Thread: Any LIBERTARIANS here?

We have different views on certain things. So....

So what?

I didn't expect you were a libertarian.

So tell me about the Dewey Decimal System?

Originally Posted by clemson357

So what?

I didn't expect you were a libertarian.

And I don't care to be one, I can't survive on a Librarians salary.

If I had to choose the political system that closest represents me, I would choose libertarian.

Sure I will be one... sounds like fun

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

Sure I will be one... sounds like fun

lol!

I've been libertarian/conservative since I started following politics, but conservative in the traditional sense (which was much closer to libertarianism actually).

Originally Posted by clemson357

Just wondering. Over the last two or three years my political beliefs have evolved from conservative to libertarian.

I personally think that if you are a conservative who isn't part of the religious right, and you've smoked pot before, you are probably a libertarian but you just haven't realized it. Libertarians support a lot of the same ideas, i.e. small government, less "progressive" taxes, oppose socialized healthcare, social security, the welfare state, oppose gun control, etc.

I started voting Libertarian in 1996. I also paid my big $15 annual fee and got word and reports on community gatherings.

The GOP is spend crazy, and won't cut entitlements.

Also, the govt should stay out of my bedroom and out of my private life, and out of house as long as I don't commit fraud, or harm people or their property.

Conservatism is dead now anyway. GWB killed off conservatism in favor or Neo-Liberalism and Neo-conservatism.

Both.....are very similary.

I'm Anti-Elitist.......I'm also a Percentagist meaning I believe that when we file our taxes we should have the option of writing in what percentage of our tax money goes to which major categories. Of course you'd have to have minimum percentages so people wouldn't choose zero but say you'd rather more of your dollars to go to education than defense you could so choose, I don't see why it couldn't be implemented. Taxation through self representation. Hell people may just skip on some deductions if they knew their money was going to something they thought was important.....'

I know crazy ass idea but I really think it's a good idea....

If I had to pick one, that would be it since it falls in line with most my thoughts...But I am not picking one.

In regards to libertarians, and their cousins', conservatives...

The Bush administration are neoconservatives, driven by PNAC idealisms, and are hardly 'conservative' by definition. Foreign policy and staying the sole superpower are their primary concern. They have no concern for fiscal spending, human rights, privacy, or the constitution for that matter. Those things are just annoyances that get in the way of there pusuit of power and wealth.


So anyone who considers themselves a 'conservative' and bush supporter should probably revisit some of their principles and ideas and see how closely they really line up with the current admin.

Originally Posted by clemson357

Just wondering. Over the last two or three years my political beliefs have evolved from conservative to libertarian.

I personally think that if you are a conservative who isn't part of the religious right, and you've smoked pot before, you are probably a libertarian but you just haven't realized it. Libertarians support a lot of the same ideas, i.e. small government, less "progressive" taxes, oppose socialized healthcare, social security, the welfare state, oppose gun control, etc.

I have voted for Libertarians in the past, and found Harry Brown the only politician I ever heard who was not full of crap and I agreed with 99% of what he said. Though it was a throw away vote, I voted for Brown in the last election. Libertarians are as close as we will ever get to the actual intent of the US Const. as written by the Founders of this country.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

I have voted for Libertarians in the past, and found Harry Brown the only politician I ever heard who was not full of crap and I agreed with 99% of what he said. Though it was a throw away vote, I voted for Brown in the last election. Libertarians are as close as we will ever get to the actual intent of the US Const. as written by the Founders of this country.

Two Words:

Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by danzik17

Two Words:

Ron Paul.

He's an ex Libertarian for one, and is from a faction of Libertarians (yes, like any group, they have their factions) I don't like or agree with on many issues. I did like some things about Ron Paul yes, but on the whole, no, I didn't see him as a true Libertarian candidate and neither did many other Libertarians. No true Libertarian could be anti abortion or example, nor do I care for his Bile thumping, nor would I vote for any person dumb enough to deny evolution (the real nail in the coffin for me) and be proud of it. He's no Libertarian (which is why he left) but does have some Libertarian oriented positions on some topics.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

He's an ex Libertarian for one, and is from a faction of Libertarians (yes, like any group, they have their factions) I don't like or agree with on many issues. I did like some things about Ron Paul yes, but on the whole, no, I didn't see him as a true Libertarian candidate and neither did many other Libertarians. No true Libertarian could be anti abortion or example, nor do I care for his Bile thumping, nor would I vote for any person dumb enough to deny evolution (the real nail in the coffin for me) and be proud of it. He's no Libertarian (which is why he left) but does have some Libertarian oriented positions on some topics.

