Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
btw I should probably point out, I'm British not American. Britain is far more Socialist.

I apologize, it is indeed getting late for me, but it did mention society as in greater western civilization.

I care about this about as much as I care about the price of Will and Grace DVD box set prices (not at all).


Good for him, I guess.

Go Texans!!!

I bet he cares about the cost of will and grace dvd box sets. I wonder is he keen for huddles?

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I don't see how disliking a controversial philosopher who said a lot of provocative things are part of her "Shtick" as it were calls ones manhood into question.

Ayn Rand was a nut case, but then again, history is just a tale of nut cases doing nutty things we would never do and changing the world.

What it comes down to is what nut cases we are willing to admit we liked.

They were referring to the the gay guy in the OP.

Yeah. The point at which we begin mistaking a gay NFL player for Ayn Rand is probably the point at which we should be getting back On Topic.

Politics and gay football players, two topics unified only in that they both involve somebody taking it up the backside.

I guess were back to that thing were a major athlete coming out is just totally not a big deal because as we know, people like Jesse Own and Jackie Robinson are naught but fairy tales and are totally not athletes of note that happened to be minorities and used their athletic status to help further the cause of civil rights.

 Mannahnin wrote:
In fairness, Ayn Rand was the founder of Objectivism, not strictly speaking a Libertarian, although a lot of Libertarians have sadly embraced her as a kindred spirit. I say sadly, because she was an awful person and terrible philosopher. And I say those things speaking as a man named after one of her characters, before my parents finished growing up and stopped admiring Rand.

That's kind of my point though: while no political movement in the US has what I'd call a coherent message, they all at least have a structure. Libretarianism has neither, and while you can sum up their ideal in one sentence "as little government as absolutely necessary," the devil, as always, is in the details.

Objectivism is just a radical form of Libertarianism. And the reason people are jumping on board the Ron Paul bitcoin train is living life in fear and mistrust of the government out of your own paranoia is the rule rather than the exception amongst many.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:


I won't attack you for it, but not giving a feth about anything but yourself is objectivism in a nutshell. I have horribly violated their philosophy by explaining this much to you. Helping is not objectivist.

And since when did libertarianism = not giving a feth about anyone but yourself?

Not wanting a Government to dictate your life and take a majority stake in your lifetime income does not mean you don't care about anybody else. It means you don't want the Government to do the caring on your behalf whether you like it or not.

A libertarian is still free to donate to charitable causes that he/she agrees with. They just don't want the Government to take their money by force and give it to "fake" charities that the Government agrees with.

Objectivism sounds abhorrent. Its a good thing I'm not Objectivist.

Pop the brakes there- I didn't say a thing about Libertarianism. My summary was purely and specifically about objectivism.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Libertarians have this argument down. If it doesn't impact YOU, leave THEM alone.

It has become a very big conflict in the Republican Party with how it's become a thunder dome between the Religious Libertarians who want restrictions on marriage rights, The Libertarians who just don't like government, Establishment Republicans, and Religious Establishment Republicans.

No matter who wins we lose!

Religious Libertarians? What are you talking about? The ones you're describing are religious conservatives. Libertarians don't foist laws on other people. Not like Democrats or Republicans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
A religious libertarian would be someone who feels the government should get out of economics, but be more hard on social issues (In support of things like banning gay marriage or gay adoption).

You are describing a Conservative.

Two of my fellow students that I share a dorm hall with describe themselves as religious libertarians and that's what their views are so I just thought that well, that's what they are.

and Conservative (and liberal) has such a huge definition that I don't think its very good to lump people together that way.

Then they're as stupid as they are wrong.

 Polonius wrote:
That's kind of my point though: while no political movement in the US has what I'd call a coherent message, they all at least have a structure. Libretarianism has neither, and while you can sum up their ideal in one sentence "as little government as absolutely necessary," the devil, as always, is in the details.

Do you mean other than the various libertarian parties, or what?

You're stupid.

Pro-tip, insulting another poster, especially a mod, espcially the beloved Inasniak, is not wise. There is a Rule #1 here.
Oh to be a Mod again, to walk with a cane and top hat, performing a nice rendition of "singing in the rain" while Pushing the BIG RED BUTTON and banning random posters for no real reason.

Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?

That's my point, libertarian to libertarian you will find that people don't agree on whats necessary a whole lot. As in, a religious libertarian would think it would be necessary to not allow gay rights!

You Democrats are so cute.
No. A LIbertarian can be religious. But a Libertarian would explicitly leave alone people in the bedroom, unless they are harming others. Thats the whole point of Libertarianism, individual freedom from DA MAN telling him what to do.

Again you're describing a religious conservative.

If you're going to make statements about a party you apparently know little about, educate yourself college boy! Thats what that thar higher edumacasion is fer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
In fairness, Ayn Rand was the founder of Objectivism, not strictly speaking a Libertarian, although a lot of Libertarians have sadly embraced her as a kindred spirit. I say sadly, because she was an awful person and terrible philosopher. And I say those things speaking as a man named after one of her characters, before my parents finished growing up and stopped admiring Rand.

Agreed on all points.

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
That's kind of my point though: while no political movement in the US has what I'd call a coherent message, they all at least have a structure. Libretarianism has neither, and while you can sum up their ideal in one sentence "as little government as absolutely necessary," the devil, as always, is in the details.

Do you mean other than the various libertarian parties, or what?

I think the fact that tere are various libertarian parties helps prove my point.

Maybe I just went to a college with a few too many rich-kid libertarians who wouldn't shut up about it. It's not an ideology I really find practical.

I think it says more you would regard someone who doesn't like in abject fear and hate that the government is always two steps away from turning in a tyrannical super evil empire that hates America and loves "Socialism" or "Facism" or what ever pet word people are using to describe the ideology of people they dislike as being a "leftie" (Someone opposite from you on the political spectrum) and not you know, a sane person who would rather live in trust than in fear

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?

I think you're getting there. A lot of Libertarians (like myself) are Bill of Rights advocates. Whenever possible government should be small and should not interfere with other people's rights and freedoms. That does not mean to say anarchy, or that social costs from your activiites should not be accounted for. On the contrary, if your acts impact others then you should pay for your trespass.


Libertarians, the "Get off My Lawn" Party.

Frazzeled your addressing points I made pages ago in building on the point your missing on that people are more complicated than party and ideological labels.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?

I think you're getting there. A lot of Libertarians (like myself) are Bill of Rights advocates. Whenever possible government should be small and should not interfere with other people's rights and freedoms. That does not mean to say anarchy, or that social costs from your activiites should not be accounted for. On the contrary, if your acts impact others then you should pay for your trespass.


Libertarians, the "Get off My Lawn" Party.

So to say "they are not libertarians, they are conservatives" is a bit strange... Is there not a more specific name for the more authoritarian conservatives?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?

I think you're getting there. A lot of Libertarians (like myself) are Bill of Rights advocates. Whenever possible government should be small and should not interfere with other people's rights and freedoms. That does not mean to say anarchy, or that social costs from your activiites should not be accounted for. On the contrary, if your acts impact others then you should pay for your trespass.


Libertarians, the "Get off My Lawn" Party.

I think your confusing Libertarianism with classical liberalism.

Libertarianism operates on the very basis that government is bad when ever it gets involved in something and that a free market and society free of government regulations will fix the issue.

Classical liberalism is the idea the government should "get off my lawn" and let me live my life how I should, and that humans are good natured enough to not need government to tell us how to operate regardless of government being "bad" or "good" and that there does need to be some government to help ensure freedom through protection against invaders and or rebellion.

I would say your more close to a classical liberal in your suggestion it's the governments job to keep out of our lives but still work towards the safe keeping of them.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Surely conservatives are a broader group of people that want less economic government whereas libertarians are a subset of that group that also wants less social government?

I think you're getting there. A lot of Libertarians (like myself) are Bill of Rights advocates. Whenever possible government should be small and should not interfere with other people's rights and freedoms. That does not mean to say anarchy, or that social costs from your activiites should not be accounted for. On the contrary, if your acts impact others then you should pay for your trespass.


Libertarians, the "Get off My Lawn" Party.

I think your confusing Libertarianism with classical liberalism.

Libertarianism operates on the very basis that government is bad when ever it gets involved in something and that a free market and society free of government regulations will fix the issue.

Classical liberalism is the idea the government should "get off my lawn" and let me live my life how I should, and that humans are good natured enough to not need government to tell us how to operate regardless of government being "bad" or "good" and that there does need to be some government to help ensure freedom through protection against invaders and or rebellion.

I would say your more close to a classical liberal in your suggestion it's the governments job to keep out of our lives but still work towards the safe keeping of them.

those are basically the same thing. Because modern liberalism is different (and more prevelent), libertarianism has a different name.

Not all libretarians are hostile to government, especially if they want to have any impact.

 Polonius wrote:
I think the fact that tere are various libertarian parties helps prove my point.

I'm not sure what your point is, beyond that libertarians don't have monolithic Democrat/Republican style political organizations. I think that's something that most libertarians would regard as ideal.

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think the fact that tere are various libertarian parties helps prove my point.

I'm not sure what your point is, beyond that libertarians don't have monolithic Democrat/Republican style political organizations. I think that's something that most libertarians would regard as ideal.

I think that's going to limit the overall influence they have. But it's not exactly something I'm worried about.

 Polonius wrote:
I think that's going to limit the overall influence they have. But it's not exactly something I'm worried about.

Very little question of that, though that's hardly the only reason.

Politico has an interesting article out about the amount of Millenials drawing towards libertarianism, though.

Seaward the only reason millennial are drawing towards it is that we live in an age were it's hip and cool to constantly whine and cry about the government and then not really do or suggest anything to fit it.

"Less government" is not a solution, it's just as ignorant to claim that the solution to ending world hunger is "more food" or the solution to building the best race car is "bigger engine"

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that's going to limit the overall influence they have. But it's not exactly something I'm worried about.

Very little question of that, though that's hardly the only reason.

Politico has an interesting article out about the amount of Millenials drawing towards libertarianism, though.

I think every generation is fascinated by third parties. I know I voted Libertarian in 2000, because I didn't see my vote as mattering.

Some of that I rooted in the growing aspects of police state america, which grows regardless of which party is in power. Some is the disgust most young people have with the GOPs social conservativism and the Dems love of welfare spending.

The rub is always what happens when all these young people start working and owning property.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
"Less government" is not a solution, it's just as ignorant to claim that the solution to ending world hunger is "more food" or the solution to building the best race car is "bigger engine"

One day, a candidate is going to start giving concrete examples of regulations, agencies, and laws that are actually hindering things, and propose specific solutions.

I'd be interested to see it.

 Polonius wrote:
I think every generation is fascinated by third parties. I know I voted Libertarian in 2000, because I didn't see my vote as mattering.

Some of that I rooted in the growing aspects of police state america, which grows regardless of which party is in power. Some is the disgust most young people have with the GOPs social conservativism and the Dems love of welfare spending.

The rub is always what happens when all these young people start working and owning property.

Hopefully they're like me. I went from the big parties in 00/04 to libertarians as I got older.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
One day, a candidate is going to start giving concrete examples of regulations, agencies, and laws that are actually hindering things, and propose specific solutions.

I'd be interested to see it.

Gary Johnson.

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think every generation is fascinated by third parties. I know I voted Libertarian in 2000, because I didn't see my vote as mattering.

Some of that I rooted in the growing aspects of police state america, which grows regardless of which party is in power. Some is the disgust most young people have with the GOPs social conservativism and the Dems love of welfare spending.

The rub is always what happens when all these young people start working and owning property.

Hopefully they're like me. I went from the big parties in 00/04 to libertarians as I got older.

I've become increasingly apolitical. I still have opinions on my issues, but I really don't see my involvment in politics as having much effect. But I'm a white, upper middle class male. We tend to do pretty well under any system in the US.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Frazzeled your addressing points I made pages ago in building on the point your missing on that people are more complicated than party and ideological labels.

Horse gak. You're basing your knowledge base on room mates. If you're going to argue the point get educated on the point first. And don't blah blah me boy. I have children, minis, and underwear older than you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Go Texans!!!

I didn't know you turned masochist on us Kronk. Oh well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maybe I just went to a college with a few too many rich-kid libertarians who wouldn't shut up about it. It's not an ideology I really find practical.

Understandable. Nothing pure works. There always have to be shades here.