What about the anarcho-capitalists?I don't want to be lumped in with the anarchists.
Just for one example, the argument of gay marriage is only portrayed through the media in a framework where the government either decides that yes, you CAN legally marry your gay partner, or no, you CAN'T legally marry your gay partner. There's no presentation of the idea that hey, maybe the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all and that if two people love each other, they should be free to get married and live as they please. That's just one example, but there are thousands more instances where issues are portrayed in a black/white context.what do you mean by "don't get their fair shake at representation"?
Depending on the writer, there's lots of good articles at volokh.com, especially Orin Kerr for technology and privacy.Glenn Greenwald and Radley Balko are must-reads for people concerned about civil liberties, particularly those affected by increasing police and federal anti-terrorism powers.
Yes. Specifically the red pill.Is this where we buy the drugs?
Yeah, "Official Libertarian Thread" is sufficient.libertarian <> anarchist
Sadly, there's going to be a TON of coverage on these very issues in this thread. I can promise you that.Glenn Greenwald and Radley Balko are must-reads for people concerned about civil liberties, particularly those affected by increasing police and federal anti-terrorism powers.
that was not the direction i thought the answer would go in. I think that's a very weak argument, to lament that "my voice is not being heard" in this day and age of fractured media.Just for one example, the argument of gay marriage is only portrayed through the media in a framework where the government either decides that yes, you CAN legally marry your gay partner, or no, you CAN'T legally marry your gay partner. There's no presentation of the idea that hey, maybe the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all and that if two people love each other, they should be free to get married and live as they please. That's just one example, but there are thousands more instances where issues are portrayed in a black/white context.what do you mean by "don't get their fair shake at representation"?
Don't trample on his liberties.'Al Czervik said:Dude, can you fix the title. Or at least put some spaces in so it wraps better.It's screwing up the formatting of the small window that I read the FFA in everyday.TIA.
Sure. Better?'Al Czervik said:Dude, can you fix the title. Or at least put some spaces in so it wraps better.It's screwing up the formatting of the small window that I read the FFA in everyday.TIA.
Glenn Greenwald and Radley Balko are must-reads for people concerned about civil liberties, particularly those affected by increasing police and federal anti-terrorism powers.
Well at least it's an ethos.What about the anarcho-capitalists?I don't want to be lumped in with the anarchists.
Yep. Thanks!Sure. Better?'Al Czervik said:Dude, can you fix the title. Or at least put some spaces in so it wraps better.It's screwing up the formatting of the small window that I read the FFA in everyday.TIA.
Probably not the best example. Oh well.that was not the direction i thought the answer would go in. I think that's a very weak argument, to lament that "my voice is not being heard" in this day and age of fractured media.Just for one example, the argument of gay marriage is only portrayed through the media in a framework where the government either decides that yes, you CAN legally marry your gay partner, or no, you CAN'T legally marry your gay partner. There's no presentation of the idea that hey, maybe the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all and that if two people love each other, they should be free to get married and live as they please. That's just one example, but there are thousands more instances where issues are portrayed in a black/white context.what do you mean by "don't get their fair shake at representation"?
Also:libertarian <> Libertarianlibertarian <> Ron Paul, ESPECIALLY Dr. Paul's views on foreign policy. Finally, a modern day libertarian includes those who tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But you can be these things with moderation. There is no need for extremist, no compromise positions.libertarian <> anarchist
Also:libertarian <> anarchist
libertarian <> Libertarian
libertarian <> Ron Paul, ESPECIALLY Dr. Paul's views on foreign policy.
Finally, a modern day libertarian includes those who tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But you can be these things with moderation. There is no need for extremist, no compromise positions.
Let's not do this.libertarian <> Libertarian
Also:libertarian <> anarchist
libertarian <> Libertarian
libertarian <> Ron Paul, ESPECIALLY Dr. Paul's views on foreign policy.
Finally, a modern day libertarian includes those who tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But you can be these things with moderation. There is no need for extremist, no compromise positions.
I agree with tim. As a libertarian, I'm proud of the fact that the US has -- on net -- expanded liberty worldwide. I'm very confident that mankind is better off collectively when the US is active on the international stage as opposed to leaving it to the Chinas and Russias of the world. Paul makes some good arguments on behalf of isolationism, but they aren't the sort of thing that every single libertarian necessarily has to agree with.Also:libertarian <> anarchist
libertarian <> Libertarian
libertarian <> Ron Paul, ESPECIALLY Dr. Paul's views on foreign policy.
Finally, a modern day libertarian includes those who tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But you can be these things with moderation. There is no need for extremist, no compromise positions.
I don't think I was nitpicking. I was trying to be more inclusive. I think libertarians should include anyone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If you guys want to limit it to those who have extremist views about the Constitution or isolationist views about foreign policy, that's your call. But I don't find those to be libertarian values in particular.I move that this be free of nitpicking, neurotic over-parsing of definitions, and basically the way Tim normally posts.All those anarchists with me, vote AYE.
I thought we were an autonomous collective.Well at least it's an ethos.What about the anarcho-capitalists?I don't want to be lumped in with the anarchists.
