Speaking seriously though, why do libertarians get such a bad rap?
Thoughts?
The number one reason Libritarians have a bad rap among both mainstream parties is because words like "moderate" "populist" and "independant" are dirty words to the typical line voter, and the people they put into office.
Republicans do not like the idea that church should be seperated from state, and that Military is meant for defense of the homeland.
Democrats do not like the idea of pay as you go finnance, charging trade tarrifs to other countries instead of Taxes to thier own people, and encouraging self sufficency over having a place for everybody in society.
of course that is my overly simplified view but then again being at workl right now prevents a full thesis.
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.
Yeah, my stance on social issues is much stronger than my stance on economic issues, which is precisely why I've always voted democrat.
Speaking seriously though, why do libertarians get such a bad rap?
Thoughts?
The number one reason Libritarians have a bad rap among both mainstream parties is because words like "moderate" "populist" and "independant" are dirty words to the typical line voter, and the people they put into office.
What? The typical voter loves the word "moderate" and "independant". They are both thrown around a lot in order to make a candidate seem like he or she doesn't agree with the party line on every issue and aren't like those crazy and extreme Democrats/Republicans.
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.
Eh, they might get some members in Congress and State legislatures over time, but that would be about it and is rather unlikely. 3rd parties do have a little potential at that level. For instance, the Farmer's Alliance a century ago, back when party politics was even worse than today.
Are they more so than the republicans? Yes. Whoop de doo. Democrats (and then, only some) have got it right on some social issues: gays should be allowed to marry, it's a good idea to let women have abortions if that's what they choose to do, and there's some good right to privacy stuff. But a lot of democrats are right in lock step with the patriot act, flag burning amendments, and other retarded stuff. Oh yeah, and the elephant in the room: The War on Drugs (tm)
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.
I think you're right, it's stupid to think that Democrats want to ban video games, but I don't think either party particularly wants to do that. Democrats do tend to harp on video games more for some reason though, and that does grate against a lot of people. And hey, even if they don't do it more often, that's the public perception anyway.
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.
Yeah, for the kids at home, this is not what people in the real world think. I doubt one out of a hundred people on the street could even tell you what anarcho-capitalism is, and I guarantee not one in a thousand could name you one proponent of such.
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.
Genius, you're the one that brought up political correctness. Hell, you can't even remember your OWN arguments...
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?'
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Speaking seriously though, why do libertarians get such a bad rap?
Thoughts?
The number one reason Libritarians have a bad rap among both mainstream parties is because words like "moderate" "populist" and "independant" are dirty words to the typical line voter, and the people they put into office.
Republicans do not like the idea that church should be seperated from state, and that Military is meant for defense of the homeland.
Democrats do not like the idea of pay as you go finnance, charging trade tarrifs to other countries instead of Taxes to thier own people, and encouraging self sufficency over having a place for everybody in society.
of course that is my overly simplified view but then again being at workl right now prevents a full thesis.
Yeah I disagree with you. People aren't anti-libertarian because they feel like Libertarians take shots at sacred cows. People have a dim view of Libertarians in general because the movement has a giant fucking ratio of extremists - same as the Greens. The examples you gave of Republican and Democratic "sacred cows" isn't even very accurate.
Republicans are split (not split enough, but still split) on church/ state.
Republicans are split on military activism.
Democrats are solidly behind pay-go, brought it up multiple times during th GOP congress, and presented it (and IIRC passed it) as soon as they retook congress.
No one's really behind tariffs in a big way these days except for some union-advocate Democrats
And okay - inclusion over self-sufficiency within the Dems, I think you have a point with that, though it's not as cut and dried as you suggest.
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
God on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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.
Yeah, for the kids at home, this is not what people in the real world think. I doubt one out of a hundred people on the street could even tell you what anarcho-capitalism is, and I guarantee not one in a thousand could name you one proponent of such.
Well, I can't give you any more statistics than are in this thread, but in my personal experiences with self-described "Libertarians" in Texas and New Mexico, every fucking one was an acolyte of Ayn Rand, and had the same retarded memes about taxes-as-theft and laws-as-compulsion and how the magical invisible hands will come into our lives and hearts and make the world beautiful if only we'd believe believe believe.
Since then, I've lived in DC and Boston, and we don't get a lot of Libertarians up here. I've never seen signs of a moderate movement, and every fucking reference I find on the internets are tax-deniers and the like.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I'd agree with them in that context. But it's kind of unsurprising that they'd feel that way, given that Libertarians have a tendency to impart a moral quality to the workings and effects of the free market.
having read a long thread I've seen a lot of criticism about libertarians voting republican the vast majority of the time. I thought I would contribute the reasoning behind a "Tax cuts are all important" mentality.
First, I'm not a member of the libertarian party and I don't really have a desire to be, but I do sympathize with libertarian philosophy, my friends are tired of hearing about tax cuts being the reason I don't think the Bush Presidency has been a burning train wreck. That said, I'm one of those mentioned earlier that is firting with the idea of a 'liberaltarian'.
Here's the deal, from the standpoint of personal freedom, what I get to do with my money is the biggest choice I will make in my life. It outweighs who I get to marry, what drugs I can take, and whether or not I must wear a seatbelt hands down. There really is no comparison, because of what money represents. Money represents property, nearly everything I have ever or will ever own is bought with money, mine or somebody else's. Money also respresents time and effort, I did something to earn that money, and would have done something else if I had more money than I do. Taxing my earnings is no different than taking my property, or coercing my labor. Granted, it's a nessasary evil, some taxes need to be levied, but the less I am taxed, the more free I am.
Questions of marraige or drug use pale in comparison.
Now, why I voted democrat in the midterm elections is a different story, but that is why libertarians hold the tax issue to highly.
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.
Genius, you're the one that brought up political correctness. Hell, you can't even remember your OWN arguments...
Ohhh...so since I don't want someone else to tell me how I should talk, that means I'm a racist asshole. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I'll have to go pick up my hood from the drycleaner's tonight. Thanks for reminding me.
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I'd agree with them in that context. But it's kind of unsurprising that they'd feel that way, given that Libertarians have a tendency to impart a moral quality to the workings and effects of the free market.
And yes, we still believe that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
Well, that's stupid. If you say fuck you to your boss, he shouldn't be able to "censor" you by firing your ass?
I believe that if people start spouting off idiotic racist things, that other people have the right to call them fuckwads and not associate with them.
Sponsors starting pulling out from Imus' program because of what he said. Should his boss just say "Eh, whatever, it's not like our company is about making money right?"
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
There is a big difference between censoring someone and chosing to no longer employ a racist bigot.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
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.
There already is a ratings system in place, just as there is for movies. These bills aren't about ratings systems, they're about outright bans on sales mostly aimed at consumers under 18. Their sponsors - folks like Leland Yee (CA), Tommy Kilby (TN), Keith Wright (NY) and Linda LaVia (IL) - are Democrats. Dems aren't any more anti-censorship on this issue than Pubs.
The only media I can think of whose ratings system is similarly codified into law and subject to prosecution is pornography, and I don't think anyone would argue government-regulted pornography isn't more censored in the US than R-rated movies or music, which are self-regulated.
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
And as soon as Imus buys his own fucking radio station he can do that. Nobody's saying he can't. But he didn't own the microphone, soundboard, or transmitter...and the people that did decided he wasn't allowed to use it anymore.
mcdermott on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
And the owners and operators of the radio station have the right to refuse to air it. And the sponsors of the show have the right not to pay for it.
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
So you don't think the market has a "right", as it were, to control what does and doesn't take place in it? The people have spoken, and the ones that pay him money to be on the air no longer wished to do so...I see nothing wrong with that at all.
The reason Don Imus isn't on the air is the same reason I'm not on the air, because not enough people want to spend the money necessary to make it happen (in his case, they don't wish to do so anymore, in mine, they never have, but either way, the market works, imo.)
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.
Genius, you're the one that brought up political correctness. Hell, you can't even remember your OWN arguments...
Ohhh...so since I don't want someone else to tell me how I should talk, that means I'm a racist asshole. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I'll have to go pick up my hood from the drycleaner's tonight. Thanks for reminding me.
sigh... no. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote about political correctness. Or, see if you can shove your head further up your own ass and make it come out the other side, then try reading what I wrote.
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?'
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
Well, that's stupid. If you say fuck you to your boss, he shouldn't be able to "censor" you by firing your ass?
I believe that if people start spouting off idiotic racist things, that other people have the right to call them fuckwads and not associate with them.
Sponsors starting pulling out from Imus' program because of what he said. Should his boss just say "Eh, whatever, it's not like our company is about making money right?"
Telling your boss off is insubordination. If Imus has started spouting off about what a piece of shit network MSNBC was, he'd deserve to be fired. The only reason he was fired was because the sponsors pulled out due to a very loud but relatively small group of people who decided they have the right not to be offended. A white guy making an insensative joke on the radio didn't restrict the personal freedom of one single person on the entire planet. That's why I thought it was bullshit.
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
Well, that's stupid. If you say fuck you to your boss, he shouldn't be able to "censor" you by firing your ass?
I believe that if people start spouting off idiotic racist things, that other people have the right to call them fuckwads and not associate with them.
Sponsors starting pulling out from Imus' program because of what he said. Should his boss just say "Eh, whatever, it's not like our company is about making money right?"
Telling your boss off is insubordination. If Imus has started spouting off about what a piece of shit network MSNBC was, he'd deserve to be fired. The only reason he was fired was because the sponsors pulled out due to a very loud but relatively small group of people who decided they have the right not to be offended. A white guy making an insensative joke on the radio didn't restrict the personal freedom of one single person on the entire planet. That's why I thought it was bullshit.
No, the small group of loud people decided to use their rights of free speech to bring what Imus said to the attention of people who would otherwise not have heard it and apply political pressure on those who financially supported what he had said. Those people decided that they didn't want to financially support that kind of speech and decided to not do that.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to be broadcasted across the country. It also exists to restrict the powers of the government and does not apply to private property.
PS: I don't think libertarians have good political arguments against what happened to Don Imus. He said something unpopular, the people spoke up, and his handlers had him removed. What's the problem exactly?
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
Well, that's stupid. If you say fuck you to your boss, he shouldn't be able to "censor" you by firing your ass?
I believe that if people start spouting off idiotic racist things, that other people have the right to call them fuckwads and not associate with them.
Sponsors starting pulling out from Imus' program because of what he said. Should his boss just say "Eh, whatever, it's not like our company is about making money right?"
Telling your boss off is insubordination. If Imus has started spouting off about what a piece of shit network MSNBC was, he'd deserve to be fired. The only reason he was fired was because the sponsors pulled out due to a very loud but relatively small group of people who decided they have the right not to be offended. A white guy making an insensative joke on the radio didn't restrict the personal freedom of one single person on the entire planet. That's why I thought it was bullshit.
Ah... so Imus making a comment that cost his employer millions upon millions of dollars is not a fireable offense? What happens if you piss off a client or steal money from a till in any other job? You're FREAKING fired. The same thing happened here. Everything else is secondary.
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?'
So what Can Man? Should the state come in and give Imus his job back? No, of course not. Should his boss not be able to fire him for saying that? Which is to say, should Imus be able to sue his boss for wrongful dismissal or something? No, that seems blatantly stupid too.
Maybe what you mean when you say it's "bullshit" is that you personally find his firing ethically distasteful? Well ok, a lot of people thought what he said was just that, and they did something about it. They made a big ruckus and got his boss to end their voluntary work agreement. Maybe these kinds of words will get to your cold black libertarian heart? I mean what the fuck dude. It's really not that different than being fired for telling your boss to fuck off. You're right, that is insubordination. And what is insubordination? Isn't it doing anything your boss doesn't think is appropriate? Well maybe that's a stretch...
