[SP] SP are libraterians? What are your politic views?

[Speed Gavroche]

Libertarian, absolutely. :hi:

Good that, girl.

 

[KarenParker]

I'm minarchist. I guess you could call me libertarian.

 

[Ruthie]

Hell. No. I'm about as anti-Libbie as it gets (at least in terms of U.S. politics). I'm an economic Lefty and a social moderate and have a decent amount of respect for institutions in general, and government specifically. I might be a "freedom-loving" SP when it comes to things like how I like to spend my weekend, but not when it comes to how I'd like to structure my government.

On a sidenote, I took the Libertarian "world's smallest political quiz" a while ago. I scored "statist." (sigh)

On another sidenote: "Those Live Free or Die"/"I Heart 1776"/Ron Paul-loving/Constitution-worshiping/Tea Party people scare the hell out of me.

 

[Soar337]

ANARCHIST MYSELF.


Lmao.

Ahem. I haven't learnt enough about politics yet to call myself anything, and over here in the UK you really have to be interested in it to understand what's going on...


But I'm a NIN fan. Politics and NIN don't usually work together...

(I know I'm an INFP. I snuck onto this thread)

 

[Kra]

I'm no SP, but like Halla, I also think voting on the issues individually is the best practice. But I will admit that my beliefs do coincide with libertarianism far more often than any other template.

I think holding the rights of the individual sacred served us well when we actually held those imperatives. Sadly, it seems that the US gravitates away from that ideal more everyday...

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Interesting thread.

I'm an anarchist at heart, but due to the nature of anarchism enthusiasts there isn't really a party for me. I tend to vote Libertarian, but I absolutely abhor the two and a half party system. Does this make me an sp?

Most of my SP people are socially liberal, economically conservative......all two of them, and they're moderately statist.

 

[stellar renegade]

I'm a libertarian who's too busy to say much about his views right now. But that should suffice for now.

 

[Ruthie]

I don't think this is just an SP sample. Seems like libertarians are extremely over-represented on pretty much every message board I've ever seen (even the left-leaning political boards tend to lean libertarian Left.) I'm not sure if it's based on demographics, but if the only people who voted in elections were the people who post on message boards, the two-party haters - and especially the Libbies - would win every time.

 

[ViCyniC]

I see no point in being a libertarian...I like being practical and playing the "game" right. I side more with Democrats and vote from them. Lesser of two evils.

 

[Timmy]

I side more with Democrats and vote from them. Lesser of two evils.

Says you. Others say the Republicans are the lesser of two evils. I say they're both evil.

As one friend put it, the Democrats will tell you they can run your life, spend your money and educate your children better than you can. The Republicans will tell you they can run your life, spend your money and educate your children better than the Democrats.

 

[ViCyniC]

Says you. Others say the Republicans are the lesser of two evils. I say they're both evil.

Present day Republicans, aka Neocons, are definitely more evil than present day Democrats with respect to my own values and sentiments. To each his own. I care not for unrealistic ideals or allegiances, only tangible results. I'm glad GOP/McCain/Palin is not running the country at the moment.

 

[Timmy]

I'm glad GOP/McCain/Palin is not running the country at the moment.

I don't disagree here, but I am less than thrilled with what we got, too.

If these are the best our two parties have to offer, we are well and truly fucked.

 

[Ruthie]

Saying that a particular party is "the lesser of two evils" seems to me to be nothing more than reflexive institutional skepticism - same as the people who figure there's no way government can be competent or that the mainstream media can report facts.

I'm a Democrat because I actually support the Democratic Party, not because it's better than the Republican Party. I don't mean that as just a random political point: it actually seems that it ties in pretty well with an SP point of view. SPs, more than other types, should have an understanding of the deal-making necessary to get stuff done.

The two-party system:

a) exists in reality
b) clearly adapts to changing circumstances; and
c) exhibits tactical leadership

I would think SPs would be more likely to accept (if not embrace) one of the major parties and reserve the eye-rolling for the "down with the man" independents.

 

[ViCyniC]

I accept the Democratic party. I use the "lesser of two evils" argument to get my point across using the skeptic's own language. I thought my post above clarified my position to support and vote for the Democrats for the past two elections (I'm fairly young). I do not like the culture of the modern Republican Party.

I am also not heavily into politics. I go on gut feelings, mostly. I'm sure many Republican supporters do as well. Don't confuse that for ignorance, though, as I do look things up when necessary to feel comfortable taking a position.

 

[Ruthie]

I accept the Democratic party. I use the "lesser of two evils" argument to get my point across using the skeptic's own language. I thought my post above clarified my position to support and vote for the Democrats for the past two elections (I'm fairly young). I do not like the culture of the modern Republican Party.

I am also not heavily into politics. I go on gut feelings, mostly. I'm sure many Republican supporters do as well. Don't confuse that for ignorance, though, as I do look things up when necessary to feel comfortable taking a position.

Fair enough. It wasn't actually directed at you anyway - I just stole your "lesser of two evils" quote to make the point. You picked a Party, and no reason for that choice is better or worse than any other reason. Maybe it's just an anti-hipster reflex I have... it's just hearing people talk about the "evils" of the two-party system hits the same nerve in me as people who refuse to buy Starbucks coffee or people who argue that the 24-hour news cycle is "dumbing down" America. Too many people think they're special.

 

[wildcat]

I'm a libertarian and I'm not a SP

I am not a Libertarian and I speak Newspeak.
Libertarianism is ungood. A Communist monad is the only worthy model of society.

I have lived in such a monad.
The clothes you wear are communally washed. Your linen is communally washed.
Private washing machines are banned.
A maid arrives in your room every morning and picks after you. You do not need to pay anything for it, because private money is banned.
You eat in a central dining hall. Private kitchens are banned.

Your children are fed and clothed and provided for, by the monad.
Every minute you spend with your kids is quality time.
You watch TV in the central TV room. Private TV sets are banned.
Private motor cars are banned. It is prohibited to drive in the village.

What a good, decent life.
Libertarianism is not a rational way of life. It is individualistic, selfish, unconstructive.
A society is a cooperation. Be happy in your communal work.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

I am not a Libertarian and I speak Newspeak.
Libertarianism is ungood. A Communist monad is the only worthy model of society.

I have lived in such a monad.
The clothes you wear are communally washed. Your linen is communally washed.
Private washing machines are banned.
A maid arrives in your room every morning and picks after you. You do not need to pay anything for it, because private money is banned.
You eat in a central dining hall. Private kitchens are banned.

Your children are fed and clothed and provided for, by the monad.
Every minute you spend with your kids is quality time.
You watch TV in the central TV room. Private TV sets are banned.
Private motor cars are banned. It is prohibited to drive in the village.

What a good, decent life.
Libertarianism is not a rational way of life. It is individualistic, selfish, unconstructive.
A society is a cooperation. Be happy in your communal work.

Libertarianism is rational. Communities are nice, too. People are individuals and they are inherently selfish. I like to have my cake and eat it too, and so should you. I'm a quarter jewish. I don't see how you equate libertarians with an "unconstructive" lifestyle though.

The people I see who are most unconstructive are the ones who rely on government checks to survive. Food stamps for Cheetos. Libertarianism and Society don't contradict each other. You're crazy. Eat it. NOW.

yes, i know. don't rub it in my face. I was born two months shy of 1984. you know what that means, don't you? yes you do, take it.

 

[Thalassa]

Libertarianism is rational. Communities are nice, too. People are individuals and they are inherently selfish. I like to have my cake and eat it too, and so should you. I'm a quarter jewish. I don't see how you equate libertarians with an "unconstructive" lifestyle though.

The people I see who are most unconstructive are the ones who rely on government checks to survive. Food stamps for Cheetos. Libertarianism and Society don't contradict each other. You're crazy. Eat it. NOW.

yes, i know. don't rub it in my face. I was born two months shy of 1984. you know what that means, don't you? yes you do, take it.

