User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 68

  1. #41
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    I am a mite tired, and indeed, by the time I awake and able to respond to some points in your post I disagree with I may have been beaten to the punch, allow me to note one thing that I have regretted not noting to people in the past whom I found intelligent but found me condescending when I didn't mean to be: Do not let any disagreement with your views be confused with dislike for you. Anyone who can hold an intelligent conversation is a-okay in my book. It's exactly that kind of calm and reasonable approach to disagreement that I find is far more important than the details of the disagreements themselves.
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

  2. #42
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Because you guys want power for YOUR ideology. You guys have your own falliable agenda too. There's no way to get around the necessisity for organized government.
    I am not an anarchocapitalist, but the ideology is based on the government having less power to control just about everything. Of course, power tends to corrupt, so I would be quite suspicious of a Libertarian-dominated government. Still, they are ideological folks, so I am sure some things would be enacted. Plus, you can have a communism on a small scale in a libertarian society. The opposite is clearly impossible in a communist society.


    The madness is that you think extension of human life span will occur because of libertarian political power and not because of genetic engineering.
    I don't. Libertarians are more likely to support freedom in genetic engineering, though. And life extension and so-called "transhumanism" is a big thing for a subset of libertarians. Libertarian societies will be very tech-oriented.


    Your libertarian authors have a libertarian agenda. Do you really think I've never read libertarian books? I gave it a fair shake at one point. I wrote a ten page research paper on Ron Paul for a political science class and made an A. During that time I read other libertarian texts which had nothing to do with Ron Paul. Their revisionist history is a bunch of crap designed to support their own agenda. There is loads and loads of evidence for the horrendous working conditions of the 19th and early 20th centuries...including photographs, not just narratives. Why do you doubt the existence of the phenomenon...and not say the existence of the Civil War or the Holocaust? You're saying that something that obviously happened (to as much as 80% of the population, since the working class was much larger at that time!) didn't happen because it doesn't suit your world view.
    I didn't say the working conditions were good; I said they were better than the alternatives at the time. That is indisputably true. And I am still waiting for a major libertarian author. Ron Paul is a politician who writes books. Any libertarian philosophers or economists by name?


    Yes. It's called being "liberal." Emphasizing social freedom while having a generous welfare sector has nothing to do with free market anarcho-capitalism libertarianism, and in fact mirrors my own beliefs, so I'm still not sure what you're arguing against.
    That these societies are much more free market-oriented than you are giving them credit for. Like I said, these more libertarian counties often have freer economies than the United States does. Again, this is a fact.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    I am a mite tired, and indeed, by the time I awake and able to respond to some points in your post I disagree with I may have been beaten to the punch, allow me to note one thing that I have regretted not noting to people in the past whom I found intelligent but found me condescending when I didn't mean to be: Do not let any disagreement with your views be confused with dislike for you. Anyone who can hold an intelligent conversation is a-okay in my book. It's exactly that kind of calm and reasonable approach to disagreement that I find is far more important than the details of the disagreements themselves.
    I agree completely. I just don't like it when I think people aren't debating in good faith.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #44
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    Peguy, maybe, but I think your point pertains more towards what FDR would have done at the advent of the Cold War (perhaps a sense of mutual admiration would have even lessened tensions!), but as my immediately previous parenthetical notes, it is speculative. FDR's fight against Hitler was well advised, including D-Day. Indeed, the Russians are commonly cited, not foolishly, as the greatest reason the Axis powers failed. Alliances with Stalin against the fascist threat were very important. Maybe he would have fucked up when Stalin became the apparent foe, but maybe Lincoln would have made Asians the new slaves. Fact is important. Speculation is useless.
    This isn't speculation Zpowers, I have demonstrated the facts that Roosevelt was utterly naive if not incompetent when dealing with Stalin, a point Churchill kept making throughout much of the war. Yes Stalin was needed to defeat Hitler, but that doesn't mean you necessarily bend over backwards pandering to him. As the first video noted, Roosevelt summed up his policy towards Stalin as "offering him as much as I can and asking for nothing in return." It doesn't take a moron to see what's wrong with that picture, even if you're not dealing with somebody like Stalin. I'm not even getting into his handling of Polish affairs.

  5. #45
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    When mortgage brokers knowingly sign up anyone with a pulse
    or without a pulse, as it turns out some have been doing.

    i appreciate the libertarian party mostly for getting votes that would otherwise have gone to social conservatives! i'm a liberal (not classical) myself but would take a libertarian over a tea partier any day.

