[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

What Did You See Today? - NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 31, 2016 - 4:38pm
 
Trump - R_P - May 31, 2016 - 4:31pm
 
BACK TO THE 80's - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 31, 2016 - 4:03pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - kctomato - May 31, 2016 - 3:36pm
 
Back to the 70's - bokey - May 31, 2016 - 3:35pm
 
Ask the Libertarian - Lazy8 - May 31, 2016 - 3:31pm
 
The End of Europe - Lazy8 - May 31, 2016 - 2:02pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 31, 2016 - 1:53pm
 
Alternative Lifestyles. - buddy - May 31, 2016 - 1:51pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - BlueHeronDruid - May 31, 2016 - 1:44pm
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - Antigone - May 31, 2016 - 12:49pm
 
RP3 Beta Player - Beaker - May 31, 2016 - 11:59am
 
Back to the 60's - R_P - May 31, 2016 - 11:46am
 
Infinite cat - Proclivities - May 31, 2016 - 10:21am
 
Bernie Sanders 2016? - #feelthebern - rotekz - May 31, 2016 - 9:17am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - May 31, 2016 - 8:26am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - rhahl - May 31, 2016 - 8:26am
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - May 31, 2016 - 8:25am
 
30's Got Your Back? - oldviolin - May 31, 2016 - 8:20am
 
Unindicted felon: candidate Hillary Clinton - rotekz - May 31, 2016 - 7:16am
 
The Image Post - Proclivities - May 31, 2016 - 7:15am
 
Gums - Proclivities - May 31, 2016 - 6:39am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Lazy8 - May 31, 2016 - 6:21am
 
The war on Funk is over! - rhahl - May 31, 2016 - 4:53am
 
Favorite Quotes - meower - May 31, 2016 - 4:48am
 
Baseball, anyone? - miamizsun - May 31, 2016 - 4:17am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - Alchemist - May 30, 2016 - 11:48pm
 
Australian Listeners - jab49 - May 30, 2016 - 11:38pm
 
Back to the 00's - R_P - May 30, 2016 - 8:02pm
 
Back to the 90's - R_P - May 30, 2016 - 7:57pm
 
What are you reading now? - rhahl - May 30, 2016 - 7:42pm
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - muzik - May 30, 2016 - 7:32pm
 
Private messages in a public forum - Beaker - May 30, 2016 - 7:23pm
 
Things You Thought Today - muzik - May 30, 2016 - 7:20pm
 
Animal Resistance - haresfur - May 30, 2016 - 7:13pm
 
World Music - rhahl - May 30, 2016 - 7:12pm
 
Try something different. - rhahl - May 30, 2016 - 7:08pm
 
Happy RP Anniversary! - Coaxial - May 30, 2016 - 6:50pm
 
Acustic Guitar - rhahl - May 30, 2016 - 6:39pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - rhahl - May 30, 2016 - 6:33pm
 
Live Music - rhahl - May 30, 2016 - 6:25pm
 
Name My Band - muzik - May 30, 2016 - 5:12pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - muzik - May 30, 2016 - 4:36pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - muzik - May 30, 2016 - 4:30pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - bokey - May 30, 2016 - 4:21pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 30, 2016 - 2:38pm
 
2016 Elections - Beaker - May 30, 2016 - 11:02am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - May 30, 2016 - 10:50am
 
Abiogenesis! - R_P - May 30, 2016 - 9:38am
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - oldviolin - May 30, 2016 - 7:46am
 
Memorial Day 2011 - Coaxial - May 30, 2016 - 7:20am
 
Memorial Day - Skydog - May 30, 2016 - 3:27am
 
Climate Change - R_P - May 29, 2016 - 6:14pm
 
OUR CATS!! - DaveInVA - May 29, 2016 - 2:18pm
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - May 29, 2016 - 1:13pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - May 29, 2016 - 12:19pm
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - May 29, 2016 - 11:50am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - May 29, 2016 - 10:37am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - May 29, 2016 - 10:34am
 
Using the cache on an Android Phone - BillG - May 29, 2016 - 10:32am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - May 29, 2016 - 8:55am
 
Beer - olivertwist - May 29, 2016 - 6:45am
 
Back To The 50's - rhahl - May 29, 2016 - 6:14am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Skydog - May 29, 2016 - 6:10am
 
Back to Last Tuesday - Coaxial - May 29, 2016 - 6:10am
 
The Prince topic - Skydog - May 29, 2016 - 6:04am
 
What did you have for lunch? - Skydog - May 29, 2016 - 5:47am
 
Turkey - Kaw - May 29, 2016 - 3:35am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - May 28, 2016 - 7:25pm
 
Post your underwear - BlueHeronDruid - May 27, 2016 - 11:57pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - R_P - May 27, 2016 - 7:18pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - May 27, 2016 - 7:12pm
 
Back to back - haresfur - May 27, 2016 - 5:37pm
 
RIP Ray Charles - oldviolin - May 27, 2016 - 5:30pm
 
Last gas price paid? - islander - May 27, 2016 - 5:28pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 139, 140, 141  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 31, 2016 - 3:31pm

aflanigan wrote:
 Lazy8 wrote:
Eh, it's Slate. 

Criticizing the publication/website is an old ploy, and may be a valid critique in the case of one with a track record of horrible journalism. Not sure what your broad brush dismissal of Slate is based on. Hopefully it's not some sort of knee jerk reaction to any article or op ed that dares be critical of big L or small l libertarianism?
 Lazy8 wrote:
 I bet I could find enough colorful folks to make the two incumbent parties look insane at their conventions.. 

Uh, thanks for reiterating what I already said, I guess.

Seriously, though, what about Stevenson's thesis? Would a big win on a national level by a former libertarian who either became a D or R, or otherwise dissociated themselves from the LP, potentially give the party greater visibility, and perhaps move them towards political relevance in the 21st century? Should Johnson take him up on his suggestion, do you think?

What thesis? He set out to make Libertarians look ridiculous. He said as much:
Johnson was guarded as we spoke, parrying my efforts to get him to admit that the core of his party is a pack of weirdos.

This wasn't a serious attempt at examining the Libertarian party, it was an attempt to ridicule it and its candidates. I didn't see any suggestion on the author's part, but neither he nor you seem to have heard of Ron Paul. He resigned the Republican party in 1985, ran as the Libertarian party nominee for president in 1988, returned to Congress as a Republican in 1996, and ran for the Republican nomination for president twice more—which seems to be the path you're suggesting.

Did he raise the LP's visibility? Not that I can detect. He did start a movement (Young Americans for Liberty) which has remained independent of the party and focused on lower-case-l politics, mostly encouraging libertarian-ish Republicans like Justine Amash, Rand Paul, and Thomas Massie. They are more movement-oriented than partisan.

The rah-rah aspects of partisan politics don't interest most libertarians, which is one reason we suck at it. Yes, that's how the game is played, but we don't like the game and don't want to reinforce a system that requires people to get good at politics in order to get things accomplished. It would have been nice to see an article that examined what it was that got all those weirdos into that convention in the first place, but we're not going to get that from Slate.
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: May 31, 2016 - 2:19pm

 Lazy8 wrote:


Eh, it's Slate. 

Criticizing the publication/website is an old ploy, and may be a valid critique in the case of one with a track record of horrible journalism. Not sure what your broad brush dismissal of Slate is based on. Hopefully it's not some sort of knee jerk reaction to any article or op ed that dares be critical of big L or small l libertarianism?
 Lazy8 wrote:

 I bet I could find enough colorful folks to make the two incumbent parties look insane at their conventions.. 


Uh, thanks for reiterating what I already said, I guess.

Seriously, though, what about Stevenson's thesis? Would a big win on a national level by a former libertarian who either became a D or R, or otherwise dissociated themselves from the LP, potentially give the party greater visibility, and perhaps move them towards political relevance in the 21st century? Should Johnson take him up on his suggestion, do you think?
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 31, 2016 - 12:52pm

 aflanigan wrote:
A rather unflattering portrait of the LP convention, but an interesting read.

I think the characterization of libertarians as "loons" is unfair, and I suspect some of the crazies that show up at any party convention (they all have their crazies) are not truly representative of typical voters of party X. I changed the rather insulting article title so as not to offend some of our more sensitive libertarians (I know, a typical liberal PC attitude, right?)

Notes from Libertarian Party Convention
Anyway, the main thesis of the article is interesting, and seems to be the strategy that the Pauls (Ron and Rand, not the Popes) have followed.

Eh, it's Slate. Libertarians are the monsters they would scare their kids with, if they could imagine themselves violating their safe spaces.

And while a Libertarian convention makes the job easier I bet I could find enough colorful folks to make the two incumbent parties look insane at their conventions...if the leading candidates weren't enough.

Which they are.

aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: May 31, 2016 - 10:17am

A rather unflattering portrait of the LP convention, but an interesting read.

I think the characterization of libertarians as "loons" is unfair, and I suspect some of the crazies that show up at any party convention (they all have their crazies) are not truly representative of typical voters of party X. I changed the rather insulting article title so as not to offend some of our more sensitive libertarians (I know, a typical liberal PC attitude, right?)

Notes from Libertarian Party Convention
Anyway, the main thesis of the article is interesting, and seems to be the strategy that the Pauls (Ron and Rand, not the Popes) have followed.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 30, 2016 - 7:27am

 R_P wrote:
Putting the 'partay' back in the LP...

This is why we can't have nice elections.

That said, I find this less offensive than Debbie Wassserman Schultz lying or Reince Priebus trying to gild the turd that is his party's candidate.
R_P
Ni dieu ni maître
R_P Avatar



Posted: May 30, 2016 - 12:27am

Putting the 'partay' back in the LP...

Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 24, 2016 - 3:22pm

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
hmm....  I am ready to concede that violence of the law is a pretty good description of the state's self-proclaimed monopoly on the power of coercion.

what I am missing though is a framework that gives me some kind of benchmark for deciding when and what is appropriate.

That's actually the easy part.

A just law protects rights. A further constraint is that everybody has the same rights, so a just law can't be used to give one class of people advantage over another.

If a law punishes someone's behavior that does not result in violating someone else's rights that law is unjust.

The older I get, the less certain I get about any kind of hard and fast ideals to hang such a framework on. I am generally a big fan of redistributing wealth so that the fruits of civilisation are at least attainable for all. The work needed to get off your butt to pick that fruit is something else again but I am against any system that de facto makes certain benefits beyond the reach of any particular individual. For all the cleanliness of its philosophy I still don't know how libertarianism can realise this without some form of coerced or "enlightened" voluntary distribution.

It can't. Libertarianism (as a philosophy) has no social goals—society should evolve free from coercive constraint. You'd be free to dedicate your life—your life, no one else's—to pursuing that goal within a libertarian framework, but you wouldn't be able to force anyone to help you.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 24, 2016 - 3:06pm

 ErikX wrote:
Why are so many Libertarians becoming pro-life these days? Or prolife Republocrats switching to Libertarian Party?  Or Libertarians switching to GOP and supporting prolife, like Rand Paul etc. 
Ayn Rand would be rolling in her grave. lol 

Ayn Rand was never a libertarian, so she wouldn't have a dog in that fight.

Libertarianism is rooted in moral philosophy, but it is a political philosophy rather than one of personal morality. The central concern of libertarians is not what is right and wrong, but what should the state do, and the state acts in only two ways: by paying people and by threatening to use force on them. The latter is the concern of law, where the abortion issue usually arises.

Anything enacted into law (a ban on abortion, for instance) is essentially a threat to use force against people engaging in that thing. While there are libertarians who assert that fetuses are humans and should have their rights protected from their mothers' desire to get rid of them; those same folks would fight for those same mothers' rights to make other live-and-death decisions for those same fetuses months later, so I don't see that as philosophically consistent, but that's me so hey.

Rand Paul is comfortable enough with the label Republican that he runs as one. As for the others...don't know who you're talking about but there is a diversity of opinion among libertarians about the moral acceptability of abortion. The :Libertarian Party platform (a measure of orthodoxy) has been pro-choice since 1982.


aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: May 24, 2016 - 1:48pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 aflanigan wrote:
So who's going to the Libertarian Convention in Orlando this weekend?

I'm hoping you can pick me up some "Libertarian Party: Not Republocrats!" Merch. Men's medium, please. Hat size 7 3/8 

This year's theme is "Legalize Freedom", which is almost as lame.

I do have a bumper sticker tho, and I'm trying to think of a bet I can make with you that ends with you putting it on your car...

 
It would be right at home next to my "Vermin Supreme" bumper sticker.

EDIT: A bet/contest sounds intriguing. Maybe a word salad contest? 

We could each take up our favored political bent of the moment, Progressivism or Modern Liberalism for me, Libertarianism or Classic Liberalism for you, and try and generate the most garbled, inane, nonsensical paragraph or two that includes a handful of keywords in it (like social contract, liberty, economic freedom, tragedy of the commons, etc.) .

The challenge then would be to find a judge to declare a winner if we can't agree amongst ourselves. 

Or we could do something more straightforward, like betting on a particular occurrence during the upcoming convention season (Donald Trump exhibiting his member during his acceptance speech, just as a hypothetical example, or Hillary Clinton barking like a dog).
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: May 24, 2016 - 1:34pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
" It only seeks to shift the burden of proof concerning when it is appropriate to unleash the violence of the law on people"
 
hmm....  I am ready to concede that violence of the law is a pretty good description of the state's self-proclaimed monopoly on the power of coercion.

what I am missing though is a framework that gives me some kind of benchmark for deciding when and what is appropriate.

The older I get, the less certain I get about any kind of hard and fast ideals to hang such a framework on. I am generally a big fan of redistributing wealth so that the fruits of civilisation are at least attainable for all. The work needed to get off your butt to pick that fruit is something else again but I am against any system that de facto makes certain benefits beyond the reach of any particular individual. For all the cleanliness of its philosophy I still don't know how libertarianism can realise this without some form of coerced or "enlightened" voluntary distribution.

 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 24, 2016 - 1:33pm

 aflanigan wrote:
So who's going to the Libertarian Convention in Orlando this weekend?

I'm hoping you can pick me up some "Libertarian Party: Not Republocrats!" Merch. Men's medium, please. Hat size 7 3/8 

This year's theme is "Legalize Freedom", which is almost as lame.

I do have a bumper sticker tho, and I'm trying to think of a bet I can make with you that ends with you putting it on your car...
ErikX

ErikX Avatar



Posted: May 24, 2016 - 12:51pm

Why are so many Libertarians becoming pro-life these days? Or prolife Republicans switching to Libertarian Party?  Or Libertarians switching to GOP and supporting prolife, like Rand Paul etc. 
Ayn Rand would be rolling in her grave. lol 


aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: May 24, 2016 - 12:42pm

So who's going to the Libertarian Convention in Orlando this weekend?

I'm hoping you can pick me up some "Libertarian Party: Not Republocrats!" Merch. Men's medium, please. Hat size 7 3/8 
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 31, 2016 - 8:28am

Gary Johnson For Dummies

 

http://theodysseyonline.com/columbus-st/gary-johnson-for-dummies/383068

 

 


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 26, 2016 - 8:34am

Tibor Machan has died.

He was a founding editor for Reason magazine and a huge influence on libertarian thought. This is the best obituary I've seen so far. A snippet:

Tibor R. Machan on the Questions that Matter

A great philosopher and journalist has died


Amid this fog, Machan’s contributions to the volume were a brilliant shaft of light and clarity. He brought around the focus of debate to the crucial issue. Regardless of your views on culture, philosophy, literature, religion, morality and so on, the central question that society needs to answer is the following: under what conditions are you willing to use the force of law, the coercion of the state, to impose your views on others? If you are willing to do that, are you also willing to consider the costs of doing so and take responsibility for the results?

He made this point again and again in this book and throughout his life. He had to repeat and repeat it, because his interlocutors proved themselves oddly unwilling to even address it. The conservatives in this volume could write pages about the glories of Western philosophy, the need for moral absolutism, the merit of tradition, and so on, but never quite get around to that critical question: what should the state do about it?

This is where Machan’s libertarianism provided clarity. His answer is a good rule of thumb: the law only pertains where there is aggression on life and property. No, this doesn’t provide an all-encompassing answer to all life’s mysteries, and it does not guarantee specific social outcomes, but libertarianism doesn’t seek to do that. It only seeks to shift the burden of proof concerning when it is appropriate to unleash the violence of the law on people
 

black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Mar 18, 2016 - 10:55am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Sorry for stumbling in here at an inappropriate time (considering everyone is in a huff over the election) but I am still trying to get my head around what people are actually talking about (and given that I am probably going to fail at even describing my problem, I won’t be too surprised if the following long rant quickly gets buried.. c’est la vie).. Right, we currently have a situation where most if not all world economies are muddling along with some kind of welfare state based on a classic distinction between the public sector and the private sector. A full-on public sector (command economy) appears to have failed on a grand scale (the soviet model) and unbridled private enterprise also seems to go off the rails periodically, encouraging state intervention in the twin forms of regulation and rescue packages.  So most states muddle along with something in the middle.

 Yet, we currently have enormous dissatisfaction worldwide with such centrist policies as real incomes have fallen relative to the total wealth of the economy. Inequality* is at incredible levels, health services are under severe strain, and nationalist reactionaries a la Trump are enjoying new-found popularity.

 At the same time, government regulation and intervention is extreme and growing, as though it were subject to some kind of internal growth dynamic and not subject to any evolutionary checks or controls. Whether we like it or not, most decisions are not made in political forums but in backroom committees and meetings within large organizations, all of whom are subject to the rules of logic and to inputs that seem given.

My question: where in this giant web of givens, is the room for individual human freedom? Is this what libertarians are on about?  And given how entrenched these structures are, is the libertarian movement just an example of glorious naïveté?

 Or are we just spoilt kids who no longer appreciate the freedoms this giant modern economy gives us (internet chatrooms, the ability to buy coffee from some far-off country, access to doctors, education etc.) and we just don’t know how good we’ve got it? Are these two aims (1. individual freedoms (from wants, from regulation, from stinky neighbors, etc) and 2. the maximization of wealth and living standards) mutually exclusive? i.e. can this level of wealth even exist without large organizational structures like governments and giant corporations? Conversely if you need such large structures, can you have them yet still maximize individual liberties and dismantle all the rules that make them run?

 Or to put it another way, large structures require concessions on the part of the individual. Indeed, it is impossible to cut the individual’s own private wants and needs out of the larger organizational context in which the individual finds him or herself. Thus you get the clichéd government man, the corporate hack, the social worker, etc. all of which are typologies that only exist in an organizational structure. And without that context you have removed about 90% of what makes us social beings.

In my view, there aren’t too many ways out of this paradox. The first is some kind of Rousseau-ean identification with the larger organization. The individual here becomes free because his wants and ideals don’t jar with those of the larger organization (in the end this is also how Marx tried to solve the paradox by appealing to a strange thing called “class consciousness”), or you dismantle the organization’s inherent needs and wants and make them secondary to those of the individual (the current buzz words are diversity and inclusiveness) and run the risk of not getting anything done because everything gets mired in the noise and bedlam of democracy. Or you just don’t have long-standing large structures, but then you run the risk of losing the benefits of large logical structures and mass production, etc.

Now, I fully realize this is old territory that we have covered before. But I personally suspect the true course of history from here on in is already set by the structures we have in place crashing into some hard constraints. It is nice to talk about ideals like human rights and freedoms and so on but let’s not kid ourselves, history is going to pan out as a reaction to the stuff we are confronting today. The issue is, what form is that reaction going to take? A return to romantic nationalism (a la Trump), an extension of bureaucracy (a la the EU), an all embracing global village (a la TTIP), a descent into war and destruction (a la WWI and WWII)? Or will we humans just get sidelined as AI takes over production pursuing its own logic?

 

Nice post.  As I was reading it, a couple of points came to mind.  First, the regulations are meant to keep the greedy large corporations from going the off the rail, yet they seem more burden the smaller less efficient businesses...who are more directly related to the "individuals" you speak of.  One model I've seen that works (at least somewhat) in markets dominated by larger national players is the cooperative.  Specifically, in the supermarket industry it allows smaller independents to compete against larger national chains like Kroger by pooling their purchasing power, thereby giving the independent similar scale of its larger competitor.  Now, if you look at ACA (Obamacare), most of the larger companies (major drug manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and providers) have been singing its praise in the form of higher sales despite some margin pressure from lower reimbursement rates.  Conversely, the smaller cos., docs operating independently, appear to be struggling with the cut in rates.  Perhaps here some cooperative model would help...not only from a procurement level, but also in pooling their own risks and helping reduce their malpractice insurance...bottom line, if you can't beat the big uns, join em. 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 18, 2016 - 8:42am

What? WHAT????
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 11, 2016 - 6:08am

 kurtster wrote:

As stated repeatedly, my first test is all about illegal immigration and getting that fixed.  I think that Bernie and Trump are more similar.  But it gets back to this for me.  No borders, no country.  As to Hillary and Trump, I find plenty of differences.  The biggest is in foreign policy.

 
Yes, I think you answered your own question in regards to why you support Trump; tougher immigration stance is your most important issue so it does make sense for you to support him.
kurtster
waiting ...
kurtster Avatar

Location: ymmv
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 11, 2016 - 6:02am

 sirdroseph wrote:

I will be honest kurt, I don't understand how anyone who considers themselves libertarian, small or large L could support Trump.  He is just another authoritarian statist with a different speaking style and hairdo.  Bernie Sanders has more Libertarian positions than Trump.  If you stick to strictly the policy issues, other than immigration Trump and Clinton are the most similar imo.

 
As stated repeatedly, my first test is all about illegal immigration and getting that fixed.  I think that Bernie and Trump are more similar.  But it gets back to this for me.  No borders, no country.  As to Hillary and Trump, I find plenty of differences.  The biggest is in foreign policy.
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 11, 2016 - 5:45am

 kurtster wrote:

I guess that you are referring to me.  Yeah, I consider myself a small-L libertarian.  Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is how I have identified myself for 50 or so years.  If that qualifies as one definition of a small-L libertarian, then yes.  Otherwise how would you or anyone else define that position ?

Where does one fit into the political party spectrum with these values ?  That is if one wants to pick sides when voting for candidates that might actually win ?  

If you are seeking a logic based explanation for those who support Trump, I doubt you will find one.  If you think that someone with my values supporting Trump is inconsistent with those values, so be it.  But then again most people really don't understand how anyone who is compos mentis can support Trump.


 
I will be honest kurt, I don't understand how anyone who considers themselves libertarian, small or large L could support Trump.  He is just another authoritarian statist with a different speaking style and hairdo.  Bernie Sanders has more Libertarian positions than Trump.  If you stick to strictly the policy issues, other than immigration Trump and Clinton are the most similar imo.
Trump Rides The Wave of American Fascism

 

 

Side note; it is shocking how much FDR looks like my dad.{#Eek}




Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 139, 140, 141  Next