• 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!

Most anti-libertarian Presidents

Most anti-libertarian President?

  • Abraham Lincoln

    Votes: 10 25.6%
  • Woodrow Wilson

    Votes: 4 10.3%
  • Franklin Roosevelt

    Votes: 14 35.9%
  • Theodore Roosevelt

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Lyndon Johnson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • George W. Bush

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Richard Nixon

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Herbert Hoover

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • Total voters
    39
I rarely, if ever, see a libertarian defending slavery... slavery ,again,is categorically rejected by libertarianism... I do not condone slavery whatsoever, it is only shadowed ,in being repugnant, by murder.

I do, however, find it common for libertarians to defend the south's decision and right to secede....i'm one of them myself.

some are able to separate the issues of secession and slavery.. others, not so much.

Thak you for explaining that why you will criticize the addition of three plus three you strongly defend eight minus two. :roll:
 
s

I wonder if y'all realize that by rejecting the concept of self ownership, you necessarily reject the concept of the Social Contract... ponder that for a moment.

Did I miss the part where you connected those dots on two different pages of two different coloring books?
 
so you too reject self ownership?... interesting.

2 professional agents of the state rejecting self ownership.. whodathunk it :lol:

I wonder if y'all realize that by rejecting the concept of self ownership, you necessarily reject the concept of the Social Contract... ponder that for a moment.


what "extremes" are you talking about in terms of libertarians?



Has absolutely nothing to do with embracing or rejecting self ownership, it does not exist and it never has. Thats a myth that libertarians buy into.
If we OWNED ourselves, we wouldnt be responsible to anyone or anything for what we did with ourselves. We would have total autonomy do whatever we chose when we chose and whoever we choose. Nonesense, its merely a libertarian talking point that has no purpose.

Extremes such as your hero Ron Paul wanting to legalize all drugs, thats an example of his self ownership i guess
 
Last edited:
What utter nonsense. Could you please present some objective survey data in which a majority of the US population voices affirmative support for the question

DO YOU OWN YOURSELF?

Yup, Id love to see some factual data to back up that claim.
 
I see this conversation has broken down into talks of slavery and ownership of human beings...not exactly where I saw this going, but when you mention Lincoln...I suppose it is an inevitability.

I am going with the easy choice of FDR. He grew government to proportions that it was never meant to go. The New Deal was a big bureaucratic bust. World War II saved FDR's legacy as that is what people remember most about him along with being elected to four terms.

As far as the slavery conversation goes...I think we can all agree that it was wrong. Yes?

Okay..

As far a self-ownership goes...one should have the right to do to themselves as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on other people. The second you start infringing on the rights of another person is when you are breaking a law. You cannot "own" yourself outright....matter of fact; I don't even like to term it in that way. Individuals don't own themselves, but have rights to themselves.
 
That is a pretty sweeping statement that denies any person can own another person. And that is the definition of slavery.

So which is it? If you admit the existence of slavery, that somebody can indeed own you and that renders your precious libertarian axiom to have less utilitarian value than a fifty pound bag of garden manure.

Perhaps if you call me some more third grade level names like you did in your recent post, the wisdom may come to you?

I called you a buffoon due the fact that you were acting ludicrous, in which seemed like an attempt to bait me.

Let me try to simplify it.

I tell someone they cant climb over the fence, the other person ask why, i respond saying its trespassing. Now in your argument your saying you can, well obviously it can and does happen, in the same sense as slavery exist. My belief is that another person cant own a person(becauses its morally wrong), in the same way as some cant trespass, or cant rob a bank. When you watch a movie and a character tells another character you cant kill them, well yea this is, of course, untrue. Still its a moral belief, doesnt me it cant happen. Ill make sure i choose the right words around you next time though mr. sheep.
 
The moral argument against slavery is that people are not property. Does that somehow escape you?
It hasnt escaped me at all. You claim people are not property. Do you derive that from some other principles or did you pull that out of your rump?
 
I called you a buffoon due the fact that you were acting ludicrous, in which seemed like an attempt to bait me.

Let me try to simplify it.

I tell someone they cant climb over the fence, the other person ask why, i respond saying its trespassing. Now in your argument your saying you can, well obviously it can and does happen, in the same sense as slavery exist. My belief is that another person cant own a person(becauses its morally wrong), in the same way as some cant trespass, or cant rob a bank. When you watch a movie and a character tells another character you cant kill them, well yea this is, of course, untrue. Still its a moral belief, doesnt me it cant happen. Ill make sure i choose the right words around you next time though mr. sheep.

Stuff and nonsense.

You make statements then wilt and wither from them when shown to be absurd.

You call names because you were caught saying ridiculous stuff and shown up on it.
 
It hasnt escaped me at all. You claim people are not property. Do you derive that from some other principles or did you pull that out of your rump?

Principles? I do not know what those are. Perhaps you can explain them to me? I simply go by reality of the world we live in.
 
Yup, Id love to see some factual data to back up that claim.

None of us will see factual data on that claim. That is always the way it is with right libertarians. They make sweeping statements about the world and it is founded upon nothing more than their own self imposed belief system..... and they only believe that because they have made a choice to believe it.

The Mad Hatter in Wonderland made as much sense..... perhaps more. ;)
 
I see this conversation has broken down into talks of slavery and ownership of human beings...not exactly where I saw this going, but when you mention Lincoln...I suppose it is an inevitability.

