How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

Bal,

What is extreme about a free market system?

 

Indie

I said extreme free market thinking.

So can you now please produce the evidence that I’m of the extreme left?

 

Well, then allow me to rephrase the question, "How are you defining 'extreme' free market thinking?"

The evidence avails itself from the differences between conversation between you and I and that of others (who are admittedly Left leaning) and I. Most often we can reach some agreement as to what are reasonable and acceptable solutions to the problems we discuss, although we may have little effect in getting government to acknowledge or implement them. I find it not too difficult to resolve problems between myself and others who I interact with more directly, when we are left to resolve them on our own.

 

Indie

Well as I’ve said many times before it is rather hard to work out exactly what your views are because you evade so many questions and address so few criticisms and seem very unwilling to explain your thinking.

But we have been through this many, many, many, many times to me the problem is that there never has been and never can be a ‘free market’ those pushing for the extreme free market vision, produce a system where the markets can become run more for the benefit of the ‘players’ in the market than for wider society.

Try reading – Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

The are those that are less extreme and are happy to have private and public systems working together and see the need to regulate the market but others seem to see little or no roll for public systems and often seem contemptuous of regulation.

 

Indie

Can you produce this evidence, give examples?

 

I would rather spend my time and efforts in trying to find solutions to the problems we (American taxpayers) are presently facing, than waste time arguing endlessly for no purpose at all.

 

Indie

This is why you are a dishonest debater you make claimed and accusation that you never seem able to back up, frankly you lie.

As to solution as shown many, many, many times the ideas you promote are much more likely to make a bad situation worse vastly increase the power and influence of wealth to the detriment of everyone else, criticisms you seem unable to address let alone refute.

 

Then why do you continue to waste both your and my time? There are others who are obviously willing to bow to and agree with you. While you make a quite emotionally motivating argument I find no way I could accept it rationally or reasonably sustainable, or in any way changing by whom and from where power is exercised over a large population of people.

 

Indie

I come here because I’m the moderator of the forum (and for fun) why are you coming here?

As I’ve told you many times I’m trying to work out why you feel you can promote views you so clearly can’t defend from criticism, it just doesn’t seem rational or reasonable.

And how do you think acting so obviously dishonestly helps?

As to the ‘emotional argument’ crap we have been through that hundreds of times its an evasion, an excuse for your complete and utter inability to defend your ideas.

 

This begs the question why you're moderating a Libertarian subforum, even if it is a fake one on a hippie site. lol

 

I moderate the politic forum that also covers the fascism and communism subforums, thing is that you don’t have to like something or agree with something to discuss it you just need someone willing to debate it honestly and openly.

 

hey everyone it looks like we have a winner!!! balbus has put an end to individuals need to post on the thread. this is cause for a celebration and i would hope a speech. it isnt often in a heated political debate that you see a clear cut winner. and to get to that spot by posting over and over and over.....and over " for your complete and utter inability to defend your ideas." makes it even more amazing that balbus won this....this....i dont know what this little competition was but i do know that bulbus won because individual apparently couldnt defend his ideas. i demand a speech for your great victory balbus because we are in (for me at least) uncharted history when it comes to internet forums. i know that....oh...wait...i see a problem, we may have to have a review of this victory. there could be a disqualification. balbus please tell me you lived for some time in the USA because you seemed to post the uk as your location. surely that is just a typo being as we can see your pure internet arguing skills could only come from a place like the great USA. although it would make since reading your arguments from the last couple weeks, if you havnt lived here it would be the only reason you couldnt understand just how great it is here for someone that works hard and works for a good life.

 

I'm not so sure, if you're going to be debating precisely the core belief of what that subforum is supposed to be about, it is a very short leap to trolling.

Same thing in the Free Love forum, you cannot post anything that is even remotely sex positive there without being bombarded by a bunch of trolling prudes.

A forum does have the purpose, I would think, of finding people who hold similar feelings. If I just wanted to debate the opposing view, I'd go to the forum of the opposing view.

It's like going to mass to sell atheism. As much as I am an atheist, I think religious dumb fucks should have the right to their own space.

 

Bal,

I guess I was wrong in thinking that it was a function of the moderator to try and keep the discussion on topic?

I posted in this particular thread, primarily because I agree somewhat with the Libertarian view, and because I don't think that being born into poverty requires accepting that to remain the case throughout your life, unless you allow it be.

 

Cherea

Fine idea but lets say one person believes black people are totally inferior to white people (and should not even travel on the same bus as whites) and another thinks they are human beings just like the rest of us.

Half way would be for the racist and non-racist to agree that black people were moderately inferior (not totally) to whites (so they can now get on the bus with white people they just have to sit in a segregated section at the back).

*

If something is a ‘bad’ idea which even the person promoting it cannot defend from criticism - half accepting it doesn’t make it suddenly a ‘good’ idea it just means you are implementing a bad policy.

 

Indie

Oh hell Indie again we have been through this many times – politics isn’t directly linear or black and white and so I allow a certain drift in threads and let them go where they are lead to a certain point. And as pointed out by Roo you are one of the people that does go off at a tangent and only complains when you are unable to address the criticisms of your tangents.

Indie is usually the one who steers wide of the topic, but then when there's something he can't answer, he crows about sticking to the topic and ignores the issue at hand. Even if it's squarely on topic.

But can you defend your views from criticism, that is the question, and the answer so far seems to be a resounding no.

Thing is that you by your own admission were not born into poverty, so I don’t think you can say that from direct experience and although right wing libertarian ideas may appeal to you, you seem unable to actually defend them from criticism beyond just telling people you are right because you think you are right.

 

Bal,

If I veer off topic it is only because of necessity in responding to the post I am responding to.

My views are many, and you rather broadly ask me to defend my views, which in my opinion I have as I am left to my own to guess which view it is you refer to.

I was born into what would be described as poverty, even though you seem to think that you can define it without knowing all the facts other than an average income, which kind of exposes how you avoid facing facts of reality.

 

There's no such thing. Libertarians are not right wingers just because liberals say so. Ask right wingers. You're bringing your own statist prejudice to apply the label. Try doing that in the Lesbian forum.

It's rather tedious to have to "defend" basic libertarian ideas on a libertarian forum. I suggest you copy paste from wikipedia and make a sticky thread on the topic. That way you can remind yourself what the libertarian take on state intervention in the economy and welfare is all day long.

And the by-product of it is that you'll create a safe environment for libertarians to network among themselves. Which, I would've thought is the job of a super moderator.

 

Indie

Yes - in your opinion - the problem is that you could just say shouting ‘I’m right because I’m right’ is defending your views – in your opinion

Basically this is the same con game you’ve tried to us before (and another reason why you are seen as a dishonest debater). Anyway I’ll ask the same thing I’ve asked all the other times you’ve used this trick – please point out where your supposed defence is?

So why did you say you and your family were never poverty stricken? Why were you in poverty when your father was earning an average wage?

As I’ve said you need to define what you mean by ‘poverty’ in this context.

 

Cherea

What has lesbianism got to do with it?

Thing is you can have left leaning libertarianism and you can have right leaning libertarianism. I make the distinction because there are some who come to the site claiming they are ‘libertarians’ and so not of the right (or left) when they are in fact right wingers who happen to call themselves libertarians.

As to liberals -

Political liberals once supported economic liberalism because they believed it undermined the political authority of the few. Then many political liberals realised that economic liberalism had led to an economic authority that curtailed ‘liberty’ as much as political authority did and began to turn against economic liberalism just at the point when wealth began to realise that economic liberalism granted them more power in the shape of economic authority.

So political liberals became seen by those on the right as ‘left-wing’ opponents because they wished to undermine the power and wealth of the few. But political liberals were often in opposition to left wing political groups/party’s and many on the left see ‘liberals’ as being ‘right wing’.

In the UK at the moment we have a right wing government made up of Liberals and Conservatives.

In an American context ‘liberals’ are seen as left wing only because much of left wing thought has been systematically purged from US society over the last 50+ years. So without a real left wing the centre right liberals are seen as the left wingers.

This is why many outside the US believe that Americans have two right wing parties with a centre right Democratic Party and a more right wing Republican Party.

It is also why many Americans see left of centre parties in other countries and think they’re hard left socialists/communist and why some even think some of our right wing parties are left wing, I mean we have openly gay right wing politicians and right wingers that support such ‘socialist’ things as the NHS.

Can you clarify what you mean?

I don’t care if its tedious I’m only interested if anyone can defend right wing libertarianism views because so far none of its supporters has been able to do so.

If you read the politics site specific guidelines you will see that this is a debating forum it is not somewhere to network, if you wish to network I suggest you set up your own private HF page.