• 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!

Most anti-libertarian Presidents

Most anti-libertarian President?

  • Abraham Lincoln

    Votes: 10 25.6%

  • Woodrow Wilson

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • Franklin Roosevelt

    Votes: 14 35.9%

  • Theodore Roosevelt

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lyndon Johnson

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • George W. Bush

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • Richard Nixon

    Votes: 2 5.1%

  • Herbert Hoover

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 2 5.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Total voters
    39
TurtleDude said:
the only people destroyed by freedom are little children unable to function as adults and the would be nannies who derive their wealth and power from pandering to and controlling those little children
Click to expand...

the guy fails to understand the basics such as self ownership, and you expect him to understand the more advanced stuff like freedom?

fat chance , my friend, fat chance.
 
Thrilla said:
so you don't control you, and nobody else controls you.

interesting theory you have there... where did this concept of no-ownership come from?
Click to expand...

Property is owned. A person is NOT property.

Your premise is a false one.
 
Thrilla said:
the guy fails to understand the basics such as self ownership, and you expect him to understand the more advanced stuff like freedom?

fat chance , my friend, fat chance.
Click to expand...

There is nothing BASIC about it. Its a false premise.
 
haymarket said:
Property is owned. A person is NOT property.

Your premise is a false one.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ sir. People get owned here all the time-indeed pwned as the case may be:mrgreen:
 
Hatuey said:
How can Lincoln be anti-Libertarian? The man single handedly ended slavery as an institution in the US. Not sure how you can argue somebody is anti-Libertarian when they removed the very antithesis to Libertarianism from the US landscape.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism is narrowly focused on limited government. It turns a blind eye to threats to freedom that come from the private sector. That's it's Achilles heel. For example, today, libertarians are essentially fighting to submit the people to rule by corporations by fighting against the only constraints placed on those corporations- the government.

Lincoln fought against state's rights, he sought to impose the moral anti-slavery values of the majority on the south, and he greatly expanded federal power.
 
haymarket said:
Property is owned. A person is NOT property.

Your premise is a false one.
Click to expand...

it's not my premise.... it's a premise( some say it's axiomatic) that predates me by hundreds and hundreds of years.....

if it is false, why are you impotent to refute it?

do you believe in the concept of the social contract haymarket?

do I have to educate you on the concept of ownership too?... please tell me you are about to do something for yourself
 
haymarket said:
There is nothing BASIC about it. Its a false premise.
Click to expand...

there is nothing basic about it to you... yes, I agree.

you are free to provide a counterargument at any point here.... if you are going to plug your ears and continue to whine " no way, jose"... consider yourself dismissed.
 
teamosil said:
Libertarianism is narrowly focused on limited government. It turns a blind eye to threats to freedom that come from the private sector. That's it's Achilles heel. For example, today, libertarians are essentially fighting to submit the people to rule by corporations by fighting against the only constraints placed on those corporations- the government.

Lincoln fought against state's rights, he sought to impose the moral anti-slavery values of the majority on the south, and he greatly expanded federal power.
Click to expand...

:lol:.. funny stuff
 
Thrilla said:
it's not my premise.... it's a premise( some say it's axiomatic) that predates me by hundreds and hundreds of years.....

if it is false, why are you impotent to refute it?

do you believe in the concept of the social contract haymarket?

do I have to educate you on the concept of ownership too?... please tell me you are about to do something for yourself
Click to expand...

By all means do educate me on your own self imposed belief system.
 
Thrilla said:
there is nothing basic about it to you... yes, I agree.

you are free to provide a counterargument at any point here.... if you are going to plug your ears and continue to whine " no way, jose"... consider yourself dismissed.
Click to expand...

You do realize that once a premise has been exposed as FALSE, there is no need for any counter argument.

For something to be OWNED, it must be property.

Human beings are not property.

Human beings cannot be owned.

Now that is basic.

Your premise about self ownership is thus a FALSE PREMISE and we need not indulge or humor you beyond that revelation.
 
haymarket said:
You do realize that once a premise has been exposed as FALSE, there is no need for any counter argument.

For something to be OWNED, it must be property.

Human beings are not property.

Human beings cannot be owned.

Now that is basic.

Your premise about self ownership is thus a FALSE PREMISE and we need not indulge or humor you beyond that revelation.
Click to expand...

That is just stupid. There is a difference between owning yourself and someone owning you.
 
PrometheusBound said:
The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops. If you are concerned about class oppression, which Libertarians are in denial about, the North had no moral superiority. In fact, its leaders were morally inferior by not doing anything about their own kind of slavery. Instead, they launched a hypocritical crusade on the South. Also, Lincoln's policy of the Chickenhawk rich being able to buy their way out of the draft would have appealed to our real-life Libertarians.
Click to expand...

This is very true!

It's the difference between slavery instituted and protected by government and basic economic coerceion by the private sector.

In one....the plantation outright owned the slave via government protection.

In the other...through company owned and provided housing...the company store etc...the private company generally "owned" their workers via debt.
 
haymarket said:
This whole idea of "self ownership" is merely semantic gymnastics being employed by ideological extremists to further an extremist agenda. It is nonsense as I previously pointed out.
Click to expand...
Ideological extremists, huh? I suppose Locke was pretty radical for his time. Even Jefferson admitted that the ownership of slaves was morally reprehensible. Plus, I didn't see you point anything out, you just yelled at some guy, and claimed victory. Whoop-dee-****ing-doo.
 
Fletch said:
HItler, Stalin and Idi Amin considered their principles immoral? I wasnt aware of that. It might be news to you, but an immoral act falls under umbrella of morality too.
Click to expand...

Actually, all three considered morality to be irrelevant. They considered themselves to be practical people, not moral people

It may be news to you, but not everyone feels obligated to act morally
 
Thrilla said:
questioning my patriotism I see..... it's a great tactic.... it totally works.
Click to expand...

It works only when the claim is accurate.

And I see your response has been "liked" by a poster who claims its immoral for the govt to use force to make him obey the law, which lends credibility to the claim
 
haymarket said:
Then he should have said it like you said it and not as he said it.

This whole idea of "self ownership" is merely semantic gymnastics being employed by ideological extremists to further an extremist agenda. It is nonsense as I previously pointed out.

I have no idea what you mean when you mention "authoritarian statist". What does that mean and who are you referring to? I am no more an authoritatian statist than you are. Or did you convert to anarchism over night?
Click to expand...
The free-market freebooters' goal with this "self-ownership" lazy-fairy tale is that if we let ourselves get controlled, it is our own fault and we can't blame anyone who has more power than us; we just made the wrong choices. Their hypocritical attack on authoritarian statism is designed to hide the existence of their desired totalitarian capitalism, which they believe is impossible because we are all self-owned and are only whining if we claim that some people are more self-owned than others. Their heroes, of course, get their unrestricted self-ownership by owning others through forcing them into lesser-evil "choices."
 
Thrilla said:
there is nothing basic about it to you... yes, I agree.

you are free to provide a counterargument at any point here.... if you are going to plug your ears and continue to whine " no way, jose"... consider yourself dismissed.
Click to expand...

In the Libertarian Dictionary, "basic" is defined as "Any idea Libertarians are unable to justify with logic"
 
PrometheusBound said:
The free-market freebooters' goal with this "self-ownership" lazy-fairy tale is that if we let ourselves get controlled, it is our own fault and we can't blame anyone who has more power than us; we just made the wrong choices. Their hypocritical attack on authoritarian statism is designed to hide the existence of their desired totalitarian capitalism, which they believe is impossible because we are all self-owned and are only whining if we claim that some people are more self-owned than others. Their heroes, of course, get their unrestricted self-ownership by owning others through forcing them into lesser-evil "choices."
Click to expand...

I love individuals such as yourself! They try to grasp reality, yet somehow fail to grasp that which is just in front of them! Okay, i gather your not a lazy-fairy tale supporter. What economic policy do you support? Please answer the question and dont spit out ignorant philosophies... The last part of your little rant holds no validility... Next time you have something worth reading please feel free to respond, until then please refrain from wasting other peoples times... Though when i say this, you have the freedom of speech, the only thing im against in this aspect is your ignorance of the subjects of which you speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom