Libertarian Poll !

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I am questioning why libertarian posters on this forum seem much more motivated about attacking democrats about tax than they do republicans and there trend of interfering more heavily in our personal day to day choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is obvious. Because most of us are not gay peoiple trying to wed, or pregnant women seekiong abortions. But we do all pay taxes. What a stupid point/question to even bring up! We relate to what's personally relevant to us.

[The once and future king]

I said I didnt need to read it to make my point.

I have actualy read it.

Ironicaly I accuse Libertarians of attacking democrats more and low and behold who do you attack in your post yes Kerry.

To repeat myself. From what I have gathered from reading the libertarian platform I thought there would be equal disdain of both main stream parties.

However the libertarians on this forum do not seem to follow that prediction and seem much more disposed to attack the democrat party, as is evinced by your last post.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is obvious. Because most of us are not gay peoiple trying to wed, or pregnant women seekiong abortions. But we do all pay taxes. What a stupid point/question to even bring up! We relate to what's personally relevant to us.



[/ QUOTE ]

At last a libertarian able to honestly admit to his bias.

[jakethebake]

I personally think this may be the absolutely toughest subject there is w/in the discussion of Libertarianism. The rest are all very easy for me.

[jakethebake]

It's NOT a bias. I think EVERYONE has the same right to freedom. It's just that we tend to TALK about Libertarianism in terms of ourselves.

[The once and future king]

I dont think you understand libertarianism.

The starting point is the primacy of the individual over collective forms of association.

Therefore government has no right to interfere in the personal choices of individual or decide what is right/wrong on there behalf. You either accept that or you dont. If you cant then you are not a true libertarian.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]


Ironicaly I accuse Libertarians of attacking democrats more and low and behold who do you attack in your post yes Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to take a wild guess as to why, given the context of this thread?

Your position is that Republicans are worse on civil rights than Democrats; therefore I offered a counterexample to bolster my claim that Democrats are not too good on civil rights either.

[ QUOTE ]
To repeat myself. From what I have gathered from reading the libertarian platform I thought there would be equal disdain of both main stream parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's because the democratic infringements affect more of us than do the Republican infringements.

Do I care about gay marriage? Not especially. Am I a woman carrying an unwanted baby? No again. Do I worry about how much of my income I get to keep? You bet I do.

[ QUOTE ]
However the libertarians on this forum do not seem to follow that prediction and seem much more disposed to attack the democrat party, as is evinced by your last post.

[/ QUOTE ]

By attacking the citizenry's ability to save and get ahead in life (through overtaxation, and especially payroll taxes), and by supporting expensive, poorly-effective social programs, the Democratic party affects more people adversely than does the Republican party in my opinion. Aside from the gay marriage/abortion divide (which is not set in stone either), I think the democrats are just about as bad on civil rights as are the republicans.

Finally your perception may be quite wrong. I have seriously attacked Ashcroft's policies on this forum at length; maybe you missed or forgot it.

[jakethebake]

Thank you but I absolutely DO understand it. I absolutely do accept that. The point that CAN be made in terms of fetuses is whether they have the same individual rights that YOU do. Libertarianism does NOT advocate the commission of violent acts against one another. It could be argued by some that this is what abortion is. I'm not debating for/against on this issue. Just pointing out that to me this one is tough.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think you understand libertarianism.

The starting point is the primacy of the individual over collective forms of association.

Therefore government has no right to interfere in the personal choices of individual or decide what is right/wrong on there behalf. You either accept that or you dont. If you cant then you are not a true libertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

[riverflush]

future king...

I'm about as pure a "libertarian" as you can get - but I would actually call myself a "classical liberal," which originally formed the basis for the modern "conservative" movement. The two are related. Today - both words, "conservative" and "liberal" have been so beaten down by culture as to have little meaning in their original context. Now, one thinks of "liberal" as a left-wing, statist ideology and "conservative" as a right-wing term with religious overtones.

I cannot chose either of the available selections in the above poll - because neither is an acceptable choice to a true libertarian.

Now, you said this:

[ QUOTE ]
However the libertarians on this forum do not seem to follow that prediction and seem much more disposed to attack the democrat party, as is evinced by your last post.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct - in general terms. Libertarians tend (the majority) to side with the "right" at times and are particularly harsh on today's American left. Why? In the purest of terms, economic matters tend to trump all others for libertarians, because we see economic freedom as freedom itself. Economics - and money in general - is nothing more than a way to negotiate relationships with those around us. A dollar is simply a private contract to do something. On the most basic level, economic matters guide nearly every decision a human makes - from food to shelter to entertainment. It is our way of keeping score - and we don't see money as "evil," merely a way to keep a leger on life. If you limit the ability of humans to create wealth, you inherenly limit their freedoms - all freedoms. To us, the line between social freedom and economic freedom does not exist. There is no compromise.

Actions speak much louder than words. The hostility of the left to the private sector - through socialized medicine, rigid stances on public education, refusal to admit the failure of social security, double and triple taxation of goods, high income taxation, tight business regulation...and even such seemingly mundane things like the crusade to ban smoking in private business establishments...are direct blows to individual freedoms.

The Republican Party is not immune to criticism, they're simply further down on the list of government on our backs. I can sum it up like this: with freedom in economic matters, individuals can afford the resources to fight for social freedoms. Essentially, without taxation you can live the way you want and have the ability to resist "social legislation." (A concrete example: if you can afford good lawyers, you can fight to grow marijuana in your back yard. Without the resources to hire help (money) - the situation is moot.)

And then there's guns....

[chaz64]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the only problem I see with it. Marriage is a concept/institution that was borrowed from the church and adopted by the government, much like making Christmas a national holiday. Now, there are those who want the government to modify it's stance on what defines marriage. I don't see it as the government's place to do this, as they didn't define it to begin with, the church did. I have no problem at all with implementing a system where same-sex couples can file joint tax returns, share family insurance policies, etc... But don't take a concept that the government borrowed from the church and modify it in way that is not in concordance with what the church would want.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of an item I read a while ago that made a good point, I thought:

Word Play