Auburn University Libertarians Debate College Democrats

[danberkeley]

Auburn University Libertarians Debate College Democrats

This is footage of the Auburn University Libertarians debating the College Democrats on October 26, 2006. (51 min.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7845844115353104734&ei=7O_vSOSjHafYqAOntdD4Dw&q=auburn+libertarians+democrats&emb=1

[iddo]

nice... those guys are hardcore libertarians: in favor of open borders, against aggressive wars... the Democract ending statement had the most moronic rebuttal (regarding dems not overturning the patriot act etc.): "he says we have no history for change, well if we have not, why didn't he not cite instances of us not changing our ways, or changing government." Huh?:)

[danberkeley]

nice... those guys are hardcore libertarians: in favor of open borders, against aggressive wars... the Democract ending statement had the most moronic rebuttal (regarding dems not overturning the patriot act etc.): "he says we have no history for change, well if we have not, why didn't he not cite instances of us not changing our ways, or changing government." Huh?:)

unfortunately, most people are swayed more by rhetoric and emotional appeals instead of rational arguments and facts. also, the democrats said that most democratic senators voted against the PATRIOT act when, in fact, all the democratic senators voted in favor of it.

[Andrew-Austin]

Listening while playing video games, I'm 30 minutes in and the libertarians seem to be pwning.

[DirtMcGirt]

Are any of these libertarians at the mises college?

[NMCB3]

The Democrats philosophy-if you can call it that- is so full of contradictions its laughable. :)

[danberkeley]

Are any of these libertarians at the mises college?

Don't know. I found this video under the "related videos" section while watching something on Geoogle video.

[Kotin]

those Libertarians are so badass..


College Democrats are all the same..

[Spider-Man]

Sorry, I couldn't get past the initial country-valley-girl-accented blonde. I've lived in Alabama all my life, and it makes me cringe to hear girls that sound like that.

[Conza88]

Listening while playing video games, I'm 30 minutes in and the libertarians seem to be pwning.

Haha hilarious.. mental images :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

nice... those guys are hardcore libertarians: in favor of open borders, against aggressive wars... the Democract ending statement had the most moronic rebuttal (regarding dems not overturning the patriot act etc.): "he says we have no history for change, well if we have not, why didn't he not cite instances of us not changing our ways, or changing government." Huh?:)

not as "hardcore" as others. they do favor school vouchers, I don't even think the LP platform is for such a thing.

[Conza88]

not as "hardcore" as others. they do favor school vouchers, I don't even think the LP platform is for such a thing.

I'd probably advocate that as transitional. But then when you start to lean fabian (slow progression) you start to begin accepting things that go against your principles. I.e No income tax? Ok, well let's make it 20% for all... etc.

Need to remain a radical and aim for the true state of things.. it's just if I was to run on that platform, immediately rejected, kook etc... people would shit themselves scared (I live in Australia remember.. lol)

I recon once in power you could easily go that route.. everyone is pretty much in mass apathy over here.. Good / Bad... dunno, most people hate politicans with a passion, but still vote for them... (ahh yea compulsory voting...) really pisses me off...

Haha, man... so many people wouldn't make it out the door... / cbiel, it won't change anything... etc. :D

[Andrew-Austin]

Haha hilarious.. mental images :D

*killing spree*

"owned noobs!"

-- five seconds later --

*all of the democrats voted for the Patriot Act, your party does not stand for change*

"owned noobs!"

[Conza88]

*killing spree*

"owned noobs!"

-- five seconds later --

*all of the democrats voted for the Patriot Act, your party does not stand for change*

"owned noobs!"

Aaaahahahahaha :D !

[danberkeley]

not as "hardcore" as others. they do favor school vouchers, I don't even think the LP platform is for such a thing.

they said they favored vouchers as a transition from compulsory education/schooling to education/schooling chosen by parents.

[Brassmouth]

The Libertarians definitely won. They were quick to respond and great speakers to boot. The Democrats couldn't go 2 minutes without contradicting themselves.

[Uriel999]

*killing spree*

"owned noobs!"

-- five seconds later --

*all of the democrats voted for the Patriot Act, your party does not stand for change*

"owned noobs!"

good to hear other Ron Paul forums folk play the halo. I am a warthog driving god. Seriously, I just have trained like 3 friends to shoot turret and we pwn...Libertarians support warthogs for all, as long as they earn it. :)

[TheEvilDetector]

Auburn University Libertarians Debate College Democrats

This is footage of the Auburn University Libertarians debating the College Democrats on October 26, 2006. (51 min.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7845844115353104734&ei=7O_vSOSjHafYqAOntdD4Dw&q=auburn+libertarians+democrats&emb=1

Some things that came across my mind:

1. On the topic of immigration, the libertarians in the video favour open borders and no minimum wage.
The democrats assert this will lead to USA become a 3rd world nation and that wages will be very low.

I believe, that so long as there are sufficient freedoms to pursue your career goals, people will become entrepreneurs
if they feel the market labour rates are lower than what they would like.

In other words if existing businesses do not pay sufficiently, they (the immigrants) will create more businesses to pick up the slack.

I do not personally favour completely open borders (due to very basic security reasons), but if open borders were the policy of
the day, then that's what I would think would occur.

I do believe in abolishing minimum wage laws. I think a lot of people are missing out on work experience because of this law.

The assumption for the above comments would be that welfare would not be as rampant as now, in fact it may not even exist, thus putting a greater
incentive in finding work or creating business. I oppose government welfare due to the force being used to take wealth away from peaceful citizens.

2. Democrats raised a criticism of libertarians concerning the topic of religious private schools discriminating in their teacher hiring practices
based on the applicant's religion. This concerned private schools who would have been supported with tax dollars in a school voucher system
under a libertarian initiative for more school choice.

