Choose the lesser of two evils, instead of the cheaper of two evils?
Do you think that the Democrat position or alternatively the 'liberal' (horribly overloaded term) position is always the lesser of two evils? I certainly don't think so.
Anyways, I don't consider myself a true libertarian, largely because of some of the issues raised here. The set of things that libertarians consider to be best dealt with by government involvement tends to be too restricted or skewed for my tastes. Modern economics is well aware of externalities, which the free market doesn't tend to deal with very well.
But a distrust of government involvement in situations where there isn't a compelling interest seems to be a healthy position to take. Serious libertarians should be revoking any support for the current administration they had for its incroachment on personal liberties.
You question whether true libertarians should be voting Democrat, then follow it up by explaining why they should. :P
I'm not saying that they should always vote Democrat, but in this particular environment, really, their only excuse for voting Republican is "I value tax cuts above all else."
Accepting the legitimacy of a federal military is to accept the fundamental role of the government in addressing collective action issues - all that remains is to decide which of the others is sufficiently important to address. The libertarian answer is "none of them".
I believe, through my limited knowledge of Objectivism, that the difference for "libertarians" lies in the prevention of coercion. Preventing invasion with a federal military and, say, affirmative action, differ in that one directly halts coercion. "Libertarians," if they draw from Rand, would argue that individuals should be free to go about their business, with a guarantee (by the Social Contract) that coercion will be stopped. Of course this generates some hypocrisy as far as coercive tactics in the police force go, and, further, it leaves the free market ripe for tycoons to exploit... and thus exercise plenty of control over society even without coercive force.
Of course, I'm not a "libertarian," at least in a modern sense, so I'm certain someone else would phrase it better. At least, they would, provided that modern "libertarians" had a single clue about their underlying tenets and didn't simply, as it seems, make shit up as they go to satisfy their gut-deigned entitlements.
Choose the lesser of two evils, instead of the cheaper of two evils?
Do you think that the Democrat position or alternatively the 'liberal' (horribly overloaded term) position is always the lesser of two evils? I certainly don't think so.
Anyways, I don't consider myself a true libertarian, largely because of some of the issues raised here. The set of things that libertarians consider to be best dealt with by government involvement tends to be too restricted or skewed for my tastes. Modern economics is well aware of externalities, which the free market doesn't tend to deal with very well.
But a distrust of government involvement in situations where there isn't a compelling interest seems to be a healthy position to take. Serious libertarians should be revoking any support for the current administration they had for its incroachment on personal liberties.
You question whether true libertarians should be voting Democrat, then follow it up by explaining why they should. :P
I'm not saying that they should always vote Democrat, but in this particular environment, really, their only excuse for voting Republican is "I value tax cuts above all else."
Well, there is variation among the sides, which is more of an issue for the congressional and local elections. Not all Republicans are Bush stoolies, although a lot of them are. A lot of the work has to be done within the parties to shift around positions such as through primaries, not everything can be accomplished in the final usually binary vote. The winner take all aspect of US politics has had some negative effects in that regard, as it cuts down the number of contenders to those who can effectively carve up demographics.
I'd wager that a good deal of the overthrow of the Republican congress was due to former supporters getting fed up with the way Bush handles things. Even if they don't like the Dems or like them less, I would guess that there were a fair number who rescinded their support for the Republicans, either by abstaining or by voting for someone else.
Affirmative action is just more government interference in the eyes of a libertarian, and probably unhelpful interference at that. Why the fuck would an idealist libertarian support it?
No one likes government interference for its own sake you know. Liberals don't like paying taxes, and we have other things we'd like to spend our money on as well. The difference is that we're willing to fund, support, and vote for programs aimed at addressing problems that only a government can meaningfully address.
Nearly all libertarians support a federal military, because in their minds it's clearly important and infeasible without a government. In this light, the fact that they refuse to support social programs is just so much philosophical sheen on "I don't care enough to pay for it".
I think this brings up another point. A lot of libertarians will claim that they're just as much against the idea of corporate welfare as they are against the idea of social welfare. But given the choice between a candidate who'll give $10 billion dollars to corporations, and the candidate who will give $1 billion for social programs, they'll always side with the former.
I am just going to throw this out there, but I can sum up my issue with most Libertarians very simply.
"I want to keep the money I make for myself, no one else should be able to take it away"
I know I am simplifying this, and it is probably a fallacy, but I just wanted to show everyone my way of thinking.
xanathos on
"Our will requires an aim; it would sooner have the void for its purpose than be void of purpose" - Friedrich Nietzsche from The Genealogy of Morals, 1887.
"All memory of your existence will be wiped from reality. You will die, and no one will mourn." - Memnarch
I am just going to throw this out there, but I can sum up my issue with most Libertarians very simply.
"I want to keep the money I make for myself, no one else should be able to take it away"
I know I am simplifying this, and it is probably a fallacy, but I just wanted to show everyone my way of thinking.
