Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Until they're personally affected, and realize their error.
Confused Libertarians?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Until they're personally affected, and realize their error.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Doesn't have anything to do with the debate here.
Libertarians, as you correctly observe, believe in smaller limited government. This doesn't JUST mean, they favor fewer government programs for this or that, or less government spending on military things, or any other fiscal conservative policies a social liberal might have. It means Government at the Federal level, is to be what the Founding Fathers intended, and nothing more. They are to handle the defense of the people against enemies abroad, and that's about it! Other matters are supposed to be left to 'individual freedom and liberties' of the states and people respectively. On a state level, if the people who comprise the state adopt a "libertarian" government, then the state performs its function of providing basic limited governmental structures/services and defers everything else to the 'individual liberty' of The People. Then counties, then municipalities, townships, communities... Libertarians believe in LESS government control and MORE individual liberty. Am I wrong???
So how can you favor and endorse MORE government control in the form of "social activism" or "social justice" and be a Libertarian? How can you somehow claim that FEDERAL government determining upon high, what is and isn't the 'MORAL' law of the land for ALL to follow, and at the same time, CLAIM you are supporting "individual liberties" in ANY way whatsoever? You are doing the diametric opposite.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I'm really kind of lost on your statement.
What,,,,,,,,,,,, "favor and endorse MORE government control in the form of "social activism" or "social justice"????? Are you talking to me?
And the rest of your statement makes no sense to me.
Are you sure you posted correctly what you wanted to say to me?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Uhm.. yes, I am talking to you and the other LIBERALS who are endorsing LIBERAL ideals and LIBERAL policies, and parading them around as some kind of new-age Libertarianism! You are all seemingly OK with Big Government butting into our lives to dictate what kind of society or morality we have to accept, regardless of our individual liberty and freedom to determine otherwise. Gay Marriage... Abortion... Legalize Drugs... these are LIBERAL causes, not LIBERTARIAN!
You people are the ANTITHESIS of Libertarian in your beliefs. You have perverted and distorted Libertarian philosophy into your own political weapon to advance LIBERALISM. LIBERAL SOCIAL POLICY! Libertarians believe in Individual Liberty, not LIBERAL SOCIAL POLICY dictated by an authoritarian Federal government. Just like they also don't believe in CONSERVATIVE SOCIAL POLICY! LIBERTARIANS believe in the individual having liberty and freedom to decide for themselves. You're trying to claim this is FINE as long as you accept LIBERAL ideas, and you're passing this off as LIBERTARIAN... it's simply NOT!
It is not me that is now making these claims. These are well established components of the libertarian platform/philosophy and have been for years. Nothing has changed.
Again, your argument is based on nothing but knee jerk reaction. I don't support massive federal government at all. There is no need for a massive federal government to nullify state laws that violate civil rights. They sent out the national guard once and the cowards like you folded. The rest they took care of through the courts, which are necessary anyway.
You don't believe the government should uphold some basic moral principles? Weren't you just trying to spin libertarians as anarchists? It should be kept to a minimum but the state must enforce some basic moral principles to preserve order and fulfill its purpose of protecting the rights of individuals.
Your Orwellian attempts to control the language are not going to work. There is no reason why your linguistic tyranny cannot be used to go back to outlawing marriage between two races and reinstating Jim Crow. The States should not limit who may marry based on YOUR definition of the word. I expect the Federal courts will eventually rule against state laws that limit marriage equality. If the States recognize a marriage then the Federal government cannot deny benefits which is exacctly what you support in DOMA.
You are a neo confederate racist. You are not a libertarian. You believe in unrestrained majority power within certain geographic areas. But just as their must be basic laws and rules prohibiting individuals from intiating force and fraud against individuals so should there basic lawas and rules preventing States from violating the rights of individuals. The States are not prohibited from enacting laws that serve valid interest of the state.
The Supreme Court does not enact any laws. Again, your comments about how the ruling on ObamaCare restrains Congress or must be referred to as a tax is illustrative of your stupidity on this subject.