I just think you're wrong on this one. It seems to me you either have to either believe that what happened is wrong, and Imus should be righted somehow (legally or whatever) or that you just think it was a stupid, fucked up thing for MSNBC to do; fire him. Right?
The only reason he was fired was because the sponsors pulled out due to a very loud but relatively small group of people who decided they have the right not to be offended.
False. A "relatively small group of people" were offended and lobbied to have him removed. There was no "right to not be offended" involved here.
How in the holy fucking hell did this turn into another fucking thread about fucking Imus. Jesus FUCKING Christ. I'm fucking done. If I can't have a fucking political discussion without it turning into another pointless fucking debate over race relations, I fucking quit. This thread was nice while it lasted. Fuck off.
How in the holy fucking hell did this turn into another fucking thread about fucking Imus. Jesus FUCKING Christ. I'm fucking done. If I can't have a fucking political discussion without it turning into another pointless fucking debate over race relations, I fucking quit. This thread was nice while it lasted. Fuck off.
Calm down, grow up, and shut the fuck up if you don't have anything useful to add. Like you didn't for the last two pages.
How in the holy fucking hell did this turn into another fucking thread about fucking Imus. Jesus FUCKING Christ. I'm fucking done. If I can't have a fucking political discussion without it turning into another pointless fucking debate over race relations, I fucking quit. This thread was nice while it lasted. Fuck off.
So question: should the government have intervened to prevent Imus from being fired? I mean, let's step back and forget what he did and why he was fired and all that bullshit...let's just look at him as an employee of a company (which is all he was). His company decided that he was now more of a financial liability than a benefit, so they fired him. Is there something wrong with this?
I mean, how is this really any different than some disgruntled customer getting a register biscuit fired? Small, but vocal group (or individual)...person ends up fired.
How in the holy fucking hell did this turn into another fucking thread about fucking Imus. Jesus FUCKING Christ. I'm fucking done. If I can't have a fucking political discussion without it turning into another pointless fucking debate over race relations, I fucking quit. This thread was nice while it lasted. Fuck off.
So question: should the government have intervened to prevent Imus from being fired? I mean, let's step back and forget what he did and why he was fired and all that bullshit...let's just look at him as an employee of a company (which is all he was). His company decided that he was now more of a financial liability than a benefit, so they fired him. Is there something wrong with this?
I mean, how is this really any different than some disgruntled customer getting a register biscuit fired? Small, but vocal group (or individual)...person ends up fired.
That's what is funny... his firing, from a business perspective, makes perfect sense to democrats, libertarians, and republicans.
He's like the chosen one who will bring balance to the talking heads...
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?'
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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?
Precisely. A "Libertarian" would argue that natural necessity is innately different from human coercion, but really it's not, especially considering that (in modern society) natural necessity is fulfilled only through participating in the capitalist system, which is structured to ensure as well as possible that those in power remain in power (that the wealthy remain wealthy). The "Libertarian" mentality also forgets that the wealthy are not individually potent-- they rely on the masses as their producers and consumers. If they truly valued individual rights, wouldn't these producers have the same ability to succeed in society? To me it smacks of 1984 in a way... Everyone's free, but some are more free than others.
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?
Precisely. A "Libertarian" would argue that natural necessity is innately different from human coercion, but really it's not, especially considering that (in modern society) natural necessity is fulfilled only through participating in the capitalist system, which is structured to ensure as well as possible that those in power remain in power (that the wealthy remain wealthy). The "Libertarian" mentality also forgets that the wealthy are not individually potent-- they rely on the masses as their producers and consumers. If they truly valued individual rights, wouldn't these producers have the same ability to succeed in society? To me it smacks of 1984 in a way... Everyone's free, but some are more free than others.
:roll:
Sure, you're coerced into working. We're all coerced into eating and breathing too, but it's not by anyone, it's through nature. And I don't care who you are or what system you're living under, you're going to have to do something to live, won't you? And whatever that is, couldn't that be construed as coercion? Please don't start talking about social co-ops and workers this and that... my eyes are already glazing over.
