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

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,909
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

17 May 2010, 10:17 pm

I generally side with Republicans, but I could easily sway in favor of Libertarian.

One thing has to happen first, though:

Leegalize it.

You know what I'm talkin' about.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 May 2010, 11:08 pm

AngelRho wrote:
One thing has to happen first, though:

Leegalize it.

You know what I'm talkin' about.

Kitten rape? I totally agree with you, but I don't think this will happen any time soon.



Overkill
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 82

18 May 2010, 1:50 pm

Orwell wrote:
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).


Fair enough. I guess I've just never heard a liberal put these beliefs in context with the rest of their beliefs.

If liberals want to use the health argument, though, they should focus on the dangers of second-hand smoke on other people, rather than talking about how unhealthy smoking is for the individual smoker - which they tend to do. Marijuana is more unhealthy for you, but saying you want that legalized and then talking about how bad for your health smoking is for you and how we should reduce the amount of people who smoke in this country, isn't really consistent with their belief that pot should be legalized, since liberals don't exactly play the drug warrior. I've never heard a liberal argue against pot due to the detrimental health effects. So if they want to play health police, either focus on how unhealthy both pot and tobacco are for you, or focus on the effects of smoke on other people, rather than arguing in generalities like "smoking is bad for you."



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

18 May 2010, 8:34 pm

How about Rand Paul winning the GOP primary for the senate in Kentucky? 8)



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 May 2010, 10:05 pm

Overkill wrote:
If liberals want to use the health argument, though, they should focus on the dangers of second-hand smoke on other people, rather than talking about how unhealthy smoking is for the individual smoker - which they tend to do.

I dunno, I've seen more anti-smoking ads focused on the effect of second-hand smoke than about the dangers of smoking for individuals smokers. And the whole argument for banning smoking in public places, restaurants, etc is based on protecting other people from second-hand smoke, since I don't know any liberals who want to ban tobacco outright.

Quote:
Marijuana is more unhealthy for you,

A lot of liberals tend to argue the opposite. I don't know enough about either drug to say which is worse.


_________________
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

18 May 2010, 10:16 pm

Jacoby wrote:
How about Rand Paul winning the GOP primary for the senate in Kentucky? 8)


**** Yeah!

Also, at least marijuana gets you high. Can anyone honestly tell me what good tobacco is, other than horribly addicting?


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


Overkill
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 82

18 May 2010, 10:49 pm

Epilefftic wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
How about Rand Paul winning the GOP primary for the senate in Kentucky? 8)


**** Yeah!

Also, at least marijuana gets you high. Can anyone honestly tell me what good tobacco is, other than horribly addicting?


Beats me, I don't smoke. But just because I don't find value in it doesn't devalue the people who do. I drink excessive amounts of diet soda every day, and I'm sure most people would tell me it tastes like medicinal garbage. Doesn't change the fact that I like the taste of it.



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

18 May 2010, 10:50 pm

Smoking should be 100% up the individual. If a business or whatever establishment want to ban it than that's their prerogative. People don't need the government to protect them from themselves. If you're worried about the effects of 2nd hand smoke, take your business elsewhere. Banning smoking in public justified by 2nd hand smoke doesn't really do much imo since most people that see the effects from it is because they live with a smoker.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 May 2010, 10:55 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Smoking should be 100% up the individual. If a business or whatever establishment want to ban it than that's their prerogative. People don't need the government to protect them from themselves. If you're worried about the effects of 2nd hand smoke, take your business elsewhere. Banning smoking in public justified by 2nd hand smoke doesn't really do much imo since most people that see the effects from it is because they live with a smoker.


A has no right whatsoever to pollute the air that B is breathing against B's will. Smoking in enclosed spaces used by the public should not be permitted. That wouled be places like elevators, indoor facilities like train stations or airports, places like railway coaches. Separate coaches on trains can be made available to smokers and this, in fact, was the custom on U.S. railroads throughout the late 19th century and almost up to the end of the 20th century before the government put their heavy hand into the matter. However smoking in one's own private space ought to be prohibited by law on health grounds. People have a right to destroy their own health as long as they do not harm others in so doing.

ruveyn



flyingkittycat
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 134

18 May 2010, 11:25 pm

I am a flexible libertarian. I get into so many political pissing matches with people and their lame pats on their own backs for how supposedly tolerant they are but it's their own delusions. They aren't that tolerant at all.

I used to think I was liberal because I was told that liberal stands for people's rights, tolerance and ending the war as well as environment. What do I see instead? People who scream against war and claim they care about all the innocents dying in this war but ONLY if a republican is the president. When their chosen democrat takes office, suddenly the war is okay. I have seen so many socialists who have these really big houses, live out in the middle of nowhere who claim that they don't care about new city taxes because it affects them none. So basically, it's socially correct to be a socialist.

People complain about corruption all the time and injustice but it appears that people are only doing that to make it seem that they care but really don't. Nobody seems to care unless it really hits their house.

Brainwashed by the media, never learning and seeing how the media doesn't practice freedom of the press in the way intended but instead start witch hunts and persecute innocent people. You'd think the population would connect the dots but they keep making up excuses for it and believing in the next media's boogeyman.

Take for example, this tea party movement. When it first started it was simply in favor of Ron Paul and less taxes. Ron Paul was boogeymanned by the media. They didn't want what he had to offer which was getting rid of income taxes, legalizing marijuana, dismantling the federal reserve which is about as federal as Fed Ex, getting rid of alot of military bases occupying over 160 territories, securing borders, ending the war. He had the voting record to prove his position and he also knew plenty about the healthcare system especially considering that he was a doctor who delivered over 2,000 babies.

America makes the same mistake but I can't blame it on just the citizens here because it's rigged. There are two of the same you get to choose at the end for a reason.

Ron Paul's message was hacked. He was a fighter though. Now the tea party has turned into a joke but the media plays a part in that joke as well as infiltrators who like to make it look bad. Then you have clingers who have nothing to do with the real message just using the tea party to get votes.

Freedom could work if it weren't being hijacked. Actions still do speak louder than words. If I hear another liberal screaming End the war or acting as though they really care about the innocent lives lost, I'm going to put in my ear plugs and give a wave of dismissal right after the person declares it's somehow different and okay now that their chosen president is in place.



Overkill
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 82

19 May 2010, 5:31 pm

Orwell wrote:
Overkill wrote:
If liberals want to use the health argument, though, they should focus on the dangers of second-hand smoke on other people, rather than talking about how unhealthy smoking is for the individual smoker - which they tend to do.

I dunno, I've seen more anti-smoking ads focused on the effect of second-hand smoke than about the dangers of smoking for individuals smokers. And the whole argument for banning smoking in public places, restaurants, etc is based on protecting other people from second-hand smoke, since I don't know any liberals who want to ban tobacco outright.

Quote:
Marijuana is more unhealthy for you,

A lot of liberals tend to argue the opposite. I don't know enough about either drug to say which is worse.


I think the aim is a little more than preventing second-hand smoke. Take Obama's anti-smoking bill, for instance. From what I've read of it, it regulates smoking advertisement to children in an attempt to prevent younger kids from ever wanting to smoke. Also, one part of the bill bans flavored cigerattes on the theory that they make people more willing to try smoking than otherwise. So I think the ultimate goal is to prevent people from ever starting to smoke. although that's an admirable goal, it's obviously more than just preventing the effects of smoke on other people. It's similar to the liberal's other health food quests, like the war on obesity.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

19 May 2010, 6:05 pm

YakovHarkonnen wrote:
Simple question. I see this thread has it's usual run of cynical conservatives and idealistic liberals. How many libertarians are among us? Frankly, I'd feel a lot safer here if I knew there were others out there who thought both the left and the right wings are full of morons :)

I see libertarians (at least as libertarianism is understood in the United States) as a strain of the right. I say this because most self-proclaimed libertarians emphasize private-property rights and the value of a free market; most of the hardcore libertarian philosophy revolves around this (e.g., the Austrian or Chicago schools of economics); they tend to be exceedingly pro-business; and they tend to work with the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. They share with paleoconservatives a dislike of the welfare state and Keynesian economics. Many libertarians have been opposed to the war in Iraq, but quite a few also consider it an example of "national defense" that the state should enforce. Many are socially and religiously conservative, but they differ from the "Moral Majority" type in that they usually would prefer not to use state power to enforce their beliefs; they see things like shaming and ostracism as better social regulators. Many are libertarian vis-à-vis the federal government but are willing to let the individual states more tightly regulate social and sexual behavior.

Reallly, the kinds of libertarians I've met and read about online mostly tend to blend into paleoconservatives, federalists (the John Birch Society), laissez-faire capitalists, and the like; and their nexus is the Tea Party. There are social liberals and civil libertarians who fall under the libertarian banner, but my impression is they're not the main thrust of the ideology.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

19 May 2010, 6:49 pm

Overkill wrote:
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.

When you say liberal and conservative, you should more properly say Democrat and Republican because the evolution of policy planks sometimes comes down to just taking the opposite stand of the other major party or its being a related concern of an important constituency to that party. Liberalism and conservatism as broad ideologies and tendencies can be used to support contradictory policies because they're just broad tendencies and sets of priorities.

Republicans tend to be against smoking bans because they've aligned themselves with the Chamber of Commerce, which includes the bars, restaurants, casinos, and bowling alleys that fear a loss of business. The liberals and Democrats who support the legalization of marijuana are often former hippies or current pot smokers. Oftentimes, they believe in New Age holistic remedies and "natural" solutions. This health consciousness blends into the more avidly health-conscious crowd who live quite physically active lives and stick to the nutritional foods; they see not only tobacco but also sugary foods, fats, and other processed foods as social and environmental ills imposed by corporations just trying to make an easy profit; some also see it as a way of reducing the cost of healthcare. Personally, I support smoking bans because second-hand smoke is a direct and undesired imposition on me whereas food is more an individual choice (I do, though, see the criticism against the food-agricultural industry).

Gun rights, as I see it, tend to be cultural. Conservatives tend to be more rural, and they might use guns for hunting; liberals tend to be more urban, and there they mostly see guns used in the commission of violent crimes. Conservatives tend to be more militant in their personal life (advocating the use of firearms in self-defense) and diplomatically (conservatives are usually more hawkish than liberals). Liberals tend to like to emphasize the brighter side of human nature, and so they're less likely to advocate the use of violence or force. They may cringe at the thought of animals being hunted for sport because of their greater emphasis on empathy (extended even to animals).



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,267
Location: The Pacific Northwest

19 May 2010, 7:23 pm

My views are pretty unorthodox, but I'd say they fall somewhere in the Libertarian spectrum. Ideally, I'm an Anarchist, but I know that it doesn't work in the long run.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 May 2010, 7:27 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
I see libertarians (at least as libertarianism is understood in the United States) as a strain of the right. I say this because most self-proclaimed libertarians emphasize private-property rights and the value of a free market; most of the hardcore libertarian philosophy revolves around this (e.g., the Austrian or Chicago schools of economics); they tend to be exceedingly pro-business; and they tend to work with the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. They share with paleoconservatives a dislike of the welfare state and Keynesian economics. Many libertarians have been opposed to the war in Iraq, but quite a few also consider it an example of "national defense" that the state should enforce. Many are socially and religiously conservative, but they differ from the "Moral Majority" type in that they usually would prefer not to use state power to enforce their beliefs; they see things like shaming and ostracism as better social regulators. Many are libertarian vis-à-vis the federal government but are willing to let the individual states more tightly regulate social and sexual behavior.

I actually can understand that, especially the fact that many libertarians are more willing to work with the Republican party over the Democratic party. Of course, there have been movements that sort of make the issue more complex, such as when Rothbard worked with the radical left, a push for liberaltarianism among some libertarian sources that is an exchange between liberals and libertarians perceiving the two to really have more to offer to each other. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6800

That being said, many people of many political leanings do many different things that the main force wouldn't do. Also, from what I hear, a lot of libertarianism is potentially altered significantly by age group. Older libertarians are more conservative, and younger libertarians are more liberal in their outlooks.
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/ ... -oktrends/

Quote:
Reallly, the kinds of libertarians I've met and read about online mostly tend to blend into paleoconservatives, federalists (the John Birch Society), laissez-faire capitalists, and the like; and their nexus is the Tea Party. There are social liberals and civil libertarians who fall under the libertarian banner, but my impression is they're not the main thrust of the ideology.

Yeah, to some extent this is true, but there is a reason why some question libertarian's stand on the right. In some sense, libertarians really aren't conservative in their perspective or concerned with the social behaviors of other people like many conservatives are.