Thread: Any Libertarians in the House?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Might be due to bias. Just sayin'.

...by whom, toward what?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

...by whom, toward what?

I was mostly joking.

But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of welfare programs and regulations were put into place due to special interests or, most likely, bias toward some economic/political view.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of welfare programs and regulations were put into place due to special interests or, most likely, bias toward some economic/political view.

Or necessity...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Or necessity...

I won't even bother replying to that since its been discussed far too many times and I'm listening to an epic Baroness song right now.

Though, I will give my perspective on poopman's post (because I know you all care oh so much).

Poopman stated: ".....i think most people would be considered libertarians if tested unbiasedly......."

Now, I talked about bias toward a economic system/political ideology, and I expected someone to reply with something along the lines of "well everyone has a bias toward something, even libertarians." But what I think poopman meant was that if they were questioned on the basics of libertarian thought (private property, non-aggression, etc), they would probably end up agreeing with it (so in a way, they would end up "being libertarian," in a very weak sense of the word. Thankfully he said "most people" so all the communists and imperialists won't end up being libertarians.

So what you're saying is that you can provide no rationale by which Libertarianism is relevant to human civilization as it has actually developed, but a lot of people would say the tenets sound about right as long as those tenets are stated as vaguely as possible?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

So what you're saying is that you can provide no rationale by which Libertarianism is relevant to human civilization as it has actually developed,

Erm, no. I never said anything of the sort. Good strawman though.

but a lot of people would say the tenets sound about right as long as those tenets are stated as vaguely as possible?

I believe I said most would agree with property rights and non-aggression, thus making them "libertarian, in a very weak sense of the word," meaning negligible at best. I think this is due to the fact that people will say they believe in those two things but then advocate actions that violate property rights and non-aggression, which is why I added "in a very weak sense." Understand? I mentioned nothing about libertarianism and its relevance to human civilization. I only gave my perspective on poopman's post and what he may have meant. I didn't say I agreed with him, either.

blueline, cmon man. you understand that most people consider personal freedom very important. you understand that at a very deep level and you are obviously very well read. i dont understand why people instead of standing up for simple pillars of life back down when confronted on it. Be a man and stand up for something. these weak minded people that say that people arent for personal rights and personal responsibility are obviously wrong...its really simple. dont join in on their weakness.

Originally Posted by poopman

blueline, cmon man. you understand that most people consider personal freedom very important. you understand that at a very deep level and you are obviously very well read. i dont understand why people instead of standing up for simple pillars of life back down when confronted on it. Be a man and stand up for something. these weak minded people that say that people arent for personal rights and personal responsibility are obviously wrong...its really simple. dont join in on their weakness.

Preaching to the choir, man.

As I said, they are "libertarian in a very weak sense of the word." To some, that might make them libertarians. To me, specifically, it does not.

Yup, I'm a libertarian here, though I would identify as Independent. I still wish Ron Paul had won in the 2008 elections, impossible as that would have been. I agree with the ideologies of personal freedom and limited government, though some things like basic police and fire support should be handled at the state or federal level. As for welfare and other such systems, I feel like they should be privately owned, if they exist. Private health insurance works, so I see no particular reason why things like independent welfare-type charities can't exist. As others in this thread have stated, private charities are generally more motivated and efficient because they are often personally involved. Also, I would say that I'm against "policing the world", as Ron Paul would put it. I am all for helping people, but we really have to get our own acts together first. Burying ourselves in incomprehensible debt trying to fight wars on terror isn't going to get us very far.