Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are there any true libertarians in here? I would like to debate you.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are there any true libertarians in here? I would like to debate you.

    I'm looking to debate a libertarian on economic issues, like for example, what helps create more jobs, libertarian policies, or liberal policies.

    I personally think liberal economic policies work better, but I've heard good libertarian arguments. I think many of them are wrong, but I need to confirm this by debating it.
    Blog: Atheism and the City

    If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

  • #2
    “Libertarian policies” – is that not a contradiction?
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      “Libertarian policies” – is that not a contradiction?
      No; "libertarian" is not synonymous with "anarchist".
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        “Libertarian policies” – is that not a contradiction?
        No, some libertarians are for small govt, some are for no govt. I'm looking to debate philosophy and policy.
        Blog: Atheism and the City

        If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
          No, some libertarians are for small govt, some are for no govt. I'm looking to debate philosophy and policy.
          If Libertarians believe in 'no government' they would be anarchists, and that is a contradiction.

          I would gave to give it more thought as to present libertarian political beliefs.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Darth Xena, Truthseeker, and Joel are all hardcore Libertarians, I believe.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Darth Xena, Truthseeker, and Joel are all hardcore Libertarians, I believe.
              It would be interesting to have them describe their libertarian (politics) philosophy. For example; Which politicians do they identify with and why.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                I am not going to get into this debate except to offer a correct. NO ANARCHIST IS NOT CONTRADICTORY TO LIBERTARIANISM. That is utterly ridiculous. I sit on the Libertarian National Committee. I am an anarchist. The Vice Chair of the LNC is an anarchist. Two other representatives are anarchists. The Chair is likely an anarchist though he tends to keep his ultimate opinion to himself. About twenty percent of the state chairs of the LP are anarchists.

                The Party was founded with anarchists. The founder become an anarchist. The Statement of Principles was edited (a near impossible task) to give explicit nods to anarchism.

                I do not care to debate policies. I am way too busy doing real politicks in the real world.
                The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  And just as a FB funny

                  13737674_10157889519695377_4351934223712379743_o.jpg
                  The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    From the LPColorado site:

                    Screen Shot 2016-08-05 at 10.07.00 AM.jpg

                    From the LPColorado Platform:

                    Screen Shot 2016-08-05 at 10.07.54 AM.jpg

                    From the National Statement of Principles (the "where ... exists" is a nod to anarchists - we take no ultimate position on whether governments MUST exist)

                    Screen Shot 2016-08-05 at 10.09.04 AM.jpg
                    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      For those truly interested in hearing about an anarchist working with a political party I will be a guest on the Johnny Rocket podcast (NSFW) next week.
                      The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                        No, some libertarians are for small govt, some are for no govt. I'm looking to debate philosophy and policy.
                        Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                        I am not going to get into this debate except to offer a correct. NO ANARCHIST IS NOT CONTRADICTORY TO LIBERTARIANISM. That is utterly ridiculous. I sit on the Libertarian National Committee. I am an anarchist. The Vice Chair of the LNC is an anarchist. Two other representatives are anarchists. The Chair is likely an anarchist though he tends to keep his ultimate opinion to himself. About twenty percent of the state chairs of the LP are anarchists.

                        The Party was founded with anarchists. The founder become an anarchist. The Statement of Principles was edited (a near impossible task) to give explicit nods to anarchism.

                        I do not care to debate policies. I am way too busy doing real politicks in the real world.
                        These terms are used with varying definitions, and these statements depend on which of the definitions one is using.

                        Sometimes libertarians make a distinction between "government" and "the state". Under which distinction, even libertarians who call themselves anarchists do want "government"; they just are opposed to "the state" as it is typically conceived. They are "anarchist" in the sense of wanting no "state". They are not "anarchist" in the sense of wanting no "government." They are even more so not anarchist in the sense of wanting chaos. They argue that the state is actually contrary to good government.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                          I'm looking to debate a libertarian on economic issues, like for example, what helps create more jobs, libertarian policies, or liberal policies.

                          I personally think liberal economic policies work better, but I've heard good libertarian arguments. I think many of them are wrong, but I need to confirm this by debating it.
                          I'm happy to discuss and debate libertarianism with people.

                          I'm wary of debating The Thinker, because my past debates with him have all taken the following form:

                          Thinker: I say that the color blue doesn't exist. Additionally it is an incoherent concept. It's not even logically possible. The only possible colors are red and green. Therefore blue cannot possibly exist. If you think otherwise, you must provide a positive proof that blue is a coherent concept (i.e., not self-contradictory).

                          Me (or anyone else): What? Look at the sky on a clear day. It's blue.

                          Thinker: That can't possibly be true because the red-green dichotomy proves that blue is impossible. The dichotomy shows that there cannot be any evidence of blue. Our perception of blue must therefore be an illusion.

                          Me: Your dichotomy 'argument' is just assuming that red and green are the only possibilities, which is begging the question.

                          Thinker: I didn't beg the question. I gave an argument in my OP that blue is impossible. I'm still waiting for you to give a positive proof that blue is possible. If you can't do that, just say so.

                          Me: How can someone give a positive proof that something is logically possible? I mean all one can do is contemplate "blue" and see no way in which it makes any claims about itself that contradict itself. And I experience blue every day. Wouldn't the burden of proof be on the person who claimed that it's logically impossible?

                          Thinker: I did prove just that in my OP. You just are failing to understand the dilemma. And you have the burden of proof because yours is the positive claim that blue is possible. Plus I note that you've conceded that blue is impossible. So I win, and anything more you say is irrelevant.

                          Me: I conceded wha?


                          But I'm willing to have an honest, rational discussion with anyone. As long as you can do that, I'm happy to participate.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            It would be interesting to have them describe their libertarian (politics) philosophy. For example; Which politicians do they identify with and why.
                            To put it briefly, libertarians are in favor of human interaction being consensual. And that non-consensual actions (physical force, coercion) is morally permissible only in restraint or restitution against someone who first violated someone's rights via physically interfering with them without their consent. Thus the traditionally accepted list of rights: life, liberty, and property.

                            Libertarians seem not to identify with politicians as personalities so much as to identify with anyone insofar as they aim to respect and defend these human rights.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I make a distinction between the government and the state, yes.
                              The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X