A Green-Libertarian Alliance

[Ceannairceach]

NASA is pretty neat.

NASA used to be neat. Now it's just a bureaucratic mess. The future of space travel lies in the private sector and in commercial interest.

It is a bureaucratic mess because no one bother's to clean it up and provide sufficient funding. NASA could be fixed, but no one is interested in getting their hands dirty in an organization perceived by the public as useless.

[North California]

NASA used to be neat. Now it's just a bureaucratic mess. The future of space travel lies in the private sector and in commercial interest.

It is a bureaucratic mess because no one bother's to clean it up and provide sufficient funding. NASA could be fixed, but no one is interested in getting their hands dirty in an organization perceived by the public as useless.

It doesn't matter, the future of space travel is in the private sector. Watch, I am certain that it will be a private spaceship that gets an American to Mars.

[Ceannairceach]

It is a bureaucratic mess because no one bother's to clean it up and provide sufficient funding. NASA could be fixed, but no one is interested in getting their hands dirty in an organization perceived by the public as useless.

It doesn't matter, the future of space travel is in the private sector. Watch, I am certain that it will be a private spaceship that gets an American to Mars.

How is privatized and commercialized space travel the future? The spacial technology of the past half a century has nearly solely gone through governmental agencies. I highly doubt any single corporation or private entity could manage or fund a space mission. It is simply economically unfeasible.

[Syrche]

who says they have to merge? why couldn't they just form a coalition, as they do in Europe? The Greens could give in a little on their stance on the role of Government, the Libertarians could promote (not force) the idea of green technologies, they would work together on the vast reforms that they agree on, both domestically and especially in terms of foreign affairs, and the world would be a better place because of it. There would be sacrifice on both sides, but i don't think it would be anything as Partisan as the current system, and it might force the GOP and Dem's to rethink how far they have strayed from their ideologies...A coalition between Greens and Libertarians would forever change the landscape of American Politics....for the better, and maybe our sleeping electorate would finally realize the sheep they have become...

[Ceannairceach]

who says they have to merge? why couldn't they just form a coalition, as they do in Europe? The Greens could give in a little on their stance on the role of Government, the Libertarians could promote (not force) the idea of green technologies, they would work together on the vast reforms that they agree on, both domestically and especially in terms of foreign affairs, and the world would be a better place because of it. There would be sacrifice on both sides, but i don't think it would be anything as Partisan as the current system, and it might force the GOP and Dem's to rethink how far they have strayed from their ideologies...A coalition between Greens and Libertarians would forever change the landscape of American Politics....for the better, and maybe our sleeping electorate would finally realize the sheep they have become...

Greens and Libertarians are too different in the scope of their economic and civil policies to form a coalition. Its like asking the National Front to align with Communist Party of Britain, in the grand scheme of things.

[Blakk Metal]

Because private property makes no sense and infringes on the actual rights of others.

Laws infringe on my right to commit rapes.

Rape infringes upon actual rights.

Because private property makes no sense and infringes on the actual rights of others.

People should have rights, but not if it infringes on the rights of others.

But I hardly see how a middle class family owning property,

Most middle class families have negligible amounts of capital.

is OPPRESSING ALL workers from ever having economic freedom.

Not all black people were slaves either.

Which is one of the many exaggerations that people, who are overzealously anti-capitalist, try to implement to socially condition more socialist mindsets.

Strawmen ain't logic. Try again.

Forcing others to see things in your own framework, isn't really advocating political freedom, or even personal freedom.

Persuasion is not force. Mandatory schooling and seizure of important ways of information is.

Because private property makes no sense and infringes on the actual rights of others.

How does me owning a car or a home infringe on the rights of others?

Those aren't private property.

[Phocidaea]

Yeah, the two could cooperate on social issues, but one is far-left and the other is far-right in terms of economics.

If they did form an alliance, it'd be either for civil liberties or third parties in general.

[Meryuma]

Do you not see the forcing of a system down ones throat by society or government as anti-freedom?

False dichotomy.

What a mockery you are. How is maximum individual rights not freedom?
Can you point where they "implement" non-freedoms?

When they give you the right to shoot people for walking on your lawn, or kick people out of their house for painting the walls a color you find unpleasant.

