• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Tea Party Delima

Karl said:
For the most part, they've already wrested power from the government... they bought the government.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly the kind of thing that libertarians oppose: the government selling out its protection of life, liberty, and property for the benefit of special interests, including big business.
 
Karl said:
For kicks, the standard libertarian test (I think this one is kinda useless): Advocates for Self Government (I got 100/20, with the dreaded label "Liberal" ;) )

And an alternate one, which is more fun (and has more questions) (I scored 21; higher is 'better'): Libertarian Purity Test
Click to expand...

I scored a "Libertarian" label on the first.. and a 53 on the second ( medium core Libertarian)

both tests are rather simplistic and silly though.
 
Centinel said:
Which is exactly the kind of thing that libertarians oppose: the government selling out its protection of life, liberty, and property for the benefit of special interests, including big business.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm not disputing what a libertarian is; I'm disputing the bona fides of some whom (recently) call themselves libertarians -- suspecting that they are, instead, disaffected conservatives.

An interesting passage from Murray Rothbard's 1972 book Left and Right, Selected Essays 1954–65:

Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the "left" of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means…. Socialism, like liberalism and against conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc.

Rothbard's "Left and Right": Forty Years Later - Roderick T. Long - Mises Daily
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
Would love to see them try to come up with a reason why the state doesn't have the power to ban contraceptives.
Click to expand...

well, the issue was argued in Griswold v Connecticut.. and decided on the basis of a right to privacy.

as time has gone by, I think the right to privacy argument has lost favor in government circles...the court seems to think it exists, but allows it to be breached nearly at will... except when it comes to birth control or abortions.

I think the state could ban contraceptives, but not in the broad generalized fashion Connecticut did....we have plenty of public policy thinkers who could feasibly make it happen though ( and whichever side these thinkers are on can be assured of support from their team)

I sincerely hope they don't have that power, but i'm not convinced they don't ( Hugo Black's dissent in Griswold was quite compelling)
in any event, I would hope it's a power that is not exercised.
 
Harshaw said:
Would love to see them try to come up with a reason why the state doesn't have the power to ban contraceptives.
Click to expand...
As a newly-minted soft core libertarian (with the test results to prove it ;) ), I would say that the state doesn't have the power to proscribe what you put in your own body.

Man... I might have to change my lean (I see that "Libertarian - Left" is an option)
meebo_023.gif
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Agreed. I'm not disputing what a libertarian is; I'm disputing the bona fides of some whom (recently) call themselves libertarians -- suspecting that they are, instead, disaffected conservatives.

An interesting passage from Murray Rothbard's 1972 book Left and Right, Selected Essays 1954–65:
Click to expand...

yes, a great number of Libertarians are/were disaffected conservatives.....not sure why that matters though.

a great number of socialists are disaffected liberals... and that, too, means very little or nothing.
 
Karl said:
As a newly-minted soft core libertarian (with the test results to prove it ;) ), I would say that the state doesn't have the power to proscribe what you put in your own body.
Click to expand...

and I generally agree.... with the recognition that the state does exactly that anyways.
 
Karl said:
Why is it, you feel the need to flamebait other posters, especially when you are wrong?
Click to expand...

That isn't flamebaiting, that was a legitimate question since you proclamation that he supports contraception being outlawed, is misleading and dishonest.

Saying that Santorum "agrees with contraception being outlawed" omits vital information, that implies he would support legislation to outlaw contraception in the United States. That is false. Santorum believes that states have the right to ban contraception if they choose to, because contraception is not a constitutional right.

That was a lie by omission, and my question to you still stands.
 
Thrilla said:
yes, a great number of Libertarians are/were disaffected conservatives.....not sure why that matters though. [...]
Click to expand...
It matters because, according to the Rothbard piece, conservatism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed.
 
Karl said:
As a newly-minted soft core libertarian (with the test results to prove it ;) ), I would say that the state doesn't have the power to proscribe what you put in your own body.
Click to expand...

Oh, but it proscribes many, many such things.

And as you're not a libertarian (though you say you not sure what a "Progressive" is), you need to explain how, consistent with your philosophies, the state has the power to outlaw, say, transfats, but not contraceptives.
 
Karl said:
Agreed. I'm not disputing what a libertarian is; I'm disputing the bona fides of some whom (recently) call themselves libertarians -- suspecting that they are, instead, disaffected conservatives.
Click to expand...
Okay, I understand.
An interesting passage from Murray Rothbard's 1972 book Left and Right, Selected Essays 1954–65:
Click to expand...
Thanks, very interesting.
 
