• 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!

Time to vote for Independents/3rd Parties?

Do you think we need more Independent/3rd party Senators and Congressmen?


  • Total voters
    26
Ok. Now to state something else that should be obvious to you (somehow it does not appear to be). If two ideologies agree at the ideology level, they are going to agree at the surface level because they tend to feel the same way about the same issues and will reach the same conclusions. So, what may appear to you to be a surface agreement may also be an ideological agreement. You are not understanding my argument because you are only looking at one side of it.

No, I understand it just fine. You're willing to apply significance to surface agreement with libertarians and the right, but are not willing to apply any significance to surface agreement with libertarians and the left. Then without going into any of the political philosophies you have said surface agreement can be indicative of philosophical agreement; yet you never demonstrate this. You just state the surface agreement for one argument as valid, and the surface agreement for the other argument as invalid.
 
No, I understand it just fine. You're willing to apply significance to surface agreement with libertarians and the right, but are not willing to apply any significance to surface agreement with libertarians and the left. Then without going into any of the political philosophies you have said surface agreement can be indicative of philosophical agreement; yet you never demonstrate this. You just state the surface agreement for one argument as valid, and the surface agreement for the other argument as invalid.

Please show me where I am showing a double standard. I am looking through my old posts and I am not seeing it.
 
Considering you have not considered any underlying philosophy; it's where ever you've accepted surface agreement between libertarian and right while denying surface agreement between libertarian and left. Less now you're going to say that you didn't do any of that. Such as

No, I wanted to label the libertarians on the right wing because they tend to agree with right wing on economic ideas. I did not consider social ideas at all because you guys derive those differently. However, conservatives tend to almost go lock-step on economic ideas, so you guys are a good fit. The conservatives often disagree on social ideas, so they are not as important a consideration for me to use.

In which you merely state the underlying principle is the same; but have no demonstration of it other than your statement. There are lots of things libertarians disagree with the right with. We're mostly non-interventionist, we don't agree in a lot of formal aid to other nations which the right agrees with. We don't agree with the Fed and how closed off it is to review, and that conflicts with many on the right (a small fraction of them accept the libertarian position). We're radically different on things like campaign finance as well. Along with the massive amounts of spending the right currently endorses. We're against things such as the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, etc. which are well endorsed by the right. And these differences come from the differences in our political philosophies. Libertarianism is inherently minarchist. There is no minarchist philosophy left in the right/left designations.
 
Last edited:
Considering you have not considered any underlying philosophy; it's where ever you've accepted surface agreement between libertarian and right while denying surface agreement between libertarian and left. Less now you're going to say that you didn't do any of that.

So you are going to accuse me of something and not back it up?
 
So you are going to accuse me of something and not back it up?

Are you going to show me where you discussed fundamental libertarian philosophy then?
 
Are you going to show me where you discussed fundamental libertarian philosophy then?

You and I have discussed it multiple times in several threads. If you want me to, I can bring up multiple threads about natural law and all that jazz.
 
You and I have discussed it multiple times in several threads. If you want me to, I can bring up multiple threads about natural law and all that jazz.

More than natural rights too. That's a side argument, and one not necessarily unique to libertarianism. Though in practice, both right/left treat our rights as privileges; where as libertarians would fight hard for the acknowledging and proliferation of all our rights. But bring up our fundamental philosophy and demonstrate how that makes us extreme right-wing. Remembering that extreme-right wing philosophies (much like extreme left-wing philosophies) require massive use of government against the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
More than natural rights too. That's a side argument, and one not necessarily unique to libertarianism. Though in practice, both right/left treat our rights as privileges; where as libertarians would fight hard for the acknowledging and proliferation of all our rights. But bring up our fundamental philosophy and demonstrate how that makes us extreme right-wing. Remembering that extreme-right wing philosophies (much like extreme left-wing philosophies) require massive use of government against the rights and liberties of the individual.