Again, equal protection of the law is a libertarian position. None of your positions here are reflected in the platform or by LP candidates. Mine are. Where is the post where I proved I was a liberal? Was that when I was arguing against SS while you were defending it? Was that when I was arguing against your attacks on free trade with your ignorance concerning China?
You are not a libertarian.
Last edited:
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
What liberal views?
Marriage isn't in the constitution. It's a religious institution. I think all the Libertarians I know understand this. It's people like you that want to get into our constitution and screw it up by adding something that shouldn't be there.
Abortion should be a state issue in my opinion.
Legalize Drugs- You know I'll win this argument. the war on drugs trades away all your liberty for security. Which means you have neither. You should understand this.
Your second paragraph tells me you know nothing about what a Libertarian is.
Your lack of education makes it hard to discuss this with you. From now on, if you mean socialist ideas, say socialist ideas. Not liberal. Don't say liberal issues when you mean socialist issues. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when I read your post and see the word liberal, I'm led to believe you mean socialist.
That being said, I can prove very easily that you are the socialist, and I'm the anti-socialist. So be careful.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, you have articulated well-established arguments of LIBERALS over the past few years. They are NOT "well established components" of ANYTHING Libertarian. You're trying to make them into that, I get that part... but there is nothing in Libertarianism that says I must accept what you get Government to pass upon me against my will... sorry, it's just not there. I should have the individual liberty and freedom to choose for myself, or at the very least, be able to do so at the state level. Having the Federal government mandate liberal social philosophy, has absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism or Libertarian philosophy. It is the antithesis of it, as a matter of fact.
No one's civil rights are being violated, you haven't made that case. Again, you are wanting to establish this as some kind of justification to legislate morality at the federal level, and libertarianism is opposed to that in principle. Nullifying what The People do, and how they have voted within their communities and states, is the ANTITHESIS of Libertarian philosophy, and no different than having Government legislate that we must pray in school or respect God.
I don't believe the FEDERAL government should, no! I believe THE PEOPLE should have the right to determine what kind of STATE government structure they have, and establish those boundaries there, or at the community level. I'm not an anarchist, I just believe the Federal government should have a very limited role, and shouldn't legislate up or down on social issues. That should be left to the "individual liberty and freedom" of the people, through state and local government, and the more local the better. I think a county or city should vote and decide if they want to have strip clubs or brothels, or sell liquor and porn, or whatever. If THE PEOPLE decide, by exercising their individual liberty and freedom, I don't have a problem with that. If I don't like what they decide, I can move to someplace I like better.
There's no Orwellian ANYTHING here. I simply corrected your false presumptions and assumptions about Libertarianism. I've not said a word about going back and outlawing something or enforcing Jim Crow laws, or anything remotely close to that. You continue to ATTEMPT putting these words in my mouth, and I continue to beat you about the head and upper torso with it. I'm just not going to let that stand as a valid counter-argument, because I haven't said what you keep claiming.
There is no marriage equality issue. As far as I know, homosexual people can obtain the exact same kind of license to marry as everyone else. They can't marry the same sex, but no one else can either, as that is not marriage. The Federal Government has no more "right" to interfere here, than they would to implement DOMA or school prayer, bans on abortion, or anything else of a moral issue, that isn't the Government's business from a Libertarian perspective. But then, YOU are NOT a LIBERTARIAN!
No one's rights are being violated, again, you attempt to make this be the case and you've not proven it true. The government doesn't have any business deciding what is morally right and wrong for ME! That's what "individual liberty" is supposed to mean, isn't it? You continue to insist Government at the Federal level, should decide for ME, and that's not a Libertarian view at all, it's a Fascist Fanatical Liberal view.
Let's not change subjects here. You have advocated a desire to have Federal government control our lives through judicial activism. This is simply NOT a Libertarian principle. It IS a LIBERAL ideal, and you are hiding behind the banner of Libertarianism, hoping you can snow enough people into accepting your fanaticism, I presume. I'm just revealing the ugly truth you want people to ignore, that's why you continue to spew insults and hate at me personally, and avoid the subject.
There already IS equal protection under the law. No one is advocating anything different except for YOU. In YOUR mind, the Federal government should be able to manipulate the language and make something into "marriage" that is not, so it can force society to accept YOUR idea of social liberalism, and that is NOT a Libertarian philosophy at all, it's the exact polar opposite.