Thrilla said:
yes, a great number of Libertarians are/were disaffected conservatives.....not sure why that matters though.

a great number of socialists are disaffected liberals... and that, too, means very little or nothing.
Click to expand...

And Neoconservatives are disaffected Marxists. Wheels turn. It happens.
 
Karl said:
Agreed. I'm not disputing what a libertarian is; I'm disputing the bona fides of some whom (recently) call themselves libertarians -- suspecting that they are, instead, disaffected conservatives.
Click to expand...

I was a member of the Libertarian Party a long time ago, in the Ed Clark era and before, and you're right to dispute the 'bona fides' of most of them. The 'Party' was swarmed with a lot of dysfunctional sociopaths from the mid-80's onward, fanatic Ayn Rand cultists, Neo-Darwinist nut baggers, etc., and the Party has drifted into neo-Fascism and psychosis, a haven for anti-social, spoiled half-wits with high self-esteem who spend many many sleepless nights worrying over the fact that some homeless bum might game the system and trade some food stamps to buy a malt liquor or something once in a while.

In any case, it's now just a subsidiary of the RNC, bought out by Richard Vigeurie after the 'Party of Self-Reliance and Free Market Laissez Faire' apparently couldn't dig up a single current member who could balance a check book and went bankrupt.

Lol ... more than just a little ironic, but there are still a few real ones around, and there are a couple who post here that aren't deranged, self-absorbed Burb Brats and can make legitimate cases. I don't remember their handles, but I do remember they are here, or were, since they stood out from the usual herd of those who merely adopt 'Libertarianism' as a cover for self-absorption, snobbery, and mindless class warfare.

Reason magazine still publishes some decent articles and, unlike National Review after William Buckley stepped down as editor, hasn't given itself over entirely to inchoate, demented, demagogic rantings from the fever swamps yet.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
For kicks, the standard libertarian test (I think this one is kinda useless): Advocates for Self Government (I got 100/20, with the dreaded label "Liberal" ;) )

And an alternate one, which is more fun (and has more questions) (I scored 21; higher is 'better'): Libertarian Purity Test
Click to expand...

Good post. I scored as a libertarian on the first and a 44 on the second. Guess I'm a libertarian and didn't even know it lol.
 
Harshaw said:
Karl said:
Harshaw said:
Would love to see them try to come up with a reason why the state doesn't have the power to ban contraceptives.
Click to expand...
As a newly-minted soft core libertarian (with the test results to prove it :wink: ), I would say that the state doesn't have the power to proscribe what you put in your own body.
Click to expand...
Oh, but it proscribes many, many such things.

And as you're not a libertarian (though you say you not sure what a "Progressive" is), you need to explain how, consistent with your philosophies, the state has the power to outlaw, say, transfats, but not contraceptives.
Click to expand...
Why should I "need" to explain something I have not heretofore publicly stated or supported? (to wit, the outlawing of, say, transfats). Your challenge is a little authoritarian for a true libertarian, is it not? Conservatism showing, by any chance? :2razz:

However, to be charitable and address your question regardless, the prohibition/regulation of transfats only applies to businesses -- not individuals. Therefore your counter to my original point is a non-sequitur.
 
Karl said:
Why should I "need" to explain something I have not heretofore publicly stated or supported? (to wit, the outlawing of, say, transfats).
Click to expand...

You accepted the "challenge" of trying to explain why the state doesn't have the power to ban contraceptives. I'm testing your explanation.

If you don't have an answer, that's fine.


Your challenge is a little authoritarian for a true libertarian, is it not? Conservatism showing, by any chance? :2razz:
Click to expand...

:shrug: I'm not the one who favors intrusive state powers (like Obamacare, for example). You do.


However, to be charitable and address your question regardless, the prohibition/regulation of transfats only applies to businesses -- not individuals. Therefore your counter to my original point is a non-sequitur.
Click to expand...

No problem. Ban the manufacture and sale of contraceptives. Then it applies only to businesses, and not individuals.

They have the power to do that, right? If not, why not?

Note: the point isn't whether or not they should or shouldn't. It's about whether or not they can.
 
Karl said:
Why should I "need" to explain something I have not heretofore publicly stated or supported? (to wit, the outlawing of, say, transfats). Your challenge is a little authoritarian for a true libertarian, is it not? Conservatism showing, by any chance? :2razz:

However, to be charitable and address your question regardless, the prohibition/regulation of transfats only applies to businesses -- not individuals. Therefore your counter to my original point is a non-sequitur.
Click to expand...
So, basically, the gov't is telling a business owner (who is an individual) that he can't sell certain things because its bad for people. That's wrong. Another case of gov't thinking they know better for me than I do. If I want to sell trans fat, let me. If I want to be able to find trans fat in my food, where ever I go, let me. Its not the governments role to dictate that.
 
MarineTpartier said:
So, basically, the gov't is telling a business owner (who is an individual) that he can't sell certain things because its bad for people. That's wrong. Another case of gov't thinking they know better for me than I do. If I want to sell trans fat, let me. If I want to be able to find trans fat in my food, where ever I go, let me. Its not the governments role to dictate that.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. It's that Karl doesn't appear to have a problem with a transfat ban, but has yet to explain why a similar ban couldn't -- not shouldn't, but couldn't -- be placed on contraceptives.
 
Harshaw said:
That's not the point. It's that Karl doesn't appear to have a problem with a transfat ban, but has yet to explain why a similar ban couldn't -- not shouldn't, but couldn't -- be placed on contraceptives.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Well, I have too many points to call Karl what he is so you have fun with that lol.
 
Karl said:
It matters because, according to the Rothbard piece, conservatism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed.
Click to expand...

yes, conceptually speaking, he is correct.

Rothbard is a person whom you, and many here, would consider to be a conservative( old guard)... and you would be arguing that he is actually diametrically opposed to himself.
pay attention to his definitions and also to his views on the changing positions along the spectrum... the terminology we use today means , in many cases, something entirely different in his perspective. ( and don't use a single paragraph, without context, to indict anyone else, it's bad form)

I love me some Rothbard ( interesting dude.. but i'm no anarcho-capitalist myself).. and one day i hope to actually understand everything he says :lol:
 
pay attention to his definitions and also to his views on the changing positions along the spectrum... the terminology we use today means , in many cases, something entirely different in his perspective.
Click to expand...

Indeed true. Modern terminology is used incorrectly most of the time.
 
Oberon said:
Indeed true. Modern terminology is used incorrectly most of the time.
Click to expand...


I don't quite acquiesce to what you are forth irrigating in your proclamation.
 
So, basically, the gov't is telling a business owner (who is an individual) that he can't sell certain things because its bad for people. That's wrong. Another case of gov't thinking they know better for me than I do.
Click to expand...

The government has no real way of knowing who is a complete idiot and who isn't. Sorry, but most sane people don't want some bizarre, ideological spin on government that would, for instance, allow my neighbor across the street to be able to buy himself some plutonium because 'the current issue of Popular Mechanics had, like, this really cool article on nuclear power reactors and how they work' and he thinks he can build one in his garage on the weekends and stop having to pay the electric company's high rates.

It's one thing to have an open mind, quite another to have a gaping hole in your head.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Karl said:
Interesting.

* Ronald Reagan brought the Moral Majority (Christian Right) into the GOP fold (Jerry Falwell, et al),
* as recent as 2008 the GOP presidential candidate (McCain) was courting the religious right (at the very least by his rabidly anti-abortion choice for VP),
* and today's current front-running for the GOP presidential nomination (Santorum) agrees with contraception being outlawed (a totally Catholic position),
* and current GOP leadership (Boehner) is claiming that Obama is trying to subvert Christianity (and the freedom of religion) by including contraception in 'universal' healthcare.

Yet you claim it is a "mistake" to label the GOP as Christian? :lamo
Click to expand...

Just because they appeal to a segment of voters does not mean that the entire party is of that same mold. Courting social conservatives was an essential political strategy, there was no way that this group could be ignored by the GOP.

Social Conservatism has a huge block of voters, and although not all conservatives (or Republicans) are of the same mold, this block speaks with their vote very loudly.

The part that leaves a (very) bad taste in my mouth is that all to often it is deemed a necessity for those running for office with an (R) next to their name to pander to the outspoken and overly dominant socially conservative bloc to insure their political survival. This is also in a large part attributable to an inevitable result of the ease of which this bloc of voters can be motivated into a frenzied swarm over hot button or litmus test issues.

A large bloc of easily motivated passionate voters in your pocket. It would be foolish if they (GOP) did not court that vote. For a Republican candidate, social conservatives can be one of 2 things, a necessary friend or your worst enemy.

This duopoly we find ourselves trapped in brings about a necessity for some strange bedfellows by insisting our politics is a one or the other situation, and not one of nuance and subtleties that would be best served by a multitude of views and platforms and stances on various issues.

Anyways.. I digress, no the GOP is not "christian:" but they are overly dependent on the christian vote, and more specifically the socially conservative christian vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom