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: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: macman
That is not an answer to those questions.




posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I do know the difference but corruption taints everything. Fix that and you could probably make anything work.

By the way anarcho-capitalism falls under the Libertarianism name tag which is why I said that there are versions. That isn't yours? Fine, but there are Libertarians who are anarchists.



edit on 2-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
I do know the difference but corruption taints everything. Fix that and you could probably make anything work.


You are never going to remove all corruption so what does that have to do with the conversation?



By the way anarcho-capitalism falls under the Libertarianism name tag which is why I said that there are versions. That isn't yours? Fine, but there are Libertarians who are anarchists.


You have displayed an inability to remember what you have written, now you are doing the same thing with what I wrote. Show me the quote where I used the term 'anarcho-capitalism'.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You are never going to remove all corruption so what does that have to do with the conversation?

This fact keeps Libertarianism from being a workable model. That is the topic of this thread isn't it?



You have displayed an inability to remember what you have written, now you are doing the same thing with what I wrote. Show me the quote where I used the term 'anarcho-capitalism'.

Anarcho capitalists are anarchists and you implied that there is a difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism when in fact one is a subset of the other.


edit on 2-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
This fact keeps Libertarianism from being a workable model. That is the topic of this thread isn't it?


Based on your comments it make everything unworkable since there is corruption.



Anarcho capitalist are anarchists and you implied that there is a difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism when in fact one is a subset of the other.


I never used the term anarcho-capitalist so stop fabricating again.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Based on your comments it make everything unworkable since there is corruption.

Yes.



I never used the term anarcho-capitalist so stop fabricating again.

I didn't say you did. You said "Anarchism" and I said "anarcho-capitalists are anarchists".

Anarchism is a varsion of Libertarianism. I keep saying that I undestand that that may not be "your version of libertarianism" but since the OP is asking for examples anywhere on the globe I thought it would be appropriate to use the more general definition. Did I mention that the general definition also includes anarchism?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Actually, by your answers, no, you do not know. It is painfully obvious your understanding of the Libertarian ideology, both historical and contemporaneous, is non-existent.


So, a question - to you or anyone else - how would Libertarian ideology play out if implemented?

For example, would you be able to own any weapon you chose to?


I would say besides nukes ya sounds good to me.

Have to get artillery and planes some place.

With no standing army that place is the people.

Just like in the american revolution.

Most of the US artillery was private owned.

Dude this aint 1776......

Artillary has moved beyond smooth bore cannons you could quickly train a idiot on.

Same with modern 5th gen fighter jets, you cant just dump anyone with a flying licence in the seat of a F-22 or god forbid let them engage in air to air refuelling or land in a F18 on a aircraft carrier!

Modern weapon systems require specific training sometimes over years.

Local communitys would never be able to supply that! Hell many countrys cant!
edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

I didn't say you did. You said "Anarchism" and I said "anarcho-capitalists are anarchists".


No, I did not say 'anarchism'.


Anarchism is a varsion of Libertarianism. I keep saying that I undestand that that may not be "your version of libertarianism" but since the OP is asking for examples anywhere on the globe I thought it would be appropriate to use the more general definition. Did I mention that the general definition also includes anarchism?


I provided a link, pages back, to the Libertarian National Committee website. THAT is what I believe, so there is zero requirement for you to speculate.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
No, I did not say 'anarchism'.

Your exact words:

You are obviously confusing Anarchism with Libertarianism

But, just like when I did it, it's no big deal.


I provided a link, pages back, to the Libertarian National Committee website. THAT is what I believe, so there is zero requirement for you to speculate.

Yes, but that is your version, which is not the one I use.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
So we get a definition of "freedom" going that means "not under anyone else's control". Basically to me that says that people that value freedom above anything else do not like or respect authority over themselves. To me, this may indicate a trust issue.

I suppose it can be hard to trust that someone you've never met will spend money you give them fairly, or make policy for the common good.

I think it's in having a sense of trust that separates us from less complex societies. 200,000 years ago humans roamed as nomads, and the idea of giving something to someone you don't know or who isn't part of your family/tribe wasn't an option for survival. It wasn't until the domestication of animals and agriculture arose that we began to have a surplus of food and supplies, Once a surplus was available, the immediate need to survive took a backseat to cultural development.

It would seem that social programs to help people we've never met or will never meet are a fairly "new" thing for humans -- we've lived as hunter-gatherers for much longer than we have in cities and suburbs. We still have a lot of greed in our hearts, and it seems that we hold onto this "mine" mentality that may be an old holdover from a time when survival was paramount.

Just some early morning speculation.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Your exact words:


I see. I was referring to when I said anarcho-syndicalist commune.



Yes, but that is your version, which is not the one I use.


Good for you, the version I quoted is for the Libertarian Party and the most widely accepted understanding of this political ideology in the United States. You are free to use fringe or minor aspects of Libertarianism as a definitor however they would be just as erroneous as using Communism to define the Democratic Party or Theocracy to define the Republican Party.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Good for you, the version I quoted is for the Libertarian Party and the most widely accepted understanding of this political ideology in the United States.

I'm not talking about the "Libertarian Party". That is your version and they do not have exclusive rights to the term or the concept.


You are free to use fringe or minor aspects of Libertarianism as a definitor however they would be just as erroneous as using Communism to define the Democratic Party or Theocracy to define the Republican Party.

You really believe this? I think you exaggerate.

It might be as erroneous as using Democratic to define the Democratic Party or Republican to define the Republican Party.


edit on 2-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

I'm not talking about the "Libertarian Party". That is your version and they do not have exclusive rights to the name.


It is not 'my version' and is the most widely held viewpoint on the ideology.


You really believe this? I think you exaggerate.


I do because a true Anarchist would not support the Libertarian Party agenda.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

My point exactly. They might be the most popular in the US but to many they are not real libertarians. I prefer to use the wider meaning of term because you can talk about the core concept and not what one party or another has turned it into.
edit on 2-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
My point exactly. They might be the most popular in the US but to many they are not real libertarians. I prefer to use the wider meaning of term because you can talk about the core concept and not what one party or another has turned it into.


And what is the core concepts of Libertarianism?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Freedom is good, more freedom is gooder.

I can tell you want to tell me what it means to you but I don't really care. The above is the core of the ideal.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Freedom is good, more freedom is gooder.


To a degree but with some limitations.


I can tell you want to tell me what it means to you but I don't really care. The above is the core of the ideal.


I have desire to waste my effort explaining what Libertarianism is to someone who thinks freedom is bad because people can possibly 'conspire'.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
To a degree but with some limitations.

Yes, the variable I keep bringing up.


I have desire to waste my effort explaining what Libertarianism is to someone who thinks freedom is bad because people can possibly 'conspire'.

Why wouldn't the party, who's main goal is to undo what previous conspiracies have imposed on their beloved republic, agree?
edit on 2-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Conservatives appear to be libertarian because the entire system is on the left and moving lefter.

Conservatives want less change. Since the progressive era that has meant less government. Sometime in the 80's the mainstream national conservatives became lefties. Every mainstream party wants to use the government, no mainstream party wants to shrink the government, i.e. every mainstream party is on the left.

The 20's was mostly libertarian, the progressive FRS enabled WW1 and the money games that kicked the world into the great depression.


The fact is unregulated markets lead to all of the wealth funneling to a small number of people, therefore regulation is necessary.


A "fact" that is assumed and never proved, like all of the progressive propaganda.

The price of everything dropped by at least 50% during the 1800's. The progressives stepped in and saved us from that. Progressives made all of the totalitarian states, and blamed free markets for effects of centralized government interventions.

Mostly, the libertarian conservative democratic party of Jefferson party died in the American Civil War.


edit on 2-4-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Yes, the variable I keep bringing up.


It is only 'variable' as you continue to fixate on rather minor groups who do not espouse the same platform as in the link I provided.


Why wouldn't the party, who's main goal is to undo what previous conspiracies have imposed on their beloved republic, agree?


The Libertarian Party does not look to affect change via conspiracy, it is rather transparent in its platform and objectives.




top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join