A Green-Libertarian Alliance

[PapaJacky]

The sensible alternative is ending SSA, downsizing the military to focus on R&D and not procurement, removing religious exemptions from taxes, closing tax expenditures for the wealthy, and ending the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy as well.

Actually, it's removing restrictions on labor organizing, legalizing filesharing and marijuana, reducing the defense budget, ending corporate subsidies and corporate personhood, getting rid of eminent domain and switching to the aforementioned geoist tax policy. This would be a great green/libertarian coalition platform but sadly is too radical to make it in the generally futile world of modern US electoral politics.

Also wouldn't balance the budget as much as mine would. No reason not to integrate the two, however.

[Des-Bal]

As soon as the election ended they would start eating each other.

[Seleucas]

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.

Lately however many people have begun to support Third Party candidates such as Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Jill Stein, both support civil liberties and oppose the interventionist policies of the previous administrations.

There main difference comes from their economic stances and the role of government in the market.

So who should 3rd party voters choose?

You could naturally vote for one or the other, but what is the likelihood of them getting enough votes to oppose the 2 main parties?
I believe that it would be far more effective if the 2 parties were to merge and therefore combine there voting base into one, and perhaps being able to challenge the 2 main parties.

I support a Green-Libertarian Alliance on the platform of Peace, Freedom, and Centrist Economics, unconcerned with ideology but only concerned with what works.

What say you General?

No. I don't think elections or party politics are particularly useful for advancing a libertarian ideology to begin with. I certainly would not want to try and gain what I feel is useless by means of compromising on philosophy (I take enough issue with officeholders who nominally support my views.)

[Liberty of Republic]

people so stupid as to require managing should be left to die.

Without order and authority you can't have your precious rights.

Bullshit. We have always had these rights, just some are too stupid to realize it(not saying you specifically). And some are just weak and simple-minded and want to follow others.

[Liberty of Republic]

Gary Johnson will let you smoke weed, how can you still not vote for him?

Because his economic policies are nuts.

And our statist system has been wonders for us huh?

[PapaJacky]

Without order and authority you can't have your precious rights.

Bullshit. We have always had these rights, just some are too stupid to realize it(not saying you specifically). And some are just weak and simple-minded and want to follow others.

Philosophies are philosophies. "These rights" were declared to be there by some old white guy a few centuries ago. Had Locke or Jefferson included "the right to a full morning meal", there's no doubt in my mind that many if not all would fall in line to such thinking. I'm exaggerating because I'm hungry but you get the idea.

[Liberty of Republic]

What is the center?

The area near 0,0 on your Political Compass.

I see Moderates/centrists as weak politically and have no principles. At least I can see how a socialist thinks and why, but a moderate or centrist? They are baffling. Or cowards.

[PapaJacky]

Because his economic policies are nuts.

And our statist system has been wonders for us huh?

NASA is pretty neat.

[Liberty of Republic]

Economic and personal freedom are NOT THE SAME DAMN THING.

Meanwhile, in the real world, it's not possible to have one without the other.

So for all practical purposes, they effectively are. And libertarians hate both.

You still have not proved that by the way. Again.

Do you not see the forcing of a system down ones throat by society or government as anti-freedom?

[PapaJacky]

Meanwhile, in the real world, it's not possible to have one without the other.

So for all practical purposes, they effectively are. And libertarians hate both.

You still have not proved that by the way. Again.

Do you not see the forcing of a system down ones throat by society or government as anti-freedom?

It's a contract, signed by you by being born into arbitrary lines.

[Liberty of Republic]

And our statist system has been wonders for us huh?

NASA is pretty neat.

......No.

[PapaJacky]

NASA is pretty neat.

......No.

I'd beg to differ. They did, after all, pave the way to having GPS and Communication satellites.

[Liberty of Republic]

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.

Which is exactly what I said, and is exactly what Libertarians oppose.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

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.

Who said anything about the state?

Though, since you brought it up, does state intervention in a man holding a roomful of people hostage at gunpoint mean, for everyone aggregately, more or less freedom overall?

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

Except they don't.

"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

Except that's the exact opposite of what they actually try to implement.

What a mockery you are. How is maximum individual rights not freedom?
Can you point where they "implement" non-freedoms?

[Liberty of Republic]

......No.

I'd beg to differ. They did, after all, pave the way to having GPS and Communication satellites.

Because they Monopolized it.

[Liberty of Republic]

You still have not proved that by the way. Again.

Do you not see the forcing of a system down ones throat by society or government as anti-freedom?

It's a contract, signed by you by being born into arbitrary lines.

Born into arbitrary lines? Since when?

[PapaJacky]

I'd beg to differ. They did, after all, pave the way to having GPS and Communication satellites.

Because they Monopolized it.

Monopolies aren't always bad.

[PapaJacky]

It's a contract, signed by you by being born into arbitrary lines.

Born into arbitrary lines? Since when?

Roughly 1787?