Why should I do this for you, so you can frame an argument? I am beginning to not trust you as a debater after all of your hysterics and I prefer we stick to the current topic. We could perhaps start a side thread, if you pose the question in a manner that I find interesting. Also, I disagree on the bold point, extremism is a view point and attitude. (this actually does relate to our current discussion)
 
Last edited:
Why should I do this, so you can frame an argument? I am beginning to not trust you as a debater after all of your hysterics and I prefer we stick to the current topic. Also, I disagree on the bold point, extremism is a view point and attitude.

So you're building all this off of your personal preference and bias then; as I've stated from the beginning. There has been no hysterics. I said you mislabeled a group; and you did. Libertarianism is not extreme right-wing. On a pure 1-D political spectrum, libertarianism is centric (which is why you need another variable to fully categorize the spectrum; as I've continually said). In essence you're trying to back out of this argument because you have nothing substantial to back it up with. It's just your feelings, your ideals, and your bias on the matter. Extreme right-wing is indeed authoritative or fascist governments. Extreme left-wing is indeed heavy communist or socialist governments. Those are the end points. To label libertarians as extreme right-wing you are putting us in the authoritative/fascist philosophy; of which we are most certainly not.

This whole issue is caused because you don't want to add the proper number of variables, for whatever reason. And thus you're trying desperately not to have libertarianism as a centrist policy because you view us as extreme. And we may be just that; just not along right-wing philosophies.
 
So you're building all this off of your personal preference and bias then; as I've stated from the beginning.

Nope. I just don't see the point in going into further detail of my argument when I have already pointed out stuff like anti-regulation, small government, low taxes, etc. (all coming from the same basic ideas).

There has been no hysterics. I said you mislabeled a group; and you did.

Yes, no hysterics, which is why you are constantly accusing me of lying and bias. :roll:

Libertarianism is not extreme right-wing. On a pure 1-D political spectrum, libertarianism is centric (which is why you need another variable to fully categorize the spectrum; as I've continually said). In essence you're trying to back out of this argument because you have nothing substantial to back it up with. It's just your feelings, your ideals, and your bias on the matter.

Than you have been ignoring my posts. But we already knew that.

Extreme right-wing is indeed authoritative or fascist governments. Extreme left-wing is indeed heavy communist or socialist governments. Those are the end points. To label libertarians as extreme right-wing you are putting us in the authoritative/fascist philosophy; of which we are most certainly not.

Some forms of extremism do seek to use power to subjugate others, and others do not. both are still examples of extremism.

This whole issue is caused because you don't want to add the proper number of variables, for whatever reason. And thus you're trying desperately not to have libertarianism as a centrist policy because you view us as extreme. And we may be just that; just not along right-wing philosophies.

I know what started the argument.
 
Nope. I just don't see the point in going into further detail of my argument when I have already pointed out stuff like anti-regulation, small government, low taxes, etc. (all coming from the same basic ideas).

And I already pointed out several ways we differ from the right on those measures. You merely mentioned some of those as surface agreements. None of that went to explain the underlying philosophies. Yet you took those surface agreements as valid and denied surface agreements when it sided with the left.

Yes, no hysterics, which is why you are constantly accusing me of lying and bias. :roll:

That's because you've added nothing substantial. All it is is what YOU think is proper surface agreement, and what isn't. No discussion of why; just what you feel. You go off of what YOU think is extremism; no discussion of philosophies; but rather your own interpretations and personal feelings. It's not my fault you made a crappy argument and didn't back anything up or provide anything substantial.

Than you have been ignoring my posts. But we already knew that.

I've read all your posts, and it's all your personal feelings, preferences, and bias. Why else would you accept surface agreement with the right but not the left while not addressing any of the fundamental philosophical differences.

Some forms of extremism do seek to use power to subjugate others, and others do not. both are still examples of extremism.

Yes, and one of those is not properly represented on a 1-D political graph.

I know what started the argument.

Your mislabeling of libertarianism as an extreme right-wing philosophy and refusal to add the proper number of variables to determine the system.

This is simplified, but it also is well better at properly categorizing philosophies than the 1-D treatment

275px-Nolan-chart.svg.png
 
Last edited:
And I already pointed out several ways we differ from the right on those measures. You merely mentioned some of those as surface agreements. None of that went to explain the underlying philosophies. Yet you took those surface agreements as valid and denied surface agreements when it sided with the left.

