Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

General political discussion thread

911 replies to this topic
Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#541

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:30 AM

Vlynor, how about instead of making me explain further when I've already done so adequately, you tell me why there's such a disproportionate focus on economic issues in the libertarian movement, and why they aren't typically seen working with the left to further shared agendas the way they do with the right?  


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#542

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:34 AM

I find it difficult to believe that Ron Paul has much conviction and balance on social issues when he was active in printing White Supremacist and fundamentally racist newsletters, worked closely with the American 3rd Way and Stormfront and had a campaign coordinator who was a member of the KKK.

Still, their arguments aren't so much about social justice and cohesion as about personal choice. They don't care about discrimination against or undermining of social groups, they just disagree with any centralised policy as such which undermines the freedoms of others. They don't like intrinsic discrimination, but if it's a product of market conditions or the free expression of others then they positively welcome it.

Fundamentally the libertarian movement are part of the American right. They're a militant underbelly with a small but vocal core of support, largely amongst the groups of people who twenty years ago would have been members of the militia movement. As far as I can discern it's a private movement run largely by people with clandestine connection to the white nationalist and supremacist organisations. They seem to be using the vague libertarian principles to disguise and partially justify their own bigotry and to imply that discrimination is perfectly legitimate as long as it's an organised and subjective expression of hate driven by markets or individual rights rather than a structural hang-over of sordid history.
  • Omnia sunt Communia, Irviding, Melchior and 1 other like this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#543

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:41 AM

Vlynor, how about instead of making me explain further when I've already done so adequately, you tell me why there's such a disproportionate focus on economic issues in the libertarian movement, and why they aren't typically seen working with the left to further shared agendas the way they do with the right?  

 

How many American libertarians have you interacted with, honestly? And how many have you seen campaigning or in office? How many times have you watched American politics and the focus hadn't had something to do with money?


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#544

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:53 AM Edited by Melchior, 27 February 2014 - 09:53 AM.

A similar story happened in the US, with good ol' leftist hero and authoritarian racist Franklin Roosevelt being happy to oblige.

Sometimes I cannot believe the absolute garbage that comes out of your mouth. It's actually been kind of depressing watching an intelligent and passionate man becoming increasingly consumed by dogma and conspiracy theory while shutting out realities that should be axiomatic.

 

The fact that you now shy away from debate when you used to participate in discussion, instead opting to post blatant opinion pieces that aren't open to critique by academic peers, speaks volumes. You're an intellectually dishonest, condescending ideologue and you are wasting everybody's time.

 

Wake up to yourself. 


How many American libertarians have you interacted with, honestly? And how many have you seen campaigning or in office? How many times have you watched American politics and the focus hadn't had something to do with money?

 

I'm sorry if this sounds disparaging: but it really is in one ear and out the other with you.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#545

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:56 AM Edited by Vlynor, 27 February 2014 - 09:59 AM.

 


How many American libertarians have you interacted with, honestly? And how many have you seen campaigning or in office? How many times have you watched American politics and the focus hadn't had something to do with money?

 

I'm sorry if this sounds disparaging: but it really is in one ear and out the other with you.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you're saying:

 

 

 

you tell me why there's such a disproportionate focus on economic issues in the libertarian movement

 

There's only one self-proclaimed libertarian in the federal government, and your only source for a libertarian seems to be Chunkyman. So excuse me for being a little hesitant to take your advice.

 

Edit: And Penn Jillette.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#546

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:59 AM

So you're going to tell me that libertarians are passionately in favour of women's reproductive rights the way they're passionately in favour of abolishing the minimum wage? C'mon!


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#547

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:11 AM

So you're going to tell me that libertarians are passionately in favour of women's reproductive rights the way they're passionately in favour of abolishing the minimum wage? C'mon!

 

I'm honestly not sure about this, and neither are you. I haven't seen a lot of mainstream/party libertarians talking about abolishing the minimum wage. But I haven't seen many talking about women's reproductive rights either. I've most likely seen more than you, though, just because I follow the Libertarian Party on Facebook and read the comments (it's no Pew research, I know).


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#548

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:26 AM

I'm plenty sure bro. I've mentioned several prominent libertarian intellectuals.


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#549

Posted 27 February 2014 - 07:27 PM

So you're going to tell me that libertarians are passionately in favour of women's reproductive rights the way they're passionately in favour of abolishing the minimum wage? C'mon!

