DocileLion
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 35
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Not even close, bud.
I think Libertarianism started before America was official with the founder being Thomas Jefferson.
-
I said they made up libertarianism... Really i should have said helped but its still true. They greatly helped to make it up would have been more accurate.
One of The main forefathers to modern libertarianism is the john Birch's society. A founding member is Fred koch. The Koch's helped make up modern libertarianism for sure. without them, and their father, it wouldint be what it is today, and its likely no one would have ever heard of it, its highly possible it would have never existed. They especially helped in funding Ron Paul, and made him in charge of their old PAC citizens for a sound economy. They spread libertarian ideals greatly. They certainly contributed greatly to modern libertarianism and the teabagger movement looks at Ron as its godfather.
Forgive me if I don't attribute the founding of libertarianism to a bunch of slave owners that certainly did not believe in liberty. Furthermore we are talking about a specific political philosophy, not just "freedom" or "liberty" so to say it existed before the word existed is lunacy.
The libertarian party and teabaggers will always be tied to the Jon birch society and Koch's. That's just a fact. Whether you want to admit it or not is a whole different story.
You mean they are so different? Cuz you said the tea party and libertarianism are not so different... Which is true, but I doubt that's what you meant.
citizens for a sound economy (the PAC ron Paul headed) turned into freedom works and Americans for prosperity. The two PACs that are for or teabaggers.
Are you saying the tea party never called themselves teabaggers? Because you would be wrong again.
The Tea Party Actually Did Call Themselves ‘Teabaggers’ | Americans Against the Tea Party
That's actually true that's the one place the koch ideology differs from libertarianism is corporate protections. All other points though are right in line with it. One of them even ran on the libertarian ticket in 1980.
They did greatly help to popularize and spread it, and even helped shape allot of the modern libertarian ideology. Without he Jon birchs society libertarianism probably would have never existed. Fred koch was a founder and major contributor to that society.
Again Hilariously ignorant. The only form of libertarianism Bernie would fall into is socialist libertarian, and even still you fall way short because he believes in things like universal healthcare, government regulations (especially for financial institutions) and environmental protections. You just argued a socialist is a libertarian. Do you even know what libertarian or socialist means?? (23% of self described libertarians don't know what the word means so this would not surprise me)And I'm ignorant!?!?!?!? :Snarf:
Once more libertarian (as a word) did not exist until 1789. How did it start before the word was a word?
Not to be outdone by Conservative extremists, Liberals may have an extremist of their own running in 2016. To that I say "Run Bernie Run". This would definitely stop Hillary Clinton from gaining the White House. Her Neoliberal positions are every bit as dangerous as the Neocons were, and to be honest, I would rather see a Republican who is not a Neocon in office over Hillary.
Discussion?
Article is here.
they neither helped nor made it up.... so either of your claims are false.I said they made up libertarianism... Really i should have said helped but its still true. They greatly helped to make it up would have been more accurate.
JBS is a conservative group, not a libertarian group.One of The main forefathers to modern libertarianism is the john Birch's society. A founding member is Fred koch. The Koch's helped make up modern libertarianism for sure. without them, and their father, it wouldint be what it is today, and its likely no one would have ever heard of it, its highly possible it would have never existed. They especially helped in funding Ron Paul, and made him in charge of their old PAC citizens for a sound economy. They spread libertarian ideals greatly. They certainly contributed greatly to modern libertarianism and the teabagger movement looks at Ron as its godfather.
the founding of libertarianism wasn't even on this Continent.... but the word has been around since the late late 1790'sForgive me if I don't attribute the founding of libertarianism to a bunch of slave owners that certainly did not believe in liberty. Furthermore we are talking about a specific political philosophy, not just "freedom" or "liberty" so to say it existed before the word existed is lunacy.
I'm quite sure they are tied together in your head... but in reality, they aren't... that's just a fact.The libertarian party and teabaggers will always be tied to the Jon birch society and Koch's. That's just a fact. Whether you want to admit it or not is a whole different story.
i was speaking about the Sons of liberty and the Tea party movement.... pay better attention.You mean they are so different? Cuz you said the tea party and libertarianism are not so different... Which is true, but I doubt that's what you meant.
they are conservative Pacs.citizens for a sound economy (the PAC ron Paul headed) turned into freedom works and Americans for prosperity. The two PACs that are for or teabaggers.
nope not saying that at all... i'm saying that myself and everyone else here are not idiots and your little juvenile game is transparent to everyone.Are you saying the tea party never called themselves teabaggers? Because you would be wrong again.
flat out ....yes, you are ignorant... everything you think you know about libertariansim is wrong.. just wrong.Again Hilariously ignorant. The only form of libertarianism Bernie would fall into is socialist libertarian, and even still you fall way short because he believes in things like universal healthcare, government regulations (especially for financial institutions) and environmental protections. You just argued a socialist is a libertarian. Do you even know what libertarian or socialist means?? (23% of self described libertarians don't know what the word means so this would not surprise me)And I'm ignorant!?!?!?!? :Snarf:
You really are a self-righteous partisan hack aren't you?
One whose posts you can't rebut. And that's all that matters.
Right, because a philosophy that emphasizes personal autonomy is going to endorse slavery. :roll:
There were no facts behind your petty claim, just partisan hackery, and that's all that matters.
I was responding to a post claiming that Jefferson was the father of libertarianism. Now, did Jefferson own slaves or not?
So either stop trying to use Jefferson for supporting what is at best a naïve ideology, or accept that it leads to all sorts of absurdities -- like slavery.
Indeed, there is absolutely nothing in anarchistic libertarianism to prevent slavery. And indeed, even in "mainstream" libertarianism wage slavery is not only tolerated, but defended.
Since libertarianism has no coherent concept of capital and how it relates to liberty, it's basically adolescent.
Now, some people call themselves "libertarians" and it really means something innocuous like not legislating personal choices, such as drug use and abortion. That's harmless, if mildly coherent. But that's not what the ideological libertarians are about.
Well first of all, Thomas Jefferson was NOT the father of libertarianism.
Second of all, you're rambling on about something you don't really understand all that well. If you notice, my lean is Libertarian - Left and I have a Noam Chomsky quote explaining libertarian socialism as my signature. I'm very obviously not a supporter of wage slavery or other capitalist systems of oppression. Nor does libertarianism presuppose such systems.
Talk to your buddy about Jefferson, not me. It wasn't my argument.
As to the rest -- a nonresponse. Something I've learned to expect from libertarians. You simply have no theory regarding capital, making libertarianism a joke. It has nothing to say (except minor practical arguments like decriminalizing pot; hardly a important political theory)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?