2012 Conventions; Tampa & Charlotte

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by digitize

Well, being far-right on economic issues is part of the definition of being libertarian. Libertarians in the US are historically more liberal on social issues, though "liberty" has been used to justify a bunch of different positions of social issues lately.

Far Left Anarchists would have the same view as the Far Right Libertarians in terms of administering social safety nets. They wouldn't want it.

It's not really a Left/Right issue that I can see. It's a different axis.
Up/Down. Libertarian vs Authoritarian. More Government vs Less.

The more severe the Libertarian argument, the less government involvement (in general) thus naturally it would appear to be a more 'Right' argument in our current political climate in the U.S. But the fact is, you could be a Left Libertarian and not think the Feds should administer those social safety nets.

So the economic argument really IS the Libertarian/Authoritarian argument.
Literally putting your money where your mouth is, in terms of Govt intrusion.
And if you prefer a more Libertarian stance, you are just as capable of being
Leftist (and all that umbrella term might entail) as you are a Rightist.

To make this as simple as possible, Right or Left Libertarians (and admittedly Left Libertarians are a rare breed, especially in America), value the individual over the collective. Where the American breed is - the Ron Paul variety - is that the argument is more Federalist. Where it's all about the 10th amendment. And is really...a little farcical. Embodied by Mitt Romney's farce of an argument about health care. It's okay for the state to intrude but not the Feds. Ron Paul, more or less, says the same thing - cloaked by the Constitution. So I think Paul's representation of Libertarianism (while popular and thus represents the popular view) is a little distorted by being so Rightist.

In other words, it's the strict fundamentalist 'Constitutionalism' (in America) that really pushes our understandings of Libertarians as Righties. And that is accurate in and of itself but doesn't represent Libertarianism itself to my eyes.

At least that's how I see it...if I made any sense.

[digitize]

When I say "far-right on economic issues", I mean the same thing as you. You were just turning the economic axis into a vertical one perpendicular to the left-right social axis. I was defining another left-right axis parallel to the one on social issues, with small government on economic issues belonging on its right end.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

She agreed with me! She dreams of a day with a secularly governed country, not an exclusively secular society. Again, there is a huge difference. Society is not just its government. I figure you of all people would appreciate that notion.

Then what was the Chick-fil-A thing all about? Just a businessman giving his opinion on a subject affecting society based on his religious beliefs. That wasn't tolerated by some was it?
What governmental office did Carrie Prejean hold?
What happened to church organizations' religious convictions when they didn't conform to the newly codified "right" to free contraception?

No, there's a move afoot to remove moral convictions informed by religion, not just from government, but from the public square. I hear it here all the time. An American version of Europe's hegemonic secularism. Freedom to worship, sure. Free exercise of religion, not so much. In other words, keep it at home, in church and private.

[Irvine511]

CFA did a lot more than express an opinion.

They have every right to, and I have every right to boycott them for being awful ad seeking to do me grievous harm.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

What happened to church organizations' religious convictions when they didn't conform to the newly codified "right" to free contraception?

Please tell us, what did happen?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Then what was the Chick-fil-A thing all about? Just a businessman giving his opinion on a subject affecting society based on his religious beliefs. That wasn't tolerated by some was it?
What governmental office did Carrie Prejean hold?
What happened to church organizations' religious convictions when they didn't conform to the newly codified "right" to free contraception?

No, there's a move afoot to remove moral convictions informed by religion, not just from government, but from the public square. I hear it here all the time. An American version of Europe's hegemonic secularism. Freedom to worship, sure. Free exercise of religion, not so much. In other words, keep it at home, in church and private.

I haven't the faintest idea what you're on about here, to the point where I have no response because I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

[Irvine511]

When you have a right wing industry dedicated to winning the morning news cycle and then selling "news" that's designed to deliver outrage, coherence doesn't matter.

[PhilsFan]

Right, but I do not have that BVS assumption that he's ignorant. I have my own cynical view that he's being intellectual dishonest, for one reason or anything.