Did the Tea Party takeover/ruin libertarianism?

Milton Friedman once defined Libertarianism as "Maximum Freedom of the Individual as long as you don't interfere with the Freedom of another." Perhaps if the U.S. Constitution was read with that in mind, 'we', the people, our elected politicians, and judiciary, would come closest to acquiring the correct interpretation of its words.
One of the founders, I can't remember just which as it was from school over 50 years ago, wrote something to effect that "laws should be written clearly and concisely enough for all the governed to be able to understand them, no matter what their education." After all what good are laws which can be interpreted based on how they wish them to be applied by those with the power to adjudicate?

Just what has the TEA party done to takeover/ruin Libertarianism? Some of those I've communicated with who belong to the TEA party claim to be Republicans, or Conservatives, and others Democrats, or Independents, with yet others Libertarians. The result is an amalgamation of persons who agree on common cause(s). And since the TEA party is only a movement and not a political party, they appear to be intent on using their numbers as the means of selecting political candidates who adhere closest to the causes they agree on.

Are there really some Libertarians on this Forum?

 

Indie

The neo-liberal ideas that you promote (as did Milton) give more power and influence to wealth which gives them much more freedom to exploit the system and the majority in their own interests through the promotion of neoliberal ideas such as –

1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc.


In what way does that enhance the ‘freedom’ of the majority?

 

Indie

But maybe it isn’t the correct interpretation?

I mean basically it is only your opinion that it is the correct interpretation based on your biased viewpoint but as pointed out on several occasions your views don’t seem to be rational or solid and you don’t seem able to defend them from criticism. So your interpretation would seem to have a high probability of being significantly flawed.

But you interpret the US constitution the way your biased opinion wishes to see it (and as shown above probably incorrectly).

I also think laws should be clear and concise but even clear and concise can be misinterpreted by an irrational and flawed opinion.

 

Balbus:

You might at least try to quote me accurately.

1. Low taxes
2. Minimal regulations
3. No Federal government provided welfare
4. Free market/laissez faire based economics
5. State funded (There are 50 of them) locally controlled schools
6. Doctor/Patient health care paid for by the recipient/charitable organizations

 

The tea party movement is a great thing in my view, I myself am a part of the movement. It's all about limited governmetn, liberty, and american exceptionalism. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Also, I'm a libertarian, although more on the conservative side of the aisle.

 

Indie

I haven’t misquoted you at all, I never need to.

 

Yes, there is. How is the environment going to be protected?

 

American exceptionalism exists about as much as Canadian exceptionalism, in fact Canadian exceptionalism probably exists more because our country ranks near the bottom of everything in OECD quality of life statistics because we're too busy pretending we're number 1 than actually admitting we have problems that need fixing.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/10/29/opinion/29blow-ch.html?ref=opinion

 

But you did, as I pointed out in my post with the appropriate changes.

 

No can you point out exactly where i've supposedly misquoted you - i think you really need to read the posts rather than making biased claims.

 

Yours, conceptually incorrect except for item 4:
1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc.

Mine:
1. Low taxes
2. Minimal regulations
3. No Federal government provided welfare
4. Free market/laissez faire based economics
5. State funded (There are 50 of them) locally controlled schools
6. Doctor/Patient health care paid for by the recipient/charitable organizations

 

Indie

Hilarious – you really are more interested in point scoring that having an honest debate.

I wrote my list in post 44 of this thread (10-20-11) I reproduced it a week later in the thread – Is there anyone left who doubts we live under corporate fascism?? – post 29 (10-27-11) you as a reaction to that second post wrote a counter list your post 32 (10-28-11).

So how do I misquote something that is actually mine and which was written before your list?

 

I was unaware anyone was keeping score, and even if true they are of no value to me.

I assume we're talking about: (You posted)

"The neo-liberal ideas that you promote (as did Milton) give more power and influence to wealth which gives them much more freedom to exploit the system and the majority in their own interests through the promotion of neoliberal ideas such as –

1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc."


I simply clarified what I do indeed promote, which differs from what you claimed I promote.

 

Indie

If you were an honest debater you would have simply apologised for accusing me of something I had not done.

*

But sadly you are not an honest debater and that’s the problem with your list, it basically only differs from my own in one way - you try and dishonestly hide the Social Darwinist nature of your ideas (although you prefer the term Spenceristic)

As I point out here -
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7045414&postcount=33

The State funded (There are 50 of them) locally controlled schools is basically a Social Darwinist based idea.

As is the - Doctor/Patient health care paid for by the recipient/charitable organizations

It boils down to the Social Darwinist based idea that if someone falls into hardship, even if it is through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control; they should be allowed to die of want.

 

Are you on some form of medication?
After admitting that you first posted your list which you claim to be ideas I have promoted, to which I responded claiming it to have misquoted what I indeed promote, along with an appropriate list, you have both the audacity and gall to suggest that I owe you an apology?

Item #1 - I do not promote 'no tax'
Item #2 - I do not promote 'no regulations' only minimal regulations
Item #3 - I promote the end of welfare sourced at the Federal level of government
Item #4 - I DO promote a highly competitive free market/laissez faire based economic system
Item #5a - Education system - Should be locally controlled, NOT centrally controlled by the Federal government.
Item #5b - Health care - Is not a right or an entitlement to which government has the authority or the means of providing, with the exception of instances relating to controlling outbreaks of highly communicable diseases. That does not preclude charitable organizations, individuals, or groups of concerned individuals, from freely choosing to provide aid and/or assistance where found to be needed.

I've yet to see you engage in what could be called an honest debate, as nearly every post I've read that you've made has been filled with innuendos, ad hominem, and/or disparaging remarks about the one you are directing it to.

I won't bother to mention the adage that you bring to mind.

 

Indie

LOL - no but maybe you should be – something to calm you down and allow you to think straight.

You claim I misquoted you, I have not misquoted you, I didn’t and it is normal when you accuse someone wrongly to apologise for the mistake.

You can claim that I have got what you promote wrong but that is completely different – it then becomes a question of have I misrepresented your views?

Looking at it I don’t think so.

 

This is contradicted by your often repeated assertions along the lines that nothing has the right to take from another without the express consent and willingness of the person(s) providing? Not even government.

Effort or Luck? Post 223

Which would mean replacing taxes with voluntary contributions? I’ve begged you to address this apparent contradiction in your thinking but you’ve refused to do so.

So yes - 1) low or no tax


*

But you do believe in deregulation - that is getting rid of or reducing the number of existing regulations.

So yes - 2) deregulation

*

You have stated many times that you believe that if someone falls into hardship, even if it is through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control; they should be allowed to die of want.
I think that means - 3) Little or no welfare

*

So yes 4) Free market/laissez faire based economics


*

And I’ve pointed out that this is Social Darwinist and you are not contending that.

So yes - 5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc."

*

And as I’ve pointed out – that boils down to the Social Darwinist based idea that if someone falls into hardship, even if it is through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control; they should be allowed to die of want. Something you are not contending.
So again 5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc."

 

Indie you cannot con me, I’ve actually being listening to you - others might be taken in when you lie but I know what you’ve said.

This is just another evasion tactic that you’ve tried before – falsely accuse a critic of misdoing to try and distract people from the fact you haven’t addressed the criticisms.

 

Balbus:

By falsely, and inaccurately, claiming what I have promoted you leave others with the impression that the words you have printed are words that I have written. Semantically, you are correct, but having seen your frequent application of restating me in words that I have not used, for the purpose of making your response appear rational when compared to something I have not written.

And if you wish to be semantically correct, your last post, stating "I’ve actually being listening to you...", based on your rationale is an outright lie as I've never spoken to you at all.

I find no point in continuing relentless bickering with someone who obviously is lacking the ability to comprehend even partially what I write.

No apologies due, and none forthcoming.