The Disadvantage to Being Libertarian - Page 4 - Political Fever

Space_Coyote · #31 (**permalink**) 08-08-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Yeah, when you're only running the finances for december, and that month makes a positive, then you (as an individual) can claim to be fiscally responsible. Grouping people together by what dead people of the past have done is intellectually lazy.

At the risk of insulting you, that's the stupidest thing I have read on this board since my join date. You absolutely CANNOT claim to be fiscally responsible if 11/12 months of the year saw fiscal irresponsibility. I once sank a three pointer over my buddy who played college basketball, that doesn't mean I'm good at basketball, follow?

Quote:

That does sound stupid, but you make the assumption that every individual is completely sovereign. You choose to live under this government, then you choose to live under it's rules, whether you like them or not.

Those rules must be in line with the Constitution, which tells the government which rules it can and cannot impose. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If the government ignores the Constitution and passes a law that exceeds its enumerated powers, I am not bound to obey it, since the law was beyond the Congress' authority to pass. You speak of rules and behavior pursuant to legal harmony whilst ignoring the ORIGINAL rule in this country when you find it convenient. You're either a hypocrite, or dim-witted, and I don't think you're the latter.

Quote:

Says the person who admits to "worship the notion of ENUMERATED GOVERNMENTAL POWERS."

Right, enumerated powers being the system of government that has promoted liberty and done more to free the world's people than any other single idea in the history of mankind. Regardless of the extent to which government should be empowered, all reasonable and intelligent people recognize that a government's authority should be strictly limited to that which the people expressly grant them.

Quote:

You can call yourself enlightened when you stop looking at labels like democrat and republican, and start looking at the actual people running for office. Until then, you are just as archaic as the slave owning founding fathers.

They were slave owners.......so their ideas are invalid? Now who's dealing in labels? "I reject their notions of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and a government subservient to the citizenry because they were all slave-owners". Right, nevermind that Jefferson was forbidden to free his slaves by Virginia law given the massive debts he accrued late in life. History tends to get in the way of your shallow rhetoric and ill-founded notions of civil governance.

malrenalds · #32 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHFN

I'm a Social Libertarian. That means that, unlike the Libertarian party, I place personal freedom ahead of capital freedom. I essentially have a liberal view on social matters (+ gun rights) and a semi-conservative view on economic matters (fewer government programs, por favor). This essentially places me in a cross-fire.

As soon as you tell a liberal that you are libertarian, you are immediately placed on their **** list. Seriously. Four out of five times, that's what seems to happen. To a liberal, "libertarian" seems to translate as "evil, right-wing, baby-killing, gun-toting, whiskey-drinking redneck shooting at blacks and Mexicans while trying to usurp law and order." They also assume that all Libertarians agree with the Libertarian party, and so assume that I'm a far-right-wing nutcase who wants to do away with 90% of government regulation. I also seem to get called a Bush supporter by Liberals a lot as well. Let me tell ya', Bush is just as antithetical to Libertarianism as he is to Liberalism. More so, even. I've also been called a baby killer, for no apparent reason.

When you tell a Neo Conservative that you are a libertarian, he will immediately assume that you are on his side, again because most people equate libertarianism with the party. As soon as you reveal that you are anti-Iraq War, anti-wiretapping, anti-corporate tax breaks, anti-stimulus packages, pro-Social Security (with extensive reform), pro-gay marriage, are against the mixing of church and state, and do not believe that Islam is trying to take over the world, you are immediately **** listed by the Neo-Cons as well.

I seem to get along fine with pre-1970 conservatives, opinions differing in detail rather than in base. The problem with this is that Liberals seem to assume that pre-1970 conservative necessarily means racist. If that thought enters your head, please shut the fruck up a second and think first. If I'm supporting equal rights for all, does that mean I'll try to oppress someone based on race? Come now.

When I run across a Fiscal Libertarian, or Libertarian Party Libertarian, they immediately assume that I'm an ally in all respects. When I reveal that I think they're a bunch of nuts, I'm instantly crucified as a heretic. Quite annoying.

So really, it's tough being Libertarian, especially since 90% of people immediately stereotype you into groups which you do not agree with at all. I'm being fired on from three sides at all times. The Liberals are worst at it, but the Neo-Cons are bad too.

So please, before stereotyping me, try this:

Learn what the **** Libertarianism is about first!

I would say that Is about where I am on the spectrum as well.

My problem with the libertarian party is that when a divide happens 9/10 times they side with republicans. Seems to me that Civil liberty's always are second to the Main party platform while lower taxes come first.

So I end up voting democratic every time Because there is never a viable Candidate for me to vote for anywhere else.

malrenalds · #33 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 09:18 PM

The truth about modern Wiccanism and libertarianism is roughly the same.

Most modern Wiccians are so because they hate Christianity.

And most Libertarians are so because they hate politicians.

The old conform to nonconformity mindset.

Lumara · #34 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malrenalds

The truth about modern Wiccanism and libertarianism is roughly the same.

If you are referring to the shared philosophy that an individual can do whatever he wants as long as it harms none, then I can agree with that statement.

Quote:

Most modern Wiccians are so because they hate Christianity.

I disagree. Some Wiccans may, but not the majority. I'm Wiccan because I don't agree with Christian dogma, not because I hate Christianity. I hate people trying to foist their religious beliefs on others through legislation, but I don't hate the religion itself.

Quote:

And most Libertarians are so because they hate politicians.

I disagree with that statement, too. Libertarians are so because we love freedom and hate tyranny, not because we hate politicians.

Libertarianism has been explained over and over in various threads here at P.F. yet some people refuse to "get" it. Some people would rather hold onto their mistaken notions no matter what is said and it is pointless to discuss the philosophy with them. That's why I don't engage in such discussions as much as some other libertarians here since it is often an exercise in futility.

malrenalds · #35 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumara

If you are referring to the shared philosophy that an individual can do whatever he wants as long as it harms none, then I can agree with that statement.

I disagree. Some Wiccans may, but not the majority. I'm Wiccan because I don't agree with Christian dogma, not because I hate Christianity. I hate people trying to foist their religious beliefs on others through legislation, but I don't hate the religion itself.

I disagree with that statement, too. Libertarians are so because we love freedom and hate tyranny, not because we hate politicians.

Libertarianism has been explained over and over in various threads here at P.F. yet some people refuse to "get" it. Some people would rather hold onto their mistaken notions no matter what is said and it is pointless to discuss the philosophy with them. That's why I don't engage in such discussions as much as some other libertarians here since it is often an exercise in futility.

I was speaking in generalities. I did not meant to say that all wiccians and libertarians follow that same pattern. But many do Most that I have met.

I know Wiccians who When I discussed the works of say Scott Cunningham (whos work I love) they had no clue as to the substance I wanted to discuss, meanwhile they spent most of there time pissing and moaning about the Christian majority.

The same with Libertarians. Many I meet spent much more time griping about the two party's, then talking about any of there merits. Or of what should be done.

Libritarians are so in love with the constitution they do not realise that it was in essence the first American failure. It was the very first example of the politics they claim to hate.

The decloration of independance spoke of a nation the constitution did not deliver. A nation Of the people not of the rules.

As far as civil libertys I agree with Libritarians much more then even my own party, but Libritarians dream of an america that failed in every atemt. And would see this nation bought and paid for by Huge corperations much worse then it is today.

Zephyr · #36 (**permalink**) 08-18-2008, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Those rules must be in line with the Constitution, which tells the government which rules it can and cannot impose. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If the government ignores the Constitution and passes a law that exceeds its enumerated powers, I am not bound to obey it, since the law was beyond the Congress' authority to pass. You speak of rules and behavior pursuant to legal harmony whilst ignoring the ORIGINAL rule in this country when you find it convenient. You're either a hypocrite, or dim-witted, and I don't think you're the latter.

This coming from the guy who has an avatar that says civil disobedience is still disobedience.

You a Maddox fan as well, though? That's pretty cool, I love his stuff.

And more to the point, pointing out that you are not bound to obey laws you find unconstitutional (your judgment is not more important than the Supreme Court's, but whatever) isn't going to stop them from carting you to jail.

Space_Coyote · #37 (**permalink**) 08-18-2008, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zephyr

This coming from the guy who has an avatar that says civil disobedience is still disobedience.

You a Maddox fan as well, though? That's pretty cool, I love his stuff.

He's a genius.

Quote:

And more to the point, pointing out that you are not bound to obey laws you find unconstitutional (your judgment is not more important than the Supreme Court's, but whatever) isn't going to stop them from carting you to jail.

SCOTUS doesn't have the power to interpret the Constitution. I have demonstrated this NUMEROUS times and none of you loose constructionists ever have the balls to debate the issue, so I won't re-hash it here. Long story short; Marbury v. Madison should've ended in the execution of John Marshall for userpation of authority.

My interpretation is all that matters because I, unlike many others on this board, am willing to die for my beliefs (more importantly, I'm willing to kill for them). The lovely thing about a second amedment and conviction, is that you never have to spend a day in jail out of principle.

Chan · #38 (**permalink**) 08-18-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malrenalds

The same with Libertarians. Many I meet spent much more time griping about the two party's, then talking about any of there merits. Or of what should be done.

The Democrats and Republicans have no merits!

Quote:

Libritarians are so in love with the constitution they do not realise that it was in essence the first American failure. It was the very first example of the politics they claim to hate.

The Constitution was ahead of its time! The idea of a republic where the federal government's powers were quite limited while the powers of the states and the people were quite broad was a complete departure from anything the Europeans had. Libertarians simply want to return the federal government to its constitutional limits, though we recognize the Constitution has an amendment process (so that if people are stupid enough to want to give the federal government more power they can do so).

Quote:

The decloration of independance spoke of a nation the constitution did not deliver. A nation Of the people not of the rules.

But the purpose of the Constitution wasn't to mimic the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution gave us a republic based on the rule of law.

Quote:

As far as civil libertys I agree with Libritarians much more then even my own party, but Libritarians dream of an america that failed in every atemt. And would see this nation bought and paid for by Huge corperations much worse then it is today.

But America under the Constitution before the federal government started usurping powers the Constitution didn't give it was not a failure.

malrenalds · #39 (**permalink**) 08-18-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

The Democrats and Republicans have no merits!

see?

That is an exaggeration and a spiteful one that makes my point completely.

Quote:

But America under the Constitution before the federal government started usurping powers the Constitution didn't give it was not a failure.

why did The constitution give congress the right to make laws? Why did it make government so big? Because one thing those dead liberals knew was, It would end up being insufficient to sustain the union.

Chan · #40 (**permalink**) 08-18-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malrenalds

see?

That is an exaggeration and a spiteful one that makes my point completely.

It isn't an exaggeration. It is certainly an opinion but it is not an exaggeration.

Quote:

why did The constitution give congress the right to make laws?

Maybe you should try READING the Constitution instead of asking stupid questions like this one. Article I only gives Congress the power to make laws necessary for carrying out the powers granted the federal government under the Constitution. Notice the limitations specifically given:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Quote:

Why did it make government so big?

Because politicians tend to do things that help keep them in power and to give them more power. It's the nature of the beast.

Quote:

Because one thing those dead liberals knew was, It would end up being insufficient to sustain the union.

You are so full of crap on that one!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password