Advertisement
by Galloism » Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:33 pm
by Glorious Homeland » Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:47 pm
by Bendira » Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:50 pm
Glorious Homeland wrote:Crazy and obsolete. On a BBC documentary into the tea party, the reporter was asked by an American libertarian "Tell me, what can some beurocrat in Washington tell me about bringing my kids up?" I was immediately reminded of how good government designed and sponsored sex education programmes are effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, over absitence only sex education or none. So, basically, it's all lie. The idea that somehow joe blogs is more intelligent than a well designed government programme, which makes use of well paid specialists is bollocks.
by Glorious Homeland » Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:56 pm
Bendira wrote:Glorious Homeland wrote:Crazy and obsolete. On a BBC documentary into the tea party, the reporter was asked by an American libertarian "Tell me, what can some beurocrat in Washington tell me about bringing my kids up?" I was immediately reminded of how good government designed and sponsored sex education programmes are effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, over absitence only sex education or none. So, basically, it's all lie. The idea that somehow joe blogs is more intelligent than a well designed government programme, which makes use of well paid specialists is bollocks.
by Trotskylvania » Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:57 pm
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Glorious Homeland » Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:59 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:A libertarian is anyone who believes in the political necessity of substantive liberty. I try not to discriminate between right and left-wing libertarians, but unfortunately a lot of right-wing libertarians have what I feel is a very narrow conception of liberty, which encompasses only the liberty from state intervention, and not any substantive freedom to act.
I try to be a comrade with them, but most of them really don't want me as a comrade. So meh.
by Meryuma » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:01 pm
South Lorenya wrote:Meryuma wrote:
Apparently lack of state intervention is what allows the state to take over businesses. What are you smoking in what universe?
Keep in mind that the state didn't take them over until AFTER their catastrophic failures; before them, all we had was bush playing the fiddle while the banking sector burned.
Glorious Homeland wrote:Crazy and obsolete. On a BBC documentary into the tea party, the reporter was asked by an American libertarian "Tell me, what can some beurocrat in Washington tell me about bringing my kids up?" I was immediately reminded of how good government designed and sponsored sex education programmes are effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, over absitence only sex education or none. So, basically, it's all lie. The idea that somehow joe blogs is more intelligent than a well designed government programme, which makes use of well paid specialists is bollocks.
Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.
Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."
Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.
Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.
Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...
*puts on sunglasses*
blow out of proportions."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
by Glorious Homeland » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:05 pm
Meryuma wrote:South Lorenya wrote:
Keep in mind that the state didn't take them over until AFTER their catastrophic failures; before them, all we had was bush playing the fiddle while the banking sector burned.
Do you really think the Bush administration was a free market?Glorious Homeland wrote:Crazy and obsolete. On a BBC documentary into the tea party, the reporter was asked by an American libertarian "Tell me, what can some beurocrat in Washington tell me about bringing my kids up?" I was immediately reminded of how good government designed and sponsored sex education programmes are effective at reducing teenage pregnancies, over absitence only sex education or none. So, basically, it's all lie. The idea that somehow joe blogs is more intelligent than a well designed government programme, which makes use of well paid specialists is bollocks.
The Tea Party movement isn't libertarian, much less representative of libertarianism as a whole.
by The Black Forrest » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:11 pm
Pope Joan wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:
Libertarianism is incompatible with basic human nature of the desire of power.
Instead of the state telling you what to do, you have a guy with a large amount of thugs telling you what to do.....
So you recruit your own thugs.
I do think we need to think outside the political box.
We need freedom on more arenas than the merely political.
by Puerto Videla » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:33 pm
by Bendira » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:41 pm
Glorious Homeland wrote:Meryuma wrote:
Do you really think the Bush administration was a free market?
The Tea Party movement isn't libertarian, much less representative of libertarianism as a whole.
The fella they spoke to was a Libertarian, he was just part of their investigation into anti-stateisms, it's links to the tea party and what have have you, in the USA.
Also, please stop doing that smily. Your statement without it was fine, as it is asking a question; with it, you just come across as a dick trying to demean rather than have dialogue with your opponent. People are not psychic, you ought to explain your position carefully so that others can understand the difference between your definition and theirs, rather than try and mock them because YOU can't explain things properly? It doesn't win you any favours and certainly doesn't progress the conversation or debate. Let's play nicely, maturely, respectfully.
Crazy and obsolete
by Jakaragua » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:48 pm
The Congregationists wrote:Jakaragua wrote:The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.
When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.
Hmmm ... interesting. And very true.
I think you'll find that this statement will not register on either side of the political spectrum these days. The right does not agree with the notion that "laissez faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor" while the left would object to the notion that "most social repression comes from the economics anyway." You are a rare and enlightened, though unfortunately also a dying breed Jakaragua. Good analysis.
by Desperate Measures » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:52 pm
by Glorious Homeland » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:07 pm
Bendira wrote:Glorious Homeland wrote:The fella they spoke to was a Libertarian, he was just part of their investigation into anti-stateisms, it's links to the tea party and what have have you, in the USA.
