Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Those are conflicting on every level but the most basic one.

I didn't say that it was realistic, valid, or sane. But that is inarguably the political philosophy of Libertarians and the US Libertarian Party in general. 

[Criptfeind]

Ah. I see. I thought you were talking about his whole post, not just the first part. I assume now you were just talking about the first part? Interject what you said there and the second part still stands?

[Capntastic]

Since the Libertarian Party holds unrestrained Capitalism above all else, I can't see how anything could redeem it.

That's not true. The Libertarian Party holds unrestrained Capitalism and unrestrained personal freedom equally above all else. That's kind of what Libertarianism is.

There's really no need to split hairs since the end result is still unrestrained Capitalism, which inherently allows people to take away the freedoms of others.  While freedom of choice with regard to drugs or sexuality or reproductive rights is obviously good (and often viewpoints shied away from by most Libertarian forerunners), Libertarianism is basically Minarchy that has just enough government infrastructure to protect the property of those that have it.

[GlyphGryph]

Considering there are Libertarians who advocate national healthcare, I'm not really sure that's true, to be honest.

Also, Powder Miner, you may see yourself as a Republican but I very much doubt you are "part of the Republican Party". The party is the people actually working for and in it, and in this case I specifically mean the people running for the presidential nomination. Sorry for not being clear about that.

And honestly, you know what? Unrestrained capitalism is not my ideal system, but it seems a sight better than the unrestrained cronyism both parties advocate right now.

[Capntastic]

And honestly, you know what? Unrestrained capitalism is not my ideal system, but it seems a sight better than the unrestrained cronyism both parties advocate right now.

This is such a hopeful, naive perspective to hold, which is why it's so damaging.  Like, I honestly appreciate that you see flaws in our current system (they are obvious), and that you want change.  But that doesn't mean that 'anything else' is immediately better than what we have.  Realize that the same personality types that tend towards cronyism would run rampant even in a pure capitalist system.  You're saying that instead of struggling with terribly self-centered people exploiting the system as much as they can for personal gain, we simply let them have full control.

[Leafsnail]

Considering there are Libertarians who advocate national healthcare, I'm not really sure that's true, to be honest.

This is a really odd thing to say considering that the person you're advocating here doesn't support national healthcare.

[GlyphGryph]

No, I'm not really saying that at all. But pick up what you want out of it, I guess.

If my naivety lies anywhere, it is perhaps in hoping that a relatively libertarian candidate will follow more in the reasonable and pragmatic footsteps of those few liberterians who realize reality is messy rather than the idealists who think just because they want something to be true, it will.

People here, and in other places, convinced my Ron Paul was of the second type, which is why I've recently completely withdrawn my support for him. Gary Johnson seems to be of the first - I could still be wrong, sure.

As to my comment, I was arguing that unrestrained capitalism minus cronyism would b superior. Is it likely? No. But Johnson seems more intent on destroying the cronyism and the things that support it (like the drug war, corporate handouts) rather than jumping straight to "unrestrained capitalism" (if that is, indeed, what he seeks at all. He doesn't really seek to be advocating that, though - I've not found anywhere where he's arguing against regulations, for example. Maybe he is! But I haven't seen it.)

If that is his goal, I am honestly okay with us aiming towards that for a while if if he manages to succeed at reducing that sort of shit. Maybe he won't. But it seems to me the problem with aiming towards unrestrained capitalism (which, I will repeat, is not actually a worthy goal in my mind, though stepping towards it seems like an improvement over government supported oligarchy) is in the details of the implementation. Where would his focus be, if you will?

And Johnson's focus seems very much on the aspects of our current system that I find the most in need of change.

Leaf,
I was merely responding to the accusation that a Libertarian must value unrestrained capitalism higher than unrestrained freedom, when there are members of the party who support things that state the exact opposite. It wasn't in a response to Johnson in particular who, and again, I might need to repeat this, is NOT MY IDEAL CANDIDATE. Not even close! But unlike the major candidates, he has maybe 4 or 5 positions I can support instead of 1 or 2.

[Leafsnail]

I dunno, I would've thought if you were trying to rebutt that accusation that the Libertarian Party is obsessed with unrestrained capitalism you'd pick an example that actually applies to the guy we're talking about.  And yeah, a minority of Libertarians do support national healthcare, but I'm pretty sure that the party overall would push against it.

[Capntastic]

Some Libertarians might support nationalized health care in the same way that some Libertarians are against religious, sexual, and reproductive freedoms.  You can't really do a reverse no-true-Scotsman to defend a group on a stance they typically abhor.

[Cthulhu]

The whole line of conversation here is why I started shying away from the Libertarian party and toward the (Admittedly cheap and avoidant) Fuck If I Know What to Do Party.  If you, as a Libertarian, start giving ground to the pro-government standpoint, you're not a Libertarian anymore, and the popular "There should be enough government regulation to keep the market from eating people, but not so much it harms personal freedom" pseudo-libertarian stance isn't really libertarian because everyone who's not openly evil or anti-market espouses that viewpoint.

On the Republicans, the party's been heavily infiltrated by wingnuts and since there's no way Barack "I Fuckin' Got Osama" Obama can lose, only the wingnuts are stepping up to the election plate.  Nobody sane wants to risk their career running against somebody they'll never beat.

[Powder Miner]

I don't know, you probably would see me as insane seeing as I advocate "unrestrained capitalism". (I don't see it as being taking away of personal freedoms either, quite the other away around, I believe that's what happens what the government becomes too large. I'd love to debate about it too, it's just that all of the political threads move far too fast for me.)


I also disagree with your statement that the Republican candidates are megalomaniacs. I don't get why people have to insult the people they disagree with. I fervently disagree with Barack Obama, but I don't think he's stupid or anything. I think he's a good guy, I just disagree with him.

[Nadaka]

I think Barrack Obama is brilliant. He is a moderate right republican that managed to trick democrats and even actual liberal people to vote for him.

[Grakelin]

I don't know, you probably would see me as insane seeing as I advocate "unrestrained capitalism". (I don't see it as being taking away of personal freedoms either, quite the other away around, I believe that's what happens what the government becomes too large. I'd love to debate about it too, it's just that all of the political threads move far too fast for me.)


I also disagree with your statement that the Republican candidates are megalomaniacs. I don't get why people have to insult the people they disagree with. I fervently disagree with Barack Obama, but I don't think he's stupid or anything. I think he's a good guy, I just disagree with him.

You haven't been following your favorite party's candidacy race if you haven't noticed they have crippling personality flaws which have caused the "Front Runner" to change on a weekly basis.

[Capntastic]

I think Barrack Obama is brilliant. He is a moderate right republican that managed to trick democrats and even actual liberal people to vote for him.

To be fair, the U.S. hasn't had anything approaching an honestly leftist President in a long time, and depending on one's stance, it could be argued we never have.

[Nadaka]

While doing research to advocate to someone (who would never accept a "liberal" option) that Gary Johnson was a better libertarian option than Ron Paul... I found something about him that I really don't like.

He is an advocate of prison privatization.Having twice attempted to install privately owned and operated prisons while governor.