Everyone who identifies as being a libertarian is basically insane.
This, what you said, is fucking insane. Seriously. There are very moderate Libertarians.
Yes, these people, if they had some sense, would not identify as libertarians. Saying you're a libertarian means something rather more skewed away from centrist.
Eh, Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey, while I have my disagreements with them in various areas, aren't crazy in the least.
I find most libertarians spot on when they talk about freedoms, and police brutality, and yadayada. Then they start talking about how police should be privatized as if that would create some situation in which things would be better, like they live in a goddamn parallel universe where monstrous corporations are big soft lovable entities who would protect people who can't pay them.
It makes my head hurt, in my mind they are so right on many important issues but then depart for crazy land in other areas.
The problem is that never has there been a more extreme case of crazy, very vocal minority than within the Libertarian party.
Most of us know privatizing roads and police and such is a really stupid idea, and are mostly focused on the important issues. Then somehow the guys who want to privatize the army and focus on the federal reserve system 99% of the time get in the spotlight and take hold of the party leadership (which is why the party has no chance in hell right now).
Hopefully someday the sane members will take control and make the party more legitimate, but I'm not holding my breath.
Hopefully someday the sane members will take control and make the party more legitimate, but I'm not holding my breath.
How the hell does the vocal minority seize control of the party? Are other factions of the Libertarian party not willing to cooperate and curtail the crazies?
Hopefully someday the sane members will take control and make the party more legitimate, but I'm not holding my breath.
How the hell does the vocal minority seize control of the party? Are other factions of the Libertarian party not willing to cooperate and curtail the crazies?
Hopefully someday the sane members will take control and make the party more legitimate, but I'm not holding my breath.
How the hell does the vocal minority seize control of the party? Are other factions of the Libertarian party not willing to cooperate and curtail the crazies?
Hopefully someday the sane members will take control and make the party more legitimate, but I'm not holding my breath.
How the hell does the vocal minority seize control of the party? Are other factions of the Libertarian party not willing to cooperate and curtail the crazies?
Do you not understand how vocal minorities work?
No. Unless we're discussing R&B.
Vocal minorities get disproportionate representation because of the simple fact that they express their views. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. The 'silent majority' to steal from Nixon --oh ho ho-- are largely either apathetic, indifferent, or don't wield their power effectively when compared to the handful of jackasses, because they have other things to do than plot the abolition of the Federal Reserve.
The problem is that rather than try to take control of the party, the rational members mostly concede and go with it because they agree on some things, or get out and go elsewhere.
Everyone who identifies as being a libertarian is basically insane.
This, what you said, is fucking insane. Seriously. There are very moderate Libertarians.
Yes, these people, if they had some sense, would not identify as libertarians. Saying you're a libertarian means something rather more skewed away from centrist.
Eh, Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey, while I have my disagreements with them in various areas, aren't crazy in the least.
Everyone who identifies as being a libertarian is basically insane.
This, what you said, is fucking insane. Seriously. There are very moderate Libertarians.
Yes, these people, if they had some sense, would not identify as libertarians. Saying you're a libertarian means something rather more skewed away from centrist.
Eh, Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey, while I have my disagreements with them in various areas, aren't crazy in the least.
Buckeley
The NRO founder or his kid? Because the former never really struck me as a libertarian, though he was certainly closer to that end of the spectrum than a centrist. Friedman would probably count, though.
moniker on
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Everyone who identifies as being a libertarian is basically insane.
This, what you said, is fucking insane. Seriously. There are very moderate Libertarians.
Yes, these people, if they had some sense, would not identify as libertarians. Saying you're a libertarian means something rather more skewed away from centrist.
Eh, Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey, while I have my disagreements with them in various areas, aren't crazy in the least.
Buckeley
Yay, Libertarians are crazy and stupid and want to do stupid things and they're big stupid heads blah blah blah.
Like Liberals and Conservatives, there is no one Libertarian ideal. Some of us Libertarians are not against abortion. Some of us want pot legalized. Hell, some of us *gasp* aren't afraid of teh gheys!
Yeah, they aren't getting stick over the social issues. The economic issues are the batshit loco ones...
This depends what libertarians you are talking about. Yeah, the "gov get the fuck out of my life and bedroom" types are great. But the "states rights" which masks racism in some cases are not.
Since they don't really have any national power it's easy to only see one of the two sides, they don't have a platform to run on unlike the dems, pubs, but who's to say which side of their social issues group holds more sway.
And their hero Ron Paul, other then being a crack pot on economic issues, does have a could of slight racism over his head for some publications he's associated with.
Yeah, they aren't getting stick over the social issues. The economic issues are the batshit loco ones...
This depends what libertarians you are talking about. Yeah, the "gov get the fuck out of my life and bedroom" types are great. But the "states rights" which masks racism in some cases are not.
Since they don't really have any national power it's easy to only see one of the two sides, they don't have a platform to run on unlike the dems, pubs, but who's to say which side of their social issues group holds more sway.
And their hero Ron Paul, other then being a crack pot on economic issues, does have a could of slight racism over his head for some publications he's associated with.
You're just picking the social part over the economic part, though. That's all they were saying: no one's bothered by their social views (unless they are, like you said, masks for racism), just by their economics.
Wobblie on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The NRO founder or his kid? Because the former never really struck me as a libertarian, though he was certainly closer to that end of the spectrum than a centrist. Friedman would probably count, though.
Friedman is pretty radical; he thinks the government's job begins and ends with the military and enforcement of contracts. We just think he's not crazy because he has a Nobel and wears nice suits.
The NRO founder or his kid? Because the former never really struck me as a libertarian, though he was certainly closer to that end of the spectrum than a centrist. Friedman would probably count, though.
Friedman is pretty radical; he thinks the government's job begins and ends with the military and enforcement of contracts. We just think he's not crazy because he has a Nobel and wears nice suits.
He proposed a 'negative income tax' to replace entitlement programs and welfare rather than just abolishing the whole damn thing and refusing to also subsidize bootstraps. It's also an idea that has some merit. That puts him a hell of a lot closer to sanity than any libertarians I've read about or seen. Even if he wanted to get rid of OSHA et. al. and return to right of contract.
Well the one libertarian radio show I've listened too, Free Talk Live, one of the hosts seems to be almost entirely reasonable on everything. The other guy is a borderline anarchist who's one step away from advocating you get your gun and shoot as many police and other government employees as possible, because the revolution is on!
An area where I like Libertarians over Democrats: since everyone sees them as crazy they have no problem being honest about just about every issue that is typically taboo. Drugs, traffic laws, piracy (I genuinely believe the Libertarian idea that the US Government being used as a cudgel by various media companies has done more to strengthen piracy and damage the profitability of the companies in question, as it gives them no market incentive to develop a better method or pricing scheme for distributing their product), stuff like that.
I rarely hear mention about foreign policy issues like how Iran really is no credible threat to the United States, etc, etc. Libertarians will come right out with it.
I wish we could take the part of the Libertarian party that has merit and copy paste it to the rest of the politicians while discarding the crazy part
Socialism is one of the "steps" on the way to communism.
Shit, time to move out of Sweden.
As I understand it Sweden has taken a hard right turn in terms of its social agenda over the last 20-odd years, especially in terms of drug laws. So I guess in that sense they are exactly like the Communists.
But seriously the social/education programs in Sweden are probably the best thing going. Take "big government" out of the Scandinavian countries and you've basically got Alaska sans moose. All meth, no sunlight!
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Socialism is one of the "steps" on the way to communism.
Shit, time to move out of Sweden.
As I understand it Sweden has taken a hard right turn in terms of its social agenda over the last 20-odd years, especially in terms of drug laws. So I guess in that sense they are exactly like the Communists.
But seriously the social/education programs in Sweden are probably the best thing going. Take "big government" out of the Scandinavian countries and you've basically got Alaska sans moose. All meth, no sunlight!
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Sarah Palin would have currency in Sweden with or without "big government."
I wish we could take the part of the Libertarian party that has merit and copy paste it to the rest of the politicians while discarding the crazy part
I wish we could do that for every political party.
Exactly. There was a thread a while ago about the GOP and we all said the same thing, keep the parts we like and get rid of everything else. Split up the party between the fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Too bad that's not how you win elections.
I believe that all parties should only hold those positions I agree with.
It's kinda justified when it comes to their social views. I mean, we could have legitimate debates over economics, but when was the last time you heard a totally convincing argument against gay marriage? Sometimes the fascists need to just shut the fuck up.
