Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
In my experience, the Libertarians who are not hardcore racists tend to believe in a meritocratic society where each person rises according to their abilities and contributions without having their earnings siphoned off to support those who are less capable or less willing to work. They resent the idea that they owe anything to society.
The problem with that kind of Libertarianism is that it implies a model of human nature that just isn't factual. People will not magically develop an egalitarian society if everyone is left to their own devices, even if we could somehow guarantee an even starting point, which we most assuredly do not have. But if we really want to go there, the first step is to tear down the oligarchic structures of Big Business and redistribute its hoarded wealth evenly. Funny how that ends up resembling the goals of socialism...
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Personally, my view on libertarianism is that it's a bit naive and too pacifistic for my tastes (non-interventionism and "de-militarization" of police, for example, I disagree with), and I don't see eye-to-eye on many social issues.
I agree with its meritocracy quite a bit. I would, however, argue that meritocracy requires more oversight to protect than libertarians generally give it credit for.
Leviticus 19:34Hardly, what you describe is just Anarcho-Communism, which some would argue is a lot hat Anarchism is at all, as it's been argued that Anarchism is just a sub set of Communism.
It's relay not that unusual.
edited 16th Apr '16 10:48:32 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI would like to see the libertarians replace the republican party. I think of them like smart conservatives, even if they are just as crazy as everyone else. Conservatives are supposed to be about small government, not huge military and institutionalized prejudice. Sure, they like meritocracy, but meritocracy makes sense as the conservative ideal. It would be a perfect opposing position to progressive egalitarianism.
Of course this could all be rendered irrelevant due to technological advances in the next hundred years or so.
![]()
![]()
As a Republican, I wouldn't say that. Libertarians also have anti-military, anti-police, isolotationist, and generally anti-nationalist (or at least a very different type of nationalist) tendencies. By contrast, Republicans tend to be much more nationalist in nature.
edited 17th Apr '16 6:09:38 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Conservatives sounding like they should support meritocracy, while progressives sounding like they should oppose it, is my opinion a red herring. In reality the opposite is true, it's just the language each side uses is twisted.
When a conservative makes appeals to meritocracy, what they actually mean is that they support granting a a small number of people monopoly and privilege and that any competition ought to be beaten down. Which needless to say, is only Darwinian in the sense cancer is.
And yet they oppose it at every turn by supporting big business with its oligarchic and monopolistic tendencies.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On the balance local government especially is an institution biased against personal liberty, since it's almost always the local level telling you when you can't play loud music or setting very specific rules about what you can and can't build on your private property, or stopping you from smoking in your own home if it's an apartment building, say.
I've given up trying to figure each state's over-complicated way of assigning delegates.
edited 17th Apr '16 9:34:56 AM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.Honestly, I wonder if conservatives - or any political group really in terms of the majority of their members - actually support any particular system. I think they really support whatever means will achieve their desired ends. That's why small government that gets out of people's lives is good until suddenly it isn't. That's why people calling advertisers and threatening to boycott them is good until liberals do it and successfully drain money from Rush Limbaugh. Whatever the means are, it's a smokescreen. They just want their desired ends.
My friend and I came up with a bunch of quotes together, and one of mine was something like "People will do what they want to, then come up with a reason for it later."
Our quotes are here
, and they're very political and/or related to human nature.
Juan Williams: Ryan faces sea of troubles
. Seems like so far the Ryan speakership is turning out to be a kind of flop - and it also talks about the dangers of a reduced House majority.
And in delegate news: How the Hyper-Liberal Enclaves of America Could Pick the GOP Nominee
. Because major states like NY and CA distribute their delegates on a winner-takes-all per congressional district basis, the bulk of delegates come from a large number of Democrat-held districts with small amounts of GOP voters with only a minority coming from Republican held districts, meaning that the weight of a vote in, say, Nancy Pelosi's über-blue district carries far more weight than one in a GOP held district. Both Trump and Kasich hope to profit from this malapportionement which I'll call the "Trump-mander".

@Silas: There are left-wing libertarians, but their philosophy is highly unusual even by both anarchist and libertarian standards. Generally, they reject both government and private property (as in, ownership of land, which in libertarian-speak means natural resources) and favor a system of free, voluntary exchange in personal property - essentially, an artisan owns his tools and the produce of same, but nobody owns the mine where the metal's taken from.
Anyway, libertarianism by the definition of the US Libertarian Party (while they claim it transcends left-right) is hard left on social issues and centrist on social issues (with kinks - in the pure form, they oppose the welfare system at all, but the Libertarian old guard tended to be the people fighting hardest for a minimum basic income - and they're against government regulation of corporations but also against government subsidies, contracts and "corporate welfare"). In practice, of course, most self-identified libertarians are in fact hard-right racists, to the point where people like me who supported libertarianism without supporting racism tended to get a rude shock when dealing with our theoretical allies.
edited 16th Apr '16 9:42:40 PM by Ramidel