"Freedom" thread or something

Q: Is having a single official national language a Libertarian issue?

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: Why yes, Ron Paul and I have a lot alike. Oh wait... Well, from a purely electoral point of view it is correct: voting for Ron Paul will get Obama reelected.  So be it?

Nyet. I don't want to. Though powerless I am. We all are. 

horsewithteeth11 wrote: Why yes, Ron Paul and I have a lot alike. Oh wait...

Well, from a purely electoral point of view it is correct: voting for Ron Paul will get Obama reelected. 

JJLehto wrote: I am still pretty upset to see, not just here but the internet and life in general, the dedication to party politics. Maybe both parties suck but the GOP gets off generally while the Dems and Obama are the anti christ. Like so many libertarians are caving to go Romney just because "cant let Bama win" I still fail to see how he/Dems are THAT much worse? Republicans want to conquer the world, support the Fed/corporatism. Wubya's administration was so big government it was disgusting. All their tax cuts only help the best off still. I'm just a little peeved the Dems are still viewed as that bad, and people think Republican mainstream is gunna change. rant over

I think it speaks to American short sightedness in general that places a marginal immediate victory over a substantial potential future victory.

I am still pretty upset to see, not just here but the internet and life in general, the dedication to party politics.
Maybe both parties suck but the GOP gets off generally while the Dems and Obama are the anti christ.

Like so many libertarians are caving to go Romney just because "cant let Bama win" I still fail to see how he/Dems are THAT much worse?
Republicans want to conquer the world, support the Fed/corporatism. Wubya's administration was so big government it was disgusting. All their tax cuts only help the best off still.
I'm just a little peeved the Dems are still viewed as that bad, and people think Republican mainstream is gunna change.


rant over

The T wrote: But in the US all these cultures have to coexist under a single system. In Europe, yes, if you at it as the European Union, of course you have multiculturalism rampant. But when you look countries just as countries (which is how they operate in many levels) you see more homogeneous results. Yes, there is multiculturalism in Spain, Switzerland, etc, but even there you see a sort of territorial division on pair to the cultural one (current waves of migration notwithstanding). The two world wars had a lot to owe to ethnic chaos and their results are basically territories more or less homogeneous (more or less). In the US things are different. You are trying to apply a big gigantic government to a fully heterogeneous population. It's different from the European Union, a somewhat economical but never cultural union really. Or am I terribly wrong? (as always)

Of course multiculturalism exists across national borders and always has done, but the mecahnisms that created the racial multiculturalism in the USA also exist within national borders in Europe. Each nation within Europe has its own ethic component, often based upon (or stemming from) the old collonial systems, but in recent times due to the changing border regulations created by the European Union. As try as I might, I cannot see how " a big gigantic government " is to blame for racial hate crime.

Epignosis wrote: Violence has been a tangent of my career.  In this county, we have a (pathetic) feud between blacks and American Indians.  In Florida, the thuggery was more organized and sophisticated.  Our neighborhood here is rife with break-ins.  The police even advise residents to arm themselves. (The blacks that fight the Indians call themselves the S.O.D.  I wish I could sit them all down an explain what a sod is.) Then again, wasn't what happened in Norway culturally motivated?

Right, so nowhere is immune from racially motivated hate crime. Nowhere is immune from any crime. That changes nothing. I'm making no claims of cause and effect, just making the observation that what works for us is not limited by any of the justifications you've presented - we are not so different in terms of multiculturalism, urban population density or total land area, we're not that different culturally, socially or economically, the difference is gun control and gun violence. The question then is not whether gun control does or can work, but what causes the marked difference in gun related violence statistics when we're not so different.

But in the US all these cultures have to coexist under a single system. In Europe, yes, if you at it as the European Union, of course you have multiculturalism rampant. But when you look countries just as countries (which is how they operate in many levels) you see more homogeneous results. Yes, there is multiculturalism in Spain, Switzerland, etc, but even there you see a sort of territorial division on pair to the cultural one (current waves of migration notwithstanding). The two world wars had a lot to owe to ethnic chaos and their results are basically territories more or less homogeneous (more or less). In the US things are different. You are trying to apply a big gigantic government to a fully heterogeneous population. It's different from the European Union, a somewhat economical but never cultural union really. Or am I terribly wrong? (as always)

manofmystery wrote: I like western Pennsylvania.

I've read sovietic things about PA. 

Logan, I responded to you in The Christian Thread if you wanted to respond yourself.  Didn't know if you saw it.