Libertarians and your 'Liberty'

Users who are viewing this thread

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
You really need to learn the meaning of the things that you say. I'm neither frustrated nor do I lack anything to contribute. Furthermore, an ad hominem attack refers to an attack on your person, I'm merely stating that it's seemingly impossible to try and reason with you. :p

There you go, again :D

Let me guess, you're a Libertarian.....you poor soul, you :D
 
  • 154
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

retro

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,886
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
There you go, again :D

Let me guess, you're a Libertarian.....you poor soul, you :D

:24:

Whatever you say.

I'm not part of any political party... I have Libertarian leanings. But I'm neither a Libertarian (capital L), Republican, Democrat, Independent (capital I), or anything else. I believe in the Constitution, limited government, personal responsibility, and am very socially liberal.

That being said, by your own rather warped and overly sensitive definition of "ad hominem", you just attacked me. :p
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
:24:

Whatever you say.

I'm not part of any political party... I have Libertarian leanings. But I'm neither a Libertarian (capital L), Republican, Democrat, Independent (capital I), or anything else. I believe in the Constitution, limited government, personal responsibility, and am very socially liberal.

That being said, by your own rather warped and overly sensitive definition of "ad hominem", you just attacked me. :p


I have Libertarian leanings
And you're very sensitive to negative comments about your hero, Dr Paul :p
It isn't an attack if it's true, you silly fool :D ( Now may or may not be an ad hominem attack....time will tell :D )
 

retro

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,886
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
And you're very sensitive to negative comments about your hero, Dr Paul :p
It isn't an attack if it's true, you silly fool :D ( Now may or may not be an ad hominem attack....time will tell :D )

Sensitive? Not particularly. I'm merely pointing out facts that blow holes in your claims.
 

retro

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,886
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I notice you also have issues with reality :D

Is this the way you avoid addressing particular topics, or a generality?

Ive addressed plenty of what you said. Your response was to attempt to change the questions. Its somewhat difficult to have a discussion with someone like you.

That all being said, I haven't paid super close attention to this section for a while. But haven't you spent most of your time here appearing to be nothing more than a GOP stooge?
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
Ive addressed plenty of what you said. Your response was to attempt to change the questions. Its somewhat difficult to have a discussion with someone like you.

That all being said, I haven't paid super close attention to this section for a while. But haven't you spent most of your time here appearing to be nothing more than a GOP stooge?


You've addressed nothing about this thread. You injected the false premise the thread was about Paul....it's about Libertarians and the concept of 'Liberty'......it's in the thread headline and it's all the opening post addresses.....

Its somewhat difficult to have a discussion with someone like you.
Try making some intelligent posts for a change.
Read the thread and it's premise before making a fool of yourself.

That all being said, I haven't paid super close attention to this section for a while.
Not only is that irrelevant, it's a piss poor excuse for what you've been posting.

But haven't you spent most of your time here appearing to be nothing more than a GOP stooge?
Back to the ad hominems again.
A desperate act to avoid the debate topic.
The answer is no.....but even that is irrelevant to this thread topic.


Are you or are you not going to explain your position on 'liberty' as it applies to you, a follower of Libertarian philosophy?
And after you do, how do you feel about the newly released info on one particular Libertarian think tank that's been caught with evidence imaging it as a force to deny the liberties of others ......AND......that other major Libertarian think tanks also have promoted the same policies, that are just as flawed....AND......your hero Dr Paul, is promoting the same bullshit on climate .......much the same as the neocon and conservative elements of the GOP have been promoting since GW Bush first took office.

When your done with that......go ahead and explain how the above makes me a shill or even a supporter of the current Republican position on GW.

I suspect your next post will be as vacant as the one I'm quoting. :cool
 
Last edited by a moderator:

retro

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,886
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
You've addressed nothing about this thread. You injected the false premise the thread was about Paul....it's about Libertarians and the concept of 'Liberty'......it's in the thread headline and it's all the opening post addresses.....

I'm posting in response to this.

It is a Libertarian think tank and it's backing the Libertarian Paul.
quid pro quo
Follow the money....indeed........let's just hope it's apparent before electing a Ron Paul. ( I don't think he stands a chance, though )

You're the one that brought Ron Paul into the equation, and I responded accordingly.

When your done with that......go ahead and explain how the above makes me a shill or even a supporter of the current Republican position on GW

I haven't said anything about this thread having anything to do with your stances on the GOP. I merely asked a question... but you seem to be awfully sensitive on the subject. You could've merely said that I've remembered incorrectly, or provided evidence to the contrary. :dunno:
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
I'm posting in response to this.



You're the one that brought Ron Paul into the equation, and I responded accordingly.



I haven't said anything about this thread having anything to do with your stances on the GOP. I merely asked a question... but you seem to be awfully sensitive on the subject. You could've merely said that I've remembered incorrectly, or provided evidence to the contrary. :dunno:

I'm posting in response to this.
Well, let's see how you do.


You're the one that brought Ron Paul into the equation, and I responded accordingly.
No you didn't.
My quote:"It is a Libertarian think tank and it's backing the Libertarian Paul. "
Yourchallenges related to Paul's influence in Heartland policy.....a claim I never made.
Here was the first:
Show me where Dr. Paul is involved with the policy decisions of Heartland

Then you muddied ( or muddled ) your argument even more with this:
Therefore it would stand to reason that if you throw out Dr. Paul because of that, you should also associate the soldiers that support Dr. Paul with the same organization.

Utter bullshit.

Please explain to me how one single organization speaks for an entire movement.
I suspect I'll find most of the major Libertarian think tanks are following the same arguments on GW.