I am more of a libertarian than the so-called Libertarians here... You people are LIBERALS!
When did the subject become what I advocate? Okay then, can you get your fat ass into gear and show ONE TIME where I have advocated Federal government controlling our lives through judicial activism? Like I said, you have no fing clue what the courts do or how their rulings affect us. You are still under some delusion that Roberts has limited Congress with his ruling upholding ObamaCare. It is not an example of "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" when the courts shoot down laws that violate the constitution. That is what they are supposed to do. You are just employing Orwellian doublespeak trying to fight for state level tyranny. Maybe you should consult with Roger Pilon, from Cato.
I agree with the party platform and have for years. We are still in agreement. Further, my views are in line with the writer's at Reason and most of the leaders of the movement. Meanwhile, you might be in line with idiot douchebags like Neal Boortz, who is not a libertarian and was shunned by most attendees of the convention in 2004. I was there in the protest room. Were you? No, you were thinking about George Bush's blue jeans.
You are not representative of Libertarian thought. Do you intend to be? You have not presented yourself as a libertarian here or any sort of expert on the subject. You are an ardent conservative and argue the GOP position on everything. Why would you expect anyone to believe you are anything else?
I have not called for legislative acts (do you just not know what legislate means) at the Federal level on marriage equality. That is your position. DOMA and an amendment to force the States to adopt your definition of marriage, those are things YOU support.
There is no individual liberty or freedom of the state. Again, you are conflating the 9th and 10th amendments. States' don't have rights and the slogan is a misnomer. They have powers. Our founders were very careful in their choice of words there.
You are completely full of shit on were the founders desires in that regard. Further, if we were to remove all limits placed on the States by the Federal government and Constitution then that would remove the 13th-15th amendments. Libertarians support those amendments. In fact, most Libertarians would count the proponents of those amendments as Libertarians. Ask Tom Palmer from Cato.
YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN. You have not once supported any Libertarian candidate nor do you ever support libertarian causes that diverge from positions of the GOP. You are the worst kind of Republican.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You continue to rant and rave about civil rights and upholding constitutional rights, and equal protection under the law because the SCOTUS hasn't ruled Gay Marriage into the American lexicon. You excuse yourself from this blatant activism by claiming it's part of the party platform, and that makes it all okay! I don't need to show anyone a thing, you are doing a fine job of showing how you are a LIBERAL and NOT a LIBERTARIAN! You favor a politically active court that legislates morality from the bench, against the individual liberty and freedom of the people.
You THINK because you've cleverly wrapped your Liberal philosophy in Libertarian bacon, that people will find it more palatable, and I can't say that you are wrong about attempting that, it has worked for you to some degree. But it completely contradicts Libertarian principles and perverts Libertarianism in a ways that completely destroy the foundation. When we step back and examine your argument objectively, there is really no difference than if you picked up a Bible and went around preaching that Libertarianism gives you the "right" to implement God's Law from the bench, against the will of the people! It makes no difference if it's one side of morality or the other, the fact you believe it should be implemented at the Federal level and upheld by the SCOTUS, without regard for the people and their individual liberty, means you have rejected Libertarian philosophy.
I could just as easily pick up the principles of individual liberty and advocate for the rights of the unborn and their individual liberty! IF Libertarianism is supposed to stand up for the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, why can't it apply to the most precious and innocent minority in the universe, that of the unborn? Who says that individual liberty only applies to the woman seeking an abortion? What we see you have done, is take a Liberal initiative, and tried to promote it as Libertarian. You believe wholeheartedly in Liberal Activism, and you have chosen to promote your fanaticism as if it were Libertarian. I've completely exposed this in the thread, and since you can't really say a thing to counter my points, you revert to attacking me personally, and calling me hateful names or making hateful accusations about me.
I was not ranting and raving about anything, you dumbass. You started this thread (and another), attacked libertarians and me for supporting gay marriage, abortion, legalization of marijuana, and being anti-war. Mostly you attack those who consider voting for anyone but Romney. Then you strangely tried to claim that my positions on these issues and others were not libertarian and you were really a libertarian.
