The essence of Rightism?

Hmmm... I didn't see that in the Libertarian Party platform .

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

It looks like they totally dodged the issue, it doesn't say anything about opposing "passing any laws that prohibit the mother/family from making the decision to abort a fetus, and reproductive issue"

 

But then doesn't this just make all law an empty "noble and justified cause" by default? Wouldn't anarchy be the only thing that truly does not infringe on someone's civil liberties? Afterall, very few of those same liberals and libertarians would support such a "pro-choice" stance on slavery today (although they likely would have supported such a thing during the 1800s because it was the norm back then just as abortion is today). Framing abortion as a women's rights issue is no different than framing slavery as a property rights issue. The only way to "let people decide for themselves" is to first establish an arbitrary definition of personhood that does not grant those same civil liberties to blacks or children in the womb. Thus effectively taking them out of the equation.

I think you might have misread my post. You basically just agreed with me here. I was explaining how social liberalism and social libertarianism were not the same thing because liberals believe in more social restrictions than libertarians. Libertarians typically are rather hands-off. Whereas liberals say they are but then don't act the part. The whole thing is a ruse. Because they ban everything they don't like (smoking, soft drinks, guns, etc.). It's basically someone hitting you with your own hand and saying, "Stop hitting yourself. I'm not hitting you. Why are you hitting yourself?"

That's still pretty similar to the conservative position, though. At least paleoconservatism anyway. Let's not confuse conservatives with big government neocons here.

 

Christ on a cracker......they said "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration".......and there isn't one social issue the Libertarian party wants government involved it.

 

You said that the platform opposes passing any laws that prohibit the mother/family from making the decision to abort a fetus, and reproductive issues. It doesn't say anything like that.

 

I think you might have misread my previous posts, if you read them. You basically agreed with my position whereby any ideology can be shoe horned into any contrived spectrum. Alll you do after that is demonize one, or both, ends of the spectrum.....(see Glenn Beck for cheesy examples)

It depends on your social issue, liberals/libertarians oppose laws on abortion and gay marriage, and conservatives/libertarians oppose laws on gun control and may types of regulation.

It's vey easy to spin.

Paleoconservatism and Goldwater/Eisenhower conservatism are about as relevant today as anything extinct.

Comparing Libertarians to conservatives or liberals is kind of like a rorschach test....everybody wees something different, and to the trained observer, what you see can be very telling

 

The principles of rightism are hypocrisy, stupidity, dishonesty, submissiveness to idiots like Rush Limbaugh, and a belief in a system with a 100% failure rate.

 

I just quoted you a Libertarian movement who disagrees. Pro-life is compatible with Libertarianism, the question, the crux of it all, is whether or not you see the fetus as a human being.

If you do, then the Mother ending the fetus is simply murder. If you don't, then the Mother is free to do what she wants.

Killing someone is not a liberty, that's license.

 

You may have missed how this conversation, and my overview, started out. I sometimes forget people can't read my mind.

My overall point is that trying to come up with a unifying theory about righties and lefties in the US today is futile, and the sub plot in this tangent is how the libertarian social issues platform is similar in outcomes to the liberal social issues platform. Then I got more specific about how the liberal platform and the libertarian platform both oppose laws against gay marriage and abortion.

I know completely regret my oversimplification....but, it's true that the libertarian party believes that government should be kept out of the matter (of abortion), leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration...and the only real way to keep government out of abortion is to not allow them to pass laws regarding it.

Ergo......the liberal platform and the libertarian platform both oppose laws against abortion....which is the outcome I initially referred to.

 

The libertarian party platform states...that government should be kept out of the matter (of abortion), leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration...and the only real way to keep government out of abortion is to not allow them to pass laws regarding it.

Are there plenty of libertarians that want the libertarian platform to support the creation of laws against abortion?....of course. But it doesn't

I'll be glad to toss around the subject of abortion with you, but I think narrowing our dialog on this thread to debating abortion wasn't the intent of the OP

 

it would appear so.. I totally blame my former swedish teacher for that. Okay, we take homophobia than. Should mean irrational fear of the same, but means hatred of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

civic nationalism is nationalism, you just don't know what nationalism is. No, it need not be seperate from rebublican ideoligies. Are you claiming nationalism is inherently monarchist? Nationalism is the love of the nation, not the government, so it's possible to be nationalist and hate your commie government. common in russia during soviet times. No, the basis of the nation can be founded on things that are matters of personal choice, as is the USA.

Okay, and I define it as what it is; an ideology.

 

A blatand violation of teh second paragraph of the OP! grr!

 

The problem with hyper partisans like Rush Limbo and Ed Schutlz...is that you can't become outraged over what either says without becoming as bad as them.

They make their living making people outraged enough to stayed tuned in to their shows. It brings out the worst in all of us if their message invades our psyches.

Nothing is 100%...or even 98% right like Rush claims to be.

 

Never allow the People to do via their government what needs to be done.

If the People, deprived of their tool of government, have not proved up to the task, it, no matter how desperately needed, must remain undone.

 

Milton Friedman wasn't a member of the party, but no one disagrees that he was a Libertarian. Party platforms are of little value.

 

The essence of rightism (essence of, NOT EVERY RIGHTIST) is the confidence that there is a greater power than oneself.

That accounts for every item you accurately mentioned and correctly attributed to rightists.

- - - Updated - - -

Fail, Jack.

 

Loosely put, Rightism is 75% right, 25% wrong.

Leftism is 75% wrong, 25% right.

 

One can't deny the Democractic, Libertarian, and Republican parties have diverse bunches of people, and not everyone agrees 100% with the platforms....but the 3 parties all have official platforms, without diversity.

If you're trying to convince me the Libertarian party is in favor of creating laws that outlaw abortion, you're wasting your time. All else is a diversion best addressed on one of the many abortion threads that come and go.

 

This quote below is a good example of a subtle and surprisingly diplomatic version of that ^^^^^^^^

 

Oh, bad luck, Old Boy! And you actually believed you had the odds in your favour?

History confirms that progress always happens, no matter how hysterically it is resisted.

Rightists might, with justification, fancy themselves the tail on the leftist kite.

 

Ooooh...that's good......

Did you do that one yourself?

 

It is inherently anti-republican.

Clearly you don't understand it and we don't want you on our team.

 

I didn't say anything about the party, that's you.

The question, is whether or not Libertarians can be pro-life as well as pro-choice, and the answer is yes, because the crux of whether or not a Libertarian falls on one side or the other, depends on whether they see the child as being a human life.

Libertarians are very big on negative rights, life being one of them. If they see the child as being a human life, then they can only be pro-life to stay consistent with Classical Liberal ideals, and vice versa.

To truly go down the rabbit hole, the position of respecting both the life of the unborn, as well as the mother's right to her body, results in this position. Likely the closest you'll see to a middle ground.

 

I almost agree with this. Almost. I know there are a couple of "special internet people" who claim Conservatives are more masculine etc... and really, why not.
Think about it. Our own generals don't even want any more tanks. But we'll spend billions on them anyway. While children starve. Or go without health care. Or don't have storm shelters in Oklahoma because those "cost too much". So yes, taking care of our people is feminine while attacking other people is masculine.
Spending more on guns, missiles, tanks etc... than the next ten countries combined is definitely very masculine in the "mine is bigger" way (or Freud's rule of compensation, meaning that we as a country are collectively ashamed of our small dicks and therefore need to compensate by showing how big our missiles are). Whereas other countries nurture their citizens and even virtually all of their old people live well above the poverty line (something American cannot say).
The blind? The disabled? The damaged? You need only go to the local VA to see how "masculine" we are when it comes to them. Screw 'em. they served their country but now they're now longer useful. Let 'em live in the streets (1 in 3 homeless men is a veteran. Thank you Conservatives!).
Are far as the other qualities you mention?
Pride & Confidence? I own a business. I take pride in contributing to the economy, employing people, providing benefits that make ObamaCare a non-factor and the fact that we donate money to charity out of every dollar we receive.
Strength, Honor & Duty? Anyone working for me gets full pay while volunteering. I volunteer at the local Air Force Bases and also the homeless shelter because it is my duty to my fellow man. Do i buy into the BS that we should give away billions upon billions to global companies and foreign countries and unnecessary wars, while letting our own people starve or go without health care or an education? I see no honor in that.
I have served in uniform and lived all over the world as both military and civilian. So while Conservatives say things like "we should just let people fend for themselves!" or "If the government didn't take money to provide for the poor, charities would do it!", they have only one problem. They can never name a place where that works.

 

I thought we cancelled the Future Combat System? And the Commanche, and the Crusader...

Sure we can. It's true root of the phrase "American Exceptionalism". That phrase has nothing to do with our economic prosperity, us going to the Moon, our military might, or any technological innovation. None of that crap.

The phrase was coined by Alex de Toqueville, a 19th century French sociologist, who came to America to study its culture and society. What he found was a nation of people who, unlike his own European kin, regulated many societal duties to the private rather than the public sphere of life. And it wasn't just lip service either, we got it done.

Mutual Aid societies provided for medical care, Charities created schools where public services couldn't reach, and an integrated food bank system to provide for the hungry. Charities have always been at the forefront of ensuring the poor are taken care of in the U.S., the Government programs that have tried to supplant them meanwhile have consistently failed at the task, and have done nothing but breed further dependency and need.

But hey, don't take my word for it, listen here.