• 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!

Libertarians Are the New Communists

Somerville said:
An interesting opinion piece from Bloomberg
Click to expand...

how in the hell in you warped twisted mind can you take a political philosophy that is for limited government and say they are like a political philosophy that is based on full government control
 
Somerville said:
An interesting opinion piece from Bloomberg
Click to expand...

Well, they can be possible opposite extremes on the opinion of what government should do. As a left libertarian, I'm not so much for the small government or free market aspect of the party. I'm much more interested in helping ensure equal rights from birth. My only real difference I guess, is "which rights" and "how"; for example I don't think property rights are absolute. I think land is ultimately a public resource and there should be more protections against wasting or even destroying that resource, even if it conflicts with the other "rights". I also don't think we should blindly protect any aspect of these rights, if it's proved to cause a system where the total freedom is less; I would support minimum wage increases because there's evidence that protecting the rights of employers to pay lower wages is detrimental to our total set of rights and freedoms as a whole. But, that doesn't mean all wages should be government regulated, and I definitely would support a much smaller set of regulations for businesses in general. If that position falls in line with even a reasonable minority of "libertarians", then that would put us at neither extreme and certainly not with the communists.
 
Medusa said:
libertarians : laissez faire minded egoists :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

libertarianism: anarchy for the superwealthy.

libertarianism: the political philosophy that holds that traffic is caused by traffic lights.
 
Thrilla said:
the only reason Maher ever called himself a libertarian is because he smokes weed.
he has always been a run of the mill liberal.
Click to expand...

I'd say this is true about half of libertarians. The other half are run of the mill rightwingers.
 
haymarket said:
On a website where people who proudly wear the label RIGHT LIBERTARIAN are as common as hemorrhoids in a senior citizen home, I would expect the true believers to come out of the woodwork and defend their religion against the heretic. After all, that is how things work here. In real life, the label of LIBERTARIAN on an election ballot is like the skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle. On many political websites, its announcing that you have decided to steal the methodology of the Jehovahs Witnesses but instead of doors are using computers to spread the message.

I thought this part of the piece was especially excellent and hit the nail right upon its head



Amen brother Amen. Oh wait - thats a religions missionary term. Okay - never mind with the amens. Its just a great and very insightful peace that will bring down the wrath of the faithful so they can get their monthly Von Mises merit badges.
Click to expand...

Statists hate and fear libertarians the same way plantation owners hated and feared the abolitionists. The statists have a good thing going, and they're not going to stand idly by while libertarians point out the fact that it is wrong to initiate aggression. Statism is entirely founded upon initiating aggression against society.
 
Federalist said:
Statists hate and fear libertarians the same way plantation owners hated and feared the abolitionists. The statists have a good thing going, and they're not going to stand idly by while libertarians point out the fact that it is wrong to initiate aggression. Statism is entirely founded upon initiating aggression against society.
Click to expand...

The plantation owners were the libertarians of the 19th century.
 
head of joaquin said:
The plantation owners were the libertarians of the 19th century.
Click to expand...

Not really. They initiated aggression against their slaves. Not libertarian at all. In fact, opposite of libertarian.
 
If you do not oppose an ever growing government,your not a libertarian. The idea of a "left"libertarian is fraudulent.
 
head of joaquin said:
I'd say this is true about half of libertarians. The other half are run of the mill rightwingers.
Click to expand...

that's what happens when you are the only party/ideology pushing for legalization of marijuana and the end of the drug war... it become sort of a defining platform for some.

not sure of the exact numbers really, but yeah... faux-libertarians do exist in decent numbers, no doubt.
 
Drake McHugh said:
If you do not oppose an ever growing government,your not a libertarian. The idea of a "left"libertarian is fraudulent.
Click to expand...

the definition of "libertarian" is not "one who opposes ever growing government" it's much much more than that, i'm afraid..... and libertarianism , as founded, was a leftist ideology... it's not fraudulent to be a left-libertarian whatsoever.
 
I think it's safe to conclude that anyone who thinks it's legitimate to demonize the rich will never own their own home.

The article was nothing more than a disgustingly effeminate Liberal attack on the right. Nothing more.
 
head of joaquin said:
libertarianism: anarchy for the superwealthy.

libertarianism: the political philosophy that holds that traffic is caused by traffic lights.
Click to expand...

progressivism: the political ideology of killing babies

progressives: those whom believe traffic lights are fundamental human rights.


damn, this really is fun.
 
Thrilla said:
entirely false.

stop selling falsehoods as facts.
Click to expand...

Entirely true: they used the same argument libertarians used about how the government shouldn't interfere with their property right and how slaves were better off due to slavery.

But you have no idea one way or another since you are completely ignorant of the history of ideas.
 
Ray410 said:
I think it's safe to conclude that anyone who thinks it's legitimate to demonize the rich will never own their own home.

The article was nothing more than a disgustingly effeminate Liberal attack on the right. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to conclude that anybody who uses the term "effeminate liberal" will never have a girl friend.

Meantime your admission that you think only rich people should own homes sort of exposes the entire bad faith agenda of libertarianism.
 
Ray410 said:
I think it's safe to conclude that anyone who thinks it's legitimate to demonize the rich will never own their own home.

The article was nothing more than a disgustingly effeminate Liberal attack on the right. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

it was an attack on "extreme libertarians"... .. but yeah, the poor will always demonize the rich.. and some of them will even believe the rhetoric they spew.
 
head of joaquin said:
I think it's safe to conclude that anybody who uses the term "effeminate liberal" will never have a girl friend.

Meantime your admission that you think only rich people should own homes sort of exposes the entire bad faith agenda of libertarianism.
Click to expand...

he didn't say only the rich should own homes....

why do falsehoods flow so easily from your brain?
 
Thrilla said:
he didn't say only the rich should own homes....

why do falsehoods flow so easily from your brain?
Click to expand...

He implied it. Why do the implications of foolish libertarian claims not register with you?

By the way, googling plantation owner writings? Go to it!
 
head of joaquin said:
He implied it. Why do the implications of foolish libertarian claims not register with you?

By the way, googling plantation owner writings? Go to it!
Click to expand...
And the only rational argument against plantation owners who made bogus arguments was the legitimate libertarian argument for human liberty.
 
head of joaquin said:
Entirely true: they used the same argument libertarians used about how the government shouldn't interfere with their property right and how slaves were better off due to slavery.

But you have no idea one way or another since you are completely ignorant of the history of ideas.
Click to expand...

entirely false... nonaggression principle for the win... you know, that little thing that is the very basis for libertarianism.

it's cool to demonize plantation owners for their slavery.... but assigning the wrong label to them does you no favors... it makes you look ignorant.


i'm sorry to counter your rhetoric with facts, but meh, you'll get over it.
 
Thrilla said:
entirely false... nonaggression principle for the win... you know, that little thing that is the very basis for libertarianism.

it's cool to demonize plantation owners for their slavery.... but assigning the wrong label to them does you no favors... it makes you look ignorant.


i'm sorry to counter your rhetoric with facts, but meh, you'll get over it.
Click to expand...
Making himself look ignorant is what head of joaquin does best.
 
head of joaquin said:
He implied it. Why do the implications of foolish libertarian claims not register with you?

By the way, googling plantation owner writings? Go to it!
Click to expand...

no, he didn't imply it... you simply mischaracterized what he said.. and we all know it... progressives are always dishonest like that...well not all, but certainly you are.

why would I google plantation owner writings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom