50 votes

Why is it acceptable to occupy 148 countries but not let a vet occupy

a bank owned, foreclosed home?

https://twitter.com/Ian56...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why is it acceptable?

Neither is acceptable.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

I am NOT Libertarian

I am a strong advocate of COMMON SENSE thinking.

The two are not necessarily the same thing.

The application of Libertarianism as often espoused on this thread is definitely not the same thing as COMMON SENSE.
Not enough thought has gone into them, or thinking beyond standard Libertarian dogma.
No heed has been paid of the human condition.
No attempt has been made to understand the other 98%+ of the American public who would not currently describe themselves as Libertarians.

Therein lies a fundamental truth of why Ron Paul will not be President.

I saved this a while back.
I thought it was a good explanation of Libertarian thinking and had some very useful ideas on how to project a Libertarian case.
http://ian56commonsense.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/small-governm...

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

What don't you understand about principle?

You can't get around it by espousing "common sense" repeatedly.
How do you defend that your common sense is better than mine? Or why not uncommon sense?

How does libertarianism (and who said I was libertarian) NOT acknowledge the long term or the human condition? I argue that this ambiguity and willingness to endorse polititcal action not based on a sound philosophy is short sighted.

On the issue itself,
If the government is the middleman in this voluntary agreement, then you are intending to use government resources to promote the event, yes? Whether it's money for advertising, money to cover the time/fuel of the government agent(s) employed in the matter. Which agency are you wanting to perform this negotiation service? Why are we just allocating these resources to one group? Isn't that unfair? Doesn't everyone who is the victim of social injustice deserve to have the government negotiate on their behalf?

If all you are saying is some public officials should make a statement in favor of your program on their own time, then so be it.

Your reply goes a long way to explain why I feel

insulted if I get called a Libertarian because of my support for Ron Paul.

N.B. I said the application of Libertarianism, NOT Libertarianism itself.

Your post does not want to use a VERY POWERFUL political message to publicize and further our cause and gain more supporters.
Some on here got that immediately - you seem to have difficulty with it. Why is that?

It does not want to use real world practical solutions to solve real world problems for the benefit of all.

It wants to go into lots of detail and make hard and fast rules, but I have already stated below the target we should aim for and rough principles of the agreement.

Holding a meeting with the interested parties and then holding a press conference on a successful agreement would hardly cost the earth.
It would be recompensed many many times over by the tiny reduction in future healthcare/psychiatric/social costs from happier vets.
It would SAVE a tiny amount for the taxpayer.

The idea wouldn't work for a lot of other homeless groups, because they are not held in such high esteem as Vets.
Heck - no one said life was fair.
Do what you can to make the world a slightly better place.

Heck if the scheme really took off the banks might end up paying the vets orgs for homeless vets to house, because there might be so much competition between banks eager to join such a scheme.
The vets orgs might even have more money to pay for other things to help other vets.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Hard and fast rules

With lots of details... sounds like thinking something through. "Lots of people on here get what I'm saying, why don't you?"... this is irrelevant. The majority of Americans, like you said, are sheep.

Address and debate a single one of my points and we can continue. "The world isnt fair"... no joke. So why isnt that enough to accept the situation of homeless vets? Its arbitrary to say otherwise. To say it will "spread our message" doing something that is antithetical to our message... I don't understand.

Keep speaking assertions and evasions, and we have nothing to discuss. MY cause is shrinking the power of the state, you seem to want to legitimize it. So, don't tell me I'm hurting "our" message.

so everyone go ahead and occupy a bank owned home

what happens next? government bail them banks out? forcing tax payers to. 'let'? wtf is 'let'? who's letting whom? who the hell is he talking to? is he talking to tax payers 'why the hell aren't you letting the bank give me the dam house then let the government force you to pick up the tab?' do people live inside their own head? care addressing the subject audience of your rant once in a while? thanks

this is how america went down hill.. everyone saying to the government 'hey just let me break a little rule here for myself, it won't hurt', everyone doing his bit here and there and soon this becomes lawless land. he's doing the exact thing as the banks, just on a smaller scale. interesting how no one ever bothers protesting bank bailout first. they are always more worried about their own slice of the pie, rather than stopping the robbery at once for everyone else.

A VOLUNTARY agreement would resolve your points

I think a voluntary agreement between vets orgs and banks is eminently achievable, without cost to the taxpayer.
See my post below.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Here's a better idea: 1.

Here's a better idea:

1. Release all non-violent drug offenders (who did not violate the rights of others) from prison. It seems to me that medical treatment might be more suitable for people who insist on hurting themselves, but not prison. Give them all a presidential pardon & decriminalize.

2. Release all non-violent criminals who pose no threat to others & let them serve their terms imprisoned in their homes with those ankle bracelet devices & curfews. Maybe make their penalty outside of prison a little less comfortable by somehow identifying them to others in society as a criminal (like a DUI temporary long-term tattoo on their foreheads, etc).

3. Consolidate the remaining criminal prison population to minimize required number of prisons and vacate the rest.

4. Turn the prisons that are then empty into housing for the homeless. Nothing too fancy (don't spend crazy money on upgrades), just remove the bars/fences/barbed wire & enable for a private space which would be a safe place to sleep and being able to have a roof over their heads.

Every non-violent prisoner released would save the gov taxpayers 25-30k per year on average. Facility could be funded by donations and optional rent from the homeless (only what they can afford with $0 still being okay, their choice). The point would not be to turn it into a money pit for the gov but to save big money while also helping to solve the growing homeless problem at minimal cost.

...

Yes - that is a MUCH better idea.

We could also decriminalize all drugs like Portugal, or even BETTER legalize them and tax like alcohol / tobacco.

The phoney war on drugs costs US taxpayers $200bn p.a. which could be saved painlessly WITH SOCIAL BENEFITS.

http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/how-to-save-200bn-pa-fro...

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Why can't we just... legalize

Why can't we just... legalize them, end of story?

If street drugs were cheaper there would be more usage

are you against alcohol and tobacco duties as a revenue raising scheme? (Honest question)

There would need to be some sort of licensed distribution (like alcohol) or do you want to encourage 10 year old kids to start smoking crack?

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

yes.

I'm against taxing alcohol and tobacco. I'm against taxation, in the grand scheme of things, period. Kind of into voluntarism.

I never said communitites shouldn't require limiting sales to minors (be it state, county, city, local agreement, etc.). That doesn't mean it needs to be federally enforced, and it doesn't necessarily mean "10 year old kids will smoke crack" either. I argue that the more regulation/tax on the product, the MORE likely a minor is to get their hands on drugs (bigger black market for it).

This is wrong on so many

This is wrong on so many levels.

...

Just to expand on my initial

Just to expand on my initial comment a bit...

It's wrong for the US Gov to occupy other nations.

It's wrong for individuals who think they should be able to do it too with foreclosed homes (that someone else owns, be it the bank or maybe your neighbor who is holding the mortgage).

It's wrong to imply that homeless veterans are somehow more deserving of a home than anyone else who is homeless. What about homeless kids? Homeless seniors? Homeless disabled? Or homeless veterans who were forced to served via a draft versus those who served voluntarily in order to get college money, have a job, food & other fringe benefits. I know plenty who have joined voluntarily and sadly not a single one of them did it because they wanted to serve their country. It usually seems to be out of desperation (to not end up homeless without food), to get a home & other fringe benefits for their family or to get college money. No one has ever said "because I love this country" after I asked why they were joining. Many of these vets have also violated their oaths to our Constitution by obeying unconstitutional orders. Anyhow, if it was a good idea it should be applied equally to anyone who is homeless.

...