Well every Libertarian I have personally met is personally opposed to the issues Gay marriage and Abortion on the basis of religion. But they still said that in their ideal world they would be legal simply because of their belief in smaller government. I cant think of one libertarian I have met who believes the contrary


JIMHO
  • JIMHO

    Hateoful Player

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2013
  • None

#550

Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:46 AM

 

So you're going to tell me that libertarians are passionately in favour of women's reproductive rights the way they're passionately in favour of abolishing the minimum wage? C'mon!

 

I'm honestly not sure about this, and neither are you. I haven't seen a lot of mainstream/party libertarians talking about abolishing the minimum wage. But I haven't seen many talking about women's reproductive rights either. I've most likely seen more than you, though, just because I follow the Libertarian Party on Facebook and read the comments (it's no Pew research, I know).

 

I saw this post on Facebook and feel like I understand libertarians enough to debate you guys.

1912002_702886266430809_1797186094_n.jpg

  • Omnia sunt Communia, Melchior, Frank Brown and 1 other like this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#551

Posted 28 February 2014 - 02:44 AM

 

 

So you're going to tell me that libertarians are passionately in favour of women's reproductive rights the way they're passionately in favour of abolishing the minimum wage? C'mon!

 

I'm honestly not sure about this, and neither are you. I haven't seen a lot of mainstream/party libertarians talking about abolishing the minimum wage. But I haven't seen many talking about women's reproductive rights either. I've most likely seen more than you, though, just because I follow the Libertarian Party on Facebook and read the comments (it's no Pew research, I know).

 

I saw this post on Facebook and feel like I understand libertarians enough to debate you guys.

1912002_702886266430809_1797186094_n.jpg

 

 

Stop ruining our plans, damnit. 

 

For the Empire.

 

I mean, yeah. Freedom and sh*t. Woo, guns and gay sex.


TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    Born in sin, COME ON IN.

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#552

Posted 28 February 2014 - 03:39 AM

 

 

 

So you're going to tell me that libertarians are passionately in favour of women's reproductive rights the way they're passionately in favour of abolishing the minimum wage? C'mon!

 

I'm honestly not sure about this, and neither are you. I haven't seen a lot of mainstream/party libertarians talking about abolishing the minimum wage. But I haven't seen many talking about women's reproductive rights either. I've most likely seen more than you, though, just because I follow the Libertarian Party on Facebook and read the comments (it's no Pew research, I know).

 

I saw this post on Facebook and feel like I understand libertarians enough to debate you guys.

1912002_702886266430809_1797186094_n.jpg

 

 

Stop ruining our plans, damnit. 

 

For the Empire.

 

I mean, yeah. Freedom and sh*t. Woo, guns and gay sex.

 

 Libertarians are awesome!


Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#553

Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:02 PM Edited by Omnia sunt Communia, 28 February 2014 - 12:24 PM.

Interesting fact: The term "libertarianism" has historically been used as a equivalent to "anarchism", it is only since the 1970s that it has come to denote a specific brand of laissez-faire capitalism. The first person to refer to himself as a "libertarian" was French anarchist communist, Joseph Déjacque in his letter to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhoun, in which he criticized him for his sexism and support of markets (ironically). The French anarchist journal La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social was one of the first uses of the word in a public format.
 
Throughout much of the world "libertarianism" is still used as a synonym for anarchism (the terms "libertarian socialism" and "libertarian communism" are also used). LibCom (Libertarian Community), one of the largest online archives of anarchist material, is one example. It is only in the United States that the term has been so successfully co-opted to mean "right-wing propertarian".
 
Murray Rothbard, a leading libertarian, admitted, in his essay "The Betrayal of the American Right" that the right had stolen the term from the left:
 

"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy … “Libertari­ans” … had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…"

 
The right have also tried to appropriate the term anarchism, understanding that libertarian used to be synoynmous with anarchism are now trying to associate with their particular brand of “right” libertarianism. Though Rothbard also said (in his essay "Are Libertarians Anarchists?"):
 

"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.”

 
Which is why I find it hilarious when people on this forum talk about "libertarians" because for me (and much of the rest of the world), that term still refers to anarchism - or at the very least a form of socialism. So when TheGreenSadler says "Libertarians are awesome!" I can't help but agree with him. Anarchists are awesome. I'm a libertarian, does that mean I'm awesome too?
  • Tyler likes this

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#554

Posted 28 February 2014 - 03:39 PM

Interesting fact: The term "libertarianism" has historically been used as a equivalent to "anarchism", it is only since the 1970s that it has come to denote a specific brand of laissez-faire capitalism. The first person to refer to himself as a "libertarian" was French anarchist communist, Joseph Déjacque in his letter to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhoun, in which he criticized him for his sexism and support of markets (ironically). The French anarchist journal La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social was one of the first uses of the word in a public format.
 
