• 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!

Who is the Party of freedom?

Who is the party of Freedom?

  • Democrats

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • Republicans

    Votes: 8 20.0%

  • The Free Bacon Party

    Votes: 12 30.0%

  • Rutabaga

    Votes: 15 37.5%
  • Total voters
    40
Every party wants to restrict everybody else but themselves to some degree or another, hence the correct answer is "None of the above".
 
I voted rutabega because Libertarians are the party of Freedom. I am not Libertarian because I dont believe a country as populated as the US can operate with that much Freedom.
 
ernst barkmann said:
a party who believes in no force or coercion on other people.
Click to expand...

Laws by their very nature force or coerce people into either doing things or not doing things. So unless you are an anarchist there is no such party.
 
Define freedom?

Freedom to sin, freedom from government regulation, freedom to go naked where you please?
 
Only the absence of party provides freedom. There are good and bad ideas from all parties and ideologies. A good candidate is a good candidate, regardless of his/her party. As I often say, i would have voted for Huntsman over Obama, but he never had a chance... and I'm not really American.
 
MasterLiberty said:
#1. Sounds to me like you think libertarians= republicans. Totally not the case Libertarians believe in minimal government intervention and more freedoms for all people, you seem to equate freedom with an "economic safety net" and the inability to fail socially (Hence why you are a socialist I suppose).

#2. Democrats want to quell free speech, your right to bear arms, they want to quell state's rights, they want everyone to be beholden to the almighty fed.
Click to expand...

Most libertarians are Republicans, but that's not really the issue at all. A democratic government serves to keep powerful individuals in check so that they don't trample everyone else. Libertarians advocate for a government that is too weak to protect people from oppression. Too weak to do things like keep money out of politics, prohibit discrimination, or fund legal aid for poor people. In every instance, powerful demographics enjoy legal privileges over the less powerful, and most especially wealthy classes over poorer ones.

No (because spending money is not and should not be speech), yes (but it's a right that is dragging us down as a nation), no (the federal only overrules the states when they try to do something unconstitutional), and no (this one is just stupid).
 
TheNextEra said:
Laws by their very nature force or coerce people into either doing things or not doing things. So unless you are an anarchist there is no such party.
Click to expand...

no.....if I exercise a right, government has no authority to use force/ coercion on me,......if I exercise a privilege created by government, then government can force /coercion on me.

example :driving a car on public roads in not a right, therefore government can make me do things, in order that I may drive on them.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no.....if I exercise a right, government has no authority to use force/ coercion on me,......if I exercise a privilege created by government, then government can force /coercion on me.

example :driving a car on public roads in not a right, therefore government can make me do things, in order that I may drive on them.
Click to expand...

It already does coerce you with laws. If you murder someone you will go to prison or worse. If you assault someone, you will go to jail. That is coersion. Like I said before ALL lsaws are coercive or forceful in nature.

If you have government, you have laws. If you have laws, you have forceful or coercive rules in effect.
 
Paschendale said:
Most libertarians are Republicans, but that's not really the issue at all. A democratic government serves to keep powerful individuals in check so that they don't trample everyone else. Libertarians advocate for a government that is too weak to protect people from oppression. Too weak to do things like keep money out of politics, prohibit discrimination, or fund legal aid for poor people. In every instance, powerful demographics enjoy legal privileges over the less powerful, and most especially wealthy classes over poorer ones.

No (because spending money is not and should not be speech), yes (but it's a right that is dragging us down as a nation), no (the federal only overrules the states when they try to do something unconstitutional), and no (this one is just stupid).
Click to expand...



disagree...... those who want democracy, and think the people rule under that form of government........ get the problems you described.

only a true republican form of government of divided power, limits the problems you described.

those who take democracy to be liberty are foolish indeed.
 
TheNextEra said:
It already does coerce you with laws. If you murder someone you will go to prison or worse. If you assault someone, you will go to jail. That is coersion. Like I said before ALL lsaws are coercive or forceful in nature.

If you have government, you have laws. If you have laws, you have forceful or coercive rules in effect.
Click to expand...

sorry but wrong........to perform the actions you stated is a rights violation of another person.

government is instituted for the purpose of protection of rights.


I don't have a RIGHT to violate rights of other people.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry but wrong........to perform the actions you stated is a rights violation of another person.

government is instituted for the purpose of protection of rights.


I don't have a RIGHT to violate rights of other people.
Click to expand...

Those are still laws that coerce someone or force someone to do something. You are not free to do whatever you want, when you want, that is why we have laws. You set the goal posts at violation of rights of others.

I'll give you one. Abortion. If you are pro-life, you are violating the woman's right to her OWN body. If you are pro-choice, you are violating the rights of the fetus. Yes, I know there is arguments to both, however, that doesn't stop the fact that in both ways, someone is getting violated.

You will never have a completely free to do as you want society, because there will ALWAYS be laws to coerce or force you to do something.
 
TheNextEra said:
Those are still laws that coerce someone or force someone to do something. You are not free to do whatever you want, when you want, that is why we have laws. You set the goal posts at violation of rights of others.

I'll give you one. Abortion. If you are pro-life, you are violating the woman's right to her OWN body. If you are pro-choice, you are violating the rights of the fetus. Yes, I know there is arguments to both, however, that doesn't stop the fact that in both ways, someone is getting violated.

You will never have a completely free to do as you want society, because there will ALWAYS be laws to coerce or force you to do something.
Click to expand...

sorry you don't understand rights..........

I have rights and they end where yours begin.

anytime my rights run afoul on your rights, then government can use force/coercion.

however if I am NOT, AGAIN NOT, violating anyone else's rights, and I am not causing a health and safety problem to the public, in exercising my rights....government has no authority to apply force to me, or coercion.

government is here to secure rights...THAT IS ITS FUNCTION.
 
4837784+_adf5c32c6fd58bd145eea3ee53a582f1.jpg
 
rocket88 said:
After the warning, I couldn't reply in thread. But I did think the topic deserved it's own:






Of course the only people I've heard say that are hardcore Dems. Just like hard core Repubs will say the Republicans are (cue Nick denying that he's a Republican even though he never says anything but their party line).

Who is it, then?
Click to expand...

none of the above would be my reply. neither is interested in preserving freedom, each is only interested in pushing and accomplishing their political agenda.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry you don't understand rights..........

I have rights and they end where yours begin.

anytime my rights run afoul on your rights, then government can use force/coercion.

however if I am NOT, AGAIN NOT, violating anyone else's rights, and I am not causing a health and safety problem to the public, in exercising my rights....government has no authority to apply force to me, or coercion.

government is here to secure rights...THAT IS ITS FUNCTION.
Click to expand...

I mostly feel this way as well but the reason I am not Libertarian is I usually feel the rights of the people extend further than Libertarians do. Another difference I have is I believe that certain things should be gauranteed to people, ie not starving and basic healthcare.

If I had to chhose, I would rather live in a Libertarian state than a Republican state though.
 
Back when I used to spend a lot of time in E. Europe, I loved how the Czechs formed new parties with their new freedom. One party was the Erotic party, they made their money by publishing a tabloid every week or so, which was basically nude pictures. The other was the Beer party. Never, ever come between a Czech and his pivo.
 
Amandi said:
I mostly feel this way as well but the reason I am not Libertarian is I usually feel the rights of the people extend further than Libertarians do. Another difference I have is I believe that certain things should be gauranteed to people, ie not starving and basic healthcare.
If I had to chhose, I would rather live in a Libertarian state than a Republican state though.
Click to expand...

the problem with the bold is...government does not have food or healthcare.

those things are created by people.....to give a person a material good or service means government must take from one and give to another, and that is stealing.

it violates Americas founding principles...life liberty and the [ pursuit of happiness.]...which means property.
 
rocket88 said:
After the warning, I couldn't reply in thread. But I did think the topic deserved it's own:


Of course the only people I've heard say that are hardcore Dems. Just like hard core Repubs will say the Republicans are (cue Nick denying that he's a Republican even though he never says anything but their party line).

Who is it, then?
Click to expand...
Although tempted to vote republican, I just couldn't do it. Plenty, but not all republicans promote freedom. BTW, I'm not sure libertarians are 100% good either, A myopic view of what freedom entails can be a little short sighted, but for what it's worth libertarians are better than the other two big parties. I didn't vote because no choice seemed appropriate.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the problem with the bold is...government does not have food or healthcare.

those things are created by people.....to give a person a material good or service means government must take from one and give to another, and that is stealing.

it violates Americas founding principles...life liberty and the [ pursuit of happiness.]...which means property.
Click to expand...

I understand my view on that is different than the Libertarian view. I see the pursuit of happiness as covering not starving and being healthy. We all get to vote according to our beliefs.
 
johndylan1 said:
Although tempted to vote republican, I just couldn't do it. Plenty, but not all republicans promote freedom. BTW, I'm not sure libertarians are 100% good either, A myopic view of what freedom entails can be a little short sighted, but for what it's worth libertarians are better than the other two big parties. I didn't vote because no choice seemed appropriate.
Click to expand...

I guess I wish I had experienced the same thing you did with Republicans. I didnt experience Freedom around Republicans.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the problem with the bold is...government does not have food or healthcare.

those things are created by people.....to give a person a material good or service means government must take from one and give to another, and that is stealing.

it violates Americas founding principles...life liberty and the [ pursuit of happiness.]...which means property.
Click to expand...

I always enjoy reading your posts and almost always agree to a great extent with your views, however, I do not think "pursuit of happiness" means "property". Property may somehow subsist in the concept, but is not an equivalent.
 
Amandi said:
I guess I wish I had experienced the same thing you did with Republicans. I didnt experience Freedom around Republicans.
Click to expand...

I'm curios. How did you feel shackled by a republican? Was it a personal conflict? Was it a policy? What happened?
 
Amandi said:
I understand my view on that is different than the Libertarian view. I see the pursuit of happiness as covering not starving and being healthy. We all get to vote according to our beliefs.
Click to expand...

life liberty and property, is mentioned twice in the constitution.

everything about you is property,...your body, words, ideas, the things you create, the things you acquire from your labor.

what do you mean we get to vote....please explain.
 
johndylan1 said:
I always enjoy reading your posts and almost always agree to a great extent with your views, however, I do not think "pursuit of happiness" means "property". Property may somehow subsist in the concept, but is not an equivalent.
Click to expand...

life, liberty, and property is listed in the 5th and 14th amendments.

government is instituted for the purpose to protect them.
 
Amandi said:
I mostly feel this way as well but the reason I am not Libertarian is I usually feel the rights of the people extend further than Libertarians do. Another difference I have is I believe that certain things should be gauranteed to people, ie not starving and basic healthcare.

If I had to chhose, I would rather live in a Libertarian state than a Republican state though.
Click to expand...

You may be a bit confused here. A mainstream republican is more likely to vote for policies that provide for food assistance and healthcare assistance than a libertarian. With out question the libertarian is more in the individualist camp, however both libertarians and republicans are strong advocates for private charitable giving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom