Topic: libertarian is a fine political belief...
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) !0VegJ9Jl.Q started this discussion 14 years ago #23,896
...if you're still a teenager, that is.
Postmortem joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #372,200
I think Libertarianism is well intentioned, and more mild forms of it like paleoconservatism I believe could be implimented with some amount of success. However I find that most Libertarians who identify themselves as such turn a blind eye to a lot of the obvious flaws of a fully privatized, or nearly fully privatized system. Namely monopolies, loss of price caps on essential goods, and other things that would in fact diminish the freedom, and quality of society the Libertarian fantasizes about.
Anti !M6R0eWkIpk joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #372,226
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #372,228
@previous (Anti !M6R0eWkIpk)
> 4/4 time signature
> 3 quarter notes in a measure
get the fuck out of here you morae
> 4/4 time signature
> 3 quarter notes in a measure
get the fuck out of here you morae
Anti !M6R0eWkIpk joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,239
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,271
National Socialism is a fine political belief...
...if you're an obese, lazy, unemployed, racist teenager, that is.
...if you're an obese, lazy, unemployed, racist teenager, that is.
Anonymous F double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,273
@372,200 (Postmortem)
> Namely monopolies,
Why do you think monopolies would exist without government help?
> loss of price caps on essential goods,
Wait are you arguing price controls work? That they don't lead to aritifical scarcity?
> and other things that would in fact diminish the freedom,
Only if you believe that positive liberty is liberty at all (which most libertarians don't).
> Namely monopolies,
Why do you think monopolies would exist without government help?
> loss of price caps on essential goods,
Wait are you arguing price controls work? That they don't lead to aritifical scarcity?
> and other things that would in fact diminish the freedom,
Only if you believe that positive liberty is liberty at all (which most libertarians don't).
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,275
If you agree with Republicans on economic issues, but agree with democrats on social issues, and you believe that, for the most part, government should stay out of people's business, then guess what... you're a libertarian. It really is that simple. Is it really that fucking crazy to believe in a live and let live philosophy and blend those two aspects of the two mainstream political parties? Not all libertarian are anarchists or Rand-humping Paultard conspiracy theorists.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,276
@372,273 (F)
> Why do you think monopolies would exist without government help?
Because the real world is complex and can't be explained with basic high school economics.
@previous (G)
The Democratic Party is just as socially authoritarian as the GOP; just in different ways. Many Americans don't seem to understand that their country is much more traditionalist than most nations.
> Why do you think monopolies would exist without government help?
Because the real world is complex and can't be explained with basic high school economics.
@previous (G)
The Democratic Party is just as socially authoritarian as the GOP; just in different ways. Many Americans don't seem to understand that their country is much more traditionalist than most nations.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,277
@previous (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
Then why do we let politicians who can't even seem to grasp basic high school economics make complex economic decisions for the country?
Then why do we let politicians who can't even seem to grasp basic high school economics make complex economic decisions for the country?
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,278
@372,276 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
> The Democratic Party is just as socially authoritarian as the GOP; just in different ways. Many Americans don't seem to understand that their country is traditionally much more traditionalist than most nations.
You're absolutely right, and that is why Libertarians blend what they like from both parties. They reject the authoritarian philosophies of both sides.
> The Democratic Party is just as socially authoritarian as the GOP; just in different ways. Many Americans don't seem to understand that their country is traditionally much more traditionalist than most nations.
You're absolutely right, and that is why Libertarians blend what they like from both parties. They reject the authoritarian philosophies of both sides.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,280
@372,277 (G)
Isn't that how economics work everywhere?
@previous (G)
They're both highly authoritarian. If American Libertarians want to be taken seriously, they need to develop their own sociopolitical image instead of appealing to the imaginary golden mean.
Isn't that how economics work everywhere?
@previous (G)
They're both highly authoritarian. If American Libertarians want to be taken seriously, they need to develop their own sociopolitical image instead of appealing to the imaginary golden mean.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,286
@372,276 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
> Because the real world is complex and can't be explained with basic high school economics.
So you're saying you don't know enough about economics to give a reason why you believe this to be true, you just hold to it by faith?
> Because the real world is complex and can't be explained with basic high school economics.
So you're saying you don't know enough about economics to give a reason why you believe this to be true, you just hold to it by faith?
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,287
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 10 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,288
@372,280 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
That's how politics works pretty much everywhere.
@372,280 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
What are some socially authoritarian positions of the Democratic Party?
That's how politics works pretty much everywhere.
@372,280 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
What are some socially authoritarian positions of the Democratic Party?
Anonymous F double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,289
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 17 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,290
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,292
@372,286 (F)
Yes. The difference is that I don't pretend otherwise.
@372,288 (F)
> That's how politics works pretty much everywhere.
Same difference when the power to fuck it all up is in the same hands.
> What are some socially authoritarian positions of the Democratic Party?
Affirmative action, gun control, public health polities, etc. You know, "nanny state" legislation.
Yes. The difference is that I don't pretend otherwise.
@372,288 (F)
> That's how politics works pretty much everywhere.
Same difference when the power to fuck it all up is in the same hands.
> What are some socially authoritarian positions of the Democratic Party?
Affirmative action, gun control, public health polities, etc. You know, "nanny state" legislation.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF double-posted this 14 years ago, 17 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,293
ww2d1qw
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #372,308
@372,292 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
> Yes. The difference is that I don't pretend otherwise.
By believing in something without proof you are pretending otherwise.
> Same difference when the power to fuck it all up is in the same hands.
Especially since partisan hacks pass themselves off as economists these days.
> Affirmative action, gun control, public health polities, etc. You know, "nanny state" legislation.
Good points. I don't know that people are confused about the libertarian perspectives on these issues, though.
> Yes. The difference is that I don't pretend otherwise.
By believing in something without proof you are pretending otherwise.
> Same difference when the power to fuck it all up is in the same hands.
Especially since partisan hacks pass themselves off as economists these days.
> Affirmative action, gun control, public health polities, etc. You know, "nanny state" legislation.
Good points. I don't know that people are confused about the libertarian perspectives on these issues, though.