Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

16 May 2010, 11:33 am

Me!


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

16 May 2010, 11:46 am

I'd say that I probably count.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,758
Location: Houston, Texas

16 May 2010, 11:58 am

I am a Libertarian as well, but I vote Republican because the U.S. is way too dependent on the two-party system, and the Libertarian Party has very little clout here.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


Overkill
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 82

16 May 2010, 3:28 pm

I'm fairly libertarian on civil liberties and foreign policy, but I can be right wing or left wing on the economy, depending on the issue. For example, I'm not in favor of privatizing social security, and I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of universal health care. At the same time, I'm all for property rights and allowing more school choice. So basically, I'm not quite a libertarian, but I can be pretty close at times.

I will say this about libertarianism though: It seems to be the most consistent political philosophy out there. When you look at the platforms of conservatism and liberalism, they seem to be rather incoherent and don't make much logical sense. For example, why do liberals claim they are for social freedom but make exceptions for gun control or anti-smoking laws? How does that even make sense philisophically? Or put in another way, how can someone support legalizing marijuana but at the same time be in favor of restrictive anti-tobacco laws? Can some died-in-the-wool liberal please explain how those two viewpoints can be explained in a narrative that makes sense? What makes restricting tobacco or guns different from restricting marijuana use?



DocStrange
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,080
Location: Florida

16 May 2010, 11:17 pm

I'm a libertarian and I only barely describe myself as an anacho-capitalist. I plan on registering with the party, but eh, I have better uses for my money.

I hate it how when I tell people i'm a Libertarian, they immediately think i'm affiliated with either the Tea Party or Ron Paul supporters. Sorry, those are fringe (not using that negatively) groups who hijacked Libertarian ideas for their own means, I dislike Ron Paul immensly and I currently have no opinion on the Tea Party.

Others think i'm just a "Republican by another name"/"Liberal by another name", especially because I was one only a few of my friends that had doubts about Obama and didn't blindly follow him.

To be honest, I don't like discussing my politics because I often get over my head and will eventually get into discussions that I have little understanding of.


_________________
here be dragons


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

17 May 2010, 12:45 am

I have some libertarian leanings, particularly on social issues.

Overkill wrote:
For example, why do liberals claim they are for social freedom but make exceptions for gun control or anti-smoking laws? How does that even make sense philisophically? Or put in another way, how can someone support legalizing marijuana but at the same time be in favor of restrictive anti-tobacco laws? Can some died-in-the-wool liberal please explain how those two viewpoints can be explained in a narrative that makes sense? What makes restricting tobacco or guns different from restricting marijuana use?

Ah, well, here's the issue: smoking tobacco in public places (bowling alleys, restaurants, offices, etc) inconveniences and endangers other people. I cannot stand the smell of tobacco smoke. Prior to the smoking ban in our state, my sister could not go to a bowling alley without vomiting because of the tobacco smell. People with allergies, asthma, etc are even worse off. I know my grandmother would have serious problems if she went to a restaurant and was seated next to the smoking section. So my position is that smoking tobacco is perfectly all right so long as you do it in the privacy of your own home and don't force your toxic cloud of cancerous death on other people. Same thing for pot: go ahead and smoke, but don't do it in enclosed spaces or right outside doors in public places where other people have to walk through it.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

17 May 2010, 1:05 am

Orwell wrote:
I have some libertarian leanings, particularly on social issues.

Overkill wrote:
For example, why do liberals claim they are for social freedom but make exceptions for gun control or anti-smoking laws? How does that even make sense philisophically? Or put in another way, how can someone support legalizing marijuana but at the same time be in favor of restrictive anti-tobacco laws? Can some died-in-the-wool liberal please explain how those two viewpoints can be explained in a narrative that makes sense? What makes restricting tobacco or guns different from restricting marijuana use?

Ah, well, here's the issue: smoking tobacco in public places (bowling alleys, restaurants, offices, etc) inconveniences and endangers other people. I cannot stand the smell of tobacco smoke. Prior to the smoking ban in our state, my sister could not go to a bowling alley without vomiting because of the tobacco smell. People with allergies, asthma, etc are even worse off. I know my grandmother would have serious problems if she went to a restaurant and was seated next to the smoking section. So my position is that smoking tobacco is perfectly all right so long as you do it in the privacy of your own home and don't force your toxic cloud of cancerous death on other people. Same thing for pot: go ahead and smoke, but don't do it in enclosed spaces or right outside doors in public places where other people have to walk through it.

Well, right, all you really need to have is just some set of philosophical inclinations that is either utilitarian, or fits on more than a postcard, and either way you are easily rendered coherent.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

17 May 2010, 1:24 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, right, all you really need to have is just some set of philosophical inclinations that is either utilitarian, or fits on more than a postcard, and either way you are easily rendered coherent.

Even the trite libertarian ideal that "you can do whatever you want so long as you aren't hurting anyone else" can easily support anti-tobacco laws while pushing to legalize pot.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Epilefftic
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 350
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

17 May 2010, 1:32 am

Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, right, all you really need to have is just some set of philosophical inclinations that is either utilitarian, or fits on more than a postcard, and either way you are easily rendered coherent.

Even the trite libertarian ideal that "you can do whatever you want so long as you aren't hurting anyone else" can easily support anti-tobacco laws while pushing to legalize pot.


Pot should be legal.


Also, which tobacco laws?
I support:
Laws preventing advertisements to children
The 'option' of a state to ban smoking in public places (as in government owned).

I do not support:
Smoking bans in/around ones own home/property or place of business. If bars and restaurants want to allow smoking then they should be allowed to do so. The most the government should require of them in regards to that is to put alert signs outside telling people smoking is allowed here.


_________________
"In the end, Darwin always wins" - Me


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,367
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 May 2010, 4:03 am

I'm not big on labels but I suppose I could join the club. :D

After we all pick sides, forum war!

jk :wink:



you_are_what_you_is
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 755
Location: Cornwall, UK

17 May 2010, 8:02 am

I'm a left-libertarian.


_________________
"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

17 May 2010, 9:14 am

Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, right, all you really need to have is just some set of philosophical inclinations that is either utilitarian, or fits on more than a postcard, and either way you are easily rendered coherent.

Even the trite libertarian ideal that "you can do whatever you want so long as you aren't hurting anyone else" can easily support anti-tobacco laws while pushing to legalize pot.


Smoking any fuming weed in a closed space is a form of initiating force. Smoking is air pollution. If one wishes to pollute just the air he is breathing or join with other to pollute the air that they are breathing without polluting the air other people are breathing then that is quite alright. Such actions are voluntary and do not involve the initiation of force. Besides, smoking in a closed space or farting in airlocks against the will of other occupants is just bad manners.

ruveyn



Overkill
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 82

17 May 2010, 4:43 pm

Orwell wrote:
I have some libertarian leanings, particularly on social issues.

Overkill wrote:
For example, why do liberals claim they are for social freedom but make exceptions for gun control or anti-smoking laws? How does that even make sense philisophically? Or put in another way, how can someone support legalizing marijuana but at the same time be in favor of restrictive anti-tobacco laws? Can some died-in-the-wool liberal please explain how those two viewpoints can be explained in a narrative that makes sense? What makes restricting tobacco or guns different from restricting marijuana use?

Ah, well, here's the issue: smoking tobacco in public places (bowling alleys, restaurants, offices, etc) inconveniences and endangers other people. I cannot stand the smell of tobacco smoke. Prior to the smoking ban in our state, my sister could not go to a bowling alley without vomiting because of the tobacco smell. People with allergies, asthma, etc are even worse off. I know my grandmother would have serious problems if she went to a restaurant and was seated next to the smoking section. So my position is that smoking tobacco is perfectly all right so long as you do it in the privacy of your own home and don't force your toxic cloud of cancerous death on other people. Same thing for pot: go ahead and smoke, but don't do it in enclosed spaces or right outside doors in public places where other people have to walk through it.


I guess I was thinking more in terms of how a liberal would 'frame' that argument in a party platform. This is significant, because liberals have always had trouble outlining what their philosophy actually is. Conservatives have done a much better job framing their arguments, yet their philisophy has major holes as well.

Liberals, for example, may say, "We believe in equal rights for gays, women and minorities, equality of opportunity, and a peaceful foreign policy." Yet I have yet to hear how gun control and anti-smoking laws fit in with this. Rather, I get the impression that philosophically, liberals support gun control and anti-tobacco laws simply because, well, they just do. Because they're liberals, that's why. and that is a failure of communication and a coherent platform. Would a liberal frame their views on these policies in terms of health (like with smoking), by saying, "we also stand for health and and not being hurt by cigerrate smoke?" I suppose this could fit in with some of their other policies, like the war on obesity, but either way, if you claim to be for civil liberties and distinguish that from conservatives who don't, but make exceptions on two issues, I don't see how that makes much sense. And these exceptions have never been adequately explained in a coherent way. Your explanation for your opposition to it makes sense, but it needs to be spelled out or elaborated upon more clearly in terms of a platform. I'm not asking anyone to provide a narrative for liberals or conservatives, as I doubt anyone on this forum could do that. It's not like any of us are party strategists or anything. But it's still something I've always wondered about.

Similarly, on civil liberties, conservatives are generally thought to be more against them, except, of course, for some reason, they support the right to bear arms and smoke in public places. How do they explain that, exactly? Hmmm, smoking in public places is okay because conservatives like to smoke and liberals don't? Or guns are important because self-defense is a fundamental right, but you can't put marijuana smoke inside your body because it is immoral? So a substance that could possibly hurt only you is bad but guns, which often KILL people, are good (I'm not anti-gun, just saying)? Why, exactly? It doesn't make much sense to me.

This is why, on civil liberties at least, the libertarian platform makes more sense, because it opposes any restrictions on civil liberties. For example, if banning marijuana can't stop people from smoking it, what makes us possibly think that banning guns could stop people from using guns? So anyway, I think the liberal views on these subjects could possibly, someday, make some coherent sense, but it needs to be framed in a better way.

I hope I didn't come off as rambling in this post.



Overkill
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 82

17 May 2010, 4:56 pm

As far as my views on anti-tobacco laws, I actually find laws allowing smoking inside buildings more harmful than in wide-open spaces like parks. Inside buildings, you are forced to endure the smell, while outside, no one is forcing you to stay in the vicinity of someone who is smoking. Why do we need to ban smoking in parks then? Granted, cigerrette smoke travels far, but no one is stopping you from leaving the area.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

17 May 2010, 9:46 pm

Overkill wrote:
I guess I was thinking more in terms of how a liberal would 'frame' that argument in a party platform.

Probably in the context of their conviction that government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. That is, access to firearms should be restricted to keep people safe from shooting deaths and smoking tobacco in public places should be restricted to protect people from second-hand smoke. I don't see how it's difficult for liberals to put that in the context of the rest of their beliefs.

Quote:
if you claim to be for civil liberties and distinguish that from conservatives who don't, but make exceptions on two issues, I don't see how that makes much sense. And these exceptions have never been adequately explained in a coherent way.

I doubt liberals see these as exceptions to a general civil liberty stance; rather, your civil liberties end when you endanger others (first amendment is abrogated when you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, second amendment when you cannot use firearms responsibly, etc).


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH