Do Libertarians Stand By Their Convictions?

My viewpoint is unique. I see only a worthless, selfish, and totalitarian ruling class creating Liberal nonsense to crush the majority from the bottom up and Conservative nonsense to crush it from the top down. This is only a more sophisticated version of Europe's 20th Century conflict between Communism and Fascism. America has to reject both the Left and the Right, in fact the whole specious spectrum, before it finds ideas worth fighting for.

 

The term libertarianism was invented in 1789. The term started to come back in custom in the 1950s, with Goldwater, etc. It is not a reaction to Obama. Are you truly that ignorant of basic political history? If so, you need to start reading, and stop wasting time on internet forums making up questions with silly bases.

That said, you are right about the diversity of libertarian views. However, if you scratch under the surface of the dems or the repubs you'll find about as much diversity.

 

Are all Democrats alike? Some conservative Republicans call themselves "libertarians", that is where the confusion usually lies because they are not libertarians.

Libertarians stand by the Non Aggression Principle. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Rand Paul is a libertarian leaning conservative.

- - - Updated - - -

You were confused by basic terms on the Austrian thread. I highly doubt you're the one to explain libertarianism to anyone unfamiliar with it.

 

::sigh::

A libertarian leaning conservative is on the cover of Time's 100 most influential Americans. Obviously you don't get out much or understand what the word "relevant" means.

 

Face it, there's no such thing as a libertarian. They all pretend to be something that they're not and they can't explain it anyway. Libforhisfuture is about the farthest thing I've seen from the declared agenda.

I knew more about Austrian economics 20 years ago than you know now dear. That includes what they confuse for SS economics too. But that's off topic for my libertarian thread and besides, you're just trying insult and cause trouble here.

 

What is the "declared agenda"?

Yours and his sidebar wasn't? Spare me.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

And that would be? Wait for it! Why it's Rand Paul, the racist who can't make up his mind on abortion! The same daddy's son who says there are thousands of reasons for an abortion but also says that he's anti-abortion. Why Zosie, he's just as confused as libforhisfuture. And besides dear, didn't you just tell me that he's a conservative who leans libertarian? You wouldn't LIE about such things would you?

 

No political party in the US has any convictions, otherwise we would hear the truth about this country.

 

Talk to a libertarian Rusty. They have convictions but they don't waste time talking about them very much. They've convinced that all stop signs have to go for one example. And the guy who Zosia calls a libertarian or a conservative with libertarian convictions is totally convinced that there are thousands of reasons for an abortion all abortions should be banned. You know, junior Paul! Just ask zosie!

 

That's a mighty big claim. What makes him a racist? What things has he said about blacks that make you clearly know he's a racist? Or is it because he doesn't believe in forcing businesses to hire people they don't want?

That's called ambiguity, all decent people of intellect will struggle with it from time to time. I'd rather have some ambiguous moral conflicts then none. THOSE people are scary and don't live in the real world.

He self-identifies as a libertarian leaning conservative. I don't like to pretend I read minds and know people are lying. I take them at their word, but cautiously vet them.

 

Leading Libertarians is like herding cats. They tend to be a free-thinking bunch, meaning they share general principles more than a set of ten commandments the way the sheeple parties do.

 

Now Zosiemom is back to calling Rand Paul a libertarian leaning conservative not more than a couple of hours ago when she called him a libertarian on the cover of Time. I think she's a little confused though. We should give her a chance to make up her mind.

 

Really?

You're confusing "libertarian" with "socialist".

This libertarian can explain every single one of the positions he takes and he can state their foundational assumption.

He isn't property.

By simple logic, since he isn't property, nobody is property.

If someone isn't your property, you cannot walk on them, interfere with their own freedoms, or otherwise infringe on them.

The only limits to freedom are those areas where one man's exercise of his freedom begins to restrict another's.

You people like to pretend there's no logical basis for libertarianism, that is a religion like socialism, but that's just been proven false.

 

Well, I suppose you could take down all stop signs and make all intersections 4-way stops. As long as the libertarian is forced to understand that they have to take turns. I'm sure everyone would be a lot more freer and they wouldn't have to take orders from uppity stop signs.

And too, if someone is property then that makes all libertarians property to be walked on. Except that if they aren't 'really' libertarians and are only pretending to be then you wouldn't be allowed to walk on them. I would anyway because I think it would be cool to walk on one's head. Hahaha, that would make em into good liberals in a hurry eh Mayor?

 

You mentioned him in your OP, hence my reference when you said that this movement is insignificant to the general population. Perhaps, you should confuse yourself (and everyone else) less.

Honestly though, you've gotten away with a baiting, troll thread so ..."bravo" for being able to get away with agitating other members with impunity. Certainly conservatives and libertarians couldn't have done so. If I cared enough I might switch political allegiance so that I can flamebait, troll, offend, and threaten people. It looks so much fun when you guys do it.

 

Religious right social conservatives love to dance with irony by decrying something they don't support (usually out of ignorant fear and a desire to stay safely in the herd) by, ironically enough, calling it religious. They'll even accuse atheists of being religious in their thinking. Mmmm, delicious irony..

 

Good to see you Z

I disagree though- there are some conservatives (at least that is their claim) that get away with it as well. Doesn't matter from whom it is derived, low-brow activity such as trolling is still low-brow. When sustained it is usually derived from an incapacity of the poster to hold an intellectual conversation in which ideas do not hold up to scrutiny. Why do people like monty1 troll?

• Attention and recognition, even if negative
• The emotional release of venting
• Power (the power to disrupt)
• Vandalism
• The thrill of breaking social conventions
• Sabotaging groups the troll dislikes
• Immaturity

Do you see a pattern here?

An excellent article:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25540

 

I would mind his trolling less if it also didn't include threats to Ethereal. My standing up for what is right, for him to have his beliefs and be left alone and unbothered by the thought police (and real police) is libertarianism at its best.

 

Threats to Ethereal? I was unaware. Where was that?

 

It's not trolling to bring attention to the libertarian agenda, or lack of such. What would largely go ignored is being pursued in the interest of exposing the lack of or shallowness. And so one doesn't have to look very closely at her posts to see that there's where the socalled trolling is.

 

Ken, I read your post before you deleted it. So sure, let's nail her down and ask her who she meant on the cover of Time. It's pretty clear to me thought that she referred to Rand Paul as a libertarian and then switched to a 'conservative who leans libertarian'.

Zosia isn't really interested in getting into a conversation on libetetarianism as much as she is interested in disrupting another thread in the same way as she did yesterday. I don't want that to happen to this thread as it's one a very very few on this forum that is more intent on examining issues as opposed to just spam.

 

I think that those of us who identify as libertarian value, well, liberty above all else. It is a libertarian's guiding principle, and with a principle like that it's hard to impose anything! Neither would a libertarian seek to do so. Just guarantee people's freedom, though I expect we'd also agree on the rule of law to protect one another and seek justice when one is wronged.

We will likely disagree on details, but hopefully not so strongly that we can't get behind a unified platform for running the country. Unfortunately, however, it seems too many Americans are simply not of a mind to agree with such a free point of view. They prefer their herd with social restrictions and welfare, with taxes and tyranny. The two parties and Business As Usual™ are a safe, familiar place to stay. Life might get scary if they had to move away from those, and of course their personal agendas, such as the anti-gay agenda and other invented Left vs Right conflicts, would have to be tossed out.

Republicans love Big Government as much as the Democrats when it comes to enforcing their will on everyone. They are not the same as libertarians, that is clear, though I wonder whether they might be convinced to give libertarianism a try. Hell, I don't know how anyone could disagree with a platform that places personal liberty above all else! You would think a "liberal" would like that, but no - today's liberals aren't liberal, apparently, and that is why they get attacked so viciously and constantly by their Republican nemeses. The Republicans, on the other hand, aren't fiscally conservative, nor conservative in the sense of shrinking government to allow people to live as they desire to live. They're only conservative in a traditional & religious social sense, which in my view is about the worst form of conservatism there is, at least when it's imposed on everyone by a central authority.

 

As such I can't say that you're not telling the truth about what you imagine as the goals of the libertarian. But let's get specific and spell out some specific cases. It all sounds good but in reality the problems don't exist. So you speak unspecifically of some imagined freedoms being taken away but in actual reality the problem doesn't exist. Or if in fact some isolated instances exist then they exist with good reason.

You, and the libertarians can't just keep running away from the questions. You and they would be better to not even try to address your complaints than to continue to embarrass yourselves by falling short on the challenge.

So let's now deal with it. It has to be stated clearly, either put up or shut up. Not to be disrespectful, only to demonstrate the frustration of those who are trying to hold the libertarian feet to the fire.

 

It's never been intent on examining issues. I think we established that by page 3. You never intended to discuss anything but your view of libertarians and have ignored everything said to you that does not serve that particular agenda.