Ok not all Liberatarian are idealistic wack-jobs, so how about an intelligent discussion about this topic? Personally, I'm very much in favor of the idea of self-ownership.
I thought that I would point out that this is another thing that bothers me about libertarian trolls, the reliance on code words and equivocations. For instance, "self-ownership" just tends to be a libertarian code word for "no laws and regulation." If you agree that the state doesn't own your body, then you supposed to also believe that the state doesn't have the right to regulate you, because regulation = outside ownership. Which, of course, is bullshit. For instance, the fact that I own my car is not changed by the fact that my use of said car is regulated by traffic laws.
Anyway, listening to people talk about political correctness in this day and age is about as refreshing as watching people make fun of MC Hammer. The fact is, other than the occasional isolated and anecdotal example from Nowheresville, you rarely see examples of people actively pushing for political correctness in this day and age. The only time you see it brought up is from hack comedians like Carlos Mencia and Colin Quinn who like to brag about how politically incorrect they are, and from rightwing conservatives who like to use it as a boogeyman since it's asier to bash political correctness than it is to defend their racists inclinations directy.
The number one reason Libritarians have a bad rap among both mainstream parties is because words like "moderate" "populist" and "independant" are dirty words to the typical line voter, and the people they put into office.
I don't think that I would ever call libertarianism "moderate." Right now, libertarians are wetting their pants and throwing their money at a Ron Paul run for presidency, a man who is against gay marriage and wants a return to the gold standard. I don't think that either position is going to win over centrist voters anytime soon.
BTW, a lot of people mention Ayn Rand on this thread, but has anyone actually looked at her views on libertarianism? It's actually pretty funny.
Posts
The number one reason Libritarians have a bad rap among both mainstream parties is because words like "moderate" "populist" and "independant" are dirty words to the typical line voter, and the people they put into office.
Republicans do not like the idea that church should be seperated from state, and that Military is meant for defense of the homeland.
Democrats do not like the idea of pay as you go finnance, charging trade tarrifs to other countries instead of Taxes to thier own people, and encouraging self sufficency over having a place for everybody in society.
of course that is my overly simplified view but then again being at workl right now prevents a full thesis.
Yeah, my stance on social issues is much stronger than my stance on economic issues, which is precisely why I've always voted democrat.
What? The typical voter loves the word "moderate" and "independant". They are both thrown around a lot in order to make a candidate seem like he or she doesn't agree with the party line on every issue and aren't like those crazy and extreme Democrats/Republicans.
Eh, they might get some members in Congress and State legislatures over time, but that would be about it and is rather unlikely. 3rd parties do have a little potential at that level. For instance, the Farmer's Alliance a century ago, back when party politics was even worse than today.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(breath)
AH-HAHAHAHAHA!
Are they more so than the republicans? Yes. Whoop de doo. Democrats (and then, only some) have got it right on some social issues: gays should be allowed to marry, it's a good idea to let women have abortions if that's what they choose to do, and there's some good right to privacy stuff. But a lot of democrats are right in lock step with the patriot act, flag burning amendments, and other retarded stuff. Oh yeah, and the elephant in the room: The War on Drugs (tm)
I think you're right, it's stupid to think that Democrats want to ban video games, but I don't think either party particularly wants to do that. Democrats do tend to harp on video games more for some reason though, and that does grate against a lot of people. And hey, even if they don't do it more often, that's the public perception anyway.
Yeah, for the kids at home, this is not what people in the real world think. I doubt one out of a hundred people on the street could even tell you what anarcho-capitalism is, and I guarantee not one in a thousand could name you one proponent of such.
Genius, you're the one that brought up political correctness. Hell, you can't even remember your OWN arguments...
Republicans are split (not split enough, but still split) on church/ state.
Republicans are split on military activism.
Democrats are solidly behind pay-go, brought it up multiple times during th GOP congress, and presented it (and IIRC passed it) as soon as they retook congress.
No one's really behind tariffs in a big way these days except for some union-advocate Democrats
And okay - inclusion over self-sufficiency within the Dems, I think you have a point with that, though it's not as cut and dried as you suggest.
Since then, I've lived in DC and Boston, and we don't get a lot of Libertarians up here. I've never seen signs of a moderate movement, and every fucking reference I find on the internets are tax-deniers and the like.
First, I'm not a member of the libertarian party and I don't really have a desire to be, but I do sympathize with libertarian philosophy, my friends are tired of hearing about tax cuts being the reason I don't think the Bush Presidency has been a burning train wreck. That said, I'm one of those mentioned earlier that is firting with the idea of a 'liberaltarian'.
Here's the deal, from the standpoint of personal freedom, what I get to do with my money is the biggest choice I will make in my life. It outweighs who I get to marry, what drugs I can take, and whether or not I must wear a seatbelt hands down. There really is no comparison, because of what money represents. Money represents property, nearly everything I have ever or will ever own is bought with money, mine or somebody else's. Money also respresents time and effort, I did something to earn that money, and would have done something else if I had more money than I do. Taxing my earnings is no different than taking my property, or coercing my labor. Granted, it's a nessasary evil, some taxes need to be levied, but the less I am taxed, the more free I am.
Questions of marraige or drug use pale in comparison.
Now, why I voted democrat in the midterm elections is a different story, but that is why libertarians hold the tax issue to highly.
Ohhh...so since I don't want someone else to tell me how I should talk, that means I'm a racist asshole. Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I'll have to go pick up my hood from the drycleaner's tonight. Thanks for reminding me.
And yes, we still believe that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.
I was against it because I don't want speech censored by anyone. Not by the government. And not by other people. What Imus said didn't infringe on anybody else's personal freedoms. The right not to be offended is not a right. Unless someone is saying something or doing something that actually steps on someone else's rights, I don't have a problem with it. And that goes for anyone of any race speaking about anyone or anything. I just as firmly believe that a black man has every right to go on the radio and say mean things about white people.
Well, that's stupid. If you say fuck you to your boss, he shouldn't be able to "censor" you by firing your ass?
I believe that if people start spouting off idiotic racist things, that other people have the right to call them fuckwads and not associate with them.
Sponsors starting pulling out from Imus' program because of what he said. Should his boss just say "Eh, whatever, it's not like our company is about making money right?"
There is a big difference between censoring someone and chosing to no longer employ a racist bigot.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
There already is a ratings system in place, just as there is for movies. These bills aren't about ratings systems, they're about outright bans on sales mostly aimed at consumers under 18. Their sponsors - folks like Leland Yee (CA), Tommy Kilby (TN), Keith Wright (NY) and Linda LaVia (IL) - are Democrats. Dems aren't any more anti-censorship on this issue than Pubs.
The only media I can think of whose ratings system is similarly codified into law and subject to prosecution is pornography, and I don't think anyone would argue government-regulted pornography isn't more censored in the US than R-rated movies or music, which are self-regulated.
And as soon as Imus buys his own fucking radio station he can do that. Nobody's saying he can't. But he didn't own the microphone, soundboard, or transmitter...and the people that did decided he wasn't allowed to use it anymore.
So you don't think the market has a "right", as it were, to control what does and doesn't take place in it? The people have spoken, and the ones that pay him money to be on the air no longer wished to do so...I see nothing wrong with that at all.
The reason Don Imus isn't on the air is the same reason I'm not on the air, because not enough people want to spend the money necessary to make it happen (in his case, they don't wish to do so anymore, in mine, they never have, but either way, the market works, imo.)
sigh... no. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote about political correctness. Or, see if you can shove your head further up your own ass and make it come out the other side, then try reading what I wrote.
Telling your boss off is insubordination. If Imus has started spouting off about what a piece of shit network MSNBC was, he'd deserve to be fired. The only reason he was fired was because the sponsors pulled out due to a very loud but relatively small group of people who decided they have the right not to be offended. A white guy making an insensative joke on the radio didn't restrict the personal freedom of one single person on the entire planet. That's why I thought it was bullshit.
No, the small group of loud people decided to use their rights of free speech to bring what Imus said to the attention of people who would otherwise not have heard it and apply political pressure on those who financially supported what he had said. Those people decided that they didn't want to financially support that kind of speech and decided to not do that.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to be broadcasted across the country. It also exists to restrict the powers of the government and does not apply to private property.
Ah... so Imus making a comment that cost his employer millions upon millions of dollars is not a fireable offense? What happens if you piss off a client or steal money from a till in any other job? You're FREAKING fired. The same thing happened here. Everything else is secondary.
Some people will disagree with you and get indignant if you win others to your side and get your way.
Maybe what you mean when you say it's "bullshit" is that you personally find his firing ethically distasteful? Well ok, a lot of people thought what he said was just that, and they did something about it. They made a big ruckus and got his boss to end their voluntary work agreement. Maybe these kinds of words will get to your cold black libertarian heart? I mean what the fuck dude. It's really not that different than being fired for telling your boss to fuck off. You're right, that is insubordination. And what is insubordination? Isn't it doing anything your boss doesn't think is appropriate? Well maybe that's a stretch...
I just think you're wrong on this one. It seems to me you either have to either believe that what happened is wrong, and Imus should be righted somehow (legally or whatever) or that you just think it was a stupid, fucked up thing for MSNBC to do; fire him. Right?
False. A "relatively small group of people" were offended and lobbied to have him removed. There was no "right to not be offended" involved here.
You're right. The Imus thing is overplayed.
So, how bout those damn republican war mongers and democrat nanny-staters eh?
Calm down, grow up, and shut the fuck up if you don't have anything useful to add. Like you didn't for the last two pages.
So question: should the government have intervened to prevent Imus from being fired? I mean, let's step back and forget what he did and why he was fired and all that bullshit...let's just look at him as an employee of a company (which is all he was). His company decided that he was now more of a financial liability than a benefit, so they fired him. Is there something wrong with this?
I mean, how is this really any different than some disgruntled customer getting a register biscuit fired? Small, but vocal group (or individual)...person ends up fired.
That's what is funny... his firing, from a business perspective, makes perfect sense to democrats, libertarians, and republicans.
He's like the chosen one who will bring balance to the talking heads...
:roll:
Sure, you're coerced into working. We're all coerced into eating and breathing too, but it's not by anyone, it's through nature. And I don't care who you are or what system you're living under, you're going to have to do something to live, won't you? And whatever that is, couldn't that be construed as coercion? Please don't start talking about social co-ops and workers this and that... my eyes are already glazing over.
I thought that I would point out that this is another thing that bothers me about libertarian trolls, the reliance on code words and equivocations. For instance, "self-ownership" just tends to be a libertarian code word for "no laws and regulation." If you agree that the state doesn't own your body, then you supposed to also believe that the state doesn't have the right to regulate you, because regulation = outside ownership. Which, of course, is bullshit. For instance, the fact that I own my car is not changed by the fact that my use of said car is regulated by traffic laws.
Anyway, listening to people talk about political correctness in this day and age is about as refreshing as watching people make fun of MC Hammer. The fact is, other than the occasional isolated and anecdotal example from Nowheresville, you rarely see examples of people actively pushing for political correctness in this day and age. The only time you see it brought up is from hack comedians like Carlos Mencia and Colin Quinn who like to brag about how politically incorrect they are, and from rightwing conservatives who like to use it as a boogeyman since it's asier to bash political correctness than it is to defend their racists inclinations directy.
I don't think that I would ever call libertarianism "moderate." Right now, libertarians are wetting their pants and throwing their money at a Ron Paul run for presidency, a man who is against gay marriage and wants a return to the gold standard. I don't think that either position is going to win over centrist voters anytime soon.
BTW, a lot of people mention Ayn Rand on this thread, but has anyone actually looked at her views on libertarianism? It's actually pretty funny.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians