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.
Pro War
Pro Life
Pro Big Government
Pro Drug War
Pro Creation of unfair/unjust laws
I agree with all those, except Pro Life... Many libertarians are in fact pro life, but they are also against war, big gov't, the drug war, and unjust laws.
The libertarians that are Pro Life, like Ron Paul, believe that it is actually a living person in the mothers womb (RP is an OB/GYN) ..
So, you are really making an erroneous statement saying Pro-Lifer's who agree with all your other statements about libertarianism, are in fact not libertarians simply b.c they don't believe in terminating human lives.
It doesn't represent free markets alone. It also represents harsh punishment, enforcement of religious values, anti-gay, anti-abortion and other stiff conservative social attitudes. They want laws to enforce their social views, and that is the opposite of freedom, and also very anti-libertarian. Far right conservatives are the American version of Taliban. As a matter of fact if you found yourself in the bottom corners, then there would have to be a conflict somewhere, because you really can't be a far-right, or far-left and a libertarian at the same time. The bottom half of this square should be diamond /"V", or at least "U" shaped to be accurate.
That is not what the site says it uses as the criteria for the "left-right line":
"If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet."
It is evident that the "left" at this site represents a controlled economy. While the "right" represents a free market.
What you are describing is defined by the authoritarian-libertarian line.
I can assure you that I did not, and do not, support any of the "social engineering" that you are talking about.
That is not what the site says it uses as the criteria for the "left-right line":
"If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet."
It is evident that the "left" at this site represents a controlled economy. While the "right" represents a free market.
What you are describing is defined by the authoritarian-libertarian line.
I can assure you that I did not, and do not, support any of the "social engineering" that you are talking about.
Read the criteria again.
OK, my bad. I didn't see the explanation about the 'economic' line. Yes, that would erase my concern about the inaccuracy of the bottom corners.
But the test leaves open questions about one's social leanings.
or did the "TEST" prove you were hiding something in the closet?
Like what? Ultimately, if you looked at my "results" posted earlier, you would see that I was a total free market supporter, far right of economic freedom x axis. Furthermore, I was just a few ticks up from the bottom, which indicates that I am have a nice cushion above anarchy but and as far away as reasonable from authoritarianism, along the y axis. (That is the baseline anarchy, apparently they think pure libertarians are anarchists.)
I'm a libertarian-leaning Democrat. My ideals are broadly libertarian, but as long as there are Republican nutbags, creationists and warmongers vying for power I'll settle for the Dems. If we have to be robbed, I'd rather be robbed for education and health care than from wars started by my own country.
I agree with all those, except Pro Life... Many libertarians are in fact pro life, but they are also against war, big gov't, the drug war, and unjust laws.
The libertarians that are Pro Life, like Ron Paul, believe that it is actually a living person in the mothers womb (RP is an OB/GYN) ..
So, you are really making an erroneous statement saying Pro-Lifer's who agree with all your other statements about libertarianism, are in fact not libertarians simply b.c they don't believe in terminating human lives.
MGD I think the point of being a libertarian is accepting you can have a belief, but at no point is it morally acceptable to legislate this belief upon other law abiding citizens. Especially if they pose no threat or harm to you.
Ron Paul says he's against it, but wouldn't stop or impose his beliefs on another law abiding person. There is a big difference between what i just wrote and what you just wrote.
In my opinion its a women's right to do whatever she wants with her body. If she's not imposing on my freedom I'm in different to whatever it is. Now, i believe we are given inalienable natural rights to freedom at birth.
I'll stick to that position. I do not support or condone women killing babies at birth. I consider birth once the baby takes its first actual breath. However, until the first breath of air is taken, i don't think an embryo, fetus, or any other egg is entitled to inalienable natural rights. I'm willing to partially side with those that believe after the third tri-master it is murder. There are just a host of complications that could arise with pregnancies before a baby takes its first breath as a living being.
Agreed with the above. I personally feel that abortion is used as birth control far too often, a band-aid for irresponsibility. I am, however, pro choice, because the government has absolutely no right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion. This isn't the 1600s, I don't believe in morality laws.
While I don't disagree with you that some "libertarians" do this, but many don't. There does seem to be an element among Republicans who call themselves libertarians to distinguish themselves from the recent failure of the Neocons, and they do cherry pick.
Of course not all do. My point was that most do. Or at the very least, most people who claim to be libertarians are either silent, or are really just neoconservatives who want to distance themselves from that term. See Glen Beck, Bill o Reilly and Jeb Bush.
I don't see this, but perhaps you do. If in fact this is true, then you are absolutely right. Libertarians are anti-war, for choice of abortion, anti-police state, and against the drug war.
Yes. Unfortunately, until Obama was elected, libertarians were mostly silent in their opposition. They werent as vocal and the liberals and greens took the front in the debates during the bush-spending/police state/war going years. However, when Obama started getting ahead and it looked like Republicans were going to lose even bigger in congress, all of a sudden everyone whos not a democrat is now 'libertarian'
This is where we disagree. I don't think libertarianism is another name for 'neocons'. Fair enough. I respect your opinion
I didn't ignore the rest of your previous argument. I didn't quite understand your position and therefore didn't want to expand my reply.
same as above
I am not sure what you mean by "american libertarians" backing the Bush administration. Ron Paul, a paleo-conservative/libertarian, was very outspoken agains the Bush administration and voted against Bush many times. I can point you to numerous other libertarian sites that have been critical of the Bush administration for years.
Ron Paul is the PERFECT example. I will give him one thing, he has ALWAYS been more vocal. Thats a rarity. But he still runs as, is elected as, and is associated with...republicans. Texas Republicans (the base of the former neoconservative movement) at that.
Libertarians were always a fringe 3rd party that never really had a foothold in modern day American politcs. Its only recently that it is becoming a household word and people are learning about it. You are right, some do erreonsouly label themselves as libertarians when they shouldn't be, especially if they are neocons.
Reply is in quote
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.
