Or maybe move beyond the party talking line and case and mention other cases. Mentioning the same case in a different venue is still an echo.
There are many factions within libertarianism (classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalist, civil libertarian, etc) just as there are different factions within the Republicans (religious right, Neocons, etc) and Democrats (Progressives, Urban liberals, limousine liberals, etc). However, the ideology is only vague to dolts that can't understand it is a more principled and ideological pure philosophy than either major party.
I guess that's the upside of complete irrelevancy, you can stick to ideological purity as your primary goal without worrying about pesky things like pragmatism or attracting an electoral coalition.
I'd say it's vague because it seems to be a near impossibility for any libertarian to intelligently define a realistic governmental apparatus in the 21st century. It sounds well and good for the 18th century, but I've never seen much of a compelling modern day case because, as pointed out numerous times, leaving everything up to the courts is utterly nonsensical. Suggesting it's more principled seems dubious at best as well.
In the context of somebody calling a political philosophy "vague," ideologically pure is about the opposite.
And furthermore, Idk how you can even still claim ideological purity when your very own Presidential nominee advocated for infringements like driver's licenses and public utilities.
Hell, there are libertarian socialists out there like Noam Chomsky. I don't adhere to that brand of libertarianism so it doesn't make sense to me but it is a thing.
Well if you of the "let the elderly starve to death" attitude is claiming ideological solidarity with Chomsky, suddenly I'm kind of leaning back towards DQ's point that this is an vague ideology.
If there are many factions within the party wouldnt that inherently make it non-pure? Also I believe youre outlining ambiguity, not vagueness. Cant really tell after you went off the rails at the end.
It was "property is theft" way before it was "taxation is theft". Ancaps are the bastard child of actual anarchism. There's a reason libertarian has a different meaning in Europe. He can't try to claim Chomsky as a member of the cult. That flips the script on the etymology. Not sure how an ideology that intentionally ignores contemporary economics is "pure". An ideology that in its contemporaneous form is simply the result of a handful of oligarchs buying Econ departments and think tanks. "Oh it has 100 years of history and variations so it's uh pure"
In comparison to the two major parties? Here is a nice piece that articulates my point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-different-to-compare/?utm_term=.ace658039c31
No, not in comparison to anything, just in a vacuum. You're comparing apples to oranges. Of course an abstract ideological philosophy is going to be "purer" than something that has to exist in the real world, respond to external stimuli, and assemble a broad electoral coalition to acquire and retain power. I just don't get how you, who wants to eliminate every shred of the social safety net and reduce society down to a bunch of atomized entrepreneurs competing in a cutthroat market slanted as hard as possible towards the holders of capital, can claim ideological solidarity with someone who acknowledges the enormous amount of privilege he had in his upbringing and as a result believes he has an enormous responsibility towards the less fortunate, and still claim this as a coherent and pure ideology. You might as well just admit every poster in the left thread are libertarians too, since we don't favor foreign intervention and abhor racial and religious discrimination. Those seem to be the only existing goalposts.
My statement was obviously one of relativism as I stated "...than either major party." I'm not really sure where you're getting your second paragraph from but it isn't accurate and I'll leave it at that rather than nitpick.
If you like, I can pull quotes where he is acknowledging his privilege and the responsibility he has, as a beneficiary of said privilege, in trying to extend help to the powerless. But if I wasn't mischaracterizing you, and you don't know if I was mischaracterizing Chomsky, where does the part where I was so wrong you can't even begin to correct me start?
I never said you weren't mischaracterizing me. You were when you said, "you, who wants to eliminate every shred of the social safety net and reduce society down to a bunch of atomized entrepreneurs competing in a cutthroat market slanted as hard as possible towards the holders of capital."
Ok so what am I wrong about in regards to you? Unless you post ironically on the regular, that's a pretty concise packaging of your beliefs. You celebrated the potential defunding of social security and Medicare yesterday. Sure seems like negative liberty of the upper class is way more important to you than positive liberty for the serfs.
They're real liabilities that are not adequately funded. In their current form, they aren't sustainable so that was the intended sarcasm about eliminating them. We obviously can't pull the rug out from under people and completely eliminate them but reform is absolutely necessary for the US to live within its means.
fwiw- TwoPoor I've mentioned numerous times that I don't like the regressiveness of our social security system toward low-income. ...
