Talk Elections

I have a question: why is it necessary to bash libertarians and take so much valuable time to criticize their ideology, if they're just some loonatic fringe comparable to neo-Nazis?

     It makes the bashers feel good about themselves. Pay them no mind.

Because they're scared of how true most of our beliefs are.

I thought Lief stopped posting in libertarian related threads?

That would be too good to be true. jfern, Lief etc. need to though... they don't have a clue what libertarianism is.

Who the hell is bashing Libertarians ? Don't know if you noticed but the whole forum has become quite libertarian-sympathetic in recent months.

Libertarians are obviously a very persecuted group here on Atlas. 

(You'd think they would be the last ones demanding solidarity group hugs and telling each other that those bullies are just doing it because they're jealous)

Libertarians are liberals.

Assuming that you are using an American definition of liberal, lawl.

Because Libertarians come off as arrogant.

more proof of libertarian arrogance.

Some of them are complete lunatics.  About half of them think they're libertarian when they aren't, and some of the people that libertarians associate with are extremists, who hate Jews, blacks and Hispanics.  I went to a Libertarian meeting close to my town and half the members believed the images of the Haulocaust were all fabricated and that George Bush and the Jews planned 9/11.  That's why I have always been scared of their movement.  It seems to generate alot of radicals.

How?

Because the ideology is worth criticizing considering the number that call themselves 'libertarian'. A lot mistaken assumptions, and foolishness.

And a lot of self-stereotyping. For most libertarians, the ideology ends at the market.

they are condescending, arrogant, and pretend that their small ideology is always right and that everyone else is always wrong. Even if they agree with someone they may claim "you are not liberal/conservative enough"! If any Libertarian ever managed to get in a conversation with me on the street while coming off as a self-righteous prick they better pray not to piss me off.

Give it a rest. Capitalism works. Socialism doesnt.

hey well right now i think we live in a capitalist society and I think that our government is supportive of capitalism so can you lay off the name calling please.

The entire forum has always been libertarian-sympathetic.

Yeah 'cause those people with other political ideologies are SO freaking open minded it's scary.  They never ever think they are right and others are wrong.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

lol no

I thought it was moderate heroism that was bashed around here. Is it possible that everything is bashed by somebody at some point?  And if so, would that not be really shocking for well, a political site? 

So is any debate "condescending", since the goal is the convince your opponent that you are right?

     Most people in any ideological group are self-righteous pricks, libertarians included. It's really just a tendency bred into many of us by this societal norm that tells us that tolerance for opposing viewpoints & unwillingness to make absolute statements are signs of weakness.

very true. that tendency's definitely a growing problem i have with my party (GOP).

Anybody else notice that HoffmanJohn pretty much described his own behavior when saying what he disliked about libertarians?

If there has indeed been an increase in libertarian bashing, I would guess that it is because libertarians (whether fairly or unfairly) have been closely tied to the Tea Party movement which most everyone believes is decidedly idiotic.

"closely tied?"

Yeah, maybe like Rand Paul, but the stupidest elements of the Tea Party movement aren't libertarian at all, which is partially why they're stupid considering what they're protesting.

But again, I repeat myself.  Since when did libertarians, big or small L, become a bunch of babies whining about the minimal amount of bashing they face?  This forum is like heavily Libertarian relative to the public at large and many respected members rock the yellow avatar.  

I guess we should all take libertarian sensitivity courses.

Yeah, especially when you see his other thread.

The people who actually believe that the free market solves every problem and that we need no government should just move to Bir Tawil.

HoffmanJohn = Lief

If you like the government, feel free to keep it, but why do you propose forcing me to recognize it?

There is no government to recognize in Bir Tawil.

Beyond their personal issues, the ironic group think that defines the group, and the ignorance and hostility towards factual debate many of them exhibit on this forum, libertarianism Is A Bad Thing because it is a dangerous ideology that would result in a decline in the quality of life for most people. They're completely detached from reality, and believe that the poor would lift themselves out of poverty, charity would care for the sick, militias and mercenaries would protect us, banks would regulate themselves and ensure that inflation and unemployment never happen, and workers and employers would join hands and sing cumbaya, IF ONLY the nasty old government would shrivel and die.

Libertarians definitely have some good ideas. I don't think that the government should generally intrude in people's lives. But what libertarians don't seem to realize is that the government is not always a force for evil, it is not always hellbent on enslaving you, and it is not always doing the bidding of some Big Brother. In fact, the government is what provides us with many of the freedoms we hold dear, from the basic rights to property to things like healthcare and education, so that we are free to pursue careers and achieve our definition of happiness.

Honestly, aside from everything else, the constant turf-wars within the libertarian camp over who is a real libertarian here can make some threads borderline unreadable.  Einzige's obsession with Mint is especially problematic, as it gets dragged into every thread Mint posts in.

There are plenty of libbies here that I don't have a problem with: Mech, PiT, Mint, and dead0man fall into that category.  They're civil and respectful, and even though I have some pretty extreme policy differences with PiT, he's one of the better people here.  On the other hand...let's just say I vastly prefer the Republican posters on this site to most of the other Libertarian wing.

Amen.

This exactly.

     In other words, you tend to have issues with the more extreme elements of the libertarian movement. ;)

     Of course you folks get to bash libertarians as much as you want, but I would prefer that you acknowledge that there are many libertarians who are neither paleoconservatives in disguise nor anarcho-capitalists.

Yes... I'm so glad the Red Cross and the United Way pay to keep disabled Americans like my mother alive.  If only we could rid ourselves of government, she could be even more alive!

200 years of history has proven me right.

Very odd history Winston....

Anyway my problem with Libertarianism is that it isn't Libertarian and this fact must be repeated over and over and over again.

they are just plain arrogant, and this is a fact.

Look at how Ron Paul pretended to be "champion of the constitution" without even earning that title. Did he win a competition or something? nope he just simply assumed that his view of the constitution was superior to someone else's view, and anyone who thought otherwise was simply deemed anti-constitution.


In the end that spend too much of their time being critical, and not enough of their time presenting new and interesting ideas.

I don't see how this is any more unfair than any of the claims 'progressives' like to make about looking out for the interests of the working class or unfortunate or christian conservatives do with 'morality' or 'family values.' Spin and framing like that is everywhere in politics. At least with Paul he can point to issues like the Patriot Act or Drugs where he consistently took the civil libertarian stance, even if we might disagree with his particular kind of strict constructionism.

Self-identified libertarians are a weird and diverse bunch of people who often have very little in common. I know of at least 4 different types of libertarians:

Type A is really a mainstream conservative, but he's gay, or likes to smoke pot, or enjoys some other family-unfriendy activity and he's affraid someone will call him a hypocrite if he identifies publicly as a conservative. They are probably at least a 51% majority of the "movement".

Type B is an anti-Semite, conspiracy nutjob, doom-is-coming, beware of the black helicopter guy who is stashing food, water and guns on his ranch in Idaho, you know, just in case.  These are really the most deplorable people who associate with libertarianism.

Type C is a disappointed paleoconservative, yearning for romantic days of 100% isolationist past. Sure, I don't agree with their foreign policy views, but this group is usually tolerable.

Type D is a libertarian leftist, they are like left-wing version of type A, liberals who like guns or are just a bit too mysanthropic to buy mainstream liberal Kumbaya mantra.  

The second most annoying thing about libertarians, is their constant bickering between themselves about what is "true libertarianism" (of course, conservatives and liberals bicker too about ideological purity, but not so passionately as libertarians, which is natural because like I said, libertarians often come from at least 4 different mindsets). However, the most annoying thing about libertarians is their belief that there's some silent libertarian majority that will soon rise and that the majority of people are really unconscious libertarians.

I actually agree with most of this post.
I will admit to being guilty of playing the "No True Scotsman" card in the past and I believe that is what is probably holding back the movement.  Once we quit the petty finger wagging and labeling maybe we can get somewhere.
However I disagree with the notion that libertarianism is an impossible idealogy/philosophy or whatever the hell you want to call it in America.  I believe it is possible to achieve some sort of "libertarian" government.  Sure, I will accept that my vision of libertarianism, the batsh*t insane version of it, is probably impossible.  I mean really: Does anyone think that the United States will legalize all drugs, legalize all forms of sexual relationships, abolish the age of consent, get rid of every gun control law ever and disband the military, get rid of all income taxation, etc etc.?
However, I believe that a mainstream libertarian government may be possible: One that embraces a foreign policy of non-interventionism, one that is socially permissive as it regards soft drugs, sexual orientation, and most other issues but maybe a bit divided over abortion, in favor of a balanced budget amendment, for lower govenrment spending as well as lower overall taxation, support of free trade (but skeptical of free trade "agreements" that add loads of bureaucracy), for partial privatization of social security, you get the idea.  One that has libertarian ideas but is a bit more pragmatic in their approach.
It's not impossible, it may seem that way now but a few years down the road you might be surprised at how much the political environment might change.  After all, how many Democrats in 1932 thought that by 1948 their party would have a Civil Rights platform?

Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black, again.

Er, not really. Capitalism has failed plenty of times and it continues to fail to this day. Government intervention is what prevented its complete collapse. And just because it hasn't been swept under the rug yet doesn't mean that it won't one day. I'm sure there were plenty like you in the 17th century saying that mercantilism works and will never fail.

Yeah, many libertarians are pretty arrogant, but the same could be said about most people into politics :P

This is a really good analysis.

I'll just add that, while I'll take your word that the type A and D libertarians are the majority of the movement, thanks in part to the rise of the tea partiers the selective small government hypocrites from type C and (especially) the wholly obnoxious type B's are by far the loudest and most public face of the movement--and hence most annoying--both in RL and on the forum.

Beyond that, though, I don't really have a problem with libertarianism (or libertarians).

...and can you lay off the poor grammar and idiotic arrogance?

care to explain how that logical fallacy applies because that is exactly what Ron Paul and many of his supporters would do.

Because you yourself are a holier-than-thou, arrogant prick, which is exactly what you're accusing all libertarians of being.

Are you asking a question? Usually you put a question mark at the end of a question...

He's a liberal; I doubt he was very smart in the first place.

Hehe, I think I'd be a type D.

     I don't know what I'd be. I tend towards pretty radical views on both economic & social issues & can't stand American conservatism or American liberalism.

We bash Libertarians while we still can -- while we have a government capable of protecting our freedom of speech from corporations or popular sentiment.

This is why people don't take you seriously.

LOL, coming from a neocon who no doubt supported Dubya's assaults on our freedom of speech on behalf of the corporations in the name of the "war on terror".

     If people do not take me seriously because I have the guts to question the normal views, then that's their problem; not mine. I march to my own drummer.

Satanism is disgusting.

Fixed.

Fixed for real.

     I'm not a Satanist for obvious reasons, so I am not sure what you are attempting to accomplish by posting that.

You've got to admit that "Satanism is a fairly logical position for a libertarian to hold" was a pretty ridiculous statement...

Shut up, Coughlin.

No, Hitler.

Yah, I wasn't trying to attack PiT if that's what PiT suggests, but seriously, Satanism? You've got to be out of your mind..................... Satanism is basically an attention-whore clique that exists solely to cause trouble.

how am i Hitler?

While I wouldn't call Satanism disgusting or inconsistent with libertarianism, I do agree with Segway that it is a pretty "hey look at me I'm an attention whore!" theology.
Why can't people just be happy with atheism?

Cause atheism is also an example of "hey look at me I'm an attention whore!"

So choosing not to subject our lives in fear of an invisible sky daddy is being an attention whore? Not getting up way too early on Sunday dressing in fancy clothes and going to a building and singing loudly to songs so people can hear how good we sound is being an attention whore?  Not believing in this God dude is being an attention whore?
lolwut?

Atheism is not attention whoring. I don't agree with it, but most followers actually have reasons for holding their views, much as I do with my faith. Satanists on the other hand are just people looking to stir sh**t up and be "nonconformists".

Yes, being an atheist certainly gets you the attention you desire, being from Oklahoma.

I might add, Libertas, that WA actually does have more atheists than Christians, which is why I hated it, oddly enough.

     Well most people who claim to be Satanists are just doing it to be edgy, that much is true.

     However, according to the Bible, Satan was punished because he refused to serve God. He was the original individualist & the original egoist, & I believe that we should each follow that example & exalt himself/herself above all else. Of course that is a controversial statement, but that's just the way I see it. Granted that "libertarian" is not the same thing as "egoist", but I would think that there is some overlap.

I completely agree with that summation.
I was just responding to Libertas claim that atheism was nothing more than an attention whore theology.
Honestly I would rather watch reruns of Miami Vice than stand on a street corner yelling "LOL God!"

My vision of libertarianism is letting people do what they want, so I don't want to force individualism upon those who are naturally collectivist. They have the same right as anyone to beleive and think the way they want, however right or wrong it may be in theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington#Religion

Hmm, are you sure about that?

Religion

Major religious affiliations of the people of Washington are:[25]

    * Protestant: 49%
          o Mainline: 23%
          o Evangelical: 25%
          o Other Protestant: 1%
    * Unaffiliated: 25%
    * Roman Catholic: 16%
    * Latter-day Saint: 4%
    * Muslim: 1%
    * Jewish: 1%
    * Other Religions: 3%

Nearly 70% are Christian according to this.

It is when you become one just to show how contrarian and different you are from everyone around you.

I am not a non-vocal, closet atheist in the middle of Oklaf***inghoma because I crave attention.  I am one because I simply don't feel like donating time and money to something that I obviously don't believe is real.  I don't walk around shouting "hey look at me everyone I'm an atheist!"  In fact, the only times I ever say that I am one is if someone asks.
How can I be getting the attention I desire if I don't even go out of my way to tell anyone?

Is the idea that people don't believe in God so radical for you to comprehend?

Everyone in Seattle was an atheist except the people at my school, haha.

Washington has more atheists than any other state.

     I agree emphatically with that, actually. People should get to serve others or serve themselves if they want to, though I tend towards the latter.

     I suppose my problem is that in my original post, I made it sound like Satanism works for all libertarians. The point I was trying to make is that one can very much be a libertarian & also genuinely think that Satan is an admirable character in the Bible, in response to that blog post that suggested that they were antithetical.

Actually, it's Oregon IIRC.

In numbers, perhaps, but percentagewise, its Vermont. Oregon is 67% Christian while Vermont is 55% Christian and 34% non-religious.

The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) placed Oregon as tied with Nevada in fifth place of U.S. states having the highest percentage of residents identifying themselves as "non-religious", at 24 percent.

You're absolutely right.

()

()

That's not an example of capitalism. Abusive working conditions can occur under any economic system.

To be more precise I was referring to libertarians in general when I said 'you.' When people see statements like this, regardless of validity, they think that libertarians are at best going for shock value and at worst a bunch of amoral libertines with no regard for society. I could drag up hundreds of other over-the-top quotes just from this site but this one epitomized one of the most serious problems with libertarianism's reputation (especially on the internet).

Right, and it happened, and continues to, under capitalism. So, it is a good example, just like a photo of a computer chip, smoke stacks, a ceo, a bic pen, etc.

I actually think you could fit in well as a left-libertarian.

Actually, Alaska has the most non-religious people of any state.  Washington is second.  And non-religious doesn't necessarily mean atheist.

In a modern democracy, not only can a libertarian be elitist; a libertarian has to be elitist. To be a libertarian in a modern democracy is to say that nearly 300 million Americans are wrong, and a handful of nay-sayers are right.   ”
    
— Bryan Caplan

Yes I am arrogant,but arrogance of many self-proclaimed Libertarians are tenfold and this is why I enjoy bashing them. Sure it is just my perception, but I have been arguing with libertarians for years. I know more about their ideology than many of them will probably even dare to consider. I know all of their arguments, and I have even read many of their books, papers and so forth.

Lol, you get worse with each post, don't you not?
I guess abolitionists were elitists too amirite? ::)

Well, now you sound like you have some sort of psychological issue.  Don't you have anything more important to do than troll around the Internet and bash libertarians?  Also, your quote implies that libertarians are only a "handful" of the U.S. population, which they are not.

I remember when I was being bashed by practically everybody :'(

Now that's an open mind!

     Obsessed much?

Libertarianism is fundamentally a flawed concept and I find it interesting that the majority of libertarians on this board have yet to complete secondary school.

They'll grow up one day.

Don't be stupid.

How old are you, 'Winston'?

I will just say this, the number of actual libertarians who actually adhere to the utopian or ultramoralistic ideology of maximum freedom as a perfect trump of all other possible societal considerations, as opposed to people who generally like the idea of freedom and are predisposed to it to a high degree, is a very, very small number.

I'm 17, so I've already finished secondary school. Anyway, stop trying to use age as an excuse rather than actually discussing things. I think you'll find socialism is far more flawed than libertarianism is.

No, that's boring. I'd rather just leave you to your government is evil phase.

In that case, I win. Thank you.

Also, if you think that I'm some sort of anarcho-capitalist, I'm afraid you're wrong.

It is generally a phase, though.  Of the seemingly limitless number of libertarians on this forum, how many do we actually have who have finished adolescence?  Four?  They apparently still understand how the philosophy is supposed to work in the real world, and I guess are still okay with that.

How many self-identified Libertarians are there? make sure that you can provide me with a source to back up any claim you make. I would also like to point out that the "elitist" claim comes from Bryan Caplan who is a self-identified Libertarian.

Explain all the libertarians who aren't teenagers, then.

So we're somehow mentally inferior because of our age? And libertarianism isn't worth discussing because it happens to be younger people who may more often be associated with it?

About twenty percent (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf).

Well, duh.  You consider yourself mentally superior to a 10-year-old, don't you?


Sure you can discuss it all you want.  It's the best way to explore one's own philosophical inconsistencies and illogicalities.  And then, once you have a full understanding of what libertarianism is all about, you'll then be able to see how it has virtually no compatibility with real adult life once you get to that stage.

1. No. There are some 10 year olds that are smarter than me, most likely. And I am probably smarter than some 30 year olds. Age isn't always a good excuse.
2. Whatever.

So 20% of americans are self-identified Libertarians(notice the emphasis on self). Individuals can claim to be socially liberal and economically conservative but that does not mean that they are Libertarians.

By definition, libertarians believe in social and economic freedom.  Therefor, they are socially liberal and economically conservative, as are twenty percent of Americans.

Explain all the libertarians out there who are not teenagers.

Economic freedom sounds like a very subject phrase, but you can be economically conservative and socially liberal while still supporting non-libertarian ideologies.

Yes, I thought perhaps I was being a little too presumptious by suggesting that you're smarter than a 10-year-old.

But you're sort of missing the point.  It's not the number of years that always determines if a person should have outgrown libertarianism or not, but rather their connection to the real world.  The majority of adolescent 'libertarians' still live at home and are likely still financially dependent on their family.  Thus, although they may understand how the philosophy is supposed to work, they haven't yet seen how impractical and incompatible it is to the real world.

Much like communism, ironically enough.

I already did.  ???

You must be the one who isn't as smart as 10 year old, given the fact you've resorted to personal attacks already.

20% of Americans are socially liberal/ economically conservative and thus 20% of Americans are Libertarian! Some how this sounds like a logical fallacy but i am not sure if it is Fallacy of composition or Equivocation?

At the very least, I'm glad that you've accepted the substance in the rest of my post.  You didn't address it in any way, which indicates that you have no problem with it.

Lol i am going to have fun with this claim! 20% of Americans are socially liberal/ economically conservative and thus 20% of Americans are Log Cabin Republicans!

Left libertarianism/libertarian socialism is the only one that makes sense to me. Modern libertarianism is too indebted to the right.

I've already won. You resorted to insulting my intelligence. Hth.

Oh dear.  If discussions are always about 'winning' and never acknowledging what other people have even said, then it seems you still have a very long way to go before you outgrow libertarianism.  Good luck to you, I suppose.

You didn't acknowledge what I said, so I decided to treat you with the same condescending, annoying manner you treat me and other people with.

How have I not acknowledged what you said here?

You do realise you're spending your Saturday arguing on the internet with a 17 year old?

I'm sorry, but you're using the age excuse AGAIN. There are young Democrats, Republicans, socialists etc.... why is it that it's only immature when libertarians are young?

Seriously, stop trying to use my age as an excuse and do some growing up yourself.

You've said it's immature because I happen to have been born in a time period that is more recent than your own.

Hmm, I've completed secondary school.

Have you conducted a study of the libertarians on this board to prove this conclusion of yours to be the case?

(Not that it's really relevant since your whole premise is just ageist bunkum, of course.)

And how old are you, Libertas?

I've never hidden my age, though its irrelevant to any sort of rational argument you could make.

Of greater concern is how old are you, Iosif?

Well, what is your ideology, Iosif?

Ha ha, I know.  In most cases I wouldn't mind so much because I'd at least get the sense that I'm making some progress.  But this current crowd are rather... bull-headed, to say the least.



Actually, in just the same way, many young Democrats/Republicans are often just as immature, in that they claim to support that party or ideology without really understanding what it actually means.  However, young libertarians (and young communists, incidentally) are likelier to grow out of it, mainly because any ideology that sits outside the mainstream is virtually guaranteed to be completely impractical in the real (adult) world.  Otherwise it would be mainstream, obviously.


But as I also said, it's not necessarily when you were born, but rather how connected you are to the real world.  There are plenty of teenagers out there who for one reason or another are forced into adulthood far sooner than expected, while there are also plenty of 30 year-olds who still live at home and rely on Mom and Dad to support them.

It's easier to say that it's simply a matter of age, but realistically it is more to do with maturity.

How do you know they're more likely? You don't have access to everyone's brains to see what their political views are.

No, but it's easily observable.  For example, as I asked at the very start of this morning's discussion, how many of the vast multitude of libertarians on this forum could accurately be described as adults?  No more than a half-dozen, surely?

I'm a Libertarian, Sewer. Ban the government! Legalise everything! End regulation! Destroy the fed! Privatise education! Privatise health care! Disband the military! No more taxes! The private sector will take care of everything! Gary Johnson is going to landslide Obama, that socialist scum!

Now if you excuse me, my mother wants me to do my homework.

Most of the forum is relatively young. It should be of no surprise that as a result, most libertarians on here are quite young.

Ha, and you think I'm supposed to be childish.

Welcome to my ignore list.

The mainstream is not always correct.

()

That's a rather odd way of distorting perception.  But yes, the forum's libertarian contingent is disproportionately younger than the mainstream ideologies.

Umm... no. There are many young Republicans (NiK, tmthforu94 etc.) and many young Democrats (benconstine, Xahar) and independents (Sewer)... your point is invalid.

You missed the key word:


... relative to the overall bias towards young'uns, of course.

Not really, it's about the same as other ideologies. And even so, if you're trying to make out libertarianism is immature because it attracts younger people, that's simple ageism.

Anybody can see for themselves that people who claim to be libertarians generally grow out of it by the time they've already flown the nest.  Those who don't are generally a bit... odd... in some way, with personalities that are in tune with their ideologies in terms of their place well outside the mainstream.  Hence why the Libertarian Party has never produced any viable candidates for any office, like, ever.

So if pointing out something that anybody can observe for themselves is ageist, then I guess you'll have to call me an ageist.  :-\

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Oh whoopee, another single sentence response.  ::)

This discussion is rather pointless at this particular stage, because neither of you will fully comprehend what I'm talking about until what I'm talking about actually occurs.  It should only be a matter of time though, you'll be pleased to know.

it became pointless the minute you decided there was nothing better to do on your Saturday then to insult people who don't agree with you.

There is such a thing called multi-tasking, you know.  ;)

Anyway, hopefully I've managed to make some impact with you guys.  I don't expect you to fully grasp what I mean until you too have 'flown the nest' so to speak.  My reason for being in this thread up to now is to hopefully set some of your expectations for the future.  :)

LOL

I think Joe is claiming that people too young to have been out on their own, in the workforce full time, plus absorbing the real world experience of those years after moving out from the folks may be far more susceptible to follow idealistic, but practically unworkable ideologies.

In fairness though, many of my older Republican extended family used to say that about my liberalism when I was a teenager too. Decades later I still hold the same fundamental core beliefs as I did then, and "the real world" only strengthened my conviction that my views are correct. On 20/20 hindsight, I view President Clinton's and Obama's economic policies to have been far more rational and pragmatic than anything the supposedly "realistic" conservatives like Reagan and the Bushes enacted.

I know, but it's when Joe decides to act like a total ninnyhammer about our ideology and generally put us down that it annoys me.

Perhaps it would be useful to define libertarianism.

If you define it as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, than Joe made a number of wrong statements. If you define it has miniarchists (as little government as possible) and anarcho-capitalists, then Joe would indeed be correct.

Trying to define libertarianism will add 5 pages to this thread with libertarians arguing with each other. :P

No he wouldn't.

No it wouldn't! *huge essay here* :P

You should work with us.

A what?

I actually agree with a lot of what Joe's saying. The sheer idealism of so many libertarians here is insulting. Pragmatism and realism are two things a minority population can't avoid.

I did say that young people who claim one of the mainstream ideologies are likelier to stick with it as they mature than those who claim one of the non-mainstream ones.  :)

Oh, and you are the arbiter of what is a "mainstream ideology"?

Does Joe even have an ideology?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ninnyhammer

Use more archaisms, mome :P

lol this thread is stupid and it is funny how people are offended. Its an opinionated thread....

Not really.  I think I mentioned somewhere else that I'm more of a political observer than an actual participant.  Politics is like a spectator sport, as far as I'm concerned.  It helps me to stay objective, for one thing.  ;)

This thread only gets stupid when you post in it.

are you actually taking this thread seriously?

I take most things seriously. You happen to be an exception.

Lol.....I have done very little except give my opinion and it seems that you have become offended. Without even trying I have managed to get under your skin.....it is a good feeling. of course it isn't really much of an accomplishment.

Cool! My official new word of the day! :D

ROFL
here is why I bash them.....Because it is easy.

They claim that they are true liberals or liberals in the classical sense.
They claim that they follow the true meaning of the constitution.
They claim that the free market is the best thing since wonder bread.
all of the above things are debatable and shouldn't be treated as fact....sounds more like opinion to me.
They use the word socialist,liberal, communist, statist, fascist, and collectivist to describe a political ideology that isn't theirs. I have learned that political name calling is a bad thing so instead of labeling others i just simply ask what their views are.

Now not every libertarian thinks like this,but most of the time they often act like this around me.

If they want to present their ideas to me they can...

I have three qeustions for Libertarians.
if the fed is abolished than what will happen to the bond market?
what will happen to the exchange value of the dollar, and the labor market if we legalize weed?
if we get rid of anti-trust laws....how will price elasticity be effected?

This needed it's own thread, why?

Oh right- attention.

nope because this isn't about bashing but is instead bout challenging individuals to think

You seem like the type of guy who has the universe figured out, which is a bad complex for one to have. In all of your posts, you speak from a closed, not open, perspective on ideals. It may have been open at one time, but it appears to have shut. The attitude shown is a very "holier-then-thou" mindset, and one unable to grasp the fact that he might be wrong and to consider other ideas. In essence, you are a political hack. 

I dont have the universe figured out and this why i am asking a few questions.....

why don't you answer one of the qeustions and than provide your supporting details.

Why don't you be more civil, instead of acting like an insecure, small-dicked little sh-t?

stop changing the subject.

I haven't changed the subject at all.  The subject of this thread has always been how much of an insecure sh-t you are.

fixed

I am open to considering ideas and this is why I am asking three questions.

Merged the threads.

For what it's worth, I'm much more libertarian (whatever that means) now than when I was a teenager.  Am I getting dumber?

Depends what you were before. :P

Out of the two shades of sheep in this country...the blue one.

Blue according to Dave or t the medias ? It's ambiguous.

Dave's way

Oh, in this case it's undoubtedly an improvement. ;D Hope you will keep tis way.

Who pulled this 20% statistic out of their ass? 20% will agree to anything. As Nym put it, that's the number that thinks that the moon landings were faked, and that George Bush was a good President.