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.

 

So where are the conservative and libertarian utopias?

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
He asked for examples and then went on to explain why there may be some difficulty coming up with some.

Strawman or not, he asked for examples.


When you ask for examples of something that has never existed in history to this point you are being disingenuous.



edit on 1-4-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
When you ask for examples of something that has never existed in history to this point you are being disingenuous.

Or you are pointing out the fact that things don't really work out the way they appear on paper.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

To me, freedom means being myself and not having a billion government regs telling what I can and can't do. It means not having to worry about whether or not the government will suddenly deem that puddle on my property a wetlands and take it away from me even after I paid for it. It means I won't have to worry that if I decide my son can walk down the street to the park, someone else will turn me in to CPS because they don't think my son can manage it. It means I won't have to see perfectly physically able people living off welfare as lifestyle choice and seemingly doing better than I am because I'm being taxed heavily to finance them and many more like them and knowing all their children are learning that as a lifestyle choice. It means having choice in my kid's schooling beyond financially crippling private school or homeschool and an indifferent and academically shoddy public school I'm assigned based solely off where I live.

It means I'M in control more than a bunch of pencil-necked geeks somewhere who aren't any smarter than I am, but think they are.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Or you are pointing out the fact that things don't really work out the way they appear on paper.


Of course plans never work out as they do on paper but for the Original Poster to claim that Libertarianism as an ideology has failed, when it has never been applied as a full system of government, is an argument from false pretexts.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

More like I don't think any of us have ever tried to create one because we know they're about as realistic as rainbow unicorns, and by that I mean Utpoias. You couldn't create any kind of Utopia, be it liberal, libertarian or otherwise because Utpoia by menaing is "no place."


edit on 1-4-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Where's the progressive utopia?

Here's a thought... Maybe human beings are not capable of a utopia. Maybe all we can do is continue to strive for an ideal that we will never achieve but it is better than not trying at all.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

OK, so we've got some working examples of what freedom would look like to you, but we still haven't distilled it down into some kind of digestible definition. We haven't yet really pegged what "it" is. It sounds like you just want to be left alone, correct?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is a cop out. Technically correct, but still a cop out.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

OK, so we've got some working examples of what freedom would look like to you, but we still haven't distilled it down into some kind of digestible definition. We haven't yet really pegged what "it" is. It sounds like you just want to be left alone, correct?


It is what most of us want. Left alone to be secure in our persons and property (which by the way is income these days since most of us don't directly make stuff) and not have our lives dictated to and controlled by the state on a micromanaged level.

We all spent a good 18 or so years having that done to us by our parents, and now the government thinks it needs to get involved? I don't think so.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I'll throw my 2¢ even though some have already stated things quite clearly. Libertarians are socially liberal. That is where we differ from conservatives. Libertarians believe in individual liberty over a collective with no individual liberty. Individuals have rights that the government is wrong to even try and take away. That includes the right of a business owner not to serve someone. Regardless of the reason.

Taxes are needed. But not to the extent that they are now. When government gets involved in economic issues, prices go up. The private sector is much more efficient. We should not be giving taxpayer money to foreign countries. It's insane to give money to Israel AND to Israel's enemies. It's insane to continuously fund never ending wars. The IRS is expendable. What good does it do? Would it not be much better to have a simple tax that everyone understands?

I tend to think that people would be better off without the government running our lives. We're not all brainless fools here, are we (you and I included). If a business won't serve someone just because of their skin color, I will not frequent that business. If government didn't try to involve themselves in every aspect of people's lives, people would be much happier. If you don't want to own a gun, that is your business. If I want to own a gun, that should be my business. If I don't want to wear a seat belt or a helmet, I shouldn't be ticketed for that. Abortion is something that the government has no business in. That is a personal choice.

Government is a way to force your ideas on others. Today, you may be forcing your views on others but tomorrow, someone else may be forcing their views on you.

How about live and let live instead?
edit on 4/1/2015 by Blueracer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
That is a cop out. Technically correct, but still a cop out.


Explain how that is a cop out. Be specific.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: daskakik

No, the OP asked for examples.


The Original Poster set up a strawman that he could knock down (if he ever revisits his thread).


Straw man successfully taken apart at this point I would say.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think you and I share a lot in common.

I a fiscally conservative and socially liberal as well.

I can't argue with a single point in your post.


The big problem I have with "socially liberal" is that when someone says it ... it almost inevitably comes with laws, and government spending.


Not me.

I just believe people should help each other.

Not because the gov makes them, but because they are free to make their own choices and chose to do so.

The gov can keep their grubby little mitts out of all social issues, most of the economy, the monetary policy us their realm, and especially education.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

I prefer personal liberty or something else. Usually it's the liberals who spout off about being socially liberal and then they launch into all the great social programs and being progressive and SJW and stuff.

So I guess that phrase has engendered an allergic response in me.


edit on 1-4-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Not even smaller populations so much as local control through originalist Federalism. If we stopped bending knee to the all=powerful Federal Government and its alphabets crafting one-size fits all policies for everyone ... then local state and municipality/county control would be much more important and responsive and free to address local needs and issues.

This was the original intent and it's being lost because the folks in DC think they can craft policies that work for the folks in Alaska just as well as the folks in Florida.

That's stupid.



I couldn't agree more.

This country is way too big with way too much diversity for any one size fits all solutions.

Besides, DC inside the beltway is where some magical fantasy land exists, where there is always enough money, and if they demand it everyone can always pay more.

The ACA comes to mind.

The first couple years the federal given covers 100% of the cost, but then slowly shifts the burden to states.

Many can't pay that, which is why they didn't set up exchanges etc.

Because they can count, and know it isn't going to work.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You saying that it has never been tried instead of admitting that it has never been tried on that scale because it has never worked past the tribal setting, is a cop out.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Conservative and Libertarian utopias are difficult to establish because there's too many nosy jealous Progressives/Liberals watching everything.

Many individuals and households have established "utopias" by avoiding and beating the Left Wing bureaucratic systems.

It's easier than you think




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The next 25-50 years will see America become a mirror of Europe. America is going through growing pains, we're learning all of the lessons Europe learned on our own. Europe has had a lot longer to sort all of these issues out and get to where they're at. Despite the efforts of conservatives trying to slow, stop or reverse progressive policies, they always and will ultimately fail -- history shows this.

To be fair, the conservative viewpoint is needed. Without a conservative countervailing voice, we'd rush headlong into new changes much to quickly. Having a voice to slow down progress gives us time to hash things out and answer important questions before we move forward.

I also think that for the sake of the thread, the term "freedom" ought to be defined. What does that word mean? Does it mean "do whatever you want, whenever you want"? To me, I think freedom in this context refers to gratifying the whims of one's ego.


Freedom means the opposite if slavery.

The opposite of regulation.

The opposite if control.

If my actions do not endanger or harm another, I should be free to do it.

By harm, hurt feelings or getting offended doesnt count either.

Actual physical or financial harm.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
You saying that it has never been tried instead of admitting that it has never been tried on that scale because it has never worked past the tribal setting, is a cop out.


Please provide examples of 'tribes' that practiced Libertarianism.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He may be referring to the Iroquois Confederacy.
edit on 1-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join