It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Think you are a Libertarian?

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

My argument is that your entire OP is a No True Scotsman Fallacy and is therefore invalid. This would be the third time I've said that.




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZiggyMojo
You're taking ideas from every branch of libertarianism and creating your own image of what you think a Modern Libertarian is. It just isn't how it works. Your idea of a libertarian falls somewhere between an Anarcho-Capitalist and a Fiscal Libertarian.

I will say that many of the wealthiest people in the US lean Fiscal Libertarian, but it is entirely different than the platform Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell adhere to. Which is, for the most part the Modern Libertarian or Classical Liberalism platform.

By your logic, I could say that all modern Liberals are exactly the same as the Liberals who founded this country and nothing could be further from the truth.


By your logic, nobody can say anything about modern liberalism since it couldn't be true of EVERY person identifying with liberalism past or present. What is a "modern liberal?" Who are you to say that a person in the modern era who calls himself a liberal isn't EXACTLY the same as the "liberals" who founded this country? While I'm at it, how can you even make reference to historic "liberals" as though they were a homogeneous group without accounting for every faction and personal interpretation?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You really don't understand how political parties work. Set and setting, historic influences etc. There was a "time period" for classic liberals. American liberalism today is different than European Liberalism. In the future, people will look back on this time period and classify this as the Era of Progressive Liberalism. You're telling me what I already told you, but through your own distorted viewpoint. Sure, there are libertarians who might adhere to your vision.. But the mainstream libertarians that you hear about on the news, or when Ron Paul is mentioned.. Are of a certain cloth. It is the cloth of classical liberals. Open a book, maybe a history book or a political science book.. Indulge yourself. Your understanding of political ideologies is good to a point, but you're missing some key pieces.

You can't fight your way out of the corner you've backed yourself into.. Your whole opening post is fundamentally flawed. It looks at libertarianism as a whole and as a parent philosophy, it doesn't examine the present day facts or the breakdown of different ideologies beneath the libertarian umbrella.

Feel free to actually address the points I made.. You can use your Alinsky tactics all day, I've seen it before.
edit on 29-4-2014 by ZiggyMojo because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-4-2014 by ZiggyMojo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

My argument is that your entire OP is a No True Scotsman Fallacy and is therefore invalid. This would be the third time I've said that.


I disagree. The only practical disagreement you've presented is that I should have prefaced some of my statements with "most" or "many" which I would assume, when speaking broadly of any ideology, particularly on a non-scholarly, Internet forum, should be implied. Since you've decided to play the fallacy police, I would like to point out that your argument that my entire post is invalidated on the premise that it constitutes a no true Scotsman fallacy is a fallacious argument in of itself and is infact an argument from fallacy.

Also, stating it three times? That's reeks of argument from repetition.

If you really want to prove that what I'm saying is invalid, prove that what I've said is not true of the people behind the modern American libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I've been proving it the whole time. You just choose not to listen. You are the one that has the proving to do here. You're talking to someone who the US MSM would identify as a Libertarian and I'm telling you that you don't get it. Neither do a lot of people in this country. Many people I talk to who identify themselves as a true liberal (not a progressive) would be considered a libertarian by today's standards.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I don't think the No True Scotsman Fallacy applies to self-placed labels.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian


I bring this up because a lot of "Libertarians," particularly Paulites and Ron Paul himself, rant on and on about the Fed. I actually agree but what I'd like to point out is that Alan Greenspan has always described himself as a lifelong Libertarian. He is the most famous acolyte of Ayn Rand, having been a part of her inner circle / pseduo-cult, "The Collective" in the 50's and 60's.


Ah yes, much like Adolf Hitler claimed to be a Christian... I don't see the connection here, or the argument either. Just because he hung out with Ayn and thought she had good ideas doesn't mean that what Greenspan did while in the Fed was libertarian...



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ZiggyMojo

You actually responded to a my response to Krazysh0t but that's fine.

I do understand exactly what you're saying and where you are coming from despite your assertion that I'm ignorant of history and the nature and evolution of political parties.

I don't agree with you that "I don't get it."

My opinion is that you're doing a lot of wishful thinking. I personally know dozens of people who have started identifying themselves as libertarians in recent years and I can assure you that overwhelming majority of them have done so without, "[opening] a book, maybe a history book or a political science book." The IT industry is filled with them, it's become quite a nerd trend. Most of them have just heard a few things said by Ron Paul that sounded good to them.

In my opinion, Ron Paul is entirely full of sh*t. Ron Paul ascribes to heterodox Austrian economic theory (as Alan Greenspan has asserted he does for that matter). Furthermore, Ron Paul has a long involvement with the Koch brothers (going back to before CSE). Furthermore, Ron Paul has stated publicly that he views Ayn Rand as a big influence and in my opinion, Ayn Rand was a sociopath with a cultish group of followers (including Greenspan) who invented a pseudo-philosophy in Objectivism (which is also the basis for the modern Church of Satan, not that I give a sh*t about that either really, I just think it's ironic).

Then there is the Libertarian Party, which also has a long involvement with the Koch brothers and while I don't refute the merit of some of their philosophical underpinnings, in practice I think their platform has always relied too heavily on the validity of Austrian economics and that they are in effect, a front for a cadre of 0.01%ers who are no better than those behind the Democrats or Republicans.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Maybe this will drive it home..

Lets look at automobiles.. For sake of this lesson we'll say an automobile is anything with 4 wheels and an engine (obviously we could get very specific, but for sake of simplicity we'll leave it at that).

A Truck is an Automobile. It has a large open bed, 4 wheels, an engine, many times it is 4 wheel drive and it isn't very economical in terms of fuel.

A Sedan is an Automobile. It has an enclosed trunk, 4 wheels, an engine, 4 doors, usually front wheel drive and is more economical than a truck for fuel cost.

Both of them are Automobiles and they share some similarities and the same core components ie. 4 wheels and an engine.

Whether you drive an SUV or a Sedan, you drive an automobile because they both have the pieces that make it one (4 wheels and an engine).

When making a statement concerning things with similar core components (4 wheels and an engine) no matter how different they are.. Sedan, Truck, Van.. You call them all automobiles. Anyone who uses a 4 wheeled, engine driven vehicle is a member of the "Automobiles Party" because it immediately identifies these people as different than the members of the "Bicycle Party" or the "Tennis Shoes Party" and you immediately know that those people believe in using some core component of automobiles that the other parties don't particularly focus on.

In our case, Liberty is that core component that all walks of libertarianism stress.. Because of this, the media or general populace labels anyone with that core belief a libertarian because labeling them a Classic Liberal is too confusing. Calling me a liberal by today's standards would be completely wrong and most people in the US don't know the difference between a modern liberal and a classic liberal. The libertarian movement today was born out of the core values of liberty, freedom, unalienable rights and the operation of a fiscally conservative, small, federal government.

So if you are a Classic Liberal, you are inherently a Libertarian as an SUV is inherently an Automobile. Classic Liberals were born of Libertarian Philosophy.

If you are a Modern Liberal or Progressive, you are inherently socialist even though you may not embody all aspects of socialism.

Mainstream libertarians today do not embody every aspect of Libertarianism, but the core aspects of liberty are there and they align most easily with those core ideals.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The modern libertarian party is not a cadre for the 1 percenters.. The 1 Percent indeed have a laissez-faire economics view, and they probably could be classified as fiscal libertarians, but they are not the same as the Ron Paul or Rockwell libertarians. I agree with a lot of what you're saying regarding some self proclaimed libertarians. The problem is the classifications and differences between the different types muddies the image of certain candidates or officials. Its a similar dilemma in the liberal realm of politics. Its also a problem of our political system pigeonholing everyone into two parties. A true libertarian in the sense that you view them would be more aptly placed in the left wing of politics. Even modern libertarians lean left on social issues.. It's the economic stance (fiscally conservative) that has put libertarians under the right side in the left-right paradigm.

As a libertarian, it goes against what I believe to be forced to align myself with one of two political parties and vote for only one candidate. I think most people who are interested in what we call Libertarianism today are interested because it is a live and let live philosophy, it reduces taxes and gets the federal government's fat hand out of people's lives where it doesn't belong. It is about solving our problems here to ensure we all can pursue happiness and liberty.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
In my opinion, Ron Paul is entirely full of sh*t. Ron Paul ascribes to heterodox Austrian economic theory (as Alan Greenspan has asserted he does for that matter). Furthermore, Ron Paul has a long involvement with the Koch brothers (going back to before CSE). Furthermore, Ron Paul has stated publicly that he views Ayn Rand as a big influence and in my opinion, Ayn Rand was a sociopath with a cultish group of followers (including Greenspan) who invented a pseudo-philosophy in Objectivism (which is also the basis for the modern Church of Satan, not that I give a sh*t about that either really, I just think it's ironic).


