NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, in this discussion I am only speaking in terms of social policy, not economic (that is for another vast discussion). So I won't be mentioning capitalism, socialism, welfare, taxes, etc., in this discussion.

A quick list of social policy definitions...

Libertarianism: The government should only regulate and prosecute violence committed between its citizens; the government should NOT regulate victim-less crimes, such as drugs, prostitution, sodomy, pornography, suicide, etc. People are free to do whatever they want as long as they hurt no one else. Such activities are not necessarily "good" or "moral", but still should not be regulated by the government.

Culturally conservative libertarianism: The branch of libertarianism that holds to a "moral" or "traditional" view of society, but still believes the government must not interfere in our private lives.

Libertine libertarianism (libertinism): The branch of libertarianism that is ambivalent about what passes for "morality".

Liberalism: The government SHOULD interfere in our private lives when necessary to protect the general wellbeing of society. This "general wellbeing" comes to mean regulating things such as mandating seat belt laws, restricting smoking in public, banning cell phones in cars, etc.

Conservatism: The government SHOULD interfere in our private lives when necessary to protect the general wellbeing of society. This "general wellbeing" comes to mean regulating things such as prostitution, drugs, pornography, homosexuality, divorce, etc.


Point being, I believe the traditional "liberal" and "conservative" views on social policy both smell of authoritarianism. The belief that they can interfere in your private life if necessary to advance the general wellbeing of society. Of course, they differ vastly on just what is good for society. Once again, I am leaving economics out of this argument for now, I am just talking about social policy.

In their social platform, liberals may feel that marijuana should be legalized...but only because of its proven medical properties and mild nature compared to, say alcohol. Ask a standard liberal if cocaine or heroin should be legalized, and you'll get the same response as a conservative. The libertarian however recognizes that it doesn't matter how dangerous marijuana is at all...it is not the government's business!

Liberals generally have disregarded what passes for "morality", but still have socially authoritarian beliefs. Conservatives believe in a traditional view of "morality", and have socially authoritarian beliefs. Libertines generally come from the liberal side, and culturally conservative libertarians generally come from the conservative side, through a mutual understanding of individual freedom.

So, based on the pure social platforms of the various ideologies, where do you find yourself? Please think purely on your social views, for this poll at least.

What would you call a fiercely patriotic libertarian that holds a few socialist ideals as well?

What would you call a fiercely patriotic libertarian that holds a few socialist ideals as well?

An idiot?

lol...jk...it was just too easy...

What would you call a fiercely patriotic libertarian that holds a few socialist ideals as well?
Well, I am just speaking about social views...I am rather undecided about welfare, taxes, spending, programs, etc. I really haven't decided one way or the other. I see good in both capitalism and socialism...but my views are very clear on social concerns.

And of course, political thought is often not as easily pigeon-holed in real life as it is in theory.

Couldn't agree with you more. They both reek of authoritarianism, and it's hardly even thinly disguised.
When was the last time you heard a politicaian openly discuss freedom? Listen carefully to both sides. Democrats tlk about *social justice* and *fairness*.
Republicans talk about lower taxes and *getting government off our backs*, but only in minor ways, leaving it untouched everywhere else.
But freedom? HA! That undermines both parties agendas.
When did you hear either party argue that preserving individual freedom is government's primary obligation?

Couldn't agree with you more. They both reek of authoritarianism, and it's hardly even thinly disguised.
When was the last time you heard a politicaian openly discuss freedom? Listen carefully to both sides. Democrats tlk about *social justice* and *fairness*.
Republicans talk about lower taxes and *getting government off our backs*, but only in minor ways, leaving it untouched everywhere else.
But freedom? HA! That undermines both parties agendas.
When did you hear either party argue that preserving individual freedom is government's primary obligation?
When a party wants to go down the tubes, they'll adopt that stance for you.

Well, I am just speaking about social views...I am rather undecided about welfare, taxes, spending, programs, etc. I really haven't decided one way or the other. I see good in both capitalism and socialism...but my views are very clear on social concerns.

And of course, political thought is often not as easily pigeon-holed in real life as it is in theory.
I'm about the same as you. Will you have my children? :D

When a party wants to go down the tubes, they'll adopt that stance for you.
Your brilliance is blinding. That was as generalized and useless a statement as any the candidate you voted for has ever spoken.

Economically, left.
Socially, libertarian.
Against gun control. Pro military, Isolationist (somewhat), enviromentalist.
No party for me to vote for :)

Economically, left.
Socially, libertarian.
Against gun control. Pro military, Isolationist (somewhat), enviromentalist.
No party for me to vote for :)
Vote for me! Why? Because I said so. -_-

When a party wants to go down the tubes, they'll adopt that stance for you.
Watch the poll above....

Your brilliance is blinding. That was as generalized and useless a statement as any the candidate you voted for has ever spoken.

That's amusing. Why? Because no matter how much you bitch and try to impose your anti-authoritarian views on others (kinda ironic actually...), no third party candidate will win the presidency any more. It will always be the big two.

Your brilliance is blinding. That was as generalized and useless a statement as any the candidate you voted for has ever spoken.
http://www.languish.org/forums/html/emoticons/yawn.gif

I suppose it brings up a question of, who comes first: the individual or society?

I said I wouldn't bring up economics, but now when I think about it, social liberals' views often carry over to their economic views...the general wellbeing, leading to welfare. Socially conservative views are harder to pinpoint in economic views, since social conservatives often support welfare (and many labor union workers support "liberal" economic views while being socially conservative).

I'm sure you've all done the politicalcompass.org test, and see the difference between social and economic views though.

Conservatives often mention a "moral fabric" of society. Liberals talk in vaguer terms about a general wellbeing of society, but it's really the same thing. They just differ on what in particular defines a good society. Libertarians and libertines just don't care as much about society I guess, and put more emphasis on the individual.

Watch the poll above....
Nationstates is not a representative sample of the US voting population.

When a party wants to go down the tubes, they'll adopt that stance for you.

True enough. I'd say that's more of a bad reflection on the American people as a whole than on Eichen, though.

Nationstates is not a representative sample of the US voting population.
If only...

What would you call a fiercely patriotic libertarian that holds a few socialist ideals as well?

I believe you would call him a Right-Wing Libertarian Socialist.

Nationstates is not a representative sample of the US voting population.
I've noticed liberals and libertarians (especially) are much more prevalent on messageboards than they would be represented in the general American public. But of course America is the most conservative country in the Western world.

how much you bitch and try to impose your anti-authoritarian views on others (kinda ironic actually...), no third party candidate will win the presidency any more. It will always be the big two.
That's due to money. There's so much money between the two major parties that no third party can hope to do well. I would also note that no third party candidate has won the presidency ever. It has always been one of the big two. Democrats and Republicans have led since the mid 1800s. Earlier than that it was predecessors to the main parties (Democrat-Republicans, Whigs, Federalists...)

That's amusing. Why? Because no matter how much you bitch and try to impose your anti-authoritarian views on others (kinda ironic actually...), no third party candidate will win the presidency any more. It will always be the big two.
How am I imposing? Gun to the head? Typing and exercizing free speech? You decide. I think you need a lesson on the difference.
I voted for a major presidential candidate, as I will until the party provides one worth voting for.
Trust me, the guy was counting on a lot of votes from our party.
I remember Michael Moore and Bill Maher begging a third party candidate not to run, or risk their favorite candidate's loss of the White House?
Prophetic? Possibly. Ignoring libertarians and shrugging them off does nothing to help your campaign.
Go ask Kerry. He could've used the votes, dear.

True enough. I'd say that's more of a bad reflection on the American people as a whole than on Eichen, though.
Sadly, that may be true. We cease to be America, Home of the Free when we adopt this kind of attitude.

I voted for libertine libertarian although I disagree with some of the things you said.

I consider myself libertarian but am willing to regulate things that have a high chance of injuring others.

For example, I don't care if the driver is wearing a seatbelt, but any minors (under 13) must unquestionable be wearing a seatbelt. They cannot rationally make the decision.

I would ban smoking in public as second hand smoke has been proven very harmful to the health of others.

I would ban cell phones in cars. They are likely to cause accidents.

However, police would not enforce these laws. If someone was injured because of a violation of these laws, they could sue the violator, however their must be a specific injured party for the laws to be applied. If you are in public and no one around you cares if you smoke, go ahead. If a child is killed in a car accident due to not wearing a seat belt, the government will charge the parents and try to recover from them the estimated value of the child's life to society. Etc. No laws would be enforced until someone was injured.

Libertarians and libertines just don't care as much about society I guess, and put more emphasis on the individual.
My God, do you really believe that? Are you aware of the platform at all? (Most of the people posting here are most likely very unaware of it).
The Libertarian party has a definite stance on society as a whole. You're just not aware of it, I guess.
We believe that a society run on the principles of limited government (which our forefathers intended) will advance human happiness and economic success.
That a Libertarian government would lead to greater individual fulfillment, more vital communities, and a richer, more diverse culture. This society would have fewer poor people, fewer neglected children, fewer criminals.
A society that would not abandon the less fortunate but would care for them much better than we do now.
Also, the term most Libertarians prefer is not Libertine Libertarian, but Classical Liberal.

I've noticed liberals and libertarians (especially) are much more prevalent on messageboards than they would be represented in the general American public.
Very true. But more importantly, it's based on media bias.

Liberalism: The government SHOULD interfere in our private lives when necessary to protect the general wellbeing of society. This "general wellbeing" comes to mean regulating things such as mandating seat belt laws, restricting smoking in public, banning cell phones in cars, etc.

smoking in public affects other people. it's not really a victimless crime. second hand smoke is rather bad for people. it's one thing to smoke outdoors...

In their social platform, liberals may feel that marijuana should be legalized...but only because of its proven medical properties and mild nature compared to, say alcohol. Ask a standard liberal if cocaine or heroin should be legalized, and you'll get the same response as a conservative. The libertarian however recognizes that it doesn't matter how dangerous marijuana is at all...it is not the government's business!
not really. legalize it all for adults, with suggested dosages and the like for things where it might be unclear or where overdose is likely.

and also, open up rehab centres for those who want to kick their habits. for those of lower incomes, subsidize their treatment so they can get their life back.

purely on social issues as you've defined them, i'm libertarian.

i really disagree with their economic shit though. nutty bastards.

A society that would not abandon the less fortunate but would care for them much better than we do now.
man, you should really talk to this one libertarian guy (first one i met) and straighten him out.

he was off on how taxes are violent crimes and shit and how welfare shouldn't exist at all and how the poor can pretty much fuck themselves and get a job... though that leaves you wondering about the disabled who are unable to work.

My God, do you really believe that? Are you aware of the platform at all? (Most of the people posting here are most likely very unaware of it).
The Libertarian party has a definite stance on society as a whole. You're just not aware of it, I guess.
We believe that a society run on the principles of limited government (which our forefathers intended) will advance human happiness and economic success.
That a Libertarian government would lead to greater individual fulfillment, more vital communities, and a richer, more diverse culture. This society would have fewer poor people, fewer neglected children, fewer criminals.
A society that would not abandon the less fortunate but would care for them much better than we do now.
I am not a strict libertarian, I have mixed views on the economy, taxes, welfare, etc. But I do believe in a libertarian social platform. Indeed, social authoritarianism is probably one of the greatest threats to a democracy.

So to answer your question in particular, the Libertarian Party may have a definate plan for society, but what I was saying is that libertarians put more emphasis on the individual, which may come at the expense of society. For instance, allowing "hard" drug use, which can be argued to hurt society as a whole.

Also, the term most Libertarians prefer is not Libertine Libertarian, but Classical Liberal.
I used "libertine" to distinguish between culturally conservative libertarians who adamantly disagree with "immoral" behavior, but still defend the individual right to engage in it, as opposed to libertarians who do not care about conventional "moral" behavior. And yes, classical liberals are called such because they remained true to the capitalist spirit of the original liberal thinkers, while modern liberals adopted the welfare state ideology.

and you guys are aware that the democrats aren't really liberal, right?

if they were up here, they'd be conservative.

the republicans would be the alliance... if they hadn't been disbanded and joined up with the conservatives...

I consider myself libertarian but am willing to regulate things that have a high chance of injuring others.

For example, I don't care if the driver is wearing a seatbelt, but any minors (under 13) must unquestionable be wearing a seatbelt. They cannot rationally make the decision.

In this case, you would be endangering the life of someone else. This stance would be antilibertarian. Libertarianis does not mean absolutely no laws. It means a reworking of our understanding of the laws; a simplification.
You can't use force or fraud on any individual or group. Since a child is unable to make the decision themselves, this would be considered force, and thus be illegal.

I would ban smoking in public as second hand smoke has been proven very harmful to the health of others.
I disagree, but this point deserves it's own thread, really.

I would ban cell phones in cars. They are likely to cause accidents.
Agreed. Data shows that this is true, and so it would fall under the force category. A victem would have no choice in the matter if you harmed them becuase of your irresponsible chatter. Jailarity ensues....


However, police would not enforce these laws. If someone was injured because of a violation of these laws, they could sue the violator, however their must be a specific injured party for the laws to be applied. If you are in public and no one around you cares if you smoke, go ahead. If a child is killed in a car accident due to not wearing a seat belt, the government will charge the parents and try to recover from them the estimated value of the child's life to society. Etc. No laws would be enforced until someone was injured.
I used to think much like this, but it borders too close to unbridled anarchism. The three branches should remain intact, including the judicial branch (police and judges). Albeit, without the drug war, the police force would shrink overnight and deal exclusively with force and fraud protection.
you're right though, civil torts should be compenstated. Criminal torts should earn you an exclusive vacation in our new, barebones prisons.

Alright, singlehandedly defending a party is giving me carpal tunnel syndrome!

Legalize it all for adults, with suggested dosages and the like for things where it might be unclear or where overdose is likely.

and also, open up rehab centres for those who want to kick their habits. for those of lower incomes, subsidize their treatment so they can get their life back.

Or, if a friend or family member dies of heroin overdose, you may sue the shit out of the manufacturer for compensation.
They would also be providing the rehabilitation centers as this would be one type of compensation for the addicts of their faulty products.
It's not so hard, see?

smoking in public affects other people. it's not really a victimless crime. second hand smoke is rather bad for people. it's one thing to smoke outdoors...
Well, it IS arguable...certainly getting a whiff of smoke from a passerby does not noticably cause health problems...I'm not sure as to what extent second hand smoke has to exist to actually cause problems. But I do see the flaw in my argument.

I consider myself to be very socially libertarian, and yet I voted "other" because I did not find myself in any of those categories.

Why not? Many of the issues you listed actually CAN interfere with other people. If you are stoned, for example, then you become mentally impaired and may hurt other people without trying. Smoking marijuana also makes second-hand smoke, which can hurt others' health. Admittedly, though, most issues like this still have nothing to do with other people and should not be regulated.

I consistently find the political parties to be too authoritarian for my liking.

I consider myself to be very socially libertarian, and yet I voted "other" because I did not find myself in any of those categories.

Why not? Many of the issues you listed actually CAN interfere with other people. If you are stoned, for example, then you become mentally impaired and may hurt other people without trying. Smoking marijuana also makes second-hand smoke, which can hurt others' health. Admittedly, though, most issues like this still have nothing to do with other people and should not be regulated.

I consistently find the political parties to be too authoritarian for my liking.

wow... I just noticed the other post that somewhat mentioned this anyway. :p

I consider myself to be very socially libertarian, and yet I voted "other" because I did not find myself in any of those categories.

Why not? Many of the issues you listed actually CAN interfere with other people. If you are stoned, for example, then you become mentally impaired and may hurt other people without trying. Smoking marijuana also makes second-hand smoke, which can hurt others' health. Admittedly, though, most issues like this still have nothing to do with other people and should not be regulated.

I consistently find the political parties to be too authoritarian for my liking.
Yes, you're right, I'm seeing flaws in my argument already. This is just a pasttime of mine, trying to really analyze political ideologies...there's so much more than just liberal/conservative and left/right. Lately I've been interested in Libertarianism, after some dissatisfaction with various authoritarian liberal platforms. All in all, this is a great quest for me to finally find my coherent view on politics, which has eluded me since I stopped thinking in single catchphrases in high school.

some dissatisfaction with various authoritarian liberal platforms

Authoritarian liberals don't make much sense to me. That would be using the government to limit both social and economic aspects of life as much as possible. In the USA, you might call those people Southern Democrats. :headbang:

man, you should really talk to this one libertarian guy (first one i met) and straighten him out.

he was off on how taxes are violent crimes and shit and how welfare shouldn't exist at all and how the poor can pretty much fuck themselves and get a job... though that leaves you wondering about the disabled who are unable to work.
Okay, like any other party there are differnt kinds of Libertarians. Moderates and militants. Although I believe the welfare state should be gotten rid of, that's not to say that there should be no social programs. This, I think, is the hardest part of the deal for most modern liberals to understand.
"What good is freedom if the rich and poor are both free to sleep under a bridge" sorta question I hear all of the time from friends? Well...
The phenomenal growth in national wealth in the last century should have left the US with only a tiny proportion of the population in poverty. (More obviously, so should Socialism and Communism, but it was far from happening).
So what's the problem? The entry of government into social insurance and intevention has caused incalculable social suffering. It HAS NOT produced a society in which fewer people are dependant (as was promised at the initiation of these programs.
The welfare state has created an artificially high Dependant Class, producing children socialized by their parent's behavior. My ancestors were very poor, non-english speaking immigrants who raised their children during the depression in poverty with no government assistance. All of their kids were by any definition, successful.
There were no welfare programs at the time, so how the f*ck did they do it without Big Government's intervention? It's impossible!
There is no excuse for what happened to our society in the last century since the introduction of welfare, except good intentions (which paved the road to Hell in this case), and even that's a lame excuse.
Politicians had to ignore early indications after the first welfare legislation passed that their good intentions would backfire. They had to ignore commentaries on human nature from modern psychology back to ancient times.
That America has not fulfilled her promise, this pisses me off. This is what Big Government has bought us, and we're all to blame for not seeing it coming.
It's a viscious cycle, and I'd agree that we just can't take it all away at once.
That would be irresponsible.
But if it isn't working, no matter how much money we throw at the concept, shouldn't we come up with a better one? In a nation full of the brightest, individuals money can buy, shouldn't we have something better than a band aid that fell off the wound a long time ago?
Yeah, we should have had a backup plan. You don't hear one from either party, just less money or more money for a defunct, failed fossil of a program.
Most current Libertarian discussions on the issue don't revolve around eradication, but proposals to improve the system through incremental changes: Privatizing Social Security, devolving welfare programs to the states, establishing medical savings accounts to replace Medicare, better training programs for the unskilled, and a lot of other improvements that might take me all night to type.
I don't see what throwing more money into the current fire is going to do for our nation's improvement in the long run. Major change needs to be established and better alternatives to welfare as we know it can be introduced.

Okay, now my hands be hurtin'.

Eichen-- "In a nation full of the brightest, individuals money can buy"

I just hope you're not talking about america.

