What are libertarians?

[rightwinger]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age faggot".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

 

[Mindful]

The FFs were liberals? Just because they didn't like George the Third?

No, not just because of that. Google Classic Liberal and educate yourself before posting on a subject you know nothing about and insist on proving.

Thanks for the advice. I was asking about the Founding Fathers.

OK, another bit of advice, questions are more effective when they don't come with strawmen.

Don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are trying to be a smart arse.

 

[kaz]

The FFs were liberals? Just because they didn't like George the Third?

No, not just because of that. Google Classic Liberal and educate yourself before posting on a subject you know nothing about and insist on proving.

Thanks for the advice. I was asking about the Founding Fathers.

OK, another bit of advice, questions are more effective when they don't come with strawmen.

Don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are trying to be a smart arse.

Here's a hint, I put the strawman in red. It was a ridiculous statement, no one said that. Show me who did.

 

[Mindful]

The FFs were liberals? Just because they didn't like George the Third?

No, not just because of that. Google Classic Liberal and educate yourself before posting on a subject you know nothing about and insist on proving.

Thanks for the advice. I was asking about the Founding Fathers.

OK, another bit of advice, questions are more effective when they don't come with strawmen.

Don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are trying to be a smart arse.

Here's a hint, I put the strawman in red. It was a ridiculous statement, no one said that. Show me who did.

You obviously want to engage. About what I haven't a clue.

 

[Foxfyre]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

Look, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics and definitions with you too. Pogo is quite sufficient for that kind of silly argument.

I don't believe I've proffered any opinion on the definition of libertarian, Foxy. It's not a term I use. Looks to me like y'all aren't even settled on it.

I came to discern what the difference might be between "libertarian" and "liberal", which is apparently that the latter is a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age faggot".

Nice people, these "libertarians". Nice place to visit but I don't wanna live there.

The difference between a minarchist libertarian, as kaz laid out in his original post, and a modern day liberal is that while the libertarian sees an expressly limited role for the state, the liberal seeks to expand the powers of the state to include the role of creating a more egalitarian society. Many modern liberals today also see a role for the state in foreign adventurism. Libya, Iraq, and Syria, for example.

As a Liberal, I don't believe in limited government, I believe in rightsized government. The powers of the Federal, State and Local government should be determined by which level makes the most sense to perform the function

I believe the role of the government should be to do that which needs doing

But where you and the libertarians (little "L") probably part company is right at that point. Anybody can think anything and everything 'needs doing' if it benefits somebody in government. The libertarian believes the central government should be strictly limited to what it is specifically authorized to do in the U.S. Constitution as the Founders intended that Constitution to be interpreted.

Otherwise whatever 'needs doing' will be done at the state or local level or in the private sector. If it isn't done there it probably didn't 'need doing' at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

LOL. That is a possibility

However, he reports to believe a LOT of the same things even if he does not like the label so much. Then again, he makes a living being an ass and pissing people off. I cant stand him but mostly because anyone that goes around with the moniker 'The Great One" is far to arrogant to be taken seriously but I would state that he is miles closer to libertarians than any of the other mentioned people even if he might not be there yet. At least he has a similar thought process.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is precisely my point, they're not! - The Tea Party had my attention for literally two or three weeks, when they were respectfully questioning too much government, but then the Palin/Bachmann/Beck brigade immediately sniffed opportunity and essentially took it over, becoming the silly face of it. That's when the two parties began to meld together. How many nationally-known Democrats have you seen arm in arm with Sarah Palin at a Tea Party rally?

Whether you like it or not, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck are all associated nationally with the Tea Party, and they're all religious pro-lifers, they're all pro-America As Policeman Of The World, and they damn sure vote Republican. That's just a fact, and that's where the two parties have been crammed together, each making the other look bad.

Regarding absolutism, when a large chunk of a national political party says Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and the IRS and any number of institutions should be shit-canned; when a large chunk of a party effectively shuts down the legislative process, they are shooting themselves in the foot, regardless of how many times they chant platitudes like "freedom" and "liberty". Holy crap, "liberty" has become as diluted and trivialized and worthless for the Right as "racism" has for the Left. And they're both goddamn important words.