Fixed.I don't think I was nitpicking. But here, allow me to nitpick.I move that this be free of nitpicking, neurotic over-parsing of definitions, and basically the way Tim normally posts.All those anarchists with me, vote AYE.
Fixed.I don't think I was nitpicking. But here, allow me to nitpick.I move that this be free of nitpicking, neurotic over-parsing of definitions, and basically the way Tim normally posts.All those anarchists with me, vote AYE.
Read The Road To Serfdom by Hayek, Free To Choose by Friedman, and The Law by Bastiat and you're off to a good start.And if you're a glutton for punishment read Human Action by von Mises.Good libertarians to read:
Ayn Rand (she hated the term, and strongly disliked anyone who called her a libertarian, but she is the foundation for most modern libertarian ideas in this country. Also, she probably the most accessible to the casual reader.)
Ludwig Von Mises
F.R. Hayek
Milton Friedman
Tibor Machan
Reason magazine is also an excellent source.
This is why I prefer the term 'Classical Liberal' instead of having to differentiate between big and small L libertarians.Also:libertarian <> Libertarianlibertarian <> Ron Paul, ESPECIALLY Dr. Paul's views on foreign policy. Finally, a modern day libertarian includes those who tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But you can be these things with moderation. There is no need for extremist, no compromise positions.libertarian <> anarchist
See, when you toss around words like liberal and conservative, paint things into black and white contexts like "socially this" or "fiscally that," and subtly label people like me as having "extremist views," you're probably better off just taking it to another thread. Honestly.I don't think I was nitpicking. I was trying to be more inclusive. I think libertarians should include anyone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If you guys want to limit it to those who have extremist views about the Constitution or isolationist views about foreign policy, that's your call. But I don't find those to be libertarian values in particular.I move that this be free of nitpicking, neurotic over-parsing of definitions, and basically the way Tim normally posts.All those anarchists with me, vote AYE.
I think you'll be shocked at how many folks on both sides of the isle share libertarian views on certain issues. This liberal would love to see the gov't out of the marriage business altogether.Just for one example, the argument of gay marriage is only portrayed through the media in a framework where the government either decides that yes, you CAN legally marry your gay partner, or no, you CAN'T legally marry your gay partner. There's no presentation of the idea that hey, maybe the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all and that if two people love each other, they should be free to get married and live as they please. That's just one example, but there are thousands more instances where issues are portrayed in a black/white context.what do you mean by "don't get their fair shake at representation"?
Shut it down.'Andy Dufresne said:8 User(s) are reading this topic
5 members, 1 guests, 2 anonymous users
Andy Dufresne,Rayderr,oso diablo,tommyGunZ,tdog
Thanks. But I don't believe extremist should necessarily alienate anyone. In this case, I think it's a proper definition. I have extremist views on immigration, for instance.For the record, everyone is welcome to post whatever they want in this thread, and I respect your opinion Tim. I just want to stay away from alienating ideas because someone feels they are "extremist."
I don't believe the law should regard what is in the womb as a human being. That's my answer.How does the libertarian philosophy inform your conclusion as to whether a human being in the womb is endowed certain unalienable rights by his or her Creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence? Or does it?
that's not much of an answer. I'm trying to figure out how/if the libertarian philosophy helps one make that determination.I don't believe the law should regard what is in the womb as a human being. That's my answer.How does the libertarian philosophy inform your conclusion as to whether a human being in the womb is endowed certain unalienable rights by his or her Creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence? Or does it?
Yeah, it's good to see participation from people even if their political ideology doesn't jive completely with libertarianism.I think you'll be shocked at how many folks on both sides of the isle share libertarian views on certain issues. This liberal would love to see the gov't out of the marriage business altogether.Just for one example, the argument of gay marriage is only portrayed through the media in a framework where the government either decides that yes, you CAN legally marry your gay partner, or no, you CAN'T legally marry your gay partner. There's no presentation of the idea that hey, maybe the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all and that if two people love each other, they should be free to get married and live as they please. That's just one example, but there are thousands more instances where issues are portrayed in a black/white context.what do you mean by "don't get their fair shake at representation"?
I don't think it really does. Libertarians are pretty divided on the abortion question. The two most prominent libertarian advocates right now (Ron Paul and Gary Johnson) have opposite views on the issue.that's not much of an answer. I'm trying to figure out how/if the libertarian philosophy helps one make that determination.I don't believe the law should regard what is in the womb as a human being. That's my answer.How does the libertarian philosophy inform your conclusion as to whether a human being in the womb is endowed certain unalienable rights by his or her Creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence? Or does it?
It can't. Because any policy on abortion is infringing on someone's freedom.that's not much of an answer. I'm trying to figure out how/if the libertarian philosophy helps one make that determination.I don't believe the law should regard what is in the womb as a human being. That's my answer.How does the libertarian philosophy inform your conclusion as to whether a human being in the womb is endowed certain unalienable rights by his or her Creator, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence? Or does it?
what are they?I dont want to be lumped in with the Constitutionalists.
The Constitution provides a mechanism for that.Removing the shackles from government is a step backwards, not forwards.Constitutionalist
Blargh. As if we shouldn't continue to strive to improve.