Shortforbob

What is a Libertarian?

Recommended Posts

I'm somewhat confused.

Just before the last aussie election, my son did one of those "where do you stand" quizz things.

He came up as a Libertarian.

And I missed being one by "this much" 

Now I know I'm a bloody socialist.

And I know my son is not keen on actually owning a gun despite his addiction to rather violent (IMHO) on line games.

So..what exactly is a libertarian?

Are they left wing? Right wing? anarchists? or simply people that don't want any government interference in their lives? Like some kind of frontiersmen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions is “Libertarian.” People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds fashionable, and to the uninitiated, faintly dangerous. Actually, it’s just one more bullshit political philosophy."

George Carlin

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

So..what exactly is a libertarian?

Are they left wing? Right wing?

Depends where you go.

On a forum like Free Republic, I'm a commie Dimmie-crap, the very worst kind of lefty. Because I say bad things about their cherished prohibition program.

Here at SA, I'm a TeamR cheerleader, racist, fan of murdering kids, just generally the very worst kind of righty. Because I say bad things about their cherished prohibition program.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Depends where you go.

On a forum like Free Republic, I'm a commie Dimmie-crap, the very worst kind of lefty. Because I say bad things about their cherished prohibition program.

Here at SA, I'm a TeamR cheerleader, racist, fan of murdering kids, just generally the very worst kind of righty. Because I say bad things about their cherished prohibition program.

Oh stop wussing.

so..what does libertarian mean to you?

For mine, it means doing as you wish as long as your activities do no harm financially or to the health and safety of anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

M, I thought you had a partime job as a libertarian.

I do..the other half I'm a Library gofer "D

For the millionth time I'm not a librarian..here, that means you have a degree in Library science.

I'm in collections, which means I repair books, keep an eye on what needs replacing, shelve and do whatever is required to keep the collection ...and sometimes do reference stuff for patrons. 

Meanwhile, could some of our self confessed Libertarians explain what the term means to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It means that someone has your son’s personal data, if he took that test on Facebook. 

Nah, it was a quiz put up by Aunty (ABC) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't answer the topic question, it's quite a project to follow this group. But the answer leads to an alarming destination: to the Koch Bros., CATO, ALEC, and to their state legislative lawmill, the State Police Network. SPN's membership.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cato-institute

 

The Koch Bros. were sued from within, for manufacturing and cultivating teas party types, not Libertarian types. CATO has made a concerted effort to flood the country with guns and corrosive civic values. Using the SPN, ALEC infests state legislatures, and surreptitiously feeds them model legislation fabricated by the far right.

Dark Money: The Hidden History of Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Oh stop wussing.

so..what does libertarian mean to you?

More than...

 

1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

And I know my son is not keen on actually owning a gun despite his addiction to rather violent (IMHO) on line games.

You're providing an example of exactly what I was talking about.

It means that one issue to you. You didn't bring up any other, did you?

On Free Republic, it would still be one issue, but the issue would be cannabis prohibition.

Reason magazine is about as mainstream as libertarian publications get. Go there right now and count the total number of articles. Then count the ones related to the drug war and gun control. Every day, they're a tiny minority.

And every day, "libertarian" means one thing to partisans from TeamR and TeamD: the worst of our enemies because they say bad things about our cherished prohibitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

More than...

 

You're providing an example of exactly what I was talking about.

It means that one issue to you. You didn't bring up any other, did you?

On Free Republic, it would still be one issue, but the issue would be cannabis prohibition.

Reason magazine is about as mainstream as libertarian publications get. Go there right now and count the total number of articles. Then count the ones related to the drug war and gun control. Every day, they're a tiny minority.

And every day, "libertarian" means one thing to partisans from TeamR and TeamD: the worst of our enemies because they say bad things about our cherished prohibitions.

So Tom, what does Libertarian mean to you?

As an individual?

I'm not talking about the USA "libertarian party" here.

I'm asking what the general term means to you, as you might ask me what I mean by socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sean said:

2E4F1BCD-E272-4D4E-96A7-39FDC3AB31A7.jpeg

now now..I'm trying to understand something here.

Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment; they believe in individual rights.[2][3][4] Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and statepower, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions.[5]

Left-libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[6][7][8][9] In contrast, modern right-libertarian ideologies, such as minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights,[10] such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.

 

 

There seems to be pretty diametrical  schools of thought here, more so than between other political philosophies ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Oh stop wussing.

Give the guy a break - most people don't want him to answer when they create a thread. He's going to milk this as long as possible. :lol: 

 

To answer your question (from my POV), libertarianism covers a lot of ground in much the same way progressivism and conservatism do. The term, whilst perhaps once narrow, now can covers any view that advocates for a small government that stays out their lives for variable definitions of "small government" and "stays out".

Some libertarians want a government that does little more than police contracts between individuals (& companies) based on the belief that the smaller a government is, the better, and the market is always the best way to accomplish any social goal. No kidding, I've had a serious debate with one libertarian about the idea of outsourcing the police & judicial system entirely to corporations. It was surreal.

On the other hand, I've met some libertarians that accept that the government needs to be involved in economic management, control of the judiciary, etc because "the market" is a reflection of humanity and humanity (as a whole) has a tendency to screw things up long-term in the pursuit of short-term goals. They want a government that has a light hand on the tiller economically, doesn't proscribe laws that impinge on personal liberty that doesn't affect others (e.g. little to no prohibitions on sexual conduct, little to no drug prohibition, etc), leaves what they can to the market but takes on the projects the market will not due to there being no profit to be seen for twenty years or more into the future, etc.

There is, of course, a whole range in between those extremes with a strong tilt amongst a fair whack of libertarians to conveniently not argue against (and in some cases, argue for) laws prohibiting/regulating sexual & drug morality yet rant at length about any regulation of guns or the market. The common elements though do tend to be smaller government, a focus on personal liberty/responsibility, and a somewhat Pollyanna view of how society will operate once free of the shackles of regulation & prohibitions of all sorts.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of libertarians as the ultimate deregulatory junkies, but each seems to pick issues and exceptions based on his /her personal vulnerabilities,    They generally want some military, but argue on offensive or defensive.   They usually want law enforcement. But maybe local only.   I haven’t personally met any that want Pinkertons only.  They argue about the rest.  Social libertarians hate religious morality laws.    Some want freedom for polygamy, .   Many hate civil rights laws.  Economic libertarians hate the FTC, bank regulations, and safety nets (except any they are currently benefiting from).   Some only use cash or bitcoin to avoid tax records, also hating income tax,    Gun lovers think the Republicans are too restrictive since they have no defense against drones.   As a group they fear the NSA more then google.    Many libertarians think the free market can control pollution through consumer boycotts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I do..the other half I'm a Library gofer "D

For the millionth time I'm not a librarian..here, that means you have a degree in Library science.

I'm in collections, which means I repair books, keep an eye on what needs replacing, shelve and do whatever is required to keep the collection ...and sometimes do reference stuff for patrons. 

Meanwhile, could some of our self confessed Libertarians explain what the term means to them?

Doesn't you job include some sort of water monitoring? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Doesn't you job include some sort of water monitoring? 

Only in school holidays when the reptile man comes.

image.jpeg.5d74ae965ef1e535e76d2285bfeae964.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Only in school holidays when the reptile man comes.

image.jpeg.5d74ae965ef1e535e76d2285bfeae964.jpeg

I'll give you a polite golf clap for that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meli - do you think the government should provide health care and do you think the government taxing you to provide health care for others is theft?

NO/YES = libertarian

YES/NO = not a libertarian

YES/YES or NO/NO = quit smoking crack,it is bad for you.

 

My definition - Libertarians are in love with their alternative universe self that rides around with a few guns strapped on in their Rolls Royce counting all the millions of dollars they make because the government bureaucrats quit ruining all their plans :rolleyes: They have no idea they are cynically manipulated by their corporate masters to get government out of the way of their real overlords that have none of the last shreds of decency that still linger in government officials.

* not that all libertarian ideas are bad, they called drug prohibition correctly for one thing :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Meli - do you think the government should provide health care and do you think the government taxing you to provide health care for others is theft?

NO/YES = libertarian

YES/NO = not a libertarian

YES/YES or NO/NO = quit smoking crack,it is bad for you.

 

My definition - Libertarians are in love with their alternative universe self that rides around with a few guns strapped on in their Rolls Royce counting all the millions of dollars they make because the government bureaucrats quit ruining all their plans :rolleyes: They have no idea they are cynically manipulated by their corporate masters to get government out of the way of their real overlords that have none of the last shreds of decency that still linger in government officials.

* not that all libertarian ideas are bad, they called drug prohibition correctly for one thing :)

I dunno, their doper candidate for President... wasn't it Gary something-or-other..... was an excellent advertisement about why you shouldn't smoke pot.

But spot-on, cousin. Every Libertarians I have ever spoken with on civics are living in a fantasy world. The stated principles sound great, the application is totally koockoo. The one Libertarian politician I had any personal connection to was no exception, he was a town councilor (volunteer position) perpetually running for county commissioner, and his biggest campaign promise was to eliminate public schools. Huh??

