizes liberty would be preferred to a big government democracy.

Locke would disagree. A monarchy can never maximize liberty because it violates the social contracts demand for self-government.

[Pringles]

27 minutes ago, Patine said:

Unless it's the Modern Commonwealth Monarchy, where it's just a symbol and a ceremonial aspect, de facto, like July Fourth and Inauguration Day festivities and traditions in the U.S., and has no power or ability to inhibit self-government at all. 😉

Dennis Skinner be like, "Abolish it anyways." 😛 

[vcczar]

56 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

And I could say the same about your continued support for big government policies, despite history proving them to eventually end in disaster

You sound more like a manual to a Libertarian book than a person. Try some independent thinking for once. 

History is still on-going on these policies. It's still too soon to know if their effectiveness is better than doing nothing at all. Many of these policies have helped a lot of people. The undoing of many of these would be pure evil. 

In regards to big government policies, if you've read some of my posts, I'm actually in favor of allowing the states to handle a lot of things the Federal government would actually handle. I also think states should be allowed to opt out of some federal laws, even if 45+ states approve of a law. 

 

[Dobs]

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

You sound more like a manual to a Libertarian book than a person. Try some independent thinking for once. 

I wouldn’t call this libertarianism or classical liberalism. This is what we call enlightened despotism.

[Pringles]

9 minutes ago, Dobs said:

I wouldn’t call this libertarianism or classical liberalism. This is what we call enlightened despotism.

 

Like my man Charles here. 😛 

[vcczar]

42 minutes ago, Dobs said:

I wouldn’t call this libertarianism or classical liberalism. This is what we call enlightened despotism.

Doesn’t sound very “enlightened”

[Pringles]

26 minutes ago, Patine said:

The biggest enlightened and wise thing he did was to chop up his vast empire into separate and inherently distinct nations of inheritance because he actually realized he was far too powerful with all his feudal dominions for anyone's good - including his own, and his heirs would likely have been far worse.

Yep. I will say, he was much better than Charles II. 😉 

Wouldn't want a War of Spanish Succession round 2 now... would we? Poor Charles II couldn't help his shortcomings and soon death I'm afraid. So maybe I shouldn't poke too much fun. 😛 

[Zenobiyl]

11 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Not from a liberty mindset. Voting allows people to infringe upon the rights of others, thus requiring restrictions should it be chosen as the method for a particular government. Thus, the "right" to vote must be infringed upon in such a circumstance in order to protect the inalienable rights (which are negative rights).

Libertarian Monarchist 😳

Edited June 2, 2021 by Zenobiyl