Warming Up to Hillary (Sort of)

I meant nothing personal and apologize if you took it that way. I'd have no problem with someone challenging the liberal perspective as long as it isn't personal. Libertarians, like every other political perspective, has variations and personal interpretations. I was speaking to what seems to be the core of libertarian ideology.

No offense taken. To tell the truth although I am a registered Libertarian I haven't associated much with the party faithful. My experience in the real world and onlnone is more connected to small 'l' libertarians. To be small 'l' is merely to embrace the ideas of non interference in personal liberties. Where everyone in that group draws lines is what distinguishes us and we all do as I've never met a full blown Anarcho- capitalist or Anarcho-socialist. The Libertarian party has its problems and is led by many kooks. Our most recent presidential candidate believed zip codes to be an over extension of federal power. To be frank it is an embarrasment although I'll take embarrassment over guilt (which is what you should feel if you voted for any of these war mongerers in Washington).

The fellow libertarians I have interacted with generally do have regard for the poor and elderly. Most believe that we should try to phase out government dependence on some programs gradually and only if the market shows it can fill in. I haven't talked to anyone who says let people starve in the streets to prove the merits of a social experiment. Only a couple want to immediately scrap everything and only one I know shows a callous attitude about it. Granted that when we judge things by our own personal experience our opinions are colored by our selective experience but it is the source of information we can trust most.

There is even prowar libertarian thought called by some as liberventionism, which would appear to negate that "force" thing entirely.


Yes I've heard of them. Althouth I personally find such a philosophy odious I could understand some of their reasoning and how it can be consistent with non initiaton of force principles. Few libertarians would say we should not have a police system and few would say that an officer shouldn't act if he sees a suspect draw a weapon and point it at another. This is the clear and present danger principle. This idea can be introduced into foreign policy and it is more likely to develop into a discussion of what constitutes a clear and present danger rather than core philosophies. However anyone applying such an argument to the Iraq war doesn't pass the laugh test.

With respect to you and Damocles, and any ither libertarian here, I will indeed be more careful and specfic about my comments about libertarians and make it specific to the ideology itself.

I was in a two hour debate on a talk-radio show a little more than a week ago with two libertarians from the Paul campaign and I've written a couple of articles that take a negative view of Paul and libertarian ideology. Now I'm getting press releases and notices from the Libertarian Party.

Point is, perhaps I'm still a bit wired from the libertarian overload. I mean no disrespect .. but I seriously disagree with the philosophy which I find WAY too axiomatic and disconnected from modern society.

Sorry


I understand. Hang around for a bit. Our site host is an excellent representative of libertarian thought and I'm sure he would be kind enough to say the same of me.
 
I can accept that a politician will make discrete calculated votes, on occassion.

Hillary has a long record of supporting so-called free trade bills.


Besides, this mind-reading of hillary is irrelevant. That wasn't my contention.


Sfreak suggested that Hillary routinely and consistently votes against free trade agreements. Hence, the issue was about votes, not about mind-reading.

Her votes are overwhelmingly for free trade agreements. Sfreak won't admit he was wrong about that.
When he explained that even though she voted for them why he stated what he did, he admitted that at the same time as giving an explanation. It is ridiculous to get him to admit to something he already noted and explained.

The whole "mind-reading" thing is ridiculous. We hear how the Administration has done either this or that because it's for "oil" or "to enrich their friends" or "insert whatever mind-reading motive that sounds 'evil' here" yet others can't do that for somebody on your side? Clearly you have a different opinion, that is fine, but he gave you his. Yours seems to be, "Well, I don't believe that because she voted this way several times."

I can understand both sides. I can see how he could logically come up with his conclusion as well as see your side. In this I think you guys will end up either going on forever about how he doesn't recognize that she voted that way consistently while he consistently gives an explanation of why he thinks that way regardless of how often she voted for them, or you might agree to disagree and speak on the merits of "free-trade agreements" (Note: 'agreement' rather than Treaty, this is so they can circumvent the 2/3 vote thing.)
 
I don't know about that. Ron has often invoked the golden rule as a guide for our foreign policy asking "Would we like it?". Having read much of his writing I get a strong impression from him that he does oppose war for much of the same reasons you or I do and other than Kuccinich maybe Paul is the most anti-war candidate out there.

He also uses the constitutional standard, believing the declaration process a protection that has been circumvented by the War Powers Act.

But, yes, R. Paul often uses this as a way to determine if it was a just war. "How would you feel if?" might be the question asked by him.
 
I understand. Hang around for a bit. Our site host is an excellent representative of libertarian thought and I'm sure he would be kind enough to say the same of me.

That is very kind of you, and it would be hard not to say so about you as well considering how often we have stated the same things in different words.
 
But you are right about the Libertarian ideology, in general. And I have run into a lot of Libertarians on message boards, and never would have given two cents for any one of them. Damo and IHG are very strange. When I first "met" them, on a different board, I was very nasty to both of them. But they're not like most libertarians, or even republicans. First of all, neither one is a sexist or a racist, so that right there was new for me. And Damo is some kind of Vegetarian/Buddist/Republican, if you can believe that. Who ever heard of such a thing? :)

So, they shouldnt take it personally, because they're exceptions, but generally speaking, I agree with you, and I that is how I have always found Libertarians to be in the past.
There are quite a few of them at the Buddhist Center we regularly attend. The small "l" libertarian philosophy can mesh well with a Buddhist philosophy.

There is quite a large variation among libertarians. One of the reasons I have never joined the party and stayed where I was is because of the insistence on sticking to the 'kook' platform of immediate radical change that makes all the candidates seem insane. I prefer to work within what used to be the party of individual freedom and responsibility with the RLC. It is unrealistic to expect the party big "L" libertarians to change as most of the small "l" guys go elsewhere when they find that there is no real voice for them in the official party.
 
Superfreak is a man. Men generally (there are exceptions) will do just about anything to avoid admiting they were wrong.

So, welcome to my world Cypress!


Ahahahahah, remember the Fonz trying to say it!
 
Back
Top