Posted on 03/22/2013 8:51:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’ve said the same too
‘prefect’ answer ;)
libertopians
You are doing a fine job of bringing them all out of the cracks and crevices ;)
I may have to find my screencap of the homepage of TIS website to remind them that this is a Conservative website.. NOT a Repub or Lib one..
You forgot to mention Open Borders.... ;)
I've noticed that as well. They like to run roughshod over others but you danged well better not return the favor.
>> It’s a form of mental illness to say “I’m a libertarian but I don’t agree with the Libertarian Party”.
Nonsense. I’m a registered Republican, but I don’t necessarily agree with the Republican Party.
Does the Democrat Party reflect democracy? Does the Republican Party reflect republicanism? Does the Libertarian Party reflect libertarianism? No to all three.
Is a woman damned to be an Obama supporter because the Women’s Vote went to Obama? Heck, we can berate women all day. They’re the ones that elected Obama, not the libertarians. They’re the one’s responsible for Planned Parenthood, not the libertarians. They’re the one’s responsible for gun grabbing, not the libertarians. More?
>> I’ll say EXACTLY what I mean, stand for, and believe, and I get freaking gobbledy gook and slogans in return.
I gave you two Oxford definitions on statism and libertarianism. That’s not gobbledygook.
“libertopians”
I hope you didn’t copyright that ‘cause I’m gonna steal it :P
That is something the Statists on the Right share with the Statists on the Left: both are terrified of freedom and have no confidence in the ability of people to live a moral life without the bludgeon of statute.
Maybe it is projection, maybe they feel they need the comforting chains of legislation and regulation from the Congress to their Home Owner's Association, maybe they just fear that without that others will go ape (some would, but would be quickly dealt with--because people would have the freedom to do so).
When presented with an alternative to the nanny state, they revile it with even greater vigor.
How quickly they forget that those bent on living self destructive, criminal, or otherwise anti-social lives are going to practice their particular mayhem in disregard of the Law, even as that argument is used against encroachments on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
There is a cognitive disconnect there which indicates there are simply a lot more exceptional conservatives out there--they don't think their ox should be gored, but anyone else is fair game.
No wonder we are buried in laws and regulations that reach into our toilets, a low spot in our yard, our light sockets, and now the bellies of our schoolchildren.
>> no confidence in the ability of people to live a moral life without the bludgeon of statute.
Well said.
What about the Republican PLATFORM? There is a Libertarian Party PLATFORM. It is very clear and explicit (and longwinded and lengthy). It has changed in the last couple of years, they attempted to sort of smooth over/tone down the profligate immoral part but it's still clear. SO anyone who calls themselves libertarian but doesn't agree with much of the LP platform is being more than disingenuous, or stupid, or smokes too much weed.
You're a slippery talker, do you know that? Your rhetorical question "Does the Democrat Party reflect democracy?" is meaningless. Democracy is a rotten form of government anyway, and what we're discussing is not rhetorical or symbolic but real world stuff. Simple stuff, that any average Joe or Jane can understand if they put their attention on it. The Democrat Party makes it very clear what they stand for, what their agenda is, and what they do. Clear as day.
The R party has a decent plateform as far as it goes (which is not that far), but they don't live up to it.
The LP platform is as clear as it could be, although the lengthy longwinded part does have a lot of lofty utopian idealism to go along with the "Legalize every type of vice we can think of" and "let's open the borders and let illegals from every hellhole in the world walk on in".
Your statment:
Is a woman damned to be an Obama supporter because the Women’s Vote went to Obama?
is another non-sequitor. Women as a group are not amorphous All One and it's not a party one can cnoose to belong to or identify with or not. So there is no comparison whatsoever. And your Oxford definitions leave much to be desired.
Libertarianism: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
Very vague. Makes no differentiation between State law and Fedgov law. One little sentence that does not address much of anything at all.
Statism: a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:
Again, no differentiation between State/Fed law. Although "centralized" does sound Fedgov. Both definitions are short and too summarized and detail-less and symbolic to be of any real use in this discussion.
