NationStates

I see a left-wing discussion thread and a right-wing discussion thread. Screw that.

So, libertarians of Nationstates: McAfee, Johnson, or Petersen?

You mean "Conservative Youth and Conspiracy Theorists" or "Market Anarchists who tap dance in their defense of private property"?

Because those would go in the Right and Left Wing discussion threads, respectively.

The New Sea Territory wrote:You mean "Conservative Youth and Conspiracy Theorists" or "Market Anarchists who tap dance in their defense of private property"?

uhhh... libertarians tend to be all of the above...

G-Max wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:You mean "Conservative Youth and Conspiracy Theorists" or "Market Anarchists who tap dance in their defense of private property"?

uhhh... libertarians tend to be all of the above...

As a former "libertarian", now an actual libertarian, I can assure you those are two very different camps.

The Tea Party and C4SS are completely different things.

Any of the above really, I'm behind whoever the LP puts forward.

The New Sea Territory wrote:

G-Max wrote:
uhhh... libertarians tend to be all of the above...

As a former "libertarian", now an actual libertarian, I can assure you those are two very different camps.

The Tea Party and C4SS are completely different things.

The Tea Party overlaps with libertarians, but neither is a subset of the other. Anarchists claim to be libertarian, but aren't.

G-Max wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:
As a former "libertarian", now an actual libertarian, I can assure you those are two very different camps.

The Tea Party and C4SS are completely different things.

The Tea Party overlaps with libertarians, but neither is a subset of the other.

The Tea Party is the closest thing American right-libertarians will ever get to a mass movement.

Anarchists claim to be libertarian, but aren't.

It's not like we invented the term or anything.

Ah, NST, I see you are spouting fallacies as usual I see. Perhaps you'll become a true scotsman one day enough. But don't touch that etymological fallacy, that's sharp as glass.

On topic: I'm rooting for Johnson, but I wouldn't mind McAfee. I think McAfee's money could probably be put into good use for the party, maybe like a Crane-Clark type political ad that will gain the LP another 1%, maybe.

EDIT: If the mods lock this thread, I'll create us a good Libertarian Discussion Thread, with a poll and shit.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Ah, NST, I see you are spouting fallacies as usual I see. Perhaps you'll become a true scotsman one day enough. But don't touch that etymological fallacy, that's sharp as glass.

My link was not a claim to the term, but evidence that his claim is both logically fallacious and historically incorrect.

G-Max wrote:Anarchists claim to be libertarian, but aren't.

But it's easier for you to just label my criticism as a "fallacy".

The Liberated Territories wrote:Ah, NST, I see you are spouting fallacies as usual I see. Perhaps you'll become a true scotsman one day enough. But don't touch that etymological fallacy, that's sharp as glass.
On topic: I'm rooting for Johnson, but I wouldn't mind McAfee. I think McAfee's money could probably be put into good use for the party, maybe like a Crane-Clark type political ad that will gain the LP another 1%, maybe.
EDIT: If the mods lock this thread, I'll create us a good Libertarian Discussion Thread, with a poll and shit.

It's unnecessary. The left and right discussion threads cover left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism respectively. The moderators have previously said they'd prefer rather there not be an abundance of X Discussion Threads.

The New Sea Territory wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Ah, NST, I see you are spouting fallacies as usual I see. Perhaps you'll become a true scotsman one day enough. But don't touch that etymological fallacy, that's sharp as glass.

My link was not a claim to the term, but evidence that his claim is both logically fallacious and historically incorrect.

G-Max wrote:Anarchists claim to be libertarian, but aren't.

But it's easier for you to just label my criticism as a "fallacy".

Fair enough. Watch your tone, though. I've known where this was headed before looking.

Conscentia wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Ah, NST, I see you are spouting fallacies as usual I see. Perhaps you'll become a true scotsman one day enough. But don't touch that etymological fallacy, that's sharp as glass.
On topic: I'm rooting for Johnson, but I wouldn't mind McAfee. I think McAfee's money could probably be put into good use for the party, maybe like a Crane-Clark type political ad that will gain the LP another 1%, maybe.
EDIT: If the mods lock this thread, I'll create us a good Libertarian Discussion Thread, with a poll and shit.

It's unnecessary. The left and right discussion threads cover left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism respectively. The moderators have previously said they'd prefer rather there not be an abundance of X Discussion Threads.

Unsure. I don't think libertarian(s) such as myself find any more agreement with Stalinists and Maoists on the left than High Monarchists, Fascists, and Theocrats on the right. I think right- and left- libertarians find more agreement with each other than most ideologies in those threads. But if the mods say so then I can't do much about it. (Still got the Third-Party thread.)

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Conscentia wrote:It's unnecessary. The left and right discussion threads cover left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism respectively. The moderators have previously said they'd prefer rather there not be an abundance of X Discussion Threads.

Unsure. I don't think libertarian(s) such as myself find any more agreement with Stalinists and Maoists on the left than High Monarchists, Fascists, and Theocrats on the right. I think right- and left- libertarians find more agreement with each other than most ideologies in those threads. But if the mods say so then I can't do much about it. (Still got the Third-Party thread.)

The LWDT has more left-libertarians on it than Stalinists and Maoists. As for the RWDT, it's your right-libertarians' own fault for not posting there. There'd be more people there you agree with if you all posted there.

These X Discussion Threads aren't supposed to be echo chambers, so I don't really see why it would even matter that you aren't in agreement with the people there.

If the mods allow it, here's my prediction of what it'd become: Just be left- and right- libertarians arguing over whether the other counts as libertarians, then the thread would die once everyone got bored of that.

Conscentia wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Unsure. I don't think libertarian(s) such as myself find any more agreement with Stalinists and Maoists on the left than High Monarchists, Fascists, and Theocrats on the right. I think right- and left- libertarians find more agreement with each other than most ideologies in those threads. But if the mods say so then I can't do much about it. (Still got the Third-Party thread.)

The LWDT has more left-libertarians on it than Stalinists and Maosists. As for the RWDT, it's your right-libertarians' own faults for not posting there.

If the mods allow it, here's my prediction of what it'd become: Just be left- and right- libertarians arguing over whether the other counts as libertarians, then the thread would die once everyone got bored of that.

All the oldie Libertarians have left the forum or become something else. Sibirsky, Distruzio, Arg... Although I've been relatively successful in converting new ones (Libling).

Why would it? There's lot to talk about, as the Third Party Thread shown in the way of political stuff. There also used to be a Libertarian discussion thread a long time ago that ran for 50+ pages, I don't see why it would be impermissible to restart that.

The left and right wing discussion threads don't seem like echo chambers to me. They are certainly not keeping out other people at all!

The New Sea Territory wrote:You mean "Conservative Youth and Conspiracy Theorists" or "Market Anarchists who tap dance in their defense of private property"?

Because those would go in the Right and Left Wing discussion threads, respectively.

This was humorous to me.

I think a libertarian thread would be enjoyable. I'm not one myself, but I prefer them to most of the other common groups on this site.

I like reading libertarian discussions, but I don't really feel like weeding through the other nonsense to find them in the more general threads.

Conscentia wrote:The left and right discussion threads cover left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism respectively.

Ah yes the "right wing" discussion thread with such gems as

Lethamyr wrote:I'm a libertarian, nationalist and capitalist. I believe it's necessary to have a strong and modern military, and I would give my life for my country and race. I'm also a devout Catholic, and believe the church should play a role in politics.

The Liberated Territories wrote:I don't see why it would be impermissible to restart that.

Because libertarians need to pegged into the same hole as monarchists and fascists for the left's claim to "liberal" to maintain a veneer of legitimacy.

Kanzaki Ranko wrote:I think a libertarian thread would be enjoyable. I'm not one myself, but I prefer them to most of the other common groups on this site.

I like reading libertarian discussions, but I don't really feel like weeding through the other nonsense to find them in the more general threads.

I concur. There can really be a lot to learn when people of a certain political ideology are grouped and left to discuss. I am honestly only starting to find out more about what political views I hold, and would love to see more specific groups on this thread rather than, as you said, general groups.
Btw, I would say from what I have seen and what I have discussed, I am a socialist leaning towards Anarcho-socialism.

Aclion wrote:

Conscentia wrote:
Ah yes the "right wing" discussion thread with such gems as

The last part... hurts my head

Aclion wrote:

Conscentia wrote:The left and right discussion threads cover left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism respectively.

Ah yes the "right wing" discussion thread with such gems as

Lethamyr wrote:I'm a libertarian, nationalist and capitalist. I believe it's necessary to have a strong and modern military, and I would give my life for my country and race. I'm also a devout Catholic, and believe the church should play a role in politics.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them not right-wing. Leftists have some major disagreements between each other as well. The left and right are both very broad categories.

Aclion wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:I don't see why it would be impermissible to restart that.

Because libertarians need to pegged into the same hole as monarchists and fascists for the left's claim to "liberal" to maintain a veneer of legitimacy.

1. A lot of liberals are right-wing. It's only in America where liberals are assumed to be left-wing.
2. Discussion threads aren't supposed to be echo chambers. You're not supposed to agree with the other people there. If you agree, there's very little to discuss. If you don't agree with the monarchists and fascists then argue back.

Conscentia wrote:Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them not right-wing. Leftists have some major disagreements between each other as well. The left and right are both very broad categories.

But the fact that we barely agree on anything does make the grouping meaningless.

Conscentia wrote:1. A lot of liberals are right-wing. It's only in America where liberals are assumed to be left-wing.

If you define right wing to include protection of economic freedom then I argue that all liberals are right wing.

Conscentia wrote:Discussion threads aren't supposed to be echo chambers. You're not supposed to agree with the other people there. If you agree, there's very little to discuss. If you don't agree with the monarchists and fascists then argue back.

By that reasoning the left and right wing threads should be merged to facilitate... arguments... Wait, why do we want arguments? I came here for discussion, not argument!

Aclion wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them not right-wing. Leftists have some major disagreements between each other as well. The left and right are both very broad categories.

But the fact that we barely agree on anything does make the grouping meaningless.

You're more likely to agree with them on economic matters than the libertarian left. The only reason the right-libertarian thread is dominated by the authoritarian right is because the libertarian right refuses to participate.

Aclion wrote:

Conscentia wrote:1. A lot of liberals are right-wing. It's only in America where liberals are assumed to be left-wing.

If you define right wing to include protection of economic freedom then I argue that all liberals are right wing.

I don't. That definition is ahistorical, and obviously biased.

Aclion wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Discussion threads aren't supposed to be echo chambers. You're not supposed to agree with the other people there. If you agree, there's very little to discuss. If you don't agree with the monarchists and fascists then argue back.

By that reasoning the left and right wing threads should be merged to facilitate... arguments... Wait, why do we want arguments? I came here for discussion, not argument!

An argument is just a discussion between people who disagree. On NSG discussions between people who agree have proven to not last very long - threads based on them usually die before reaching 100 pages.

Conscentia wrote:You're more likely to agree with them on economic matters than the libertarian left.

Hardly, Even with the left I can agree on basic things like what makes a nation "wealthy". Not necessarily true with other members of the right.
and of course there's a surplus of topics unrelated to economics, few of which we'll ever agree on, but which both left libertarians and right libertarians generally can.

Conscentia wrote:The only reason the right-libertarian thread is dominated by the authoritarian right is because the libertarian right refuses to participate.

And why should we? Why should we conform to the labels assigned to us by the left?

Conscentia wrote:I don't. That definition is ahistorical, and obviously biased.

Good luck justifying lumping national socialists, fascists, monarchist and libertarians under one category then. "Private property" is the best I've heard, and even that was a stretch.

Conscentia wrote:An argument is just a discussion between people who disagree.

No, an argument is an exchange between two people who disagree, in which the disagreement has hampered discussion.

Greetings fellow libertarians!

For all future libertarian conversation, post here!

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=375888

Thank you libertarians!