The word "libertarian" confuses me as well. I had thought it meant something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" (like me!). Instead, in Texas at least it seems to mean "fiscally anarchist, socially ultraconservative."
All I know about Libertarians is that they're the crazy people who think that the government shouldn't be able to buy land from its citizens for frivolous projects, like freeways.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The word "libertarian" confuses me as well. I had thought it meant something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" (like me!). Instead, in Texas at least it seems to mean "fiscally anarchist, socially ultraconservative."All I know about Libertarians is that they're the crazy people who think that the government shouldn't be able to buy land from its citizens for frivolous projects, like freeways.
There's a difference between paying a fair market price for land for infrastructure through eminent domain, and Kelo. (which is still a vacant lot... way to go Supreme court!)
|
The word "libertarian" confuses me as well. I had thought it meant something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" (like me!). Instead, in Texas at least it seems to mean "fiscally anarchist, socially ultraconservative."
While there are a huge range of Libertarians, I have never met a member of the party that was fiscally anarchist, socially ultraconservative.
Now, they can personally believe in many things but the platform for the party states the government shouldn't be in the business of legislating social issues. So, while an individual Libertarian might not like a particular group, behavior, religion etc. as a Libertarian they shouldn't be interested in limiting the things they don't approve of just because they don't like it. Live and let live is a Libertarian mode of thought.
I am not sure if these people you have met feel that way. If not, then they aren't likely going to be happy if a Libertarian ever gains a political office.
"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
That made me laugh, right there :)
I think I just mellowed a bit with age. They say if you aren't a rebel by 20 you have no heart, but if you haven't turned establishment by 30 you have no brains. I just fall kinda in the middle. Have several liberal views, yet many conservative views as well. I've always felt that most people aren't ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal. Most of us regular Joes fall somewhere in between the extremes.
|
WOW just WOW... I think it is time we just nix political debates all together.Sorry for the shock.
I just sat here, still kinda steamed, thinking that just because I said ease up on the WWII comparisons that I would be branded as some hippie liberal. I sort of lashed out, but not dishonestly.
I don't know what a liberal is really. I think of myself as having common sense, but people are free to disagree.
MLK was not a perfect man.
Neither was Ghandi.
Neither was Churchill.They were all great leaders. They accomplished great things. They were also very human.
I'm not exactly sure what my point was, but I think we can do better than just trying to draw comparisons to iconic figures. They're always different people who lived in different times and different contexts.
I do not condem placing hard facts to people. Many times we need to be reminded oour heroes are human afterall and have flaws. Many times very difficult ones to be aware of. My responce, as poorly worded as it was, was shock in the manner in which it was delivered. I have a bad habit of doing so myself and with the rhetoric being spewed anymore I find it more difficult not to do so myself at times. I have reposted 3 times once just so I didn't come out sounding like s tick turd. and as was pointed out on anther thread I still came out sounding like one. :)
|
|
The word "libertarian" confuses me as well. I had thought it meant something like "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" (like me!). Instead, in Texas at least it seems to mean "fiscally anarchist, socially ultraconservative."All I know about Libertarians is that they're the crazy people who think that the government shouldn't be able to buy land from its citizens for frivolous projects, like freeways.
That isn't completely accurate, though there are certainly differing views on that subject within the party.
As Matt said, there is a difference in paying market price and cheating the owner. That is a key part of the stance.
Some Libertarians state that the infrastructure should be managed by the federal government and that they need to pay fair market price for property they buy.
Others state the responsibility lies entirely in the hands of the States and they must pay the fair market price for the property they buy.
Others want to see something like the infrastructure placed under private control and maintained in that fashion. In this situation, it would be in the company's best interest to keep the roads in the best condition they can since they are likely going to make money out of it somehow (tolls, advertising, land to rent, etc). It would also mean that another company could, theoretically, build a "competing" road that may or may not offer different services than the original one.
Finally, there are those who believe the buying and selling of land really isn't something the government should be doing. Thus they would be out of the road making business entirely. But there is some debate about this idea and how far it goes when it comes to the needs of the state and federal governments.
Anyone interested in making an articles of liberalism similar to the articles of conservative thought on the other thread?
Registered Democrat, devout (pun intended) Al Gore fan. On the more political blogs I will often put 'Fred Phelps (D-Hell)' because I hold him in contempt. He's claimed by the left about as much as David Duke and Pat Buchannan are by the right, but there he sits. A pimple on the left butt cheek of humanity.Thank goodness I'm an Independent. Else I'll have to slit my wrists knowing I share any affiliation with that guy. He reminds me of Randall Flagg from The Stand. :P
If it helps, I'm a pretty far Lefty and I've always been a registered Republican.
Locally and statewide (FL), the political candidates are strongly skewed toward "Republican" over "Democrat" (not that those names mean much)... in nearly all election primaries, it's a single Democrat running against two or more Republicans. Sometimes, there is no Democratic candidate. If I register as a Dem or Independent, I would often have no say in the primaries. At least registering as a Repub, I get to pick the best (or least offensive) Repub candidate... I still get to vote Dem/Green/Independent during the actual election (and usually do).
Screw you conservatives and liberals, where's the radical love? Anarchists, socialists, and commies unite!*raises hand*
Social Democrat here, strong left-libertarian leanings. The American Democratic Party's dominant faction (Obama emphatically included) is quite close to being far right from where I sit.
Couldn't get behind communism, though. Too much violence and acceptance of authoritarianism (Even just in plain old Marx. Class revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat? Yeah, right.) even had it been right about all the rest, and it wasn't.
Completely agree on the communism thing. Why do you think I ended with "Okay, not the commies?"
Though I must say, being a Social Democrat with strong left-libertarian leanings doesn't neccessarily make you a radical. The political definition of radical is wanting to get at the root of the problem and change pretty much everything from the ground up.
While that may be where you stand, the fact that you identify yourself by a traditional American political label (Social Democrat) infers to me that you're quite the opposite, you're one of those "reformists." Not saying this is true, just saying how it looks to me. I don't know you, and I don't know what you think on different issues, or on the one big one (as I see it), the system in general.
Reform is something that I can't get behind because I see it as merely a patch over a hole in the system. To me, it's radical destruction and rebuilding, or nothing, because reform doesn't solve anything, it merely stopgaps the problem, which exacerbates unseen underneath the reform patch. When it finally does break through again, it's even worse. We've got to fix the problems, not just cover them up, and the problems are caused by the very way we organize our society and our economy, as well as the way that we relate to each other as human beings.
Completely agree on the communism thing. Why do you think I ended with "Okay, not the commies?"
I wasn't speculating to your reasons, only adding my own. I've been asked often enough "if you're that far left, why ain't you a commie?"
Though I must say, being a Social Democrat with strong left-libertarian leanings doesn't neccessarily make you a radical. The political definition of radical is wanting to get at the root of the problem and change pretty much everything from the ground up.
Depends on what means by radical. I was treating the term as more or less describing anybody who is a considerable distance outside the unbelievably thin range of "mainstream" discourse in the US. I do believe that the US could use some very fundamental restructuring as it's become functionally ungovernable, ossified by design and almost impossible to make meaningful changes within.
Reform is something that I can't get behind because I see it as merely a patch over a hole in the system. To me, it's radical destruction and rebuilding, or nothing, because reform doesn't solve anything, it merely stopgaps the problem, which exacerbates unseen underneath the reform patch. When it finally does break through again, it's even worse. We've got to fix the problems, not just cover them up, and the problems are caused by the very way we organize our society and our economy, as well as the way that we relate to each other as human beings.
I'm inclined to agree, but here's the hell of it: I want changes to improve the situations of people. It's true that fundamental changes can solve the problems, or at least go a very long way towards doing so. But incremental changes can still leave people better off than before. I want a total restructuring of the state and society, but if I can get some of the things I want that for through other means then that can still leave people better off than they were before. Since the whole goal is helping people, it's difficult to reject meaningful reform which accomplishes some of that. I might want to shove the goodness scale all the way up to 100%, but going from 35% to 45% is still a step in the right direction. So I've got mixed feelings. Or I would if the US political system were in the business of offering meaningful reforms.
I think it is funny that, on an RPG forum, using Hitler as an example of someone with a high charisma score is somehow seen as automatically invoking the Holocaust. Seriously, if that is the belief, stop playing D&D. I doubt Gygax, when using Hitler as an example of someone with a high charisma (DMG 1e), was invoking the Holocaust.
Gygax providing an example is quite a bit different from making a comparison or insinuation that equates Hitler to someone else.
Maybe? What do you think of the proper way the Government should use finances?
Now that's MY kind of conservative. Gay marriage? Let 'em! -- we've got a budget to balance, and don't need the distraction.
Liar. You don't have nearly enough typos.Shouldn't you guys be drinking now?Um, I'm pretty drunk right now...
Some of us make less typos when we've had a few.
Probably cause you have to work harder to find the keys. :P
Speaking for myself, it's because after a good buzz, my brain finally slows enough for the fingers to keep up.
I am a realist.
Liberal. PAH!
Conservative. meh!
...
HERDMONKEYS!
I have firefox, a few mouse clicks clears up all the typos :)Dude. I can drink and type...But can you walk and chew bubblegum at the same time?
Alcohol improves my typing ability.