Throughout much of the world "libertarianism" is still used as a synonym for anarchism (the terms "libertarian socialism" and "libertarian communism" are also used). LibCom (Libertarian Community), one of the largest online archives of anarchist material, is one example. It is only in the United States that the term has been so successfully co-opted to mean "right-wing propertarian".
 
Murray Rothbard, a leading libertarian, admitted, in his essay "The Betrayal of the American Right" that the right had stolen the term from the left:
 

"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy … “Libertari­ans” … had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…"

 
The right have also tried to appropriate the term anarchism, understanding that libertarian used to be synoynmous with anarchism are now trying to associate with their particular brand of “right” libertarianism. Though Rothbard also said (in his essay "Are Libertarians Anarchists?"):
 

"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.”

 
Which is why I find it hilarious when people on this forum talk about "libertarians" because for me (and much of the rest of the world), that term still refers to anarchism - or at the very least a form of socialism. So when TheGreenSadler says "Libertarians are awesome!" I can't help but agree with him. Anarchists are awesome. I'm a libertarian, does that mean I'm awesome too?

 

When you're dealing with a board that is largely American, you have to centre (or center, heh) the language around them. In this context, Libertarian is the raped right wing version and should be used in that context. If you want to discern between the old meaning and the new meaning, I'd go for libertarian socialist or anarcho-libertarian or something dull like that.

 

Also f*ck Penn Jillette.

  • Tyler and sivispacem like this

Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#555

Posted 28 February 2014 - 04:38 PM

I'm not suggesting we start using the word libertarian only to mean anarchist, I was just pointing out that the word has another meaning in most of the other parts of the world. I much prefer the term propertarian though, as it's much more honest description of their beliefs.

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#556

Posted 28 February 2014 - 04:56 PM

I'm not suggesting we start using the word libertarian only to mean anarchist, I was just pointing out that the word has another meaning in most of the other parts of the world. I much prefer the term propertarian though, as it's much more honest description of their beliefs.

I would go for 'stupid', but each to their own.

  • Omnia sunt Communia likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#557

Posted 28 February 2014 - 05:42 PM

I'm not suggesting we start using the word libertarian only to mean anarchist, I was just pointing out that the word has another meaning in most of the other parts of the world. I much prefer the term propertarian though, as it's much more honest description of their beliefs.

 

It was hijacked. That's why I generally refer to myself as a Classical Liberal.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#558

Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:09 PM

 

I'm not suggesting we start using the word libertarian only to mean anarchist, I was just pointing out that the word has another meaning in most of the other parts of the world. I much prefer the term propertarian though, as it's much more honest description of their beliefs.

 

It was hijacked. That's why I generally refer to myself as a Classical Liberal.

 

You still show streaks of American Libertarianism though, but I wouldn't worry too much, I'm working on that.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#559

Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:14 PM Edited by Vlynor, 28 February 2014 - 08:15 PM.

 

 

I'm not suggesting we start using the word libertarian only to mean anarchist, I was just pointing out that the word has another meaning in most of the other parts of the world. I much prefer the term propertarian though, as it's much more honest description of their beliefs.

 

It was hijacked. That's why I generally refer to myself as a Classical Liberal.

 

You still show streaks of American Libertarianism though, but I wouldn't worry too much, I'm working on that.

 

 

What exactly? I thought I've broken the curse.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#560

Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:17 PM

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting we start using the word libertarian only to mean anarchist, I was just pointing out that the word has another meaning in most of the other parts of the world. I much prefer the term propertarian though, as it's much more honest description of their beliefs.

 

It was hijacked. That's why I generally refer to myself as a Classical Liberal.

 

You still show streaks of American Libertarianism though, but I wouldn't worry too much, I'm working on that.

 

 

What exactly? I thought I've broken the curse.

 

I will not be satisfied until you are a stark raving anarchist.

  • Omnia sunt Communia likes this

Special Members
  • Special Members

    You Don't Know The Power Of Fried Chicken

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Mars

#561

Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:16 PM

I'm a liberal. I believe in a lot of social, progressive ideas. Yet, I also support parts of libertarianism, the idea that you should be allowed to do anything you want, as long as it isn't effecting any pshysically, or very mentally damaging. No government should be allowed to tell me what to if it doesn't damage anyone. If i want to have a gay sex orgy with 20 consenting, adult people, where I'm married to all of them, and snort cocaine and smoke weed as I do it, singe no one is damaged by it, the government has no saying in what I'm supposed to do. In the liberal side, I believe that people should be given a chance, whatever race, class or sexual orientation. The government shoul also help people who need help, economicly, socially, mentally et.c. Social ideas I have are that the state should own a lot of public property, but let businesses control what they do without the state interfering. If the local grocery shop burns down, the state rebuilds it, and the owner isn't ruined and unemployed. I strongly oppose conservatism, especially the American and British conservatism. David Cameron is a fascist piece of sh*t. Obama is not a liberal, and the Democrats are a poor example of the liberal side. The republicans are greedy, homophobic, sexist, racist corporate-extremists who kiss the ass of the rich, ruin the middle class, f*ck over the poor, deny women and homosexuals basic human rights, are moral, puritist pussies, and many of them look at all immigrants, black people and latinos as criminal scum. They are also christian fundementalists.

Sorry, just had to get it off my head. I just hate conservatives with a passion. Because they like to tel people how to live their lives, and then accuse liberals of being the only ones who do it.
  • gtamann123 likes this

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#562

Posted 02 March 2014 - 07:32 AM

I'm a liberal. I believe in a lot of social, progressive ideas. Yet, I also support parts of libertarianism, the idea that you should be allowed to do anything you want, as long as it isn't effecting any pshysically, or very mentally damaging. No government should be allowed to tell me what to if it doesn't damage anyone. If i want to have a gay sex orgy with 20 consenting, adult people, where I'm married to all of them, and snort cocaine and smoke weed as I do it, singe no one is damaged by it, the government has no saying in what I'm supposed to do. In the liberal side, I believe that people should be given a chance, whatever race, class or sexual orientation. The government shoul also help people who need help, economicly, socially, mentally et.c. Social ideas I have are that the state should own a lot of public property, but let businesses control what they do without the state interfering. If the local grocery shop burns down, the state rebuilds it, and the owner isn't ruined and unemployed. I strongly oppose conservatism, especially the American and British conservatism. David Cameron is a fascist piece of sh*t. Obama is not a liberal, and the Democrats are a poor example of the liberal side. The republicans are greedy, homophobic, sexist, racist corporate-extremists who kiss the ass of the rich, ruin the middle class, f*ck over the poor, deny women and homosexuals basic human rights, are moral, puritist pussies, and many of them look at all immigrants, black people and latinos as criminal scum. They are also christian fundementalists.

Sorry, just had to get it off my head. I just hate conservatives with a passion. Because they like to tel people how to live their lives, and then accuse liberals of being the only ones who do it.

I agree with your last statement. Whenever a Conservative blames a Liberal of being Anti-freedom I just have to laugh. I cant believe some people can say they are pro freedom right after standing at a protest against gay rights. Or trying to lobby for prayer in schools. 


Misbegotten cad
  • Misbegotten cad

    Prankster

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2013

#563

Posted 02 March 2014 - 09:17 AM

did you know that 90% of american senators are owned by corporations!

And openly so!

 

I mean people know that this and this senator is owned by this and this corporation and so on.

 

Funny system

 

Which means US politics are pretty much made by these corporations.

 

And they call USA a democracy!


Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#564

Posted 02 March 2014 - 09:19 AM

did you know that 90% of american senators are owned by corporations!

And openly so!

 

I mean people know that this and this senator is owned by this and this corporation and so on.

 

Funny system

 

Which means US politics are pretty much made by these corporations.

 

And they call USA a democracy!

????????????????????????????


Tyler
  • Tyler

    I couldn't possibly comment

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • NATO
  • Newcomer of the Year 2010

#565

Posted 02 March 2014 - 09:48 AM

To be honest I think the reason you see libertarians and indeed many pre-Reagan republicans only addressing economic issues is because their line of belief is that liberty comes mainly from economic prosperity. This is in opposition to democrats and the Green party of the US who both believe social liberty has to be maintained through government intervention and socially progressive legislation. I'd love to believe in the former -- maybe as an American I have deeply-set beliefs and dreams related to the idea of truly free people driven by open markets to make a happier world and blah blah blah. The truth is I don't think either one wholly works on its own.

 

In American politics there is a plethora of issues I take up with the four largest parties in one way or another, and that's not even getting to the pragmatic issue of separating the deeply-lined pockets of congress and the long-fingered interests of transnational corporations. To say something like "free markets in the world today would free up the people" is almost as ignorant as "the government can be used to make equal the people of its nation, regardless of culture or class" because both are ignoring the fact that the government and private sector are both prime examples of decaying systems set up by old people who like money too much to do anything relevant or useful to the majority of the nation, or even to prepare for the future generations.

 

Still I can't deny that there are historical cases for economic prosperity helping establish a happier median of citizens as well as government reforms making its citizens more equal with both force and diplomacy. In fact there are examples of both in the last hundred years or so of US history. We just need to chainsaw all of those Baby Boomers and we'll be back on the right track, I think.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#566

Posted 02 March 2014 - 05:20 PM

To be honest I think the reason you see libertarians and indeed many pre-Reagan republicans only addressing economic issues is because their line of belief is that liberty comes mainly from economic prosperity. This is in opposition to democrats and the Green party of the US who both believe social liberty has to be maintained through government intervention and socially progressive legislation. I'd love to believe in the former -- maybe as an American I have deeply-set beliefs and dreams related to the idea of truly free people driven by open markets to make a happier world and blah blah blah. The truth is I don't think either one wholly works on its own.

 

In American politics there is a plethora of issues I take up with the four largest parties in one way or another, and that's not even getting to the pragmatic issue of separating the deeply-lined pockets of congress and the long-fingered interests of transnational corporations. To say something like "free markets in the world today would free up the people" is almost as ignorant as "the government can be used to make equal the people of its nation, regardless of culture or class" because both are ignoring the fact that the government and private sector are both prime examples of decaying systems set up by old people who like money too much to do anything relevant or useful to the majority of the nation, or even to prepare for the future generations.

 

Still I can't deny that there are historical cases for economic prosperity helping establish a happier median of citizens as well as government reforms making its citizens more equal with both force and diplomacy. In fact there are examples of both in the last hundred years or so of US history. We just need to chainsaw all of those Baby Boomers and we'll be back on the right track, I think.

I think these would be fair points if you weren't falsely equating "progressive legislation" and "expansion of government power." You're looking at this through a very conservative lens, as if there's a limited quantity of freedom and every new tax or program to help minorities chips away at it a little bit. Like "oops, we built that community centre in an under serviced neighbourhood, now the private sector can't afford to bring jobs there also I'm less free than I was yesterday by some random aesthetic measure." 

 

A couple of points: 1) the public sector isn't a drain, and a larger private sector doesn't necessarily lead to economic prosperity. Keynesianism is synonymous with mainstream economics for a reason. 2) Issues of social justice simply can't be solved with economic prosperity. For instance, say the conservatives got their way, and all of their economic theories turned out to be sound: so there's suddenly an abundance of high paying jobs, but abortion has been banned and millions of women can't enter the workforce because they're saddled with a baby every time a condom breaks; minorities would face similar hurdles because there'd be no affirmative action/positive discrimination, minority scholarships, public funded community programs etc. Same with young people in a bad neighbourhood. To put it more succinctly: You can't provide more theoretical opportunities while leaving people completely on their own.

 

"The right wants freedom through trade, the left wants freedom through government." Really, that's just a polite way to describe the partisan divide without offending either side and pretending both positions are equally valid. As for libertarians: defending free markets in the abstract is all well and good, and they're certainly something I agree with (I ain't a commie) but there are very pressing threats to freedom coming from the religious right that need to be addressed. They claim to be about freedom but won't speak out against prayer in schools, attempts to ban or limit access to abortion and opposition to same-sex marriage. It has nothing to do with having a different approach to freedom, and everything to do with them being apart of the political right-wing, which has no interest in fixing societal dysfunction. 

  • Irviding and Tyler like this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#567

Posted 02 March 2014 - 05:52 PM Edited by Vlynor, 02 March 2014 - 05:53 PM.

I think these would be fair points if you weren't falsely equating "progressive legislation" and "expansion of government power." 

 

Can you say that? If you tax more, and build more public services (infrastructure, health care, etc.) aren't you increasing government power? Some progressive legislation doesn't do this, but a lot of it does. I'm not saying I'm necessarily against any of it, but having more services/programs/buildings/etc. built for and by the public is increasing government power.

