• 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!

Libertarians and Reality

But I guess your argument makes sense to somebody who makes allowances for what they normally scream are infringements simply with the label of restriction on it instead? :doh:roll:

Can we get back on topic here?

You are trying to refute the idea that Americans embrace certain ideas based on a label when another label that uses the exact same ideas is embraced, its ridiculous and on par with your usual intellectual dishonesty.
 
And I continue to ask again and again and again: these ideas that you claim as LIBERTARIAN - what makes them LIBERTARIAN and not positions that are also shared by Democrats and Republicans and Greens and Socialists and other folks who do not even identify with a party or an ideology?



Why are these not simply American ideals... or in some cases Progressive ideals .... or in other cases Conservative ideals? What gives you or other libertarians the license to lay claim that positions held or shared by others who are NOT libertarian are all the sudden LIBERTARIAN IDEALS?

Your vague answer about a claim of consistency while others waver does not cut it by a long shot since you offer no evidence of either claim.



Your kidding, right? This is why it's a waste of time for me to engage you, you dismiss absolute proof and destruction to your claims and arguments and you respond like this.



You waffle back and forth between party and philosophy, changing them whenever it allows you to in your mind weasle out of the stunning loss you have just been dealt.


1. you claim no libertarians (party) won any elections.

2. it is pointed out to you that historically libertarian (party and philisophical) positions are being adopted by the republicans and democrats

3. you dismiss it.

4. I link to 7 MAJOR issues that the democrats and republicans have moved towards the libertarian positions of.

5. you retort back that asking why they couldn't "progressive" (liberal) or conservative ideals, switching from party to philosophy.


It's a dishonest tactic that you employ non-stop and I can see right through it my friend.
 
But I guess your argument makes sense to somebody who makes allowances for what they normally scream are infringements simply with the label of restriction on it instead?

Huh? I have never made any allowances for infringements or restrictions on what is clearly stated in the 2nd. I assume you are referring to the right to fire which is your implication made for the sole purpose of being a contrarian and has no mention in the text at all in the 2nd.
 
So the answer from you is simply - NO - you cannot provide the specific asked for. Got it loud and clear.



Nah bro, the answer has been shoved down your throat yet you still have enough airway to mutter "nuh uh" for some reason. *shrug*
 
Huh? I have never made any allowances for infringements or restrictions on what is clearly stated in the 2nd. I assume you are referring to the right to fire which is your implication made for the sole purpose of being a contrarian and has no mention in the text at all in the 2nd.

I find bulleted lists work quite welll. Saves time and effort. ;)
 
Again, I see the additional insult but where is the refutation of the points raised in the article and by me and others here?

Actually, it was an opinion about your beliefs, which is not an insult. If you want to take it as one, that's your problem. Furthermore I indirectly agreed with what you said partially. So consider yourself lucky since I virtually never agree with you on anything.
 
I believe "pure" anything is often unrealistic. I believe in reducing government interference everywhere we can towards that "purist" goal but am also realistic in that is not likely. I am also not a left or right wing libertarian (note small L I am not a member of the LP party).

If you mean you don't believe any political party is 'pure', then I would agree. All are subject to various combinations of right and left thought and/or emphasis. Political parties are not ideologies but are groups with an agenda. The best any of us can do is to choose to support the political agenda that most closely represents or supports most of our values.

I am libertarian because I believe the federal government should not have power to dictate ideology or values or an agenda to anybody--such should be left to the people at the state and local level to work out. To me, liberty is defined by securing our unalienable rights, i.e. enforcing the concept that such are inviolate and not to be coerced by any others, and then leaving the people alone to form whatever societies with whatever values they wish to have.

I don't use 'Libertarian' to identify my personal ideology because I don't believe the Libertarian Party fully understands or represents that concept of liberty. Certainly the GOP and Democrats do not. And the author of the OP article certainly does not understand that this is what libertarianism is all about.
 
Your kidding, right? This is why it's a waste of time for me to engage you, you dismiss absolute proof and destruction to your claims and arguments and you respond like this.