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 years ago, a Libertarian was a Republican who smoked weed.

10 years ago, a Libertarian was a Republican too embarrassed to admit they voted for W twice. 

Now, a Libertarian is a Republican who hasn't jumped  over the cliff into bat-shit cra-cra.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Libertarian is someone who subscribes to a juvenile political philosophy of supposed personal freedom.

Ayn Rand is their God - which fact should explain everything to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I dunno, their doper candidate for President... wasn't it Gary something-or-other..... was an excellent advertisement about why you shouldn't smoke pot.

But spot-on, cousin. Every Libertarians I have ever spoken with on civics are living in a fantasy world. The stated principles sound great, the application is totally koockoo. The one Libertarian politician I had any personal connection to was no exception, he was a town councilor (volunteer position) perpetually running for county commissioner, and his biggest campaign promise was to eliminate public schools. Huh??

-DSK

Agreed there. On the surface, Libertarians make some sense. I agree with much of their platform. But I strongly disagree with their platform on the role of govt. They're living in a fantasy world where people and corporations are always benevolent and govt isn't needed. I believe the opposite, that society and business need regulation, or we end up in anarchy. Only have to look at the failed states around the world, and see the effect of a weak central govt. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

A Libertarian is someone who subscribes to a juvenile political philosophy of supposed personal freedom.

Ayn Rand is their God - which fact should explain everything to you.

Yeah, even Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand fan, which reduced him considerably IMHO. However he at least understood what the Fed is and what it does, and to his credit he never joined in the chanting of "End The Fed" which made slightly more sense than "Lock Her Up!"

 

18 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Agreed there. On the surface, Libertarians make some sense. I agree with much of their platform. But I strongly disagree with their platform on the role of govt. They're living in a fantasy world where people and corporations are always benevolent and govt isn't needed. I believe the opposite, that society and business need regulation, or we end up in anarchy. Only have to look at the failed states around the world, and see the effect of a weak central govt. 

Well I think the supposition is that the bold & free men of a true Libertarian "state" would just refuse any attempt at oppression by a major employer. Sort of like their assumption that polluting businesses would be driven out of business by irate free citizens and lack of customers.

Like their assumption that a monetary system does not need any regulation or oversight, this falls apart at the first touch of reality.

 

30 minutes ago, RKoch said:

20 years ago, a Libertarian was a Republican who smoked weed.

10 years ago, a Libertarian was a Republican too embarrassed to admit they voted for W twice. 

Now, a Libertarian is a Republican who hasn't jumped  over the cliff into bat-shit cra-cra.

I dunno, I think they all much preferred a dream world of La-La Land before W came along, and have adamantly refused to learn a darn thing since. Cra-cra is relative, though

B)

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love that quote. Sums it up nicely.

Practically speaking, the philosophy behind Libertarianism fails to work in reality for the same reason Anarchism does not. Mainly, because too many people are dicks and both of the philosophies require that people not be dicks to work. Like it or not, there are too many people who need the threat of punitive measures in order to not simply take what they want. It sucks, I wish we didn't need it, but reality dictates that adults grow up and see that the world's population is not made up just of perfect people oppressed by evil government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

so..what does libertarian mean to you?

For mine, it means doing as you wish as long as your activities do no harm financially or to the health and safety of anyone else.

That's a good definition. I can't think of a better one only halfway through the second cup.

Some of the rebuttals to "libertarianism" in this thread look an awful lot like my rebuttals to anarchy in another thread, leading me to believe some don't see any difference. I do.

On 4/12/2018 at 6:13 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 4/11/2018 at 8:21 PM, keelbolts said:

I look at myself and can imagine playing with others without having to have mommy there to making us behave.

Try to imagine that some humans are assholes and even you just can't play well with them. A basic example is property rights. Suppose someone starts living in his van on my property and doesn't think to bring me Wish Key. I don't like it and tell him to leave. He doesn't. OK, now what? 12 gauge or Sheriff?

And how would the Sheriff know who is right if mommy doesn't keep a list?

We tried communal ownership. It didn't go well.


and later:

On 4/13/2018 at 3:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

I've looked into it for decades. They're not that smart.

Unless you're a hermit, society is permanent. We're social and depend on the group and always have been and always will be. There are no anarchist pack animals in nature and we're not the first.


As for this old one-liner,

 

18 hours ago, saxdog said:

Paraprhasing George Will, a Libertarian is a Republican who smokes pot.

That is not how they've acted toward me. The assumption TeamR works under is that anyone who says bad things about cannabis prohibition is obviously a pothead (and Dimmiecrap/commie) because those are the only reasons a person might question the drug war. They've been saying those things about me for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's a good definition. I can't think of a better one only halfway through the second cup.

Some of the rebuttals to "libertarianism" in this thread look an awful lot like my rebuttals to anarchy in another thread, leading me to believe some don't see any difference. I do.


and later:


As for this old one-liner,

 

That is not how they've acted toward me. The assumption TeamR works under is that anyone who says bad things about cannabis prohibition is obviously a pothead (and Dimmiecrap/commie) because those are the only reasons a person might question the drug war. They've been saying those things about me for decades.

The "do no harm" principle runs into trouble pretty quickly though when Libertarians have kids.

Does a libertarian parent have the right to keep their kids out of school or refuse vaccinations or medical treatment for their kids?

I'd say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

The "do no harm" principle runs into trouble pretty quickly though when Libertarians have kids.

Does a libertarian parent have the right to keep their kids out of school or refuse vaccinations or medical treatment for their kids?

I'd say no.

Those are very different issues. For example, BJ is not a libertarian but has been keeping his kids out of school. His son is an impressive young man. I really don't see the harm.

Refusing vaccinations endangers others in a way that BJ's keeping his kids out of school does not.

Refusing medical treatment might be endangering the kid or might not. If doing nothing is a medical option, it's always the one I choose for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I'm somewhat confused.

Just before the last aussie election, my son did one of those "where do you stand" quizz things.

He came up as a Libertarian.

And I missed being one by "this much" 

Now I know I'm a bloody socialist.

And I know my son is not keen on actually owning a gun despite his addiction to rather violent (IMHO) on line games.

So..what exactly is a libertarian?

Are they left wing? Right wing? anarchists? or simply people that don't want any government interference in their lives? Like some kind of frontiersmen. 

"And you harm none, do what you will shall be the whole of the law."

But of course, the devil is in the details.

I regard libertarianism as the polar opposite of communism. Both wonderfully pure philosophies, simply not suited to the human race.

Personally I'm a rational anarchist. We tend to think of libertarians as pinko fellow-travellers, kind of the equivalent of socialists to communists.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Those are very different issues. For example, BJ is not a libertarian but has been keeping his kids out of school. His son is an impressive young man. I really don't see the harm.

Refusing vaccinations endangers others in a way that BJ's keeping his kids out of school does not.

Refusing medical treatment might be endangering the kid or might not. If doing nothing is a medical option, it's always the one I choose for myself.

BJ and his missus are well educated people and I assume stuck to some formal home ed curriculum with testing etc..

Personally I don't think most kids that are home schooled get the social content or the quality ed that regular school attendees do and are more often than not "behind" their peers. (from my observations at work) There are of course exceptions.

Whether this Harms the kid is debatable of course..but

do parents "own" their children?

Do they have the right to make life shaping decisions on their behalf?

I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

BJ and his missus are well educated people and I assume stuck to some formal home ed curriculum with testing etc..

Personally I don't think most kids that are home schooled get the social content or the quality ed that regular school attendees do and are more often than not "behind" their peers. (from my observations at work) There are of course exceptions.

Whether this Harms the kid is debatable of course..but

do parents "own" their children?

Do they have the right to make life shaping decisions on their behalf?

I think not.

To the first, I agree. You don't own your children.

To the second, I disagree on a sliding scale WRT the ability of the child to make informed consent. Withholding medical treatment on parents' religious grounds is a case in point. There's recently been a case where parents have been jailed (? I think) for putting their baby on a strict vegan diet and nearly killing the poor child.

Then there's the vaccination issue and I have absolutely zero time for the anti-vaxxers. I'm old enough to remember children slightly older than me who'd had polio. I *got* a mild dose of whooping cough off of one of my daughters, who got it off a child at school who hadn't been immunised. My children all had been; I needed a booster dose. It's real easy to understand how small children die of exhaustion. The pity is that it's not the parents who die instead of the innocent child.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

BJ and his missus are well educated people and I assume stuck to some formal home ed curriculum with testing etc..

Personally I don't think most kids that are home schooled get the social content or the quality ed that regular school attendees do and are more often than not "behind" their peers. (from my observations at work) There are of course exceptions.

Whether this Harms the kid is debatable of course..but

do parents "own" their children?

Do they have the right to make life shaping decisions on their behalf?

I think not.

Our high schools have an illiteracy rate for graduates. Think about it. "Quality ed" can be quite variable.

I've seen willp's posts and he's well educated, but was kept out of school. And got decidedly different "social content" from what he would have received at home. Way better in lots of ways, worse in others.

