Gubernatorial Race 2018 (estimated, ratings, DSL)

[JPD]

Originally Posted by stoxdiamond

Libertarian is more of an ideology than a practical political platform. At its core, it's essentially the exact opposite of socialism. Any semblance of the government taking money way from its citizens to redistribute is considered theft by this ideology.

Although the republican party does nothing to help them from a practical standpoint, they cannot vote for the left because the platform goes against their ideology, even though the policies don't actually hurt them.

If their ideology is honest, and they really are for social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, then that means there are two sides to that coin. They should be equally opposed to the social authoritarianism the R party has been pushing, yet they have never demonstrated that at the ballot box. They only ever play one side of the coin. And I see that as a betrayal of their ideology.

[BR Valentine]

Originally Posted by stoxdiamond

Libertarian is more of an ideology than a practical political platform. At its core, it's essentially the exact opposite of socialism. Any semblance of the government taking money way from its citizens to redistribute is considered theft by this ideology.

Although the republican party does nothing to help them from a practical standpoint, they cannot vote for the left because the platform goes against their ideology, even though the policies don't actually hurt them.

Yes. Libertarianism is utopian fantasy dressed up as political ideology. In the US its adherents are people who don’t want to pay taxes but want to smoke weed legally. That’s why they mistakenly think that they are somehow social liberals. They aren’t. When voting not paying taxes wins over any other consideration which is why they vote republican.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by BR Valentine

Yes. Libertarianism is utopian fantasy dressed up as political ideology. In the US its adherents are people who don’t want to pay taxes but want to smoke weed legally. That’s why they mistakenly think that they are somehow social liberals. They aren’t. When voting not paying taxes wins over any other consideration which is why they vote republican.

Bull****. Libertarians have (myself included) put up with this kind of crass misrepresentation forever and a day. I still fail to comprehend why people are so threatened by Libertarian philosophy, especially when it's so rooted in common sense.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/lib...anism-politics

[stoxdiamond]

Originally Posted by Iconographer

Bull****. Libertarians have (myself included) put up with this kind of crass misrepresentation forever and a day. I still fail to comprehend why people are so threatened by Libertarian philosophy, especially when it's so rooted in common sense.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/lib...anism-politics

From your article:

"Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others."

The problem is how the first and second bolded statements are interpreted.

Libertarian philosophy assumes equal freedom apply to all people naturally, and any government can only constrain this freedom. If all people are created equal, then the only thing that the government can do is introduce inequality. This makes perfect common sense, like you say.

In an unequal society, it's not as clear cut. If society is naturally unequal, should it be in the government's scope to attempt to equalize it? It's an extremely difficult problem to solve with many more questions than answers: How unequal is society? Is the inequity different for different demographics? How much of this inequity should the government try to address? Etc Etc Etc.

[BR Valentine]

Originally Posted by Iconographer

Bull****. Libertarians have (myself included) put up with this kind of crass misrepresentation forever and a day. I still fail to comprehend why people are so threatened by Libertarian philosophy, especially when it's so rooted in common sense.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/lib...anism-politics

Libertarianism is threatening only to the extent that people like the Kochs can use their outsized wealth to buy politicians and distort the political process. People will voluntarily vote for some forms of kinda sorta libertarianism until they figure out that while they dislike paying taxes they dislike crumbling government services even more. Then they start voting people out of office. See Kansas for example. As for common sense, meh, libertarianism is a theory; a flawed and non-scalable theory but a theory nonetheless.

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by BR Valentine

Libertarianism is threatening only to the extent that people like the Kochs can use their outsized wealth to buy politicians and distort the political process. People will voluntarily vote for some forms of kinda sorta libertarianism until they figure out that while they dislike paying taxes they dislike crumbling government services even more. Then they start voting people out of office. See Kansas for example. As for common sense, meh, libertarianism is a theory; a flawed and non-scalable theory but a theory nonetheless.

I agree. People say they are "libertarian" when they think in small terms like taxes and drugs. As soon as they lose their whole family in a airplane crash because of a complete lack of government regulation, or get scammed by a business and have no recourse due to a complete lack of government oversight, I think they will change their tune. Libertarianism just makes no sense, I can't imagine living in a society with so little government intervention or leadership. It would quickly devolve into a society of the haves vs have-nots with absolutely no way for the have-nots to ever catch up due to lack of safety nets. And of course, there would be nothing to stop the wealthy from simply setting up their own gated cities with infrastructure, schools, and roads they pay for privately, while those who cannot afford the cost of such areas live in the outskirts with crumbling roads and no services. I would absolutely love to see a libertarian country experiment because I can guarantee it would devolve into civil war, riots, and chaos within 20-30 years of starting.

[JPD]

There's one thing I'll give the Libertarians credit for, and that is that they know full well they're never going to get what they want. But they push towards what they want and are generally somewhat satisfied when movement, however small, towards that end is made.

Contrast this with the more extreme, Susan Sarandon wing of progressive liberals, who have adopted a "give us everything we want right now or we'll burn the whole thing down" approach.

The former is conducive to reasonable governing, and the latter is conducive to nothing but tantrums. I say this as someone who agrees with virtually all of the progressive liberal platform. I'd like to see people of all political persuasions adopt the former mentality.

[bryantm3]

my problem with "libertarianism" is that it's based on a false premise: that somehow removing every protection for individuals in the free market, and keeping them for corporations, is going to result in some kind of freer society. it's not. corporate heads like the koch brothers love to push this philosophy because it exploits the ignorance the general public has of the thousands of laws state and federal governments have been lobbied to pass that explicitly manipulate the free market in the favor of large corporations and industry groups.

i would be a libertarian if being so meant deregulation across the board, but it doesn't, so i'm not.

[aries4118]

I’m a Stalinist.

[Iconographer]

Well, at least we now know why our political system is so screwed up.