Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda (was incorrectly referred to as SPAM elsewhere in the thread)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2001 05:03:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
680 times
|
| |
|
|
Warning! I am replying to Larry Pieniazek here! Of course, that means lots
of quoted text is included to keep the context clear, and this post is a
doozy! You have been warned!
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I have been playing too long in other branches of the tree and neglected to
> give this post my special once over...
*sniff* I feel SO special *sob* (gently wipes small tear of gratitude from
the corner of right eye)
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > (1) Prosecute government officials who commit crimes.
> > >
> > > "McVeigh said he blew up the building in Oklahoma City to protest the
> > > federal government's actions in Waco
> > > "However, not a single FBI or BATF agent was arrested for their role
> > > in the fiery deaths of 86 people at the Branch Davidian compound in
> > > Waco, Texas.
> >
> > If you do that, you take all of the reason out of having (paying for)
> > government agencies to police the citizens in the first place. If you think
> > the government is paralyzed by special-interest groups bitchin'-n-moanin'
> > about this neekid' mole rat or that rabid squirrel being endangered, wait
> > until they get to have a say in how this agency can act or how that agency
> > should have acted...'cause that's who would end up policing the police (even
> > more than they already do...).]
>
> Let's skip Waco (Chris is dealing with your misconceptions about it just
> fine).
And I'll be dealing with his ill conceived replies next.
> The general assertion is that government officials ought to be held
> personally responsible when they mess up in big ways. Right now, when
> government officials mess up, there might be a lawsuit, but that lawsuit is
> against the government, not the officials (For example the lawsuits pending
> against LA because of the Rampart corruption are against the City of LA
> (which actually translates to "its taxpayers" because they get to pay) not
> against specific people).
>
> Are you saying that you think it is a bad idea to hold officals personally
> responsible and liable?
BINGO! Give the man a prize! If you hold the member of an official
police/military/governmental/etc. group individually responsible/liable for
their actions you will get the following results (and more):
1) The wrong person will be accused/tried/convicted. Members of these
organizations are in a chain of command. The majority of the actions taken
are on orders from someone else. The chain of command is in place for a
reason, and those in higher power don't just get all the perks, they also
take all of the responsibility. AND, the buck and always be passed up the
ladder anyway, so who would really be liable?
2) No one will join these organizations. The threat of civil liability is
great enough in normal life, without having to worry when doing your job as
required/ordered could leave you personally liable. When no one joins these
organizations, who will catch the guy who steals from you/enforce the rights
of the US/do all of the dirty government work you are too busy to devote
your life to doing while you make money in Libertopia?
3) The organization stops doing it's required job, instead dealing with the
bureaucracy of handling the complaints* of special-interest groups who don't
like 'this', or individuals who put-off by 'that'...and if I remember
correctly, it is that kind of bloated government bureaucracy that the
Libertarians don't want. (*Let's be honest though, a good portion of any
official agency's time already IS devoted to this activity)
Also, in this day and age, if someone wanted to hold an official
representative personally liable for an action, they are more than welcome
to do so in a civil suit. It happens all the time. Just because they may not
win, doesn't mean they are denied the right to do so (although that seems to
be the assumption for some reason). And let us not forget (refering to the
chain of command argument above) Janet Reno was personally named in half of
the civil suits combined into the joint civil case as tried in Texas. Sounds
like the proper official in the overall chain of command was brought to case
to me.
> I think it's a great idea! I want to see it true for both government AND
> corporate officials.
OK. It is. *{POOF!}* Just like magic. See the above paragraph ("Also, in
this...").
> The system we have now means the taxpayers take it in
> the shorts when their government screws up, with no recourse other than to
> vote the officials out. So what? Too late by then.
Is it? Funny, it seems to be the proper working of the system currently in
place to me. Government official does something that a majority of their
constituents disagree with, government official is voted out of position. If
the Libertarians make the system change to be what they want, I'll say the
same thing. If I don't like that system, I can lobby for change.
Hmmm...sounds like a grass-roots political movement to m...WAITAMINUTE! THE
LIBERTARIANS! That's what they are doing! Good for them!
> > > (2) Embrace an open, vibrant political system.
> > >
> > > "People tend to turn to violence only when they feel they have no
> > > other way to be heard," said Dasbach. "It is the government's
> > > responsibility, then, to make sure that political discussion is not
> > > restricted, regulated, or suppressed.
> > >
> > > "When Americans feel they have a role in the political system, they
> > > will work through the political system to make productive changes. When
> > > that avenue is blocked -- either by restrictive ballot access laws,
> > > legal curbs on political speech, exclusion from debates, or by
> > > attempting to discredit unpopular political speech -- the Timothy
> > > McVeighs of the world turn to violence.
> > >
> > > "That's why robust political debate -- especially about the abuse of
> > > government power -- is a healthy way to change the system. And that's
> > > why stifling such debate is downright dangerous."
> >
> > And everyone is able to debate with (extremely) few exceptions...again, the
> > law of the land. There are other ways of expressing displeasure than killing
> > and violence.
>
> I think you may be missing the point here, what is being alleged is that we
> have a duopoly and that the Big Two stifle other parties and stifle open
> debate. Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?
Disagree. I think you need to re-read the statement from the e-mail. Are YOU
saying that YOU and your party are "the Timothy McVeighs of the world"? I
don't think so. So, my original statement stands as written. The
Libertarians have every right to debate in the big races (since I believe
that is what you are trying to get across), and when they are stronger, they
will have more power to do so. Let's not forget, the major debates are
FUNDED. Let the Libertarians fund all the debates they want to, and invite
whomever they please. Just don't whine when the other parties choose not to
attend because they don't see the party as someone to debate. Them's the
breaks. Keep up the grass-roots movement, get more powerful, and the other
parties will take you more seriously.
> > > (3) Reject violence on principle.
> <snip>
>
> > I actually agree with the above statement. The United States is truly under
> > no obligation as an official entity to interviene in the affairs of other
> > countries. I also take that a step further and support the idea that our
> > resources and money should be solely targeted at our own country, and not
> > others. There is a difference between rendering humanitarian aid and putting
> > in place population controls, etc. In a touchy-feely sense, yes, it is nice
> > to work WITH all of the other countries in the world, but the US stance that
> > we must police those outside of our reach is a fallacy. Simply put, we have
> > far too many problems here at home to go out telling others what to do and
> > how to do it.
>
> Right on!
See? We can get along.
> > > (4) Repeal the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996.
> > >
> > > "This legislation, rushed through Congress after the Oklahoma City
> > > bombing, grants the president arbitrary power to declare individuals
> > > 'terrorists,' authorizes the use of secret evidence, and reverses the
> > > presumption of innocence for suspects," said Dasbach. "Repealing this
> > > law would expand freedom without hindering the ability to catch real
> > > criminals.
> > >
> > > "The freedoms recognized under the Bill of Rights are our strongest
> > > bulwark against terrorism. Security measures that infringe on those
> > > freedoms will inevitably lead to abuse, ultimately making us less
> > > secure in our lives and property."
> >
> > Eh, whatever. You can sit around all day imagining what someone is going to
> > do to you sometime and paralzing yourself from living, or you can get on
> > with life. Terrorism is a buzzword, and folks will support that which acts
> > on buzzwords. (If only there were an Omnibus Anti-Buzzword Act of 2001...I'd
> > never have to hear the terms 'paradigm', 'paradigm-shift', 'proactive', etc.
> > ever again! 8?) )
>
> Not following you here, can you expand this? Do you favor laws that
> circumvent the bill of rights like this one does? Or are you opposed to
> them? Have things changed (in your view) so much that the bill of rights is
> no longer applicable?
Stap in, this will be a long one:
1) I did not say that I favored the law. I said that the law was rushed into
existence to placate the people, and acted on the buzzword 'terrorism'.
Since I'm not a 'terrorist', it doesn't really bother me; hopefully it will
bother those who might become terrorists. There are thousands upon thousands
of laws that will never affect me, because they all have to do with things I
will never do. And after all, the President has other executive powers
similar to this, but I'm not seeing anyone complain about declaring war,
etc. in this instance. That's what the Executive Orders are for, to allow
the person in the office of President to do their job if a situation ever
arises where it is necessary for that individual to take total control in
the best interests of the country. Will this ever be necessary? I don't
think so.
2) Lets examine the reasons behind the Libertarian opposition of this law.
The Libertarians are afraid that this law will lead to others like it, plain
and simple. These laws, and the Executive Orders, supposedly infringe upon
the Bill of Rights (see point 3 below). Good luck, because that's what
you'll need in your quest to become the party in control of the US, and
therefore able to aboilsh laws like this, and their creation. If you do, God
help us if there is ever a national emergency large enough to warrant the
actions they enable, 'cause it sure won't be the corporations supporting the
effort-they'll be too busy making money.
3) "Is the Bill of Rights no longer applicable?" An argument for the ages,
and you may as well lump the Constitution argument in as well. I'll focus on
the Bill of Rights, since that was the focus here.
Lets take this one-by-one.
Amendment I-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The portion of the Bill of Rights with the most relevant points to modern
life, and the most oft quoted. Everything in I is still relevant in this day
and age. And, by the way, LOOK! There's the part about bringing the
Government to court for damages! But wait! I thought the Libertarians wanted
individuals to be liable for their actions. But wait! I thought the
Libertarians wanted the Bill of Rights to be the end-all and be-all of law
in and of itself? What gives? Does the party even really know? Gotta' wonder.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The militia was transformed by time into our armed forces. No problem there.
People may own all the guns they want, as long as they are registered and
bought within the law (my 'within the system in place' argument again). Do
the Libertarians want everyone to have illegally obtained firearms? I don't
think so.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.
I can fit a couple of folks here, on the couches. Welcome to the food in the
'fridge, but the computer is off limits. We'll have to work out a shower
schedule, though, if everyone wants hot water.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
The legal system works in its way. Warrants are issued within this system,
for the most part. If our President thinks it is in the best interests of
our country to allow actions normally undertaken under warrant to be taken
under the Anti-Terrorist Act, that's the President doing his/her job, and
attempting to protect the citizens of this country. I personally have no
problems with that. If I am not going to be a terrorist, the law does not
affect me.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
These things are all in place and working OK enough. SAY! Theres the part
where official agents can't be brought in individual suit for following
orders and doing their job! Oh, wait! The Libertarians want to serve, try,
and convict these folks for their participation, don't they? But that would
mean going aginst the Bill of Rights! And they don't want to do that. This
is getting VERY confusing.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
All in place and working OK-ish. Trials could be a *bit* speedier though.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by
a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States,
than according to the rules of the common law.
The things put forth get really out of hand most of the time (California
Prop.s 23 & 187 anyone?), but the system as outlined is still in place today.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
I wonder if prison food is considered 'cruel and unusual punishment'?
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"...endowed...with certain inalienable rights..." Check!
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
OK, but it seems like the Amendment thing got a little out of control. And
State Governments are getting to be as big as the Federal, or seem to be
trying darn hard to...
> You can sit around all day and say "well this hasn't happened to me yet so I
> don't have to worry about it" or you can dig in and see that there ARE
> jackbooted thugs out there and they DO abuse the bill of rights all the
> time. They just haven't come for YOU yet.
See my novel, above. I'm not doing anything to make the jack-booted thugs
come and get me. Are you saying the YOU are? I've shown above that the
Libertarians are themselves trying to 'abuse' the Bill of Rights, or seem to
want to, if they ever get the chance. So who is the jack-booted thug now? It
seems like the jack-boot is on the other foot now, doesn't it?
> > > (5) Reduce the size and power of the federal government.
> > >
> > > "No, we're not saying that the growing power of the federal government
> > > justifies what Timothy McVeigh did," said Dasbach. "But the fact is,
> > > millions of Americans view their own government with suspicion and
> > > distrust.
> > >
> > > "Americans see a government that can recklessly seize our property
> > > under asset forfeiture, eminent domain, or environmental laws; that can
> > > detain us at roadblocks for not wearing a seatbelt; that forces banks
> > > to spy on their own customers; that shoots innocent people dead in the
> > > name of the War on Drugs; that can secretly read our e-mail; that
> > > allows the IRS to seize our bank accounts; and that can violate our
> > > civil liberties in a thousand different ways.
>
> These are all documented abuses of power, some of which are extremely
> common... whether you agree that the size and scope of government ought to
> be reduced is one question, but separate that, do you agree that these
> abusive practices ought to be stopped or not? (that is, I'd rather that the
> government wasn't in the electric power business, and I'd rather that it
> didn't have jackbooted thugs either. I can tolerate the electric power gig
> somewhat better than I can the jackbooted thug gig, though)
Yes, some of these practices need to stop, but I have to ask, what are YOU
doing so wrong Larry? And the others in your party? Society is simple:
Follow the laws and rules as have been approved/have evolved/are in place at
the current time, and you will not see the government until tax day. If you
don't like the system as it stands, try to effect change (which the
Libertarians are). If you have an immediate complaint, see the government
official who was put into the appropriate office, regardless of who YOU may
have voted for.
> > > "A government that was limited to its Constitutionally defined role
> > > would be smaller, less intrusive, and less threatening. It would be a
> > > government that honors fundamental American liberties, instead of
> > > undermining them. And it would be a government that gives Americans
> > > little reason to view it with apprehension."
> >
> > Yes and no. Yes, I support a smaller, less intrusive government. No, I don't
> > think it will decrease the violence. As we know from our own little
> > microcosm here at LUGNET-someone will always bitch about something at some
> > time. Besides, the 'violence' we are talking about in this instance is the
> > 'visible' violence.
>
> No, the violence this point is addressing is the violence that government
> perpetrates on citizens.
Funny. I thought this whole thing started with an official Libertarian Party
e-mail about Timothy McVeigh, his actions, his reasons for those actions,
his execution, and the party wanting to use the bombing for their own
purposes of press attention and recruitment. I believe that this point in
this e-mail deals with giving 'Americans little reason to view it [the
Government] with apprehension'. See? Says so right there above. So it is
talking about the violence caused by people in protest of the government.
> > I want cars to be safer, I want food to be healthier, I
> > want life to be more affordable. I'm not going to blame the government for
> > not handing me these things on a silver platter. I'm not going to kill
> > someone to get my point across or have myself heard. This applies to the
> > majority of Americans...not the infintesimile pecentage who might actually
> > do something violent. To blame the government that WE (well, those before
> > us, and before them, ad nauseum) created/allow to remain in power is
> > inherently wrong.
>
> I don't think that's the point being made at all. Why do you think it is, I
> missed that part.
See above, then come back to your question. It follows. Make sense now?
> > > Those five suggestions have something in common, said Dasbach: They
> > > would all change the political climate in a positive way -- and make
> > > future Timothy McVeighs less likely.
> > >
> > > "We can never bring back the men, women, and children who were killed
> > > in Oklahoma City," he said. "But by using this tragedy to honor and
> > > reaffirm our nation's fundamental liberties, we can help make sure that
> > > the 168 people who died in Oklahoma City did not die in vain. It would
> > > be America's way of standing up and saying: 'Never again.' "
> >
> > ----------BULL PUCKY!------------
> > It is no more the LP's right, or anyone elses for that matter, to USE THIS
> > TRAGEDY!
>
> Not sure I follow you here. If this event raises the level of discussion,
> isn't it appropriate to have a viewpoint and share it?
This e-mail wasn't sharing a viewpoint, it was, as you so aptly named the
original post, "Libertartian Propaganda". No one has the right to forward
their political agenda on the backs of those who suffer tradgedy. Read aloud
my original reply above, but where the text goes uppercase, put a loud note
of indignant disgust in your voice. There! Now you've got it.
> > That kind of liberal thinking is what keeps the LP a minor
> > Democratic offshoot rather than a true political power.
>
> I think you might be a bit confused about where the LP fits in the scheme of
> things. It's neither an offshoot of the donkeys nor of the elephants.
Really? Where are you getting your members then? Transferring the well-being
of the citizens of the United States to private industry is just as liberal
as the Democrats wanting the government to coddle everyone (while secretly
building the power to track every citizens ever movement). Building up
business to a point where they are free of any governmental interference,
and can start building their own political powerbase is not too far removed
from the beliefs of Republicans (well, a good way removed). I just see the
Libertarians far more as donkeys than elephants.
If you are anyone other than Larry who has read this reply to Larry's reply
to my reply to Larry's original post (and what the heck, even if you ARE
Larry!), I'm extremely sorry for the length of this post.
Matt
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
