First Post

Sheogorath said:
Considering Libertarian principles are found in the Enlightenment, no it's not laughable at all except to someone who worships the state (You).
Click to expand...
Ah yes being practicle and expecting sound governance is "State Worship". Your not going to do well in a debate Billy when your rebuttal is based on an ad hom logical fallacy. The truth is our founding fathers never advocated anarchy or inept/incompetent governance. They designed an experiment in Representative government in which the powers of government were limited and balanced and in which minorities and individuals had rights.

To even suggest that our founding fathers founded our government on modern libertarian principle and its self fulfilling prophecy for anarchy and incompetent government is not only divorced from the reality of the actual event and history of the American Revolution it also shows a complete ignorance of the intent of our founding fathers.

Though there's no sense in our arguing such a point as its been mooted by the fact that no Libertarian has ever had any significant impact on government anyway as they never accomplish anything. Have they?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Ah yes being practicle and expecting sound governance is "State Worship". Your not going to do well in a debate Billy when your rebuttal is based on an ad hom logical fallacy. The truth is our founding fathers never advocated anarchy or inept/incompetent governance. They designed an experiment in Representative government in which the powers of government were limited and balanced and in which minorities and individuals had rights.

To even suggest that our founding fathers founded our government on modern libertarian principle and its self fulfilling prophecy for anarchy and incompetent government is not only divorced from the reality of the actual event and history of the American Revolution it also shows a complete ignorance of the intent of our founding fathers.

Though there's no sense in our arguing such a point as its been mooted by the fact that no Libertarian has ever had any significant impact on government anyway as they never accomplish anything. Have they?
Click to expand...

If you have a problem with incompetent government, then why vote for the current stock of non-libertarian candidates? Both parties have demonstrated positively over two successive administrations that they can ineptly govern, yet you err on the side of the libertarians demonstrating negatively that they can govern ineptly, because they advocate a system of administration which you happen to oppose in theory.
 
I am curious about the other charge, though, Mott. If Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or some other libertarian were elected president next year, would the US Government cease to exist beginning in 2017, due to a bout of anarchy?
 
kaz said:
Libertarians are classic liberals. Liberals are not liberals at all. They are close minded, rigidly intolerant and fear change. Liberal in libertarian represents our views, liberal in liberalism is an antonym. There is nothing liberal at all in using 50% plus one to oppress the rest of the population, there is nothing liberal about government confiscating your money and giving it to someone else and there is no tolerance for disagreement on any issue in the left. They are autoritarian leftists, not liberals
Click to expand...
That's a rationalization based on right wing propaganda that liberal principle equates with social and economic leftism. Such arguments are sophistry. To say that liberals views are intolerant and fearful of change is psychological projection as that it is fear of change and those who are different and intolerance to either are the psychological benchmark of the conservative who fear that change and the different may not be for the better.

The argument on redistribution is also hypocritical. Look at Supply Side economics which is essentially reverse socialism. The only real difference is productive wealth is artificially redistributed upwards from those who produce to those who don't instead of downward.

No your arguments may have some merit in regards to either the extremes of leftism or rightism but in regards to liberal political philosophy it does not. Those are ad hom and straw man logical fallacies.

Besides the only time I hear anyone bitch about "liberal intolerance" it's always been conservatives freaking out in shit staining fear over an actual expansion of individual freedom and liberty as they have on the gay rights/marriage issue.

Leftist may run around thinking the world owes them something but freedom and liberty are just words to right wing conservatives as one only has to listen to them howl in rage when ever anyone actually practices them.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
I am curious about the other charge, though, Mott. If Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or some other libertarian were elected president next year, would the US Government cease to exist beginning in 2017, due to a bout of anarchy?
Click to expand...
well 3D that's like asking what would happen if Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Great Pumpkin were elected.

But to address your point, it would take more than a few libertarian getting elected and even then they would have to collectively accomplish something. Since that has never happened I fear there is no answer to your question.
 
kaz said:
It is common for leftists to say they are moderate and yet never find a reason to disagree with Democrats.

It was after Reagan I left the Republican party. I voted for HW the first time. But when he proved there was no difference between him and Democrats, I voted for Perot when he ran for reelection. I set a high bar for Republican, they have to give me one reason to vote for them, LOL. Sadly, they haven't since. Though I did break my string and vote for Romney, but it was because Obama ended the string of Democrats just running as Marxists and actually served as one. We'll see how it goes.

Socons call me a Democrat, though other Republicans generally know I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. Democrats always call me a Republican and say I'm in lock step with them and parrot their views. Which is amazing since I argue liberal social positions and against using our military for non-defensive wars as we are doing all the time. In the end, all that matters to Democrats is money. It's the only thing they measure us on. That being while they call us greedy....
Click to expand...
Actually you sound a lot like me. I did the exact same thing. Joined the GOP in college, started to become alienated during Bush1, voted Perot, left the GOP for good over Iraq and came to the conclusion that our political system is very much stacked against the most productive members of society, the skilled tradesmen, the professionals, the small business and entrepreneurial class, etc. I guess where we differ is I don't see modern Libertarianism as a solution.

Living in a State Capital and a college town most of my friends are Democrats and they consider me a brown shirted jack booted storm trooping Nazi. While here on JPP which is dominated by southern populist I'm a red shirted bleeding heart commie pinko liberal....though I do admit on social issues I'm unapologetically liberal. I think history is mostly on my side there.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
If you have a problem with incompetent government, then why vote for the current stock of non-libertarian candidates? Both parties have demonstrated positively over two successive administrations that they can ineptly govern, yet you err on the side of the libertarians demonstrating negatively that they can govern ineptly, because they advocate a system of administration which you happen to oppose in theory.
Click to expand...
Arrrrrggghhhh I had another long winded rebuttal to your post half written when my IPad lost connection with my server and reloaded. Arrggggghhhh!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's a rationalization based on right wing propaganda that liberal principle equates with social and economic leftism. Such arguments are sophistry. To say that liberals views are intolerant and fearful of change is psychological projection as that it is fear of change and those who are different and intolerance to either are the psychological benchmark of the conservative who fear that change and the different may not be for the better.

The argument on redistribution is also hypocritical. Look at Supply Side economics which is essentially reverse socialism. The only real difference is productive wealth is artificially redistributed upwards from those who produce to those who don't instead of downward.

No your arguments may have some merit in regards to either the extremes of leftism or rightism but in regards to liberal political philosophy it does not. Those are ad hom and straw man logical fallacies.

Besides the only time I hear anyone bitch about "liberal intolerance" it's always been conservatives freaking out in shit staining fear over an actual expansion of individual freedom and liberty as they have on the gay rights/marriage issue.

Leftist may run around thinking the world owes them something but freedom and liberty are just words to right wing conservatives as one only has to listen to them howl in rage when ever anyone actually practices them.
Click to expand...

Thanks for demonstrating my point. I'm socially liberal (pro-choice, all drugs should be legal as well as prostitution, gambling, ...) and against the US involvement in non-defensive wars (Iraq, nation building in Afghanistan, ...). But I'm fiscally conservative so all you liberals call me a right winger. Getting your hands on other people's money is what it's all about for you, and once again, you showed that.

I do have a question for you though. Since according to you right wingers are controlling, me, why did they make me a libertarian instead of a conservative? Are they fucking with me?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually you sound a lot like me. I did the exact same thing. Joined the GOP in college, started to become alienated during Bush1, voted Perot, left the GOP for good over Iraq and came to the conclusion that our political system is very much stacked against the most productive members of society, the skilled tradesmen, the professionals, the small business and entrepreneurial class, etc. I guess where we differ is I don't see modern Libertarianism as a solution.

Living in a State Capital and a college town most of my friends are Democrats and they consider me a brown shirted jack booted storm trooping Nazi. While here on JPP which is dominated by southern populist I'm a red shirted bleeding heart commie pinko liberal....though I do admit on social issues I'm unapologetically liberal. I think history is mostly on my side there.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see a non-Democrat serving post from you. Yet you call me a right winger on one hand and say libertarianism will lead to anarchy on the other. You seem to have some sorting out to do of what your views actually are. I'll banter with you all you like in the meantime, but I'm not into putting a lot of work into people who can't decide what they believe, it's just shadow boxing
 
kaz said:
Thanks for demonstrating my point. I'm socially liberal (pro-choice, all drugs should be legal as well as prostitution, gambling, ...) and against the US involvement in non-defensive wars (Iraq, nation building in Afghanistan, ...). But I'm fiscally conservative so all you liberals call me a right winger. Getting your hands on other people's money is what it's all about for you, and once again, you showed that.

I do have a question for you though. Since according to you right wingers are controlling, me, why did they make me a libertarian instead of a conservative? Are they fucking with me?
Click to expand...
Well since I never made any of those comments I really don't understand your question.
 
kaz said:
I have yet to see a non-Democrat serving post from you. Yet you call me a right winger on one hand and say libertarianism will lead to anarchy on the other. You seem to have some sorting out to do of what your views actually are. I'll banter with you all you like in the meantime, but I'm not into putting a lot of work into people who can't decide what they believe, it's just shadow boxing
Click to expand...


Well actually I haven't called you a right winger. Review my posts. I've been critical of Libertarianism. You do seem to be sensitive to being termed right wing while being. Overtly hostile towards the other side of the fence. I will admit overt hostility to the fair right as they are far more to the extreme and in significantly larger numbers and proponents of policies, both domestically and foreign that are manifestly bad for this nation. That bias on my part is due in large part to having lived in the South for seven years but in actual comparison the far left in this nation are few in number and largely politically impotent and thus do not pose the threat that the far right does.

I haven't seen to many radicalized liberals shooting people or blowing up Government buildings lately or responding to an attack on our nation by a foreign power by invading a country that had nothing to do with that attack.
 
Last edited:
kaz said:
I have yet to see a non-Democrat serving post from you. Yet you call me a right winger on one hand and say libertarianism will lead to anarchy on the other. You seem to have some sorting out to do of what your views actually are. I'll banter with you all you like in the meantime, but I'm not into putting a lot of work into people who can't decide what they believe, it's just shadow boxing
Click to expand...

Nor will you. :D
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well since I never made any of those comments I really don't understand your question.
Click to expand...


Um...OK? I don't get it. Your whole post to me was about right wingers and conservatives. Were you hypothetically telling me what you would tell a conservative if they had written a post to you on a conservative view and you just forgot to mention you were doing that?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well actually I haven't called you a right winger. Review my posts. I've been critical of Libertarianism. You do seem to be sensitive to being termed right wing while being. Overtly hostile towards the other side of the fence. I will admit overt hostility to the fair right as they are far more to the extreme and in significantly larger numbers and proponents of policies, both domestically and foreign that are manifestly bad for this nation. That bias on my part is due in large part to having lived in the South for seven years but in actual comparison the far left in this nation are few in number and largely politically impotent and thus do not pose the threat that the far right does.

I haven't seen to many radicalized liberals shooting people or blowing up Government buildings lately or responding to an attack on our nation by a foreign power by invading a country that had nothing to do with that attack.
Click to expand...

You didn't say what you said you didn't mean what you implied when you spoke it. Probably.

You're now in my not to be taken seriously category
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top