Yes, parents mostly own kids and have the responsibility to make life shaping decisions. If a kid drowns in my pond, that's the fault of the adults who should have been watching that kid. If a kid's diet consists entirely of Snickers bars, that's again on the adult. And if a kid gets hold of one of my guns and does something bad, whose fault is that again?

I say "mostly" above because kids are sort of people too, not unlike corporations. They have some rights and parents can violate those. The extreme example would be a parent killing a kid. I think I have a right to kill myself because I own myself. I don't think a parent has a right to kill a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a hell of a lot of home schooled kids at work..mostly on religious grounds.

Some are way ahead in some areas but the reverse in others..some parents seem to think that their children are genius and get educative materials way beyond a childs comprehension.

Had one asking for picture books on string theory for their three year old the other day and another wanting Quantum physics for their seven year old.

OTOH some want simple fairy tales..one demanded the original Grimm's fairy tales for her 4 year old..I said "are you sure?"

She said.."absolutely"..so I took her over to the adult non fic section and read her a bit :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

 

Some libertarians want a government that does little more than police contracts between individuals (& companies) based on the belief that the smaller a government is, the better, and the market is always the best way to accomplish any social goal. No kidding, I've had a serious debate with one libertarian about the idea of outsourcing the police & judicial system entirely to corporations. It was surreal.

There is, of course, a whole range in between those extremes with a strong tilt amongst a fair whack of libertarians to conveniently not argue against (and in some cases, argue for) laws prohibiting/regulating sexual & drug morality yet rant at length about any regulation of guns or the market. The common elements though do tend to be smaller government, a focus on personal liberty/responsibility, and a somewhat Pollyanna view of how society will operate once free of the shackles of regulation & prohibitions of all sorts.

I like this description although personally I'm not a Pollyanna.  I like people  but I think there are subset that are devious and ill-intentioned and left to their own, will always figure out how to screw their fellow man.

Why I personally believe in the 'light hand on the tiller' concept is two fold - First, Government has virtually no incentive to minimize it's own existence and therefore no means of retracting it's own rules/authority over time.  The natural end of such systems USE to be revolutions, revolts, etc.  Without that, the only way to minimize mission creep is to try and prevent it in the first place, creating as few structures as necessary.  Personally, I LOVE sunset clauses.  If you don't renew the laws, they go away.  That at least creates the possibility that dumb rules will die and good rules will be maintained.  In absence of such a mechanism, it's better to minimize at the beginning.  It's not a good answer - just a less bad one.

The second is that I think it's really hard to legislate morality.  It's better to try and focus on incentives for behavior you like than create laws prohibiting behavior you don't like.  Sometimes you HAVE to do that later but the gun debate is a good example but even far less polarizing examples like 'vehicle inspections' apply.  The gross majority of 'regulations' are going to be followed by people for whom the regulations aren't necessary on the HOPE that we can curtail the 'bad guy' when in reality, we just need a system of checks and balances to deal with THAT subset.  Why don't we just do that?  it's cheaper to pass a 'law' and hope that works than to actually deal with the real problems.  There ARE situations where the government must come in and restrict liberty for the greater good and to avoid tyranny, that means a system of checks and balances which costs MONEY.  The guy with the shitty dangerous car shouldn't be driving it.  Given the alternative is he loses his job, the government SHOULD consider stepping in and - gasp - get him a better car.  But we can't do that because then some businessman will create a cottage industry buying up shitty cars for profit.  So rather than beating HIM - the businessman - to a pulp we're gonna pass a law on ALL of us requiring stupid stickers.

Personally, I would MUCH rather have the conversation about incentives and a future society that improves the quality of life for all..  I would MUCH rather just pay a tax and implement a solution than play the 'lets pretend' game where everyone gets a tax cut and no services never costs money.  But since we can't have those conversations, I'm stuck advocating for minimal government instead.  I'm not particularity idealogical, just pragmatic.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2018 at 10:59 AM, Shortforbob said:

I'm somewhat confused.

Just before the last aussie election, my son did one of those "where do you stand" quizz things.

He came up as a Libertarian.

And I missed being one by "this much" 

Now I know I'm a bloody socialist.

And I know my son is not keen on actually owning a gun despite his addiction to rather violent (IMHO) on line games.

So..what exactly is a libertarian?

Are they left wing? Right wing? anarchists? or simply people that don't want any government interference in their lives? Like some kind of frontiersmen. 

Have you got a link to the survey? I’d be interested to see where I stand after taking it. 

Its not a term used in the UK, so I’ve no idea what it really means. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

The gross majority of 'regulations' are going to be followed by people for whom the regulations aren't necessary on the HOPE that we can curtail the 'bad guy' when in reality, we just need a system of checks and balances to deal with THAT subset. 

But aren't the regulations that system?

For example, we have a few rental properties. Those come with lots of rules from all levels of government. Some are annoying, nonsensical, regulatory overreach, etc. But I'd say the vast majority are there for one of two reasons. There are some that are there because tenants can be assholes and some that are there because landlords can be assholes. So much so that the question can become the same one I posed in a quote post above: shall we solve this with a 12 gauge or a Sheriff? And without those regulations, how will the Sheriff know who is right?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mad said:

Have you got a link to the survey? I’d be interested to see where I stand after taking it. 

Its not a term used in the UK, so I’ve no idea what it really means. 

Nah..It was ages ago..prolly on the ABC website..I'll have a quick look for you though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But aren't the regulations that system?

For example, we have a few rental properties. Those come with lots of rules from all levels of government. Some are annoying, nonsensical, regulatory overreach, etc. But I'd say the vast majority are there for one of two reasons. There are some that are there because tenants can be assholes and some that are there because landlords can be assholes. So much so that the question can become the same one I posed in a quote post above: shall we solve this with a 12 gauge or a Sheriff? And without those regulations, how will the Sheriff know who is right?

Without getting the specifics, I think that is a case where governmental involvement IS necessary to deal with the outliers and if, every 10  years, the laws came up for renewal, they'd be re-upped without controversy.

But here's a rule that I think is dumb.  In my old neighborhood, they passed a zoning restriction requiring that electrical service enter the dwelling at 14' or higher.  Sounded like a nice idea - keep the wires out of the way, etc.   However, 90% of the houses were already built - and had been for decades - before the new restrictions.  Any 'new' modification to an existing electrical (even internal, like a new panel) had to comply to the new building codes.  What happens when half of the houses are one story ranches and aren't actually 14' tall?  The answer of course is to put a big 3" steel pipe up the side of the house sticking up 14' so the electrical connection can come to the house, up 6' to the pipe, and then back down 'into the dwelling'.  Drive around and you can tell who had their electrical service updates because they all have pipes on the side of the house.

When the existing home owners tried to stop the restrictions or at least grandfather them in, they were meet with 'WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!"  Yea.. so now 15 years later there's a bunch of pipes.  And the wires are still where they've been for the last 50 years.

That's why I'm generically a 'libertarian' first.  I'm not against rules.  I just wish we could be more honest about them and what we're really trying to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

That's why I'm generically a 'libertarian' first.  I'm not against rules.  I just wish we could be more honest about them and what we're really trying to do.

I'd respond but have to go work on a building permit to put a carport on a property that already has an active building permit for construction of a new house.

Because they can't use the same survey they have on file with the existing permit. Think of the children!

Flying carports are a real hazard here. I get why the neighbors, and therefore the government, have an interest in seeing to it that I put the non-flying kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Think it was this one

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

I just did it again..plonked firmly in the libertarian left which I think this particular survey means a non authoritarian socialist :)

https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-6.38&soc=-6.62

 

 

Thanks,  pretty much the same result for me.  Further left than I realised.

 

personalised chart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mad said:

Thanks,  pretty much the same result for me.  Further left than I realised.

 

personalised chart

personalised chart

 

 

 

 mine I wonder where our two "libertatians" Tom and Jeff would fit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

personalised chart

 

 

 

 mine I wonder where our two "libertatians" Tom and Jeff would fit?

Almost worthy of its own thread, was an interesting comparison when compared to the political parties from 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mad said:

Almost worthy of its own thread, was an interesting comparison when compared to the political parties from 2015.

Interesting that Macron and Gary Johnson hold the same spot. Right wing Libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mad said:

Almost worthy of its own thread, was an interesting comparison when compared to the political parties from 2015.

I think it shows why so many voters are completely pissed off with their representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
1 hour ago, mad said:

Thanks,  pretty much the same result for me.

 

personalised chart

Exact same place for me.

Ok, either we should form our own political party..... or there is something funny about this test....

my result:

chart?ec=-3.88&soc=-3.54

I apparently am about +0.05 more authoritarian, but it seems much more likely that this test has a big scoop-out in the "common sense" region

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This test is HUGELY biased. For one thing, "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is commonly used to represent a violent or savage society. What it *actually meant when written* back in the day was the exact opposite. If someone pokes your eye out, you don't kill them and and their entire family, you poke their eye out. This was directing people to quit taking revenge disproportionate to the offense.

There were also a bunch of questions that only the most blatant and racist person would agree with.