I am going with the easy choice of FDR. He grew government to proportions that it was never meant to go. The New Deal was a big bureaucratic bust. World War II saved FDR's legacy as that is what people remember most about him along with being elected to four terms.

As far as the slavery conversation goes...I think we can all agree that it was wrong. Yes?

Okay..

As far a self-ownership goes...one should have the right to do to themselves as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on other people. The second you start infringing on the rights of another person is when you are breaking a law. You cannot "own" yourself outright....matter of fact; I don't even like to term it in that way. Individuals don't own themselves, but have rights to themselves.

ownership is simply a claim to sovereignty... so yes, you can, and do, own yourself... you have supreme sovereignty over your person.
self ownership is the basis on which all individual rights are derived.

you might not like the terms utilized, but you do believe in self ownership... and that's good enough fer me :)
 
I see this conversation has broken down into talks of slavery and ownership of human beings...not exactly where I saw this going, but when you mention Lincoln...I suppose it is an inevitability.

I am going with the easy choice of FDR. He grew government to proportions that it was never meant to go. The New Deal was a big bureaucratic bust. World War II saved FDR's legacy as that is what people remember most about him along with being elected to four terms.

As far as the slavery conversation goes...I think we can all agree that it was wrong. Yes?

Okay..

As far a self-ownership goes...one should have the right to do to themselves as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on other people. The second you start infringing on the rights of another person is when you are breaking a law. You cannot "own" yourself outright....matter of fact; I don't even like to term it in that way. Individuals don't own themselves, but have rights to themselves.

FDR also grew the military in a ay we hoped it'd never go either; but the rumor at the time was: we kinda had to in order to save the country. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, he was trying to save the country too: at least, that was the rumor. By the time FDR took the oath of office the United States of America; and the world, had collapsed, so extreme conditions; as shown by my examples, usually call for extreme measures. The inroads that were made through FDR's leadership produced a country with the highest GDP and highest standard of living in the world: you should be thanking him for his leadership in making it possible for you to call yourself a Libertarian . . . .

Ronald Reagan on the other hand began the beginning of the end of liberty.
 
ownership is simply a claim to sovereignty... so yes, you can, and do, own yourself... you have supreme sovereignty over your person.
self ownership is the basis on which all individual rights are derived.

you might not like the terms utilized, but you do believe in self ownership... and that's good enough fer me :)

self ownership ..... sovereignity ...... supreme sovereignity .....

WOW!!!!

Such high and mighty high fallutin' talk from somebody who claims tht the majority agrees with them. Somehow I suspect that if you go into any workingman's bar near any factory or warehouse in the USA and start spouting such stuff, you will soon find yourself tossed out the back door with the trash and other useless garbage.
 
The extreme libertarian right would consider Lincoln a radical socialist because he dared interfere with the rights of the powerful to exploit others. If vulgar, far-right libertarianism is the model, then every President who ever used the power of federal government to change something would be a good candidate.

Diminishing state rights, centralizing federal government, political imprisonment, nationalization of rail roads, starting a draft, shutting down printing presses, murdering protesters, destruction of the south(shermans march), and thats only the stuff i can think of off the top of my head.

No libertarian says its bad he freed slaves, on the contrary, thats the ONLY good thing he did.
 
Stuff and nonsense.

You make statements then wilt and wither from them when shown to be absurd.

You call names because you were caught saying ridiculous stuff and shown up on it.

I still stand by the statement, i just have to explain it to the slow individuals that cant grasp the concept of what im actually saying.
 
Yup, Id love to see some factual data to back up that claim.

it's doubtful there is a poll available for the question.... just as there is no poll for " do you breathe air?"

the concept of self ownership is widely accepted throughout society and our system.. it is the basis for all individual rights.. it is the basis for justice... and it is the basis for most laws.
 
I still stand by the statement, i just have to explain it to the slow individuals that cant grasp the concept of what im actually saying.

If the individuals to whom you are attempting to explain this are "slow" perhaps it is the person doing the explaining that is the actual problem? Either that or he is attempting to "explain" something that is utter bunk to begin with.
 
it's doubtful there is a poll available for the question.... just as there is no poll for " do you breathe air?"

the concept of self ownership is widely accepted throughout society and our system.. it is the basis for all individual rights.. it is the basis for justice... and it is the basis for most laws.

By all means - do present evidence of the majority supporting your claim. I and others here would love to see it.
 
that is not an objective "good thing".

An American patriot would see it differently.

Which explains why a right libertarian sees it as you do.
 
If the individuals to whom you are attempting to explain this are "slow" perhaps it is the person doing the explaining that is the actual problem? Either that or he is attempting to "explain" something that is utter bunk to begin with.

why am I not allowed to kill you, or beat you, or enslave you?
 
why am I not allowed to kill you, or beat you, or enslave you?

But you can indeed do those things. People do them every day. Remember? You own yourself. So you can order yourself to kill or maim or steal or enslave or anything else you want to order yourself to do.

And people do those things every day of the week. ;)
 
Principles? I do not know what those are. Perhaps you can explain them to me? I simply go by reality of the world we live in.
Any rational creature requires moral principles to guide its actions. So you are either admitting that you are not rational or that you do follow certain principles but are afraid to name them. While it is tempting for me to assume the former, I am going to have to go with the latter. After all, you want law to follow some sort of principles, right? So dont play dumb. Now, you claim that people are not property. Yet I can sell you my labor. Why? Because my labor belongs to me. Hopefully you dont dispute that. Now answer the question as to why that labor belongs to me, and we will go from there.
 
Back
Top Bottom