You waffle back and forth between party and philosophy, changing them whenever it allows you to in your mind weasle out of the stunning loss you have just been dealt.


1. you claim no libertarians (party) won any elections.

2. it is pointed out to you that historically libertarian (party and philisophical) positions are being adopted by the republicans and democrats

3. you dismiss it.

4. I link to 7 MAJOR issues that the democrats and republicans have moved towards the libertarian positions of.

5. you retort back that asking why they couldn't "progressive" (liberal) or conservative ideals, switching from party to philosophy.


It's a dishonest tactic that you employ non-stop and I can see right through it my friend.

I think you're seeing what we've been seeing. :lol:
 
If you mean you don't believe any political party is 'pure', then I would agree. All are subject to various combinations of right and left thought and/or emphasis. Political parties are not ideologies but are groups with an agenda. The best any of us can do is to choose to support the political agenda that most closely represents or supports most of our values.

I am libertarian because I believe the federal government should not have power to dictate ideology or values or an agenda to anybody--such should be left to the people at the state and local level to work out. To me, liberty is defined by securing our unalienable rights, i.e. enforcing the concept that such are inviolate and not to be coerced by any others, and then leaving the people alone to form whatever societies with whatever values they wish to have.

I don't use 'Libertarian' to identify my personal ideology because I don't believe the Libertarian Party fully understands or represents that concept of liberty. Certainly the GOP and Democrats do not. And the author of the OP article certainly does not understand that this is what libertarianism is all about.

You've been a member since Jan 2005, and I'm seeing a pink owl for the first time? Where have you been?
 
Everything you wrote was proven not to be true by the experience cited from the real world and real election results.

And this makes your "real world and real election results" irrelevant:

As I said:
Most don't even know what the Libertarian Party planks are, let alone the philosophical foundations of libertarianism. To reject libertarianism, you first have to know what it is.

Many libertarians-like myself-are Republicans. Others are independents. And then there are some self-described conservatives who are really indistinguishable from libertarians.
 
You are trying to refute the idea that Americans embrace certain ideas based on a label when another label that uses the exact same ideas is embraced, its ridiculous and on par with your usual intellectual dishonesty.

I made clear that it was not one individual idea but a collection of ideas.
 
As I said, most people (and most voters) do not know what the terms "libertarian" or "libertarianism" mean.

Some do, most do not. There are a good bit of people who describe themselves as libertarian:

libertarians_electorate_2000-14_copy.jpg


Libertarian ideas are popular:

5848583238_6d4f587200.jpg
 
but albq owl gave you what you asked for, you dismissed her out of hand even though she destroyed it, dropped the mike and strutted off the stage.

That old saw fits haymarket like a glove. You should see him in the gun control forum, time and time again this old saw is the case......no explanation is possible.
 
If you mean you don't believe any political party is 'pure', then I would agree. All are subject to various combinations of right and left thought and/or emphasis. Political parties are not ideologies but are groups with an agenda. The best any of us can do is to choose to support the political agenda that most closely represents or supports most of our values.

I am libertarian because I believe the federal government should not have power to dictate ideology or values or an agenda to anybody--such should be left to the people at the state and local level to work out. To me, liberty is defined by securing our unalienable rights, i.e. enforcing the concept that such are inviolate and not to be coerced by any others, and then leaving the people alone to form whatever societies with whatever values they wish to have.

I don't use 'Libertarian' to identify my personal ideology because I don't believe the Libertarian Party fully understands or represents that concept of liberty. Certainly the GOP and Democrats do not. And the author of the OP article certainly does not understand that this is what libertarianism is all about.



let me ask you, where do you think they go wrong?


I agree mostly with you, But I am also of the opinion that such small societies are easy pickins for those who may not share your philosophy. I think the US and it's bill of rights back then, had it right. Restrict government not the people. We need a unified united states to thwart those who would do us harm (defensive only). Free trade between the several states, et al.
 
Your kidding, right? This is why it's a waste of time for me to engage you, you dismiss absolute proof and destruction to your claims and arguments and you respond like this.

First, you are spending your time and you are replying and you are engaging. So why make the comment to the contrary other than as an intended insult?