I think that's a non issue. A school based in religion has a right to hire teachers that conform to that religion. Just like a female basketball team
can discriminate against men, noone in their right mind would accuse that team of being sexist. If men and women want to play together,
that's fine, there are mixed teams also.

Of course, inevitably the question becomes, can you have schools that allow only white or black membership?

It is a difficult question. It is based on a purely physical characteristic.

I believe I have an answer. If the discrimination serves no useful purpose then it should not be allowed.

Basketball teams looking for players tend to discriminate based on size.

Model Photographers looking for models tend to do the same.

Horse owners looking for jockeys tend to do the same.

But in all these things, such characteristics are assumed necessary to performance and in most cases this is proven to be an accurate assumption.

But if black and white skin colour is discriminated, when there is no actual gain in doing so I wouldn't go with that, because I think it's done out of
spite and false notions of racial purity (possibly false notions of superiority).

Consider an organisation promoting the rights of african americans, clearly such an organisation is likely to favour greater african american membership.
It would be absurd to have 10000000 white men and 1 black man in an organisation that stands for african american rights.

This comes back to having a legitimate purpose. Also I would add the word discrimination has negative connotations, but the word itself is not good or bad,
it's a word. It's the manner in which this is done, that upsets people.

To finish off, I couldn't care less about race or religion personally. I have friends from all races and religions.

3. Democrats raised a point about illegal drugs destroying communities. They spoke about methamphetamines as being particularly bad.
Libertarians made a point that no one aspires to be a pharmacist but many people look up to drug dealer driving around
in an expensive car. Clearly in modern culture gangsterism is worshipped in the media. Now if all illegal drugs are to be legalised
and dispensed in pharmacies, the lure may wear off.

I think libertarians have a point here.

Furthermore, they state alot of money is being wasted on a war on drugs. I think that if the war on drugs is abolished and all
that money is moved in medical rehabilitation programs for those seeking help, the drug problem could be minimised, not
to mention completely destroy the criminal aspect of it and minimise the numbers of non violent offenders languishing in jail.

Better still, just tax the drugs (formerly illegal) sold at pharmacy and use that money strictly to pay for treatment programs.
This way the drug users pay for their own treatment and not a cent comes from the general community.

The money will pay for a brochure to be distributed with every drug, informing what a safe dose is, what the effects are,
how to treat overdose, where to go to overcome addiction etc.

The money can be used to build specialised clinics to treat addictions (at no cost to patients) to various drugs
eg. heroin/cocaine/methamphetamine etc. Drug Users who seek treatment will be allowed to stay in contact with friends
and family instead of being locked up like dogs amongst real criminals (rapists, murderers etc).

On all of these points libertarians make sense. I do not see a future in the democrat strategy of punishing people for lifestyle choices
when it comes to drugs. The prison population will swell, depriving society of fathers, mothers, friends and workers and costing more
and more for upkeep. It is not sustainable or even remotely moral.

[danberkeley]

Some things that came across my mind:

1.

I do not personally favour completely open borders (due to very basic security reasons), but if open borders were the policy of
the day, then that's what I would think would occur.


"Open borders" implies that the US government has the right to control said borders. If an illegal immigrant crosses the border and walks onto Joe's property without Joe's permission, that immigrant has trespassed onto Joe's property and has violate Joe's private property rights. However, when an illegal immigrant crosses the border at a US Customs port, that is a whole different issue.


I do believe in abolishing minimum wage laws. I think a lot of people are missing out on work experience because of this law.

The assumption for the above comments would be that welfare would not be as rampant as now, in fact it may not even exist, thus putting a greater
incentive in finding work or creating business. I oppose government welfare due to the force being used to take wealth away from peaceful citizens.

If you oppose the goverment's use of force when it takes your money to give to someone else (or itself), then you oppose the government's use of force to make employers pay higher wages to an employee. But I agreed with you that people miss out on work experience because of minimum wage laws.


2. Democrats raised a criticism of libertarians concerning the topic of religious private schools discriminating in their teacher hiring practices
based on the applicant's religion. This concerned private schools who would have been supported with tax dollars in a school voucher system
under a libertarian initiative for more school choice.

I think that's a non issue. A school based in religion has a right to hire teachers that conform to that religion. Just like a female basketball team
can discriminate against men, noone in their right mind would accuse that team of being sexist. If men and women want to play together,
that's fine, there are mixed teams also.

The College Democrats make the assumption that the money given to the private schools via the voucher program is rightfully that of the government (whether it be local, county, state, federal government). This assumption is wrong because, with the exception of private donations, this money comes from property taxes and other various taxes and is, therefore, stolen money. That's what the College Libertarians should have said.


3. Democrats raised a point about illegal drugs destroying communities. They spoke about methamphetamines as being particularly bad.
Libertarians made a point that no one aspires to be a pharmacist but many people look up to drug dealer driving around
in an expensive car. Clearly in modern culture gangsterism is worshipped in the media. Now if all illegal drugs are to be legalised
and dispensed in pharmacies, the lure may wear off.

...

On all of these points libertarians make sense. I do not see a future in the democrat strategy of punishing people for lifestyle choices
when it comes to drugs. The prison population will swell, depriving society of fathers, mothers, friends and workers and costing more
and more for upkeep. It is not sustainable or even remotely moral.

You already know the libertarian position so I wont bother restating it. Anyway, here is a link to Mark Thorton's article, "Murder in America" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/thornton4.html), on the drug war.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

they said they favored vouchers as a transition from compulsory education/schooling to education/schooling chosen by parents.

yeah, but that's a moderate libertarian position. The radicals are clear...end public education, taxes are evil