>> You’re a slippery talker, do you know that?
You’re unnecessarily condescending, do you know that?
>> what we’re discussing is not rhetorical or symbolic but real world stuff.
And I’m talking about real definitions that you’re dismissing as insignificant and vague; yet, you use one of the terms as a pejorative.
Neither of the three parties in practice represent democracy, republicanism, and libertarianism. This is not slippery rhetoric, this is a fact.
>> Women as a group are not amorphous
Yeah, they predictably vote liberal.
Women’s Vote, Libertarian Party, Democrat Party, Republican Party — classifications of things not accurately representing the definitions of the words they stem from.
A libertarian does not necessarily embody the depravity so often charged. And it is intellectually lazy to insist otherwise.
That sounds all aphoristical and all, but the reality is that there is no fixed definition of "libertarian," any more than there is a fixed definition of "conservative." (We once tried to come up with a definition for "conservative" that covered all the regulars on the NC Forum, but eventually we gave up and went back to arguing about sports and barbecue.)
Everyone who considers himself "libertarian" defines the philosophy as being comprised of his personal beliefs.
Well said.
Maybe you would enjoy living next to someone who sells drugs from his front yard, prostitutes in the basement, gambling in the backyard and blasts heavy-metal music at 4am?
bump
when?
The libertarians sure push for their drugs and free sex, but all the conservative stuff, privatizing the schools, never gets a mention it seems. The sex and drugs are their priority it seems
So you shift the topic around, and then complain that I didn't respond to your non-response to my first comment. Why don't you reply to the issues I set forth the first time, which are listed again below?
They didn't need or institute a huge federal government, nor did they even bother to outlaw most drugs, nor did they have endless taxes, regulations, etc. And they certainly didn't feel the need to strictly restrict immigration, or require licenses and permits to do just about anything. Nor did they have many laws related to gun control. You could even own your own fighting ship armed with cannon as good as those on the US Navy frigates of the time.
As to your question of whether states can have laws regarding the topics of interest to you, yes, of course they can if those laws are consistent with the Federal constitution and the relevant state's constitution.
Whether or not they should have such laws is pretty much a question for the voters of those states. Personally speaking I think moral behavior comes from the character of the individuals in society, and in a free society the law ends up reflecting the values agreed upon by the people as a whole. Thus one would expect the people in different states to have different ideas about what their laws should be.
Trying to impose morality by law is a fruitless endeavor, unless you want to have a tyrannical government. That is why it is so important to leave room in society for and encourage the institutions, like churches and the family, which inculcate moral values in the young. Letting government take over that role is a recipe for disaster, as can be seen by looking at the neighborhoods and social groups where the influence of government is greatest.
Giving government the power to involve itself with and control everyone's daily life is a very bad idea. While it may seem that the moral viewpoint you hold could be promoted by government, in the end that is unlikely to happen. For a government to remain in power it must promote viewpoints that attain widespread support, which means setting standards lower and lower, or more inclusively, to gain support. So it is government that promotes "anything goes" since that is as effective a technique for gaining votes as is the "you'll get it for free" approach.
Once an expansive government like ours adopts a new moral viewpoint it then enforces that viewpoint on everyone. Which is why you see inns owned by devout Christians in Vermont who don't want to host a gay wedding being sued by the State of Vermont.
Reducing the scope and size of government leaves room for different viewpoints and lets people live by the moral codes they have learned through their churches and families without interference. Those beliefs, proven over centuries, are better able to be taught and learned in a society where the government is not able to oppose them in every aspect of daily life.
I disagree with it on abortion (the reason Ron Paul is not a Libertarian) and immigration. There is the philosophy of libertarianism, and there is the Libertarian Party. Obviously, there is a huge amount of overlap, but they are not exactly the same.
Go to cato.org. Read up. First topic on the left side of the page is education. Alternatively, you can continue to post about a topic you know nothing about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.