Libertarian Nominee for Governor in Georgia.

[Slartibartfast]

How about John Monds? The candidate for governor in Georgia, first black man to be on the governors general election ballot, and subject of this thread?

I live in georgia and I follow politics and had not heard of the guy until about three days ago.

 

[Ikari]

Yea that sucks, they guy is a decent candidate.
Not a real good speech giver, but not bad, overall.

1 problem I had with him durring the governor debate, was that he mentioned industrial hemp.:doh
I was like, geesh dude, you're making us sound like the stereotype.

Yeah, I think that will always sort of come up; though industrialized hemp is a bit different than legalization of marijuana. I think it will be hard to not "be the stereotype" particularly because others are looking for key words or ideals to jump upon. And no matter what, the entire speech will be dulled down to those few sound bites.

 

[Ikari]

I live in georgia and I follow politics and had not heard of the guy until about three days ago.

Well it shouldn't have been too hard considering he is the topic of the OP. Less you didn't read the OP and just jumped into the bash fest.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well it shouldn't have been too hard considering he is the topic of the OP. Less you didn't read the OP and just jumped into the bash fest.

That in no way counters my point that libertarian candidates tend to be unknown.

Also if you look at my comments, I basically said that:
1. Turtle misused the term slavery
2. People who hold their convictions in the face of problems are to be commended, even if I do not agree with their convictions. (it was a comment about strength of character).
3. I disagreed with someone else about misusing the term slavery
4. Than a spent a few posts trying to get your panties back out of a wad.

I see no libertarian bashing on my part.

 

[Ikari]

That in no way counters my point that libertarian candidates tend to be unknown.

They may tend to be unknown, but in this very thread there is details about one such candidate. Yet the bashing was along generalized libertarian hating lines, not anything specific to the candidate of the topic. Which refutes your claim that people attack libertarianism on a general line because they don't know any libertarian candidates; there is one discussed in the very first post of this thread. Thus the attacks are not geared against a particular opponent such as Obama or Palin; but rather a demonization of general political ideology with no attempt to actually talk about or debate said ideology.

As I said, we don't need to NP it up all the time. We can try to have adult debates and stay on topic.

 

[Slartibartfast]

They may tend to be unknown, but in this very thread there is details about one such candidate. Yet the bashing was along generalized libertarian hating lines, not anything specific to the candidate of the topic. Which refutes your claim that people attack libertarianism on a general line because they don't know any libertarian candidates;

Nope. If people had known something about this guy, they would have made comments about him. Just posting the name of a candidate is not enough to inform people.

there is one discussed in the very first post of this thread. Thus the attacks are not geared against a particular opponent such as Obama or Palin; but rather a demonization of general political ideology with no attempt to actually talk about or debate said ideology.

As I said, we don't need to NP it up all the time. We can try to have adult debates and stay on topic.

I wish people would stay on topic more as well, but I have given up on the idea.

 

[Ikari]

Nope. If people had known something about this guy, they would have made comments about him. Just posting the name of a candidate is not enough to inform people.

There's a link and a video. If people were interested in commenting about the politician, they would have looked it up. But they aren't. It's not just that many libertarian candidates are not discussed on the national stage. It's that some folk have a beef with libertarian philosophy and make generalized attacks whenever they can. If it were about candidates, there's a candidate in this thread. There is a link to follow so that one could learn more about it. But some are not interested in the candidate, they want to make generalized attacks even if they are dishonest and unproven. So it does indeed refute your claim that people attack in generalizations against all libertarians because they do not know the candidate. There is a candidate discussed in this thread with links provided. There's just no interest on their part to even know about a libertarian candidate; they'd rather just make baseless attacks based on generalizations and stereotypes.

I wish people would stay on topic more as well, but I have given up on the idea.

I'll keep this in mind.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Nope. If people had known something about this guy, they would have made comments about him. Just posting the name of a candidate is not enough to inform people.

I wish people would stay on topic more as well, but I have given up on the idea.

I gave the link to his website. :shrug:

I have to say that it does annoy me greatly, not implicating you on this but that it almost always devolves to, "their utopians," "it won't work," and other assorted demeaning comments, when the vast majority of people don't know jack crap about the individualized stance of the candidates.

The 2 other, mainstream governor candidates both have real shady pasts but they still get a fair view in the eyes of most people.