-snip-

1. You made it sound like you thought my argument was wrong because it was anti-capitalist. Apparently in your world if you say something that could be misinterpreted and someone misinterprets it it's an excuse for them to be a coward or whatever.
2. Vis a vis your response to Bluth, if you think socialism means refusing to get a job because you think it's oppressive you're missing the entire point and the entire context.
3. Capitalism isn't about "taking control of your own life", it's about obeying superiors based on the threat of punishment and/or a sense of obligation. It is collectivist to the core. Don't use individualist rhetoric when you can't take it to its logical conclusion.
4. Capitalism has only been around 200 years, and the state only about 10,000. This is out of hundreds of thousands of years of human existence.

Because private property makes no sense and infringes on the actual rights of others.

Laws infringe on my right to commit rapes.

How is that comparable?

Because private property makes no sense and infringes on the actual rights of others.

How does me owning a car or a home infringe on the rights of others?

Well, if you're owning a home in a non-hierarchical fashion based on occupancy and use you're not infringing on anyone's rights. If people live in your home as tenants and you control their lives through the threat of eviction while living somewhere else, you're forcing them into subservience.

who says they have to merge? why couldn't they just form a coalition, as they do in Europe? The Greens could give in a little on their stance on the role of Government, the Libertarians could promote (not force) the idea of green technologies, they would work together on the vast reforms that they agree on, both domestically and especially in terms of foreign affairs, and the world would be a better place because of it. There would be sacrifice on both sides, but i don't think it would be anything as Partisan as the current system, and it might force the GOP and Dem's to rethink how far they have strayed from their ideologies...A coalition between Greens and Libertarians would forever change the landscape of American Politics....for the better, and maybe our sleeping electorate would finally realize the sheep they have become...

Greens and Libertarians are too different in the scope of their economic and civil policies to form a coalition. Its like asking the National Front to align with Communist Party of Britain, in the grand scheme of things.

I provided an idea of a potential collaborative platform. They're not mortal enemies like Nazis and communists.

[Bobbyland420]

Wouldn't work. That'd just make the "libertarian" part obsolete.

[PapaJacky]

NASA is pretty neat.

NASA used to be neat. Now it's just a bureaucratic mess. The future of space travel lies in the private sector and in commercial interest.

No, NASA's still neat. You're gonna be hardpressed to find a private company willing to fund an $8 billion telescope. Private space travel has their place, but breaching new barriers in space travel isn't one of them.

[Liberty of Republic]

It doesn't matter, the future of space travel is in the private sector. Watch, I am certain that it will be a private spaceship that gets an American to Mars.

How is privatized and commercialized space travel the future? The spacial technology of the past half a century has nearly solely gone through governmental agencies. I highly doubt any single corporation or private entity could manage or fund a space mission. It is simply economically unfeasible.

You do realize this sounds exactly why government NEEDS to get out of the business of economics and space. The fact that a nation can put itself into debt and degrade its currency over a silly notion that a private citizen(s) can not do something.

[Divair]

NASA used to be neat. Now it's just a bureaucratic mess. The future of space travel lies in the private sector and in commercial interest.

No, NASA's still neat. You're gonna be hardpressed to find a private company willing to fund an $8 billion telescope. Private space travel has their place, but breaching new barriers in space travel isn't one of them.

Large scale scientific ventures will still be made by the government for a long time. I could see a company like SpaceX pulling off a Mars landing, though.

[Liberty of Republic]

Laws infringe on my right to commit rapes.

Rape infringes upon actual rights.

People should have rights, but not if it infringes on the rights of others.

But I hardly see how a middle class family owning property,

Most middle class families have negligible amounts of capital.

is OPPRESSING ALL workers from ever having economic freedom.

Not all black people were slaves either.

Which is one of the many exaggerations that people, who are overzealously anti-capitalist, try to implement to socially condition more socialist mindsets.

Strawmen ain't logic. Try again.

Forcing others to see things in your own framework, isn't really advocating political freedom, or even personal freedom.

Persuasion is not force. Mandatory schooling and seizure of important ways of information is.

How does me owning a car or a home infringe on the rights of others?

Those aren't private property.

Restricting my right to choice to own property is a tool of oppression whether by an individual or a state.
What you call persuasion, I call manipulation and control and oppressive.
And yes a car or a home IS private property, well until you progressives came alone about 100 years ago in this nation and forced taxes like income tax. Thankfully, property taxes are dealt with at the local level and can be changed.

[PapaJacky]

How is privatized and commercialized space travel the future? The spacial technology of the past half a century has nearly solely gone through governmental agencies. I highly doubt any single corporation or private entity could manage or fund a space mission. It is simply economically unfeasible.

You do realize this sounds exactly why government NEEDS to get out of the business of economics and space. The fact that a nation can put itself into debt and degrade its currency over a silly notion that a private citizen(s) can not do something.

Yes, a private citizen shouldn't be able to exploit Ecuador for natural resources.

[Phocidaea]

No, NASA's still neat. You're gonna be hardpressed to find a private company willing to fund an $8 billion telescope. Private space travel has their place, but breaching new barriers in space travel isn't one of them.

Large scale scientific ventures will still be made by the government for a long time. I could see a company like SpaceX pulling off a Mars landing, though.

And the government should always be at the forefront of scientific development, and let corporations come after- otherwise we run into all sorts of problems.

NASA is still very cool, and powerful [did you see Curiosity?], even though it's underfunded as hell.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

overzealously anti-capitalist, try to implement to socially condition more socialist mindsets.

Strawmen ain't logic. Try again.

Do you not see the forcing of a system down ones throat by society or government as anti-freedom?

False dichotomy.

But apparently it's not strawman, or a false dichotomy to support Bluth's claim that libertarians oppose ALL freedom, because they put faith in employment?

Ah, selective double standards.

[Divair]

Large scale scientific ventures will still be made by the government for a long time. I could see a company like SpaceX pulling off a Mars landing, though.

And the government should always be at the forefront of scientific development, and let corporations come after- otherwise we run into all sorts of problems.

NASA is still very cool, and powerful [did you see Curiosity?], even though it's underfunded as hell.

It's kind of sad to see it so underfunded. Imagine what it could achieve with even 1% of the federal budget.

[Nua Corda]

Rape infringes upon actual rights.

Most middle class families have negligible amounts of capital.

Not all black people were slaves either.

Strawmen ain't logic. Try again.

Persuasion is not force. Mandatory schooling and seizure of important ways of information is.

Those aren't private property.

Restricting my right to choice to own property is a tool of oppression whether by an individual or a state.
What you call persuasion, I call manipulation and control and oppressive.
And yes a car or a home IS private property, well until you progressives came alone about 100 years ago in this nation and forced taxes like income tax. Thankfully, property taxes are dealt with at the local level and can be changed.

Without taxes to maintain those roads and subsidize your gasoline prices, your precious car is of little use. Anti-tax nonsense is nonsense.

[Liberty of Republic]

Do you not see the forcing of a system down ones throat by society or government as anti-freedom?

False dichotomy.

What a mockery you are. How is maximum individual rights not freedom?
Can you point where they "implement" non-freedoms?

When they give you the right to shoot people for walking on your lawn, or kick people out of their house for painting the walls a color you find unpleasant.

Stating a term like False dichotomy and not saying why is not an argument.
Um, the second one is ridiculous. No one shots someone else for walking on their lawn(at least someone who is sane). Unless that property was surrounded by a fence and you so "happen" to climb the fence knowing you are entering private property? Silly argument.
And what is this kicking someone out for painting the walls the wrong color? Is this a comment for a landowner doing that and it states in the contract that the renter can not paint unless getting permission? Or something else I am missing here?

[Liberty of Republic]

Restricting my right to choice to own property is a tool of oppression whether by an individual or a state.
What you call persuasion, I call manipulation and control and oppressive.
And yes a car or a home IS private property, well until you progressives came alone about 100 years ago in this nation and forced taxes like income tax. Thankfully, property taxes are dealt with at the local level and can be changed.

Without taxes to maintain those roads and subsidize your gasoline prices, your precious car is of little use. Anti-tax nonsense is nonsense.

Really?
So those silly pesky private roads do not exist? Please just Google it and you will see it is not nonsense.
And gasoline prices? Now that is laughable. You do realize that the reason why gas goes UP is because of more and more taxes specifically go to refining and selling of the gas, right?

[Liberty of Republic]

You do realize this sounds exactly why government NEEDS to get out of the business of economics and space. The fact that a nation can put itself into debt and degrade its currency over a silly notion that a private citizen(s) can not do something.

Yes, a private citizen shouldn't be able to exploit Ecuador for natural resources.

Hey if he owns the land, he has a right to do with it what he wants.

[Phocidaea]

Without taxes to maintain those roads and subsidize your gasoline prices, your precious car is of little use. Anti-tax nonsense is nonsense.

Really?
So those silly pesky private roads do not exist? Please just Google it and you will see it is not nonsense.
And gasoline prices? Now that is laughable. You do realize that the reason why gas goes UP is because of more and more taxes specifically go to refining and selling of the gas, right?

I'm pretty sure that if you lived in a wholly privatized country, with all private roads, they'd be a hell of a lot more expensive than if all roads were public. I have zero idea what good can come out of private interests controlling transportation. And yes I realize there are still privatized roads... but very few... and people who support them are silly.

And gas prices are a double-edged sword. They're high because of taxes on them, but they're also high because the government has no price control over oil companies, so they can inflate them as much as they want. Basically, too much or too little economic control is bad.

[PapaJacky]

Yes, a private citizen shouldn't be able to exploit Ecuador for natural resources.

Hey if he owns the land, he has a right to do with it what he wants.

But he doesn't. The notion of "private lands" only existed because of the merchant class that took over our world about 500 years ago.

[Meryuma]

Strawmen ain't logic. Try again.

False dichotomy.

But apparently it's not strawman, or a false dichotomy to support Bluth's claim that libertarians oppose ALL freedom, because they put faith in employment?

Ah, selective double standards.

Did I ever state support for that claim? And IIRC he didn't say all freedom, he said both personal and economic freedom.

False dichotomy.



When they give you the right to shoot people for walking on your lawn, or kick people out of their house for painting the walls a color you find unpleasant.

Stating a term like False dichotomy and not saying why is not an argument.
Um, the second one is ridiculous. No one shots someone else for walking on their lawn(at least someone who is sane). Unless that property was surrounded by a fence and you so "happen" to climb the fence knowing you are entering private property? Silly argument.
And what is this kicking someone out for painting the walls the wrong color? Is this a comment for a landowner doing that and it states in the contract that the renter can not paint unless getting permission? Or something else I am missing here?

1. It's a false dichotomy because there are forms of socialism/communism that aren't based around submission to a collective.
2. In many conceptions of a propertarian libertarian society, it would be legal to shoot someone for walking on your lawn. Also, seeing contracts as automatically making something completely voluntary is myopic - you're ignoring the lack of housing options for many people and the ultimate origin of current distributions of wealth, which is force.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

But apparently it's not strawman, or a false dichotomy to support Bluth's claim that libertarians oppose ALL freedom, because they put faith in employment?

Ah, selective double standards.

Did I ever state support for that claim? And IIRC he didn't say all freedom, he said both personal and economic freedom.

Alaje: Sure, you can smoke all the pot you want as long as you're part of the .5 percent of people that will have disposable income in a capitalist society. For everyone else, it remains effectively illegal since the only way you could get it is through stealing stuff.

Sure, you can express any ideas you want as long as you're not dependent for your access to the material requirements of survival on a capitalist lord who can fire you if he doesn't like what you say. For everyone else, it becomes effectively illegal since the only way to continue to survive in such a situation is to steal what you need to survive.

Because guess what? Libertarians are all about keeping stealing illegal.

So no, you can't have what you call "personal liberty" unless you have economic liberty as a precondition. And libertarians hate economic freedom; therefore, they hate all freedom.

I do know. It's the freedom to do as one pleases without being constrained by the requirement to maintain one's access to the material means of survival. You apparently don't understand this, probably because you hate freedom.

Which is exactly what I said, and is exactly what Libertarians oppose.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

On a side note though Meryuma. If you don't think personal and economic freedoms are the only types of freedoms, I'm interested in what other types of freedom you think exist.