Libertarian Values

page: 10
44
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

I am right around ghandi,dalai lama,castro, and barrack obama.

So I am like 2 honorable public contributors and 2 dictators. Yay!

I pwn'd the political alliance test!




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Here I go:



Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



We see leftists as people pro-social-freedom and anti-economic freedom.
We see rightists as anti-social-freedom and pro-economic freedom.
Libertarians are both pro-social-freedom and pro-economic freedom.


Like Ron Paul says, If you have real economic freedom then you will always have social freedom.

Economics freedom means that you can do what ever you want with whatever you own, as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

Going straight for social freedom would be, at best, counter productive. It can't be done without authoritarian means.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I don't know much about libertarianism but when I hear people argue it, they don't make much sense to me so perhaps someone on this forum could explain the logic of libertarianism. The idea is that less in terms of government is more but obviously if you do that you have some people becoming very rich and wealth = power. Therefore, they will continue to make themselves more rich until the system is sucked dry. We know that happens because history has shown us that. Even in our current alleged namby pamby (according to libertarianisms system) we have 400 billionaires with more wealth than the bottom 150,000,000 in the U.S.

And lets fact it most of those billionaires didn't work hard to get where they. First, they inherited and then they found loopholes in a system that favors the wealthy. I'm not trolling. I just don't see libertarians addressing these fundamental arguments to their system of beliefs. That is, how do you prevent rule by the few with few civil laws? It seems to me the natural order of things would lead to that state under a libertarian philosophy.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by atopsecret
 


In case you have never had the opportunity, here is the Libertarian party Platform for the last (2012) election.

The Libertarian Party Presidential Platform

I don't really have the time to go in great depth to the different shades of Libertarianism. Most people confuse Libertarians with Anarchists....and that is not correct. The simplest way I can explain it is something like this:

You have Constitutional Libertarians that expect to have all the rights afforded to them by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the expect the Government to take no more power and authority than what is given to them by the same documents (the Constitution and the Bill of Rights).

Then you have the Ayn Rand type Libertarians that are...well...something different.

My personal beliefs are mine...I believe that people should be free to live as they want as long as their freedom does not impede upon another person's freedom...the whole "do no harm" train of thinking. I believe in the Philosophy of Freedom. I believe we were meant to be free... not chained or restricted by the will of "the mob".
edit on 1/30/2013 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by atopsecret
I don't know much about libertarianism but when I hear people argue it, they don't make much sense to me so perhaps someone on this forum could explain the logic of libertarianism. The idea is that less in terms of government is more but obviously if you do that you have some people becoming very rich and wealth = power. Therefore, they will continue to make themselves more rich until the system is sucked dry. We know that happens because history has shown us that. Even in our current alleged namby pamby (according to libertarianisms system) we have 400 billionaires with more wealth than the bottom 150,000,000 in the U.S.

And lets fact it most of those billionaires didn't work hard to get where they. First, they inherited and then they found loopholes in a system that favors the wealthy. I'm not trolling. I just don't see libertarians addressing these fundamental arguments to their system of beliefs. That is, how do you prevent rule by the few with few civil laws? It seems to me the natural order of things would lead to that state under a libertarian philosophy.


Those billionaires would be millionaires if not for the Federal Reserve's policies over the last 100 years.

Libertarians are all for the elimination of the Fed. The current income disparities are because the bottom is making less, not specifically that the top is making more, in normalized gold backed 1900 dollars.

All monopolies and powers are dependant on government regulations and subsidies or the derivatives of regulations and subsidies. It is easier for a huge corporation to deal with legal problems than for a mid sized business or a start up company.

Libertarians abhor government regulations and subsidies.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
It seems Ive changed a little since taking this test last. Not quite sure what to think!



Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
My main issue with Libertarianism is that they see the government as being so oppressive yet turn a blind eye towards the oppression of privatized enterprise.

They also ignore the fact that without a strong sense of community, something America and most western countries now lack, there needs to be some kind of social security/welfare system.

I think libertarians range from idealist to just plain selfish, but they're better than right-wingers and I do like how they lack the self-righteous bitchiness of left-wingers. I just disagree with their ideology about the only purpose of the government being defense and punishment of criminal individuals - I think the government also has a place in protecting its citizens from predatory enterprise and in giving society a safety net and giving people a voice.

As much as people have been trained to believe you vote with your consumption, it's really not true. Often times, people don't have a choice as to what to buy, or where to shop, since their resources are often limited.
edit on 3-2-2013 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


I guess I could have a sprinkling of "idealist" in me. I don't consider myself selfish and I do what I can to help others with what the "nanny/police state" doesn't take away.

At the root of my personal philosophy is personal freedom AND personal responsibility. I am fiscally responsible and socially liberal I guess. I don't really care how other people choose to live their lives as long as it doesn't impede upon MY freedoms to do the same. I am not against helping those that are in need. I am a human being after all. I do have issue that the "system" uses and loses more money than it gives out because of bureaucracy... that equals wasted money in my opinion... If they actually used some of those people to control fraud and abuse, it might almost be worth it...but they don't. Big Gov costs too much...period. It wastes and blows the resources that should be going to those in need.

As far as being fiscally responsible, I do not go heavy into debt so I can have the newest "toys" right now. I do not, for the most part, spend money that I do not have. I do not expect my kids and grandkids to pay my debts after I am dead and gone. If our Government would only work with the expected revenues of the next year, we would not have the problems we are now having with debt and deficit.
edit on 2/3/2013 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
44
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join