Second, you provided no evidence that the issues you listed were "libertarian ideas" and ideas tht are independent of libertarians and are shared by others as well.
Your statement is not evidence of anything other than your own belief.

You waffle back and forth between party and philosophy, changing them whenever it allows you to in your mind weasle out of the stunning loss you have just been dealt.

I have discussed both because libertarians here want to have the discussion involve both since they have mentioned and defended both.

1. you claim no libertarians (party) won any elections.

That is FALSE. My statement was that the official Libertarian Party list claims Libertarian Party candidates have won only 52 elected positions out of a total of over 513,000 elected positions in the USA for a total percentage of 0.001 %.

Currently there are no elected Libertarian Party people elected to serve in the COngress or in any of the 50 state legislatures.

2. it is pointed out to you that historically libertarian (party and philisophical) positions are being adopted by the republicans and democrats

And i accept that there is some common beleif between libertarians and democrats and republicans and socialists and greens and others. The key here is your claim that it was the Dems and GOP who adopted historically libertarian positions when you have failed to present any evidence supporting that claim.

I link to 7 MAJOR issues that the democrats and republicans have moved towards the libertarian positions of.

Again, your premise is not supported by any evidence that it is right to claim these as libertarian positions. You want to call it that and make it your property is not verifiable evidence.
 
Actually, it was an opinion about your beliefs, which is not an insult. If you want to take it as one, that's your problem. Furthermore I indirectly agreed with what you said partially. So consider yourself lucky since I virtually never agree with you on anything.

Oh no- it was an insult devoid of any debate substance. And that is how it was intended as it is always how you intend it.
 
Huh? I have never made any allowances for infringements or restrictions on what is clearly stated in the 2nd. I assume you are referring to the right to fire which is your implication made for the sole purpose of being a contrarian and has no mention in the text at all in the 2nd.

Yes - your support for restrictions which was made clear in the other thread. And since neither is stated in the Second, you have that contradiction to justify.

But lets do that in the other thread and not muck up or derail things here please.
 
let me ask you, where do you think they go wrong?


I agree mostly with you, But I am also of the opinion that such small societies are easy pickins for those who may not share your philosophy. I think the US and it's bill of rights back then, had it right. Restrict government not the people. We need a unified united states to thwart those who would do us harm (defensive only). Free trade between the several states, et al.

This is also part of Conservatism and Constitutionalism.
 
Oh no- it was an insult devoid of any debate substance. And that is how it was intended as it is always how you intend it.

You can try and prove that if you like.
 
Nah bro, the answer has been shoved down your throat yet you still have enough airway to mutter "nuh uh" for some reason. *shrug*

Insulting me to try to get this thread removed is a poor substitute for any intellectual refutation of the points in the article or made by myself - and you have not done either yet nor have you been able to support the vague criticisms of other that you support of the same article.

I am happy to engage in debate with you but only ask for specifics to be discussed if you are going to criticize the article in the OP.
 
You've been a member since Jan 2005, and I'm seeing a pink owl for the first time? Where have you been?

(****off topic****)
I was fairly active when I first joined--a refuge from another board where the harrassment just became too much. I returned to that board when the chief antagonist was banned, but then he was allowed to return and the system there changed that eliminated banning. And it became intolerable again. I gave up and went looking for more civilized climes.

When I attempted to return here, I found I was banned here--an error in which I had erroneously been accused of multiple accounts I believe and that has been corrected with apologies--but as a result of that I had already found another board home for a number of years. The other board home, where I am still active, has been overrun with numbnuts and trolls making it quite difficult to find interesting discussions. And Hannity changed their rules which resulted in chaos that has pretty well destroyed that board. So when I on a whim tried to log in here and discovered that I was no longer banned, I've been back and active for several months now. The pink owl is just my Valentine's Day persona. :)

****Back on topic****

The concept of this thread is interesting to me because I have long studied the phenomenon of leftists who cannot articulate a basis for their ideology, and it was fascinating to see that demonstrated in such a long and scholarly written article as the basis for the OP. I rarely see so many words used to demonstrate it. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom