Question on Political Stances of Those here

I think this may have something to do with it, but it is mostly due to the conditioned "right wing = bad" that many people feel, especially since the Bush II presidency.

It's not dishonest unless they are intentionally trying to deceive. It is only dangerous insofar as person who attempted to espouse libertarian beliefs under the guise of communism would not and could not be taken seriously, allowing other ideologues to go about wreaking havoc unopposed.

 

It funny you should say that.

Basically, I explained my argument, an argument which pretty much everyone here accepted as valid, and I have also shown that my interpretation is supported by the definition given in the Standord Enclopedia of Philosophy. In fact the SEoP specifically highlights your interpretation as 'mistaken'.

You describe this as "not putting up any counter argument".

Lets look at what you have done. You have explained your view, and said that your marxist friends agree, convinced nobody here, and provided no reference material to back up your definition.

Based on this you concluded you have proven your case and the burden remains on me to come up with some kind of counter argument.

Sorry Balbus but you need to do better than that.

Actually what is apparent is that now that you have been caught out having falsely defined libertarianism as right wing, you are trying to pretend that all along you were differentiating between right wing libertarianism and left wing libertarianism, which in fact you haven't so much as mentioned the distinction until now. The OP to the thread you claim establishes your supposed long term concern about the difference between "left" and "right" libertarianism doesn't even use the word "right" or "left". Well what's a little historical revisionism between marxists, right? I'm sure your friends would approve.

In fact the quote that you think is "especially" relevant refers to anarcho-capitalism, which is yet another kettle of fish.

I know you would go to any length rather than admit you are wrong but there is no reason why I should play along. You have completely failed to define libertarianism as right wing

You have tried repeatedly, and you have failed repeatedly.

Nobody here is talking about conservatism except you.

 

Oh thank you Hipstatic

At last something with a bit of meat to it.

*

Ok you argument is the assertion that ‘libertarianism’ isn’t right wing.

My point is that many of the people that come here that claim to be libertarians seem to express virtually (if not all) right wing views or views based in a right wing philosophy.

The bit from the Standord Enclopedia of Philosophy doesn’t seem to fit with what I’m witnessing here or what I’ve highlighted here.

I don’t know what Peter Vallentyne based his views on but it doesn’t fit with what I’ve seen. It is just another assertion. If you wish to ask Peter Vallentyne to join the argument I’m happy to have him.

But in the mean time, can you refute my arguments?

*

You didn’t read the whole thread from 2006 did you? You should that’s why they are threads, strands of an argument.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...t=151086&f=346


This was an investigation into what libertarianism meant.


try post 13

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2266960&postcount=13

or 18

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2270163&postcount=18


For a feel of it.

Did you read Chris’s in post 20, who said

And so we come to my post 25 where I say

(my bold) Posted 03-10-2006, 12:56 PM,

What is it you say –

You really should do some research.

*

This is this difference between us I’m trying to have a debate you are just interested in trying to score points.

 

i'm liberal

 

Dammit Balbus, all you do is talk in circles and point to your "proof" where YOU made statements before, as if that's all the proof you need.

All these damn threads that were created just to argue the same points with Balbus the God of the forums. What he says IS the way it is, always, no matter how wrong. He cannot be proven wrong. Because he says so.

Now he says I am a right winger who professes to be a libertarian. Funny thing, I have said repeatedly that I will not be lableled as anything, simply because once you start placing all those high sounding and complexly overlapping labels on everyone, you stop HEARING what they say, only judging it within that particular bias.
I am seeing extreme prejudice, bigotry, judgementalism going on here, to the point where there can be no discussion, only Balbus telling everyone how stupid and wrong they are while he is the ultimate authority.

I have spent most of my free time the past few days looking up all the labels that are being tossed around, and the more I look, the more I read something different than what our great authority figure has told us, the more confusing it gets and the more I realize that this is just some kind of evil game designed to drive people nuts.


All these labels are simply like the symptoms to an illness of some kind. Certain symptoms might lead the doctor to think you had a certain illness, but some symptoms can be a sign of MANY different things, and if the doctor decides to go for ONE diagnosis and it is wrong, well, not a good thing. This is what is happening here.

All the labels are simply PARTS of a greater whole. In everyday life there really DOES seem to be opposites in everything, and in humans as well. It always seems like there are those people who are "cool", and those peopl;e who are "jerks". OK, way too simple for such complex minds, I'm sure, but those two polar opposites are the causes of all these labels beiong created. Now, I know which side of the fence I am on. And truely that is all that matters. Feel it live it breathe it. Who cares what some anal retentive obnoxious stranger thinks?

 

Gardener: It sounds like you are an Investor. Sorry about your losses on The Street.

 

Then why not use some of that research to explain your thinking rather than evading doing so by writing long rants.

I mean in all this no one seems able to put up any real argument to set out why I’m wrong they’re all just telling me I’m wrong.

I’ve explained several times the reasons why I think many of the people that come here claiming to be libertarians and ‘not being of the right’ are in fact right wingers.

If anyone has a counter argument to what I’ve said please give it.

 

im a libertarian and i feel im actually active about them. i have gone to rallies and the popular porcfest. but i dont count cuz i already live in new hampshire. if there are any libertarians here who want to talk about it feel free to PM me or just post here in the thread.

 

You don't "explain" anything, you just toss labels around and bitch because nobody will "debate" you. I gave up debating you long ago, because I think it is like casting pearls before swine and that you are a person who has no intention of actually listening to anything anyone says, only disrespecting them to pump your own ego.
I also believe that you are suffering from some type of obsession, and your repetitiveness is annoying at best. So, NO, I will not speak TO you unless you will start listening. Otherwise, all you will get is me talking AT you.

 

i'm a radical leftist, and a socialist. i guess i sort of just think there should be true democracy, not like what we have in america.

 

thats is about as far from a free society as can occur on earth. so ur basically a communist???

 

no not really a communist, just socialist. but how do you figure true democracy is far from a free society? wouldn't that really be the most free society there could be?

 

My "long rants" ARE explaining my way of thinking. Read and understand. PLEASE! And get over it if you don't like it...

 

I think even "democracy" is too complicated to be conducive to a REALLY free society. "Democracy" is just a guise for the rich and influential to make it LOOK like everyone has a say-so. But truely the only ones with a say-so in democracy are the MAJORITY, whoever they are. How do I know? Because there are too many certain types of folks who have NEVER felt they were represented in politics yet...

 

i dont think that a socialist society will be a democracy. you can just look at most democratic legislation to determine that. also america is a republic not a democracy. if u really care ull go look up the differences becasue i dont feel like explaining them. as far as liberal legislation is concerned. if the government wants to try to create a program the free market capitalist society can do it better and more efficiently. lets look at the postal service. they cant turn a profit on anything and they are slower than any company like fedex or dhl. they also dont provide services like package tracking. heres the worst part. The USPS is a monopoly. The USPS is the only organization that is legally aloud to send mail. (packages dont count as mail hence why Fed ex and DHL can send packages.) Coinicidentally the USPS is the only mail organization that has been backed by the government. The government is not a social solution it is a social problem. Leave programs to businesses and charities and leave my taxes alone.

 

There are 3 main types of freedoms, political, social and economic, and economic freedom is just as important as the rest and socialism destroys that.

 

oh sorry i guess i wasn't really clear on what i meant, i meant to say that personally, i think the wealth of nations should be spread around, but i think that the people should and will get what they want, which is why i believe in true democracy, even if that means socialism isn't part of the picture.

that said, a totally free market wouldn't ever work, just like full complete socialism wouldn't work, a successful system has to be somewhere in the middle. i just think that the closer you get to socialism the better it is for human rights, but i do understand where people are coming from who argue for capitalism.

 

first off what do u mean by the "wealth of nations should be spread around?" if ur talking about truly the nations of the world should share their wealth, thats rediculous becasue no other country is ever going to simply give up their money with nothing in return. thats absurd. if u mean our nation shoud share its wealth with its people then u r kinda speaking in very socialist terms. it still wont work tho because the government then has a monopoly on all the programs. u then drive businesses away becasue they cant compete with what the government is giving people for "free." (its not really free becasue we have to pay through taxes.) when the government has no competition its services quickly become garbage as their is no need to actually work to earn profit.

u say a free market capitalist society would not work but i disagree. in a true free market society (which the US is not) everything is truly run by the consumers. if a business goes under it is because the consumers no longer wanted the businesses product for one reason or another. if a business becomes a monopoly it is because the people let it. the people decided the company is worthy of all business. well maybe the monopoly decides to create outrageous prices. new businesses will pop up and people will shop at them because they no longer prefer the old monopoly. Everything is driven by the consumer because that's where the power is. a free market society can work if the government doesn't feel the need to interfere.

btw i hope im not coming off as somebody who is just going to ignore ur ideas i do enjoy hearing ur opinion even if i disagree. u always have the right to ur opinion.

 

Government coercion is key here. If the private sector can come up with a higher quality product people are willing the pay the extra money for, people will buy them. No matter how this scenario plays out, there is an injustice: The government either shuts down the private sector by force (or, I suppose, buys them out--but eventually the government would no longer see a need for that formality), or the private sectors sells people the higher quality product, and the same people still give money to the government for something they don't want or need.

I worry about the free market's ability to create its own government. I am a radical right winger but I do struggle about the question of when it becomes appropriate to establish a social contract form of government, if at all.

 

well im a true libertarian (in other words i neither lean to the left nor the right). i simply believe that we need as little government as possible. we need to get it out of business and we need to get it out of out personal lives. the role of the government needs to be scaled waaaaay back. i believe people are intelligent enough to make decisions on their own. we don't need the government making them for us. as for businesses making a high quality product. they will or people will not buy from them. that's how the free market works. the government doesn't need to offer anything.