Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[Dante]

Here is a prime example:

I am for true limited republican government. That means letting each state decide if they want a state of junkies or not.

Tapatalk

While I agree on one level, I know it is not a moderate position

[MENTION=16263]nodoginnafight[/MENTION] soon-to-be-renamed nobrainsintheskull

The latest poll I've seen indicates that 58% of Americans favor legalizing pot.
So I think that makes legalizing pot a moderate position.

but I disagree with Thant in that no one person speaks for America. Trying to claim that one person speaks for all of America is ... well ... unAmerican.

So your premise is that majorities cannot be immoderate?

Hmm, maybe the Nazi's were moderates after all?

Moderate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context.

Within Germany, if a majority of people were Nazis, then yes. Being a Nazi was a moderate position in Germany. It was not considered moderate around the world and that is what was so scary about Nazi Germany. How so many people could be led into that belief system.

Now, what was it that was so extreme about the Nazi position? Genocide? Most Germans claim they were unaware of that and if they are telling the truth, then genocide would not be a moderate position - even in Nazi Germany.

When YOU use the term moderate - what do YOU mean? Do you mean something YOU consider moderate? So what is "moderate" to an extremist?

The term is only useful when used as a comparative description. There is no objective definition that fits all instances.

Within the context of the United States of America in 2014 - legalizing pot is a moderate position.

Of course "Moderate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context." in the abstract, but in reality there exists a spectrum that most rational people agree on. Newt Gingrich knew he was representing the right. He only argued the majority was on the right with him.

Moderate does not mean "majority opinion" Societies that take extreme positions or actions are no less extreme because it is the norm in their society. Unless of course you have them living in a vacuum?

My initially saying I agree yet recognize "it is not a moderate position" is misunderstood and misrepresented by you.

People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing a woman's right to choose an abortion, and people like you imagining it means backing abortions as a solution. It is not. It is facing reality no matter how repugnant.

People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing the right to free speech of hateful people and people like you dumbly imagining I support the content of their speech or the way they go about sharing and expressing it.

People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing harm reduction approaches and recognizing people's rights to do drugs and drink themselves to death versus the disease models or self help programs that stress inevitable doom unless abstinence is sought, and people like you coming along and claiming I support something I don't.


People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing laws recognizing a right to assisted suicide and people like you insisting I back idiots (people besides the terminally ill) taking their own lives no matter the reason -- oh wait, I do.

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

Maybe you could read my original post and address what I said since I already answered that. I'll be glad to go forward if you want to build on that, but i'm not interested in re-answering it.

"should government even do that? Do we have the right to make that choice for everyone and use force to impose it on all our citizens? Libertarians are the moderates, that is the first question we ask..." -- everyone asks the first question.

The right and the left, the Democrats and Republicans, others -- they all have ideas of the role of government. Implicit in this is the question "should government do that?"

No, liberals clearly do not ask that question ever. Well, except for things they don't want government to do.

To view the role of government as forcing to impose it on all our citizens something citizens may not want is an extreme ideological position.

We in the USA have a representative form of government. Your extreme position is valid only if one assumes a government not elected by the people in a representative republic

Many of these Libertarian positions need not apply because they do not deal with the reality of life on the ground

So seriously, you think it's moderate for 50% plus one to vote to remove the liberty and property of the rest of us. That is ridiculous. If I get my way, you still can make your own choices. If you get your way, my choices are removed.

Clearly mine is the moderate position. No matter how "extreme" a decision I make over my own life, I leave your decision intact. I would be fine with your views if you would extend the same courtesy to me. You very much do not.

and there you have it:

"No, liberals clearly do not ask that question ever."
---

pay attention: "So seriously, you think it's moderate for 50% plus one to vote to remove the liberty and property of the rest of us."

Where do you get 50% + 1?

As far as the government's right to the taking or property goes, it's written into the US Constitution, and Liberty like Speech has always had boundaries if a civilized and functioning society were to exist for long.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Here is a prime example:

I am for true limited republican government. That means letting each state decide if they want a state of junkies or not.

Tapatalk

While I agree on one level, I know it is not a moderate position

[MENTION=16263]nodoginnafight[/MENTION] soon-to-be-renamed nobrainsintheskull
So your premise is that majorities cannot be immoderate?

Hmm, maybe the Nazi's were moderates after all?

Moderate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context.

Within Germany, if a majority of people were Nazis, then yes. Being a Nazi was a moderate position in Germany. It was not considered moderate around the world and that is what was so scary about Nazi Germany. How so many people could be led into that belief system.

Now, what was it that was so extreme about the Nazi position? Genocide? Most Germans claim they were unaware of that and if they are telling the truth, then genocide would not be a moderate position - even in Nazi Germany.

When YOU use the term moderate - what do YOU mean? Do you mean something YOU consider moderate? So what is "moderate" to an extremist?

The term is only useful when used as a comparative description. There is no objective definition that fits all instances.

Within the context of the United States of America in 2014 - legalizing pot is a moderate position.

Of course "Moderate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context." in the abstract, but in reality there exists a spectrum that most rational people agree on. Newt Gingrich knew he was representing the right. He only argued the majority was on the right with him.

Moderate does not mean "majority opinion" Societies that take extreme positions or actions are no less extreme because it is the norm in their society. Unless of course you have them living in a vacuum?

My initially saying I agree yet recognize "it is not a moderate position" is misunderstood and misrepresented by you.

People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing a woman's right to choose an abortion, and people like you imagining it means backing abortions as a solution. It is not. It is facing reality no matter how repugnant.

People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing the right to free speech of hateful people and people like you dumbly imagining I support the content of their speech or the way they go about sharing and expressing it.

People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing harm reduction approaches and recognizing people's rights to do drugs and drink themselves to death versus the disease models or self help programs that stress inevitable doom unless abstinence is sought, and people like you coming along and claiming I support something I don't.


People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing laws recognizing a right to assisted suicide and people like you insisting I back idiots (people besides the terminally ill) taking their own lives no matter the reason -- oh wait, I do.

You went to a lot of effort to try to imagine what my positions or responses MIGHT be.
And elected to argue with your own imagination.

What's that called?

Oh yeah .... strawman.

The last resort of a person who has no legitimate argument against the stated position.

 

[kaz]

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

"should government even do that? Do we have the right to make that choice for everyone and use force to impose it on all our citizens? Libertarians are the moderates, that is the first question we ask..." -- everyone asks the first question.

The right and the left, the Democrats and Republicans, others -- they all have ideas of the role of government. Implicit in this is the question "should government do that?"

No, liberals clearly do not ask that question ever. Well, except for things they don't want government to do.

To view the role of government as forcing to impose it on all our citizens something citizens may not want is an extreme ideological position.

We in the USA have a representative form of government. Your extreme position is valid only if one assumes a government not elected by the people in a representative republic

Many of these Libertarian positions need not apply because they do not deal with the reality of life on the ground

So seriously, you think it's moderate for 50% plus one to vote to remove the liberty and property of the rest of us. That is ridiculous. If I get my way, you still can make your own choices. If you get your way, my choices are removed.

Clearly mine is the moderate position. No matter how "extreme" a decision I make over my own life, I leave your decision intact. I would be fine with your views if you would extend the same courtesy to me. You very much do not.

and there you have it:

"No, liberals clearly do not ask that question ever."
---

pay attention: "So seriously, you think it's moderate for 50% plus one to vote to remove the liberty and property of the rest of us."

Where do you get 50% + 1?

As far as the government's right to the taking or property goes, it's written into the US Constitution, and Liberty like Speech has always had boundaries if a civilized and functioning society were to exist for long.

As for your question in red, you can start with what you wrote in blue. Seriously, you don't know where I get 50% plus one?

I'm not going down your rat hole of arguing the Constitution. We are discussing libertarian versus liberal. As I pointed out, liberals believe the majority can set the rules for us all, including and very much performing the acts of removing our liberty and property. Redistributing wealth is not charity, it's plunder. And very much not moderate.

As I said and you ignored, my choices do not involved the removal of your choices. Your choices very much involve the removal of my choices. Clearly my position is the moderate one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So all the libertarians are denying the platform use to call for open borders? Do any of you even know your party?

Tapatalk

There is a difference between the Libertarian Party platform and the individual beliefs of libertarians. Only idiots would think that party platforms control thoughts.

 

[thanatos144]

So all the libertarians are denying the platform use to call for open borders? Do any of you even know your party?

Tapatalk

There is a difference between the Libertarian Party platform and the individual beliefs of libertarians. Only idiots would think that party platforms control thoughts.

Except the platform is the party.

Tapatalk

 

[nodoginnafight]

So all the libertarians are denying the platform use to call for open borders? Do any of you even know your party?

Tapatalk

There is a difference between the Libertarian Party platform and the individual beliefs of libertarians. Only idiots would think that party platforms control thoughts.

Except the platform is the party.

Tapatalk

Gotta agree here. If you are trying to consider a political party, don't you start with their platform?

 

[BobPlumb]

There is a difference between the Libertarian Party platform and the individual beliefs of libertarians. Only idiots would think that party platforms control thoughts.

Except the platform is the party.

Tapatalk

Gotta agree here. If you are trying to consider a political party, don't you start with their platform?

Maybe

[ame=http://youtu.be/SGCDsSceEVQ]Democrats have to Vote three times to recognize God and Jerusalem - YouTube[/ame]

This video somehow seemed appropriate.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

There is a difference between the Libertarian Party platform and the individual beliefs of libertarians. Only idiots would think that party platforms control thoughts.

Except the platform is the party.

Tapatalk

Gotta agree here. If you are trying to consider a political party, don't you start with their platform?

How many people of a libertarian mindset do you believe there are who are not LP members?

More or less than the party membership?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates remains a great lie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So all the libertarians are denying the platform use to call for open borders? Do any of you even know your party?

Tapatalk

There is a difference between the Libertarian Party platform and the individual beliefs of libertarians. Only idiots would think that party platforms control thoughts.

Except the platform is the party.

Tapatalk

Doesn't change the fact that you are accusing everyone who considers themselves libertarian of being controlled by what the Libertarian Party, which most of us do not belong to

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a difference between the Libertarian Party platform and the individual beliefs of libertarians. Only idiots would think that party platforms control thoughts.

Except the platform is the party.

Tapatalk

Gotta agree here. If you are trying to consider a political party, don't you start with their platform?

Do you agree with everything the Democratic Party has in their platform?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians cannot agree on what is Libertarianism, so no big deal in the short or long run.

 

[Geaux4it]

Libertarians cannot agree on what is Libertarianism, so no big deal in the short or long run.

But what's a Republican these days?

See what I did there?

-Geaux

 

[ScienceRocks]

If giving the entire economy over to the one percent is moderate. I think I'll be getting the fuck out of this country. It is finished.

We need education, infrastructure and advancement in science. YOu people are sick bastards.

 

[dblack]

If giving the entire economy over to the one percent is moderate. I think I'll be getting the fuck out of this country. It is finished.

We need education, infrastructure and advancement in science. YOu people are sick bastards.

Actually. libertarians want to restore economic freedom. It's really the opposite of "giving the entire economy over to the one percent."

But don't let me dissuade from leaving.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarians cannot agree on what is Libertarianism, so no big deal in the short or long run.

But Parasites can agree on what is Parasitism.......go fig

.

 

[Bfgrn]

Trying to muddy the waters with text bricks does not work.

Your authoritarian welfare state is a money sucking failure, and you know it.

FACTS don't muddy waters. They only muddy dogma and destroy ignorance.

Authoritarians harm people. Without Medicare, the elderly in this country would be severely harmed. You right wingers are the authoritarians. YOU would willfully destroy the elderly in this country over an extreme and anti-human ideology. There is not a single brain cell in a right wing mind that allows you folks to put yourself in another person's shoe. You are totally self absorbed.

Medicare is the greatest accomplishment in the history of this nation...BY FAR. Nothing government has done can come close to the success of Medicare.

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

Yeah and your medicare is an unfunded liability that your children have to pay quadruple for than you did. Be proud that you screwed your children over! It's for their own good right?

Ignorance is not an argument. It is an affliction. SS and Medicare are NOT unfunded liabilities. That is what you right wing parrots are taught to mimic.

It's not legal for Social Security to have "unfunded liabilities" since it can only pay as many benefits as it receives in earmarked taxes. Both it and Medicare hospital insurance are prohibited from spending money they haven't collected from specific revenue dedicated to their programs (i.e.: payroll taxes). It is impossible for either to technically be "unfunded", since they cannot legally outspend their funding.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Bfgrn]

I am for true limited republican government. That means letting each state decide if they want a state of junkies or not.

Tapatalk

Yea, let the fucking drunks who run down our children decide...

 

[HelenaHandbag]

FACTS don't muddy waters. They only muddy dogma and destroy ignorance.

Authoritarians harm people. Without Medicare, the elderly in this country would be severely harmed. You right wingers are the authoritarians. YOU would willfully destroy the elderly in this country over an extreme and anti-human ideology. There is not a single brain cell in a right wing mind that allows you folks to put yourself in another person's shoe. You are totally self absorbed.

Medicare is the greatest accomplishment in the history of this nation...BY FAR. Nothing government has done can come close to the success of Medicare.

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

Yeah and your medicare is an unfunded liability that your children have to pay quadruple for than you did. Be proud that you screwed your children over! It's for their own good right?

Ignorance is not an argument. It is an affliction. .

Oh, the breathtaking irony!

Thanks. I needed a good LULZ this morning.