In the wider world, I don't want the government to regulate my land at all, but please regulate the shit out of all my neighbors :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This test is HUGELY biased. For one thing, "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is commonly used to represent a violent or savage society. What it *actually meant when written* back in the day was the exact opposite. If someone pokes your eye out, you don't kill them and and their entire family, you poke their eye out. This was directing people to quit taking revenge disproportionate to the offense.

There were also a bunch of questions that only the most blatant and racist person would agree with.

In the wider world, I don't want the government to regulate my land at all, but please regulate the shit out of all my neighbors :rolleyes:

Like any survey, it can be skewed by the questions. I answered yes to the 'eye for an eye' question based on its original meaning, as that's what I've always understood it to mean.

Maybe a few of the other posters here would end up with a different result.............??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm lurking on a good thread about a good topic. But if the topic is explored well, we'll look at libertarian merits and Libertarian outcomes. Because this libertarian idea, this theory, splits into doo doo in real life, and I cant certainly can't explain it. I actually support libertarian theory.

One example of the split between theory and behavior is how the beauty behind the fine ideals of due process is stressed with property seizure, but soon the due process is gone, by choice, as a theory is presented that violent crime is resolved by armed justice in the streets.

Libertarian gun theory is a typical example  of the alarming Libertarian bottom line. What they are presenting for morality was discouraged among cave men.

Quote

Source: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cato-institute

  • Cato supports the wholesale elimination of eight cabinet agencies— Commerce, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation and Veterans Affairs— and the privatization of many government services.
  • In 2001, the Washington Post, noting Cato's influence, said it "has spent about $3 million in the past six years to run a virtual war room to promote Social Security privatization."
  • Cato called the proposed federal marriage amendment "unnecessary, anti-Federalist, and anti-democratic."
  • Cato finances: $12,975,701 (2003)
  • Cato Institute was founded by Ed Crane with a $500,000 grant from Charles Koch, a chemical and petroleum heir who was active with Crane in the Libertarian Party.
  • In 2002, the Washington Post called Crane "the man who housebroke libertarianism."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarian theory works when consumers have infinite time and money to investigate everything they buy.
Say I decide to start Kent Island Airlines and I am cheap.I buy an old 1930s era DC-3 and have at it. Tickets on my airline are $100.

Libertarian Airlines moves in next door. They too buy 80 year old DC-3s. They skip some expensive inspections and modifications required by the FAA because libertarians don't need that shit. They sell tickets for $50.

Are you going to bring an X-Ray machine and an eddy-current tester with you when you buy tickets :rolleyes:

* and yes, if you were wondering,it is perfectly legal to have 80 year old airplanes in your airline B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more of a Libertine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Libertarian theory works when consumers have infinite time and money to investigate everything they buy.
Say I decide to start Kent Island Airlines and I am cheap.I buy an old 1930s era DC-3 and have at it. Tickets on my airline are $100.

Libertarian Airlines moves in next door. They too buy 80 year old DC-3s. They skip some expensive inspections and modifications required by the FAA because libertarians don't need that shit. They sell tickets for $50.

Are you going to bring an X-Ray machine and an eddy-current tester with you when you buy tickets :rolleyes:

* and yes, if you were wondering,it is perfectly legal to have 80 year old airplanes in your airline B)

Regardless of where the results put me, I’ll fly Kent Island Air. 

Would that change the results? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Libertarian theory works when consumers have infinite time and money to investigate everything they buy.
Say I decide to start Kent Island Airlines and I am cheap.I buy an old 1930s era DC-3 and have at it. Tickets on my airline are $100.

Libertarian Airlines moves in next door. They too buy 80 year old DC-3s. They skip some expensive inspections and modifications required by the FAA because libertarians don't need that shit. They sell tickets for $50.

Are you going to bring an X-Ray machine and an eddy-current tester with you when you buy tickets :rolleyes:

* and yes, if you were wondering,it is perfectly legal to have 80 year old airplanes in your airline B)

Oddly enough, I turned down the "opportunity" to fly across Puerto Rico in a DC-3

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mad said:

Thanks,  pretty much the same result for me.  Further left than I realised.

 

personalised chart

It's an American survey  so it will naturally be biased to the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I love riding on DC-3s B) I kick myself all the time for turning down a cheap DC-3 type rating. Cheap is relative to CFI pay - it was still out of reach for me back then :(

 

When I was a kid I flew from Filton to Paris and back in a DC3.

I never missed not doing it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I love riding on DC-3s B) I kick myself all the time for turning down a cheap DC-3 type rating. Cheap is relative to CFI pay - it was still out of reach for me back then :(

 

Well, take a look at as many of the boonies dirt airstrips as you can on the south side of Puerto Rico. You can probably find this one, and I'm sure it'd be inexpensive to take ownership. Getting it home might be another story.

16 minutes ago, RKoch said:

I've never ridden in a DC-3, wish I had. I think they're pretty cool.

If I hadn't 1- flown down there in a 2-seater with an insane Aussie pilot who was intent on showing me some hidden waterfall, and 2- watched it fly over then land, I probably would have been glad to take the chance. As it was, I'd just spent the prior few days working almost non-stop on an old tanker (and yes working on old ships entails hanging upside down into the bilge) and I was not in the mood for that kind of thrill.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Except that it is Australian ;)

Well, there's that. :(

My graph was like Mad's & Steamer's.

With all those "corporate" questions I'd love to see JerKZ's graph. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Happy Jack's chart. I'm pretty much where everyone else is, maybe a little more left. 

chart?ec=-5.13&soc=-4.62

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About what I suspected, maybe a little more libertarian than I would think. Like to see some “righties” post their charts. Maybe they show as more left than is comfortable?

F6CF0314-7C4E-4CF0-842A-DCAC8D12746E.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the questions are skewed so much as how you interpret them..The eye for an eye question..logically follows "a life for a life" so I voted strongly disagree"

There's others that have no neutral position so you have to pick the closest, you may find yourself agreeing with something you actually feel neutral about. I really would be interested on where Tom and Jeff fall, Im guessing Tom would be in the Libertarian left quarter and Jeff in the Authoritarian right .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

The "do no harm" principle runs into trouble pretty quickly though when Libertarians have kids.

Does a libertarian parent have the right to keep their kids out of school or refuse vaccinations or medical treatment for their kids?

I'd say no.

Right. :lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mad said:

Regardless of where the results put me, I’ll fly Kent Island Air. 

Would that change the results? 

Yeah, but how would you know that Libertarian airlines was less safe? 

The trouble with the fad for cutting regulations just means the consumer has to spend hours researching everything they buy..right down to a can of Tuna...where did it come from? how was it caught? what's the meat to water ratio?

And imagine trying to buy safe cleaning products? what's in it? will it kill the biological system in your septic tank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

When I was a kid I flew from Filton to Paris and back in a DC3.

I never missed not doing it again.

My wife’s dad worked for West Coast Air.  He likes to tell the story about a DC3 (with passengers!) that got lost in a windy snowstorm in Eastern Washington.  The crew spotted a nearby wheat ranch, landed, taxied up to the ranchhouse to ask where the hell they were, and to call in to let the head office know what they were doing. The passengers got out to stretch their legs, and the Farmer’s wife fed them pie and coffee while the storm blew over.  They then took off and finished the flight. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Think it was this one

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

I just did it again..plonked firmly in the libertarian left which I think this particular survey means a non authoritarian socialist :)

https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-6.38&soc=-6.62

 

 

Funny so am I - but only 2 grads left and well down on the libertarian axis....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Think it was this one

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

I just did it again..plonked firmly in the libertarian left which I think this particular survey means a non authoritarian socialist :)

https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-6.38&soc=-6.62

 

 

I’m confused, I thought you were a librarian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, olaf hart said:

I’m confused, I thought you were a librarian?

That's her day job. At night she is Meli the Libertine. Or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

My wife’s dad worked for West Coast Air.  He likes to tell the story about a DC3 (with passengers!) that got lost in a windy snowstorm in Eastern Washington.  The crew spotted a nearby wheat ranch, landed, taxied up to the ranchhouse to ask where the hell they were, and to call in to let the head office know what they were doing. The passengers got out to stretch their legs, and the Farmer’s wife fed them pie and coffee while the storm blew over.  They then took off and finished the flight. :)

In Ernest Gann's autobiographical Fate Is The Hunter (awesome IMHO but I know a lot of flyers who don't like it at all) he talks about achieving his early ambition of becoming an airline pilot.... really co-pilot, at first, of course.....  in DC-3's flying a route in New England. he describes some of their quirks but praises them as a magnificent ice-carrier which was really important then, especially as the DC-4 was not.

I can easily imagine an episode of landing in a farm field

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a story about the guys flying over the Hump in WW2. A wing on their DC-3 got shot up beyond patching. They took a wing off a DC-2 that was out of use, and put it on. The DC-2 1/2 flew just fine.

edit:

 http://cnac.org/aircraft02.htm

 

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the politics test

chart?ec=7.38&soc=8.1

I answered the questions pretending I was one of the guys I used to work with who were convinced Rush Limbaugh would never lie to them.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libertarians are like house cats.

They think they are rugged individualists, lean hunters and fierce survivors and above the fray like the rest of us are because of their independent nature. But they never acknowledge that someone has to change the litter box and fill up the food dish.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites