• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libertarian Nominee for Governor in Georgia.

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
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."
 
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.

And it's you conservatives that want poor people to die. Stupid generalisations for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
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 is an awfully lazy way to use the term slavery, especially since wards of the state have no forced ownership by another.
 
That's rather silly and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of libertarians.

Actually, it comes from long, grueling experience interacting with them. While there is a spectrum of opinion and motivation, for the most part I find their movement boils down to people who view property as the be-all, end-all of morality. It's rationalistic enough, if you accept their premises, but twisted and degenerate in practice.

LIbertarians desire freedom for everyone

"[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

its you liberals who love people to become wards of the state

:lamo I could just as easily say "you libertarians" would rather see people die than pay taxes to support your country, but that would be unfair: They would much rather retreat behind the walls of gated communities and rural compounds than actually SEE the consequences of their ideology in action.

-which is the new form of slavery in America these days.

Could you possibly be any more Orwellian? The new form of slavery is the same as the old form of slavery - people who have no viable alternative but to work for others on terms dictated by their employers. Public services, labor laws, and progressive taxation are a mitigation of that problem.
 
"[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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Than you would be one of those who stands by their convictions as I already mentioned. :shrug:
 
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.
 
Well that's completely untrue and very childish. But if that's what floats your boat; more power to you.

Yeah I am going to have to agree. Unless there is ownership, there is no slavery. Exploitation perhaps, but not slavery.
 
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.
 
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.

:shrug: Show me an ideology that isn't bashed here on a regular basis.
 
So that makes it ok to devolve any thread about a libertarian candidate or serious debate on libertarian political philosophy into a bash thread?
 
So that makes it ok to devolve any thread about a libertarian candidate or serious debate on libertarian political philosophy into a bash thread?

Have you seen the Obama threads? Heck, have you seen the vitriol placed towards anyone who is a liberal? I probably don't notice it as much but I am sure conservatives get the same thing. In fact, probably the only ideology that doesn't is fascist because people are just plain curious about Kori.

Personally, I find your complaint far too narrow. This principal, while I think it is good, is a complaint that everyone should make and is misplaced in scope.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom