Libertarians

[Perianne]

Are there any Libertarians here willing to discuss your beliefs?

[fj1200]

Are there any Libertarians here willing to discuss your beliefs?

Seeing as the Libertarians are the true home of conservatism right now... ;) What's your pleasure?


STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES (https://www.lp.org/platform#principles)

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the <country-region st="on">United States</country-region>, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

With some exception I'd say I'm a Libertarian.

[sundaydriver]

[QUOTE=fj1200;730575 With some exception I'd say I'm a Libertarian.[/QUOTE]

Just more leftie cover? :poke:

[Perianne]

Seeing as the Libertarians are the true home of conservatism right now... ;) What's your pleasure?

With some exception I'd say I'm a Libertarian.

I have noted that Libertarians think highly of themselves. I was watching a Libertarian guest on C-SPAN yesterday. A man called in and said something to the effect of "talking to these people [Democrats and Republicans] is like trying to herd cats". Hmmm. Not a good way to bring people over to your cause.

Anyway, I agree with most Libertarian beliefs. The problem with big government is that it has its fingers in everything, so much that you can't do anything without it affecting something the government has its fingers in. For example:

I agree that anyone should be able to take any drug or substance they want. They should be able to get as high or drunk as they want, right up to the point of dying (as long as no one else is harmed). Here's the problem with that: if a person takes heroin, or whatever, and overdoses, then that person, by law, has to be treated in an Emergency Room, whether or not that person has the ability to pay for it. Or when the person has an addiction so bad they can't stand it, that person expects society to pay for his friggin' rehab.

So, while Libertarians want to legalize all drugs, they don't address the consequences side of what happens when there are overdoses and someone else has to pay for it.

I don't know exactly where my beliefs lie, but I say this: Live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life and do not expect others to bail you out.

Please address my concerns with this issue, as I am not all that far from being a Libertarian myself.

[fj1200]

I have noted that Libertarians think highly of themselves. I was watching a Libertarian guest on C-SPAN yesterday. A man called in and said something to the effect of "talking to these people [Democrats and Republicans] is like trying to herd cats". Hmmm. Not a good way to bring people over to your cause.

You just described a goodly number of posters here. :poke: No, really.


Anyway, I agree with most Libertarian beliefs. The problem with big government is that it has its fingers in everything, so much that you can't do anything without it affecting something the government has its fingers in. For example:

I agree that anyone should be able to take any drug or substance they want. They should be able to get as high or drunk as they want, right up to the point of dying (as long as no one else is harmed). Here's the problem with that: if a person takes heroin, or whatever, and overdoses, then that person, by law, has to be treated in an Emergency Room, whether or not that person has the ability to pay for it. Or when the person has an addiction so bad they can't stand it, that person expects society to pay for his friggin' rehab.

So, while Libertarians want to legalize all drugs, they don't address the consequences side of what happens when there are overdoses and someone else has to pay for it.

I don't know exactly where my beliefs lie, but I say this: Live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life and do not expect others to bail you out.

Please address my concerns with this issue, as I am not all that far from being a Libertarian myself.

I would say that illicit drugs is one of those exceptions, along with abortion and national security to some extent. But I think you've described why Libertarians will not gain wide acceptance anytime soon. Society will not accept the horrors of unrestrained drug use and the resultant responsibility of their welfare (even if none of that is true). What they need to do is start with decriminalizing marijuana, legalize marijuana, decriminalize xxx, etc. and see how it works out. But as soon as some tragedy where someone's child dies of... something... then that likely white, blond, 16-year old girl's parents will blanket the nation with "how could we let this happen!" and then the laws will clamp back down on our liberty because of whiny dumb people. /dmp rant :eek:

So I'm not exactly sure what your concerns are but I'm guessing you're not very close to a Libertarian. :cough: gay marriage :cough: :poke:

[Kathianne]

You just described a goodly number of posters here. :poke: No, really.



I would say that illicit drugs is one of those exceptions, along with abortion and national security to some extent. But I think you've described why Libertarians will not gain wide acceptance anytime soon. Society will not accept the horrors of unrestrained drug use and the resultant responsibility of their welfare (even if none of that is true). What they need to do is start with decriminalizing marijuana, legalize marijuana, decriminalize xxx, etc. and see how it works out. But as soon as some tragedy where someone's child dies of... something... then that likely white, blond, 16-year old girl's parents will blanket the nation with "how could we let this happen!" and then the laws will clamp back down on our liberty because of whiny dumb people. /dmp rant :eek:

So I'm not exactly sure what your concerns are but I'm guessing you're not very close to a Libertarian. :cough: gay marriage :cough: :poke:

I refer to my political self as a 'libertarian leaning' conservative. Exceptions would be legalization of drugs, though I'm against the 'lock up the users.' I'm also far from an isolationist.

[Perianne]

Seeing as the Libertarians are the true home of conservatism right now... ;) What's your pleasure?



With some exception I'd say I'm a Libertarian.

With some exception(s) I'd say I am a Libertarian, too.

[Gunny]

Are there any Libertarians here willing to discuss your beliefs?

Go for it.

[Gunny]

I have noted that Libertarians think highly of themselves. I was watching a Libertarian guest on C-SPAN yesterday. A man called in and said something to the effect of "talking to these people [Democrats and Republicans] is like trying to herd cats". Hmmm. Not a good way to bring people over to your cause.

Anyway, I agree with most Libertarian beliefs. The problem with big government is that it has its fingers in everything, so much that you can't do anything without it affecting something the government has its fingers in. For example:

I agree that anyone should be able to take any drug or substance they want. They should be able to get as high or drunk as they want, right up to the point of dying (as long as no one else is harmed). Here's the problem with that: if a person takes heroin, or whatever, and overdoses, then that person, by law, has to be treated in an Emergency Room, whether or not that person has the ability to pay for it. Or when the person has an addiction so bad they can't stand it, that person expects society to pay for his friggin' rehab.

So, while Libertarians want to legalize all drugs, they don't address the consequences side of what happens when there are overdoses and someone else has to pay for it.

I don't know exactly where my beliefs lie, but I say this: Live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life and do not expect others to bail you out.

Please address my concerns with this issue, as I am not all that far from being a Libertarian myself.

First name your poison. Right or left libertarian?

Thinking you're smarter than the US government which requires about a 4th grade education is NOT thinking highly of oneself. It's thinking you made it past 4th grade.

You get called a liertarian when you think for yourself and don't fall into party lockstep. I believe in the Constitution and no one man, nor party bureaucrats are above that. I believe in the ideals that created this nation. I also believe there is little difference between our current police state and Nazi Germany.

Feel free to discuss.

[Perianne]

First name your poison. Right or left libertarian?

Thinking you're smarter than the US government which requires about a 4th grade education is NOT thinking highly of oneself. It's thinking you made it past 4th grade.

You get called a liertarian when you think for yourself and don't fall into party lockstep. I believe in the Constitution and no one man, nor party bureaucrats are above that. I believe in the ideals that created this nation. I also believe there is little difference between our current police state and Nazi Germany.

Feel free to discuss.

I wish to discuss the very situation you quoted from me. If we legalize all drugs, who has to pay for the eventual fallout from those drugs? I have worked ER and seen the consequences of drug abuse. I work now in a unit that specializes in the care of drug addicts' wounds and illnesses. These are vital answers I am seeking.

[Gunny]

I wish to discuss the very situation you quoted from me. If we legalize all drugs, who has to pay for the eventual fallout from those drugs? I have worked ER and seen the consequences of drug abuse. I work now in a unit that specializes in the care of drug addicts' wounds and illnesses. These are vital answers I am seeking.

Why does that come as an issue? I just have no more problem with legalizing drugs than I do tobacco and alcohol. I'm an addict of both and society created me. Bogey always had smoke and a tumbler of bourbon and he was cool. I get up every morning and have to fight back the urge to go get plastered.

Add to that your "war on drugs" turns more military people than you think into alcoholics. I didn't want someone higher'n a kite in MY line, but it you're just "hungover" or still drunk from the night before you get a pass. If you smoked a little weed the night before, you're straight the next day.

My point is this: we make a big deal about one but not the other and both do the same things. Impair your judgement.

And moving right along, I live constantly in pain from service related injuries and by God, don't ask for a pain killer.

So, addiction is a weakness, right? Who isn't addicted to something? Oh, and we pay for all kinds of stupid crap. Hell, look at the fed gov.

[Gunny]

Go back and look at what you posted. If it isn't about choice, then what do you call it? Same token, someone chooses to be self destructive -- regardless the means -- what business is it of yours to interfere?

I can tell you the difference in two words: freedom vs fascism. You want to be free? Or tell others how to live?

[Perianne]

Go back and look at what you posted. If it isn't about choice, then what do you call it? Same token, someone chooses to be self destructive -- regardless the means -- what business is it of yours to interfere?

I can tell you the difference in two words: freedom vs fascism. You want to be free? Or tell others how to live?

I agree. If someone wants to be self-destructive and he is causing no harm to anyone else, there should be no laws against it.

But, - and I will ask for the last time - who should have to pay for the health consequences of their bad decisions?

[Jeff]

I agree. If someone wants to be self-destructive and he is causing no harm to anyone else, there should be no laws against it.

But, - and I will ask for the last time - who should have to pay for the health consequences of their bad decisions?

That is really a tough question, I agree with a person wants to be self-destructive have at it but then they ought to be able to pay the consequences of their actions. But if they are busy getting high chances are they aren't busy working. This is similar to states that have a helmet law for motorcycles, people say it isn't up to the state to have to pay for the riders medical bills when they get injured, myself I believe in order to be able to afford the bike you must be working so therefore you more than likley have some kind of insurance so let those who ride decide. As for folks wanting to do drugs and then get sick, no the state shouldn't be responsible but ya can't just turn them away either, tough call for sure.

[DragonStryk72]

Are there any Libertarians here willing to discuss your beliefs?

Sure thing. What do you want to know?

[DragonStryk72]

I wish to discuss the very situation you quoted from me. If we legalize all drugs, who has to pay for the eventual fallout from those drugs? I have worked ER and seen the consequences of drug abuse. I work now in a unit that specializes in the care of drug addicts' wounds and illnesses. These are vital answers I am seeking.

Actually, from the Libertarian perspective, legalizing drugs frees up our officers to go after the real problem: Drug dealers. See, no, the individual stoner is likely not harming anyone. Bear in mind that there are drugs that, even by Libertarian standards, should be illegal, such as PCP, and rufies. There is no safe way to use PCP, and it can lead directly to violence against others, not by odd anecdote, but as a direct effect of the drug. Rufies are specifically for use against another person to knock them out, so again, still illegal.

The bigger issue is the dealers, because they are harming people other than themselves. With decrminalized drug use, comes the freed up manpower to focus on the pushers instead of the marks. It would also decrease prison populations significantly, which in turn, since drugs make it in to prison all the time, would actually lower the overall crime rate. Fewer ex-cons means that people who used to get busted for smoking pot or doing some ecstasy will no longer have a bullshit item on their record that can deny them employment, drop their wages, and otherwise push them in the direction of further criminal/drug-related activity.

Another thing starts to go away: Mystique. Plenty of drug use is done out of rebellion, or because it's so "edgy". It's sort of like with guns: If everyone would stop freaking out about them, and treat them like tools, we wouldn't have an issue. Because we make them so fascinating, so taboo, we actually insure their continued draw.

[Drummond]

This thread is a somewhat curious one, at least from my viewpoint.

I suspect that UK sensibilities differ. To me, Libertarianism is identified with the Left far more readily than with Right-wing thinking.

I note that FJ identifies himself as a Libertarian. To me, from my worldview, that's the equivalent of FJ finally admitting he's a Leftie (and if so, I welcome his belated honesty on the subject !!).

Libertarianism, as I say, is surely perceivable as Left wing. Libertarianism is ultimately chaotic. It rails against strong law and order positions. For example, Libertarians would favour drug decriminalisations to take place. I, as a Conservative, instinctively want the exact opposite ... a tightening up of such laws.

Conservatism ... most certainly the British concept of it .. is strong on law and order. Libertarianism, by its nature, is NOT. Therefore, Libertarianism is anti-Conservative in nature.

Who, here, would tell me that Margaret Thatcher was NOT a Conservative ?? Yet ... she believed, when rendered necessary by events, in authoritarian Government. Some could easily argue that Trade Unionists were striking out for 'individual liberty', and using a tool of it, when embarking on their various campaigns. BUT ... Unions are LEFT WING, and usually loyal to a LEFT WING agenda. Margaret Thatcher was unapologetically anti-Union, AND USED AUTHORITARIAN, STATE POWERS, TO CURB THEIR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS.

I've never heard of anyone ever claiming that she was 'defying Conservatism' by doing what she did. Simply: she did what she had to do.

I am clear on this. Libertarianism is far too easily reconcilable with ANTI-Conservative ambition and values to ever be identifiably 'Conservative' in its own right. It's an excuse for chaos. Individualism in itself ... fine. Libertarianism is a form of it, however, which when enacted turns individualism into a destructive force.

[Gunny]

I agree. If someone wants to be self-destructive and he is causing no harm to anyone else, there should be no laws against it.

But, - and I will ask for the last time - who should have to pay for the health consequences of their bad decisions?

They pay or they die. You're being simplistic. Our current government thinks everyone should pay for everyone else. You can't leave that out of the equation.

[Drummond]

Go back and look at what you posted. If it isn't about choice, then what do you call it? Same token, someone chooses to be self destructive -- regardless the means -- what business is it of yours to interfere?

I can tell you the difference in two words: freedom vs fascism. You want to be free? Or tell others how to live?

On drug taking ... you could indeed argue that a drug taker is exercising choice by being self destructive in that way. They may, arguably, be 'at liberty' to do as they choose.

BUT ... two objections surely come from this. One, each such drug taker is helping to perpetuate an 'industry' which exists, not only to make profit, BUT TO DO HARM. And, two .. such drug takers may influence others to do what they themselves do. They spread their harm, and its poison. They act as a societal cancer if left totally to their own devices.

A very strong law and order position on this is the only sensible one to adopt, in my opinion. Snuff out such a cancer by aggressive measures taken to eradicate it .. and NOT to find soft, destructive, LIBERTARIAN, excuses to indulge any of it.

I am a Conservative. That therefore makes me anti-Libertarian. Libertarianism is individualism perverted ... taken to dangerously destructive lengths.

[Drummond]

Actually, from the Libertarian perspective, legalizing drugs frees up our officers to go after the real problem: Drug dealers. See, no, the individual stoner is likely not harming anyone. Bear in mind that there are drugs that, even by Libertarian standards, should be illegal, such as PCP, and rufies. There is no safe way to use PCP, and it can lead directly to violence against others, not by odd anecdote, but as a direct effect of the drug. Rufies are specifically for use against another person to knock them out, so again, still illegal.

The bigger issue is the dealers, because they are harming people other than themselves. With decrminalized drug use, comes the freed up manpower to focus on the pushers instead of the marks. It would also decrease prison populations significantly, which in turn, since drugs make it in to prison all the time, would actually lower the overall crime rate. Fewer ex-cons means that people who used to get busted for smoking pot or doing some ecstasy will no longer have a bullshit item on their record that can deny them employment, drop their wages, and otherwise push them in the direction of further criminal/drug-related activity.

Another thing starts to go away: Mystique. Plenty of drug use is done out of rebellion, or because it's so "edgy". It's sort of like with guns: If everyone would stop freaking out about them, and treat them like tools, we wouldn't have an issue. Because we make them so fascinating, so taboo, we actually insure their continued draw.

Perhaps there's some fundamental flaw in my reasoning I'm unaware of. But, surely .. if drug taking is decriminalised, you legalise the use of those drugs. That means that drug dealers, the ones 'pushing' those drugs, are engaged in a LEGAL activity ??

So on what grounds, in that scenario, could drug dealers be regarded as fair game to 'go after' ?

No: all of this is a total nonsense. Many drugs are known to have harmful effects, so any effort made to decriminalise them is completely counterproductive. That goes for 'hard' drugs .. very obviously. It also goes for 'soft' drugs, since too many of them open gateways to the taking of the 'harder' varieties.

Besides, new discoveries are being made all the time. A previously supposed 'harmless' drug might be belatedly seen to be harmful.

I ask: why take risks ? Why not just tighten up laws on it all, across the board ??

Libertarians would hate that. For my part, I hate Libertarian Leftie destructiveness. Strong and uncompromising laws are the only sensible option.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Seeing as the Libertarians are the true home of conservatism right now... ;) What's your pleasure?



With some exception I'd say I'm a Libertarian.



With some exception I'd say I'm a Libertarian.

^^^^ some exceptions ? :laugh:

Care to name them?--Tyr

[fj1200]

But, - and I will ask for the last time - who should have to pay for the health consequences of their bad decisions?

In a Libertarian world? No one but themselves.

[fj1200]

^^^^ some exceptions ? :laugh:

Care to name them?--Tyr

Pay attention.


I would say that illicit drugs is one of those exceptions, along with abortion and national security to some extent.

[fj1200]

To me, Libertarianism is identified with the Left far more readily than with Right-wing thinking.

I note that FJ identifies himself as a Libertarian. To me, from my worldview, that's the equivalent of FJ finally admitting he's a Leftie (and if so, I welcome his belated honesty on the subject !!).

Libertarianism, as I say, is surely perceivable as Left wing.

:facepalm99: You should educate yourself.

https://www.lp.org/platform

Go ahead and point out the left-wing positions of the Libertarian Party and how myself, Kathianne, DragonStryk, and Gunny are lefties.

[Drummond]

:facepalm99: You should educate yourself.

https://www.lp.org/platform

Go ahead and point out the left-wing positions of the Libertarian Party and how myself, Kathianne, DragonStryk, and Gunny are lefties.

Can you tell me why you migrated this discussion to a thread in the 'Lounge' section of this forum, entitled 'Fear', and added your post about Libertarianism in its post #15 ?

I know that you like to 'thread-jack', FJ, but this is ridiculous .. !! ....

Libertarianism is not Conservative. Conservatives believe in a society where strong law and order predominates, where you do NOT see anarchy and chaos thrive, where decency has a chance, and serves not just the individual, but society in general.

But, as for Libertarianism ? As you posted HERE ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49278-Fear&p=730726#post730726

... bafflingly, on another thread entirely, in a different part of the forum ...


As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

This was my reply, in post #21 ...


I invite anyone to consider this in any more depth than total superficiality. The result is highly revealing.




All individuals are sovereign over their own lives.
No one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others


.. OK, then ...

All individuals are sovereign over their own lives. Literally translated into the real world .. nobody else, and nothing, has authority over you. Result -- TOTAL CHAOS.

It defies the concept of society. Doesn't it ? Where is law and order, in such a model ? Where is accountability ? Guidance from others ? Indeed, it seems to me that it also defies nationhood. Where would pride in country, or one's nationality, fit into this ?

A criminal would fully identify with this 'value'. Criminals would be delighted not to be accountable to anyone in society. Goodbye, decent values. Hello, doing what YOU want in life, to the exclusion of others. Burglary ? Bank robbing ? Cybercrime ? Such criminals indulging in such things, believing they should be 'sovereign over their own lives', reject accountability to society, to their victims.

Conservatism believes in the opposite. We believe in law and order. We want order from chaos. We want decency.

No one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. When you say NO ONE, I assume you mean just that ?

OK - try applying that to Pol Pot. Or Stalin, or Hitler. None of these individuals believed in sacrificing their values for the benefit of others, did they ?

Did that make them good Libertarians ?? Seems to me that it SHOULD !! Because it didn't make them 'good Conservatives' !! Yet, apply that yardstick to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, AND YOU FIND THAT IT FITS.

I say again: Libertarianism is a PERVERSION of individualism, and a highly harmful one. As a Conservative, I oppose it.

If YOU were genuinely Conservative, FJ, then so should you.

But of course, you'd much rather not. Eh, FJ .. ??


Perhaps this discussion should remain where it belongs ? Better that than yet more of your thread-jacking ...

[Kathianne]

So Drummond, you are saying that it's conservative policies for strong government ruling over the individual? So, conservatives really are just arguing for which rulers are better? Nothing about freedoms? Order above freedom. Is that what you're advocating conservativism is about?

That seems to me to be more an argument for a dictator, but one you agree with.

[fj1200]

Can you tell me why you migrated this discussion to a thread in the 'Lounge' section of this forum, entitled 'Fear', and added your post about Libertarianism in its post #15 ?

Because you make ridiculous incongruent statements. On the one hand you state that Libertarians are leftie and then in another thread you state individualism is conservative yet those same Libertarians are advocating for individualism. It makes no sense no matter the intellectual gymnastics you put yourself through to get there.

The rest of your post is equally ridiculous and based upon your imaginative interpretation.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Pay attention.
In the case mentioned we are dealing with now-the leftists now twisting to push their agenda.
Not one hundred years ago...
Yet even then leftists existed-if you think not you'd better read some history amigo! -Tyr

[Drummond]

So Drummond, you are saying that it's conservative policies for strong government ruling over the individual? So, conservatives really are just arguing for which rulers are better? Nothing about freedoms? Order above freedom. Is that what you're advocating conservativism is about?

That seems to me to be more an argument for a dictator, but one you agree with.

Nope - I'm not saying such a thing.

I'm saying that, in a society, individualism, individual rights, should be served to the best ability of that society to do so.

But Libertarianism seems to me to be seeking to make an individual's 'self sovereignty' so utterly sacrosanct that it trumps everything else. And that's a model which defies even the concept of society as a workable model.

If you're at all familiar with British history, circa 1978-79, I'm sure you'd know that we had something of a battle for survival on our hands. On the one hand, we had Trade Unionists, calling for WAVE after WAVE of strikes, believing all the while that their demands trumped all other considerations in society. Indeed, at roughly around that time, I recall we had the long-running Grunwick dispute .. which saw mob rule trump the rule of law, with Trade Unionists believing they could call entire mobs of people to a business and, through mob rule, use intimidation to win out.

It seems to me that those Unionists could cite Libertarianism as a defence for their disgusting, antisocial behaviour. I mean, why not ? Each Trade Unionist would put his, or her, individual 'rights' above others. And mob rule resulted.

Margaret Thatcher came to power. Her answer was to pass laws to curb Union 'freedoms', since she perceived (as was blindingly obvious) that society needed to be protected from such wrecking behaviour. In other words, because she HAD to, she used State powers to bring proper, decent, LAW AND ORDER back to the streets of Britain.

Kathianne, to my knowledge, Lady Thatcher is celebrated as a great CONSERVATIVE leader. But by no stretch of the imagination did she, nor COULD she, ever apply LIBERTARIANISM to the problems she was charged with solving.

Libertarianism, Kathianne, was the tool of the LEFT throughout that period (though precious few used that word in association with it, Libertarianist 'values' underpinned the Union case).

It couldn't be clearer, Kathianne. Libertarianism has its limits, and when pushed beyond a certain point, defies law and order, and defies the welfare of the majority. Law and order must be maintained - inviolably so. If not, then chaos, anarchy, much suffering, is the result.

This isn't theory with me. I know through certain knowledge that I am right. As did Margaret Thatcher.

It's nonsensical for FJ, as a self-proclaimed 'Ultimate Thatcherite', to also claim that he is an adherent of Libertarianism. If one is true, the other cannot be. I suggest that FJ picks his preferred side, then sticks with it.

[Gunny]

On drug taking ... you could indeed argue that a drug taker is exercising choice by being self destructive in that way. They may, arguably, be 'at liberty' to do as they choose.

BUT ... two objections surely come from this. One, each such drug taker is helping to perpetuate an 'industry' which exists, not only to make profit, BUT TO DO HARM. And, two .. such drug takers may influence others to do what they themselves do. They spread their harm, and its poison. They act as a societal cancer if left totally to their own devices.

A very strong law and order position on this is the only sensible one to adopt, in my opinion. Snuff out such a cancer by aggressive measures taken to eradicate it .. and NOT to find soft, destructive, LIBERTARIAN, excuses to indulge any of it.

I am a Conservative. That therefore makes me anti-Libertarian. Libertarianism is individualism perverted ... taken to dangerously destructive lengths.

Not a good definition. Being Republican or Democrat is being a government stooge. Walking around mindless, believing everything you're told, and doing what you're told. No one wants to look at the words they sling around.

The meaning of "liberal" is not fascist, but they have somehow become the same thing.

Being "conservative" does not mean being a fascist on the other side of the aisle.

I don't even know where the term "libertarian" came from. People sling around names and words they don't even know how to look up. It just depends on which side of an argument a free thinker is on which one they get called. I've been a lib, a rightwinger, a Republican, a libertarian and all kinds of other stuff just for disagreeing and thinking for myself.

Maybe we should use more brain cells and less blind labels?

[Perianne]

They pay or they die. You're being simplistic. Our current government thinks everyone should pay for everyone else. You can't leave that out of the equation.

I am not being simplistic. I argue exactly what you say: "they pay or they die". Perhaps you haven't followed my previous statements concerning such matters.


In a Libertarian world? No one but themselves.

And for this, my appreciation of you increases (doesn't that just make your day! lol)

Again, I live in the world where (off the top of my head) more than half of all my patients suffer from conditions brought on by their own actions. For example (I'll use layman's terms):

Patient #1 has endocarditis (inflammation of the heart and valves of the heart) presumably caused by drug injections. He is 31 years old and has made choices that will now kill him. He is on Medicaid because he has low income. Should society have to pay for HIS choices?

Patient #2 has a diabetic ulcer on her foot. Without medical care this would likely result in death. She is 46 and weighs 320 pounds with uncontrolled diabetes. Had she chosen to eat less food, she would likely not have diabetes and certainly would not be morbidly obese. She is on Medicaid because she is morbidly obese and cannot work. Should society have to pay for her choices?

Patient #3 is 24 and is pregnant with her 5th child. She has no skills as she became a mother at 15 and dropped out of school. She and her children are on welfare and Medicaid. Now she expects free prenatal healthcare. Should society have to pay for her choices?

Where does it all stop? My philosophy is to live as you want (as long as it does no harm to anyone else) but be responsible for the consequences of those choices. That is the way I was raised and is the way I will be until my dying days.

[Drummond]

Because you make ridiculous incongruent statements. On the one hand you state that Libertarians are leftie and then in another thread you state individualism is conservative yet those same Libertarians are advocating for individualism. It makes no sense no matter the intellectual gymnastics you put yourself through to get there.

The rest of your post is equally ridiculous and based upon your imaginative interpretation.

I stated - at least twice - that Libertarianism is a perverted form of individualism. And it is, because it takes matters to extremes, and for reasons already cited.

See my reply to Kathianne, FJ. You, as a supposed 'Thatcherite', be it 'Ultimate' or 'The One True ..' ... place yourself in opposition to Libertarianism. The case is clear. Margaret Thatcher wasn't averse to curbing individual freedoms if she judged that, in doing so, social order and social cohesion benefitted.

Either you are a supporter of Margaret Thatcher, or you're not. Libertarianism has been the tool of the Left in my country. Margaret Thatcher used State powers to counter it. THIS IS VERIFIABLE HISTORICAL FACT.

So pick your side, FJ, and stop the nonsense. Thatcherism, or the Leftie tool of Libertarianism.

CHOOSE.

[Kathianne]

I'm not British, don't live there. You are likely right that we're talking apples and oranges, I'll give you that.

I'm not involving myself in the circular arguments you have regarding Thatcher, not going there.

I've explained what I mean and why I lean 'libertarian,' by my understanding. Which is all that matters to me.

I do think the purpose of government in general should be to serve the individual in the true sense of letting each develop themselves as they see fit. Government does that by providing for the common defense; is the means to providing for the common good-(roads, sanitary projects, police, etc). We, the people-many individuals-elect those that agree on the ideas and projects we most value.

The federal government has no place, imo, regarding marriage laws, education, seat belt laws, shopping cart laws, etc.

Indeed a good argument could probably be made that the South, pre-Civil War was espousing very libertarian ideals.

[Gunny]

Perhaps there's some fundamental flaw in my reasoning I'm unaware of. But, surely .. if drug taking is decriminalised, you legalise the use of those drugs. That means that drug dealers, the ones 'pushing' those drugs, are engaged in a LEGAL activity ??

So on what grounds, in that scenario, could drug dealers be regarded as fair game to 'go after' ?

No: all of this is a total nonsense. Many drugs are known to have harmful effects, so any effort made to decriminalise them is completely counterproductive. That goes for 'hard' drugs .. very obviously. It also goes for 'soft' drugs, since too many of them open gateways to the taking of the 'harder' varieties.

Besides, new discoveries are being made all the time. A previously supposed 'harmless' drug might be belatedly seen to be harmful.

I ask: why take risks ? Why not just tighten up laws on it all, across the board ??

Libertarians would hate that. For my part, I hate Libertarian Leftie destructiveness. Strong and uncompromising laws are the only sensible option.

I'd actually like to be able to go to the doctor and get some. The problem here is the reverse psychology. If you're asking for a pain killer you're a drug abuser. No, I'd like to have the medicine for what it's intended for. I just can't figure out how all these illegal drug users can get the crap and I can't get it legally because of them. What's the purpose of even having the damned stuff if you can't freakin' legally get it?

All libertarians are not lefties.

Strong and uncompromising laws are forcing your will on others.

[Perianne]

I'd actually like to be able to go to the doctor and get some. The problem here is the reverse psychology. If you're asking for a pain killer you're a drug abuser. No, I'd like to have the medicine for what it's intended for. I just can't figure out how all these illegal drug users can get the crap and I can't get it legally because of them. What's the purpose of even having the damned stuff if you can't freakin' legally get it?

All libertarians are not lefties.

Strong and uncompromising laws are forcing your will on others.

I feel for you, Gunny. Have you tried dedicated pain clinics?

[Drummond]

Not a good definition. Being Republican or Democrat is being a government stooge. Walking around mindless, believing everything you're told, and doing what you're told. No one wants to look at the words they sling around.

The meaning of "liberal" is not fascist, but they have somehow become the same thing.

Being "conservative" does not mean being a fascist on the other side of the aisle.

I don't even know where the term "libertarian" came from. People sling around names and words they don't even know how to look up. It just depends on which side of an argument a free thinker is on which one they get called. I've been a lib, a rightwinger, a Republican, a libertarian and all kinds of other stuff just for disagreeing and thinking for myself.

Maybe we should use more brain cells and less blind labels?

The case you're making is essentially one where you're classifiable as 'a stooge' if you support any brand of Government. Given this, then at minimum, you cannot define Libertarianism as pro-Conservative, since you reject the formation of one as worthy of support.

But people have to believe in SOMETHING. If you refuse to, and if EVERYONE then followed suit ... then how would chaos and anarchy fail to be the result ?

I am pro social order. Pro law and order. Pro the welfare of the majority, wishing decency to prevail on a widespread scale.

I am therefore not a Libertarian. Libertarianism apparently puts 'self' above others, always, and if fully enacted, threatens anarchy.

Isn't that the enemy of shared values ? How does shared decency stand a chance of survival, under conditions which oppose it ?

[Kathianne]

The case you're making is essentially one where you're classifiable as 'a stooge' if you support any brand of Government. Given this, then at minimum, you cannot define Libertarianism as pro-Conservative, since you reject the formation of one as worthy of support.

But people have to believe in SOMETHING. If you refuse to, and if EVERYONE then followed suit ... then how would chaos and anarchy fail to be the result ?

I am pro social order. Pro law and order. Pro the welfare of the majority, wishing decency to prevail on a widespread scale.

I am therefore not a Libertarian. Libertarianism apparently puts 'self' above others, always.

Isn't that the enemy of shared values ? How does shared decency stand a chance of survival, under conditions which oppose it ?

Question regarding what I bolded, how perchance do you define 'welfare of the majority,' and 'decency'? How do you favor achievement of those goals?

[Perianne]

The case you're making is essentially one where you're classifiable as 'a stooge' if you support any brand of Government. Given this, then at minimum, you cannot define Libertarianism as pro-Conservative, since you reject the formation of one as worthy of support.

But people have to believe in SOMETHING. If you refuse to, and if EVERYONE then followed suit ... then how would chaos and anarchy fail to be the result ?

I am pro social order. Pro law and order. Pro the welfare of the majority, wishing decency to prevail on a widespread scale.

I am therefore not a Libertarian. Libertarianism apparently puts 'self' above others, always, and if fully enacted, threatens anarchy.

Isn't that the enemy of shared values ? How does shared decency stand a chance of survival, under conditions which oppose it ?

Drummond, you should move to America, Kentucky specifically. I would love to hear more of your thoughts.

[Drummond]

Strong and uncompromising laws are forcing your will on others.

In that case, you must hate what Margaret Thatcher did. She used strong and uncompromising laws to curb freedoms WHICH HAD BEEN ABUSED.

Gunny, there is no chance at all that I'm wrong about this. I lived through a period in which Trade Union Lefties tried to use their individual freedoms to do maximum damage against all the members of society they had a grievance against. This led to chaos, and this chaos feeding into all aspects of social life. Had Margaret Thatcher not adopted an ANTI Libertarian approach, I seriously doubt that our society would have survived the outcome.

Margaret Thatcher is seen to be the great Conservative leader that she WAS. If Libertarianism was 'conservative', then history would record her as a betrayer of Conservatism.

But it does nothing of the kind.

Libertarianism is ultimately destructive. That is where it must lead, if taken to its logical outcome. But Conservatism is not. The two are, in the real world, very different.

[Gunny]

The case you're making is essentially one where you're classifiable as 'a stooge' if you support any brand of Government. Given this, then at minimum, you cannot define Libertarianism as pro-Conservative, since you reject the formation of one as worthy of support.

But people have to believe in SOMETHING. If you refuse to, and if EVERYONE then followed suit ... then how would chaos and anarchy fail to be the result ?

I am pro social order. Pro law and order. Pro the welfare of the majority, wishing decency to prevail on a widespread scale.

I am therefore not a Libertarian. Libertarianism apparently puts 'self' above others, always, and if fully enacted, threatens anarchy.

Isn't that the enemy of shared values ? How does shared decency stand a chance of survival, under conditions which oppose it ?

I don't disagree and I DO believe in something. The Constitution as it was written.

There has to be a balance. I'm by no means pro-anarchy. I'm pro personal responsibility. But there are always those idiots who screw everything up for the rest of us. Rules aren't required for people who take care of themselves and mind their own business. They're required for all the morons that just want to be idiots and don't care about being civilized.

At the same time, our government has made a business out of being a government from the President down to street cops. The labor unions here have put themselves out of business doing the same. The government is supposed to be here FOR the people, not to suck us dry.

[Drummond]

Drummond, you should move to America, Kentucky specifically. I would love to hear more of your thoughts.

Thank you !

But I'm always happy to share them with you, be it here, or there.

[Kathianne]

I think what Americans are speaking to regarding libertarianism and what Drummond is using as his definition based upon UK during Thatcher era are different things. Bottom line, our systems are different, while sharing some common history. Our people and experiences too are different, with again, some commonalities.

[Perianne]

In that case, you must hate what Margaret Thatcher did. She used strong and uncompromising laws to curb freedoms WHICH HAD BEEN ABUSED.

Gunny, there is no chance at all that I'm wrong about this. I lived through a period in which Trade Union Lefties tried to use their individual freedoms to do maximum damage against all the members of society they had a grievance against. This led to chaos, and this chaos feeding into all aspects of social life. Had Margaret Thatcher not adopted an ANTI Libertarian approach, I seriously doubt that our society would have survived the outcome.

Margaret Thatcher is seen to be the great Conservative leader that she WAS. If Libertarianism was 'conservative', then history would record her as a betrayer of Conservatism.

But it does nothing of the kind.

Libertarianism is ultimately destructive. That is where it must lead, if taken to its logical outcome. But Conservatism is not. The two are, in the real world, very different.

The golden years of Thatcher and Reagan. God bless their souls.

[Gunny]

At least they stood for something.

Here's a good example: They were doing interviews on the tube last night. The question was "What do you think of Marco Rubio?" Who? Republican state senator from Florida. I hate him. THAT is the kind of mindless crap I'm talking about.

Don't know who he is and never heard him speak but hate him because he's a Republican. THAT is a mindless stooge.

[Drummond]

I don't disagree and I DO believe in something. The Constitution as it was written.

There has to be a balance. I'm by no means pro-anarchy. I'm pro personal responsibility.

... all of which is fine !

But, do you realise what all of this adds up to ? A form of 'personal policing' of your own actions.

What you're saying is that there have to be workable and definable personal parameters to your behaviour in order to have it all work out.

Libertarianism rejects outside influence, since it only recognises 'self sovereignty'. That's all well and good for those sufficiently responsible to make it work with an ultimately benign effect. But this is by no means true of everyone, and it never will be.

This makes Libertarianism unworkable as any kind of 'universal' creed or yardstick. And argues for the need for Government having a means to exert influence.

I simply see no way of equating law and order-friendly Conservatism with any level of unrestrained Libertarianism. Indeed, Libertarianism is just too dangerous to be applied in any unrestrained manner.


But there are always those idiots who screw everything up for the rest of us. Rules aren't required for people who take care of themselves and mind their own business. They're required for all the morons that just want to be idiots and don't care about being civilized.

That does make sense. BUT, it also means that what you're ALSO saying is that laws don't have to apply to everyone.

But of course, they do. Nobody should be above the law.


At the same time, our government has made a business out of being a government from the President down to street cops. The labor unions here have put themselves out of business doing the same. The government is supposed to be here FOR the people, not to suck us dry.

I've never been an advocate of NEEDLESS Government interference. And it should always be the tool of the people. That said ... Libertarianism perverts things to a point where balance is lost. It is unworkable on a wide scale. This I know to be true.

Which is why truly Conservative Government cannot afford to give it freedoms which many would abuse.

[Kathianne]

... all of which is fine !

But, do you realise what all of this adds up to ? A form of 'personal policing' of your own actions.

What you're saying is that there have to be workable and definable personal parameters to your behaviour in order to have it all work out.

Libertarianism rejects outside influence, since it only recognises 'self sovereignty'. That's all well and good for those sufficiently responsible to make it work with an ultimately benign effect. But this is by no means true of everyone, and it never will be.

This makes Libertarianism unworkable as any kind of 'universal' creed or yardstick. And argues for the need for Government having a means to exert influence.

I simply see no way of equating law and order-friendly Conservatism with any level of unrestrained Libertarianism. Indeed, Libertarianism is just too dangerous to be applied in any unrestrained manner.



That does make sense. BUT, it also means that what you're ALSO saying is that laws don't have to apply to everyone.

But of course, they do. Nobody should be above the law.



I've never been an advocate of NEEDLESS Government interference. And it should always be the tool of the people. That said ... Libertarianism perverts things to a point where balance is lost. It is unworkable on a wide scale. This I know to be true.

Which is why truly Conservative Government cannot afford to give it freedoms which many would abuse.

So you really are for all intrusive government, one that agrees with you.

[Drummond]

The golden years of Thatcher and Reagan. God bless their souls.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Very well said ! Yes, I miss them both.

[Perianne]

[/B]
So you really are for all intrusive government, one that agrees with you.

So, in the Libertarian view, people should be able to do whatever they wish (short of being harmful to others), and let the laws of nature and consequences determine the outcome?

[Gunny]

... all of which is fine !

But, do you realise what all of this adds up to ? A form of 'personal policing' of your own actions.

What you're saying is that there have to be workable and definable personal parameters to your behaviour in order to have it all work out.

Libertarianism rejects outside influence, since it only recognises 'self sovereignty'. That's all well and good for those sufficiently responsible to make it work with an ultimately benign effect. But this is by no means true of everyone, and it never will be.

This makes Libertarianism unworkable as any kind of 'universal' creed or yardstick. And argues for the need for Government having a means to exert influence.

I simply see no way of equating law and order-friendly Conservatism with any level of unrestrained Libertarianism. Indeed, Libertarianism is just too dangerous to be applied in any unrestrained manner.



That does make sense. BUT, it also means that what you're ALSO saying is that laws don't have to apply to everyone.

But of course, they do. Nobody should be above the law.



I've never been an advocate of NEEDLESS Government interference. And it should always be the tool of the people. That said ... Libertarianism perverts things to a point where balance is lost. It is unworkable on a wide scale. This I know to be true.

Which is why truly Conservative Government cannot afford to give it freedoms which many would abuse.

You've got a different definition to libertarianism than I do. Might be a North Atlantic disconnect. :laugh:

If you've ever seen the paradigm, libertarians are lumped from the far left to the far right and labeled mostly as anyone who won't fall into the "d" or "r" sheeple herds. I don't have a problem with government when it's doing what it's supposed to do. When it becomes more concerned with itself than the people it is supposed to serve, THEN I have a problem.

[Perianne]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Very well said ! Yes, I miss them both.

As when my husband died, sometimes people leaving this Earth creates a great void.

[Kathianne]

So, in the Libertarian view, people should be able to do whatever they wish (short of being harmful to others), and let the laws of nature and consequences determine the outcome?

Not at all, as I've explained several times. Certainly not for a state of nature, just for what the people feel is needed, where they live. States and counties/parishes, townships, cities, and even neighborhoods differ in their needs. Government, community groups, police should be and mostly are aware of those differences-not the fed or even the state capitol.

Common Core is a prime example of government failing by intrusiveness.

[Drummond]

Question regarding what I bolded, how perchance do you define 'welfare of the majority,' and 'decency'? How do you favor achievement of those goals?

I'm surprised at the question. Haven't I already answered this ?

The example of the UK circa 1978-79 surely gave a good illustration. In that example, the welfare of the majority was served by outlawing specific freedoms which had previously been abused. The welfare of the majority had been seriously violated, for example, by Unionists choosing to employ secondary picketing in order to intimidate those they were in dispute with. They were indulging in crippling strikes, and our society was, slowly but surely, going to hell in a handbasket.

Their tactics were curbed, their freedoms to be destructive likewise, and the welfare of the majority was served by having our society freed from the Trade Union tyranny that it had been previously free to inflict on everyone.

Perhaps you think it 'decent' for Trade Unions not to allow (to use the American term for it) garbage disposal ? Or to prevent freedom to travel ? Or to remove protection from outbreak of fires ? Or to prevent ambulance services from operating ? Or to call a strike that prevented the dead from being buried ???

Kathianne, none of what I describe is any exaggeration. My society suffered EACH AND EVERY VIOLATION OF ITS WELFARE THAT I HAVE LISTED. Margaret Thatcher applied the necessary remedy ... that of State powers enacted to make such outrages significantly harder to arrange in the future.

And we haven't seen such a bombardment of Trade Unions' wrecking actions at ANY TIME SINCE MRS THATCHER ACTED AS SHE DID.

[Perianne]

Not at all, as I've explained several times. Certainly not for a state of nature, just for what the people feel is needed, where they live. States and counties/parishes, townships, cities, and even neighborhoods differ in their needs. Government, community groups, police should be and mostly are aware of those differences-not the fed or even the state capitol.

Common Core is a prime example of government failing by intrusiveness.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but rather to understand. So please be patient.

You believe in a minimal role of big government? The bigger the government, the less in touch it is with the needs of the people, and therefore rules should be set by the locality?

[Kathianne]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but rather to understand. So please be patient.

You believe in a minimal role of big government? The bigger the government, the less in touch it is with the needs of the people, and therefore rules should be set by the locality?

I understand.

Basically our Constitution set up a Federated Republic, with Democratic features. We are not, never have been a 'Democracy.'

I'm strongly in favor of the Federated emphasis, as you put it, "The Federal Government" should only do what the states cannot effectively or efficiently do on their own. By the same token, the lower levels of government should only do what the individual cannot or should not do on their own.

If you have a problem with traffic patterns where you live, you probably can get a response in a day or so. Call City Hall.

While the national political scene certainly is what we are most interested in, where we get news about, where the 'action' is, our lives are much more impacted by the cop down the street or the school board members.

[Drummond]

Not at all, as I've explained several times. Certainly not for a state of nature, just for what the people feel is needed, where they live. States and counties/parishes, townships, cities, and even neighborhoods differ in their needs. Government, community groups, police should be and mostly are aware of those differences-not the fed or even the state capitol.

Common Core is a prime example of government failing by intrusiveness.

You know, Kathianne, I think you're only imagining the level of disagreement being perceived.

There is one difficulty here, and only one, when you really get down to it. Libertarianism is unworkable unless severely curbed. Pure Libertarianism defies all organised social order, because it refuses to recognise it as valid. It is therefore destructive.

It's basically a poison. In very small doses, it does no real harm. Taken beyond a certain level, and it is the antidote to social order, and therefore destructive.

You and I both agree that individual liberty is important and should always be a paramount consideration. But what I see, and I suspect you do not, is that Libertarianism is a perversion of liberty. It is anti-society, therefore, ultimately anti the greater good.

I don't want ruinous anarchy. No Conservative could ever want that. But unrestrained Libertarianism can lead to nothing else.

[Drummond]

As when my husband died, sometimes people leaving this Earth creates a great void.

What would have been true for your husband was most certainly true of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Each in their own way had priceless value, and we will never see their like again.

[Kathianne]

You know, Kathianne, I think you're only imagining the level of disagreement being perceived.

There is one difficulty here, and only one, when you really get down to it. Libertarianism is unworkable unless severely curbed. Pure Libertarianism defies all organised social order, because it refuses to recognise it as valid. It is therefore destructive.

It's basically a poison. In very small doses, it does no real harm. Taken beyond a certain level, and it is the antidote to social order, and therefore destructive.

You and I both agree that individual liberty is important and should always be a paramount consideration. But what I see, and I suspect you do not, is that Libertarianism is a perversion of liberty. It is anti-society, therefore, ultimately anti the greater good.

I don't want ruinous anarchy. No Conservative could ever want that. But unrestrained Libertarianism can lead to nothing else.

I think we have a failure to communicate due to English language. What you consider 'fact' regarding libertarianism, I consider opinion. We're not going to reach consensus, probably because we are speaking of differing definitions.

I think too it comes from our differing realities in where we live. We have states larger in size and population than many countries. Our 'DC' is thousands of miles from where I live, over a thousand from IL. London isn't all that many miles from most populated areas of England. We don't necessarily have much in common with our Federal government 'rulers' and many don't trust them to get things right for our schools, police, libraries, or even highways.

[Drummond]

I think we have a failure to communicate due to English language. What you consider 'fact' regarding libertarianism, I consider opinion. We're not going to reach consensus, probably because we are speaking of differing definitions.

I think too it comes from our differing realities in where we live. We have states larger in size and population than many countries. Our 'DC' is thousands of miles from where I live, over a thousand from IL. London isn't all that many miles from most populated areas of England. We don't necessarily have much in common with our Federal government 'rulers' and many don't trust them to get things right for our schools, police, libraries, or even highways.

Yes, well said. You make a very good overall point.

I'd disagree to a certain extent. YES, geographically, we're very much more compact than America is. Alienation is bound to be a factor when dealing with the great distances from State to State. But even so, I think the range of social differences even in the UK might surprise you. The 'Welsh Valleys' have their own social identity. So does the North of England. The 'North-South divide' is seen to be very real, containing peoples with significantly divergent worldviews.

That said ... we're still a more unified society because of compact size. One big Union decides to exercise its muscle ... the whole of our society is bound to suffer its consequences. This is one reason why Mrs Thatcher had to wield her big stick ...

I suggest that you see Libertarianism as more workable in the US, because it actually IS. But, why is that ?

I suggest this is because its poisonous effect is unlikely to be anything as widespread, so as damaging, as it would be in my part of the world.

But Conservatism is NOT about inflicting damage. Unrestrained Libertarianism, IS.

[Kathianne]

Yes, well said. You make a very good overall point.

I'd disagree to a certain extent. YES, geographically, we're very much more compact than America is. Alienation is bound to be a factor when dealing with the great distances from State to State. But even so, I think the range of social differences even in the UK might surprise you. The 'Welsh Valleys' have their own social identity. So does the North of England. The 'North-South divide' is seen to be very real, containing peoples with significantly divergent worldviews.

That said ... we're still a more unified society because of compact size. One big Union decides to exercise its muscle ... the whole of our society is bound to suffer its consequences. This is one reason why Mrs Thatcher had to wield her big stick ...

I suggest that you see Libertarianism as more workable in the US, because it actually IS. But, why is that ?

I suggest this is because its poisonous effect is unlikely to be anything as widespread, so as damaging, as it would be in my part of the world.

But Conservatism is NOT about inflicting damage. Unrestrained Libertarianism, IS.

Conservatism that results in the same game of powerful central government, with just differing interest groups coming out ahead is not an improvement-indeed is equally as oppressive to some and wrong on principles.

I want a US military, I don't want a US police force. I don't want the federal elite, even those I agree with defining my family or my religious viewpoints. We do not have an official church, yet. ;)

Like I said, there are differences between cousins, even siblings. What works for one, may not be the best for another. So goes the thinking between the regions, states, even towns in US. For the most part the libertarians here are for letting the locals decide what works best for them, very much in the manner of town meetings of old. Now there are reasons for states to make laws that encompass all. Those would include driving, marriage, etc. No, we cannot allow some 'groups' in low density areas to create a hostile enclave, upon that I assume agreement.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:facepalm99: You should educate yourself.

https://www.lp.org/platform

Go ahead and point out the left-wing positions of the Libertarian Party and how myself, Kathianne, DragonStryk, and Gunny are lefties.


SURE.. All these links are lies.. :laugh:--TYR

GOOGLE
Search Results

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Wikipedia

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, left-libertarianism ..... Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a ...
‎Social anarchism - ‎Luxemburgism - ‎Wage slavery - ‎Libertarian municipalism

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Wikipedia

Jump to Libertarian socialism - Libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian ... with a variety of perspectives have applied to their views.

‎Night-watchman state - ‎Autonomy - ‎Minarchism - ‎Libertarianism in the United ...

What is Libertarian Socialism? | The Anarchist Library
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ulli-diemer-what-is-libertarian-socialism

Is libertarian socialism any different from socialism as it is generally ... Most of the ideas presented here are not new, but neither are they generally accepted.
Urban Dictionary: Libertarian Socialism
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...Libertarian+S...
Urban Dictionary

In fact, the term "libertarian" was first used by a French anarcho-communist back in ... as opposed to libertarian socialism's anti-capitalism and anti-statism ideals.
What is Libertarian Socialism? | Thoughts on Liberty
thoughtsonliberty.com/what-is-libertarian-socialism
Jun 18, 2014 - Libertarian socialism generally upholds individual liberty as one of the core values. Like most libertarians, libertarian socialists view gun control ...

On Libertarian Socialism | Libertarianism.org
www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-socialism
Libertarianism.org


An Anarchist FAQ - I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?
www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI1
Infoshop.org
And is it compatible with libertarian ideals? What do the words "libertarian" and "socialism" actually mean? It is temping to use dictionary definitions as a starting ...

A Libertarian Socialist Critique of the “Libertarian” Party and ...
libertyandsocialism.org/.../a-libertarian-socialist-critique-of-the-libertaria...

May 11, 2012 - Libertarian socialists used the term libertarian to differentiate their views, ..... Unlike many libertarians, who view the anti-reproductive rights ...
Libertarian Socialism
www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001631.html
May 7, 1997 - Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word ... wrote "Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" in ...

[red state]

Nope - I'm not saying such a thing.

I'm saying that, in a society, individualism, individual rights, should be served to the best ability of that society to do so.

But Libertarianism seems to me to be seeking to make an individual's 'self sovereignty' so utterly sacrosanct that it trumps everything else. And that's a model which defies even the concept of society as a workable model.

If you're at all familiar with British history, circa 1978-79, I'm sure you'd know that we had something of a battle for survival on our hands. On the one hand, we had Trade Unionists, calling for WAVE after WAVE of strikes, believing all the while that their demands trumped all other considerations in society. Indeed, at roughly around that time, I recall we had the long-running Grunwick dispute .. which saw mob rule trump the rule of law, with Trade Unionists believing they could call entire mobs of people to a business and, through mob rule, use intimidation to win out.

It seems to me that those Unionists could cite Libertarianism as a defence for their disgusting, antisocial behaviour. I mean, why not ? Each Trade Unionist would put his, or her, individual 'rights' above others. And mob rule resulted.

Margaret Thatcher came to power. Her answer was to pass laws to curb Union 'freedoms', since she perceived (as was blindingly obvious) that society needed to be protected from such wrecking behaviour. In other words, because she HAD to, she used State powers to bring proper, decent, LAW AND ORDER back to the streets of Britain.

Kathianne, to my knowledge, Lady Thatcher is celebrated as a great CONSERVATIVE leader. But by no stretch of the imagination did she, nor COULD she, ever apply LIBERTARIANISM to the problems she was charged with solving.

Libertarianism, Kathianne, was the tool of the LEFT throughout that period (though precious few used that word in association with it, Libertarianist 'values' underpinned the Union case).

It couldn't be clearer, Kathianne. Libertarianism has its limits, and when pushed beyond a certain point, defies law and order, and defies the welfare of the majority. Law and order must be maintained - inviolably so. If not, then chaos, anarchy, much suffering, is the result.

This isn't theory with me. I know through certain knowledge that I am right. As did Margaret Thatcher.

It's nonsensical for FJ, as a self-proclaimed 'Ultimate Thatcherite', to also claim that he is an adherent of Libertarianism. If one is true, the other cannot be. I suggest that FJ picks his preferred side, then sticks with it.


*YOU MUST SPREAD REPUTATION AROUND BEFORE GIVING IT TO THAT DASTARDLY DRUMMOND!!! ha!!!!

[DragonStryk72]

Perhaps there's some fundamental flaw in my reasoning I'm unaware of. But, surely .. if drug taking is decriminalised, you legalise the use of those drugs. That means that drug dealers, the ones 'pushing' those drugs, are engaged in a LEGAL activity ??

So on what grounds, in that scenario, could drug dealers be regarded as fair game to 'go after' ?

No: all of this is a total nonsense. Many drugs are known to have harmful effects, so any effort made to decriminalise them is completely counterproductive. That goes for 'hard' drugs .. very obviously. It also goes for 'soft' drugs, since too many of them open gateways to the taking of the 'harder' varieties.

Besides, new discoveries are being made all the time. A previously supposed 'harmless' drug might be belatedly seen to be harmful.

I ask: why take risks ? Why not just tighten up laws on it all, across the board ??

Libertarians would hate that. For my part, I hate Libertarian Leftie destructiveness. Strong and uncompromising laws are the only sensible option.

Use and production are different things. As you've said, there's difference between the British and US version of conservatism. But here's the thing: We DID tighten up the laws for use. We did that for 30 years, and guess what? Drugs are more prevalent than ever, and the US has the largest prison population in the entire world. Seriously, China and India combined do not imprison as much of their population as we do. We've been hard on drugs, and all it's gotten us is more junkies, more drugs, and tons of money wasted. So your version is, by point of evidence, weak on drugs. Far better to focus on the actual trouble, rather than put millions of people on the state's dime for years at a time for something that's only harming them, and no one else. While they're in the overcrowded prison, they get access to more drugs anyway (humans are inventive like that), and essentially get introduced to harder criminals.

Once they're out, that prison stay, even if only a week in length, bars them from good employment in much of the market, and it can follow them for more than a decade are they have "paid their debt". Even when they do get hired, there's a free excuse to pay them less than what they would otherwise make, and their employer knows how few their options are. This leads to greater recidivism, or likelihood that they'll commit more crimes, because really, if I'm damned if I do, and I'm damned if I don't, might as well be damned for something I did.

Drugs are tightly controlled items, even medically. You couldn't sell Lidocane on the streets, so the existing laws already support this point. It is compounded by the point that the dealers know they are doing harm with these products. It's pretty straightforward, really.

Libertarians are not leftist here, but I'm not sure how they work in the UK. If they're mostly just going for anarchy, or liberal paradise, we likely have little in common. Having strong laws that protect people from others is something we should strive for, but no one's liberty is being impinged upon here, no one is being harmed outside of their own choices. The current War on Drugs has lasted longer than two Vietnams, and it has failed, utterly. Strong arm tactics have only compounded the problem, and at it's core, we need to focus on those causing the trouble, not the marks of the people causing the trouble.

[red state]

... all of which is fine !

But, do you realise what all of this adds up to ? A form of 'personal policing' of your own actions.

What you're saying is that there have to be workable and definable personal parameters to your behaviour in order to have it all work out.

Libertarianism rejects outside influence, since it only recognises 'self sovereignty'. That's all well and good for those sufficiently responsible to make it work with an ultimately benign effect. But this is by no means true of everyone, and it never will be.

This makes Libertarianism unworkable as any kind of 'universal' creed or yardstick. And argues for the need for Government having a means to exert influence.

I simply see no way of equating law and order-friendly Conservatism with any level of unrestrained Libertarianism. Indeed, Libertarianism is just too dangerous to be applied in any unrestrained manner.



That does make sense. BUT, it also means that what you're ALSO saying is that laws don't have to apply to everyone.

But of course, they do. Nobody should be above the law.



I've never been an advocate of NEEDLESS Government interference. And it should always be the tool of the people. That said ... Libertarianism perverts things to a point where balance is lost. It is unworkable on a wide scale. This I know to be true.

Which is why truly Conservative Government cannot afford to give it freedoms which many would abuse.

SPOT ON, DRUMMOND!

I can drive 75 in a 55 because I know that I am able to do so and not risk endangering others. I wouldn't want anyone else to do that, however, because I have seen too many of my neighbors drive. I should be able to do so because I know I can top those hills and cut those curbs like a real Duke boy and I don't want or need cops telling me that I was breaking some idiotic speeding law that should be directed to someone who can't straighten the curves or flatten the hills as professionally as I can. I also have land across the black-top from my house and as long as a car isn't coming, and since I own both sides of the road, see no reason why I can't continue to shoot at a 400 yd target in the pasture across from my house. The cop who told me that he'd had some complaints, apparently doesn't know my rights or how well I shoot. I am responsible and can usually see if a car is coming. The ear protection makes it difficult to hear but I seldom have a car or jogger get close enough for any kind of incident. It's not the busy a road anyway....who's that cop to tell me what is safe or not?!

I also set up booby traps when I'm going to be out of town. I've never had a fire so I doubt fire fighters will ever receive what is intended for thieves. I'm simply taking care of what's mine and don't see how my protecting my home from thieves hurt anyone that doesn't deserve it. I even have signs saying "never mind the dog....GUN inside".

These actions are a bit extreme (I suppose) to use as examples of liberal-tarian mindsets but in many ways, the examples aren't that far fetched in comparison.

Heck, it is late.....I really need to pull this rig over but I've been driving a truck for over 20 years now and have to get this freight in by sunrise. I'm not hurting anyone and am simply trying to make a living while typing to you good folks. There's nobody else on the highway right now, and I need the good company that the Debate Policy community provides. As long as I have these long, empty highways, I'm not endangering anyone cuz I have such fantastic eye-hand coordination (as well as multi-task skills). I've yet to have any accidents or even close calls and responding to you guys helps keep my eyes open much of the time. Those texting laws come from overbearing bureaucrats and THEIR laws should not apply to me. Maybe they should apply if you are using an Obama Phone but not the kind of phone I'm using.

Talk to ya'll more when I get closer to Atlanta.....should be in Dallas by breakfast time.

[Jeff]

I'd actually like to be able to go to the doctor and get some. The problem here is the reverse psychology. If you're asking for a pain killer you're a drug abuser. No, I'd like to have the medicine for what it's intended for. I just can't figure out how all these illegal drug users can get the crap and I can't get it legally because of them. What's the purpose of even having the damned stuff if you can't freakin' legally get it?

All libertarians are not lefties.

Strong and uncompromising laws are forcing your will on others.


I feel for you, Gunny. Have you tried dedicated pain clinics?

Gunny Perianne is exactly right, a good pain clinic will take care of you, know you will have to go through all the BS of the drug testing and all at first ( yes they are going to make sure you are taking the drug they give you and that is all ) but once they know you they just test as much as the Government says they have to. I go to a pain clinic and my Doc ( after going for a few years ) has finally made it where I go once every two months and get my scripts, but it took that long for him to trust me.

[Jeff]

SPOT ON, DRUMMOND!

I can drive 75 in a 55 because I know that I am able to do so and not risk endangering others. I wouldn't want anyone else to do that, however, because I have seen too many of my neighbors drive. I should be able to do so because I know I can top those hills and cut those curbs like a real Duke boy and I don't want or need cops telling me that I was breaking some idiotic speeding law that should be directed to someone who can't straighten the curves or flatten the hills as professionally as I can. I also have land across the black-top from my house and as long as a car isn't coming, and since I own both sides of the road, see no reason why I can't continue to shoot at a 400 yd target in the pasture across from my house. The cop who told me that he'd had some complaints, apparently doesn't know my rights or how well I shoot. I am responsible and can usually see if a car is coming. The ear protection makes it difficult to hear but I seldom have a car or jogger get close enough for any kind of incident. It's not the busy a road anyway....who's that cop to tell me what is safe or not?!

I also set up booby traps when I'm going to be out of town. I've never had a fire so I doubt fire fighters will ever receive what is intended for thieves. I'm simply taking care of what's mine and don't see how my protecting my home from thieves hurt anyone that doesn't deserve it. I even have signs saying "never mind the dog....GUN inside".

These actions are a bit extreme (I suppose) to use as examples of liberal-tarian mindsets but in many ways, the examples aren't that far fetched in comparison.

Heck, it is late.....I really need to pull this rig over but I've been driving a truck for over 20 years now and have to get this freight in by sunrise. I'm not hurting anyone and am simply trying to make a living while typing to you good folks. There's nobody else on the highway right now, and I need the good company that the Debate Policy community provides. As long as I have these long, empty highways, I'm not endangering anyone cuz I have such fantastic eye-hand coordination (as well as multi-task skills). I've yet to have any accidents or even close calls and responding to you guys helps keep my eyes open much of the time. Those texting laws come from overbearing bureaucrats and THEIR laws should not apply to me. Maybe they should apply if you are using an Obama Phone but not the kind of phone I'm using.

Talk to ya'll more when I get closer to Atlanta.....should be in Dallas by breakfast time.


Sounds like you took a page out of how my life use to be. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

I'm surprised at the question. Haven't I already answered this ?

The example of the UK circa 1978-79 surely gave a good illustration. In that example, the welfare of the majority was served by outlawing specific freedoms which had previously been abused. The welfare of the majority had been seriously violated, for example, by Unionists choosing to employ secondary picketing in order to intimidate those they were in dispute with. They were indulging in crippling strikes, and our society was, slowly but surely, going to hell in a handbasket.

Their tactics were curbed, their freedoms to be destructive likewise, and the welfare of the majority was served by having our society freed from the Trade Union tyranny that it had been previously free to inflict on everyone.

Perhaps you think it 'decent' for Trade Unions not to allow (to use the American term for it) garbage disposal ? Or to prevent freedom to travel ? Or to remove protection from outbreak of fires ? Or to prevent ambulance services from operating ? Or to call a strike that prevented the dead from being buried ???

Kathianne, none of what I describe is any exaggeration. My society suffered EACH AND EVERY VIOLATION OF ITS WELFARE THAT I HAVE LISTED. Margaret Thatcher applied the necessary remedy ... that of State powers enacted to make such outrages significantly harder to arrange in the future.

And we haven't seen such a bombardment of Trade Unions' wrecking actions at ANY TIME SINCE MRS THATCHER ACTED AS SHE DID.

Again, not trying to be disrespectful, but that explains YOUR reasons for your anti-libertarian stand, which I'll take your word for in UK c1970's. It doesn't however address how you favor achievement of your goals regarding 'the welfare of the majority' or 'decency.'

To illustrate just how close our true stands are though, libertarians that I agree with are anything but 'pro-union,' in fact quite the opposite. They likely are against over emphasis on group projects in school too. ;)

[Drummond]

You've got a different definition to libertarianism than I do. Might be a North Atlantic disconnect. :laugh:

There might be differences in application, leading to a difference in perception.

There is also the point which Kathianne touched on, regarding the great differences in scale between America and the UK, and the extent of 'disconnect' someone from the South might feel towards the central Government machinery of Washington. Here, I'm sure that such a 'disconnect' couldn't be as major because we're such small islands by comparison (.. though there ARE cultural differences in different parts of the UK, regardless).

I can only tell you that, here, the idea of society being a machine that needs to not be countered beyond a certain point is keenly felt by most people, EXCEPT 'people' such as Leftie activist types who feel that their more individualistically differing demands must be met. So it has been that at certain periods of the 20th century, social wrecking from such trash adversely affected MILLIONS of people.

There have been political flashpoints. In early 1974, with Unions forcing a three-day working week on the UK because, from their demands not being met, they stopped coal being mined, and forced power stations to severely ration their power output. Our entire industrial base was threatened, and THEN, Ted Heath called an election with this prime question being posed: 'Who should consider that they have the right to exercise dominant control ... Government, or Unions ?'

Heath lost the election, and Labour, the party of the Unions (i.e Socialist) won, though without an outright majority. Democratic process was seen to be enacted. Supposedly 'The People' won ... power supplies were restored.

So, after a further election later that year and a further Labour victory, we carried on. Union demands were habitually acceded to. Wage demands outstripped productivity. By 1976, the national inflation rate topped 26 percent.

Government did not govern. It just caved in all the time. Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, resigned with rampaging inflation continuing.

Enter Jim Callaghan. He proposed, and got, a pact with the major Unions, where it was agreed that excessive wage demands would be curbed. Within a couple of years, inflation tumbled to EIGHT percent.

But, as is the way with destructive Union trash, they eventually reneged on the deal. Wage demands started again. There was a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, which Callaghan lost. We had an election, which Margaret Thatcher won.

We had our 'Winter of Discontent' as a backdrop to these events. WAVE after WAVE of strikes happened. The UK's working force seemed bent on sabotaging the very viability of our society. BUT .. Margaret Thatcher won.

It took good, hard, uncompromising CONSERVATIVE leadership to bring us back from the brink. A triumph of Government against so-called 'workers'.

You see, knowing that Government must GOVERN, that State powers must be enacted if circumstances called for it, was what Mrs Thatcher was all about. She'd seen Ted Heath's approach in the early '70's, seen it fail, seen the outcome develop through Governmental WEAKNESS.

She knew that Heath's experiment could not possibly be repeated. Strong leadership trumped social wreckage, to her way of thinking.

AND HISTORY VINDICATED HER. The UK prospered. GONE WAS THE FREEDOM TO SABOTAGE A NATION.

I am absolutely sure that Libertarians would balk at my account, seeing Mrs Thatcher and her approach as anathema to all they'd fight for. Nonetheless, Mrs Thatcher did us good. Libertarian wreckage, the tool of the militant Left, DID NOT.


If you've ever seen the paradigm, libertarians are lumped from the far left to the far right and labeled mostly as anyone who won't fall into the "d" or "r" sheeple herds. I don't have a problem with government when it's doing what it's supposed to do. When it becomes more concerned with itself than the people it is supposed to serve, THEN I have a problem.

See above. What you're suggesting is far removed from the reality I know. To me, all of this is settled, and proven fact: Libertarianism is a perversion of individualism, taken to destructive extremes. There's nothing wrong with individualism per se, and nothing wrong with seeing Government as accountable to the People ... for as long as the role of Government persists as an effective force.

Society is a machine. You throw spanners in the works at your peril.

[Drummond]

Again, not trying to be disrespectful, but that explains YOUR reasons for your anti-libertarian stand, which I'll take your word for in UK c1970's. It doesn't however address how you favor achievement of your goals regarding 'the welfare of the majority' or 'decency.'

See what I've just posted. This is all a clear cut issue to me, with my case already proven through history.

The only ultimately decent outcome is not to allow Libertarian types to feel that they have a right to fight the machinery of Government beyond a certain point. The UK's history already proves how ruinous that can be.

I've seen a three day working week visited on a country because 'the workers' wanted to take a stand against Government. That meant ... no power to homes. No power to businesses either, unless they provided essential services that couldn't safely be done without.

In my early career, I sat in an office for two days out of five, in wintertime, knowing it would remain unheated. I'd then go home to a house without electricity and electric heating. Since gas and oil supplies were also disrupted, no guarantee of ANY form of heating for MILLIONS of people existed.

Does such a scenario conform to your idea of 'decency', Kathianne ?

No. In a struggle between Leftie Libertarianism and solid, dependable Government, I say that Libertarianism's goals are counterproductive to the greater good. Mrs Thatcher knew it, and we prospered as a result, with Union wrecking stopped in its tracks through good Government.

Her laws have guaranteed that we have never revisited the dark (literally so) days of the 1970's.

[Perianne]

Something I have noticed about Libertarians. They often refer to people who do not feel they way they do as "sheeple". I am not sure if this is an insult or not.

[Drummond]

Something I have noticed about Libertarians. They often refer to people who do not feel they way they do as "sheeple". I am not sure if this is an insult or not.

Whether or not it's consciously intended as one, I think the point is that debate is sometimes taken in a direction intended to manipulate feeling to gain an advantage. Which is a curious tactic to choose to adopt, if you're sure of the justice of your case.

I think that debate is best served through objective arguments instead. I always hope for this from my debating opponents.

[Kathianne]

Something I have noticed about Libertarians. They often refer to people who do not feel they way they do as "sheeple". I am not sure if this is an insult or not.
LOL! I thought that was liberals, like Bully.

[Kathianne]

See what I've just posted. This is all a clear cut issue to me, with my case already proven through history.

The only ultimately decent outcome is not to allow Libertarian types to feel that they have a right to fight the machinery of Government beyond a certain point. The UK's history already proves how ruinous that can be.

I've seen a three day working week visited on a country because 'the workers' wanted to take a stand against Government. That meant ... no power to homes. No power to businesses either, unless they provided essential services that couldn't safely be done without.

In my early career, I sat in an office for two days out of five, in wintertime, knowing it would remain unheated. I'd then go home to a house without electricity and electric heating. Since gas and oil supplies were also disrupted, no guarantee of ANY form of heating for MILLIONS of people existed.

Does such a scenario conform to your idea of 'decency', Kathianne ?

No. In a struggle between Leftie Libertarianism and solid, dependable Government, I say that Libertarianism's goals are counterproductive to the greater good. Mrs Thatcher knew it, and we prospered as a result, with Union wrecking stopped in its tracks through good Government.

Her laws have guaranteed that we have never revisited the dark (literally so) days of the 1970's.

Once again, your examples are not applicable to what we are talking about here. There is obviously a problem with definitions.

Unions are for big government, mega regulations, i.e. the antithesis of libertarians.

Libertarians are not for abolishing government or anarchy. They are for small government, especially cutting the federal government in size and control.

[Drummond]

Once again, your examples are not applicable to what we are talking about here. There is obviously a problem with definitions.

Unions are for big government, mega regulations, i.e. the antithesis of libertarians.

Libertarians are not for abolishing government or anarchy. They are for small government, especially cutting the federal government in size and control.

The UK's history says exactly the opposite. Unions are only pro-Government when it is THEIR Government taking and exercising power. And even when the Left wing do rule us, STILL, they hate to suffer State regulations which don't specifically serve them.

Mrs Thatcher passed laws, forced Unions to heed regulations, which impeded their ability to wreak havoc. They hated her with a passion for that. They burned to see her Government overthrown. A militant Union Leftie called Arthur Scargill tried to arrange it.

It was a straight State v Union struggle. Scargill wanted the elected Government overthrown, partly because he hated its Right wing credentials, but also because State controls defied what he wanted. He was prepared to bring Society to its knees rather than see the State win out.

Mrs Thatcher won. It took nearly a year, but it was Scargill who was defeated.

On the very morning of Mrs Thatcher's first election victory, EVEN before she'd stepped into 10 Downing Street for the first time, one Union leader went on air (on the BBC) to warn her that she must work hand in hand with Unions, or suffer consequences (Sid Weighell). Mrs Thatcher ignored him. She passed laws designed to restrict Union freedoms. She therefore had unremitting opposition from the Left, WHO RESENTED THOSE STATE RESTRICTIONS AND WANTED THEM OVERTHROWN.

How is the Left's behaviour not Libertarian ?? They wanted all laws which restricted them, overthrown. Sounds Libertarian in nature to me !!

[Drummond]

*YOU MUST SPREAD REPUTATION AROUND BEFORE GIVING IT TO THAT DASTARDLY DRUMMOND!!! ha!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Kathianne]

The UK's history says exactly the opposite. Unions are only pro-Government when it is THEIR Government taking and exercising power. And even when the Left wing do rule us, STILL, they hate to suffer State regulations which don't specifically serve them.

Mrs Thatcher passed laws, forced Unions to heed regulations, which impeded their ability to wreak havoc. They hated her with a passion for that. They burned to see her Government overthrown. A militant Union Leftie called Arthur Scargill tried to arrange it.

It was a straight State v Union struggle. Scargill wanted the elected Government overthrown, partly because he hated its Right wing credentials, but also because State controls defied what he wanted. He was prepared to bring Society to its knees rather than see the State win out.

Mrs Thatcher won. It took nearly a year, but it was Scargill who was defeated.

On the very morning of Mrs Thatcher's first election victory, EVEN before she'd stepped into 10 Downing Street for the first time, one Union leader went on air (on the BBC) to warn her that she must work hand in hand with Unions, or suffer consequences (Sid Weighell). Mrs Thatcher ignored him. She passed laws designed to restrict Union freedoms. She therefore had unremitting opposition from the Left, WHO RESENTED THOSE STATE RESTRICTIONS AND WANTED THEM OVERTHROWN.

How is the Left's behaviour not Libertarian ?? They wanted all laws which restricted them, overthrown. Sounds Libertarian in nature to me !!

Well, we're talking about in the US, not the UK. I guess we'll just have to call them different.

I liked Thatcher, when she spoke of things that ALSO pertained to the US. Unions have never had that kind of control on US system, at least since the 30's or 40's. We've had school strikes, but not so long anymore. We had PATCO, everyone knows how that turned out.

[Gunny]

Gunny Perianne is exactly right, a good pain clinic will take care of you, know you will have to go through all the BS of the drug testing and all at first ( yes they are going to make sure you are taking the drug they give you and that is all ) but once they know you they just test as much as the Government says they have to. I go to a pain clinic and my Doc ( after going for a few years ) has finally made it where I go once every two months and get my scripts, but it took that long for him to trust me.

Right. Now try retired military tricare. They have a wrote script. Anything you ask for is exactly what you don't get. Ibuprofen will cure everything.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

At least they stood for something.

Here's a good example: They were doing interviews on the tube last night. The question was "What do you think of Marco Rubio?" Who? Republican state senator from Florida. I hate him. THAT is the kind of mindless crap I'm talking about.

Don't know who he is and never heard him speak but hate him because he's a Republican. THAT is a mindless stooge.

Sad to have to say this, but that is what the schools, primarily the universities have been churning out for decades.
Education system started being attacked(infiltrated ) by socialist/leftists in the late fifties by mid 60's it was in full integration mode as universities scrambled to bring in European socialists teachers/professors in an ignorant bid for diversity and multiculturalism.
Now the average college graduate is far , far less educated than was the average high school graduate was back in 1938(Pre -WW2)...

Those socialists brought in did not come here to NOT expand on and integrate their political ideas.
As they believe in socialism as if its their religion. They saw a golden chance to spread their insanity and did so!
Thus we eventually got a corrupted and destroyed higher education system, by the mid 80's it was just a propaganda machine.
Basically still is... -Tyr

[LongTermGuy]

Sad to have to say this, but that is what the schools, primarily the universities have been churning out for decades.
Education system started being attacked(infiltrated ) by socialist/leftists in the late fifties by mid 60's it was in full integration mode as universities scrambled to bring in European socialists teachers/professors in an ignorant bid for diversity and multiculturalism.
Now the average college graduate is far , far less educated than was the average high school graduate was back in 1938(Pre -WW2)...

Those socialists brought in did not come here to NOT expand on and integrate their political ideas.
As they believe in socialism as if its their religion. They saw a golden chance to spread their insanity and did so!
Thus we eventually got a corrupted and destroyed higher education system, by the mid 80's it was just a propaganda machine.
Basically still is... -Tyr

:clap::clap::clap:

[fj1200]

In the case mentioned we are dealing with now-the leftists now twisting to push their agenda.
Not one hundred years ago...
Yet even then leftists existed-if you think not you'd better read some history amigo! -Tyr

WTF are you talking about? That was a completely different thread. Besides I already pointed out how that wasn't "leftist."

[Drummond]

Well, we're talking about in the US, not the UK. I guess we'll just have to call them different.

I liked Thatcher, when she spoke of things that ALSO pertained to the US. Unions have never had that kind of control on US system, at least since the 30's or 40's. We've had school strikes, but not so long anymore. We had PATCO, everyone knows how that turned out.

The US's history is obviously different from that of the UK.

But I suggest that Libertarian's Left-wing nature makes it a long term threat. In the UK, we've seen where that threat leads. It may simply be that you will face, in your future, what we've already faced in our past.

Individualism is a fine thing. As a Conservative, I value the individual, as do we all .. including Mrs Thatcher, when she was in power. But the real point is that Libertarianism is a perversion of individualism, because it carries the whole understanding of the worth of the individual to a pitch where it has no respect for social order.

Society is a machine, there to serve all its citizens. To then assert that the individual should have so much personal authority that society's very infrastructure need not be respected, is purely destructive. Because the notion of 'self-sovereignty' written into Libertarianism makes it an anti-society concept.

The UK's Left-wing Trade Unions fully identified with that. Governments of the day took positions on the need to curb wage rises, because, after all, money doesn't grow on trees .. wage demands need to be afforded, IF agreed to.

But Unions didn't like that. They decided that their members' individual interests trumped all other social considerations. So, they took on society, and the Government running it, by embarking on crippling strikes.

In 1973-74, Ted Heath made this a matter of clear democratic decision. Did Government deserve to rule, and apply commonsense, responsible policies ... OR, did individuals have the right to defy Government, defy its policies, and just bulldoze their demands through ?

In early 1974, Government lost. By 1976, our economy was badly suffering.

Margaret Thatcher's policy was to put commonsense Government ABOVE such individualistic wrecking. She passed the necessary laws to outlaw those freedoms which had been previously abused. Her fight was ALL ABOUT the State protecting people from Left-wing adventurism.

To what extent does this lesson apply to the US ?

Kathianne, are you saying that your Unions have never taken a libertarian posture, and placed their membership above social order and Government interests ? Because ... if 'yes', I ask what's stopped that from happening.

My guess is that, simply, Libertarianism hasn't found the same expression in America that it has in the UK. If so .. God help you, when it does !!

Or, do you have laws ALREADY in place preventing Union wrecking from taking place on any meaningful scale ?

I think that the reason Libertarianism isn't seen as Left wing in America is just that your Left hasn't quite got its act together just yet. When it does, as I think it will do, one day .. you'll see the reality that I already witnessed, decades ago.

You have yet to have proved to you, through example, what I learned long ago.

But it'll happen, UNLESS the danger Libertarianism poses is confronted, its true nature as a destructive Left-wing methodology perceived ... and stopped in its tracks.

[Kathianne]

The US's history is obviously different from that of the UK.

But I suggest that Libertarian's Left-wing nature makes it a long term threat. In the UK, we've seen where that threat leads. It may simply be that you will face, in your future, what we've already faced in our past.

Individualism is a fine thing. As a Conservative, I value the individual, as do we all .. including Mrs Thatcher, when she was in power. But the real point is that Libertarianism is a perversion of individualism, because it carries the whole understanding of the worth of the individual to a pitch where it has no respect for social order. First off, I'm not going to argue Thatcher and policies, I acknowledge I'm not informed enough, nor do I have the interest to debate that-I've seen where it goes with FJ and am not interested.

Again I believe we are addressing something entirely different. I've written enough, for my purposes to explain my views, which disagree with your 'perversion of individualism.' More to the point, the whole 'unions' you've given as an example seems to be not for the individual at all, but rather for an interest group that would give the individual members more money or time off, thus it would be a collective working in their interests, much like the PATCO strike-that led to a breaking of the union. Never would that be a 'libertarian' movement, as known in US. Again the purposes are the antithesis of the ideas.


Society is a machine, there to serve all its citizens. To then assert that the individual should have so much personal authority that society's very infrastructure need not be respected, is purely destructive. Because the notion of 'self-sovereignty' written into Libertarianism makes it an anti-society concept.

The UK's Left-wing Trade Unions fully identified with that. Governments of the day took positions on the need to curb wage rises, because, after all, money doesn't grow on trees .. wage demands need to be afforded, IF agreed to.

But Unions didn't like that. They decided that their members' individual interests trumped all other social considerations. So, they took on society, and the Government running it, by embarking on crippling strikes.

In 1973-74, Ted Heath made this a matter of clear democratic decision. Did Government deserve to rule, and apply commonsense, responsible policies ... OR, did individuals have the right to defy Government, defy its policies, and just bulldoze their demands through ?

In early 1974, Government lost. By 1976, our economy was badly suffering.

Margaret Thatcher's policy was to put commonsense Government ABOVE such individualistic wrecking. She passed the necessary laws to outlaw those freedoms which had been previously abused. Her fight was ALL ABOUT the State protecting people from Left-wing adventurism.

To what extent does this lesson apply to the US ?

Kathianne, are you saying that your Unions have never taken a libertarian posture, and placed their membership above social order and Government interests ? Because ... if 'yes', I ask what's stopped that from happening. I bolded a few words to emphasize the collective nature of your example. In answer to your question to me directly, yes our 'unions' would not be libertarian, for the simple reason that the who purpose of unions is the collective. No one can argue that collectives aren't made up of individuals, LOL! You won't find 'libertarians' in the US or anywhere that follows what we are talking about, willingly being part of such. Oh, you'll find libertarians in 'closed shop' states, they have to work, but they won't be active in the union, that is reality here.

Closed shops are falling by the wayside in favor of 'right to work' state legislation, simply because most Americans find unions a different form of oppression of the individual-even those that are unaware of libertarianism in theory.


My guess is that, simply, Libertarianism hasn't found the same expression in America that it has in the UK. If so .. God help you, when it does !!

Or, do you have laws ALREADY in place preventing Union wrecking from taking place an any meaningful scale ?

I think that the reason Libertarianism isn't seen as Left wing in America is just that your Left hasn't quite got its act together just yet. When it does, as I think it will do, one day .. you'll see the reality that I already witnessed, decades ago.

You have yet to have proved to you, through example, what I learned long ago.

But it'll happen, UNLESS the danger Libertarianism poses is confronted, its true nature as a destructive Left-wing methodology perceived and stopped in its tracks.

No disrespect again, but you really appear here to just need to 'win' something. What? I'm not sure what.

[tailfins]

The US's history is obviously different from that of the UK.

But I suggest that Libertarian's Left-wing nature makes it a long term threat. In the UK, we've seen where that threat leads. It may simply be that you will face, in your future, what we've already faced in our past.

Individualism is a fine thing. As a Conservative, I value the individual, as do we all .. including Mrs Thatcher, when she was in power. But the real point is that Libertarianism is a perversion of individualism, because it carries the whole understanding of the worth of the individual to a pitch where it has no respect for social order.

Society is a machine, there to serve all its citizens. To then assert that the individual should have so much personal authority that society's very infrastructure need not be respected, is purely destructive. Because the notion of 'self-sovereignty' written into Libertarianism makes it an anti-society concept.

The UK's Left-wing Trade Unions fully identified with that. Governments of the day took positions on the need to curb wage rises, because, after all, money doesn't grow on trees .. wage demands need to be afforded, IF agreed to.

But Unions didn't like that. They decided that their members' individual interests trumped all other social considerations. So, they took on society, and the Government running it, by embarking on crippling strikes.

In 1973-74, Ted Heath made this a matter of clear democratic decision. Did Government deserve to rule, and apply commonsense, responsible policies ... OR, did individuals have the right to defy Government, defy its policies, and just bulldoze their demands through ?

In early 1974, Government lost. By 1976, our economy was badly suffering.

Margaret Thatcher's policy was to put commonsense Government ABOVE such individualistic wrecking. She passed the necessary laws to outlaw those freedoms which had been previously abused. Her fight was ALL ABOUT the State protecting people from Left-wing adventurism.

To what extent does this lesson apply to the US ?

Kathianne, are you saying that your Unions have never taken a libertarian posture, and placed their membership above social order and Government interests ? Because ... if 'yes', I ask what's stopped that from happening.

My guess is that, simply, Libertarianism hasn't found the same expression in America that it has in the UK. If so .. God help you, when it does !!

Or, do you have laws ALREADY in place preventing Union wrecking from taking place on any meaningful scale ?

I think that the reason Libertarianism isn't seen as Left wing in America is just that your Left hasn't quite got its act together just yet. When it does, as I think it will do, one day .. you'll see the reality that I already witnessed, decades ago.

You have yet to have proved to you, through example, what I learned long ago.

But it'll happen, UNLESS the danger Libertarianism poses is confronted, its true nature as a destructive Left-wing methodology perceived ... and stopped in its tracks.

Does the UK have initiative petitions? Libertarians are fanatical enough to be effective in signature gathering. They have been particularly useful in state tax freeze and other initiatives. In 1986 for example, they repealed the Massachusetts seat belt law. Libertarians are useful elbow grease. The trick is to pat them on the head and patronize them by telling them what they want to hear to get their free labor. The Libertarians I have known are driven by vanity. They are too "special" to be part of a regular political party.

[fj1200]

If you're at all familiar with British history, circa 1978-79, I'm sure you'd know that we had something of a battle for survival on our hands. On the one hand, we had Trade Unionists, calling for WAVE after WAVE of strikes, believing all the while that their demands trumped all other considerations in society. Indeed, at roughly around that time, I recall we had the long-running Grunwick dispute .. which saw mob rule trump the rule of law, with Trade Unionists believing they could call entire mobs of people to a business and, through mob rule, use intimidation to win out.

It seems to me that those Unionists could cite Libertarianism as a defence for their disgusting, antisocial behaviour. I mean, why not ? Each Trade Unionist would put his, or her, individual 'rights' above others. And mob rule resulted.

Margaret Thatcher came to power. Her answer was to pass laws to curb Union 'freedoms', since she perceived (as was blindingly obvious) that society needed to be protected from such wrecking behaviour. In other words, because she HAD to, she used State powers to bring proper, decent, LAW AND ORDER back to the streets of Britain.

Kathianne, to my knowledge, Lady Thatcher is celebrated as a great CONSERVATIVE leader. But by no stretch of the imagination did she, nor COULD she, ever apply LIBERTARIANISM to the problems she was charged with solving.

The trade unions weren't fighting for increased individual rights, they were fighting against the Thatcher reforms. The trade unions were fighting for a maintenance of state-granted union power. Those Thatcher reforms were not an increase in state power, they were exactly the opposite, a reduction in state power. A reduction in state power is an increase in economic liberties which is a hallmark of any true Libertarian.

How Margaret Thatcher Turned Great Britain's Labor Markets Around (http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/04/09/how-margaret-thatcher-turned-great-britains-labor-markets-around/)
...
During the 1979 election, Thatcher’s Conservative Party described a five point plan for the country. The first task in the Conservative Party platform (Manifesto) was restoring “a fair balance between the rights and duties of the trade union movement.” It was Thatcher’s view that British labor laws were in need of reform because “militant” pro-union legislation enacted by the Labour Party had allowed unions to bargain for wages and working conditions that made British firms uncompetitive in an increasingly global economy. Mrs. Thatcher also believed that labor laws encouraged unions to use strikes and work stoppages “as a weapon of first rather than last resort” and led to “increasingly bitter and calamitous industrial disputes.”
...
The Thatcher government’s union reforms of the 1980’s included limits on closed union shops, secret ballots, and a ban on “secondary” picketing, weakened labor unions and led to a decline in union membership. These reforms also improved the flexibility and competitiveness of the British economy. By 1990 the employment to population ratio for adult men had regained about half of the losses incurred during the recession and the unemployment rate had fallen to 7.1%. When Margaret Thatcher left office in 1990 the economy was in a much stronger position than a decade earlier and British labor markets were better able to adapt to the technological changes and increasing globalization that have occurred in the subsequent 23 years.
...
Margaret Thatcher was one of the great leaders of the 20th century. Her labor market policies and reforms slowly helped the British economy become more flexible, dynamic and competitive. The legacy of her labor market policies and reforms is that, unlike the 1980’s, the employment situation in Great Britain has generally been stronger than in the U.S., both during and after the recession of 2008.

The truth is exactly opposite of what you claim.

[Drummond]

First off, I'm not going to argue Thatcher and policies, I acknowledge I'm not informed enough, nor do I have the interest to debate that-I've seen where it goes with FJ and am not interested.

I don't blame you on that last point ! FJ's positions are ridiculous and eminently ignorable.


Again I believe we are addressing something entirely different. I've written enough, for my purposes to explain my views, which disagree with your 'perversion of individualism.' More to the point, the whole 'unions' you've given as an example seems to be not for the individual at all, but rather for an interest group that would give the individual members more money or time off, thus it would be a collective working in their interests, much like the PATCO strike-that led to a breaking of the union. Never would that be a 'libertarian' movement, as known in US.

My 'perversion of individualism' point has to do with its empowerment to a pitch where it wrecks a form of machine designed to SERVE individuals. Society is a 'collective enterprise' ... there is just no way it could be anything else. Libertarianism seems centred on the 'individual sovereignty' principle, where an individual sees himself (or herself, of course) as sovereign, OVER AND ABOVE other considerations of authority.

-- Which surely makes it anti-society ? And therefore, anti-whatever gains social order can confer on the individual.

It is this which Left wing unions not only harnessed, but totally and completely identified with. Unions are ALL ABOUT exercising a form of power which defies an authority. It's the key to their strength and their viability. I am actually at a loss to see how Left-wing Unionism fails to be classifiable as Libertarian in nature.

You make the point that Unions act as a collective. Yes, they do, and this is because there's strength in numbers. It's about deployment of people as a resource, usable to achieve an antisocial result.

Just as the Libertarian will defy a social order, or authority, which fails to fully defer to his or her supposed 'inviolable' 'individual sovereignty', so Unions do that with greater numbers of them. It's the action of individuals united. Unions are a Libertarian force that's undergone a multiplication effect.


Again the purposes are the antithesis of the ideas. I bolded a few words to emphasize the collective nature of your example. In answer to your question to me directly, yes our 'unions' would not be libertarian, for the simple reason that the who purpose of unions is the collective. No one can argue that collectives aren't made up of individuals, LOL! You won't find 'libertarians' in the US or anywhere that follows what we are talking about, willingly being part of such. Oh, you'll find libertarians in 'closed shop' states, they have to work, but they won't be active in the union, that is reality here.

It's all down to perception. One single Libertarian, railing against any authority seeking to exert its will against him (or her) is almost certain to achieve nothing. Unions, however, do expect to achieve what they set out to do, through force of numbers.

BUT THE DEFIANCE OF STATE AUTHORITY IS SHARED BY LIBERTARIANS AND UNIONS ALIKE. What drives each, is perceivable as the same.


Closed shops are falling by the wayside in favor of 'right to work' state legislation, simply because most Americans find unions a different form of oppression of the individual-even those that are unaware of libertarianism in theory.

They're only falling by the wayside, in America, NOW ? In my society, Mrs Thatcher cracked down on them decades ago.

Here, it was (and is) because closed shops are seen as a means through which Unions can oppress. Not so much because Unions are reacted against as a form of oppression (though of course, they are), but because anti-Closed Shop legislation was seen as a necessary component of civilising Unions to perform more responsibly.

This was the point of all of her legislation. Freedoms had been abused. Those doing the abusing were too irresponsible with those freedoms to be trusted with them. Therefore, to protect society, those freedoms were done away with.

And Kathianne, that's the central point .. surely ! A Libertarian will consider s/he has an inviolable, so-called 'sovereign', right to hang on to such freedoms, and considers their removal an outrage not to be recognised as legitimate. This is IDENTICAL with Union thinking.

But Conservatives want law and order. They want decency to prevail. Mrs Thatcher did, and she did what she had to, to make us all thrive, removed from the reckless irresponsibility of the antisocial wrecker.


No disrespect again, but you really appear here to just need to 'win' something. What? I'm not sure what.

A total separation of Conservatism from Libertarianism, in everyone's minds ! Libertarianism is a destructive perversion, seen as such and duly harnessed by a Left wing that sees kindred thinking. Conservatives must abhor that destructiveness and work for peoples' betterment.

[Kathianne]

Drummond, I'm finding this an exercise in futility. You refuse to discuss any salient IDEAS that we are trying to discuss, just keep bringing up Thatcher and unions. Repeatedly I've explained why we seem to be discussing different ideas and even philosophies. You insist on using loaded terms like 'inevitable,' 'Chaos,' 'general welfare.' You are now arguing that collectives are individuals, working to the same ends. I can understand such in legal matters, not so much in political ideology.

Since there really seems to be no discussion on the ideas, I'm not going to keep going with this. My last contribution is from a left perspective on how to 'defeat' libertarianism, which seems ironically close to your position:

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/01/how_to_beat_libertarians_on_the_economy/

[Drummond]

Does the UK have initiative petitions? Libertarians are fanatical enough to be effective in signature gathering. They have been particularly useful in state tax freeze and other initiatives. In 1986 for example, they repealed the Massachusetts seat belt law. Libertarians are useful elbow grease. The trick is to pat them on the head and patronize them by telling them what they want to hear to get their free labor. The Libertarians I have known are driven by vanity. They are too "special" to be part of a regular political party.

I can believe that Libertarians are driven by vanity. In this, their arrogance is identical with Left wing Unions.

Sid Weighell was one of a breed of Union leaders who was so full of his own importance that he had the gall to go on national television to insist that Mrs Thatcher's Government operate in cooperation with the Union movement, the inference being that she'd 'be made to pay' if she didn't obey that demand. Weighell did this on the very morning that her first election victory became verified fact.

Weighell was full of himself ... as drunk with power as all our Unions were at the time. Mrs Thatcher ignored him, and over time, acted to take that power away from them.

On 'initiative petitions' ... the term is totally unfamiliar. What we do have, and they were only introduced comparatively recently, is a facility where, if an online petition is created and achieves a certain number of signatures, then the subject of the petition must receive Governmental attention, by law. Is this what you had in mind ?

I don't know how to usefully answer you, because that idea IS a new one.

[Drummond]

Drummond, I'm finding this an exercise in futility. You refuse to discuss any salient IDEAS that we are trying to discuss, just keep bringing up Thatcher and unions. Repeatedly I've explained why we seem to be discussing different ideas and even philosophies. You insist on using loaded terms like 'inevitable,' 'Chaos,' 'general welfare.' You are now arguing that collectives are individuals, working to the same ends. I can understand such in legal matters, not so much in political ideology.

Since there really seems to be no discussion on the ideas, I'm not going to keep going with this. My last contribution is from a left perspective on how to 'defeat' libertarianism, which seems ironically close to your position:

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/01/how_to_beat_libertarians_on_the_economy/

I agree. This is an exercise in futility.

I see this very simply. What you've been discussing has found expression in our society, but it happened long ago. We've seen what you're grappling with in apparently largely philosophical terms, reduced to an especially destructive reality.

I know that what I'm arguing is completely correct. I'm not THEORISING this ... I actually KNOW I'm right, from knowledge which tells me I am.

What I would have hoped for was (or is) that the UK's example could be studied and lessons learned from it, so that in the fullness of time, you are not doomed to repeat the mistakes we've already suffered from ... 'big time'.

There will come a time - if it hasn't happened yet, one day it WILL ... when your Left realises that collectives are simply individuals whose aspirations are a resource to be harnessed into an expression of destructive strength. Libertarians don't want the State to dominate them. And Unions exist to harness just such a spirit of disaffection and work to empower it. In other words, one is just a more numerous version of the other.

[Kathianne]

I know you're not right, far from it. In both the examples you cite and your seemingly required repeating of the same thing, without any inquiry into what others say or give links to. I doubt you even bothered to look at the Salon piece, as it addresses much of your points, in FAVOR of destroying the conservative ideas of libertarianism.

[tailfins]

I know you're not right, far from it. In both the examples you cite and your seemingly required repeating of the same thing, without any inquiry into what others say or give links to. I doubt you even bothered to look at the Salon piece, as it addresses much of your points, in FAVOR of destroying the conservative ideas of libertarianism.

Perhaps the Libertarian Party in the UK has been infested by union activists in a similar manner it has been infested by weed smokers in the US. Maybe free weed would be more effective than constantly saying "you may have a point there" to get Libertarian elbow grease.

[Kathianne]

Perhaps the Libertarian Party in the UK has been infested by union activists in a similar manner it has been infested by weed smokers in the US. Maybe free weed would be more effective than constantly saying "you may have a point there" to get Libertarian elbow grease.

and those 'observations' on your part are quite part of the reason that the 'Libertarian Party' has met with so little success. I've never argued otherwise-see my first post here.

I find it entirely reasonable to take what I consider the salient points of an idea and toss out the rest. It's called being discerning.

[Drummond]

The trade unions weren't fighting for increased individual rights,

Yes, that's true. They considered that they already had them.


.. they were fighting against the Thatcher reforms

Yes, I daresay. Nonetheless, you're ignoring context. Society was riven by strikes. Unions wanted a return to the freedom to demand whatever wages they could successfully pressure to get, this overturning the pact they'd had with Callaghan, which restricted their freedoms to demand what they chose to demand.


The trade unions were fighting for a maintenance of state-granted union power.

See above. The Unions wanted a return to the old status quo, the removal of wage restraint shackles.


Those Thatcher reforms were not an increase in state power, they were exactly the opposite, a reduction in state power.

Rubbish. Again, you're playing with context.

Society was being crippled by wave after wave of strikes. The forthcoming Conservative Government needed to see to it that such vandalism ceased. This is why Weighell made his broadcast .. he wanted to ensure that Margaret Thatcher was neutralised.


A reduction in state power is an increase in economic liberties which is a hallmark of any true Libertarian.

You're claiming that Union freedoms were NOT restricted by Margaret Thatcher's Government ?

Then try seeing it from your favourite perspective, then ... the LEFTIE one ....

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/3293/17-10-2007/trade-union-freedom-bill-banishing-thatchers-anti-union-legacy


Trade Union Freedom Bill: Banishing Thatcher's anti-union legacy?

For the last quarter of a century the labour movement has been shackled with what Tony Blair once boastfully described as the most restrictive laws governing trade unions in the western world.Jim Horton looks at how and why these laws evolved and discusses how they can be defeated. Last week, the CWU became the latest trade union to fall foul of Britain's unfair industrial relations legislation.

The current anti-trade union laws were first introduced by the hated Thatcher government during the 1980s, then enthusiastically retained by Blair after 1997.

There is no indication that Gordon Brown has any intention of upsetting the big business backers of New Labour by repealing them.

These laws have been condemned for being in contravention of fundamental human rights and international labour law conventions, to which the government is a signatory.

Over successive years individual trade unions have passed motions calling for their repeal.

In 2005, both the TUC and Labour Party conferences supported repeal and called for the introduction of a trade union freedom bill.

On 18 October 2007 a national parliamentary rally for trade union freedom will take place. It has been organised by the United Campaign to Repeal the Anti-Trade Union laws in support of John McDonnell's Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill (TURFB), listed in parliament the following day.

Supporters of the TURFB say that its enactment would strengthen trade union rights.

Explain THAT lot, then !!

When that article was written, the author was unhappy that Tony Blair had done nothing to repeal Margaret Thatcher's anti-Union legislation. Blair failed to, for two reasons: one, because he prided himself on running a more moderate Socialist party than had been typical for Labour ... and two, because Mrs Thatcher's restrictive legislation worked ! He was unwilling to shoot himself in the foot and let the destructive genie out of the bottle again, recreating the chaos of the '70's.

I know my own history, FJ.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/margaret-thatcher-trade-union-reform-national-archives


The Cabinet papers published under the 30-year rule lay bare the scale of Margaret Thatcher's long-held ambitions to crush the power of Britain's trade unions even before she had won her historic 144-seat majority landslide victory.

The Downing Street papers from 1983 show she told Ferdinand Mount, then head of her policy unit, that she agreed that Norman Tebbit's gradualist approach to trade union reform was too timid and that they should "neglect no opportunity to erode trade union membership".

Thatcher told Mount to put the policy work in hand but to keep his trade union reform paper, in which he referred to the unions as "a politicised mafia", wholly confidential. "We must neglect no opportunity to erode trade union membership wherever this corresponds to the wishes of the workforce. We must see to it our new legal structure discourages trade union membership of the new industries," wrote Mount.

He said that by the end of the century they also hoped to see "a trade union movement whose exclusive relationship with the Labour party is reduced out of all recognition.

The State versus Trade Union power, and a stemming of that power. That, planned for by Mrs Thatcher, and directed by her Government.

If you are a 'Thatcherite', FJ, then reconcile that with your Libertarianism ...

... except, YOU CAN'T.

[fj1200]

And for this, my appreciation of you increases (doesn't that just make your day! lol)

Again, I live in the world where (off the top of my head) more than half of all my patients suffer from conditions brought on by their own actions. For example (I'll use layman's terms):

Patient #1 ... Should society have to pay for HIS choices?

Patient #2 ... Should society have to pay for her choices?

Patient #3 ... Should society have to pay for her choices?

Where does it all stop? My philosophy is to live as you want (as long as it does no harm to anyone else) but be responsible for the consequences of those choices. That is the way I was raised and is the way I will be until my dying days.

In the absence of Libertarians running things then that is the choice of society. But I don't think you can just jump in and ask "should society..." We've been going down this road for 50+ years. I'll be the first to admit that Libertarians will not be in danger of actually winning an election any time soon and it's for just those reasons, society won't accept what they advocate.

Point being, you can't just stop. Conservatives in power, at the state level mostly, need to come up with better ways to address certain things to start to roll back to a more reasonable point. Thank goodness we've got a good crop of Republican governors who can institute some changes.

[fj1200]

SURE.. All these links are lies.. :laugh:--TYR

That was non-responsive to my post. Libertarian Socialism is not Libertarian. Libertarian is not the absence of a state.

[fj1200]

How is the Left's behaviour not Libertarian ?? They wanted all laws which restricted them, overthrown. Sounds Libertarian in nature to me !!

Oy vey. The left wants laws and regulation to restrict everyone. That is the complete opposite of Libertarians. Your tiresome repetition of Thatcher and the unions doesn't change that.

[fj1200]

But I suggest that Libertarian's Left-wing nature makes it a long term threat.

Kathianne, are you saying that your Unions have never taken a libertarian posture, and placed their membership above social order and Government interests ? Because ... if 'yes', I ask what's stopped that from happening.

My guess is that, simply, Libertarianism hasn't found the same expression in America that it has in the UK. If so .. God help you, when it does !!

But it'll happen, UNLESS the danger Libertarianism poses is confronted, its true nature as a destructive Left-wing methodology perceived ... and stopped in its tracks.

You've clearly created a scenario in your mind and no bit of truth will change it.


I know that what I'm arguing is completely correct. I'm not THEORISING this ... I actually KNOW I'm right, from knowledge which tells me I am.

What you're arguing is not even close to correct. Can you point to all the Libertarian successes in the UK? I can't quite seem to find any examples of them running amok.

Libertarianism in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom)
This is interesting though.


While not as prominent as libertarianism in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States), after the 1980s and the economic liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism) of the premiership of Margaret Thatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher), the libertarian movement became more prominent in British politics.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-1) In the Conservative Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)), there is a faction of libertarians based around Thatcherism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-2) and the more contemporary Libertarian Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(UK))
...
Jason Walsh, in an opinion piece, held that while the 1980s economic liberalism of Margaret Thatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher) was "libertarianism-lite", compared to minimal state views of more modern libertarians, which were becoming more popular after ten years of New Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK))'s "increasingly authoritarian policies".[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-5) The Austrian-British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrians_in_the_United_Kingdom) libertarian and classical liberal philosopher, Friedrich Hayek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek), is considered by some to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century.

[tailfins]

and those 'observations' on your part are quite part of the reason that the 'Libertarian Party' has met with so little success. I've never argued otherwise-see my first post here.

I find it entirely reasonable to take what I consider the salient points of an idea and toss out the rest. It's called being discerning.

You may have a point there. The TEA Party Express has a door knocking campaign Memorial Day weekend. Can we count on your help?

[Kathianne]

You may have a point there. The TEA Party Express has a door knocking campaign Memorial Day weekend. Can we count on your help?

The TEA party became overrun with traditionalist GOP along with some very right-wing wackos.

I was for the tea party movement from its inception, served as state representative of the IL organization. The TEA party left me, not the other way around.

What drove me to it in the first part is what makes me libertarian leaning.

I don't want an expansive 'ruling elite' that we have in both parties. That the GOP spouts language I like more, it's very much what I've said to Drummond, 'they are for big government, just one that 'more closely' resembles what I'm in favor of.

Since I haven't any alternatives currently for national levels, I'll vote for GOP. That doesn't mean I believe they want smaller government.

[tailfins]

The TEA party became overrun with traditionalist GOP along with some very right-wing wackos.

I was for the tea party movement from its inception, served as state representative of the IL organization. The TEA party left me, not the other way around.

What drove me to it in the first part is what makes me libertarian leaning.

I don't want an expansive 'ruling elite' that we have in both parties. That the GOP spouts language I like more, it's very much what I've said to Drummond, 'they are for big government, just one that 'more closely' resembles what I'm in favor of.

Since I haven't any alternatives currently for national levels, I'll vote for GOP. That doesn't mean I believe they want smaller government.

I was illustrating how one patronizes a Libertarian to get free labor. :badsnort:

[Kathianne]

I was illustrating how one patronizes a Libertarian to get free labor. :badsnort:
Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

[Drummond]

Oy vey. The left wants laws and regulation to restrict everyone. That is the complete opposite of Libertarians. Your tiresome repetition of Thatcher and the unions doesn't change that.

I believe Kathianne made a very similar point. But the fact remains that you're still playing games with context.

I might add that you're downplaying the pernicious methodology Lefties employ ! Now .. why would you seek to do that ?

The Left, WHEN WIELDING GOVERNMENTAL POWER, have a fondness for laws and regulation. Sure - I don't deny it. But as I've said, CONTEXT is relevant here. When talking about Leftie UNIONS, you're talking about something else altogether. There, you're considering a group determined to get their own way, who consider themselves restricted by nobody and nothing.

It's a part of why Left-wing Unions in the UK hated Mrs Thatcher so much .. she CURBED THEM. She made them ANSWERABLE TO STATE RESTRICTIVENESS. Which to a Leftie Unionist is unthinkable ...

Callaghan tried a not too dissimilar approach, though in his case, he tried to achieve his equivalent through a pact, a form of agreement. The Unions stood for that for a while, because their memberships felt empowered, that they weren't restricted TOO much by the State. BUT ... even that broke down eventually, and we had our Winter of Discontent. Callaghan couldn't tame the Unions indefinitely through simple agreement.

Mrs Thatcher knew that State powers to forcefully curb them were the only answer. An approach anathema to everything the Unions usually stood for .. but, she made it stick. She was determined to.

Arthur Scargill decided to make his stand (NUM Leader) in 1984, hoping to recreate the overthrow of the Heath Government in 1984, making it again the case that sheer force of will, through making society suffer, superseded the democratic process of elected Government. But, Mrs Thatcher had prepared, over years, for just such an eventuality. She knew her insurrectionist enemy well. And she outlasted Scargill. She won, the Left crumbled.

FJ, you claim to be a Thatcherite, but you're nothing of the kind. Mrs Thatcher valued the individual. But the individuals she valued were law-abiding ones, people who were good citizens of society. Insurrectionist Leftie scum ... they were a different matter, and she'd range whatever powers were at her disposal to see to it that they didn't prevail.

[Kathianne]

Drummond, you claim to be a conservative however it appears you are a European style conservative with a history of socialism and government omnipresence assumed for over 125 years. It seems by some of the members here that they are following the European model of conservative: Not smaller government, not less regulations, not more personal responsibility; rather a government that is made up of those that are like minded.

In actuality it seems that you portray Thatcher as your version of what a leader 'should be.' Until reading repeatedly how you view things, it seems you would like a Thatcher type benevolent dictatorship. One that couldn't be 'undone.' We know how that type of governance has worked out historically.

It's not conservative at all.

[Drummond]

You've clearly created a scenario in your mind and no bit of truth will change it.

Ah, but isn't this typically Leftie of you ? Trying to put people to sleep, to not be forewarned, alerted, to a future problem.

I could be wrong. It's possible. But, I doubt it. If I am, it'd mean that America is rather more different from the UK than I'd thought.


What you're arguing is not even close to correct. Can you point to all the Libertarian successes in the UK? I can't quite seem to find any examples of them running amok.

Attention deficit issues again, FJ ?

Look up WINTER OF DISCONTENT. It refers to the no-holds barred battle the Left waged to get back on track, to ensure that their future wage demands were heeded, and NOT restricted by Government.

... and go back to February 1974. Ted Heath's Government was defeated by Unions doing their level best to bring the UK's viability to a standstill. Heath called an election on the issue of whether Government should prevail, or whether Unions should. He lost the vote, and the replacement Labour Government caved in, again, again, and ever again, to your unrestrained Libertarian chums.

Our history has long since been about Unions fighting against restrictions, forever trying to be a law unto themselves. They may not, customarily, call themselves 'Libertarian' ... but their methodology and psychology, their sheer arrogance, their determination to defy any and all controls over them, says that this is what they ARE.

And, Mrs Thatcher, more than any other leader, was utterly determined to SEE THAT GOVERNMENT WON THROUGH OVER THEM.

[Kathianne]

Ah, but isn't this typically Leftie of you ? Trying to put people to sleep, to not be forewarned, alerted, to a future problem.

I could be wrong. It's possible. But, I doubt it. If I am, it'd mean that America is rather more different from the UK than I'd thought.



Attention deficit issues again, FJ ?

Look up WINTER OF DISCONTENT. It refers to the no-holds barred battle the Left waged to get back on track, to ensure that their future wage demands were heeded, and NOT restricted by Government.

... and go back to February 1974. Ted Heath's Government was defeated by Unions doing their level best to bring the UK's viability to a standstill. Heath called an election on the issue of whether Government should prevail, or whether Unions should. He lost the vote, and the replacement Labour Government caved in, again, again, and ever again, to your unrestrained Libertarian chums.

Our history has long since been about Unions fighting against restrictions, forever trying to be a law unto themselves. They may not, customarily, call themselves 'Libertarian' ... but their methodology and psychology, their sheer arrogance, their determination to defy any and all controls over them, says that this is what they ARE.

And, Mrs Thatcher, more than any other leader, was utterly determined to SEE THAT GOVERNMENT WON THROUGH OVER THEM.


NOW I get it, you have some definition of 'libertarian' that hasn't been applied to what you're addressing, but your definition somehow makes you the all seeing expert of such. Weirdly, though various folks here have time and again told you and tried to discuss of the differences in what we mean, you beclown yourself in saying that we are just not as astute as yourself; that somehow we are addressing the same ideas that you are projecting upon us.

While I've spent much time not getting involved in the 'group mindset' that has settled in here, I actually have come to the conclusion that the nastiness didn't necessarily come from FJ. Anyone who disagrees with the group is labeled by said group as 'liberal.' Well that's not the case and that is a 'fact.'

[Drummond]

Drummond, you claim to be a conservative however it appears you are a European style conservative with a history of socialism and government omnipresence assumed for over 125 years. It seems by some of the members here that they are following the European model of conservative: Not smaller government, not less regulations, not more personal responsibility; rather a government that is made up of those that are like minded.

In actuality it seems that you portray Thatcher as your version of what a leader 'should be.' Until reading repeatedly how you view things, it seems you would like a Thatcher type benevolent dictatorship. One that couldn't be 'undone.' We know how that type of governance has worked out historically.

It's not conservative at all.

So, from this, should I conclude that you don't recognise Margaret Thatcher as being a Conservative ?

Then why did Ronald Reagan think she was ? How come their transatlantic partnership was such a successful one ?

I characterise a highly important feature of Conservatism as being grounded by reality. AND, Kathianne, reality is to be found in recognising that everyone's existence within a society comes down to a realistic trade-off between individual rights and ambitions against what society can afford to agree to.

Mrs Thatcher valued the individual. She fought to empower the individual, through share ownership, through council house ownership, through seeing to it that opportunities came their way which would enhance individualistic self-worth. She wanted the individual to be the engine which powered social order, and in this way, she utterly defied the Socialist model of high taxation and laws passed to restrict the individual, FOR ITS OWN SAKE.

That said, she was very strong on law and order. She was not one to tolerate any breakdown in social cohesion. Which is why she had no time for Libertarian-style antisocial behaviour.

Are you telling me that American Conservatives want Governmental powers so diminished that anarchy is the result ?? Because, Kathianne, I have to agree -- I'm NOT that 'sort' of 'conservative'.

Kathianne, you touch on the truth in your argument. The real difference between us is that you've ultimately no real inkling, through personal experience, of just how perniciously suffocating pervasive Socialism can be. You still believe that a social model which does NOT prepare for Socialist excesses, through unity, through rule of law, can be the antidote to determined Socialism.

I have to tell you that, in these circumstances, you will be easy prey for future Socialist, especially LIBERTARIAN, sabotage.

Mrs Thatcher did what she did because force of circumstances GAVE HER NO OTHER OPTION. She met a REAL challenge with a REAL solution, one having sufficient power to last and to triumph.

[Drummond]

NOW I get it, you have some definition of 'libertarian' that hasn't been applied to what you're addressing, but your definition somehow makes you the all seeing expert of such. Weirdly, though various folks here have time and again told you and tried to discuss of the differences in what we mean, you beclown yourself in saying that we are just not as astute as yourself; that somehow we are addressing the same ideas that you are projecting upon us.

While I've spent much time not getting involved in the 'group mindset' that has settled in here, I actually have come to the conclusion that the nastiness didn't necessarily come from FJ. Anyone who disagrees with the group is labeled by said group as 'liberal.' Well that's not the case and that is a 'fact.'

FJ's interactions with me are what they are because he knows that I understand him to be a Left winger who claims not to be. He hates the fact that he cannot fool me. Since that's the case, and since he has a, shall we say, 'dislike' for Conservatives, in my case he has no reason not to hold back. So, he doesn't.

What pleases me about these recent exchanges is FJ's identification with Libertarianism. It's the nearest FJ has yet come to, (a), admitting his Leftie bona fides, and (b) reducing his 'Thatcherite' credentials (so-called) to total farce.

Being 'naturally astute' is not, nor has it ever been, the issue. It's simply the case that I, in my society, have had way more exposure, and therefore way more experience, of Socialist excesses than is the case for Americans.

I therefore know how identically Libertarianism interlocks with the Left-wing psychology of being unrestrained by stricture. Lefties don't mind meting out their rules, regulations, worldview, insisting that everybody buys into their propaganda 'or else' ... but, try RESTRICTING them to THE SAME THING.

The Left believe in ruling and restricting others, and they especially delight in conning ordinary people into thinking that their ideas are their own, when in fact they just mirror Leftie ones. Think '1984' ... Orwell knew what he was writing about ! They do not believe in being on the receiving-end of all that, however, and will mete out hell to anyone challenging them.

On FJ ... simply do a review of our many exchanges. Note the trickery involved. All the derisory rewrites of posts, done for effect. Note the gratuitous insults. Note how much all of this substitutes for objective debate. And note, Kathianne, that I do not indulge in ANY of that myself.

I deal in fact. I deal in realism. I am pro-law and order, pro decency, pro civilised conduct.

... yes. I am a Conservative, who knows the value of the individual, and his or her responsible place in society.

I am not a Socialist, dealing in propaganda, deceit, control-freakery, nor the promotion of anarchy.

[Kathianne]

So, from this, should I conclude that you don't recognise Margaret Thatcher as being a Conservative ?

Then why did Ronald Reagan think she was ? How come their transatlantic partnership was such a successful one ?

I characterise a highly important feature of Conservatism as being grounded by reality. AND, Kathianne, reality is to be found in recognising that everyone's existence within a society comes down to a realistic trade-off between individual rights and ambitions against what society can afford to agree to.

Mrs Thatcher valued the individual. She fought to empower the individual, through share ownership, through council house ownership, through seeing to it that opportunities came their way which would enhance individualistic self-worth. She wanted the individual to be the engine which powered social order, and in this way, she utterly defied the Socialist model of high taxation and laws passed to restrict the individual, FOR ITS OWN SAKE.

That said, she was very strong on law and order. She was not one to tolerate any breakdown in social cohesion. Which is why she had no time for Libertarian-style antisocial behaviour.

Are you telling me that American Conservatives want Governmental powers so diminished that anarchy is the result ?? Because, Kathianne, I have to agree -- I'm NOT that 'sort' of 'conservative'.

Kathianne, you touch on the truth in your argument. The real difference between us is that you've ultimately no real inkling, through personal experience, of just how perniciously suffocating pervasive Socialism can be. You still believe that a social model which does NOT prepare for Socialist excesses, through unity, through rule of law, can be the antidote to determined Socialism.

I have to tell you that, in these circumstances, you will be easy prey for future Socialist, especially LIBERTARIAN, sabotage.

Mrs Thatcher did what she did because force of circumstances GAVE HER NO OTHER OPTION. She met a REAL challenge with a REAL solution, one having sufficient power to last and to triumph.

You are so entrenched in European socialism that you fail to recognize that you are asking for incremental change, in the direction you want it to go.

As far as 'we Americans' go, it's never taken hold in the way you're immersed in it. So much so, you don't recognize it as illustrated above.

There's nothing 'anti-social' in libertarianism as I've described. Quite the opposite. I'm not going to keep repeating the same words or examples.

That you choose to do so is illustrative of your not being able to defend what your position is. This maybe due to your own concept of what we've been attempting to discuss or may just be that you don't really wish to explore anything that doesn't fit your view.

You are the one who keeps bringing up Thatcher, I'm not entering into that discussion.

The government is not the engine for 'social order' in the great scheme of things, for most people. It's the mechanism which provides for punishment for those that disrupt the ability of others to go about the social interactions of their everyday lives. It's the mechanism through which those governed agree to provide for the projects that cannot be efficiently and economically done by the individual or small groups. It's the mechanism employed to provide for the common defense, within and without.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You are so entrenched in European socialism that you fail to recognize that you are asking for incremental change, in the direction you want it to go.

As far as 'we Americans' go, it's never taken hold in the way you're immersed in it. So much so, you don't recognize it as illustrated above.

There's nothing 'anti-social' in libertarianism as I've described. Quite the opposite. I'm not going to keep repeating the same words or examples.

That you choose to do so is illustrative of your not being able to defend what your position is. This maybe due to your own concept of what we've been attempting to discuss or may just be that you don't really wish to explore anything that doesn't fit your view.

You are the one who keeps bringing up Thatcher, I'm not entering into that discussion.

The government is not the engine for 'social order' in the great scheme of things, for most people. It's the mechanism which provides for punishment for those that disrupt the ability of others to go about the social interactions of their everyday lives. It's the mechanism through which those governed agree to provide for the projects that cannot be efficiently and economically done by the individual or small groups. It's the mechanism employed to provide for the common defense, within and without.



The government is not the engine for 'social order' in the great scheme of things, for most people.
^^^^ Actually it is and has been in Britain, thats his point IMHO. And he points out that the socialists and labor(leftists ) there are and were in alliance to effect that great and calamitous change.

Additionally the reason I see his point about Thatcher is she not only saved Britain from falling decades sooner. Thus to discount her contribution in his posts may be ok if you can justify discounting it.. which you have not as of yet --unless I missed reading the post(highly possible)..
The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

Kat I admire and agree with your view of taking that political stand that you do but Drummond is no different in how he takes his stand as both are wrapped in integrity, intelligence and prudent decision making based upon life experiences..

However , where I disagree is this, fj is wrong as usual. In that he takes a far to moderate approach to any right wing ideas that he may support.
Drummond keeps pointing this out but then gets beaten for being repetitive IMHO.

Carry on, very entertaining just had to ad my meager 2 cents in.... :beer: :beer: -Tyr

[Kathianne]

^^^^ Actually it is and has been in Britain, thats his point IMHO. And he points out that the socialists and labor(leftists ) there are and were in alliance to effect that great and calamitous change.

Additionally the reason I see his point about Thatcher is she not only saved Britain from falling decades sooner. Thus to discount her contribution in his posts may be ok if you can justify discounting it.. which you have not as of yet --unless I missed reading the post(highly possible)..
The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

Kat I admire and agree with your view of taking that political stand that you do but Drummond is no different in how he takes his stand as both are wrapped in integrity, intelligence and prudent decision making based upon life experiences..

However , where I disagree is this, fj is wrong as usual. In that he takes a far to moderate approach to any right wing ideas that he may support.
Drummond keeps pointing this out but then gets beaten for being repetitive IMHO.

Carry on, very entertaining just had to ad my meager 2 cents in.... :beer: :beer: -Tyr


The difference is Tyr, I readily stipulated that there appears to be real differences in our experiences and most important in what in fact we were supposed to be discussing. There are real differences between our cultures also, being that UK like Western Europe in general is and has been socialist since Bismarck. Thatcher slowed it down some, which is why she is so admired here. However, she never attempted to roll it back, indeed like the GOP there's a lot to be said that Drummond like many 'conservatives' in Europe are truly trying to make socialism work the way they want it to.

I've said many times, Reagan wasn't my favorite president, but he DID destroy PATCO, no 'compromise' not just 'pushing back.' I don't know that would even be possible in Europe.

Instead of discussing any of the differences, Drummon chooses to condescend to 'you just wait,' 'I know I'm right,' 'You're going with the socialist opening of libertarianism.' Not only not true with me, he's wrong on the introduction of the Thatcher example of using their unions as his example of 'libertarianism.' He's talking about collectives, playing on they are made up of individuals. That's like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

[Perianne]

The difference is Tyr, I readily stipulated that there appears to be real differences in our experiences and most important in what in fact we were supposed to be discussing. There are real differences between our cultures also, being that UK like Western Europe in general is and has been socialist since Bismarck. Thatcher slowed it down some, which is why she is so admired here. However, she never attempted to roll it back, indeed like the GOP there's a lot to be said that Drummond like many 'conservatives' in Europe are truly trying to make socialism work the way they want it to.

I've said many times, Reagan wasn't my favorite president, but he DID destroy PATCO, no 'compromise' not just 'pushing back.' I don't know that would even be possible in Europe.

Instead of discussing any of the differences, Drummon chooses to condescend to 'you just wait,' 'I know I'm right,' 'You're going with the socialist opening of libertarianism.' Not only not true with me, he's wrong on the introduction of the Thatcher example of using their unions as his example of 'libertarianism.' He's talking about collectives, playing on they are made up of individuals. That's like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

Now I understand you more.

[Perianne]

This thread is what debate is all about.

I love it.

[Drummond]

^^^^ Actually it is and has been in Britain, thats his point IMHO. And he points out that the socialists and labor(leftists ) there are and were in alliance to effect that great and calamitous change.

Additionally the reason I see his point about Thatcher is she not only saved Britain from falling decades sooner. Thus to discount her contribution in his posts may be ok if you can justify discounting it.. which you have not as of yet --unless I missed reading the post(highly possible)..
The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

Kat I admire and agree with your view of taking that political stand that you do but Drummond is no different in how he takes his stand as both are wrapped in integrity, intelligence and prudent decision making based upon life experiences..

However , where I disagree is this, fj is wrong as usual. In that he takes a far to moderate approach to any right wing ideas that he may support.
Drummond keeps pointing this out but then gets beaten for being repetitive IMHO.

Carry on, very entertaining just had to ad my meager 2 cents in.... :beer: :beer: -Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::beer::beer :

BRILLIANT !!!

Extremely well put, Tyr. You understand exactly where I'm coming from in this.

Kathianne, Tyr says:


The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

I completely agree. Indeed, Kathianne, you seem implacably determined to continue to ignore and disregard them, beyond recognising the differences AS differences.

My belief is that the greatest flaw in your position is that you're doing this.

To say that America has taken one direction, and THAT THE DIRECTION REMAINS INVIOLABLE, is where the flaw exists. In my society, Leftist Unions acted as Libertarians, took on the position that their resistance to societal control was sacrosanct, and that they had the 'right' to oppose and overthrow any Conservative led Government wanting to run society along responsible lines.

They did precisely that, in 1974, because Ted Heath was weak enough to give them their means of managing it. Where did it lead ? A basket-case of a society, where the ruling Lefties simply rubber-stamped all the concessions the Unions expected them to make.

In that direction, lay ruination. Inflation topping 26 percent, two years later ! A Prime Minister resigning in disgrace, discredited.

History taught us a lesson. Margaret Thatcher learned that lesson, applied her remedy. And it WAS a remedy. We prospered from strong Conservative-principled Government, threats beaten down THROUGH STRONG GOVERNMENT.

The Libertarian way leads to anarchy. It is anti-social in the extreme, and it was our LEFT that originated all that chaos.

Now, Kathianne, you can keep on saying that 'America is different, you can't compare the two' to your hearts' content, and think of UK history as an irrelevance. But none of that gives you any guarantee that, in future, you aren't destined to repeat our mistakes, and one day see our history, played out in the US.

I have one simple remedy for you. It may be enough. JUST KEEP YOUR LEFT LOCKED OUT OF POSITIONS OF POWER.

If you can somehow do this, I'll make you a prediction. 'Somehow', your Libertarians will suffer. Libertarianism will not gain the traction it needs to thrive as a workable philosophy. Why ? BECAUSE AT HEART IT IS LEFT WING.

... and, sad to say, FJ will not be a happy man !! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Jeff]

Right. Now try retired military tricare. They have a wrote script. Anything you ask for is exactly what you don't get. Ibuprofen will cure everything.

That truly sucks Bro, I hate that this country treats our Hero's that way ( yes if you served you ought to be treated correctly ) I have a friend of mine down here going through the same thing Gunny but his wife picked up on some of his insurance and he went to a pain clinic and they helped him. Now you don't want to just go to any pain clinic as some of them are no better than drug dealers, they will give you what ever you want as long as the money is right. But a good clinic will work you up and try and keep you on the lowest doses, just enough to help but it won't take all the pain away, my Doc explained to me that I would have to get use to living with some pain, he said sure I can take it all away but I would take any quality of life away as well. And then there is the pay as you go, I know it is expensive but man if you can afford it then I would go for it, it sure is nice to at least take the edge off.

Now as far as the pain meds themselves, they stink, I hate them, I believe they are slowing killing me. But for me to go without I wouldn't be able to function. Like yesterday, a friend of mine had surgery for lung cancer so I was at the hospital on my feet all day, last night I hurt so bad it was unreal ( and that was with taken the extra I have for the real bad nights ) These meds are a catch 22, you have to have them but they surely aren't doing your body any good.

[tailfins]

Deeds are more important than words. Libertarian candidates help Republicans lose close elections.

[Drummond]

The difference is Tyr, I readily stipulated that there appears to be real differences in our experiences and most important in what in fact we were supposed to be discussing. There are real differences between our cultures also, being that UK like Western Europe in general is and has been socialist since Bismarck. Thatcher slowed it down some, which is why she is so admired here. However, she never attempted to roll it back, indeed like the GOP there's a lot to be said that Drummond like many 'conservatives' in Europe are truly trying to make socialism work the way they want it to.

I've said many times, Reagan wasn't my favorite president, but he DID destroy PATCO, no 'compromise' not just 'pushing back.' I don't know that would even be possible in Europe.

Instead of discussing any of the differences, Drummon chooses to condescend to 'you just wait,' 'I know I'm right,' 'You're going with the socialist opening of libertarianism.' Not only not true with me, he's wrong on the introduction of the Thatcher example of using their unions as his example of 'libertarianism.' He's talking about collectives, playing on they are made up of individuals. That's like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

Well, Kathianne, the sun WILL come up tomorrow.

No one Libertarian can make any difference to anything. It's the equivalent of 'tilting at windmills', doing a Don Quixote.

So, what's their answer ? EASY. They band together. In the UK, they formed Unions, to fight for what they regarded as their individual rights. In so doing, they repeatedly became an antisocial force, possessing such monumental arrogance that they EVEN throught it 'right' to defeat entire Governments.

Who are, by far, the biggest paymasters of our Labour Party, the UK's Socialists ? TRADE UNIONS.

Margaret Thatcher, as Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, dedicated herself to fighting that antisocial and anti-Governmental force, and she did it through MEANINGFUL, EFFECTIVE methodology. And she remained recognisable as a CONSERVATIVE in doing so.

Ronald Reagan (apparently, NOT your favourite President ?) recognised her as a great Conservative leader without the smallest hesitation.

How come ... if she wasn't acting as a Conservative ?

[Drummond]

Deeds are more important than words. Libertarian candidates help Republicans lose close elections.

I'm sure they do.

Perhaps they're permanently 'blind' to that effect ?

Somehow, I don't think so.

[Kathianne]

Now I understand you more.
and yet you don't know WHY. You can search for my posts, where I felt I was wrong on some of my reasoning back then, and why I wasn't in toto.





BRILLIANT !!!

Extremely well put, Tyr. You understand exactly where I'm coming from in this. Yet, in spite of being a friend of yours, he agreed with what I have been saying. Indeed, he understands where this country and it's people are.

Kathianne, Tyr says:

^^^^ Actually it is and has been in Britain, thats his point IMHO. And he points out that the socialists and labor(leftists ) there are and were in alliance to effect that great and calamitous change.

Additionally the reason I see his point about Thatcher is she not only saved Britain from falling decades sooner. Thus to discount her contribution in his posts may be ok if you can justify discounting it.. which you have not as of yet --unless I missed reading the post(highly possible)..
The problem I see is the difference in peoples and culture between USA and Britain is not adequately being factored in IMHO.

Kat I admire and agree with your view of taking that political stand that you do but Drummond is no different in how he takes his stand as both are wrapped in integrity, intelligence and prudent decision making based upon life experiences Then Drummond, you totally ignored what Tyr wrote, again repeat your same arguments again, while happy to have what you consider 'back up.' Illustrated as follows:

I completely agree. Indeed, Kathianne, you seem implacably determined to continue to ignore and disregard them, beyond recognising the differences AS differences.

My belief is that the greatest flaw in your position is that you're doing this. This is projecting what you've been doing, followed by grabbing your crystal ball and seeing into the future:

To say that America has taken one direction, and THAT THE DIRECTION REMAINS INVIOLABLE, is where the flaw exists. In my society, Leftist Unions acted as Libertarians, took on the position that their resistance to societal control was sacrosanct, and that they had the 'right' to oppose and overthrow any Conservative led Government wanting to run society along responsible lines.

Ah, but I never claimed to see into the future. I never was denying the reality, as you see it, of your own country. Long ago I acknowledged a lack of knowledge to enter into that part of debate with you.
...

History taught us a lesson. Margaret Thatcher learned that lesson, applied her remedy. And it WAS a remedy. We prospered from strong Conservative-principled Government, threats beaten down THROUGH STRONG GOVERNMENT. I am very happy that things have worked out so well for the UK. I wish your country nothing but the best regarding what you see as a strong government. I truly acknowledge that may be the best way to go, for your country.

The Libertarian way leads to anarchy. It is anti-social in the extreme, and it was our LEFT that originated all that chaos. As Reagan said, "There he goes again." You admitted that there never was a libertarian bent to the socialist collectives, which remained the same collectives after all was said and done. You acknowledged to using the term simply as your understanding of libertarianism, which was actually socialism.

Now, Kathianne, you can keep on saying that 'America is different, you can't compare the two' to your hearts' content, and think of UK history as an irrelevance. But none of that gives you any guarantee that, in future, you aren't destined to repeat our mistakes, and one day see our history, played out in the US. Well except for the fact that I never said any such things. :rolleyes: What I did say is that both the LEFT in this country and the GOP in this country ARE repeating the European model of socialism or BIG GOVERNMENT. Those 'in power' have your model down pat.

I have one simple remedy for you. It may be enough. JUST KEEP YOUR LEFT LOCKED OUT OF POSITIONS OF POWER. I prefer to use my votes and influence where I can to reduce the size of the power elite in the central government, leaving the lower levels of government to be more accountable, responsive, and efficient in addressing the citizens. I'll keep doing what I've done in encouraging local charities to respond to needs.

If you can somehow do this, I'll make you a prediction. 'Somehow', your Libertarians will suffer. Libertarianism will not gain the traction it needs to thrive as a workable philosophy. Why ? BECAUSE AT HEART IT IS LEFT WING. One last attempt to 'win' something that's not a contest. ... and, sad to say, FJ will not be a happy man !! Feel better knocking someone out of your gang? Or is this just an attempt to say that if one doesn't agree wholly with your positions, they are *gasp* a liberal?





Well, Kathianne, the sun WILL come up tomorrow. Thank you for admitting that what you have been advocating IS socialism. That is a big step, I know.

No one Libertarian can make any difference to anything. It's the equivalent of 'tilting at windmills', doing a Don Quixote. Only libertarians are individuals that cannot make a difference as an individual? Really? Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan too were individuals that acted contrary to the 'bands' they were part of, no? At least for a time. I can't believe that you then segue into the following:

So, what's their answer ? EASY. They band together. In the UK, they formed Unions, to fight for what they regarded as their individual rights. In so doing, they repeatedly became an antisocial force, possessing such monumental arrogance that they EVEN throught it 'right' to defeat entire Governments.

Who are, by far, the biggest paymasters of our Labour Party, the UK's Socialists ? TRADE UNIONS. Again you make use of your own definition regarding libertarianism, which you fail to share in x number of posts. Then you follow up with a conclusion that has nothing to shore it up-claiming all the while to see into the future of a country regarding which, you don't understand the nuances of. Again with the 'win' hoping for lots of groups smilies and claps, though for what?

Margaret Thatcher, as Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, dedicated herself to fighting that antisocial and anti-Governmental force, and she did it through MEANINGFUL, EFFECTIVE methodology. And she remained recognisable as a CONSERVATIVE in doing so.

Ronald Reagan (apparently, NOT your favourite President ?) recognised her as a great Conservative leader without the smallest hesitation.

How come ... if she wasn't acting as a Conservative ? Perhaps because when she spoke, she addressed many of the assumed 'truths' of socialism, breaking many of the confines of what had been assumed 'facts' of the European movement towards socialism since Bismarck? Many of her speeches sounded much more 'American' in their thinking than European. As you've repeated emphasized though, she was confined to dealing with the system that laid before, she still had to address the problem through the BIG government solution, at that point in time, she couldn't do what Reagan did with PATCO. She was as 'Conservative' as the system would allow in her actions.


Deeds are more important than words. Libertarian candidates help Republicans lose close elections. Feel better for chiming in?



I'm sure they do.

Perhaps they're permanently 'blind' to that effect ?

Somehow, I don't think so. You do realize that TF comments are really not agreeing with you, but are rather the elite response in US for those they want to shut up and join in group think?

I've spent more time on this than I really meant to for two reasons:

1. I think that the US central government has become too big, too involved in our everyday lives, too expensive and inefficient. With the 'right leader' this country could fall into dictatorship. In many ways it has. If the executive powers in DC keep expanding, Congress will continue to diminish which was intended to be the voice of the People.

While the GOP tends more towards my priorities of the federal government, those in the positions of power are still much like the European right's version of socialism. I'm more in favor of our founders' vision for our country. I don't want 'a better' national health care or national education system. I want the individuals, the small shop owners, the corporations, the city halls, the state governments, the federal government all doing what they are supposed to do. For those individuals, the most vulnerable that are unable to care for themselves, whose families cannot or will not care for them, society must care for. The question remaining is from which level is the best care to be found? I don't think DC is the answer.

2. Speaking as a member, not staff, I've found the level of discussion on most issues over the past months or even years to have deteriorated to the point that there is really little to see here. It seems to me that most interactions between those that have ideas actually worth addressing have fallen to the level of name calling and other forms of derision. There's little or no depth to those that start off alright, someone will derail by jumping in to bring the tone back to divisiveness rather than discussion. Is there some hidden forum where tallies are being kept for derailed threads? :laugh2:

IMO much of the pitting of a group of posters against an individual has created what we now have. In the most recent case what's disturbing to me is that the 'group' and the 'individual' actually are not philosophically opposed on the big issues, but rather for the details and the presumed and projected differences of the individual by the group.

I've 'known' all the posters for a long time, most since they joined. All are good people from what I 'know' of them. All are capable of discussion, so why not try it?

I tried to keep my interactions in this thread respectful, wasn't hard for me to do, I like Drummond. I don't have to agree with all of his premises however. I don't have to agree or accept what I consider to be projections or 'all knowing statements,' indeed that is the point of discussions/debates, to defend one's own ideas. Sometimes both of us got snarky, but not to the point that the discussion was lost. As I think was demonstrated, he didn't agree with all of what I wrote either.

Jim tried to address this problem not so long ago, several times. He'd like a more interesting board with more posters. This cannot happen when visitors look upon thread after thread of name calling, 5 posts of smilies and claps for a post that says, "XXX, liberal or fascist" and that is all. Take the time please, to address a point, not the poster.

He has always tried to provide what members want, i.e. Tyr basically has his own forum for his poetry; Tailfins has the technology section that he is the most prolific; dmp and NT have the photography section that I for one wish they'd use even more often, (others too). Those that wish to mud wrestle should take it to the cage, leaving those that want to discuss/debate political or societal or world events the top of the board.

To say the board leans 'conservative' is hyperbole with the word 'leans,' even Gabby has a gun! She's our token liberal.

It's become a sad state when someone is called a 'liberal' or 'traitor' for questioning due process or any of a number of constitutional rights. I think what was once 'knee jerk' responses to the likes of a Maineman have become part of what is expected responses. I do wish/hope that some reasonable discussions will follow.

[jimnyc]

2. Speaking as a member, not staff, I've found the level of discussion on most issues over the past months or even years to have deteriorated to the point that there is really little to see here. It seems to me that most interactions between those that have ideas actually worth addressing have fallen to the level of name calling and other forms of derision. There's little or no depth to those that start off alright, someone will derail by jumping in to bring the tone back to divisiveness rather than discussion. Is there some hidden forum where tallies are being kept for derailed threads? :laugh2:

IMO much of the pitting of a group of posters against an individual has created what we now have. In the most recent case what's disturbing to me is that the 'group' and the 'individual' actually are not philosophically opposed on the big issues, but rather for the details and the presumed and projected differences of the individual by the group.

I've 'known' all the posters for a long time, most since they joined. All are good people from what I 'know' of them. All are capable of discussion, so why not try it?

I tried to keep my interactions in this thread respectful, wasn't hard for me to do, I like Drummond. I don't have to agree with all of his premises however. I don't have to agree or accept what I consider to be projections or 'all knowing statements,' indeed that is the point of discussions/debates, to defend one's own ideas. Sometimes both of us got snarky, but not to the point that the discussion was lost. As I think was demonstrated, he didn't agree with all of what I wrote either.

Jim tried to address this problem not so long ago, several times. He'd like a more interesting board with more posters. This cannot happen when visitors look upon thread after thread of name calling, 5 posts of smilies and claps for a post that says, "XXX, liberal or fascist" and that is all. Take the time please, to address a point, not the poster.

He has always tried to provide what members want, i.e. Tyr basically has his own forum for his poetry; Tailfins has the technology section that he is the most prolific; dmp and NT have the photography section that I for one wish they'd use even more often, (others too). Those that wish to mud wrestle should take it to the cage, leaving those that want to discuss/debate political or societal or world events the top of the board.

To say the board leans 'conservative' is hyperbole with the word 'leans,' even Gabby has a gun! She's our token liberal.

It's become a sad state when someone is called a 'liberal' or 'traitor' for questioning due process or any of a number of constitutional rights. I think what was once 'knee jerk' responses to the likes of a Maineman have become part of what is expected responses. I do wish/hope that some reasonable discussions will follow.

Very well said. I often think that the threads degrading, and other persistent fights/debates, are more based on perception, and more often from personal dislike. Every single member here is quite capable of awesome input and good debate. Sadly, those smarts are far too often used for folks to 'fight' with one another. And yes, no blame, as I see the whole thing more or less as circular. What I mean by that is that it goes around to an extent. One day one person, the next day another. Sometimes I read the awesome input, then the next thread I see the degradation has already killed a thread. I would move the majority of threads to the cage, but that would be an awful lot of threads, and then within hours it starts again in good threads.

And please, before anyone thinks I'm pointing, laying the blame game and such, I'm not. Read again where I said ALL are capable of the great posts, I've seen it. But if anyone is honest, they can look at such threads and see that many stop responding or don't respond at all, as they don't want to get involved. This isn't blaming, that's just the reality of things. If we ALL want things to grow, and get more members posting, we have to offer a reason for folks to register and post.

Also before anyone gets upset, I once again take my own responsibility. For example, Revelarts and I often disagree. Sometimes I get a little off track and get a tad ornery with him. Just recently, AGAIN, I had to send a message along and have a discussion with him, to apologize for my wording and such. While I'll continue to disagree and debate with him, and likely say stupid stuff again, I try to keep things cool and respectful, even if I do fail here and there. It happens, then we get back on the bicycle and try again. :)

[Kathianne]

Thanks Jim. I don't want to derail this thread, I'm going to copy and paste my last post and yours and start a new thread in announcements, with a link back to this one.

If anyone wished to comment on my 2nd reason for for so many posts, I hope they will respond in the announcement section, leaving this thread for further discussion on the topic we were discussing.

[hjmick]

Deeds are more important than words. Libertarian candidates help Republicans lose close elections.


Perhaps Republicans should take a lesson from this.

[Gunny]

Not at all, as I've explained several times. Certainly not for a state of nature, just for what the people feel is needed, where they live. States and counties/parishes, townships, cities, and even neighborhoods differ in their needs. Government, community groups, police should be and mostly are aware of those differences-not the fed or even the state capitol.

Common Core is a prime example of government failing by intrusiveness.

Problem is, the left that huddle in the largest cities think the world revolves around them and there is no difference. Those same city dwellers don't even know what's going on in their own states. Their mega-city is "it". Everyone else is a hayseed redneck hugging their Bibles and guns.

Then there are regional differences they likewise refuse to admit to. Hell, West Texas culture is different than East Texas culture and South Texas culture is different than North Texas culture. That's just one state. New Mexico culture is nothing like Texas culture and Louisiana culture is nothing like Texas NOR Deep South culture.

The culture I have observed that is the "same" are lefties dwelling in their dirty cities like rats, believing their rules should be the only rules and apply to everyone.

Government should be localized as much as possible to fit the needs of its community. Not some God's in DC declaring what's good for Indiana as decided by a bunch of city dwelling rats in the Nation's 3-4 largest cities.

[Gunny]

Yes, well said. You make a very good overall point.

I'd disagree to a certain extent. YES, geographically, we're very much more compact than America is. Alienation is bound to be a factor when dealing with the great distances from State to State. But even so, I think the range of social differences even in the UK might surprise you. The 'Welsh Valleys' have their own social identity. So does the North of England. The 'North-South divide' is seen to be very real, containing peoples with significantly divergent worldviews.

That said ... we're still a more unified society because of compact size. One big Union decides to exercise its muscle ... the whole of our society is bound to suffer its consequences. This is one reason why Mrs Thatcher had to wield her big stick ...

I suggest that you see Libertarianism as more workable in the US, because it actually IS. But, why is that ?

I suggest this is because its poisonous effect is unlikely to be anything as widespread, so as damaging, as it would be in my part of the world.

But Conservatism is NOT about inflicting damage. Unrestrained Libertarianism, IS.

It isn't just social difference. We have regional differences that impact us greatly that the people in DC refuse to recognize.

"Libertarian" is a term. All it really describes is those that think BOTH parties here represent neither the people, nor the Constitution. They have always had labels of one kind or another for anyone that thinks outside the little box. "Tea Partier" comes to mind. Constitutionalist. Bull Moose. Matter of fact, "Republican" was one in 1859.

You're hung up on the label. It's the beliefs that matter.

[tailfins]

........

Feel better for chiming in?





I feel better because I just took a dump.

[Abbey Marie]

If we are going to do away with all gov't restrictions on self-destructive behaviors (and I am not necessarily against that), then we had better also do away with much of the ability to bring tort lawsuits. The last thing we need are tons more people suing for ingesting bad drugs, drug-related injuries, and other injuries (such as accidents from driving with unrestricted speed limits).

Are we also in favor of doing away with government-mandated food labeling? The list of things that we would potentially harm ourselves with is sort of endless. How about mandated insurance?

[fj1200]

Honest question: What did paragraphs do to you to make you hate them so?


Yes, that's true. They considered that they already had them.

Yes, I daresay. Nonetheless, you're ignoring context. Society was riven by strikes. Unions wanted a return to the freedom to demand whatever wages they could successfully pressure to get, this overturning the pact they'd had with Callaghan, which restricted their freedoms to demand what they chose to demand.

See above. The Unions wanted a return to the old status quo, the removal of wage restraint shackles.

Rubbish. Again, you're playing with context.

Society was being crippled by wave after wave of strikes. The forthcoming Conservative Government needed to see to it that such vandalism ceased. This is why Weighell made his broadcast .. he wanted to ensure that Margaret Thatcher was neutralised.

You're claiming that Union freedoms were NOT restricted by Margaret Thatcher's Government ?

Then try seeing it from your favourite perspective, then ... the LEFTIE one ....

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/3293/17-10-2007/trade-union-freedom-bill-banishing-thatchers-anti-union-legacy

Explain THAT lot, then !!

When that article was written, the author was unhappy that Tony Blair had done nothing to repeal Margaret Thatcher's anti-Union legislation. Blair failed to, for two reasons: one, because he prided himself on running a more moderate Socialist party than had been typical for Labour ... and two, because Mrs Thatcher's restrictive legislation worked ! He was unwilling to shoot himself in the foot and let the destructive genie out of the bottle again, recreating the chaos of the '70's.

I know my own history, FJ.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/margaret-thatcher-trade-union-reform-national-archives

The State versus Trade Union power, and a stemming of that power. That, planned for by Mrs Thatcher, and directed by her Government.

If you are a 'Thatcherite', FJ, then reconcile that with your Libertarianism ...

... except, YOU CAN'T.

You have no clue what you're talking about in relating your British history with what you think is a Libertarian position. Everything you post shows Thatcher removing state granted powers to a collective group. State-granted powers to a collective organization is the complete opposite of anything a Libertarian would propose.

There is very little in what Mags did that is contrary to what a Libertarian would propose. Individual freedom.

[fj1200]

I believe Kathianne made a very similar point. But the fact remains that you're still playing games with context.

I might add that you're downplaying the pernicious methodology Lefties employ ! Now .. why would you seek to do that ?

The Left, WHEN WIELDING GOVERNMENTAL POWER, have a fondness for laws and regulation. Sure - I don't deny it. But as I've said, CONTEXT is relevant here. When talking about Leftie UNIONS, you're talking about something else altogether. There, you're considering a group determined to get their own way, who consider themselves restricted by nobody and nothing.

It's a part of why Left-wing Unions in the UK hated Mrs Thatcher so much .. she CURBED THEM. She made them ANSWERABLE TO STATE RESTRICTIVENESS. Which to a Leftie Unionist is unthinkable ...

Callaghan tried a not too dissimilar approach, though in his case, he tried to achieve his equivalent through a pact, a form of agreement. The Unions stood for that for a while, because their memberships felt empowered, that they weren't restricted TOO much by the State. BUT ... even that broke down eventually, and we had our Winter of Discontent. Callaghan couldn't tame the Unions indefinitely through simple agreement.

Mrs Thatcher knew that State powers to forcefully curb them were the only answer. An approach anathema to everything the Unions usually stood for .. but, she made it stick. She was determined to.

Arthur Scargill decided to make his stand (NUM Leader) in 1984, hoping to recreate the overthrow of the Heath Government in 1984, making it again the case that sheer force of will, through making society suffer, superseded the democratic process of elected Government. But, Mrs Thatcher had prepared, over years, for just such an eventuality. She knew her insurrectionist enemy well. And she outlasted Scargill. She won, the Left crumbled.

FJ, you claim to be a Thatcherite, but you're nothing of the kind. Mrs Thatcher valued the individual. But the individuals she valued were law-abiding ones, people who were good citizens of society. Insurrectionist Leftie scum ... they were a different matter, and she'd range whatever powers were at her disposal to see to it that they didn't prevail.

I'm at a loss. I not only have to argue against your imagination I have to argue against your ignorance of Libertarians. I'm not sure what to do here, you argue that MT valued the individual yet you state that Libertarians who value the individual are somehow leftie. :confused:

Do you want to discuss Libertarians or do you want to try keep dragging this into Maggie Land?

[fj1200]

Ah, but isn't this typically Leftie of you ? Trying to put people to sleep, to not be forewarned, alerted, to a future problem.

:facepalm99: But Congratulations, you've outed yourself to the smartest person on the board. Here...


Drummond, you claim to be a conservative however it appears you are a European style conservative with a history of socialism and government omnipresence assumed for over 125 years. It seems by some of the members here that they are following the European model of conservative: Not smaller government, not less regulations, not more personal responsibility; rather a government that is made up of those that are like minded.

In actuality it seems that you portray Thatcher as your version of what a leader 'should be.' Until reading repeatedly how you view things, it seems you would like a Thatcher type benevolent dictatorship. One that couldn't be 'undone.' We know how that type of governance has worked out historically.

It's not conservative at all.

and here...


NOW I get it, you have some definition of 'libertarian' that hasn't been applied to what you're addressing, but your definition somehow makes you the all seeing expert of such. Weirdly, though various folks here have time and again told you and tried to discuss of the differences in what we mean, you beclown yourself in saying that we are just not as astute as yourself; that somehow we are addressing the same ideas that you are projecting upon us.

While I've spent much time not getting involved in the 'group mindset' that has settled in here, I actually have come to the conclusion that the nastiness didn't necessarily come from FJ. Anyone who disagrees with the group is labeled by said group as 'liberal.' Well that's not the case and that is a 'fact.'


FJ's interactions with me are what they are because he knows that I understand him to be a Left winger who claims not to be. He hates the fact that he cannot fool me. Since that's the case, and since he has a, shall we say, 'dislike' for Conservatives, in my case he has no reason not to hold back. So, he doesn't.

What pleases me about these recent exchanges is FJ's identification with Libertarianism. It's the nearest FJ has yet come to, (a), admitting his Leftie bona fides, and (b) reducing his 'Thatcherite' credentials (so-called) to total farce.

Being 'naturally astute' is not, nor has it ever been, the issue. It's simply the case that I, in my society, have had way more exposure, and therefore way more experience, of Socialist excesses than is the case for Americans.

I therefore know how identically Libertarianism interlocks with the Left-wing psychology of being unrestrained by stricture. Lefties don't mind meting out their rules, regulations, worldview, insisting that everybody buys into their propaganda 'or else' ... but, try RESTRICTING them to THE SAME THING.

The Left believe in ruling and restricting others, and they especially delight in conning ordinary people into thinking that their ideas are their own, when in fact they just mirror Leftie ones. Think '1984' ... Orwell knew what he was writing about ! They do not believe in being on the receiving-end of all that, however, and will mete out hell to anyone challenging them.

On FJ ... simply do a review of our many exchanges. Note the trickery involved. All the derisory rewrites of posts, done for effect. Note the gratuitous insults. Note how much all of this substitutes for objective debate. And note, Kathianne, that I do not indulge in ANY of that myself.

I deal in fact. I deal in realism. I am pro-law and order, pro decency, pro civilised conduct.

... yes. I am a Conservative, who knows the value of the individual, and his or her responsible place in society.

I am not a Socialist, dealing in propaganda, deceit, control-freakery, nor the promotion of anarchy.

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Kat I admire and agree with your view of taking that political stand that you do but Drummond is no different in how he takes his stand as both are wrapped in integrity, intelligence and prudent decision making based upon life experiences..

However , where I disagree is this, fj is wrong as usual. In that he takes a far to moderate approach to any right wing ideas that he may support.
Drummond keeps pointing this out but then gets beaten for being repetitive IMHO.

I hope your check is in the mail. Of course you could actually debate those points if you think you have it in you.

[fj1200]

... and, sad to say, FJ will not be a happy man !! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

WTF are you even talking about?

[fj1200]

If we are going to do away with all gov't restrictions on self-destructive behaviors (and I am not necessarily against that), then we had better also do away with much of the ability to bring tort lawsuits. The last thing we need are tons more people suing for ingesting bad drugs, drug-related injuries, and other injuries (such as accidents from driving with unrestricted speed limits).

Are we also in favor of doing away with government-mandated food labeling? The list of things that we would potentially harm ourselves with is sort of endless. How about mandated insurance?

Why would you do away with tort lawsuits? Responsibility is not removed in a Libertarian society. Rule of law, police and fire protection, etc. are still in effect.

Consider this:

The Not So Wild, Wild West (https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west)
The purpose of this paper is to take us from the theoretical world of anarchy to a case study of its application. To accomplish our task we will first discuss what is meant by "anarchocapitalism" and present several hypotheses relating to the nature of social organization in this world.These hypotheses will then be tested in the context of the American West during its earliest settlement. We propose to examine property-rights formulation and protection under voluntary organizations such as private protection agencies, vigilantes, wagon trains, and early mining camps. Although the early West was not completely anarchistic, we believe that government as a legitimate agency of coercion was absent for a long enough period to provide insights into the operation and viability of property rights in the absence of a formal state. The nature of contracts for the provision of "public goods" and the evolution of western "laws" for the period from 1830 to 1900 will provide the data for this case study.
The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.
These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect.
Anarchy: Order or Chaos?Though the first dictionary definition of anarchy is "the state of having no government," many people believe that the third definition, "confusion or chaos generally," is more appropriate since it is a necessary result of the first.

[Drummond]

You have no clue what you're talking about in relating your British history with what you think is a Libertarian position. Everything you post shows Thatcher removing state granted powers to a collective group. State-granted powers to a collective organization is the complete opposite of anything a Libertarian would propose.

There is very little in what Mags did that is contrary to what a Libertarian would propose. Individual freedom.

The British Trade Union movement has always been one of individuals banding together to fight against those things they felt acted against the workers' individual wellbeing. Low wages. Health and safety issues.

But it mutated. It became politically ambitious. So it was that it not only became the backbone of the Labour Party, and to this day remains its chief financial backer, but, when a Government came along which made decisions it didn't like, it had the temerity to try and overthrow it.

February 1974 saw one such successful overethrow, with Ted Heath ousted from power.

May 1979 saw Margaret Thatcher elected. She was being warned, on air (on a BBC television channel) to work in cooperation with Unions, or face the consequences. It was a warning she ignored. She perceived, rightly so, that Unions were power-drunk, and that they needed to have certain freedoms taken away from them to bring them to heel.

Secondary picketing was outlawed.

The Closed Shop was outlawed.

The 'right' to form picket lines of indeterminate numbers was outlawed. A maximum of six pickets per picket line was permitted. Any more was rendered an illegal gathering, making those participating in it liable to arrest.

To force Unions to go through a ballot procedure before any strike was called. Any Union leader defying this was liable to arrest, and the strike declared illegal.

On the Apartheid issue in South Africa, Mrs Thatcher OPPOSED moves in the international community to impose sanctions on South Africa.

Mrs Thatcher outlawed the free speaking of IRA people on Britain's broadcasting mediums of the time.

Mrs Thatcher introduced the Community Charge, a new tax obliging every single citizen in work to pay a tax for council facilities. Before, individual households had paid ... but Mrs Thatcher insisted it be expanded to a person-by-person basis. This resulted in the 'poll tax riots', and the reversal of the scheme.

London - the Greater London Council was run by a Left wing militant, by the name of Ken Livingstone. Mrs Thatcher objected to its political direction. She arranged for its abolition (the 'Save the GLC Campaign' failed).

Section 28 ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiership_of_Margaret_Thatcher


Thatcher, at the 1987 Conservative party conference, issued the statement that "Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay". Backbench Conservative MPs and Peers had already begun a backlash against the 'promotion' of homosexuality and, in December 1987, the controversial 'Section 28' was added as an amendment to what became the Local Government Act 1988.

FJ, absolutely all of this has one central thread running through it .. MRS THATCHER'S BELIEF IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE POWERS TO EITHER CURB, OR DEFINE, THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN SOCIETY, TO ENSURE THE STATE'S HEALTH. You could invent a 'Libertarian' mindset to explain part of it ... but not ALL of it. Mrs Thatcher had no hesitation whatever in using Governmental powers to prevail over anything she didn't approve of.

So, FJ. You identify with Libertarians ? You identify yourself as a 'Thatcherite', even to the extent of disparaging other Thatcher supporters (an excuse to attack more Conservatives) ? Well, I say that you can reasonably identify with ONE of these, but not BOTH.

Decide which of these you genuinely are, and which you genuinely (and unsurprisingly) AREN'T. One or the other.

I look forward to your decision.

[Gunny]

If we are going to do away with all gov't restrictions on self-destructive behaviors (and I am not necessarily against that), then we had better also do away with much of the ability to bring tort lawsuits. The last thing we need are tons more people suing for ingesting bad drugs, drug-related injuries, and other injuries (such as accidents from driving with unrestricted speed limits).

Are we also in favor of doing away with government-mandated food labeling? The list of things that we would potentially harm ourselves with is sort of endless. How about mandated insurance?

The Constitution does not suggest doing away with government restrictions on all self-destructive behaviors, nor do I. However, our current selectivity of which "self-destructive" behaviors we DO do away with is based solely on some activist and/or minority group crying like babies and/or stupid preconceived notions based on government propaganda.

Our government and its laws no longer reflect the Bill of Rights. It reflects a bureaucracy more intent on serving itself than the people. It's nothing more than the largest union in the country.

[fj1200]

The British Trade Union movement has always been one of individuals banding together to fight against those things they felt acted against the workers' individual wellbeing. Low wages. Health and safety issues.

But it mutated. ...

You shouldn't post about Libertarians until you understand what a Libertarian is and what a Libertarian stands for. Even if you could make the case that individuals freely associating in a union is Libertarian, which I would accept because of the 'freely' part, you can't make the case that their state-granted power is Libertarian.

When are you going to choose between being a conservative and being a 'Thatcherite'? You can't be both if you're going to defend non-conservative Thatcher government actions. I look forward to your decision.

Scratch that last part. This is a thread about Libertarians, not Mags and your delusions.

[Drummond]

You shouldn't post about Libertarians until you understand what a Libertarian is and what a Libertarian stands for. Even if you could make the case that individuals freely associating in a union is Libertarian, which I would accept because of the 'freely' part, you can't make the case that their state-granted power is Libertarian.

When are you going to choose between being a conservative and being a 'Thatcherite'? You can't be both if you're going to defend non-conservative Thatcher government actions. I look forward to your decision.

Scratch that last part. This is a thread about Libertarians, not Mags and your delusions.

I do not make the case that Unions' 'state granted power' is Libertarian. I do say that Unions have a long track record of fighting for what THEY consider are 'freedoms' and instances of so-called 'needed justice'. I do not say that giving in to such demands is, of itself, Libertarian.

I'm simply saying that individuals banded together to form Unions, to make and insist upon those demands. Becoming collective entities gave them power. This over time made them power-drunk, and irremediably wedded to the concept of 'the collective' being everything. Ultimately, Margaret Thatcher had to bring them to heel ... using STATE POWERS to do it.

You've railed against 'Big Government', yet, Margaret Thatcher was an advocate of it (shown by her actions, as well as the decisions she made). You've billed yourself as an 'Ultimate Thatcherite', and 'The One True Thatcherite'. This being, ahem, 'true' (!), then Big Government interventions should be something that you, in principle, APPROVE OF.

Shouldn't they, FJ ? But you claim not to.

You identify with Thatcherism, you say. You identify with Libertarianism .. you say. You're against 'Big Government' yet, you cannot reconcile that - or anything else - with your supposed 'pro Thatcherite' line.

I have asked you to make a choice, and announce your decision, as to what you TRULY believe in, since you're claiming support for opposing, non-reconcilable positions. YOU HAVE DUCKED THAT.

.. and this is part of why arguing with you is an exercise in futility. It does nobody any good, you, me, anyone, to argue the pros and cons of beliefs and viewpoints when those beliefs change with all the stability of shifting sands.

Bottom line ... YOU HAVE TO BE A FRAUD. YOU CANNOT NOT BE. So, arguing with you is a complete waste of my time.

[Gunny]

I do not make the case that Unions' 'state granted power' is Libertarian. I do say that Unions have a long track record of fighting for what THEY consider are 'freedoms' and instances of so-called 'needed justice'. I do not say that giving in to such demands is, of itself, Libertarian.

I'm simply saying that individuals banded together to form Unions, to make and insist upon those demands. Becoming collective entities gave them power. This over time made them power-drunk, and irremediably wedded to the concept of 'the collective' being everything. Ultimately, Margaret Thatcher had to bring them to heel ... using STATE POWERS to do it.

You've railed against 'Big Government', yet, Margaret Thatcher was an advocate of it (shown by her actions, as well as the decisions she made). You've billed yourself as an 'Ultimate Thatcherite', and 'The One True Thatcherite'. This being, ahem, 'true' (!), then Big Government interventions should be something that you, in principle, APPROVE OF.

Shouldn't they, FJ ? But you claim not to.

You identify with Thatcherism, you say. You identify with Libertarianism .. you say. You're against 'Big Government' yet, you cannot reconcile that - or anything else - with your supposed 'pro Thatcherite' line.

I have asked you to make a choice, and announce your decision, as to what you TRULY believe in, since you're claiming support for opposing, non-reconcilable positions. YOU HAVE DUCKED THAT.

.. and this is part of why arguing with you is an exercise in futility. It does nobody any good, you, me, anyone, to argue the pros and cons of beliefs and viewpoints when those beliefs change with all the stability of shifting sands.

Bottom line ... YOU HAVE TO BE A FRAUD. YOU CANNOT NOT BE. So, arguing with you is a complete waste of my time.

I addressed this already. What you have continually demanded is that he label himself. Then the label can be attacked. That's your issue with him; however, I can empathize with people making that demand on me.

I'm not a Republican. Democrat. Definitely not on the left. WHERE on the right would be the question. By TODAY's definitions I am neither conservative nor liberal.

I think we need a "Common Sense" party, but then, too few people nowadays would qualify for that.:laugh:

[Drummond]

I addressed this already. What you have continually demanded is that he label himself. Then the label can be attacked. That's your issue with him; however, I can empathize with people making that demand on me.

I'm not a Republican. Democrat. Definitely not on the left. WHERE on the right would be the question. By TODAY's definitions I am neither conservative nor liberal.

I think we need a "Common Sense" party, but then, too few people nowadays would qualify for that.:laugh:

You miss the real point I was trying to address. I wasn't, at least ultimately, getting hung up on 'labels'. My point was, and is, that FJ holds diametrically opposing loyalties to differing viewpoints, yet somehow would like us to believe that such lack of credible consistency can be believed in.

FJ should sort out what it is he really DOES identify with, stick with it, argue accordingly. This stands a better chance of leading to HONEST argument. A starting-point for this would be for him to declare what it really is that he wants to choose to represent. That involves him making a choice, sticking with it.

But I've a funny feeling that FJ will do nothing of the kind. Let him prove me wrong, if he can !

And if he can find some way to stop abusing Conservatives, then so much the better.

[Kathianne]

The Constitution does not suggest doing away with government restrictions on all self-destructive behaviors, nor do I. However, our current selectivity of which "self-destructive" behaviors we DO do away with is based solely on some activist and/or minority group crying like babies and/or stupid preconceived notions based on government propaganda.

Our government and its laws no longer reflect the Bill of Rights. It reflects a bureaucracy more intent on serving itself than the people. It's nothing more than the largest union in the country.

An example from Congressional hearing today:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/22/house-report-cash-strapped-irs-prioritized-bonuses-union-activity-over-helping-412601281/


House report: Cash-strapped IRS prioritized bonuses, union activity over helping taxpayers

Published April 22, 2015

While facing budget cuts, the IRS nevertheless prioritized worker bonuses, union activity and the implementation of President Obama’s health care law over assisting taxpayers during tax season, according to a new report released Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee.

The findings, in a Republican-led report, were released ahead of a subcommittee hearing Wednesday morning with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
At the hearing, Koskinen stressed that the agency is significantly under-funded, and those cuts have consequences.

He said less funding means there will be a decline in service for taxpayers, and pledged that service would improve if they got more money.

"Customer service -- both on the phone and in person -- has been far worse than anyone would want. It's simply a matter of not having enough people to answer the phones and provide service at our walk-in sites as a result of cuts to our budget," he said.

...

However, while cuts were made in part to focus the agency on customer service, the report asserted that “spending decisions entirely under the IRS’s control led to 16 million fewer taxpayers receiving IRS assistance this filing season.”

The panel found the IRS had cut customer services while continuing to hand out bonuses to employees, allowing staff to conduct union activities, failing to collect debt owed by employees of the federal government and spending over $1.2 billion on implementing ObamaCare.
...

While acknowledging that the agency has cut the amount of time spent on discretionary union activity, the report questioned why it could not have been decreased further, asserting that “the amount of resources spent on discretionary union activity could have assisted nearly 2.5 million taxpayers.”

The report noted that while the IRS’s implementation of ObamaCare was deemed a success by Koskinen, “the IRS achieved this supposed success by prioritizing … implementation over other activities, including core responsibilities like taxpayer assistance.”

The panel also claimed the agency had failed to pursue recommendations for streamlining and reducing waste
and abuse. It concluded that what it called “large areas of systemic waste and inefficiency” present in 2010 remained unaddressed in 2015, and highlighted in particular that the IRS spent $2.1 million on litigation services that the government could have conducted itself.

[Gunny]

An example from Congressional hearing today:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/22/house-report-cash-strapped-irs-prioritized-bonuses-union-activity-over-helping-412601281/

Sounds about right.

[fj1200]

I do not make the case that Unions' 'state granted power' is Libertarian. I do say that Unions have a long track record of fighting for what THEY consider are 'freedoms' and instances of so-called 'needed justice'. I do not say that giving in to such demands is, of itself, Libertarian.

Um, yes you do.


It seems to me that those Unionists could cite Libertarianism as a defence for their disgusting, antisocial behaviour. I mean, why not ? Each Trade Unionist would put his, or her, individual 'rights' above others. And mob rule resulted.

Unless you're now admitting that you're wrong. Because you attempt to split hairs and invoke something that is opposite of what a Libertarian would advocate.


I'm simply saying that individuals banded together to form Unions, to make and insist upon those demands. Becoming collective entities gave them power. This over time made them power-drunk, and irremediably wedded to the concept of 'the collective' being everything. Ultimately, Margaret Thatcher had to bring them to heel ... using STATE POWERS to do it.

Admitting you're wrong would be OK too. :)


YOU CANNOT NOT BE.

How many ways must I tell you how wrong you are? There are plenty of other threads in which I've done so and you've abandoned them. There is no rule agaisnt reopening them.


FJ should...

I don't think Gunny really cares about what you think I should do.

[fj1200]

I do not make the case that Unions' 'state granted power' is Libertarian. I do say that Unions have a long track record of fighting for what THEY consider are 'freedoms' and instances of so-called 'needed justice'. I do not say that giving in to such demands is, of itself, Libertarian.


Um, yes you do. ... Because you attempt to split hairs and invoke something that is opposite of what a Libertarian would advocate.

I'll expand a bit. Making the case as you do that a unions desire to assert their "freedoms" against the property of another is akin to a mass murderer desiring to assert their "freedom" against the lives of other individuals. At the core of a Libertarian desiring to assert their rights as an individual; life, liberty, and property in this case, is also the restraint to try and assert power over the natural rights of other individuals.

I hope this helps. :)

[tailfins]

I'll expand a bit. Making the case as you do that a unions desire to assert their "freedoms" against the property of another is akin to a mass murderer desiring to assert their "freedom" against the lives of other individuals. At the core of a Libertarian desiring to assert their rights as an individual; life, liberty, and property in this case, is also the restraint to try and assert power over the natural rights of other individuals.

I hope this helps. :)

When you're not in power, you can be all things to all people. Even Marxists can be Libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism

[fj1200]

When you're not in power, you can be all things to all people. Even Marxists can be Libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism

As pointed out before, just tacking on 'libertarian' in front of something that is automatically the opposite of libertarian doesn't construe libertarianism on the primary subject; Marxism... or on Socialism as attempted before.


Libertarian Marxism refers to a broad scope of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-authoritarian) aspects of Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism).

Anyone can say that Socialism, Marxism, etc. would be wonderful examples upon which to build a society and anyone can also say that libertarian is a great ideal that can coexist with them but... that would be pure theory as Socialism, Marxism, etc. require state coercion on property, liberty, and ultimately life.

[tailfins]

As pointed out before, just tacking on 'libertarian' in front of something that is automatically the opposite of libertarian doesn't construe libertarianism on the primary subject; Marxism... or on Socialism as attempted before.



Anyone can say that Socialism, Marxism, etc. would be wonderful examples upon which to build a society and anyone can also say that libertarian is a great ideal that can coexist with them but... that would be pure theory as Socialism, Marxism, etc. require state coercion on property, liberty, and ultimately life.

If you want an example of what effect a successful Libertarian Party would have, study what the Reform Party did to the Progressive Conservatives in Canada. It put the Liberals in power for well over a decade. Was all that time being powerless worth dropping "Progressive" from their name? You can talk about philosophy all day long; what matters are the results and deeds.

[fj1200]

If you want an example of what effect a successful Libertarian Party would have, study what the Reform Party did to the Progressive Conservatives in Canada. It put the Liberals in power for well over a decade. Was all that time being powerless worth dropping "Progressive" from their name? You can talk about philosophy all day long; what matters are the results and deeds.

Actually I consider a Libertarian Party success here is influencing the Republican Party platform. The fact is that the US is significantly different in our national government than Canada and, IMO, favors a two-party system which will limit any real chances at any long-term third party success. In very few instances does a third party have much electoral impact.

Of course that would all be solved when I repeal the 18th Amendment and require all Federal elections be decided by a run off if no one obtains a majority. :)

[Kathianne]

Actually I consider a Libertarian Party success here is influencing the Republican Party platform. The fact is that the US is significantly different in our national government than Canada and, IMO, favors a two-party system which will limit any real chances at any long-term third party success. In very few instances does a third party have much electoral impact.

Of course that would all be solved when I repeal the 18th Amendment and require all Federal elections be decided by a run off if no one obtains a majority. :)

I love the electoral college.

[tailfins]

I love the electoral college.

So do I. Without it, the Democrats could get enough votes in Illinois alone to win the Presidency.

[Drummond]

Um, yes you do.

Rot.


Unless you're now admitting that you're wrong. Because you attempt to split hairs and invoke something that is opposite of what a Libertarian would advocate.

Sometimes people, and institutions, are the opposite of what they say they are.

The old 'DDR', for example .. or, German Democratic Republic. Was it what it claimed to be, or, was it a satellite country of the old Soviet Union ?

Libertarianism is all about the rights of the individual. BUT, how much power does a single individual have ? There's power in numbers. Libertarians, here, learned that long ago. Unions were meant to address this.


Admitting you're wrong would be OK too. :)

Not when I'm right, it wouldn't. How about practising what you preach ??


How many ways must I tell you how wrong you are?

As many times as your desire to mislead, misrepresent, and exercise your ego, tells you that you must, of course.

Alternatively, you could start to post HONESTLY. Try it sometime. Instead of arguing in favour of contrary positions, and insisting that they're all right ...


There are plenty of other threads in which I've done so and you've abandoned them. There is no rule against [TYPO CORRECTED] reopening them.

And restart another plethora of your gratuitous insults and other abuse ? There are plenty of other threads where you've been bested, but you won't concede it (e.g your ridiculous nonsense about the UK going the way of Greece ..). Instead, you cover for your failures by using shabby tactics that any Leftie troll would be familiar with.

[Gunny]

When you're not in power, you can be all things to all people. Even Marxists can be Libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism

You're missing the point. When you aren't a Republican definition of conservative or a Democratic definition of "liberal", (both party's definitions being WRONG), you're a "libertarian". Or "Tea Partier" Because those who use blind labels must have a blind label. Those of us that refuse to be a blind label get called all kinds of stuff by those that think in a black or white only sieve.

Follow the party line or you're a __________.

"Libertarian" is just the latest label.

[fj1200]

Libertarianism is all about the rights of the individual. BUT, how much power does a single individual have ? There's power in numbers. Libertarians, here, learned that long ago. Unions were meant to address this.

You have to work hard to be this off topic. You've never identified Libertarians there.

BTW, try pointing out a thread where I've been "bested." Better yet actually open one and defend your position rather than dragging yet another thread off into your imagination.

[Gunny]

If you want an example of what effect a successful Libertarian Party would have, study what the Reform Party did to the Progressive Conservatives in Canada. It put the Liberals in power for well over a decade. Was all that time being powerless worth dropping "Progressive" from their name? You can talk about philosophy all day long; what matters are the results and deeds.

The only self-professed "libertarians" in office in the US are RIGHT libertarians. Basically, 1930s isolationist conservatives. We aren't Canada.

[Gunny]

So do I. Without it, the Democrats could get enough votes in Illinois alone to win the Presidency.

Doubtful. The Dems in IL have only Chicago. The rest of the people in the state are predominately conservative.

The electoral college nullifies your vote and puts it in the hands of someone presuming to think for you.

