Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Is the Libertarian View Valid?

Thanks for the belly laugh, Skidrow. Whatever the deal is, the nature of freedom really does warrant discussion and not only in fora such as this, but on Channel Whatever on the tube, on radio, in all print media, and on street corners and in town halls. The big question is, what will the future be like if we DON'T have these discussions?
And the answer to THAT makes me want to load MORE AMMO.

Barak and Hawkeye: After having read through all this with great pains ( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />), I understand your positions a lot better.
Hawkeye, you seem to express what I hold as my views purdy good! I did not realize that before.

Barak, I think it would behoove you to look at the feudalistic societies that existed in Europe, particularly what is now Germany. They had local laws, local morals, local governments. The problem? Traveling and trade was near impossible due to countless local restrictions and laws. Measures and weigths, as well as currency was non-standard. Everything was fractured/splintered.
Maybe you have not considered this, but a strong economy, even a strong society would be near impossible. I do realize, however, that you may not be interested in that in the first place.

This is all very interesting!! I've never seen the libertarian system broke down as it is here.

The issue of people being responsible for their actions to others within the community is very good. Under the present system the govt. or I should say the taxpayers are stuck paying the bill for those who engage in illegal activities.

We pay for the prosecution, the incarceration, medical and many other areas. I could see if it was something like roads and water and sewer. This is something that most people use. Some places in this country, there are some commonsense elected officials. I happen to work for one who has the feeling that why should people be forced to pay for something that most don't use.

I work for a Sheriff, that tries to do whatever it takes for those who have violated laws to pay themselves, versus the taxpayers in the county. Statistically 80% of the citizens in the US are those who, mind their own business, and do what's legally right. The 20% that doesn't, ends up being involved with 80% of the resources of LE.

Two of the biggest expenses, operations of criminal investigations and jail/medical expenses. One type of investigation is that of narcotics. I am not talking about the person with a roach, I am speaking reference to felony organized narcotics. It's expensive to conduct the surveillance, use of night vision cameras and other electronic equipment.

You can say it wouldn't cost squat if you didn't investigate. The problem is most people involved in organized criminal activities such as narcotics, are also theives!! and this has a direct impact upon the citizens in the community, with them stealing from their neighbors, friends and family.

We use a task force type program within the county, where all monies seized and proceeds (veh. auctions) etc.and 50% of all drug citations, go into a drug fund, that pays for salaries, equipment, weapons, vehicles etc. and those involved are tried through a special drug court, in which the prosecuter, judge, and clerks etc. are all paid through this drug fund and NO!! tax dollars are used, it supports itself. Those persons who are involved in this illegal activity pay their way through the system.

The other big expense is medical treatment while in jail. Many people have what's known as substance abuse medical conditions, liver problems-alcohol, hepititus-narcotics related, enlarged heart-result from smoking crack. The Sheriff considers this due to choices that the person made, they didn't have to put these toxins in their body and the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for their choices.

We all pay for our own medical, either through insurance or upfront or whatever. Our quest is to try and find familymembers of those incarcerated and try to get them to be responsible for their own family, we can't make them, but we allow them to make donations to that persons medical fund. If those people in the hospital have any property or anything of value, a request through civil court is made that these things be sold and the proceeds go towards medical expenses.

This may not be much, but it adds up and helps to do two primary things, one is helps lower the amount of funding that's normally collected through property taxes. I am not real fond of property tax anyway, why should I have to pay taxes on something that I am paying for anyway, mortgage, banknote, etc., but at least that money is being spent in my own county,(in TN. anyway, not familiar with property taxes in rest of US) not at the state or fed. govt. level.

The second thing that this program does is it makes people responsible for their actions, it's not going to be a free ride. For many people who have had various levels of govt. assistance, or have made their living through criminal activities. This is the first time that they have had to be responsible for themselves.

It is nice to see how some departments, such as yours, take care of expenses like that. I hope it never gets challenged as "unconstitutional" or crap like that, as that seems to be a trend these days.

As I stated earlier this libertarian is an interesting concept of govt. Are their any countries who use this type of govt. or some type of this philosophy within their govt.? Could this truly be implemented in the US, under our current beliefs of govt.?

Would a catastrophic event have to occur such as, let's say a coup, civil war, or economic depression or basically a complete failure of the current type of govt. before this could be implemented? It has truly gotten to where govt. agencies within the same branch of govt. are feuding, fighting etc. among themselves over the fact that "Mine is bigger then yours" concept. A good example of this is the agencies, within the justice dept. They can't do a darn thing together without one trying to stroke the other one. Less is basically the answer in govt.

Let's just say for instance, the libertarian party, put up a presidential candidate and this person took off like wild fire and was elected. Not by a large majority, but enough to get by. What would happen then? Would they start slicing and dicing, the established fed. govt.? How many years do you think it would take to eliminate what's in existence now? When you think that the current political parties have been in power for hundreds of years. How would you go about changing peoples philosophy about many things? such as attitudes towards one another and responsibility for your actions, without the fear of laws and all the established legal and criminal BS as it is today?

The old concept of changing someones mind and their heart will follow may have to be put into use. Many people who have the power, money etc. are fat, dumb and happy with the way things are now. Without sounding like a commie. would the newly established libertarian govt. have to retrain the people, with the implement of reeducation procedures, to those who have all been so use to the past? I damn sure don't have the answer, and I don't know how many years we'll be able to continue with the current system, before the top is blown off.

I know I don't want to see a civil war or some other terrible end to our govt. we all know it's not the best, but it's better then many. I like most of you work hard, for what we have, and wouldn't want to jeopardize, my family, my home, land and toys, boat, fourwheelers etc.(that my sound selfish to many). I do know that to get better, you have to give somethings up. I don't truly know if the change can come from the top (fed govt.) down. It may take a grassroots approach from the city/county level up to the state level and then eventually up to the feds. to implement a new idea of govt.

With an election year coming up, if you know people who have the ability and the desire to make changes in the current govt. in your city,town,county. Back them up, and get as many people behind them as you can. They may not win every decision that's made, but at least they'll split the vote, and make it harder for those who want to do things the established way.

Well, I think it's a nice concepts, albeit utopian at this point in time.
I don't think I have ever heard of a government in history that reduced itself in size.

Hey there, I just came to this site by way of internal discord on another site that I frequent.
I just wanted to say, if this is the way that y'all have discussions around here; I'll be back.
This was/is an interesting thread, thank you all.

Anytime pard.