Eichen-- "In a nation full of the brightest, individuals money can buy"

I just hope you're not talking about america.
Where do these other nations choose to go to get their higher educations?
Before they move back to their own countries?
If you've actually been in a university, this much should be obvious.
They pay to play, and drop their cash HERE on our institutions of higher learning.

Obviously I'm not talking about your average Joe Blasphemous here.

Well, it IS arguable...certainly getting a whiff of smoke from a passerby does not noticably cause health problems...I'm not sure as to what extent second hand smoke has to exist to actually cause problems. But I do see the flaw in my argument.
well, as i said, there's nothing wrong with being able to smoke outside (maybe not right in front of doors...) however, there have been cases of emphesema among bar and restaurant employees in smoky restaurants.

so smoking should either be banned or confined to closed off areas separate from the rest of the bar.

Eichen-- "In a nation full of the brightest, individuals money can buy"

I just hope you're not talking about america.
Joe Blasphemous, where are you from? And if American, what state?

*ehem* So am I to understand that Chodolo is not, in fact, willing to have my children?

Sidenote: For those of you who basically have a very limited understanding of what the LP is about, visit http://www.lp.org/intro/
This should clear some stuff up, namely what Libetarianism is and what it is not.

Also, for good Libertarian reading, try www.reason.com
you can read this geat mag online for free, no subscriptions or anything.

well, as i said, there's nothing wrong with being able to smoke outside (maybe not right in front of doors...) however, there have been cases of emphesema among bar and restaurant employees in smoky restaurants.

so smoking should either be banned or confined to closed off areas separate from the rest of the bar.
As Steve Martin said, "having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool."

But I'm a Libertarian. I believe in self-regulation. If a room is smoky, then don't go in it. If you lose business because people can't stand the smoke, then don't allow smoking in your restaurant (or on your property, if it comes to that). In the end, capitalism will work out all of the details for us. Government regulations just slow it down.

As Steve Martin said, "having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool."

But I'm a Libertarian. I believe in self-regulation. If a room is smoky, then don't go in it. If you lose business because people can't stand the smoke, then don't allow smoking in your restaurant (or on your property, if it comes to that). In the end, capitalism will work out all of the details for us. Government regulations just slow it down.
Right on. If an establishment was to lose money because it allowed smoking, then they would change their policies to stay in business.
Nonsmokers disgusted by secondhand smoke would find a nonsmoking establishment in which to dine.
Unfortunately, I'm an idiot smoker and have removed my business for the most part from a lot of the places where I used to hang since Florida enacted these fascist laws.
Now smoking is only legal in establishments that only acquire 10% or less of their annual income from food. I don't know of any reseraunt or business owner who is happy with this arrangement. They definitely consider it an infringement on their civil rights and an insult to their intelligence as business owners. I've never heard anything but complaints from waitresses and waiters on the issue locally. Why? Lost tips, threatened jobs.
Lots of places have been forced to close their kitchens altogether, obviously in need of babysitting by the Big Government.
Nobody's thanking these assholes who believe they need to save us from ourselves.

For the most part I am a social libertarian; one of two "liberal" beliefs socially but otherwise libertarian

EDIT: Oh, and I too realized that "liberal" and "conservative" were also the same a long time ago

Culturally conservative libertarianism: The branch of libertarianism that holds to a "moral" or "traditional" view of society, but still believes the government must not interfere in our private lives?

Oxymoronic... cultural conservatism cannot be reconciled with Libertarianism.


Oh No! A Libertarian!
He's against all these:
Social Security Taxation
Medicare
Welfare Rights
Minimum Wage
Labor Unions
Federal Regulation
Anti-Discrimination Laws
Jesse Jackson
Teddy Kennedy
Sensitivity Trainers
Washington
This is not Liberalism!

But he's in favor of all these:
Abortion
Pornography
Drug Legalization
Legalized Gambling
Legalized Prostitution
Gay "Marriage"
Nude Family Recreation
RuPaul
Jerry Springer
Strippers
Las Vegas
This is not Conservatism!

No, but these are all the Freedom and Constitutional Government, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments!
Reject the Left! Reject the Right!

Or, if a friend or family member dies of heroin overdose, you may sue the shit out of the manufacturer for compensation.
They would also be providing the rehabilitation centers as this would be one type of compensation for the addicts of their faulty products.
It's not so hard, see?

Was it a bad batch? Then sue away...

If someone od's because they were an idiot and took too much, that's their own damn fault.

Culturally conservative libertarianism: The branch of libertarianism that holds to a "moral" or "traditional" view of society, but still believes the government must not interfere in our private lives?

Oxymoronic... cultural conservatism cannot be reconciled with Libertarianism.


I believe in minimal government interference with social issues...but I'd prefer not to have 'Debbie Does Dallas' on network tv at 3 in the afternoon.

