For any NS conservatives

Well, that's just in your opinion. You take the socially smart ideas from the democratic party, but I think conservative economic ideas at least today when we are in such a fat ass deficit and so many people are out of jobs, it will not work, like a flat tax (as you have stated before).
 
you posted the same thing twice?

im gonna wait on the lolcats till im out of class... since my torts prof woud probably frown on my cracking up in class.
 
They're pretty much typical bloggers. They occasionally get off their leash and start raving a bit.

Olbermann is probably the smartest guy with his own show on cable news. Of course, if you aren't hardcore left wing, you'll hate him, but there's no denying that he's damned intelligent. The rhetoric in his special comments (which yes, he does write) is really powerful stuff.
 
well, as you are aware im not anywhere near hardcore left wing... and qualifying him with the phrase "on cable news" probably says a little something... but im not gonna call him an idiot or anything. in fact, i did find his worst person in the world book amusing... ill have to pay more attention as far as his other comments are concerned.
 
Yes it does. Most dems are socially liberal and repubs are fiscally conservative. Thats what libertarianism is. And most repubs believe in a small government.

BTW Nice first post calling me a dumb fuck
 
That book sounds biased as hell. Both parties are guilty of the same bullshit. Who is this, a wannabe Ann Coulter?
 
There is nothing socially liberal about libertarian theory whatsoever, they're completely at odds. Fuck, don't profess to have adopted a political perspective if you can't define it.
 
Socially liberal and fiscally conservative sums it up. It isn't completely anti government. It believes in a small government, almost like a necessary evil.

"A little government and little luck are necessary in life but only a fool trusts either of them"

I forget who said that but thats a good quote for a libertarian.

If I am completely wrong correct me but I am pretty sure thats what libertarianism is.
 
Fascism is when the state runs the people and not the people run the state. Also, Liberals and Conservatism are such great word with so many possibility. So Either party can be fascists.

 
SmallestQuiz.gif


maybe this graph is a lie.
 
That graph is a complete oversimplification of political ideologies which can't be quantified on a spreadsheet. There are decades if not centuries of philosophical history underlying all of these theories, there is a reason for the conclusions reached by each on each particular issue... they're a lot more than a dot on a piece of graph paper. Your understanding of an ideology you profess to identify with should go beyond the utterly superficial. If it doesn't, you're a... what's the term of art... "poser".
 
thank you for trying to educate me. I do understand more about political philosophies than you would guess from reading my posts. I do understand that 2 dimensional graph cannot possibly represent someones political philosophy.
 
Then you posted it to point out... what exactly?

Libertarianism is at its core a theory of economics. As a result all of its social policy will bear no small association to an economic utilitarian abacus. It sort of treats social life as a sort of free market where happiness is the currency. As a result it's also predicated largely on atomism, which shares something in common with classical but not with modern liberalism. I'm oversimplifying and obviously there will be different conceptions of this, but I'm trying to give you a sense of the vastly different groundwork between Libertarianism and Liberalism, which is a theory of political morality which has taken on Deweyan socialist aspects of the unity of a society and our duty to one another to improve the quality of life of everyone (E pluribus unum actually sums it up pretty well). It is based on a presumption of natural rights, whereas economics is, if you were to put a political label on it for this issue, Hobbesian. It posits other social intrinsic goods besides freedom while insisting that they are inextricably LINKED to freedom. It is a theory of realism: what in practice results in freedom vs oppression, as opposed to what would seem in the abstract to promote those things.

Just because both end up saying "Gay marriage is okay" doesn't make them at all alike.
 
Wikipedia:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy or a family of related political philosophies based on support for individual liberty.

Libertarians believe that allowing individuals to own, and be

responsible for, their own property and their own bodies is a necessary

aspect of liberty. Libertarians believe in limiting the power and

ability of government to restrict liberty. While libertarian philosophy

has deep roots in the historical philosophy and values of the United

States of America, in modern times, freedom and recognition of rights

of self-determination have become central issues throughout the world.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of libertarians: rights theorists and consequentialists.[1] Rights theorists (some of whom may be deontologists) assert that all persons are the absolute owners of their lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property,

provided they do not infringe on the rights of other--i.e., they allow

others the same liberty. They maintain that the initiation of force by

any person or government, against another person or their property—with force meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud

against someone—who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud,

is a violation of that principle. They do not oppose force used in response or resistance to initiatory aggressions such as violence, threat of violence, fraud or trespassing.

Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition

against "initiation of force," but believe that a society that allows

individuals to enjoy a large scope of political and economic liberty

is the most conducive environment for individuals, or society as a

whole, to achieve maximum well-being and prosperity. Many of them

maintain that a limited government is necessary for the maximization of liberty. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and James M. Buchanan. Some of these writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as classical liberals, by others or themselves. Also, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.[2][3] Libertarians may differ over particular issues, such as abortion, and some support the U.S. led coalition's invasion of Iraq while some oppose it.[4] There is a distinction between a libertarian and a member of a Libertarian Party, the latter of which would be called a Libertarian with a capital "L", as not all libertarians agree with any particular libertarian organization's platform.

 
Instead of just shitting all over him can you give a clear title more specific than centralist to what a person with socially liberal and economically conservative values can identify themselves as?
 
A label? Well, labels are useless if there isn't a theoretical underpinning to support them. Basically it goes like this.

1. Here is how I conceive of society and how people ought to interact, the role of government, local and federal, etc. As a result of this theory, I label my political viewpoint "Xism"

2. Here are the conclusions I draw on each issue by reference to my original theory which I gave you in #1.

3. Hey look, it turns out my theory necessitates that I come to conclusions which appear conservative on fiscal issues, but liberal on social issues!

In other words, you're looking at this backwards. You can't just say "I believe this, this and this", put them in a blender and call them an ideology. You need a reason for believing those things. Political belief is not a buffet table where you pick what you want... if it is you're just being arbitrary.
 
Sorry to break this to you, but thats how the majority of US voters decide their political view. Fuck our media networks, honestly.
 
Well, any time you point to the "majority", you're inevitably pointing to the stupid to average people... so yeah. If stupid people don't understand politics in the way I laid out above, I guess I can live with that?
 
Well the majority of the people do go with labels so that is the status quo. Personally I don't like political ideologies as a whole and would rather everyone decides on each individual issue instead of fitting it into a belief system as a whole. I can't really see the system changing too much so you can stick to your idea of anti-label but to get things done in todays society you are forced to conform to a label even if you dont share all of its beliefs.
 
Back
Top