Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am only a libertarian on moral issues.

I believe in a strong safety net. Of course people should be encouraged to get off the government dole, but the government has a responsiblity to take care of those people who can't take care of themselves.

I believe in a minimum wage.

I believe the government should spend gobs of money on education (as long as the teacher's Unions are not screwing them up) and infrastructure.

I could care less about guns either way. Except I don't think semiautomatic weapons should be legal.

I support a large standing army because I am a NeoCon.

The only other way I am a libertarian is I don't like government intereference in the economy unless it is to protect the health and safety of workers or consumers or to protect the environment.

But otherwise the government should not second guess markets, so no tariffs, quotas, NTBs or subsidies.

I believe we should have open borders exept I think we should screen everyone that comes in. But if you aren't some sort of criminal or are not on a terrorist watch list, or French come on in.

The funny* part of ongoing debates is that I agree with pretty much all of this (except the neocon part, of course).



*that is funny strange, not funny ha ha.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
The patriot act doesn't bother me. I am much more worried about a terrorist taking away my right to life than I am the government infringing on my rights.

This is where I think you, and many others like you, vastly over estimate the short to medium term risks.

I don't believe in the exclusionary rule.

Who needs it? Surely the framers only meant us to mildly scold cops that didn't follow the rules.

I just don't see us turning into a police state any time soon.

It is easier if you keep your eyes closed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am only a libertarian on moral issues.

I believe in a strong safety net. Of course people should be encouraged to get off the government dole, but the government has a responsiblity to take care of those people who can't take care of themselves.

I believe in a minimum wage.

I believe the government should spend gobs of money on education (as long as the teacher's Unions are not screwing them up) and infrastructure.

I could care less about guns either way. Except I don't think semiautomatic weapons should be legal.

I support a large standing army because I am a NeoCon.

The only other way I am a libertarian is I don't like government intereference in the economy unless it is to protect the health and safety of workers or consumers or to protect the environment.

But otherwise the government should not second guess markets, so no tariffs, quotas, NTBs or subsidies.

I believe we should have open borders exept I think we should screen everyone that comes in. But if you aren't some sort of criminal or are not on a terrorist watch list, or French come on in.

You see, this is my basic point.

I am at least as much of a libertarian as you, probably more so. Conservatives today are rarely very libertarian, and I'd say that the Bush administration is the least libertarian administration we've seen since FDR.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder

Who needs it?

no other countries with similar legal systems?

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
What if your name is sorta kinda like that of someone on the terror watch list?

Change your name.

Like that Vic Hitler guy on Hill Street Blues. Or on Seinfeld, Elaine's beau Joel Rifkin

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Adder
If you believe that the intentions of the sponsors it to protect kids rather than to publicly shame sex offenders, then yes. I am not so sure about that though.

I believe that they like both ideas and have both purposes.

I do think that the law is probably a bad idea because of the possibility of vigilante "justice" against folks who have done their time and may not be doing anything wrong right now.

But then again, Internet registries do that already. I took a look at MD's and was amazed at how many registered offenders live within a few miles of my house. On those registries, at least the type of offense is or can be listed -- not so with license plates.

Another big question is who would have to use the plates and for what offenses -- the states are tremendously variable in registration requirements and how they lump offenses together. In some states urinating in public is classified as a low-level sex offense which will get you on the registry. I'd hate to have some guy using bright green plates get stomped to death because he peed in public after a Toby Keith concert a few years back.

S_A_M

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no other countries with similar legal systems?

Which other countries have a consitutional provision that says:

• 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.

I mean, if you have a magic wand that will thwart all unreasonable searches and seizures ahead of time, I am all for it. But absent such mystical powers, I don't see much protection for this consitutional right if there is no disincentive (or even mere civil remedies) for the government violating it. Note it does not say "shall not be violated but if it is, go ahead and sue us."

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky

Except I don't think semiautomatic weapons should be legal.