Well, I once poured half a can of beer into my keyboard and it kept working.
My tower.... I think not.
Aw, c'mon, give the conservatives a break. They're going to have to live with 8 years of Obama after 8 years of being embarrassed by Bush. I think they've earned the right to gripe a lot. I know there was a lot of griping by the more liberal-minded during the Bush-Cheney administration.
Besides, not everyone of a liberal mind is exactly ecstatic with Obama so far.
I wasn't that ecstatic for him when I voted against the McCain/Palin ticket. But then again the Democrats have been an unending stream of disappointment since the 80's so I wasn't too surprised. It's getting to the point where I (almost) miss Clinton.
And I can say without shame or apology that I voted for Nader each time he was on the ballot.
Am I a liberal? I'm not sure. but I know where I'm not and that's the cloud cuckooland the Beckist and the Dittoheads live.
I was never one of those people that looked at Obama and expected him to walk on water, but I met plenty of people that voted for him that seemed that way. Bearing in mind that the previous administration left him a huge crap pile to shovel, I've still been disillusioned; I've begun referring to him as "Bush Lite."
I'm not much opposed to people based on their liberalism and their conservatism. It usually has to do with their fanatic attachment to certain "principles" without reason. If a person can articulate their reasoning, I'm more apt to listen to them. People who quote Beck and Limbaugh and Coulter as if it was gospel, chapter, and verse don't usually qualify. Same with rabid Olbermann fans.
Gotta love Obama. Anyone who can dupe the Nobel Committee into giving them a Nobel Peace Prize for campaigning is pretty amazing. CHA definately isn't is dump stat...he's got Hitler levels of it.Please, no Hitler. Just leave that reference out of whatever point you're making. It's completely out of perspective. The Holocaust shouldn't be invoked for anything so trivial.
Note, I'm not even posting in opposition to what you wrote, not that I agree with it, but because of the seriousness of the point I'm trying to make. Invoking WWII, mass murder, and genocide on that scale because you don't like the current President is really inappropriate.
I really don't see where you're coming from with this. I've read the rest of the arguement down thread as well, and honestly, I don't see how this statement is equating Obama with Hitler in any way other then comparing their CHA.
Kthulu didn't say "Obama is like Hitler." He said "Obama and Hitler are both REALLY charismatic." It honestly is no different what-so-ever to Gygax's use of Hitler as an example of high charisma.
Don't get me wrong. I'm against the invoking of the holocaust for trivial reasons as well. I just don't see how this is invoking the holocaust, it's merely a stat comparison, and THAT'S IT.
I would like to see a fist fight between Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Sorry about the Off-Topic, but this whole thread combined with the other only provoked this simple thought.
<off topic> Marx couldn't carry Nietzsche's jockstrap. </off topic>
I really don't see where you're coming from with this. I've read the rest of the arguement down thread as well, and honestly, I don't see how this statement is equating Obama with Hitler in any way other then comparing their CHA.
Kthulu didn't say "Obama is like Hitler." He said "Obama and Hitler are both REALLY charismatic." It honestly is no different what-so-ever to Gygax's use of Hitler as an example of high charisma.
Don't get me wrong. I'm against the invoking of the holocaust for trivial reasons as well. I just don't see how this is invoking the holocaust, it's merely a stat comparison, and THAT'S IT.
There are 100's of other charismatics that one could have chosen to offer a comparison and get the same thing across. It's just when one invokes Hitler, it's become too cliche to the point of descending a civil debate into chaos. He knew what he was doing, FWIW.
There are 100's of other charismatics that one could have chosen to offer a comparison and get the same thing across. It's just when one invokes Hitler, it's become too cliche to the point of descending a civil debate into chaos. He knew what he was doing, FWIW.I really don't see where you're coming from with this. I've read the rest of the arguement down thread as well, and honestly, I don't see how this statement is equating Obama with Hitler in any way other then comparing their CHA.
Kthulu didn't say "Obama is like Hitler." He said "Obama and Hitler are both REALLY charismatic." It honestly is no different what-so-ever to Gygax's use of Hitler as an example of high charisma.
Don't get me wrong. I'm against the invoking of the holocaust for trivial reasons as well. I just don't see how this is invoking the holocaust, it's merely a stat comparison, and THAT'S IT.
Yeah, I know right. Stupid Gygax.
Yeah, I know right. Stupid Gygax.
Nice try. :P
|
Was it a bit of a jab? Yes. Was I referencing the Holocaust? Not at all. I consider the Nobel Peace Prize for campaigning thing to be more of an insult...probably because it's 100% true.
Quite frankly, I dare someone to come up with a better example of someone with exceedingly high charisma than Hitler.
Augustus Caesar?