• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

It's Time for Libertarians to Be Serious

simply because someone is blocking your path does not give you the right to initiate violence against him.

You wouldn't survive a siege very well. If the enemy surrounds your city and prevents you from eating, you might want to consider violence, rather than death by starvation?
 
Our allies in the Middle East don't turn to Belgium, Canada, or Portugal for help, they turn to us. So we become involved and become a target. We can't hope to maintain diplomatic relations and trade in the Middle East if we turn our backs on our friends there.

Which contradicts your claim. Now you are admitting that involvement makes us a target which is contrary to your claim that the West is a target period, regardless of our actions.

I often see that said, but it doesn't comport with the facts. Radical muslims are involved in something like 18 different conflicts around the globe, mostly with their neighbors. In many cases it amounts to attempts at genocide and conquest on the part of the radicals, and the West is involved in only 2 of those conflicts. So how can it be that the West is causing it? Obviously, Western intervention is not necessary for radical Muslims to increase their terrorism and war -- they will be doing it whether or not the US gets involved, and they threaten to involve the US whether we like it or not.

You have now contradicted your own statements.

First you said that we'd be targeted regardless. Now you admit that countries who don't get involved don't get targeted.

Which is it?
 
You wouldn't survive a siege very well. If the enemy surrounds your city and prevents you from eating, you might want to consider violence, rather than death by starvation?

Perhaps you missed where we have mentioned a half dozen times that self-defense is well within these grounds.
 
Siege merely prevents travel, there's no threat within the walls of your city. Sit in your city and starve, because you can't muster violence.

Libertarianism is not pacifism. If Libertarian's take stupid, self-destructive positions, they don't deserve leadership. And they won't get leadership.
 
You wouldn't survive a siege very well. If the enemy surrounds your city and prevents you from eating, you might want to consider violence, rather than death by starvation?

The US isnt surrounded, is it? And those nations you want to trade with in the ME also happen to be the main financiers of these radical Islamic groups too... :doh
 
The US isnt surrounded, is it?

TNAR has been arguing Libertarian's must be essentially, pacifists. For example, he asserted a new fundamental Libertarian principle. But, is it a principle, at all?


because someone is blocking your path does not give you the right to initiate violence against him.

I'm pointing out that Libertarian's are not pacifists and have a right to enforce the free-trade principles they hold so dear. The question I raised was whether a city surrounded, had a right to exert force and violence under Libertarian principles? Once we've shown Libertarianism is not pacifism and that there is no such principle as "path-blocking is insufficient justification," then we can discuss the broader question of free-trade between nations. Let's address one principle at a time, shall we?

Having heard no objection and presuming concurrence that there is no Libertarian pacifist principle;

One can't argue freedom and freedom-to-trade, but then allow bullies to block free-trade. Free-trade and free-trade-routes, must be enforceable. And since freedom is a natural-right of all men, freedom-to-trade extends offshore. At least to the extent we have the military capability to enforce it. If people don't want to trade, we obviously don't force the issue. But, if people (foreign or domestic) do want to trade and some pirate or bully stands in the way, we have every right to exert force to ensure unmolested passage.

This "enforceable trade-route" principle is a tenet of Libertarianism. A fundamental principle, every bit as important as the government leaving innocent citizen's unmolested. Part of the protection from "force and fraud" principle. Libertarian's believe government's role is to protect its citizen's from force; pirates and bullies are (a portion of) the "force" our citizen's need protection from.
 
Siege merely prevents travel, there's no threat within the walls of your city. Sit in your city and starve, because you can't muster violence.

Libertarianism is not pacifism. If Libertarian's take stupid, self-destructive positions, they don't deserve leadership. And they won't get leadership.

How about people who intentionally misrepresent the positions of others? Do they deserve leadership positions?
 
TNAR has been arguing Libertarian's must be essentially, pacifists. For example, he asserted a new fundamental Libertarian principle. But, is it a principle, at all?
Libertarians are not pacifists. Big difference between non-interventionism and pacifism. A good example of a non-interventionist country is Switzerland.
 
Libertarians are not pacifists. Big difference between non-interventionism and pacifism. A good example of a non-interventionist country is Switzerland.

No, you're wrong. As explained by someone who clearly understands what we think better than we do, Respecthelect has kindly explained that if you don't support nuking into the stone age everyone who looks at you sideways, you prefer to just lie down and get beaten like a whipped dog. There is no middle ground.
 
You liberal appeaser's (Kerry) signed the agreement that permitted Iran to enrich weapons-grade nuclear materials. Now they plan to bring those nukes to America. That doesn't leave much middle-ground. Either we stop them or they nuke us.

I didn't advocate nuking Iran (at least not in this thread), so that's a lie. Makes you a liar and a false-accuser.

The decision to use nuclear weapons is a serious one. But, it is not a decision that won't or can't be rightly made. When we get nuked, for example. Will Obama retaliate in-kind? I seriously doubt he would, but public support will be over 90% for it.

America is obviously following your strategy, not mine (which would ensure Iran never came close to nuclear weapons capability). Your strategy will almost certainly get America nuked within ten-years. Maybe within two. My strategy would ensure we never get nuked by Iran and would greatly reduce the possibility from elsewhere. Yet, Obama (and you) seem intent on the appeasement strategy that dooms us all?
 
Well, when all you hawks figure out how to pay for it, I'm sure you can bomb away.

If, Obama hasn't already used all the bombs in storage hitting the enemies of the Taliban and Muslim brotherhood.

Gods knows there's no military budget left to buy anything new so....

LOL

Putz

-
 
Obama-Kerry signed Iran's permission slip to develop nuclear weapons. Iran's been developing nuclear weapons for thirty years. Not "dirty bombs," but full fraction-of-a-Megaton nukes. Every middle east country that can afford nukes, is developing nukes.

If America or it's allies aren't nuked within ten-years, I'll be very surprised. And nuked within two-years is very likely.

Pentagon,%2BMr.%2BAhmadinejad%2Bwalked%2Bpast%2Brows%2Bof%2BIran's%2Bfirst%2Bgeneration%2Bof%2Bmachines,.jpg

One of Iran's enrichment centrifuge farms. Visit hosted by Iranian president and former hostage-taker, Ahmadinejad. Significantly more advanced than box-cutters.

How many times are we going to underestimate middle east capabilities and intentions? Look what they accomplished when they limited themselves to knives on 9/11. Imagine what they'll do with the nuclear weapons Obama just gave them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia

There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

You claim to be a Libertarian, don't you reserve the right to trade with others? Is that right limited by our borders, or does it extend to all like-minded men interested in trading? Is it only American's that are free to trade or is it a natural right? If pirates block access to your trading partner, are you precluded from trading? Must you bow to every thug's threat? Or do you have a right to enforce free trade-routes?

I must admit, I've never seen someone use an ideology of intranational liberalism to justify international aggression.

And regarding your question, first, foreign nations aren't the same as pirates (this shouldn't have to be pointed out), second, if another country doesn't want to trade with us, we have no right to force them.

Who can deny Obama's applied too little?

People who pay attention.
 
You liberal appeaser's (Kerry) signed the agreement that permitted Iran to enrich weapons-grade nuclear materials. Now they plan to bring those nukes to America. That doesn't leave much middle-ground. Either we stop them or they nuke us.

I didn't advocate nuking Iran (at least not in this thread), so that's a lie. Makes you a liar and a false-accuser.

The decision to use nuclear weapons is a serious one. But, it is not a decision that won't or can't be rightly made. When we get nuked, for example. Will Obama retaliate in-kind? I seriously doubt he would, but public support will be over 90% for it.

America is obviously following your strategy, not mine (which would ensure Iran never came close to nuclear weapons capability). Your strategy will almost certainly get America nuked within ten-years. Maybe within two. My strategy would ensure we never get nuked by Iran and would greatly reduce the possibility from elsewhere. Yet, Obama (and you) seem intent on the appeasement strategy that dooms us all?

If Iran ever even thought seriously about sending a nuke our way, we have the ability to turn what used to be their country into a whole 50,000 miles deep and they know it. They talk a lot of ****, but in truth would never send a nuke our way. And let's just imagine for a second that they did, for the sake of argument. I guess you think that responding in kind would just be the end of it? That we wouldn't be dragged into a multinational war at least, or a third world war at worst?

Well, when all you hawks figure out how to pay for it, I'm sure you can bomb away.

If, Obama hasn't already used all the bombs in storage hitting the enemies of the Taliban and Muslim brotherhood.

Gods knows there's no military budget left to buy anything new so....

LOL

Putz

-

No need to worry about paying for it. Republicans are only concerned about small government when they aren't talking about the military industrial complex. When funding the Pentagon, there is no amount too large.
 
If Iran ever even thought seriously about sending a nuke our way, we have the ability to turn what used to be their country into a whole 50,000 miles deep

This is nothing more than bragging. America hasn't tested a weapon since 1992. All America's nukes are either over fifty-years old or designs that have never been tested - ever. The stockpile's been decimated by Obama's "Start Treaty," down to only 6% of what the military said it needed not long ago. Designers have been replaced with pacifists, builders closed-down and launch officers purged en-masse. Not one element of the nuclear deterrence chain is sound.

