a question on libertarianism

[Mint]

     Pretty clearly option three. Anyone who says options one or two ought to read up on what libertarianism actually is.

Eh, there's a lot of libertarians who to some extent or another fit under option 2.

[Mint]

     Pretty clearly option three. Anyone who says options one or two ought to read up on what libertarianism actually is.

Eh, there's a lot of libertarians who to some extent or another fit under option 2.

Including yourself, as you aren't a libertarian.

I wouldn't really call myself a 'conservative.' I do have a conservative outlook on some aspects of modern society other than the economy or social issues likes guns/affirmative action/school choice where the right and 'north' typically overlap.. But I'm not exactly Ron Paul.

[Mint]

     Pretty clearly option three. Anyone who says options one or two ought to read up on what libertarianism actually is.

Eh, there's a lot of libertarians who to some extent or another fit under option 2.

Including yourself, as you aren't a libertarian.

I wouldn't really call myself a 'conservative.' I do have a conservative outlook on some aspects of modern society other than the economy or social issues likes guns/affirmative action/school choice where the right and 'north' typically overlap.. But I'm not exactly Ron Paul.

Conservatism and libertarianism are fundamentally antithetical. Western society itself is built on a social superstructure that, of necessity, denies to the individual the furthest possible extent of his liberty. And anything that destroys that antiquated world-order I consider a friend.

Too many people advocate mere unrestrained capitalism and call themselves 'libertarian', and everything I do on this forum is dedicated to combating that. Economic freedom without unbridled personal freedom is an exercise in mass hypocrisy.

I have no idea what you're talking about to be honest, although what it sounds like is that you basically want society to go away.

Where I'm coming from is really pretty simple. I view a lot of modern trends like multi-culturalism, moral relativism, the destruction of the family, etc. to be extremely negative. I think they've created a very atomised and dysfunctional society and at least in part have fueled some of the authoritarianism we see now as people try to restore some semblance of 'order' to society. Now does that mean I'm anti gay rights/anti-feminism/fundamentalist/etc.? No.

[Mint]

Where I'm coming from is really pretty simple. I view a lot of modern trends like multi-culturalism, moral relativism, the destruction of the family, etc. to be extremely negative. I think they've created a very atomised and dysfunctional society and at least in part have fueled some of the authoritarianism we see now as people try to restore some semblance of 'order' to society. Now does that mean I'm anti gay rights/anti-feminism/fundamentalist/etc.? No.

Those aren't real concerns. Protip: the American ideal of a hegemonic culture in which virtually everyone knows their parents and the nuclear family exists in virtually every household is a myth. It has never been real.

That's not what I'm talking about. Obviously the concept of nuclear family has only been around since the 19th century or so. However, the family structure now is far weaker in this country than it ever has been. You used to have a lot more care for elders, extended family, real shared responsibility in childcare (not daycare or whatever), etc. All of that has fallen by the wayside thanks to a combination of changing social attitudes and economic pressure. I find it hard to view that as anything other than a net negative for society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh sure it was around. But was it ever widely accepted in our society? No. That is essentially my point. I am not a christian at all.. Actually it's entirely because I am opposed to the beliefs of fundamentalists like radical muslims and conservative christians (of all stripes) that I am against the concepts of 'multiculturalism' and 'relativism.' I view those as detrimental towards liberal values and the survival of the best of our civilization in the long term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's hilarious since my biggest criticism of the government outside of spending (in large part to BAIL OUT companies) has been the deregulation of derivatives/big agra/telecoms/other politically powerful interests. If I want to give anyone more leeway, it's small business and people like that. They're the ones being targeted right now while parasites at the top continue to eat us all alive.

[Mint]

So? If an individual has no desire to contribute to his or her family, should we blame the ever-nebulous word "society" for that? Or are they responsible at the end of the day for their own world-view and their own life choices?

I'm talking about the consequences for society as a whole here. It has nothing to do with assigning blame, which is sort of futile because it would take several pages to really list all the contributing factors to the trends I'm talking about here. I do not think government can really solve this problem, nor do I really think that's necessarily appropriate. It's up to society as a whole to recognize that having a nation of stressed out single moms, grandparents rotting in nursing homes and kids hooked on ritalin spending most of their day being raised by strangers is one that's gone down the wrong path.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never claimed to be 'radically individualist.' What I am is very concerned about the extent to which the government is involved in our day to day lives. That's all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying you should not have the right to determine what is right or wrong. Nobody can take that sort of thing away from you short of something like lobotomy or extreme sedation. What I'm saying is, when you decide that no actions or beliefs are preferable to each other it's a two way street. You're opening the door to something like sharia law being treated as valid instead of the barbarism that it is. And if you don't believe me go take a look at what's going in countries like Germany right now. It's a disgrace.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have no idea what you're talking about here, as usual. I've called missile defense and the appropriations process a gigantic waste of money and specifically attacked Reagan for escalating it. I've attacked the Democrats too for continuing to increase the budget instead of at least freezing it and rolling back all these no bid contracts and garbage like that. Oh and from the beginning I've said that the number of bases we have overseas should be immediately cut.

[Mint]

lol

Einzige, serious question: What is it about me that actually ruffles your feathers? Obviously there's something else going on here. Answer that and maybe I'll give you a serious reply.

[Mint]

Einzige, you've accused me of literally lying about my positions not just my ideology. Obviously there's some other personal issue here.

[Mint]

lol

Okay so I've lied about being pro choice, pro gay rights (and bisexual), pro drug legalization, pro legalized prostitution, anti-obscenity laws/fcc, anti-patriot act, anti-military industrial complex, etc. I'm really an evangelical Republican. Yeah, that's not paranoid.

[Mint]

What you lie about, dear sir, is your opposition to the corporate State: you don't denounce in no uncertain terms any private-public "partnering"

Why should I, if I think it will provide services as less cost and there's actual competition? That's not to say I think that's an effective policy for everything. For example, I've called out the health insurance 'mandates' and subsidies we have now as expensive failures/gifts to political contributors.

Also again, I've attacked the bail outs for months now. Those dwarf any of those other issues in terms of cost and long term impact. To call me 'pro corporate' when I've said that giving out free money to failed/corrupt industries is my biggest issue is just ignorant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I called out the tax rebates in the stimulus and Bush's use of them before as basically back door welfare, especially when they went to people who didn't even pay income tax. That was actually one of the reasons I gave for why the Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts were more effective than Bush's.. And no I'm not going to dig through several threads to find them again, you should remember it since you were there anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In case you haven't noticed, even liberals are less vocal on social issues here lately... Because we have several different economic crises going on. That's where most of the debate is in this country now, never mind this forum.