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

And I've already told you I'm not dismissing your arguments, or trying to apply any ad hominem. I am simply asking you, and waiting for, your own detailed portrayal of how you would achieve your means of survival, in a world shaped by your own definition of economic freedom, which from the discussion so far seems to be akin to that of a hypothetical world where employment and bosses do not exist (or at the very least, a boss isn't in charge of their own company). So, how will you pull this off? If I was dismissing anything, it was the credibility of ideological sheep, who sprout an ideology name and think it equates to a sophisticated answer. I was actually trying to give you more credit, and allow you to explain your individual perception and methodology.

I'm not exactly asking you to split the atom here. I can't dismiss something, if you haven't even said it yet.

Saying "nuh-uh I didn't" and making accusations based on my refusal to answer a fairly irrelevant question, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

I was referring to you going on about how my argument was wrong because it's "Marxist" when I talk about you committing ad hominems and stuff, BTW.

The question isn't irrelevant, you just don't want to answer it, because you haven't got an answer.

I wasn't saying your argument was wrong because it was Marxist, I was just saying I wanted you to provide a pragmatic methodology, that wasn't just a vague ideology name that you conformed to. Because that's not your own independent thought or reasoning. Because I do not treat "BECAUSE MARX SAYS SO" as a legitimate answer, I want people to actually think for themselves. This is a debate that has mentioned 'personal freedom' after all.

Coincidentally you still haven't provided anything...

I think that concludes things.

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.

Which is exactly what I said, and is exactly what Libertarians oppose.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

I love how you're trying to implement a framework here, where you think conforming to simple narrative, binary divisions equates to being universally politically aware.

The appeal to ridicule fallacy is adorable as well.

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.

Who said anything about the state?

Well the fact that if you don't have a job, or even purposely refuse employment, because you equate it to an 'oppressive hostage situation', the state is the only way you'll actually achieve your means of survival.

Because the smurf village commune is a blind faith fairytale.

So yeah, state intervention. Which the libertarians oppose, which you don't seen to get.

Though, since you brought it up, does state intervention in a man holding a roomful of people hostage at gunpoint mean, for everyone aggregately, more or less freedom overall?

Oh wait, I see where this is going.

1) Firstly, the state will be seen as a saviour, to save work-shy people from having to actually get off their arse and take self responsibility
2) But afterwards, it's still important that people maintain their continuous red flag waving agenda, so we'll claim it's oppressive fascism that the state even exists at all
3) We'll also bitch about how oppressive the high tax rate is, for the impoverished communities.
4) But then we'll still claim that the nationstate is still oppressive, even if the libertarians are successful and remove the omnipresent state, and reduce the tax rate, because it's now back to not wiping people's arses for them.
5) But then still portray the image that you're for a grassroots society, when the state has given you plenty of opportunity to empower yourself, but you complain the state isn't looking after you enough.

Lather, rinse, repeat. And then wonder why people don't take you seriously.

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

Except they don't.

Except they do, it's just your definition of freedom seems to be 'anything that isn't socialist'.

"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

Except that's the exact opposite of what they actually try to implement.

Actually no, libertarians take control over their own life, without any moral obligation to help other people. This is universally established.

If you don't understand this, then I dread to think how you're ACTUALLY going survive if a grass roots, collectivist commune actually came to light.

You don't want a job, or a state, then you will starve. That is the real world.

[Blakk Metal]

Which is exactly what I said, and is exactly what Libertarians oppose.

Why do you hate freedom so much?


Who said anything about the state?

Though, since you brought it up, does state intervention in a man holding a roomful of people hostage at gunpoint mean, for everyone aggregately, more or less freedom overall?


Except they don't.


Except that's the exact opposite of what they actually try to implement.

What a mockery you are. How is maximum individual rights not freedom?
Can you point where they "implement" non-freedoms?

Because private property makes no sense and infringes on the actual rights of others.

[Des-Bal]

Because private property makes no sense and infringes on the actual rights of others.

Laws infringe on my right to commit rapes.

[Ceannairceach]

The area near 0,0 on your Political Compass.

I see Moderates/centrists as weak politically and have no principles. At least I can see how a socialist thinks and why, but a moderate or centrist? They are baffling. Or cowards.

Moderate =/= centrist in any way, shape or form. Nor do either lack principles.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

Because private property makes no sense and infringes on the actual rights of others.

People should have rights, but not if it infringes on the rights of others.

But I hardly see how a middle class family owning property, is OPPRESSING ALL workers from ever having economic freedom. Which is one of the many exaggerations that people, who are overzealously anti-capitalist, try to implement to socially condition more socialist mindsets.

Forcing others to see things in your own framework, isn't really advocating political freedom, or even personal freedom.

I see Moderates/centrists as weak politically and have no principles. At least I can see how a socialist thinks and why, but a moderate or centrist? They are baffling. Or cowards.

Moderate =/= centrist in any way, shape or form. Nor do either lack principles.

Moderate centrists, and radical centrists, are different you know.

[North California]

And our statist system has been wonders for us huh?

NASA is pretty neat.

NASA used to be neat. Now it's just a bureaucratic mess. The future of space travel lies in the private sector and in commercial interest.

[Ceannairceach]

Because they Monopolized it.

Monopolies aren't always bad.

I'd loathe to live in a world where the government didn't monopolize taxation. *shudders*

[North California]

Because private property makes no sense and infringes on the actual rights of others.

How does me owning a car or a home infringe on the rights of others?