Dems (and others on the left), do you prefer to "battle" Libertarians or Fundies

[John Dibble]

Libertarianism is just a silly form of US nationalism, however it is silly enough to be attacked while maintaing some sort of credibility which the fundies don't have.

Nationalism? Que? Libertarians tend to be very individualistic - hardly something that goes well with nationalism.

[John Dibble]

The devil I know is better than the devil I don't know.  Or something like that.

Exactly... except when the devil you know happens to be worse than the devil you don't. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fundies being easier to beat in arguments means their positions are probably less well thought out, but even if you think you've beaten them it doesn't mean they've admitted defeat. (same for Libertarians, we're stubborn as hell a lot of the time, but I digress...) Fundies are also probably a larger portion of the population, and I can tell you they've got a hell of a lot more political pull than we do. Neither fundies or Libertarians are likely to get everything they want, but I'd say the fundies have a definite advantage in influencing the outcome towards what they want.

[John Dibble]

They are far more dangerous and intrusive than libertarians who aren't really dangerous at all. They don't give a damn what you do...

That's the whole reason why they are dangerous.  They- just- don't- care.

I'm going to tell you this - bulls**t. I'm sick and tired of a lot of you people acting like libertarians are heartless demons or something like that. It can't be that we think that our views would be better for society in general, no, it has to be that we're selfish evil jerks who only think about ourselves. No, we couldn't possibly be human. We couldn't possibly have people we love and care about. We couldn't possibly be working towards what we feel is the greater good. No, it's all about us.

In fact, we can't stand the thought of helping others. If we see a Santa ringing a bell for Salvation Army donations, we make sure to punch him in the face. If we've got extra clothes we don't need, we make sure to burn them so they won't be donated to Good Will or the Kidney Foundation. If we see a bin for Toys for Tots, we defecate in it. After all, we're just a bunch of soulless bastards who don't care about anyone but ourselves. In fact, I'd bet everyone involved in this incident is a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, and if not we'd be damn proud to have them!

Get over yourselves you self-righteous, holier-than-thou pricks. You're just as bad as the fundies, but at least they're more straightforward about thinking they're better than everyone who dares to disagree with them. I'm super cereal!

[John Dibble]

In my personal opinion, Libertarianism is a far more dangerous ideology than politicized religious fundamentalism (though I of course oppose both).

Right, the ideology that wishes for freedom of speech, thought, belief, etc. is far more dangerous than the ones that throw rocks at you until you die because you dare to disagree with them. Clearly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given they'd be following a non-aggressive philosophy for the most part, I don't see what would be so frightening about that. Frankly I'd be more scared of the ideologies that appeal to the uneducated and gullible masses, given that's where the real power is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Ernest mentioned, some projects can do a lot of good, but frankly I don't see a $25 million bridge to an island of just 50 people who were already content to live there without a bridge as a wise investment. There's numerous other ridiculous items as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I doubt if those disappeared that the nation would become any dumber. And you know, I think we could do without Barny or the Teletubbies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the government was downsized, a number of the services would legitimately have a good chance of privatizing. (not all of course, but I don't advocate downsizing every bit of government) And yes, many of those civil servants are inefficient bureaucrats - again, not all, but enough to significantly slow down important projects and increase their costs.

[/quote]Libertarianism is a dangerous ideology that I wholeheartedly oppose.[/quote]

Yes, non-aggression and freedom are exceptionally dangerous.

[John Dibble]

No, the ideology that wishes for the dismantling of the intergenerational social contract known as Social Security, that opposes the very concept of societal responsibility with their divisive "individualism" rhetoric, that is opposed to every protection and reform the reformers of the 1930s bravely fought for, especially calling for the deregulation of public utilities which puts institutions crucial to the functioning of our country into the hands of plunderers like Enron...that's the ideology I oppose.

If you oppose the most extreme elements of it, that's not a problem - so do I. But just because of that you can't ignore the valid points Libertarians make. Privatizing SS, partially or in full, might just save it. As things stand the government is just sitting on its hands.

As far as 'societal responsibility', society is made up of individuals. Maybe we feel that what's best for society is individual freedom, did you ever once consider that? Nationalist facism and communism were ardent advocates of the good of society over the individual, and we can see how well the nations that implemented those were run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, those people NEVER make it to the seat of power.





Can you even name one Libertarian who gained a significant position of power, much less one that made such a terrible society?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure he would. And I'm also sure he wouldn't like to fit the $500,000 per person bill to build it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's so legitimate that they have to hide it in seperate bills to get them to pass.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'm aggravated because many of them are rather corrupt (see Rangel's "monument to me" for example") and/or wasteful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Admittedly it's often a small cost compared to the overall costs of government, but it's a symptom of greater financial irresponsibility. I think such local projects should be left to the state and local governments if they are really all that necessary. The federal government should be dealing with federal issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I've learned a great deal from the Discovery, Science, History, and Learning channels. Admittedly not free, but not premium either - just regular cable. I'd imagine that if the public free stations went away that at least some of their content would be picked up by the private, non-cable networks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some things can be privatized but not deregulated. Local monopolies like power companies are a good example.

[qyote]Any ideology whose definition of "freedom," undermines social cohesion, involves the further atomization of society, and advocates a lack of interest in collective action to benefit mankind, yes, is dangerous.
[/quote]

You act as if we advocate anarchy. We don't. Government would still operate, albeit not at the same degree as it currently does. Personally I favor a smaller federal government, with more powers over domestic affairs given to the state and local governments. The more localized it is, the greater the understanding it can have for the needs of the local community, and the easier it is for you to have your say.