Ohio Chatter DEV

Heretic

QuakerOats;1462217 wrote:http://stg.do/ZRVc

When you were proud of your president and his allegiance to the country.

If you're blindly unintelligent to the level that you actually think either of the two parties in our government truly is looking out for the people, you're totally correct, dude!

justincredible

Commander of Awesome;1462082 wrote:Yea... considering there isn't a single country now nor in history that has a libertarian government, that means that authoritarianism has always reigned.

MOVE TO SOMOLIA, AMIRITE?

BoatShoes

justincredible;1463044 wrote:MOVE TO SOMOLIA, AMIRITE?

The idea that libertarians don't get is that the transfer of some natural liberties to public bodies in states that they complain about was done so voluntarily and the people w/o would love the chance to transfer some of their natural liberty to a well functioning state.

So enjoy the greater liberty that comes with modern Republican Governance, State-Owned Currencies and Democracy!:thumbup:

gut

BoatShoes;1463266 wrote:...people w/o would love the chance to transfer some of their natural liberty to a well functioning state.

Except in the past 10 years or so we've transferred more liberty in exchange for less functioning.

justincredible

BoatShoes;1463266 wrote:The idea that libertarians don't get is that the transfer of some natural liberties to public bodies in states that they complain about was done so voluntarily and the people w/o would love the chance to transfer some of their natural liberty to a well functioning state.

So enjoy the greater liberty that comes with modern Republican Governance, State-Owned Currencies and Democracy!:thumbup:

There is nothing voluntary about our government. You are forced, at the end of a gun, to submit to whatever the fuck they see fit. Just because someone in the past voted to give the government more control doesn't mean anything to me. I am a sovereign individual. The government does not own me. Same goes for you. Same goes for everyone.

O-Trap

BoatShoes;1463266 wrote:The idea that libertarians don't get is that the transfer of some natural liberties to public bodies in states that they complain about was done so voluntarily and the people w/o would love the chance to transfer some of their natural liberty to a well functioning state.

First, define "well-functioning."

Second, a majority from a single vote on a particular issue is not a population voluntarily giving up rights. It forces the minority (in your example) vote, who does NOT voluntarily give up their rights, to do so out of obligation (ie, not voluntary). It also forces subsequent generations to involuntarily give up their right, as well.

It's not voluntarily giving something up. That's an individual action. It's FORCING everyone to give something up going forward.

Devils Advocate

gut

Where's Snowden?

justincredible

O-Trap;1463317 wrote:First, define "well-functioning."

Second, a majority from a single vote on a particular issue is not a population voluntarily giving up rights. It forces the minority (in your example) vote, who does NOT voluntarily give up their rights, to do so out of obligation (ie, not voluntary). It also forces subsequent generations to involuntarily give up their right, as well.

It's not voluntarily giving something up. That's an individual action. It's FORCING everyone to give something up going forward.

Reps.

BoatShoes

O-Trap;1463317 wrote:First, define "well-functioning."

Second, a majority from a single vote on a particular issue is not a population voluntarily giving up rights. It forces the minority (in your example) vote, who does NOT voluntarily give up their rights, to do so out of obligation (ie, not voluntary). It also forces subsequent generations to involuntarily give up their right, as well.

It's not voluntarily giving something up. That's an individual action. It's FORCING everyone to give something up going forward.

You're assuming that the minority does not voluntarily agree to be bound by majority rule. Calling it an obligation does not mean it was not consented to nor voluntarily agreed upon. It's pure principal and agency.

The original incorporators of our nation memorialized our their voluntary consent to be governed by the decisions of Congress and to have those laws enforced by an executive branch and interpreted by a judicial branch staffed with appointees of the president. These were their voluntarily empowered agents with whom they voluntarily agreed to transfer some of their liberty to as in any contract. The minority on certain issues voluntarily agreed to be bound by majority rule even if they didn't necessarily agree with the outcome. They've consented to the decisions that they make in the same way that shareholder consents to the decisions made by a board of directors or a CEO that they may not personally agree with but a plurality of agents do.

And, as far as subsequent generations go it is classic manifestation of assent. The People of the United States put the offer of the Constitution and its social contract on the table with the offeree (the individual citizen) aware of the benefits and burdens that come with manifesting an assent to accept the terms of the agreement. It is a unilateral contract offer and working, living, taking part in, benefitting from the customs, laws, public infrastructure, public currency, payment system and government of the United States are clear and unambiguous manifestations of assent to accept the offer of all the fruits that the United States has to offer.

Now despite having clear consent based on the actions of most libertarians, perhaps we might alleviate some of their concerns with more overt manifestations of assent.

Maybe express consent forms when they sign contracts, buy property w/in U.S. borders or agree to work in the U.S.

Maybe deport those who disagree and say they are not consenting to be bound by Congress to a special citizens libertarian zone where birthright citizens could argue for changes to the U.S. Constitution and its laws w/o obtaining the benefits/free-loading on our very-free but not-totally-free capitalist system so as to free libertarians from the perception that they are "forced" to accept contractual terms they might not agree to personally.

Maybe buy a part of Greenland? Maybe Afghanistan since we've put so much money in there any way and it's a pretty clean slate?

Well-functioning would be country that delivers considerable liberty and prosperity to a large amount of its citizens which the United States delivers by any reasonable standard even if it could do better.

To continue w/ memes