I just don't like mitt Romney

[useless]

Basically if you're white, rich, own property, heterosexual, cis-gendered, christian and male, you'd do well under dommy's desired government, otherwise everyone else is screwed.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Probably because the number of freedoms you allegedly support can be counted on one hand. Freedom to drink large sodas, for starters.

I meant "most" compared to other tests, not "In general." I still got -3.23 (Meaning, 3.23 points more libertarian than the center of the line.) Oddly, enough that test puts me more libertarian than Ron Paul (Probably because Federalism isn't a concept that can really be measured on a test.)

Its just that most other tests give me near-maximum libertarian scores. Maybe those tests are wrong and PC is right? More accurately, most other tests are American centered, while political compass centers on every Western democracy BUT America (There's not even a single question on there related to the right to bear arms or any good ones about interventionism [The only one that really touches on it are "Military action defying international law is sometimes justified" <My answer would be "I don't give a crap about International Law, and that has nothing to do with why I support noninterventionist policies.)]

Basically if you're white, rich, own property, heterosexual, cis-gendered, christian and male, you'd do well under dommy's desired government, otherwise everyone else is screwed.

At least you recognize I'm screwing myself over considering I'm not rich nor do I own property

 

[choxorn]

My signature doesn't really explicitly say "I don't support Obama" does it?

Would a pro-life fiscal conservative support Obama?

I meant "most" compared to other tests, not "In general." I still got -3.23 (Meaning, 3.23 points more libertarian than the center of the line.) Oddly, enough that test puts me more libertarian than Ron Paul (Probably because Federalism isn't a concept that can really be measured on a test.)

You know, this is something I've always wondered about Libertarians like you. Why is giving the State Governments control over social and moral things more libertarian than giving National Governments control over those? Either way, there's still a small group of people telling you what you can and can't do.

One would assume a true libertarian would value individual rights over states rights, but I've found that many American "libertarians" don't.

 

[Leoreth]

It happens when you learn your political terminology from Glenn Beck.

 

[bhsup]

It happens when you learn your political terminology from Glenn Beck.

Yeah well, I'm either a paleoconservative or an ordoliberal. Or not, hell I dunno. Personally, I think we should take a page from Charlie Daniels...

"They can call it country, they can call it rock, but I'll play this sucker til the day I drop."

 

[MobBoss]

Is it really? I thought Obama was ahead.

Within the margin of error.

How do you know how "Your whole family" is voting?

Its called 'communication'.

My dad is voting for Romney as the "Lesser of two evils" as well.

Smart man. You could learn something from him.

Honestly, I don't see the logic of that in NYS. If Romney wins New York, he won like Reagan did anyway.

And how does he win NY? Oh, by people voting for him and not Obama.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Within the margin of error.

So its close, but Obama's still winning? Fair enough.

Its called 'communication'.

Yeah, fair point. For some reason I read this statement differently than at face value. I was stupid there.

Smart man. You could learn something from him.

You have no idea how smart he is, you only know that aspect of him. Admittedly, he IS a smart man, even if we only agree politically somewhere around half the time. That said...

And how does he win NY? Oh, by people voting for him and not Obama.

Thank you for making my point. And how does a third party win a state? By PEOPLE voting for that party. That was my point all along, that if you like Romney, you should vote for him even if you live in New York and Obama is almost certainly going to win. Similarly, if you like Obama and you live in Texas, you should vote for him even if Romney is the almost certain winner. And I submit to you that if you like neither choice, you should vote third party because, like you said, the only way they are going to win is if enough people vote for them.

Your defense of the two party duopoly honestly doesn't have much logic behind it. If you limited your argument to the swing states, although I have different arguments for not automatically voting status quo in swing states as well. (And yes, Romney is status quo, he's supporting the same policies of the two presidents that have preceeded him.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

You know, this is something I've always wondered about Libertarians like you. Why is giving the State Governments control over social and moral things more libertarian than giving National Governments control over those? Either way, there's still a small group of people telling you what you can and can't do.

One would assume a true libertarian would value individual rights over states rights, but I've found that many American "libertarians" don't.

This is a legitimate criticism, and one I've been mulling over lately.

A very unique exception to the "State's rights" trend is governor Gary Johnson. Keeping the controversial abortion question to the side, Gary Johnson supports state's rights when he feels that doing so will improve liberty, but he opposes it when he feels it will reduce liberty. As such, he's support a state right to, say, ignore Obamacare, or legalize marijuanna, but not to refuse to recognize gay marriages.

This is different from, say, Ron Paul, who, while personally a libertarian, does not want to enforce libertarianism on areas of the country that don't want it.

I thnik there are pros and cons to both sides.

However, it really doesn't matter because ultimately, the Federal government ARE NOT the ones who are improving liberty, practically ever. Occasionally they do, like say Lawrence VS Texas. I agreed with the courts there.

The vast majority of the time, the Federal government is USELESS (No pun on the poster name inteded, sorry, I really didn't intend that) at protecting liberty. It has almost never done so, and I am not inclined to think it will do so again.

Let's look at some examples...

Some states don't want to ban assault rifles, yet the Federal Assault Weapons ban was passed anyway.

Some states don't want to ban weed, yet the Federal Drug War carries on.

Only a very small minority really supports neocon invasions of foreign countries, yet we continue to do so. Since the states CANNOT invade foreign powers, they are by default unable to restrict freedom to not pay taxes towards such invasions by doing so

Some states would have little to no interest banning any form of gambling (Nevada?) yet the Feds are still trying (unless they already did, I'm not sure) to ban online gambling. Admittedly, you could argue that that law is constitutional if the online gambling is done across state borders. That said, it still is fundamentally not libertarian.

As of yet, I have yet to see any state be responsible for borderline rape or borderline strip searches in airports. Of course, the day I get elected governor everywhere is the day I exile the TSA from my state, but the fact that no state is bold enough to try does not directly make them responsible for the tyrannical search procedures of the Feds.

Ditto for the Patriot Act. I haven't seen states do any of that stuff. The Feds yeah.

What about drafting people to fight in wars of aggression to defend dictators? OK, you could argue the CSA did this one when they formed their own nation Although I would argue it wasn't a war of aggression, and even if it were, this has nothing to do with individual state governments so much as it does new nations.

The Feds are the only ones waterboarding people. I don't think the states have done any torture

Other than Massachusettes, which doesn't really have its own tradition of "State's rights" anyway, states don't generally force you to buy health insurance.

I could go on and on. You might have an isolated case of the Federal government increasing liberty, but I have yet to really see one. Now, you could argue that they have done so by defending us from other governments, but compared to the states, the Federal track record is pretty weak, at least from a libertarian perspective.

I will grant you, occasionally the Supreme Court is an ally of libertarians, but when it is, it is almost always because they ruled against our government.

So ultimately, it comes down to "The states are better at it." Or at least, overall it comes down to that. Even if the Feds are better in an isolated case, letting them intervene may be worse in the long run.

I'm open to amending the constitution to prevent the states from doing truly bad things, or interfering with your constitutional rights (As a double protection) but for the most part state's rights supports libertarianism these days anyways, especially since its only the Feds that control the economy. I also think its antillibertarian for the Feds to take sides in culture wars.

 

[Crezth]

while political compass centers on every Western democracy BUT America (There's not even a single question on there related to the right to bear arms or any good ones about interventionism [The only one that really touches on it are "Military action defying international law is sometimes justified"

Well, the right to bear arms is a stupid right anyway, so.

<My answer would be "I don't give a crap about International Law, and that has nothing to do with why I support noninterventionist policies.)]

USA #1

So ultimately, it comes down to "The states are better at it." Or at least, overall it comes down to that. Even if the Feds are better in an isolated case, letting them intervene may be worse in the long run.

Whaaat are you talking about? Fed "intervention" is why slavery is illegal and schools are desegregated!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, the right to bear arms is a stupid right anyway, so.

Why? It is the right that ensures, should everything else go south, the other nine had better darn right be protected.

USA #1

I used to think that. Now its more like "National soveregnty #1", we can do whatever the heck we want so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, regardless of what international law says about it.

If international law said we couldn't stop Hitler's Holocaust, I'd still support intervention. So my reasoning has nothing to do with "Laws" but with moral superiority.

Whaaat are you talking about? Fed "intervention" is why slavery is illegal and schools are desegregated!

I meant right now. Although the Supreme Court desegregated schools. I'm honestly not certain if sending the military in was the best way of enforcing it, but maybe it was the only way.

As for slavery, slavery would have gone away anyway, without another war that cost six hundred thousand lives.

 

[Crezth]

Why? It is the right that ensures, should everything else go south, the other nine had better darn right be protected.

You're delusional. If you think your right to own a peashooter is at all a considerable assurance of your liberty, you're living in a fantasy world.

I used to think that. Now its more like "National soveregnty #1", we can do whatever the heck we want so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, regardless of what international law says about it.

You realize that "sovereignty" is a trait only observed by first-world countries? That a vast majority of formally sovereign states are in reality anything but?

Not to detract from your principle of what appears to be an idealistic self-determination, but the reality is that freedom isn't free and a policy like this is at best blindly leading and at worst being willfully ignorant.

If international law said we couldn't stop Hitler's Holocaust, I'd still support intervention. So my reasoning has nothing to do with "Laws" but with moral superiority.

I absolutely do not follow your reasoning. I presume, for instance, that you are against the Iraq War even though Saddam committed plenty of acts of genocide of his own.

I meant right now. Although the Supreme Court desegregated schools. I'm honestly not certain if sending the military in was the best way of enforcing it, but maybe it was the only way.

And now you know how all governments - state and federal - enforce their laws.

As for slavery, slavery would have gone away anyway, without another war that cost six hundred thousand lives.

[citation needed]

 

[choxorn]

In response to your assertion that the Federal Government is worse than the states, I ask to read Amendments #1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, and 26, especially 13-15, 19, and 24. I'd throw in 2, 9, and 10, but you talk about those three so much assume you already know about them anyway.

 

[Ailedhoo]

For a article relating to the above cartoon go here.

Its called 'communication'.

On the serface. It is possible to hide the plan. Just consideration.

 

[MobBoss]

Thank you for making my point. And how does a third party win a state? By PEOPLE voting for that party.

No, actually, that makes MY point. A third party will never, ever, ever win the Presidential election in this nation.

Ever.

The end result of you voting third party is the simple fact that you help vote in an administration that you are even more politically aligned against.

Doesnt sound too smart does it? Well, it isnt.

Get with the game and embrace the simple fact that 3rd party votes are simply wasted votes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your defense of the two party duopoly honestly doesn't have much logic behind it.

You dont think that its going to be one of those 2 parties that wins isnt logical?

I think it is extremely logical and it has the weight of history behind it, and there is simply no way you can avoid it. Its going to happen, and continue to happen. You can either continue to be a non-factor, or you can actually vote for a party that might actually win a presidential election.

 

[Traitorfish]

I guess it depends on how you define "Libertarian." I think we have way too many laws, regulations, and taxes. I think there are a lot of crimes that shouldn't be considered crimes, and I think some crimes that should be considered crimes are punished too harshly, or just plain incorrectly (Our response to nonviolent theft should ALWAYS be having the criminal compensate the victim in some way and NEVER "Lock them up and screw the victim" which is really what we do now.) However, when we get to the realm of murder, rape, and the like, my only real concern is putting innocent people to death. In my mind, libertarianism is not an excuse for criminals to get lighter sentences. But then again, that's because that's not the reason I became libertarian-minded (At least "ish") in the first place.

You're really just proving my point, here: I suggest that you have no substantially "libertarian" philosophy, and you respond by reeling off a list of policy positions.

Honestly, in America, YOU would be the one getting laughed at for claiming to be "Libertarian" considering your opposition to property rights and capitalism. We don't consider that "Libertarian" here. I'm fine with the fact that defintions are different in Europe than they are here, but that goes both ways. Few people in the US would claim someone like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson is not libertarian. In fact, that's exactly why CelticEmpire was kind of like "What do you mean Ron Paul isn't a libertarian" when someone insinuated such. In America, that would be considered crazy talk. In Europe, on the other hand, libertarianism is more associated with the left. Neither definition is "Wrong" any more so than your usage of British words in general would be considered "Wrong." I mean TECHNICALLY you're speaking Queen's English while I'm speaking American English. The fact that we can understand each other MOST of the time hardly means we speak the same language

Accepting that this is the case- and I'm not sure I do- what relevance does it have? Just because "libertarianism" is defined as exclusively propertarian does not mean that anyone with propertarian views can describe themselves as a "libertarian".

 

[GenMarshall]

Smart man. You could learn something from him.

After Mitt's statement about 47% rant. I cannot wrap my mind how anyone could support a callous candidate. It just shows how out of touch Mitt is towards the poor and the working class.

 

[Murky]

I'm sure after Mitt loses, the right-wing conspiracy camps will all be saying how he threw the race because he was a liberal plant.

 

[bhsup]

I'm sure after Mitt loses, the right-wing conspiracy camps will all be saying how he threw the race because he was a liberal plant.

Please do not speak for us.

 

[MobBoss]

After Mitt's statement about 47% rant. I cannot wrap my mind how anyone could support a callous candidate. It just shows how out of touch Mitt is towards the poor and the working class.

I dont think that is a callous statement at all. Why would you? I thought you'd actually rather confirm it anecdotally.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I dont think that is a callous statement at all. Why would you? I thought you'd actually rather confirm it anecdotally.

The statement was not the way of empathy but of a sign that Mitt might not be a good choice. There is a reason why many conseratives are joining in the denouncement of Mitt after his statement.