What objections do you have against encouraging a VOLUNTARY

agreement between vets orgs and banks?
See my post below.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

john2k

Amen.

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
-George Orwell

My fuller argument was that it should be a VOLUNTARY

arrangement between Vets, Vets orgs and banks.

Enough banks should be willing to do it because of the extremely positive publicity in it for them.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

I do not understand why this comment was voted down

Please explain to me your reasons if you did.
I am at a total loss on this one.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Cyril's picture

Well, I took it exactly the way you did.

Well, I took it exactly the way you did.

Here comes the welfare state with the labelled jar to put you in, for their society planning.

There goes your individual rights and freedoms of your personal endeavors and opportunities.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

... and in so wide extents, for each level.

... and in so wide extents, for each level.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Addicts

Does this mean drug addicts also get to occupy empty houses? Since this man is a vet does that give him a greater right to use property that does not belong to him? Am I to believe bank 'owned' homes are now public property to be used like parks?

Property Rights!

No, but if you took the time to understand the foreclosure-gate and robo-signing shenanigans, wherein the banks accumulated many foreclosed titles without going through the proper legal channels, you would know that the banks do not justly own many of those houses.

In a Libertarian society, all rights derive from property. On the surface it may appear the squatters are trespassing on private property, but the illegal transfer of property-titles muddles this issue.

Tis difficult it seems

For pure Libertarians to think in terms of common sense and not dogma or tribalism.
Please try.
Common sense / thinking things through thoroughly / looking from both sides of the fence, are great tools in coming up with solutions for all sorts of problems.
And discarding duff ideas.
It is often called critical thinking.

In this respect there are a lot of Libertarians that are not dissimilar to tribalist GOP or Dems, because they cannot do this.

One of my heroes is Thomas Paine (I have 5) because he applied Common Sense in two different ways and made the whole world a better place.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Common Sense

is a term often thrown around like "Pragmatism". It means abandoning principles that rationality, reasoning and morals have revealed in favor of a short term, short thinking, rationalization for making you feel better about doing something that violates those principles.

Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both

No it doesn't

it means coming up with ideas to do things in a better way that are obvious when you step back and think about them.

Or to challenge conventional wisdom or thinking or ways of doing things, which when you think about them are just plain stupid.

It definitely does NOT mean violating any ethical or moral principles.
But it does mean getting practical and not idealistic.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

At what point do you

avoid principle in favor of practicality?
Wouldn't that make those principles invalid in the first place if they were, at any point, impractical? I asked something similar earlier and you didn't reply.

If you ask me a reasonable question

I will answer it.

If you want to go into endless debate about technicalities, I'm really not interested.
Everything you asked in your other comment was pretty much already answered in others of mine.
So I didn't respond.

You could have joined up the dots/made adjustments yourself if you had thought about it, to make it a 100% constitutional proposal.

Anyway I think I just did that, in another comment.
Coming across some sort of issue/problem does not mean discarding an idea.
It may mean a bit more thought is required though to make it work / be principled / be constitutional.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

I just said

you do not do anything that you believe to be unethical or immoral.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

i think they are all reasonable...

And technicality is important. Either way. Enjoy your weekend.

?

Would you like to explain your post? I consider myself a pure Libertarian (in the Rothbardian tradition), I'd like to know why you think Libertarians can't think in terms of anything other than dogma (I perceived it as a diss pertaining to the Libertarian solution to the current forum topic/picture).

The nature of principles is to transcend boundaries: ethnic, racial, gender, time, national, etc. They can be applied to concrete situations -- any situation. Libertarianism is a blueprint for the just conduct of human interactions.

Actually, after reading your earlier post. I'll add this: nothing about government is voluntary. It's very nature is antithetical to Liberty and a society of voluntary exchange and association.

Do you acknowledge self-ownership? How do people come to justly own property outside of themselves? At what point is it acceptable, in your view, to deviate from property-rights as the legal basis for society?

Thomas Paine is stho nasty.