 

 

As for libertarians: defending free markets in the abstract is all well and good, and they're certainly something I agree with (I ain't a commie) but there are very pressing threats to freedom coming from the religious right that need to be addressed. They claim to be about freedom but won't speak out against prayer in schools, attempts to ban or limit access to abortion and opposition to same-sex marriage. It has nothing to do with having a different approach to freedom...

 

 

I'm still curious as to where you're getting your information from? The Libertarian Party (which is where most of the libertarians are, I believe) are pretty open about most issues. Do you follow the libertarian meetings and rallies or something?

 

Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Secularization


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#568

Posted 02 March 2014 - 06:07 PM

Can you say that? If you tax more, and build more public services (infrastructure, health care, etc.) aren't you increasing government power? Some progressive legislation doesn't do this, but a lot of it does. I'm not saying I'm necessarily against any of it, but having more services/programs/buildings/etc. built for and by the public is increasing government power.

A government taking a more active role isn't necessarily a more intrusive government. A "bigger" government (very subjective) isn't necessarily more powerful. Government bringing in a law to help the economically disadvantaged or small business or whatever doesn't give them more power or entrench them in our lives any further. That kind of dialogue comes from the paranoid idea that everything the government does is to give themselves more legislative ammo with which to set up the police state. Let's not forget that the far right is inextricably linked to the militia movement and some of their ideas have been repackaged for the wider population.

 

 

 

I'm still curious as to where you're getting your information from? The Libertarian Party (which is where most of the libertarians are, I believe) are pretty open about most issues. Do you follow the libertarian meetings and rallies or something?

Quit making me repeat myself. There are libertarians in the public arena, I don't need to follow them on twitter to know what they're about. 

  • Irviding likes this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#569

Posted 02 March 2014 - 06:14 PM

 

Can you say that? If you tax more, and build more public services (infrastructure, health care, etc.) aren't you increasing government power? Some progressive legislation doesn't do this, but a lot of it does. I'm not saying I'm necessarily against any of it, but having more services/programs/buildings/etc. built for and by the public is increasing government power.

A government taking a more active role isn't necessarily a more intrusive government. A "bigger" government (very subjective) isn't necessarily more powerful. Government bringing in a law to help the economically disadvantaged or small business or whatever doesn't give them more power or entrench them in our lives any further. That kind of dialogue comes from the paranoid idea that everything the government does is to give themselves more legislative ammo with which to set up the police state. Let's not forget that the far right is inextricably linked to the militia movement and some of their ideas have been repackaged for the wider population.

 

 

If you give the government more control over something, regardless of whether or not it helps or hurts anybody, that is making a bigger government. That's not subjective. When you give somebody more control over something, you are increasing it's scope, power, and ability to do good/bad.

 

 

 

Quit making me repeat myself. There are libertarians in the public arena, I don't need to follow them on twitter to know what they're about. 

 

I'm making you repeat yourself because you're not really backing any of it up. 

 

"Libertarians aren't out there supporting x, y, and z!"

 

But then you don't provide any supporting evidence. If we're talking about American politics, I'm gonna have to call bullsh*t until you actually back-up your claims.

  • Tyler likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#570

Posted 02 March 2014 - 06:24 PM Edited by Melchior, 02 March 2014 - 06:25 PM.

If you give the government more control over something, regardless of whether or not it helps or hurts anybody, that is making a bigger government. That's not subjective. When you give somebody more control over something, you are increasing it's scope, power, and ability to do good/bad

So any piece of legislation is an expansion of government, basically? What about subsidies? So infant nutrition programs are a form of government control? The government building a basket ball court in the ghetto- control? You don't see how these view points have a strong, paranoid tinge and show their far-right origins?

 

 

I'm making you repeat yourself because you're not really backing any of it up. 

 

"Libertarians aren't out there supporting x, y, and z!"

 

But then you don't provide any supporting evidence. If we're talking about American politics, I'm gonna have to call bullsh*t until you actually back-up your claims.

You're asking me to show you silence, I hope you realise. You can't quantify a negative.

 

It should be obvious to any objective observer, tbh and I think I've explained it adequately. You can ignore it if you want but it's pretty clear to everyone else that libertarians are conservatives. 

 

 

Does that guy seem "socially left" to you?

  • Irviding likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users