You haven't been able to effectively tie Dr. Paul to the inner workings of an organization, therefore there is no legitimacy.
More bullshit. I didn't claim Paul was defining Hartland policy.
The issue is Hartland .......and those that follow their lead on GW science.
Paul does follow the same concepts. And is supported by Heartland.


Again... prove that Dr. Paul is involved with the inner workings of this organization. Then you'll have a proverbial leg to stand on... but until that point, you're merely throwing out conjecture and presenting it as fact.
You have a pattern of bullshit that attempts to divert the topic.

I believe that "other" is the funding that has come from organizations. As you can see... Dr. Paul is funded 98% by the people.
And with the aid of the Koch fortunes, Heartland is promoting Paul.
Not exactly a benign endorsement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family
One of them actually ran for the VP office...as a Libertarian :D

I wonder what Liberty means to David Koch? :eek
Something to buy, I suspect, with all the money they throw at politics.


Then you started posting crap like this
Now I know how the lefties feel when they attempt to reason with you.
And what followed was obvious avoidance from there to here.



I haven't said anything about this thread having anything to do with your stances on the GOP.
You weasel :D
You called me a GOP stooge :D



I merely asked a question
Go back and look again......you've been trying to derail this thread and doing a piss poor job of it.


but you seem to be awfully sensitive on the subject.
I'm well aware how to wreck a thread......you just aren't good enough.


You could've merely said that I've remembered incorrectly, or provided evidence to the contrary.
You remembered incorrectly :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
No, it just means that all the idiots out there who said you can't trust the Democrats or Republicans so they became a Libertarian (because they love liberty) are just as fucked as the rest of the idiots...

Yes, anyone who puts their trust in an official political party is an idiot.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Keep on demonizing Ron Paul

His core message is spot on

If Obama had the same message this country would be drooling

Ron Paul is the wrong messenger but his views for the most part the majority agree with

He has his negatives like anybody
 

Panacea

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
Oh relax, demonizing...I think it's just being honest to admit he's a politician with an agenda like any other.
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Keep on demonizing Ron Paul

His core message is spot on

If Obama had the same message this country would be drooling

Ron Paul is the wrong messenger but his views for the most part the majority agree with

He has his negatives like anybody

I dunno about ole RP. Here's a different view. Disclaimer - it's another writers opinion. i have not independently verified each point yet:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/

10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul


1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary

5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Continued:

6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.

9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.

So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious. Here is a video that you should watch after reading this article. Really listen to what he says and how he says it. Watch out for the sneaky ones and RESEARCH! ((Orcinus: Ron Paul’s Record in Congress ))
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
I dunno about ole RP. Here's a different view. Disclaimer - it's another writers opinion. i have not independently verified each point yet:

I hadn't intended for this thread to be about Paul, specifically.......more to the concept of the Libertarian views on 'Liberty'


Wikipedia has some interesting insight into the concept of 'liberty'.

On one side is positive liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
Social liberal conceptions of liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency, and thus, positive liberty see the world as more complex, in the sense that the social structure has an impact upon human flourishing and happiness, thus the should, oughts and musts are directed toward ensuring Egalitarianism.

^^ This, I think, is what most see as liberty......the equality and limits of rights.

The flip side being negative liberty, a Libertarian trait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
Several views on negative liberty:
Negative liberty is defined as freedom from interference by other people...............
"a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do"
.....
"liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons'.
......
This aspect of freedom, he argues, "is here used not in its positive sense of 'freedom to' but in its negative sense of 'freedom from', namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions."[SUP][2][/SUP] For Fromm, then, negative freedom marks the beginning of humanity as a species conscious of its own existence free from base instinct.

John......your post contains elements I see as problematic in Libertarian theory.
To grant liberty in the Libertarian sense as with Paul.......there is little equality in the ability to achieve as it's being restricted in a defacto manner that gives preference of liberty ( negative liberty----essentially only restricted by what an individual can accomplish ) to those already of means.
Those that are granted with the privilege of greater boundaries because of status will likely usurp the liberties of those with less status under this concept. That's inequality by design and a contradiction of intent ( freedom from interference by other people ). Because it's a design that imposes unequal boundaries. A design where the limits are defined by ability. A design of competition of abilities.
That has the appearance of 'liberty' being a value oriented commodity .....where one achieves the liberty he can afford.
Essentially.....the Libertarian concept seems to have no provision of equal liberty for all.
And seems very discriminatory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
To grant liberty in the Libertarian sense as with Paul.......there is little equality in the ability to achieve as it's being restricted in a defacto manner that gives preference of liberty ( negative liberty----essentially only restricted by what an individual can accomplish ) to those already of means.
Those that are granted with the privilege of greater boundaries because of status will likely usurp the liberties of those with less status under this concept. That's inequality by design and a contradiction of intent ( freedom from interference by other people ). Because it's a design that imposes unequal boundaries. A design where the limits are defined by ability. A design of competition of abilities.
That has the appearance of 'liberty' being a value oriented commodity .....where one achieves the liberty he can afford.
Essentially.....the Libertarian concept seems to have no provision of equal liberty for all.
And seems very discriminatory.

You hit the nail on the head here. Some of the hard core "Libertarians" I have come across are in this camp and it's a vision I cannot get on board with.

Hell, I don't believe any one system can effectively be used in the US. It's should be a balancing act where the conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist, etc. ideals are worked together to compliment each other while keeping each other in check. I personally do not like any one enough to see it rule supreme.
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
I probably won't be posting much today. Likely nothing more than this.... bit of a minor flu bug going around and I'm feeling a bit queasy right now.
I'll be back as soon as I feel better ...
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top