Time to vote for Independents/3rd Parties?

megaprogman said:

Of course, you also think I am posting that I think libertarians are extremist conservatives while I think libertarians are conservatives + wacky extremist ideas. Its a subtle detail but it makes a huge difference in understanding. However, your insistance on a second axis is probably necessary for you to make sense of your arguments and political ideas, but I don't need such a crutch to understand natural law and the principals derived from it. I just think natural law is a bit crazy no matter how you want to chart it. So, go ahead and argue what internally makes sense to you, but if you feel that you have proven anything, than you are only looking at this from a single point of view instead of through many.

Click to expand...

No, I understand well what you did; and what you did was incorrect. You want to label the libertarians first as right-wing so you say that we tend to agree with the right more than the left. It's maybe at most a 60/40 split; which still would be more central; but whatever. Interestingly though, later you state that the reasons for agreement matter and because "liberals" and libertarians agree but for different reasons, that can't count. However, that was never expressed with the right side because that is also true on the right side. While we may statistically agree with the right more than the left, our reasons for supporting similar issues are not the same. But whatever, you need to do whatever it is you need to do to make this look the way you are trying to engineer it to look.

So then you say, "I think these guys are crazy, so I'll call them extreme". Now you have extreme right-wing. The only problem is that libertarians are not extreme right-wing. So the designation is incorrect because you've restricted yourself to only left/right rhetoric. Libertarianism is not extreme right-wing. And you just create a confused term (one already used for other designations) to try to apply it to libertarianism because you want us seen in a particular light. You play think that you do not need to clarify and thus need another axis; but you've created confusion and incorrect categorizations because of it. And if you think you've proven anything, than you are only looking at this from a single point of view instead of the whole system.

Ikari said:

No, I understand well what you did; and what you did was incorrect. You want to label the libertarians first as right-wing so you say that we tend to agree with the right more than the left. It's maybe at most a 60/40 split; which still would be more central; but whatever. Interestingly though, later you state that the reasons for agreement matter and because "liberals" and libertarians agree but for different reasons, that can't count. However, that was never expressed with the right side because that is also true on the right side. While we may statistically agree with the right more than the left, our reasons for supporting similar issues are not the same. But whatever, you need to do whatever it is you need to do to make this look the way you are trying to engineer it to look.

Click to expand...

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.

You need to be less paranoid and stop assuming I am trying to be dishonest too. I post what I honestly think, if I were trolling, I would have gotten bored a while ago.

Ikari said:

So then you say, "I think these guys are crazy, so I'll call them extreme". Now you have extreme right-wing.

Click to expand...

This is where you are getting confused. You are ignoring the distinction I pointed out.

Ikari said:

The only problem is that libertarians are not extreme right-wing. So the designation is incorrect because you've restricted yourself to only left/right rhetoric. Libertarianism is not extreme right-wing.

Click to expand...

Yes, you keep insisting that.

Ikari said:

And you just create a confused term (one already used for other designations) to try to apply it to libertarianism because you want us seen in a particular light.

Click to expand...

I don't want to see you guys in any particular light. I have no agenda here. You are being paranoid again. However, you guys tend to be extreme.

Ikari said:

You play think that you do not need to clarify and thus need another axis; but you've created confusion and incorrect categorizations because of it. And if you think you've proven anything, than you are only looking at this from a single point of view instead of the whole system.

Click to expand...

Its not play, I honestly don't think its necessary.

However, I did learn something very important here. You think I am being dishonest because I disagree with your reasoning. I find this disturbing.

megaprogman said:

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. The extremist part is another consideration. Please stop confusing the two.

Click to expand...

A lot of people think that but it's only partially true.
Economically, we are split between conservatives and liberals, with a whole lot of our own ideas.

Libertarians reject corporate person hood, as well as, industry protectionism.
Two very major things that conservatives accept as good.

Only in a very broad sense can libertarians and conservatives be seen as the same, in regards to economics.

Harry Guerrilla said:

A lot of people think that but it's only partially true.
Economically, we are split between conservatives and liberals, with a whole lot of our own ideas.

Libertarians reject corporate person hood, as well as, industry protectionism.
Two very major things that conservatives accept as good.

Only in a very broad sense can libertarians and conservatives be seen as the same, in regards to economics.

Click to expand...

Ah, yeah, I forgot about the corporate personhood thing. That is actually a very good idea.

So you basically once again will skip over all the points I made. Are you going to also condemn me again this time for the same. You want to label libertarians, true. You want to label them as conservative, true. You want to ignore the rest of our political platform because it's inconvenient for the designation you want to make, true. You want to ignore the reasons we may happen to agree with the right for in order to make your designation easier, true. You wish to dismiss any agreement we have with the left so you say it can't count cause we have different reasons (even though the reasoning wasn't necessary for lumping us in with the right), true. Now you want to say "hey they're also extremeists", true. So you just nonchalantly throw that onto the front, true. And you continue to ignore my points because it makes it easier for you, true. Otherwise you wouldn't have said "please stop confusing the two", because I clearly didn't in the very post you had quoted in your post.

I know why you did it, it's very clear why you did it. It's also very clear as to why your designation and categorization of libertarian politics is wrong. But you don't want to address anything. You just want to promote your bias. Libertarians are not extreme right-wing. No matter how much you try to dance around it. That term already exists, and it already exists for a group to which libertarians do not exist. You are being confused and muddled in your rhetoric. That is why you need a different term, a new axis, so that you can more accurately categorize. But you really don't seem to want to, so what we have left is you calling libertarians extreme right-wing when we are in fact not extreme right-wing. One the 1-D scale you want to use, we're centrists. But that's the problem with the 1-D, it restricts us to one variable. And you don't want to say libertarians are centrists because you probably envision centrists as something different from libertarians (most likely, you wouldn't view a centrist as "extreme" while you want to view libertarians as such). So you got to make something us, and the designation you'd like best to call libertarians is extreme right-wing so you made up some ignorant argument about how you could put the words together. And less you're missing half your brain, you did so full well knowing the implications of calling a party "extreme right-wing".

Sorry that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag or defend your improper designations, but that's just measured reality right there. Again, for all the reasons thus far stated in this thread; you are wrong.

megaprogman said:

Ah, yeah, I forgot about the corporate personhood thing. That is actually a very good idea.

Click to expand...

A lot of people don't understand our "free market" stance for that singular reason alone.
Things would be incredibly different if the owners of corporations were personally liable for decisions they make with their businesses.

Ikari said:

So you basically once again will skip over all the points I made. Are you going to also condemn me again this time for the same. You want to label libertarians, true. You want to label them as conservative, true. You want to ignore the rest of our political platform because it's inconvenient for the designation you want to make, true. You want to ignore the reasons we may happen to agree with the right for in order to make your designation easier, true. You wish to dismiss any agreement we have with the left so you say it can't count cause we have different reasons (even though the reasoning wasn't necessary for lumping us in with the right), true. Now you want to say "hey they're also extremeists", true. So you just nonchalantly throw that onto the front, true. And you continue to ignore my points because it makes it easier for you, true. Otherwise you wouldn't have said "please stop confusing the two", because I clearly didn't in the very post you had quoted in your post.

Click to expand...

I am making an argument based on what I feel is proper evidence. You disagree that the evidence is valid. However, I am not going to change my opinion to suit you.

Ikari said:

I know why you did it, it's very clear why you did it. It's also very clear as to why your designation and categorization of libertarian politics is wrong. But you don't want to address anything. You just want to promote your bias. Libertarians are not extreme right-wing. No matter how much you try to dance around it. That term already exists, and it already exists for a group to which libertarians do not exist. You are being confused and muddled in your rhetoric. That is why you need a different term, a new axis, so that you can more accurately categorize. But you really don't seem to want to, so what we have left is you calling libertarians extreme right-wing when we are in fact not extreme right-wing. One the 1-D scale you want to use, we're centrists. But that's the problem with the 1-D, it restricts us to one variable. And you don't want to say libertarians are centrists because you probably envision centrists as something different from libertarians (most likely, you wouldn't view a centrist as "extreme" while you want to view libertarians as such). So you got to make something us, and the designation you'd like best to call libertarians is extreme right-wing so you made up some ignorant argument about how you could put the words together. And less you're missing half your brain, you did so full well knowing the implications of calling a party "extreme right-wing".

Sorry that you can't argue your way out of a paper bag or defend your improper designations, but that's just measured reality right there. Again, for all the reasons thus far stated in this thread; you are wrong.

Click to expand...

Well, if you cannot address me without thinking I am dishonest, there is no use in debating you. Good day.

However, I do find it interesting that you would accuse me of it. Do you really feel that I am being dishonest or are you trying to gain some sort of advantage. If its the latter, there is probably no point because I see no legitimate reason to change my opinion.

Edit: The bold statement gets to the heart of the matter. Centrists are between the two extremes, not on one side with some odd stuff mixed in.

Harry Guerrilla said:

A lot of people don't understand our "free market" stance for that singular reason alone.
Things would be incredibly different if the owners of corporations were personally liable for decisions they make with their businesses.

Click to expand...

True that. Additionally, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to define some corporate personhood either. A corporation is not a person, nor is it an entity which possesses rights. Only the individual does.

megaprogman said:

I am making an argument based on what I feel is proper evidence. You disagree that the evidence is valid. However, I am not going to change my opinion to suit you.

Click to expand...

You have no evidence. I've already shown how everything is a farce. Your "reasoning" are muddled. Your terms of definitions already claimed. You have no foot to stand on. You have not presented one rational defense for your incorrect categorization of libertarians.

megaprogman said:

Well, if you cannot address me without thinking I am dishonest, there is no use in debating you. Good day.

However, I do find it interesting that you would accuse me of it. Do you really feel that I am being dishonest or are you trying to gain some sort of advantage. If its the latter, there is probably no point because I see no legitimate reason to change my opinion.

Click to expand...

I think you have a preconceived notion of what you'd like libertarians to be and you're trying hard to force us into a category already claimed and one which does not fit us.

Ikari said:

True that. Additionally, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to define some corporate personhood either. A corporation is not a person, nor is it an entity which possesses rights. Only the individual does.

Click to expand...

I don't like it on a personal level, not at all.
My beliefs are idealistic, I'll admit but I'm also a pragmatist.

Meaning that, if the world doesn't accept my good ideas, I use the world's exploitative aspects for my benefit.
That's why I own stock and the like.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I don't like it on a personal level, not at all.
My beliefs are idealistic, I'll admit but I'm also a pragmatist.

Meaning that, if the world doesn't accept my good ideas, I use the world's exploitative aspects for my benefit.
That's why I own stock and the like.

Click to expand...

Well there's a huge problem with taking this personhood thing too far, and we just saw it not too long ago with campaign finance and donation. How the hell is it that We the People still stand constrained while companies were given a free pass? Total BS if you ask me.

Ikari said:

You have no evidence. I've already shown how everything is a farce. Your "reasoning" are muddled. Your terms of definitions already claimed. You have no foot to stand on. You have not presented one rational defense for your incorrect categorization of libertarians.

Click to expand...

All you have done is posted your opinion. I have yet to see a valid reason to change how I see things. You would do good to be more like Harry and post a fact rather than accusations of dishonesty and opinion. He actually made me think and rereason, you have not.

Ikari said:

I think you have a preconceived notion of what you'd like libertarians to be and you're trying hard to force us into a category already claimed and one which does not fit us.

Click to expand...

I probably do have a preconceived notion, but I think it is an accurate one, so I have no interest in changing it. Centrists tend to be in the middle, not off to the right.

Ikari said:

Well there's a huge problem with taking this personhood thing too far, and we just saw it not too long ago with campaign finance and donation. How the hell is it that We the People still stand constrained while companies were given a free pass? Total BS if you ask me.

Click to expand...

True enough, idealistically I'm against it.
As long as the world is like it is now, I'm for it.

I align myself with what best serves my best interest.
Heh, I bought shares of BP on the cheap because it was a great move financially.
Although I do think their safety record is **** and unconscionable, no one is going to do a thing about it.

megaprogman said:

All you have done is posted your opinion. I have yet to see a valid reason to change how I see things. You would do good to be more like Harry and post a fact rather than accusations of dishonesty and opinion. He actually made me think and rereason, you have not.

Click to expand...

You have not read anything, you've merely tried to promote your bias. I gave plenty of reasons to show why extreme right-wing is incorrect designation. You just don't want to accept it so you keep going.

megaprogman said:

I probably do have a preconceived notion, but I think it is an accurate one, so I have no interest in changing it. Centrists tend to be in the middle, not off to the right.

Click to expand...

And you have just highlighted every reason why you'd refuse to hear logic or argument against your incorrect designations. On the 1-D political scale, libertarians are centric.

Harry Guerrilla said:

True enough, idealistically I'm against it.
As long as the world is like it is now, I'm for it.

I align myself with what best serves my best interest.
Heh, I bought shares of BP on the cheap because it was a great move financially.
Although I do think their safety record is **** and unconscionable, no one is going to do a thing about it.

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but it's entirely possible they are prohibited from operating in the US. But with our corporate capitalist system we currently have, there is little punishment for wrong doing.

Ikari said:

You have not read anything, you've merely tried to promote your bias. I gave plenty of reasons to show why extreme right-wing is incorrect designation. You just don't want to accept it so you keep going.

Click to expand...

I love how you call opinion bias and than you accuse me of not wanting to accept some thing. Are you making an emotional or logical argument?

Ikari said:

And you have just highlighted every reason why you'd refuse to hear logic or argument against your incorrect designations. On the 1-D political scale, libertarians are centric.

Click to expand...

So you keep insisting. I have shown you why I do not think that you are correct. All you have done is insist that you are centrist using faulty reasoning that libertarians happen to agree with liberals with some issues (on the surface, but not because they believe the same thing, so its moot)

Ikari said:

Maybe not, but it's entirely possible they are prohibited from operating in the US. But with our corporate capitalist system we currently have, there is little punishment for wrong doing.

Click to expand...

Promise you, they'll get a slap on the wrist.
Share price is moving in the + direction quickly, as proof.

Agreed on the latter.

megaprogman said:

I love how you call opinion bias and than you accuse me of not wanting to accept some thing. Are you making an emotional or logical argument?

Click to expand...

Hell yes I did. That's all I do. You want to call libertarians extreme right-wing and have made every attempt to try to justify it. Problem is, that terms already taken. And it's taken by a group of people who are opposite of the libertarians. All I've been saying is that you need a second axis so that you can define terms well more accurately. You're the one that says "I don't think I need one" blah blah blah. What sort of argument is that? I mean, besides piss poor. Yet time and time again that's the argument we get out of you. I think my bias of libertarians is valid. I think...I think...I think.... Problem is, it's becoming clear that you don't. You made some tired, weak, BS argument to defend you calling libertarians extreme right-wing. You couldn't defend it with out the use of "I think it's good". And it's been shown to not only be inaccurate, but to have already been used as a common designation. And thus I have to think that you're doing this on purpose, because the alternative is that you actually didn't realize any of this. And I refuse to believe that a human capable of using a computer and at least posting on line would be unaware that "extreme right-wing" is already a designation for a group of people and one which is not compatible with libertarianism.

It's like you invent a new product and call it a computer. Someone says that computers already exist. You respond with "You don't understand, It's a companion putter....com-puter. You don't know why I put those words there in that order, blah blah blah". It doesn't matter why (and someone should be aware the term "computer" already exists). It's purposefully making a muddled and confused terminology. And I am left with either you really don't understand that or you're doing it on purpose. And for the sake of all humanity, I'm saying you're doing it on purpose.

megaprogman said:

So you keep insisting. I have shown you why I do not think that you are correct. All you have done is insist that you are centrist using faulty reasoning that libertarians happen to agree with liberals with some issues (on the surface, but not because they believe the same thing, so its moot)

Click to expand...

I have not used any faulty reasoning. You haven't actually addressed anything I said. You're reasoning is muddled and changes argument depending on what you want. Like not being able to consider libertarians being in agreement with the left because we do so for different reasons; but ignoring that while we can agree with the right, we do it for different reasons. It's all YOUR personal bias. You change your arguments to put forth incorrect rhetoric and categorization to satisfy your ideal and bias of what libertarians are. And you ignore absolutely everything else which is counter to that.

Sorry you can't argue, sorry that you do not have a point, sorry that you're left with "well I think it's fine" defense. But that's all there is to your incorrect designation of libertarians. You've lost.

Ikari said:

Hell yes I did. That's all I do. You want to call libertarians extreme right-wing and have made every attempt to try to justify it. Problem is, that terms already taken. And it's taken by a group of people who are opposite of the libertarians. All I've been saying is that you need a second axis so that you can define terms well more accurately. You're the one that says "I don't think I need one" blah blah blah. What sort of argument is that? I mean, besides piss poor. Yet time and time again that's the argument we get out of you. I think my bias of libertarians is valid. I think...I think...I think.... Problem is, it's becoming clear that you don't. You made some tired, weak, BS argument to defend you calling libertarians extreme right-wing. You couldn't defend it with out the use of "I think it's good". And it's been shown to not only be inaccurate, but to have already been used as a common designation. And thus I have to think that you're doing this on purpose, because the alternative is that you actually didn't realize any of this. And I refuse to believe that a human capable of using a computer and at least posting on line would be unaware that "extreme right-wing" is already a designation for a group of people and one which is not compatible with libertarianism.

Click to expand...

Ahh, so you have a preconceived notion of the term extremist. Thats ok, there are multiple types of extremists and they don't all have to agree. From the rest of the post, I can see you dislike the term for emotional reasons. I cannot help you with that.

Also, you seem to confusing your piss-poor arguing for something being wrong with me. I cannot help you with that either. I get along with most people here just fine without all the emotionality you seem to be posting.

Ikari said:

It's like you invent a new product and call it a computer. Someone says that computers already exist. You respond with "You don't understand, It's a companion putter....com-puter. You don't know why I put those words there in that order, blah blah blah". It doesn't matter why (and someone should be aware the term "computer" already exists). It's purposefully making a muddled and confused terminology. And I am left with either you really don't understand that or you're doing it on purpose. And for the sake of all humanity, I'm saying you're doing it on purpose.

Click to expand...

Except in this case its fits. See my point above.

Ikari said:

I have not used any faulty reasoning. You haven't actually addressed anything I said. You're reasoning is muddled and changes argument depending on what you want. Like not being able to consider libertarians being in agreement with the left because we do so for different reasons; but ignoring that while we can agree with the right, we do it for different reasons. It's all YOUR personal bias. You change your arguments to put forth incorrect rhetoric and categorization to satisfy your ideal and bias of what libertarians are. And you ignore absolutely everything else which is counter to that.

Click to expand...

Your reasoning is faulty because you assume that surface agreement is all that matters. I am looking deeper into the ideology itself, not where someone might happen to land on some issue. Look deeper and you will understand my point. I think this is where we should continue debating (you know, where the logic is, not your emotional statements in the above paragraphs).

Ikari said:

Sorry you can't argue, sorry that you do not have a point, sorry that you're left with "well I think it's fine" defense. But that's all there is to your incorrect designation of libertarians. You've lost.

Click to expand...

You seem so desperate to declare yourself the winner, why is that?

megaprogman said:

Ahh, so you have a preconceived notion of the term extremist. Thats ok, there are multiple types of extremists and they don't all have to agree. From the rest of the post, I can see you dislike the term for emotional reasons. I cannot help you with that.

Click to expand...

No I don't. The word is fine if used correctly. You have not used it correctly. Libertarians are not extreme right-wing. There was nothing emotional is what I wrote. You're DEFLECTING AGAIN to try to get out of your argument. Or lack there of. Extremist is a fine term if used correctly. The term extreme right-wing is not appropriately applied to libertarians.

megaprogman said:

Also, you seem to confusing your piss-poor arguing for something being wrong with me. I cannot help you with that either. I get along with most people here just fine without all the emotionality you seem to be posting.

Click to expand...

None of my arguments are piss poor. If you wanted to read them for what they are, you would see that. Nothing I said is emotional, it's all built upon your incorrect definition of libertarianism as an extreme right-wing. You need another axis to correctly characterize it. You have insisted on not having one with no logical argument as to why. But this entire mess is caused by your refusal to properly designate political ideologies.

megaprogman said:

Except in this case its fits. See my point above.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't, and what point? You're making crap up now. Saying I don't like the word "extreme" or whatever BS you have to pull out of your ass to try to get yourself out of the hole you've dug yourself into.

megaprogman said:

Your reasoning is faulty because you assume that surface agreement is all that matters. I am looking deeper into the ideology itself, not where someone might happen to land on some issue. Look deeper and you will understand my point. I think this is where we should continue debating (you know, where the logic is, not your emotional statements in the above paragraphs).

Click to expand...

No I didn't assume either of that. You say that surface agreement counts when it is in favor of right-wing; but not when it is in favor of the left-wing. Fundamentally, libertarianism is very different from both the traditional left/right in its ideology and philosophy. Yet you want to apply significance to it one one side, and ignore it on the other side just to make your point. Talk about dishonest.

megaprogman said:

You seem so desperate to declare yourself the winner, why is that?

Click to expand...

Some people just don't know when they've failed. It's public service.

Ikari said:

No I don't. The word is fine if used correctly. You have not used it correctly. Libertarians are not extreme right-wing. There was nothing emotional is what I wrote. You're DEFLECTING AGAIN to try to get out of your argument. Or lack there of. Extremist is a fine term if used correctly. The term extreme right-wing is not appropriately applied to libertarians.

None of my arguments are piss poor. If you wanted to read them for what they are, you would see that. Nothing I said is emotional, it's all built upon your incorrect definition of libertarianism as an extreme right-wing. You need another axis to correctly characterize it. You have insisted on not having one with no logical argument as to why. But this entire mess is caused by your refusal to properly designate political ideologies.

No it doesn't, and what point? You're making crap up now. Saying I don't like the word "extreme" or whatever BS you have to pull out of your ass to try to get yourself out of the hole you've dug yourself into.

Some people just don't know when they've failed. It's public service.

Click to expand...

All of this boils down to "You are disagreeing with me, so you must be posting dishonestly"

Ikari said:

No I didn't assume either of that. You say that surface agreement counts when it is in favor of right-wing; but not when it is in favor of the left-wing. Fundamentally, libertarianism is very different from both the traditional left/right in its ideology and philosophy. Yet you want to apply significance to it one one side, and ignore it on the other side just to make your point. Talk about dishonest.

Click to expand...

(thanks for responding with a real argument and not making up wild accusations, I will respond in kind). Yes, I do want to emphasize the ideology side and not the surface side because that better reflects a person's beliefs. It gives insight into what motivates them, what they think is important, how they think, etc. Its what drives a person politically, so its vastly more important than a correlation between two ideologies. What I am looking for is who the person is and that is how I am making my distinction and that's how I am determining where I think they should be put on the spectrum.

megaprogman said:

All of this boils down to "You are disagreeing with me, so you must be posting dishonestly"

Click to expand...

So again, you cannot address the issues. And it's not "you are disagreeing with me, so you must be posting dishonestly"; thanks for again another DEFLECT from you. You're dishonest in how you present your argument. You take surface agreement as valid if it agrees with right-wing. You take surface agreement as invalid if it agrees with left-wing. And you somehow think you are not being dishonest in this approach.

megaprogman said:

(thanks for responding with a real argument and not making up wild accusations, I will respond in kind). Yes, I do want to emphasize the ideology side and not the surface side because that better reflects a person's beliefs. It gives insight into what motivates them, what they think is important, how they think, etc. Its what drives a person politically, so its vastly more important than a correlation between two ideologies. What I am looking for is who the person is and that is how I am making my distinction and that's how I am determining where I think they should be put on the spectrum.

Click to expand...

Too bad you're not actually doing any of that. You haven't considered ideology. You said that we agree more often with the right, thus we are right. When I said we agree with the left to, you said that doesn't count. You refuse to see anything that would show that on your little 1-D scale that libertarians would be centric and push every reasoning you can try to come up with to try to label us as right-wing. And then go the extra mile to add, "extreme"; making it extreme right-wing; which is an incorrect designation. As the extreme right-wing is a very fascist and authoritative philosophy.

So that's what it is, you will accept or deny surface agreement depending on how it affects your argument. You're trying to reverse engineer something to get away from the fact that you do not have enough variables to properly identify and categorize the system.

On the 1-D political axis, libertarians are centric.

Ikari said:

So again, you cannot address the issues. And it's not "you are disagreeing with me, so you must be posting dishonestly"; thanks for again another DEFLECT from you. You're dishonest in how you present your argument. You take surface agreement as valid if it agrees with right-wing. You take surface agreement as invalid if it agrees with left-wing. And you somehow think you are not being dishonest in this approach.

Click to expand...

If you had read the post that you quoted,you would have noticed the part where I make a distinction between surface and ideological stuff. Than I linked it to right vs left wing.

Ikari said:

Too bad you're not actually doing any of that. You haven't considered ideology. You said that we agree more often with the right, thus we are right. When I said we agree with the left to, you said that doesn't count. You refuse to see anything that would show that on your little 1-D scale that libertarians would be centric and push every reasoning you can try to come up with to try to label us as right-wing. And then go the extra mile to add, "extreme"; making it extreme right-wing; which is an incorrect designation. As the extreme right-wing is a very fascist and authoritative philosophy.

Click to expand...

So you aren't going to address my point?

Ikari said:

So that's what it is, you will accept or deny surface agreement depending on how it affects your argument. You're trying to reverse engineer something to get away from the fact that you do not have enough variables to properly identify and categorize the system.

On the 1-D political axis, libertarians are centric.

Click to expand...

Here is a quote from page 1. I have quoted the portion that shows the distinction I was making since that post.

megaprogman said:

Right wing philosophy is not a line, its more of a grouping of several smaller philosophies such as regan conservatives, goldwater conservatives, neoconservatives, etc. What those groups tend to have most in common is a point of view on finances (lower taxes, government does less stuff). However, few go so far as to want to go back to a gold standard, get rid of the fed, have basically no government (not anarchy), etc. In that vein I tend to see libertarian as more of a conservative philosophy..

Click to expand...

megaprogman said:

If you had read the post that you quoted,you would have noticed the part where I make a distinction between surface and ideological stuff. Than I linked it to right vs left wing.

Click to expand...

I read your post, it was deflection

megaprogman said:

So you aren't going to address my point?

Click to expand...

I did. I pointed out your inconsistency with applying surface agreement and your incorrect designation of libertarians as extreme right-wing.

megaprogman said:

Here is a quote from page 1. I have quoted the portion that shows the distinction I was making since that post.

Click to expand...

Yes, and you'll consider that surface agreement as valid. Yet you will not consider surface agreement between libertarians and the left as valid. And because of it, you incorrectly label libertarians as extreme right-wing. We're certainly not. Your problem is that you're trying to fit the whole of the political spectrum with a single variable when multiple variables are necessary. On the 1-D mapping of the political spectrum using traditional right/left definitions; libertarianism is centric.

Ikari said:

I did. I pointed out your inconsistency with applying surface agreement and your incorrect designation of libertarians as extreme right-wing.

Yes, and you'll consider that surface agreement as valid. Yet you will not consider surface agreement between libertarians and the left as valid. And because of it, you incorrectly label libertarians as extreme right-wing. We're certainly not. Your problem is that you're trying to fit the whole of the political spectrum with a single variable when multiple variables are necessary. On the 1-D mapping of the political spectrum using traditional right/left definitions; libertarianism is centric.

Click to expand...

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.