• 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!

What do you consider a Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal?

ecofarm said:
One cannot claims gays are evil and claim to support gay rights. The demonization of gays inherently perpetuates legal oppression, which stands in direct contradiction to liberal social policy. One can be hetero and libertarian, but not gay-hating and libertarian; that's just talking out of both sides of ones mouth.

There's nothing wrong with avoiding drug addicts, the vast majority of cannabis smokers avoid drug addicts including drunks. One can be clean and sober all the time and libertarian. But to paint cannabis as an evil is anti-libertarian. Again, one can't have it both ways. Either one supports legalization or one demonizes.
Click to expand...

Again wrong. A libertarian can easily not particularly like gay people, and still respect their right to live as they please. There are many life choices I feel are detrimental, but so long as those choices do not infringe on my rights, the people making those choices have every right to live their lives as they please, just as I have every right to retain my judgments.
 
jdog said:
You do not understand the definition of a conservative. A conservative is first and foremost a Constitutionalist. Libertarians are true conservatives where Republicans are basically liberals with some conservative views. Democrats are basically socialists who do not value the Constitution in any way unless they can find a way to use it to their advantage.
Click to expand...

Brazenly displayed ignorance. Bravo.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Libertarian political philosophy always seems limited. Do libertarians believe that a government has a role in protecting the people's interests?
Click to expand...

Interests, no. Rights yes. To understand this question, you must understand the context in which this country was founded. Until the formation of the USA, the only sovereign citizens in the world were kings. Everyone except Kings were subjects who were owned by the Kings. There are only two kinds of existence, either you are a sovereign free individual, or you are the subject or slave of a person or entity. The Constitution of the United States recognized that the people of the United States were they in themselves sovereigns and had all the rights of Kings. The government was the servant of the people and existed to protect their rights. Now a right is much different than an interest. What is in the interest of one person is often in the disinterest of another. Rights on the other hand are universal to all, and the right to be sovereign insures each person the opportunity to enjoy life as they see fit.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree that you can think any way that you want, even speak (tell others) about your bigoted opinions, but the government does have the power to legislate how you can act towards others.
Click to expand...

The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of everyone equally. At the point where a person infringes on the rights of another person, the government has the responsibility to act.
 
ecofarm said:
Brazenly displayed ignorance. Bravo.
Click to expand...

Instead of lowering yourself to the practice of personal attacks, why do you not take the opportunity to make an educated argument?
That is unless you cannot.....
 
Cephus said:
Because there's no such thing as a Libertarian Party or anything...
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a Libertarian Party, perhaps you should do some research and read its platform....
 
jdog said:
Instead of lowering yourself to the practice of personal attacks, why do you not take the opportunity to make an educated argument?
That is unless you cannot.....
Click to expand...

Pointing out that someone is displaying ignorance is not a personal attack. You need to look that term up, and stop playing the victim card.

There is no need, whatsoever, to back up my statement as it's very clear to anyone.
 
jdog said:
Yes, there is a Libertarian Party, perhaps you should do some research and read its platform....
Click to expand...

I have and disagree with a lot of it. But he said something to the effect of libertarians were people who fell outside of the party system. I just pointed out that they have a party of their own.
 
Cephus said:
I have and disagree with a lot of it. But he said something to the effect of libertarians were people who fell outside of the party system. I just pointed out that they have a party of their own.
Click to expand...

No he said they do not have a party. Just for interest what do you disagree with?
 
DashingAmerican said:
My viewpoints

Conservative: Pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military, reckless spending, too much gov. in personal lives, anti-gay, pro drug war, pro war on terror, just pro war in general.

Liberal: Pro-choice, anti-gun, pro civil liberty, reckless spending, too much gov. in everything, pro war on terror, intolerant of different view points.

Libertarian: pro choice, pro gun, pro civil liberty, cut spend no matter the effect, cut military, anti drug war, anti war on terror, naive.
Click to expand...

Conservative: Not wanting to rush to make changes. Wanting to know the full effects of change before implementing them and still knowing that changes often have unexpected consequences.

Liberal: Believing there is some path to utopia. Believing that they know what is right for everyone. This belief is so strong, they have lost their classic liberal views, and become authoritarians.

Libertarian: As long as something doesn't impose on others, it's OK.

Those for me are the basic generalities. From these points, there are several varieties of each.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Libertarian political philosophy always seems limited. Do libertarians believe that a government has a role in protecting the people's interests?
Click to expand...

Most do, but there are some extremes that would be called anarchists.

I agree mostly with the libertarian party platform on this:


1.7 Crime and Justice

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

------

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

----------

3.6 Representative Government

We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be free to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government.
​

https://www.lp.org/platform/
 
My opinion on what is the biggest ideological weakness of each of those political stances you mentioned:

Conservative: Deep down they feel genuinely entitled to government services and transfer payments (the ones that apply to them, anyway), while also alleging government should cut taxes to the bone and maintaining that government is generally bad at everything and should be altogether minimized. Embarrassingly contradictory.

Liberal: In denial of the realities of global competition for the production and consumption of goods and services, desperately clinging to the glories of the post WWII economic boom, refusing to question labor cartels or acknowledge the problems they pose, and ultimately relying on either (1) backward isolationism or (2) a one-world government

Libertarian: Inability and/or refusal to acknowledge the long-term self-sabotage inherent in the laissez-faire economic approach.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Most do, but there are some extremes that would be called anarchists.

I agree mostly with the libertarian party platform on this:


1.7 Crime and Justice

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

------

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

----------

3.6 Representative Government

We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be free to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We advocate initiative, referendum, recall and repeal when used as popular checks on government.
​

https://www.lp.org/platform/
Click to expand...

Anarchists' are not an extreme version of Libertarianism, it is the next step in the evolution of a Libertarian. Anarchy is the belief that the freedom of the individual is impossible so long as government exists in any way shape or form.

Anarchy is the highest form of existence mankind could achieve, but it could only be achievable at the point where every human accepted and believed in the principals of Libertarianism. At the point where every person accepted responsibility for their own life and had total respect for the rights of his fellow human beings, government would be unnecessary and irrelevant.
 
jdog said:
No he said they do not have a party. Just for interest what do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

And he's wrong because they do. He may or may not personally belong to it, but it still exists. And the list is way too long to get into here.
 
Government can best be described as a necessary evil, Conservatives forget that it is necessary, Liberals forget that it is evil and Libertarians... forget.
 
DashingAmerican said:
My viewpoints

Conservative: Pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military, reckless spending, too much gov. in personal lives, anti-gay, pro drug war, pro war on terror, just pro war in general.

Liberal: Pro-choice, anti-gun, pro civil liberty, reckless spending, too much gov. in everything, pro war on terror, intolerant of different view points.

Libertarian: pro choice, pro gun, pro civil liberty, cut spend no matter the effect, cut military, anti drug war, anti war on terror, naive.
Click to expand...

Proudly naive and pigeon holed. What we want is less government and more freedom. The other details will vary with the individual. Apparently you think the major political parties agree with us. Not really.
 
Neomalthusian said:
My opinion on what is the biggest ideological weakness of each of those political stances you mentioned:

Conservative: Deep down they feel genuinely entitled to government services and transfer payments (the ones that apply to them, anyway), while also alleging government should cut taxes to the bone and maintaining that government is generally bad at everything and should be altogether minimized. Embarrassingly contradictory.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with conservatives wanting transfer payments. They also are not in favor of cutting taxes to the bone. Just cutting transfer payments.

Neomalthusian said:
Liberal: In denial of the realities of global competition for the production and consumption of goods and services, desperately clinging to the glories of the post WWII economic boom, refusing to question labor cartels or acknowledge the problems they pose, and ultimately relying on either (1) backward isolationism or (2) a one-world government
Click to expand...
I think this applies to a large share of liberals, but I wouldn't call it a generality for most.

Neomalthusian said:
Libertarian: Inability and/or refusal to acknowledge the long-term self-sabotage inherent in the laissez-faire economic approach.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by self sabotage, unless you are speaking of this approach being a total failure when including markets of lesser economic strengths. I believe in the free market, but only among near equal trading partners. Those who can undercut prices because of poorer economies need tariffs on their products for balancing.
 
jdog said:
Anarchists' are not an extreme version of Libertarianism, it is the next step in the evolution of a Libertarian. Anarchy is the belief that the freedom of the individual is impossible so long as government exists in any way shape or form.

Anarchy is the highest form of existence mankind could achieve, but it could only be achievable at the point where every human accepted and believed in the principals of Libertarianism. At the point where every person accepted responsibility for their own life and had total respect for the rights of his fellow human beings, government would be unnecessary and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your viewpoint, but I do understand it. Utopia doesn't exist, and such an ideal will never happen due to human nature.
 
fmw said:
Proudly naive and pigeon holed. What we want is less government and more freedom. The other details will vary with the individual. Apparently you think the major political parties agree with us. Not really.
Click to expand...

In some instances they do. Does it happen frequently? No.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I disagree with your viewpoint, but I do understand it. Utopia doesn't exist, and such an ideal will never happen due to human nature.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about Utopia, we are talking about mankind eventually evolving to the point where they no longer need government. The question is whether we will ever reach that point, or if we will destroy ourselves before we have the time to become civilized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom