Notices by 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org), page 8

@cjd

I have no access to TV or cable... so first principles is the only answer

@thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@cjd

I mean sure, the oligarchy doesnt like him and im sure thats making it much worse on him...

But the fact that he is an evil, racist man who lies through his teeth and does illegal things at every turn might have a tiny bit to do with it too.

@thatguyoverthere @georgetakei

@thatguyoverthere

Once you start making up arguments people didnt make and arguing with yourself you dont get to make claims to objectivity.

@georgetakei

@thatguyoverthere

Ahh right lets make up phrases that in no way resemble anything said and then put quotes around it so I can argue with it and make it look like im arguing with the person I quoted when in reality im just arguing with ghosts my imagination made up....

Carry on.

@georgetakei

@thatguyoverthere

I guess its a mental disorder to want evil cruel people to have the level of success they truely deserve.

@georgetakei

@georgetakei Him loosing everything would make me happy.

@feld @niclas @thatguyoverthere

Libertarians vote for anythi g that reduces govt authority or spending... they dont vote with the gop so much as for whatever side regulates the least. Since democrats solve everything with (bad) legislation its no surprise they always vote against.

@feld

Ahhh, a bad-faith argument then... ok

@niclas @thatguyoverthere

@feld

funny, me and my coworkers watching your comments were just thinking the same thing about you... small world.

@niclas @thatguyoverthere

@feld

Ok well thats one way to show you have little information about what you are talking about.

Ron Paul hasnt been on a presidential ticket since the 80s.... If we want most popular/famous I'd look to the presidential candidates they put forwrd as that represents the accepted norm of the whole of the party (Ron as a senator only represents the views of a small district).

So Jo Jorgenson or Gary Johnson would be the two most recent and most modern representatives of the party.

Neither look very similar to the GOP in their views.

As to answer your question and how Jo and Libertarians as a whole tend to differ fromt he GOP well here are some examples of that (some are Jo's policies and the parties:

* Jo was for more open borders, wanting to remove immigration quotas reregulate the borders to allow immigrants easier access to come here.

* Jo and most libertarians are adamatly against Trump's border wall

* Jo opposes the war on drug

Just a few examples off the cuff.

@niclas @thatguyoverthere

@thatguyoverthere @niclas

Nah thats not even remotely in line with the truth. Their views dont line up with any of the GOP and there is little relationship.

They also follow the **original** meaning of libertarian (that is minimal government control).. you can like or dislike or put them anywhere on the spectrum you want... But saying they are similar tot he GOP, or not true libertarians is just absurd

@thatguyoverthere

im not disagreeing with you, im sincerely asking... if i lock my kid in a basement at 40, as long as nature lets me get away with it, then it should be legal?

@thatguyoverthere

So a person who lives in isolationa nd self sufficient (so no people around to care) .. that person should be free to torture this children as long as they want.... so long as they can get away with it?

@thatguyoverthere As for what "legal" means the confusion goes both ways..

You say people should be allowed to interfere.. suggesting you are ok with a group of people getting together saying "that thing that guy doesnt isnt right" (we would call that a law) and then they go and act like police and enforce it...

So your ok with governments forming on the spot to address it (Tahts what that is) whenever they want... sounds like your just doing government with extra steps.

@thatguyoverthere if the govt didnt get involved how would the parents get the authority?

@thatguyoverthere

> who determines mental capacity?

Right now? The government... they look at your age and use it to assume mental capacity.. <18 you dont have it... I argue that **if** they use that logic then it only makes sense if you use the same logic to deny it >70 too, since there is decline at both ends of the spectrum.

If we agree this sounds like a really stupid and unjust way to do it, then I dont have the answer, but obviously that answer isnt "the parents" because thats what we have now.

> Why should parents who largely (exception for psychopaths) have only the best interests of their kids in mind not have any influence or say?

Why should adult children of 70+ year olds who largely (exception for psychopaths) have only the best interests for their infirmed parents in mind not have any influence or say?

> They invest 100% of the time, energy, emotion, and money. Seems rather fucked to think they shouldn't have a voice

They invest 100% of the time, energy, emotion, and money caring for their infirmed parents. Seems rather fucked to think they shouldn't have a voice

@thatguyoverthere

It can and is... the government determines when you are eligible... the criteria they use is age. Morover the government determines when you arent of age the right to decide for you goes to your parents, it is the government that transfers your right to the parent and enforces, ergo it is both.

> In my proposed solution parents of an 8 yo who think he might pass a driving yrst could approve.

This is indeed a good counter example... normally with **most** things its as I said the government apply age as a limit on when your rights transfer to the parents.

But as you point out some things the government doesnt let the parent decide at all...

> As far as elder care goes I think it does largely rest on the family.

while family may encourage them not to drive if they cant, ultimately legally they cant do much unless they prove they are a risk in some way. That isnt easy.

Neither of these solutions in either case is acceltable to me.

@thatguyoverthere

Then by that logic once someone ages over 70 they should loose all those rights as well and should be passed to whoever their next of kin is between 18 - 70...

If the logic is "the parent should be a dictator over their kid and decide what rights the kid can or cant have cause they are too young to decide for themselves"... thent he same should be true over 70, after that age your too old to decide for yourself by the same logic.

I would argue the parents shouldnt decide any more than the states should decide... any child at **any** age who can clearly articulate their desire to exercise a right, and can past all the prerequisites the state normally has to access that right, then they should have it.

Obviously this brings up weird questions like "should an 8 year old be able to buy a gun"... and I would answer "no more or less so than a 40 year old with the same mental capacity as the 8 year old would"

@thatguyoverthere hypocrisy seems to be ubiquitous these days.

Old people: Dont be ageist, you shouldnt assume someones abilies based on age!

Also old people: 17 year olds shouldn't have the right to vote, drink, live on their own or have any of the rights of an adult because they having matured mentally yet...

#ageism