I have no doubt that shouting that stuff along with the guy on the radio (especially Levin, holy crap) or at a local meeting gets everyone fired up and all, but on a national level they sound downright goofy. They are just not - going - to - happen. If you want to save America from becoming France or Greece, great, I'm with you (although I do think it's too late). But this method will not work, I absolutely guarantee you.

I'm sorry, but the breathtaking "Keep Government Out Of My Medicare" sign that was photographed at the Tea Party rally is the perfect illustration of the borderline madness that has resulted from the mashup of the two parties.

My two cents, worth every penny.
[image removed for brevity]
.

Excuse me but we have been discussing LIBERTARIANS.


Where the hell did the Tea Party come in? Again, I think you are conflagrating 2 entirely different people. The tea party is not and never has been a libertarian movement. they initially claimed some similar goals (smaller government) but then became inundated with the moral majority types that want social control over you. It has nothing to do with libertarians at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, it is because the first thing that will drive us back to a state is defending ourselves from bad guys.

Very true and really why the state exists in the first place - the protection of our rights from those that wish to infringe on them.

What is that prediction based on as the more clear the brutality of the State gets, the more the majority are falling in love with it now? They are going in the exact opposite direction. And the left worship the State more and more as it gives us less and less freedom.

This is false though. You are looking at the microcosm of a single state entity. It is fact that governments move from a more free state to a more controlling one over time until it is overthrown and we are no exception BUT over the course of many iterations we are moving closer to a free society. A thousand years ago, any society of any size and consequence was totalitarian. Today, not so much. Who knows what will be there in the future but I think we will have moved to better and better forms of governance.

 

[Mac1958]

Excuse me but we have been discussing LIBERTARIANS.


Where the hell did the Tea Party come in? Again, I think you are conflagrating 2 entirely different people. The tea party is not and never has been a libertarian movement. they initially claimed some similar goals (smaller government) but then became inundated with the moral majority types that want social control over you. It has nothing to do with libertarians at all.

A-ha, okay, I see what you're saying, my bad. And we agree that the Tea Party was polluted quickly by the moral majority and essentially became a circus. Let me do this another way: My mistake about your point, in a way, illustrates what I'm trying to say. The line between the Libertarians and the GOP and the Tea Party has become blurred. From your vantage point, I'm sure that's not the case, but from outside it's tough to tell the groups apart at times.

Tell me, do you agree with that, the notion that lines have become blurred? And if so, I assume you're not thrilled about that, yes?

.

 

[FA_Q2]

As have I. Which is why I know that libertarianism includes a great many different philosophies, ideologies, and variations. I choose to differentiate between the authoritarian libertarians and the small government libertarians by using upper and lower case "L's". The one thing that all the libertarians have in common, however, is that each pushes an ideology of liberty as he/she understands what liberty is.

And that, to me, is really what libertarianism is at its core.

This is difficult, it seems, for democrats and republicans to grasp because those ideologies are not based on the same or even a similar concept. It is why they look at libertarians with distaste claiming the same BS over and over again - that libertarians don't even know what libertarian is. You would think that as well if you based your political ideology around specific stances on various subjects rather than around a concept such as freedom. Being a republican or democrat pretty much relies on aligning with the party on issue x, y and z where being a libertarian means that you hold your position on x, y and z based around a concept of freedom and non-aggression.

That is the way I see things at least.

 

[FA_Q2]

Don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are trying to be a smart arse.

Its Katz, of course they are being a smart ass

Better than the masses of dumb asses here. A short answer to your question though, as we seem stuck on it and that is not the proper welcome here, is that the founders were liberals because they espoused the concept of freedom and equality. They believed in inherent rights and the basic concept of government by the people rather than by a dictator - a RADICAL concept to implement at the time.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern democrat party or what is considered 'liberal' today. That word has 2 completely different meanings when used then and its common understanding now.

 

[FA_Q2]

Excuse me but we have been discussing LIBERTARIANS.


Where the hell did the Tea Party come in? Again, I think you are conflagrating 2 entirely different people. The tea party is not and never has been a libertarian movement. they initially claimed some similar goals (smaller government) but then became inundated with the moral majority types that want social control over you. It has nothing to do with libertarians at all.

A-ha, okay, I see what you're saying, my bad. And we agree that the Tea Party was polluted quickly by the moral majority and essentially became a circus. Let me do this another way: My mistake about your point, in a way, illustrates what I'm trying to say. The line between the Libertarians and the GOP and the Tea Party has become blurred. From your vantage point, I'm sure that's not the case, but from outside it's tough to tell the groups apart at times.

Tell me, do you agree with that, the notion that lines have become blurred? And if so, I assume you're not thrilled about that, yes?

.

I don't think that I would say that they have been blurred so much as that the right and left have managed to sell a MASSIVE lie: that they are the only game in town so you must align with one or the other to make a difference. Unfortunately, that is the one way to ensure that you do not make a difference. The false dichotomy has invaded any real control that the people have over their government and that is a bad thing for all of us.

I guess that is pretty much the same thing though as 'blurred' lines. Many others see libertarians as an arm of the right even when there is noting further from the truth but that is because they ONLY see left and right without nuance. It is rather ironic considering that those willing to vote for the major parties pretty much break evenly yet libertarians are somehow associated with one over the other. That never made a lick of sense. And you ask if that makes me angry? Fuck yes it does. It enrages me because I see the path we are headed down and the OBVIOUS solution to it and yet the lemmings continue to throw themselves off the cliff.

 

[Mindful]

Don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are trying to be a smart arse.

Its Katz, of course they are being a smart ass

Better than the masses of dumb asses here. A short answer to your question though, as we seem stuck on it and that is not the proper welcome here, is that the founders were liberals because they espoused the concept of freedom and equality. They believed in inherent rights and the basic concept of government by the people rather than by a dictator - a RADICAL concept to implement at the time.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern democrat party or what is considered 'liberal' today. That word has 2 completely different meanings when used then and its common understanding now.

I'd gathered together some material about those events, then thought better of it with people like Katz around. It would be like pissing against the wind. But from what I've gathered, it wasn't noble sentiments or ideals which drove the original rebellious movement. Even some of the lofty statements attributed to the legendary statesmen of those times were never uttered by them.

 

[Pogo]

Basically I think what you run here (in your threads in general) is a big wank echo chamber pot. You pretend to pose an open question, but any answers you don't like get shouted down. It's a dead end. You don't want dialogue, but monologue. What you want is a blog, not a discussion board.

I see, so when I ask questions, I wasn't supposed to disagree with the opinions I got. No one informed me of that. Basically you're too limp dicked to back up your Marxist drivel and resent being asked.

Bad news, I'm still not going to let you go without your ridiculous shit being challenged. It's tough being you. Having to use the mens room and yet pee sitting down, isn't it kiddie poo?

Once again -- QED. The more I point it out, the more you insist on confirming it.

See what I mean, Foxy?

Foxy?

Oh, I forgot, you're ignoring all this because I keep proving you wrong. Carry on then.

 

[FA_Q2]

Don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are trying to be a smart arse.

Its Katz, of course they are being a smart ass

Better than the masses of dumb asses here. A short answer to your question though, as we seem stuck on it and that is not the proper welcome here, is that the founders were liberals because they espoused the concept of freedom and equality. They believed in inherent rights and the basic concept of government by the people rather than by a dictator - a RADICAL concept to implement at the time.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern democrat party or what is considered 'liberal' today. That word has 2 completely different meanings when used then and its common understanding now.

I'd gathered together some material about those events, then thought better of it with people like Katz around. It would be like pissing against the wind. But from what I've gathered, it wasn't noble sentiments or ideals which drove the original rebellious movement. Even some of the lofty statements attributed to the legendary statesmen of those times were never uttered by them.

And?

What drove them here was oppression and opportunity. What they did with that opportunity is what really mattered. It was a stroke of luck (for future Americans) that the world decided to drive away its most intelligent people to a land with as much wealth and strategic value as North America at the time that they did. I am assuming that you have something to state on the subject of the founding fathers and liberalism - why not post it instead of making me dig

 

[TemplarKormac]

Basically I think what you run here (in your threads in general) is a big wank echo chamber pot. You pretend to pose an open question, but any answers you don't like get shouted down. It's a dead end. You don't want dialogue, but monologue. What you want is a blog, not a discussion board.

I see, so when I ask questions, I wasn't supposed to disagree with the opinions I got. No one informed me of that. Basically you're too limp dicked to back up your Marxist drivel and resent being asked.

Bad news, I'm still not going to let you go without your ridiculous shit being challenged. It's tough being you. Having to use the mens room and yet pee sitting down, isn't it kiddie poo?

Once again -- QED. The more I point it out, the more you insist on confirming it.

See what I mean, Foxy?

Foxy?

Oh, I forgot, you're ignoring all this because I keep proving you wrong. Carry on then.

Can you establish here how you proved her wrong? I doubt you can. You think your word is law. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And just so you know, that is a kaz post, not a Foxfyre post.

Carry on.

 

[Mindful]

Don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are trying to be a smart arse.

Its Katz, of course they are being a smart ass

Better than the masses of dumb asses here. A short answer to your question though, as we seem stuck on it and that is not the proper welcome here, is that the founders were liberals because they espoused the concept of freedom and equality. They believed in inherent rights and the basic concept of government by the people rather than by a dictator - a RADICAL concept to implement at the time.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern democrat party or what is considered 'liberal' today. That word has 2 completely different meanings when used then and its common understanding now.

I'd gathered together some material about those events, then thought better of it with people like Katz around. It would be like pissing against the wind. But from what I've gathered, it wasn't noble sentiments or ideals which drove the original rebellious movement. Even some of the lofty statements attributed to the legendary statesmen of those times were never uttered by them.

And?

What drove them here was oppression and opportunity. What they did with that opportunity is what really mattered. It was a stroke of luck (for future Americans) that the world decided to drive away its most intelligent people to a land with as much wealth and strategic value as North America at the time that they did. I am assuming that you have something to state on the subject of the founding fathers and liberalism - why not post it instead of making me dig

I might get back to you.

 

[gipper]

EconomicPolicyJournal.com The Twentieth Century s Bloodiest Megamurderers[/url]

 

[gipper]

EconomicPolicyJournal.com The Twentieth Century s Bloodiest Megamurderers[/url]

 

[Pogo]

Basically I think what you run here (in your threads in general) is a big wank echo chamber pot. You pretend to pose an open question, but any answers you don't like get shouted down. It's a dead end. You don't want dialogue, but monologue. What you want is a blog, not a discussion board.

I see, so when I ask questions, I wasn't supposed to disagree with the opinions I got. No one informed me of that. Basically you're too limp dicked to back up your Marxist drivel and resent being asked.

Bad news, I'm still not going to let you go without your ridiculous shit being challenged. It's tough being you. Having to use the mens room and yet pee sitting down, isn't it kiddie poo?

Once again -- QED. The more I point it out, the more you insist on confirming it.

See what I mean, Foxy?

Foxy?

Oh, I forgot, you're ignoring all this because I keep proving you wrong. Carry on then.

Can you establish here how you proved her wrong? I doubt you can. You think your word is law. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And just so you know, that is a kaz post, not a Foxfyre post.

Carry on.

Yeah I did that yesterday, and re-linked it today. It ain't going away. You remember -- the one you kept pretending not to see last night. And don't worry, I know exactly who I'm talking to -- directly and indirectly.

None of which involves you, TK. There, I just saved you a load of time. Carrion.