Can I be conservative, liberal, progressive all at once or do I have to pick only one

[Pogo]

I will never understand the hatred of ‘labels.’ It is completely unfounded. Just because you identify yourself as a democrat or conservative does not make you conform to all of the positions of that party. Nor do you have to remain under such a label. For myself, I don’t identify with any party but consider myself a libertarian. Just because I am a libertarian does not mean that I am going to agree with all the positions of other libertarians. I was not always calling myself a libertarian either. I used to think that I was a conservative until I examined what other conservatives actually believe and the context in which they construct their worldview rather than what is said or written. I found that my worldview is MUCH closer to a libertarian point of view. Me, dblack and eflat (just to name a few of the libertarians here) have had some differences that we have debated here before.

A label is a tool and nothing more. If I were to explain my political viewpoint each and every time that I entered into a debate there would be a wall of text that would take pages and completely detract from the debate. Why would I want to do such a thing? If I chose not to but also kept my label hidden because I didn’t want to choose one then the reader has no concept of where I am coming from or how I view the world/debate. That label conveys a rather large amount of information to the intended reader is a very simple and succinct way.

In all honesty, l have only ever found a single reason that someone does not want to accept a label for their beliefs: they have not fully formed them. Several of my friends that claim to not have a ‘label’ quite frankly simply did not have a political worldview for lack of information/interest. If you have such than you should adopt one such label that BEST describes your worldview. It is not perfect but it helps us understand how you view things. Also, I use worldview because positions are not really that important in this context because they are nuanced – there is a LOT more to most positions than yea or nay. The method that you approach that position, in my mind, is what separates us into rough political categories.

It's well founded, and it's extremely simple.

The function of labels in a forum like this is to facilitate blanket generalizations so that that fallacy can then be used as a crutch for a lame pseudoargument. That's it.

Take me for instance. Did you know I'm an O'bama worshipper, an abortionist, a communist, a Democrat, a welfare soaker, and a gun-grabber? I didn't either, since I've never posted any of that, ever.

That's what labels do. Foment ignorance and dehumanize.

**** that. **** that left-brained categorization obsession and **** the little boxes, which Gracie described exactly right. **** the labels and grok. If you want my opinion on A, just ask. But that does not serve as a predictor of my opinions on B, C, or Q.

No it’s not Pogo. You are taking the asinine attacks of hyper partisans and shifting those attacks on to the label itself. That is asinine. Those that would levy such attacks do so whether or not you call yourself a lib and will apply the label incorrectly even of you reject it. If you are looking for a way to avoid such the solution is NOT rejecting viable and useful terms – it’s not debating idiots.

Labels are still an effective and succinct way to communicate even if there are those out there that cant handle them.

No, I still have to disagree. A label, even when it's not abused, is by definition an entire bag of stereotypes. It squeezes a person into a prefab box, which then has to load up with exceptions to the assumptions therein. I think that's bullshit and a waste of time. People are people with free will and unique perspectives. Treating them like so many M&Ms to be sorted by color squashes that uniquity and blatantly denies who they are.

Labels are categorization, and categorization is entirely left brain. People without a right brain to integrate context go crazy.

 

[FA_Q2]

I made the claim that government was not the only power that was a threat to people's freedom and I was backing up that claim. Child labor is just one example of the nature of markets that doesn't fit into the libertarian view of the benevolent nature of markets.

Except that you are wrong on that account. Libertarians DO NOT think that the only threat to peoples freedoms. That is anarco-capitalists. That was my entire point above that you seem to have ignored.

Child labor laws and basic regulation are within libertarian thought. You are, again, arguing against an extreme form of libertarianism – anarco-capitalism.

I am actually a big fan of well functioning and healthy markets and capitalism. To suggest that our government is the only barrier to them is pretty darn ridiculous. I think our nation is by and large pretty well off. Our major challenge of today is not socialism but practices more akin to mercantilism being practiced by our trading partners. Our government and political system is in need of reform. Which is one of the commonalities of the Tea Party/Libertarian movement and OWS. Although there is a lot of big money in both those movements.

