Libertarians Are Terrorists, According To The Federal Govt

[Lounge Daddy]

The real terrorists, according to the Statists, are not people threatening you or me. The Political Class doesn't care about us. That's the simple truth.

The real terrorists, for Statists, are anyone subscribing to a political view that suggests that we should have less Government. That's a threat to the never-ending power-grab of the Statists. That's terror for them. And that fact explains quite a lot of the State's actions.

That's why our Founding Fathers were considered terrorists and charged with treason by the King of England. And our Founding Fathers would be considered terrorists today.

Today American [url="http://loungedaddy.us/?p=211"]people are being charged for terrorism for non-violent crimes[/url]. Or[url="http://loungedaddy.us/?p=117"] for things that were never crimes before[/url].

Now [url="http://loungedaddy.us/?p=350"]intelligence reports are[/url] painting people who support the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, Ron Paul, or any other libertarian group (like the Campaign for Liberty) as domestic terrorists. Images of the report are [url="http://loungedaddy.us/junk/?p=11"]HERE[/url].

[dairygirl4u2c]

when libertarian starts to border on anarchy, it is essetially terrorism. ie, "shut down teh FDA" says ron paul. what about drug and food safety? stuff like that seems a little crazy to most people, and i'd argue rightly so.
there are obviously shades of libertariansism though, and it all isn't bad.

[dairygirl4u2c]

but yeah most of those examples weren't terrorist that you linked to. the laws should have been ruled too vague to eb constutitional, or at least not applied to them, or something.

[Didymus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1813229' date='Mar 21 2009, 10:55 AM']when libertarian starts to border on anarchy, it is essetially terrorism. ie, "shut down teh FDA" says ron paul. what about drug and food safety? stuff like that seems a little crazy to most people, and i'd argue rightly so.
there are obviously shades of libertariansism though, and it all isn't bad.[/quote]


Ron Paul's problem with the FDA is that it is not a Constitutionally legitimate entity of the Federal Government.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1813385' date='Mar 21 2009, 04:34 PM']Ron Paul's problem with the FDA is that it is not a Constitutionally legitimate entity of the Federal Government.[/quote]

But if you ignore all the food recalls that happen as a result of people getting sick from bad food every year, you can clearly see what a great investment in Government the FDA is.

[kujo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1813229' date='Mar 21 2009, 11:55 AM']when libertarian starts to border on anarchy, it is essetially terrorism. ie, "shut down teh FDA" says ron paul. what about drug and food safety? stuff like that seems a little crazy to most people, and i'd argue rightly so.
there are obviously shades of libertariansism though, and it all isn't bad.[/quote]

How do you classify libertarianism (or any political ideology) as "essentially terrorism?" What definition of terrorism are you using? Most academics and people in our government would define "terrorism" as violence against civilians for the purpose of political goals. So, if this is the case, how is anarchy (i.e.- the belief that the State, and all of its apparatuses, should be abolished) "essentially terrorism?"

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='kujo' post='1814202' date='Mar 22 2009, 05:18 PM']How do you classify libertarianism (or any political ideology) as "essentially terrorism?" What definition of terrorism are you using? Most academics and people in our government would define "terrorism" as violence against civilians for the purpose of political goals. So, if this is the case, how is anarchy (i.e.- the belief that the State, and all of its apparatuses, should be abolished) "essentially terrorism?"[/quote]

Government Good. Freedom Baaaaaaaaa-d.

[img]http://ocw.usu.edu/University_Extension/sheep-and-lambing-management/sheep.jpg[/img]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1813385' date='Mar 21 2009, 04:34 PM']Ron Paul's problem with the FDA is that it is not a Constitutionally legitimate entity of the Federal Government.[/quote]

it's not unconstitutional. regulating most things relating to food and drugs, i'd argue, is constitutional, as it's reasonably related to commerce, per the commerce clause.
there might be some things, like someone trying to sell drugs out of their house, not involving interstate commerce, that could get into gray territory, but.
even if it's gray, or questionable, are we to be legalists? even if he doesn't think it reasonably relatd to ommerce, it's still legalistic, imho. the const isn't meant to be an encyclopedia. (which i guess goes more to the 'reasonbly related' argument. but. otherwise we'd have a lbrary for a constitution passing things that everyone wants (or lunatics don't want), like the FDA.
the populist lay folk ish understanding of all this stuff would be against legalism. it seems like peole use 'common sense' to be against things like this when it's something they don't like, and 'common sense' to be for things they do like.

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1813416' date='Mar 21 2009, 05:22 PM']But if you ignore all the food recalls that happen as a result of people getting sick from bad food every year, you can clearly see what a great investment in Government the FDA is.[/quote]

think of all the more diseases etc that would result.
especially drugs, all the people who would be dying etc.
sure there's downsides to the FDA,beuracracy etc.
it blows my mind there are people who think like him, and you, on this.

[quote name='kujo' post='1814202' date='Mar 22 2009, 07:18 PM']How do you classify libertarianism (or any political ideology) as "essentially terrorism?" What definition of terrorism are you using? Most academics and people in our government would define "terrorism" as violence against civilians for the purpose of political goals. So, if this is the case, how is anarchy (i.e.- the belief that the State, and all of its apparatuses, should be abolished) "essentially terrorism?"[/quote]

i concede it's not essentially terrorism. it's analogous, in an indirect, imperfect way. (in that sense "essentially" it is. i was biting my lip when i said it

[Lounge Daddy]

Seeing as there are people getting sick on some food product every year, I would say the FDA program smells of elderberries. It's only the Government trying to get you to believe that you need it, and justify taxing you.

If the only parties involved were the buyer and the seller, it blows my mind that you think businesses would willingly kill off their customers and expose themselves to lawsuits and, of course, no customers.

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1814437' date='Mar 22 2009, 09:51 PM']think of all the more diseases etc that would result.
especially drugs, all the people who would be dying etc.
sure there's downsides to the FDA,beuracracy etc.
it blows my mind there are people who think like him, and you, on this.[/quote]

What diseases has the FDA prevented? What drugs has it put on the market?

[Nihil Obstat]

I think libertarianism would be 'essentially terrorism' if you wanted to *forcefully* tear down existing structures.
That's a big if though. I don't think Lounge Daddy wants to bomb the FDA.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this is in the realm of things you take for granted, cause you never see how much it protects ya.
like the EPA, people in fact die from too much smoke- they decide who much smoke is acceptable and how much death is too. or, how rivers used to catch fire before water standards were created, etc.
the same is the case with teh FDA. thnk about drugs and side effects, think about all the problems that exist in guinea pig trials, that would be happening to the populace instead. think of the call backs the FDA has done and mitigated food crisis's. it's common sense. that you have to ask makes me wonder...

people who want to get rid of the FDA, are insane, imbecils. (if they never change their views. everyone has to start somewhere,granted.). like someone who never grows out of late night dorm room arguments of socialism v. communism, everytyhing is black and white, artificial world. there's just no way to nice it up, to be PC.
instead of getting rid of the FDA, the following would be acceptable, nonlunatic argumetns: 1. reform the FDA. lighten up the process for some things. let more people be guinea pigs, sooner, if they want. 2. make the FDA mroe constitutioally friendly, cause it's not all unconstitutioal, some does in fact reasonably related to interstate commerce.
etc etc
you guys have poitns that too much buracracy is bad, and law suits cna be bad etc, but you're going the wrong route to the solution, if it's to get rid of the FDA. it's not an either or situation.

you're just wrong
be men, and own up

[T-Bone _]

[quote]people who want to get rid of the FDA, are insane, imbecils. (if they never change their views. everyone has to start somewhere,granted.).[/quote]

People who don't want to get rid of the FDA are insane imbecils.

(See how easy that is? Get a real argument, and answer my question.)

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1814882' date='Mar 23 2009, 02:37 PM']this is in the realm of things you take for granted, cause you never see how much it protects ya.
like the EPA, people in fact die from too much smoke- they decide who much smoke is acceptable and how much death is too. or, how rivers used to catch fire before water standards were created, etc.
the same is the case with teh FDA. thnk about drugs and side effects, think about all the problems that exist in guinea pig trials, that would be happening to the populace instead. think of the call backs the FDA has done and mitigated food crisis's. it's common sense. that you have to ask makes me wonder...[/quote]

Gosh, I didn't realise that there was a major problem with rivers bursting into flames up until 1970.

And you don't think that private companies can decide all on their own that having products tested before marketing them is good for business? They need to be told to do it by Government?

If having a great big Government tell you that they really care about "protecting" you makes you feel good -- then good for you. As Government gets bigger and biger, you should be feeling safer and safer. Because to be consistent by your own point of view, that's the conclusion that it leads to.

[Winchester]

Terrorism is not synonymous with revolution. Not every group that uses violence to acheive its goals is a terrorist entity.

Our language is degrading because the stupid have access to mass communication and the simpering weenies in academia won't oppose the destruction of our language.