Libertarians and your 'Liberty'

[Alien Allen]

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 ...

Time to warm up the cave eh

 

[Johnfromokc]

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.

Bravo sir! I can't think of anything I would add to that. You summed it up nicely. :clap

 

[kanojoe]

Viva Liberty!

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Accountable]

I think it's really interesting, and telling, that the only people who positively support a presidential candidate this season are those for Ron Paul. Everyone else can only throw stones and give reasons why NOT to vote for any given candidate.

Ostracize, ridicule, demonize. That pretty much sums up any political strategy nowadays. Nothing positive.

I wonder what campaigns would be like if candidates were only allowed to comment on themselves and not mention their opponents.

 

[Stone]

I think it's really interesting, and telling, that the only people who positively support a presidential candidate this season are those for Ron Paul. Everyone else can only throw stones and give reasons why NOT to vote for any given candidate.

Ostracize, ridicule, demonize. That pretty much sums up any political strategy nowadays. Nothing positive.

I wonder what campaigns would be like if candidates were only allowed to comment on themselves and not mention their opponents.

I think it's really interesting and telling, that the followers of Libertarianism that have posted in this thread seem desperate in avoiding the thread title and intent on derailing the topic as it relates to the core of Libertarianism......'Liberty'.

If 'Liberty' is your calling card, politically speaking, how do you rationalize the contradictions that have been shown?
How can leadership integrity come from the disparities shown if the concept of 'Liberty' isn't associated with equality?

 

[Accountable]

It'd be difficult to explain to someone obviously sold on the assumption that everyone associated with a certain group must necessarily think the same way and impulsively march in lockstep with every blog & column claiming a common title, that they don't. The effort is, imo, as fruitless as explaining to a Republican that his party is not republican or to a Democrat that his party is not democratic.

 

[Stone]

It'd be difficult to explain to someone obviously sold on the assumption that everyone associated with a certain group must necessarily think the same way and impulsively march in lockstep with every blog & column claiming a common title, that they don't. The effort is, imo, as fruitless as explaining to a Republican that his party is not republican or to a Democrat that his party is not democratic.

In other words, you have no rationale for your beliefs ....or at least none you want to see in print.
You don't seem to be able to explain yourself or the reason why you feel 'Liberty' is so important.

What is your version of 'Liberty'?
That's a fair question.
If not the Libertarian/libertarian variety, what?
I think those are fair questions as you have used the term before and I now realize it might mean something different to what seems commonly accepted.

I've seen Democrats project their social concerns and Republicans project their business concerns and for the most part, explain their positions and the reasons for those concerns.
Why shouldn't you define your position on 'Liberty' if you're going to use it as a rationale in your political arguments?

If you can't explain yourself, who will?

Or is this just another sound byte like 'change'?

Or perhaps another attempt to divert the topic?

 

[Accountable]

In other words, you have no rationale for your beliefs ....or at least none you want to see in print.

Incorrect, but you've proven yourself to be singularly uninterested in actual communication and are only here for the competition. I'm not interested in competition.

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Stone]

Incorrect, but you've proven yourself to be singularly uninterested in actual communication and are only here for the competition. I'm not interested in competition.

I've definitely proven you don't want to post your beliefs about 'Liberty'.
And I do wonder why the evasiveness.
Since it does seem at the very core of your political beliefs.

Interesting......you can challenge me in other threads for explanations, but when entering my thread, expect to be exempt from my challenges on your position.

That's hypocritical.
And I have gone to great lengths in replying to your challenges elsewhere.

I'm not interested in competition.

Looks more like you aren't interested in intellectual pursuits that question your own position.
It's easy to go around repeating the same tired old rhetoric day in and day out.
You never have to think or explain.

Difficult to get away with that in a debate forum, don't you think?

 

[Stone]

OK...that did make me laugh

 

[Accountable]

Interesting......you can challenge me in other threads for explanations, but when entering my thread, expect to be exempt from my challenges on your position.

That's hypocritical.
And I have gone to great lengths in replying to your challenges elsewhere.

