We're A1L mad here - TLS C/O 2020 Thread [New Pole] Forum

[Shakawkaw]

Rigo, I voted for you to make it a tie.

Pero lyke, I'm a little miffed I'm not an option.

ETA - for the waiters, Rigo is definitely as sassy and wonderful in person as he is on these fora. ~*~*

[Stay-at-Home Son]

I think libertarianism is a convenient way to avoid being called a garbage person and pacify socially liberal friends by being all like "rah rah social liberties; government stay out of our bedroom! I just hate taxes!"
But a belief in preserving social liberties is hollow if you end up voting for the party that intends to restrict them.
So really it comes down to their conservative anti-government, capitalism is always great! circle jerk and they're just Republicans with less Bible thumping.
Libertarianism has great untested and unrealistic rhetorical appeal as a single-villain ideology (just blame the government!) but its adherents are too intellectually simple and generally don't get complexity.

Just be like "I'm pretty socially liberal but social liberties aren't really a deal breaker for me so I don't mind voting against those rights." It's at least way more honest.

There might be some truth to this, but in my view the term "garbage people" seems more applicable to the officials and pundits abetting the slaughter and starvation of Yemenis, indiscriminately drone-bombing wedding parties or MSF outposts, etc. That is, both major parties.

[guynourmin]

Also, what is Aleppo?

Lol^ perfect example of someone using the label without bothering to build a solid ideological foundation.

How? He was a Republican. He ran on the Libertarian ticket because it was accessible to him and because the party he identifie(d/s) with got away from itself. GJ is nothing like the Bob Barr's before him or whoever the party will champion after him. He took his opportunity where he could.

[Gitaroo_Dude]

Just be like "I'm pretty socially liberal but social liberties aren't really a deal breaker for me so I don't mind voting against those rights." It's at least way more honest.

I'd be down for a party that espoused this without all the religious wankery.

[Stay-at-Home Son]

Also, what is Aleppo?

Lol^ perfect example of someone using the label without bothering to build a solid ideological foundation.

How? He was a Republican. He ran on the Libertarian ticket because it was accessible to him and because the party he identifie(d/s) with got away from itself. GJ is nothing like the Bob Barr's before him or whoever the party will champion after him. He took his opportunity where he could.

Right, that's exactly what I said - he used the label (because it was accessible to him), but didn't even pretend to have a consistent philosophy. Did you not see the "bake the cake" thing? He made some sounds about moving away from a regime-change-based foreign policy, but this was pretty transparently just to throw red meat to libertarians. It was clear he didn't really investigate the issue much more thoroughly than that.

I don't really have anything against Gary Johnson, I just don't think he's that intelligent, and when you're prominent as he is, what you do tends to be associated with the group you represent. Not knowing what Aleppo is, or being unable to name a single world leader he admires, doesn't reflect well on libertarians, unjustified though that may be.

[guynourmin]

Also, what is Aleppo?

Lol^ perfect example of someone using the label without bothering to build a solid ideological foundation.

How? He was a Republican. He ran on the Libertarian ticket because it was accessible to him and because the party he identifie(d/s) with got away from itself. GJ is nothing like the Bob Barr's before him or whoever the party will champion after him. He took his opportunity where he could.

Right, that's exactly what I said - he used the label (because it was accessible to him), but didn't even pretend to have a consistent philosophy. Did you not see the "bake the cake" thing? He made some sounds about moving away from a regime-change-based foreign policy, but this was pretty transparently just to throw red meat to libertarians. It was clear he didn't really investigate the issue much more thoroughly than that.

I don't really have anything against Gary Johnson, I just don't think he's that intelligent, and when you're prominent as he is, what you do tends to be associated with the group you represent. Not knowing what Aleppo is, or being unable to name a single world leader he admires, doesn't reflect well on libertarians, unjustified though that may be.

I'm disagreeing with saying he "used the label" and saying he used the platform the party had already established. That's what was accessible to him -- it was much easier to run as a libertarian than it was to get on the ballot in 50 states as an independent. You called him the "perfect example" and I'm saying he's far from it. Maybe just a semantic disagreement

[Mikey]

the poll is a seriously tough decision...

[Mikey]

I gotta go with my babycakes ash though!

[Stay-at-Home Son]

Also, what is Aleppo?

Lol^ perfect example of someone using the label without bothering to build a solid ideological foundation.

How? He was a Republican. He ran on the Libertarian ticket because it was accessible to him and because the party he identifie(d/s) with got away from itself. GJ is nothing like the Bob Barr's before him or whoever the party will champion after him. He took his opportunity where he could.

Right, that's exactly what I said - he used the label (because it was accessible to him), but didn't even pretend to have a consistent philosophy. Did you not see the "bake the cake" thing? He made some sounds about moving away from a regime-change-based foreign policy, but this was pretty transparently just to throw red meat to libertarians. It was clear he didn't really investigate the issue much more thoroughly than that.

I don't really have anything against Gary Johnson, I just don't think he's that intelligent, and when you're prominent as he is, what you do tends to be associated with the group you represent. Not knowing what Aleppo is, or being unable to name a single world leader he admires, doesn't reflect well on libertarians, unjustified though that may be.

I'm disagreeing with saying he "used the label" and saying he used the platform the party had already established. That's what was accessible to him -- it was much easier to run as a libertarian than it was to get on the ballot in 50 states as an independent. You called him the "perfect example" and I'm saying he's far from it. Maybe just a semantic disagreement

I take your point but I kinda see that as a distinction without a difference. So he used the LP's platform. Doesn't that mean he's using the label? FWIW, the LP's infrastructure is minuscule compared to the Rs'. Why didn't he just run as an R? Because the label distinguished him from the rest of the field. I think he saw an opportunity to leverage the trendiness of libertarianism but didn't feel the need to understand the ideology, and he took it. Good for him. I don't wanna play No True Scotsman but I'm just saying I don't really think he's the genuine article.

[guynourmin]

FWIW, the LP's infrastructure is minuscule compared to the Rs'. Why didn't he just run as an R? Because the label distinguished him from the rest of the field.

He did run as an R. He got no traction but wanted to stay in the game and only then did he explore other options (and that's why I said running with the party was much easier than running as an independent).

[Stylnator]

I think many of you are making stretches by stereotyping libertarianism, often mixing it with anarchy. F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, two people libertarians love to worship, actually don't call for an end to all social programs and even say some are necessary. The views are a plenty more nuanced than they are made out to be in this thread.

When I think of libertarianism I think of John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, some of John Stuart Mill, Hayek, Friedman, Richard Epstein, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand to some extent. Obviously each will have their own flavors, but the views are much more than "get out of my bedroom and let me have a gun." They often question the legitimacy of government action based on the logic of individual rights and autonomy. Utilitarian in a way that they want the best for the most--the most liberty for all--without interfering on the rights of others. Kantian in a way as well in that each action should be justified in itself, and not by the end result.

Socialist chiming in here to say the best for most often comes at the price of individual autonomy. Also, what's even considered liberties worth protecting is going to vary immensely from one socioeconomic class to another - and this is where the whole voting against each other's individual rights comes in. A lot of people are always going to value their own rights (say freedom from supporting social programs) over the rights of others (like healthcare). The theoretical nature outlined by most of the figures you're mentioning are just not as cut and dry in a world with any sort of diversity.

[ashrice13]

I gotta go with my babycakes ash though!

Sept waiterzz 4eva bb.
I need to get going on that NY trip. I'm so close to so many of you beautiful people!

[poptart123]

I think many of you are making stretches by stereotyping libertarianism, often mixing it with anarchy. F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, two people libertarians love to worship, actually don't call for an end to all social programs and even say some are necessary. The views are a plenty more nuanced than they are made out to be in this thread.

When I think of libertarianism I think of John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, some of John Stuart Mill, Hayek, Friedman, Richard Epstein, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand to some extent. Obviously each will have their own flavors, but the views are much more than "get out of my bedroom and let me have a gun." They often question the legitimacy of government action based on the logic of individual rights and autonomy. Utilitarian in a way that they want the best for the most--the most liberty for all--without interfering on the rights of others. Kantian in a way as well in that each action should be justified in itself, and not by the end result.

Socialist chiming in here to say the best for most often comes at the price of individual autonomy. Also, what's even considered liberties worth protecting is going to vary immensely from one socioeconomic class to another - and this is where the whole voting against each other's individual rights comes in. A lot of people are always going to value their own rights (say freedom from supporting social programs) over the rights of others (like healthcare). The theoretical nature outlined by most of the figures you're mentioning are just not as cut and dry in a world with any sort of diversity.

I think that the fundamental difference with your view vs. libertarians is that the best for most in their view is individual autonomy, which of course comes with protecting the individual autonomy of others. A true Libertarian wouldn't vote 'their own rights' over the 'rights of others', however, because he or she would see each individual as having the exact same rights. I have to agree with you that I agree it is not so cut and dry, but I don't think it is generally due to diversity, though.

[R. Jeeves]

I think many of you are making stretches by stereotyping libertarianism, often mixing it with anarchy. F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, two people libertarians love to worship, actually don't call for an end to all social programs and even say some are necessary. The views are a plenty more nuanced than they are made out to be in this thread.

When I think of libertarianism I think of John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, some of John Stuart Mill, Hayek, Friedman, Richard Epstein, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand to some extent. Obviously each will have their own flavors, but the views are much more than "get out of my bedroom and let me have a gun." They often question the legitimacy of government action based on the logic of individual rights and autonomy. Utilitarian in a way that they want the best for the most--the most liberty for all--without interfering on the rights of others. Kantian in a way as well in that each action should be justified in itself, and not by the end result.

Socialist chiming in here to say the best for most often comes at the price of individual autonomy. Also, what's even considered liberties worth protecting is going to vary immensely from one socioeconomic class to another - and this is where the whole voting against each other's individual rights comes in. A lot of people are always going to value their own rights (say freedom from supporting social programs) over the rights of others (like healthcare). The theoretical nature outlined by most of the figures you're mentioning are just not as cut and dry in a world with any sort of diversity.

i dont concede to libertarians that taxation and the existence of social programs infringe on individual liberties. i think tom paine, for example, lays out why it is morally legitimate to tax and have a collective management (to some degree) of physical resources in agrarian justice when he talks about ground rent without appealing to greater good arguments or *~positive rights~*. ill stop short of details here though because i kinda want to avoid a political theory 101 circlejerk

[Stay-at-Home Son]

Socialist chiming in here to say the best for most often comes at the price of individual autonomy. Also, what's even considered liberties worth protecting is going to vary immensely from one socioeconomic class to another - and this is where the whole voting against each other's individual rights comes in. A lot of people are always going to value their own rights (say freedom from supporting social programs) over the rights of others (like healthcare). The theoretical nature outlined by most of the figures you're mentioning are just not as cut and dry in a world with any sort of diversity.

I think that the fundamental difference with your view vs. libertarians is that the best for most in their view is individual autonomy, which of course comes with protecting the individual autonomy of others. A true Libertarian wouldn't vote 'their own rights' over the 'rights of others', however, because he or she would see each individual as having the exact same rights. I have to agree with you that I agree it is not so cut and dry, but I don't think it is generally due to diversity, though.

^Right on.

^^It might be understating the case to say that "the best for most often comes at the price of individual autonomy" when you take into account the millions of innocent people who lost their lives throughout the 20th century at the hands of Socialist (or Communist) regimes. You're right to say that practical realities have a tendency to get in the way of theory, and that's probably the most glaring example. My view, though, is that if you want a socialist system, that's fine. Just bring it about in a way that doesn't disregard people's consent. That way, theoretically, you sidestep the issue of impinging on people's rights, and people who share your viewpoint will work with you voluntarily. We libertarians are pretty big on consent.

[Mikey]

I gotta go with my babycakes ash though!

Sept waiterzz 4eva bb.
I need to get going on that NY trip. I'm so close to so many of you beautiful people!

Yes!!!! Happy hour is all day long when ash is here

[poptart123]

I think many of you are making stretches by stereotyping libertarianism, often mixing it with anarchy. F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, two people libertarians love to worship, actually don't call for an end to all social programs and even say some are necessary. The views are a plenty more nuanced than they are made out to be in this thread.

When I think of libertarianism I think of John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, some of John Stuart Mill, Hayek, Friedman, Richard Epstein, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand to some extent. Obviously each will have their own flavors, but the views are much more than "get out of my bedroom and let me have a gun." They often question the legitimacy of government action based on the logic of individual rights and autonomy. Utilitarian in a way that they want the best for the most--the most liberty for all--without interfering on the rights of others. Kantian in a way as well in that each action should be justified in itself, and not by the end result.

Socialist chiming in here to say the best for most often comes at the price of individual autonomy. Also, what's even considered liberties worth protecting is going to vary immensely from one socioeconomic class to another - and this is where the whole voting against each other's individual rights comes in. A lot of people are always going to value their own rights (say freedom from supporting social programs) over the rights of others (like healthcare). The theoretical nature outlined by most of the figures you're mentioning are just not as cut and dry in a world with any sort of diversity.

i dont concede to libertarians that taxation and the existence of social programs infringe on individual liberties. i think tom paine, for example, lays out why it is morally legitimate to tax and have a collective management (to some degree) of physical resources in agrarian justice when he talks about ground rent without appealing to greater good arguments or *~positive rights~*. ill stop short of details here though because i kinda want to avoid a political theory 101 circlejerk

I think that's the qualm most have with the really hardcore libertarians--the propaganda that all taxation is theft, etc., but there are many libertarians who say otherwise. Just like any political movement there are factions to it. There are differently branches that are more liberal are in the sense of the 'liberal' parties in Europe, such as the Fremskrittspartiet in Norway or the Liberal Alliance in Denmark, and I think these branches are much more agreeable to Americans in general but for better or worse these and the hardcore and the very religious sections are all lumped together.

[proteinshake]

all these opinions from people who have seriously studied libertarian theory are making me question my beliefs

[Mikey]

Pero lyke, I'm a little miffed I'm not an option.

pero like... furreal ma, where u at on the poll

[R. Jeeves]

I think that's the qualm most have with the really hardcore libertarians--the propaganda that all taxation is theft, etc., but there are many libertarians who say otherwise. Just like any political movement there are factions to it. There are differently branches that are more liberal are in the sense of the 'liberal' parties in Europe, such as the Fremskrittspartiet in Norway or the Liberal Alliance in Denmark, and I think these branches are much more agreeable to Americans in general but for better or worse these and the hardcore and the very religious sections are all lumped together.

taxation was an example, but what i was really trying to get at with my post is that i think libs often address libertarian arguments about policy with appeals to positive rights (as libertarians might call them) and concede that a sacrifice of certain individual liberties for the sake of overall human welfare is actually occurring when they don't need to do this so readily. i think libs kinda do themselves a disservice when they do and that there are stronger arguments to make (i was alluding to one, but didnt go into much detail)

[R. Jeeves]

Pero lyke, I'm a little miffed I'm not an option.

pero like... furreal ma, where u at on the poll

[R. Jeeves]

Also, kinda surprised to see other libertarians here. Someone should start a thread

careful what you wish for.....

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=277442

[chargers21]

.

[alpha kenny body]

You mafks dont wanna meet me. I'll ruin your lives.

[Keilz]

Just had a twenty minute worry about money. Only three paychecks left. So many graduation, wedding, and other gifts with travel left to buy