Jacob Blake (WI), Daniel Prude (NY), Breonna Taylor (KY), Jonathan Price (TX) - here we go again

PVW said:

Morganna said:

STANV said:

 Here you go

https://www.lp.org/platform/

From that Platform:

1.4 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.7 Crime and Justice

Government force must be limited to the protection of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, and governments must never be permitted to violate these rights. Laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. We oppose the prosecutorial practice of “over-charging” in criminal prosecutions so as to avoid jury trials by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains.

1.8 Death Penalty

We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.

Let me know which "Progressives" disagree.

 I've opened the link and skimming through, so far so good. A teacher that I once worked said that they assumed I was a Libertarian. I've heard it vaguely defined but this is very concise. 

 I'd like to read more about the position on the treatment of animals. I've always thought I was more Green Party.

So far I don't see anything anyone would object to but I have more research to do.

What do Democrats not like in this system?

Sorry for the thread drift. Does it need its own thread?

My view of libertarianism is that as a platform for critique it has a lot going for it, but as a practical philosophy for actually trying to govern it suffers from a naive view of power and a cramped view of society. It places a lot of emphasis on individual rights which, on the one hand is great, and in a world where we all were born into full equality would probably be a pretty fantastic way to organize ourselves. But we don't live in that world. It matters where you are born and who your ancestors were. Before anyone of us is even able to exercise any kind of agency, we're already reaping the benefits and suffering the consequences of a world where wealth and power are vastly unequally distributed. We are not free moral agents operating from a blank slate. We are deeply influenced by our personal, family, and social histories, acting within a dense social web that shapes and circumscribes not only what we do, but even what we can even imagine doing, to a far greater degree than libertarian philosophy is willing to credit.

So for instance in the case of police killing black people, I don't really care how many racist bones you have in your body, how many of your best friends are black, whether or not you are personally polite to your neighbors regardless of skin color. That has nothing to do with why the cops keep killing black Americans.

The fact that part of the foundation of American culture was the creation of racial hierarchy and that the perpetuation of this has been woven into nearly all aspects of our society over several centuries, on the other hand, does have a direct bearing. And if we want to fix it, we have to grapple with this systematic racism, where individual action is necessary but not sufficient because this is really a problem of collective action with a focus on changing the system. And that's just not something liberatarianism even really has the language for. Live and let live is great philosophy in many circumstance, but in this context "let live" means "let it continue to be racist." You could abolish the federal government tomorrow and whatever localized authorities replaced it would still go about killing black people and then blaming them for their own deaths.

Yet these things happen in a system you prefer.  And that is basically slander to say libertarians mean 'let it continue to be racist".  But more importantly it is INCREDIBLY ignorant.  The most horrible acts of racial and ethnic violence are perpetrated by government.  It is not even a contest.  

You do realize that there are history books.  These actually exist.  If you read them you might actually learn something.

terp said:

PVW said:

Morganna said:

STANV said:

 Here you go

https://www.lp.org/platform/

From that Platform:

1.4 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.7 Crime and Justice

Government force must be limited to the protection of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, and governments must never be permitted to violate these rights. Laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. We oppose the prosecutorial practice of “over-charging” in criminal prosecutions so as to avoid jury trials by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains.

1.8 Death Penalty

We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.

Let me know which "Progressives" disagree.

 I've opened the link and skimming through, so far so good. A teacher that I once worked said that they assumed I was a Libertarian. I've heard it vaguely defined but this is very concise. 

 I'd like to read more about the position on the treatment of animals. I've always thought I was more Green Party.

So far I don't see anything anyone would object to but I have more research to do.

What do Democrats not like in this system?

Sorry for the thread drift. Does it need its own thread?

My view of libertarianism is that as a platform for critique it has a lot going for it, but as a practical philosophy for actually trying to govern it suffers from a naive view of power and a cramped view of society. It places a lot of emphasis on individual rights which, on the one hand is great, and in a world where we all were born into full equality would probably be a pretty fantastic way to organize ourselves. But we don't live in that world. It matters where you are born and who your ancestors were. Before anyone of us is even able to exercise any kind of agency, we're already reaping the benefits and suffering the consequences of a world where wealth and power are vastly unequally distributed. We are not free moral agents operating from a blank slate. We are deeply influenced by our personal, family, and social histories, acting within a dense social web that shapes and circumscribes not only what we do, but even what we can even imagine doing, to a far greater degree than libertarian philosophy is willing to credit.

So for instance in the case of police killing black people, I don't really care how many racist bones you have in your body, how many of your best friends are black, whether or not you are personally polite to your neighbors regardless of skin color. That has nothing to do with why the cops keep killing black Americans.

The fact that part of the foundation of American culture was the creation of racial hierarchy and that the perpetuation of this has been woven into nearly all aspects of our society over several centuries, on the other hand, does have a direct bearing. And if we want to fix it, we have to grapple with this systematic racism, where individual action is necessary but not sufficient because this is really a problem of collective action with a focus on changing the system. And that's just not something liberatarianism even really has the language for. Live and let live is great philosophy in many circumstance, but in this context "let live" means "let it continue to be racist." You could abolish the federal government tomorrow and whatever localized authorities replaced it would still go about killing black people and then blaming them for their own deaths.

Yet these things happen in a system you prefer.  And that is basically slander to say libertarians mean 'let it continue to be racist".  But more importantly it is INCREDIBLY ignorant.  The most horrible acts of racial and ethnic violence are perpetrated by government.  It is not even a contest.  

You do realize that there are history books.  These actually exist.  If you read them you might actually learn something.

 Your reply doesn't seem connected to what I wrote. I'm tempted to say more, but you've already told me that you think what I write is drivel and don't want to read it, so not much point, is there?

terp said:

 Let me ask you a question.  Would you take issue of the media reported that the Kenosha  police were having a peaceful day until they answered the Jacob Blake call?  

There's a major flaw in that question in relation to what I wrote above.  I'll let you figure out what it is.  

terp said:

You do realize that there are history books.  These actually exist.  If you read them you might actually learn something.

 What MOL’s spunky Will Hunting forgot to add, PVW, was: How do you like them apples?

I'm sure it's difficult trying to respond at least somewhat politely to people like me who aren't very bright, and completely deluded. 

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Another thread hijacked by a Twerp.

Yes, sadly (and disrespectfully)

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

You do realize that there are history books.  These actually exist.  If you read them you might actually learn something.

 What MOL’s spunky Will Hunting forgot to add, PVW, was: How do you like them apples?

 They seem rather sour.

PVW said:

terp said:

PVW said:

Morganna said:

STANV said:

 Here you go

https://www.lp.org/platform/

From that Platform:

1.4 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.7 Crime and Justice

Government force must be limited to the protection of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, and governments must never be permitted to violate these rights. Laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. We oppose the prosecutorial practice of “over-charging” in criminal prosecutions so as to avoid jury trials by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains.

1.8 Death Penalty

We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.

Let me know which "Progressives" disagree.

 I've opened the link and skimming through, so far so good. A teacher that I once worked said that they assumed I was a Libertarian. I've heard it vaguely defined but this is very concise. 

 I'd like to read more about the position on the treatment of animals. I've always thought I was more Green Party.

So far I don't see anything anyone would object to but I have more research to do.

What do Democrats not like in this system?

Sorry for the thread drift. Does it need its own thread?

My view of libertarianism is that as a platform for critique it has a lot going for it, but as a practical philosophy for actually trying to govern it suffers from a naive view of power and a cramped view of society. It places a lot of emphasis on individual rights which, on the one hand is great, and in a world where we all were born into full equality would probably be a pretty fantastic way to organize ourselves. But we don't live in that world. It matters where you are born and who your ancestors were. Before anyone of us is even able to exercise any kind of agency, we're already reaping the benefits and suffering the consequences of a world where wealth and power are vastly unequally distributed. We are not free moral agents operating from a blank slate. We are deeply influenced by our personal, family, and social histories, acting within a dense social web that shapes and circumscribes not only what we do, but even what we can even imagine doing, to a far greater degree than libertarian philosophy is willing to credit.

So for instance in the case of police killing black people, I don't really care how many racist bones you have in your body, how many of your best friends are black, whether or not you are personally polite to your neighbors regardless of skin color. That has nothing to do with why the cops keep killing black Americans.

The fact that part of the foundation of American culture was the creation of racial hierarchy and that the perpetuation of this has been woven into nearly all aspects of our society over several centuries, on the other hand, does have a direct bearing. And if we want to fix it, we have to grapple with this systematic racism, where individual action is necessary but not sufficient because this is really a problem of collective action with a focus on changing the system. And that's just not something liberatarianism even really has the language for. Live and let live is great philosophy in many circumstance, but in this context "let live" means "let it continue to be racist." You could abolish the federal government tomorrow and whatever localized authorities replaced it would still go about killing black people and then blaming them for their own deaths.

Yet these things happen in a system you prefer.  And that is basically slander to say libertarians mean 'let it continue to be racist".  But more importantly it is INCREDIBLY ignorant.  The most horrible acts of racial and ethnic violence are perpetrated by government.  It is not even a contest.  

You do realize that there are history books.  These actually exist.  If you read them you might actually learn something.

 Your reply doesn't seem connected to what I wrote. I'm tempted to say more, but you've already told me that you think what I write is drivel and don't want to read it, so not much point, is there?

 Not to get in the way of a good circling of the wagons but it's exactly what you said.  

basil said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Another thread hijacked by a Twerp.

Yes, sadly (and disrespectfully)

 My posting has been fiery but mostly polite

Looks like DC is getting into the mostly peaceful thing.

terp said:

Another core concept is the non agression principle. This basically says that the initiation or threat of force is morally wrong.  You could see why someone who believes this would not be a big fan of government as that is the essence of government.

I thought that the "essence of government" was that they are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, in order to secure certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

I read that somewhere.

yes - this is another hijacked thread - what a bummer.  

Terp - are you a fan of the libertarian - Luke Rudkowski?

I wouldn't call myself a fan.  I do follow him on twitter.  Why do you ask?

terp said:

I wouldn't call myself a fan.  I do follow him on twitter.  Why do you ask?

 Because you’re a follower....

terp said:

I wouldn't call myself a fan.  I do follow him on twitter.  Why do you ask?

 He's a dope - a Alex Jones protege - 911 Truther.  The video - why did it cut off - why no context the lead up to them following this guy?  I'm glad Youtube demonetized his channel.

jamie said:

yes - this is another hijacked thread - what a bummer.  

An example of the "Tragedy of the Commons". 

jamie said:

terp said:

I wouldn't call myself a fan.  I do follow him on twitter.  Why do you ask?

 He's a dope - a Alex Jones protege - 911 Truther.  The video - why did it cut off - why no context the lead up to them following this guy?  I'm glad Youtube demonetized his channel.

 Why didn't you ask the same questions about the video in the OP?  

I will add that there is quite a bit of footage of people being harassed leaving the RNC.  This was only one.   There is plenty of context out there.  However, I fear that most of it will not serve your prejudices. 

Jaytee said:

terp said:

I wouldn't call myself a fan.  I do follow him on twitter.  Why do you ask?

 Because you’re a follower....

 I do like follow the leader.

terp said:

 Why didn't you ask the same questions about the video in the OP?  

do you mean the video of a guy getting shot seven times in the back with no conclusive proof he was armed?  What would you need to see prior to this clip to make it justified?  The fact the the officers couldn't properly taser him?

I've also have been trying to read the police reports to get a clearer picture of what happened prior to the shooting, but it's pretty vague.  What's your theory and justification for the shooting?

I don't have a theory about how that was a good shooting.  But I also don't assume there must be a good reason for a mob to surround an older man and shove him multiple times either.  

jamie said:

terp said:

I wouldn't call myself a fan.  I do follow him on twitter.  Why do you ask?

 He's a dope - a Alex Jones protege - 911 Truther.  The video - why did it cut off - why no context the lead up to them following this guy?  I'm glad Youtube demonetized his channel.

 BTW:  good to know there's no cancel culture 

Interesting thread, except for the part that's not talking about Jacob Blake being shot by a Kenosha WI police officer.

A refresher:

An unarmed Black man was shot by a Kenosha Wisconsin police officer. He was shot in the back seven times at close range by an officer attempting to murder him in lieu of arresting him. Blake is in the hospital, paralyzed from the waist down and shackled to his hospital bed. The cop who attempted to kill him has been named as well as two other cops present at the shooting. All of the cops have been suspended, None of them have been detained. The DCI division of the DOJ has dispatched agents to Kenosha to investigate the shooting.

None of this has anything to do with progressives, conservatives, libertarians, Democrats, or Republicans other than the fact that the systemic racism at the root of this attempted murder is reified and maintained to benefit a white supremacist power structure comprised of progressives, conservatives, libertarians, Democrats and Republicans.  

terp said:

Morganna said:

STANV said:

 Here you go

https://www.lp.org/platform/

From that Platform:

1.4 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.7 Crime and Justice

Government force must be limited to the protection of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, and governments must never be permitted to violate these rights. Laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. We oppose the prosecutorial practice of “over-charging” in criminal prosecutions so as to avoid jury trials by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains.

1.8 Death Penalty

We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.

Let me know which "Progressives" disagree.

 I've opened the link and skimming through, so far so good. A teacher that I once worked said that they assumed I was a Libertarian. I've heard it vaguely defined but this is very concise. 

 I'd like to read more about the position on the treatment of animals. I've always thought I was more Green Party.

So far I don't see anything anyone would object to but I have more research to do.

What do Democrats not like in this system?

Sorry for the thread drift. Does it need its own thread?

 I'm not a member of the LP, and I'm honestly not a very big fan.  That being said, I don't take issue with anything on that platform. 

It should be noted that libertarians exist on a spectrum(and frankly many are probably on the spectrum)  and there is tons of arguments within the community. 

There are a few core concepts that I think the vast majority of libertarians generally agree on.  The first one is the belief that sovereignty lies within the individual. The role of government(for those libertarians that believe there should be a government) is to protect the rights of the individual.

I should mention that when a libertarian mentions rights they typically mean negative rights.  That is, rights that do not require an obligation from another individual or set of individuals.  So, we believe in the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom to protect oneself and property, freedom over one's body.  We don't believe in positive rights where others are obliged to fulfill.  If you demand free healthcare as a right , etc to a room of libertarians they will not be very receptive.

Another core concept is the non agression principle. This basically says that the initiation or threat of force is morally wrong.  You could see why someone who believes this would not be a big fan of government as that is the essence of government.

 There is one more concept I should mention.  It's not so much a core concept, but it is illustrative of our form of government.  It is called the forgotten man.

Essentially, 2 people, let's call them A & B decide there is a problem.  They want to help another person.  Let's call this person C.  A & B may need to take from others who did not agree on this arrangement.  Let's call the other D.  In this arrangement D has not agreed to have his rights violated to help C and thus his rights have been infringed.  We call D the forgotten man.  Some great examples of this is the conscripted soldier, the wage worker who's wages may be taken for causes he or she doesn't support or may not be aware of.

A current example of this is the shop owners.  They had nothing to do with any of the violence, yet their business has been destroyed and for the most part people are fine with this.

terp said:

A current example of this is the shop owners.  They had nothing to do with any of the violence, yet their business has been destroyed and for the most part people are fine with this.

This last part is where the train of thought jumped the tracks. 

In other words, there's a problem with the "most people are fine with this" premise. 

Blake would have been the forgotten man if there was no video and no one present.

jamie said:

Blake would have been the forgotten man if there was no video and no one present.

More likely, we would have been told that the officer shot him as he was lunging at another officer with a knife. 

Person A and person B were asleep in their bed when the C(ops) broke in and shot Breonna Taylor.  

smh the sidestepping ducking and misdirection is the problem

Again, in my mind, the issue here is that an officer of the law attempted to murder an American citizen.

He didn’t succeed and his victim is paralyzed, possibly for the rest of his life. The actions of this officer-  emboldened, and in some cases rewarded and protected by a system that values property over the lives of Black, brown and poor Americans- created an environment that manifested many things- peaceful protesting, civil disobedience, destruction of property, municipal neglect and malfeasance, assault, vigilantism and unfortunately murder. 

All of this developed after the attempted murder of an American citizen. None of what transpired post shooting was the ‘fault’ of Jacob Blake. He was a victim. 
Property was damaged because the state attempted to kill Jacob Blake. Shop owners were assaulted because the state attempted to kill Jacob Blake. A teenage assassin killed two Americans because the state attempted to kill Jacob Blake. 

None of those people would have gathered in that spot had it not been for the actions of one police officer- operating within the parameters advanced by his employer and their benefactors- selecting the option to kill an American citizen if an arrest could not be effected. None of those people would have been endangered if it wasn’t for the casual and commonplace violence visited on Black Americans by law enforcement. 

The phrase No Justice No Peace is not just a slogan- it’s a promise. If this country continues to ignore the presumed social contract it has with Black and brown Americans, there will be no peace. That means that there will be more unrest and more violence and more vigilantes. If this country continues to allow municipal employees to assault and murder civilians with impunity this will just get uglier. 

jamie said:

Blake would have been the forgotten man if there was no video and no one present.

 and not for nothing, but the news reports I read from "corporate" sources did give the caveat that the video did not show what happened before the camera was turned on (and there's no way to know because the Kenosha cops weren't wearing cameras, nor did their cars have dash cams turned on).

terp said:

jamie said:

terp said:

I wouldn't call myself a fan.  I do follow him on twitter.  Why do you ask?

 He's a dope - a Alex Jones protege - 911 Truther.  The video - why did it cut off - why no context the lead up to them following this guy?  I'm glad Youtube demonetized his channel.

 BTW:  good to know there's no cancel culture 

 it's the ad marketplace at work.  Advertiser brands don't want to sponsor certain types of videos on YouTube.