GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4 - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-14-2012, 04:22 PM   #401
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Sure it does.

You have left-libertarians and right-libertarians. The term libertarian can be applied in many fashions actually. More than just two.

It's not as cut and dry as a single definition.
Define libertarian for me.

I'm not talking about how it's used today, but the TRUE definition.

This is exactly why the party suffers. The majority of libertarians I know aren't true to the definition therefore come off as hypocrites.
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:24 PM   #402
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,320
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
This is why I don't get Paul and his supporters. What is the point? And how is he getting his message through? Through the media you hate

Surely there is a better way to convey a message, right?

Why run on a platform of theory that never intend to practice?
Ron Paul's supporters have grown over the past 4-8 years tremendously. They're also, for the most part, very young. Give it time, and don't be surprised when someone picks up in Paul's footsteps and takes the White House by storm in the future.

Media =/= the media. The media hates Ron Paul. That's quite evident. They refuse to acknowledge him, and often talk about the 'three candidates in the race'. He's the Republican black sheep and absolutely rejected by the opposite side. His strength lies in the independents and moderate conservatives (and some of the hardcore economic conservatives).

I don't think Ron Paul doesn't intend to practice. But he's willing to accept that he probably wont, but still stand up for the movement. Ron Paul's support grows in numbers, but more importantly the Ron Paul supporters are arguably the most loyal of supporters. They're not going anywhere, and will continue to grow in numbers and continue to vote for their guy whether that be Ron Paul or whoever picks up where he leaves off.
__________________

LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:34 PM   #403
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,320
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Define libertarian for me.

I'm not talking about how it's used today, but the TRUE definition.

This is exactly why the party suffers. The majority of libertarians I know aren't true to the definition therefore come off as hypocrites.
Libertarian ideology would be any combination of beliefs that accomplishes individual liberties and freedoms. Like I said before, laissez-faire government. Getting the most out of individual freedoms while limiting the abilities of the government. Basically... free will.

I'm not part of the Libertarian Party. I do not support the Libertarian Party. It's ass backwards at times. Most of Ron Paul's supporters are not part of the Libertarian Party (however I would imagine that most of the Libertarian Party members are voters of Ron Paul).
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:37 PM   #404
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

I think it's a bit ridiculous that you're questioning Ron Paul's credibility as a Libertarian.
I'm close to deciding that there is almost no point to try to have a respectful debate with you, to be honest. But here goes one last try...

[/quote]The man is as economically conservative as they get (total bare-bone laissez-faire economics), [/quote]

Really? He supports unrestricted free markets and, to that end, a global migration of workers unhindered by border and national restrictions and regulations? Did he not rail against NAFTA and as one of his reasons use the (incorrect) fact that it would result in "virtually borderless travel"?

Quote:
He says things like 'leave abortion to the states rights' when he's prompted such a question at a Republican debate. If one were to ask Ron Paul what he believes, he would tell you 'abortion is wrong'. But Ron Paul wants to give the decision to the people to decide morality.
That is simply not what libertarianism is about. You are suggesting that Ron Paul feels that a group of people constituting a majority or a plurality, through the faculties of the state and state powers, should be able to impose restrictions on individual freedom such as the freedom to marry individuals of your sex, or to have an abortion. NOT a libertarian view. The US Libertarian Party, which is by no means a fringe party, clearly states that the government (not the federal government, but ANY government) does NOT have "authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships".

Once again, this is completely contrary to Ron Paul's views and it does not have anything to do with being a "conservative" or "liberal" libertarian, it has to do with the most basic principles of libertarianism. A great example of where this would not be the case would be Paul's views on absolute rights in respect of property ownership - that is a position which generally draws a line down the middle between two types of libertarians and it is not a position for which I could fault him or accuse him of not being a true libertarian. An example somewhere halfway is NAFTA - he is against it because he cites that it imposes governmental regulatory burdens (libertarian view) but does not comment on its clear impact on free markets and an easing of restrictions on capitalism (also a libertarian view). But his positions on abortion and gay rights are completely incompatible.

I have to jump on a call so I don't have time to address more of the points unfortunately.
anitram is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:39 PM   #405
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

I don't think Ron Paul doesn't intend to practice. But he's willing to accept that he probably wont, but still stand up for the movement.
You're saying two different things here. Either he's for or against abolishing the ADA and everything else his platform says.

