Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

That's because it's supposedly a left wing stance. Or at least it was, I mean the anarchist, who resemble strongly today's libertarian used to be left wing.
Also those definition doesn't make sense : right wing are supposed to be conservative while Libertarian are for radical change toward an system that has never been used.

[ChairmanPoo]

I mean the anarchist, who resemble strongly today's libertarian used to be left wing.

Today's libertarians don't want to redistribute wealth and have society based on regional councils. So they don't really resemble them in anything but the "libertarian" label.

[ggamer]

Seriously, there is no "plot" to this. No conspericy to keep the people down. The problem is that there's two very different parties who hate each other trying to share the same country, so their's a lot of pulling and everything going no where. It's like saying that people use sports fans as an excuse to riot. There are people like that but they are the the minority, but others want to focus on them as an excuse to hate sports fans.

I went to a riot and a hockey game broke out


Also, on the question of what differences there are between democrats and republicans-

Fundementally, [I'm rather sure that] democrats advocate the funneling of more power to the government. leave taxes and increase spending.
Republicans, meanwhile, try to shrink the government. Cut spending on non-essential government programs (In this case, Social Security all day erry day), and raise taxes.

So, while you guys say that the differences are purely cosmetic, they are quite literally polar opposites.

[Luke_Prowler]

Actually, democrats want to increase taxes, while republicans want to decrease them. Or at least theoretically. Raising taxes is a very unpopular political move and would never be used as a platform regardless of the benefits.

[SalmonGod]

I'm technically a social or left libertarian, which is definitely different from the group today known as just 'Libertarian' who fall on the right.  I know a lot of Libertarians, and our differences are very true to what the political spectrum graphing would predict.  I share their anti-authoritarian values and generally want the same end result of a free and equal society... but disagree strongly on the point of what economic principles can get us there.  They also typically support some functions of government, including the maintenance of a standing army.

So yeah, "anarchist" doesn't necessarily mean one well-defined thing.  There are many different schools of thought.  The only common feature is wanting a society with "No Rulers".

[Nadaka]

I mean the anarchist, who resemble strongly today's libertarian used to be left wing.

Today's libertarians don't want to redistribute wealth and have society based on regional councils. So they don't really resemble them in anything but the "libertarian" label.

Todays libertarians DO want to redistribute wealth (to the top) and have a society based on corporate councils. They are feudalists with corporations as the proxy nobility to protect those with real wealth and power from the public spotlight and prevent a repeat of their fate during the french revolution. They want absolute liberty and power for those at the very top, including the liberty to arbitrarily take the liberty and power of those weaker than themselves.

[SalmonGod]

Todays libertarians DO want to redistribute wealth (to the top) and have a society based on corporate councils. They are feudalists with corporations as the proxy nobility to protect those with real wealth and power from the public spotlight and prevent a repeat of their fate during the french revolution. They want absolute liberty and power for those at the very top, including the liberty to arbitrarily take the liberty and power of those weaker than themselves.

Some do, yes, but I think they're abusing the label.  Those people rank very high on authoritarian belief, which is anti-libertarian... but they abuse free market rhetoric and right-wing commonalities to infiltrate and coopt modern libertarianism.  The libertarians that I mostly get along with explain to me that corporatism and a strong influence of wealth over government are counter to the free market ideal, and they honestly believe that a "true free market" would create more freedom and equality for everyone.  My response to them is that the modern "not free market" is the natural end result of the mechanisms inherent in the "free market", which no such libertarian has ever been able to respond to with more than annoyed grumblings, but it's still unfair to equate them with corporate feudalists.

[Andir]

Some do, yes, but I think they're abusing the label.  Those people rank very high on authoritarian belief, which is anti-libertarian... but they abuse free market rhetoric and right-wing commonalities to infiltrate and coopt modern libertarianism.  The libertarians that I mostly get along with explain to me that corporatism and a strong influence of wealth over government are counter to the free market ideal, and they honestly believe that a "true free market" would create more freedom and equality for everyone.  My response to them is that the modern "not free market" is the natural end result of the mechanisms inherent in the "free market", which no such libertarian has ever been able to respond to with more than annoyed grumblings, but it's still unfair to equate them with corporate feudalists.

Emphasis on "some"... because we all like throwing around labels and categorizing everyone into well defined roles here.

[Nadaka]

Some do, yes, but I think they're abusing the label.  Those people rank very high on authoritarian belief, which is anti-libertarian... but they abuse free market rhetoric and right-wing commonalities to infiltrate and coopt modern libertarianism.  The libertarians that I mostly get along with explain to me that corporatism and a strong influence of wealth over government are counter to the free market ideal, and they honestly believe that a "true free market" would create more freedom and equality for everyone.  My response to them is that the modern "not free market" is the natural end result of the mechanisms inherent in the "free market", which no such libertarian has ever been able to respond to with more than annoyed grumblings, but it's still unfair to equate them with corporate feudalists.

Emphasis on "some"... because we all like throwing around labels and categorizing everyone into well defined roles here.

Does it matter if they are a minority of libertarians if they are the ones who control the movement and use the others as pawns  to their own end?

[Andir]

Some do, yes, but I think they're abusing the label.  Those people rank very high on authoritarian belief, which is anti-libertarian... but they abuse free market rhetoric and right-wing commonalities to infiltrate and coopt modern libertarianism.  The libertarians that I mostly get along with explain to me that corporatism and a strong influence of wealth over government are counter to the free market ideal, and they honestly believe that a "true free market" would create more freedom and equality for everyone.  My response to them is that the modern "not free market" is the natural end result of the mechanisms inherent in the "free market", which no such libertarian has ever been able to respond to with more than annoyed grumblings, but it's still unfair to equate them with corporate feudalists.

Emphasis on "some"... because we all like throwing around labels and categorizing everyone into well defined roles here.

Does it matter if they are a minority of libertarians if they are the ones who control the movement and use the others as pawns  to their own end?

And I suppose you have evidence?

[Vector]

Bickering about the definition of libertarianism should be done elsewhere.

We all know what a tree is.  If we can't figure out what a libertarian is, come up with some species-specific terminology and deal with things that way :I  But saying "the TRUE libertarians..." is just kind of foolish at this point.

[Duke 2.0]

 And there tends to be a total inability to account for changing times.

 "America isn't a constitutional republic because it bears NO resemblance to the Roman Republic! It isn't a true'' government!"

[Truean]

Ah, Gerrymandering alive and well in Ohio. Roughly equal split between political parties in the state, but clearly 12 of the 16 districts should go to republicans to protect the incumbents.... Check out that little sliver district along Lake Erie. They aren't trying to vastly screw over the democrats in a swing state with democrats nearly equal to the republicans in number are they? Just because one lives in cities more and the other doesn't.... Ohio: the only state crazy enough to claim "liberal activist judges" with a straight face when its State Supreme Court is made up of 6 republicians and 1 Democrat. Clearly, the liberals are dominating the courts and messing things up, all one of them her. It's just not fair against the six of them.... How the crap does that scapegoating work again?

The Court is clearly far too liberal....:

De republicans:
Maureen O'Connor (R) 1/1/2011-present Chef Justice
Judith Ann Lanzinger (R)
Paul E. Pfeifer (R)
Terrence O'Donnell (R)
Robert Cupp (R)
Evelyn Lundberg Stratton (R)

De Democrats:
Yvette McGee Brown (D) 1/1/2011-present

Judicial Activism? From Conservatives? Never.... That's their campaign slogan....

Toledo currently has its own congressional district, but basically they're going to merge that with Cleveland's.... The current map at least makes some sense....

[ChairmanPoo]

Here it's even worse: the Supreme Court's judges are choosen directly by the two major parties.

They don't even have the excuse they'd have elsewhere of being the only two parties in the goverment. There are several others which are smaller yet popular enough (and in the right ways, since the D'Hont law is designed to screw over popular parties whose votes are spread) to have a sizeable representation.

[Nadaka]

Seriously, there is no "plot" to this. No conspericy to keep the people down. The problem is that there's two very different parties who hate each other trying to share the same country, so their's a lot of pulling and everything going no where. It's like saying that people use sports fans as an excuse to riot. There are people like that but they are the the minority, but others want to focus on them as an excuse to hate sports fans.

I went to a riot and a hockey game broke out


Also, on the question of what differences there are between democrats and republicans-

Fundementally, [I'm rather sure that] democrats advocate the funneling of more power to the government. leave taxes and increase spending.
Republicans, meanwhile, try to shrink the government. Cut spending on non-essential government programs (In this case, Social Security all day erry day), and raise taxes.

So, while you guys say that the differences are purely cosmetic, they are quite literally polar opposites.

What? No. no. no. NO!

You need to pay attention to what the parties actually DO.

Both parties advocate the funneling of more power to the government.

Democrats believe in paying for government with taxes.

Republicans believe in paying for government with debt, basically pawning off responsibility to future generations.

Democrats believe that some of that big government should support the middle and lower classes, to keep them from rioting in the streets if nothing else.

Republicans believe that all of that big government should support the wealthy, subtly control the middle class and subjugate the lower class.

The tea party is a relatively new faction in the republican party that actively wants to undo every bit of progress made in the last 300 years towards social justice and equity.