No, this really dose sum up the fiscal philosophy of most libertarians. Basically, you have the right to the fruits of your own labor (all of them) and others are free to succeed or fail on their own. Libertarianism protects your right to prosper, and protects your right to die penniless in a gutter choking on your own vomit. Whichever happens.
Some will try and gesture towards the Altar of the Invisible Hand and claim it will work things out for the best anyway...but that's just smoke and mirrors. The simple fact is that to most libertarians it doesn't matter how things work out, everything takes a backseat to personal freedom.
But again, I think the fact that most libertarians will take Republicans over Democrats when forced to make the choice tells a lot about which freedoms they actually value most...and I think it "freedom not to pay as much in taxes" seems to come in at number one for most of them.
I am just going to throw this out there, but I can sum up my issue with most Libertarians very simply.
"I want to keep the money I make for myself, no one else should be able to take it away"
I know I am simplifying this, and it is probably a fallacy, but I just wanted to show everyone my way of thinking.
No, this really dose sum up the fiscal philosophy of most libertarians. Basically, you have the right to the fruits of your own labor (all of them) and others are free to succeed or fail on their own. Libertarianism protects your right to prosper, and protects your right to die penniless in a gutter choking on your own vomit. Whichever happens.
Some will try and gesture towards the Altar of the Invisible Hand and claim it will work things out for the best anyway...but that's just smoke and mirrors. The simple fact is that to most libertarians it doesn't matter how things work out, everything takes a backseat to personal freedom.
But again, I think the fact that most libertarians will take Republicans over Democrats when forced to make the choice tells a lot about which freedoms they actually value most...and I think it "freedom not to pay as much in taxes" seems to come in at number one for most of them.
Yeah, and it appears that the fiscal philosophy so overwhelms any other philosophy of libertarians that it comes across as the main philosophy.
xanathos on
"Our will requires an aim; it would sooner have the void for its purpose than be void of purpose" - Friedrich Nietzsche from The Genealogy of Morals, 1887.
"All memory of your existence will be wiped from reality. You will die, and no one will mourn." - Memnarch
Affirmative action is just more government interference in the eyes of a libertarian, and probably unhelpful interference at that. Why the fuck would an idealist libertarian support it?
No one likes government interference for its own sake you know. Liberals don't like paying taxes, and we have other things we'd like to spend our money on as well. The difference is that we're willing to fund, support, and vote for programs aimed at addressing problems that only a government can meaningfully address.
Nearly all libertarians support a federal military, because in their minds it's clearly important and infeasible without a government. In this light, the fact that they refuse to support social programs is just so much philosophical sheen on "I don't care enough to pay for it".
I think this brings up another point. A lot of libertarians will claim that they're just as much against the idea of corporate welfare as they are against the idea of social welfare. But given the choice between a candidate who'll give $10 billion dollars to corporations, and the candidate who will give $1 billion for social programs, they'll always side with the former.
- I'm alive because of Government-funded medical treatment and Government-subsidised medicine.
- I was educated in a Government-funded school and university.
- When I was growing up, Government welfare helped pay my family's bills.
- My disabled uncle can afford to at least have some quality of life due to his Government pension.
I've benefited from Government welfare, and so has the rest of my family. Needless to say, I'm now happy to pay my taxes and provide the same benefits to the next generation.
I've benefited from welfare too, but not consistently. Welfare is good to help people through transitions but if it's being used to support someone who just works in a job that doesn't pay enough to cover their living, then they need a new fucking job. And that would be a lot easier for the market to provide if the rest of the population didn't need to support their lives (they could use that money to buy stuff and invest, which creates more jobs because of the cash flow). The principle behind it is that it gives the individual the freedom to spend their money how they choose to, instead of government putting it into short-sighted charity systems.
The funny thing about Libertarians is that they irresponsibly ignore irresponsibility. People ignore education and health care, the obvious things that everyone should have. And people exploit other people, that's why things like minimum wage are needed. What they're right on is that government shouldn't be taking away choices that are reasonable choices, like the choice not to give money to charity systems. The transitional form of U.S. welfare is good for the country because nobody benefits from people getting thrown to the sidewalk because they hit a rough patch. But government systems shouldn't be charities that individuals can leech from (which isn't the same as pensions).
You aren't unique. Neither is the candidate you're voting for. If you want one who agrees with all of your views and isn't at least partially part of an echo chamber the only solution would be to run for office yourself.
Believe me, I understand that I'm not alone in this feeling. I'm just trying to externalize something I've been pretty much dealing with internally for the past couple years. My real problem is that the issues I feel strongest about are often politically opposed to one another. So far, my distain for the Religious Right has been enough to overrule my consevative leanings. But it's been a struggle.
What conservative leanings? Because the GOP tends to hate the ACLU with a passion, which you just admitted to supporting philosophically.
