Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

To Libertarians: Angle or Reid?

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:27:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Obviously neither are Libertarians, but who should a Libertarian choose between the two? At first I prefered Angle, but as I learned more, I realized Reid was not only an ideologically better choice, but also a better practical choice that would do the least damage to my life (I live in Nevada, so I'll be greatly affected).

If Angle wins, the air will be filled with poisonous gas cause she wants nuclear waste to sit 90 miles from Vegas. She'll cut funding for education and grants, so I'll end up paying more for school. She also wants to force raped women to have babies. And she supports fully funding the military (Reids a bit more anti-military).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:31:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm no fan of Angle, so I feel bad for correcting this, but nuclear waste (so long as proper safety is observed) do not fill the air with toxins. If it manages to escape its holding containers (extremely unlikely), then it will get in the water, since it is a heavy element.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:40:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd say Angle, because seeing the Democrats' Senate Majority Leader lose would be funny.

As for policy differences, there really aren't many real ones, just differences in what they say they'll do. It doesn't matter that she wants to force raped women to have babies, since she's not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Nevada could potentially have some sort of state-level law banning abortions, as other states have done, but that has nothing to do with this race. They'll both increase military spending, regardless of Reid's supposed anti-military stance (He supported the escalation in Afghanistan. I doubt someone who doesn't even oppose increasing military spending will actually support decreasing it). As for Angle cutting education spending: while it's no doubt a lie, if it were true, it would be the libertarian position to hold. Yes, you have to pay more for your education--but it's your education. The taxpayers subsidizing you aren't going to your school; why should they be paying for it?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:49:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:40:05 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
As for Angle cutting education spending: while it's no doubt a lie, if it were true, it would be the libertarian position to hold. Yes, you have to pay more for your education--but it's your education. The taxpayers subsidizing you aren't going to your school; why should they be paying for it?

All education subsidies do is drive up the cost, anyway.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 11:52:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:31:47 AM, OreEle wrote:
I'm no fan of Angle, so I feel bad for correcting this, but nuclear waste (so long as proper safety is observed) do not fill the air with toxins. If it manages to escape its holding containers (extremely unlikely), then it will get in the water, since it is a heavy element.

Yeah, I worded it wrong. It's not going to poison the air, but it's still radioactive waste that will be underground and they don't have ways to prevent it from leaking. It is expected that many will get cancer as a result of this radioactive waste near a large population.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 12:04:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:52:55 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:31:47 AM, OreEle wrote:
I'm no fan of Angle, so I feel bad for correcting this, but nuclear waste (so long as proper safety is observed) do not fill the air with toxins. If it manages to escape its holding containers (extremely unlikely), then it will get in the water, since it is a heavy element.

Yeah, I worded it wrong. It's not going to poison the air, but it's still radioactive waste that will be underground and they don't have ways to prevent it from leaking. It is expected that many will get cancer as a result of this radioactive waste near a large population.

This is an interesting article I read a while back: http://mises.org...
The reason I post it is for the part where it talks about nuclear waste, namely that most of it can be reused, but in the US it is forbidden by law.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 12:08:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:40:05 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I'd say Angle, because seeing the Democrats' Senate Majority Leader lose would be funny.

As for policy differences, there really aren't many real ones, just differences in what they say they'll do. It doesn't matter that she wants to force raped women to have babies, since she's not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Nevada could potentially have some sort of state-level law banning abortions, as other states have done, but that has nothing to do with this race.

True, but it still bugs the hell out of me that she is pro-life and supports "traditional family values" (that's part of her platform on her site).

They'll both increase military spending, regardless of Reid's supposed anti-military stance (He supported the escalation in Afghanistan. I doubt someone who doesn't even oppose increasing military spending will actually support decreasing it).

Based on the statements I've heard from Reid, he doesn't support the military. Regardless, Angle is much more pro-war and a warmonger than Reid.

As for Angle cutting education spending: while it's no doubt a lie,

It's not a lie, she has explicitly stated herself that she wants to get rid of the Department of Education and said she doesn't want the government spending money on education (and instead wants to spend our tax dollars on death squads to kill brown people).

if it were true, it would be the libertarian position to hold.

I will concede that. Though, that's why I've been leaning more towards Left Libertarianism.

Yes, you have to pay more for your education--but it's your education.

You can't get a good paying job without an education, but without a good paying job, you can't afford to get an education. The way the system's set up, no amount of hard work and self-support will get you an education sufficient enough to get a good paying job without some assistance.

The taxpayers subsidizing you aren't going to your school; why should they be paying for it?

It's in the tax payers best interest to live in an educated society.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 12:09:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 12:04:11 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:52:55 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:31:47 AM, OreEle wrote:
I'm no fan of Angle, so I feel bad for correcting this, but nuclear waste (so long as proper safety is observed) do not fill the air with toxins. If it manages to escape its holding containers (extremely unlikely), then it will get in the water, since it is a heavy element.

Yeah, I worded it wrong. It's not going to poison the air, but it's still radioactive waste that will be underground and they don't have ways to prevent it from leaking. It is expected that many will get cancer as a result of this radioactive waste near a large population.

This is an interesting article I read a while back: http://mises.org...
The reason I post it is for the part where it talks about nuclear waste, namely that most of it can be reused, but in the US it is forbidden by law.

We've had discussions about the Yucca Mountain Suppository before... I've studied it at length and we can start another thread if you'd like...
no comment
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:00:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Any other Libertarians care to share their perspective? I know there's a lot of Libertarians out there.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:26:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:52:55 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yeah, I worded it wrong. It's not going to poison the air, but it's still radioactive waste that will be underground and they don't have ways to prevent it from leaking. It is expected that many will get cancer as a result of this radioactive waste near a large population.

The waste is encased in canisters made of stainless steel four inches thick, designed to take the impact of freight train traveling at full speed in the unlikely circumstance that a truck ceeting one stalls on a railroad crossing. Explain why you think that amounts to "don't have ways to prevent it from leaking."

Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to convert long-lived isotopes into short-lived isotopes, so the waste must be stored until such a plant is built. DOE completed the design of such a plant in the late 90s, but Congress has thus far not funded construction. The waste will probably have to be stored about 200 or 300 years, at most. The fear of radioactive waste is pure superstition.

One of Nevada's potential assets are large areas of empty useless land. Nevadans should use that land to store nuclear waste and to site nuclear power plants. The electric power can be sold at high profit to California, who does not want to generate power within its boundaries. Every bit of wind and solar requires 100% backup by reliable sources, so the demand is guaranteed.

Your argument for supporting Reid is that he will give you more free goodies. That is hardly grounds for supposing he is promoting libertarianism. Rather the opposite.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:29:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 3:26:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:52:55 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yeah, I worded it wrong. It's not going to poison the air, but it's still radioactive waste that will be underground and they don't have ways to prevent it from leaking. It is expected that many will get cancer as a result of this radioactive waste near a large population.

The waste is encased in canisters made of stainless steel four inches thick, designed to take the impact of freight train traveling at full speed in the unlikely circumstance that a truck ceeting one stalls on a railroad crossing. Explain why you think that amounts to "don't have ways to prevent it from leaking."

Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to convert long-lived isotopes into short-lived isotopes, so the waste must be stored until such a plant is built. DOE completed the design of such a plant in the late 90s, but Congress has thus far not funded construction. The waste will probably have to be stored about 200 or 300 years, at most. The fear of radioactive waste is pure superstition.

One of Nevada's potential assets are large areas of empty useless land. Nevadans should use that land to store nuclear waste and to site nuclear power plants. The electric power can be sold at high profit to California, who does not want to generate power within its boundaries. Every bit of wind and solar requires 100% backup by reliable sources, so the demand is guaranteed.

Your argument for supporting Reid is that he will give you more free goodies. That is hardly grounds for supposing he is promoting libertarianism. Rather the opposite.

Why I agree with you, I feel this is off topic of this thread.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:33:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 3:32:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A Libertarian shouldn't vote.

And why not?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:39:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 3:33:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 3:32:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A Libertarian shouldn't vote.

And why not?

Self-respect. The order never changes by voting in new slave masters. Direct-action is the vote of the Libertarian.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:41:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 3:33:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 3:32:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A Libertarian shouldn't vote.

And why not?

Your vote won't make a difference. You're more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the poll than make a difference in the election.

There's no real difference between the two major parties from a libertarian perspective. So even if your vote did change who would be elected, it wouldn't be a positive difference.

The state is evil, and libertarians shouldn't have anything to do with it if they don't have to. Participating in this statist ritual just lends legitimacy to the state.

I'm sure there are other reasons to not vote as well, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:46:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 3:41:13 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 3:33:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 3:32:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A Libertarian shouldn't vote.

And why not?

Your vote won't make a difference. You're more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the poll than make a difference in the election.

On a singular level, no. On a community level, yes.


There's no real difference between the two major parties from a libertarian perspective. So even if your vote did change who would be elected, it wouldn't be a positive difference.

Well, if you feel that they are the same, then that is true that voting for 6 or 1/2 dozen does not matter.


The state is evil, and libertarians shouldn't have anything to do with it if they don't have to. Participating in this statist ritual just lends legitimacy to the state.

I'm sure there are other reasons to not vote as well, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:47:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 3:39:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/2/2010 3:33:52 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/2/2010 3:32:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
A Libertarian shouldn't vote.

And why not?

Self-respect. The order never changes by voting in new slave masters. Direct-action is the vote of the Libertarian.

If direct-action is their vote, then they still don't vote. lol
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:48:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@RoyLatham

Reid will spend taxes on Education while Angle will spend taxes on militant death squads engaging in initiatory coercion. You tell me which is more Libertarian.

I'll respond to the Yucca Mtn. stuff later.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 5:02:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 3:48:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@RoyLatham

Reid will spend taxes on Education while Angle will spend taxes on militant death squads engaging in initiatory coercion
Which death squads initiating force against whom?
The military retaliates against the likes of Saddam and the Taliban. You can't initiate twice. :P
If Angle is in favor of the drug war in some way in which Reid isn't, or banning hookers etc, lemme know.

And don't go thinking Reid'll have less left over for these things unless by some unlikely occurrence Angle is not actually for less taxes overall.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 5:10:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 5:02:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/2/2010 3:48:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@RoyLatham

Reid will spend taxes on Education while Angle will spend taxes on militant death squads engaging in initiatory coercion
Which death squads initiating force against whom?
The military retaliates against the likes of Saddam and the Taliban. You can't initiate twice. :P
If Angle is in favor of the drug war in some way in which Reid isn't, or banning hookers etc, lemme know.

And don't go thinking Reid'll have less left over for these things unless by some unlikely occurrence Angle is not actually for less taxes overall.

Yeah, I don't think you can retaliate against someone who never attacked you, either...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 5:13:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 5:10:16 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/2/2010 5:02:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/2/2010 3:48:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@RoyLatham

Reid will spend taxes on Education while Angle will spend taxes on militant death squads engaging in initiatory coercion
Which death squads initiating force against whom?
The military retaliates against the likes of Saddam and the Taliban. You can't initiate twice. :P
If Angle is in favor of the drug war in some way in which Reid isn't, or banning hookers etc, lemme know.

And don't go thinking Reid'll have less left over for these things unless by some unlikely occurrence Angle is not actually for less taxes overall.

Yeah, I don't think you can retaliate against someone who never attacked you, either...

Yes you can. They merely have to initiate force against someone, not you in particular.

Now, it's not always a GOOD IDEA to engage in retaliation when a third party is attacked. But it is legitimate, and it is certainly distinct from initial force.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 5:30:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 11:27:25 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Obviously neither are Libertarians, but who should a Libertarian choose between the two? At first I prefered Angle, but as I learned more, I realized Reid was not only an ideologically better choice, but also a better practical choice that would do the least damage to my life (I live in Nevada, so I'll be greatly affected).

If Angle wins, the air will be filled with poisonous gas cause she wants nuclear waste to sit 90 miles from Vegas. She'll cut funding for education and grants, so I'll end up paying more for school. She also wants to force raped women to have babies. And she supports fully funding the military (Reids a bit more anti-military).

Angle claims to believe in small government, but she thinks the government should be big enough to force little girls to bear the children of the rapists that violated them. Does anyone else see a problem with this?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 5:33:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 5:30:33 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:25 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Obviously neither are Libertarians, but who should a Libertarian choose between the two? At first I prefered Angle, but as I learned more, I realized Reid was not only an ideologically better choice, but also a better practical choice that would do the least damage to my life (I live in Nevada, so I'll be greatly affected).

If Angle wins, the air will be filled with poisonous gas cause she wants nuclear waste to sit 90 miles from Vegas. She'll cut funding for education and grants, so I'll end up paying more for school. She also wants to force raped women to have babies. And she supports fully funding the military (Reids a bit more anti-military).


Angle claims to believe in small government, but she thinks the government should be big enough to force little girls to bear the children of the rapists that violated them. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

she

I kid.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 6:31:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 5:30:33 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 11/2/2010 11:27:25 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Obviously neither are Libertarians, but who should a Libertarian choose between the two? At first I prefered Angle, but as I learned more, I realized Reid was not only an ideologically better choice, but also a better practical choice that would do the least damage to my life (I live in Nevada, so I'll be greatly affected).

If Angle wins, the air will be filled with poisonous gas cause she wants nuclear waste to sit 90 miles from Vegas. She'll cut funding for education and grants, so I'll end up paying more for school. She also wants to force raped women to have babies. And she supports fully funding the military (Reids a bit more anti-military).


Angle claims to believe in small government, but she thinks the government should be big enough to force little girls to bear the children of the rapists that violated them. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

No more than a problem with your name.

A pretty big problem, but still.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.