A Green-Libertarian Alliance

[Meryuma]

I want you to actually detail how you would go about claiming your own self-defined idea of economic freedom, without a non interventionist small government.

He wants no state and no capitalist property - consistent freedom from authoritarian control.

If I was an employer, and one my employees was being a cocky, smart mouthed little shit that fucked around, and still expected to be paid for it, I would want to fire that little shit on the spot. THAT, would be my freedom as an employer.

So your idea of freedom is the ability to use threats to control the behavior of others? Wow.

When most people think of someone who lives a free life, they'd think perhaps of a touring musician or nomadic traveler - someone with few obligations who makes their way in life according to their own dreams. The archetype of your idea of freedom would be a schoolyard bully - someone who makes themselves free of people they don't like through coercion.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

He wants no state and no capitalist property - consistent freedom from authoritarian control.

I believe that I was waiting on Bluth to say his view himself, out of his own independent reasoning. But he chose to go silent.

But as it stands, I'll reply to you.

How does the presence or non presence of a state, or others having or not having capital property, affect your empowerment as an individual to improve your own life from grassroot/bottom up?

You don't know what authoritarian control is. Bluth is basically implying that he wants bigger economic security as a safety net, because he doesn't want to work. If the government is small and non interventionist, the whole point is that they are NOT interfering with your life.

If someone can't make the most of the empowerment and right to economic freedom that they already have, how on earth are they going to acquire their food, clothing, and shelter without any employers providing them with a job, or the state providing any safety net?

I'm waiting for a methodology. I haven't had one yet, apart from rehashed "hur dur capitalists and state is bad hur dur".

So your idea of freedom is the ability to use threats to control the behavior of others? Wow.

When most people think of someone who lives a free life, they'd think perhaps of a touring musician or nomadic traveler - someone with few obligations who makes their way in life according to their own dreams. The archetype of your idea of freedom would be a schoolyard bully - someone who makes themselves free of people they don't like through coercion.

Where did I type ANYTHING about controlling others behaviour? That's not what I said, at all.

I just said that if an employee was taking too much carefree liberty of thinking they were infallible, but my business (and consequently livelihood) was suffering as a result, I should have the freedom as an employer to fire that employee, and hire someone else, because I would only pay people that were actually doing a job.

Please read.

I'm not hindering their life, I just don't want them in my company anymore.

This isn't about universal freedom, this is about ECONOMIC freedom. It's different to social/personal freedom. I'm not sure what else I can do, to stress this.

[Raeyh]

When most people think of someone who lives a free life, they'd think perhaps of a touring musician or nomadic traveler - someone with few obligations who makes their way in life according to their own dreams. The archetype of your idea of freedom would be a schoolyard bully - someone who makes themselves free of people they don't like through coercion.

No, it's the freedom to decide who you give your money to in the form of a wage.

[Blakk Metal]

A Green-Libertarian Alliance would not work. At all. A Constitutional-Libertarian Alliance would be more practical, as they actually mostly agree with each other and are on the same side of the political spectrum (center-right to moderate-right).

Corrected.

No, they don't. They reject economic freedom wholesale.

Please learn what economic freedom actually is, before making bold stances. Everyone else understands it.

You don't seem to understand what freedom is.

As I explained in an earlier post in this thread, because Libertarians reject economic freedom, they also reject social/personal freedom.

And as I explained to you in an earlier post, you're trying way too hard to pretend economic freedom, and personal freedom are identically the same thing, so you can put everything in a neatly packed 'box' to criticize it all together. That's strawman.

People need to understand that economic and social outlooks are not the same stances, and rigid ideological doctrine often prevents people from understanding this.

The irony...

So your idea of freedom is the ability to use threats to control the behavior of others? Wow.

When most people think of someone who lives a free life, they'd think perhaps of a touring musician or nomadic traveler - someone with few obligations who makes their way in life according to their own dreams. The archetype of your idea of freedom would be a schoolyard bully - someone who makes themselves free of people they don't like through coercion.

Where did I type ANYTHING about controlling others behaviour? That's not what I said, at all.

I just said that if an employee was taking too much carefree liberty of thinking they were infallible, but my business (and consequently livelihood) was suffering as a result, I should have the freedom as an employer to fire that employee, and hire someone else, because I would only pay people that were actually doing a job.

Please read.

I'm not hindering their life, I just don't want them in my company anymore.

This isn't about universal freedom, this is about ECONOMIC freedom. It's different to social/personal freedom. I'm not sure what else I can do, to stress this.

Please the thread. Your jokes are getting stale now.

When most people think of someone who lives a free life, they'd think perhaps of a touring musician or nomadic traveler - someone with few obligations who makes their way in life according to their own dreams. The archetype of your idea of freedom would be a schoolyard bully - someone who makes themselves free of people they don't like through coercion.

No, it's the freedom to decide who you give your money to in the form of a wage rape.

[Meryuma]

So your idea of freedom is the ability to use threats to control the behavior of others? Wow.

When most people think of someone who lives a free life, they'd think perhaps of a touring musician or nomadic traveler - someone with few obligations who makes their way in life according to their own dreams. The archetype of your idea of freedom would be a schoolyard bully - someone who makes themselves free of people they don't like through coercion.

Where did I type ANYTHING about controlling others behaviour? That's not what I said, at all.

I just said that if an employee was taking too much carefree liberty of thinking they were infallible, but my business (and consequently livelihood) was suffering as a result, I should have the freedom as an employer to fire that employee, and hire someone else, because I would only pay people that were actually doing a job.

Please read.

I'm not hindering their life, I just don't want them in my company anymore.

This isn't about universal freedom, this is about ECONOMIC freedom. It's different to social/personal freedom. I'm not sure what else I can do, to stress this.

1. Being a boss involves controlling others through the threat of firing, as you talked about earlier. Look at dress codes, people not being allowed to socialize during work time, etc. It's based around control.
2. You outright say they can't "take too much liberty" - in other words, liberty for an employer is the ability to constrict the liberty of others.
3. So making someone unemployed isn't hindering their life? What a privileged remark.
4. The economic and the personal/social aren't separate like that. The economy is a social construct comprised of persons. You use this supposed distinction as an excuse to define "economic freedom" in a way that contradicts the meaning of "freedom" in all other situations. It would be like if I said a "sandwich" sometimes means a large rock that can break your teeth and when called out claimed I'm talking about "geological sandwiches" rather than "food sandwiches".

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

You don't seem to understand what freedom is.

Economic and personal freedom are NOT THE SAME DAMN THING.

What is this, politics 101?

The irony...

How?

But at least you're not denying that you're guilty of it.

Please the thread. Your jokes are getting stale now.

Just because you're trying to oversimplify things, to make the strawman boxes easier to criticize, doesn't mean everyone is a comedian. It means your outlook is reductionist and flawed.

No, it's the freedom to decide who you give your money to in the form of a wage rape.

Oh I get it. This is troll bait right?

It's... not? Oh, so it is really is an recycled overzealous extreme left, try hard college radical, oversimplified, reductionist, black/white argument after all? Oh ok, I see.

We've reached the misogynist conspiracies now. When do we start claiming everything is fascism?

[Frisivisia]

You don't seem to understand what freedom is.

Economic and personal freedom are NOT THE SAME DAMN THING.

What is this, politics 101?

The irony...

How?

But at least you're not denying that you're guilty of it.

Please the thread. Your jokes are getting stale now.

Just because you're trying to oversimplify things, to make the strawman boxes easier to criticize, doesn't mean everyone is a comedian. It means your outlook is reductionist and flawed.

Oh I get it. This is troll bait right?

It's... not? Oh, so it is really is an recycled overzealous extreme left, try hard college radical, oversimplified, reductionist, black/white argument after all? Oh ok, I see.

We've reached the misogynist conspiracies now. When do we start claiming everything is fascism?

A simple argument that pieces apart mine? Reductionist bastard!

[Meryuma]

When most people think of someone who lives a free life, they'd think perhaps of a touring musician or nomadic traveler - someone with few obligations who makes their way in life according to their own dreams. The archetype of your idea of freedom would be a schoolyard bully - someone who makes themselves free of people they don't like through coercion.

No, it's the freedom to decide who you give your money to in the form of a wage.

Describing wages as "deciding who to give your money to" as if it were some act of charity is oversimplified myopic bullshit. All these arguments are based around ignoring social context.

[Liberty of Republic]

Yeah, I agree, Greens and Justice can come together, they pretty much did in the debates they had.

Also I want to point out that Greens/Justice are Statists(and if I have to explain that, sad.)and Libertarians are for limited or no government. So no, there will be no alliances or combining.

And I can not wait to respond to some of the individuals on here about what is more free....left wing ideology or Libertarians. Gee, I wonder who supports liberty and freedoms, hmmmmmmmmm(let me give you the answer....Libertarians)

liberty and freedom in what context? Libertarians may have the economic freedoms down pat, but not everybody agrees that economic freedoms are a necessity. Socially, they are more or less equal, with the Greens pulling ahead only due to the Right Libertarian movement.

More or less equal? Are you kidding me? Have you even looked at the Green Party's platform to the Libertarian's? If you have Libertarian leadership you will have MORE personal, economic and political freedoms. Period.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

A simple argument that pieces apart mine? Reductionist bastard!

If it's based on faulty interpretation in the first place, the victory isn't exactly one to praise.

That's like praising Fox News for having good viewing figures. But we all know they aren't worth praising.

Where did I type ANYTHING about controlling others behaviour? That's not what I said, at all.

I just said that if an employee was taking too much carefree liberty of thinking they were infallible, but my business (and consequently livelihood) was suffering as a result, I should have the freedom as an employer to fire that employee, and hire someone else, because I would only pay people that were actually doing a job.

Please read.

I'm not hindering their life, I just don't want them in my company anymore.

This isn't about universal freedom, this is about ECONOMIC freedom. It's different to social/personal freedom. I'm not sure what else I can do, to stress this.

1. Being a boss involves controlling others through the threat of firing, as you talked about earlier. Look at dress codes, people not being allowed to socialize during work time, etc. It's based around control.
2. You outright say they can't "take too much liberty" - in other words, liberty for an employer is the ability to constrict the liberty of others.
3. So making someone unemployed isn't hindering their life? What a privileged remark.
4. The economic and the personal/social aren't separate like that. The economy is a social construct comprised of persons. You use this supposed distinction as an excuse to define "economic freedom" in a way that contradicts the meaning of "freedom" in all other situations. It would be like if I said a "sandwich" sometimes means a large rock that can break your teeth and when called out claimed I'm talking about "geological sandwiches" rather than "food sandwiches".

1) You aren't controlling a person's entire economic freedom just by firing them. Y'know, here's a crazy thought... if you have a job, it isn't the ONLY EMPLOYMENT YOU CAN EVER HAVE. Crazy world I know. In fact, some people even have career changes. Crazy isn't it?

2) I don't think they should be able to take too much liberty. You're not dealing with behaved people here, you're dealing with aggressive, irresponsible troublemakers whose entire life philosophy consists of 'I am powerless because of my class, I must claim power back'. It's never about compromise with them, they want to be infallible. Employers NEED to be tough on that. College kids think they should rule the world. If someone wants to fuck about, and not do their job, they should do it on someone else's time. I'm not hindering their economic freedom. They can get another job, and then spend or trade however they like. My jurisdiction as an employer is my own company. Outside of that, I don't give two craps what they do. Unless you're also saying economic freedom is making workers think they are infallible? No one would ever get any work done. Nothing would get anywhere. A country would collapse, no one would get any food or housing at all. Think this through.

3) No, firing someone doesn't end their life. People get fired all the time. What do you think happens when a company has to make it's workers redundant? The problem you're having, as do many others, is that they seem to equate their job with their entire life, that you ARE your job. That if someone happens to be a plumber, their identity is literally PLUMBER, and not (for example) Greg Barrows, who happens to enjoy bowling and Japanese cuisine, who writes ghost stories for a hobby, but he just happens to be a plumber employment wise.

4) Yes, economic and social freedom are ENTIRELY SEPARATE. Many frameworks would even suggest the two are somewhat incompatible. I've seen arguments like this before, it's basically socially conditioning people to think "oh well we have absolutely no freedom in capitalism at all, so we might as well join the socialist marches and
preach the Marxist dream." Is that where this is heading?

[Christian Democrats]

Actually, the Democratic Party has become more left-wing due to the emigration of Southerners from the party.

Also, do you even know what the far-right is? National socialism, fascism, etc.

The Republican Party is a broad center-right coalition; it includes conservatives of all shades, libertarians, and right-wing populists.

Outside the collectivist hellhole that is the United States, the 'Publicans would be considered fascist.

Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation.

~ The Market for Liberty, by Linda and Morris Tannehill

Economically and fiscally, Republicans are distant from the fascist ideology.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Like many other Americans I have become tired of our rather limited choices when it comes to voting, the Republicans have gone off the deep end to the far-right and thus dragging the Democrats to the center.

I stopped reading there, to have a good bout of hysterical laughter.

[The Batorys]

An alliance like this would never work. Those two groups are diametrically opposed on issues that are core to the political identities of each group.

[Frisivisia]

Like many other Americans I have become tired of our rather limited choices when it comes to voting, the Republicans have gone off the deep end to the far-right and thus dragging the Democrats to the center.

I stopped reading there, to have a good bout of hysterical laughter.

Because the democrats are so far to the left?

[Laerod]

Like many other Americans I have become tired of our rather limited choices when it comes to voting, the Republicans have gone off the deep end to the far-right and thus dragging the Democrats to the center.

I stopped reading there, to have a good bout of hysterical laughter.

Tis the sign of a true villain, the manic laugh.

[Christian Democrats]

I stopped reading there, to have a good bout of hysterical laughter.

Because the democrats are so far to the left?

The Democrats have moved to the left in recent decades, primarily due to the emigration of Southerners from the party.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I stopped reading there, to have a good bout of hysterical laughter.

Because the democrats are so far to the left?

No. As someone who is admittedly far-right, I know the Republicans are nothing close to far-right.

But yes, the Democrats have moved left in recent years. The Blue Dogs are leaving, and Progressives taking over.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I stopped reading there, to have a good bout of hysterical laughter.

Tis the sign of a true villain, the manic laugh.

*twirls mustache*

[Liberty of Republic]

I don't deny that they're for something they call economic freedom. Just that what they call economic freedom isn't really economic freedom, just like even though Calvinism calls itself Christianity it isn't really Christianity but rather institutionalized narcissism.

You equate free for all in having a job and stuff as economic freedom? Your joking right?
Economic freedom is when(and I pulled out my handy dandy dictionary for you)freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft.

And I am sorry as soon as you enter the state into this, it is not free anymore. And apparently YOU want more state intervention, which means LESS freedom.

Same goes for personal and political freedoms too. Which the Libertarian party supports.

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others." http://www.lp.org/platform

If this is not freedom, then we as a planet is screwed.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

Well, I don't know whether I'd consider the libertarian party as advocators of personal freedom.

But then, that's only because I don't think personal freedom is conventionally possible.

Political freedom though, yeah I guess.

[Meryuma]

A simple argument that pieces apart mine? Reductionist bastard!

If it's based on faulty interpretation in the first place, the victory isn't exactly one to praise.

That's like praising Fox News for having good viewing figures. But we all know they aren't worth praising.

1. Being a boss involves controlling others through the threat of firing, as you talked about earlier. Look at dress codes, people not being allowed to socialize during work time, etc. It's based around control.
2. You outright say they can't "take too much liberty" - in other words, liberty for an employer is the ability to constrict the liberty of others.
3. So making someone unemployed isn't hindering their life? What a privileged remark.
4. The economic and the personal/social aren't separate like that. The economy is a social construct comprised of persons. You use this supposed distinction as an excuse to define "economic freedom" in a way that contradicts the meaning of "freedom" in all other situations. It would be like if I said a "sandwich" sometimes means a large rock that can break your teeth and when called out claimed I'm talking about "geological sandwiches" rather than "food sandwiches".

1) You aren't controlling a person's entire economic freedom just by firing them. Y'know, here's a crazy thought... if you have a job, it isn't the ONLY EMPLOYMENT YOU CAN EVER HAVE. Crazy world I know. In fact, some people even have career changes. Crazy isn't it?

2) I don't think they should be able to take too much liberty. You're not dealing with behaved people here, you're dealing with aggressive, irresponsible troublemakers whose entire life philosophy consists of 'I am powerless because of my class, I must claim power back'. It's never about compromise with them, they want to be infallible. Employers NEED to be tough on that. College kids think they should rule the world. If someone wants to fuck about, and not do their job, they should do it on someone else's time. I'm not hindering their economic freedom. They can get another job, and then spend or trade however they like. My jurisdiction as an employer is my own company. Outside of that, I don't give two craps what they do. Unless you're also saying economic freedom is making workers think they are infallible? No one would ever get any work done. Nothing would get anywhere. A country would collapse, no one would get any food or housing at all. Think this through.

3) No, firing someone doesn't end their life. People get fired all the time. What do you think happens when a company has to make it's workers redundant? The problem you're having, as do many others, is that they seem to equate their job with their entire life, that you ARE your job. That if someone happens to be a plumber, their identity is literally PLUMBER, and not (for example) Greg Barrows, who happens to enjoy bowling and Japanese cuisine, who writes ghost stories for a hobby, but he just happens to be a plumber employment wise.

4) Yes, economic and social freedom are ENTIRELY SEPARATE. Many frameworks would even suggest the two are somewhat incompatible. I've seen arguments like this before, it's basically socially conditioning people to think "oh well we have absolutely no freedom in capitalism at all, so we might as well join the socialist marches and preach the Marxist dream." Is that where this is heading?

1. Do you actually know anyone who's poor or lower middle-class?
2. I didn't say everyone unemployed starves to death or becomes suicidally depressed or some shit, I just said that it does, in fact, interfere with one's life. Don't change the goalposts.
3. Rather than thinking ideologies are wrong because of faulty arguments, you apparently think arguments are wrong because they support ideologies that you view as wrong a priori. That's not how logic works.

[Liberty of Republic]

Where did I type ANYTHING about controlling others behaviour? That's not what I said, at all.

I just said that if an employee was taking too much carefree liberty of thinking they were infallible, but my business (and consequently livelihood) was suffering as a result, I should have the freedom as an employer to fire that employee, and hire someone else, because I would only pay people that were actually doing a job.

Please read.

I'm not hindering their life, I just don't want them in my company anymore.

This isn't about universal freedom, this is about ECONOMIC freedom. It's different to social/personal freedom. I'm not sure what else I can do, to stress this.

1. Being a boss involves controlling others through the threat of firing, as you talked about earlier. Look at dress codes, people not being allowed to socialize during work time, etc. It's based around control.
2. You outright say they can't "take too much liberty" - in other words, liberty for an employer is the ability to constrict the liberty of others.
3. So making someone unemployed isn't hindering their life? What a privileged remark.
4. The economic and the personal/social aren't separate like that. The economy is a social construct comprised of persons. You use this supposed distinction as an excuse to define "economic freedom" in a way that contradicts the meaning of "freedom" in all other situations. It would be like if I said a "sandwich" sometimes means a large rock that can break your teeth and when called out claimed I'm talking about "geological sandwiches" rather than "food sandwiches".

Wow some people on here have a distorted view of liberty and freedom. So you will take the FREEDOM of the employer away to give it to the employee? What makes the employee more special? Did he start the business and put risk into it? No. So get your priorities straight. At least some of us are bosses and have to deal with stresses of running businesses, do you?

I will agree with you on one thing, I see no distinctions between personal, economic and political freedoms.

[Meryuma]

1. Being a boss involves controlling others through the threat of firing, as you talked about earlier. Look at dress codes, people not being allowed to socialize during work time, etc. It's based around control.
2. You outright say they can't "take too much liberty" - in other words, liberty for an employer is the ability to constrict the liberty of others.
3. So making someone unemployed isn't hindering their life? What a privileged remark.
4. The economic and the personal/social aren't separate like that. The economy is a social construct comprised of persons. You use this supposed distinction as an excuse to define "economic freedom" in a way that contradicts the meaning of "freedom" in all other situations. It would be like if I said a "sandwich" sometimes means a large rock that can break your teeth and when called out claimed I'm talking about "geological sandwiches" rather than "food sandwiches".

Wow some people on here have a distorted view of liberty and freedom. So you will take the FREEDOM of the employer away to give it to the employee? What makes the employee more special? Did he start the business and put risk into it? No. So get your priorities straight. At least some of us are bosses and have to deal with stresses of running businesses, do you?

I will agree with you on one thing, I see no distinctions between personal, economic and political freedoms.

Have your family pay hundreds of dollars living in a house where only half the windows open for 6 years and then tell me how hard it is being a boss.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

1) You aren't controlling a person's entire economic freedom just by firing them. Y'know, here's a crazy thought... if you have a job, it isn't the ONLY EMPLOYMENT YOU CAN EVER HAVE. Crazy world I know. In fact, some people even have career changes. Crazy isn't it?

2) I don't think they should be able to take too much liberty. You're not dealing with behaved people here, you're dealing with aggressive, irresponsible troublemakers whose entire life philosophy consists of 'I am powerless because of my class, I must claim power back'. It's never about compromise with them, they want to be infallible. Employers NEED to be tough on that. College kids think they should rule the world. If someone wants to fuck about, and not do their job, they should do it on someone else's time. I'm not hindering their economic freedom. They can get another job, and then spend or trade however they like. My jurisdiction as an employer is my own company. Outside of that, I don't give two craps what they do. Unless you're also saying economic freedom is making workers think they are infallible? No one would ever get any work done. Nothing would get anywhere. A country would collapse, no one would get any food or housing at all. Think this through.

3) No, firing someone doesn't end their life. People get fired all the time. What do you think happens when a company has to make it's workers redundant? The problem you're having, as do many others, is that they seem to equate their job with their entire life, that you ARE your job. That if someone happens to be a plumber, their identity is literally PLUMBER, and not (for example) Greg Barrows, who happens to enjoy bowling and Japanese cuisine, who writes ghost stories for a hobby, but he just happens to be a plumber employment wise.

4) Yes, economic and social freedom are ENTIRELY SEPARATE. Many frameworks would even suggest the two are somewhat incompatible. I've seen arguments like this before, it's basically socially conditioning people to think "oh well we have absolutely no freedom in capitalism at all, so we might as well join the socialist marches and preach the Marxist dream." Is that where this is heading?

1. Do you actually know anyone who's poor or lower middle-class?
2. I didn't say everyone unemployed starves to death or becomes suicidally depressed or some shit, I just said that it does, in fact, interfere with one's life. Don't change the goalposts.
3. Rather than thinking ideologies are wrong because of faulty arguments, you apparently think arguments are wrong because they support ideologies that you view as wrong a priori. That's not how logic works.

1) Yes. I know people who are poor, the underclass, working class, lower-middle class, average middle class, people who are middle class but try and pretend to be working class to paint themselves as moral heroes, working classes who try and make themselves adopt middle class mannerisms, the entire package. But how about this for AN EVEN MORE WACKY NOTION... sit down, are you ready for it, good, it seems there is no universal determinist law that forces people to have to be identified by socioeconomic status. No really, we are all people, we can choose what hobbies we want, what food we eat, what music we listen to. In fact some may say our identity can even be SHAPED by our hobbies, cuisine or musical tastes. Just like it is with standard superficial stuff like gender roles, ethnicity, race etc. Turns out there's a whole lot of characteristics and demographics that can define a person in their life. Some scientists are even saying that your socioeconomic status, apparently doesn't solely define you as an entire person in any light, and that the characteristics outside of that are even more important. it seems those that are bitching because they are TOO POOR, are the one's who have less money because they use their economic freedom to spend it on irresponsible things they don't really need, and then claim afterwards that it's an economic models fault. I'm not exactly a RICH person, but I'm responsible with my money, so I can spend it more on what I actually need, which is why I don't function in life as if I was 'poor', even though I'm probably on the same socioeconomic status as those that would be defined as such.

2) Well yeah... everything can interfere with someone's life in some way, doesn't mean it's intrinsically against all freedom. A teenager purposely alienating himself from his family, because he adopts radical anarchist, socialist and anti-capitalist views could, in a similar trail of logic, imply that anarchism and socialism are an aspect of political discourse that interfere with these people's lives. But you wouldn't say this hinders a person's economic or personal freedom would you? Same logic though, or are we adopting selective double standards to try and give one argument more prestige? If so, sounds like fun, remind me when I can join in on it.

3) Well for starters, if an ideology isn't empirical or pragmatic enough to take seriously, yes... it tends to be unfavorable and not taken as seriously. Mainly because, of selective double standards again, that same trail of thought probably isn't something you'd allow for other outlooks.

[Liberty of Republic]

Well, I don't know whether I'd consider the libertarian party as advocators of personal freedom.

But then, that's only because I don't think personal freedom is conventionally possible.

Political freedom though, yeah I guess.

Right from their website on what they represent:
"Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power." http://www.lp.org/platform

Personal freedom means to be able to live a life without interference whether this be who you do contracts with(IE marriage or even selling something to some one) to what you plan to do with your stuff on your property to what sexual orientation you are to privacy matters of your business or home to gun rights and the list can go on. One reason why i actually connect personal and economic freedoms together, even say they are one in the same at times.

Now what I have been agreeing with you on is that it is NOT freedom to get a job and keep it permanently whether you are good at it or not. What I do not understand is how some of these posters can think freedom equates getting free stuff(which the Green Party and Justice Party argues for) or getting a job, health care, education or whatever.