I guess I'd probably better describe it as more anti-liberal and pro-conservative (if that makes any sense). All the political correctness bullshit and the recent FCC crackdown on "obsenity". The Joe Liebermans (although he's an independant now, right), and Tipper Gores of the world. Basically anyone who's ever uttered the phrase "We need to protect the children from..." are dead to me. But internally, that all seems to fit in my "stay the fuck outta my business" stance. I guess I'm just destined to remain conflicted (just like alot of people).
So...politicians.
Also, political correctness is just a shield that opportunistic people use. It isn't a liberal position nor is it conservative. Nor is it even political correctness when people are just telling others to not be assholes.
Touche.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
TheCanMan on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Generalizations suck. You can just as easily denegrate conservative if you assume that most of them agree with every word that comes out of Anne Coulter's or Rush Limbaugh's mouth. And the same thing applies to librals if you assume that most of them agree with every word that comes out of Ted Kennedy's or Al Franken's mouth.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
If you admit that "being a racist asshole" is more associated with conservatives than liberals. See, I can do it to! now stop being dumb.
I don't even know how to respond to that. What the fuck are you talking about? Instead of trying to insult me (oh no, someone on the internet thinks I'm dumb, why world is collapsing around me), why don't you take the time to organize a coherent thought.
I believe, through my limited knowledge of Objectivism, that the difference for "libertarians" lies in the prevention of coercion. Preventing invasion with a federal military and, say, affirmative action, differ in that one directly halts coercion. "Libertarians," if they draw from Rand, would argue that individuals should be free to go about their business, with a guarantee (by the Social Contract) that coercion will be stopped. Of course this generates some hypocrisy as far as coercive tactics in the police force go, and, further, it leaves the free market ripe for tycoons to exploit... and thus exercise plenty of control over society even without coercive force.
Of course, I'm not a "libertarian," at least in a modern sense, so I'm certain someone else would phrase it better. At least, they would, provided that modern "libertarians" had a single clue about their underlying tenets and didn't simply, as it seems, make shit up as they go to satisfy their gut-deigned entitlements.
But all this really is is hedging over the meaning of "freedom". I can't survive, at least with any meaningful quality of life, without getting a job. In what way am I not coerced into working?
Adrien on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
If you admit that "being a racist asshole" is more associated with conservatives than liberals. See, I can do it to! now stop being dumb.
I don't even know how to respond to that. What the fuck are you talking about? Instead of trying to insult me (oh no, someone on the internet thinks I'm dumb, why world is collapsing around me), why don't you take the time to organize a coherent thought.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had trouble identifying mockery. You get it so much, I assumed it would be easy for you. Here's some help: That thing you said? Kinda dumb.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
If you admit that "being a racist asshole" is more associated with conservatives than liberals. See, I can do it to! now stop being dumb.
I don't even know how to respond to that. What the fuck are you talking about? Instead of trying to insult me (oh no, someone on the internet thinks I'm dumb, why world is collapsing around me), why don't you take the time to organize a coherent thought.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had trouble identifying mockery. You get it so much, I assumed it would be easy for you. Here's some help: That thing you said? Kinda dumb.
Why is it dumb? Generally speaking, it's true. As much as I tend to dislike republicans, it's far more often I see dems pushing for censorship of movies, games, music, etc.
Back to the topic. They may not be trolls, but they're generally self-serving idealists with a philosophy that even a five year old can find huge, gaping flaws in.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
If you admit that "being a racist asshole" is more associated with conservatives than liberals. See, I can do it to! now stop being dumb.
I don't even know how to respond to that. What the fuck are you talking about? Instead of trying to insult me (oh no, someone on the internet thinks I'm dumb, why world is collapsing around me), why don't you take the time to organize a coherent thought.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had trouble identifying mockery. You get it so much, I assumed it would be easy for you. Here's some help: That thing you said? Kinda dumb.
Why is it dumb? Generally speaking, it's true. As much as I tend to dislike republicans, it's far more often I see dems pushing for censorship of movies, games, music, etc.
The Republicans love censorship. The FCC didn't find that women who showed her breats at the Superbowl because the Democrats didn't like it.
In some ways I equate the people I've met who advocate full on 'libertarianism' to the same type of mentality of the kids I've met who belt out 'anarchy' whenever there's some type of political activity going on. Yeah, it'd be great if people could live in peace and happiness without the intervention of society at large or the government, but it's not gonna happen. I fully support both sides of the scale duking it out while us normals can live happily in the middle though. :P
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
If you admit that "being a racist asshole" is more associated with conservatives than liberals. See, I can do it to! now stop being dumb.
I don't even know how to respond to that. What the fuck are you talking about? Instead of trying to insult me (oh no, someone on the internet thinks I'm dumb, why world is collapsing around me), why don't you take the time to organize a coherent thought.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had trouble identifying mockery. You get it so much, I assumed it would be easy for you. Here's some help: That thing you said? Kinda dumb.
Thank you for the insightful and intelligent discussion. Just for future reference, you don't have to put the effort into responding to my posts because I'm just going to completely ignore your's. I prefer conversations with adults.
Also, political correctness is just a shield that opportunistic people use. It isn't a liberal position nor is it conservative. Nor is it even political correctness when people are just telling others to not be assholes.
Touche.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
Also, political correctness is just a shield that opportunistic people use. It isn't a liberal position nor is it conservative. Nor is it even political correctness when people are just telling others to not be assholes.
Touche.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
No, I don't, because that's just flat wrong.
Then please, enlighten me. I'm in no way claiming to be all-knowing. I've always considered myself a liberal, and I've always thought of that as one of the main aspects of the left that I disagree with. That's just how I feel. If you can explain to me why I'm wrong, I'll gladly listen. It'll actually make me feel better about my past political allegiances if you can show me I'm wrong.
Also, political correctness is just a shield that opportunistic people use. It isn't a liberal position nor is it conservative. Nor is it even political correctness when people are just telling others to not be assholes.
Touche.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
No, I don't, because that's just flat wrong.
Then please, enlighten me. I'm in no way claiming to be all-knowing. I've always considered myself a liberal, and I've always thought of that as one of the main aspects of the left that I disagree with. That's just how I feel. If you can explain to me why I'm wrong, I'll gladly listen. It'll actually make me feel better about my past political allegiances if you can show me I'm wrong.
I've often found John Stewart works very hard not to offend anyone... oh, wait.
I think what everyone is trying to point out with your statement is that the whole "liberals are the masterminds behind political correctness" is that you are simply buying into a misrepresentation of what PC is and why it exists. The right has done a great job of trying to show that liberals think no one should ever say anything that might offend someone, when liberals are more inclined to look at the reason why people would want to say offensive things in the first place. It really highlights the difference between the two sides... the right pays lip-service to ideas it thinks people want to hear, the left actually tries to change the thoughts and opinions that keep people being ignorant racists.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
In some ways I equate the people I've met who advocate full on 'libertarianism' to the same type of mentality of the kids I've met who belt out 'anarchy' whenever there's some type of political activity going on. Yeah, it'd be great if people could live in peace and happiness without the intervention of society at large or the government, but it's not gonna happen. I fully support both sides of the scale duking it out while us normals can live happily in the middle though. :P
Well, there is a little overlap, but largely you've got a big difference in that libertarians (even at extremes) still require some kind of overseeing body to guarantee the property rights necessary for capitalism stay in place, whereas anarchists typically want nothing to do with capitalism.
In some ways I equate the people I've met who advocate full on 'libertarianism' to the same type of mentality of the kids I've met who belt out 'anarchy' whenever there's some type of political activity going on. Yeah, it'd be great if people could live in peace and happiness without the intervention of society at large or the government, but it's not gonna happen. I fully support both sides of the scale duking it out while us normals can live happily in the middle though. :P
Well, there is a little overlap, but largely you've got a big difference in that libertarians (even at extremes) still require some kind of overseeing body to guarantee the property rights necessary for capitalism stay in place, whereas anarchists typically want nothing to do with capitalism.
Also, political correctness is just a shield that opportunistic people use. It isn't a liberal position nor is it conservative. Nor is it even political correctness when people are just telling others to not be assholes.
Touche.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
No, I don't, because that's just flat wrong.
Then please, enlighten me. I'm in no way claiming to be all-knowing. I've always considered myself a liberal, and I've always thought of that as one of the main aspects of the left that I disagree with. That's just how I feel. If you can explain to me why I'm wrong, I'll gladly listen. It'll actually make me feel better about my past political allegiances if you can show me I'm wrong.
...mind explaining to me how censorship/political correctness is restricted to liberals? I mean, I guess the term might be, since conservatives call it something else when they do it, but I just don't understand your position in the face of reality.
I share Adrien's lack of understanding about "coercion". If I need to eat, and it's a capitalistic society, I am coerced to work. Or I die. How taxes became the ultimate example of the system enforcing it's will on you, I am uncertain.
Also! To the earlier discussion about local V. federal control and corruption. Rhode Island (my native land) is a great example of why local control does not equal less corruption. My mother couldn't begin teaching there for years because of the additional $5,000 "you're not family/friends with anyone in charge bribe us" fee for a liscense. Local politics, if anything, are usually more corrupt.
I share Adrien's lack of understanding about "coercion". If I need to eat, and it's a capitalistic society, I am coerced to work. Or I die. How taxes became the ultimate example of the system enforcing it's will on you, I am uncertain.
Also! To the earlier discussion about local V. federal control and corruption. Rhode Island (my native land) is a great example of why local control does not equal less corruption. My mother couldn't begin teaching there for years because of the additional $5,000 dollar "you're not family/friends with anyone in charge bribe us" fee for a liscense. Local politics, if anything, are usually more corrupt.
I think, usually, when this is the case it is because the majority of people don't pay attention to those local posts. Sure, they are technically voted into office, but at least in my town, there is usually only one person running for a lot of the local posts. I mean, who wants to run for city treasurer anyway? Is it even a paid post? Who knows? Most people overlook local politics because, honestly, how much power do they have anyways? Enough to be corrupt but not enough to actually change things, I believe.
Also, political correctness is just a shield that opportunistic people use. It isn't a liberal position nor is it conservative. Nor is it even political correctness when people are just telling others to not be assholes.
Touche.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
No, I don't, because that's just flat wrong.
Then please, enlighten me. I'm in no way claiming to be all-knowing. I've always considered myself a liberal, and I've always thought of that as one of the main aspects of the left that I disagree with. That's just how I feel. If you can explain to me why I'm wrong, I'll gladly listen. It'll actually make me feel better about my past political allegiances if you can show me I'm wrong.
...mind explaining to me how censorship/political correctness is restricted to liberals? I mean, I guess the term might be, since conservatives call it something else when they do it, but I just don't understand your position in the face of reality.
I've said a couple times in this thread that I loath the christian-right. But there are other forms of conservativism, right? Or has the evangelical movement completely taken over and become ubiquitous throughout the entire spectrum of conservativism?
I've said a couple times in this thread that I loath the christian-right. But there are other forms of conservativism, right? Or has the evangelical movement completely taken over and become ubiquitous throughout the entire spectrum of conservativism?
I think you are calling them on the same mistake you originally made. Yes, there is a branch of conservatives who like to ban "ungodly" things and historically get away with it. However, they are just a branch of conservatives. On the other hand, there is a branch of liberals who are heading towards a nanny-state with their ideas on censorship. I would suggest Hillary is a big one. They are just a branch of liberals, and I think mostly they are democrats who are using feel-good legislation to censor and block things not because they want to create a nanny-state, but because they know if they support keeping kids away from violent media the average American will think they have a good heart.
I've said a couple times in this thread that I loath the christian-right. But there are other forms of conservativism, right? Or has the evangelical movement completely taken over and become ubiquitous throughout the entire spectrum of conservativism?
I think you are calling them on the same mistake you originally made. Yes, there is a branch of conservatives who like to ban "ungodly" things and historically get away with it. However, they are just a branch of conservatives. On the other hand, there is a branch of liberals who are heading towards a nanny-state with their ideas on censorship. I would suggest Hillary is a big one. They are just a branch of liberals, and I think mostly they are democrats who are using feel-good legislation to censor and block things not because they want to create a nanny-state, but because they know if they support keeping kids away from violent media the average American will think they have a good heart.
Oops. You know what, that's exactly what I was doing. I retract my previous statement. I probably should have been able to see that for myself, but that's precisely why I was asking to be corrected. Thanks.
Also, political correctness is just a shield that opportunistic people use. It isn't a liberal position nor is it conservative. Nor is it even political correctness when people are just telling others to not be assholes.
Touche.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
No, I don't, because that's just flat wrong.
Then please, enlighten me. I'm in no way claiming to be all-knowing. I've always considered myself a liberal, and I've always thought of that as one of the main aspects of the left that I disagree with. That's just how I feel. If you can explain to me why I'm wrong, I'll gladly listen. It'll actually make me feel better about my past political allegiances if you can show me I'm wrong.
I've often found John Stewart works very hard not to offend anyone... oh, wait.
I think what everyone is trying to point out with your statement is that the whole "liberals are the masterminds behind political correctness" is that you are simply buying into a misrepresentation of what PC is and why it exists. The right has done a great job of trying to show that liberals think no one should ever say anything that might offend someone, when liberals are more inclined to look at the reason why people would want to say offensive things in the first place. It really highlights the difference between the two sides... the right pays lip-service to ideas it thinks people want to hear, the left actually tries to change the thoughts and opinions that keep people being ignorant racists.
If you can't help but to bring up racism in every discussion, you may want to examine why exactly that is. It was relavent in the Imus discussion. It isn't relavent to this one.
Democrat: More control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
Republican: Less control of the economy, more control of the bedroom.
Libertarian: Less control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. As long as Dems and Pubs continue to fail on their "less control of the _____" and succeed on their "more control of the _____," as they both seem prone to do, then Libs will slowly gain attention.
Dems are not all hippie communists Pubs are not all thumping fascists. Libs are not all selfish anarchists.
Democrat: More control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
Republican: Less control of the economy, more control of the bedroom.
Libertarian: Less control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. As long as Dems and Pubs continue to fail on their "less control of the _____" and succeed on their "more control of the _____," as they both seem prone to do, then Libs will slowly gain attention.
Dems are not all hippie communists Pubs are not all thumping fascists. Libs are not all selfish anarchists.
