What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Anarchism- Capital Hill Autonomous Zone declared in Seattle (1 Viewer)

what do you mean by "don't get their fair shake at representation"?
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"?
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.
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.
 
'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.
Don't trample on his liberties.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'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?
 
what do you mean by "don't get their fair shake at representation"?
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.
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.
Probably not the best example. Oh well.
 
libertarian <> anarchist
:goodposting: 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.

 
libertarian <> anarchist
:goodposting: Also:

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.
:wall:
:shrug: 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.

 
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 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.
 
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.
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. :scared:

 
libertarian <> anarchist
:goodposting: 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.
:goodposting: This is why I prefer the term 'Classical Liberal' instead of having to differentiate between big and small L libertarians.
 
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 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.
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.
 
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."

 
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 do you mean by "don't get their fair shake at representation"?
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.
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.
 
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."
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.
 
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?
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?
I don't believe the law should regard what is in the womb as a human being. That's my answer.
that's not much of an answer. I'm trying to figure out how/if the libertarian philosophy helps one make that determination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what do you mean by "don't get their fair shake at representation"?
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.
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.
Yeah, it's good to see participation from people even if their political ideology doesn't jive completely with libertarianism.
 
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?
I don't believe the law should regard what is in the womb as a human being. That's my answer.
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 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.
 
I like school vouchers a lot. I think people should have the right to make bad choices regarding their kids' education. In fact, liberty in general is all about the right to make lots of bad choices about lots of things. Drug use should be legalized, for instance.

On the other hand, I've come around, pragmatically, I hope, to favoring universal health care and I doubt if that will be a very popular stance in this thread.

 
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?
I don't believe the law should regard what is in the womb as a human being. That's my answer.
that's not much of an answer. I'm trying to figure out how/if the libertarian philosophy helps one make that determination.
It can't. Because any policy on abortion is infringing on someone's freedom.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top