Which side makes a better case?
avatar
23 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    Whatsup with @bronsonkaahui letting his hair grow back?

  • 2 years ago

    People have been uneducated since the dawn of time. It's not a modern phenomenon. There is a reason that the founding fathers etc... were only for landed educated men to vote or hold office. Jefferson, then later Jackson tended to buck that trend, and ultimately the ideals of classic liberalism naturally lead to wider and wider enfranchisement.

  • 2 years ago

    Gary Johnson is Not a principled man and Weld is horrible (they both Love HRC). This is why I don’t think they would actually do anything at all
    https://youtu.be/OsWGdPBbsI0

  • 2 years ago

    I voted draw. I think Pro makes a good case that as the party of principles they are an embarrassment in that they have chosen spokesmen that don't represent those ideas especially well.

    But I don't think he made a case that they are a detriment to the cause of liberty. Con points out that they are still more on the side of liberty than their closest competitors in the political arena, and that to actually make political progress, some flexibility in ideals is simply part of the political process.

    I have libertarian sympathies, in that I think that ideally, the less government the better. But I'm not a party member because I think that there are many challenges we face where government action is the most pragmatic response. If government action proves effective and useful, then I'm fine with it, if it proves problematic and ineffective, then stop it. And if it is unclear or ambiguous, side on the side of less state interference.

    I think that if the world were composed entirely of smart, moral, and kind people then we wouldn't need much government at all. But, it has lots of stupid, immoral and selfish folks so we have to have rules and social movements to make up for that.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried that last paragraph never made sense to me. People are stupid, immoral, and selfish, therefore they should have power over others? LOL!

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Well, the idea is that it doesn't take a lot of bad apples to make a big mess. So you make some rules to keep the bad apples from causing too much damage.

      Though in truth, sometimes it is the majority that are selfish, and the minority that make the rules to put a stop to it.

      Fire codes are a good case in point. Large cities used to burn to the ground fairly often. Buildings were cheap and flammable. Most figured the risk of a fire was not worth the cost. But one mistake and that whole idea went to shit and everyone burned. The way cities are, leaving it up to individuals to make the right choice still means a certain percentage of those making the selfish choice still end up burning down most of the city, and those who made resistant buildings along with them since no building resists a truly raging fire.

      But if you make a rule that everyone in the tightly packed city has a responsibility to make their building less flammable, then huge raging city-wide fires don't really get going in the first palace. Usually, just the one that first catches on fire, and on a really bad day those on the same block.

      Now if everyone thought, wow, it sure would be terrible for the whole city to burn down, I'd better make sure my building won't catch on fire easily, or even if 80% of the people did that, then such laws wouldn't be nessesary.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I'd be okay if the government were limited to only those kinds of things, but that of course is never the case with any government that actually exists, and it also doesn't seem like it would necessarily require a government per se. Maybe only city-state governments are morally justifiable?

  • 2 years ago

    It's amazing that two liberty loving people just agreed that "The media is the enemy" Who needs free press after all. :P