Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The scenario is we spot a meteor headed for Earth that is scheduled to impact in 4 months
What would the libertarian do?
What would the libertarian do?
What is the libertarians answer for stopping an asteroid impact?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Same as the rest of us...put their head between their legs and kiss their ass goodbye.
Do you really think Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis can save us?
ASCIIGHOST
Well-Known Member
I would sit back, and watch the formation of a 1 world government, then I would watch the asteroid magically be defeated, thanks to said one world government, and "the power of doing it together" will forever be used as a justification for 1 world government. What other event would so easily usher in 1 world government? I mean if it weren't for NASA would you be so likely to accept that aliens can reach us. We can reach Mars, so SURELY a higher being can reach us at any time. The only thing going on in space is the weaponization of it IMHO. You think they're trying to advance human knowledge and exploration? Christopher Columbus was an explorer too........trying to find a better way to India to steal all their gold. The know route through middle east was suicide, so he took to the seas.
Last edited:
ASCIIGHOST
Well-Known Member
If you needed to repay your campaign contributions you could just say there is a metor coming when there isnt, hire experts (the defense contractors who paid for your electoin) to take care of the solution with tax payer dollars and your debt would be paid. No harm, no foul.
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
I don't know about libertarians, but the democrats would vote to raise taxes. Their justification would be that people won't be needing their money for much longer anyway.
And republicans would spend their time trying to uncover an email conspiracy regarding the discovery of the meteor. Their estimated time to complete their investigation would be 5 months.
Serious question, not baiting: how would you answer the question you posed? What would the libertarian do?
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Not a goddamn thing a libertarian system of government could do, that's the point.
Would you rather live under a system of government that has the ability to do something or not?
TBoneJack
Well-Known Member
One that has the ability to do something.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but why would a mostly libertarian government not do anything about the situation you posed, assuming they had the means to do something about it?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Because I don't believe it's possible to organize something like that in that amount of time. It takes years to train people to work/live in space, years - sometimes even decades - to develop the technology necessary to get them there, years to come up with an effective plan and do all the calculations that comes with it, and that's not even the hardest part... The hardest part is having a society without a central authority donate their money to solve it. There would be people who wouldn't believe the people telling them there's an imminent asteroid impact, there would be people who believe it but are banking on it missing the Earth, there would be people who are nearing the end of their life already who would be apathetic about it or wouldn't care. No time to convince any of them to change their minds. There goes half of the funding..
The fact is, if you don't already have the means to tackle a situation like this (and many more) should it arise, you are fucked, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckedville, all of us. All because somebody would rather argue to the ends of the Earth - literally - than read a fucking book..
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Hire the best and brightest minds in the world to figure out the problem. They wouldn't be relegated to using only those employed by the US government, or more accurately, employed by the party in power at the time. I'd personally feel better about our chances than letting the 2party system try to find the best solution within political parameters.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Where do you get the money to hire these people?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Through tariffs, usage fees and many other of the same ways we fought a few wars before the concept of income taxes existed.
Then there's always credit, I think even the most hardcore Libertarian would be in favor of to save mankind.
There's a handful of you guys here who keep thinking libertarian means no government. Is there even a possibility your thought process can change on this? All of the proof is already there, Ron Paul is about as hardcore as it gets and even he favors gov over no gov as a necessity. Self rule through a representative government was kind of our thing, then we allowed our government to become a self-serving entity instead. I'm still floored people are cool with that.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Hide silly.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't believe libertarianism means no government, I believe it means limited government
How you would pay for it is insufficient and I sure wouldn't want to risk the fate of mankind on something that is purely theoretical. I don't see how a libertarian system of government can solve issues that are outside of the individuals control with so many different opinions about how and even in some cases, why, especially under such time constraints to do it in. Not only that, but I believe it actually stifles potential scientific and medical progress.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Ron Paul hates NASA
HookahsGarden
Well-Known Member
We are fucked on that timeframe.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Think about it man, we don't pay for anything now. You seriously think if the fate of mankind was at risk, Libertarians would let it fall instead of borrowing money? Wow, come on man!
You think scientists that might have any ideas would hold onto them hoping for a better offer?
What you posed was an asteroid heading here to destroy the earth, I'm sorry but a non-partisan leadership would be my first choice. What we have today, in terms of the 2 party central planners, there would be 3 months of arguing over who gets the contract first.
Nope, I like the imaginary 3rd party system much better that what we have now. Sure what we want to get done might not happen, but what needs to get done would happen in a much more efficient matter.
ASCIIGHOST
Well-Known Member
Someone tell this guy NASA's mission is the weaponzation of space......i mean for fuck sakes the birth of the program came from WW2........dude thinks hes gonna discover aliens or some shit....foolish.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
See there goes your thought process already that the government has to solve this problem. NASA has some really smart dudes working there, but not ALL of the smart dudes. Our present system limits us to only those on the current payroll or those appointed by the party in charge. No thanks. A libertarian system would allow us to go outside of our current constricts which would be whoever is employed by the government working at the direction of the party in charge.
Like what represents NASA today could actually solve this in that timeframe anyway. Our best hope under current circumstances (today's government) is that Haliburton can come up with something, because everyone knows that's who would get the contract for the job.