Posted on 07/31/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by fporretto
Really? Who decides the limits?
Though I adamantly disagree with your stance on the WOD ... I believe you ARE right on this one
Right on AM !!!!!
Stands up to give rousing round of applause
You know, it's interesting that you--a libertarian--are arguing that states don't have the right to govern themselves as sovereign entities. In fact, you stated earlier--correctly--that the 14th Amendment prevents the states from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law. Serious libertarians point to this clause as the main reason we aren't as "free" as we should be. Under the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine, the Feds can effectively negate all kinds of state sovereignty. So, you're using exactly the post-Civil war Amendment that libertarians hate the most to prove your point. (???)
By the way--you never answered my original question: if liberty has limits, who decides the limits? Hint--you have two choices.
No they are not. They are unreasonable.
There are unreasonable Democrats, unreasonable Republicans, unreasonable Libertarians, unreasonable Christinans ......
But you can't claim it is REASONABLE for ANY ONE to wish death on another.
Why would I lie? - And why do you not care? - Strange, non-conservative reaction.
You know, it's interesting that you--a libertarian--are arguing that states don't have the right to govern themselves as sovereign entities.
I'm not making that argument, as you are well aware. - Just that states must conform their law to honor our constitutional rights, as the feds must.
In fact, you stated earlier--correctly--that the 14th Amendment prevents the states from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law. Serious libertarians point to this clause as the main reason we aren't as "free" as we should be.
You have a lot of serious problems with what you IMAGINE 'serious' libertarians think. - Examine your conscience for the truth.
Under the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine, the Feds can effectively negate all kinds of state sovereignty.
Not if the states fight it.
-- They never have. -- This is a political failure, not one of the constitution.
So, you're using exactly the post-Civil war Amendment that libertarians hate the most to prove your point. (???)
See above on your imagination, - and give some thought to 'moral' debate tactics.
I can't speak for people in the "Libertarian" party, but I am a (small l) libertarian (one who believes in the libertarian principles but not necssarily a member of the "Libertarian" party), and I don't have any such desire for "freedom from God". You are making sweeping generalizations.
If you can't tell that killing people is unreasonable, I can't debate any point with you. Singer is an idiot.
"Pictures of children chained to machines or working in coal mines at age 8 will sour people pretty quick on laissez-faire capitalism." </I
Mark Bahner says ...
Yeah, right. Like that's going to happen. /i>
I tend to agree with HumanaeVitae ... I feel that business left totally unchecked will resort to whatever makes the most profit and especially what makes them competitive. If a company is out performing another, the lagging company HAS to adopt the same policies of the better company or cease to exist. It IS the natural evolution of business. If that means using cheap child labor as in the past and presently illegal or using cheap offshore foreign or American worker displacing H-1B labor onshore as is today, the company WILL resort to it if only to survive. The adage ... "if you don't like your job work somewhere else" is woefully naive especially in a total "laissez faire" business environment sans fair business laws e.i. monopoly restraint. A dissenting worker is not going to get a job anywhere in this "laissez faire" environment because the companies will have evolved into a few giant conglomerates with shared data bases about such "disruptive" people. This dissenting worker also will not be able NOT start his own business because all other competing businesses will be or will have been eliminated by use of one or another presently outlawed business practice. To think that businesses in a free for all environment will NOT resort to whatever makes them the most profit ( which means ANYTHING they can get away with) is the height of naivety ... IMHO
I didn't like your arrogant attack on the author of this article, as you wrapped it in your self-described 'libertarian' view.
You accused him of a personal attack when he replied to another particiapant on this thread.
The author, in fact, did no such thing.
What the author did was cordially explain the political downside of the intransient position the other poster was advocating.
He did not accuse the other "Libertarian" of actually being "an arrogant, self-righteous, dangerous fool."
He merely explained how others would perceive his attitude.
It is YOU who owe the author of this article an apology for your unjustified personal attack.
I agree. However I believe in todays hi-tech technology job market, employers can't find enough "qualified" people. They are making all kinds of employee benefits to attract the brightest and best so they can compete.
In manual unskilled labor, perhaps you are right. But this does not apply to companies like Microsoft.
Sir ... I am a highly trained, highly skilled, highly experienced, and highly educated Silicon Valley engineer. I along with a great many of my collegues are now and have been laid-off and unemployed. I personally have been out of work in my industry for 6 months. So your above statement may be true for other industries BUT I will assure you that that not the way it is in the electronics industry
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.