Jump to content
Guy Chamberlin

The Libertarian Nook

Recommended Posts

Do we have a Libertarian thread on here? Maybe we should open one.

 

I definitely have a libertarian streak, but I've started to realize that EVERYONE has a libertarian streak. It's kind of how we're hardwired.

 

The problem is that to become a political party, Libertarians need rules and leaders, and that goes against the ideology itself.

 

The other problem is that we all want to be free to make our own damn choices, but we all want to draw the line somewhere.

 

Then you have to define the line that works for most people.

 

Then you're right where we are.

 

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't discuss political theory on the internet anymore. But, I do pledge my full and undying allegiance to the one and true anti-leader, Ron Paul. Just throwing that in for fun. Not even going to respond to anything further related to Paul.

But I will say this: Libertarians adhere to Austrian economics, primarily. And this country is desperately in need of austerity right now. Desperately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I definitely have a libertarian streak, but I've started to realize that EVERYONE has a libertarian streak. It's kind of how we're hardwired.

 

 

Same. If you live in the hyper individualized West, you've got libertarian bents in certain areas of your life because everything about your existence has reinforced to you that you are an autonomous singular entity responsible for everything that happens to you. It's the fundamental fantasy of America, the land of the weirdos and outcasts and sub groups of fringe groups who valued their own lofty ideas over rational thinking. That's the DNA of our country so it makes total sense.

 

But, intuitively we all know somewhere deep down that that isn't actually the case at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't have a Libertarian party. If we did, the Republicans wouldn't know which libs they were owning.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

**Sees threat titled "The libertarian nook"**

 

 

Image result for Home sweet home funny gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, knapplc said:

We can't have a Libertarian party. If we did, the Republicans wouldn't know which libs they were owning.

 

Oh, we'd know. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Undone said:

But I will say this: Libertarians adhere to Austrian economics, primarily. And this country is desperately in need of austerity right now. Desperately.

No, hell no. Read Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Blyth to find out why austerity is a terrible idea but keeps coming back over and over. (There's some good youtube videos of presentations he's done on austerity if you'd rather not read the book.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for libertarianism: to me it's just the other side of the coin of communism. Communism takes power away from the evil corporations and gives it to the government in hopes of utopia  but seriously underestimates the bad things the government can do with that power. Libertarianism takes power away from the evil government and gives it to the corporations in hopes of utopia but seriously underestimates the bad things the corporations can do with that power.

 

I don't think any single ideology can ever hope to govern a dynamic society. Instead we need a mix of ideas that society can use to adapt over time and not be stuck behind some particular way of doing things.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....so I says, but the Dewey decimal system indicates that book should be located right here....

Oops, wrong thread. Was looking for the Librarian Nook.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm mostly libertarian in my beliefs, but like any ideology it has it's shortcomings and nonsense, especially at the extreme end.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I'm mostly libertarian in my beliefs, but like any ideology it has it's shortcomings and nonsense, especially at the extreme end.

 

WE DON'T NEED ROADS!!!!:D

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RedDenver said:

As for libertarianism: to me it's just the other side of the coin of communism. Communism takes power away from the evil corporations and gives it to the government in hopes of utopia  but seriously underestimates the bad things the government can do with that power. Libertarianism takes power away from the evil government and gives it to the corporations in hopes of utopia but seriously underestimates the bad things the corporations can do with that power.

 

I don't think any single ideology can ever hope to govern a dynamic society. Instead we need a mix of ideas that society can use to adapt over time and not be stuck behind some particular way of doing things.

 

I agree, and here's a radical idea that folks should consider: what if we had a government whose purpose was to serve the people, and we wrote a law the separated the powers of the government, limited the powers of the government, provided a system of checks and balances, and had democratically elected representatives? We could even include a specific list of personal feedoms that were guaranteed, while the purpose of said government was to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. 

 

We should try something like that. It would only fail if a single political party seized power, lied to the people, and changed the rules to further their own greed and corruption. 

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or we can also try some sort of anarcho-syndicalist commune. We can take turns to act as sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two thirds majority in the case of more important matters.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All politics is local, and there's nothing like a local building authority telling me what I can't do on my private property to get my libertarian dander up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Libertarianism's appeal is extremely narrow...

I think libertarianism has a broad appeal at first glance. Economic conservatism and social liberalism seems like a good combination. But like many ideologies, once you look into the details, you realize that it falls apart under it's own contradictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like it's one of those "words" that people think they know exactly what it means and they have extreme feelings about it, but they really don't understand it.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/8/2019 at 9:57 PM, JJ Husker said:

....so I says, but the Dewey decimal system indicates that book should be located right here....

Oops, wrong thread. Was looking for the Librarian Nook.

a definition may be in order - got to get out of the Library

 

Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TGHusker said:

 

a definition may be in order - got to get out of the Library

 

Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately that pholosophy can lead to significant de-regulation which can give companies liberty to harm and sometimes even kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went through a period when I left the Republican party and wondered...."what the hell am I"?  I spent some time thinking I was a Libertarian.  Then, when I started following some politicians who claimed to be Libertarians.....Nope.  

 

The idea sounds good and I think it's good to look at issues form a Libertarian view from time to time.  But, in practice, a pure Libertarian way of governing just doesn't work in my mind.  

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article on the September debates. They’re increasing some of the requirements, e.g. the candidates need at least 2% support now instead of just 1%, and right now only 5 of the candidates meet every requirement; Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg.

 

4 others are missing just 1 requirement. I wonder with 9 or 10 candidates if they’d do 1 debate or 2. 9 or 10 is still too many imo. I dunno how many debates they’re having but one of the debates should just have the top 5 based on polling.

 

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-wont-be-easy-for-many-democrats-to-make-the-september-debate/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Article on the September debates. They’re increasing some of the requirements, e.g. the candidates need at least 2% support now instead of just 1%, and right now only 5 of the candidates meet every requirement; Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg.

  

4 others are missing just 1 requirement. I wonder with 9 or 10 candidates if they’d do 1 debate or 2. 9 or 10 is still too many imo. I dunno how many debates they’re having but one of the debates should just have the top 5 based on polling. 

 

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-wont-be-easy-for-many-democrats-to-make-the-september-debate/

 

 

This is the problem with having a huge field and some arbitrary debate qualification criteria.

 

Even when we winnow down the field to exclude the people who don't have a prayer, you're right that 10 is too many on one stage. But then if you break it up into two debates people are inevitably going to complain about who debates who.

 

I don't think anyone is going to argue the DNC has their finger on the scale but this could still get plenty dicey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're having at least three debates that I know of - I actually agree with the guidelines.  Without them we would have had 3-4 more in the debates a few weeks ago, and god knows how many moving forward.  They have to have some objective qualifiers.

 

The criteria is fair and consistent - I'm  not sure how having it shows the DNC is rigging things.  I find it interesting that someone like Beto who has the number of donors met, the donation totals met, but then doesn't get the poll numbers.  To me it shows that there is overlap with some folks (a Beto supporter may prefer Harris etc) and I'm not sure there's a better way to weed things down in order to see the most likely on the ticket share their ideas.  I mean, DiBlasio and Moulton and others may be on the ticket but I dont' want them wasting air time, I'd rather hear Bernie vs. Buttigeig and Harris vs Warren etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only ones I want on stage at this point are Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, and Warren. (And not really Biden but seeing as he's in the lead I can't kick him out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, I have no idea why I posted the stuff on the debates in this topic. If a mod is bored and sees this feel free to move it to the Democratic Primary topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×