Just done that. I guess I must be a libertarian, the quiz made me a radical one.
However that quiz is biased to a US audience. Gun ownership and the draft are non issues in the UK. And immigration is a different problem, the US isn't overcrowded the UK is.
Wimp. Also there is no warmingist scientific consensus, it is political.
I think you need to add quite lot of current nations to that (the USA among them) and very many previous ones.
How about you actually learn something about the event before you go spouting about it? How about you learn the conditions that current air traffic controllers work under as well? I do not suggest that you actually try doing the job as i do not believe that you are up to it.
Interesting, i believe that way and try to act that way (as regards individuals) yet do not call myself libertarian. It must be because i do not believe in the philosophy. Nor do i think it extends to organizations (groups of people, typically striving for a common goal), let alone corporations nor governments (both being legal abstractions). Indeed, i see the purpose of government as controlling corporations to prevent them from violating natural citizens rights, individually or aggregately, and to help provide (and regulate) basic health and safety services.
That falls short in significant ways, in does not make the same prohibition against groups such as lynch mobs, religions, corporations, or governments (for example).
Then you abruptly make two major errors:
Not their money, other peoples money
Not their bodies, other peoples bodies.
The real proper purpose of government is to prevent (as much as possible) and redress; individuals and groups (desiring to) violate(ing) individuals and other groups freedom.
As a matter of USENET internal workings there is always a charter for a newsgroup. Finding it can be an issue, google groups is not the authority on this yet.
Not an elitist a realist. I don't see how a libertarian society could work in real life. Such a society would need a level of policing to maintain itself that would in itself be incompatable with a libertarian society.
Name one place where we didn't perceive an eminent threat.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
The air traffic controllers were allowed to strike, and they did. What they didn't have was the power to stop their employer from firing them when they went on strike. For a libertarian, both striking and firing should be allowed as a matter of personal liberty. Then again, libertarians oppose the government being in charge of air traffic control - a violation of the 10th Ammendment. The government doesn't hire the pilots, who are just as vital to air safety as the controllers. Libertarians would also not grant the FAA a monopoly over the training and hiring of air traffic controllers. Such monopolies give the employer too much power by making it impossible for workers to work for someone else.
-- Guy Macon
What a pile of steaming bullshit! ATC is clearly within the ICC clause (the 10th doesn't in any way apply). Pilots are certainly regulated by the federal government, but are PRIVATE employees. Their employer isn't the federal government.
Indeed. If you say no, then you disallow the US stopping Al Qaeda from obtaining nukes. If you say yes, then it's OK for the US to destroy the UK's nuclear capability with a pre-emptive strike. Nonetheless, the existance of such edge/corner conditions is not a valid reason for not applying a principle to cases where it is very clear who is initiating force.
There are some interesting examples (especiially the ones near the end) in this Wikipedia article): [
-- Guy Macon
Sure it does. What part of "no one under any circumstances" isn't clear?
BTW, in case you happen to care, my preference is to read posts that don't quote one hundred and eleven lines of previous posts (including sigs) just to add one line at the bottom, and I am more likely to skip such posts as opposed to ones that trim the quoted material.
-- Guy Macon
That's not true. Some USENET newsgroups predate charters.
-- Guy Macon
There is at least one historic example you can study:
Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
Privatization, Viking Style: Model or Misfortune?
The Icelandic Free State
Private Creation and Enforcement Of Law: a Historical Case
Nationmaster Encyclopedia: Icelandic Free State
Wikipedia: The Machinery of Freedom
The USA shortly after the American revolution is an imperfect example -- flawed because they failed to grant full individual liberty to women, slaves, and non-landowners -- but the Bill of Rights (especially the 10th Ammendment) was very much a decription of a mostly libertarian form of government, even if the practice never quite matched the ideal.
-- Guy Macon
Only if you believe that a farmer growing his own wheat to feed to his own pigs that he is planning to eat himself is engaging in "interstate commerce"...
"Air traffic controllers union rejects final FAA contract offer..."
Free clue: Ronald Reagan fired 11.345 striking air traffic controllers. Does the president have the power to fire private employees? Or can he only fire workers whose Their employer is the federal government?
-- Guy Macon
You are a loon! Where do commercial aircraft fly? Who regulates that space?
Rather irrelevant since no pilots were fired.
ATC pilots, you stupid clown! What a maroon!
Is it your intention to engage in ad hominem personal attacks as a substitute for reasoned discourse? If so, I am not interested, but I am sure that you can find someone who will be willing to fight you. If, however, you can make your case using logic and evidence, I would welcome that conversation.
You are correct. I misread what you wrote. I am not, however, convinced that making such an error qualifies one as a "clown" or a "loon." I have never worked as a clown, and I am not a migratory waterfowl.
I would also note that your reply was rather easy to misread; In reply to my writing that "The government doesn't hire the pilots, who are just as vital to air safety as the controllers." You replied "What a pile of steaming bullshit!" (another ad hominem, and one that generally indicates disagreement) and "Pilots are certainly regulated by the federal government, but are PRIVATE employees. Their employer isn't the federal government." Generally, when one calls something a "pile of steaming bullshit!" and writes an assertion in ALL CAPS. one is in some way disagreeing, which led me to misread what you wrote as a disagreement with my statement concerning air traffic controllers. In this case, you were actually *agreeing* with my "The government doesn't hire the pilots" statement, and your use of yet another personal attack and of ALL CAPS led me to make a careless error. I will take more care in the future to carefully parse all statements from you so as to clearly identify those that make no sense.
Despite usage by _The Three Stooges_, using the term, "Maroon" as an insult is considered to be an insult to the real Maroons (escaped ex-slaves who settled in the mountains of Jamaica). See [
If you wish to get this conversation back on track, please explain clearly what it is that you are actually disagreeing with. To make it easy on you, here is the statement that you seem to be having trouble with:
The air traffic controllers were allowed to strike, and they did. What they didn't have was the power to stop their employer from firing them when they went on strike. For a libertarian, both striking and firing should be allowed as a matter of personal liberty. Then again, libertarians oppose the government being in charge of air traffic control - a violation of the 10th Ammendment (a flight from San Fransisco to Los Angeles is in no way "interstate commerce." The government doesn't hire the pilots, who are just as vital to air safety as the controllers, so why must the controllers be federal employees? Libertarians would not grant the FAA a monopoly over the training and hiring of air traffic controllers. Such monopolies give the employer too much power by making it impossible for workers to work for someone else.
-- Guy Macon
Hi Guy,
Wikipedia doesn't think so (
Certainly, although I can see particular vocations where a "no strike clause" in an employment contract is a reasonable condition of employment too.
Do libertarians oppose the government being in charge of (ground) traffic laws too? It's not like I personally feel a 65MPH speed limit is always appropriate, you know. :-)
---Joel
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.