Libertarians! Weigh in on the death penalty here.

[breakingcontact]

The Tea Party is set to win several elections statewide. Border defense? Mostly feds from what I understand.

 

[NeckBeard]

The Tea Party is set to win several elections statewide. Border defense? Mostly feds from what I understand.

what will they accomplish aside from making more rules that i have to follow under penalty of death by cop or prison time? maybe make it legal for me to carry in a bar? probably not.

 

[breakingcontact]

what will they accomplish aside from making more rules that i have to follow under penalty of death by cop or prison time? maybe make it legal for me to carry in a bar? probably not.

What is your solution? The Tea Party candidates are an actual change and a good sign even if you are a Green.

 

[Younggun]

I don't dislike the tea party. Not completely in line with every single view but they are a huge step in the right direction.

Them main problem I could think of and biggest complaint I could come up with wouldn't be with the tea party itself, but mainstream politicians who jump on the tea party bandwagon. TPINO?

I liked Ron Paul, dispute the complaints of many conservatives. The Tea Party will probably no turn out a RP type candidate, but if they keep to their roots and have the fortitude to stand strong against the onslaught from those who want to keep the status quo (and their playoffs+perks) they stand to bring big change to Washington. They are the first 3rd party in a very long time to gain any footing which forces the current corrupt dirtbags to answer for the crap they do.

As far as making more rules, I'm not sure what new rules or laws the tea party has tried to enact that are being referred to in post 122.

Maybe I missed it.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I'm not a fan of it because it's ineffective and costs more than housing them for life.

If there was a higher barrier for evidence in a capital murder case I'd be more likely to support it. What concerns greatly is the possibility of its abuse. With all the changes coming to this country I'm not sure I want the Socialists having this as a tool.

 

[NeckBeard]

What is your solution? The Tea Party candidates are an actual change and a good sign even if you are a Green.

get people who will actually repeal laws instead of just talking about it. our "tea party" congress was put in there to get rid of obamacare. well, we have obamacare and a white flag of surrender.

 

[Younggun]

We don't have a tea party congress.

 

[breakingcontact]

I'm not a fan of it because it's ineffective and costs more than housing them for life.

If there was a higher barrier for evidence in a capital murder case I'd be more likely to support it. What concerns greatly is the possibility of its abuse. With all the changes coming to this country I'm not sure I want the Socialists having this as a tool.

Excellent point I havent considered.

 

[TheDan]

I suppose I am a bit surprised to find nearly all support the state sanctioned and carried out death penalty.

As I said ealier I think some form of restitution would be preferable, but I'm not sure that is really practical or even possible. Plus...

What concerns greatly is the possibility of its abuse. With all the changes coming to this country I'm not sure I want the Socialists having this as a tool.

That is exactly what makes me squeamish about giving the government this power, but in cases where sentencing is done by jury it is at least not resting entirely with the government. I really wish we had more jury nullification in this country, tho.

I'd rather it be red than blue. It's just hard to influence a party that makes way more money on the route it's been going. We had the Ron Paul push but I don't see anything changing anymore. I'm thankful for Ted Cruz.

I just saw the video below a couple days ago. I'm not sure how successful this neighborhood precinct committeeman approach might be, but it's worth a shot for those that are inclined to get involved. The leftists really have this sort of thing figured out, but I don't think their tactics would work with liberty minded folks because we tend to be individualistic and not fall for the collectivist allure of community organizing.

CALL TO ACTION: Republican Civil War - YouTube

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Lets say our man in the wilderness climbs a tree to pick a piece of fruit. He now own's that fruit, right? He used his hands, feet, brain, and time to add value to that piece of fruit. Through his labor it became his. If he took the seeds from that fruit, planted them and nurtured the trees then he would now own an orchard. The value created from the orchard wouldn't have existed without his labor. This man could even use the value of his labor (the fruit) to exchange value of some other guy's labor like the meat a hunter has harvested. ...boom... An economy is born.

Sure, this is one possible explanation of ownership. You basically paraphrased John Locke, it is a part of the famous "Lockean proviso," a term coined by Robert Nozick.

But the Lockean proviso has hardly been accepted as an absolute principle among political philosophers. For example, what gives your man in the wilderness the right to pick fruit from that tree over another man in the wilderness? How does mere "work" create this magical bond that we call "ownership" between a person and some other object? Is this a real relation between the two, or merely something we imagine or create and use as the basis for social conventions that govern aspects of ownership?

Of course the Marxists would deny that any individual can even own anything, because there is no individual, only the collective.

...and none of those guys come close to being libertarian.

Bill Maher has claimed to be a libertarian in the past. Now he is a state worshiping Euro socialist.

My statement stands that atheists traditionally cannot say that life itself is objectively good or valuable. Read up on atheistic, naturalistic philosophy, life is always an instrumental value towards achieving some end.

In a very strict sense, any libertarian, atheist or not, will deny that anyone, including government, has the right to take the life of another. Libertarians are for personal freedom and liberty, which cannot be violated by another involuntary. The only exception is when you introduce the provisions of the Social Contract, which many believe is the basis of society and legitimizes it. When one violates the Social Contract through crime, and especially murder, you voluntarily forfeit your life/liberty and are basically thrown to the wolves of society.

I started this thread to find out what our many resident libertarians believe. I suppose I am a bit surprised to find nearly all support the state sanctioned and carried out death penalty.

I am actually surprised that you thought libertarians were Catholics .

I was talking mainly theoretically. In reality, I think most libertarians would agree in the death penalty in principle, for the reasons stated, but because the government can't really be trusted, it is best to severely limit its power to execute people.

 

[TheDan]

For example, what gives your man in the wilderness the right to pick fruit from that tree over another man in the wilderness? How does mere "work" create this magical bond that we call "ownership" between a person and some other object? Is this a real relation between the two, or merely something we imagine or create and use as the basis for social conventions that govern aspects of ownership?

What right does a bird have to eat fruit from a tree in the wilderness? If no one else has put any work into it then it doesn't belong to anyone.

We often measure our life in time. Work is essentially your labor plus your time (your life). The reason why adding value to something through work creates ownership is because you have literally put your life into it. Your time spent on something is just as much a part of you as your arm is.

There's lots of different social constructs for ownership, but unless they rooted in the basic ownership of one's self then they are just imagined.