Culturally conservative libertarianism: The branch of libertarianism that holds to a "moral" or "traditional" view of society, but still believes the government must not interfere in our private lives?
I hear ya there. I've never met a "Socially Conservative" Libertarian.
I've only met Libertarian Libertarians.
Not sure how happy a socially conservative Libertarian would be, if they got their way. :confused:

Good job advancing libertarian ideas Eichen. It is kind of depressing that I hear them so often online but so rarely in real life. I am one of those 'culturally conservative libertarians', meaning that libertarian economics is much more important to me than legalizing drugs. For some insight into libertarianism, y'all might want to check out the Guide to Classical Liberal Scholarship (http://www.theihs.org/libertyguide/guide/index.php)

No, but these are all the Freedom and Constitutional Government, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments!
Reject the Left! Reject the Right!

I like my Ninth Amendment rights. Most politicians are either too afraid to use it or have simply forgotten about it.

The "textualist" reading of the Constitution interprets that the Ninth Amendment rights only include those rights that the founding fathers would have intended. The founding fathers agreed that public education was a right. So why is it that the Rodriguez v. San Antonio decision says that education is not a right? And why is it that this same court in Roe v. Wade said that the choice to have a first-trimester abortion is a right even though the founding fathers would not have agreed?

They just leave me confused. And I see my rights shrink. And I worry. :(

Today's Supreme Court is just as stupid. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas ... screw you, too! :upyours:

I oppose both government and capitalism, myself.

And why is it that this same court in Roe v. Wade said that the choice to have a first-trimester abortion is a right even though the founding fathers would not have agreed?

I'll probably catch heat for this, but I have no official standing whatsoever on abortion. Not choice. Not anti. Just not involved on that one.
I think it's incredibly arrogant for anyone who was born with a penis to decide what women should do with their equiptment. I leave it up to the ladies to decide.
They have to go through enough BS giving birth without know-it-all people with penises pretending to know what's best for them.
I'm just glad I was born with a winky. The manual would be card-sized, a vagina should come with a book.
Not my business.

In their social platform, liberals may feel that marijuana should be legalized...but only because of its proven medical properties and mild nature compared to, say alcohol. Ask a standard liberal if cocaine or heroin should be legalized, and you'll get the same response as a conservative. The libertarian however recognizes that it doesn't matter how dangerous marijuana is at all...it is not the government's business!

Liberals generally have disregarded what passes for "morality", but still have socially authoritarian beliefs. Conservatives believe in a traditional view of "morality", and have socially authoritarian beliefs. Libertines generally come from the liberal side, and culturally conservative libertarians generally come from the conservative side, through a mutual understanding of individual freedom.

So, based on the pure social platforms of the various ideologies, where do you find yourself? Please think purely on your social views, for this poll at least.
I am between "Liberal" and "libertine Libertarian".

I support mandating seat belt laws, restricting smoking in public, banning cell phones in cars, etc.

But I also think that drugs - all drugs - should be legalised. I have a couple of reasons for this:
1. It's not the government's business to tell us how we can harm ourselves or not.
2. It would end gangsterism once and for all.

I think prostitution, suicide, pornography, euthanasia and any sex between two (or more) consenting adults should be legal.

How should I vote in the poll?

no third party candidate will win the presidency any more. It will always be the big two.
How are you so sure about that? Third parties have won before. They will win again.

Good job advancing libertarian ideas Eichen. It is kind of depressing that I hear them so often online but so rarely in real life. I am one of those 'culturally conservative libertarians', meaning that libertarian economics is much more important to me than legalizing drugs. For some insight into libertarianism, y'all might want to check out the Guide to Classical Liberal Scholarship (http://www.theihs.org/libertyguide/guide/index.php)
Thanks, and thanks for the link. I likey the info there...

But of course America is the most conservative country in the Western world.
You forgot Poland!

Seriously though, Poland is more conservative. You should see this party that's growing in popularity there - the League of Polish Families. They're socialist, but very authoritarian socially - anti-gay, anti-porn, anti-anything the Catholic church might remotely dislike, etc. They make Republicans look like... well, not libertarians... like moderates.

A society that would not abandon the less fortunate but would care for them much better than we do now.
How, exactly, would that be done?

Authoritarian liberals don't make much sense to me. That would be using the government to limit both social and economic aspects of life as much as possible. In the USA, you might call those people Southern Democrats.Stalinists? :yikes:

But I'm a Libertarian. I believe in self-regulation. If a room is smoky, then don't go in it. If you lose business because people can't stand the smoke, then don't allow smoking in your restaurant (or on your property, if it comes to that). In the end, capitalism will work out all of the details for us. Government regulations just slow it down.
Nice ideology, but in reality, people usually go to bars and restaurants in groups of friends. In these groups, some will smoke, and some won't. Deciding where to go becomes a total inconvenience. Often, the non-smokers end up breathing in lots of smoke. I think that the smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke in bars because then they won't pass on second-hand smoke to give other people cancer.

Remember also the non-smokers who have to work in smoky bars all day. It affects their health.

You forgot Poland!

Seriously though, Poland is more conservative. You should see this party that's growing in popularity there - the League of Polish Families. They're socialist, but very authoritarian socially - anti-gay, anti-porn, anti-anything the Catholic church might remotely dislike, etc. They make Republicans look like... well, not libertarians... like moderates.


How conservative would you rate Ireland? Wasn't it all but impossible to get a divorce a few years ago?

Stalinists? :yikes:

I almost put that, but I know that there are a lot more Stalinists who use the general forum than there are Southern Democrats using it.

I'll probably catch heat for this, but I have no official standing whatsoever on abortion. Not choice. Not anti. Just not involved on that one.
I think it's incredibly arrogant for anyone who was born with a penis to decide what women should do with their equiptment. I leave it up to the ladies to decide.
They have to go through enough BS giving birth without know-it-all people with penises pretending to know what's best for them.
I'm just glad I was born with a winky. The manual would be card-sized, a vagina should come with a book.
Not my business.

I didn't mean that to bring up an abortion debate. (Please, save it for the other threads.) I was just finding the flaws in "textualism," "constructionism," or whatever they like to call it now.

How, exactly, would that be done?
Please bother yourself to read the posts I've written before. I don't have unlimited typing patience, ya know.
How would your party do it? I'm sure your reply will be succint too. I've typed too much already considering entire books and websites have been written on the subject. Do you have a more specific question not requiring a book-long outline?
Or how about a short answer to a short, general question:
By eliminating the enourmous Dependant Class, and removing the stifling laws and regulations that make it impossible for anyone but the rich to succeed in entrepeneurial enterprises. Small business isn't just choked by Wal-Mart. It's incredibly difficult becuase of lobbyists who've created an insurmountable heap of regulations that purposely keep the "samll guy" from competing with the huge corporations.
That's on top of what I've already written. Your turn, and try not to be as brief and general as your last post. I'd love to hear it.

Nice ideology, but in reality, people usually go to bars and restaurants in groups of friends. In these groups, some will smoke, and some won't. Deciding where to go becomes a total inconvenience. Often, the non-smokers end up breathing in lots of smoke. I think that the smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke in bars because then they won't pass on second-hand smoke to give other people cancer.

Remember also the non-smokers who have to work in smoky bars all day. It affects their health.
With an authoritarian attitude like that, I doubt you have many smoking friends.
If you wanted to be a *friend*, you'd compromise. Go out to a smoking establishment, then attend a NS one next time. You're a dick to think they owe you an obligation to follow your preference every time. God, I'd hate your guts!
Or you could just hang out with other NS's at NS places.
Or purchase an abandoned island in the Pacific and set up your own totalitarian government with all of your NS friends.

I didn't mean that to bring up an abortion debate. (Please, save it for the other threads.) I was just finding the flaws in "textualism," "constructionism," or whatever they like to call it now.
I was just replying to your post, not starting a debate (hard to have with someone without an opinion on the subject, dont ya think?).

How conservative would you rate Ireland? Wasn't it all but impossible to get a divorce a few years ago?
How do you quantify conservatism? Ireland is probably one of the more conservative countries in western Europe. Until recently we were extremely conservative - virtually a Catholic theocracy!

Contraception - legalised 1990
Divorce - legalised 1994

Gay marriage will be legalised within the next 5 years, I'm sure of it. There is still a large anti-abortion constituency, so that will take a while longer. I think Cannabis will be decriminalised within 6 years.

The average Irish person, however is rather liberal in mentality, probably more so than the average American.

How do you quantify conservatism? Ireland is probably one of the more conservative countries in western Europe. Until recently we were extremely conservative - virtually a Catholic theocracy!

Contraception - legalised 1990
Divorce - legalised 1994

Gay marriage will be legalised within the next 5 years, I'm sure of it. There is still a large anti-abortion constituency, so that will take a while longer. I think Cannabis will be decriminalised within 6 years.

The average Irish person, however is rather liberal in mentality, probably more so than the average American.

Thanks. I visited Dublin in 2002, and found the people to be rather conservative in nature. But you all seem to be moving quickly to the left.

*ehem* So am I to understand that Chodolo is not, in fact, willing to have my children?
Sorry, I don't do that seahorse thing. :p

Authoritarian liberals don't make much sense to me. That would be using the government to limit both social and economic aspects of life as much as possible. In the USA, you might call those people Southern Democrats.
That is quite true. Social conservatism is overwhelming in the South, but there is a lot of support for liberal economic policies...the South used to vote overwhelmingly Democrat until the Democratic party became the party of social liberalism. Likewise the North (and Northeast in particular) used to vote exclusively Republican until the GOP became the party of social conservatism. Both parties have moved to the fringes as social issues have split the parties. Republican Liberals and Democrat Conservatives just don't exist anymore. Even moderates take heat from their own parties.

I've never met a "Socially Conservative" Libertarian.
Walter Block (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:GuLeieOUaE8J:www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_6.pdf), for one. As he puts it: "The [culturally conservative] libertarian is someone who thinks that the libertine should not be incarcerated. He may bitterly oppose libertinism, he can speak out against it, he can organize boycotts to reduce the incidence of such acts. There is only one thing he cannot do, and still remain a libertarian: He cannot advocate, or participate in, the use of force against these people. Why? Because whatever one thinks of their actions, they do not initiate physical force. Since none of these actions necessarily does so, the libertarian must, in some cases reluctantly, refrain from demanding the use of physical force against those who engage in perversions among consenting adults."

My friend is a former conservative social authoritarian, who hated homosexuality and drug use and supported bans on them, but recently shifted to culturally conservative libertarianism. He still despises homosexuality and drug use, but he recognizes that it isn't his business to demand criminalization for things that affect only consenting adults. I would hope that all conservative social authoritarians could go this route.

BTW, I see now my poll is fundamentally flawed. I'm having a hard time pointing out a solid difference between social liberalism and social libertarianism, since my examples are quite arguable. I suppose it comes back to economics then.

Sorry, I don't do that seahorse thing. :p
Yeah, saw the picture, had to swallow a lil' bit of puke in my mouth at the thought of you bearing this incredible burden. But I flame... I mean digress...

On the other point, thanks for filling me in. I've never met a "Conservative Libertarian", but I feel that this position is reasonably enlightened. More so then the usual Conservative outlook on social issues.
At least it's a very American stance, and though I disagree with his prejudices I would deinitely defend his civil right to to express these opinions freely in whatever nonforceful, nonfraudulent manner he chooses.

Libertarian, definitely.

Just taking a look at a few of the social issues

*Abortion: pro-choice (better to have it in an abortion clinic than backstreet, although there's the whole issue about the unborn child's right to life)
*Death penalty: against
*Retributive justice: nah
*Drugs: legalize them, not the government's business anyway..
*Gay marriage: um, marriage isn't the government's business? I mean, I know there are some important rights you get from marriage... but is it really the government's business if you marry 5 people or not? or another dude or chick?
*Smoking [in public places]: stupid law... second-hand smoke is overrated, if you ask me..
*Smoking [in PRIVATE places]: let the person who owns it decide.. it's their property...
*Pornography depicting consenting adults: freedom of speech (technically)
*Nudity: if a private owner says "no-no," then so be it. are you infringing on other people's rights by going out nude (in all seriousness now)
*Gun rights: you have the right to own a gun. you don't got the right to kill someone because thats an attack on their right to life.
*Church/State separation: the state institution itself can't mix with religion; however, an individual (such as a student) has full rights to freedom of religion.. also PC correctness is getting out of hand.. christmas isn't even a religious holiday anymore, it's become a commercial one
Free speech: 100% in support of, no ifs ands or buts

I was just replying to your post, not starting a debate (hard to have with someone without an opinion on the subject, dont ya think?).

Sorry for the confusion; it was directed at everyone else.

Oh No! A Libertarian!
He's against all these:
Social Security Taxation
Medicare
Welfare Rights
Minimum Wage
Labor Unions
Federal Regulation
Anti-Discrimination Laws
Jesse Jackson
Teddy Kennedy
Sensitivity Trainers
Washington
This is not Liberalism!
I have no problem with Labor Unions. In fact, I think they're essential to the views that I listed above. I also have no objection to Jesse Jackson or Teddy Kennedy. They can do what they like, as long as it doesn't affect me.

Nice ideology, but in reality, people usually go to bars and restaurants in groups of friends. In these groups, some will smoke, and some won't. Deciding where to go becomes a total inconvenience. Often, the non-smokers end up breathing in lots of smoke. I think that the smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke in bars because then they won't pass on second-hand smoke to give other people cancer.

Remember also the non-smokers who have to work in smoky bars all day. It affects their health.
You can choose your friends, and you can choose where you work. If people are lonely, they'll stop smoking. If businesses are having difficulty hiring staff, they'll prohibit smoking indoors. If it's important enough to get the government to force your friends and customers not to smoke, why don't you just talk to them?

Nationstates is not a representative sample of the US voting population.

thank god

Free speech: 100% in support of, no ifs ands or buts

I'm almost at 100%. If the speech is a clear and direct threat against the right to life, though, then it is okay to limit it. Still, this free speech limitation can only be used if there is absolutely no other way to protect the right to life.

By this I mean that you can not make a prank call to a dispatcher and request an ambulance because that could prevent someone whose life really is in peril from getting the assistance needed.

Or by this I mean that you can not shout "FIRE!!!" into a hushed, crowded auditorium when there really is no fire because this would likely cause someone to be trampled to death.

Moderate libertarian - personally I fall in between the "traditional" and "ambivilant" on morality, but government should stay out of it.