Also, please stop doing that smily. Your statement without it was fine, as it is asking a question; with it, you just come across as a dick trying to demean rather than have dialogue with your opponent. People are not psychic, you ought to explain your position carefully so that others can understand the difference between your definition and theirs, rather than try and mock them because YOU can't explain things properly? It doesn't win you any favours and certainly doesn't progress the conversation or debate. Let's play nicely, maturely, respectfully.
I think you surrendered the right to a respectful debate when you started your post out withCrazy and obsolete
Basically says "no matter what you say, im going to ignore it". And also there wasn't anything I could really qrite, other than to facepalm the fact that you think Tea Partiers are libertarians.
by Meryuma » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:10 pm
Glorious Homeland wrote:-snip-
Desperate Measures wrote:It means, "I am a Republican and I am fed up with my party" or "I'm basically a liberal that likes guns too much to identify as one." With interesting exceptions.
Glorious Homeland wrote:-snip-
Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.
Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."
Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.
Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.
Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...
*puts on sunglasses*
blow out of proportions."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
by Glorious Homeland » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:16 pm
Meryuma wrote:Glorious Homeland wrote:-snip-
1. I misinterpreted you. Sorry.
2. You are right that libertarians oppose state-run education... if you didn't bring in tea partiers, I probably would've been less knee-jerk in my responses. If you want to debate about it, I'd be happy to.
3. I just used that smiley because it expressed frustration. I was very frustrated. I don't see what I did wrong.
by Sibirsky » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:21 pm
Jakaragua wrote:The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.
When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.
by Jakaragua » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:26 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Jakaragua wrote:The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.
When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.
You're right. Capitalism has worked out so horribly for North America, Western Europe, Australia, Singapore and South Korea, while socialism has been such an incredible engine of economic and wage growth in North Korea, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe and Vietnam.
by Glorious Homeland » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:27 pm
Jakaragua wrote:Sibirsky wrote:You're right. Capitalism has worked out so horribly for North America, Western Europe, Australia, Singapore and South Korea, while socialism has been such an incredible engine of economic and wage growth in North Korea, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe and Vietnam.
Let's no move the goalposts shall we? I never even mentioned the word capitalism in there.
Also remember that socialism had either been crushed or had a knife at it's throat throughout history.
by Sibirsky » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:28 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Imagine a bunch of old homophobic, racist rich white guys escaping from the old folks home, putting on some snazzy clothes and some fancy aftershave, turning up at a club, putting their hips out on the dancefloor and hitting on all the most attractive women as if they belong amongst the trendy, young and radical.
That's what Libertarian means to me.
by Jakaragua » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:28 pm
Glorious Homeland wrote:Jakaragua wrote:Let's no move the goalposts shall we? I never even mentioned the word capitalism in there.
Also remember that socialism had either been crushed or had a knife at it's throat throughout history.
Not really, worked in Britain for a while. Then people didn't like it and voted it out.
by Techno-Kat » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:29 pm
Jakaragua wrote:The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.
When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.
by Sibirsky » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:31 pm
The Congregationists wrote:More or less dumb ideologies, but the main issue is one of emphasis. Like I said, a rebranding to appeal to a different socio-cultural cohort. Thus they play down the social conservatism and emphasise the 'small government' angle. They cannot attract youth otherwise. The 'conservative' label lacks credibility because: A) the social side of conservatism has less appeal to the young and B) the term 'conservative' has too many connotations with the Bush years and its association with warmongering and authoritarianism. So the kinds of policies that Reagan ran under, for instance, are rebranded as libertarian.
This happened on the left 20 years ago. Socialism fell out of favor, so that label was dropped in favor of 'progressive' which connoted social and cultural liberalism and downplayed the mixed economy, even though most progressives still sympathised with it.
by Meryuma » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:32 pm
Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.
Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."
Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.
Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.
Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...
*puts on sunglasses*
blow out of proportions."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
by Jakaragua » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:32 pm
Sibirsky wrote:The Congregationists wrote:More or less dumb ideologies, but the main issue is one of emphasis. Like I said, a rebranding to appeal to a different socio-cultural cohort. Thus they play down the social conservatism and emphasise the 'small government' angle. They cannot attract youth otherwise. The 'conservative' label lacks credibility because: A) the social side of conservatism has less appeal to the young and B) the term 'conservative' has too many connotations with the Bush years and its association with warmongering and authoritarianism. So the kinds of policies that Reagan ran under, for instance, are rebranded as libertarian.
This happened on the left 20 years ago. Socialism fell out of favor, so that label was dropped in favor of 'progressive' which connoted social and cultural liberalism and downplayed the mixed economy, even though most progressives still sympathised with it.
The "progressive" label is a century old. Libertarians have nothing to do with conservatives.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Bear Stearns, Bombadil, Herador, Hidrandia, Likhinia, Maximum Imperium Rex, New Temecula, North American Imperial State, Rusozak, Verkhoyanska, Zurkerx
Advertisement