Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Libertarians want the rights that both Cons and Libs try to suppress.
Basically, they want the right to be able to go to a gay wedding with an AK 47 on your back lol
I don't know who said it, but some libertarian is quoted as saying: "I want gay married couples to be able to use guns to protect their marijuana plants."
I could be much more long winded about it, but basically, the core difference between intellectually honest, logically consistent (re: "true") libertarians and everyone else is how my self-ownership trumps my neighbor's desire to guide my morality based on their own. In other words, the "true" libertarian is very all or nothing where controlling private spheres of existence based on moral desires for the public sphere are concerned, or in even other words, how much tyranny we are comfortable experiencing and/or perpetrating in order to get the trains to run on time.
A lot of our laws and usurpations of rights are based "potential for future crime" and it baffles the mind why so many people are in favor of such things. A little tyranny here, there and everywhere to ensure you're always acting the way the collective prefers.
The "true" libertarian agrees to exactly 0 tyranny for any purpose, because there is no good or positive end that can come from a evil or immoral means. In that way, the "true" libertarian is the ultimate political outsider, because politics is the art of choosing levels of tyranny for the purpose of crafting the perception that everything is okie dokey, that the trains run on time, and that we are all good boys & girls.
And yes, I accept that nobody will ever represent me, because I don't ever see a Rep, Senator, governor or POTUS getting elected on the "I'll cut government by 80% and return sovereignty to the individual" platform.
To your last statement... it would be refreshing to see. Though I ain't holding my breath!
I don't know who said it, but some libertarian is quoted as saying: "I want gay married couples to be able to use guns to protect their marijuana plants."
Nothing good, therapeutic, or beneficial comes from smoking crack, shooting heroin, or chomping on MDMA. Nothing, nothing at all. ]
MDMA has been proven to be extremely therapeutic in PTSD cases, sometimes curing it with one dose. Heroin came into vogue as a pain killer, which despite its high addiction potential is a therapeutic function.
Sometimes it's painfully obvious that libertarians are simply not interested in ever really understanding what the left believes in, and would rather just make up their own definition and carry on with the vilification.
LOL! It is TOO funny to read this after a liberal came in here and posted this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
The difference between liberals and libertarians is that libertarians are fine with tyranny just so long as it's not at the hands of the government. Liberals oppose both, government and non-government persecution. It's that simple.
...Which just goes to show, "it's painfully obvious that liberals are simply not interested in ever really understanding what the libertarians believe in, and would rather just make up their own definition and carry on with the vilification."
Libertarians do not believe any form a tyranny is acceptable. They are the only group that wants government, business, and individuals to all play by the same rules. Tyranny is not possible if everyone is playing by the same rules and being held to them. Some people may get wealthy by creating a product that many people enjoy and voluntarily exchange money for... but that is not tyranny, that is freedom.
Liberals want government to have less rules than individuals have, and they want business to have more rules... they want the playing field to be incredibly non-proportional and unfair. This incredible disparity of power that they intentionally create and enshrine in law is the greatest tool a tyrant could be handed.
If liberals oppose government tyranny, why do liberal politicians advocate eviscerating the second amendment? Why do they not fight the surveillance state? Why do they allow the drug war to continue without making it their number one priority? Why do they want to use government to force people into involuntary business transactions?
Your statement is provably false, that liberals oppose tyranny. Half of the time they are fighting what they call tyranny because it was proposed by the right, and they really hate the right. The other half of the time they are advocating their own tyranny, and don't recognize it because they rationalize their tyranny with emotional arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
Liberals are pro civil liberties. They just believe that government can be used for charitable deeds. Libertarians don't believe in the latter.
Wrong, if this were true, liberals would make ending the drug war completely their main goal, as it is the most damaging program to civil liberties in this country right now. They don't. Period.
Heck, it is hard to find one that openly believes adults should have the liberty to ingest cannabis, let alone find one who believes in self-ownership and liberty in the civil realm enough to advocate full drug legalization.
Libertarians are 100X better at civil liberties than liberals.
