Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'm with Kim Stanley Robinson on this one: "That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
That's rather silly and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of libertarians. LIbertarians desire freedom for everyone--its you liberals who love people to become wards of the state-which is the new form of slavery in America these days.
That's rather silly and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of libertarians. LIbertarians desire freedom for everyone--its you liberals who love people to become wards of the state-which is the new form of slavery in America these days.
That's rather silly and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of libertarians.
LIbertarians desire freedom for everyone
its you liberals who love people to become wards of the state
-which is the new form of slavery in America these days.
"[Robert Heinlein] always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my way of thinking means 'I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve'. It's easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help." -Isaac Asimov
In other words, "there are no atheists in a foxhole?"
I have always wondered how many libertarians are only libertarians when things are going well vs those who feel that way because it would be personally beneficial. Those who claim the philosophy even if it negatively affects them are to be commended. I don't agree with them, but the conviction is to be lauded.
How could freedom and liberty possibly negatively affect me?
There is a tradeoff in fewer support services that could really be disasterous if you ever find yourself in a turn of bad luck.
Been there, done that. I didn't use them before, can't imagine I'd use them in the future.
Aside from that, most folks are okay with temporary assistance to help people get back on their feet. A hand UP, not a hand out. The way things are now, it gives no incentive whatsoever to folks in the system to actually try and get out of the system. Why should they work their asses off when the government will just tax other people to pay their way for them?
In addtion, less taxing means more can go to charity and helping others directly. Charity is great, and I know I'd give more to charity if so much of it wasn't already forceably taken from my check every ****ing month. And, if I ever do need help I'll be looking to private organizations to help me LONG before I even consider the ****ing govt.
I'm with Kim Stanley Robinson on this one: "That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
Well that's completely untrue and very childish. But if that's what floats your boat; more power to you.
Than you would be one of those who stands by their convictions as I already mentioned. :shrug:
Yeah I am going to have to agree. Unless there is ownership, there is no slavery. Exploitation perhaps, but not slavery.
That aside, the OP was about John Monds running for governor in Georgia which turned immediately then into another libertarian bash thread. Y'all have enough of those, maybe a little staying on topic for this one would be nice.
So that makes it ok to devolve any thread about a libertarian candidate or serious debate on libertarian political philosophy into a bash thread?
My complaint is too narrow? I'd like to make it through a thread without it devolving into a bash thread by the second post. I'm not sure that's "too narrow" or unreasonable. I've seen what people will say about Obama or Palin, but libertarian bashing is rarely about any specific candidate as much as it tends to be about us as a whole, ripe with misinformation and hyperbole. Look at the second post in this thread about a libertarian candidate (couldn't even make it past the first reply), it's seething with intellectual dishonesty and misinformation. You may not have noticed conservatives getting the same as the liberals; but I also doubt you have noticed the type of attacks and bashing which regularly occur against libertarians. It's not too much to ask for to have people stay on topic. We really don't have to NP it up all the time.
My complaint is too narrow? I'd like to make it through a thread without it devolving into a bash thread by the second post. I'm not sure that's "too narrow" or unreasonable. I've seen what people will say about Obama or Palin, but libertarian bashing is rarely about any specific candidate as much as it tends to be about us as a whole, ripe with misinformation and hyperbole. Look at the second post in this thread about a libertarian candidate (couldn't even make it past the first reply), it's seething with intellectual dishonesty and misinformation. You may not have noticed conservatives getting the same as the liberals; but I also doubt you have noticed the type of attacks and bashing which regularly occur against libertarians. It's not too much to ask for to have people stay on topic. We really don't have to NP it up all the time.
:shrug: and this is an example of a thread that contains the things you complain about on the first post.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...republicans-counting-blacks-staying-home.html
The only reason that it doesn't contain anything about specific candidates is that besides the Pauls, nobody can remember the names of libertarian candidates.
Bob Barr, lots of people know about him.oke
The only reason that it doesn't contain anything about specific candidates is that besides the Pauls, nobody can remember the names of libertarian candidates.
Only because he was fairly popular as a mainstream politician before he went libertarian.
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?