• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bears 2, libertarians 0

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,537
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Exactly what I was going to post. :) They are like intellectual, bookish anarchists rather than Molotov cocktail throwing anarchists.
Indeed, academic anarchists. It was the Libertarian Party who originally created the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party protests. Their very first protest was on April 15, 1977. They only protested on April 15th in the year after Democrats in Congress (and it was always the Democrats) massively increased taxes. They were a one issue party that only held a protest once or twice per decade, until Ron Paul and his fanatics took it over in 2007. Now the TEA Party is more associated with Republicans and conservatives, but only after it has been twisted beyond recognition.

The Libertarian Party will continue to get less than 1% of the popular vote, like they have for the last 48 years. They don't even take themselves seriously.
 

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
3,355
Reaction score
1,668
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Although I generally hate people who complain about "evil corporations," I do believe that most conservative libertarians are (intentionally or unintentionally) corporate shills. As government power and oversight decrease, individual power does not increase. The collective power of government is simply replaced by private forms of collective power. Without government checks, companies with lots of money can expand across multiple industries, kill competition, and effectively become governments of their own by controlling the supply to necessary goods. And it will never be as easy to take down a corporation through "market power" as it is to replace a government by going to the ballot box.

If you don't like government policy, the answer is to convince people to change it, not to structurally change government so that it has no power to do things you don't like.
 

Phys251

trump is sus
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
31,610
Reaction score
15,998
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

There's actually a reason for society. It keeps the bears away.
The libertarian social experiment underway in Grafton was uniquely incapable of dealing with the problem [of the bears]. "Free Towners were finding that the situations that had been so easy to problem-solve in the abstract medium of message boards were difficult to resolve in person."
There it is. The failure of libertarianism in a nutshell. It refuses to acknowledge that sometimes you need the government to step in and sometimes you need it to pull back. In this regard, libertarianism falls into the extreme of little to no government despite what the circumstances mandate.

Hongoltz-Hetling presents, in microcosm, a case study in how a politics that fetishizes the pursuit of "freedom," both individual and economic, is in fact a recipe for impoverishment and supercharged vulnerability on both fronts at once.
I am so stealing that.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,537
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Although I generally hate people who complain about "evil corporations," I do believe that most conservative libertarians are (intentionally or unintentionally) corporate shills. As government power and oversight decrease, individual power does not increase. The collective power of government is simply replaced by private forms of collective power. Without government checks, companies with lots of money can expand across multiple industries, kill competition, and effectively become governments of their own by controlling the supply to necessary goods. And it will never be as easy to take down a corporation through "market power" as it is to replace a government by going to the ballot box.

If you don't like government policy, the answer is to convince people to change it, not to structurally change government so that it has no power to do things you don't like.
I like corporations. I made a very nice career from corporations. Government and corporations were the only ones who could afford me, and I made them both pay me very well. The trick is to develop a marketable skill that is very high in demand. That puts you in the driver's seat, not the corporation or those seeking your services.

There is a very fine line between government checks on industry and government oppression of industry. First and foremost, all taxes are a detriment to industry, no matter how slight. Taxes are necessary obviously, but it is still government oppression of an industry nonetheless. Industrial standards should be worked out between government and industry, it should not be just one sided.

With government dictating the terms they end up costing industry far more than it should for a service or product, and that cost is then passed on to the consumer. So it effectively becomes a hidden tax imposed by government's unreasonable regulations.

MediCare/MedicAid is a good example. Both federal programs only pay healthcare providers pennies on the dollar for the services provided. As a result the cost not paid for by government is picked up by the consumer in the form of escalating health insurance and an ever increasing cost of medical services. Removing government completely from the healthcare industry would make the cost of healthcare go down, and become much more affordable. Government always does more harm than good to industry. Which is why finding a balance between the two is very tricky.
 

Luce

Weaponized Funk
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
5,021
Reaction score
1,840
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Judging from the article, the residents of Grafton, New Hampshire, are complete idiots who know nothing about bears.
Well, yes. Who the hell feeds a bear? That's how they lose their aversion for humans.



The residents of Grafton, New Hampshire, are idiots for allowing black bears to take over their town. It has absolutely nothing to do with their political ideology, and everything to do with their complete lack of understanding with regard to black bears.
In this case, the ideology of the town is that they cannot stop people from doing things that endanger everyone, like feeding bears.
 

beefheart

You left out a Hoongadoonga
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
33,934
Reaction score
23,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I had a brief flirtation with the LP. I even visited their presidential convention, as a friend of mine was a delegate and I happened to be in Chicago that weekend. Wow, what a bunch of idiots. Nothing ever gets done because every person in the party refuses to stick together with others on policy because they are all super macho individuals who refuse to ever compromise. 50 years of wank from the party, they have never elected anyone to any position of actual power, but they brag about winning uncontested races for county water boards....
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,537
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, yes. Who the hell feeds a bear? That's how they lose their aversion for humans.