Kurmugeon has some expertise in this area, and he agrees. America is essentially defenseless and without a reliable deterrent.
 
There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The Director of National Intelligence testified that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Perhaps your smarter and more well informed than he?

Israel also believes Iran has built, but not yet tested nukes. They both believe that Iran has such high-confidence in their design (validated by Pakistan and North Korean testing) that they may perform their initial tests on the West. Detonating nukes in Israel and the U.S. and skipping any further testing program. In other words, we will receive no further warning before the nukes go off in U.S. cities.

U.S. media refuses to report our own public intelligence reports, so we must rely on foreign press. Pathetic. Pathetic because it leaves even our own conservatives with the false impression that their world is secure, when it is most certainly not.
 
Last edited:
The Director of National Intelligence testified that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Perhaps your smarter and more well informed than he?

Israel also believes Iran has built, but not yet tested nukes. They both believe that Iran has such high-confidence in their design (validated by Pakistan and North Korean testing) that they may perform their initial tests on the West. Detonating nukes in Israel and the U.S. and skipping any further testing program. In other words, we will receive no further warning before the nukes go off in U.S. cities.

U.S. media refuses to report our own public intelligence reports, so we must rely on foreign press. Pathetic. Pathetic because it leaves even our own conservatives with the false impassion that their world is secure, when it is most certainly not.

Do you even read your own articles? It said they have the infrastructure to build a nuclear weapon, not that they have one.

I agree that there are many threats to world peace, but Iran isn't one of them (although America might be).

Note that our last non-defensive military action was three years ago, Iran's was one hundred and eighty eight years ago.
 
This is nothing more than bragging. America hasn't tested a weapon since 1992. All America's nukes are either over fifty-years old or designs that have never been tested - ever. The stockpile's been decimated by Obama's "Start Treaty," down to only 6% of what the military said it needed not long ago. Designers have been replaced with pacifists, builders closed-down and launch officers purged en-masse. Not one element of the nuclear deterrence chain is sound.

Kurmugeon has some expertise in this area, and he agrees. America is essentially defenseless and without a reliable deterrent.

The USA is #1 in global firepower. Iran doesn't make it into the top 10. Or the top 20 for that matter. A war between the US would be the equivalent of the Super Bowl Champion Seattle Seahawks (the USA) playing against Scranton, Ohio's 12th ranked pee wee league team (Iran) in a full contact, NFL rules game. We wouldn't even have to send in our second stringers to annihilate Iran without breaking a sweat. Hell, our cheerleaders would wipe them off the map. Add to that the fact that Iran hasn't attacked the US. But hey, we're already involved in wars in, what? Three countries? What's a few more? After all, my friends in uniform are expendable. Hell, send 'em to the slaughter for no reason.
 
The first step to putting America back onto a positive track and moving toward a better standard of living for the vast majority of common, low-middle Income voting citizens..

Is to recognize and accept the huge mistake of trusting the Radical Wing of the Democratic Party, impeach and remove from office those that we can, wait and vote-out those that we cannot pragmatically expect to impeach, and NEVER make the mistake of TRUSTING the LEFT again!

The LEFT Cannot, MUST NOT be TRUSTED!

It cannot be said too many times: The Radical LEFT Cannot, MUST NOT be TRUSTED!

It will take Decades to recover from the damage done to low-mid Income Americans by Obama, Bill Ayers, Cloward-Piven, Eric Holder, and Valerie Jarrett et al... be we cannot even begin to rebuild until we ALL understand:

The Radical LEFT Cannot, MUST NOT be TRUSTED!


-
 
I have come to understand this constant barrage of critiques against libertarianism is people uncomfortable with the hypocrisy of their own views in a world where everything operating under their system is turning to ****.
 
I have no problem with Iran getting nukes. If anything this will make the region more peaceful since Isreal wont be able to start anything. MAD worked for decades during the Cold War and I think its the answer to peace in the Middle East.
 
I have no problem with Iran getting nukes. If anything this will make the region more peaceful since Isreal wont be able to start anything. MAD worked for decades during the Cold War and I think its the answer to peace in the Middle East.

2014-02-12T175054Z_01_WAS460_RTRIDSP_3_USA-SECURITY.jpg

Even Rand Paul says, No
 
Siege merely prevents travel, there's no threat within the walls of your city. Sit in your city and starve, because you can't muster violence.

Libertarianism is not pacifism. If Libertarian's take stupid, self-destructive positions, they don't deserve leadership. And they won't get leadership.

But the Republocrats already take stupid, Republic-destructive positions, do they not deserve leadership? Just because they've rigged the system doesn't mean they deserve the top spot.
 
Back
Top Bottom