• 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!

South Carolina governor: Confederate flag comes down Friday

Libertardianism has no history. Well, other than Alex Jone$, a senile Ron Paul and cynical rednecks who wave Chinese made America flags at minorities and/or the poor.

You're obviously an authority on the subject. Bravo.
 
Oh, she doesn't have to be. I, however, know very well your statements on the subject. Would you say that not believing in any state is an ideology of any sort? It really isn't. Political ideologies, at least the mainstream kind adopted by philosophers regardless of their leans, tend to have a response for different issues. Conservatives seem to want a government actively involved in dealing with criminals. Liberals want the government to stay out of their bedrooms, but deal with discrimination. Regardless of how they see it, they seem to understand that governments and states need to exist. What do libertarians like yourself want? NO GUB'MINT! NO STATE! That's hardly a response to any issue. It's intellectual laziness.

It's really just intellectually lazy to think the solution to lives problems is force. :shrug:
 
You're obviously an authority on the subject. Bravo.

Well then, please enlighten me all about the great whale that is Libertardianism. Give me insight into how churches are supposed to pay for outrageous medical bills. How about the Libertardian view on how the homeless are supposed to live with their elderly relatives who can barely afford to eat themselves. I know, what are the Libertardian means of getting to work on roads so badly battered due to wear and tear because they don't believe in paying taxes to fix them?
 
Well then, please enlighten me all about the great whale that is Libertardianism. Give me insight into how churches are supposed to pay for outrageous medical bills. How about the Libertardian view on how the homeless are supposed to live with their elderly relatives who can barely afford to eat themselves. I know, what are the Libertardian means of getting to work on roads so badly battered due to wear and tear because they don't believe in paying taxes to fix them?

Churches paying for medical bills??
The homeless living with their elderly relatives?
Roads badly batted due to wear and tear?

The only one there worth responding to is the last one. Roads in a libertarian society would not be under the control of the state.
 
It's really just intellectually lazy to think the solution to lives problems is force. :shrug:

Lol, see what I mean? That's not a response to anything at all. It's basically fluff made to sound like you actually have a grasp of what we're discussing here. Political ideologies are about using states and governments for various reasons some of which demand force, others which don't. They all seem to understand that government plays a role in defending the rights of minorities or even majorities from oppression, slavery, etc. If not that, then the opposite but all seem to have an understanding that governments play some roles that simply can't be fulfilled by the individual. Your libertarianism simply says "Nope! Nada! Rien! Nothing!". That's not really a political ideology of any sort.

Saying that, you "don't like any states or government" is an ideology, is like saying that atheism is a religion. Not only will you not convince anybody with even a remote understanding of the words being used, it's just lazy. I mean who goes around saying "Man! Things would be so much greater if government wasn't around at all!"? It's either people who simply can't live within a structured environment, or people who have committed some act which led to the state using force on them.

I won't go into the second one because there is no way I could do it without violating quite a few DP rules. However, the first one is fair game. As I've told you before: If you don't enjoy living within a society structured in many ways through the use of states, and governments, there are quite a few stateless and lawless hellholes around the world to which you can buy a one way ticket to, and test your luck. However, even after all of that, your libertarianism still won't be an ideology of any sort. It will continue to be the intellectual laziness of a person who obviously can't live amongst other human beings but for some reason or another won't leave.
 
Last edited:
Confederates can still fly their secessionist traitor flag of surrender wherever they want. It's just that the state is no longer endorsing it.
 
That's pretty interesting and something I didn't know. I mean I knew it was a battle flag, I just didn't know it was from VA. Seems kind of weird that people would fight for their local government to raise a flag that their ancestors from the state didn't even fight under. I mean, I could understand if people from Virginia were making the argument, but now that I know that the flag is from VA, it seems kind of hollow for all of the non-VA folks to be making the claim too.
Notice, also, that southerners are not trying to fly the Confederate national flag, the Stars & Bars; nor is anyone calling the Sars & Bars a symbol of hate. In fact everyone's ignoring all the symbols of the Confederacy, focusing in only on this one temporary flag of a single army of a single state.

Strange.
 
Lol, see what I mean? That's not a response to anything at all. It's basically fluff made to sound like you actually have a grasp of what we're discussing here. Political ideologies are about using states and governments for various reasons some of which demand force, others which don't. They all seem to understand that government plays a role in defending the rights of minorities or even majorities from oppression, slavery, etc. If not that, then the opposite but all seem to have an understanding that governments play some roles that simply can't be fulfilled by the individual. Your libertarianism simply says "Nope! Nada! Rien! Nothing!". That's not really a political ideology of any sort.

Saying that, you "don't like any states or government" is an ideology, is like saying that atheism is a religion. Not only will you not convince anybody with even a remote understanding of the words being used, it's just lazy. I mean who goes around saying "Man! Things would be so much greater if government wasn't around at all!"? It's either people who simply can't live within a structured environment, or people who have committed some act which led to the state using force on them.

I won't go into the second one because there is no way I could do it without violating quite a few DP rules. However, the first one is fair game. As I've told you before: If you don't enjoy living within a society structured in many ways through the use of states, and governments, there are quite a few stateless and lawless hellholes around the world to which you can buy a one way ticket to, and test your luck. However, even after all of that, your libertarianism still won't be an ideology of any sort. It will continue to be the intellectual laziness of a person who obviously can't live amongst other human beings but for some reason or another won't leave.

That's great and all, but believing in a state is not necessary for something to be an ideology.
 
I like how Hatuey and Marla know nothing about philosophy and yet are trying to be involved in a discussion about philosophy.
 
Confederates can still fly their secessionist traitor flag of surrender wherever they want. It's just that the state is no longer endorsing it.
Remember that the US owes it's very existence to treason.
 
Notice, also, that southerners are not trying to fly the Confederate national flag, the Stars & Bars. In fact everyone's ignoring all the symbols of the Confederacy, focusing in only on this one temporary flag of a single army of a single state.

Strange.

Holy jeez, you're abso-****ing-lutely right. I mean some states have changed their flags and removed any obvious signs of the confederacy, others have that ugly blue color used in like 30 states. Others have what I'd call nods to the confederacy. As far as I can tell, nobody seems to be all that worried about flying the flags of their supposedly sovereign states. That pokes quite a whole in the whole "ancestry" line and the entire matter behind this flag.
 
Churches paying for medical bills??
The homeless living with their elderly relatives?
Roads badly batted due to wear and tear?

The only one there worth responding to is the last one. Roads in a libertarian society would not be under the control of the state.

Wow. Just...wow. You don't even know your own so-called party's rhetoric.

Anyway, in this comical "Libertardian society" under whose direction would the roads be under? Alex Jone$ supporters who buy junk vitamins and water filters?

And the history books claim the last days of Rome were scary.
 
Wow. Just...wow. You don't even know your own so-called party's rhetoric.

Anyway, in this comical "Libertardian society" under whose direction would the roads be under? Alex Jone$ supporters who buy junk vitamins and water filters?

And the history books claim the last days of Rome were scary.

Party? I'm not a member of any party.

And the history books say we have more in common with Rome today than anything I support.
 
That's great and all, but believing in a state is not necessary for something to be an ideology.

That's like saying atheism can be a religion even though there is nothing mystical/spiritual/religious about it. Lol, what you have is not a political ideology at all. Political ideologies deal with governance at every level. Simply saying that you don't want any kind of governance at all (you know, that's what states at all levels do) is not a political ideology of any sort.
 
Party? I'm not a member of any party.

And the history books say we have more in common with Rome today than anything I support.

That reminds me of Groucho Marx...He said "he would not belong to any club that would have him as a member." :lol:
 
That's like saying atheism can be a religion even though there is nothing mystical/spiritual/religious about it. Lol, what you have is not a political ideology at all. Political ideologies deal with governance at every level. Simply saying that you don't want any kind of governance at all (you know, that's what states at all levels do) is not a political ideology of any sort.

Again, that's really nice and all, but it's wrong. Anarcho-capitalism or otherwise known as voluntaryism is a political ideology.
 
Voluntaryism = hipster speak for intellectual and physical laziness. Hardly qualifies as a political ideology. Just empty rhetoric spoken by disillusioned Rethuglicons who seriously believe in nonsense such as not paying taxes gives them some sort of political clout and power. Best of luck with that, Libertardian.
 
Again, that's really nice and all, but it's wrong. Anarcho-capitalism or otherwise known as voluntaryism is a political ideology.

Lmao, you started off your amazing descent into complete intellectual obliteration by pointing out the contradictions of the very real ideology that is liberalism, and yet here you are espousing what is at best a train of though. A train of thought that is inherently contradictory based on even the slightest understanding of human nature and the chaos that would ensue within a system where people are subservient to the whims of private companies.
 
Voluntaryism = hipster speak for intellectual and physical laziness. Hardly qualifies as a political ideology. Just empty rhetoric spoken by disillusioned Rethuglicons who seriously believe in nonsense such as not paying taxes gives them some sort of political clout and power. Best of luck with that, Libertardian.

Marla, suggestion, we tend to frown upon giving people little cute nicknames like that. I mean, they're funny, but it could get you gigged (DP speak for infractions) and worse booted from the forum. I'd suggest you relax on them a bit. We can all have a cordial discussion without necessarily descending into all out insults. This is especially true considering Henrin has been pretty civilized throughout this entire exchange.
 
Lmao, you started off your amazing descent into complete intellectual obliteration by pointing out the contradictions of the very real ideology that is liberalism, and yet here you are espousing what is at best a train of though. A train of thought that is inherently contradictory based on even the slightest understanding of human nature and the chaos that would ensue within a system where people are subservient to the whims of private companies.

No, not really. I think anyone honest about it will recognize that classical liberalism unlike liberal socialism does not suffer from contradictions of very basic principles. As for a liberal talking about human nature, well, yeah, no comment on that.
 
No, not really. I think anyone honest about it will recognize that classical liberalism unlike liberal socialism does not suffer from such contradictions of very basic principles. As for a liberal talking about human nature, well, yeah, no comment on that.

And yet, liberalism remains a valid ideology regardless of its various incarnations while whatever form of libertarianism you espouse simply remains a train of thought which is quite a few floors bellow an ideology but just defined enough to be considered "a philosophy". One which for some reason, the overwhelming majority of the world has moved away from.
 
Good to know. Although I feel as I'm not being insulting personally. My stance on Libertardism is just that - empty rhetoric made by disillusioned Rethuglicons who seem to have a deep hatred of the poor, the sick and the needy. They seriously believe in a non-governmental interfering system that allows for free reign without any recourse to civil, ethical and constitutional law other by what they cheery pick as being fit for the rest of society. I am not mocking Henrin's beliefs. I simply cannot see them as being viable for the common good. I see the ideologies (or lack thereof) of Libertardianism as being no ideologies at all. Henrin has yet to produce a substantiated argument for why I should take his beliefs seriously when he says nothing more than catch phrases and buzz words. It's not just him nor am I personally attacking him for his political beliefs upon which he has every right to express. My experiences has been with many Libertardians that they cannot or will not (for some odd reason) validate their arguments with common sense, for example, on how a lack of taxes will somehow form a coalition of voluntaryism.


I meant no offense to no one.
 
And yet, liberalism remains a valid ideology regardless of its various incarnations while whatever form of libertarianism you espouse simply remains a train of thought which is quite a few floors bellow an ideology but just defined enough to be considered "a philosophy". One which for some reason, the overwhelming majority of the world has moved away from.

Argumentum ad populum

Regardless, liberal socialism is simply illogical as their views on property conflict and must undermine each other leaving both rather nonexistent in any sort of foundation or meaning. In practice what appears to happen is the public side of the equation gets stronger as the system ages, while the private side becomes more of an illusion than anything else. As it stands all around the world all that is really left of the private side of the equation is renting.
 
Confederates can still fly their secessionist traitor flag of surrender wherever they want. It's just that the state is no longer endorsing it.

You mean banner of freedom don't ya? Oh I forgot, you haven't read a true account of the South, have ya?
 
Back
Top Bottom