Libertarian Values

page: 5
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I just wanted to add ..

I am mindful that it is easy for me to sit here and knock holes in any form of government. Truth is they all are different variations of benefits and costs and anyone could pick them apart quite easily.

As to Libertarianism, it would make more sense to me if the premise was the reduction of government in ANY form and level rather than the substitution of the Federal for the State or from national to local.

Not that would embrace it, but simply acknowledge its advantages.


Reduction of Government IS Libertarianism. This includes reduction of state government.

I do have slightly different views than Rockpuck...who we found in the test is no hardcore Libertarian anyway.




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Hey, I'm a:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97



In the same area as Ghandi...well, guess I do enjoy wearing sandals and letting my toes breath...



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Ah, well there you go.

It was all rockpuck's fault.


I don't know sky, it seems to me that libertarianism is an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.

One can almost look at it as the first step after the "social contract" where the bare minimum of laws and parameters were required to achieve communal survival.

There is something beautiful in that simplicity but I fear those days are long behind us. It would be too long a topic to go into here but there are many issues such as population scope, technology, communication, crime, even human nature itself, that work against it.

Remember, right after the social contract we were all basically libertarians, the more society grew and technology evolved the more "rules" we started stacking on top of each other to contain the extremes.

Thus where we are today is no accident but merely the result of social and temporal causality.

Though a virtuous sentiment, hard to be reductionist in practice in this context.

[edit on 1 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Wow. This is a cool post. I enjoyed the small quiz. I have often really wondered where I was closest to politically out of the world leaders. Turns out that I am closest to the Dali Lama and Gandhi.



You really put this together well, Skyfloating. One could make this kind of material (like your post) into a pamphlet to distribute around workplaces, bus stops, restaurants and the like to really inform people about the hypocrisy of the two party system. This would be bound to create more Libertarians, or maybe even solidify the base of the existing parties.

[edit on 02/21/09 by daeoeste]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
One can almost look at it as the first step after the "social contract" where the bare minimum of laws and parameters were required to achieve communal survival.


Its less the belief in the good ol stone-age and more the belief in the inherent goodness of mankind if they are left to their own responsibility.

You see, people who are waiting for the government to fix it (left-wingers) or for the government to lead the way (right-wingers) are going to wait in vain. Havent you noticed?



There is something beautiful in that simplicity but I fear those days are long behind us. It would be too long a topic to go into here but there are many issues such as population scope, technology, communication, crime, even human nature itself, that work against it.


In that paragraph you added "human nature itself". Critics of Libertarianism propose that "human nature is inherently faulty and needs to be fixed by an outside authority". But in my opinion that very concept is the cause of societal suffering.



Remember, right after the social contract we were all basically libertarians, the more society grew and technology evolved the more "rules" we started stacking on top of each other to contain the extremes.


And how is it working? Its working OK...but it could be better. Which is why I am not saying "Libertarianism is the final answer". I am saying its an ADDITIONAL viewpoint that needs to be factored in.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And how is it working? Its working OK...but it could be better. Which is why I am not saying "Libertarianism is the final answer". I am saying its an ADDITIONAL viewpoint that needs to be factored in.


I see what you're doing sky, but it doesn't work that way.


You are trying to reconcile this plain of existence with the "truth."

Silly man ...

You know better that I do that suffering "here" is precisely what is required to trigger awakening/liberation.

In this context when you ask "how is it working?" my answer would be:

To the degree that the word "working" has a real meaning, Exactly as it is meant to.





[edit on 1 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Before getting all metaphysical, just a practical question:

Do you feel that people are relying too much on a government to fix stuff for them?



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


A socratic question?


"Too Much" is kind of hard to pin down.

I guess my answer would be probably, but then again it is in the nature of people to seek outwardly what they already possess inwardly. Same applies to religion, relationships, etc.

On a more pragmatic context, I find it hard to imagine a functional society in today's world without "big" institutions. We actually have a recent model for this: The Internet.

It would be great if we didn't need to worry about sexual predators, or scam artists, etc, but recent history has shown us that boundaries and control systems are necessary.

Same thing with government, we can argue all day about how much is too much and how little is too little but there will always be a minimum and maximum need.

And in my opinion none of the multiple variations and permutations of "level" of government is likely to be significantly superior to the other.

Cause this is how we learn.





[edit on 1 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Btw, I think that political test is a scam in itself. The questions are a bit loaded.

For example:



The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.


I both agree and disagree with this. I do think a company should be more responsible than just delivering a profit to it's shareholders. But at the same time, I strongly disagree that companies should at the same time be forced into doing so. The only thing worse than a company that only worries about profit is a government trying to force that company into worrying about other things.

Is it not possible to have an opinion on something without trying to force that opinion onto others? Can't I just think such companies are bad without forcing them to do things? Where is that option?

Seems to be more a "language you will buy for the answer we want" test than a political compass. Frank Luntz style.

The LP had one on their site a few years ago that I think was much better, much more direct on the answers as well.

Another thing about the LP is that while I do believe the Libertarian values are the best and correct way, I at the same time realize what a shock to the nation it would be to try and do this all at once. One of the main things I liked about Ron Paul was he seemed to "get" this. And while these are the end goals, you can't just throw people who have become dependent on government programs out on the street overnight. You would cause many problems doing that, but over time you could get them off the "government tit". Throwing some 80 year old lady on the street and telling her to get a job isn't very bright.







[edit on 1-4-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Skyfloating, this is an awesome thread. Just awesome.

I took a lot of these tests and I was always squarely libertarian. In fact, I wish I had voted for Bob Barr as oppsoed to Chuck Baldwin.

If not for a two-party system, I could see the Libertarian Party gaining a lot of traction. I am planning to drop my registration with the Republican Party and register with the Libertarian Party.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Almost all of us fall in the ghandi/dalai lama area...

guess great minds think alike, eh guys?



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
So pretty much what Libertarians want is to rewrite the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Bill of Rights, and write a new Declaration of Independence. In conclusion, you want to create your own country. A country in which every man rules himself, hence anarchy rules, which is nothing more than chaos.

If every person was left to govern himself/herself, as an example, people will be breaking traffic laws because everyone would be governing himself/herself, and ignoring any laws they want to, some people would be drinking alcohol meanwhile driving just because it "is nobody's business". People would be free to do as they please without any consequences etc, etc, etc. You get my point.

There is one reason why Democrats and Republicans at times seem the same, and one of those reasons is that originally there was one party in which all the forefathers agreed on, and that was for every American to be an advocate of the Republic, which is what a true Republican is, and how this nation was founded, as a Republic. There is another reason why they seem to be trying to destroy the Republic lately, which is in great part due to corruption, but anyway let's leave that for later.

The forefathers of this nation made evident, and to the point what sort of government should be guaranteed in the Republic, and they wrote it in the Constitution so that future generations of Americans will never forget, but of course future generations of Americans for the most part do not concern themselves with reading those same living documents by which this nation was founded, even though people from almost all of the parties like to refer to one, or two parts of the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, while ignoring the rest.

Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitutions clearly states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

www.usconstitution.net...

Then the forefathers began to argue, actually even before they agreed on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and every principle which this nation is supposed to uphold. So the Forefathers began bickering once again, and decided to start making their own parties.

Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison decided to create the Democratic-Republican Party, which once again started as one party, and was in response to Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party, or Federalists.

The advocates of the Democratic-Republican Party saw themselves for the most part as Republicans, but sometimes as Democrats, until they started to split up, and formed the two main parties which have been bickering back and forth for over a hundred years. Then more people started to come up with their own parties, adding more to the confusion, meanwhile most Americans forgot to make themselves knowledgeable about those living documents which are the spirit of this nation, and it's backbone adding even more to the confusion.

Now we have apart from the Democrat, and Republican Party, the Constitutionalists, the Anarchists, the Liberals, the Socialists, the Communists, the Corpocracy, and probably I am missing some, but at the end this is only dividing Americans more, meanwhile everyone wants to have their own form of government, which will forever destroy the Republic which our forefathers managed to agree on, if only for a sort period of time.

As for the claim that Republicans love war, and Democrats love Freedom, obviously such person is forgetting American history, because in fact Democrats have started as many, if not more wars than Republicans. Even Clinton before he gave the office to Bush had already set up an international organization that was set up for military action against Iraq.

Unfortunately war is part of any mayor country, and more so since there are several different factions, and groups with different goals which contradicts what the other mayor players want. The Superich will side with whichever faction wins their version of a New World Order.

Anyway, Americans shouldn't try to divide from each other. This is a Republic, it is not a Democracy. In a Democracy the mob rules, and if the mob votes for it, they can take away the right of minorities.

Iraq under sadam was a Democracy, just like Germany under Hitler was a democracy, both countries had the mayority rule over minorities, and that's not what the Republic is.

Most Republicans in power are not representatives to what real Republicans are supposed to be. A Republican is an advocate of the Republic as agreed by the forefathers, and is against all forms of dictatorships.

United the nation will stand, and the Republic will survive, divided we will only give more power to TPTB.

As for tests.... anyone can come up with a similar test, and rig it any way they want to. In any major society a party in which each member rules completely himself/and herself and each person can decide what rules apply, and which rules don't apply to him, or her will only bring chaos at the end.

Americans should all see themselves as Sons, and Daughters of the Republic.



[edit on 1-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   


I tend to attribute most of the problems associated with Free-market Capitalism to our monetary policy, rather than any inherent flaws in Capitalism. I.e. the central bank. Capitalism needs very few rules for it to work right and be fair to all. Those rules just need to be enforced and they haven't been in a long time. If you want to stop the collusion between Government and Business get Government out of Business.

As far as the difference between power being at the state level vs. Federal level is more choice for sure. This may have been said somewhere else. At least if things are decided at the state level if you don't agree you would have a much better chance of finding people who are more your "type" in a different state. People would , over time tend to go with what worked for them. Also over time, you would know what state suited your tastes best and you could go live in the state that suited you best. This, IMO would let people be different while still being able to pull together at a national level when needed.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Great idea for a thread


I score near the middle which I expected.

I did end up voting Libertarian out of aversion to the other choices.

My problem is, I don't really feel any Party represents me and here I register as "Undeclared". The fact that Libertarians are a Party at all is a minus. I've never dealt well with being pigeonholed and labeled. There are issues I agree with from all Parties.

Yesterday I was on a thread were someone was trying to imply Libertarians are Republicans which amazed me.

Where I differ I guess would be my stance on a handful of items. Even so I would like to see a Libertarian President to weave their input into our Society.

At the end of the day however I come back to believing Parties should not exist and the reasons for them is self defeating as all it does is keep us at each others throats. In my mind that is their intended purpose and those who lead these Parties are phonies who flip a coin. As long as they keep us divided with labels the wrong people will always win. What I truly want is an honest, fair person who has an extra helping of common sense and pragmatism for a Leader. I don't think that person exists in any Party including the Libertarians.

I'm only a couple of squares from you on the chart so neither one of us is truly Libertarian I would guess.

Once again, very nice thread. Thanks so much.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Almost all of us fall in the ghandi/dalai lama area...

guess great minds think alike, eh guys?


Don't let that go to your head now. Mr. Ghandi Lama



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
So I am coming out at:

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13




My dot right next to the Dalai Lama's.... I'm gonna go get some coffee, and ponder that


I will say that since spending time on ATS that my political views have shifted becoming... I guess one would say more cynical. I really don't think a two party system exists except as a facade that encourages the division of the voting public.




-4.00
-5.00

for me

Gandhish



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Before getting all metaphysical, just a practical question:

Do you feel that people are relying too much on a government to fix stuff for them?




I'm not the one you asked, but damn right they are. Spoiled Brats
Pelosi is what they got and what they deserve. To honest???



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Killer post. S&F. I agree with the OP's comment about only not being able to stand the people on the extremes. I'm a big constitutionalist and supporter of the Good Dr. Thanks for posting.

Economic Left/Right: 4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Star & Flag! This is an interesting and important thread, especially when it got this old lurker to care enough to make a post.

I don't participate in political discussions at ATS because it is somewhat over run by extremists and paranoids. I can accept people with strong views, but I always find it a total waste of time debating with extremists and paranoids who have their own agenda or are totally oblivious of their extreme views. If both sides of the government don't work, it's time to consider a more reasonable middle ground government.

For me, this thread is where I seperate the extremists and paranoids from disagreeing people who are passionate and/or have the same political views as mine.

Oh yes, before I forget here is mine test result, bulleye centre:

Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.21





Thanks for your time and keep on posting people!




[edit on 1-4-2009 by Gigantopithecus]





new topics
 
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join