  6. #46
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    or without a pulse, as it turns out some have been doing.

    i appreciate the libertarian party mostly for getting votes that would otherwise have gone to social conservatives! i'm a liberal (not classical) myself but would take a libertarian over a tea partier any day.
    That's nice to hear. I try to remind my friends (libertarian and otherwise) that libertarians are inheritors to a classical liberal tradition all the time.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #47
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    or without a pulse, as it turns out some have been doing.

    i appreciate the libertarian party mostly for getting votes that would otherwise have gone to social conservatives! i'm a liberal (not classical) myself but would take a libertarian over a tea partier any day.
    You may find that there is considerable overlap between those two groups when it comes to choosing which candidates to vote for.

  8. #48

    Default

    We had some libertarians in our national election. I tend to read up on all the parties before I vote, so went through their policies. I thought about half of their policies would be quite good for society. I like things a bit more relaxed and less regimented, and I believe in letting people be free to explore and not fit the norm. Then I read they wanted to effectively disband government. Any ideal taken to the extreme becomes crazy.

    Pity there isn't the "balanced, sensible party" or something. Not sure about in the US, but over here they all talk about being consistent with their ideals, and whichever is in power seems to unbalance reality in that direction. Then the other gets in power and unbalances everything in a different direction. I come to vote and think, "which deluded extreme do I want this time?" And normally the idea of having so many people in parliament would balance it a little, but you feel there is a charter at the top and a large group of followers in each party who agree with some things, toe the line on the rest, and help them win elections.

    I normally vote for minor parties first, going by ones I agree with the majority of the policies of, because the crazy stuff will get voted down by the major parties anyway. In that way libertarians could be okay to give some votes to. Not sure how US election works exactly.
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    Peguy, maybe, but I think your point pertains more towards what FDR would have done at the advent of the Cold War (perhaps a sense of mutual admiration would have even lessened tensions!), but as my immediately previous parenthetical notes, it is speculative. FDR's fight against Hitler was well advised, including D-Day. Indeed, the Russians are commonly cited, not foolishly, as the greatest reason the Axis powers failed. Alliances with Stalin against the fascist threat were very important. Maybe he would have fucked up when Stalin became the apparent foe, but maybe Lincoln would have made Asians the new slaves. Fact is important. Speculation is useless.
    Speculation has its own value too (says the fan of alternative histories).

    I'm going to win no friends what so ever with this right but I dont think that America was as big a player in WW2 as is often made out, WW2 was fundamental in the US ascendency, WW1 put the British empire and its allies in the US' debt (literally in terms of financing the war efforts and US socialists argued that the US entry into the war was only to ensure a return on their investment) but a major effort had to be made persuading the US public that US entry into the war was warranted rather than continuing their isolationism.

    Churchill provided the US with all the technological edges the UK had, including radar tech, all the UK atomics research, all the Nazi scientists or research which where going, wrote copious amounts about how the US was the future vehicle of the anglo-saxon values he felt where on the wane in the UK with the domestic popularity of socialism.

    In the end it was the unprovoked aggression of Japan which did it but that's pretty poor showing, seriously, there wasnt any worry about the holocaust or long running persecution which went on before open war, lots of news reels from the day actually favoured Nazi Germany, there are still (some contemporary) analysis and commentary which talk about how it was an essential bulwark against a red menace until such times as Hitler some how lost the plot. Many US industrial or cultural leaders supported or sympathised with the Nazis. Ford and Disney are just two of the old cliches. All of which you'd never ever guess watching Band of Brothers or many of the other shows about the Greatest Generation etc. That's not to detract from their sacrifices or struggle in anyway but lets get things right.

    So far as Stalin goes, perhaps Roosevelt did underestimate him or consider him wrongly as just another politician but I'm more inclined to the view that the west hoped the totalitarian dictatorships would destroy one another and also that the divisions of tanks which Russian was sacrificing where worth whatever compromises it too.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    You may find that there is considerable overlap between those two groups when it comes to choosing which candidates to vote for.
    Yeah my thoughts exactly, the tea party must have totally mutated if its getting associated with social conservatism rather than libertarianism.

    BTW how are we defining so called social conservatism? Is that cultural or normative conservatism or is it conservative politics with social spending?

Similar Threads

  1. Why I think so called seperatism could be a good idea
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-25-2017, 11:18 AM
  2. Do you think you have a soul? If you do, why?
    By Riva in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 07:47 PM
  3. "Have a good evening sir/ma'am"
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-28-2007, 07:51 PM

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