I agree but i think we need more action instead of debate. people need to be more vocal like the greens the squeaky wheel gets the oil so to speak. Look at the crap they get just by whinging lound & long enough.mmm....shiney! said:Newtosilver said:Good luck getting the laws changed
It will happen one day, it's part of man's political and economic evolution. You could say it's a natural and unavoidable progression in the liberty of the individual. You can try and stem the tide newtosilver, but eventually, we'll overwhelm the power of the State with logic and rational debate.
Self defence in Australia (LDP)
- Thread starter yennus
- Start date
mmm....shiney! said:Newtosilver said:Good luck getting the laws changed
It will happen one day, it's part of man's political and economic evolution. ...
Unfortunately I think Newtosilver is probably right... I think statism (i.e. control) will continue to win out (until there is a dramatic shift in geopolitics).
The socialists are everywhere now, from the cradle to the grave. The zombie population blindly believe every word that is flashed before them, and the zombie cronies execute the state's desire with diligence.
The American experiment in freedom was a fluke in history - and the light of freedom is likely to flicker out once the Establishment are back in office.
1984 is here - and we are living on the Animal Farm.
mmm....shiney! said:Newtosilver said:Good luck getting the laws changed
It will happen one day, it's part of man's political and economic evolution. You could say it's a natural and unavoidable progression in the liberty of the individual. You can try and stem the tide newtosilver, but eventually, we'll overwhelm the power of the State with logic and rational debate.
You are delusional, even if you did manage to get the laws changed all it takes is a mass shooting or two and you will have 90% of the population pushing for tighter gun laws and you are back in the same position as you are now
You are in a no win situation.
renovator said:
I wish you were right... but many of the socialists play by a different handbook from those who believe in principles.
As American politics has shown, those who stand for freedom can often be expected to pay a heavy price (e.g. intrusive audits, surveillance, bank account closure, etc).
Just look at the recent IRS scandal:
"At every turn, Lerner was using the IRS as a tool for political purposes in defiance of taxpayer rights." Senator Chuck Grassley
yennus said:
What percentage of the vote did they get before changing the party name to LIBERAL democrats? A good percentage of the vote they get comes from people who thinkmthey are voting for the Liberals. Lehmijohn even described himself as the donkey vote senator.
Newtosilver said:mmm....shiney! said:Newtosilver said:Good luck getting the laws changed
It will happen one day, it's part of man's political and economic evolution. You could say it's a natural and unavoidable progression in the liberty of the individual. You can try and stem the tide newtosilver, but eventually, we'll overwhelm the power of the State with logic and rational debate.
You are delusional, even if you did manage to get the laws changed all it takes is a mass shooting or two and you will have 90% of the population pushing for tighter gun laws and you are back in the same position as you are now
That doesn't make sense.
If as I suggest, libertarian ideals are the culmination of the evolutionary process of political man, then when the time comes where the vast majority of individuals hold libertarianism as their preferred method of social organisation, a mass shooting will not result in 90% of the population pushing for anti-libertarian laws.
They'll be screaming for the heads of private security providers.
mmm....shiney! said:Newtosilver said:mmm....shiney! said:
You are delusional, even if you did manage to get the laws changed all it takes is a mass shooting or two and you will have 90% of the population pushing for tighter gun laws and you are back in the same position as you are now
That doesn't make sense.
If as I suggest, libertarian ideals are the culmination of the evolutionary process of political man, then when the time comes where the vast majority of individuals hold libertarianism as their preferred method of social organisation, a mass shooting will not result in 90% of the population pushing for anti-libertarian laws.
They'll be screaming for the heads of private security providers.
You are delusional if you believe that.
Those that believe in collectivism are the delusional ones, not the libertarians. They're in denial newtosilver, they've been fed a diet of political and religious falsehoods and don't question what they've been told.
The history of humanity is one of the steady democratisation of both political and economic power. Wealth and power that was once in the hands of a very few has now spread to billions - and it will keep spreading. The State is doomed.
The history of humanity is one of the steady democratisation of both political and economic power. Wealth and power that was once in the hands of a very few has now spread to billions - and it will keep spreading. The State is doomed.
yennus said:"Libertarian NSW senator David Leyonhjelm said the decision had put 800,000 firearms owners in the "deplorables basket", and would incite a rush to minor parties, as occurred at the recent Orange byelection in NSW."
Hopefully this rush continues
Change the party name back to Liberty Democracy Party and watch the numbers fall again
The only reason the numbers increased for the LDP is because they changed the name to LIBERAL Democrat party, don't get me wrong it is a really good way to get more votes. Very deceptive and dishonest but I suppose it gets resultsThe problem you have is the LDP goes to Nimbin for example at the Mardigrass and goes "we are pro pot" and everyone cheers and it is all good, the only problem is that people say "you realise the LDP is pro whaling and Coal Seam Gas?" Then all the pot voters go WTF? And the LDP just lost all the pot smokers votes.
Same with the Gay and Lesbian vote "the LDP supports gay marriage" and all the gay and Lesbians go yay, but then someone tells the gay and lesbians that the LDP is against descrimination laws and buisness owners should be able to descriminate against gay and Lesbians and not hire them due to their sexual preference. Then you get the gay and lesbians going "f##k the LDP"
And it goes on and on
Newtosilver said:... the LDP goes to Nimbin for example at the Mardigrass and goes "we are pro pot" and everyone cheers and it is all good, the only problem is that people say "you realise the LDP is pro whaling and Coal Seam Gas?" Then all the pot voters go WTF? And the LDP just lost all the pot smokers votes...
...
And it goes on and on
It's called principles - rather than political expediency.
But I wouldn't expect lefties to understand the difference.
Newtosilver said:
That's not indicative of a problem with the LDP, it's indicative of the problem with the collective based political process we have.
Unlike most political parties the LDP is a values based organisation not an issue based organisation. The LDP policy platforms are based around upholding individual liberty regardless of the circumstances ie the freedom to act in a manner of the individual's choosing as long as it doesn't cause harm to another.
Pot-smokers that rally for their right to smoke pot without interference from others but rally for their right to ban others from whaling or extracting coal seam gas, or LGBT activists that rally for the right to marry without interference from others but also rally for the right to force their moral code onto others are being inconsistent and disingenuous, attempting to enhance their positions through the power of political intervention - usually at the expense of others. Libertarians on the other hand uphold the sovereignty of the individual and as such they can apply their values consistently.
Mainstream politics externalises the cost of the decision making process, libertarian politics internalises it.
yennus said:
My historical timeframe is a little longer than that.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the evolution of human society from tribal times, where power was held by a few warriors and women and the weak were second-class citizens, through the origins of early States where tribes forged alliances and fought under a common leader, then feudal times and an aristocratic/religious ruling, then onto the industrial revolution which liberated millions from the aristocrats and saw the beginning of the demise of the Church, and finally our Western style democracies. It's a history of the decay of collectivism and the rise of individualism.
And there is more to come in the evolution of political man.
yennus said:
