How unamericanly European of you.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
New Proof That Obama's Hawaiian Birth Certificate Was Faked + Links to Orly's Hearing
- Thread starter since9
- Start date
How unamericanly European of you.
Stanley
Regular Member
LOL :lol:
georg jetson
Regular Member
I didn't see the
1. Let's roll everything back 110 years option.
I mean, we are trying to achieve smaller government right?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
To this day I firmly consider myself a classical liberal, and reject the co-option of language by the illiberal statist left.
Not that this fact implies further overlap between our political convictions.
No such thing in the European model. It is right and left based or in other words, what type of authoritarianism do you want? You are asking for the American paradigm of how much and how powerful should the government be and how much control should it have. That would be Libertarianism vs authoritarianism. With USA in 1792 just this side of Anarchy or just enough government to keep order, but not to run peoples lives.
Well when people stopped voting for progressives because it was stifling and didn't work they stopped calling themselves progressive and started calling themselves liberal even though liberal basically meant minimum government maximum individual liberty at the time.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Exactly correct.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Last edited:
Stanley
Regular Member
Lol.
And for those of you that wish for near anarchy... Lol. In 89 I went to Somalia with our church. You all don't know what anarchy is lolol.
America wouldn't survive anarchy or even near anarchy. There will always be authoritarianism. The choice has always just been how little or much...
Note the distinct "absence" of libertarianism anywhere on the planet...
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Evidently, you don't have much of a clue yourself. lolol
Do you get all your political understanding from cliches spouted by the usual demagogues?
Because I'm starting to get that distinct impression, based on your barely-superficial understanding of much you've posted about. No offense, but this kind of uninspired and fallacious parroting of what amounts to little more than name-calling has no merit and no place in a serious discussion.
In truth, the chaos in Somalia has been caused and fueled by the actions of various governments, not by adherence to the tenets of any coherent anarchistic or libertarian ideal.
The dialog encountered on TV and HuffPo rarely considers alternative perspectives such as these, which are, in my estimation, of greater insight and value:
Center for a Stateless Society: The Truth About Somalia and Anarchy
Anarcho-Syndicalist Review: Chaos or Anarchy
Define your terms.
While libertarianism is an ideal, and ideals are never met in practice, there exist in the world countless examples of notions which may be described as "libertarian" operating successfully and as a libertarian would predict.
While there exist no anarcho-capitalist or mutualist societies in the world, there exist (and have existed) many societies which function admirably under principles far more libertarian than the "centrist" average of the American mainstream political "spectrum" which you claim as representative of your understanding.
"Libertarianism" need not be absolute in its radicalism. It may be a relative position, and the shape it takes may be unpredictable in truly voluntary circumstances.
Therefore, your statement is at best incorrect, and at worst meaningless.
Last edited:
Stanley
Regular Member
About anarchy? Just what I've seen.
ETA:
Note I never specified the cause of the lack of strong government. Just the lack of...
Only political commentary I watch is Colbert lol. Most political leanings I've obtained from life and seeing s$&@ storms in other countries.
Most people DO get their views from demagogues. Heck, I bet most of your views, outside of these ones, that are pretty much old wives tales.
That's ok though. I'm reading all the arguments here. My forte has always been religion and science. Give me time and I'll give you a run for your money.
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.980186,-77.352446
Last edited:
Somalia is not simply an absence of government or simply anarchy. There are many meddlers. WE did very well and were a very civil society with far less government for over 100 years. Yes, there is an absence of liberty in the rest of the planet note something else, who is the richest country and what country used to economically outweigh the entire world with only 5% of the population? It didn't happen because of Communism, or Socialism or winning the lottery or because poor people work hard in union jobs. The USA was the economic giant and still is an economic giant because of the liberty we had in the past. China used to be a joke, then they started allowing more economic freedom, notice a change? Authoritarianism works the same way class systems work, its not because its the most effective way.
Stanley
Regular Member
Oh, there are societies eh? Which societies. Those that no longer exist you can exclude because we dont need to emulate failed societies...
Sounds like waffling... Especially with the relative thrown in as a modifier...
What country, that isn't authoritarian, has been a success?
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.980045,-77.352560
Last edited:
So you get your ideas from an ignorant buffoon, that's nice.
Stanley
Regular Member
Umm note the lol I put there. Watching Colbert for politics is like going to church for science. I was joking...
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.980049,-77.352616
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I bet otherwise. While I possess a paucity of understanding, there is little which finds me uninterested and nothing I accept on face value. I hold nothing on faith, and eagerly accept rigorous challenges to my conclusions.
While I am undoubtedly mistaken in an great many of my conclusions, none are old wives tails insofar as I believe nothing without making independent evaluation of its merit.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Our society has never "failed", and yet it exists in a form entirely unlibertarian compared to its past. Perhaps you can see the error in your thinking.
It depends on context. I rarely waffle on my libertarian convictions, although I do change my mind when presented with sufficient reason.
However, I may describe Ron Paul as "libertarian", but I do so only in comparison to the rest of the party of which he is a member. He is by no means "libertarian" in the same manner as myself, or even what I would argue to be to the same extent as myself. That does not mean the "libertarian" identifier does not carry some accurate meaning when applied to the man.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to define "authoritarian". It is itself a relative notion.
If you mean to suggest, "a place where authority exists", the question becomes meaninglessly exclusive. If you mean:
The US, at its inception, was not authoritarian. It was a success by any measure, aside from being an eventual victim of its own success. It is now authoritarian, but it still exists, and is arguably worse for the change.
The Czech Republican is not authoritarian. They have a very liberal culture, in fact. I've long considered moving there. The success of this is apparent; it has lifted the country out of the shambles of totalitarianism, and Prague is once again the jewel of central Europe. The country is easily the most liberal of post-communist countries, and simultaneously the most successful.
How many examples do you require?
Last edited:
Yet based upon your other statements it would seem to lack a joking nature.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Simple thoughts make for simple answers... maybe not...
Because anarchy is bad, means we should push as far from that wall as possible? Well... no because then we have authoritarianism and... well darn... there we are at the other wall. Perhaps we should be centrists. Just this side of anarchy.
Of course "The choice has always just been how little or much...". Duh!!
To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying. – Richard Henry Lee (1732- 1794), Member of Continental Congress, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Senator
BTW - Thanks to our public(regulated) school system, one has to self-educate on these things... usually in adulthood. We're constantly re-inventing the wheel on this issue here and... well... everywhere else I have an opportunity to have this type of conversation.
Last edited:
You've made my night, I like that quote!