• 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!

What does Libertarian Party need to happen for them to move forward...

What does Libertarian Party need to happen for them to move forward..

  • Develop a base? (i.e.: local, state, Congress, etc.)

    Votes: 12 48.0%
  • Elect a President without a base?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Be included in Presidential debates?

    Votes: 10 40.0%
  • Carry 10%+ of the Presidental popular vote?

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 14 56.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
Right, are you going to totally ignore the entire rest of the article in relation to the internal operations of Hong Kong or are you going to still, continue on this rant?
When you apply such a childish, superficial understanding of the workings of Hong Kong, you do in fact, come to the conclusion that your posts have made.

Keeping on trucking. :sun

I wouldn't want to live in a country controlled by another, but if Libertarians do, I would not try to stop them. Knock yourself out!
 
When a poster employs tactics, that completely distort and shows a gross misunderstanding of the subject.
I think it's entirely fair to point this out.

More BS from the BS artiste.
 
I wouldn't want to live in a country controlled by another, but if Libertarians do, I would not try to stop them. Knock yourself out!

Right, if that is what you believe the case to be, then please cease from responding to this thread.
Your complete non understanding of the subject matter hasn't helped anything.

Instead of focusing on a blurb, why don't you read the rest of the article.
Come on now, dooooo it.
 
Right, if that is what you believe the case to be, then please cease from responding to this thread.
Your complete non understanding of the subject matter hasn't helped anything.

Instead of focusing on a blurb, why don't you read the rest of the article.
Come on now, dooooo it.

I've read the whole article and others about China. The part of the article that convinces me I wouldn't want to live in Hong Kong, is that China must endorse all new leaders there. Its not for me. But feel free to do what you like.
 
The meaning of libertarian has become so dilluted and contradictory probably first it will be necessary for the libertarian party to actually have some sense of a platform. Ron Paul really messed up what it means to be a libertarian particularly with his advocacy of the federal government outlawing abortion and his anti-consumer, anti-civil rights and anti-environmentalism. He defined being a libertarian as an angry white male confederate.
 
The meaning of libertarian has become so dilluted and contradictory probably first it will be necessary for the libertarian party to actually have some sense of a platform. Ron Paul really messed up what it means to be a libertarian particularly with his advocacy of the federal government outlawing abortion and his anti-consumer, anti-civil rights and anti-environmentalism. He defined being a libertarian as an angry white male confederate.

The LP has a platform: Platform | Libertarian Party


Do you mean they should have a different platform?
 
Very interesting, however poorly stated,IMO....
The "conservatives" constantly harp on their idea that only business "creates" jobs, but here, its obvious that government does and that government really speeds things up..

The government creates jobs, it speeds it up growth of industry, it unbalances markets, and creates growth in industry where in the market their naturally would be none.

Also, IMO, libertarianism works not....maybe it would work in a "perfect" world.

I think only anarcho-captialists are assuming a perfect world while people like myself "minarchists" have attempted to put up a system that can handle the shortcomings.
 
I've read the whole article and others about China. The part of the article that convinces me I wouldn't want to live in Hong Kong, is that China must endorse all new leaders there. Its not for me. But feel free to do what you like.

Again, you're just deflecting.
You aren't being intellectually honest.

I'm completely open to criticism based on fact, not based on distortion.
You could come to this game, making valid criticisms, as some others have done.
Instead you keep playing this "how to make the ultimate partisan post" game.
 
Again, you're just deflecting.
You aren't being intellectually honest.

I'm completely open to criticism based on fact, not based on distortion.
You could come to this game, making valid criticisms, as some others have done.
Instead you keep playing this "how to make the ultimate partisan post" game.

Where is the dishonesty in the fact that China must endorse all new leaders in Hong Kong? And what attracts you to that kind of control by others?

I thought Libertarians were all about freedom and lack of government control, I would think especially by another country.
 
Where is the dishonesty in the fact that China must endorse all new leaders in Hong Kong? And what attracts you to that kind of control by others?

I thought Libertarians were all about freedom and lack of government control, I would think especially by another country.

Hong Kong is a sort of city state, it operates on the principle of "one country, two systems."
Something you'd have already known, had you read the article.

The system of governance in Hong Kong is much different from mainland China, where the government has elections and the system operates on "positive non interventionism."
Another thing you'd have learned, had you read more about Hong Kong.

Again, taking things out of context, cherry picking your criticisms, without learning anything else about the how the country actually operates, will lead you to these superficial conclusions.
 
Hong Kong is a sort of city state, it operates on the principle of "one country, two systems."
Something you'd have already known, had you read the article.

The system of governance in Hong Kong is much different from mainland China, where the government has elections and the system operates on "positive non interventionism."
Another thing you'd have learned, had you read more about Hong Kong.

Again, taking things out of context, cherry picking your criticisms, without learning anything else about the how the country actually operates, will lead you to these superficial conclusions.


Got it, Hong Kong is your ideal. I'm very happy for you!

"Hong Kong’s existential worries flow from a nagging awareness that the city’s destiny doesn’t lie in its own hands, but rather in those of remote mainland politicians."

Why Mainland Worries Hong Kong | The Diplomat
 
Got it, Hong Kong is your ideal. I'm very happy for you!

"Hong Kong’s existential worries flow from a nagging awareness that the city’s destiny doesn’t lie in its own hands, but rather in those of remote mainland politicians."

Why Mainland Worries Hong Kong | The Diplomat

Well isn't that really true for every single place in the world?

I mean, if the federal government wanted to, they could drastically change the economic landscape of any city, town, county, state, region.
So your criticism of Hong Kong, is true for just about any place in the world.

I'm sorry but that's kinda weak.
Or are you arguing that less centralized control, should be done world wide?
 
Well isn't that really true for every single place in the world?

I mean, if the federal government wanted to, they could drastically change the economic landscape of any city, town, county, state, region.
So your criticism of Hong Kong, is true for just about any place in the world.

I'm sorry but that's kinda weak.
Or are you arguing that less centralized control, should be done world wide?

The US does not have to have its elected leaders endorsed by another country.
 
"Casey cites Hong Kong as an example of a thriving free market economy based on Libertarian principles. Established by the government of China. Established by the government, really? I thought libertarians didn’t believe in government interference in the market? There is an awkward silence. Hong Kong, as it happens, also has a greater gap between rich and poor than even America does.What I find ironic about libertarianism is that even though it claims to place supreme emphasis on the wellbeing of the individual, it is ultimately businesses that would benefit the most under a libertarian system. Low corporate taxes would enable the economy to thrive at a high cost to those individuals who struggle to enjoy their freedom because they can’t really afford to eat or go to the doctor.

I am not the first person to make these arguments and neither will I be the last. A practical application of the purest form of libertarianism would be disastrous — the same is true of most political ideologies. “Got freedom?” Casey asks us every week. But does he ever stop to think about the price to be paid for freedom?"

Casey
 
"Casey cites Hong Kong as an example of a thriving free market economy based on Libertarian principles. Established by the government of China. Established by the government, really? I thought libertarians didn’t believe in government interference in the market? There is an awkward silence. Hong Kong, as it happens, also has a greater gap between rich and poor than even America does.What I find ironic about libertarianism is that even though it claims to place supreme emphasis on the wellbeing of the individual, it is ultimately businesses that would benefit the most under a libertarian system. Low corporate taxes would enable the economy to thrive at a high cost to those individuals who struggle to enjoy their freedom because they can’t really afford to eat or go to the doctor.

I am not the first person to make these arguments and neither will I be the last. A practical application of the purest form of libertarianism would be disastrous — the same is true of most political ideologies. “Got freedom?” Casey asks us every week. But does he ever stop to think about the price to be paid for freedom?"

Casey

Sigh, another superficial understanding of libertarianism.
Libertarianism ≠ anarchy.

Do you know what surrounds Hong Kong?
The rest of China, were there are very poor people that immigrate into Hong Kong, legally or illegally.

Casey is a moron.
This person uses hyperbolic descriptions of the libertarians philosophy, to define his/her position.
Which on it's face, makes the argument made defunct.
 
Last edited:
Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor

"No. 1 Hong Kong"
Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor - Yahoo! Finance

I see why you admire them so!

Why do you keep ignoring that fact that a large surrounding population of immigrants can help widen the gap?
You can't just waltz into Hong Kong, gain instant wealth and highly relative income.

This is why discussing anything with you is retarded.
I should know better.

You don't understand statistics, demographics and other relevant economic factors enough to digest information, in a more objective way.
 
Is Hong Kong's New Chief a Communist?

20120325215132653.jpg


"Hong Kong Chief Executive-elect Leung Chun-ying waves after being announced as the winner of an election among Beijing-friendly elite in the Chinese special administrative region on Sunday."

"The furtive ceremony marked Leung’s first step into the hidden world of Hong Kong’s underground Communist Party, an organization that, decades later, still functions entirely out of view but casts a long shadow over the decision on who will lead this Special Administrative Region of China for the next five years.

Is Hong Kong?s New Chief a Communist? | The Jakarta Globe


"Politics makes strange bedfellows."
 
What does Libertarian Party (party, not individuals) need to happen for them to move forward in their agenda and helping the country?

There are some who are so anti-libertarian that they will never give the notion an objective chance, but they will post here anyway. *sigh*. Personally, while I used to be libertarian, I no longer consider myself to be so, yet I still hold many of the ideals. Where they lose me is the utter lack of understanding of human nature, but be that as it may, there's a great deal of the philosophy that I still like. Anyway...

If libertarian philosophy and the Libertarian Party is to move forward and actually effect change, what has to happen? I'm speaking primarily for this year and in this year's November elections.

1. Develop a base? I.e.: local, state, Congress, etc. offices first?
2. Elect a President without a base?
3. Be included in Presidential debates?
4. Carry 10%+ of the popular vote in the Presidential election?
5. Other?

To me, the Libertarian Party's biggest roadblock is itself. It doesn't organize locally. It doesn't build from the ground up. It would have to become what it loathes... a political organization that plays the game... in order to expand beyond the fringes. This is really the catch-22, isn't it? Compromise to gain access and change, or remain loyal to ideals and remain irrelevant.


Note: This link is just meant as a reference for the thread... Gary Johnson 2.0: the Libertarians

You are wrong.The biggest road black to the Libertarian party heck the road block for any party is the fact the media deliberately ignores 3rd parties. Heck the media even ignores democrats and republicans they do not want want propped up. What makes a candidate viable is because the media says so. Obama for example was a nobody before the media decided to prop him up. If you asked most Americans who voted in the last presidential election who is chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr is they most likely wouldn't know. The second biggest roadblock is the fact democrats and republicans conspire together to weasel out 3rd parties.
 
Never will happen. Tea Party / Libertarians will never be popular. Why? Because the majority of Americans WILL need help at some point of time. In the long run we will need to tax the needless more. At least in THIS global economic situation where State unions like teachers and civil servants are paid FAR to much and the corporate elite players are paid FAR too much. One MAJOR positive thing we as Americans can do is eliminate ALL benefits to illegals and newly made US citizens (2 years of citizenship).
 
Back
Top Bottom