Replace the constitution :rolleyes:

[David Floyd]

Unfortunately for you, I have this perception that libertarians want "tyranny of the majority" in the name of absolute, unbridled freedom.

Then you either don't understand what libertarians believe, or you don't know the definition of "tyranny". *shrug*

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Then you either don't understand what libertarians believe, or you don't know the definition of "tyranny". *shrug*

From your past posts in explaining your libertarian ideology, I'm scared to death to understand libertarianism.

[David Floyd]

Why? There would be absolutely no restrictions on sexual orientation/behavior, as long as it's all consensual

Most other political parties don't believe anything of the sort.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why? There would be absolutely no restrictions on sexual orientation/behavior, as long as it's all consensual

Because I believe the theory that good government can look after the interests of its citizens. You see, the presidents that I admire more than others, include:

President Lincoln

President FDR

President Johnson

You see these guys as evil incarnate.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Giving states power makes some people's votes worth less than others.

Giving countries power makes some people's votes worth less than others.

At what point did I say I was against a world government?

[David Floyd]

Well, sure. As for Lincoln, I would have considered him a good man if he stated the purpose of the war was to abolish slavery, didn't institute conscription, didn't threaten the Supreme Court, didn't suspend habeas corpus, didn't screw with elections, etc.

FDR is evil incarnate because he got us into WW2. He isn't evil incarnate for the New Deal, although that was no good either.

LBJ kept Vietnam going, which is my biggest objection, although there are many, many others, such as his social programs.

But none of those guys were for legalizing certain, ahem, lifestyles, so I fail to see why you'd support them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

At what point did I say I was against a world government?

Just making sure you are crazy, is all .

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, sure. As for Lincoln, I would have considered him a good man if he stated the purpose of the war was to abolish slavery, didn't institute conscription, didn't threaten the Supreme Court, didn't suspend habeas corpus, didn't screw with elections, etc.

FDR is evil incarnate because he got us into WW2. He isn't evil incarnate for the New Deal, although that was no good either.

LBJ kept Vietnam going, which is my biggest objection, although there are many, many others, such as his social programs.

But none of those guys were for legalizing certain, ahem, lifestyles, so I fail to see why you'd support them.

My biggest problem with FDR is his authorization of relocating Japanese-descent American citizens into desolate camps.

But I'm surprised you're not outraged over the New Deal -- being you're a libertarian and all.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

At what point did I say I was against a world government?

Just making sure you are crazy, is all .

Never said I was for it either. The world clearly isn't ready for world government, nor is most of the world ready for democracy.

[David Floyd]

I AM outraged over it. I'm far, far more outraged over his involvement of the US into WW2 and his conduct of the war, including the relocation of Japanese-Americans.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But none of those guys were for legalizing certain, ahem, lifestyles, so I fail to see why you'd support them.

With the exception of LBJ (who I am not a fan of, either), could you even say it was remotely an issue for them? Seems like a pointless remark...

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you are FOR a world democratic government when the world is 'ready'.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But you are FOR a world democratic government when the world is 'ready'.

The world will never be ready for a world democratic government, unless someone handpicks like 100 people then wipes out all the rest. 6 billion people is just too many for one democratic government to propperly govern.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what is the proper amount for one democratic government to property govern?

And what amount results in the best governance, most responsive to the people the government represents?

[David Floyd]

With the exception of LBJ (who I am not a fan of, either), could you even say it was remotely an issue for them?

Not really, but at the same time, I can't see Abe Lincoln passing an equal rights law for homosexuals.