In this case, the ideology of the town is that they cannot stop people from doing things that endanger everyone, like feeding bears.
We do not tolerate such moronic behavior in Alaska. Not only is it illegal to feed any wildlife in Alaska, if someone does so while employed they will be fired on the spot. Technically, it is even illegal to have bird-feeders in your backyard. However, I have never heard of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game prosecuting anyone for using bird-feeders.

Whenever there is a problem with the wildlife in Alaska, we relocate the tourist causing the problem.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
29,817
Reaction score
6,858
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Judging from the article, the residents of Grafton, New Hampshire, are complete idiots who know nothing about bears.

First and foremost, despite the opening explanation of the article, there are no grizzly/brown bears within 2,000 miles of New Hampshire. They are all black bears. While black bears can get as big as ~500 pounds, the vast majority weigh less than 300 pounds. Unlike grizzlies/brown bears who are very near-sighted, black bears have very good eyesight. Both types of bears are very intelligent (at least dog level intelligence), very curious, with an excellent sense of smell.

You need to be aggressive with black bears if you wish to alter their behavior. That means running towards them, shouting angrily, making yourself look as menacing as possible. That does not mean attacking, or throwing things at the bear. You should never have any kind of physical contact with any bear. It simply means to come across as aggressively as possible towards the bear. While being aggressive you also have to leave the bear a way out, otherwise it may just attack in self-defense seeing no other option.

The residents of Grafton, New Hampshire, are idiots for allowing black bears to take over their town. It has absolutely nothing to do with their political ideology, and everything to do with their complete lack of understanding with regard to black bears.

I've lived with grizzly/brown and black bears for 30 years, with hundreds of encounters, but never any problems. This past Summer was particularly interesting with regard to bears. Because the 2+ million tourists did not show up in Alaska due to COVID-19, the bears have been much bolder and more visible.

While there are certainly aggressive bears, most bears are not. Most of my grizzly/brown bear encounters have been while fishing for salmon. They wait at the edge of the forest until you catch your first salmon. They watch where you place the salmon, and when you go back to catch another they try to be sneaky and steal the salmon you just caught.

When a 10 foot long, 1,000+ pound brown bear tries to be sneaky it is difficult not to notice. All it usually takes is talking to bear to let them know they have been busted. Like a dog trying to sneak into a room they know they are not suppose to be in. At most, if they are being persistent, I might toss a ladyfinger firecracker in their general direction. They are not being aggressive, they are just looking for a free lunch. They just run off into the woods when busted.
It was their political ideology which meant that there was no coherent effort to actually address the issue. From reading the article they went into a “no, you’re the statist!” death spiral real damn fast, and when hunting down and shooting some of the bears didn’t solve the problem they were paralyzed.

Oh, and at least one resident was actively feeding the bears, something which she apparently thought was none of anyone else’s business.... right up until people started getting mauled.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,537
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It was their political ideology which meant that there was no coherent effort to actually address the issue. From reading the article they went into a “no, you’re the statist!” death spiral real damn fast, and when hunting down and shooting some of the bears didn’t solve the problem they were paralyzed.

Oh, and at least one resident was actively feeding the bears, something which she apparently thought was none of anyone else’s business.... right up until people started getting mauled.
We don't shoot our bears, unless it is absolutely necessary. We don't even close trails where bear attacks have just occurred. At best there might be a warning of an aggressive bear on the trail, but more often than not there is not even a warning.

We do get idiots in Alaska, as well. Like Timothy Treadwell, a tourist from San Francisco who thought he knew something about bears, until he and his girlfriend ended up being eaten by one. We also have idiots in Anchorage who like riding their mountain bikes down game trails in the forest, and then wonder why they are suddenly being mauled by a brown bear.

I am always armed for bear when I go fishing, foraging, or when walking my dogs during the Winter months. I have had more bear encounters than I can easily count in the last 30 years, but I have never felt myself threatened. I have been fortunate to not encounter aggressive bears. Alaska law requires that bears shot in self-defense have the hide, skull, paws, sex, and meat from the animal salvaged. That is an easy 4 to 6 hours worth of work, and then it all has to be hauled to the nearest Alaska Department of Fish & Game office. So the very last thing I want is to have to shoot a bear in self-defense.

