Republicans vs. Democrats

If there's one thing I'd never accuse you of being, it's a librul...

 

If you want to go naked, feel free to do so (especially if you are female). Disruption is good, breaks up the monotony and gives some joy and challenge to life. However, when you come to my house, please bring your own towel to sit on.

 

Outlawing nudity contributes to perfect liberty?

Making laws because of tradition? Doesn't sound very Libertarian to me.

Turkey on Thanksgiving has been tradition for a while; outlaw ham on this day?

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years; gays shouldn't be able to get married, right?

Blacks were slaves for thousands of years; it should still be that way... why? Tradition!

It has been tradition for profanity not to be said for quite some time. Outlaw swearing?

Cake on our Birthday has become a tradition... let's make it the law.

Virtually no harm; homeless people have to buy clothes.

It also does virtually no harm to wear flip flops wherever you went. If flip flops became the "style," should everyone, by law, be required to wear flip flops?

It is obviously not more natural to wear clothes than to be nude... look at the animal kingdom. It's natural for us to be in the nude! Of course, even if it wasn't; that means anything that isn't natural should be illegal. Ban factories, vehicles, computers, etc..

Yes, the majority can choose what laws to make. Majority votes are needed for election votes, etc.. Of course, when you have the choice between every individual choosing to do what (s)he wants, making everyone happy; or leave it to the majority, and make the majority happy; everyone sounds better. Public nudity does not deprive of anyone else's life, liberty or property; so why can't every individual choose whether to streak or to put pants on? Why should government get involved?

Normalizing their public domain? That's the role of government? If we were to normalize everything; we wouldn't be allowed to be different. Should being different be illegal?

To enter another area with other stupid laws? Government always takes things too far. They always make more laws.

Outlaw using advanced vocabulary?

Outlaw chewing too much gum?

Outlaw sitting on sidewalks?

Outlaw bad hair-dues?

Outlaw eating too much?

Outlaw gays, openly asking other gay men on a date in public?

Outlaw out-of-style shoes?

Outlaw eating while walking?

You can wear gloves if you want. No - you don't have to sit next to them.

Disruptions meaning what, exactly? "Awe mah gawd, a naked person!"

If people don't like it, they can look the other way. People have the right to express themselves in their natural form.

No, I don't think the government should get involved in that case, but again, whole different conversation.

 

No, as I said, it infringes on perfect liberty in the interests of order and efficiency, which, I believe, the people of the sovereign states chose for themselves when they ratified the Constitution. You LP guys like the Constitution, right? Well, it implicitly grants (via the Tenth Amendment) state and municipal governments certain powers to act in the collective interest.

There are many government powers that, when exercised, restrict perfect liberty. For instance, arresting someone and throwing them in jail restricts perfect liberty, but the Constitution allows for it, so long as "due process" is administered by the government. Taxation is also a restriction on perfect liberty, but that is a legitimate power of government as well.

That's because I'm not a Libertarian®. I'm a libertarian.

The difference being our interpretation of the libertarian philosophy. Some important "libertarian" philosophers completely rejected the notion of party allegiances altogether (most notably, George Washington), so I could say you're not really a "libertarian" either, but I wouldn't say that. I recognize the fact that no one has ownership over a philosophical label.

If you can't see the difference between wearing clothing in public places and slavery, I'm not sure I can help you.

They need them anyway, and they can get plenty of free clothing from the salvation army and other similar charities.

Except I'm not talking about "style", I'm talking about a human convention that has existed for almost all of human history, and since I know you know the difference between the two, I must assume you're purposely misrepresenting me.

Clothing was a species-specific adaptation that gave humans an evolutionary advantage over its competitors. The fact that it's limited to humans, but pervasive throughout, only demonstrates how much more "natural" it is for us to wear clothing than to go nude.

P.S. - I'm a biology major, so make sure you bring your floaties before you jump into the deep end...

Strange, since most humans prefer to wear clothing.

You see, I don't understand how you're making the leap from "clothing is natural" to "we need to ban anything that isn't natural".

And what makes you think factories, vehicles, etc. aren't "natural"?

Because the people in that community chose to involve government, which is what the Constitution allows for.

Holy smokes! When I say "normalizing the public domain" I don't literally mean homogenizing every facet of human existence. Can you please turn it down a notch?

When I say "normalize the public domain" I mean administer a certain level of order and efficiency.

Do you think individuals are too stupid to determine for themselves which community they truly want to live in?

Which is why we have the Constitution. To constrain the government.

Oh boy.

Something like that, yes. Pedestrians and motorists being distracted. Children being possibly disturbed, shocked, or confused. Bystanders reacting negatively.

The Constitution provides exceptions to perfect liberty.

What should happen? I'm interested to know.

 

I can understand granting the states' rights to outlaw things amongst themselves. Personally, I like restricting government in most areas, freedom of expression being one of them, but that's just me. In your perfect state, would you want public nudity to be legal?

Yes, the Constitution gives a few exceptions, but those should be the only exceptions. Arresting people ensures tranquility; taxing people needs to be done to, somewhat ironically, ensure that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and property. The government has taken taxation too far, but that's a whole different conversation.

Public nudity is not mentioned in the Constitution... so, when you have an issue that is not in the Constitution, do you lean towards having it be legal or illegal? I always say legal, and I think that's plenty "in spirit" of the Constitution.

I'm not saying they're the same at all; I'm saying your reason to outlaw public nudity was the same reason we justified slavery. Same reason, not the same thing.

In other words, a style that's been around for a long time. Ah, I see.

This society-embarrassment of not wearing clothing is not natural, though. In some cultures in other countries, people wear some clothing sometimes, but do not get embarrassed at all when they're not wearing clothes.

Some don't... should that be illegal?

Because that's what you're implying.

Liberals.

If everyone in the community chooses to wear clothes anyway, why get government involved?

So... just semi-normal. Can't be too abnormal, that should be illegal...

Why should government be involved in personal order and efficiency? Sounds like China's slogan.

Not at all. If they want government infringing upon personal liberties, China is only on the other side of the world.

Right... but we have rights outside of the Constitution as well (Ninth Amendment).

I can understand your motorists being distracted argument, because he could crash and die, but if are to make laws because motorists might get distracted, then we are permitted to make laws about anything on the side of the road that might distract motorists. Ban hot babes.

Doesn't matter if pedestrians get distracted because no one is going to die; nor is anyone going to be deprived of their liberty or property.

There has been no proof that nudity does damage to children; the only reason why we are uptight about it is because of society. Being disturbed, shocked, or confused should not be prevented by the government.

Bystanders can react negatively to a number of things, but having government step in seems like a bit much. I know I hate it when smokers are smoking outside of a mall when I'm walking in. I cannot take the smell of tobacco; it is absolutely disgusting. I do not expect the government step in and outlaw public smoking because I don't like the smell. That's their personal liberty, and if I don't like it, tough.

Which are specified.

Nothing, unless he's actually physically violating her.

 

In my perfect state, there wouldn't be a standard either way. People would be free to form communities that suited their needs, and leave them at will.

Any issue not mentioned in the Constitution is reserved to the states and the people per the Tenth Amendment.

It's not the same at all. The primary justification for slavery was the idea that nonwhites were subhumans, not that slavery was a tradition.

No. A universal human convention is not a "style" that's been around for a long time.

Of course it's "natural", otherwise we wouldn't feel that way.

Good for them, but that doesn't mean we have to accept their standards.

Depends on the community.

It most certainly is not.

Well, they're wrong.

In case someone goes nude.

In public, sure. Don't like it? Then move somewhere else. Don't like that? Then leave the country.

Because it's one of the reasons we have government. And if you don't stop misrepresenting my views, and trying to conflate them with China and arbitrary authoritarianism, etc., I'm going to terminate this discussion.

So, you're against any infringement on personal liberty?

I'm aware, but it doesn't restrict states and municipalities from restricting certain liberties in their PUBLIC domains.

It doesn't matter if you like my reasons. States and municipalities have a legitimate role in regulating their PUBLIC domain. If you don't like it, you're free to leave the country or declare war on the Constitution.

Only for the Federal government.

Words fail me.

 

I think the republican spending is flawed. They want to dump more and more money into the army. I thing the extra money would be much better spent in things like education. Heathcare. And other government programs. Also, if the republicans want to spent a lot on the army, then they are going to need to raise taxes to pay for it all. If the republicans got there way, say good bye to anything payed for by the government... education, roads, national parks, healthcare, etc... And hello to a HUGE federal debt and army

 

D not forget, a lot of the "new republican' also want to do away with the department of education, medicare and other health programs and LOWER taxes. We have the lowest taxes we have had in the last 70 years and the highest unemployment, where are all these jobs that lowering taxes is supposed to produce. Oh, wow, lowest taxes and American corporations are making the largest profits in history. And are they creating more jobs, no, they are handing the money out to their stock holders.

What everyone seems to ignore today is that CEO's no longer run corporations, corporations are run today by stockholders and stockholders do NOT care if you have a job, if the economy is good or bad. They care about two things, that they get more and more profits, TODAY, and that no one taxes them on those profits. All this nonsense of lowering taxes to produce jobs is worthless, when the money to produce those jobs is given to stockholders instead of turned over to make a bigger better company with more employees. I observed this in my Former company Unilever. When I originally went to work there, over 40 years ago, the employee was the back bone and support of the company. Employees produced the goods, that made the money that made the company. over the next 40 years, employees went from being the number one asset on the companies books to being the biggest expense and the easiest one to eliminate. Quality went down, employees went down, we went from trying to produce the best product possible to only creating a product that people did not complain about. Instead of making the best product possible, we made the cheapest one possible. Profits went up and up and up, by reducing quality and people, mucho money was brought in, and that money went into paying the stock holders the largest profits they had ever made. This is going on in nearly every country in the USA today, look around. Now, we have finally gotten to the point where it all hits the fan. Staffing is at the bottom, no way to maintain quanity and lay off anymore people. Profits cannot be reduced by lowering the payout to the stockholders, because they have gotten used to super high profits. Money cannot be wasted on hiring because hiring is an expense that takes away "return on investment". Obama did not cause the low economy, Bush did not cause it, the congress did not cause it. GREED has caused it and it is not going to get better. IF you lower the taxes on corporations they will do exactly what they are doing today with their RECORD profits, give it to the stockholders, they have NO choice, then cannot reinvest in the company, the stockholders refuse to allow it. We are on a downhill run, going faster and faster and unable to slow down.

 

Quoted for truth.

The problem is that they have controlled the narrative for so long that people who don't pay attention to politics (i.e. the average American) are under the false impression that liberals are the party of social freedom. When if you really look at it, their social beliefs are exponentially more restrictive and authoritarian than social conservatism. They are littered with restrictions, regulations, and bans on everything under the sun. As much as they love to throw the word "choice" around in the abortion debate, they don't seem too fond of it anywhere else.

 

There is a fight for the heart of the conservative movement against the neocon statists that justify any war and any unconstitutional law in the name of "national security" and if you are against any part of their agenda then you just don't want our country to be safe. Ron Paul is leading the charge against an ever expanding military and wars without end.

 

Originally Posted by Real.Locke
I think the republican spending is flawed. They want to dump more and more money into the army. I thing the extra money would be much better spent in things like education. Heathcare. And other government programs. Also, if the republicans want to spent a lot on the army, then they are going to need to raise taxes to pay for it all. If the republicans got there way, say good bye to anything payed for by the government... education, roads, national parks, healthcare, etc... And hello to a HUGE federal debt and army

We spend more than...

People's Republic of China
France
United Kingdom
Russia
Japan
Germany
Saudi Arabia
Italy
India
Brazil
Australia
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Canada
Israel
United Arab Emirates
Republic of China
(the next top 18 military spenders)

combined... I'm not against national security - I'm aginst the spending of HUGE amounts of money on the millitary. Our millitary could still be great without spending even MORE.

 

Originally Posted by Real.Locke
I think the republican spending is flawed. They want to dump more and more money into the army. I thing the extra money would be much better spent in things like education. Heathcare. And other government programs. Also, if the republicans want to spent a lot on the army, then they are going to need to raise taxes to pay for it all. If the republicans got there way, say good bye to anything payed for by the government... education, roads, national parks, healthcare, etc... And hello to a HUGE federal debt and army

We spend more than...

People's Republic of China
France
United Kingdom
Russia
Japan
Germany
Saudi Arabia
Italy
India
Brazil
Australia
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Canada
Israel
United Arab Emirates
Republic of China
(the next top 18 military spenders)

combined... I'm not against national security - I'm aginst the spending of HUGE amounts of money on the millitary. Our millitary could still be great without spending even MORE.