By "government can be used for charitable deeds" you actually mean "government can be used to take money against peoples' will, by force, and give it to whomever they want... mostly themselves".... and most libertarians would agree that government can do that, we argue that they shouldn't because it is a blatant affront to the concept of self-ownership.
Quote:
It's just that you libertarians don't believe that government has the capacity to be efficient. That's a fallacy.
Prove it is a fallacy.
You have provided one, single link to prove that government is efficient, and the article you linked to thoroughly debunked your position that they are efficient. LOL!
Prove it is a fallacy to believe that the government is not efficient. Do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Nice! And I would agree!
So would I, but as a libertarian I must specify that the marriage should be a private contract that the government is not, and has no right, to be a party to.
LOL! It is TOO funny to read this after a liberal came in here and posted this:
...Which just goes to show, "it's painfully obvious that liberals are simply not interested in ever really understanding what the libertarians believe in, and would rather just make up their own definition and carry on with the vilification."
Libertarians do not believe any form a tyranny is acceptable. They are the only group that wants government, business, and individuals to all play by the same rules. Tyranny is not possible if everyone is playing by the same rules and being held to them. Some people may get wealthy by creating a product that many people enjoy and voluntarily exchange money for... but that is not tyranny, that is freedom.
Liberals want government to have less rules than individuals have, and they want business to have more rules... they want the playing field to be incredibly non-proportional and unfair. This incredible disparity of power that they intentionally create and enshrine in law is the greatest tool a tyrant could be handed.
If liberals oppose government tyranny, why do liberal politicians advocate eviscerating the second amendment? Why do they not fight the surveillance state? Why do they allow the drug war to continue without making it their number one priority? Why do they want to use government to force people into involuntary business transactions?
Your statement is provably false, that liberals oppose tyranny. Half of the time they are fighting what they call tyranny because it was proposed by the right, and they really hate the right. The other half of the time they are advocating their own tyranny, and don't recognize it because they rationalize their tyranny with emotional arguments.
Wrong, if this were true, liberals would make ending the drug war completely their main goal, as it is the most damaging program to civil liberties in this country right now. They don't. Period.
Heck, it is hard to find one that openly believes adults should have the liberty to ingest cannabis, let alone find one who believes in self-ownership and liberty in the civil realm enough to advocate full drug legalization.
Libertarians are 100X better at civil liberties than liberals.
By "government can be used for charitable deeds" you actually mean "government can be used to take money against peoples' will, by force, and give it to whomever they want... mostly themselves".... and most libertarians would agree that government can do that, we argue that they shouldn't because it is a blatant affront to the concept of self-ownership.
Prove it is a fallacy.
You have provided one, single link to prove that government is efficient, and the article you linked to thoroughly debunked your position that they are efficient. LOL!
Prove it is a fallacy to believe that the government is not efficient. Do it.
So would I, but as a libertarian I must specify that the marriage should be a private contract that the government is not, and has no right, to be a party to.
Yes I too find it silly that 2 consenting adults have to ask for permission from the government to get married.
Yes I too find it silly that 2 consenting adults have to ask for permission from the government to get married.
Another difference between libertarians and liberals. Liberals think that two consenting adults, gay or straight, should be allowed permission to get married.
Libertarians do not think consenting adults need government permission to enter into a private contract. (Marriage)
LOL! It is TOO funny to read this after a liberal came in here and posted this:
...Which just goes to show, "it's painfully obvious that liberals are simply not interested in ever really understanding what the libertarians believe in, and would rather just make up their own definition and carry on with the vilification."
Libertarians do not believe any form a tyranny is acceptable. They are the only group that wants government, business, and individuals to all play by the same rules. Tyranny is not possible if everyone is playing by the same rules and being held to them. Some people may get wealthy by creating a product that many people enjoy and voluntarily exchange money for... but that is not tyranny, that is freedom.
Liberals want government to have less rules than individuals have, and they want business to have more rules... they want the playing field to be incredibly non-proportional and unfair. This incredible disparity of power that they intentionally create and enshrine in law is the greatest tool a tyrant could be handed.
If liberals oppose government tyranny, why do liberal politicians advocate eviscerating the second amendment? Why do they not fight the surveillance state? Why do they allow the drug war to continue without making it their number one priority? Why do they want to use government to force people into involuntary business transactions?
Your statement is provably false, that liberals oppose tyranny. Half of the time they are fighting what they call tyranny because it was proposed by the right, and they really hate the right. The other half of the time they are advocating their own tyranny, and don't recognize it because they rationalize their tyranny with emotional arguments.
Wrong, if this were true, liberals would make ending the drug war completely their main goal, as it is the most damaging program to civil liberties in this country right now. They don't. Period.
Heck, it is hard to find one that openly believes adults should have the liberty to ingest cannabis, let alone find one who believes in self-ownership and liberty in the civil realm enough to advocate full drug legalization.
Libertarians are 100X better at civil liberties than liberals.
By "government can be used for charitable deeds" you actually mean "government can be used to take money against peoples' will, by force, and give it to whomever they want... mostly themselves".... and most libertarians would agree that government can do that, we argue that they shouldn't because it is a blatant affront to the concept of self-ownership.
Prove it is a fallacy.
You have provided one, single link to prove that government is efficient, and the article you linked to thoroughly debunked your position that they are efficient. LOL!
Prove it is a fallacy to believe that the government is not efficient. Do it.
So would I, but as a libertarian I must specify that the marriage should be a private contract that the government is not, and has no right, to be a party to.
It's actually liberal think tanks and organizations, such as the ACLU that are calling to end the drug war.
I could be much more long winded about it, but basically, the core difference between intellectually honest, logically consistent (re: "true") libertarians and everyone else is how my self-ownership trumps my neighbor's desire to guide my morality based on their own. In other words, the "true" libertarian is very all or nothing where controlling private spheres of existence based on moral desires for the public sphere are concerned, or in even other words, how much tyranny we are comfortable experiencing and/or perpetrating in order to get the trains to run on time.
A lot of our laws and usurpations of rights are based "potential for future crime" and it baffles the mind why so many people are in favor of such things. A little tyranny here, there and everywhere to ensure you're always acting the way the collective prefers.
The "true" libertarian agrees to exactly 0 tyranny for any purpose, because there is no good or positive end that can come from a evil or immoral means. In that way, the "true" libertarian is the ultimate political outsider, because politics is the art of choosing levels of tyranny for the purpose of crafting the perception that everything is okie dokey, that the trains run on time, and that we are all good boys & girls.
And yes, I accept that nobody will ever represent me, because I don't ever see a Rep, Senator, governor or POTUS getting elected on the "I'll cut government by 80% and return sovereignty to the individual" platform.
It's good to be understood. Thanks.
You've nailed it.
If statism was a basketball game it would be one side (Lib/Dem) wanting to start the contest with the score 85-80 Blue beating Red in the 4th quarter vs the other side (Con/Rep) wanting to start the contest with the score 75-70 Red beating Blue in the 3rd quarter. Both sides will swear their baseline starting point is valid, ideal, and will yield a true result (finding out which team is better).
The libertarian just sits there in helplessness thinking "Why not just play the whole game from tipoff?"
I've never understood how the overwhelming majority of the population can't figure this out. No matter their profession, formal education level, socio-economic class, etc nearly everyone thinks starting the game in the 2nd half is rational, fair, and moral.
It's actually liberal think tanks and organizations, such as the ACLU that are calling to end the drug war.
Cute. You picked one of the many issues to address, and you barely addressed it at all.
First. Non-Partisan does NOT mean liberal.
Quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Second. Show me your liberal politicians that you elected that are working to end the war on drugs, not legalize weed, end the war on drugs. I will wait.
Third. When you say, "It's actually liberal think tanks and organizations..." you are implying that nobody else is doing it, and there are many individuals and groups that are not liberal, that call for the COMPLETE end to the drug war. More importantly, almost every politician under the Libertarian party, advocates the end of the drug war... it is difficult to find more than one liberal politician calling for the legalization of cocaine, meth, etc....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
