 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of HOO-HAA
Show Posts Messages
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
121
General / Re: Libertarian music, movies etc.
« on: October 17, 2008, 03:04:00 PM »What about IRobot? I just watched it the other day, and honestly... I never got the underlying message the first time I watched it, but this time, it was kind of flooring.
It's ironic because Asimov was a socialist. An ardently paternalistic one.
Interestingly enough, libertarians have oft claimed Orwell as their own, as well. However, I was introduced to ANIMAL FARM as a communist work when we read it in school.
122
General / Re: UK libertarian movement
« on: September 20, 2008, 09:31:46 AM »
... hang on, they also have listed the Labour Party and Conservative Party in their section on 'Political Parties'?!?!
What the hell is going on there?!
What the hell is going on there?!
123
General / Re: UK libertarian movement - CONTINUING A GREAT IDEA!
« on: September 20, 2008, 09:22:36 AM »
Some interesting and helpful links posted there, Jake. I will make sure to read through them in more detail.
However, I was dismayed to find that this link:
... highlighted the British National Party (BNP) as an example of a liberty-orientated political party - to me, they are nothing short of white supremacist scumbags.
That site also mentions the 'Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain' as an example of liberty-based political parties. Hmmm....
However, I was dismayed to find that this link:
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/ --the older one I am familiar with
... highlighted the British National Party (BNP) as an example of a liberty-orientated political party - to me, they are nothing short of white supremacist scumbags.
That site also mentions the 'Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain' as an example of liberty-based political parties. Hmmm....
124
General / Re: Libertarian music, movies etc.
« on: September 20, 2008, 06:08:18 AM »
My debut horror novel, DROP DEAD GORGEOUS, is set in a post-apocalyptic world where power struggles vs personal liberty is an ongoing theme.
More details at my website:
www.dropdeaddolls.com
More details at my website:
www.dropdeaddolls.com
125
General / Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« on: September 19, 2008, 05:42:00 PM »
Quote from: HOO-HAA on Today at 15:34:21
I agree - in fact, without government using our tax to fund whatever foreign aid *they* deem necessary, we would most likely choose to donate more to those charitable causes *we* feel most passionate about.
And then there's the contributions that would come from businesses that are altrusitic and/or looking for the PR.
Personally, I currently describe myself as libertarian yet my day job is with a charity. I see no conflict of interests. In fact, as most of our work involves representing clients who are challenging decisions made by the government, I feel quite empowered to do my job by my libertarian mindset.
For Ziggy, however, the libertarian conflict with government welfare programs seemed to be the main problem...
Quote
I think that the problem with libertarianism , for Ziggy - and for many others, is that the lack of tax-funded welfare and aversion to foreign aid often equates to social darwinism ie: libertarians advocate 'survival of the fittest' (to the detriment of the weaker and vulnerable elements of society/ the world).
Quote
That's a common misconception. Just because we don't want government aid for others does not mean we don't want aid for others--many of us would even personally provide for it.
I agree - in fact, without government using our tax to fund whatever foreign aid *they* deem necessary, we would most likely choose to donate more to those charitable causes *we* feel most passionate about.
And then there's the contributions that would come from businesses that are altrusitic and/or looking for the PR.
Personally, I currently describe myself as libertarian yet my day job is with a charity. I see no conflict of interests. In fact, as most of our work involves representing clients who are challenging decisions made by the government, I feel quite empowered to do my job by my libertarian mindset.
For Ziggy, however, the libertarian conflict with government welfare programs seemed to be the main problem...
126
General / Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« on: September 19, 2008, 03:34:21 PM »
I think that the problem with libertarianism , for Ziggy - and for many others, is that the lack of tax-funded welfare and aversion to foreign aid often equates to social darwinism ie: libertarians advocate 'survival of the fittest' (to the detriment of the weaker and vulnerable elements of society/ the world).
This is a common concern, and it could be argued that at least some linertarians are social darwinist in their thinking.
Consider this excerpt from the interview with Church of Satan High Preist, Peter Gilmore:
'Interviewer (DS): Capital punishment is not antithetical to Satanism.
PG: Not necessarily, but essentially we would rather shrink from the government having the power to take you and murder you, because we don’t have a lot of confidence in people being rational, or being truthful, and we have seen so often—especially with DNA testing—that a lot of people have been jailed and accused of murder and they were wrong. That’s wrongful. So it’s not this broad, “We accept capital punishment and it’s fine!”
DS: “Slaughter them all!” [Laughs]
PG: Right! But there are certain situations where it would be appropriate. Say, when Colin Ferguson shot all those people. There should be absolutely no time wasted on that.
DS: But should it be the government doing it?
PG: I think the government can have the ability but under control. There needs to be checks and balances. That whole idea in the United States that has come from so many other past forms of government is something we feel is necessary. We don’t want any form of megalomaniacal government with absolute power that can do anything willy-nilly to its citizens. Satanists are generally Libertarians. They may choose their specific political alliances because it might better whatever they are trying to do in their lives, but essentially most of us are fairly libertarian people. We would like to have government as minimal as possible....'
(read the full interview at: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Satanism:_An_interview_with_Church_of_Satan_High_Priest_Peter_Gilmore)
This is a common concern, and it could be argued that at least some linertarians are social darwinist in their thinking.
Consider this excerpt from the interview with Church of Satan High Preist, Peter Gilmore:
'Interviewer (DS): Capital punishment is not antithetical to Satanism.
PG: Not necessarily, but essentially we would rather shrink from the government having the power to take you and murder you, because we don’t have a lot of confidence in people being rational, or being truthful, and we have seen so often—especially with DNA testing—that a lot of people have been jailed and accused of murder and they were wrong. That’s wrongful. So it’s not this broad, “We accept capital punishment and it’s fine!”
DS: “Slaughter them all!” [Laughs]
PG: Right! But there are certain situations where it would be appropriate. Say, when Colin Ferguson shot all those people. There should be absolutely no time wasted on that.
DS: But should it be the government doing it?
PG: I think the government can have the ability but under control. There needs to be checks and balances. That whole idea in the United States that has come from so many other past forms of government is something we feel is necessary. We don’t want any form of megalomaniacal government with absolute power that can do anything willy-nilly to its citizens. Satanists are generally Libertarians. They may choose their specific political alliances because it might better whatever they are trying to do in their lives, but essentially most of us are fairly libertarian people. We would like to have government as minimal as possible....'
(read the full interview at: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Satanism:_An_interview_with_Church_of_Satan_High_Priest_Peter_Gilmore)
127
General / Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« on: September 18, 2008, 09:00:53 AM »And, imagine, if we didn't have 30% upwards our paychecks stolen for bogus causes, don't you think that we all collectively would give more to those in need?
Not to mention private businesses and companies that decide to get a little bit of extra PR through sponsorship of charities. Sure, a lot of donations from businesses have been, traditionally, to do with tax etc. However, the whole PR thing is a huge selling point as well. I think it would become even more so in a free society.
they're no longer their own countries, they're no longer their own citizens, just a massive, hulking United Kingdom.
Well, actually there is significant devolution within the UK.
Scotland, as far as I know, has a very successful devolved government.
Here, in Northern Ireland, we also are at the early stages (stop, start, stop, start) of a devloved government. The politicians are still a bunch of assholes, but at least we're in a smaller government, so to speak...
I always enjoy listening to Ziggy when he calls into the show. The man's got passion and energy. I wish him well, whatever he decides to call himself.
128
General / Re: UK libertarian movement
« on: September 15, 2008, 12:42:27 PM »
Another quasi-libertarian party in the UK, the Liberal Democrats, enjoys more success than the UK Libertarian Party - being seen as the third political heavy-hitter. Their leadership just today announced plans to cut income taxes if elected:
(from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7615630.stm):
'The Liberal Democrats have backed plans to make cuts to income tax for people on low and middling salaries.
The party's annual conference approved a policy document promising "big" reductions for struggling families at the next election.
Several MPs opposed the plan, urging leader Nick Clegg to keep spending on key public services as his priority.
The vote means the Lib Dems are the only one of the three main parties currently offering tax cuts.
It represents an important victory for Mr Clegg as he looks to put his stamp on the party after almost a year as leader.
The move, on top of an existing pledge to cut income tax by 4p, is seen by some as a bid to win over Tory voters in the run-up to the next election.
'Tighten belts'
The Lib Dems have campaigned in recent years on specific tax-raising pledges.
The leadership proposes to find the money for its change of policy through £20bn worth of savings in public spending.
After the result, Mr Clegg said: "This confirms that the Liberal Democrats are the only party with a clear plan to make Britain a fairer place."
Backing the tax-cutting motion, chief Lib Dem policy adviser Danny Alexander told the conference, in Bournemouth, it was necessary for "government to tighten its belt a little so that low-income families don't have to tighten theirs a lot".
"We will target investment where it is needed," he said.
"But once we have invested in our priorities, I would rather hand back extra money to struggling families than give it to central government. That is the choice."
Science spokesman Evan Harris tabled an amendment to the motion, insisting public services should be the main priority, rather than tax cuts, but this was easily defeated.
"Hero worship of our leader does not help him avoid the pitfalls of being labelled a tax-cutting party," he argued....'
(from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7615630.stm):
'The Liberal Democrats have backed plans to make cuts to income tax for people on low and middling salaries.
The party's annual conference approved a policy document promising "big" reductions for struggling families at the next election.
Several MPs opposed the plan, urging leader Nick Clegg to keep spending on key public services as his priority.
The vote means the Lib Dems are the only one of the three main parties currently offering tax cuts.
It represents an important victory for Mr Clegg as he looks to put his stamp on the party after almost a year as leader.
The move, on top of an existing pledge to cut income tax by 4p, is seen by some as a bid to win over Tory voters in the run-up to the next election.
'Tighten belts'
The Lib Dems have campaigned in recent years on specific tax-raising pledges.
The leadership proposes to find the money for its change of policy through £20bn worth of savings in public spending.
After the result, Mr Clegg said: "This confirms that the Liberal Democrats are the only party with a clear plan to make Britain a fairer place."
Backing the tax-cutting motion, chief Lib Dem policy adviser Danny Alexander told the conference, in Bournemouth, it was necessary for "government to tighten its belt a little so that low-income families don't have to tighten theirs a lot".
"We will target investment where it is needed," he said.
"But once we have invested in our priorities, I would rather hand back extra money to struggling families than give it to central government. That is the choice."
Science spokesman Evan Harris tabled an amendment to the motion, insisting public services should be the main priority, rather than tax cuts, but this was easily defeated.
"Hero worship of our leader does not help him avoid the pitfalls of being labelled a tax-cutting party," he argued....'
129
General / Re: UK libertarian movement
« on: September 12, 2008, 03:06:30 PM »
It's even slimmer pickings in Northern Ireland, where I live.
Meet our most libertarian party:
http://www.allianceparty.org/
I've e-mailed them to ask 2 questions:
1) How committed are you to working towards smaller government and further devolution of powers?
2) How committed are you in working towards the simplifying of immigration law, in order to encourage more people into NI to help fuel the economy and further diversify the population?
I'll be sure to post my reply - if I get one
Meet our most libertarian party:
http://www.allianceparty.org/
I've e-mailed them to ask 2 questions:
1) How committed are you to working towards smaller government and further devolution of powers?
2) How committed are you in working towards the simplifying of immigration law, in order to encourage more people into NI to help fuel the economy and further diversify the population?
I'll be sure to post my reply - if I get one
130
General / Re: Any artists? I need tattoo ideas.
« on: September 11, 2008, 03:43:40 AM »
Hey dude - not that fashion has to be a consideration, but tribal bands are becoming less popular within tattooing.
I would often visit the forum www.tattoojam.com where a lot of tattoo artists hang out and ask for their opinions - they're very open to such.
Then, on knowing the variety of styles out there (old school, traditionnal, new school, realism, tribal etc.) you could make a fully educated decision on what tattoo style works for you.
I'd love to see pics when you get it done, dude.
I would often visit the forum www.tattoojam.com where a lot of tattoo artists hang out and ask for their opinions - they're very open to such.
Then, on knowing the variety of styles out there (old school, traditionnal, new school, realism, tribal etc.) you could make a fully educated decision on what tattoo style works for you.
I'd love to see pics when you get it done, dude.
131
General / Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« on: September 08, 2008, 02:35:03 PM »
This can of worms has been opened a million times. Religion is the absolute worst thing you can mix into government. It tramples rights, instills fear, causes racism, stirs up anger, draws lines, and allows a candidate to shelter himself behind flimsy excuses.
here here! Religion is a socially driven form of exclusionary government. It like a belief club that tells you what to think.
Amen, brothers! PREACH IT!
132
General / Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« on: September 07, 2008, 07:08:32 PM »
Eh I dunno, there are plenty of nontheists here, but I think the general consensus is that "we" don't want a Muslim for president.
[/quote]
Really? What about a moderate muslim?
Or would a fundamentalist xian president be more palatable to non-theists than a moderate muslim?
[/quote]
Really? What about a moderate muslim?
Or would a fundamentalist xian president be more palatable to non-theists than a moderate muslim?
133
General / Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ia
« on: September 07, 2008, 05:04:20 PM »... at the core of which always lies positive thinking, which can be assigned to any number of theological or spiritual belief structures.
You could remove 'assigned' and insert 'exploited' of course, were you to think like the Pat Condells of this world
To change the direction of discussion, a little, I'm always fascinated (even coming from N. Ireland!) by how much politicians in America are expected to be christian - both Obama and McCain were encouraged to present their pastors to the voting public, I hear?
In the UK, of course, the current leader of the opposition - David Cameron (Conservatives) is an atheist. No deal of this has been made by the media, to my knowledge. In fact, the only time I heard of it was when a rather exasperated UK correspondent, John Snow, was talking to the Huckabee camp about the obsession of religion within US presidential campaigns... Snow's point being that it didn't matter a damn within European politics.
134
The Show / Re: Shop Amazon, Help FTL!
« on: September 07, 2008, 01:20:47 PM »
Cheers, man:
... is the one I'll use from now on to be sure you guys scoop the loot.
Quote
United Kingdom - http://amazonUK.freetalklive.com
... is the one I'll use from now on to be sure you guys scoop the loot.
135
General / Re: "Shouldn't the atheists be getting upset at my transition to pantheism?" -Ian
« on: September 07, 2008, 12:07:42 PM »
Interesting discussion.
My understanding is that pantheism is different to atheism in a very small way - pantheists may, for example, see 'god' in nature, but not an identifiable 'god' or personal 'god.'
It seems to me that pantheists are not claiming there definitely IS an entity which could be called 'god' and that it had a definite and active role in, say, the origin of life... but that there MAY be some things which we are unable to understand about the universe, and for the purposes of rhetoric, we could attribute such things as the work of 'god' until we know different.
I kinda stopped off at pantheism on my way to atheism, I guess.
My understanding is that pantheism is different to atheism in a very small way - pantheists may, for example, see 'god' in nature, but not an identifiable 'god' or personal 'god.'
It seems to me that pantheists are not claiming there definitely IS an entity which could be called 'god' and that it had a definite and active role in, say, the origin of life... but that there MAY be some things which we are unable to understand about the universe, and for the purposes of rhetoric, we could attribute such things as the work of 'god' until we know different.
I kinda stopped off at pantheism on my way to atheism, I guess.