Ronald Reagan's Uniting Principles

[Phatscotty]

Reagan on individual freedoms????

Isn't he the one that instituted drug testing for some government employees?

Is that your sense of individual freedoms and liberties Scotty?

Someone want to let Notyou2 in on the "secret" about why we don't want drug users driving our government vehicles etc....

And this ladies and gentlemen is the definition of a hypocrite.

Thanks for the demonstration Scotty, it was spot on.

He was being immature. You have joined him. Congratulations. As if you clowns actually believe a piss test is the epitome of the individual freedom argument.

Go right ahead geniuses, pick your sides on the philosophy of individual freedom based on a piss test for government drivers.... x a billion You two should put your heads together and come up with a better poke, like "we have the right to drive without a drivers license!"

[BigBallinStalin]

There's freedom of association, meaning that you are free to associate yourself with any group, as long as it's not a conspiracy to create harm. If you join voluntarily, then there's a contract which details each party's responsibility and yada yada. If that contract states, "drug tests are mandatory," then you can choose to turn it down, or you can choose to accept--depending on whatever your perceived costs and benefits are.

This isn't in violation of libertarianism, which does adhere to individual freedom, but with certain constraints like negative rights, property rights, and the non-aggression axiom, which basically states that you can't initiate violence against others. I don't see how Phatscotty's support for drug tests on government employees makes him a hypocrite in this regard.

Individual freedom itself, however that's defined for others, seems to entail a "I can do whatever I want" idea, and if PS adheres to this, then sure, he's being a hypocrite by supporting the government's decision to drug test government employees, but hardly anyone accepts this vulgar form of individual freedom, so perhaps the criticism against PS has been misplaced.

[Haggis_McMutton]

He was being immature. You have joined him. Congratulations. As if you clowns actually believe a piss test is the epitome of the individual freedom argument.

Go right ahead geniuses, pick your sides on the philosophy of individual freedom based on a piss test for government drivers.... x a billion You two should put your heads together and come up with a better poke, like "we have the right to drive without a drivers license!"

So just to make clear, individual freedom is only important in the areas you deem important.

Small government is only important in the areas you want it to be small, in the others big government is still cool. Yeah?

I can't tell if you genuinely think like that (government should do exactly what I WANT it to do), or if you're willing to sacrifice your ideals so that you can still hero worship some actor/politician.

There's freedom of association, meaning that you are free to associate yourself with any group, as long as it's not a conspiracy to create harm. If you join voluntarily, then there's a contract which details each party's responsibility and yada yada. If that contract states, "drug tests are mandatory," then you can choose to turn it down, or you can choose to accept--depending on whatever your perceived costs and benefits are.

Doesn't the existence of a central government and federal laws and shit kinda screw up that free market perspective?
If we're talking about walmart deciding it wants to drug test it's employees, then yeah, government policy, not so sure.

This isn't in violation of libertarianism, which does adhere to individual freedom, but with certain constraints like negative rights, property rights, and the non-aggression axiom, which basically states that you can't initiate violence against others. I don't see how Phatscotty's support for drug tests on government employees makes him a hypocrite in this regard.

How do drugs violate any of those constraints. ?

[Phatscotty]

No. Your assumptions are wrong. Your bias is too thick on this one

[BigBallinStalin]

He was being immature. You have joined him. Congratulations. As if you clowns actually believe a piss test is the epitome of the individual freedom argument.

Go right ahead geniuses, pick your sides on the philosophy of individual freedom based on a piss test for government drivers.... x a billion You two should put your heads together and come up with a better poke, like "we have the right to drive without a drivers license!"

So just to make clear, individual freedom is only important in the areas you deem important.

Small government is only important in the areas you want it to be small, in the others big government is still cool. Yeah?

I can't tell if you genuinely think like that (government should do exactly what I WANT it to do), or if you're willing to sacrifice your ideals so that you can still hero worship some actor/politician.

There's freedom of association, meaning that you are free to associate yourself with any group, as long as it's not a conspiracy to create harm. If you join voluntarily, then there's a contract which details each party's responsibility and yada yada. If that contract states, "drug tests are mandatory," then you can choose to turn it down, or you can choose to accept--depending on whatever your perceived costs and benefits are.

Doesn't the existence of a central government and federal laws and shit kinda screw up that free market perspective?
If we're talking about walmart deciding it wants to drug test it's employees, then yeah, government policy, not so sure.

Yeah, you bet'cha it does. Some people resent casting away some goods which an organization provides via involuntary exchanges (e.g. taxation), so some (or most?) libertarians are called "min-archists," i.e. minimal anarchists. So, there's that problem within Libertarianism, but the concept of "pure" free markets is definitely anarcho-capitalism. Laws and regulation emerge through the market process (which includes social exchanges) but not through political means like legislation.

This isn't in violation of libertarianism, which does adhere to individual freedom, but with certain constraints like negative rights, property rights, and the non-aggression axiom, which basically states that you can't initiate violence against others. I don't see how Phatscotty's support for drug tests on government employees makes him a hypocrite in this regard.

How do drugs violate any of those constraints. ?

There's contract law. You agree to certain rules if you want to work with company A or enter property B.

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

In a Libertarian society, with "limited" government, who knows. I want to say that all drugs would be legal as well (with the above exception depending on property rights), but there's that concept of "limited government," i.e. how strongly they adhere to classical liberal principles, so it's difficult for me to say. I think people tend to conflate libertarianism with classical liberalism, and this is where their internal conflict begins.

[BigBallinStalin]

No. Your assumptions are wrong. Your bias is too thick on this one

Good 'ol Phatsco! Never clarifying his stance until strongly urged to do so--assuming that all the Dodge Attempts are unsuccessful.

[Haggis_McMutton]

There's contract law. You agree to certain rules if you want to work with company A or enter property B.

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

In a Libertarian society, with "limited" government, who knows. I want to say that all drugs would be legal as well (with the above exception depending on property rights), but there's that concept of "limited government," i.e. how strongly they adhere to classical liberal principles, so it's difficult for me to say. I think people tend to conflate libertarianism with classical liberalism, and this is where their internal conflict begins.

Yep, I pretty much agree with everything you've said.

I'm just saying, the limitation on using certain drugs is not only pretty random (alcohol good, pot bad) but can only stem from some sort of "government knows best" mentality.
Which is why I see it as extremely hypocritical that Scotty spends his days posting videos like that ^^^ and then defends such a government measure. Apparently it's terrible that government takes money out of our pockets, but government deciding what we can put in our bodies(and spending god knows how much money to enforce it), why that's cool.

@Scotty: can you tell me at what minute and second that video explains why government should regulate drugs?

[Baron Von PWN]

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

I feel this paragraph somewhat reveals the problem with anarcho-capitalism and its ideological bros.

Individual groups or organizations become sovereign. Essentially they have all the power to decide their rules from within. that's supposed to be fine, due to free association. However individual groups are sovereign, what if they decided free association for some, slavery for others. They can hoard their power and then use it to oppress others.

I feel like the theory would just be like hitting a reset button and going back to a medieval level political fragmentation which would see the whole agonizing history of statehood repeated.

[Phatscotty]

There's contract law. You agree to certain rules if you want to work with company A or enter property B.

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

In a Libertarian society, with "limited" government, who knows. I want to say that all drugs would be legal as well (with the above exception depending on property rights), but there's that concept of "limited government," i.e. how strongly they adhere to classical liberal principles, so it's difficult for me to say. I think people tend to conflate libertarianism with classical liberalism, and this is where their internal conflict begins.

Yep, I pretty much agree with everything you've said.

I'm just saying, the limitation on using certain drugs is not only pretty random (alcohol good, pot bad) but can only stem from some sort of "government knows best" mentality.
Which is why I see it as extremely hypocritical that Scotty spends his days posting videos like that ^^^ and then defends such a government measure. Apparently it's terrible that government takes money out of our pockets, but government deciding what we can put in our bodies(and spending god knows how much money to enforce it), why that's cool.

@Scotty: can you tell me at what minute and second that video explains why government should regulate drugs?

I don't have to defend every single thing Ronald Reagan did. Especially not the irrelevant left-fielders Notyou2 picks out of his ass. And now you are jumping from government urine tests to telling you what you can and can't put in your bodies (assuming everyone is forced to work for the government??)

That video does not address drugs, and just because another poster brought it up is no reason to jump all over my shit LOL. Maybe you need to start this thread from the beginning.

[Phatscotty]

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

what if they decided free association for some, slavery for others. They can hoard their power and then use it to oppress others.

We already have that... The slaves are called "workers" the free associater is the "free loader" and trillion dollar ObamaCare, trillion dollar bailouts, and trillion dollar stimulus bills are where the power is being hoarded, and Obama is the current Oppressor.

[Baron Von PWN]

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

what if they decided free association for some, slavery for others. They can hoard their power and then use it to oppress others.

We already have that... The slaves are called "workers" the free associater is the "free loader" and trillion dollar ObamaCare, trillion dollar bailouts, and trillion dollar stimulus bills are where the power is being hoarded, and Obama is the current Oppressor.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I don't have to defend every single thing Ronald Reagan did. Especially not the irrelevant left-fielders Notyou2 picks out of his ass. And now you are jumping from government urine tests to telling you what you can and can't put in your bodies (assuming everyone is forced to work for the government??)

That video does not address drugs, and just because another poster brought it up is no reason to jump all over my shit LOL. Maybe you need to start this thread from the beginning.

You don't have to but apparently you choose to.

When ny2 posted that you didn't respond: "Yes Reagan screwed up there, but imo that issue is not very important", instead you had a knee-jerk reaction to protect your hero. Damn the principles, it's the idol that counts.

Was Reagan pro legalization of drugs? If not he did think he knew better than his citizens what they should and shouldn't put in their bodies. You posted the video while presumably addresing me. I guess you think it's normal to post random youtube videos in the middle of a debate.

We already have that... The slaves are called "workers" the free associater is the "free loader" and trillion dollar ObamaCare, trillion dollar bailouts, and trillion dollar stimulus bills are where the power is being hoarded, and Obama is the current Oppressor.

You haven't god the faintest clue what living in a true oppressive state feels like and you cheapen the suffering of millions by talking about the US as if it's North Korea.

[oVo]

Have the dollars trickled down to you yet?

[BigBallinStalin]

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

I feel this paragraph somewhat reveals the problem with anarcho-capitalism and its ideological bros.

Individual groups or organizations become sovereign. Essentially they have all the power to decide their rules from within. that's supposed to be fine, due to free association. However individual groups are sovereign, what if they decided free association for some, slavery for others. They can hoard their power and then use it to oppress others.

I feel like the theory would just be like hitting a reset button and going back to a medieval level political fragmentation which would see the whole agonizing history of statehood repeated.

Well, you'd have a robust system of competitive legal systems. They could be FOCJs in a quasi-anarcho-capitalist society, or totally private courts. Enslaving someone for the sake of "i wanna do that" won't cut it under those legal systems. It's a violation of civil liberties. So, if some group decided that they wanted to start enslaving people against their will, then they'd have to eat the costs of all the legal problems while running into private security organizations, which will make their endeavor very unprofitable.

However, slavery could be acceptable as a form of punishment for 1st degree murder, or maybe not. It's up to these people to decide.

My main criticism against anarcho-capitalism is that people would naturally form governments, which would over time expand, as the US has been doing and as has pretty much any major power out there.

Feudalism? I don't think so.

[Baron Von PWN]

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

I feel this paragraph somewhat reveals the problem with anarcho-capitalism and its ideological bros.

Individual groups or organizations become sovereign. Essentially they have all the power to decide their rules from within. that's supposed to be fine, due to free association. However individual groups are sovereign, what if they decided free association for some, slavery for others. They can hoard their power and then use it to oppress others.

I feel like the theory would just be like hitting a reset button and going back to a medieval level political fragmentation which would see the whole agonizing history of statehood repeated.

Well, you'd have a robust system of competitive legal systems. They could be FOCJs in a quasi-anarcho-capitalist society, or totally private courts. Enslaving someone for the sake of "i wanna do that" won't cut it under those legal systems. It's a violation of civil liberties. So, if some group decided that they wanted to start enslaving people against their will, then they'd have to eat the costs of all the legal problems while running into private security organizations, which will make their endeavor very unprofitable.

However, slavery could be acceptable as a form of punishment for 1st degree murder, or maybe not. It's up to these people to decide.

My main criticism against anarcho-capitalism is that people would naturally form governments, which would over time expand, as the US has been doing and as has pretty much any major power out there.

Feudalism? I don't think so.

This is essentially what I meant by groups having sovereignty. Since they can make their own laws eventually someone would be powerful enough to impose their will regardless of voluntary exchange.

I only used medieval Europe as an example due to its small political units, not due to my thinking it would look like medieval Europe.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is essentially what I meant by groups having sovereignty. Since they can make their own laws eventually someone would be powerful enough to impose their will regardless of voluntary exchange.

So, Group Bully will be powerful enough to illegally take things from protected clients without sufficient legal repercussions and without a sufficient response from the private security organizations? How so? Walk me through that process.


EDIT: for me, that rising "government" would still face problems from the groups protected under their own legal and security organizations. Essentially, what you're saying is that this government, or Group Bully, would somehow overpower the other groups? How?

[Phatscotty]

No. Your assumptions are wrong. Your bias is too thick on this one

Good 'ol Phatsco! Never clarifying his stance until strongly urged to do so--assuming that all the Dodge Attempts are unsuccessful.

Clarifying my stance.... on what?

[Phatscotty]

I don't have to defend every single thing Ronald Reagan did. Especially not the irrelevant left-fielders Notyou2 picks out of his ass. And now you are jumping from government urine tests to telling you what you can and can't put in your bodies (assuming everyone is forced to work for the government??)

That video does not address drugs, and just because another poster brought it up is no reason to jump all over my shit LOL. Maybe you need to start this thread from the beginning.

You don't have to but apparently you choose to.

When ny2 posted that you didn't respond: "Yes Reagan screwed up there, but imo that issue is not very important", instead you had a knee-jerk reaction to protect your hero. Damn the principles, it's the idol that counts.

Was Reagan pro legalization of drugs? If not he did think he knew better than his citizens what they should and shouldn't put in their bodies.

We already have that... The slaves are called "workers" the free associater is the "free loader" and trillion dollar ObamaCare, trillion dollar bailouts, and trillion dollar stimulus bills are where the power is being hoarded, and Obama is the current Oppressor.

You haven't god the faintest clue what living in a true oppressive state feels like and you cheapen the suffering of millions by talking about the US as if it's North Korea.

I don't see what legalization of drugs or piss tests have to do with anything, other than Ny's attempts at trolling, and just because I have not lived in an oppressive state does not disqualify me from sharing the principles of Freedom and Liberty or Ronald Reagan.

If you guys want to talk about drugs.....what do you want to talk about. All I can see so far is that NY2 declared my position for me, and Haggis called me a hypocrite for being defined by NY2. You call that debate?

The video I posted is to talk about Liberty, which is what I am talking about.

[BigBallinStalin]

No. Your assumptions are wrong. Your bias is too thick on this one

Good 'ol Phatsco! Never clarifying his stance until strongly urged to do so--assuming that all the Dodge Attempts are unsuccessful.

Clarifying my stance.... on what?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169129&start=15#p3694700

See "individual freedom" part.

You know how Ronald Reagan supports "individual freedom," yet imposes mandatory drug tests on all government employees (except for an exclusive club within the CDC and perhaps in other departments as well depending on their own discretion).


I tried to clarify your stance [ur=http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169129&start=15#p3694523]here[/url], but I'm not sure if you're libertarian, or if you choose individual freedom in certain circumstances but not in others for reasons which only you know.

[Phatscotty]

No. Your assumptions are wrong. Your bias is too thick on this one

Good 'ol Phatsco! Never clarifying his stance until strongly urged to do so--assuming that all the Dodge Attempts are unsuccessful.

Clarifying my stance.... on what?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169129&start=15#p3694700

See "individual freedom" part.

You know how Ronald Reagan supports "individual freedom," yet imposes mandatory drug tests on all government employees (except for an exclusive club within the CDC and perhaps in other departments as well depending on their own discretion).


I tried to clarify your stance [ur=http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=169129&start=15#p3694523]here[/url], but I'm not sure if you're libertarian, or if you choose individual freedom in certain circumstances but not in others for reasons which only you know.

Okay.....What exactly is it that Ronald Reagan did. Can you guys share the law he signed so I have a clue what you are talking about? Can we start there?

[BigBallinStalin]

See the mock thread of this one for that evidence on drug tests.


What I don't get is that you love toting about "Freedom and Liberty," but you never really explain what you mean. If you support Reagan and his warmongering, his deficit spending, his increased military spending, etc., all at the expense of taxpayers (via violating their property rights through taxation) at that time and for future generations (repaying debt), then please explain how these main policies of his promote "Freedom and Liberty."


Explain what you mean by "individual freedom," "Liberty, "and Freedom" and a lot of these problems melt away (for us).

[Phatscotty]

See the mock thread of this one for that evidence on drug tests.


What I don't get is that you love toting about "Freedom and Liberty," but you never really explain what you mean. If you support Reagan and his warmongering, his deficit spending, his increased military spending, etc., all at the expense of taxpayers (via violating their property rights through taxation) at that time and for future generations (repaying debt), then please explain how these main policies of his promote "Freedom and Liberty."


Explain what you mean by "individual freedom," "Liberty, "and Freedom" and a lot of these problems melt away (for us).

Cutting taxes. The bill he signed allowed people to keep more of the fruits of their own labor. This is a plus for freedom and liberty. Do you agree so far?

I never expect for a president to do a perfect job, or fix something 100%, or ignore the Congress that controls the spending. I only judge presidents as moving something more in the right direction or less on a given issue.

[Nola_Lifer]

Everyone like Reagan because he was a famous movie star. Look at California and the Governator. You just need to be the most popular kid to win the Presidency. f*ck Regan and his trickle down economics and his war on drugs. The only thing that scotty ever sees on any political argument is taxes and his belief in liberties.

[Phatscotty]

Everyone like Reagan because he was a famous movie star. Look at California and the Governator. You just need to be the most popular kid to win the Presidency. f*ck Regan and his trickle down economics and his war on drugs. The only thing that scotty ever sees on any political argument is taxes and his belief in liberties.

What is wrong with having some issues that are more important than other issues???? You guys are getting really weird in this thread....

[notyou2]

Phatty, I am tired of you bitching, whining and complaining about how big government is, and the next post is the government should institute drug tests for the welfare recipients.

Then you moan AGAIN that government is too big and should not be doing anything, yet you drive on the roads that government builds and maintains, you attend the schools, you go to the hospital, yada yada yada to infinitum.


You sir are a HUGE hypocrite. You can't even decide what to say. You need some dimwit political commentary to decide for you.


Get your head out of your ass and take a real look around.

Or perhaps you are so high that you can't discern reality from Phatty's playland.

I hope it is the latter.