My neighbors have had a couple of issues with bears, but I haven't. Primarily because they didn't secure their household trash well enough. I keep my household trash in a small shed that I wrapped with a chain-ling fence to keep out the bigger critters. I haul my trash to the landfill myself every 6 to 8 weeks. The only issues I've had with the wildlife in Alaska have been with moose, not bears. Moose are bigger than brown bears, and they fear absolutely nothing. Moose are also responsible for killing more Alaskans than bears.
 

SkyChief

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
609
Reaction score
328
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
<snipped>
Hell, just look at the Libertarian platform. Jo J. One plank is that taxation should be voluntary because we should be free to do what we want with our money. lol.
<snipped>
LOL.

really.

LOL. :ROFLMAO:
 

Blue Donkey

Democratic Voter
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
7,213
Reaction score
1,620
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
LOL. Really.
How in the world did you attribute that post to me if I can't find my avatar anywhere in this thread?

First, I never start a sentence with the word "Hell." Second, I always type LOL in capital letters without a period. So it could not have been me.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
29,817
Reaction score
6,858
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We don't shoot our bears, unless it is absolutely necessary. We don't even close trails where bear attacks have just occurred. At best there might be a warning of an aggressive bear on the trail, but more often than not there is not even a warning.

We do get idiots in Alaska, as well. Like Timothy Treadwell, a tourist from San Francisco who thought he knew something about bears, until he and his girlfriend ended up being eaten by one. We also have idiots in Anchorage who like riding their mountain bikes down game trails in the forest, and then wonder why they are suddenly being mauled by a brown bear.

I am always armed for bear when I go fishing, foraging, or when walking my dogs during the Winter months. I have had more bear encounters than I can easily count in the last 30 years, but I have never felt myself threatened. I have been fortunate to not encounter aggressive bears. Alaska law requires that bears shot in self-defense have the hide, skull, paws, sex, and meat from the animal salvaged. That is an easy 4 to 6 hours worth of work, and then it all has to be hauled to the nearest Alaska Department of Fish & Game office. So the very last thing I want is to have to shoot a bear in self-defense.

My neighbors have had a couple of issues with bears, but I haven't. Primarily because they didn't secure their household trash well enough. I keep my household trash in a small shed that I wrapped with a chain-ling fence to keep out the bigger critters. I haul my trash to the landfill myself every 6 to 8 weeks. The only issues I've had with the wildlife in Alaska have been with moose, not bears. Moose are bigger than brown bears, and they fear absolutely nothing. Moose are also responsible for killing more Alaskans than bears.
The article describes how a ”posse” formed up and shot like a dozen bears in their dens. It did nothing to deter the other bears, funnily enough.

Moose are big animals. You don’t really realize that until you see one (relatively) up close, but you probably know that already. It crazy that wolves can kill them, but I guess that’s what packs do for u
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,537
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The article describes how a ”posse” formed up and shot like a dozen bears in their dens. It did nothing to deter the other bears, funnily enough.

Moose are big animals. You don’t really realize that until you see one (relatively) up close, but you probably know that already. It crazy that wolves can kill them, but I guess that’s what packs do for u
Moose are easy to avoid, if you know they are there. Most deaths by moose are in the Spring and the result of someone walking in between a calf and its mother without know it. Because they are so big it is pretty easy to keep a large tree between you and the moose. Moose are obviously not predators either, so you can also run from them and not be chased. But, as I said, it does require you knowing that the moose is there.

Wolves are why I wear a firearm during the Winter when I walked my dogs. If it is a bad Winter, with lots of snow, wolves will start moving into towns and cities to consume any pet left outside or being taken for a walk. This Winter is shaping up to be one of our warmer Winters for south-central Alaska, so we shouldn't experience any problems with wolves this season.

New Hampshire has a season, and the regulations in place, for hunting black bears. They even allow baiting and using dogs to hunt bear (Alaska doesn't): http://www.eregulations.com/newhampshire/hunting/bear-hunting/

So they should not be having any issues with bears.

While feeding the wildlife is illegal in many States, and strongly discouraged by the USDA Wildlife Services, that does not appear to be the case in New Hampshire. That is something that New Hampshire needs to correct.

 

SkyChief

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
609
Reaction score
328
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How in the world did you attribute that post to me if I can't find my avatar anywhere in this thread?

First, I never start a sentence with the word "Hell." Second, I always type LOL in capital letters without a period. So it could not have been me.
Apologies.

I was juggling 2 Debate Politics windows and got them mixed up.

im truly sorry. 😔
 

bearpoker

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
10,300
Reaction score
5,834
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's a function of people not understanding that it's cheaper and easier to do things as a group.

That was a town full of malfunctioning primates, and they wound up with malfunctioning bears.
Malfunctioning primates indeed. The bears were just being bears. Great article. Funny and sad. I'm sorry for the people who got killed because assholes took over the town. Someone should make a movie out of it.
 

bearpoker

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
10,300
Reaction score
5,834
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The system mathematically guarantees that we will only ever have two parties worth mentioning.

Every time a new party becomes major, another one had to have croaked (so long, Federalists and Whigs). The GOP is croaking, and we need a conservative party. It's either you or the "constitutionalist" party which more or less wants women in burkas.

I'd prefer the libertarian party, so it would be nice if they would get serious in the midterms instead of the doomed gesture every 4 years.
I'm hoping the Trumpist party, which is what the Republican party is now, dies. I'm quite certain that the Never Trump wing has the brains and determination to become the next conservative party whether it goes by the Republican name or something else.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

I'm the Leon Russell guy.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
36,249
Reaction score
19,645
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Partial libertarians are fine. They want the government off their ass on stuff like drugs, sex, and who you can marry. Me too. But the Big-L ones are virtually indistinguishable from anarchists or communists, the other two 'systems' that propose no government.
I'm getting pretty fed up with the millions of morons who all think they know better, or who think they know everything, or who think everyone else is wrong and only they are right when it comes to taxation and modern governance and the rules of civilized society.

I mean, it's not like we didn't already evolve over tens of millennia, it's not like mankind didn't already try nearly every other form of government or lack of it ever conceived.
So, a group of selfish, greedy power hungry narcissists and egomaniacs have done away with education and the lessons of history and declared human kindness a crime worthy of death.

But instead of building their own libertarian paradise, like cowbirds they foul other nests, like Grafton.
After well over a century of whiny manifestos and gun play, there is yet to ever be a single successful libertarian paradise on the planet. And yet they seem to think their guns are proof they're right and we're wrong.
 

Geoist

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
16,595
Reaction score
8,233
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Partial libertarians are fine. They want the government off their ass on stuff like drugs, sex, and who you can marry. Me too. But the Big-L ones are virtually indistinguishable from anarchists or communists, the other two 'systems' that propose no government.
Usually, "Big-L" libertarian refers to the Libertarian Party and its members.

American far right-libertarians essentially want the capitalism we have now and just enough government to protect that capitalist system. Left-anarchists/communists want the capitalist system dismantled along with the state. So essentially socialism on a much smaller scale, especially when it comes to natural resources and land.
 

Geoist

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
16,595
Reaction score
8,233
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I had a brief flirtation with the LP. I even visited their presidential convention, as a friend of mine was a delegate and I happened to be in Chicago that weekend. Wow, what a bunch of idiots. Nothing ever gets done because every person in the party refuses to stick together with others on policy because they are all super macho individuals who refuse to ever compromise. 50 years of wank from the party, they have never elected anyone to any position of actual power, but they brag about winning uncontested races for county water boards....
I think American libertarianism naturally appeals to those who are unusually stubborn and uncompromising. Not the most pleasant people to hammer out a platform with, let alone actual policy.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
130,444
Reaction score
39,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
499
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Libertarians think they can create their utopia. About all they can do is put blankets over card tables and pretend they have a fort.
Wait, what exactly are you saying about my card table blanket fort?
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
499
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The system mathematically guarantees that we will only ever have two parties worth mentioning.
Perot altered an election and almost got a viable third party started.
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,537
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Perot altered an election and almost got a viable third party started.
Perot did not alter the election 1992 or 1996 elections, any more than Trump altered the 2000 election when he ran as the Reform Party candidate for President. Perot did not receive a single Electoral College vote from any State in either election. Therefore, he had no effect on the outcome of either election.

The last third party candidate to win at least one Electoral College vote was John Hospers in 1972. He was the Libertarian Party candidate, and he received one Electoral College vote from Virginia by a faithless Elector.
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
499
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Perot did not alter the election 1992 or 1996 elections, any more than Trump altered the 2000 election when he ran as the Reform Party candidate for President. Perot did not receive a single Electoral College vote from any State in either election. Therefore, he had no effect on the outcome of either election.
You're sure the outcome would have been the same without Perot in the race, particularly in 1992 with 19% of the vote?
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,537
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're sure the outcome would have been the same without Perot in the race, particularly in 1992 with 19% of the vote?
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the popular vote in presidential elections doesn't mean diddly-squat. Only the Electoral College counts in presidential elections and Perot got zero EC votes. There was not a single State where Perot held the majority of the popular vote. If he had, then he would have received at the very minimum one EC vote if it were Maine or Nebraska, or a minimum of three EC votes if it was any other State or DC. Which means that Perot lost in every State, and DC.
 
Top Bottom