I understand accepting that not everything can be done, but you are either for it or you're not.

If he's actually for it then his stances are incredibly questionable. No matter if he can actually pass them or not, the stance alone is questionable and downright dangerous.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:45 PM   #406
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Libertarian ideology would be any combination of beliefs that accomplishes individual liberties and freedoms. Like I said before, laissez-faire government. Getting the most out of individual freedoms while limiting the abilities of the government. Basically... free will.
Ok, then don't you find it contrary to say there are conservative and liberal libertarians?

You're either a libertarian or you're not. If you say you're a libertarian but believe that drugs should remain illegal, are you really a libertarian? If you say you're a libertarian but support a ban on gay marriage are you really a libertarian? How can you be against the government limiting your freedoms but support the government limiting the rights to certain people? This is why I find most of them to be hypocrites.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:51 PM   #407
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,320
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I'm close to deciding that there is almost no point to try to have a respectful debate with you, to be honest. But here goes one last try...
What?!? Am I obliged to agree with you?!? Sheesh.

Quote:
Really? He supports unrestricted free markets and, to that end, a global migration of workers unhindered by border and national restrictions and regulations? Did he not rail against NAFTA and as one of his reasons use the (incorrect) fact that it would result in "virtually borderless travel"?
No, not really. He's only for eliminating tons of spending, cutting taxes, and disbanding half the government. He's not laissez-faire at all.


Quote:
should be able to impose restrictions on individual freedom such as the freedom to marry individuals of your sex, or to have an abortion. NOT a libertarian view.
When you write it that way, of course it's not. But the matter of the fact is that Ron Paul's goal with states rights isn't to stop abortion or to stop gay marriage. It's to localize power and put more power into the peoples hands. This nation is a Democratic Republic. He's a Constitutionalist first. To exactly fit the definition of 'Libertarian' to its fullest extent is unconstitutional. But to think that one is not Libertarian because they're not 100% the way there is just wrong. That's like saying Mitt Romney isn't a Republican because he doesn't want to get rid of socialized health care. Politics aren't black and white. They're multi-dimensional. Nobody perfectly fits the bill as all of one thing. In fact, that's an awful thing to be. But to say Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian or doesn't have Libertarian viewpoints is just wrong.


Quote:
The US Libertarian Party, which is by no means a fringe party, clearly states that the government (not the federal government, but ANY government) does NOT have "authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships".
News flash here: The US Libertarian Party is the one that's the joke that fails to represent Libertarianism to its fullest. Not Ron Paul.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:59 PM   #408
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 01:17 AM
A true Libertarian would not put individual rights up to votes, or to the legislature of local governments and states. A true Libertarian would say you have the right to decide for yourself if you want to marry a gay partner. You have the right to decide for yourself if your situation may call for getting an abortion.

A fake Libertarian would say states are individuals and act like them setting the law on social issues is the greatest accomplishment government could achieve.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:01 PM   #409
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,320
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Ok, then don't you find it contrary to say there are conservative and liberal libertarians?

You're either a libertarian or you're not. If you say you're a libertarian but believe that drugs should remain illegal, are you really a libertarian? If you say you're a libertarian but support a ban on gay marriage are you really a libertarian? How can you be against the government limiting your freedoms but support the government limiting the rights to certain people? This is why I find most of them to be hypocrites.
No? You can approach that in many ways.

I think this is getting a bit out of hand. The both of you are demanding that you're full on Libertarian or not at all. Again, I hope this is clear:

Political ideology is not black and white. It is multi-dimensional and takes on many values. Yes, you can be a Libertarian who makes exceptions for drugs. Your viewpoints on drugs might not be Libertarian, but you still have enough viewpoints where you're still a Libertarian.

But I mean... Ron Paul isn't against drugs. Or gay marriage. Or the freedoms of certain people. To be a Libertarian you don't have to be for that. You just have to be willing to let people decide whether or not it is for them. Yes, Ron Paul is preserving the Constitution in his method here, but that's not to say his stance against something like abortion matters at all. If you put the power into the states, it finds its way to the people. If the power finds its way to the people, the people have the freedom to choose what they want and what they don't want. But Ron Paul and his government are not going to tell people what to do.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:02 PM   #410
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
When you write it that way, of course it's not. But the matter of the fact is that Ron Paul's goal with states rights isn't to stop abortion or to stop gay marriage. It's to localize power and put more power into the peoples hands. This nation is a Democratic Republic.
I think this is very much up for debate. Ron has some very strong personal feelings about both abortion and gay marriage. Once again in theory it's nice to say that he does this to localize power, but the truth is many argue "states rights" with the very intent to stop these things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
But to think that one is not Libertarian because they're not 100% the way there is just wrong. That's like saying Mitt Romney isn't a Republican because he doesn't want to get rid of socialized health care.
That's not really an apple to apple comparison. Libertarianism by definition is more absolute. Republican and Democrat are much loosly defined therefore there's a lot of gray.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:06 PM   #411
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,320
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
A true Libertarian would not put individual rights up to votes, or to the legislature of local governments and states. A true Libertarian would say you have the right to decide for yourself if you want to marry a gay partner. You have the right to decide for yourself if your situation may call for getting an abortion.

A fake Libertarian would say states are individuals and act like them setting the law on social issues is the greatest accomplishment government could achieve.
Ugh. No, an absolute Libertarian would support the former.

And again, political ideology is multi-dimensional. I can't think of any candidate that fits all the textbook viewpoints of their ideology which is being suggested.

Ron Paul is absolutely a Constitutionalist, and a Constitutionalist first. I mean, that's an American thing. I would hope every candidate does their best to abide by the Constitution (they don't). Libertarian ideology is extreme, and is constricted by the Constitution (as according to Constitutionalists).
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:09 PM   #412
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Political ideology is not black and white. It is multi-dimensional and takes on many values. Yes, you can be a Libertarian who makes exceptions for drugs. Your viewpoints on drugs might not be Libertarian, but you still have enough viewpoints where you're still a Libertarian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
To be a Libertarian you don't have to be for that. You just have to be willing to let people decide whether or not it is for them.
You don't find these two to be contradictory?

Listen, I'm not arguing semantics here, I'm saying that libertarians paint themselves into this corner. They spell out a very black and white definition of who they are suppose to be. By their own definition they don't allow for gray.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:10 PM   #413
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Ok, then don't you find it contrary to say there are conservative and liberal libertarians?
Noam Chomsky, noted Leftist, calls himself a Libertarian as well.

Libertarianism has to do with role of Government, not flavor of Government.
Although it is a tough distinction to draw because discussion of the role of Government ultimately bleeds over into talking about specific policy.
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:13 PM   #414
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

Ron Paul is absolutely a Constitutionalist, and a Constitutionalist first.
Well that's a whole other can of worms in itself. All politicians call themselves a "Constitutionalist", but they all interpret it different ways, including Ron Paul.

Just like the Bible there is no absolute interpretation. If there was, we wouldn't be in this mess.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:16 PM   #415
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Noam Chomsky, noted Leftist, calls himself a Libertarian as well.
But was he?

Many today would laugh at him calling himself that, and that's my point. Many call themselves libertarians, but don't actually practice it.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:18 PM   #416
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,320
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You don't find these two to be contradictory?

Listen, I'm not arguing semantics here, I'm saying that libertarians paint themselves into this corner. They spell out a very black and white definition of who they are suppose to be. By their own definition they don't allow for gray.
No? I mean maybe you misunderstood my drugs post there. A Libertarian would certainly not be against drugs. As in, he or she would not campaign to keep drugs illegal.

I almost feel as though the true point with Libertarianism is to not care. Ron Paul absolutely does not talk about abortion. You only hear that from him when he's prompted. He gives his viewpoint, but he would do nothing to stop it. The only things he'll 'do' is attempt to give the states their own decision on the matter. When asked what he'd do to stop it, he gives the same states rights example saying 'you can overturn Roe v. Wade overnight this way'. But he never talks about doing so unless prompted. He doesn't care. That's the beauty of Libertarianism. There's no encroachment. Ron Paul has his beliefs and he might state his beliefs so that voters who value that might vote for him, but he will do what a Libertarian would do about abortion -- nothing at all.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:31 PM   #417
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,320
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Okay I kind of realize how this is getting a bit out of hand anyways. You can question his Libertarianism all you'd like, but in the end that really is arguing semantics here. I myself do not identify with a party. I chose to support Ron Paul because I agree with a lot of his ideology.

Ron Paul's base of supporters chose to support Ron Paul because they agree with a lot of what he stands for. Whether they're all a bunch of hypocrites and Chomsky is a hypocrite for calling themselves Libertarian... doesn't really matter, now does it? It's just a word. I can guarantee you that nobody is voting for Ron Paul merely because they heard that he was Libertarian. He's the hardest candidate to hear anything about. His supporters know more out their candidate than your average voter knows about Santorum/Gingrich/Romney for sure. They're also much more passionate than the average voter (on average). His supporters are well informed, so the word 'Libertarian' is really irrelevant.

I support Ron Paul. I also see my viewpoints as Libertarian/neoliberal/whatever the hell you want to call it. I try not to classify myself too much, but I still notice obvious tendencies in my beliefs and behaviors.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:32 PM   #418
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
No? I mean maybe you misunderstood my drugs post there. A Libertarian would certainly not be against drugs. As in, he or she would not campaign to keep drugs illegal.
Right, except many of those "conservative" libertarians are, and that's what I mean by not being truly libertarian. Most that call themselves libertarians seem to pick and choose which liberties they really want people to have.

That's why I don't understand the "conservative" or "liberal" adjective to describe a libertarian.

Can you give me an example of each?
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:36 PM   #419
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Ugh. No, an absolute Libertarian would support the former.
I dunno about that. I think gay people have the right to get married, for instance. I don't think people should deny them the ability to do so. But some people would be able to have a chance at doing that if they're able to vote on whether or not it should be allowed. For those who think marrying whomever you want is a right (or making decisions about your own body or smoking pot or whatever), the idea of people coming along to stop it, be it other civilians, local/state governments, or the federal government, is kind of bothersome, isn't it?

Course, that's getting into anarchy a bit there, come to think of it...

Certainly the people do have power and should always have power. But there's a reason there was a balance between them, the states, and the federal government. People often forget that our founding fathers, as much as they hated too much federal power, also got scared at the idea of civilians having too much power, too. They felt there needed to be a proper balance created so that both sides were able to get what they wanted out of the deal.

Now, I'll grant you that they came up with that idea in theory and didn't always execute it properly over time, and our government has indeed accumulated power over time that many could argue would be intrusive/overreaching. Certainly the federal government has its share of shit it needs to answer for and change, no question. I have no problem whatsoever with bringing some power back to the people. But I also know that to leave power solely in their hands, or in the hands of state and local governments, won't always solve the problems, either, because as pointed out, state/local governments can be just as inept, and civilians' ideas can sometimes be...well...interesting, to put it nicely.

"States' rights" were an argument in the Civil War, for instance. Of course, we all know what right certain states were arguing FOR. So there's a classic example of where "states' rights" can be problematic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
As an aside I'm also tired of the Tea Party being called the Tea Party - they are Republicans and I am not sure how the branding war was lost there. They vote like Republicans, for Republicans and are Republicans until such a time as they decide to break away and form an independent, third party. Until then, they're the GOP and they should be made to own it.
Heck, I'd like the Tea Party to stop calling itself that because I'm convinced many of them don't know what even happened at the original Tea Party or what it was about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Media =/= the media. The media hates Ron Paul. That's quite evident. They refuse to acknowledge him, and often talk about the 'three candidates in the race'.
I do have to agree with you on this. Whether one likes him or not, he IS a legitimate candidate. He deserves as much airtime as any of the other guys running.
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:43 PM   #420
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

Ron Paul's base of supporters chose to support Ron Paul because they agree with a lot of what he stands for. Whether they're all a bunch of hypocrites and Chomsky is a hypocrite for calling themselves Libertarian... doesn't really matter, now does it?
Well it does. I have a hard time trusting someone who says they support this, but then their policy and voting says otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I can guarantee you that nobody is voting for Ron Paul merely because they heard that he was Libertarian. He's the hardest candidate to hear anything about. His supporters know more out their candidate than your average voter knows about Santorum/Gingrich/Romney for sure. They're also much more passionate than the average voter (on average). His supporters are well informed, so the word 'Libertarian' is really irrelevant.
I agree they are passionate, but I can't agree with being informed. My experience is most that I have met have know very little about him or how his idealogy would work in practice. Many blame Obama and his supporters for falling for the platitudes, but my experience is that Paul's supporters are the worse victims of this. I haven't met a supporter yet that can tell me what it would mean to education if you abolished the DOE. There are so many reasons why this wouldn't work. And this is just one of many on a loooooong list.
__________________

BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×