This is because I assumed you had a basic level of political understanding. Perhaps I should not make this assumption next time?

That's because you've added nothing substantial. All it is is what YOU think is proper surface agreement, and what isn't. No discussion of why; just what you feel. You go off of what YOU think is extremism; no discussion of philosophies; but rather your own interpretations and personal feelings. It's not my fault you made a crappy argument and didn't back anything up or provide anything substantial.

Ok. Please show me where my examples are wrong and why. We can debate this if you wish, but you actually have to debate, not just make accusations.

I've read all your posts, and it's all your personal feelings, preferences, and bias. Why else would you accept surface agreement with the right but not the left while not addressing any of the fundamental philosophical differences.

I never made that argument. Again, please show me. I have shown you a post from the first page where I was making a different argument. Please afford me the same courtesey.

Yes, and one of those is not properly represented on a 1-D political graph.

Your mislabeling of libertarianism as an extreme right-wing philosophy and refusal to add the proper number of variables to determine the system.

This is simplified, but it also is well better at properly categorizing philosophies than the 1-D treatment

275px-Nolan-chart.svg.png

So you keep insisting.
 
This is because I assumed you had a basic level of political understanding. Perhaps I should not make this assumption next time?

Perhaps you should just make better arguments next time.

Ok. Please show me where my examples are wrong and why. We can debate this if you wish, but you actually have to debate, not just make accusations.

Because you didn't link any philosophy. You said "Oh they agree on lower taxes". That's a surface agreement and one you took at full face value. However, we agree and disagree with both sides on a lot of issues. Yet any surface agreement with the left you dismissed while you promoted the surface agreement with the right. I can't believe you are really having a hard time understanding this. This is all well within the ability of humans to understand.

I never made that argument. Again, please show me. I have shown you a post from the first page where I was making a different argument. Please afford me the same courtesey.

Yes, you did. Less you want to point out where you made your definitions and philosophical arguments.

So you keep insisting.

I continually do, because this whole mess is made up because you don't think you need another variable. You called it a crutch I do believe. Yet if you have a multivariable system, you cannot fully describe the system with one variable.
 
Perhaps you should just make better arguments next time.

I agree, I need to dumb them down I guess.

Because you didn't link any philosophy. You said "Oh they agree on lower taxes". That's a surface agreement and one you took at full face value. However, we agree and disagree with both sides on a lot of issues. Yet any surface agreement with the left you dismissed while you promoted the surface agreement with the right. I can't believe you are really having a hard time understanding this. This is all well within the ability of humans to understand.

I guess this is where we disagree. Both sides tend to think lower taxes is a fundamental good in and of itself. To me this is more of an ideological thing.

Yes, you did. Less you want to point out where you made your definitions and philosophical arguments.

I continue to contend that there is no need for it.

I continually do, because this whole mess is made up because you don't think you need another variable. You called it a crutch I do believe. Yet if you have a multivariable system, you cannot fully describe the system with one variable.

And I continue to disagree.
 
I agree, I need to dumb them down I guess.

That or apply logic and consistency.

I guess this is where we disagree. Both sides tend to think lower taxes is a fundamental good in and of itself. To me this is more of an ideological thing.

Another "I think" argument of yours. The surface is taxes up or down. We happen to agree with down. Why? For Republicans it's a talking point; something to differentiate itself from the Democrats. But very little is done about deficit spending or taxes in reality. As evidence of our out of control spending and deficit. For libertarians, it's because of a fundamental belief in the limitation of government and the forms of force it can use over us. Along with what the government was given power to do. There's a difference in the philosophy. You happen to want to see it as the philosophical agreement, though when it comes to libertarian/left you're more apt to call that "surface agreement". But these are based on your personal preference. Notice how many times you've used the "I think" argument.

I continue to contend that there is no need for it.

But apparently there is because you cannot properly identify libertarian philosophy.

And I continue to disagree.

Again, on your personal preference of thinking there doesn't need to be one. But your designation of libertarians as extreme right-wing shows the flaw in your categorization system.
 
Back
Top Bottom