What are libertarians?

[Pogo]

There's no such thing as "classic" Liberal -- Liberal is Liberal is LIberal, period. It has no reason to suddenly jump up and start meaning things we already had terms for. The "classical" bullshit label was invented to cover the inconvenient fact that the Founders of this country, inspired by the Enlightenment, were by their actions putting Liberalism into play. Once that was pointed out in defense of Liberalism, it was "ruh roh, that's inconvenient", and the Orwellian Ministry of Truth scrambled, but the best thing anybody came up with was "classical". Which is rather lame, but if you're going to pervert a PoliSci term and pretend "tire" now means "ice cream cone", you'll have to differentiate with "classic tire" so you don't end up driving on Rocky Road.

(Hee hee, Rocky Road, I kill me)

"Authoritarian leftists" certainly exist, as do authoritarian rightists but by virtue of being authoritarian they cannot be Liberals. And here you illustrate the same snow job just described purporting to put me in that camp with, as per usual, no evidence whatsoever (how's that Obamacare search going?). You seem to believe saying so makes it so. The guilt by association ipse dixit malarkey is the halmark of the rhetorically bereft (that would be you) even going so far as dressing me in a Nazi uniform. It's the same McCarthyist Eliminationist bullshit game of demonization in lieu of discussion. And you wonder why I keep saying you're a fraud.

Ignorance is strength, comrade. You can pretend "tire" means "ice cream cone" if you want to live in that hole, but when you start redefining who I am, you have crossed the line. And you will get called on it.

But speaking of authoritarian rightists, congratulations on the new Godwin machine. Good to see your fallacies expanding past the usual strawman/ad hom, strawman ad/hom routing. Your strawman's arm was getting worn out, so ... hey, good to see Hitler goose-stepping in from the bullpen. That oughta go well.

God you are stupid. Guilt by association would be for example if I say you support something because other liberals do. I pointed out you argue with liberals, yet you claim to have a libertarian ideology which you prefer to call liberal. That isn't guilt by association, for you it's guilt by stupidity.

You can pretend "tire" means "ice cream cone" if you want to live in that hole, but when you start redefining who I am, you have crossed the line. And you will get called on it.

OK, thank you for explaining, I get it now. You refuse to change the meaning of words even though people use them differently, so it makes sense that while what you claim to support is today referred to as small government libertarianism where government is simply a referee, you are allied with authoritarian leftists because they call themselves liberal. That they demand oppressive government isn't relevant, you are with them because they call themselves liberals.and you call yourself a liberal, even though they don't know what that means and their views have nothing in common with yours.

Makes as much sense as anything else you say.

Once again blowhard --- a continuous diarrhea of ipse dixit with (once again as always) no evidence in support, combined wiith $2.50 will buy you an ice cream cone. You really seem to believe saying so makes it so and are somehow exempt from burden of proof.

That's so cute. You seem to think running the same old demonization play over and over and over in lieu of listening to anyone's points will eventually bring about different results. Dope springs eternal.

As for figuring out what Political Science terms mean, hey I laid out what's going on and where we are and why we're going that way, yet you choose voluntarily to go and play along with the ruse of the snake oil you swim in. But there they are.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

(Disclaimer: don't take "sir" literally -- it's a quote)

 

[rightwinger]

We the people should decide what we want our government to do for us. Most things, we are capable of doing ourselves.

You can? You can't support yourself, pay your own bills, give your own money to charity or take responsibility for your own actions. Seems right there we already know that most things you are not capable of doing yourself. What can you do yourself? Anything?

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

We aren't limited to their vision. In fact they provided that solution themselves. The process is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Do you know what that means?

LOL

I'm afraid Congress does not have to issue an amendment in order to do its job. If so, our Constitution would be thousands of pages long

Congress does what needs to be done. If you feel they are exceeding their Constitutional boundaries, you are free to avail yourself to our court system

That's just babble. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 is already in there, it's already covered. What are you talking about? They need thousands of pages to say what the Constitution already says?

Actually you are the one babbling

A Constitutional amendment is a rarity. Congress has a constitutional role to pass laws for the general welfare of we the people.

The Constitution is four pages long. Hardly enough to spell out every contingency Congress and the President may face

 

[kaz]

God you are stupid. Guilt by association would be for example if I say you support something because other liberals do. I pointed out you argue with liberals, yet you claim to have a libertarian ideology which you prefer to call liberal. That isn't guilt by association, for you it's guilt by stupidity.

The whining, geez, do you ever stop? I have told you that you have two choices with me. Serious, or fun. You have chosen fun. The purpose of you continuing to highlight what I told you I am doing seems to be of no purpose to me.

Be serious or I'll just insult you. Now no one ever has to tell you to put the toilet seat down, do they? You never put it up.

 

[Gary Anderson]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

 

[kaz]

That's just babble. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 is already in there, it's already covered. What are you talking about? They need thousands of pages to say what the Constitution already says?

Actually you are the one babbling

A Constitutional amendment is a rarity. Congress has a constitutional role to pass laws for the general welfare of we the people.

The Constitution is four pages long. Hardly enough to spell out every contingency Congress and the President may face

LOL. Remember the thread you kept whining I wouldn't answer your stupid questions? Here are ones I ask you over and over and get no answer.

If Congress can do whatever the f it wants, then ... why ... did ... they .... write ... a ... Constitution in the first place?

Why did they put the 9th and 10th amendments in the bill of rights?

What basis do the courts have to turn over a law if Congress can do whatever it wants? Are the Courts just a higher entity? Congress makes the laws, the Courts just toss out the ones thy don't like, modify the ones they want changed and decree the ones they want that Congress didn't do?

 

[Foxfyre]

There's no such thing as "classic" Liberal -- Liberal is Liberal is LIberal, period. It has no reason to suddenly jump up and start meaning things we already had terms for. The "classical" bullshit label was invented to cover the inconvenient fact that the Founders of this country, inspired by the Enlightenment, were by their actions putting Liberalism into play.. . .

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

I have posted at least some of the following information to inform/rebut you on this issue before on other threads, and you ignored it then and no doubt will refuse to read it now. But assuming that all of us do not consider ourselves intellectually superior to the scholars who wrote the following definitions, I will post them again for others who will read and understand them.

The libertarian or "classical liberal" perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary."
What is Libertarian The Institute for Humane Studies

*****************************​

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress. Liberalism was also influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that governments exist to protect individuals from each other. In 19th- and 20th-century America, the values of classical liberalism became dominant in both major political parties. The term is sometimes used broadly to refer to all forms of liberalism prior to the 20th century. Conservatives and libertarians often invoke classical liberalism to mean a fundamental belief in minimal government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

******************​

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

Classical liberalism developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the eighteenth century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[2]

Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.[3] It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties.[1] There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[4]

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[5]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier nineteenth-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[6] The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.[7][8
Classical liberalism

**********************

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States
. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.
What Is Classical Liberalism NCPA​

How stubborn does a person have to be to see this written out by all these educational groups and still deny that the definition of 'liberal' as an ideology has not changed since the 19th century?

 

[kaz]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

I'm not sure I'm clear exactly what you are arguing, but the highlighted point is what liberals say that is just a yawn to me because it's inane. My choices are that I am God, or the Government is? If my making my own choices means I think I am God, clearly then if they think government should make our choices, by that logic, government is God. That's just stupid. It's not an argument and it's not satire, it's a strawman.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

 

[rightwinger]

That's just babble. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 is already in there, it's already covered. What are you talking about? They need thousands of pages to say what the Constitution already says?

Actually you are the one babbling

A Constitutional amendment is a rarity. Congress has a constitutional role to pass laws for the general welfare of we the people.

The Constitution is four pages long. Hardly enough to spell out every contingency Congress and the President may face

LOL. Remember the thread you kept whining I wouldn't answer your stupid questions? Here are ones I ask you over and over and get no answer.

If Congress can do whatever the f it wants, then ... why ... did ... they .... write ... a ... Constitution in the first place?

Why did they put the 9th and 10th amendments in the bill of rights?

What basis do the courts have to turn over a law if Congress can do whatever it wants? Are the Courts just a higher entity? Congress makes the laws, the Courts just toss out the ones thy don't like, modify the ones they want changed and decree the ones they want that Congress didn't do?

The 9th and 10th amendments are there for the states

ANY state who thinks Congress is overstepping its bounds and violating the 9th or 10th is free to take them to court

Make you feel better?

 

[kaz]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

Which is why you are allied with people you claim to fundamentally disagree with, liberals, and you deeply oppose those of us who you completely agree with, small government libertarians.

This ... is how you just chose fun. Commence whining, empty pants.

 

[Gary Anderson]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

I'm not sure I'm clear exactly what you are arguing, but the highlighted point is what liberals say that is just a yawn to me because it's inane. My choices are that I am God, or the Government is? If my making my own choices means I think I am God, clearly then if they think government should make our choices, by that logic, government is God. That's just stupid. It's not an argument and it's not satire, it's a strawman.

God instituted government to rule over people who think they are god.

 

[kaz]

LOL. Remember the thread you kept whining I wouldn't answer your stupid questions? Here are ones I ask you over and over and get no answer.

If Congress can do whatever the f it wants, then ... why ... did ... they .... write ... a ... Constitution in the first place?

Why did they put the 9th and 10th amendments in the bill of rights?

What basis do the courts have to turn over a law if Congress can do whatever it wants? Are the Courts just a higher entity? Congress makes the laws, the Courts just toss out the ones thy don't like, modify the ones they want changed and decree the ones they want that Congress didn't do?

The 9th and 10th amendments are there for the states

ANY state who thinks Congress is overstepping its bounds and violating the 9th or 10th is free to take them to court

Make you feel better?

Do you realize the bill of rights didn't apply to the States until they ratified the 14th amendment in 1868, almost a century later?

So you are saying they ratified the 9th and 10th for the States. Then a century later, they said oh, those amendments? They apply to the States.

And what did they tell the States? If the Federal government doesn't do it, then you can, as long as what you do doesn't contradict with what Congress says.

What is the purpose of that anyway? Did it really need to be said that they can do anything they want that doesn't contradict the Federal government?

And 20% of the bill of rights is a power of the Federal government? Limits on power actually grant government power.

And even if the 10th means that, then the 9th is even more bizare. That would mean the ninth says that anything they can do because the Feds don't care is as important as anything .... I got nothing at this point, your explanation is so tortured we can't even torture an interpretation out of this.

You are a very confused old man.

That was one of the three questions, what about the others? I hope your answer is just as entertaining.

Oh, another question I keep asking, what grade did you drop out of school? As you know, I have sixth in the pool.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

Which is why you are allied with people you claim to fundamentally disagree with, liberals, and you deeply oppose those of us who you completely agree with, small government libertarians.

This ... is how you just chose fun. Commence whining, empty pants.

What's that quote again about flinging the same ipse dixit over and over and over and expecting different results?

​

Wassamatta dress-boy? Can't think of an argument again?

 

[kaz]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

I'm not sure I'm clear exactly what you are arguing, but the highlighted point is what liberals say that is just a yawn to me because it's inane. My choices are that I am God, or the Government is? If my making my own choices means I think I am God, clearly then if they think government should make our choices, by that logic, government is God. That's just stupid. It's not an argument and it's not satire, it's a strawman.

God instituted government to rule over people who think they are god.

But the ... men ... in Government when they make our choices for us are not being Gods, but we are when we make our own choices over our own lives and our own wallets. Was that supposed to make sense?

 

[rightwinger]

LOL. Remember the thread you kept whining I wouldn't answer your stupid questions? Here are ones I ask you over and over and get no answer.

If Congress can do whatever the f it wants, then ... why ... did ... they .... write ... a ... Constitution in the first place?

Why did they put the 9th and 10th amendments in the bill of rights?

What basis do the courts have to turn over a law if Congress can do whatever it wants? Are the Courts just a higher entity? Congress makes the laws, the Courts just toss out the ones thy don't like, modify the ones they want changed and decree the ones they want that Congress didn't do?

The 9th and 10th amendments are there for the states

ANY state who thinks Congress is overstepping its bounds and violating the 9th or 10th is free to take them to court

Make you feel better?

Do you realize the bill of rights didn't apply to the States until they ratified the 14th amendment in 1868, almost a century later?

So you are saying they ratified the 9th and 10th for the States. Then a century later, they said oh, those amendments? They apply to the States.

And what did they tell the States? If the Federal government doesn't do it, then you can, as long as what you do doesn't contradict with what Congress says.

What is the purpose of that anyway? Did it really need to be said that they can do anything they want that doesn't contradict the Federal government?

And 20% of the bill of rights is a power of the Federal government? Limits on power actually grant government power.

And even if the 10th means that, then the 9th is even more bizare. That would mean the ninth says that anything they can do because the Feds don't care is as important as anything .... I got nothing at this point, your explanation is so tortured we can't even torture an interpretation out of this.

You are a very confused old man.

That was one of the three questions, what about the others? I hope your answer is just as entertaining.

Oh, another question I keep asking, what grade did you drop out of school? As you know, I have sixth in the pool.

If there is a conflict between the states and the federal government over the scope of powers, the courts are available to them

That is the way it works

 

[kaz]

Which is why you are allied with people you claim to fundamentally disagree with, liberals, and you deeply oppose those of us who you completely agree with, small government libertarians.

This ... is how you just chose fun. Commence whining, empty pants.

What's that quote about flinging the same ipse dixit over and over and over and expecting different results again?

​

Wassamatta dress-boy? Can't think of an argument again?

I'm making no argument, I'm just mocking you because you are so inane. Here's a hint how you know that, I keep telling you. Like when you say your views and they are bang on small government libertarian while you support authoritarian leftists because they call themselves liberals. There's no rational debate in that, and you keep proving that. How many times can I tell you that? How stupid are you?

 

[kaz]

If there is a conflict between the states and the federal government over the scope of powers, the courts are available to them

That is the way it works

And what do the courts rule based on since you are arguing the government has no limits? How can they limit that which is unlimited?

 

[kaz]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

I'm not sure I'm clear exactly what you are arguing, but the highlighted point is what liberals say that is just a yawn to me because it's inane. My choices are that I am God, or the Government is? If my making my own choices means I think I am God, clearly then if they think government should make our choices, by that logic, government is God. That's just stupid. It's not an argument and it's not satire, it's a strawman.

God instituted government to rule over people who think they are god.

The devil instituted government for evil people who think they are god to make other people's choices for them.

What about those of us who don't think we are God and don't want other people making our choices for us? We're just screwed? Or do we need to pick, we think we are God, or we want other people to make our choices for us, those are our only options?

I'm glad you clarified it, it makes sense now...

 

[rightwinger]

If there is a conflict between the states and the federal government over the scope of powers, the courts are available to them

That is the way it works

And what do the courts rule based on since you are arguing the government has no limits? How can they limit that which is unlimited?

I favor government at the level that makes sense

If you can do it yourself.......Do it
If it can be done efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level
If it is more cost effective at the state level....Do it at the state level
If the federal government is best suited to do a function....Do it at the federal level

Governments are not the enemy

 

[kaz]

If there is a conflict between the states and the federal government over the scope of powers, the courts are available to them

That is the way it works

And what do the courts rule based on since you say government has unlimited powers?