Thank you for this paragraph, not because you have technically made any false statements infact you have been very carful to phrase this paragraph in such a way as to fill it with almost entirely non facts and opinions.
No, thank you for this paragraph because your carefully chosen words clearly show you that despite the fact your arguments against libertarianism have been repeatedly and consistantly dismantled your objective here isn't to have an open and honest debate but instead that you just want to vent on libertarianism because you find it offensive.




Please though if I'm wrong prove it by sticking to verifiable facts and avoiding futher ad hominem attacks.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: monkofmimir
I don't see anything in that paragraph that wasn't posted somewhere else in this thread, other than the some choice wording.

Seems like you're reaching.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
My problem is not feeling oppressed by the government, but by corporations that currently control the government. Get corporations and big money out of politics and we can go back to being great. Represent the people, not your campaign financiers.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
You're pretty obviously misrepresenting libertarianism, so...



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Well, there's time I'll never get back.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Oh good, Another biased non libertarian misinforming people on what libertarianism is.
That never gets old.
I'm gonna go listen to a religious person explain to me what atheism is.
I'm sure its gonna be just as informative.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
So someone who thinks the Koch brothers (the current evil bad guy de jour) are the root of all evil, attempts to discredit the political ideology that the Koch brothers profess......Does so by telling us all Alan Greenspan loved Ayn Rand and was a libertarian so therefore all Libertarians are evil Koch brother Randian sociopaths......

I completely wasted my time clicking on this thread and I am wasting more time responding to it.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: 404ed
Oh good, Another biased non libertarian misinforming people on what libertarianism is.
That never gets old.
I'm gonna go listen to a religious person explain to me what atheism is.
I'm sure its gonna be just as informative.


First rule of libertarianism is only libertarians can talk about libertarianism?

I'd argue that your analogy would make more sense in reverse. Listening to "libertarians" spouting catechisms about "freedom" and "the free market" and "classical liberalism" is pretty much uninformative proselytizing.

I am arguing that the mainstream of modern American libertarianism, as represented by the Libertarian Party, has been co-opted by economists of the Austrian school and is at odds with the majority of classical liberal thinkers in that there has been an undue emphasis put on exactly the sort of wholesale deregulation and privatization that in practice would result in something akin to feudalism. Under an either misguided or knowingly false pretext of promoting individual liberty, there has been an utter abandonment of the notion of government as an impartial manifestation of the power of the public in favor of a magical unregulated free market that is even more susceptible to the corruption of the wealthiest few.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The 1 percent are not libertarians. These guys had to use government to cheat. Libertarians are true free market competition capitalist. Not crony capitalist.



posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Might as well move on, the OP is just trying to stir the pot. He has no point to make because it has all been dismantled. Now he is trying to blame corporatism and the disparity gap on Libertarian beliefs. The funny thing is, our government hasn't had libertarian or classical liberal policies in the financial sector for nearly half a century, yet somehow it is their fault that the rich got richer. Give me a break.. The rich got richer because they exploited the system. They lobby government and the government promotes special interests. The government works as an oligarchy with the deepest pockets making the decisions. This is NOT how a libertarian envisions any of this working.

The 1% can have a laissez faire stance on financial regulation, but it is the government that CATERS to and regulates FOR corporate cronies. The government has regulated the little guy out of the equation because the government is made up of the corporate suits.. That is the issue. Small businesses do not have the representation that a multi-billion dollar company does in the political theater. The big businesses became big businesses because of government! If the government wasn't involved, the free market would have had answers to mega corps like Wal-Mart, long before Wal-Mart could drive the little guy out. A farmer is forced to buy Monsanto seeds and is unable to seed-clean because the government RULED that cross pollination (by natural forces) from Monsanto plants yields a private crop that is patented property of Monsanto. Monsanto pursues these farmers purposefully to either put them out or force them to use their product.. This is a product of GOVERNMENT regulation.. It is NOT a free market when the government is essentially forcing private operators to use a specific product.

Sounds like you need more than a history class.. should probably brush up on economics and the laws of a free-market as well.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join