Inner elections:

Party Leader - Imperator
Members - Juq, Kretoma , Benjamin, Smedley

Edited 4/12/2016 02:46:17

I vote for myself

I like that you included me, but I am sticking with Republican party MGSB. I only supported the foundation of libertarianism, I don't join.

Edited 4/10/2016 16:47:11

Is libertarianism American Anarchism? If so, i want to join. ^^

If you get into Rothbard Libertarianism, you'll see how anarchist libertarianism gets.

If we can't agree on a leader, then we at least need to all agree on some key parts of our platform. Here are the current points of disagreement in our draft platform:

2. Abortion

3a. Department of education
3b. Environmental protection agency
3d. Food and drug administration
3f. Free healthcare

5a. Military spending

And here is the rest of our platform:

1. End Government involvement in marriage

3. Provide a modest tax cut for everyone by getting rid of unnecessary/liberty impeding government programs like:

3c. Federal Communications commission (Exists only for impeding liberty by literally dictating what can and can't be said publicly)
3e. All welfare programs (exists to disrupt the free market)

4. End ALL government prohibitions on drugs

5. End the war on terror, withdraw all troops from the Middle East, Asia, Europe, Africa and Oceania.
5b. Shut down the NSA

Edited 4/11/2016 00:36:32

If I am to become Libertarian, then I disagree with point 3a, 3b, *3d*, and 5a.

There needs to be federal guidelines on what to learn, federal standards. Better yet, put it next to international learning standards, too. You don't want to, if you went to school in one state, not be credited in another.

The environment is the one thing that is kind of like communist stuff. We all own it, we all share it. And when you rubble the world, you hurt all of us about the Earth. Now, regulations should be toned down, and in stead of them, there will be incentivisations for alternate clean energy until it becomes mainstream.

Food and drug administration, I think it's a right that folk know if what they're eating is unhealthy or allowed in their diets or if it's poisonous. I certainly don't want a setting where folk say this drug will help you with your heart problems if it's just a placebo. That should be illegal. It disrupts the free market, but it saves lives and other trouble.

Military spending should be cut by 100%, seriously, they have enough money to keep going by themselves without funding.

Also, I am very for-choice with abortion and very for free basic healthcare services.

There needs to be federal guidelines on what to learn, federal standards. Better yet, put it next to international learning standards, too. You don't want to, if you went to school in one state, not be credited in another.

The federal government can indoctrinate efficiently with this amount of control.

Military spending should be cut by 100%, seriously, they have enough money to keep going by themselves without funding.

How about we compromise: 95% cut

The federal government can indoctrinate efficiently with this amount of control.

Local governments can indoctroniate for their own purposes, next thing you know, you've got 52 countries.

I've edited the platform with your concerns.

There needs to be federal guidelines on what to learn, federal standards. Better yet, put it next to international learning standards, too. You don't want to, if you went to school in one state, not be credited in another.

So, in other words, the government should have control over what a person learns? This is, in my opinion, an unacceptable solution. If anything, only very basic skills like Math, Philosophy, and Computer usage should be taught in schools.

The environment is the one thing that is kind of like communist stuff. We all own it, we all share it. And when you rubble the world, you hurt all of us about the Earth. Now, regulations should be toned down, and in stead of them, there will be incentivisations for alternate clean energy until it becomes mainstream.

Government action is not justified to protect the public good. For each additional thing you rely on the government for, you lose a piece of your liberty. I do agree that the way to get environmental stuff done is to offer rewards for not trashing the environment, but this should be imposed by society, and not the government.

Food and drug administration, I think it's a right that folk know if what they're eating is unhealthy or allowed in their diets or if it's poisonous. I certainly don't want a setting where folk say this drug will help you with your heart problems if it's just a placebo. That should be illegal. It disrupts the free market, but it saves lives and other trouble.

This is the beauty of the free market. If people demand to know the facts on something, then it creates a market for food research, and a company will step in and Review all drugs to make sure that they actually help with heart disease, or to verify if food is poisonous or not.

Military spending should be cut by 100%, seriously, they have enough money to keep going by themselves without funding.

I consider it a right to be protected from foreign invasions, as well as aggressive action from your own government. Therefore, a military is necessary.

Also, I am very for-choice with abortion and very for free basic healthcare services.

It is a clear violation of a child's rights to be killed while still in the womb. While some people may argue that while in the womb you are not a real child, the simple fact is that if you are cared for, you will become a productive member of society in 18 years. This is what I believe everyone has a right to; The care of a mother, both inside of the womb and outside of it, until they can survive on their own without care.

It depends on how basic the healthcare is. I honestly don't feel that strongly about it either way, but I tend to be very skeptical of any government spending where there is a private alternative.

A very good abortion alternative is to give the baby up for adoption, but I'm pro-life, defund planned parenthood.

I consider it a right to be protected from foreign invasions, as well as aggressive action from your own government. Therefore, a military is necessary.

Many countries don't have militaries , and the US conventionally is nearly invincible even without a military at the start of a conflict.

So, in other words, the government should have control over what a person learns? This is, in my opinion, an unacceptable solution. If anything, only very basic skills like Math, Philosophy, and Computer usage should be taught in schools.

A government would have no controle over what a fellow learns. They just choose what to teach in school that the folk who know their stuff (Education Department, I believe?) determine is the most valuable and useful stuff to know. Weren't you for State governments to "control" what a person learns anyway?

Also, I'm for making school by choice, students don't have to go if they don't want to. It's a waste of money and bad for other students to have someone who doesn't want to learn tried to be taught.

Government action is not justified to protect the public good. For each additional thing you rely on the government for, you lose a piece of your liberty.

And so a line must be drawn somewhere. If you want "liberty" so much, why not just disband government wholly?

I do agree that the way to get environmental stuff done is to offer rewards for not trashing the environment, but this should be imposed by society, and not the government.

Yeah, since society is great and imposing their will upon corporations, or even knowing about these problems........

No, government shielding of everyone's stuff is needed.

This is the beauty of the free market. If people demand to know the facts on something, then it creates a market for food research, and a company will step in and Review all drugs to make sure that they actually help with heart disease, or to verify if food is poisonous or not.

But that doesn't happen. We can all that televertisments are bad. All us (who have been informed at all in the subject) agree online-only games are anti-gamer, but yet these are both two very much done things that everyone hates. Folk just don't have that kind of unity to do demand stuff, and so placebos will still be sold as heart medicine.

I consider it a right to be protected from foreign invasions, as well as aggressive action from your own government. Therefore, a military is necessary.

I'm not for disbanding the military forces, just cutting their funding by 100% for a few years. They've got enough money without the government funding them.

It is a clear violation of a child's rights to be killed while still in the womb. While some people may argue that while in the womb you are not a real child, the simple fact is that if you are cared for, you will become a productive member of society in 18 years. This is what I believe everyone has a right to; The care of a mother, both inside of the womb and outside of it, until they can survive on their own without care.

Frankly, sure, it's life, but so are houseflies. I'm not afraid to get a flyswatter (I've actually scarred Eklipse with my flyswatter, but it's ok) to kill a fly, I'm not afraid of giving a pill to kill some other beast with less brainpower. Sure, that beast can grow into a fellow, but that's not really an argument. What if life begins of just having a thought of having a child? You're just this neuron-synapse code. You're not aborting if you choose against it.

Who else is for-life?

Edited 4/11/2016 01:13:03

And so a line must be drawn somewhere. If you want "liberty" so much, why not just disband government wholly?

Well, that's not a bad idea. Worst scenario is a bunch of new governments.

Yeah, since society is great and imposing their will upon corporations, or even knowing about these problems........

The government aids corporations way too much, a free system kills many corporation rights.

Worst scenario is a bunch of new governments.

That's the only scenario. Anarchy can't last. A few dominant stewardships will come from multicorporate alliances, later government.

The government aids corporations way too much, a free system kills many corporation rights.

I don't disagree.

I'm not afraid of giving a pill to kill some other beast with less brainpower. Sure, that beast can grow into a fellow, but that's not really an argument.

The problem comes when thinking of him as "A beast that will turn into a child". A baby in the womb is not a beast, he is a child that has not had time to grow up yet. Likewise, "He has less brainpower" isn't much of an argument either; Children don't normally have the brainpower of adults, and expecting them to before considering them alive is ridiculous.

What if life begins of just having a thought of having a child? You're just this neuron-synapse code. You're not aborting if you choose against it.

I'm not sure where that came from, but something is obviously not alive just because you imagined it. You are making it seem as if the line between life and not life is blurry, when the line isn't blurry at all. If you have a child in your womb, he is life, period. There is not a time when he turns into a child, because he has always been one.

Edited 4/11/2016 01:28:47

Likewise, "He has less brainpower" isn't much of an argument either; Children don't normally have the brainpower of adults, and expecting them to before considering them alive is ridiculous.

I'm not asking them to have grownups' brainpower, but enough brainpower to interact with other humans in a distinctly human way, in which definitely 0 days old and younger can't really do.

I'm not sure where that came from, but something is obviously not alive just because you imagined it. You are making it seem as if the line between life and not life is blurry, when the line isn't blurry at all. If you have a child in your womb, he is life, period. There is not a time when he turns into a child, because he has always been one.

Well, the line is blurry (are vira living?), but you're technically right. But my point still stands. This synapse-neuron code could become a human someday. Just a thought of sex could become a human someday. But it doesn't matter if you end something that's not really a fellow in our sense, it only matters if you kill a fellow in our sense.

Edited 4/11/2016 01:54:22

I'm not asking them to have grownups' brainpower, but enough brainpower to interact with other humans in a distinctly human way, in which definitely 0 days old and younger can't really do.

I don't really buy into the idea that physical and/or mental barriers that prevent you from interacting with other people also make you not really a human. The only reason unborn children aren't capable of interacting with other people is that they haven't been alive long enough to do so.

Furthermore, it's pretty problematic to claim that the only thing that makes you human is interaction with other humans. If someone is trapped on a desert island, are they not human because they are incapable of interacting with other people until a future time?

Or, people who are literally incapable of interacting with other people in the normal sense, such as people with Alzheimers/Autism. Are they somehow less human due to not being capable of interacting with other people in a "Distinctly human way"?

Well, the line is blurry (are vira living?), but you're technically right. But my point still stands. This synapse-neuron code could become a human someday. Just a thought of sex could become a human someday. But it doesn't matter if you end something that's not really a fellow in our sense, it only matters if you kill a fellow in our sense.

That thought literally cannot become a human. There is no process for that synapse-neuron to become a continuity that we call a human body but it is rather something independent of any action it may eventually produce.

When you contrast this with a Person, who starts out as a fertilized egg, and from there on is a pretty straightforward continuity, It really is an apples to oranges comparison since the person is distinctly independent from his mother, in a way that the thought can never achieve. To use your example, a thought can be "Killed" simply by the mother ceasing to think about it.

A child cannot be killed by ceasing thinking about it; It exists independently of your mind, and even if, say, the mother were to die, The child still exists, and can theoretically be put in the care of another mother and continue to live.

I don't really buy into the idea that physical and/or mental barriers that prevent you from interacting with other people also make you not really a human.

Well, obviously physic barriers stop them. Teeth aren't developed, the mouth muscles aren't developed, and there's also, y'know, the womb.

The only reason unborn children aren't capable of interacting with other people is that they haven't been alive long enough to do so.

They'll eventually learn how to interact, but they won't be able to mentally until they do.

Furthermore, it's pretty problematic to claim that the only thing that makes you human is interaction with other humans. If someone is trapped on a desert island, are they not human because they are incapable of interacting with other people until a future time?

Well, I guess he's still human by specie, but noone'd care if he'd die unless he interacted with humans in the past.

Or, people who are literally incapable of interacting with other people in the normal sense, such as people with Alzheimers/Autism. Are they somehow less human due to not being capable of interacting with other people in a "Distinctly human way"?

Definitely. I'm going to get flak for this, but if the humans were mentally more refined and rid of instinctual vestigial weaknesses, I would advise dealing with retards and unwanted babies in the same way as we do most beasts. I'm for heavy regulations on the meat industry and illegalising the murder of beasts, but I really want an united line. Someone who is for-life should absolutely be a vegetarian, it's just hypocritic in my opinion otherwise.

That thought literally cannot become a human. There is no process for that synapse-neuron to become a continuity that we call a human body but it is rather something independent of any action it may eventually produce.

Uh, yeah there's. Do on the impulse and do sex.

since the person is distinctly independent from his mother, in a way that the thought can never achieve. To use your example, a thought can be "Killed" simply by the mother ceasing to think about it.

You're straying into personal philosophy now, come back. Anyhow, during fertilisation, complications can happen, and often the egg is just killed by the immune defence systems, or what about unfertilised eggs? So what do you've to say for that? There's also taking birth control pills which basically make this happen every time.

A child cannot be killed by ceasing thinking about it; It exists independently of your mind, and even if, say, the mother were to die, The child still exists, and can theoretically be put in the care of another mother and continue to live.

You can say the same of thoughts. If a boyfriend dies, another boy can get the same idea and have sex with the girlfriend. The thought transferred.