It seems that libertarians and lawyers both have the same key chromosome missing that is required to understand sentences beyond face value.
As already identified, it isn't just e-conservatives. But I deny the idea that conservatives abandoned the GOP because of Bush; I'm of the opinion that Bush et.al. abandoned libertarian attitudes that accompany American limited government concepts. Also, libertarians aren't much better-educated than liberals; there's plenty of farmers & backwoods types who embrace a political "live & let live" mentality. They just haven't fallen prey to the delusions of commercial consumerism like Republicans, or socialism-lite like the Democrats.
I don't identify with the Libertarian Party at all, or Independence Party for that matter, because both have far too many nutjob members. The Independence Party for New York has a Marxist streak, if you can believe it, and is often a front group for ultra-left local candidates trying to cash in on the anarchist mentality. However, I voted for Barr, and would vote for Paul, despite their lack of interest in a strong military.
Oddly enough, the founding documents were penned before AlGore created the Internetz.
QFT. As Saro points out, Donny has his head up & locked, and uses his attempts to deny such foolishness to boost his beloved post count.
I really have no clue where you are going with this, or why.
Personally, I detested the public school lunch program chow when I was in grade school.
Hmm, see my comment to AJ I guess.
So we've returned to another of your statements that demonstrates your ignorance of both economics and libertarianism.
So your associating an economic argument for the determination of the most efficient income tax rate to a political position that argues against all income taxes is patently ridiculous.
Is there supposed to be any significant relevance between this statement and the quoted assertion that the eforum demographic is disproportionately libertarian and cannot be taken as an accurate sample of wider political ideology?jmervyn said:
Heh, just noticed this one. No retard, economics is not a matter of belief for me.
The point being that Libertarian concepts markedly influenced the founding of America, giving the lie to your claim that Libertarianism is more popular on the Internet than anywhere else. It's obviously been a staple of American politics for quite a long time.
I learned something interesting about that term the other day. It turns out it was coined by Churchill, to contrast Nazi Germany's warfare state (the aim of the state was warfare) with Great Britain (the aim of the state was the welfare of its citizens). Quite a different meaning than it has now.
(a) There is no logical implication between these 2 assertions. (b) It's a strawman (elsewhere != anywhere else). (c) see below, unless you have some uniquely libertarian principles in mind.
Considering the huge overlap between other political groups and the myriad forms of libertarianism, from anarcho-capitalist to socialist, that's a nonstatement.
I'd conjecture 3+ party systems are unstable and will generally tend towards 2 of the parties taking a significent majority, in 'winner takes all' type political systems rather than proportional representation types, anyway. Perhaps someone has counterexamples?Garbad_the_Weak said:
Plurality with legitimate choice > two party bull****. Make it so if party x wins x% of the vote, they get x% of the seats.
Oh, I'm sorry, the door for debate class is the next one down the hallway.
So that makes your previous inference that libertarian belief is somehow nearly exclusive to the Internet... what, exactly? Misstatement? Idiocy, maybe?
The risk is the legislature gets stuck in a standstill and can't actually pass anything at all. I suppose you may also get all parties compromising on their principles and forming alliances to reach a sufficient majority on specific issues, trading issues to vote for, which ends up arguably nearly as bad as a choice from two homogenised parties.Garbad_the_Weak said:
What's so horrible about that? If you can't reach a consensus, I want them to keep debating until they do. And vote trading and such needs to be stamped out as well, by increasing public accountability and transparency. Let people see and pass judgment on what goes on, and express what THEY want. Its the only way to avoid bull****.
Care to demonstrate how anything I said in my last post in actually fits this interpretation? Typical Dondrei response when you back yourself into a corner: ignore what was actually said, make up bs, and respond to that.
Ah, back to your normal infantile name-calling when you've put yourself in a corner and are not man enough to admit it. When I think of you, why do I get this vision of a little man using the anonymity of the internet to say things that he would never dare say in public?
So now you're telling us not to believe you when you said that? Well, this thought should make you happy. That's the attitude I take with almost everything you say on politics or the economy.