I don't start threads accusing "all" of any particular label of having a particular stance I disagree with, then challenge those I've applied the same label to to defend the stance. That is what you've done here. It seems to be your sport. I see no need to defend another person's position. If you don't like it, don't like it. You're free to make that choice.

 

[retro]

I don't start threads accusing "all" of any particular label of having a particular stance I disagree with, then challenge those I've applied the same label to to defend the stance. That is what you've done here. It seems to be your sport. I see no need to defend another person's position. If you don't like it, don't like it. You're free to make that choice.

Exactly. He provided a definition, and then told people to defend that definition as though it were absolute fact. It's an ingenious way of giving yourself an advantage in any discussion... almost like telling someone that you want to play a game of tennis against them, but you have to defend the doubles alleys, while they only have to worry about the singles portion of the court.

 

[Stone]

I don't start threads accusing "all" of any particular label of having a particular stance I disagree with, then challenge those I've applied the same label to to defend the stance. That is what you've done here. It seems to be your sport. I see no need to defend another person's position. If you don't like it, don't like it. You're free to make that choice.

Whine, whine, whine

And here you are again trying to divert the thread.

I don't start threads accusing "all" of any particular label of having a particular stance I disagree with

You just drone on about Constitutional limits and 'Liberty'.
Well....perhaps this is the thread for you to show the rest of us, as a Libertarian/libertarian, what 'Liberty' means and maybe even how that view applies to the Constitution.
And you do label with absolutes.....I've seen you (edit: removed to stop the whining of a particular libertarian member ) interchange the concepts of management ( corporations ) and Labor ( Unions ) incorrectly to your advantage.

That is what you've done here.

So?
I've requested you explain your own position after you entered this thread with the apparent intention of disrupting it as you are now.......and you adamantly refuse.
YOU REFUSE.
I haven't accused you of anything other than trying to derail this thread....and not responding to the thread topic. ( and of course, being a hypocrite about it )
It seems easy for you to categorize the labor movement as one big corporate fraud with out any consideration of the differences.
Easy to image Labor unions in the same light as corporations.

It seems to be your sport.

I do like to debate

I see no need to defend another person's position.

Of course.....as I discovered and noted before, you don't want to see your version of 'Liberty' posted because it likely isn't going to be seen favorably in conjunction with your rants on the Constitution.
It's obviously easier for you to denigrate others over Constitutional issues with concerns of 'Liberty' at the center, if you don't define what your version of 'Liberty' is.

If you don't like it, don't like it. You're free to make that choice.

You do realize others are reading this as this is a public forum?
You've declined to explain the beliefs you seem to hold most sacred, in front of all.
After entering this thread in what seems an attempt to turn it away from the topic of Libertarianism and 'Liberty'.

One might ask.......what are you hiding?

 

[Stone]

Exactly. He provided a definition, and then told people to defend that definition as though it were absolute fact. It's an ingenious way of giving yourself an advantage in any discussion... almost like telling someone that you want to play a game of tennis against them, but you have to defend the doubles alleys, while they only have to worry about the singles portion of the court.

He provided a definition, and then told people to defend that definition as though it were absolute fact.

No.....I haven't told you to defend any definitions.
I've presented a Libertarian/libertarian premise of 'Liberty' as a debate topic and have shown contradictions.
If you don't agree, like Accountable, I offer you the chance to explain what 'Liberty' means to you as a Libertarian/libertarian.


It seems easy for Libertarians/libertarians to go around bashing others over the head with 'Liberty' as the proverbial 'hammer'.......but when it comes to explaining what 'Liberty' means to you....and other Libertarians/libertarians.....you go all mum.
Crazy mum, at that

 

[Accountable]

I've seen you use the term 'conservobots' without reservation

I think you have me mixed up with John.

 

[Stone]

I think you have me mixed up with John.

edit: not likely, but I removed the comment just to reduce the impact the whining was having on my tinnitus

 

[Accountable]

I don't remember. Could you post the link, please?

 

[Stone]

I don't remember. Could you post the link, please?

Sorry....can't find it.

John frequently uses the term, and I do understand the context as he implies.
If it upsets you, I'll make you a deal.
Stop trying to derail this thread and I'll retract it