Libertarianism is applied autism

[Incorruptible]

of conservatives (but the difference is negligible), but anyway, Charles is trying to make it out like i'm saying libertarians = conservative, which is a complete fabrication and strawman and he doesn't like me calling him out on it.

And he's using absolutely ridiculous arguments in his strawman too, as if Ron Paul's popularity has anything to do with it.

If that were a valid argument, paleo-conservativism wouldn't be considered 'conservative' either.

Except thats what you have basically said in other posts.

 

[Phokus]

Ok I corrected my Op when I figured out you were saying conservatives vs republicans.

Variant of? not so sure really because Libertarians also share values with liberals.

I guess we would have to run through all of the core values of each to determine which ideology libertarianism maybe a variant of.

I dont find political parties a particularly good or relevant reference here because polcitians will do whatever they can to get elected.

Take Lieberman.

In modern climate I find ideological libertarianism frequented by people who are ashamed to call themselves liberal or conservative.

30 years ago how many self identified libertarians did we have?

I get the connection to conservatism in some regards, but libertarians are much closer to liberals in other views.

Again, if that were true, there would be a 'libertarian wing' in the democratic party. There isn't. There never will be.

There will never be think tanks that declare themselves to be libertarian (like CATO), but then align themselves with the GOP more often than not. There will never be a Democratic "ron paul". Again, the CORE of the libertarian movement is fiscal issues while civil issues have varying degrees of importance to most libertarians. Fiscal issues is not something most libertarians compromise on, and this is why they naturally align with the GOP.

 

[BoberFett]

That is possibly your childish paranoia speaking. As I said, what you fear most is that somebody will force you to see what you don't want to see. I can't force you to see anything and I would not if I could because I know that a fool convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still. Only you can find a will to see. A seed needs water and sunlight and nutrient to grow. What that would be for your mind is what interests me. A wounded animal defends against the best intentions of all potential rescuers. A bear can be trapped for it's skin or to move it to a safer location. It is the trapper and not the bear who knows the true intention. My job is to make sure I don't release you in a desert of good intentions, right? How could I know?

The problem with your philosophy is that you believe you're right. A libertarian only believes that his opinion is right for himself. You and your kind believe that your opinion is right for everyone. That's the inherent superiority of libertarianism that authoritarians just don't understand.

 

[lotus503]

Again, if that were true, there would be a 'libertarian wing' in the democratic party. There isn't. There never will be.

There will never be think tanks that declare themselves to be libertarian (like CATO), but then align themselves with the GOP more often than not. There will never be a Democratic "ron paul". Again, the CORE of the libertarian movement is fiscal issues while civil issues have varying degrees of importance to most libertarians. Fiscal issues is not something most libertarians compromise on, and this is why they naturally align with the GOP.

I can ride along with that as long as you understand that if social issues vs economic were the more important issues of the day we very well could have libertarian wing of democrats.

Consider that libertarians line up with conservatives on economics but liberals on social issues and are different than both in what they see is the role of government in society. Conservatives have disingenuously stated the libertarian small government lines as well, probably to get them under the tent. when truth is conservatives dont want small government they want government involved with lots of social issues.

Libertarians - Economically similar to conservatives
Libertarians - Socially closer to liberals
Libertarians - In their own camp of reality related to governments role in society.

 

[Incorruptible]

Again, if that were true, there would be a 'libertarian wing' in the democratic party. There isn't. There never will be.

There will never be think tanks that declare themselves to be libertarian (like CATO), but then align themselves with the GOP more often than not. There will never be a Democratic "ron paul". Again, the CORE of the libertarian movement is fiscal issues while civil issues have varying degrees of importance to most libertarians. Fiscal issues is not something most libertarians compromise on, and this is why they naturally align with the GOP.

Looks like a certain ignoramus hasn't heard of Grover Cleveland.

 

[lotus503]

Looks like a certain ignoramus hasn't heard of Grover Cleveland.

Who died in 1908 and has zero bearing on the discussion

 

[Incorruptible]

Who died in 1908 and has zero bearing on the discussion

He was a democrat who was a Libertarian

 

[lotus503]

He was a democrat who was a Libertarian

sure over 100 years ago, the debate wasn't has there ever been a libertarian democrat the debate is are modern libertarians a variant of conservatism.

Id say right at this moment in time yes.

Ive also said that if different issues were society concerns it could very well reverse.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Again, the CORE of the libertarian movement is fiscal issues while civil issues have varying degrees of importance to most libertarians.

False.

The CORE of the libertarian movement is freedom. Libertarians and anarchists don't meet to discuss fiscal issues, they meet and discuss how to maximize their freedom and get the government out of the way.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Phokus]

I can ride along with that as long as you understand that if social issues vs economic were the more important issues of the day we very well could have libertarian wing of democrats.

Consider that libertarians line up with conservatives on economics but liberals on social issues and are different than both in what they see is the role of government in society. Conservatives have disingenuously stated the libertarian small government lines as well, probably to get them under the tent. when truth is conservatives dont want small government they want government involved with lots of social issues.

Libertarians - Economically similar to conservatives
Libertarians - Socially closer to liberals
Libertarians - In their own camp of reality related to governments role in society.

I forgot to mention that another reason why libertarians naturally put more weight on fiscal matters (and thus the GOP) is because a lot of them naturally believe that the size of the government is also why civil liberties are eroded and by defunding the government and decreasing it's size would take care of a lot of that problem. So no, even if equal weight was put on civil liberties and fiscal issues, there would not be a 'libertarian wing of the democratic party'.

I believe the democratic party to be corporatist/gop-lite. But lets say, for the sake of argument, that the democrats took a hard left turn on both civil liberties AND economics, do you honestly believe libertarians would start to embrace the democrats? Again, $$$ trumps all.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I can ride along with that as long as you understand that if social issues vs economic were the more important issues of the day we very well could have libertarian wing of democrats.

There are left-leaning libertarians. They are sometimes called liberaltarians.

In fact, what we today call "libertarians" used to be called "liberals".

Are there a lot of them? Probably not. Do they exist? Certainly.

The Libertarian Party promotes something called the World's Smallest Political Quiz. While too simplistic to properly gauge political views, it is important for demonstrating that political views lie on two axes: liberal versus conservative, and libertarian versus authoritarian.

Key point: libertarianism is orthogonal to the conventional left-right split. That's why some aspects of libertarianism appeal to the right and others appeal to the left, and some aspects piss off each side as well.

The idea that libertarianism is some sort of offshoot or variation on conservatism is completely absurd, regardless of the number of members of the Paul family who want to blur the lines between them. People who jump to this conclusion do so by only looking at the aspects of libertarianism that they want to, which is why Phokus deliberately ignored the platform planks I raised where libertarianism and (current) conservatism are diametrically opposed.

 

[lotus503]

There are left-leaning libertarians. They are sometimes called liberaltarians.

In fact, what we today call "libertarians" used to be called "liberals".

Are there a lot of them? Probably not. Do they exist? Certainly.

The Libertarian Party promotes something called the World's Smallest Political Quiz. While too simplistic to properly gauge political views, it is important for demonstrating that political views lie on two axes: liberal versus conservative, and libertarian versus authoritarian.

Key point: libertarianism is orthogonal to the conventional left-right split. That's why some aspects of libertarianism appeal to the right and others appeal to the left.

The idea that libertarianism is some sort of offshoot or variation on conservatism is completely absurd, regardless of the number of members of the Paul family who want to blur the lines between them.

I know they exist, I don't think enough exist in public office to have a wing in the democratic party.

I think all ideologies bring something to the table, its why I despise pure ideologues and blame them for lack of progress in the country.

 

[nextJin]

Wow, lots of arguing. I understand Phokus's point, but he is only right in the sense that "at the moment" fiscal issues are the biggest issues of the day. I'll post a chart as soon as I can that demonstrates why libertarians are the most sane of both worlds.

There are many more "branches" within the GOP than Democrats because Democrats are very very good at their message and hammering away at it. That's not a slam, it's a compliment. Their is a swing going on at this time in our history. If Phokus was in fact a Libertarian (I seriously doubt it, most likely it seemed cool and the time until he actually settled into his adult beliefs) then he should understand that back in the day the GOP was a hell of a lot more libertarian leaning. Their party has grown by leaps and bounds since the 70's and especially the 90's till now. While the GOP has went increasingly right those libertarian individuals have stayed in the same ballpark.

Overall libertarians share alot in common with both parties and while the Libertarian party has a HORRIBLE problem of not being able to focus a message to the public, if ran properly they could start winning seats. They just seem to always focus on the Gold when they should be focusing on the Bronze or fourth place. They will never beat the Democrats and Republicans at their own game. They need to win a governor seat somewhere or within state congresses.

 

[lotus503]

Wow, lots of arguing. I understand Phokus's point, but he is only right in the sense that "at the moment" fiscal issues are the biggest issues of the day. I'll post a chart as soon as I can that demonstrates why libertarians are the most sane of both worlds.

There are many more "branches" within the GOP than Democrats because Democrats are very very good at their message and hammering away at it. That's not a slam, it's a compliment. Their is a swing going on at this time in our history. If Phokus was in fact a Libertarian (I seriously doubt it, most likely it seemed cool and the time until he actually settled into his adult beliefs) then he should understand that back in the day the GOP was a hell of a lot more libertarian leaning. Their party has grown by leaps and bounds since the 70's and especially the 90's till now. While the GOP has went increasingly right those libertarian individuals have stayed in the same ballpark.

Overall libertarians share alot in common with both parties and while the Libertarian party has a HORRIBLE problem of not being able to focus a message to the public, if ran properly they could start winning seats. They just seem to always focus on the Gold when they should be focusing on the Bronze or fourth place. They will never beat the Democrats and Republicans at their own game. They need to win a governor seat somewhere or within state congresses.

My big issue with libertarians is the idea of the grand ayn rand utopia which I find equally as silly in practice to the far left liberal one would be.

Just like Liberal utopia sounds kind of good until you understand its impracticality as related to human behavior.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Great chart, nextJin.

My big issue with libertarians is the idea of the grand ayn rand utopia which I find equally as silly in practice to the far left liberal one would be.

You're conflating libertarians and objectivists here. Despite their similarities, they aren't the same. (In fact, Rand despised the Libertarian Party.)

 

[Phokus]

Wow, lots of arguing. I understand Phokus's point, but he is only right in the sense that "at the moment" fiscal issues are the biggest issues of the day. I'll post a chart as soon as I can that demonstrates why libertarians are the most sane of both worlds.

There are many more "branches" within the GOP than Democrats because Democrats are very very good at their message and hammering away at it. That's not a slam, it's a compliment. Their is a swing going on at this time in our history. If Phokus was in fact a Libertarian (I seriously doubt it, most likely it seemed cool and the time until he actually settled into his adult beliefs) then he should understand that back in the day the GOP was a hell of a lot more libertarian leaning. Their party has grown by leaps and bounds since the 70's and especially the 90's till now. While the GOP has went increasingly right those libertarian individuals have stayed in the same ballpark.

Overall libertarians share alot in common with both parties and while the Libertarian party has a HORRIBLE problem of not being able to focus a message to the public, if ran properly they could start winning seats. They just seem to always focus on the Gold when they should be focusing on the Bronze or fourth place. They will never beat the Democrats and Republicans at their own game. They need to win a governor seat somewhere or within state congresses.

Bolded part: HAHAHAHAHAHA, come on, that's ludicrous. Democrats have no spine and there are lots of groups in the democratic party that have absolutely nothing to do with each other and don't get along, the democratic party is dysfunctional.

Two relevant quotes:

"Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line"

"I'm not a member of an organized party, i'm a Democrat"

The ONLY reason why things are going the Democrats way is because of demographics.

Yes, i was a libertarian. I actually consider myself a non-mainstream liberal now and not your typical liberal, probably to the surprise of some here, examples: i'd like to see a lot of the welfare state scrapped for a transfer payment to every citizen, i like the idea of replacing some taxes with a land value tax that geo-libertarians advocate, i favor economic aspects of Singapore, Germany, and the Netherlands etc.

 

[lotus503]

Great chart, nextJin.



You're conflating libertarians and objectivists here. Despite their similarities, they aren't the same. (In fact, Rand despised the Libertarian Party.)

Yet Ayn Rand is viewed as a libertarian champion.
Libertarians use objectivism to justify their political views.

I get they are different but they are also linked intrinsically.
It may very well have been a one sided love affair with Ayn, but libertarians love them some Ayn Rand.

 

[nextJin]

My big issue with libertarians is the idea of the grand ayn rand utopia which I find equally as silly in practice to the far left liberal one would be.

Just like Liberal utopia sounds kind of good until you understand its impracticality as related to human behavior.

While having their faults, which utopia provides the most personal freedoms? I agree there is no perfect utopia and none will ever exist. The question is how do we want to live our lives, do we want 80% tax on everyone while getting government food and healthcare or do we want individuals to make thier own choices even if those choices leads to horrible dispair later in their lives from making the wrong choices?

Why should Phokus for instance be able to tell me how to live my life should he be President? Both parties want to legislate something be it socially or the bedroom, libertarians firmly disagree with that entire principle.

 

[lotus503]

While having their faults, which utopia provides the most personal freedoms? I agree there is no perfect utopia and none will ever exist. The question is how do we want to live our lives, do we want 80% tax on everyone while getting government food and healthcare or do we want individuals to make thier own choices even if those choices leads to horrible dispair later in their lives from making the wrong choices?

Why should Phokus for instance be able to tell me how to live my life should he be President? Both parties want to legislate something be it socially or the bedroom, libertarians firmly disagree with that entire principle.

see now were onto something.

why can we as a society take the best of Libertarianism , the best of liberalism and conservatism formulate policy that makes sense with the best of the bunch?

There are solid Ideas I like from all of the ideologies, why cant we use those based on board appeal and acceptance and toss out the dumb shit they all bring to the table?

 

[Phokus]

While having their faults, which utopia provides the most personal freedoms? I agree there is no perfect utopia and none will ever exist. The question is how do we want to live our lives, do we want 80% tax on everyone while getting government food and healthcare or do we want individuals to make thier own choices even if those choices leads to horrible dispair later in their lives from making the wrong choices?

Why should Phokus for instance be able to tell me how to live my life should he be President? Both parties want to legislate something be it socially or the bedroom, libertarians firmly disagree with that entire principle.

Because i don't want to live in the United States of Somalia.

 

[nextJin]

Because i don't want to live in the United States of Somalia.

That would be correct if it were not for the rule of law and actual governing.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Because i don't want to live in the United States of Somalia.

That comments says far more about your lack of understanding of libertarianism than I ever could.

 

[Moonbeam]

The problem with your philosophy is that you believe you're right. A libertarian only believes that his opinion is right for himself. You and your kind believe that your opinion is right for everyone. That's the inherent superiority of libertarianism that authoritarians just don't understand.

I do not believe that I am right. I know I am. That is why I have no need to contend or to force you to believe what I believe. I know because I know and it is self evident. I will always win because I already have. I want you to win too but I don't demand that you do. Nothing can convince you of that because you don't believe you are right for yourself because you have the constant paranoid reaction that I want to use force on you. You only believe you are right but do not see your fear of me is your own self doubt. You want me to leave you alone but I don't want anything from you. I have everything already and I know that everybody else who knows know what I know already. I reject the one ring of power as a product of ego. I have no need of it because I destroyed it by ceasing to believe. There is a paradox here that you can't resolve because you don't have the understanding to do so. I speak to you from a dimension you do not see. My fingers are not the Moon.

 

[Phokus]

That comments says far more about your lack of understanding of libertarianism than I ever could.

The idea that you can decrease the size of government where you only have to enforce property rights and that's all you need for a well functioning and orderly society (if that's what you're getting at), is the height of delusion.

Coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism, that's a funny comment from you.

That would be correct if it were not for the rule of law and actual governing.

I suppose your'e a 'minarchist', right? Point me to a society where this actually works.

 

[BoberFett]

I do not believe that I am right. I know I am. That is why I have no need to contend or to force you to believe what I believe. I know because I know and it is self evident. I will always win because I already have. I want you to win too but I don't demand that you do. Nothing can convince you of that because you don't believe you are right for yourself because you have the constant paranoid reaction that I want to use force on you. You only believe you are right but do not see your fear of me is your own self doubt. You want me to leave you alone but I don't want anything from you. I have everything already and I know that everybody else who knows know what I know already. I reject the one ring of power as a product of ego. I have no need of it because I destroyed it by ceasing to believe. There is a paradox here that you can't resolve because you don't have the understanding to do so. I speak to you from a dimension you do not see. My fingers are not the Moon.

This is why many libertarians hate the left.