What are libertarians?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[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

With no limits on their power to do "that which needs doing," as decided by politicians.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I believe Tom Woods spent plenty of time demonstrating that Mark Levin is nothing more than a blowhard.

 

[dblack]

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

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

 

[bripat9643]

[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

With no limits on their power to do "that which needs doing," as decided by politicians.

In the end, government will decide what needs to be done, and that will be whatever it wants to do.

No, we definitely don't need that.

 

[bripat9643]

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

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

If the scope of government is limited, then so is it's size. The current gargantuan size of the federal government is the result of the fact that it's scope has become limitless.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I believe Tom Woods spent plenty of time demonstrating that Mark Levin is nothing more than a blowhard.

Who is Tom Woods?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I believe Tom Woods spent plenty of time demonstrating that Mark Levin is nothing more than a blowhard.

Who is Tom Woods?

Tom Woods The Libertarian View

 

[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.

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.

No Pogo, I asked you a question. You have not the backbone to answer it. You evade me with "it's already been done" no my friend, you are being lazy. When you out your opinion here it is fair game. Stop being so thin skinned that you react to dissent with dismissal. There was a time I thought you were a grownup here, you are consistently proving me wrong. Now answer the question, you coward. Stop dodging me.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

The quote function got all screwed up on your post Gipper so that it shows statements attributed to me that I did not make (and wouldn't make) and I'm likely misquoted others too.

 

[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.

I believe Tom Woods spent plenty of time demonstrating that Mark Levin is nothing more than a blowhard.

Levin is a talking head - are they not ALL blowhards?

 

[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.

No Pogo, I asked you a question. You have not the backbone to answer it. You evade me with "it's already been done" no my friend, you are being lazy. When you out your opinion here it is fair game. Stop being so thin skinned that you react to dissent with dismissal. There was a time I thought you were a grownup here, you are consistently proving me wrong. Now answer the question, you coward. Stop dodging me.

Cram it up your ass pal, it's been done and redone. I don't need you to make my points for me, particularly points that have nothing to do with you. You want it, get off your ass and find it yourself.

 

[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.

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.

No Pogo, I asked you a question. You have not the backbone to answer it. You evade me with "it's already been done" no my friend, you are being lazy. When you out your opinion here it is fair game. Stop being so thin skinned that you react to dissent with dismissal. There was a time I thought you were a grownup here, you are consistently proving me wrong. Now answer the question, you coward. Stop dodging me.

Cram it up your ass pal, it's been done and redone. I don't need you to make my points for me, particularly points that have nothing to do with you. You want it, get off your ass and find it yourself.

By refusing to cite where this has been done, you are not helping your argument. Thumb your nose up all you want to. You failed to prove how this was done, or when. If it is easy for me to find, it is just as easy for you to reiterate. If it has been done, prove it.

And when you post here, you make your opinions open to anyone, and I will not have the likes of you telling me who I can and cannot respond to. Understand? If you don't want me replying to posts you make to other members of this forum, make use of the private messaging function; otherwise pull the scepter out of your ass, you are no king.

 

[Mindful]

Cram it up your ass pal. lol

Lovely Founding Fathers language.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Why do you ask loaded questions? Did you think that would pass off as an argument? A Plurium Interrogationum fallacy, not to mention an ad baculum position with the elderly. She knows it, you know it.

I ask a logical questions. HOW would this 'charity only' society work?

A TV show based on an agrarian society? So you have a plan to take back farming from huge corporations? Looks like the evolution of society and the industrial revolution are not to be considered...

I hope that you're not a teacher, for if you are then I think I've discovered the problem with America's school system.

Not agrarian society, you moron, family.

Social Security is not exclusive to America. It has been endorsed as a basic right of human beings by the international community. And all other industrialized nations go beyond just Medicare. They cover ALL citizens.

Social Security is not an American concept. It is an international one.

Social Security is based upon a concept set forth in Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. In simple terms, the signatories agree that society in which a person lives should help them to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to them in the country.[1]

Don't they teach you how to read in context in Ed School? Social security in this context refers not to the program but to having security of living in a social environment. Here is a kid's version of the UN website which explains this, kids version:

The society in which you live should help you to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to you and to all the men and women in your country.​

There's nothing in the treaty which mandates that nations embrace socialism. Damn, are you ever stupid.

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

IN context, Social Security is a framework for governments. It requires LAWS, which require government.

Are you really THAT stupid?

The right to social security is recognized as a human right and establishes the right to social security assistance for those unable to work due to sickness, disability, maternity, employment injury, unemployment or old age. Social security systems provided for by states consist of social insurance programs, which provide earned benefits for workers and their families by employment contributions, and/or social assistance programs which provide non-contributory benefits designed to provide minimum levels of social security to persons unable to access social insurance.


Liberals know all about family. When liberals were in power we didn't have to hide behind phrases like 'family values', it was just family. People made a living wage and one income could support a FAMILY, so mothers could stay at home and raise children.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Liberals know all about family. When liberals were in power we didn't have to hide behind phrases like 'family values', it was just family. People made a living wage and one income could support a FAMILY, so mothers could stay at home and raise children.

Terrific, bring back those times and I'll become a liberal.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals know all about family. When liberals were in power we didn't have to hide behind phrases like 'family values', it was just family. People made a living wage and one income could support a FAMILY, so mothers could stay at home and raise children.

Terrific, bring back those times and I'll become a liberal.

So you would support a living wage?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Liberals know all about family. When liberals were in power we didn't have to hide behind phrases like 'family values', it was just family. People made a living wage and one income could support a FAMILY, so mothers could stay at home and raise children.

Terrific, bring back those times and I'll become a liberal.

So you would support a living wage?

I'm all for a living wage, depending on how it's defined.

 

[dblack]

Liberals know all about family. When liberals were in power we didn't have to hide behind phrases like 'family values', it was just family. People made a living wage and one income could support a FAMILY, so mothers could stay at home and raise children.

Terrific, bring back those times and I'll become a liberal.

So you would support a living wage?

I'm all for a living wage, depending on how it's defined.

I suppose could apply 'living document' logic here ...

 

[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

With no limits on their power to do "that which needs doing," as decided by politicians.

No...

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

 

[rightwinger]

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

As a libertarian, I do believe in limited government. But I think it's a mistake to conflate limited government with the size of government. The Constitution limits the scope of government, not it's size. Government should be larger enough to efficiently fulfill its duties as defined by the Constitution. What we need to guard against is the tendency of coercive power to broaden its influence into areas where it's not necessary.

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us. Most things, we are capable of doing ourselves. But garnering the forces of a large community to do what is best for the whole community makes us stronger.
Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation