Selfish Left-wingers

[DinoDoc]

This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

Sava, are you being mysterious?

[chequita guevara]

Okay, what's up with people quoting the ignore list message?

[Guynemer]

It's just a passive-aggressive way of saying "You're a jackass," that's all.

I tend to be more aggressive than passive, so I usually just say it. (And while I disagree with DD's politics, I do agree with his character assessment.)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Okay, what's up with people quoting the ignore list message?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by red_jon


I thought you were libertarian - for improving the civl rights of individuals (and the opposite of authoritarian)?

Libertarianism doesn't quite mean that. Many Libertarians are twistedly against law that prohibit discrimination in hiring, as they think it infringes on the liberties of the employer.

I agree with the Libertarians on certain issues, such as the end of the drug war. But I disagree with them quite vehmently on others, particularly their absolutist stance against gun regulation.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Libertarianism is the most inherently selfish of the idealogies. The reason Libertarians haven't been able to put together a cohesive party in the U.S. is because there is no consensus among them of how far to take it, and since they're all approaching it from a selfish perspective, their political are so contradictory that they can't hope to see eye-to-eye and form a political force.

I can't speak for conservatives, but I many (not all) libertarians are some of the most generous people i know, they just take responsibility themselves rather than thinking the government will do it for them.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Just look at your own Web site, Ozzy. Serious issues are glossed over in one-sentence, banal comments, while an entire paper is written on the drinking age. Go ahead and admit that you guys want the laws changed just so you can party hearty, and don't give us the pedantic B.S. that it's some sort of moral crusade.

First of all, screw you. Second of all, NYRA has nothing to do with Libertarianism, so why bring it into this debate except to attack me personally? Third, do you find it so hard to believe that people actually have principles? Does this shock your cynical, greedy view of the world? If you looked elsewhere in the page you will see a great deal of research and information on a great deal of other issues, but everyone has their own opinion of what the "serious" issues are.

Bah, Gay Rights, what a bunch of sick mo-fos, they don't actually care about rights or freedom, all they want to do is go around screwing men, those irresponsible sickos. See it cuts both ways? If you have such a banal view of civil rights then gay rights is just about getting laid, how useless.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Likewise, Libertarians hate taxes not because they think they're morally wrong (that's their convenient side-reason), they hate them because they don't like paying taxes. Yet they still drive on federal highways, enjoy government services such as police, fire, sewage, water, the military, etc. They just don't want to pay for it. Why? Selfishness.

If you knew a thing about libetarianism you'd know that libertarians all support roads, police, fire, military and such. We are not anarchists, there is a purpose for government, there is a purpose for taxes, but not the ridiculous extent it is now.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
They want to end immigration not out of any concern for the nation, but out of selfishness (and borderline racism).

So give the Selfishness Award to the Libertarians!

End immigration?!?! You certainly don't know a damn thing about libertarianism. Libertarian philosophy is the strongest champion of free immigration, far out pacing any leftist group you can think of. It is a central principle, let free people cross borders freely. Libertarians are as pro-immigration as you can get.

[Ramo]

Selfish Right-wingers

They want to steal your money in order to pay for their next fancy idea, like paying teenagers to have children or allowing illegal migrants to break into our country; but if a right-winger states that he should be allowed to keep the fruits of his labour, that is greedy?

They believe that using forcefully preventing poor people from providing for their families through immigration barriers is perfectly moral, but forcefully redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is immoral.

I thought left-libertarians and social democrats were the same thing (i.e both at the lower-left of the political compass).

Che is right. Left libertarianism denotes anarchism, not social democracy.

Only non-Marxist socialism. Marxism is about people taking control for themselves.

IMO, that's a strong part of most variants of socialism. I consider the state providing social services more social democracy than socialism.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The problem with libertarianism, Ozzy, is that this forum is blessed with quite a few who will argue at epic and incredibly tedious length about what constitutes libertarianism. They never agree, while their arguments resemble nothing so much as the dying echoes of a voice disappearing up it's owner's fundament.

Hence the confusion over your own stance and politics.

[KrazyHorse]

Not if the State was set up by a violent revolution of the people...

[Saint Marcus]

the poll says it all: 65% vs 35%. People percieve rightwingers to be more selfish.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
the poll says it all: 65% vs 35%. People percieve rightwingers to be more selfish.

Wow. Then it must be true.

[KrazyHorse]

IMO, that's a strong part of most variants of socialism. I consider the state providing social services more social democracy than socialism

Basically, my stance on this (choice between social democratic and real socialist) is: whatever works. If I though a brief revolution which accomplished without massive loss of life and which would assure a free, democratic and socialist State then I'd be grabbing a rifle. Until then I'll work within the mold of my parliamentary democracy to achieve socialism...

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
The problem with libertarianism, Ozzy, is that this forum is blessed with quite a few who will argue at epic and incredibly tedious length about what constitutes libertarianism. They never agree, while their arguments resemble nothing so much as the dying echoes of a voice disappearing up it's owner's fundament.

Hence the confusion over your own stance and politics.

Well I don't debate on this forum as much as others, so I don't know.

But if you look at any other party or any other movement there is always differing opinions. Look at Che trying to divide things into Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Social-Democrats, etc. Then of couse you can be in a Trotskyist camp, Leninist camp, Stalinist, Maoist, Marxist, ad infinitum. It isn't any different.

Is Reagan much different from Eisenhower? You bet he was. Was Clinton much different from Roosevelt? You bet he was. Why don't you attack Conservatives and Liberals for their fragmented, incoherant philosophy. All political movements have differing opinions, it is healthy and natural, and I don't see a problem with different approaches to libertarianism.

[Boris Godunov]

Ozzy, perhaps you should read the post I made after the one you're so hot-n-bothered over there, buck-o. You'll then notice I wasn't giving a serious view of Libertarianism.

Man, these kids are so predictably volatile...

[Ramo]

Basically, my stance on this (choice between social democratic and real socialist) is: whatever works. If I though a brief revolution which accomplished without massive loss of life and which would assure a free, democratic and socialist State then I'd be grabbing a rifle. Until then I'll work within the mold of my parliamentary democracy to achieve socialism...

I don't think socialism is necessarily about forceful revolution. I think in relatively free Western states, socialism can be achieved without any force; instead, workers can buy up their companies.

However, in the third world in particular, I support revolutions.