Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Brady-To-Branch, Aug 24, 2011.
Dems/GOPers, they're both the same.
Obama = "W"
In the 1990s, I lived in Copenhagen, Denmark near an anarchistic community. From the early 1970s, a part of Copenhagen, Denmark was the Free City of Christiania. This rather large area was an old army training ground and barracks taken over by students and others, and was run in an anarchistic way. My partner and I would go there probably once a week or so for the year we lived in Denmark.
Decisions were made by everyone in the community at an annual meeting, and people were allowed to live as they chose. As a result, the area had lots of drugs and a lot eccentrics. In fact, the main street was called Pusher's Alley. You could walk down the street and easily buy hashish (and other drugs). The community had to modify its governance at some point because of the hard drugs and some other problems, but still by and large it was run in a syndo-anarchistic style.
People built houses, there were a few restaurants and bars, a theater, a museum, a tv station, and some shops. The city provided basic sanitary services and electricity, for which people paid for communally. Overall, it was a little decrepit, but very interesting and arty, mostly safe, and quite pretty. It was very cool, and the mix of people was exotic to say the least.
Freetown Christiania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't like Libertarianism because Libertarianism shifts power to the wealthy through ownership rights and the dominant ethnicities tend to shape the laws. In an anarchist society, a greater degree of equality is enforce. For example, you can't have gentrification and if you discriminate the community as a whole will rise up and have the right to push the bigots out of their community.
just one thing, true libertarians wouldn't be passing many laws, other than those that deal with infringing on the rights of others
Many people use the word libertarian, without really understanding all that they stand for..
The Gov't should stay out of gay marriage
The Gov't should stay out of a woman's right to choose
The Gov't should only respond militarily when attacked
The Gov't should not be involved with financing any election
The Gov't should not impede immigration to this great country..
The Gov't should stay out of all things religious.
In many ways libertarianism appeals to the left as much as it appeals to the right.. it is not just a buzzword.. it is a pretty comprehensive political agenda.
libertarianism absolutely appeals to the left as much as the right. So many people on the right say "small government" when really all they care about is lower taxes.
Many more on the right say small government and they do also want less regulation on corporations -- but less regulation of the individual? That's where most republicans, and probably most of the tea party, fail the true "small government" test.
What if the majority of the community are bigots?
In my opinion anarchy ultimately leads to rule by gangsters. See: Somalia.
Those on the left who like libertarianism mistake it for anarchy. But, the key difference is that libertarianism respects property an anarchism does not. The problem with libertarianism is that property ultimately equates with power, so under libertarianism you ultimately put responsibility for the ideals of the philosophy into the hands of the wealthy and end up with a plutocracy. History shows that. I don't know anyone on the left who likes libertarianism, though there are certainly things about libertarianism that are attractive, such as getting out of Afghanistan. But, besides that, the libertarianism of Ron Paul is a fraud, since he believes that states should have the right to discriminate against gays with regard to gay marriage. How is that libertarian?
I agree with you. I don't like Libertarianism, but at least it would work to some degree. Anarchy would lead to, well, anarchy! (Though it did work in the Free City of Christiania.)
Absolute opposite, and to suggest otherwise means you don't know what Libertarianism stands for.
He believes the government has no say on marriage at all... At no level is it the govrnment's business...
I mean if you can't take a minute to understand what your questioning, I can say your stances are just about anything and sound like I'm half intelligent like yourself right?
Why do you believe in Racism? And Communism?
I don't think many people, left or right, who like libertarianism mistake it for anarchy.
When has history shown that? The problem with what you're saying, I'm guessing, is that the examples weren't really libertarian. But maybe I'm wrong.
People on the left will generally like libertarianism on social matters. people on the right will generally like libertarianism on fiscal matters.
I doubt he believes that, but if he does, it's not a libertarian point of view.
You may want to re-read what you responded to. Because if you didn't misread it, then you're the one who doesn't understand what libertarianism is about.
(btw, thought you weren't wasting your time here anymore? lol)
Here is a little quiz, perhaps the shortest on record, to see is you are a libertarian.. FYI I come out as a libertarian.
Advocates for Self Government
The reality is that many classify themselves as a libertarian, but saying they want limited government.. but after replay they realize that libertarians are much different than advertised.
The Granny state right has made tremendous efforts and expended tremendous resources in limiting personal freedoms.. from a women's right to choose, to a limiting the rights of gay folk, to stopping illegal immigration.
On economic matters, the United States has always been quite libertarian, especially prior to the 1930s. What drove the rise of unions was libertarianism run amok: children as young as 12 working full-time, full-time work meaning 7 day/72 hour workweeks; horrific deaths of workers as a result of horrific work safety; medical treatments and pharmaceuticals that sometimes killed people; rampant corruption; legal insider trading; poor people being pushed out of nice neighborhoods into slums; tenement dwellings with no safety codes; and every form of bigotry imaginable.
I think one could argue that the most libertarian nations are places with low taxes, small national government, and capitalist economic systems. Colonialism was fundamentally libertarian, where basically the capitalists were free to set up whatever rules they wanted. King Leopold of Belgium owned the Belgian Congo and made it into a corporate entity, then went on to kill an estimated 5,000,000 (but we don't learn about that in school, since it was only Africans who were killed). Haiti is quite libertarian, given that the government has little control over the populace and that it is now capitalist. Switzerland is a more positive example of libertarianism, with a weak central government, but they have extremely strict immigration laws, a very small population, a natural defensive position, and in sense could be compared to socialist Norway or other small countries that seem to manage regardless of what political system they have.
I agree to some degree, but keep in mind that libertarians believe in the right of private business to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc., which is obviously worse for minorities than the majority. I'm not sure where Ron Paul stands on that, but his son Rand definitely supports that belief.
I was mistaken on this, but he did support DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). That said, Ron Paul would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and believes the North could have bought the slaves from the South and freed them, rather than engage in civil war (which in my opinion buying the slaves would have been an awful precedent that would not have ended slavery).
Your comment reads as if they would pass lass about infringing on others rights... but I see you mean passing laws to remove those laws.
Illegal immigration is a personal freedom? I guess that makes you an anarchist, too, eh?
You're right, but if there is no law against free movement of people, there can be no "illegal immigration"- just free migration.
That's the big stumbling block most Americans have with Libertarianism. It is why Ron Paul will never be president. The Libertarian philosophy is all about reducing the role of government to the bare bones including the elimination of international borders. That is the ultimate lever they would like to use to nullify the need for federal government altogether, which is a direct overlap with anarchy. Global government would, of course, have to take the place of national groups, like Star Trek. Most Trekkies that I know (yes, I'm a Trekkie, but I don't do the costumes or conventions) are either apolitical or hard-core Libertarians. Not a coincidence.
Just quoting information from the Libertarian Platform Web Site...
I disagree that libertarianism means eliminating borders. It is based on the rule of law while limiting the law to specific spheres. National sovereignty is part of that.
Where's the quote?
Separate names with a comma.