I actually respect that Rabid does not hide he is a Republican hiding behind the shield of being a Libertarian. He openly embraces the impartial observer status and faux academic grounding this shield provides his politics. Unlike lechnerd that creates alt accounts b/c he's too ashamed of his GOP colors. At least Rabid owns it.
I'm not sure exactly what that means. My politics line up more with Justin Amash than anybody else I've seen in Congress. He is a small-l libertarian under the GOP banner which gives him more power than being a lone Libertarian in Congress. Sure, call him GOP but if you look at his policies he is mostly classical liberal or libertarian. His biggest divergence from libertarian orthodoxy that I'm aware of is that he is pro-life rather than pro-choice and libertarians tend to be pro-choice.
The man had plenty of flaws as a candidate but I wholeheartedly supported his platform. I can't recall an aspect I didn't agree with. It was a kind of modern, pragmatic libertarianism that I think can gain a lot of traction, Gov. Johnson was just a poor messenger at times. We're not getting rid of drivers licenses, the minimum wage, or social security and even bringing up those topics is a non-starter for everyone who isn't already in the fold. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other areas where we can improve the country and fight for personal freedoms and civil liberties in a way that the major parties don't.
Steve Fucking Bannon. I didn't think it was possible to be more unlikable than Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell but Bannon has passed them up.
This report (https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/e1702.pdf) from the Inspector General regarding DEA Civil Asset Forfeiture is sickening. Hopefully it continues to get more attention and eventually the law is changed. If you don't want to read the full report, here is a newspaper article summarizing the report: http://www.startribune.com/since-20...om-people-not-charged-with-a-crime/417481073/ "Since 2007 the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund, which collects proceeds from seized cash and other property, has ballooned to $28 billion. In 2014 alone authorities seized $5 billion in cash and property from people — greater than the value of all documented losses to burglary that year."
this is one of those things that is likely bipartisan, would be hugely supported by the general public, but will kind of just not change due to lobbying efforts
A little late, but.....part of the problem is that the Left has shifted too. Libertarians liked that Obama was anti-war, against nation-building, wanted to close Gitmo, wanted to protect whitsle-blowers, pro-legalization of weed, in favor of government transparency, was against spying on citizens. But once in office he was at war every day of his 8-year presidency, Gitmo is still open, the NSA is still spying, weed is still federally illegal, he was not transparent, and whistle-blowers were attacked. Obama tripped over his dick on a lot of issues where he and libertarians aligned. That's not our fault.
Candidate Obama was much, much better than President Obama. Although, I did appreciate increased scrutiny on local police forces and civil rights violations.
Trump aide accused of Hatch Act violation after urging Amash primary challenge http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/dan-scavino-justin-amash-liability-trump-freedom-caucus-236780
was listening to talk radio on my way home earlier. apparently sessions was making a good point because they can't possibly understand border problems in hawaii
Sessions was the Trump appointee that I disliked the most. Closely following him was Pompeo overlooking our surveillance state. Although, John Kelly is making me think he belonged on the list as well.
Jeff Sessions is an authoritarian dickhead. Reefer madness and civil forfeiture were a shoe in when he was appointed.
Yeah I think that's fair, and there's a chance his comments were misinterpreted or he failed to fully express himself. Either way, he's the AG and a trained attorney. Regardless of the subject matter, there's nothing remarkable or novel about the lawful ability of a US federal judge stationed in Hawaii to enjoin a President's executive order. Bedrock federal law for over 200 years.
Positive developments at the Supreme Court: Nelson v. Colorado When a criminal conviction is invalidated by a reviewing court and no retrial will occur, is the State obliged to refund fees, court costs, and restitution exacted from the defendant upon, and as a consequence of, the conviction? Our answer is yes. Absent conviction of a crime, one is presumed innocent. Under the Colorado law before us in these cases, however, the State retains conviction-related assessments unless and until the prevailing defendant institutes a discrete civil proceeding and proves her innocence by clear and convincing evidence. This scheme, we hold, offends the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Scotusblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/o...pursuant-subsequently-overturned-convictions/ Reason Blog linking it to Civil Asset Forfeiture: http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone
was going to come post the Reason blog on it. Well done Best part is all of these doctrines are being grounded in due process, so we should be good going forward
I listened to this as a podcast download (Reason) on my way in to work this morning. I both love the transparency and I thought the content was interesting.