User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 105

Thread: Libertarians?

  1. #71
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    Why is it a rash assumption - are you assuming that I was only addressing you? Congrats on your degree, would you like to see all of mine?

    I don't care about your stance on gay marriage. I brought it up as an analogy to illustrate a point, which went over your head twice, so forget it.

    Whether some libertarians in theory don't support infrastructure, the Libertarian Party has made no such claim. And we are talking about the party.

    So now I am claiming to be a libertarian, but your undergrad polisci degree gives you the authority to tell me what I really am? When the hell did I ever say I want a high level of government regulation?

    Conversation over. See ya.
    You're directly responding to me in that statement, and telling me I'm ignorant. I mention that I do have some study in the area, and am not as ignorant as you assert. Why do you take that response so personally?

    What was the point in the gay marriage analogy? Several political movements include marriage equality in their platforms. That's not a distinctly LP position, so you're right, whatever point you were making clearly went over my head. I'd love for you to expand on this, but you seem unwilling to. That's unfortunate; you seem like a smart person.

    From the LP's current platform:

    and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
    From their 2004 platform:

    Transportation
    The Issue: Government interference in transportation is characterized by monopolistic restriction, corruption and gross inefficiency. We condemn the re-cartelization of commercial aviation by the Federal Aviation Administration via rationing of take-off and landing rights and controlling scheduling in the name of safety.

    The Principle: The transportation industry should not be treated differently from any other industry, and should be governed by free markets and held to strict liability.

    Solutions: We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation -- including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission -- and the transfer of their legitimate functions to competitive private firms. We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads and the national highway system.

    Transitional Action: As interim measures, we advocate an immediate end to government regulation of private transit organizations and to governmental favors to the transportation industry. In particular, we support the immediate repeal of all laws restricting transit competition such as the granting of taxicab and bus monopolies and the prohibition of private jitney services. We urge immediate deregulation of the trucking industry.
    You see, I'm not just making wild assertions there. Not only that, I'm not making any assumptions about your own political beliefs there, either.

  2. #72
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You're directly responding to me in that statement, and telling me I'm ignorant.I mention that I do have some study in the area, and am not as ignorant as you assert. Why do you take that response so personally?
    Because I did not directly respond to you with that statement. I made a general statement, then responded to you, then responded to someone else. But then you responded personally about your background.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    What was the point in the gay marriage analogy? Several political movements include marriage equality in their platforms. That's not a distinctly LP position, so you're right, whatever point you were making clearly went over my head. I'd love for you to expand on this, but you seem unwilling to. That's unfortunate; you seem like a smart person.
    I'm willing to speak to people who are willing to listen. I don't like wasting my time, especially if you are going to believe what you want anyway. It makes no sense to go back and forth with you about anything. You have one view and I clearly have another. And since you have studied this, you should already know everything that I will say.


    Also, this is the LP Platform:
    Platform | Libertarian Party

  3. #73
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    Because I did not directly respond to you with that statement. I made a general statement, then responded to you, then responded to someone else. But then you responded personally about your background.



    I'm willing to speak to people who are willing to listen. I don't like wasting my time, especially if you are going to believe what you want anyway. It makes no sense to go back and forth with you about anything. You have one view and I clearly have another. And since you have studied this, you should already know everything that I will say.


    Also, this is the LP Platform:
    Platform | Libertarian Party
    No interest in the debate? You don't think there's something to be learned from each other's ideas, even if we differ in views?

    I'll admit, yours is a conception of libertarianism that I was unfamiliar with before this thread. That's interesting, and that doesn't mean that there is a hard definition of libertarianism. I just want to know how you define it, and by defining what my parameters of libertarianism are, hope you could elucidate further. I'm not trying to act superior or anything, I just want to push the boundaries to learn further, and exercise my brain.

    I apologize if my words came across as overbearing or insulting. That would be wrong, and is not my intention.

  4. #74
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    No interest in the debate? You don't think there's something to be learned from each other's ideas, even if we differ in views?

    I'll admit, yours is a conception of libertarianism that I was unfamiliar with before this thread. That's interesting, and that doesn't mean that there is a hard definition of libertarianism. I just want to know how you define it, and by defining what my parameters of libertarianism are, hope you could elucidate further. I'm not trying to act superior or anything, I just want to push the boundaries to learn further, and exercise my brain.

    I apologize if my words came across as overbearing or insulting. That would be wrong, and is not my intention.
    No need to apologize for anything. I'm not insulted. I just don't like to speak to people who are not open to listen. I am always more than willing to discuss anything with anyone to reach a common understanding and respect, but I am not going to go in circles and waste my energy.

    Did you read the platform? Whether you think our outcome is feasible is not the point. I look at the RP and the DP platforms and don't think half of their ideas are feasible either. It wouldn't be practical to think they would be. So I don't see why the LP is judged so much harsher than those 2 parties. Or the Greens, or the CP or any other party. The LP just seems to be the scapegoat, as of late. In addition, people from the RP have been deflecting and hiding out in the LP, which is not doing us any favors.

    I don't have a special brand of libertarianism, but I'm sure you can understand that even amongst party members, there is disagreement. It's like that in every party - in every social group on earth. And now with a new communication director that a lot of us were against, there is even more disagreement. But the platform remains the platform. Some people are staunchly anti-abortion, some are staunchly pro-choice. This is something that we argue about constantly. Constantly. My point is that we are not all the same and that is the beauty of it. We're human, too.

  5. #75
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I'd consider myself a social democrat nowadays, but the ideal of personal freedom is still paramount to me... as long as it doesn't involve interaction between people. Some people just need rules, or they will break them.
    Those statements don't raise any cognitive dissonance flags with you? If you don't value free interaction between people as much as any other personal freedom, then you effectively don't value personal freedom as a "paramount" concern. That's not to say that personal freedoms are always optimized without regulation in the economic or social sphere, but the regulation of interaction between people is not something any self-professed "liberal" (conservative, centrist, or progressive-I'm using the international definition) would take lightly, as it necessarily dilutes one's personal freedom in the first place.

    Incidentally, social-democrats don't value personal freedom as a paramount concern, they value (majoritarian) democracy and relative material equality as paramount concerns. Social-liberals (i.e. progressives) are the left-wingers who value personal liberty (along with other "liberals") as the paramount concern of politics-whether or not one considers this to be a vital distinction (the means toward these different goals often overlap between the two political currents, leading to similar short-term policies nowadays) probably depends on whether on thinks ideas and assumptions have major long-term effects, as well as substantial short-term influence on otherwise similar policies.

  6. #76
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    I definitely see your point. I read up a little bit, and took notice of the pragmatic movement that's taking place within the LP. It seems to be bringing the platform more in the direction of "mainstream" political thought. I still disagree with many of the planks, and will debate them furiously, but I understand the logic behind it.

    I think the reason the LP is judged more harshly than the other two major parties is due to the nature of American government. Duverger's law (as you're likely aware of) posits that whenever an election is a plurality winner-take-all plebiscite, that two parties naturally coalesce, due to the increased likelihood of interested participants having their causes advanced. A 1/2 shot is much better than a 1/3, 1/4 or lower probability of your interests being represented, even if certain principles are compromised.

    The LP is firmly against compromising its principles, having practically the same platform, with contemporary shifts, for 32 years (1972-2004). The pro-corporate Republican Party was climbing towards its 1990s apogee, removing much potential support for the LP's positions, while the more pro-welfare state Democratic Party's support base most likely would not support most of the LP's economic positions, while still agreeing on many of the social issues.

    As you can see, this is inevitably going to lead to problems and conflicts. On top of this, it may come down to an issue of typology, interestingly enough. While NTs are fully comfortable with the idea of a minarchist state, having no reason to think that people would act outside their rational self-interest, it's my opinion that other types simply do not think this way. They need rules to be set and protector figures to maintain their sense of security in an often threatening world. When a Libertarian comes along and says that we do not need any rulers or any chains, they recoil at this, simply because you're threatening to throw them out into the chaos without any sense of an anchor. Not only that, but there's the fear of exploitation - some people are simply not inclined toward research and information-gathering in the process of making transactions, and without a strong arbiter to make sure transactions are done fairly, can reasonably expect to be taken advantage of on a frequent basis.

    From a more socially conservative position, there's the fear that this level of individualism shatters the foundations of community and obligation that glue a group of people together. Legalization and decriminalization of drugs is seen as threatening, since while their use is not generally harmful to a person and from an individualist perspective, that is enough (while being their own choice), to someone who is not necessarily experienced with their use, or has had negative experiences, it can be seen as promoting unreliability in group members, particularly as it comes to their responsibilities to their community and to their friends and family (never mind the racial component that informs much of it in this country). Likewise, the cuts in military spending are worrisome, as the strength of the community is represented in its authority figures - explaining much of the reverence for soldiers, police officers and other state apparatus authority figures that others may find somewhat perplexing.

    A few things, I believe, led to the current uptick in denigration toward the LP in the national conversation. The first was the seemingly religious appeal of Ron Paul during the Republican primaries - while to many libertarians (and understandable from an NT perspective), it was simply being excited and passionate about a candidate that actually said things that made sense, to others, it could be seen as cult-like behavior, especially when it came to more radical positions that he took, such as the advocacy of the gold standard and abolition of the Federal Reserve. The unwillingness to compromise after Paul's defeat and work within the caucuses of the two major parties to advance their causes, combined with the seemingly-endless screeds on the Internet proclaiming this to anyone appeared to simply be fanaticism.

    The second of these was the tendency of libertarian advocates, generally very good at pointing out systemic flaws, to call for hugely radical change during the economic collapse this fall, especially in the realm of Fed policy and the monetary system. The willingness to talk plainly about potential consequences essentially scared the wits out of many people.

    The third was the tea party movement, which putatively began as an anti-countercyclical spending movement, and became more akin to an anti-Obama movement with unfortunate racist undertones. With many of the progenitors of the movement being libertarians, and the attachment that the other elements foisted upon them (particularly in light of the highly anti-prejudice plank of the Libertarian platform), it's easy to see how things went sour. You mentioned this yourself.

    The other part that many people find distasteful is the insistence on deregulation, when a strong argument can be made that the current economic crisis stemmed from a lack of financial regulation. That's going to be a difference of ideology, but it can lead to disdain.

    There are many, many very intelligent people within the Libertarian Party, and it's unfortunate their opinions are marginalized in the way that they are (much like the Greens were back in 2000). That being said, I'm not sure that's changing any time soon given the structural nature of our government, and it would do LP members well to develop a way of advancing their ideas through the current two-party system.

  7. #77
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Dude View Post
    So, any Libertarians on here? Yes, please.
    I am an Independent libertarian anarchist in the sense that:

    1.) I believe victimless crimes need to lose the status of "crime" ASAP

    2.) I think that we need to reduce the amount of government as much as safely possible

    3.) I see a need for humanity to reduce the amount of government until an effective anarchist community is achieved, and for this to happen sometime before this universe fades into oblivion... and...

    4.) Because of my radical views, and my recognition that people cannot handle very much freedom at this point, I do not restrict myself to the Libertarian Party.

  8. #78
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    In the US, the states that are the most libertarian in terms of their economic policy, also tend to have the lowest per capita GDPs, the highest poverty rates, and the unhealthiest people. Sources: 1 2 3 4

    The moral of the story? Modern liberalism FTW. Libertarianism is a little more sensible when it comes to social and foreign policy, but most libertarians seem primarily concerned with economic matters.

  9. #79
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Those statements don't raise any cognitive dissonance flags with you? If you don't value free interaction between people as much as any other personal freedom, then you effectively don't value personal freedom as a "paramount" concern. That's not to say that personal freedoms are always optimized without regulation in the economic or social sphere, but the regulation of interaction between people is not something any self-professed "liberal" (conservative, centrist, or progressive-I'm using the international definition) would take lightly, as it necessarily dilutes one's personal freedom in the first place.

    Incidentally, social-democrats don't value personal freedom as a paramount concern, they value (majoritarian) democracy and relative material equality as paramount concerns. Social-liberals (i.e. progressives) are the left-wingers who value personal liberty (along with other "liberals") as the paramount concern of politics-whether or not one considers this to be a vital distinction (the means toward these different goals often overlap between the two political currents, leading to similar short-term policies nowadays) probably depends on whether on thinks ideas and assumptions have major long-term effects, as well as substantial short-term influence on otherwise similar policies.
    Personal freedom in this context means freedom to do with your body as you will, as long as it impacts no others in a negative fashion. Humans are both individual units of reproduction and collective group components. A lack of regulation of interactions between people can be incredibly damaging, as bad actors undermine the trust, consistency and cohesion that are required for a social structure to work effectively. Much like Rousseau said, we give up the freedoms of the state of nature with the understanding that consistency leads to social and community development, which in turn leads to the greater ability of the members within it to survive and reproduce.

    Being a member of a society is agreeing to relinquish some of these personal freedoms in order to maintain a baseline level of security. Based on my analysis, the first area of freedoms to be relinquished are in the area of interaction and exchange. Without these restrictions, interaction and exchange, outside of kinship networks, would devolve to blunt uses of power, such as theft, assault, fraud and rape. It's not a coincidence that these are considered the most egregious crimes by most societies - they attack the underpinnings of social cohesion, along with the actual victim. It's even why in countries like the US, where by strict text freedom of expression is guaranteed, that it is understood that there are certain forms of speech that still violate the law.

    Beyond that, it's my belief that the state or society has no purpose in regulating individual behavior in regard to the individual himself. Using psychoactive substances is fine; violating someone's rights while under the influence is intolerable. Religious belief is free to all; harming others based on those beliefs should be prosecuted heavily. And so on.

    And yes, I believe that beyond these set standards, majoritarian rule, filtered through a representative body, is the best means to further social cohesion in the absence of a highly coercive government. People who feel that they're represented, or at the very least had a fair shot, are much less likely to create unrest than those who feel completely marginalized in the absence of heavy repression. In my opinion, liberalism is about removing the repression. Social democracy is about removing the marginalization.

  10. #80
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    In the US, the states that are the most libertarian in terms of their economic policy, also tend to have the lowest per capita GDPs, the highest poverty rates, and the unhealthiest people. Sources: 1 2 3 4

    The moral of the story? Modern liberalism FTW. Libertarianism is a little more sensible when it comes to social and foreign policy, but most libertarians seem primarily concerned with economic matters.

    Ever heard the phrase "correlation does not equal causation?" India has a more regulated economy than the United States; it is also far poorer. Your statistics have no context.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. The Honest-to-Satan Libertarian Test
    By Speed Gavroche in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-03-2010, 10:01 AM
  2. More fascinating Libertarian stuff
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 06-16-2008, 05:04 PM
  3. Libertarian Purity Test
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 04-23-2008, 05:24 PM
  4. I have no Libertarian Socialist!
    By booyalab in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-23-2008, 05:16 PM
  5. Engaging Economica on Libertarian Ideology
    By reason in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 08:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO