Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As for voting Gary Johnson because there isn't a socialist, I'm just going to extinguish this fire with some gasoline because I don't have any water.

For the record, you can actually do that, it's just very dangerous.

I would have said that the ideas of socialism were almost the exact opposites of libertarianism, yeah. It's odd. The website says I side most with Gary Johnson as a candidate but the Socialists as a party. How does that work?

Because the Socialist Party's candidate isn't listed, though that would be Stewart Alexander. Aside from Green, Libertarian, and Constitution, all the other third parties, including Socialist, are so small no one pays them any mind.

[GreatJustice]

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

You are cute-but-wrong personified.

RON PAUL

What a lengthy, detailed rebuttal. Truly I have been vanquished by a master among debaters.

[GlyphGryph]

I am also about even between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Which isn't surprising, they really are the two closest to my own person views.

They are practically identical on most of the issues I care about, and then I'm split on the remainder of the issues.

[mainiac]

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

Yes we have.  That's why the nanny state northeast has consistantly been decades ahead of the old south on social issues such as women's rights, gay rights, race rights.  When the people identify a social problem they have the government step in and fix it.

Take the complex issue of slavery.  Vermont took the heavy handed government approach of making it illegal in 1780.  Guess what didn't happen in Vermont?  Slavery!  The southern states let the individuals do what they want.  Guess what happened?  Decades of slavery and a deep culture of racial resentment on both sides.

I would have said that the ideas of socialism were almost the exact opposites of libertarianism, yeah. It's odd. The website says I side most with Gary Johnson as a candidate but the Socialists as a party. How does that work?

The site doesn't take into account the realities of the political system once politicians are elected.  These affect the two major parties that are actually capable of getting legislation through but don't affect parties with no or very few elected representatives.  Jill Stein and Gary Johnson don't triangulate their statements in order to marginally approve the chance of their pet piece of legislation through.  If they actually got in office then you'd see that Jill Stein's performance in office would look very similar too Barack Obama's and Gary Johnson's would look a lot like Mitt Romney's thanks to the meddling of congress.  I would say there are some places where they would probably damn the political consequences and congress doesn't have a say, like drone strikes.  But for most of the issues they really wouldn't be that different.

[Karlito]

Didn't we do one of these a few months ago? Anyway, nothing surprising to me here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

95% Jill Stein
87% Barack Obama
86% Rocky Anderson
5% Mitt Romney

98% Democrat
94% Green
43% Libertarian
1% Republican

[Nadaka]

that's is rather harsh. The basic concepts behind libertarian philosophy are good.  The trouble is that they tend to foccus singlemindedly on a highly abstract economic model that was known to be problematic and lead to corporate despotism and economic inequity even by its creator Adam Smith. If only they bothered to take a deeper look at the realities of economic disenfranchisement and the inevitaable corruption resulting from unregulated markets.

Really I think the "basic concepts" lead naturally into the support for the horrible economic model.  If you start at the premise that the magical powers of FREEDOM and the FREE MARKET would solve all our problems it naturally follows that we should withdraw all support for poor people and eliminate every government service.  It's just that the premise is horribly wrong.

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

Not with ease, but we have made a crap ton of progress despite people trying desperately to drag us back to the feudal dark ages.

[Reelya]

"Property rights" don't exist without the state to ENFORCE them. Or you have to create a system of vigilantes and warlords to keep the peace - which just devolves into despotism. Property isn't a tangible thing - it's an idea. There have been, and will always be "property disputes". Only a "central arbiter" can settle the matter. Unless you want to settle things with shootouts and clan feuds.

Sure, you can directly protect your home, but what about transferable title to land you're not occupying? How efficient will things be if everyone has to send armed units to secure land they just bought? If you contend that "free market security" will replace government mandated police and soldiers, then what's to stop a private armed group just grabbing your land and saying "free market, dude!"

I scoff at the idea of some of the more radical libertarians that we could have private "for hire" armies running around America, and due to the "free market" this will make EVERYTHING wine and roses, because those armies will have to "compete" to provide services. I'll tell you what, they WILL be competing - to enslave everyone else!

Contracts are only worthless paper without courts and laws to enforce penalties. If you say that people will "exact" their own penalties for contract-breakers, i'd have to wonder why contracts would exist in the first place. People would just take whatever they want in a "might makes right" scenario.

[scriver]

that's is rather harsh. The basic concepts behind libertarian philosophy are good.  The trouble is that they tend to foccus singlemindedly on a highly abstract economic model that was known to be problematic and lead to corporate despotism and economic inequity even by its creator Adam Smith. If only they bothered to take a deeper look at the realities of economic disenfranchisement and the inevitaable corruption resulting from unregulated markets.

Really I think the "basic concepts" lead naturally into the support for the horrible economic model.  If you start at the premise that the magical powers of FREEDOM and the FREE MARKET would solve all our problems it naturally follows that we should withdraw all support for poor people and eliminate every government service.  It's just that the premise is horribly wrong.

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

Because if there's anything we've learned, its that the GOVERNMENT and EQUALITY can solve complex social issues with ease.

You are cute-but-wrong personified.

RON PAUL

What a lengthy, detailed rebuttal. Truly I have been vanquished by a master among debaters.

1. Respond to discussion with sarcastic one-liner.
2. Get sarcastic one-liner in return.
3. Deride other poster for use of sarcastic one-liner and lack of discussitude.
4. ? ? ?
5. Profit.

[GlyphGryph]

I like to call myself a "practical libertarian" - I would like to pursue the courses of action that would produce the results most in line with my libertarian ideals: maximizing freedoms, efficiency, and opportunity while encouraging initiative, innovation, and progress.

Many of the policies espoused by your average libertarian, especially their economic ones, seem in stark contrast to their stated goals and desires, which is perplexing, at best.

Spoiler: Results (click to show/hide)

Candidates:
90% Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
88% Jill Stein (Green)
71% Barack Obama (Democrat)
71% Rocky Anderson (Justice)
41% Virgil Good (Constitution)
5% Mitt Romney (Republican)

By party:
84% Democrat
81% Green
76% Libertarian
5% Republican

[mainiac]

I like to call myself a "practical libertarian" - I would like to pursue the courses of action that would produce the results most in line with my libertarian ideals: maximizing freedoms, efficiency, and opportunity while encouraging initiative, innovation, and progress.

Not to be critical, but to genuinely ask, how does this differ from "liberal"?  What are the aspects of this that you consider incompatible with middle of the road liberalism?

[Nadaka]

I like to call myself a "practical libertarian" - I would like to pursue the courses of action that would produce the results most in line with my libertarian ideals: maximizing freedoms, efficiency, and opportunity while encouraging initiative, innovation, and progress.

Not to be critical, but to genuinely ask, how does this differ from "liberal"?  What are the aspects of this that you consider incompatible with middle of the road liberalism?

We like guns? 

I believe my point of view isn't that much different than GlyphGryph. On non-economic and public safety issues I tend to be "libertarian" with the caveat that I make no distinction between state and federal infringement on personal liberties unlike the so called "states rights libertarians" aka anti-federalists. When it comes to economic and public safety issues? I tend towards the socialist bent. The governments principal role in society it to protect all of society, and to that end it must regulate commerce to prevent, reduce or correct harm done to the general public.

[mainiac]

There's plenty of pro-gun liberals though.  My previous house representative was liberal but had an A rating from the NRA.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Most American liberals are pro-gun liberals. Not much support for the gun control movement, and even then only lesser measures.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah it's a shame.

New political short from animator of Simpsons and Family Guy.

http://whyobamanow.org/

I quite like this as an "advert".  It's kindof an attack ad, but an evidence based attack on the heart of the Republican economic agenda.

[mainiac]

Damn that is a fantastic video.