Posts
Eh, Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey, while I have my disagreements with them in various areas, aren't crazy in the least.
The problem is that never has there been a more extreme case of crazy, very vocal minority than within the Libertarian party.
Most of us know privatizing roads and police and such is a really stupid idea, and are mostly focused on the important issues. Then somehow the guys who want to privatize the army and focus on the federal reserve system 99% of the time get in the spotlight and take hold of the party leadership (which is why the party has no chance in hell right now).
Hopefully someday the sane members will take control and make the party more legitimate, but I'm not holding my breath.
Uh, conspiracy nutjobs, PETA, dominionists...
Various nutcase groups from the 60s and 70s...
How the hell does the vocal minority seize control of the party? Are other factions of the Libertarian party not willing to cooperate and curtail the crazies?
Do you not understand how vocal minorities work?
No. Unless we're discussing R&B.
Vocal minorities get disproportionate representation because of the simple fact that they express their views. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. The 'silent majority' to steal from Nixon --oh ho ho-- are largely either apathetic, indifferent, or don't wield their power effectively when compared to the handful of jackasses, because they have other things to do than plot the abolition of the Federal Reserve.
Shit, time to move out of Sweden.
The NRO founder or his kid? Because the former never really struck me as a libertarian, though he was certainly closer to that end of the spectrum than a centrist. Friedman would probably count, though.
Yay, Libertarians are crazy and stupid and want to do stupid things and they're big stupid heads blah blah blah.
Like Liberals and Conservatives, there is no one Libertarian ideal. Some of us Libertarians are not against abortion. Some of us want pot legalized. Hell, some of us *gasp* aren't afraid of teh gheys!
This depends what libertarians you are talking about. Yeah, the "gov get the fuck out of my life and bedroom" types are great. But the "states rights" which masks racism in some cases are not.
Since they don't really have any national power it's easy to only see one of the two sides, they don't have a platform to run on unlike the dems, pubs, but who's to say which side of their social issues group holds more sway.
And their hero Ron Paul, other then being a crack pot on economic issues, does have a could of slight racism over his head for some publications he's associated with.
You're just picking the social part over the economic part, though. That's all they were saying: no one's bothered by their social views (unless they are, like you said, masks for racism), just by their economics.
Friedman is pretty radical; he thinks the government's job begins and ends with the military and enforcement of contracts. We just think he's not crazy because he has a Nobel and wears nice suits.
He proposed a 'negative income tax' to replace entitlement programs and welfare rather than just abolishing the whole damn thing and refusing to also subsidize bootstraps. It's also an idea that has some merit. That puts him a hell of a lot closer to sanity than any libertarians I've read about or seen. Even if he wanted to get rid of OSHA et. al. and return to right of contract.
An area where I like Libertarians over Democrats: since everyone sees them as crazy they have no problem being honest about just about every issue that is typically taboo. Drugs, traffic laws, piracy (I genuinely believe the Libertarian idea that the US Government being used as a cudgel by various media companies has done more to strengthen piracy and damage the profitability of the companies in question, as it gives them no market incentive to develop a better method or pricing scheme for distributing their product), stuff like that.
I rarely hear mention about foreign policy issues like how Iran really is no credible threat to the United States, etc, etc. Libertarians will come right out with it.
I wish we could take the part of the Libertarian party that has merit and copy paste it to the rest of the politicians while discarding the crazy part
I wish we could do that for every political party.
As I understand it Sweden has taken a hard right turn in terms of its social agenda over the last 20-odd years, especially in terms of drug laws. So I guess in that sense they are exactly like the Communists.
But seriously the social/education programs in Sweden are probably the best thing going. Take "big government" out of the Scandinavian countries and you've basically got Alaska sans moose. All meth, no sunlight!
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Sarah Palin would have currency in Sweden with or without "big government."
Exactly. There was a thread a while ago about the GOP and we all said the same thing, keep the parts we like and get rid of everything else. Split up the party between the fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Too bad that's not how you win elections.
As a sane Libertarian, I couldn't agree more.
Can I be an elder statesman? All sittin' around doin' nothing, but looking important.
It's kinda justified when it comes to their social views. I mean, we could have legitimate debates over economics, but when was the last time you heard a totally convincing argument against gay marriage? Sometimes the fascists need to just shut the fuck up.