Libertarianism is irrational because libertarians don't stop and reflect how chaotic the world was 200 years ago before social programs. Libertarianism is irrational because libertarians don't stop to think that the quality of their own selfish lives will be complicated (in a bad way) with lots more poor, starving, hungry, homeless people running around. Think that's not going to affect you? Think again. Crime rates will soar. A truly rational person understands that sometimes thinking of others is actually the most beneficially selfish thing to do, after all.

Besides, I don't accept your evaluation of any theory being rational because your post contains bizarre sentences like "You're crazy. Eat it. NOW" and "yes, i know. don't rub it in my face. I was born two months shy of 1984. you know what that means, don't you? yes you do, take it." You don't appear to be in this post a good judge of what is rational and what isn't.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Libertarianism is irrational because libertarians don't stop and reflect how chaotic the world was 200 years ago before social programs. Libertarianism is irrational because libertarians don't stop to think that the quality of their own selfish lives will be complicated (in a bad way) with lots more poor, starving, hungry, homeless people running around.

Libertarianism isn't irrational because the world was chaotic 200 years ago. That statement is illogical.

The quality of my life would not be complicated in a bad way with a smaller government. Community-based solutions are ALWAYS better than Federal or State government solutions. The difference is that Federal and State governments will spend more than they have while community-based organizations and individuals cannot. You know what would really improve quality of life for the poor and soon to be poor? If they didn't spend the little money they had on cigarettes, pot and expensive, barely nutritive foods. I can't feel sorry for a 400 pound woman with three kids by three fathers who spends all of her hard earned welfare and child support on frozen pizza and doritos. America has the fattest poor and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

Oh, and cable, that's BS. If you're working 30 hours a week at some fast food restaurant, DON'T GET CABLE and the most expensive cell phone and a laptop and other things you don't need and can't afford.

A truly rational person understands that sometimes thinking of others is actually the most beneficially selfish thing to do, after all.

very true, which is why I support community-based, grassroots programs to assist people who truly do need help. Government is too big and inefficient to properly care for people in need.

I'm a great judge of what is rational. Rational is easy, Logical is a bit harder and if I have the urge to insert bizarre, nonsensical sentences into a post, I will.

 

[Ruthie]

1. First off, I can't pass up an opportunity to tweak the Libbies... Libertarianism is a silly little philosophy that should've died off long ago. It's nothing more than a collection of gun nut militia types finding common ground with conservative "intellectuals," conspiracy theorists, Social Darwinists, gold-standard endorsing economics professors, college freshman who want drugs legalized and their upperclass counterparts who want the Fed investigated and ended. Throw in a few aging hippies who still don't trust "the man" or the "power structure" and you've got quite the souffle of crazy.

Weird thing is, I have yet to meet a libertarian who isn't fairly certain that they're smarter and better informed than the average bear. Of course, they're also fairly certain that American history ended in 1789 and that everything since has been a bastardization of American values, so there's apparently no correlation between their certainty and reality.

2. Point 1 is all (admittedly over-the-top) political opinion, and while I couldn't physically resist inserting that commentary, it really doesn't have anything to do with the original question: would SPs be more inclined to be libertarians? On this, I'm still saying no.

First, libertarianism is a philosophy that applies itself dogmatically to every situation: economy's going swell? Great, keep the government out! Market crashes, 25% unemployment? Well, the last thing you want is for the government to get involved! It's the same answer to every question. Not very adaptable, and hardly tactical.

Second, the Libbies are absolutely wedded to the original language of the Constitution - something being unconstitutional is The End Of The Argument. If any temperament would personify the whole "living, breathing document" thing, it would be the SPs, who can generally not even be bothered to read the rule-book, let alone follow it to the letter.

Disclaimer to point #1: I stereotype - horribly. So, before anyone writes that they're a libertarian who doesn't fit into any of my little categories, I concede. It's quite the over-simplification. But... it's mostly true.