[tailfins]

Doubtful. The Dems in IL have only Chicago. The rest of the people in the state are predominately conservative.

The electoral college nullifies your vote and puts it in the hands of someone presuming to think for you.

OK, then, Chicago could come up with enough votes to win the Presidency. They just need to report last and know how many votes to submit.

[Gunny]

OK, then, Chicago could come up with enough votes to win the Presidency. They just need to report last and know how many votes to submit.

:laugh:

[Drummond]

You have to work hard to be this off topic. You've never identified Libertarians there.

Definitely a lie !

You may not be aware of it, but we're just a couple of weeks away from a General Election. So, if what you say is 'true', and the UK has little if any 'identification' of Libertarianism, then how come THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY EXISTS, AND HAS PUBLISHED ITS MANIFESTO ???

I've taken a quick look at it, and it contains stuff which I think Americans would recognise. But interestingly, it simultaneously talks of the UK controlling its own borders (which we could only properly do if we left the EU and saw the UK become fully self-governing) and, THE CARVE-UP OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND OF WESTMINSTER'S POWERS.

That would be a gift to the SNP, or Scottish Nationalists, who themselves want an independent Scotland. Having the UK devolve right down to the level of Governmental disunity the Libertarian Party wants would be a gift to them and all they stand for.

In case you don't know .. the SNP is considered to be further to the Left than EVEN the Labour Party !! Yet, we have a measure of common cause observed between both Parties - SNP and Libertarians.

Nearly everyone is expecting a 'hung Parliament' to come out of the election. The SNP has already offered to work in cooperation with Labour, but has said that under no circumstances would they EVER support the Conservatives.


BTW, try pointing out a thread where I've been "bested." Better yet actually open one and defend your position rather than dragging yet another thread off into your imagination.

Don't be tiresome - get some help for that attention deficit issue you have. I've already referred to the fact of how the UK is prospering, i.e, NOT going the way of Greece. In between indulging your pro-Leftie 'Austerity Sucks' mantra, you claimed that this WAS the fate in store for the UK. I have bested you on that whole subject. More importantly, the SUCCESS OF the Conservative Austerity policy has bested you.

You, and our Labour Party, share dissatisfaction with Conservative success on this issue.

Of course you do. You, and them, think much alike on that.

[tailfins]

Definitely a lie !

You may not be aware of it, but we're just a couple of weeks away from a General Election. So, if what you say is 'true', and the UK has little if any 'identification' of Libertarianism, then how come THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY EXISTS, AND HAS PUBLISHED ITS MANIFESTO ???

I've taken a quick look at it, and it contains stuff which I think Americans would recognise. But interestingly, it simultaneously talks of the UK controlling its own borders (which we could only properly do if we left the EU and saw the UK become fully self-governing) and, THE CARVE-UP OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND OF WESTMINSTER'S POWERS.

That would be a gift to the SNP, or Scottish Nationalists, who themselves want an independent Scotland. Having the UK devolve right down to the level of Governmental disunity the Libertarian Party wants would be a gift to them and all they stand for.

In case you don't know .. the SNP is considered to be further to the Left than EVEN the Labour Party !! Yet, we have a measure of common cause observed between both Parties - SNP and Libertarians.

Nearly everyone is expecting a 'hung Parliament' to come out of the election. The SNP has already offered to work in cooperation with Labour, but has said that under no circumstances would they EVER support the Conservatives.



Don't be tiresome - get some help for that attention deficit issue you have. I've already referred to the fact of how the UK is prospering, i.e, NOT going the way of Greece. In between indulging your pro-Leftie 'Austerity Sucks' mantra, you claimed that this WAS the fate in store for the UK. I have bested you on that whole subject. More importantly, the SUCCESS OF the Conservative Austerity policy has bested you.

You, and our Labour Party, share dissatisfaction with Conservative success on this issue.

Of course you do. You, and them, think much alike on that.

One really wacky thing about SNP and Plaid Cymru is that they want to be independent countries, dependent on the EU.

[Drummond]

One really wacky thing about SNP and Plaid Cymru is that they want to be independent countries, dependent on the EU.

I suppose 'wacky' is one way of describing Socialist thinking !! Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru are Left wing Nationalist Parties, neither having the smallest interest in working with the Conservatives in the event of a hung Parliament. It actually figures, therefore, that their fondness for EU membership is shared by both, as well as by the mainstream Socialists, Labour.

The Conservatives offer a Referendum on EU membership, should they win. Plaid Cymru, SNP, Labour, none of those Parties offer such an opportunity.

Interestingly, the Libertarian Party want us out of the EU, which sees them breaking ranks with the Leftie Parties on that. But, this is more than balanced by their preferred devolution of powers away from central Government in Westminster. You could, in Libertarian-world, see England divorced from the EU, but with the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists grabbing enhanced freedom to operate as THEY want to ...

... leading to a 'back door' rise of Socialist power-bases ....

[Gunny]

Definitely a lie !

You may not be aware of it, but we're just a couple of weeks away from a General Election. So, if what you say is 'true', and the UK has little if any 'identification' of Libertarianism, then how come THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY EXISTS, AND HAS PUBLISHED ITS MANIFESTO ???

I've taken a quick look at it, and it contains stuff which I think Americans would recognise. But interestingly, it simultaneously talks of the UK controlling its own borders (which we could only properly do if we left the EU and saw the UK become fully self-governing) and, THE CARVE-UP OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND OF WESTMINSTER'S POWERS.

That would be a gift to the SNP, or Scottish Nationalists, who themselves want an independent Scotland. Having the UK devolve right down to the level of Governmental disunity the Libertarian Party wants would be a gift to them and all they stand for.

In case you don't know .. the SNP is considered to be further to the Left than EVEN the Labour Party !! Yet, we have a measure of common cause observed between both Parties - SNP and Libertarians.

Nearly everyone is expecting a 'hung Parliament' to come out of the election. The SNP has already offered to work in cooperation with Labour, but has said that under no circumstances would they EVER support the Conservatives.



Don't be tiresome - get some help for that attention deficit issue you have. I've already referred to the fact of how the UK is prospering, i.e, NOT going the way of Greece. In between indulging your pro-Leftie 'Austerity Sucks' mantra, you claimed that this WAS the fate in store for the UK. I have bested you on that whole subject. More importantly, the SUCCESS OF the Conservative Austerity policy has bested you.

You, and our Labour Party, share dissatisfaction with Conservative success on this issue.

Of course you do. You, and them, think much alike on that.

Drummond, you kinda need to wrap your head around this:

"Libertarians" in this country are on the RIGHT, not the left. Those called libertarians and some even call themselves libertarians are predominately conservatives who don't toe the neocon GOP party line. You're using labels instead of definitions, and you're using YOUR country's labels, not ours. Europe is WAY ahead of us moving left. We're getting there.

A conservative in the US by today's definition was a perfect Democrat in the 60's and 70's. I've said this before: My beliefs haven't changed. The political paradigm has as it continually moves left. In the 70s I was a liberal. By dictionary definition I still am. By today's political definition I'm not even close.

In practice, the Democrats are actually conservative, not liberal. They just have a different standard than the so-called "right" in this country. The very second you take a stand on ANY issue, regardless where on the political spectrum you wish to put it, you are conservative. You take a stand on an issue and are unwilling to listen to the other side or compromise, you are conservative. The so-called "left" seems to take a lot of stances. Well, all but their President who couldn't take a stand on a podium.:laugh:

Point is, you are arguing definitions and labels that don't mean the same here that they do in the UK.

[Gunny]

I suppose 'wacky' is one way of describing Socialist thinking !! Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru are Left wing Nationalist Parties, neither having the smallest interest in working with the Conservatives in the event of a hung Parliament. It actually figures, therefore, that their fondness for EU membership is shared by both, as well as by the mainstream Socialists, Labour.

The Conservatives offer a Referendum on EU membership, should they win. Plaid Cymru, SNP, Labour, none of those Parties offer such an opportunity.

Interestingly, the Libertarian Party want us out of the EU, which sees them breaking ranks with the Leftie Parties on that. But, this is more than balanced by their preferred devolution of powers away from central Government in Westminster. You could, in Libertarian-world, see England divorced from the EU, but with the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists grabbing enhanced freedom to operate as THEY want to ...

... leading to a 'back door' rise of Socialist power-bases ....

What is a leftwing Nationalist party? You mean like the Nazi's? Who the left in this country SWEAR was right wing?

[Drummond]

"Libertarians" in this country are on the RIGHT, not the left. Those called libertarians and some even call themselves libertarians are predominately conservatives who don't toe the neocon GOP party line. You're using labels instead of definitions, and you're using YOUR country's labels, not ours. Europe is WAY ahead of us moving left. We're getting there.

I agree. You are indeed 'getting there'. I think you're managing the shift in small, creeping degrees, but yes, you're getting there.

And I think that a lot of 'why' that is has to do with too many Americans not being conscious of what it is that's ranged against American Conservatism ... and they allow the Left to win out through a form of blindness to it.

You say that American Libertarians - some - are Conservatives not toeing the GOP line. Ah ... but, in weakening the GOP, are they strengthening the opposition, giving your Left victories it might not otherwise enjoy ?

And don't you think they're AWARE of that ??


A conservative in the US by today's definition was a perfect Democrat in the 60's and 70's. I've said this before: My beliefs haven't changed. The political paradigm has as it continually moves left. In the 70s I was a liberal. By dictionary definition I still am. By today's political definition I'm not even close.

Small, creeping degrees, indeed.

It may be a rehash of social pressures brought to bear over here ... the acceptance of societal standards as 'obviously correct', from which other views are built .. but with those social standards being Left wing in nature.


In practice, the Democrats are actually conservative, not liberal. They just have a different standard than the so-called "right" in this country.

Well, I wonder about that.

You have the leader of your Democrats, Barack Obama. Hasn't his version of Presidential decision-making been the most Left wing your country has ever seen ?

Consider 'Obamacare'. Obama originally wanted to go further with it, isn't that so ? To make it more closely resemble our own, LEFT WING CREATED, National Health Service.

What's the track record, pre-Obama, on matters such as that ?

Obama's shift away from Christian dominance in the US, even declaring that the US was not a Christian country. In this, he could have common cause with OUR Socialists ... and again, isn't it a further shift to the Left ?

And Obama is the leader of your Democrats. What did the Democratic Party's Manifesto have to say ? Was all this change unrepresentative of what it described ?

No, I think that Obama has had ambitions to make the US more like the UK. He and his Party both have those aims.


Point is, you are arguing definitions and labels that don't mean the same here that they do in the UK.

Maybe. But this will evolve over time. The real question is, will Americans sleepwalk themselves to eventual conceptual parities ?

Here's a thought ... on the subject of racial segregation. Consider Abraham Lincoln's 'progressive' thinking. Then consider that, a generation LATER, Woodrow Wilson tried implementing policies which were far removed from Lincoln's own 'enlightened' ones. I think it outrageous that, these days, black Americans consider Wilson's Party to be THEIR Party these days, when the real home of friendship to them was that of LINCOLN'S Party !!!!

[Gunny]

I agree. You are indeed 'getting there'. I think you're managing the shift in small, creeping degrees, but yes, you're getting there.

And I think that a lot of 'why' that is has to do with too many Americans not being conscious of what it is that's ranged against American Conservatism ... and they allow the Left to win out through a form of blindness to it.

You say that American Libertarians - some - are Conservatives not toeing the GOP line. Ah ... but, in weakening the GOP, are they strengthening the opposition, giving your Left victories it might not otherwise enjoy ?

And don't you think they're AWARE of that ??



Small, creeping degrees, indeed.

It may be a rehash of social pressures brought to bear over here ... the acceptance of societal standards as 'obviously correct', from which other views are built .. but with those social standards being Left wing in nature.



Well, I wonder about that.

You have the leader of your Democrats, Barack Obama. Hasn't his version of Presidential decision-making been the most Left wing your country has ever seen ?

Consider 'Obamacare'. Obama originally wanted to go further with it, isn't that so ? To make it more closely resemble our own, LEFT WING CREATED, National Health Service.

What's the track record, pre-Obama, on matters such as that ?

Obama's shift away from Christian dominance in the US, even declaring that the US was not a Christian country. In this, he could have common cause with OUR Socialists ... and again, isn't it a further shift to the Left ?

And Obama is the leader of your Democrats. What did the Democratic Party's Manifesto have to say ? Was all this change unrepresentative of what it described ?

No, I think that Obama has had ambitions to make the US more like the UK. He and his Party both have those aims.



Maybe. But this will evolve over time. The real question is, will Americans sleepwalk themselves to eventual conceptual parities ?

Here's a thought ... on the subject of racial segregation. Consider Abraham Lincoln's 'progressive' thinking. Then consider that, a generation LATER, Woodrow Wilson tried implementing policies which were far removed from Lincoln's own 'enlightened' ones. I think it outrageous that, these days, black Americans consider Wilson's Party to be THEIR Party these days, when the real home of friendship to them was that of LINCOLN'S Party !!!!

We've creeped left, and if you saw my rant in the other thread, you'd see how I feel about the holdouts that didn't vote. But they don't call themselves "libertarians". They call themselves disaffected conservatives.

The GOP HAS TO appeal to the moderate voters. Whoever gets the moderates and centrists usually wins. Hard-line conservatives got their heads up their butts about that regardless reality.

Jimmy Carter was a HUGE shift left. Obama another huge shift left. The further you get from what got you here and the more into entitled thinking, the further left you go. The history of humanity is the same. Those that are hungry fight for what they want and to keep it. Then the pussies move in and huddle in cities under the proection of others and have no clue what it is to fight for something, To be hungry. Sleep in the cold and/or rain. And their idealistic stupidity brings about their downfall because they forgot where they came from and the wimps legislate the strong that gave them even a life out of power.

Now, am I speaking of the Greek, Roman, or British empire(s)? ;)

[Drummond]

What is a leftwing Nationalist party? You mean like the Nazi's? Who the left in this country SWEAR was right wing?

I don't think either resemble the Nazis, no. Neither is trying to wipe out Jews, for example ...

The Labour Party used to be very Left wing ... just one step to the Right of Communists, at one time. Pro-Nationalisation of State services, like the railways, for example.

Mrs Thatcher came to power, winning her landslide victories. Michael Foot, leader of Labour during the 1980's, offered a traditional Left wing Party as opposition to her, and kept losing ... heavily, repeatedly. The perception was that Labour was unelectable.

So, Labour underwent a reinvention, making itself 'New Labour', still broadly Socialist in many ways, but with its goals substantially softened, even 're-engineered'. The reinvention ultimately worked, and Tony Blair came to power ... remarkably 'conservative' in Labour terms.

Plaid Cymru and the SNP are both Parties resembling the older Labour model. Both want greater Nationalisation powers. The SNP argues that we should scrap Trident, which is the UK's nuclear deterrent system. Labour just want a reduction, the SNP insist it be scrapped entirely.

It's differences like this that characterise the Nationalist Parties ... they look more like the old 'loony Left' that Labour tries NOT to resemble.

There's one change in the Welsh NHS which is likely to come about, with full Plaid Cymru backing. Right now, UK citizens can offer to be a part of the State Organ Donation scheme, allowing the use of body parts like kidneys, liver, heart, after death, to assist others in need of them. It's a purely voluntary scheme, which you 'opt in' to, as a matter of choice.

The Welsh NHS is on course to turn that principle on its head. Instead of opting IN, you have to opt OUT. The Welsh NHS wants an automatic right to plunder organs, UNLESS the individual in question has provably opted OUT of that.

This makes human bodies, effectively, the property and raw material of the State, unless individuals register their resistance to that ownership through provable means.

To be fair ... the Welsh Labour Party also agrees this. It's not just Plaid Cymru, but other Lefties as well.

See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Transplantation_%28Wales%29_Act_2013


The Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013 (anaw 5) (Welsh: Deddf Trawsblannu Dynol (Cymru) 2013) is an act of the National Assembly for Wales, passed in July 2013. It permits an opt-out system of organ donation, known as presumed consent, or deemed concent. The act allows hospitals to presume that people aged 18 or over, who have been resident in Wales for over 12 months, want to donate their organs at their death, unless they have objected specifically. The act varies the Law of England and Wales in Wales (still applicable in England), which relied on an opt-in system; whereby only those who have signed the NHS organ donation register, or whose families agreed, were considered to have consented to be organ donors.

The law will come into effect in 2015, to allow time for a Welsh Government public information campaign to take effect.

The act is considered by the Welsh Government to be the "most significant piece of legislation" passed in Wales since additional lawmaking powers were acquired by the Assembly in 2011, under the Government of Wales Act 2006.

I will be subject to that law myself, if I don't 'opt out' of it.

[Gunny]

I don't think either resemble the Nazis, no. Neither is trying to wipe out Jews, for example ...

The Labour Party used to be very Left wing ... just one step to the Right of Communists, at one time. Pro-Nationalisation of State services, like the railways, for example.

Mrs Thatcher came to power, winning her landslide victories. Michael Foot, leader of Labour during the 1980's, offered a traditional Left wing Party as opposition to her, and kept losing ... heavily, repeatedly. The perception was that Labour was unelectable.

So, Labour underwent a reinvention, making itself 'New Labour', still broadly Socialist in many ways, but with its goals substantially softened, even 're-engineered'. The reinvention ultimately worked, and Tony Blair came to power ... remarkably 'conservative' in Labour terms.

Plaid Cymru and the SNP are both Parties resembling the older Labour model. Both want greater Nationalisation powers. The SNP argues that we should scrap Trident, which is the UK's nuclear deterrent system. Labour just want a reduction, the SNP insist it be scrapped entirely.

It's differences like this that characterise the Nationalist Parties ... they look more like the old 'loony Left' that Labour tries NOT to resemble.

There's one change in the Welsh NHS which is likely to come about, with full Plaid Cymru backing. Right now, UK citizens can offer to be a part of the State Organ Donation scheme, allowing the use of body parts like kidneys, liver, heart, after death, to assist others in need of them. It's a purely voluntary scheme, which you 'opt in' to, as a matter of choice.

The Welsh NHS is on course to turn that principle on its head. Instead of opting IN, you have to opt OUT. The Welsh NHS wants an automatic right to plunder organs, UNLESS the individual in question has provably opted OUT of that.

This makes human bodies, effectively, the property and raw material of the State, unless individuals register their resistance to that ownership through provable means.

To be fair ... the Welsh Labour Party also agrees this. It's not just Plaid Cymru, but other Lefties as well.

See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Transplantation_%28Wales%29_Act_2013



I will be subject to that law myself, if I don't 'opt out' of it.

Wow. I hate crap like that. "You're automatically enrolled unless you opt out". That's bullsh*t, and them hedging their bets on the lazy that won't bother to read and/or opt out.

That would be a deal breaker with me. They'd never get my vote with that kind of crap.

[Drummond]

We've creeped left, and if you saw my rant in the other thread, you'd see how I feel about the holdouts that didn't vote. But they don't call themselves "libertarians". They call themselves disaffected conservatives.

The GOP HAS TO appeal to the moderate voters. Whoever gets the moderates and centrists usually wins. Hard-line conservatives got their heads up their butts about that regardless reality.

Jimmy Carter was a HUGE shift left. Obama another huge shift left. The further you get from what got you here and the more into entitled thinking, the further left you go. The history of humanity is the same. Those that are hungry fight for what they want and to keep it. Then the pussies move in and huddle in cities under the proection of others and have no clue what it is to fight for something, To be hungry. Sleep in the cold and/or rain. And their idealistic stupidity brings about their downfall because they forgot where they came from and the wimps legislate the strong that gave them even a life out of power.

Now, am I speaking of the Greek, Roman, or British empire(s)? ;)

I think that you could be speaking of British Libertarians who became hungry for power, saw (realised) the truth that real power lay in numbers, and so formed their Leftie Trade Unions, defying the State whenever they could craft a case for doing so !

The 'huge shifts left' under Carter and Obama both occurred courtesy of DEMOCRAT Leaders arranging it !! I come back to my objection: did they embark on those lurches, independently of their Party, OR, was it all mapped out in manifesto commitments and discernible Party agreements ?

I think the truth about the Dem Party is that it truly IS a hard-Left Party, that manages to sell itself as something more moderate ... until an Obama figure proves otherwise.

Over here, over generations, we've had so-called 'inalienably correct' standards dripfed into peoples' consciences. The 'gay' issue is one ... just a generation ago, it was unthinkable to consider 'gay marriage' as anything acceptable ! Least likely to ever support such a thing was our Conservative Party.

A generation later, with Leftie sensibilities drilled into everyone, and it's now the Conservative Party that supports it !!!!

[Drummond]

Wow. I hate crap like that. "You're automatically enrolled unless you opt out". That's bullsh*t, and them hedging their bets on the lazy that won't bother to read and/or opt out.

That would be a deal breaker with me. They'd never get my vote with that kind of crap.

I see that the same way.

But you see, this is part of the Socialist nightmare. Socialists want everyone owned by the State. It's key to their power mania. Mark my words ... it may be a long time coming in the US, but one day, some American Leftist will start pushing for just such a change.

You may not believe it. But it'll happen.

The only answer is to starve the Left of power, as completely as is possible. And do what it takes to ensure that, EVEN if it means what some may see as the compromise of the GOP winning through.

[Gunny]

I think that you could be speaking of British Libertarians who became hungry for power, saw (realised) the truth that real power lay in numbers, and so formed their Leftie Trade Unions, defying the State whenever they could craft a case for doing so !

The 'huge shifts left' under Carter and Obama both occurred courtesy of DEMOCRAT Leaders arranging it !! I come back to my objection: did they embark on those lurches, independently of their Party, OR, was it all mapped out in manifesto commitments and discernible Party agreements ?

I think the truth about the Dem Party is that it truly IS a hard-Left Party, that manages to sell itself as something more moderate ... until an Obama figure proves otherwise.

Over here, over generations, we've had so-called 'inalienably correct' standards dripfed into peoples' consciences. The 'gay' issue is one ... just a generation ago, it was unthinkable to consider 'gay marriage' as anything acceptable ! Least likely to ever support such a thing was our Conservative Party.

A generation later, with Leftie sensibilities drilled into everyone, and it's now the Conservative Party that supports it !!!!

The Democratic Party shifted left after Carter. They did not support him. He was actually an independent who ran as a Democrat. The Democratic Party, when I was a kid, backed Krushchev down and went to war in Vietnam. And Ronald Reagan was a Democrat.

You say Lincoln was a Republican but he couldn't be one today. He'd be a Democrat.

I grew up in a family of Democrats. All were in the military and hardcore. 1980 changed that. Now, 2008 has changed it again.

My point is it isn't about the label. It's about the belief. Parties shift up and down and claim this or that and depending upon one's belief's, you can get called any and everything because people have to label.

Now if you want a REAL question, explain why American Jews are almost universally Democrats? Becuase they can't think outside their box. Let's start from "Go".

We refused Jews trying to escape Germany sanctuary pre-WWII. Democrat President and Congress.

We were against the reformation of Israel in 49. Dem President and Congress.

Now, Tsar Barry has done everything but declare war on Israel and/or provide Palestine direct military support.

[fj1200]

Definitely a lie !

You may not be aware of it, but we're just a couple of weeks away from a General Election. So, if what you say is 'true', and the UK has little if any 'identification' of Libertarianism, then how come THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY EXISTS, AND HAS PUBLISHED ITS MANIFESTO ???

I said you didn't identify Libertarians there. That is true. You are trying to make the case that unions there are Libertarian which is a ridiculous statement to make. At the same time you both make that argument and then try to say that you're not making that argument. You make ridiculous connections in the first place and then think that those connections prove your point. Newsflash: They don't prove your point.


Our Vision

What The Libertarian Party Stands For
• Individual liberty, freedom and the self-responsibility thatcomes with it.
• Free enterprise and Honest Markets for the prosperity andopportunity they bring.
• Small Government and low taxation.
• Rule of Law applied without fear or favour.


Wow, such horrid leftieism there. :rolleyes:


In the 2009 local elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2009), Andrew Hunt came bottom in Cambridgeshire, Wisbech South, with 140 votes.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28UK%29#cite_note-5) In the United Kingdom local elections, 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2010) Stuart Heal came bottom in Manchester City Council, Miles Platting and Newton Heath ward.[6]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28UK%29#cite_note-6)The party participated in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010). Nic Coome stood in Devizes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devizes_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), coming last with 141 votes (0.3%), and Martin Cullip in Sutton and Cheam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_and_Cheam_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), coming second last with 41 votes.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28UK%29#cite_note-7) On 28 November 2010, Andrew Withers was elected as party leader. In the May 2011 local elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2011), Withers was elected as an independent parish councillor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_councils_in_England) for Clevedon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clevedon) Walton ward inNorth Somerset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Somerset), resigning around March 2012.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28UK%29#cite_note-8)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2011

320 votes over two cycles and maybe one elected official??? OMG, stop the leftie scourge. :rolleyes:


You, and them, think much alike on that.

Listen up coward, open up the thread and point out where my tax cutting proposal matched Labour's position. Oh yeah, you can't, you prefer to lie. That's what cowards do; that and eventually slink away and try and start things up again in a completely different thread.

[fj1200]

I'm still amazed how Socialists are being brought up in a Libertarian thread. :confused:

[Drummond]

I said you didn't identify Libertarians there. That is true.

Perhaps you're playing games with phraseology. The UK has a definite idea about what Libertarianism is .. and it's sufficiently well established for there to be a political Party representing Libertarianism specifically. If you mean that I, PERSONALLY, don't identify Libertarians (?) ... I prove you wrong by making you aware of their Party in the first place.


You are trying to make the case that unions there are Libertarian which is a ridiculous statement to make.

WHY ?

Trade Unionism is supposed to be all about individual workers forming an organised structure which fights for individual rights. Libertarianism is all about the individual versus State, or other all-controlling, authority ... Unions exist to take them on, to make the individula triumph over such authorities (indeed, they've tried to depose entire Governments not to their liking, and even managed to succeed). Unions are a form of perversion of Libertarianism .. but then, avoiding the realisation of that perversion is inevitable, because the individual Libertarian has no power. To create power, to get anything done, you need strength in numbers. So, Libertarianism converts into collectivism. Trade Unionism fits the bill in terms of a practical wielding of Libertarian-type ambition.


You make ridiculous connections in the first place and then think that those connections prove your point. Newsflash: They don't prove your point.

Then disprove the logic of my argument, above.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2011

320 votes over two cycles and maybe one elected official??? OMG, stop the leftie scourge. :rolleyes:

I'm not following you at all clearly (explain the citing of your figures - what's their context ? Try not to be abusive when you do so ..). However, if your point is to illustrate the uselessness of the Libertarian Party, consider that the converted version of it does considerably better.


Listen up coward,

... just one example of many of what I'm talking about.


...open up the thread and point out where my tax cutting proposal matched Labour's position. Oh yeah, you can't, you prefer to lie.

You're definitely mucking about with context.

Labour, traditionally, is a high taxation Party. HOWEVER, they're choosy about who they want to tax. Their preference, certainly these days, is to make the very wealthy exorbitantly taxed .. and minimise taxation burdens for the poorest in Society.

You say you argue for tax cuts. Yes ... you did so in the thread we're both referring to. However, you were unable to make any convincing argument as to how tax cuts would be afforded. Losses of taxation revenue mean that this revenue is absent from the economy, where otherwise it would exist. This therefore creates an unsustainable hole in the economy.

Possibly, in the long term ... if enough YEARS go by ... this would be self-fixing. BUT NOT IN THE SHORTER TERM. In the shorter term, you'd have just two options ... one, to reverse tax cuts and get revenue flowing again, OR, to borrow to make up the shortfall.

AND EXCESSIVE BORROWING DEFEATS ANY MEASURES ATTEMPTED TO FIX AN AILING ECONOMY.

I say 'ailing'. The UK economy was in dire straits, in 2008, and became a lot worse by 2010, by the time Labour and their spendthrift policies were kicked out. The Conservatives, in coalition with our Lib Dems, took the ONE reasonable course available to them. That of instituting an austerity programme.

You've said 'austerity sucks', like a mantra. Fact is, though, that IT HAS WORKED. An economy where balance of payments is taken seriously, where there's a preference for paying your way instead of borrowing ever more recklessly, IS a sensible one to pursue ... and the UK economy is now on a far better 'even keel' than in 2010.

Your prognostication that we'd end up like Greece is today, was - and is - PURE ROT. OK ... so, truth be told, you hate Conservative policies enacted in the UK (.. well, it goes with all the Leftieism, eh ??). But, THEY WORKED.

And you STILL hate that fact - don't you ?

[fj1200]

Perhaps you're playing games with phraseology. The UK has a definite idea about what Libertarianism is .. and it's sufficiently well established for there to be a political Party representing Libertarianism specifically. If you mean that I, PERSONALLY, don't identify Libertarians (?) ... I prove you wrong by making you aware of their Party in the first place.

:laugh: You made me aware? :laugh: Nevertheless I'm sure that some in the UK know what a Libertarian is. I'm stating that you don't know what a Libertarian is. Your redundant statements prove me right.


WHY ?

Trade Unionism is supposed to be all about individual workers forming an organised structure which fights for individual rights. Libertarianism is all about the individual versus State, or other all-controlling, authority ... Unions exist to take them on, to make the individula triumph over such authorities (indeed, they've tried to depose entire Governments not to their liking, and even managed to succeed). Unions are a form of perversion of Libertarianism .. but then, avoiding the realisation of that perversion is inevitable, because the individual Libertarian has no power. To create power, to get anything done, you need strength in numbers. So, Libertarianism converts into collectivism. Trade Unionism fits the bill in terms of a practical wielding of Libertarian-type ambition.

Then disprove the logic of my argument, above.

You didn't prove your logic in the first case so there isn't anything to disprove. Besides, I, and others here, have pointed out that you are indeed wrong. I'm not sure what else will convince you. How about this, unions don't want the individual to 'triumph' they want the union to triumph.


I'm not following you at all clearly (explain the citing of your figures - what's their context ? Try not to be abusive when you do so ..). However, if your point is to illustrate the uselessness of the Libertarian Party, consider that the converted version of it does considerably better.

Of course you're not following me. I used logic and fact to disprove your ridiculous assertions. But ridiculous assertions is what you do. You take something you have no clue about; Libertarians. Find something that may have a hint of "leftie"; Scottish independence or some such thing that mirrors to the SNP. Make an assertion about the SNP: Their leftie. And then tie them to other lefties; Labour. Never mind that you've made tenuous links at each step of the way but to equate the first point to the last is complete balderdash. And it's something you do all the time.


... just one example of many of what I'm talking about.

You're definitely mucking about with context.

... But, THEY WORKED.

And you STILL hate that fact - don't you ?

I'm merely trying to point out truth to you. You are a coward and you are a liar and that will always be true until you dispose of your mindless imagination.

And yes, tax cuts worked. I love that. Resurrect that thread and look for the truth. I dare you.

[Gunny]

I'm still amazed how Socialists are being brought up in a Libertarian thread. :confused:

Pay no attention to the elephant in the room. There are right and left libertarians. It's obvious the ones in the UK are left libertarians and and not right libertarians like we have here.

[Kathianne]

Pay no attention to the elephant in the room. There are right and left libertarians. It's obvious the ones in the UK are left libertarians and and not right libertarians like we have here.

From anything I can tell, 'left libertarians' would be better be called 'anarchists', think 'occupy Wallstreet' types. Certainly not for any social order of any size.

I find Drummond's use of 'libertarian' a misnomer, not a 'lesson' in what we were trying to discuss originally in this thread. Like all of us, he's speaking passionately about what he 'knows' based upon his personal knowledge of something in his country several decades ago. The time really is irrelevant, but the label used is problematic for the discussion.

Since most of us are Americans, I would suggest that he try to use the definition of 'smaller government' of both scope and level that most of us are using regarding the term.

[Drummond]

From anything I can tell, 'left libertarians' would be better be called 'anarchists', think 'occupy Wallstreet' types. Certainly not for any social order of any size.

I find Drummond's use of 'libertarian' a misnomer, not a 'lesson' in what we were trying to discuss originally in this thread. Like all of us, he's speaking passionately about what he 'knows' based upon his personal knowledge of something in his country several decades ago. The time really is irrelevant, but the label used is problematic for the discussion.

Since most of us are Americans, I would suggest that he try to use the definition of 'smaller government' of both scope and level that most of us are using regarding the term.

Kathianne, I think you're missing something of the point I've intended.

Libertarians can forge no form of power for themselves, therefore, achieve anything worthwhile for what they say they believe in, unless they do what they've done in the UK .. namely, form collectives.

This is what I've been describing, and it follows the only meaningful evolution possible for them.

That this hasn't conspicuously happened - apparently - in the US, doesn't prove that it ultimately WON'T. Just that it hasn't.

I think that Libertarianism, be it the UK phenomenon of it, or the US version, will, given enough time, prove to follow the same path. Just wait until the US Libertarians get to feel that they really need power for themselves. They'll come to the realisation that they 'should' do what our lot have done.

Libertarians want 'small Government' ? How will they exert influence to meaningfully stem it ? Answer .. BY TAKING IT ON. That requires a power base. That requires strength in numbers.

Hello Collectivism, and the inevitable mutation of supposedly 'conservative' Libertarianism into its more realistic guise, instead.

[Kathianne]

[QUOTE=Drummond;732144]Kathianne, I think you're missing something of the point I've intended.

Libertarians can forge no form of power for themselves, therefore, achieve anything worthwhile for what they say they believe in, unless they do what they've done in the UK .. namely, form collectives.

This is what I've been describing, and it follows the only meaningful evolution possible for them.

That this hasn't conspicuously happened - apparently - in the US, doesn't prove that it ultimately WON'T. Just that it hasn't.

I think that Libertarianism, be it the UK phenomenon of it, or the US version, will, given enough time, prove to follow the same path. Just wait until the US Libertarians get to feel that they really need power for themselves. They'll come to the realisation that they 'should' do what our lot have done.

The 'Department of Education' began in 1979 for instance. We know when Obamacare began...

I know I gave some links during out discussion on how many don't 'know' what libertarianism 'is' but when asked general questions hold libertarian values on many aspects of government purview.

Unfortunately by the very nature of the philosophy it seems to be difficult/impossible for a real 'party' to emerge. Basically the best to hope for imo is as influence over those that pay more than lip service to the Constitution and those are to be found in small numbers in the GOP. Going to DC seems to knock the Constitution out of most of them, another argument for returning powers to states and localities.

[Drummond]

[QUOTE=Drummond;732144]Kathianne, I think you're missing something of the point I've intended.

Libertarians can forge no form of power for themselves, therefore, achieve anything worthwhile for what they say they believe in, unless they do what they've done in the UK .. namely, form collectives.

This is what I've been describing, and it follows the only meaningful evolution possible for them.

That this hasn't conspicuously happened - apparently - in the US, doesn't prove that it ultimately WON'T. Just that it hasn't.

I think that Libertarianism, be it the UK phenomenon of it, or the US version, will, given enough time, prove to follow the same path. Just wait until the US Libertarians get to feel that they really need power for themselves. They'll come to the realisation that they 'should' do what our lot have done.

The 'Department of Education' began in 1979 for instance. We know when Obamacare began...

I know I gave some links during out discussion on how many don't 'know' what libertarianism 'is' but when asked general questions hold libertarian values on many aspects of government purview.

Unfortunately by the very nature of the philosophy it seems to be difficult/impossible for a real 'party' to emerge. Basically the best to hope for imo is as influence over those that pay more than lip service to the Constitution and those are to be found in small numbers in the GOP. Going to DC seems to knock the Constitution out of most of them, another argument for returning powers to states and localities.

That's because it hasn't, yet, undergone the only evolutionary path it CAN take. UK's version of Libertarian has failed to be impeded in the way you're suggesting the US's Libertarians are.

Here, a 'real Party' HAS emerged. It operates, it has its manifesto, it will contest seats in the imminent General Election, in the usual way that any power hungry, power-seeking group would do. Our Libertarians understand the 'power in numbers' principle, and they follow it. Of course they do ! That's how they found it easy to go the Union route, long ago (now largely discredited). That's how, today, they do what any politicised wannabe power base does, and form a voice for themselves through unified organisational methodology.

I present to you .. THE UK LIBERTARIAN PARTY ....

http://libertarianpartyuk.com/

.... COMPLETE WITH MANIFESTO (downloadable PDF) ...

http://libertarianpartyuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Manifesto-2015.pdf

You may perceive from it that they're very strong on their version (however 'devolved' it may be) of applied authoritarianism !! ...

[Kathianne]

Drummond, sorry the quotes got messed up.

I do not accept your premise of what has happened MAY or what you are actually pushing-WILL repeat what you have seen regarding those calling themselves libertarian in UK. We are speaking of differences you seem unable to accept.

I suggest instead we speak of the concept of federal government doing those things and collecting the taxes that the states cannot efficiently or effectively provide for their citizens. Pretty much the Constitution covers those things, with the addition of changes in transportation and technology in general.

Likewise the states should be providing those services and taxes that the counties, townships, and local municipalities cannot provide efficiently or effectively.

[Drummond]

Drummond, sorry the quotes got messed up.

I do not accept your premise of what has happened MAY or what you are actually pushing-WILL repeat what you have seen regarding those calling themselves libertarian in UK. We are speaking of differences you seem unable to accept.

I suggest instead we speak of the concept of federal government doing those things and collecting the taxes that the states cannot efficiently or effectively provide for their citizens. Pretty much the Constitution covers those things, with the addition of changes in transportation and technology in general.

Likewise the states should be providing those services and taxes that the counties, townships, and local municipalities cannot provide efficiently or effectively.

I'm sorry, Kathianne, but I'm not sure I can give you a proper debate from the terms you've offered. For one thing, we in the UK don't quite have an equivalent of individual States wielding powers as yours would. We have local councils, we have county councils, we have central Government(s) in the UK. So much more power is centred at central Government level in my system than may be true (or potentially possible) for lower authorities, in yours. I don't have the same points of reference that you'd have.

I can only say that 'Libertarianism' is ultimately a self-defeating concept, or premise. Either power to effect change is wielded by an individual already supplied with considerable personal authority (in your terms, at Governmental level), or, it has to be wielded through power from a collective. Either way .. we're talking about the implementation either of 'Big Government' or 'Big Power', from enforcing that power through strength in numbers.

Speaking of the UK model of Libertarian ... here, the need to wield power to get your way is fully understood as necessary. The Libertarian Party operates from, and within, the political arena, and were they to progress with their aims, they'd be doing it from a Governmental level. This proves of itself the understanding, in our Libertarians, that to hope to make a difference, it HAS to be achieved from the 'wielding a big stick' principle, which is what Governmental authority must be all about !

This is over and above their earlier, NON Governmental efforts, via the Trade Union Movement, which itself helped to spawn the Labour Party, so again, intentions became overtly politically ambitious ...

I know this doesn't answer you, Kathianne. But I think I'd need to be American to do a good job of trying to. My reality is a little too far removed from yours, I think.

By the way, in passing .. an examination of the UK's Libertarian Party Manifesto appears at first glance to be of a Right-wing nature. Yet ... I've seen their commitment to fight for an entirely secular Society (which of course is a fundamentally Socialist ambition, not a Conservative one). Also ... they may want power over our borders, YET, they're strongly in favour at the same time of permitting substantial immigration (a Labour Party position in 2010).

[Gunny]

I'm sorry, Kathianne, but I'm not sure I can give you a proper debate from the terms you've offered. For one thing, we in the UK don't quite have an equivalent of individual States wielding powers as yours would. We have local councils, we have county councils, we have central Government(s) in the UK. So much more power is centred at central Government level in my system than may be true (or potentially possible) for lower authorities, in yours. I don't have the same points of reference that you'd have.

I can only say that 'Libertarianism' is ultimately a self-defeating concept, or premise. Either power to effect change is wielded by an individual already supplied with considerable personal authority (in your terms, at Governmental level), or, it has to be wielded through power from a collective. Either way .. we're talking about the implementation either of 'Big Government' or 'Big Power', from enforcing that power through strength in numbers.

Speaking of the UK model of Libertarian ... here, the need to wield power to get your way is fully understood as necessary. The Libertarian Party operates from, and within, the political arena, and were they to progress with their aims, they'd be doing it from a Governmental level. This proves of itself the understanding, in our Libertarians, that to hope to make a difference, it HAS to be achieved from the 'wielding a big stick' principle, which is what Governmental authority must be all about !

This is over and above their earlier, NON Governmental efforts, via the Trade Union Movement, which itself helped to spawn the Labour Party, so again, intentions became overtly politically ambitious ...

I know this doesn't answer you, Kathianne. But I think I'd need to be American to do a good job of trying to. My reality is a little too far removed from yours, I think.

By the way, in passing .. an examination of the UK's Libertarian Party Manifesto appears at first glance to be of a Right-wing nature. Yet ... I've seen their commitment to fight for an entirely secular Society (which of course is a fundamentally Socialist ambition, not a Conservative one). Also ... they may want power over our borders, YET, they're strongly in favour at the same time of permitting substantial immigration (a Labour Party position in 2010).

Sure you can. Try opening your mind. It works. The repeated theme here is that your idea of a "libertarian" and ours are different. There are NO leftwing libertarians of note in this country. You're so hung up on labels you can't see past them to the ideals that make people who and what they are.

I wish I could find that chart. It's BS, but it presents the current mindset. Republican, Democrat, and everyone else is a label.

If I disagree with a Republican't I'm a "liberal". Ask FJ. If I disagree with a "liberal", I'm a "con". If I disagree with both, I'm a libertarian. Y'all just have to have a name to besmerch.

I'm ME. Neither you nor anyone else gets to think for me nor tell me what I'm supposed to think. You and many like you can't stand the fact people like me don't bow down and fit into your filing cabinet. I ain't marching in lockstep with anyone.

You're arguing against something that means something completely different here than it does in the UK. Libertarians are hardcore rightwingers here. You can't make your argument until you get THAT. You're arguing against something that doesn't exist here.

[Kathianne]

Related:


http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/205740/
APRIL 25, 2015
THE PROBLEM WITH “THE SOCIALIST IMPULSE TO CLASSES VERSUS THE CAPITALIST FOCUS ON THE INDIVIDUAL,” courtesy of Prof. Russ Roberts: “Once you begin to see humans as the interchangeable members of a class, you begin to dehumanize them.” (https://www.aei.org/publication/once-you-begin-to-see-humans-as-the-interchangeable-members-of-a-class-you-begin-to-dehumanize-them/)
To the political class, that’s not a bug, but a feature, since you can get away with a lot more.

[Drummond]

Sure you can. Try opening your mind. It works. The repeated theme here is that your idea of a "libertarian" and ours are different. There are NO leftwing libertarians of note in this country. You're so hung up on labels you can't see past them to the ideals that make people who and what they are.

I wish I could find that chart. It's BS, but it presents the current mindset. Republican, Democrat, and everyone else is a label.

If I disagree with a Republican't I'm a "liberal". Ask FJ. If I disagree with a "liberal", I'm a "con". If I disagree with both, I'm a libertarian. Y'all just have to have a name to besmerch.

I'm ME. Neither you nor anyone else gets to think for me nor tell me what I'm supposed to think. You and many like you can't stand the fact people like me don't bow down and fit into your filing cabinet. I ain't marching in lockstep with anyone.

You're arguing against something that means something completely different here than it does in the UK. Libertarians are hardcore rightwingers here. You can't make your argument until you get THAT. You're arguing against something that doesn't exist here.

Gunny, you're trying to defy the saying 'No man is an island'. Fact is that none of us are immune to being influenced by what we see, hear, learn about the world we live in. Everything has its input. And there are those who understand this, and try to be opportunistic on the back of it.

In my society, Socialists are forever preaching in some form or other, trying to set parameters of what they say are 'decent beliefs and standards' ... which is how our NHS is so well respected (despite the many disasters it's visited upon us), or why so many not only shun the idea of carrying guns, but even consider the very notion of it 'uncivilised'. Or how to be critical of Muslims, or Islam, or not believe that 'Islam is a religion of peace' means that you're bigoted or racist, or both.

They've worked on this process for decades and have done much to shape attitudes here. The principle is tried and tested: 'plug into society, and society plugs into you'.

Americans place a greater value on freedoms, liberty, etc ... so are protected from massive excesses of what I'm talking about. But nobody is immune. Can you guarantee to watch or listen to a debate programme, or news item, or current affairs broadcast, and know it cannot possibly shape any view of yours, or sway you even a little ?

You say you can't be labeled. But you carry SOMETHING of what has been fed to you through the media. We all do.

Your 'Ask FJ' suggestion, by the way, is meaningless. FJ professes to be something he's not .. he identifies with labels, deliberately so, but FALSELY. He'd have me believe he's a Thatcherite (he is not) and a Libertarian, both at the same time. That males zero sense ... Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian, she FOUGHT Libertarians in the UK, and did it through State machinery.

[Drummond]

Related:


http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/205740/
APRIL 25, 2015


THE PROBLEM WITH “THE SOCIALIST IMPULSE TO CLASSES VERSUS THE CAPITALIST FOCUS ON THE INDIVIDUAL,” courtesy of Prof. Russ Roberts: “Once you begin to see humans as the interchangeable members of a class, you begin to dehumanize them.” (https://www.aei.org/publication/once-you-begin-to-see-humans-as-the-interchangeable-members-of-a-class-you-begin-to-dehumanize-them/)
To the political class, that’s not a bug, but a feature, since you can get away with a lot more.


I would've thought that the proposition needs to be turned on its head to make any sense. It's the pigeonholing of humans in one specific class, and NOT interchanging them, which can lead to a level of bigotry which at its worst can lend itself to dehumanisation.

[Kathianne]

I would've thought that the proposition needs to be turned on its head to make any sense. It's the pigeonholing of humans in one specific class, and NOT interchanging them, which can lead to a level of bigotry which at its worst can lend itself to dehumanisation.

Again a problem in understanding our differing types of English.

Your 'public schools,' are our private schools. Your 'right' is our left, politically and in driving. :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Gunny, you're trying to defy the saying 'No man is an island'. Fact is that none of us are immune to being influenced by what we see, hear, learn about the world we live in. Everything has its input. And there are those who understand this, and try to be opportunistic on the back of it.

In my society, Socialists are forever preaching in some form or other, trying to set parameters of what they say are 'decent beliefs and standards' ... which is how our NHS is so well respected (despite the many disasters it's visited upon us), or why so many not only shun the idea of carrying guns, but even consider the very notion of it 'uncivilised'. Or how to be critical of Muslims, or Islam, or not believe that 'Islam is a religion of peace' means that you're bigoted or racist, or both.

They've worked on this process for decades and have done much to shape attitudes here. The principle is tried and tested: 'plug into society, and society plugs into you'.

Americans place a greater value on freedoms, liberty, etc ... so are protected from massive excesses of what I'm talking about. But nobody is immune. Can you guarantee to watch or listen to a debate programme, or news item, or current affairs broadcast, and know it cannot possibly shape any view of yours, or sway you even a little ?

You say you can't be labeled. But you carry SOMETHING of what has been fed to you through the media. We all do.

Your 'Ask FJ' suggestion, by the way, is meaningless. FJ professes to be something he's not .. he identifies with labels, deliberately so, but FALSELY. He'd have me believe he's a Thatcherite (he is not) and a Libertarian, both at the same time. That males zero sense ... Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian, she FOUGHT Libertarians in the UK, and did it through State machinery.

You're missing the point.

[Drummond]

Again a problem in understanding our differing types of English.

Your 'public schools,' are our private schools. Your 'right' is our left, politically and in driving. :laugh2:

Fair comments !

And I basically take your political point. It could be said that, these days at any rate, even our Conservative Party is 'left wing'. For example, you probably ask yourselves, in America, just what kind of Conservative Party would have its leader fight for gay marriage, and a National Health Service.

It's been said that UK Libertarians are Left wing. At their heart, YES, they are. A spirit of Libertarianism drove early Trade Unionism. Those identifying today specifically as Libertarians seem at first glance to be Right wing (certainly by British standards) .. yet, tucked away in their Party Manifesto (our Libertarians will happily use Governmental, authoritarian means to advance their cause, seeing NO difficulty in doing that !) you can find Left wing aspirations.

Thing is ... HERE, the Left have had GENERATIONS to skew the entire political landscape so that it's more likely to lean Leftwards. What I've been trying to say, in this and other threads, is that even if your Left hasn't made such a shift stick in your society, I absolutely assure you that they will WANT to !!!

What matters is that their power-base is never so strong in the US that they can make it happen. You need to turf them out of positions of authority and KEEP them out. If you don't .. they will make their inroads into peoples' thinking, and the drift will commence.

[Drummond]

You're missing the point.

Possibly.

But that doesn't negate the truth of what I'm saying.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Possibly.

But that doesn't negate the truth of what I'm saying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is trying to define a single word/term for libertarians. A single word can not work when comparing the two entities, those in USA with those in Britain.

Those in Britain are African Elephants while those in USA are Indian elephants.
Brits libertarians are huge and wield massive disrupting and corrosive influence while those here are smaller and vastly less influential.

You are dead on in the description you relay about the Brits and the level of success(bad) they have achieved .
Question is , can that happen here ? I say no way by libertarians alone but they are not alone, they are united often with hardcore leftists/socialists, anarchists and other corrupt idiots that care not a damn whit about security, longevity and sustain prosperous culture based upon freedom and capitalism!
Instead they want results now regardless of the costs and they often even ignore the fact that some of those changes have the potential to give rise to our downfall as a nation.

I am far right yet I am in no way a libertarian because I reject the entirety of their philosophy even if I often may agree with certain specific issues they support..--Tyr

[tailfins]

Possibly.

But that doesn't negate the truth of what I'm saying.

Your point of view matches what Rush Limbaugh says about leftists: They demand to be judged by their intentions, not the results of their failed policies. One Libertarian deed is to siphon votes from conservative Republican candidates. If they are sincere in not advancing statism, they will focus on elective offices that make Democrats spend money on otherwise uncontested races. It would be helpful if a Libertarian were to win a big city Mayor race in a place like Philly, Atlanta, SF, Boston or NYC.

[Gunny]

Possibly.

But that doesn't negate the truth of what I'm saying.

There is no truth. The fact that libertarians in this country are far right negates your argument though.

[Drummond]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is trying to define a single word/term for libertarians. A single word can not work when comparing the two entities, those in USA with those in Britain.

Those in Britain are African Elephants while those in USA are Indian elephants.
Brits libertarians are huge and wield massive disrupting and corrosive influence while those here are smaller and vastly less influential.

You are dead on in the description you relay about the Brits and the level of success(bad) they have achieved .
Question is , can that happen here ? I say no way by libertarians alone but they are not alone, they are united often with hardcore leftists/socialists, anarchists and other corrupt idiots that care not a damn whit about security, longevity and sustain prosperous culture based upon freedom and capitalism!
Instead they want results now regardless of the costs and they often even ignore the fact that some of those changes have the potential to give rise to our downfall as a nation.

I am far right yet I am in no way a libertarian because I reject the entirety of their philosophy even if I often may agree with certain specific issues they support..--Tyr

Well, there it is, then. Tyr, many thanks.

From your description, your Libertarians aren't so very different from ours, in the UK. They unite 'often with hardcore leftists/socialists' .. ? Yet, I'm told your Libertarians are very RIGHT wing ?

And since when was it remotely compatible with a Conservative outlook to ever countenance behaviour, ideas, goals, which could EVER be injurious to security ??

NO ... sounds a lot more like UK Trade Unionism !! I don't think your Libertarians are so very different. Sounds like they share the same selfish irresponsibility between them.

Tyr, thanks again. I hope your post clears things up for those who find 'right wing' reverence for Libertarianism an appropriate way to regard them.

[Drummond]

There is no truth. The fact that libertarians in this country are far right negates your argument though.

NOPE. See Tyr's post. His description for them does not match the creditable aspects one could naturally expect from the Right. Your lot sound as irresponsible as ours.

[Drummond]

Your point of view matches what Rush Limbaugh says about leftists: They demand to be judged by their intentions, not the results of their failed policies. One Libertarian deed is to siphon votes from conservative Republican candidates. If they are sincere in not advancing statism, they will focus on elective offices that make Democrats spend money on otherwise uncontested races. It would be helpful if a Libertarian were to win a big city Mayor race in a place like Philly, Atlanta, SF, Boston or NYC.

For 'Right Wingers' to act in a manner that damages the cause of the Right makes no sense at all. Vote-splitting is electoral sabotage, especially if you persist in it once the effect is obvious.

As for your last sentence, it's further proof that the only logical route a Libertarian has to wielding influence (if not through force of numbers) is to use authoritative positions and direct the power attainable in a manner which governs the fate of others.

[Drummond]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is trying to define a single word/term for libertarians. A single word can not work when comparing the two entities, those in USA with those in Britain.

Those in Britain are African Elephants while those in USA are Indian elephants.
Brits libertarians are huge and wield massive disrupting and corrosive influence while those here are smaller and vastly less influential.

You are dead on in the description you relay about the Brits and the level of success(bad) they have achieved .
Question is , can that happen here ? I say no way by libertarians alone but they are not alone, they are united often with hardcore leftists/socialists, anarchists and other corrupt idiots that care not a damn whit about security, longevity and sustain prosperous culture based upon freedom and capitalism!
Instead they want results now regardless of the costs and they often even ignore the fact that some of those changes have the potential to give rise to our downfall as a nation.

I am far right yet I am in no way a libertarian because I reject the entirety of their philosophy even if I often may agree with certain specific issues they support..--Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Kathianne]

For 'Right Wingers' to act in a manner that damages the cause of the Right makes no sense at all. Vote-splitting is electoral sabotage, especially if you persist in it once the effect is obvious.

As for your last sentence, it's further proof that the only logical route a Libertarian has to wielding influence (if not through force of numbers) is to use authoritative positions and direct the power attainable in a manner which governs the fate of others.

If TF is correct and libertarians are causing gop to lose, then the gop should start considering their positions. That is not a bad thing. Most libertarians are sick of gop lip service and then acting BIG government.

[tailfins]

If TF is correct and libertarians are causing gop to lose, then the gop should start considering their positions. That is not a bad thing. Most libertarians are sick of gop lip service and then acting BIG government.

The result of that is a huge number of Evangelical Christian votes and money lost to pick up a few Libertarian votes. In the US, Libertarians ECONOMICALLY run about 80% right, 20% left. They are on the left when it comes to abortion, homosexual "rights", religious liberty, drug laws and other social issues. Libertarians are also for open borders. They call open borders "free trade".

[Kathianne]

The result of that is a huge number of Evangelical Christian votes and money lost to pick up a few Libertarian votes. In the US, Libertar8ians ECONOMICALLY run about 80% right, 20% left. They are on the left when it comes to abortion, homosexual "rights", religious liberty, drug laws and other social issues. Libertarians are also for open borders. They call open borders "free trade".
There are plenty of libertarians that do not want open borders. There are plenty who think theg government should stay out of bedrooms.

[Drummond]

If TF is correct and libertarians are causing gop to lose, then the gop should start considering their positions. That is not a bad thing.

I could agree with you in principle, Kathianne.

But, how about from a practical standpoint ? What if your GOP does NOT learn the lessons you would want it to learn, and your Libertarians continue to fracture (to whatever actual extent) their voting base ?

The result could be multiples of further wins enjoyed by the Democrats.

Do you think that America would deserve all those outcomes ? And if they happened ... how much further to the Left would America lurch ??

If the UK's any guide, then you cannot afford to see those Left-wing victories happen. Because if they do, you'll get to a 'point of no return', where social standards will have undergone an irremediable change.

As for the 'big Government' charge ... IF your Libertarians definitely shun it as an option, this marks them out as being VERY different to our own. Over here ... Libertarians will do what it takes to make their mark. Unions ... creating their own political Party ... propping up another, if it'll win them anything. WHATEVER it takes, they'll do.

[Kathianne]

I could agree with you in principle, Kathianne.

But, how about from a practical standpoint ? What if your GOP does NOT learn the lessons you would want it to learn, and your Libertarians continue to fracture (to whatever actual extent) their voting base ?

The result could be multiples of further wins enjoyed by the Democrats.

Do you think that America would deserve all those outcomes ? And if they happened ... how much further to the Left would America lurch ??

If the UK's any guide, then you cannot afford to see those Left-wing victories happen. Because if they do, you'll get to a 'point of no return', where social standards will have undergone an irremediable change.

As for the 'big Government' charge ... IF your Libertarians definitely shun it as an option, this marks them out as being VERY different to our own. Over here ... Libertarians will do what it takes to make their mark. Unions ... creating their own political Party ... propping up another, if it'll win them anything. WHATEVER it takes, they'll do.

The alternative is to allow the two parties to continue as they are. Not acceptable. Not voting is also not acceptable to me. Thus, as necessary I'll continue to vote for whichever candidate best reflects my point of view on issues.

I really do not care about their party affiliation.

When it comes to President, there really is no alternative to the two main parties at this time, the Libertarians are a joke on national scene.

Thus for this round, anyone other than (D), I'm no longer convinced of the inevitability that it will be Hillary.

[Drummond]

The alternative is to allow the two parties to continue as they are. Not acceptable. Not voting is also not acceptable to me. Thus, as necessary I'll continue to vote for whichever candidate best reflects my point of view on issues.

I really do not care about their party affiliation.

When it comes to President, there really is no alternative to the two main parties at this time, the Libertarians are a joke on national scene.

Thus for this round, anyone other than (D), I'm no longer convinced of the inevitability that it will be Hillary.

If enough people do what you're considering doing yourself, and for similar reasons ... then you could be ensuring a GENERATION, if not longer, of continuous Democrat victories. I'd have thought that this was the most undesirable, least acceptable, outcome imaginable ?

... and I wouldn't write off any one minor Party, not even the Libertarians. If any get ENOUGH support, they could enjoy rollercoaster success over successive elections.

Here, we now have UKIP ... a creditable Party, wanting us out of Europe, firm control on immigration .. laudable policies. A decade ago, they were in the political wilderness, existing, but nobody took them seriously. Today they are still a 'minority' Party, but now a serious threat to the major ones, nonetheless. They could cost our Conservatives the upcoming election through taking too many votes away from them. Result .. LABOUR gets in, probably propped up by the SNP ... and neither of those Parties, if they win, will allow the British people any Referendum on continued membership of the EU. We'll all just be stuck with it.

Perhaps this'll appeal to minority voting-wannabes ? It's a Party Political broadcast by one Al Murray ... standing for election in South Thanet, in Kent. He IS actually standing for election, though it's also a purely joke candidacy. Al Murray, AKA 'The Pub Landlord', is a comedy creation.

Here's his election video --- enjoy ! ---


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tADgYkAfXro

[Kathianne]

If enough people do what you're considering doing yourself, and for similar reasons ... then you could be ensuring a GENERATION, if not longer, of continuous Democrat victories. I'd have thought that this was the most undesirable, least acceptable, outcome imaginable ?

... and I wouldn't write off any one minor Party, not even the Libertarians. If any get ENOUGH support, they could enjoy rollercoaster success over successive elections.

Here, we now have UKIP ... a creditable Party, wanting us out of Europe, firm control on immigration .. laudable policies. A decade ago, they were in the political wilderness, existing, but nobody took them seriously. Today they are still a 'minority' Party, but now a serious threat to the major ones, nonetheless. They could cost our Conservatives the upcoming election through taking too many votes away from them. Result .. LABOUR gets in, probably propped up by the SNP ... and neither of those Parties, if they win, will allow the British people any Referendum on continued membership of the EU. We'll all just be stuck with it.

Perhaps this'll appeal to minority voting-wannabes ? It's a Party Political broadcast by one Al Murray ... standing for election in South Thanet, in Kent. He IS actually standing for election, though it's also a purely joke candidacy. Al Murray, AKA 'The Pub Landlord', is a comedy creation.

Here's his election video --- enjoy ! ---


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tADgYkAfXro

and if folks don't adhere to their principles they are guaranteed to have more of what has been happening. The only hope is that there are some real conservatives in the GOP that want to repeal much of what has been happening since at least 1900.

[Gunny]

Gunny, you're trying to defy the saying 'No man is an island'. Fact is that none of us are immune to being influenced by what we see, hear, learn about the world we live in. Everything has its input. And there are those who understand this, and try to be opportunistic on the back of it.

In my society, Socialists are forever preaching in some form or other, trying to set parameters of what they say are 'decent beliefs and standards' ... which is how our NHS is so well respected (despite the many disasters it's visited upon us), or why so many not only shun the idea of carrying guns, but even consider the very notion of it 'uncivilised'. Or how to be critical of Muslims, or Islam, or not believe that 'Islam is a religion of peace' means that you're bigoted or racist, or both.

They've worked on this process for decades and have done much to shape attitudes here. The principle is tried and tested: 'plug into society, and society plugs into you'.

Americans place a greater value on freedoms, liberty, etc ... so are protected from massive excesses of what I'm talking about. But nobody is immune. Can you guarantee to watch or listen to a debate programme, or news item, or current affairs broadcast, and know it cannot possibly shape any view of yours, or sway you even a little ?

You say you can't be labeled. But you carry SOMETHING of what has been fed to you through the media. We all do.

Your 'Ask FJ' suggestion, by the way, is meaningless. FJ professes to be something he's not .. he identifies with labels, deliberately so, but FALSELY. He'd have me believe he's a Thatcherite (he is not) and a Libertarian, both at the same time. That males zero sense ... Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian, she FOUGHT Libertarians in the UK, and did it through State machinery.

There are those who understand it. They take facts, logic and common sense and form an opinion. That isn't the case here. One more time, your definition of libertarian and ours are not the same. You have steadfastly refused to accept that basic concept. I GET the fact politics are different in the world. I'm not sitting here telling you that you have to accept our definition. I'm telling you that you need to understand it's not the same; otherwise, you are arguing against a strawman -- something that doesn't exist.

"Libertarian" in this country means anarchist at worst -- the opposite of socialism -- isolationist, fiscal conservative and moral conservative at best. Those who are labeled libertarians now are just right wing conservatives that got the rug yanked out from under them when the paridigm shifted left. They're really nothing more than conservatives that are out of their time.

Having seen the stupid pie chart on who falls where, I understand there are leftwing libertarians. That's not what we're talking about where the US is concerned.

[Drummond]

There are those who understand it. They take facts, logic and common sense and form an opinion. That isn't the case here. One more time, your definition of libertarian and ours are not the same. You have steadfastly refused to accept that basic concept. I GET the fact politics are different in the world. I'm not sitting here telling you that you have to accept our definition. I'm telling you that you need to understand it's not the same; otherwise, you are arguing against a strawman -- something that doesn't exist.

"Libertarian" in this country means anarchist at worst -- the opposite of socialism -- isolationist, fiscal conservative and moral conservative at best. Those who are labeled libertarians now are just right wing conservatives that got the rug yanked out from under them when the paridigm shifted left. They're really nothing more than conservatives that are out of their time.

Having seen the stupid pie chart on who falls where, I understand there are leftwing libertarians. That's not what we're talking about where the US is concerned.

Can you tell me why you believe your Libertarians will never change, then ? What is it about them which will ensure they never alter their thinking, or their methodology ?

UK Libertarians see no issue involved with getting involved in the machinations of Governmental politics .. be it directly, from forming their own Party and publishing a manifesto, from which they hope to gain votes in our General Election, or, more indirectly, thinking that wielding power via collective action will give them power.

I think that if you're right about your own Libertarians, they'll get fed up of being 'on the fringes'. One day, they'll want real power. One day, they'll do what it takes to acquire it.

You think this is a totally static situation. I fail to see what guarantees that it'll remain so.

[Drummond]

and if folks don't adhere to their principles they are guaranteed to have more of what has been happening. The only hope is that there are some real conservatives in the GOP that want to repeal much of what has been happening since at least 1900.

As I think I've indicated, I respect your point of principle.

But you're nevertheless risking the possibility of Dem after Dem victory coming out of sufficient numbers of people splitting the vote of the Dem opposition.

Is repeated Democrat terms of Office, one after the other, continuing maybe for a generation, actually a fate worth having, as a conscious preference ? Does it justify the continuation of 'fracture voting' ?

[Kathianne]

As I think I've indicated, I respect your point of principle.

But you're nevertheless risking the possibility of Dem after Dem victory coming out of sufficient numbers of people splitting the vote of the Dem opposition.

Is repeated Democrat terms of Office, one after the other, continuing maybe for a generation, actually a fate worth having, as a conscious preference ? Does it justify the continuation of 'fracture voting' ?

If there isn't change in GOP, you're likely correct. I hope that some folks that want to serve and have the wherewithal stand up and run.

[Drummond]

If there isn't change in GOP, you're likely correct. I hope that some folks that want to serve and have the wherewithal stand up and run.

I'd also suggest another interpretation entirely.

Let's say that 'fracture voting' continues .. voting being split enough so as to guarantee further Dem victories. Well ... what if the GOP sees the Dems continuing to win, and so in order to capture the 'pro-Dem trend', all those victories see the GOP shape their policies towards a more liberal direction ?

Then again, and as I've suggested before, with repeated Left-leaning victories, comes the repeated chance of drumming home liberal sensibilities. Here, we've had GENERATIONS of their propaganda working on us. Result ? A Conservative Prime Minister who believes gay marriage is worth fighting for (!) ... and who professes to 'love' State healthcare.

More Dem victories will be opportunities, I suggest, that the Dems will NOT want to waste.

[Kathianne]

I'd also suggest another interpretation entirely.

Let's say that 'fracture voting' continues .. voting being split enough so as to guarantee further Dem victories. Well ... what if the GOP sees the Dems continuing to win, and so in order to capture the 'pro-Dem trend', all those victories see the GOP shape their policies towards a more liberal direction ?

Then again, and as I've suggested before, with repeated Left-leaning victories, comes the repeated chance of drumming home liberal sensibilities. Here, we've had GENERATIONS of their propaganda working on us. Result ? A Conservative Prime Minister who believes gay marriage is worth fighting for (!) ... and who professes to 'love' State healthcare.

More Dem victories will be opportunities, I suggest, that the Dems will NOT want to waste.

If that is what it takes for possible eventual change? Perhaps it will be so, I won't live to see the change then. It took over 150 years to declare seperation from the king, still 1/3 of the people weren't convinced by the beginning of the Revolution! Some people just must hit 'rock bottom' before recovery.

You've nearly convinced me to stop voting for 'best of the worst' for President. Maybe it's time to explore the 'no chance' candidates.

[tailfins]

I'd also suggest another interpretation entirely.

Let's say that 'fracture voting' continues .. voting being split enough so as to guarantee further Dem victories. Well ... what if the GOP sees the Dems continuing to win, and so in order to capture the 'pro-Dem trend', all those victories see the GOP shape their policies towards a more liberal direction ?

Then again, and as I've suggested before, with repeated Left-leaning victories, comes the repeated chance of drumming home liberal sensibilities. Here, we've had GENERATIONS of their propaganda working on us. Result ? A Conservative Prime Minister who believes gay marriage is worth fighting for (!) ... and who professes to 'love' State healthcare.

More Dem victories will be opportunities, I suggest, that the Dems will NOT want to waste.

The effect is even stronger here in the US than the UK. When Libertarians get US votes, there's nothing to show for it. At least in the UK, if the UKIP were to pick up some seats, they could force the Tories to pick between a UKIP coalition or handing the keys to 10 Downing Street over to Labour.

[Drummond]

If that is what it takes for possible eventual change? Perhaps it will be so, I won't live to see the change then. It took over 150 years to declare seperation from the king, still 1/3 of the people weren't convinced by the beginning of the Revolution! Some people just must hit 'rock bottom' before recovery.

You've nearly convinced me to stop voting for 'best of the worst' for President. Maybe it's time to explore the 'no chance' candidates.

I'm sorry, but it must surely be obvious that voting for a 'no chance' candidate will render your vote effectively wasted. Every vote which can't be picked up by the 'best chance' candidate, and Party representing effective opposition to the Democratic Party, IS a vote which will not counterbalance those the Dems WILL receive.

Voting for 'no chance' candidates on the Right must surely GUARANTEE future Dem victories. The more such victories they can get, the greater the permanent, i.e irremediable, damage they can do.

Imagine, for example, a society where Leftists have had so very long, and so many chances, to drum home their message. Imagine a society where to even voice resistance to immigration is deemed a racist act. Imagine a society where you're considered uncivilised if you ever voice disapproval of gay marriage. Or where to be publicly critical of a faith you want to express opposition to, automatically earns you a 'hatespeech' charge, actionable in law, leaving you liable to arrest and prosecution.

Do you REALLY want to give your Dems such a clear run, Kathianne, that they can dripfeed propaganda to people which instills such attitudes and beliefs in them, where those opposing them are seen in antisocial terms ??

It's up to you. If I were in your position, I'd want to fight to rob the opposition of such successes. And not instead fritter a vote away on anyone incapable of successful opposition !

But, that's just me. You may continue to be convinced that it's worth it.

[Kathianne]

I'm sorry, but it must surely be obvious that voting for a 'no chance' candidate will render your vote effectively wasted. Every vote which can't be picked up by the 'best chance' candidate, and Party representing opposition to the Democratic Party, IS a vote which will not counterbalance those the Dems WILL receive.

Voting for 'no chance' candidates on the Right must surely GUARANTEE future Dem victories. The more such victories they can get, the greater the permanent, i.e irremediable, damage they can do.

Imagine, for example, a society where Leftists have had so very long, and so many chances, to drum home their message. Imagine a society where to even voice resistance to immigration is deemed a racist act. Imagine a society where you're considered uncivilised if you ever voice disapproval of gay marriage. Or where to be publicly critical of a faith you want to express opposition to, automatically earns you a 'hatespeech' charge, actionable in law, leaving you liable to arrest and prosecution.

Do you REALLY want to give your Dems such a clear run, Kathianne, that they can dripfeed propaganda to people which instills such attitudes and beliefs in them, where those opposing them are seen in antisocial terms ??

It's up to you. If I were in your position, I'd want to fight to rob the opposition of such successes. And not instead fritter a vote away on anyone incapable of successful opposition !

But, that's just me. You may continue to be convinced that it's worth it.

It's never a waste in standing up for what you believe is right. We disagree.

[Drummond]

The effect is even stronger here in the US than the UK. When Libertarians get US votes, there's nothing to show for it. At least in the UK, if the UKIP were to pick up some seats, they could force the Tories to pick between a UKIP coalition or handing the keys to 10 Downing Street over to Labour.:clap::clap:

Your analysis of the UK situation is spot on, so I must take it that the same is true for your US analysis. Well said.

[Drummond]

It's never a waste in standing up for what you believe is right. We disagree.

Then we do, I'm afraid.

An action of tilting at windmills in a society where iron control is held by your opposition, and where that control is being guaranteed through any lack of effective opposition to it, is a total waste, achieving nothing of practical value. Such actions may appear principled and even noble. But if they bear no authoritative weight, then nothing is really achieved.

Agreeing to prefer to see a society go down the pan, for the sake of saying 'I think I did the right thing', really does nobody any good. It's not just your own sense of self esteem and 'being true to yourself' that matters in such a situation, but the freedoms and welfare of millions of people having to take the fallout from an otherwise wholly avoidable position.

[Noir]

At least in the UK, if the UKIP were to pick up some seats, they could force the Tories to pick between a UKIP coalition or handing the keys to 10 Downing Street over to Labour.

There's a thought, would Cameron rather climb into bed with UKIP and the DUP, or hand over to Labour, such choices.

[fj1200]

Pay no attention to the elephant in the room. There are right and left libertarians. It's obvious the ones in the UK are left libertarians and and not right libertarians like we have here.

I'm not so sure about that. They may be fine tuned for across the pond realities but they are far from "left."


From anything I can tell, 'left libertarians' would be better be called 'anarchists', think 'occupy Wallstreet' types. Certainly not for any social order of any size.

A "left" Libertarian isn't really a Libertarian. OWS was no where close to Libertarian in nature.

[fj1200]

Libertarians can forge no form of power for themselves, therefore, achieve anything worthwhile for what they say they believe in, unless they do what they've done in the UK .. namely, form collectives.

It takes legislative power to enact laws. That is far different than forming collectives.


http://libertarianpartyuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Manifesto-2015.pdf

You may perceive from it that they're very strong on their version (however 'devolved' it may be) of applied authoritarianism !! ...

Your perception is not reality. Link to their "applied authoritarianism" please.


... YET, they're strongly in favour at the same time of permitting substantial immigration (a Labour Party position in 2010).

Incorrect in reality.




...
Longer term, and in conjunction with the shrinking of our unsustainable current Welfare System,we are committed to pursuing an open borders policy towards those who would wish to come to theUnited Kingdom in order to contribute to our economy and peaceful shores.
Totally free movement of people into the UK is not practical whilst we have a large welfare stateand other countries are themselves not broadly Libertarian in nature.
...



... she FOUGHT Libertarians in the UK, and did it through State machinery.

Link please. It would be also helpful if you would provide links to all those Libertarians that were running amok in the UK in the 70's. :)

[fj1200]

It's been said that UK Libertarians are Left wing. At their heart, YES, they are. A spirit of Libertarianism drove early Trade Unionism. Those identifying today specifically as Libertarians seem at first glance to be Right wing (certainly by British standards) .. yet, tucked away in their Party Manifesto (our Libertarians will happily use Governmental, authoritarian means to advance their cause, seeing NO difficulty in doing that !) you can find Left wing aspirations.

Links please. And not links to what you perceive.

[fj1200]

Brits libertarians are huge and wield massive disrupting and corrosive influence while those here are smaller and vastly less influential.

Links please.


From your description, your Libertarians aren't so very different from ours, in the UK. They unite 'often with hardcore leftists/socialists' .. ? Yet, I'm told your Libertarians are very RIGHT wing ?

Links please.

[fj1200]

The result of that is a huge number of Evangelical Christian votes and money lost to pick up a few Libertarian votes. In the US, Libertarians ECONOMICALLY run about 80% right, 20% left. They are on the left when it comes to abortion, homosexual "rights", religious liberty, drug laws and other social issues. Libertarians are also for open borders. They call open borders "free trade".

Libertarians have never claimed to be "socially conservative." But what you point out as left is about the elimination of government regulations; that's not a "left" position. And open borders is different than free trade.

[fj1200]

The result could be multiples of further wins enjoyed by the Democrats.

Ask your "allies" how many of them will refuse to vote for Bush... or Christie...

[Gunny]

Can you tell me why you believe your Libertarians will never change, then ? What is it about them which will ensure they never alter their thinking, or their methodology ?

UK Libertarians see no issue involved with getting involved in the machinations of Governmental politics .. be it directly, from forming their own Party and publishing a manifesto, from which they hope to gain votes in our General Election, or, more indirectly, thinking that wielding power via collective action will give them power.

I think that if you're right about your own Libertarians, they'll get fed up of being 'on the fringes'. One day, they'll want real power. One day, they'll do what it takes to acquire it.

You think this is a totally static situation. I fail to see what guarantees that it'll remain so.

Not sure how to respond to that question. There is no guarantee ANYONE won't change their thinking. Republicans were originally liberals and Democrats conservatives.

They may get fed up. As I said, libertarian is just the latest label. Independents, moderates, Constitutionalists are just labels used in the past. Most labels, to include conservative and liberal are widely misused. There is nothing by definition liberal about Democrats, and very little conservative about Republicans.

I hardly believe it is a static situation. All I said is your definition of libertarian is not the same as ours. That is as it stands NOW. I don't presume to speak for tomorrow.

[Kathianne]

I'm not so sure about that. They may be fine tuned for across the pond realities but they are far from "left."



A "left" Libertarian isn't really a Libertarian. OWS was no where close to Libertarian in nature.

I totally agree, fell into the trap of semantics with Drummond and to some degree others.

[Drummond]

There's a thought, would Cameron rather climb into bed with UKIP and the DUP, or hand over to Labour, such choices.

Well, I'm sure you know as I do that Cameron and Miliband both claim to be aiming for majorities for their own Parties ... and few think they'll get them.

I think that, if Cameron was in a position of Coalition Government (again), he'd seek out the Lib Dems again. Though .. there's a big question mark over whether they'd (the Lib Dems) have the same ability to assist as before.

I don't know about the DUP - you'd have a better idea than me on that one ? But I think that Cameron would go for a fairly loose association (vote-by-vote) with UKIP. I think Cameron would hate to have to bring forward the EU Referendum vote, which Nigel Farage will insist upon, but he'll reluctantly do it, to get them on board.

Cameron won't have any other choices. Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) has said time and again that she is determined to keep the Conservatives out of power. Plaid Cymru's position, though less forcefully expressed, seems to be a clone of the SNP's. I absolutely don't think Cameron would hand over to Labour unless absolutely forced to ... I mean, consider his rhetoric on Labour's past economic vandalism ! He'd bring his own Party leadership under threat (much less his future as PM) if he seemed less than 'forced' to give way.

[tailfins]

Libertarians have never claimed to be "socially conservative." But what you point out as left is about the elimination of government regulations; that's not a "left" position. And open borders is different than free trade.

Which is exactly why attracting socially leftist Libertarians costs the votes of Evangelical Christians, leaving the GOP with a net vote loss.

[Kathianne]

Which is exactly why attracting socially leftist Libertarians costs the votes of Evangelical Christians, leaving the GOP with a net vote loss.

If all Evangelicals were "Christian" like you purport to be, the GOP would be better off. Thankfully I know too many in real life to think you and your ilk are representative.

Indeed, most Evangelicals agree with loving your neighbor, taking care of yourself and your family, being involved in their communities, and that government should only do those things that can't be done by the individual or small contingent of the community. That government should be as small as possible and as local as feasible.

As for 'socially conservative' you refer to being anti-abortion, anti-government handouts, anti-illegals, many libertarians agree with you. Most libertarians are against government in the bedroom, including getting involved with defining or changing the definition of marriage.

[Drummond]

I'm not so sure about that. They may be fine tuned for across the pond realities but they are far from "left."

Heh heh. You have to say something like that, FJ, because you realise that by identifying yourself as Libertarian, you've finally outed yourself to me as the Leftie that I've long known you to be.

It doesn't help you that you cannot reconcile Margaret Thatcher's style of Premiership with any pro-Libertarian methodology ! Fact is, you've dug yourself into a hole, and only now have you had the awareness to try and stop digging !!:laugh2::laugh2:


A "left" Libertarian isn't really a Libertarian. OWS was no where close to Libertarian in nature.

I'll grant you that if you look at the UK Libertarian Party's manifesto, it doesn't come across as particularly Left wing. Nonetheless, if you dig around a bit (i.e more than you have been, of late ? :laugh2:) ... you can see signs of Leftie thinking.

http://libertarianpartyuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Manifesto-2015.pdf

Introduction page, for example ...


Finally the ‘D’ word has to be addressed- our national debt of £1.4 Trillion has to be paid down, either through a specific Tax- the ‘Brown’ Tax or by a reduced State.

Libertarian-'esque', but also not averse to RAISING MORE TAXATION. Definitely a Leftie trick (.. unless they recognise, as you do NOT, the value of austerity measures ??).


Both House of Commons and Lords would be by popular election and not by right of birth.

That could have come straight from the Left wing of the Labour Party (.. or the Communists !).


The House of Lords would be abolished ..

... A LEFTIE DREAM ...


No clergyman from whatever faith shall have the right to a seat unless elected.

... DITTO ...


National Defence is one of the few legitimate reasons for the State to exist. This is different to mounting wars in support of other nations and invading other sovereign nations on the command of the Prime Minster exercising the Royal Prerogative

... meaning that, had the Libertarians been in Government in 2003, Britain would not have supported the Iraq invasion, nor would it EVER support the US if the US ever wanted that support. AGAIN, THIS IS RANK LEFT WING THINKING .. MUCH OF BLAIR'S OWN PARTY TURNED AGAINST HIM FOR SUPPORTING BUSH.

Indeed, the term 'foreign ally' seems not to have any meaning for that lot ....


Maintain membership of NATO while in the National Interest.

In view of their selfishness otherwise, this is a bit cheeky of them, wouldn't you say ? And it's not exactly a 'ringing endorsement' of membership, anyway !!


Our immigration policy will be points based whilst the State provided Welfare System exists. Thecore tenet is that there should be free movement of peoples. Anybody arriving in the country shouldhave no expectation of being supported by the State, subsidised housing or any benefits of any kind.

Strong on State sponging ... BUT ... this MIRRORS THE EU'S OWN FOUNDLING POLICY ON THE MOVEMENT OF LABOUR. The EU considers that a core principle, AS DOES THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY.


Longer term, and in conjunction with the shrinking of our unsustainable current Welfare System,we are committed to pursuing an open borders policy towards those who would wish to come to theUnited Kingdom in order to contribute to our economy and peaceful shores.

Except for diminishing Welfare expenditure, this is actually outrageously Left wing. Even the Labour Party hasbeen forced to revisit that very policy ... but the Lebertarians unashamedly stick by it.


The UK shall have full control over its immigration policy, with any right of final appeal remainingwithin the UK

Whilst NOT Left wing, we've seen how meaningless such a pledge may be.

FJ, need I go on ? Their Manifesto looks superficially Right wing. But, dig a little, and you see evidence of thinking that even the Labour Party could think too Left wing !!

And in passing ... get this ...


Decriminalisation of all sexual activity related to between consenting adults

... REGARDLESS of what that activity is, presumably.


The Libertarian Party is unequivocally opposed to the death penalty by the State.

No change there, then.


The Libertarian Party believes that the use of torture is against the Rule of Law

I see why you would like them, FJ. Very Carter-esque, eh ??


The Libertarian Party advocates the denationalisation and secularisation of education

A Secular preference. Another Left wing dream ...

I won't deny, FJ, that there's some creditable stuff to be found in that Manifesto. That said ... LEFT WING THINKING KEEPS CREEPING INTO IT.

I could never support them myself, without having my beliefs and loyalties shift sharply to the Left.

And be honest, FJ. NEITHER CAN YOU.

[Drummond]

Not sure how to respond to that question. There is no guarantee ANYONE won't change their thinking. Republicans were originally liberals and Democrats conservatives.

They may get fed up. As I said, libertarian is just the latest label. Independents, moderates, Constitutionalists are just labels used in the past. Most labels, to include conservative and liberal are widely misused. There is nothing by definition liberal about Democrats, and very little conservative about Republicans.

I hardly believe it is a static situation. All I said is your definition of libertarian is not the same as ours. That is as it stands NOW. I don't presume to speak for tomorrow.

I think it can all be reduced to simple terms. US Libertarians aren't grounded in power-seeking, as the UK ones are. But, once some realism creeps in, that will change. When it does, a drift to the UK model is to be expected.

[Drummond]

Links please.

No actual need for any. The nature of the origins of the Trade Union Movement are well known. The spirit of it, what they claimed to be striving for, for their members, is very obviously Libertarian in nature. Pro-'rights', anti-Establishment. It's all there.

[Drummond]

It takes legislative power to enact laws. That is far different than forming collectives.

Government machinery is involved. Party policy is involved. Both are their version of a collective.


Your perception is not reality. Link to their "applied authoritarianism" please.

Well, the WISH to apply authoritarianism, then.

The Libertarian Party manifesto speaks for itself. They have very definite ideas about their preferred shape of society, and a determination to follow through with it. The very existence of their manifesto in the first place helps prove the point. However ... if you wish, I'll cite policy intentions from their manifesto to prove it further.


It would be also helpful if you would provide links to all those Libertarians that were running amok in the UK in the 70's. :)

A joke, surely ? The Union chaos of the time was very well known. Each Union claimed to be fighting for rights for its individual members, and they were prepared to go to extremes to defy the State in the pursuance of their demands.

The 'three day working week', and especially 'the Winter of Discontent', could definitely be cited as evidence of 'running amok' ..

... or, perhaps you'd prefer me to supply a picture of Union activity at Grunwick, and the scenes of mob rule, THERE ... ?? 'Running Amok' definitely describes it !!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Libertarians have never claimed to be "socially conservative." But what you point out as left is about the elimination of government regulations; that's not a "left" position. And open borders is different than free trade.

Link please...

[tailfins]

As for 'socially conservative' you refer to being anti-abortion, anti-government handouts, anti-illegals, many libertarians agree with you. Most libertarians are against government in the bedroom, including getting involved with defining or changing the definition of marriage.

The one that handed the Virginia Governorship to Clinton operative Terry McAuliffe and possibly to Presidency to Hillary doesn't see it that way.

http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues


Immigration
(http://www.robertsarvis.com/immigration)Reject nativism and protectionism. Welcome immigrants of all skill levels.


Environmental Policy
Protect the environment through strict liability rules, market-based mechanisms, and innovation prizes.


Abortion
Congress does not have the power to pass laws restricting abortions.


Freedom to Marry: Same-Sex Marriage
(http://www.robertsarvis.com/marriage)Treat same-sex couples equally.

[Kathianne]

The one that handed the Virginia Governorship to Clinton operative Terry McAuliffe and possibly to Presidency to Hillary doesn't see it that way.

http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues

Right, he speaks for all libertarians like you speak for all :laugh2:conservatives.

[tailfins]

Right, he speaks for all libertarians like you speak for all :laugh2:conservatives.

He's a case study in how much damage Libertarian candidates can do, which wasn't apparent to you given the above simple-minded reply.

[Drummond]

Most libertarians are against government in the bedroom, including getting involved with defining or changing the definition of marriage.

Well, the UK version of them take it to the extreme of removing all legal restrictions to ANY form of act performable in the bedroom. As for changing the definition of marriage, our lot don't want to be any voice on defining marriage, AT ALL. This, allied with their insistence on Secularism, means that they want a Society where no Christian values or standards are evident as determining decency.

This may be somewhat closer to the UK's idea of Conservatism than that which you have in America ... but one thing it's definitely in line with, is .. LEFTIEISM ...

What a surprise --:rolleyes:

The UK Libertarians are very anti-bureaucracy. But they're nonetheless strong on law and order, at least, those laws they consider enforceable (I have already said that there's some authoritarianism in their thinking). Quote ...


The Libertarian Party wants less Law and regulation, replacing it with enforceable Laws.

This could, and should, mean that UK Libertarians are anti-anarchy. But I'm not convinced. I've seen their mayhem before ...

[Kathianne]

He's a case study in how much damage Libertarian candidates can do, which wasn't apparent to you given the above simple-minded reply.

Yeah, I'm 'simple minded' says the bodily function talker. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He's a case study in how much damage Libertarian candidates can do, which wasn't apparent to you given the above simple-minded reply.

Do you know what a massive mistake is? Underestimating the capabilities of your enemy/opposition.
I have been reading Kat's comments for over three years now, saw none that were ever simple minded.
In fact, they are always far from it. --Tyr

[tailfins]

Do you know what a massive mistake is? Underestimating the capabilities of your enemy/opposition.
I have been reading Kat's comments for over three years now, saw none that were ever simple minded.
In fact, they are always far from it. --Tyr

I will concede that they are perhaps deliberately so. With a couple of exceptions, I don't consider anyone here an enemy.

[tailfins]

Yeah, I'm 'simple minded' says the bodily function talker. :laugh:

I would keep it going, but acknowledge your ban hammer. You win!

[Kathianne]

I would keep it going, but acknowledge your ban hammer. You win!

LOL! You really should know when to stop, whenever the thought of a post of bodily functions or bringing up mods who've not banned anyone other than bots for a very long time. You actually are saying Jim allows mods to abuse powers, not a smart post.

[Drummond]

The one that handed the Virginia Governorship to Clinton operative Terry McAuliffe and possibly to Presidency to Hillary doesn't see it that way.

http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues

I think I'm right in saying that the quotes you provided in your post, from your link, each clone Libertarian positions taken in the UK.

And as I've shown in my own post (no doubt FJ 'enjoyed' my various proofs ..) ... our Libertarians adopt LEFT WING positions.

I look forward to FJ finally conceding Libertarianism to be wedded to Leftie political stances, and following through with his long-delayed admission of his own Leftie nature (... well, 'fat chance' of seeing that, I suppose, though with so much proof of it around, he's being ridiculous if he continues to deny it) !!

[fj1200]

Which is exactly why attracting socially leftist Libertarians costs the votes of Evangelical Christians, leaving the GOP with a net vote loss.

Who is attracting "socially leftist Libertarians"? I can make a better case that the self-righteous are alienating the "fiscally conservative Libertarians."

[tailfins]

Who is attracting "socially leftist Libertarians"? I can make a better case that the self-righteous are alienating the "fiscally conservative Libertarians."

In most places, it just doesn't add up that way. In New England plus Oregon and Washington, maybe. In the rest of the country, no.

[fj1200]

No actual need for any. The nature of the origins of the Trade Union Movement are well known. The spirit of it, what they claimed to be striving for, for their members, is very obviously Libertarian in nature. Pro-'rights', anti-Establishment. It's all there.

Incorrect. You're making assertions which don't pass the logic test. A reference of Libertarian support for the trade unionists of the 70's may suffice. Or conversely a reference of trade unionists insisting on minimal regulations and the protections of life, liberty, and property. You could also reference the Austrian school of economics.


Link please...

You need a link for simple logic?

[fj1200]

Government machinery is involved. Party policy is involved. Both are their version of a collective.

That's a ridiculous definition of collective. The Tories are a collective then?


Well, the WISH to apply authoritarianism, then.

The Libertarian Party manifesto speaks for itself. They have very definite ideas about their preferred shape of society, and a determination to follow through with it. The very existence of their manifesto in the first place helps prove the point. However ... if you wish, I'll cite policy intentions from their manifesto to prove it further.

:laugh: The WISH to apply authoritarianism? Please point them out, they need to be actual "left" desires then, not your incorrect application.


A joke, surely ? The Union chaos of the time was very well known.

Yes, very well known. :rolleyes: It's just not Libertarian unless you can make specific links. I don't think you can otherwise you would have by now.

[Gunny]

Which is exactly why attracting socially leftist Libertarians costs the votes of Evangelical Christians, leaving the GOP with a net vote loss.

The premise of your statement is faulty. A left libertarian could not run as a Republican; therefore, it would not cost the GOP votes. A left libertarian would have to run as an independent or a Democrat.

If anything, a left libertarian running as a Democrat would GAIN the GOP the moderate and most independent votes.

[Drummond]

Incorrect. You're making assertions which don't pass the logic test. A reference of Libertarian support for the trade unionists of the 70's may suffice. Or conversely a reference of trade unionists insisting on minimal regulations and the protections of life, liberty, and property. You could also reference the Austrian school of economics.

Nope - it is YOUR argument that don't pass any logic test. You seem to be saying that people who happen to be driven by the same spirit and overall goals as Libertarians, cannot be Libertarian ??

Trade Unionists of the 1970's had a total contempt for strong Government ... and they directly took it on. In 1974, they defeated one such Government, in order to see one more to their liking replace it.

One reason it was to their liking was that it kept on caving in to their every demand. 26 percent inflation was the result ... after just TWO years of that nonsense ...

Tell me. Why should Libertarians care about regulations, one way or the other, when they can ride roughshod over them at will ? You think no rule or regulation governed the power supplies in the UK, back then ? The Libertarian contempt for them 'shone' through, and a Government was trampled on.

Does it get any more LIBERTARIAN than that ??

[Gunny]

I think it can all be reduced to simple terms. US Libertarians aren't grounded in power-seeking, as the UK ones are. But, once some realism creeps in, that will change. When it does, a drift to the UK model is to be expected.

You're still trying to just ignore the elephant in the room. The "realism" is here. I can't say it ANY plainer. The "REALISM" is, libertarians of any note in the US are rightwing, not left.

Everything changes. Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat. The only political party I ever belonged to the was Democratic Party. Jimmy Carter fixed THAT. At THAT point the entire paradigm shifted left. Reagan was no hardline conservative as he is somehow now held up to being. He got put in office because he appealed to the GOP faithful AND the moderates like myself who jumped ship on the Democrats in 1980. Being a Democrat pre-1976 was VERY different than being one now.

I ca even take it back a step further. George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey were instrumental in pushing the Dems left. Democrats pre-1968 were as or more conservative than Republicans are today.

If a bunch of socialist jerkoffs actually form a libertarian party that is a viable threat, I'll pay attention and adjust my opinion accordingly. As it stands, the only "libertarians" of note that I'm aware of in this country run on the Republican ticket.

[fj1200]

Heh heh. You have to say something like that, FJ, because you realise that by identifying yourself as Libertarian, you've finally outed yourself to me as the Leftie that I've long known you to be.

It doesn't help you that you cannot reconcile Margaret Thatcher's style of Premiership with any pro-Libertarian methodology ! Fact is, you've dug yourself into a hole, and only now have you had the awareness to try and stop digging !!

I bet it's galling you how you can't call Gunny and Kathianne lefties without completely exposing your weak argument. And I don't expect Mags to be a Libertarian, she was too busy deregulating towards the end-goal of a Libertarian society.


I'll grant you that if you look at the UK Libertarian Party's manifesto, it doesn't come across as particularly Left wing. Nonetheless, if you dig around a bit (i.e more than you have been, of late ? :laugh2:) ... you can see signs of Leftie thinking.

http://libertarianpartyuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Manifesto-2015.pdf

Introduction page, for example ...


Finally the ‘D’ word has to be addressed- our national debt of £1.4 Trillion has to be paid down, eitherthrough a specific Tax- the ‘Brown’ Tax or by a reduced State.

Switzerland and other countries in their Constitutions have a prohibition on the State borrowing abovea certain limit. We need to enshrine this into our Constitution and have it codified.

Uh, that's not leftie. That's conservative.


Libertarian-'esque', but also not averse to RAISING MORE TAXATION. Definitely a Leftie trick (.. unless they recognise, as you do NOT, the value of austerity measures ??).

Did you notice the irony that you support the same thing?


That could have come straight from the Left wing of the Labour Party (.. or the Communists !).

So... you're defending birth rights now?


... A LEFTIE DREAM ...

I have no opinion on the House of Lords.



No clergyman from whatever faith shall have the right to a seat unless elected.
... DITTO ...

OMG, "unless elected" :eek: Run for the hills. A republican form of government is leftie. :eek:

I seriously can't make up stuff like you believe. It's rather comical.


... meaning that, had the Libertarians been in Government in 2003, Britain would not have supported the Iraq invasion, nor would it EVER support the US if the US ever wanted that support. AGAIN, THIS IS RANK LEFT WING THINKING .. MUCH OF BLAIR'S OWN PARTY TURNED AGAINST HIM FOR SUPPORTING BUSH.

Indeed, the term 'foreign ally' seems not to have any meaning for that lot ....

I suppose you'll defend how the Iraq War was in the national interest. All war is not conservative, it may be necessary but it's not a left/right thing though you attempt to make it so.


In view of their selfishness otherwise, this is a bit cheeky of them, wouldn't you say ? And it's not exactly a 'ringing endorsement' of membership, anyway !!

"Selfishness." :laugh:


Strong on State sponging ... BUT ... this MIRRORS THE EU'S OWN FOUNDLING POLICY ON THE MOVEMENT OF LABOUR. The EU considers that a core principle, AS DOES THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY.

There's always a "but" with you. That's where your imagination lives. You make silly arguments.


Except for diminishing Welfare expenditure, this is actually outrageously Left wing. Even the Labour Party hasbeen forced to revisit that very policy ... but the Lebertarians unashamedly stick by it.


Not really, it's about freedom of movement.


Whilst NOT Left wing, we've seen how meaningless such a pledge may be.

FJ, need I go on ? Their Manifesto looks superficially Right wing. But, dig a little, and you see evidence of thinking that even the Labour Party could think too Left wing !!

And in passing ... get this ...

This is pointless, you see "lefties" everywhere. Even where they are not.


... REGARDLESS of what that activity is, presumably.

What is the state's compelling interest in regulating the sexual activity of consenting adults? An answer this time. Not mindless links to speeches made by Mags.


No change there, then.

OK. :dunno:


I see why you would like them, FJ. Very Carter-esque, eh ??

I prefer Thatcher-esque and Reagan-esque. It galls you that they were against torture.


A Secular preference. Another Left wing dream ...

I won't deny, FJ, that there's some creditable stuff to be found in that Manifesto. That said ... LEFT WING THINKING KEEPS CREEPING INTO IT.

I could never support them myself, without having my beliefs and loyalties shift sharply to the Left.

And be honest, FJ. NEITHER CAN YOU.

:laugh: You're already left. How many times have you argued for big government? It's countless, I know. ;)

[fj1200]

And as I've shown in my own post (no doubt FJ 'enjoyed' my various proofs ..) ... our Libertarians adopt LEFT WING positions.

:facepalm99: It's pointless to argue against your ignorant imagination.

[fj1200]

Nope - it is YOUR argument that don't pass any logic test. You seem to be saying that people who happen to be driven by the same spirit and overall goals as Libertarians, cannot be Libertarian ??

Trade Unionists of the 1970's had a total contempt for strong Government ... and they directly took it on. In 1974, they defeated one such Government, in order to see one more to their liking replace it.

One reason it was to their liking was that it kept on caving in to their every demand. 26 percent inflation was the result ... after just TWO years of that nonsense ...

Tell me. Why should Libertarians care about regulations, one way or the other, when they can ride roughshod over them at will ? You think no rule or regulation governed the power supplies in the UK, back then ? The Libertarian contempt for them 'shone' through, and a Government was trampled on.

Does it get any more LIBERTARIAN than that ??

That's why you need links because your statements border on the asinine. Links to what the trade unionists wanted would help prove your case. Links to them demanding fewer government regulations and the ability to make fewer demands on the property of others. It shouldn't be hard since it doesn't get "any more libertarian than that."

Also, the cost-push argument of inflation is not really credible.


Monetarist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism) economists such as Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) argue against the concept of cost-push inflation because increases in the cost of goods and services do not lead to inflation without the government and its central bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank) cooperating in increasing the [money supply]. The argument is that if the money supply is constant, increases in the cost of a good or service will decrease the money available for other goods and services, and therefore the price of some of those goods will fall and offset the rise in price of those goods whose prices have increased. One consequence of this is that monetarist economists do not believe that the rise in the cost of oil was a direct cause of the inflation of the 1970s. They argue that although the price of oil went back down in the 1980s, there was no corresponding deflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation_(economics)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-push_inflation

Shall I debunk you stating that Milton Friedman is a leftie now or shall I wait?

[tailfins]

You're still trying to just ignore the elephant in the room. The "realism" is here. I can't say it ANY plainer. The "REALISM" is, libertarians of any note in the US are rightwing, not left.

Everything changes. Ronald Reagan was originally a Democrat. The only political party I ever belonged to the was Democratic Party. Jimmy Carter fixed THAT. At THAT point the entire paradigm shifted left. Reagan was no hardline conservative as he is somehow now held up to being. He got put in office because he appealed to the GOP faithful AND the moderates like myself who jumped ship on the Democrats in 1980. Being a Democrat pre-1976 was VERY different than being one now.

I ca even take it back a step further. George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey were instrumental in pushing the Dems left. Democrats pre-1968 were as or more conservative than Republicans are today.

If a bunch of socialist jerkoffs actually form a libertarian party that is a viable threat, I'll pay attention and adjust my opinion accordingly. As it stands, the only "libertarians" of note that I'm aware of in this country run on the Republican ticket.

The "boutique" aspect of the Libertarian Party is more dangerous than ideology. Sabotaging Republican candidates in the general election doesn't help the conservative cause. Democrats have been leftists for 100+ years. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson markedly advanced socialism. Democrats also advanced Communism by railroading Senator Joseph McCarthy.

[Gunny]

The "boutique" aspect of the Libertarian Party is more dangerous than ideology. Sabotaging Republican candidates in the general election doesn't help the conservative cause. Democrats have been leftists for 100+ years. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson markedly advanced socialism. Democrats also advanced Communism by railroading Senator Joseph McCarthy.

I understand the voting bit. As I said, the only libertarians of not that I know of run as Republicans, not libertarians.

I disagree on Democrats being "leftists" for 100 years. All three of ones you named were still conservative enough wage wars. Democrats were as or more conservative when I was kid than a lot of Republicans are now. As the left moves left, so does the right trying to get moderate votes. Ronald Reagan was a perfect example. McCain was an example too. Not sure about the "perfect" part. His problem was he appealed to a lot of moderates. Just not conservatives. Not sure what anyone on the right expects when they let the media pick your candidate.

McCarthy was a witch hunter. He wasn't railroaded. He got away with a LOT more than he should have been allowed to.

[fj1200]

In most places, it just doesn't add up that way. In New England plus Oregon and Washington, maybe. In the rest of the country, no.

Not sure how to prove this one but there are plenty of fiscal conservatives who recoil at the idea that supposedly small government conservatives are insistent upon regulating personal behavior.


The "boutique" aspect of the Libertarian Party is more dangerous than ideology. Sabotaging Republican candidates in the general election doesn't help the conservative cause. Democrats have been leftists for 100+ years. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson markedly advanced socialism. Democrats also advanced Communism by railroading Senator Joseph McCarthy.

There is hardly an widespread "sabotaging" occurring in elections. WW, FDR, and LBJ had no trouble getting a majority of the votes in their respective elections. Nevertheless there are two ways to avoid your fear; Libertarians actually participating in the Republican primaries or election reform that mandates run off elections.

[Perianne]

I agree that anyone should be able to take any drug or substance they want. They should be able to get as high or drunk as they want, right up to the point of dying (as long as no one else is harmed). Here's the problem with that: if a person takes heroin, or whatever, and overdoses, then that person, by law, has to be treated in an Emergency Room, whether or not that person has the ability to pay for it. Or when the person has an addiction so bad they can't stand it, that person expects society to pay for his friggin' rehab.

So, while Libertarians want to legalize all drugs, they don't address the consequences side of what happens when there are overdoses and someone else has to pay for it.

I don't know exactly where my beliefs lie, but I say this: Live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life and do not expect others to bail you out.



Kentucky Sued In Federal Court Over Drug Treatment Practices
...Kentucky's drug treatment system relies heavily on the concept of "abstinence" -- the belief that the only proper way to recover from a substance abuse disorder is to go cold turkey.

Kentucky is right. You messed up. You deal with the consequences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/kentucky-sued_n_6842772.html

[fj1200]

Kentucky is right. You messed up. You deal with the consequences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/kentucky-sued_n_6842772.html

But she is dealing with the consequences... or at least trying to. Most who are against the war on drugs would suggest putting that money into treatment.


Two law firms have teamed up to file a federal lawsuit against the state of Kentucky for its practice of forbidding opiate addicts from receiving medical treatment while under the supervision of the criminal justice system.

The plaintiff, Stephanie Watson, is a nurse with an opiate addiction whose bond conditions forbid her from taking any medications that would be prescribed by her doctor to treat her addiction, such as Suboxone, Methadone or Vivitrol. The lawsuit argues that such a ban is unconstitutional.


In Europe, Portugal enacted semi-legalization (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080) in 2001, decriminalizing all drugs including cocaine and heroin. Although drug distribution remains criminal and drug use is still technically illegal, this policy removed drug cases from the criminal system, refocusing on treatment rather than punitive prosecutions. Police may issue a citation, but are not permitted to make an arrest. Results of even this limited legalization have been startling, with less deaths from drug use. A white paper (http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf) by Cato Institute documents this drop in drug deaths, from nearly 400 in 1999 before semi-legalization, down to 290 in 2006 [page 17]. Fears of “drug tourism” from neighboring countries proved to be unfounded, with 95% of those using drugs after semi-legalization found to be Portuguese citizens, not foreigners [page 6]. Fear of seeking treatment subsided [page 8], and those addicted became more willing to seek help rather than hiding their habit for fear of criminal prosecution. Perhaps most surprising, overall drug use decreased for all narcotic drugs, including cannabis (marijuana), cocaine, and heroin [pages 12-13], after previously increasing during the 1990s under strict Prohibition [page 14]. Other European countries which have stubbornly maintained Drug Prohibition now have double to triple the drug use rates of Portugal [page 22].
https://www.lpmn.org/libertarians_assert_powerful_case_ending_war_drugs/