Why will libertarians gain more attention? People seem fine right now with more control; plus the two-party system isn't exactly going anywhere.
Democrat: More control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
Republican: Less control of the economy, more control of the bedroom.
Libertarian: Less control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. As long as Dems and Pubs continue to fail on their "less control of the _____" and succeed on their "more control of the _____," as they both seem prone to do, then Libs will slowly gain attention.
Dems are not all hippie communists Pubs are not all thumping fascists. Libs are not all selfish anarchists.
Why will libertarians gain more attention? People seem fine right now with more control; plus the two-party system isn't exactly going anywhere.
I don't think he was suggesting that we'll see a libertarian President any time soon. I think the point was that since both the Democrats and Republicans both seem to be focusing on the "more control" portion of thier idiology, libertarians will increasingly be seen as a more mainstream political group instead of the fringe anarchist retards most people think they are now (as evidenced in alot of the posts in this thread).
TheCanMan on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
If you admit that "being a racist asshole" is more associated with conservatives than liberals. See, I can do it to! now stop being dumb.
I don't even know how to respond to that. What the fuck are you talking about? Instead of trying to insult me (oh no, someone on the internet thinks I'm dumb, why world is collapsing around me), why don't you take the time to organize a coherent thought.
Realx. He's saying that the contrary position to "struggling not to offend anyone" is "offending people inadvertently or intentionally".
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Democrat: More control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
Republican: Less control of the economy, more control of the bedroom.
Libertarian: Less control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. As long as Dems and Pubs continue to fail on their "less control of the _____" and succeed on their "more control of the _____," as they both seem prone to do, then Libs will slowly gain attention.
Dems are not all hippie communists Pubs are not all thumping fascists. Libs are not all selfish anarchists.
You're right that there's no theoretical reason that the Libertarian party has to be extremists, just as there's no reason that the Greens have to be fucking nuts. Mostly it's that the party is marginal, so it basically attracts extremists and true-believers. Also, the "philosophical underpinnings" of the philosophy are hewed to pretty closely, and those "philosophers" were fucking nuts.
Democrat: More control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
Republican: Less control of the economy, more control of the bedroom.
Libertarian: Less control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. As long as Dems and Pubs continue to fail on their "less control of the _____" and succeed on their "more control of the _____," as they both seem prone to do, then Libs will slowly gain attention.
Dems are not all hippie communists Pubs are not all thumping fascists. Libs are not all selfish anarchists.
You're right that there's no theoretical reason that the Libertarian party has to be extremists, just as there's no reason that the Greens have to be fucking nuts. Mostly it's that the party is marginal, so it basically attracts extremists and true-believers. Also, the "philosophical underpinnings" of the philosophy are hewed to pretty closely, and those "philosophers" were fucking nuts.
And I think that's exactly what Yar was suggesting when he said that libertarianism is going to start attracting more attention. Right now, most people who agree with libertarian ideals (myself included) tend to associate with one of the two main parties. But as more and more people get tired of the Dems and Reps, more and more "normal" people may start to identify themselves as libertarians. And thanks to this thread causing me to do a little more research that I probably should have done a long time ago, I'm think I'm one of them (civil libertarian, anyway).
TheCanMan on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
And I think that's exactly what Yar was suggesting when he said that libertarianism is going to start attracting more attention. Right now, most people who agree with libertarian ideals (myself included) tend to associate with one of the two main parties. But as more and more people get tired of the Dems and Reps, more and more "normal" people may start to identify themselves as libertarians. And thanks to this thread causing me to do a little more research that I probably should have done a long time ago, I'm think I'm one of them (civil libertarian, anyway).
The Democrats are basically civil libertarians.
There seems to be a huge misunderstanding among games regarding "censorship" efforts on video games - what the Dems are looking for is a rating system which empowers consumers to know exactly what they're getting before purchase and allows parents do decide what's appropriate from their kids in a straightforward manner. The Dems are not, in any case which I've heard of, seeking to band video games, censor video games, nor restrict themes in video games.
Civil libertarians who are neutral on economic issues generally vote Democratic, and rarely vote Republican.
In general, when someone refers to themselves as a libertarian full stop, it alludes principally to the balls-out anarcho-capitalist economic philosophy we've outlined in this thread.
Posts
I'm not saying that they should always vote Democrat, but in this particular environment, really, their only excuse for voting Republican is "I value tax cuts above all else."
I believe, through my limited knowledge of Objectivism, that the difference for "libertarians" lies in the prevention of coercion. Preventing invasion with a federal military and, say, affirmative action, differ in that one directly halts coercion. "Libertarians," if they draw from Rand, would argue that individuals should be free to go about their business, with a guarantee (by the Social Contract) that coercion will be stopped. Of course this generates some hypocrisy as far as coercive tactics in the police force go, and, further, it leaves the free market ripe for tycoons to exploit... and thus exercise plenty of control over society even without coercive force.
Of course, I'm not a "libertarian," at least in a modern sense, so I'm certain someone else would phrase it better. At least, they would, provided that modern "libertarians" had a single clue about their underlying tenets and didn't simply, as it seems, make shit up as they go to satisfy their gut-deigned entitlements.
Well, there is variation among the sides, which is more of an issue for the congressional and local elections. Not all Republicans are Bush stoolies, although a lot of them are. A lot of the work has to be done within the parties to shift around positions such as through primaries, not everything can be accomplished in the final usually binary vote. The winner take all aspect of US politics has had some negative effects in that regard, as it cuts down the number of contenders to those who can effectively carve up demographics.
I'd wager that a good deal of the overthrow of the Republican congress was due to former supporters getting fed up with the way Bush handles things. Even if they don't like the Dems or like them less, I would guess that there were a fair number who rescinded their support for the Republicans, either by abstaining or by voting for someone else.
I think this brings up another point. A lot of libertarians will claim that they're just as much against the idea of corporate welfare as they are against the idea of social welfare. But given the choice between a candidate who'll give $10 billion dollars to corporations, and the candidate who will give $1 billion for social programs, they'll always side with the former.
"I want to keep the money I make for myself, no one else should be able to take it away"
I know I am simplifying this, and it is probably a fallacy, but I just wanted to show everyone my way of thinking.
"All memory of your existence will be wiped from reality. You will die, and no one will mourn." - Memnarch
No, this really dose sum up the fiscal philosophy of most libertarians. Basically, you have the right to the fruits of your own labor (all of them) and others are free to succeed or fail on their own. Libertarianism protects your right to prosper, and protects your right to die penniless in a gutter choking on your own vomit. Whichever happens.
Some will try and gesture towards the Altar of the Invisible Hand and claim it will work things out for the best anyway...but that's just smoke and mirrors. The simple fact is that to most libertarians it doesn't matter how things work out, everything takes a backseat to personal freedom.
But again, I think the fact that most libertarians will take Republicans over Democrats when forced to make the choice tells a lot about which freedoms they actually value most...and I think it "freedom not to pay as much in taxes" seems to come in at number one for most of them.
Yeah, and it appears that the fiscal philosophy so overwhelms any other philosophy of libertarians that it comes across as the main philosophy.
"All memory of your existence will be wiped from reality. You will die, and no one will mourn." - Memnarch
C'mon man, we just want the DOW to hit 13,000.
- I'm alive because of Government-funded medical treatment and Government-subsidised medicine.
- I was educated in a Government-funded school and university.
- When I was growing up, Government welfare helped pay my family's bills.
- My disabled uncle can afford to at least have some quality of life due to his Government pension.
I've benefited from Government welfare, and so has the rest of my family. Needless to say, I'm now happy to pay my taxes and provide the same benefits to the next generation.
The funny thing about Libertarians is that they irresponsibly ignore irresponsibility. People ignore education and health care, the obvious things that everyone should have. And people exploit other people, that's why things like minimum wage are needed. What they're right on is that government shouldn't be taking away choices that are reasonable choices, like the choice not to give money to charity systems. The transitional form of U.S. welfare is good for the country because nobody benefits from people getting thrown to the sidewalk because they hit a rough patch. But government systems shouldn't be charities that individuals can leech from (which isn't the same as pensions).
Touche.
But you have to admit that the whole "struggle not to offend anyone" is much more associated with liberals than conservatives.
If you admit that "being a racist asshole" is more associated with conservatives than liberals. See, I can do it to! now stop being dumb.
Generalizations suck. You can just as easily denegrate conservative if you assume that most of them agree with every word that comes out of Anne Coulter's or Rush Limbaugh's mouth. And the same thing applies to librals if you assume that most of them agree with every word that comes out of Ted Kennedy's or Al Franken's mouth.
I don't even know how to respond to that. What the fuck are you talking about? Instead of trying to insult me (oh no, someone on the internet thinks I'm dumb, why world is collapsing around me), why don't you take the time to organize a coherent thought.
But all this really is is hedging over the meaning of "freedom". I can't survive, at least with any meaningful quality of life, without getting a job. In what way am I not coerced into working?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had trouble identifying mockery. You get it so much, I assumed it would be easy for you. Here's some help: That thing you said? Kinda dumb.
Why is it dumb? Generally speaking, it's true. As much as I tend to dislike republicans, it's far more often I see dems pushing for censorship of movies, games, music, etc.
Back to the topic. They may not be trolls, but they're generally self-serving idealists with a philosophy that even a five year old can find huge, gaping flaws in.
Thank you for the insightful and intelligent discussion. Just for future reference, you don't have to put the effort into responding to my posts because I'm just going to completely ignore your's. I prefer conversations with adults.
No, I don't, because that's just flat wrong.
