You asked me what the philosophical basis of libertarianism is. Don't complain that I gave you an answer.Huh?
If you are saying I'm wrong, tell me how, I'm happy to be corrected.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You asked me what the philosophical basis of libertarianism is. Don't complain that I gave you an answer.Huh?
Was it really debunked? Perhaps a lack of real choice on the ballet is what drove everyone to the third parties? You can't keep blaming the progressive voters who want change for the failure of the democratic party to deliver said change.I think it's an exaggeration to say they're "every bit" warmongers as the Right. Too hawkish, yes I'd agree. But that rationalization for voting 3rd party in 2016 has been debunked in the Trump era. Would Clinton have pulled out of the Iran deal? Would she be gearing up for war there? Would she have pissed off and alienated almost all our allies? Doubtful.
Progressive voters would have been vastly more likely to see changes they support under a Clinton administration than the changes we've seen under Trump. I really don't know how anyone can seriously dispute that. Would we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court? Would we have the ridiculous militarized situation with immigrants at the Southern border? Would we have seen the rollback of I don't even know how many environmental regulations keeping businesses from polluting our air and water? Would we have defanged the individual mandate of the ACA and barely hung onto the entire system at all, or would we have expanded the ACA even more? I could keep going but you get the point. Progressives cannot rationally defend the idea that voting for a non-viable candidate is strategically better than voting for the more liberal of the two viable candidates.Was it really debunked? Perhaps a lack of real choice on the ballet is what drove everyone to the third parties? You can't keep blaming the progressive voters who want change for the failure of the democratic party to deliver said change.
One can also make the argument that the democratic party has the power to make a non-viable candidate viable. (Hillary Clinton being the example from the last election.)Progressive voters would have been vastly more likely to see changes they support under a Clinton administration than the changes we've seen under Trump. I really don't know how anyone can seriously dispute that. Would we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court? Would we have the ridiculous militarized situation with immigrants at the Southern border? Would we have seen the rollback of I don't even know how many environmental regulations keeping businesses from polluting our air and water? Would we have defanged the individual mandate of the ACA and barely hung onto the entire system at all, or would we have expanded the ACA even more? I could keep going but you get the point. Progressives cannot rationally defend the idea that voting for a non-viable candidate is strategically better than voting for the more liberal of the two viable candidates.
I simply disagree. Again, libertarians share this trait with conservatives. Their rhetoric excoriates the evils of governments and identifies it as an impediment to freedom rather than a tool to ensure it, while they simultaneously run for government positions. I've heard it too many times to count. When elected, they move to systematically disempower government and empower corporate interests in a variety of ways.You were indeed wrong. The simplistic "opposition to government" is what
I'd expect to hear from lesser minds of the fulminating left...not from you.
Consider that the Libertarian Party is a political party (3rd largest in the US)
with candidates aspiring to office in order to steer government in a more
libertarian direction. Our actively taking part in government is at odds with
the claim that we merely oppose government.
These are ubiquitous political values that people left, right, and center could, and do, endorse with equal vigor. So that's not it I'm afraid.We advocate political, social & economic liberty. We say that your right to
swing your arms ends at your neighbor's nose.
It's encouraging that you would endorse this kind of environmental regulation. It's telling, though, that in real world cases when it comes to actual regulations, the right (both conservatives and libertarians) consistently oppose them and move to eliminate them. Again, we've seen it too many times to count.An example might clarify...
Government should ensure that no one pours their used motor oil into
the creek behind their house. This is because the oil would cause harm
to those downstream.
And from a left perspective, which is which is rationally indisputable.IOW, voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
We only differed on which was which.
Usually, I'll have high certainty that my state (Michiganistan) will put all
of its EC votes towards one candidate or the other, usually a Democrat.
In such elections, I vote for the candidate I think best (Libertarian) so as
to register my opinion, knowing that my vote cannot affect the outcome.