Sure. That does not deal with the points however. The fact that you like well-functioning markets is rather irrelevant – we ALL like well-functioning markets. The fundamental difference within the different political thought processes is HOW we get there. Libertarians are strongly against government meddling in those markets. That DOES NOT mean that regulation ends. Most libertarians certainly believe in regulations covering a myriad of different protections that the people need form markets themselves.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't care about your "ideals" I care about the nature of the markets you are placing faith in. Of course I am going to pick a market condition that leads to an outcome that doesn't fit your ideals. That was the entire point of the question.

You now decided to place the emphasis of your argument on the idea of "force" being used. You have said time and again you don't like the results of the market outcome(child labor) but you also refuse to recognize it as "force." This is exactly my point. The employer does not need a gun when they control the means of production. The "force" you speak of is not the only POWER that is a threat to the rights of people.

We live in a world where people will literally CHOOSE SLAVERY given the right conditions. So your emphasis on the importance of choice needs to take into account what types of choices they actually have.

The lesson of child labor is an economic lesson in elasticity. Until you learn more about market economics I wouldn't put so much blind faith in their outcomes.

Okay, no example. We'll just have to accept that you're unable to provide a modicum of evidence to support your position. And not a peep about a flat tax being regressive. Okay, fine.

Let's move on to forcing children and others into slavery. While that clearly would not be allowed under libertarian ideals, is it your contention that under a system of limited government (limited to the enumerated powers), where politicians would not have the ability to benefit or otherwise assist certain corporations in exchange for money or votes (the very heart of libertarian philosophy), that children would end up in slavery?

Stated differently, are you saying if politicians didn't meddle outside their enumerated powers that we'd see people choosing slavery and children working mines? The labor market elasticity would be such that folks would be literally be unable to choose to work in a non-slave like environment?

Is that what you're saying, because I have to say...that's ******* ridiculous.

You asked me to provide an "example as to how companies can force their will on people" and I provided to you an example of how placing the emphasis on the word "force" is stupid as even without "force" people can be put in a situation where they choose an outcome that we can all agree is bad.

People did choose to put their kids into mines and factories. I don't have to assume anything.

The lesson here isn't as simple as needing to prevent child labor. The point is that this is an important lesson in market economics as it relates to a fundamental problem markets can have with inelasticity.

I have had to beat this into your thick skull and you still don't get it because you fundamentally don't understand the nature of markets. So you don't really understand how government has been built up as a reaction to these markets. So you don't understand how ridiculously naive and ignorant you sound when you talk about "enumerated powers" and a flat tax and going back to the good ole days.

How many times do you need to be told that no libertarian would support allowing dangerous child labor? You just keep repeating "child labor" over and over, when you know such would not happen under libertarian philosophy. Some form of anarchy, perhaps, but not libertarianism...no ******* way.

If that's the best...hell, the ONLY thing you can come up with to denigrate libertarianism, we're looking damn good.

 

[Darkwind]

We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution.

So you can seek damages AFTER you've been damaged? If your still alive? If you can afford an attorney? If you can afford to keep your attorney on it after the pollutor buries him with paper?

Thats what a tort is - a civil case.

No thanks - not for me.

Your solution is?

This should be good.

 

[Wildman]

...categorization is entirely left brain. People without a right brain to integrate context go crazy.

thank you for that very informative information, i never thought of it that way, so what does a person like you, who have none of the above do ?

 

[hangover]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Progressives will except you, so will liberals, but if you even hint that you have any of those thoughts to a con, you're out. Even Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are considered too "moderate" for the cons, and are being challenged by other cons for their senate seats. These days, if you're not to the right of Mussolini, you're not a true con.

You may be right, and it probably has to do with the fact that liberals descended from USSR where it is known that opposition was not accepted, and conservatives are living in a lost nation, with radicalism being the only form of dissent... chameleons have to keep changing their colors, but they are still all the same animal.

Liberals may be descendants of Russia, but the cons are descendants of the nazis. And the Russians kicked your ass.

 

[American4Americ]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

pick conservative, it is the correct choice.

 

[American4Americ]

Or, you could reject all three.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.

Stated differently, you can be a libertarian that is a thrifty shopper, lives a conservative lifestyle, loves to see progress every day, and is liberal when it comes to certain things.

A more complete definition than Wiki:

Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

How quaint, another misguided "classical" liberal. Libertarianism is just a corruption of anarchy, and just as bad. The only true ideology is conservatism.

 

[pvsi]

Liberals may be descendants of Russia, but the cons are descendants of the nazis. And the Russians kicked your ass.

Let's see... cons bailed out big banks / Nazis on day one in power told big banks to pack up and leave......
Nah, not the same. cons and Russian communists however DO have similarities: Stalin was even funded by international bankers.

 

[eflatminor]

Or, you could reject all three.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.

Stated differently, you can be a libertarian that is a thrifty shopper, lives a conservative lifestyle, loves to see progress every day, and is liberal when it comes to certain things.

A more complete definition than Wiki:

Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

How quaint, another misguided "classical" liberal. Libertarianism is just a corruption of anarchy, and just as bad. The only true ideology is conservatism.

Anarchy is not libertarianism. Federalism establishes meaningful, though limited powers to a federal government and other powers to state governments. The power to make laws, the power to engage in war, the power to infringe on an individual's right with due process, etc. We libertarians wholeheartedly support that power to make law. It is at the heart of libertarianism and HARDLY anarchy.

Explain how supporting the idea of granting significant powers to government is like anarchy...if you can.

As far as conservatism (at least in the modern sense) being "true", I will say to you the same thing I say to modern liberals: You really don't know what's best for everyone else. Sorry, you just don't.

Look, I'm sure there are many things we would agree upon, certainly more than a typical liberal. Are you really going to cast false aspersions toward libertarians because we believe in individual liberty to a somewhat great extent than most conservatives? Are you really hoping to alienate libertarians because we might disagree on the extent of our foreign military involvement? Really? That seems like you're inviting disaster at the ballot box. Why would you do that?

 

[Bombur]

Okay, no example. We'll just have to accept that you're unable to provide a modicum of evidence to support your position. And not a peep about a flat tax being regressive. Okay, fine.

Let's move on to forcing children and others into slavery. While that clearly would not be allowed under libertarian ideals, is it your contention that under a system of limited government (limited to the enumerated powers), where politicians would not have the ability to benefit or otherwise assist certain corporations in exchange for money or votes (the very heart of libertarian philosophy), that children would end up in slavery?

Stated differently, are you saying if politicians didn't meddle outside their enumerated powers that we'd see people choosing slavery and children working mines? The labor market elasticity would be such that folks would be literally be unable to choose to work in a non-slave like environment?

Is that what you're saying, because I have to say...that's ******* ridiculous.

You asked me to provide an "example as to how companies can force their will on people" and I provided to you an example of how placing the emphasis on the word "force" is stupid as even without "force" people can be put in a situation where they choose an outcome that we can all agree is bad.

People did choose to put their kids into mines and factories. I don't have to assume anything.

The lesson here isn't as simple as needing to prevent child labor. The point is that this is an important lesson in market economics as it relates to a fundamental problem markets can have with inelasticity.

I have had to beat this into your thick skull and you still don't get it because you fundamentally don't understand the nature of markets. So you don't really understand how government has been built up as a reaction to these markets. So you don't understand how ridiculously naive and ignorant you sound when you talk about "enumerated powers" and a flat tax and going back to the good ole days.

How many times do you need to be told that no libertarian would support allowing dangerous child labor? You just keep repeating "child labor" over and over, when you know such would not happen under libertarian philosophy. Some form of anarchy, perhaps, but not libertarianism...no ******* way.

If that's the best...hell, the ONLY thing you can come up with to denigrate libertarianism, we're looking damn good.

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you are moving the goal posts?

We can add "lacks intellectual integrity" to being ignorant and naïve.

Heck I even talk about how child labor provides us a lesson in market economics. I answered your ridiculously stupid question and even fought through your obtuseness. Now it is your turn to actually explain your whole idea about reverting back to the government of the past.

 

[Bombur]

I made the claim that government was not the only power that was a threat to people's freedom and I was backing up that claim. Child labor is just one example of the nature of markets that doesn't fit into the libertarian view of the benevolent nature of markets.

Except that you are wrong on that account. Libertarians DO NOT think that the only threat to peoples freedoms. That is anarco-capitalists. That was my entire point above that you seem to have ignored.

Child labor laws and basic regulation are within libertarian thought. You are, again, arguing against an extreme form of libertarianism – anarco-capitalism.

I am actually a big fan of well functioning and healthy markets and capitalism. To suggest that our government is the only barrier to them is pretty darn ridiculous. I think our nation is by and large pretty well off. Our major challenge of today is not socialism but practices more akin to mercantilism being practiced by our trading partners. Our government and political system is in need of reform. Which is one of the commonalities of the Tea Party/Libertarian movement and OWS. Although there is a lot of big money in both those movements.

Sure. That does not deal with the points however. The fact that you like well-functioning markets is rather irrelevant – we ALL like well-functioning markets. The fundamental difference within the different political thought processes is HOW we get there. Libertarians are strongly against government meddling in those markets. That DOES NOT mean that regulation ends. Most libertarians certainly believe in regulations covering a myriad of different protections that the people need form markets themselves.

It is not my fault that someone challenged my point. In fact my point was challenged multiple times and he still doesn't get it.

I have yet to meet a libertarian that doesn't argue for "free market" economics from primarily an ideological standpoint as opposed to a results based one. It is important to establish that there is a need to make exceptions to the ideology, otherwise many libertarians will simply ignore results all together.

If you are an open minded libertarian I apologize for lumping you in with all of the close minded ones.

 

[eflatminor]

You asked me to provide an "example as to how companies can force their will on people" and I provided to you an example of how placing the emphasis on the word "force" is stupid as even without "force" people can be put in a situation where they choose an outcome that we can all agree is bad.

People did choose to put their kids into mines and factories. I don't have to assume anything.

The lesson here isn't as simple as needing to prevent child labor. The point is that this is an important lesson in market economics as it relates to a fundamental problem markets can have with inelasticity.

I have had to beat this into your thick skull and you still don't get it because you fundamentally don't understand the nature of markets. So you don't really understand how government has been built up as a reaction to these markets. So you don't understand how ridiculously naive and ignorant you sound when you talk about "enumerated powers" and a flat tax and going back to the good ole days.

How many times do you need to be told that no libertarian would support allowing dangerous child labor? You just keep repeating "child labor" over and over, when you know such would not happen under libertarian philosophy. Some form of anarchy, perhaps, but not libertarianism...no ******* way.

If that's the best...hell, the ONLY thing you can come up with to denigrate libertarianism, we're looking damn good.

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you are moving the goal posts?

We can add "lacks intellectual integrity" to being ignorant and naïve.

Heck I even talk about how child labor provides us a lesson in market economics. I answered your ridiculously stupid question and even fought through your obtuseness. Now it is your turn to actually explain your whole idea about reverting back to the government of the past.

No goalposts were moved in the course of your ass kicking. Sorry, you can't just make shit up.

Anyway, you stick with your narrative. It's clearly all you've got. The grown ups understand that child labor plays no part in libertarian ideology, which was the original point.

You've still got nothing.

Now speaking of moving goalposts, I never said we should revert back to the government of the past, which was not in keeping with libertarian ideals (slavery, for instance). I made the specific point that a federal government restricted to its enumerated powers produces greater liberty and prosperity for all than meddling central planners...and does so without the need to tax a man's labor.

You can argue for all the unconstitutional meddling that only does more harm than good all day long. History, facts, logic and reason are not on your side, evidenced by your inability to produce a single cogent example in support of your position.

 

[American4Americ]

Or, you could reject all three.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.

Stated differently, you can be a libertarian that is a thrifty shopper, lives a conservative lifestyle, loves to see progress every day, and is liberal when it comes to certain things.

A more complete definition than Wiki:

Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

How quaint, another misguided "classical" liberal. Libertarianism is just a corruption of anarchy, and just as bad. The only true ideology is conservatism.

Anarchy is not libertarianism. Federalism establishes meaningful, though limited powers to a federal government and other powers to state governments. The power to make laws, the power to engage in war, the power to infringe on an individual's right with due process, etc. We libertarians wholeheartedly support that power to make law. It is at the heart of libertarianism and HARDLY anarchy.

Explain how supporting the idea of granting significant powers to government is like anarchy...if you can.

As far as conservatism (at least in the modern sense) being "true", I will say to you the same thing I say to modern liberals: You really don't know what's best for everyone else. Sorry, you just don't.

Look, I'm sure there are many things we would agree upon, certainly more than a typical liberal. Are you really going to cast false aspersions toward libertarians because we believe in individual liberty to a somewhat great extent than most conservatives? Are you really hoping to alienate libertarians because we might disagree on the extent of our foreign military involvement? Really? That seems like you're inviting disaster at the ballot box. Why would you do that?

Me? I'm not going to alienate anyone. The fact of the matter is you will probably vote Republican anyway, so I will speak my mind.

The same people who originally created libertarianism had created it with the idea that government is corrupting force, and an unnecessary evil... the logical extension of that idea would be to eliminate the evil.

 

[Bombur]

How many times do you need to be told that no libertarian would support allowing dangerous child labor? You just keep repeating "child labor" over and over, when you know such would not happen under libertarian philosophy. Some form of anarchy, perhaps, but not libertarianism...no ******* way.

If that's the best...hell, the ONLY thing you can come up with to denigrate libertarianism, we're looking damn good.

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you are moving the goal posts?

We can add "lacks intellectual integrity" to being ignorant and naïve.

Heck I even talk about how child labor provides us a lesson in market economics. I answered your ridiculously stupid question and even fought through your obtuseness. Now it is your turn to actually explain your whole idea about reverting back to the government of the past.

No goalposts were moved in the course of your ass kicking. Sorry, you can't just make shit up.

Anyway, you stick with your narrative. It's clearly all you've got. The grown ups understand that child labor plays no part in libertarian ideology, which was the original point.

You've still got nothing.

Now speaking of moving goalposts, I never said we should revert back to the government of the past, which was not in keeping with libertarian ideals (slavery, for instance). I made the specific point that a federal government restricted to its enumerated powers produces greater liberty and prosperity for all than meddling central planners...and does so without the need to tax a man's labor.

You can argue for all the unconstitutional meddling that only does more harm than good all day long. History, facts, logic and reason are not on your side, evidenced by your inability to produce a single cogent example in support of your position.

I don't mind the fact that you are ignorant and naïve but your lack of integrity makes it damn hard to have an argument.

When you repeat the same question multiple times I generally expect you to want an answer. It is not my fault that you took a ridiculous position, repeated that position multiple times, and then had to run away from it like a scared little child.

I don't care wtf you said about going back to the past honestly. It was unsubstantiated BS and you have still not backed it up with anything other than more BS.

 

[American4Americ]

How many times do you need to be told that no libertarian would support allowing dangerous child labor? You just keep repeating "child labor" over and over, when you know such would not happen under libertarian philosophy. Some form of anarchy, perhaps, but not libertarianism...no ******* way.

If that's the best...hell, the ONLY thing you can come up with to denigrate libertarianism, we're looking damn good.

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you are moving the goal posts?

We can add "lacks intellectual integrity" to being ignorant and naïve.

Heck I even talk about how child labor provides us a lesson in market economics. I answered your ridiculously stupid question and even fought through your obtuseness. Now it is your turn to actually explain your whole idea about reverting back to the government of the past.

No goalposts were moved in the course of your ass kicking. Sorry, you can't just make shit up.

Anyway, you stick with your narrative. It's clearly all you've got. The grown ups understand that child labor plays no part in libertarian ideology, which was the original point.

You've still got nothing.

Now speaking of moving goalposts, I never said we should revert back to the government of the past, which was not in keeping with libertarian ideals (slavery, for instance). I made the specific point that a federal government restricted to its enumerated powers produces greater liberty and prosperity for all than meddling central planners...and does so without the need to tax a man's labor.

You can argue for all the unconstitutional meddling that only does more harm than good all day long. History, facts, logic and reason are not on your side, evidenced by your inability to produce a single cogent example in support of your position.

http://campaign.worldvision.com.au/...is-better-for-children-to-work-debate-kit.pdf

Why would you ever seek to limit the free market with burdensome regulation? The end result of ANY regulation is ultimately less jobs & freedom, and a decrease in living standards since the market won't advance as fast as it would normally...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves.

Tell us genius...if politicians were restricted to their limited enumerated powers, how exactly would corporations rule? Stated differently, how could a company make or enforce a law without a crony politicians, which you could not find in a libertarian society???

It is a movement that is funded by billionaires .

You have zero proof this ridiculous statement. I'm sorry, put pointing to one or two rich people that happen to be libertarians does mean the "movement is funded by billionaires". And by the way, if billionaires are funding it, why do we see so few libertarian politicians in office?



Bullshit. No libertarian thinks it's acceptable to allow anyone to pollute. That is NOT consensual activity. It is activity that infringes on the rights of others, the illegality of which is at the very heart of the idea of libertarianism.

You clearly have no ******* clue what you're talking about.

They are anti-science

Really? And what evidence do you have to support this bullshit claim?

and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves

And there you have it...the most ridiculous statement of the month, at least so far.

Please tell us how libertarian ideals, which value freedom and liberty above all, are akin to slavery.

What an asshole.

How ironic that the poster who alleges that there would be no political corruption in his utopian libertarian society then accuses someone else of making the "most ridiculous statement of the month"!

 

[FA_Q2]

How quaint, another misguided "classical" liberal. Libertarianism is just a corruption of anarchy, and just as bad. The only true ideology is conservatism.

Anarchy is not libertarianism. Federalism establishes meaningful, though limited powers to a federal government and other powers to state governments. The power to make laws, the power to engage in war, the power to infringe on an individual's right with due process, etc. We libertarians wholeheartedly support that power to make law. It is at the heart of libertarianism and HARDLY anarchy.

Explain how supporting the idea of granting significant powers to government is like anarchy...if you can.

As far as conservatism (at least in the modern sense) being "true", I will say to you the same thing I say to modern liberals: You really don't know what's best for everyone else. Sorry, you just don't.

Look, I'm sure there are many things we would agree upon, certainly more than a typical liberal. Are you really going to cast false aspersions toward libertarians because we believe in individual liberty to a somewhat great extent than most conservatives? Are you really hoping to alienate libertarians because we might disagree on the extent of our foreign military involvement? Really? That seems like you're inviting disaster at the ballot box. Why would you do that?

Me? I'm not going to alienate anyone. The fact of the matter is you will probably vote Republican anyway, so I will speak my mind.

The same people who originally created libertarianism had created it with the idea that government is corrupting force, and an unnecessary evil... the logical extension of that idea would be to eliminate the evil.

LOL. Not likely. Most libertarians DO NOT vote for republicans. They vote third party or for no one. Sometimes even the democrat candidate is closer to the libertarian worldview than the republican one which is really telling considering that the republicans claim to believe in the same things (smaller government, constitution and fewer regulations).
Robert Sarvis, Ken Cuccinelli, Terry McAuliffe: Poll says Libertarian candidate hurting Democrat in Virginia, GOP still losing.
Sarvis almost cost McAuliffe the election | Bearing Drift

In this race, the libertarian candidate pulled MORE voters from the dems than he did from the repus. You reveal how depraved the 2 party system and partisanship has become when you make comments like being a republican is the ‘right’ choice. Such a statement is asinine – this is not about a right and wrong choice.

 

[FA_Q2]

Or, you could reject all three.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.

Stated differently, you can be a libertarian that is a thrifty shopper, lives a conservative lifestyle, loves to see progress every day, and is liberal when it comes to certain things.

A more complete definition than Wiki:

Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

How quaint, another misguided "classical" liberal. Libertarianism is just a corruption of anarchy, and just as bad. The only true ideology is conservatism.

Anarchy is not libertarianism. Federalism establishes meaningful, though limited powers to a federal government and other powers to state governments. The power to make laws, the power to engage in war, the power to infringe on an individual's right with due process, etc. We libertarians wholeheartedly support that power to make law. It is at the heart of libertarianism and HARDLY anarchy.

Explain how supporting the idea of granting significant powers to government is like anarchy...if you can.

As far as conservatism (at least in the modern sense) being "true", I will say to you the same thing I say to modern liberals: You really don't know what's best for everyone else. Sorry, you just don't.

Look, I'm sure there are many things we would agree upon, certainly more than a typical liberal. Are you really going to cast false aspersions toward libertarians because we believe in individual liberty to a somewhat great extent than most conservatives? Are you really hoping to alienate libertarians because we might disagree on the extent of our foreign military involvement? Really? That seems like you're inviting disaster at the ballot box. Why would you do that?

Yes, they are going to do such a thing. I find it fascinating that they do as well considering that the conservatives claim to hold very similar ideals.

We have broken from the party though – no longer accepting that something claiming to be conservative through the Republican Party is actually representing the ideals that we hold. To the partisan that supports the party above all else, this is paramount to sacrilege and to be fought. Many conservatives here viscerally attack libertarians worse than our liberal counterparts because of this. I think they view us as stabbing them in the back.

If only they understood that is exactly how most libertarians feel that counted themselves among republicans at one point. To continue to support the party that belched Bush II out without demanding change floors me. The new love affair that the republicans have with social issues is just driving us further out as well.

One poster (I forget which one) outlined the feeling of the right to libertarians very well: entitlement. They believe they are entitled to our votes as evidenced by the comment “you are likely going to vote republican anyway.” I hope that they wake up soon and realize that entitlement is utterly false.

 

[eflatminor]

How quaint, another misguided "classical" liberal. Libertarianism is just a corruption of anarchy, and just as bad. The only true ideology is conservatism.

Anarchy is not libertarianism. Federalism establishes meaningful, though limited powers to a federal government and other powers to state governments. The power to make laws, the power to engage in war, the power to infringe on an individual's right with due process, etc. We libertarians wholeheartedly support that power to make law. It is at the heart of libertarianism and HARDLY anarchy.

Explain how supporting the idea of granting significant powers to government is like anarchy...if you can.

As far as conservatism (at least in the modern sense) being "true", I will say to you the same thing I say to modern liberals: You really don't know what's best for everyone else. Sorry, you just don't.

Look, I'm sure there are many things we would agree upon, certainly more than a typical liberal. Are you really going to cast false aspersions toward libertarians because we believe in individual liberty to a somewhat great extent than most conservatives? Are you really hoping to alienate libertarians because we might disagree on the extent of our foreign military involvement? Really? That seems like you're inviting disaster at the ballot box. Why would you do that?

Me? I'm not going to alienate anyone. The fact of the matter is you will probably vote Republican anyway, so I will speak my mind.

No, but I always look for Republicans I can support. Have found a few over the years. I look for Dems too, but haven't found one in decades. Otherwise, I vote L.

That said, I sure hope you speak your mind...wouldn't have it any other way around here!

The same people who originally created libertarianism had created it with the idea that government is corrupting force, and an unnecessary evil... the logical extension of that idea would be to eliminate the evil.

Close. Not an "unnecessary" evil...an absolutely necessary one! Therefore, the logic extension is to wholeheartedly support that which is necessary, but limit it to only that which is necessary.

The enumerated powers in the Constitution that grants these powers while simultaneously limiting them is a great start. Not perfect, but better than anything else in the history of the world.

Anyway, I hope you no longer equate libertarianism with anarchy. It's just not logical anymore than it would be to equate conservatism with a centrally planned dictatorship. Stated differently, I suspect we're a lot closer in ideology than you think...or at least there may be hope.