Then please, enlighten me. I'm in no way claiming to be all-knowing. I've always considered myself a liberal, and I've always thought of that as one of the main aspects of the left that I disagree with. That's just how I feel. If you can explain to me why I'm wrong, I'll gladly listen. It'll actually make me feel better about my past political allegiances if you can show me I'm wrong.
I've often found John Stewart works very hard not to offend anyone... oh, wait.
I think what everyone is trying to point out with your statement is that the whole "liberals are the masterminds behind political correctness" is that you are simply buying into a misrepresentation of what PC is and why it exists. The right has done a great job of trying to show that liberals think no one should ever say anything that might offend someone, when liberals are more inclined to look at the reason why people would want to say offensive things in the first place. It really highlights the difference between the two sides... the right pays lip-service to ideas it thinks people want to hear, the left actually tries to change the thoughts and opinions that keep people being ignorant racists.
Well, there is a little overlap, but largely you've got a big difference in that libertarians (even at extremes) still require some kind of overseeing body to guarantee the property rights necessary for capitalism stay in place, whereas anarchists typically want nothing to do with capitalism.
There are capitoanarchists.
STACLU
Moral Majority
Banned Books
&c.
...mind explaining to me how censorship/political correctness is restricted to liberals? I mean, I guess the term might be, since conservatives call it something else when they do it, but I just don't understand your position in the face of reality.
Also! To the earlier discussion about local V. federal control and corruption. Rhode Island (my native land) is a great example of why local control does not equal less corruption. My mother couldn't begin teaching there for years because of the additional $5,000 "you're not family/friends with anyone in charge bribe us" fee for a liscense. Local politics, if anything, are usually more corrupt.
I think, usually, when this is the case it is because the majority of people don't pay attention to those local posts. Sure, they are technically voted into office, but at least in my town, there is usually only one person running for a lot of the local posts. I mean, who wants to run for city treasurer anyway? Is it even a paid post? Who knows? Most people overlook local politics because, honestly, how much power do they have anyways? Enough to be corrupt but not enough to actually change things, I believe.
I've said a couple times in this thread that I loath the christian-right. But there are other forms of conservativism, right? Or has the evangelical movement completely taken over and become ubiquitous throughout the entire spectrum of conservativism?
I think you are calling them on the same mistake you originally made. Yes, there is a branch of conservatives who like to ban "ungodly" things and historically get away with it. However, they are just a branch of conservatives. On the other hand, there is a branch of liberals who are heading towards a nanny-state with their ideas on censorship. I would suggest Hillary is a big one. They are just a branch of liberals, and I think mostly they are democrats who are using feel-good legislation to censor and block things not because they want to create a nanny-state, but because they know if they support keeping kids away from violent media the average American will think they have a good heart.
Oops. You know what, that's exactly what I was doing. I retract my previous statement. I probably should have been able to see that for myself, but that's precisely why I was asking to be corrected. Thanks.
If you can't help but to bring up racism in every discussion, you may want to examine why exactly that is. It was relavent in the Imus discussion. It isn't relavent to this one.
Republican: Less control of the economy, more control of the bedroom.
Libertarian: Less control of the economy, less control of the bedroom.
I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. As long as Dems and Pubs continue to fail on their "less control of the _____" and succeed on their "more control of the _____," as they both seem prone to do, then Libs will slowly gain attention.
Dems are not all hippie communists Pubs are not all thumping fascists. Libs are not all selfish anarchists.
Why will libertarians gain more attention? People seem fine right now with more control; plus the two-party system isn't exactly going anywhere.
I don't think he was suggesting that we'll see a libertarian President any time soon. I think the point was that since both the Democrats and Republicans both seem to be focusing on the "more control" portion of thier idiology, libertarians will increasingly be seen as a more mainstream political group instead of the fringe anarchist retards most people think they are now (as evidenced in alot of the posts in this thread).
And I think that's exactly what Yar was suggesting when he said that libertarianism is going to start attracting more attention. Right now, most people who agree with libertarian ideals (myself included) tend to associate with one of the two main parties. But as more and more people get tired of the Dems and Reps, more and more "normal" people may start to identify themselves as libertarians. And thanks to this thread causing me to do a little more research that I probably should have done a long time ago, I'm think I'm one of them (civil libertarian, anyway).
There seems to be a huge misunderstanding among games regarding "censorship" efforts on video games - what the Dems are looking for is a rating system which empowers consumers to know exactly what they're getting before purchase and allows parents do decide what's appropriate from their kids in a straightforward manner. The Dems are not, in any case which I've heard of, seeking to band video games, censor video games, nor restrict themes in video games.
Civil libertarians who are neutral on economic issues generally vote Democratic, and rarely vote Republican.
In general, when someone refers to themselves as a libertarian full stop, it alludes principally to the balls-out anarcho-capitalist economic philosophy we've outlined in this thread.