Musings on libertarianism

I recently had a conversation with my ever-liberal friend and former teacher that revolved around many concepts, one today which I will speak about is libertarianism.

He started with the I was part of 'mountain libertarianism' a brand he says runs deep in the area around me. I wondered, was this true? Without immediately responding with something smart, I thought about it for a while, and am still unsure. Ask my friends, and they will (probably only half-jokingly!) say 'fascist'.

I don't know though, I'll put my thoughts down here and see what sorts of comments it might generate. First, I do belive that people should be given chances to prove themselves, or maybe I should rephrase that. People are more or less innocent, until the blow the chance society has given them. More like until the betray society.

But regardless, as you may know, I have very little sympathy for criminals. Making them fight on desert prison planets for entertainment is not only funny to me, but actually if it were possible, would seem like a good idea. But that being said, am I libertarian because I am ok with people going on their own, until they screw up? I'm unsure pure Libt. doctrine, but when an individual screws up, do you keep giving them chances?

I don't know. I just know, when you screw up, based on the serverity of your crime or mistake, approraite intervention should be taken. Prison time should only be used to scare the weakest of our ilk. Labor, or forced (yes FORCED) rehabilition should be ok. Anyone read Clockwork Orange? That was a good idea, it was susposed to be a warning novel, but did a poor job. Kind of like how Brave New World actually was a pretty good idea too. But, I digress. After all, like they said in Startrek, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"...or the one.

I also surpport a lot government action in the face of a lot of things. That is one failing of libt. in my mind, is indivduals running around cannot solve a lot of collective problems. How are roads going to upkept unless we have tolls booths every side street? Want to see proof of libt. influnence cuasing what will be a big problem in the future? Take a look at our energy grid. No one owns in (read government doesn't own it) thus no one has the incentive to pay for upkeep. What happens as it decays in the massive blackouts we have seen the last few years.

Realistically, a collective is so much better then a 'collection of individuals'. Ever try pushing a car single handedly? Hard to impossible based on the slope. But only a few people working together (often not by 'choice', but forced by circumstance) it is do-able.

So maybe what I prefer is a collective we are all part of, and in general will leave you alone (you can have your guns, whatever) but when you are called by society, you are there. When you blow soceity's blessings, you pay the price.

Can pure libertarians win a soccer game? Everyone acting in their own selfish desires, without a larger, overaching autrihorty? Probably not. But what about the team, where they are bound by a higher force together. When it is immaterial for you to being doing anything you are free to flirt with the girls on the side lines, but when you are called to press that attack, clear the ball, pass etc, you had better be on point. Punishment works, as does reward. Ice cream or push ups, it doesn't much matter. Soon these 'motivators' won't even be neccessary, for you don't want to fail, not for yourself, but you don't want to fail for you team. That's how soceity should be run.

Sarah Palin Sucks

Let's be honest here, she is kind of a joke of a candidate, nothing more then a cheap political gimmick to try to claim wayward and disgruntled Hillary voters. Sarah Palin likes guns, woo, here at the Ecotopia, we know that weapons are foolish to ever be abadoned, so she gets a point for this. But just about every other posistion she has is so bad and rediculous (except her tough on crime stances) that this could possibly be one of the worst VP candiadates ever.

Well, to start things off, here is some info regarding how Palin thinks that the iraq war is a task from god.
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/4/palin_iraq_war_a_task_that_is_from_god/

****

(This is from a website i found, here is the link, I believe my links here are inactive, so just go to the site I got this from to read up on any of them: http://www.who-sucks.com/people/13-reasons-why-sarah-palin-sucks)

Here are 16 reasons:

1. A poor record: Her only political experience has been a few years as mayor of a small town in Alaska and less than two years as governor of that state. Her record wasn’t so great: the small town she left behind is now in financial ruin.
2. She has no experience with national level politics. At the time of this posting, many of her views on national policy issues were unknown simply because she is so inexperienced that she hasn’t even made public statements about them. Presidential history scholars believe she may be “the most inexperienced person on a major party ticket in modern history.”
3. She has no foreign policy experience. None.
4. Iraq War? Our country is in the midst of a war, and Palin’s son is going to fight in that war. However, Salon.com reports that she hasn’t even given much thought to the Iraq War, and has no clear opinions about it. Great.
5. She is a creationist, and she wants “creation science” to be taught in public schools.
6. She doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Maybe that’s why she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
7. Not only does she think the government should be telling people who they can and cannot marry, she also thinks that same sex couples should be denied benefits given to straight couples.
8. Palin has been accused of abusing her power as Alaska governor to try to get her ex-brother-in-law fired as a state trooper. An investigation is underway.
9. She has messed up views on wildlife protection. Environmentalists are appalled by her support of a $150-per-wolf bounty program. She’s also supported the use of government money to educate people about how great it is to shoot bears and wolves, and she doesn’t want the polar bear to make it onto the endangered species list.
10. One nation, under stupidity: When defending the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Palin said, “If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” Reality check: The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, long after the founding fathers died. The phrase “one nation under God” was added in 1954….
11. Anti-birth control nutcase- Not only does Palin oppose abortion in all cases, she also opposes the use of birth control in all cases. That includes married couples that want to use condoms or the pill!
12. Politicizing non-political jobs: When she was mayor of small town in Alaska, Palin abused her authority by firing city employees that did not fully support her reelection campaign.
13. She can’t even manage her own family - rumors have given way to an admission from Palin that her teenage daughter is pregnant, and will be having a shotgun marriage to the guy that knocked her up. That’s what abstinence-only education gets you.
14. Ninja editing: Her Wikipedia entry needed to be cleaned up before the public announcement that she was McCain’s VP pick.
15. She has no clue about the role of the Vice President.
16. It is quite clear she was chosen just because of her gender (most Republicans have never even heard of her), and she’s being used as a trick by the McCain campaign to gain some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters.

Anyway, to my readers, take these points seriously, she is one 'heartbeat' away from being the world's most powerful leader, do we truly want someone whose about only good points are her favorable opinion on guns?

Sarah Palin offers money to kill wolves

Palin is offering 150$ per wolf killed (bring in the legs for proof!) is this the VP anyone really wants?

In case you do not know, Alaska has a very cruel aerial 'hunting' program where hunters are flown in low flying planes, chasing down wolves. They follow the wolves for very long times, often till exhaustion, shoot, killing, or maiming them in the process.

It doesn't take a large intelligence to know that wovles are critical to an ecosystem, but you just may have to be told. So many hunters WRONGLY assume dead wovles= more prey.

Well sorry to break it to you elmer, but wolves are actually critical to mainting prey populations. Without wolves (which by the nature only kill the slowest, weakest animals, thereby leaving the better one) prey populations breed so fast, they often destory the plant ecosystem, and kill themselves.

A famous example is an island by new york (the niagra river in fact) that is isolated from the main land, the last predator was removed from there. Within years, the deer population swelled so large that all the food was gone, and all the deer starved, the population hovering right at the brink of extinction (far lower then the predator-level population)

Anyway, enough ecology. Palin is basicly offering money (all libertains agaisnt government spending/waste should take note!) to support the ill-founded hunting lobby. Not only is it hugely immoral to shoot dogs from the plane ((what a cowardly act)) to pay people to do this is atrocious. Consider careful if you like the ecosystem, if you like your dog, or if you like your government wheter palin is a good choice; if she is this stupid just in her own state, what if she got the whole nation?

http://www.care2.com/news/member/338686546/863062
http://www.thebeckoning.com/wolves/response.html