User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 84

  1. #41
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Would you rather have liberal social policy, center-left economic policy, and non-interventionist foreign policy or conservative social policy, center-right economic policy, and militaristic foreign policy?

    Neither option.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #42
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    1) Fairly. I agree with the LP on most issues, but I think that their organization ranges from crappy to laughable. About fifteen years ago, a 14-year-old girl was a delegate at their national convention and ran for National Chair (IIRC) and only lost by like 23 votes. If they could someone effect SOME real political change while keeping to their principles, I'd certainly support them. I have voted LP in the past, including my epically-drunken 2004 vote for Michael Badnarik for President.
    How do you feel about the minor parties forming coalitions (officially or unofficially)? I know last year, Mike Gravel ran in and dropped out of the Dem primary, endorsed a Green Party Presidential candidate, and then joined the field of LP candidates. Creepy. And back in '04 when Badnarik and Cobb were debating each other... seems like half the time they care more about the insider/outsider dichotomy than they do the ideological dichotomy.

    2) I am registered Independent in California. I was Independent in Pennsylvania from 18 until 25, when I re-registered Republican so I could vote for Ron Paul/against John McCain in the GOP primary.

    3) Americans who more or less have the same philosophy that I do? Grover Cleveland, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater (except for defense), Ron Paul (except for abortion and immigration), Trey Parker, Penn and Teller, Clint Eastwood, Andrew Napolitano (except for abortion), John Stossel, Jeff Flake
    Interesting mix. Grover Cleveland? You a gold-standard fan then? Guess that would make sense from Cleveland to Paul. Seems like this is a pretty down-the-line libbie list (except for the hypocrisy of Flake who likes a few too many earmarks for most doctrinaire libbies. Didn't he just finish some survivalist thing out in the wilderness or something? What he loses with hypocrisy, I guess he re-gains with symbolism.) Thanks for the list - this gives me a good idea of where your coming from - Trey Parker, Penn and Teller on the "personal freedoms" side; Goldwater, Paul, Friedman and Stossel on the unfettered markets side. I don't know much about Napolitano, except that he's on Fox and has a radio show too.

    On a sidenote, Cleveland... thank God WJB followed him and re-made the Democratic Party

    4) I do believe in the concept of nation-states, although, in a perfect world, there would be no borders, no tariffs, and no wars.

    5) I do not think that all decisions can always be made rationally. Believing that all decisions can be made rationally isn't a libertarian tenet, though, so I am kind of wondering about that question.
    Trying to figure out the kind of libertarian. The Randians DO believe that all decisions can be made rationally.

    6) Congress - almost always messes things up; there are a couple of good people in there, but people who want to be in Congress are generally creepy and untrustworthy

    Military - necessary; made up of many brave people; forced to do heinous things for bad reasons all the time

    Political Parties - don't really care for modern political parties; I'd be down with the LP if they ever got their act together

    Religious Institutions - I'm an agnostic humanist, raised Catholic; religion can be a positive influence in people's lives, but can also be a refuge for the small-minded; religious institutions often do great charity work, which I always prefer to government handouts

    Civic Clubs - usually positive things; non-government-related civil society is one of the backbones of the nation; I may be sponsored for entrance into Freemasonry in the next few years

    Marriage - I am for the privatization of marriage; civil unions for any two unattached adults of sound mind and free will; I plan on marriage and children in the future

    Boy Scouts - gay

    Girls Scouts - good cookies; sexy uniforms

    OK, last two were jokes. They are good organizations and, as private entities, they should be able to exclude gay leaders, but they shouldn't be able to use government facilities if they do so.
    So - skepticism toward government, and qualified acceptance of non-gov't institutions.

    7) No, not at all. I have read some of Rand's fiction and enjoyed it, but she was a terrible person to be around. Also, where's the fun in being a libertarian if someone else has already decided what you should read, watch, listen to, wear, etc.? I know some very cool Objectivists and some Objectivists who seem to have been attracted to Objectivism as a philosophical excuse to be an asshole.
    I know the two are strongly linked, but I don't think you have to be a Rand groupie (didn't they call themselves The Collective?) to be an Objectivist.

  3. #43
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Corporate personhood - a good thing, or an abomination?
    Good thing, although I support more "piercing the corporate veil" when there are allegations/evidence of impropriety.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #44
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post

    Not necessarily. Bloomberg and Ron Paul are two examples.
    Exactly. They are part of the present. When I said "in the past..." I was referring to a generation ago.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    What if one is against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on principle? How would that qualify as a GOOD example? Most libertarians rejoice when bills DON'T pass.
    My argument had nothing to do with strong parties being good for libertarians, but in being good for America. You certainly won't get any argument from me that having 535 members of Congress all fighting from their independent perspectives and refusing to compromise, or "sell-out" would result in a complete lack of legislation passed. To the Libbies, that might be a good thing, but I'm guessing most Americans actually want Washington to act on their behalf, not just stand around getting paid for doing nothing.


    Defying party leadership can be a good thing when the party leadership is corrupt. Ron Paul does it all the time.
    This Ron Paul love mystifies me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't belong to The Cult of Paul (and I know you know the kinds of people I'm talking about.) But even just the casual Paul supporter confuses me... I mean, the man almost never accomplishes anything. It'd be like someone from my side picking Russ Feingold as a hero. Good guy, and I agree with most of his beliefs, but other than "standing up on principle," how is he important?

    Like I said before: bucking the party establishment means getting tons of alt. media headlines and netroots dollars, and Paul has certainly tapped into that. But think about the people who contribute online - left or right - they tend to be white, well-educated, have disposable income, live in cities or college towns, and are most likely not to identify with a major party. Who's interests do you think will be served? That might be a bit better than the old $1,000/plate dinners, but let's not confuse Netroots appeal with true democracy. And I say this as someone who fits that profile and contributed online to the Dean campaign in '03.


    Well within his rights, and I am glad he would stand up against the public option.
    Yeah, but you also admitted it's in your best interest to see ALL legislation fail, so I guess you'd applaud anyone who joins any filibuster at any time.


    There was less consensus than you probably imagine regarding all those things. Why is a consensus necessary?
    First of all, don't patronize me. It's not as if I have always assumed there are two sides to every argument and this whole new world of possibilities is just somehow beyond the grasp of my imagination. I just believe that in order to actually accomplish something, Americans need to at least have general agreement on a basic premise.

    Look, if I had an opportunity to re-design the country MY way, I'd make it much easier to pass Constitutional amendments, so we don't have to rely on unelected, activist judges making policy. I'd abolish the electoral college, enfranchise 16-year olds, institute Instant Runoff Voting nationally, and end Presidential term limits.

    But, guess what - I don't get to hit reset on this country. It's virtually impossible to amend the Constitution, so if I want to see the kinds of changes I'd like to see, I have to support those "activist judges;" we HAVE an electoral college, we HAVE term limits, we don't have IRV, so if I want to see something accomplished, I have to play within the rules that I am given. That's the purpose of a consensus. It keeps people focused on the possible rather than encouraging 300 million people to mount vanity campaigns because they get a kick out of political theory.

    What does that even mean?
    What, my jab at the tea-party folks? They can't go five minutes without referencing a Founding Father or justifying their opposition to some policy or another by saying "that's not what the Founders intended." But it strikes me as a little silly to say that the Founders represent the only version of True American Values, and everything that's happened since 1789 has just bastardized those values.

    Jeez, you must LOVE political parties. Politics predates the party system. If what you believe doesn't fit into the paradigm, why NOT throw stones? It's your right as an American to hate all political parties if you choose. There is nothing narcissistic about voting your conscience, or choosing not to vote at all out of disgust.
    What is within your rights, and what is a demonstration of narcissism are two different things. Yup, totally within your rights. And in my opinion, an absolute display of narcissism.

    Here's an interesting fact: according to the Gallup poll, in 1964 over 70% of Americans trusted the federal government; in 1996, fewer than 20% of Americans gave the same response. Could've been Watergate, Vietnam, any number of things, but it certainly makes governing pretty tough to do. As a Libbie, I'm sure you love that trend. But as someone who actually wants to solve America's problems and believes government is an appropriate avenue to use, it seems like until we get back to some basic level of TRUST (not always agreement, but at least trust), we'll never be able to solve anything.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    When did I ever say that someone would come to the same decision given the same information?

    All I'm saying is that people should be provided with clearer more accurate information from which they can make decisions concerning elections.

    I'm also saying that people should take the time to actually think and digest information from multiple view points before making a decision.

    It definitely makes you more well equipped, because in searching for news from multiple viewpoints, you minimize the effect of the inherently biased nature of information coming from major news outlets. Just because someone surfs politico, new republic, etc. doesn't make their policy judgments objectively more valuable than someone who just tunes in to Rush. What it does do, it minimize the chance that they are making a decision on faulty information.

    I wasn't trying to sound intellectually superior, and still am not.

    Feel free to ask me what my motives are if you are curious.

    EDIT: ruthie its going to take me longer to respond to your other argument b/c crim law is starting and I have to go to the gym after that.
    That's fine. I'm about to go out for the day, so it'll take me a while to respond to a bunch of your arguments as well. I really didn't mean to go after you on the intellectual superiority thing - it isn't personal. The whole "most Americans are stupid/uninformed/lazy" argument really does just set me off. A lot of liberals do it too, and that bothers me even more to be honest. No way for you to have known that.

  7. #47
    Iron Maiden fidelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sx
    Posts
    11,132

    Default

    Wait a minute...I thought this thread said Ask A Librarian. Sorry about that. Back to your regular programming...

  8. #48
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Do people deserve to have others exploit and harm them if they do not take steps to mitigate this potential harm?

  9. #49
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Corporate personhood - a good thing, or an abomination?
    I don't like it, but I think is a bigger problem is the legal protections that corporations offer. You can't send a corporation to prison, and their charters are rarely revoked. They get fined for offenses that would send individuals to prison. There should be greater accountability required of (large) shareholders and upper management.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #50
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Do people deserve to have others exploit and harm them if they do not take steps to mitigate this potential harm?
    No one deserves to be harmed who hasn't infringed unjustifiably upon the rights of others.

Similar Threads

  1. [INTJ] Ask an INTJ
    By logan235711 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 870
    Last Post: 05-22-2015, 05:04 AM
  2. [ISTJ] Ask the ISTJ
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 02:01 AM
  3. 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