But when it's close, my vote could actually make a difference in the election.
Tis then & only then that I weigh the relative evils of the Big Two's offerings.
I've reported the many times repeated posting by a non-liberal in this liberal only thread. TROLL TROLL TROLL.Uh oh....I'm dealing with a poster who has "The Truth".
I don't have that. I find certainty about such things impossible.
So I express preferences & opinions, which are open to challenge.
Libertarian is the dark side.
Booowahahahahahahhaahahhh, etc!!!!!!
Btw, liberals are in no rush to enact an agenda based upon my list.
Granted, some of them, as with conservatives are taking baby steps
on a couple, but they're woefully non-progressive in my eyes.
You're missing the fundamental difference by examining only the superficial, ie,
rhetoric which you notice. Conservatives have great differences with us in our
fundamental philosophy, eg, their religious orientation, their social controls.
As I noted before, if we used observed rhetoric to define underlying philosophy,
then liberals' foundation is endlessly bigger government, higher taxes, more
control over us, & hating Republicans.
But I recognize that those are emergent properties, not fundamental philosophy.
Oh, you might disagree that we do, but frankly that's irrelevant. I disagree that libertarians and conservatives actually care about liberty in every case as well. But we're talking about how political groups define themselves. And sorry, but everyone claims to be flying the banner of freedom. The distinguishing features are how each group proposes we get there.I disagree. Liberals (not classical ones), conservatives, Democrats & Republicans
don't share all of those values. But they do agree with us on this or that, here & there.
None of this is 100% black and white. I understand that right wingers don't, mostly, want complete anarchy and dissolution of all government. Same as progressives don't want absolute government control of every aspect of life. Again, we're talking about what principles underlie those real world decisions.Now you're wrong about both conservatives and Libertarians.
Government is useful to both.
The questions become about how much of it, in what way, & at what cost.
Rev - I'm asking you to educate me on your political philosophy. Thus far you've told me you believe in liberty - which as we've covered, everyone and their mom does. So what else?It seems that people outside a group, particularly those in opposition,
have great difficulty understanding the other. My advice...
More questions...fewer pronouncements.
Examples?
I'm very confident in my opinion on that particular issue, yep. However, my opinion has and could again change, given evidence.Uh oh....I'm dealing with a poster who has "The Truth".
I don't have that. I find certainty about such things impossible.
So I express preferences & opinions, which are open to challenge.
Btw, liberals are in no rush to enact an agenda based upon my list.
Granted, some of them, as with conservatives are taking baby steps
on a couple, but they're woefully non-progressive in my eyes.
Meh, I know but it at least made for interesting conversation with someone who I really don't think was trolling. @Revoltingest happy to continue the convo in a different thread if you want.I've reported the many times repeated posting by a non-liberal in this liberal only thread. TROLL TROLL TROLL.
I didn't know about the NYT interviews, I'll have to check them out!I've started paying a bit more attention to this now. The New York Times released an interesting series of interviews with most of the candidates yesterday and I've been going through it bit by bit. So far, I find myself quite impressed with Booker, with Warren and Delaney in the mix as well. Looks like most of the candidates I found myself gravitating towards are on day 1, so we'll see if I'm able to fit it into my schedule.
What did you think?
Is it worth watching? In your opinion is Warren 'likable'?
I thought during the whole debate that O'Rourke looked like a little boy trying to talk at the grown-ups' table. He looked like he didn't have the foggiest idea what he was doing on the stage, and rarely did he ever move beyond platitudes and get into any concrete ideas. He was nowhere close to being a picture of confidence. Castro piledrived him into the ground and he was smarting from that for the rest of the night.Well, night one is over. Warren clearly excelled. Beto struggled, especially in the first half, and Castro bested him on immigration. De Blasio tried desperately to make himself relevant but I still don't know anything that makes him stand out other than his impressive ability to interrupt. Klobuchar did...okay, though she didn't come across as very confident.
What did you think?