Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

  • Thread starter Sage
  • 1,829 comments
  • 79,009 views
Why then do some people not enjoy human rights?

Some people are denied the rights they are entitled to. This does not change the fact that they are entitled to them. One has the right not to be murdered, but some people will have that right violated. It doesn't change the need for or reasoning behind the existence and enforcement of the right.
 
Last edited:
Human rights arise as a virtue of citizenship. Citizenship is the right to have rights. E.g., Palestinians have no human rights because they are stateless.

Respectfully,
Dotini

I'm not sure how that follows. To me, and by my logic, human rights arise from existing as a human being. I consider each person as a citizen of himself.

Now, my list of "rights" is pretty basic compared to the vast smorgasbord of entitlements provided in the UN's list of human "rights". But it is inherent in each person, not a matter of whatever arbitrary nation of which they might be a resident.
 
Human rights arise as a virtue of citizenship. Citizenship is the right to have rights. E.g., Palestinians have no human rights because they are stateless.

So I could kill a Palestinian in cold blood and it would neither be murder nor wrong?
 
So I could kill a Palestinian in cold blood and it would neither be murder nor wrong?

Sadly to me, it seems there are too few who stick up for the Palestinians, who seem to be suffering greatly. Surely they would have a better chance of enjoying human rights if they were to have a state. It seems a tautology to suggest that they do not enjoy human rights because...they are denied them.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
Sadly to me, it seems there are too few who stick up for the Palestinians, who seem to be suffering greatly. Surely they would have a better chance of enjoying human rights if they were to have a state. It seems a tautology to suggest that they do not enjoy human rights because...they are denied them.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

Lol, doubt it! Maybe if they didn't have a crazy Israeli state.
 
Sadly to me, it seems there are too few who stick up for the Palestinians, who seem to be suffering greatly. Surely they would have a better chance of enjoying human rights if they were to have a state. It seems a tautology to suggest that they do not enjoy human rights because...they are denied them.

It is a question of what is just. Not whether injustice occurs. The concept of justice exist independently of action.
 
Last I checked Palestine is a state, recognised by the United Nations and International Olympic Committee, amongst others.

But that avoids the question. If someone is stateless and thus rightless - according to your own definition - is it still wrong to kill them?
 
*stuff about catholic teachers*

In Canada (or, Ontario specifically), none of the teachers are Catholic.

The school system trades them freely between public schools and the Catholic Schoolboard. Two of my cousins and an aunt are a teacher, and a large number of my friends were from Catholic schools—they'll spend a couple of years (or their entire tenure, if they find something stable) with either a public school or a Catholic one before moving on; there is no delineation between the teaching schools and the outcome of the teachers. I would chalk it up to funding, school policy, and curriculum more than anything. (All of which are adoptable by the public system.)

And, based on anecdotal observations—the highschool I went to had the highest dropout rate (later confirmed by staff), despite being in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods of my city, abut the Catholic school 1 block away had the highest teen pregnancy rate (also later confirmed by staff).
Similar trends could be found all over the city.

(Another note—though these aren't to discredit all Catholic schools, but rather highlight the existing disparity between American private schools and Canada's "private" schools, so as not to rely on us (or noob616's testimony) for evidence—a coworker of mine asked me the difference between Christianity and Catholocism. He went to a Catholic school.)

Edit: Since putting all of this in writing, I've realised just how much better the public school was—I recall kids bringing machetes and having the police do random locker searches at the Catholic school down the street. They also had gang issues. Our school had 1 resource officer, and we didn't even put cameras in place until my third year. (I would expect some correlation between the students' past bad behaviour and the expectation of change in that environment to have something to do with this.)
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, Famine, I had hoped to make it obvious. My chisel is small, old, chipped and worn. Of course your answer is that it is terribly wrong to kill them.

Respectfully,
Dotini
 
Last edited:
In Canada (or, Ontario specifically), none of the teachers are Catholic.

The school system trades them freely between public schools and the Catholic Schoolboard. Two of my cousins and an aunt are a teacher, and a large number of my friends were from Catholic schools—they'll spend a couple of years (or their entire tenure, if they find something stable) with either a public school or a Catholic one before moving on; there is no delineation between the teaching schools and the outcome of the teachers. I would chalk it up to funding, school policy, and curriculum more than anything. (All of which are adoptable by the public system.)

And, based on anecdotal observations—the highschool I went to had the highest dropout rate (later confirmed by staff), despite being in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods of my city, abut the Catholic school 1 block away had the highest teen pregnancy rate (also later confirmed by staff).
Similar trends could be found all over the city.

(Another note—though these aren't to discredit all Catholic schools, but rather highlight the existing disparity between American private schools and Canada's "private" schools, so as not to rely on us (or noob616's testimony) for evidence—a coworker of mine asked me the difference between Christianity and Catholocism. He went to a Catholic school.)

Edit: Since putting all of this in writing, I've realised just how much better the public school was—I recall kids bringing machetes and having the police do random locker searches at the Catholic school down the street. They also had gang issues. Our school had 1 resource officer, and we didn't even put cameras in place until my third year. (I would expect some correlation between the students' past bad behaviour and the expectation of change in that environment to have something to do with this.)


However, the catholic schools in Canada are not private. Anybody can walk up to the school and apply if they feel like it, free of charge. I'm sure our real private schools are comparable.

I guess it's a case by case sort of thing regarding the quality of schools. I guess i never really looked at other contributing factors to my school's success. I would argue that mandatory study hall (if your grades are below 60, or you don't do your work) is the biggest reason for the school's performance.
 
Again, that's present in the public schools.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I have thrown out the Catholic vs Secular schools thing. I said that the school was successful because of study hall, not because of a religious reason.
 
I'm not sure how that follows. To me, and by my logic, human rights arise from existing as a human being. I consider each person as a citizen of himself.

Now, my list of "rights" is pretty basic compared to the vast smorgasbord of entitlements provided in the UN's list of human "rights". But it is inherent in each person, not a matter of whatever arbitrary nation of which they might be a resident.

Duke, of course I agree with you that rights are, or should be, inherent in each person, and arise from existing as a human being. Kumbaya. I dare not say soul here. The little argument that citizenship is the right to have rights, and that Palestinians were being denied those rights was intended to persuade that injustice is being excused, covered or temporized on the basis of their stateless status.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini
 
I would chalk it up to funding, school policy, and curriculum more than anything. (All of which are adoptable by the public system.)
If funding plays a roll then public schools fail by a large margin as they constantly request funding increases yet fail to actually do anything more with it.

Edit: Since putting all of this in writing, I've realised just how much better the public school was—I recall kids bringing machetes and having the police do random locker searches at the Catholic school down the street. They also had gang issues. Our school had 1 resource officer, and we didn't even put cameras in place until my third year. (I would expect some correlation between the students' past bad behaviour and the expectation of change in that environment to have something to do with this.)
Wait, is this a Canadian publicly funded Catholic school? It is hard to keep track. Your location says Fargo (which I am assuming is ND), but you talk like you live in Canada.

If it is a private school then any issues there are the fault of parents for keeping their kids in that school. If it is a public school then the issue is not related to Catholicism at all, as you pointed out that none of the teachers are Catholic.

Do not think I am arguing in favor of any kind of parochial school being better because it is parochial. No, I only see them being better options because they are private. For me it is a private issue, not a religious one. I will always have a preference for private schools for one simple reason: If they do not meet my standards that I set for my daughter I can choose to change schools. As long as I rely on public schools I have to use the one they tell me and the only incentive they have to do better is to not hear me yelling at them during PTA meetings.
 
Continuing this off-topic diversion: Canada actually has another "parallel" public school system: French Immersion, initiated in an attempt to bring together the "Two Solitudes" of Canadian society - French & Anglo.

Some have criticized French immersion programs for having become a way for higher socioeconomic groups to obtain a publicly-funded elite track education. Since lower socioeconomic groups and children with learning and behavioral problems have lower rates of participation in French immersion, a situation has developed in which ambitious families prefer French immersion possibly more for its effective streaming than for the bilingual skills it gives to students.

My children have attended French Immersion school since Grade One.

I think one of the reasons Separate (Catholic) schools generally have a better reputation in Canada, is that they are better able to refuse or kick out students with "behavioural problems" than the regular public schools. They therefore tend to create a more disciplined environment for learning.
 
If funding plays a roll then public schools fail by a large margin as they constantly request funding increases yet fail to actually do anything more with it.
Yes, this is often true.
Wait, is this a Canadian publicly funded Catholic school? It is hard to keep track. Your location says Fargo (which I am assuming is ND), but you talk like you live in Canada.
Yes, it is—mostly publicly funded. And yes, I do live in Canada. My location is a satirical reference to something else I posted in the Funny Pictures Thread. (And a reference to the film.)
If it is a private school then any issues there are the fault of parents for keeping their kids in that school. If it is a public school then the issue is not related to Catholicism at all, as you pointed out that none of the teachers are Catholic.
It's not so much that it's either public or Catholic—as the two are as distinct from each other as they are from a Private school—but rather immediate locales. A school is only as good as its' faculty, and when there's a revolving door policy with only common-standards screening, then the quality of education suffers. It's my view that the entire thing could be improved by overhauling the programme within which our potential educators are enrolling.
Do not think I am arguing in favor of any kind of parochial school being better because it is parochial. No, I only see them being better options because they are private.
And in the most frequent circumstances, that is the case. Here—Ontario—is a little different, but there are Catholic schools independent of the Catholic School Board, established as an alternative for parents seeking a "proper" Catholic school. These are most commonly K-8 levels, though.
For me it is a private issue, not a religious one. I will always have a preference for private schools for one simple reason: If they do not meet my standards that I set for my daughter I can choose to change schools.
Most of my current friends were of this ilk—while certainly literate, they have turned out a little...different. :lol:
As long as I rely on public schools I have to use the one they tell me and the only incentive they have to do better is to not hear me yelling at them during PTA meetings.
I hear that.

And it's a legitimate concern, but those territorial boundaries are there for a reason. Private schools, likewise, have to maintain an acceptable student:teacher ratio, lest they dilute the teachers' attentions; they, too, have to turn down students quite often.

Continuing this off-topic diversion: Canada actually has another "parallel" public school system: French Immersion, initiated in an attempt to bring together the "Two Solitudes" of Canadian society - French & Anglo.

Some have criticized French immersion programs for having become a way for higher socioeconomic groups to obtain a publicly-funded elite track education. Since lower socioeconomic groups and children with learning and behavioral problems have lower rates of participation in French immersion, a situation has developed in which ambitious families prefer French immersion possibly more for its effective streaming than for the bilingual skills it gives to students.

My children have attended French Immersion school since Grade One.

I think one of the reasons Separate (Catholic) schools generally have a better reputation in Canada, is that they are better able to refuse or kick out students with "behavioural problems" than the regular public schools. They therefore tend to create a more disciplined environment for learning.

My rather small, downtown, upper-middle class street which I grew up on was home to many different parental approaches to education. Within 15 houses were families with kids going to:

-Public schools
-Catholic Schools
-French Immersion
-Montessori
-Waldorf
and homeschools;

Being a very tight-knit community, the differences between us were well-understood by all—and not always for the better. So on that note, there's something very important to understand—these schools all socialise students vastly different from each other. While "education", whatever we can call that now, does have a distinct relation to success, the second immediate factor behind that is a person's social skills. No matter which school you attend, poor social skills won't achieve anything. (In my experience, the Waldorf and Montessori schools have produced some incredibly, er, strange people.)

Anyway, that's enough subjective, anecdotal, off-the-cuff testimony from me for one night.
 
Last edited:
Michael Badnarik had a heart attack today and is, apparently, in serious condition. He was the LP candidate for President in 2004.

Poor guy... guess all the frustration takes it toll after a while. Say a prayer, gentlemen.
 
I hope all is well and he pulls through. I had a bumper sticker with his "I have this crazy idea that the Constitution actually means something" quote for the past year and a half.
 
Too bad it was booed at CPAC and Fox News is trying to backpedal on the whole thing. The GOP is a mess, and I'm still thinking that co-opting the Tea Party is going to backfire right in their face. Still, having the Pauls as the the primary figureheads of the opposition towards the Democrats and Obama is a welcome challenge from Liberals. It is a clear, well founded argument against their policy positions. Who knew?
 
For those that don't understand what it is to be a libertarian: John Stossel covered it on his show last week.









 
Gawd that was a train wreck. I love Stossel but someone needs to kill that studio audience. I think the whole show would have been far better without the audience. Also very surprised to see someone advocating for no taxes. That's pretty far out there - even for a libertarian. I think the income tax is theft, but that doesn't stop me from advocating a flat sales tax.
 
Friends, after many years and careful consideration, I have distilled libertarian principles down to just three, while relegating issues such as taxation and abortion to lesser status. Say what you will, this is my Law:


1. Obey the Constitution. If what you are doing is not per the document, change your behavior or change the document.

2. Avoid war and eschew empire.

3. Pay all debts and avoid new ones.


With highest regards,
Dotini
 
Those aren't libertarian principles. They might be Libertarian principles, but they are far from distilled libertarian principles.

Libertarian principles are simply the respect of liberty and property. Property, however, is a bit of a doozy historically.
 
Friends, after many years and careful consideration, I have distilled libertarian principles down to just three, while relegating issues such as taxation and abortion to lesser status. Say what you will, this is my Law

[things]

While it may cover some of the basics, ultimately the Libertarian's greatest enemy is themselves as they cover far too wide of a breadth of topics to ever unite fully under a single tent. Much of this depends on which focus of Libertarian schools of thought you want to look at, and as of right now in the US, it is the more traditional, more conservative leaders and groups dominating the scene.
 
...as of right now in the US, it is the more traditional, more conservative leaders and groups dominating the scene.

?

I don't really know what you're talking about. I can only guess that you mean right now the party is principled... which is something that kinda goes hand-in-hand with libertarianism, as opposed to, say, conservatism (which by definition is not principled) or liberalism (which is also not a principled concept).
 
Back