I'm not sure how broad you mean this to be, but "semi-automatic" includes most pistols which are not revolvers and many (legitimate) hunting rifles. If you suggested outlawing all semi-automatic weapons to even a moderate gun rights supporter, you'd be on their bad side right away.

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe we should have open borders exept I think we should screen everyone that comes in. But if you aren't some sort of criminal or are not on a terrorist watch list, or French come on in.

Like Canada is apparently now doing? Or by criminal do you mean someone who committed a crime which would be a felony in the USA?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I believe that they like both ideas and have both purposes.

Agreed. And I think that they think the public shame helps protect kids.

I do think that the law is probably a bad idea because of the possibility of vigilante "justice" against folks who have done their time and may not be doing anything wrong right now.

But then again, Internet registries do that already.

True, and I think there are real issues with requiring registry or license plates after the fact when that was not a part of the penalty at the time of sentencing, and I think there are real policy questions about place these sort of permanent punishments on these crimes, not to mention the question of whether they actually help at all, or whether they just feed into public parnoia.

I took a look at MD's and was amazed at how many registered offenders live within a few miles of my house. On those registries, at least the type of offense is or can be listed -- not so with license plates.

I did the same thing for my ghetto neighborhood not that long ago. Needless to say, there were a lot. One of whom was a 300 pound dude with a history of attempted forecible sodomy. It did not change my behavior at all.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Like Canada is apparently now doing? Or by criminal do you mean someone who committed a crime which would be a felony in the USA?

Which reminds me of a pro bono asylum case I did a bit of work on. When asked whether she was ever arrested, she would say yes, pointing to the many times she was detained by the Iranian religious police for "dressing inappropriately" and the like. Hardly something we would call a crime.

Slave, you will be happy to know she was granted asylum as a Christian convert.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You see, this is my basic point.

I am at least as much of a libertarian as you, probably more so. Conservatives today are rarely very libertarian, and I'd say that the Bush administration is the least libertarian administration we've seen since FDR.

I never claimed to be a libertarian and have never been tempted to vote libertarian. I find getting rid of the safety net a heinous idea. I also don't want companys polluting the country willy nilly and a drunk Slave, Less and Sebby walking around with Uzis. I just want government out of the bedroom and to not second guess the markets.

I also think Bush is less libertarian that I am. So I agree with you.

But if you take a morally liberal republican (like me), who believes in gun rights, doesn't believe in welfare or social security, and who believe in free markets and free trade, and who believes in legalizing drugs and prostitution, that is about as libertarian as you get on this board. I think Slave would qualify as that.

I think Less is even more libertarian because I don't think Less would support the US getting involved in any foreign wars and he would end all zoning laws. At least that is the way he used to think.

So as far as libertarian goes - Sebby = Bronze, Slave = Silver, Less = Gold.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The Brady Bill did far more to innocent people. It imposed actual limits on freedoms. The Patriot Act may threaten liberty by the investigatorial authority it provides, but doesn't really restrict much in the way of freedom.

I find it odd that your conception of freedom finds more purchase in the Second Amendment than in the Fourth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Like that Vic Hitler guy on Hill Street Blues.

I'm a sucker for Hill Street Blues references. You have my proxy for the rest of the day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I'm not sure how broad you mean this to be, but "semi-automatic" includes most pistols which are not revolvers and many (legitimate) hunting rifles. If you suggested outlawing all semi-automatic weapons to even a moderate gun rights supporter, you'd be on their bad side right away.

I'm not a gun-rights supporter, and I think semi-automatic rifles are fun. I like plunking varmin with a .22 Ruger.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
This is where I think you, and many others like you, vastly over estimate the short to medium term risks.

I am really curious. Which provisions of this patriot act could effect me negatively.

Originally posted by Adder
Who needs it? Surely the framers only meant us to mildly scold cops that didn't follow the rules.

All the other western nations (and Japan) seem fine without it. None of them have turned into police states because of its absence.

Originally posted by Adder
It is easier if you keep your eyes closed.

That is my philosophy when it comes to bad tequila shots.