 

[Ikari]

I have to say that it does annoy me greatly, not implicating you on this but that it almost always devolves to, "their utopians," "it won't work," and other assorted demeaning comments, when the vast majority of people don't know jack crap about the individualized stance of the candidates.

It's nearly immediate too. There's no real attempt to understand the arguments or policy or candidates. I'm with you on being annoyed over it. There have been lots of libertarian bash threads, and even when one tries to seriously bring up points or debate; it quickly devolves. And while there are the usual suspects as well against the Republicans or Democrats, when you discuss the main parties people are more apt to discuss a candidate or stay on topic a bit longer than 0 posts.

The 2 other, mainstream governor candidates both have real shady pasts but they still get a fair view in the eyes of most people.

It's rather interesting in fact. And you don't have to be from another party. The last cycle for Presidential candidates, the same thing happened to Ron Paul. He wasn't considered to be in the "mainstream" and was immediately vilified by the press. There was that GOP Presidential debate where Ron Paul talked about blow back from our interventionist policies. And what was the retort? Not some discussion about our policies and the consequences they could have had. It was immediately "You blame America for 9/11!". This knee jerk reactionary stance which does nothing for promoting actual debate and is only there to knock a particular candidate or ideology out of the race; even if by doing so they must engage in intellectually dishonest measures. If you ain't part of the elite, you aren't going to get a fair shake.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It's nearly immediate too. There's no real attempt to understand the arguments or policy or candidates. I'm with you on being annoyed over it. There have been lots of libertarian bash threads, and even when one tries to seriously bring up points or debate; it quickly devolves. And while there are the usual suspects as well against the Republicans or Democrats, when you discuss the main parties people are more apt to discuss a candidate or stay on topic a bit longer than 0 posts.

I hate it, it's another stereotype and generalization, which in most other circumstances earns the scorn of a lot of people.

It's rather interesting in fact. And you don't have to be from another party. The last cycle for Presidential candidates, the same thing happened to Ron Paul. He wasn't considered to be in the "mainstream" and was immediately vilified by the press. There was that GOP Presidential debate where Ron Paul talked about blow back from our interventionist policies. And what was the retort? Not some discussion about our policies and the consequences they could have had. It was immediately "You blame America for 9/11!". This knee jerk reactionary stance which does nothing for promoting actual debate and is only there to knock a particular candidate or ideology out of the race; even if by doing so they must engage in intellectually dishonest measures. If you ain't part of the elite, you aren't going to get a fair shake.

I watched it and Paul hammered Rudy but appeals to emotion and ridicule rule the day.
Honestly, this is why I don't believe in democracy.

People believe this stuff and it shows how moronic a lot of them can be.
No thinking, only faith in elected leaders, that have show repeatedly that they will not do the right thing.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I watched it and Paul hammered Rudy but appeals to emotion and ridicule rule the day.
Honestly, this is why I don't believe in democracy.

I know it further derails the thread, but your bold statement confuses me. Isn't part of the appeal of libertarianism the notion that people are able to choose what is right for themselves?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I know it further derails the thread, but your bold statement confuses me. Isn't part of the appeal of libertarianism the notion that people are able to choose what is right for themselves?

Right for themselves is not right for everyone, democracy is choosing for everyone what you think is right for yourself.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Right for themselves is not right for everyone, democracy is choosing for everyone what you think is right for yourself.

Ahh, ok that fits into the libertarian perspective.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Ahh, ok that fits into the libertarian perspective.

One further point I guess. And I know you have mentioned that you don't think voting should be for everyone in the past. But if you don't believe in democracy, how do you think we should choose our politicians?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

One further point I guess. And I know you have mentioned that you don't think voting should be for everyone in the past. But if you don't believe in democracy, how do you think we should choose our politicians?

Toying with the idea of agonism.
It's pretty interesting, instead candidates battling it out for power, they all automatically get a seat.

Now the individual parties elect their member to represent them in government, but all ideas are present, and in theory, the best ideas and compromises are hashed out.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Toying with the idea of agonism.
It's pretty interesting, instead candidates battling it out for power, they all automatically get a seat.

Now the individual parties elect their member to represent them in government, but all ideas are present, and in theory, the best ideas and compromises are hashed out.

I read the wiki on agonism, but I didn't see much in the way of how it would function. It only seemed to state that it should be accepted that people will disagree.

I wonder how well it would work to elect multiple candidates, one per district/state for each major issue. A finance guy, a social services guy, a military guy, education, agriculture, economics, etc. Than you could hone in on a candidate that you actually like for those set of issues. (got that by bouncing off your post)

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I read the wiki on agonism, but I didn't see much in the way of how it would function. It only seemed to state that it should be accepted that people will disagree.

Pretty much, I had another wording for it but can't find it right now.

Basically it's a table of all political parties, each party has their representative elected from their members.
It's free to design.

It allows people to participate but doesn't violate the rules of a republic.
Where minority considerations are as important as the majority.

Edit: The Swiss do something similar to this.
Not exactly the same though.

 

[Ikari]

I know it further derails the thread, but your bold statement confuses me. Isn't part of the appeal of libertarianism the notion that people are able to choose what is right for themselves?

We rarely endorse pure democracy as it is in reality mob rule and there is no guarantee of rights and liberties under such system. We support more a style of democratic Republic with laws in place which secure the free exercise of our rights.

 

[Troubadour]

In other words, "there are no atheists in a foxhole?"

More or less, but not quite. There are plenty of blue-collar libertarians - at least in proportion to their overall numbers - but they tend to have the cowardly tendency to blame everything on people who have even less than they do. If there is any government regulation or tax involved, that's their excuse for not succeeding. And if there isn't, then it's some immigrant who's "stealing" their job, or some other defenseless minority with less power than they have. It's easier to be that way than to fight real power, and they make up for the cowardice of their politics by shadow-boxing with some make-believe "Big Gubmint" that's evil and sinister.

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.

Yes, there are some who are sincere, and are driven by a positive sensibility rather than hatred or paranoia. They're still wrong, but they're good people.

 

[Ikari]

More or less, but not quite. There are plenty of blue-collar libertarians - at least in proportion to their overall numbers - but they tend to have the cowardly tendency to blame everything on people who have even less than they do. If there is any government regulation or tax involved, that's their excuse for not succeeding. And if there isn't, then it's some immigrant who's "stealing" their job, or some other defenseless minority with less power than they have. It's easier to be that way than to fight real power, and they make up for the cowardice of their politics by shadow-boxing with some make-believe "Big Gubmint" that's evil and sinister.



Yes, there are some who are sincere, and are driven by a positive sensibility rather than hatred or paranoia. They're still wrong, but they're good people.

Over all a rather ignorant position and one which over generalizes the individuals whom support libertarian political philosophy.

 

[davidwillson]

There is a tradeoff in fewer support services that could really be disasterous if you ever find yourself in a turn of bad luck.

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.

 

[Troubadour]

Over all a rather ignorant position and one which over generalizes the individuals whom support libertarian political philosophy.

There hasn't been a "philosophy" involved in libertarian/propertarian politics for quite some time. It has become an intolerant, dogmatic, anti-intellectual religion.

 

[Ikari]

There hasn't been a "philosophy" involved in libertarian/propertarian politics for quite some time. It has become an intolerant, dogmatic, anti-intellectual religion.

Not really. But if this amount of intellectual dishonesty, hyperbole, and propaganda is what floats your boat; then that's that.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Not really. But if this amount of intellectual dishonesty, hyperbole, and propaganda is what floats your boat; then that's that.

I dunno, he's got a pretty good point. The Libertarian movement got co-opted by Republicans a long time ago. Nowadays libertarian is almost like a byword for Republican. And if you think that libertarians in general aren't dogmatic, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

[Ikari]

I dunno, he's got a pretty good point. The Libertarian movement got co-opted by Republicans a long time ago. Nowadays libertarian is almost like a byword for Republican. And if you think that libertarians in general aren't dogmatic, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

There's no point to be had. It's over generalizations and personal bias and nothing else. He didn't say anything even as much as you have here. His response is just the angry "I hate libertarian" crap you see spewed here and there. A vapid void of partisan crap and as much non-thinking as one can get away with. The libertarian party did not get co-opted by the Republicans. It would be kinda nice if the Republican party brought into itself some of the libertarian principles, such as smaller and responsible government and adherence to the rights and liberties of the individual. But it isn't the case. The LP is like any other third party in this country in terms of political dynamics. It's on the outside looking in. But many self-identified libertarians I know want little to do with the Republican party as it stands now. And I don't believe our party has been captured by one of the main parties. The Tea Party got captured, and when a movement like that or a party gets captured by one of the main parties; it gets to be in the news and is made into a core of propaganda for both sides.