Which is more "liberal"?

[IHBF]

definitions aren't discretionary. words have meaning.

Indeed. The reason I said that is because "liberal" used to mean liberty and less government intervention. Today, a typical liberal is a statist.

So, I left it open to be decided based upon how you define the word.

Explain that, please.

Today's "liberals" demand government intervention. They love big brother.

Which is odd because far lefties of the not so distant past did not trust government. Some how in the past 30-40 years that changed.


The Libertarian Platform includes:

Pro gay marriage
Pro choice
Pro legalization

That's more liberal than democrats.

 

[Pho_King]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

definitions aren't discretionary. words have meaning.

In today's parlance, the word " liberal" describes someone down on their luck, pissed off at their situation, and willing to scream and whine until someone comes to fix their boo boos. It is a term used to describe the absolute worst in human society. It is a description of the terminal losers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

definitions aren't discretionary. words have meaning.

Indeed. The reason I said that is because "liberal" used to mean liberty and less government intervention. Today, a typical liberal is a statist.

So, I left it open to be decided based upon how you define the word.

“Liberal’ has always meant liberty and less government intervention, with regard to restricting government excess concerning the right to privacy, the right to be free form unwarranted search and seizure, and the right to equal protection of the law without government interference, for example.

Today, a typical liberal is a statist.

In your subjective opinion. This also makes no sense, as there’s no such thing as a ‘statist.’

 

[Synthaholic]

*ponders*

What would those shortcomings be?

Morality, for one.

How so?

When the market comes first, everything else is compromised.

 

[Shelzin]

Morality, for one.

How so?

When the market comes first, everything else is compromised.

The market... What?

Personal freedoms, both to succeed and fail, come first. The market is a result of that... Not the other way around.

 

[Ariux]

Is it the party platform that you take issue with because in your other posts you sound libertarian. This post just didn't seem to fit.

On nearly every issue, the LP is a de facto supporter of bigger and more oppressive government. Take religion for an example: "We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion." In the execution of that, government often oppresses and discriminates against Christianity. The government sometimes imposes religion tests and then withholds government programs and services from Christian organizations in the name of not "aiding" Christianity.

An example is when a school voucher program prohibits parents from using those vouchers at Christian schools. (FYI, if Afros were prohibited from using vouchers, no one would doubt that constitutes an attack upon Afros.)

Compare to the Constitution Party: "We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds." The CP actually supports religious freedom. See the difference? The LP takes a position to facilitate government discrimination. The CP says an organization's religion is none of the government's business.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Is it the party platform that you take issue with because in your other posts you sound libertarian. This post just didn't seem to fit.

On nearly every issue, the LP is a de facto supporter of bigger and more oppressive government. Take religion for an example: "We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion." In the execution of that, government often oppresses and discriminates against Christianity. The government sometimes imposes religion tests and then withholds government programs and services from Christian organizations in the name of not "aiding" Christianity.

An example is when a school voucher program prohibits parents from using those vouchers at Christian schools. (FYI, if Afros were prohibited from using vouchers, no one would doubt that constitutes an attack upon Afros.)

Compare to the Constitution Party: "We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds." The CP actually supports religious freedom. See the difference? The LP takes a position to facilitate government discrimination. The CP says an organization's religion is none of the government's business.

I agree with your dislike of the Libertarian Party, I am glad you clarified where you stand. I will look into the constitution party platform.

 

[SniperFire]

The hardcore Libertarians are much more liberal than an 'average' Democrat.

You don't care if there is a heroin carryout and a gay whorehouse setting up shop on either side of the local middle school.

As an actual complete package, pure Libertarianism as a way to govern has the same shortcoming as Communism in that it fails to account for the vagrancies of human nature.


It is a complete joke in that regard. We tried libertarianism in the wild wild west. Didn't work.

That said, most people find things they like about libertarian philosophy they like a great deal, including myself.

I hate to always be the guy in here to bear the bad news for you guys, but oh, well.

Nailed it.

.

Actually he didn't. We have been round and round on this and I don't think most libertarians want whore houses next to schools anymore than anyone else would. At this point I have to consider sniperfire a troll.

It is not that you 'want' it. It is that you wouldn't and couldn't stop it. Remember, we are talking about Libertarian as a way to govern, not as a philosophy. As a philosophy you get to be the whiny little bitches you are and tell us all about the way things outta be.

But as a way to govern, you would have to make the hard choices, and that choice would be to permit the kiddie porn theatre to open right next door to the pre-school.

As we learned in our little discussions, you have no choice but to be totalitarian about your approach. If you have forgotten this, remember the example of the locals wanting to band together and start a social program via taxation? You must not permit it because it would of course destroy your Libertarian purity.

You society would collapse in short order - just like it did in the wild wild west.

Your anything goes approach and complete lack of moral considerations fails because human nature fails - and fails quickly - without rules and moral authority. Trying to argue otherwise shows you are utterly naive regarding human nature, and / or a a complete daydreaming fool.

Hoping that helps..

 

[Shelzin]

Nailed it.

.

Actually he didn't. We have been round and round on this and I don't think most libertarians want whore houses next to schools anymore than anyone else would. At this point I have to consider sniperfire a troll.

It is not that you 'want' it. It is that you wouldn't and couldn't stop it. Remember, we are talking about Libertarian as a way to govern, not as a philosophy. As a philosophy you get to be the whiny little bitches you are and tell us all about the way things outta be.

But as a way to govern, you would have to make the hard choices, and that choice would be to permit the kiddie porn theatre to open right next door to the pre-school.

As we learned in our little discussions, you have no choice but to be totalitarian about your approach. If you have forgotten this, remember the example of the locals wanting to band together and start a social program via taxation? You must not permit it because it would of course destroy your Libertarian purity.

You society would collapse in short order - just like it did in the wild wild west.

Your anything goes approach and complete lack of moral considerations fails because human nature fails - and fails quickly - without rules and moral authority. Trying to argue otherwise shows you are utterly naive regarding human nature, and / or a a complete daydreaming fool.

Hoping that helps..

Actually it does. You obviously don't know anything about it. Thanks for that.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

If by liberal you mean people that support the Constitution and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

It is not anyone that describes themselves as liberal

 

[LibertyForAll]

Nailed it.

.

Actually he didn't. We have been round and round on this and I don't think most libertarians want whore houses next to schools anymore than anyone else would. At this point I have to consider sniperfire a troll.

It is not that you 'want' it. It is that you wouldn't and couldn't stop it. Remember, we are talking about Libertarian as a way to govern, not as a philosophy. As a philosophy you get to be the whiny little bitches you are and tell us all about the way things outta be.

But as a way to govern, you would have to make the hard choices, and that choice would be to permit the kiddie porn theatre to open right next door to the pre-school.

As we learned in our little discussions, you have no choice but to be totalitarian about your approach. If you have forgotten this, remember the example of the locals wanting to band together and start a social program via taxation? You must not permit it because it would of course destroy your Libertarian purity.

You society would collapse in short order - just like it did in the wild wild west.

Your anything goes approach and complete lack of moral considerations fails because human nature fails - and fails quickly - without rules and moral authority. Trying to argue otherwise shows you are utterly naive regarding human nature, and / or a a complete daydreaming fool.

Hoping that helps..

You think that preventing a change in government to a pure democracy is totalitarian. You continue to ignore logical arguments that counter this statement and spout the same crap over and over. The majority should never be able to rule or subject the minority to laws without representation.

Libertarianism does not equal anarchism. There would be laws against kiddie porn and protections afforded to children's rights including the right not to be around whore houses or drugs until they are old enough to make that decision for themselves. I can't imagine a majority of people would elect anyone that felt differently so the legislature would not be likely to pass anything that harmed children. Get real! There may be a small percentage of libertarians who are depraved but the same could be said for the other parties.

 

[jillian]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

definitions aren't discretionary. words have meaning.

Indeed. The reason I said that is because "liberal" used to mean liberty and less government intervention. Today, a typical liberal is a statist.

So, I left it open to be decided based upon how you define the word.

actually, no. liberal never meant "liberty". liberal meant moving forward... changing. "conservative" meant and means... wanting to retain the status quo.

that is it. which is why i said words have meaning.

and libertarian used to be something a lot smarter than a bunch of whiners crying that they have to wear seatbelts.

 

[daveman]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

Today's 'Liberals' are not 'liberals', they are progressives. They're scared of saying that - with good reason.

Libertarians are classical liberals... only with a dangerous naivety on some serious issues, such as foreign policy. Conservatives are classical liberals - with an intelligent view on foreign policy.

I proudly call myself a Liberal. Wingnuts don't define anything for me.

How do you define liberal?

 

[daveman]

This also makes no sense, as there’s no such thing as a ‘statist.’

Perhaps you should avoid such absolute claims.

stat·ist noun \ˈstā-tist\

Definition of STATIST

: an advocate of statism
— statist adjective

First Known Use of STATIST

1946

stat·ism noun \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\

Definition of STATISM

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

First Known Use of STATISM

1919