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.
It is possible to be a libertarian on either the left or the right.
Uhhhh... How do you have a big-government, socialism loving libertarian? Explain it to me.
Quote:
There is a good test on the internet, which for the life of me I cannot think of what is called. But it tested on where on the political scale you really fall. Liberal, conservative, authoritarian or libertarian. You could be authoritarian conservative, liberal libertarian, several of our presidents, Obama, bush, Nixon and a couple more I can't remember .......where, strangely enough almost in the exact same spots. Authoritarian, conservative. Some more central than others, but all on the same quadrant of the test site.
How about you think for yourself, instead of someone's truly silly "test". The test is meaningless and arbitrary, meant to confuse, not enlighten.
If you want some insanity, peruse the Libertarian Party Platform. It's a series of proposals that will never happen based upon premises that never were. Yes, let's turn to that because we have two crappy political parties that dominate our system.
yo, at least we're trying something different.
your alternative of just letting the two parties continue to dominate is defeatist.
It is possible to be a libertarian on either the left or the right. There is a good test on the internet, which for the life of me I cannot think of what is called. But it tested on where on the political scale you really fall. Liberal, conservative, authoritarian or libertarian. You could be authoritarian conservative, liberal libertarian, several of our presidents, Obama, bush, Nixon and a couple more I can't remember .......where, strangely enough almost in the exact same spots. Authoritarian, conservative. Some more central than others, but all on the same quadrant of the test site.
i voted libertarian...i was 22 at the time so you may have a point..
I'm an ex-Libertarian as well. When I first registered on here I was Libertarian, hence the username. Maybe now I am indeed unbrainwashed, unlike back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
I've never once seen libertarians argue that traffic laws should be abolished.
As for Maher, his lack of ability to reason pretty much leaves him out as a source of credible analysis. I mean, if you posted this for us to laugh at Maher for his idiotic antics... then great, point them out. Otherwise, expecting us to believe anything he says, is just an insult to any thinking person.
You are....serious? That was your takeaway point from my topic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Exactly.
Lol, continue to swallow the Ron Paul kool-aid. He's a fraud and too bad you don't see that.
your alternative of just letting the two parties continue to dominate is defeatist.
"Well, we've gotta try something!"
This is always a horrible way to approach public policy, or anything for that matter.
Here's a question for you: Can you cite something from the Libertarian Party Platform that has been tried in the United States in the past that you think will be an improvement over current policy?
I'm an ex-Libertarian as well. When I first registered on here I was Libertarian, hence the username. Maybe now I am indeed unbrainwashed, unlike back then.
No, you never were a libertarian - intellectually. It REQUIRES intellectual grasp, to understand what a libertarian is, whether you agree or not about everything. The fact that you would decide you want the antithesis of freedom means you never did want freedom.
Quote:
You are....serious? That was your takeaway point from my topic?
That you don't comprehend my response is not surprising.
Think about this: Libertarians do not argue for no government, nor do they argue for no rules for driving. Maher saying it's like they don't want rules for the road is directly contradicting reality. You're defending his flawed analogy, rather than thinking, for what reason, I simply cannot imagine. Maher isn't defensible, which was my point in the first place.
Quote:
Lol, continue to swallow the Ron Paul kool-aid. He's a fraud and too bad you don't see that.
I know you weren't responding to me, you were responding to someone who responded to me... but what, precisely, does Ron Paul have to do with ANY of this? BTW, I never quote RP, I don't advocate for him, nor do I WANT him anywhere near being president, or anything else.
No, you never were a libertarian - intellectually. It REQUIRES intellectual grasp, to understand what a libertarian is, whether you agree or not about everything. The fact that you would decide you want the antithesis of freedom means you never did want freedom.
Actually, libertarianism requires the rejection of historical reality just like Biblical literalism requires the rejection of scientific reality.
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.
