Question on Political Stances of Those here

respectfully disagree:cheers2:

 

You disagree that we had to bailout Mexico right after NAFTA was signed? You disagree that we educate and pay for the healthcare of illegal mexican nationals? You disagree that the Mexican economy is currently distressed because of Swine Flu and Drug wars? You disagree that Mexico wishes the US to extend Social Security benefits to their illegal workers in the US? What is it you disagree with? Or is it you think the SPP should set US policy?

The SPP is made up of corporate elitists and held behind closed doors should they determine what US policy is? I am pretty sure it shouldn't even exist. And not really clear on who funds it or why it is still part of our government.

http://www.spp.gov/

Funny thing is it morphs and hides much like the Project for a New American Century. Just look at the logo North American Leaders Summit...what exactly is that, who are they answerable to, who appoints them, how much power do they hold?

I don't remember voting for it's formation, do you?

If this is strictly a business corporation based committee than take it off our government webhost. And stop pretending it has any governmental powers. If it's a governmental body then let's have some voter and populus input.

 

Hipstaic et al

In all this no one seems able to put up any real argument to explain 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 you have a counter argument to what I’ve said please give it, because so far all I’m getting is unsubstantiated assertions.

For example (and I could give many)

I’ve explained why the right wing libertarian stance on these is not a left wing stance it is a right wing one.

Give me a counter argument not just an assertion that they are ‘left’.

 

The problem is that people here seem to think conservatism is right wing, the be all and end all.

Now while conservatism does tend toward a person having a right wing viewpoint, someone doesn’t have to be conservative to be right wing.

It is very possible to be radical and right wing.

It is the philosophy that underpins the policy not the policy itself that is important.

 

I think people are getting pissed because you're lumping them in with people they have almost nothing in common with, other than belief in the value of a free market. Which just shows how inadequate terms like left and right (left unmodified my helpful adjectives) are for anything but the broadest generalizations.

 

DL

I’ve explained why the right wing libertarian stance on certain things not a left wing stance but a right wing one.

Give me a counter argument not just an assertion that they are not.

 

Did you even read what I posted? I never made any such assertion. I only tried to explain why people were indulging you in such inane semantical discussion. I am a libertarian and I am in favor of a free market. I know that's a right wing ideal. People resent being lumped into the same category as Bush II when the only thing they have in common is an alleged belief in capitalism.

 

DL

People who seem to have right wing views and a right wing philosophical outlook seem to be trying to claim they are not right wingers.

Have I claimed they have the exact same views as the Bush jr administration?

Some people here have put me in the same category as Stalin, because I’m left leaning, I haven’t got upset and started claiming I’m not left wing, I’ve just pointed out how my views are nothing like Stalin’s.

I’ve pointed out and explained why I see them as right wing, and want to know why they think they’re not.

Thing is they don’t seem willing or able to do so.

 

You should acknowledge that these are fickle terms, and ultimately whether a person accepts your categorization of their thinking is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the soundness of the ideas themselves. If you google "define: right wing" you will see that no two definitions are exactly alike and that--remarkably--few of them so much as mention the market. Wikipedia, on the other hand, writes

I have bolded some of the more significant statements. A libertarian is a person who advocates personal freedom and responsibility in all matters, not just the economy. It is not difficult to see why a person with such an agenda would be offended when they are associated with social conservatives, censorship, and the marriage of church and state. Doing so is no more productive than lumping you in with Stalin. If we accept the simple definitions of left-wing = collectivism and right-wing = egoism and a free market, I don't see how anyone who favors the latter cannot see themselves as right wing. However, that is not the world we live in.

In short: I think you are right, but don't understand why you would waste your time with such trifles.

 

DL

If you read books about contemporary politics you will find that a lot of them mention the link of the right with capitalism and the move in recent years (30-40 years) toward the avocation of the free market.

Google is good but it is no substitute for genuine research.

And so to Wikipedia, it writes -

I have bolded the more significant statement.

*

As I’ve said people who seem to have right wing views and a right wing philosophical outlook seem to be trying to claim they are not right wingers.

I wonder why?

*

 

Balbus, don't you ever get tired of cutting and pasting?

Can't win an arguement in one thread so make another and another, all about the same things. And then cut and paste your responses over and over again. I feel like I'm listening to a broken record. Did you ever hear of "hell is repetition?"

 

That's a good question. But I wonder why how people categorize their views means so much to you. It in no way changes the views themselves. I can't help but get the feeling you want to pigeonhole people into the 'right' for rhetorical purposes.

 

Balbus you have taken your traditional approach to debate.

You ask a question, then appoint yourself judge and reject all answers. Then you declare victory.

You are the only person here who thinks I have not shown that libertarian and right wing are not the same thing. In fact several people have spoken up in my support but you just remind them that Balbus already explained the correct definitions of right and left wing (using such incontrovertible evidence as a survey of his marxist friends) and that subject is now closed. He who defines the terms wins the debate, and Balbus has reserved that right for himself, exclusively.

You want to define libertarianism as exclusively a belief in free market economics, purely because you are determined to hammer a square peg into a round role. This turns it into a simple litmus test: if you don't believe in socialist economics, you are right wing, regardless of your views on any other issues.

I also find it odd you tell us that it is important to do "geniune research" (in keeping with your standard practice of praising yourself frequently) and then proceed to quote from wikipedia.

Yet the odd thing is that the quote you took comes from a Wikipedia entry which also references "right wing libertarians" - those diabolical, elusive creatures you are apparently hunting for at Hipforums. I followed the link to "right wing liberatarians" I found this interesting quote, taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which states:

Now that's odd, isn't it?

Doing proper research is indeed a good idea, Balbus. Why don't you try it?

 

I dare you to find one post where I tried to "pigeonhole" anyone into any category. People? The only one who is bothersome is Balbus, because he INSISTS on categorizing people he knows nothing about and can not have any kind of intelligent conversation because of it.

 

Lay off the meth lady I was talking to Balbus.

 

Since we are so into wikipedia, I looked up "free market". So? It sounds sort of like a better idea than what is actually going on at the moment doesn't it? But we will NEVER KNOW because, as is pointed out, one has never actually EXISTED.

But it SAYS that people who believe in "free market" are mostly libertarian. But I just said it sounded like a good idea. But, But, But....

No, it just does not work. I really can not find anything that says I am a "right winger".

 

just disagree. I hope they answer to us. does not matter anyway republicrats are in the pocket of oil and biz I was tired of the debate and your superior skills Peace :hat:

 

Hey, I caught that just now, not sure how I did that. But why be insulting? It's not METH, it's RELENTLESS FARMING in almost 90 degree weather... Meth is for the scum of society...

 

Hipstatic

You are just telling me I’m wrong you’re not telling in what way I’m wrong just as others here are telling me I’m wrong but not actually putting up any counter argument to what I’ve said.

As to wiki I referenced it because I was replying to a quote from it.

And yes I did read the bit you quote from it – it is also in the section on
Right-libertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism

and you didn’t quote it in full did you, it ends –

In addition to the BETTER-KNOWN version of libertarianism—RIGHT-LIBERTARIANISM.

So right wing – right leaning – right viewing libertarianism is the better-known version of libertarianism.

It’s basically pointing out that within libertarianism, there are differing elements some right some left.

That is why I’ve being making the distinction for some years now between left and right wing libertarianism.

I mean here is a thread from 2006
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=151086&f=346

especially here http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2266805&postcount=10

**

Also as I’ve tried repeatedly to make clear I’m talking mainly about the people coming to the political forums here that claim to be ‘libertarians’ but who seem to be mainly or on the whole right wing.

I’ve also tried to make it clear that many here seem to equate ‘conservatism’ with being right wing, but someone can be right wing but not conservative. Which means someone might believe in gay marriage, abortion, legalised prostitution, legislation of drugs and be an atheist and still be of the right.

It’s the reasons for holding those views that are important the philosophical viewpoint for believing or accepting them.

To put it simply the three pillars of right wing libertarianism are personal rights, the free market, and limited government.

And the reasons for believing in or accepting something is based on them.

The problem is that the other sides of this is people paying for mistakes no matter the circumstances, an acceptance of inequality and weak democratic forces that cannot counter the power of wealth.

This is why it is a philosophy of the right (and of wealth) and not of the left.

 

DL

It is an interesting phenomena, you are of course right, the views themselves remain right wing views even if the posters wants to describe them as communist. But why would someone for example want to pass off free market capitalism as communism?

Is it because they are badly informed or unaware that they can’t see the difference, are they trying to hid, is it some kind of ploy, just why would they do it?

Remember that National Socialist’s had very little in common with socialism or countries that declared themselves ‘democratic’ but had few if any democratic elements. Or those that called themselves ‘conservatives’ (or neo-conservatives) who in fact were radicals and fought for change rather than working to preserve things.

Is it honest?

Could it be dangerous?