Posted on 10/23/2014 6:11:58 AM PDT by C19fan
Reason‘s Nick Gillespie recently posted a list of the five most anti-libertarian television shows ever, and there’s a serious error. Actually, there are two serious errors. The first, larger error is that Reason put together a list of the five best libertarian TV shows, and they left off “Firefly,” which simply boggles the mind.
The smaller error is that Gillespie names “Star Trek” among the anti-libertarian shows. Even worse is the reason he gives: “The Starship Enterprise’s adventures throughout the galaxy are supposedly guided by the Federation’s ‘prime directive,’ which forbids humans from intervening in the domestic affairs of the planets they visit. And yet…Captain James T. Kirk is mucking around with every civilization from here to the Romulan Neutral Zone like LBJ on Viagra.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
OK, it's a Vulcan concept --like the IDIC-- but how would you define "prosper" in the Trekian utopia... Lots of recognized research? The proper number of 'productive' progeny ??
Under Obama's sociofascism, the adage would be more like- "Live Not-so-long & P**s-poor."
Excellent. A clear, unambiguous statement.
I trust you have citations to back your position.
If I wasn't at work I could post a whole slew of Trek References.
Though I think other FReepers have post the exchange between Jake Sisko and Nog.
Latinum is a liquid metal I think, that is why it has to be pressed into a junk-metal called gold, gold-pressed latinum, to be useful as a currency.
Most Starfleet personnel doesn’t seem to need any though, their service gives them access to the atomic-version of a 3-d printer. It can make just about anything, except anti-matter or something.
I should have read on, I had the same kind of response
what exactly is the inherent value of latinum?
No idea, but that certainly was the implication.
These weren’t pieces of tin backed by the “good will of the federation”.
Latinum's inherent value is that it is not tin.
If I had a replicator, I wouldn’t need much money
The age of consent is “not Constitutional” some argue and other things. Or they will say it’s not abuse if it is mutual or something.
Some libertarians, small l, do believe this kind of crap.
I do remember early in my FR “career” having a several hundred post flame war against a libertarian who argued for kiddie porn being “art”
lol
hang on. tin is very useful for roofing and canning... lol
very true, it was valuable well outside the federation too from what I could tell
http://issuepedia.org/Libertarianism/American/Party/platform/1980#3._Victimless_Crimes
http://issuepedia.org/Libertarianism/American/Party/platform/1980#20._Children.27s_Rights
In 1980, the libertarian party even insisted children could be prostitutes.
TNG is depressingly Marxist.
But apparently the one thing they couldn’t replicate was dilithium.
Perhaps a “currency” for them would have been “coins” the value of which was backed by a stockpile of physical dilithium
The text:
Because only action which infringe the rights of others can properly be termed crimes, we favor the repeal of all federal, state, and local laws creating "crimes" without victims. In particular, we advocate:
a. The repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medical prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs and similar substances;
b. The repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at least, be accorded their full rights as individuals;
c. The repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his or her own life; and
e. The use of executive pardon to free all those presently incarcerated for the commission of these "crimes".
FAIL. I do not see anything in this quoted-text that advocates for the right of children to have sex or adults to have sex with children. You will note the term 'consensual'. Children are incapable of legally granting consent to sex, much in the same way that they are incapable of legally signing a contract.
http://issuepedia.org/Libertarianism/American/Party/platform/1980#20._Children.27s_Rights
The text:
20. Children's Rights
We believe that "children" are human beings and, as such, have the same rights as any other human beings. Any reference in the Platform to the rights of human beings includes children.
FAIL. Perhaps YOU don't believe children are human beings or have rights, but *I* do. And I did some of your homework for you: I looked up the Platform To The Rights of Human Beings, and on the topic of sex and relationships, they say:
1.4 Personal Relationships Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Note the bolded text.
So far, you have failed to produce citations that back your position. Try again? Here, start with this one:
In 1980, the libertarian party even insisted children could be prostitutes.
Go get us some citations that show this to be true, please.
We believe that "children" are human beings and, as such, have the same rights as any other human beings.
No matter how obtuse you try to be the implications are clear.
You are at least consistent in your defense of adults having sex with minors.
Oh, you are one of those Amazing 8-Ball mindreaders. Even though they EXPLICITLY STATE THAT SEXUAL FREEDOMS ARE ONLY APPLICABLE TO CONSENTING *ADULTS*, somehow they REALLY meant kids.
You are a complete jackass, as demonstrated in your next sentence:
You are at least consistent in your defense of adults having sex with minors.
F*** you. No, seriously, f*** you. Come to next years TCMS shoot and say that to my face, and watch me beat you down for it. NOwhere have I *EVER* defended adults having sex with kids. EVER. I have challenged you one your "mindreading ability" and your explicit ignoring of where they say the opposite of what you say.
But I have NEVER defended adults having sex with kids.
I mean it. Come to the Texas Cowboy Memorial Shoot next year. Say that to my face.
Watch what happens next, punk-a**-bitch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.