EVERY ONE OF THOSE POSITIONS is part of the party platform and a key issue for nearly all of our candidates. They are repeated by libertarian journals and think tanks. It's not okay for libertarians to actively support libertarian positions and that proves they are really liberals? WTF RU even talking about?
You're just parroting dittohead talking points with your idiotic repetition of "legislating from the bench." The courts are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws and nullify ones that violate the constitution. It's their sole purpose and no it is not analogous to enforcing biblical law as they are not empowered to do that and are specifically prohibited from it.
It is not legislating from the bench when they nullify a law. Legislation is comprehensive. Unlike you, my definition of "legislating from the bench" and my reason for disapproving has nothing to do with some knee jerk partisan bullshit.
For instance, when the courts nullify laws that violate civil rights I don't call it "legislating from the bench" while cheering rulings that nullify gun laws. That's you. I assume you wanted libertarians to believe Romney will appoint a judge that will reconsider the commerce clause. But then you defend Roberts and I think it is rather doubtful that he will as he has no respect for limiting government involvement in the economy. Meanwhile, Roe v Wade is under threat and Scalia has indicated his desire to roll back Lawrence v Texas. Again, libertarians would probably be better off with Obama jurists. But instead of discussing the substantive issues in a mature fashion you have resorted to ad homs and empty slogans. We can talk about the issues and what the libertarian positions is or should be, but I am not going to sit by while you trash libertarians and claim to be one at the same time.
You don't really care about the libertarian issues though, you are just trying to convince libertarians to vote for Romney, while I would prefer they vote for Johnson. That proves I am not a libertarian and you are in what fucking bizarro world?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I've already said, most of Johnson's votes are just less votes for Obama from Social Liberals posing as Libertarians. You and the other "Libertarian" idiot here, have proven my point by continuing to advocate judicial activism at the Federal level, to help you implement Liberalism, under the guise of Libertarian philosophy. It's NOT Libertarian at all, it's LIBERAL!
A TRUE LIBERTARIAN would be well advised to consider Romney over Obama, because smaller-government conservatism, which is what is currently the mantra for the GOP, is more conducive to Libertarian philosophy at the state and local levels. I even gave you the example of medical marijuana dispensaries under Bush as compared to Obama, to illustrate my point. How many times did we hear of the Fed cracking down on pot dispensaries under Bush? NADDA! ZERO! ZILCH! Why? Because smaller-government conservatism stays the hell out of this and lets the states deal with it. Under Obama, you have Holder's Stormtroopers moving in, shutting down legal operations passed into law by The People... Individual Liberty exerting itself at the state and local level, only to be thwarted by the Big Bad Federal Government, who seeks to tell you how to live!
Obama's justices are going to be Statist Marxists like him, we already know that. To a TRUE Libertarian, the idea of a Marxist totalitarian central government authority, is their worst nightmare. Individual Liberty is NON-EXISTENT in such an existence, and that means Libertarianism simply becomes an idea and thought, a dream we can only imagine and never hope to achieve. A thousand years of darkness.
But you don't really give two shits about individual liberty, do you? You are most interested in YOUR individual liberty, YOUR Liberal viewpoint and world view. Where YOU get to decide for collective society, what parameters we set, what boundaries we have for moral decency, what rights are protected and what rights are ignored, and everything else about the personal lives of your fellow man. You're about CONTROL! And you've found this clever way to wrap Liberal ideology in a bacon-blanket of Libertarianism, and present it to the gullible and stupid masses. They gobble it up believing that a Social Liberal / Fiscal Conservative is a Libertarian. OR as SF thinks... Republicans who aren't Jesus Freaks.
The works of Ayn Rand, the policies of Barry Goldwater, those are strong Libertarian philosophies. I even believe much of what Ron Paul has to say is very Libertarian. These people were not known for Social Liberalism, they rejected activism altogether. Whether it's liberalism OR conservatism, it's not the government's place anyway! They have no business legislating moral policy for the individual. God didn't endow them with that right, and it's not in the Constitution they have it. It's no more appropriate for government to endorse homosexual marriages as it is to endorse school prayers... or if you don't like that... flying the flag! Or any number of other "IDEAS" of how we are ALL supposed to behave morally. That IS NOT the job or function of a TRUE Libertarian government. I don't CARE if it's not the platform, or what politicians say, the philosophy of Libertarianism is simply NOT fanatical social liberal ideology.
A TRUE LIBERTARIAN would be well advised to consider Romney over Obama, because smaller-government conservatism, which is what is currently the mantra for the GOP, is more conducive to Libertarian philosophy at the state and local levels. I even gave you the example of medical marijuana dispensaries under Bush as compared to Obama, to illustrate my point. How many times did we hear of the Fed cracking down on pot dispensaries under Bush? NADDA! ZERO! ZILCH! Why? Because smaller-government conservatism stays the hell out of this and lets the states deal with it. Under Obama, you have Holder's Stormtroopers moving in, shutting down legal operations passed into law by The People... Individual Liberty exerting itself at the state and local level, only to be thwarted by the Big Bad Federal Government, who seeks to tell you how to live!
Obama's justices are going to be Statist Marxists like him, we already know that. To a TRUE Libertarian, the idea of a Marxist totalitarian central government authority, is their worst nightmare. Individual Liberty is NON-EXISTENT in such an existence, and that means Libertarianism simply becomes an idea and thought, a dream we can only imagine and never hope to achieve. A thousand years of darkness.
But you don't really give two shits about individual liberty, do you? You are most interested in YOUR individual liberty, YOUR Liberal viewpoint and world view. Where YOU get to decide for collective society, what parameters we set, what boundaries we have for moral decency, what rights are protected and what rights are ignored, and everything else about the personal lives of your fellow man. You're about CONTROL! And you've found this clever way to wrap Liberal ideology in a bacon-blanket of Libertarianism, and present it to the gullible and stupid masses. They gobble it up believing that a Social Liberal / Fiscal Conservative is a Libertarian. OR as SF thinks... Republicans who aren't Jesus Freaks.
The works of Ayn Rand, the policies of Barry Goldwater, those are strong Libertarian philosophies. I even believe much of what Ron Paul has to say is very Libertarian. These people were not known for Social Liberalism, they rejected activism altogether. Whether it's liberalism OR conservatism, it's not the government's place anyway! They have no business legislating moral policy for the individual. God didn't endow them with that right, and it's not in the Constitution they have it. It's no more appropriate for government to endorse homosexual marriages as it is to endorse school prayers... or if you don't like that... flying the flag! Or any number of other "IDEAS" of how we are ALL supposed to behave morally. That IS NOT the job or function of a TRUE Libertarian government. I don't CARE if it's not the platform, or what politicians say, the philosophy of Libertarianism is simply NOT fanatical social liberal ideology.
You are such a crybaby. You whine and whine about ad homs and then use nothing but.
On what issue am I looking for control? There are basic human rights that should not be left to regionalized majorities. We are one nation and we cannot function as one if citizens lose basic fundamental rights as they travel. In your bizarro universe nullfying laws that restrict the rights of individuals is a restriction on the right of individuals.
True Libertarians are voting for Johnson or not at all. Neo confederates, fascists and racist douchebags feel it's more important to defeat Obama.
The mantra of Romney has NOT been smaller government. The GOP mantra is confused but as of late has mostly been about big government plans to restrict abortion, starting a war with Iran and, apparently, bellicosity towards China. Romney has argued that he will fight legalization of marijuana, which he considers medical marijuana a smoke screen for, tooth and nail.
The Feds have been cracking down on marijuana dispensaries since Clinton. They certainly continued to do so under Bush. Your brain is fried from all your lying. Bush increased funding for the drug war and saw the militarization of local police.
You have failed to offer anything intelligent on the supreme court appointees. You are just spouting a bunch of paranoid nonsense.
Ayn Rand would not be voting for Romney. You are not a fan of hers. You refer to her as euro socialist trash. According to your comments in this thread you seem to think she was really just a liberal. It is doubtful Goldwater would vote for Romney.