The Libertarian Nook

Danny Bateman said:
Libertarianism's appeal is extremely narrow...
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.

 
I'm not a Libertarian myself. I just find it instructive and possibly helpful how many people on opposing sides claim a libertarian streak as common ground. 

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...




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

 
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.  

 
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/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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/
Click to expand...


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.

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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).

 
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.

 
Back
Top