Any Libertarians Out There?

[moses_moselle]

Anyone?

[Bye bye now have fun]

nope

[Stuie]

If I had to pick a party, that's the one.

[Tyler]

Republican here.

[judgeposer]

Conservative here, with some libertarian striping.

[Sariél]

Registered republican, but probably identify most with libertarian.

I'm kind of an Apathetic Anarchist.

[SuburbanSmoker]

Registered republican, but probably identify most with libertarian.

+1000

[tinyj316]

I'm not affiliated with any political party.

[Bye bye now have fun]

im a registered republican only because i side with them slightly more than the dems. personally i think the party system destroyed america. id probably be libertarian if they could vote in the primaries in maryland

[mitchard]

I registered republican with intent on voting for Paul.

[r1v3th3ad]

Democrat that would be one if it was a main party...darn two party country

[Imsomint]

I'm kind of an Apathetic Anarchist.

[inino]

communist here.

[An1m]

Yes, a Libertarian Socialist.

[moses_moselle]

...thats impossible.

[An1m]

...thats impossible.

No it isn't, In fact many people would argue that it's impossible to truely be a Libertarian if you're not an anarchist or socialist. Libertarianism has nothing to do with economic theory. However, certain economic theorists who believe in a Libertarian approach to government involvement in markets have become associated with the term.

Capitalism itself is inherently anti-libertarian so most people who advocate capitalism and call themselves libertarians are confused and taking a colloquialism as the true meaning of a word.

Sort of like the words conservative and liberal have warped meannings in this country.

[moses_moselle]

well. in the true definitions, yes. I agree with you.

In that case consider me liberal, liberal as in the original liberals.

Before a liberal became a republicna..and so much confusion resulting in our two major parties being the exact same thing

however, my Todays standards i am a libertarian.

[An1m]

well. in the true definitions, yes. I agree with you.

In that case consider me liberal, liberal as in the original liberals.

Before a liberal became a republicna..and so much confusion resulting in our two major parties being the exact same thing

however, my Todays standards i am a libertarian.

Nope, you're a liberal and you shouldn't allow the pervasive ignorance that grips our society to continue. Educate people, reclaim our language. Someone has to do it, because the media, and the politicians just fuck up everything so much more. We can do it together!

Just ask yourself: What would Adam Smith say? Thomas Jefferson? I find capitalism in it's true form, in Von Mises form, in Smith's much more tolerable but I find that capitalism by nature is far too prone to corruption and impossible to make incorruptible, hence our world today. I would prefer socialism over capitalism even if it was incorruptable though for so many reasons, but /hijack of thread. Edited March 30, 2009 by An1m

[moses_moselle]

Thomas Jefferson was the man.

end of story.

[Dr. B]

Capitalism itself is inherently anti-libertarian so most people who advocate capitalism and call themselves libertarians are confused and taking a colloquialism as the true meaning of a word.

You yourself said that political and economic theory should be separate, yet you blur the line.

Social anarchy is more plausible, but the anarchist school of thought fails when the social representatives inherent in a social capitalist society's government begin to wield authority; which happens almost instantly.

Your limited view of government does not work in a social system. I'd be happy to entertain the debate.

on topic: I adhere to no party in particular. If I feel compelled to vote, I do cost/benefit analysis of the candidates and vote for which better represents my ideals, which are largely conservative.

[tinyj316]

I voted whig last election....


wait, they didn't have a candidate???

[Dr. B]

If its a weak executive you seek Ron Paul mighta done it.

I have so many issues with that man...

[Balthazar]

...thats impossible.

Take it up with Chomsky. Edited March 30, 2009 by Balthazar

[Dr. B]

That video is a half-assed argument on Chomsky's part - as he is prone to make. He stops short of contradicting himself, defines his terms in a narrow, highly subjective and debatable scope with little evidence, and is essentially gambling on the hope that the viewers have not read the Wealth of Nations.

I like the guy (as a linguist) but his socio-political-economic commentary is lacking always.

[judgeposer]

That video is a half-assed argument on Chomsky's part - as he is prone to make. He stops short of contradicting himself, defines his terms in a narrow, highly subjective and debatable scope with little evidence, and is essentially gambling on the hope that the viewers have not read the Wealth of Nations.

I like the guy (as a linguist) but his socio-political-economic commentary is lacking always.

You know, I thought I might've been the only one! I was searching my stuff by Adam Smith trying to find strains of anti-capitalism, or where he says people shouldn't be subjected to wage labor, or where he said we have to do something to stop the division of labor because it will turn humans into base animals. I'm still looking.