He is anti abortion which I disagree with, however I do agree with his methods for deciding that. His beliefs are that abortion is none of the federal government's business and that those laws should be decided on a state by state basis as per the Constitution. I can understand why he is anti however; he was an obstentrician (sp?) before becoming a politician and participated in some questionable "late" abortions. I think I might become anti also if I had to perform similar operations.

I didn't know that he believed in creationism, however considering his views on regulation as a whole I would trust him to not try and impose his beliefs on scientific progress.

Originally Posted by danzik17

He is anti abortion which I disagree with, however I do agree with his methods for deciding that. His beliefs are that abortion is none of the federal government's business and that those laws should be decided on a state by state basis as per the Constitution.

Const. of the state or the US? Us Cont. trumps state Const, and SCOTUS already decided the issue, but anti abortion types can't deal with that, so the attempt a run around and other lame crap.

Originally Posted by danzik17

I can understand why he is anti however; he was an obstentrician (sp?) before becoming a politician and participated in some questionable "late" abortions. I think I might become anti also if I had to perform similar operations.

And that's fine, so don't perform them as a doc and/or don't have one if you or your girl get knocked up, but defend others rights to have one, don't make up run arounds to the US Const.

Originally Posted by danzik17

I didn't know that he believed in creationism, however considering his views on regulation as a whole I would trust him to not try and impose his beliefs on scientific progress.

One. I would not trust him to do that and two, I would not want anyone dumb enough (an MD no less who should no better) willing to ignore science in favor of 2000 year old comic book stories running the most power nation on the planet (which is what we have right now it appears, but that's another issue!).

Other than his position on guns and a few other topics, he's a Bible thumping fruit loop and no true Libertarian.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Const. of the state or the US? Us Cont. trumps state Const, and SCOTUS already decided the issue, but anti abortion types can't deal with that, so the attempt a run around and other lame crap.

I'm only going to comment on this since the other two parts are really just opinion based, so we're probably not going to agree on those.

I was referring to this segment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively"

The Constitution did not give Congress authority to rule over what we can and can not do to our own bodies, therefore that power is reserved to each individual state to do as they will.

Originally Posted by danzik17

I'm only going to comment on this since the other two parts are really just opinion based, so we're probably not going to agree on those.

I was referring to this segment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively"

The Constitution did not give Congress authority to rule over what we can and can not do to our own bodies, therefore that power is reserved to each individual state to do as they will.

And Libertarians would hold that neither Congress nor the state has a right to tell us what we can do with our own body as long as it does not impact the rights of another. That I can agree with. Of course, the issue of abortion falling under powers that are delegated by the US Const. is why SCOTUS looked at it and decided it did in fact fall under powers delegated to the US Const, which is the Right to Privacy.

Thus, supporters of abortion would hold it is exactly where it should be, protected under the Right to Privacy of the US Const which is a power delegated by the US. Const that trumps state const.

Translated, Paul, like many, attempts a run around to the US Const. even when SCOTUS judged it is indeed a right that falls under US Const protection. If you/he don't agree with that, then you have to convince SCOTUS otherwise, not attempt to pretend such powers have not been delegated to them, which would be wrong.

Thus, you must argue the right to abortion does not fall under the Right to Privacy as protected under the US. Const. and no one has done that to date.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

And Libertarians would hold that neither Congress nor the state has a right to tell us what we can do with our own body as long as it does not impact the rights of another. That I can agree with. Of course, the issue of abortion falling under powers that are delegated by the US Const. is why SCOTUS looked at it and decided it did in fact fall under powers delegated to the US Const, which is the Right to Privacy.

Thus, supporters of abortion would hold it is exactly where it should be, protected under the Right to Privacy of the US Const which is a power delegated by the US. Const that trumps state const.

Translated, Paul, like many, attempts a run around to the US Const. even when SCOTUS judged it is indeed a right that falls under US Const protection. If you/he don't agree with that, then you have to convince SCOTUS otherwise, not attempt to pretend such powers have not been delegated to them, which would be wrong.

Thus, you must argue the right to abortion does not fall under the Right to Privacy as protected under the US. Const. and no one has done that to date.

Damnit. Do you how infrequently someone actually out-argues me by using logic?

Originally Posted by danzik17

Damnit. Do you how infrequently someone actually out-argues me by using logic?

Logic does not exist in open chat, therefore it doesn't exist at all.

Originally Posted by danzik17

Damnit. Do you how infrequently someone actually out-argues me by using logic?

I live for logic and it takes a big person to say the above. You get my undying respect for it, for what it's worth....

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Logic does not exist in open chat, therefore it doesn't exist at all.

That statement has its own internal logic!

Originally Posted by danzik17

Damnit. Do you how infrequently someone actually out-argues me by using logic?

Please expound.

<- libertarian