• 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 ought to completely divorce themselves from conservatives.

Yeah, well let me know when that whole "supporting the status quo will change the status quo" thing works out. Till then you're just as ineffective as you claim me to be. Only difference is that I didn't have to sell out my beliefs to support a party system which acts counter to libertarian principle.

Ron Paul, running in the republican party, has done more to change the "status quo" then anything anyone has ever done in the Libertarian party.

you're simply full of ****. as are most "left leaning libertarians"
 
Ron Paul, running in the republican party, has done more to change the "status quo" then anything anyone has ever done in the Libertarian party.

you're simply full of ****. as are most "left leaning libertarians"

Oh yeah? So no more Patriot Act or GITMO or our decade running war and expanding, controlled spending, reduced deficit, elimination of domestic spying, warrantless searches, corporate capitalism, etc?

Yeah...that's what I thought.

Come back when you have actual proof that your "change the status quo by supporting the status quo" method actually pans out.
 
I mean more than simply politically - though the Republican Party is assuredly bankrupt as anything approaching a vehicle for our ideals, and the Ron Paul wing of the Party is woefully inadequate to do so.

I mean rhetorically: the conservative wants to conserve a past that was not even close to being libertarian (the Constitution itself was the product of a betrayal of the American Revolution by the Federalists in the service of the eastern protoindustrial aristocracy). I mean historically: the Republican-dominated 1920s were most emphatically not remotely libertarian; H.L. Mencken, who was, had this to say about the GOP of his era:



We must not be content to once again play the lackey to a conservative Establishment, no matter whether that Establishment be 'neo' or 'paleo' in its leanings. We must repudiate the neoconfederates; it was the Confederacy that began the long American tradition of race-based Statist legislation with the Fugitive Slave Acts, compelling individuals to return into bondage escaped slaves who fell under their take. We must categorically reject Christian collectivism, that socialism-of-the-spirit that seeks to compel herd conformity to some imagined social standard.

We must likewise refuse the temptations of Randianism. During the height of the Vietnam War - a war as profoundly damaging to liberty as has ever been waged by Americans - she had this to say about the political choice of 1972:




That she then went on to suggest that a vote against Richard Nixon was "immoral", given "the circumstances", suggests a sort of Orwellian doublespeak: for Nixon was far more purely Statist than his opponent, the New Left-leaning George McGovern.


Digression aside, we must re-embrace a few former libertarian fundamentals that have been forgotten because of our alliance with the Right:

1. Unions, when had under the auspices of the private sector economy, are not Evil Incarnate. Quite the opposite: whilst the AFL-CIO is useless and corrupted, organizations like the IWW - "The Wobblies" - ought to have always had our fullest support.

2. Freedom, not capitalism, is the highest virtue, and the two are not synonymous. A syndicated industry, voluntarily owned by a worker's collective, can be much freer than a hierarchically-organized capitalist industry, depending upon the specifics of the business in question.

3. State and local governments can be every bit as tyrannical as the Federal government, and the tyranny of one is in no wise preferable to the other. Our end and aim is to free men, not to promote one form of subservience over another.

The bolded is how you detect the utter insincerity with which this post is offered.
 
Oh yeah? So no more Patriot Act or GITMO or our decade running war and expanding, controlled spending, reduced deficit, elimination of domestic spying, warrantless searches, corporate capitalism, etc?

Yeah...that's what I thought.

Come back when you have actual proof that your "change the status quo by supporting the status quo" method actually pans out.

The local republican party in my community, and countless ones all across America have been infiltrated with libertarian leaning individuals. unlike the blowhards in the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul has made a major impact in what is discussed, and how votes take place in local politics.
 
The local republican party in my community, and countless ones all across America have been infiltrated with libertarian leaning individuals. unlike the blowhards in the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul has made a major impact in what is discussed, and how votes take place in local politics.

Mmmhmmmm, as I said, let me know when this "supporting the status quo will change the status quo" thing works out. Till then, enjoy your political obscurity.
 
Mmmhmmmm, as I said, let me know when this "supporting the status quo will change the status quo" thing works out. Till then, enjoy your political obscurity.

become part of the solution, not part of the problem.
 
become part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Oh I'm doing my best. The Republocrats in their current form are the problem, waiting decade upon decade for hopeful solutions to come through while supporting the problem seems not so much the solution.

But as I said, let me know when it pans out.
 
Oh I'm doing my best. The Republocrats in their current form are the problem, waiting decade upon decade for hopeful solutions to come through while supporting the problem seems not so much the solution.

But as I said, let me know when it pans out.

Libertarians will never be effective. Their mode of operation amounts to: "living in the inner city is the problem. So I'm moving to the country"
 
You are not a mainstream contemporary libertarian. You seem more left than libertarian. Most libertarians would disagree with your three fundamentals (while this liberal agrees) and Randism is to contemporary libertarianism what Marxism is to communism.

I know I am not, and I am proud of that fact.

You will note that my right-wing "libertarian" detractors have not tried to seriously argue with me on the basis of history - for history is in my corner. Rothbard himself (though he eventually whored himself out to the paleoconservatives and Pat Buchanan) acknowledged that what we regard as "classical liberalism" or - mistakenly - "libertarianism" began as a phenomenon of the Left. From his excellent Betrayal of the American Right:

Individualism, and its economic corollary laissez-faire liberalism, have not always taken on a conservative hue, has not always functioned, as it often does today, as an apologist for the status quo. On the contrary, the Revolution of modern times was originally, and continued for a long time to be, laissez-faire individualists. Its purpose was to free the individual person from the restrictions and the shackles, the encrusted caste privileges and exploitative wars, of the feudalist and mercantilist orders, of the Tory ancien régime.

Originally, freedom was radical. Then its partisans allowed them to be adopted wholesale into the conservative, right-wing Establishment, much to liberty's detriment.

My right-libertarian detractors will not argue historically. They can't. They don't know the name of Stirner, or Benjamin Tucker, or any host of other individualist leftists. They know what the conservative media has taught them: that libertarians are to be the junior partners in aternus of conservatives, to clean their shoes with our teeth and to pick the lice out of their hair when they demand it of us.
 
Libertarians will never be effective. Their mode of operation amounts to: "living in the inner city is the problem. So I'm moving to the country"

And Republicans dissatisfied with the status quo will never be effective because they keep supporting the status quo.
 
And Republicans dissatisfied with the status quo will never be effective because they keep supporting the status quo.

you keep using status quo, but both the democratic party, and the republican party has altered the course of history

the Libertarian Party has altered nothing.
 
you keep using status quo, but both the democratic party, and the republican party has altered the course of history

the Libertarian Party has altered nothing.

The Republocrats certainly have altered history by destroying the Republic and pushing us towards a fascist, Big Brother type government.

But that is just more reason why I can't vote for it. I don't support statism. Perhaps you're cool with it though and obviously enough so to keep voting Republocrat.

As I said, let me know when your "supporting the status quo will change the status quo" tactic pans out.
 
The Republocrats certainly have altered history by destroying the Republic and pushing us towards a fascist, Big Brother type government.

But that is just more reason why I can't vote for it. I don't support statism. Perhaps you're cool with it though and obviously enough so to keep voting Republocrat.

As I said, let me know when your "supporting the status quo will change the status quo" tactic pans out.

your like a broken record.

you keep using status quo, but as I pointed out, the two parties have made a lot of changes over the course of our history. the Libertarian Party is the one party that guarantees voting for them will produce no change whatsoever

so keep repeating the same idiotic reasoning, it's all you got.
 
your like a broken record.

you keep using status quo, but as I pointed out, the two parties have made a lot of changes over the course of our history. the Libertarian Party is the one party that guarantees voting for them will produce no change whatsoever

so keep repeating the same idiotic reasoning, it's all you got.

I didn't disagree that they have made a lot of changes to settle into the current status quo now perpetuated by the Republocrats. That doesn't mean that currently there's a difference when both parties are pushing us towards the same bankruptcy. All you have is the hope that you can sway the Republocrats from their current course which is bolstered by the emerging aristocracy and war chests in the obscene from corporate donors. Ron Paul has made a difference....but not really. He was just one guy that tried to buck the party trend somewhat and never got very far with it. Party politics rules all, voting for the party doesn't mean they'll listen to you; particularly if you don't have the proper amount of money or right bloodline. All it does is give them one less person they need to worry about.

As I said, let me know when your strategy of "supporting the status quo will change the status quo" pans out. Of course, it has been said that one of the signs of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results each time.
 
I didn't disagree that they have made a lot of changes to settle into the current status quo now perpetuated by the Republocrats. That doesn't mean that currently there's a difference when both parties are pushing us towards the same bankruptcy. All you have is the hope that you can sway the Republocrats from their current course which is bolstered by the emerging aristocracy and war chests in the obscene from corporate donors. Ron Paul has made a difference....but not really. He was just one guy that tried to buck the party trend somewhat and never got very far with it. Party politics rules all, voting for the party doesn't mean they'll listen to you; particularly if you don't have the proper amount of money or right bloodline. All it does is give them one less person they need to worry about.

As I said, history has proven that our government has changed dramatically, and two political parties were behind that change

History has also shown that the Libertarian Party has never made an impact on anything

As I said, let me know when your strategy of "supporting the status quo will change the status quo" pans out. Of course, it has been said that one of the signs of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results each time.

Blablabla. Things have change, dramatically. Yet you will continue saying the same tired nonsense because that is all you got.
 
As I said, history has proven that our government has changed dramatically, and two political parties were behind that change

History has also shown that the Libertarian Party has never made an impact on anything

That doesn't mean that we will not nor have not hit an equilibrium, nor that the change is good. The status quo is for the power of the elite, and that is the direction we have been moving. More government, more laws, more intrusion against our rights and liberties, big infinity war, big spending, big debt, etc. Those are directions we move, it all serves the status quo, the elite and privileged pushing for expanded power. So just because things have changed doesn't mean they continue to nor does it mean the change was good. Status quo is for the unchallenged power of Republocrat rule.

Blablabla. Things have change, dramatically. Yet you will continue saying the same tired nonsense because that is all you got.

You're going to change it and make it better by supporting it, yes? I just ask that you let me know when you've accomplished the task; nothing more. Why you mad bro?
 
That doesn't mean that we will not nor have not hit an equilibrium, nor that the change is good. The status quo is for the power of the elite, and that is the direction we have been moving. More government, more laws, more intrusion against our rights and liberties, big infinity war, big spending, big debt, etc. Those are directions we move, it all serves the status quo, the elite and privileged pushing for expanded power. So just because things have changed doesn't mean they continue to nor does it mean the change was good. Status quo is for the unchallenged power of Republocrat rule.

so now you use status quo to mean changes that you don't like. you agree that changes have happened, but you don't like them.

cookoo cookoo
 
so now you use status quo to mean changes that you don't like. you agree that changes have happened, but you don't like them.

cookoo cookoo

So adhom is all you got. The status quo is the status quo, it's the power of the elite and the Republocrat power. That's what our party structure pushes for...party power. And it's been doing it for quite some time. Status quo doesn't mean that absolutely nothing will change, it means the same ends are pursued. The status quo of our political system is the consolidation of power by the party structure. Things such as patriot act, the increased size and scope of government, our infinity wars, strong growth of wealth inequality, establishment of corporate capitalism, etc. have been for those means. Less you're part of the aristocracy or the corporate system which feeds the party, you won't be heard.

But as I said, let me know when "Support of the status quo will change the status quo" tactic works out. I think all your anger and insults are due to the fact that you understand nothing is going to change working inside the party and that has been demonstrated by the decades of Party Power Consolidation. Ron Paul....he's now the exception that proves the rule. And the rule is submit to party control and party policy.
 
Left-libertarian is an oxymoron. I only have to resort to labeling myself libertarian because the socialists stole the term liberal, now they are trying to steal the term libertarian. Once they ruin the reputation of one label they choose another. I am a liberal in the classical sense of the word.
 
Left-libertarian is an oxymoron. I only have to resort to labeling myself libertarian because the socialists stole the term liberal, now they are trying to steal the term libertarian. Once they ruin the reputation of one label they choose another. I am a liberal in the classical sense of the word.

Actually, it was right-wing liberals who hijacked the term 'libertarian'. The first person to use the word 'libertarian' in his political writing was Joseph Desjacque, an anarcho-socialist.

The very word "libertarian" belongs to the Left. It is the conservatives who stole the term from the Left, and they do so regularly, whenever conservatism discredits itself - for instance in the aftermath of the Bush II administration, when conservatives began rediscovering 'libertarianism' as a way to avoid association with Bush.
 
So adhom is all you got. The status quo is the status quo, it's the power of the elite and the Republocrat power. That's what our party structure pushes for...party power. And it's been doing it for quite some time. Status quo doesn't mean that absolutely nothing will change, it means the same ends are pursued. The status quo of our political system is the consolidation of power by the party structure. Things such as patriot act, the increased size and scope of government, our infinity wars, strong growth of wealth inequality, establishment of corporate capitalism, etc. have been for those means. Less you're part of the aristocracy or the corporate system which feeds the party, you won't be heard.

But as I said, let me know when "Support of the status quo will change the status quo" tactic works out. I think all your anger and insults are due to the fact that you understand nothing is going to change working inside the party and that has been demonstrated by the decades of Party Power Consolidation. Ron Paul....he's now the exception that proves the rule. And the rule is submit to party control and party policy.

you have the mentality of a loser. No major disrespect intended, I mean your outlook is simply that of one that sees defeat forever and resistance is futile.

I disagree. The fight alone is worthwhile to me.
 
Actually, it was right-wing liberals who hijacked the term 'libertarian'. The first person to use the word 'libertarian' in his political writing was Joseph Desjacque, an anarcho-socialist.

The very word "libertarian" belongs to the Left. It is the conservatives who stole the term from the Left, and they do so regularly, whenever conservatism discredits itself - for instance in the aftermath of the Bush II administration, when conservatives began rediscovering 'libertarianism' as a way to avoid association with Bush.

Anarcho-socialism is another oxymoron. Large populations never universally agree to share resources without coercion. The prevailing use of the term has been for those supporting limited government and socialism and limited government just don't happen.

I actually would prefer to have the term liberal back.
 
Anarcho-socialism is another oxymoron. Large populations never universally agree to share resources without coercion. The prevailing use of the term has been for those supporting limited government and socialism and limited government just don't happen.

"Anarcho-socialism" has nothing whatsoever to do with the government and has everything to do with private worker's co-operatives like the Mondragon Corporation.

Oh, that doesn't work, you sa--

The MONDRAGON Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. It was founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956 by graduates of a local technical college. Their first product was paraffin heaters. Currently it is the seventh-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2012, it employed 83,321 people in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge.

I actually would prefer to have the term liberal back.

Once you give the word 'libertarian' back to its historical owners.
 
Please, we are talking about governments. Not simply businesses where the workers are also the shareholders. Thank God, or the great nothing, most countries still allow that.

Left-libertarians are basically neo-Marxists. They can't get followers with that label either. They tend to favor every government theft of profit under the sun while claiming they are waiting for the state to whither away.
 
"Anarcho-socialism" has nothing whatsoever to do with the government and has everything to do with private worker's co-operatives like the Mondragon Corporation.

A corporation chartered under Spanish law and subject to the rule and protection of the Spanish government is not an example of "anarcho-" anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom