Left Wing or Right Wing? Take Pop Quiz in OP!

[Dotini]

Ummm, what?! Emphasis above is mine. Since libertarians (and anarchists) generally believe that each individual person is their own individual culture, how exactly are we resistant to rapid culture change? We expect the culture to change based on whoever we happen to be standing near at any given moment.

Thank you for your question. I cannot answer for "we", but only for myself. Since graduating college, where I took courses in poli-sci, history, philosophy and logic, I have accumulated two plus well stuffed shelves of books, periodicals and manifestos on the subjects of anarchy, Luddism, libertarianism and American conservatism. In this portion of my library, I have specialized in the study of primitive anarchy and paleo-conservatism, and consider myself an antiwar libertarian rather like Ron Paul. I have done research on the ground in Eugene, Oregon. My confidant opinion based on personal experience and study is that resistance to overly rapid cultural change is a strong element to be found among all these cohorts. I make no bones that your experience and particular areas of experience and study may well differ from mine.

 

[Duke]

Thank you for your question. I cannot answer for "we", but only for myself. Since graduating college, where I took courses in poli-sci, history, philosophy and logic, I have accumulated two plus well stuffed shelves of books, periodicals and manifestos on the subjects of anarchy, Luddism, libertarianism and American conservatism. In this portion of my library, I have specialized in the study of primitive anarchy and paleo-conservatism, and consider myself an antiwar libertarian rather like Ron Paul. I have done research on the ground in Eugene, Oregon. My confidant opinion based on personal experience and study is that resistance to overly rapid cultural change is a strong element to be found among all these cohorts. I make no bones that your experience and particular areas of experience and study may well differ from mine.

OK, now that you've spent a lot of words detailing your credentials, how about you answer the actual question?

 

[Dotini]

OK, now that you've spent a lot of words detailing your credentials, how about you answer the actual question?

For instance, libertarians I know are resistant to new regulations and policies in gun control, healthcare, climate change, traditional sexual roles, and the whole package of identity politics.

 

[Duke]

For instance, libertarians I know are resistant to new regulations and policies in gun control, healthcare, climate change, traditional sexual roles, and the whole package of identity politics.

Gun control: Libertarians will, by definition, be resistant to legislation that reduces individual liberties. This is not a symptom of general resistance to cultural change. This is the direct result of proposing new legislation that restricts the rights of individual gun owners and potential gun owners.

Healthcare: Libertarians will resist new legislation that mandates healthcare requirements and socialization of costs. Again, this does NOT mean they "generally resist too-rapid culture change". It means they are resistant to any changes toward collectivism and statism, both of which are represented by current trends in US healthcare and its social perception.

Climate change: Not sure what you are specifically referring to here, but AGAIN, libertarians will be distrustful of and resistant to proposed regulation and legislation that restricts individual freedoms. individual libertarians may agree or disagree with the concept of climate change as a human-driven phenomenon, but those that believe it will say that encouraging improvements by buying products that reduce emissions and energy consumption is the way to correct the situation, not via regulations.

Sexual roles: Not sure what you're specifically referring to here, either. Individual libertarians may or may not agree / approve / support / whatever changes in gender identity and sexual roles. But even they will be the very first to acknowledge that those roles are to be defined entirely by the consenting adults engaging in them.

You seem to be radically ignoring the context of the perceived resistance and insisting (for some unfathomable reason) that it is the pace of cultural change that is the issue for your theoretical libertarians.

 

[ryzno]

New:
Economic Left/Right: 0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33


old:

Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

[/QUOTE]

 

[Dotini]

You seem to be radically ignoring the context of the perceived resistance and insisting (for some unfathomable reason) that it is the pace of cultural change that is the issue for your theoretical libertarians.

I am a bit slow in understanding your objections, but I am willing to work with you to address them.
May I respectfully ask why you designate the libertarians I personally know as theoretical?

 

[Duke]

I am a bit slow in understanding your objections, but I am willing to work with you to address them.
May I respectfully ask why you designate the libertarians I personally know as theoretical?

Because, based on the reasons I outlined in my rebuttal above, I believe that they (or you) lack a reasonably accurate definition of what “libertarian” means.

 

[UKMikey]

22/3/2017:

Just now:

 

[PocketZeven]

A recurring theme here is most people opposing authotarianism. Seeing how democrats and republicans are mostly in the blue, Bernie should be the next president! He would win an election based on that test in this thread by a large majority.

As for the guys in purple, is democrat williamson even an option? She has a strong message of love but she is a bit out there.

 

[zzz_pt]

A recurring theme here is most people opposing authotarianism. Seeing how democrats and republicans are mostly in the blue, Bernie should be the next president! He would win an election based on that test in this thread by a large majority.

As for the guys in purple, is democrat williamson even an option? She has a strong message of love but she is a bit out there.

I'm not sure that's true.

I think it's easier for people to concede on a bit less "liberty"(y axis) in order to keep their "morality / ethics"(x axis) than the other way arround. What I mean is, it's easier to vote for a candidate that aligns with your view of the world and society in general, but wants to get there using a bit more strict and less liberal measures, than to vote for a candidate that is more liberal but has a completely (or very) different view of the world and society.

I might be wrong ofc. But in my case, If I had no one on the green quadrant to vote for, I'd probably vote for someone in the bottom of the red quadrant than someone on the purple quadrant that was just as libertarian as I am.

 

[Joey D]

As for the guys in purple, is democrat williamson even an option? She has a strong message of love but she is a bit out there.

I know precisely two things about Marianne Williamson.

The first is that she wants to pay the African American community upwards of $500 billion for slavery reparations (never mind there are exactly zero former slaves alive today). The second is that she's into New Age BS and more specifically Oprah's spiritual advisor. I think she's going to be a hard pass for me.

 

[PocketZeven]

I know precisely two things about Marianne Williamson.

The first is that she wants to pay the African American community upwards of $500 billion for slavery reparations (never mind there are exactly zero former slaves alive today). The second is that she's into New Age BS and more specifically Oprah's spiritual advisor. I think she's going to be a hard pass for me.

I know. But she is purple though!

 

[Duke]

A recurring theme here is most people opposing authotarianism. Seeing how democrats and republicans are mostly in the blue, Bernie should be the next president! He would win an election based on that test in this thread by a large majority.

Given that Bernie Sanders has announced that he wants to nationalize healthcare, the energy industry, and press, I'm struggling to understand any possible way that Bernie can be plotted anywhere below the upper 10% of that graph.

 

[PocketZeven]

Given that Bernie Sanders has announced that he wants to nationalize healthcare, the energy industry, and press, I'm struggling to understand any possible way that Bernie can be plotted anywhere below the upper 10% of that graph.

Giving people the right to healthcare isnt nationalizing . I am unaware on what you mean with nationalizing energy , press and industry? I am not aware of such policies.



edit: I read the original post wrong. Edited to give the correct response.
edit 2:

Giving people more rights versus corporations is the opposite to authotarian. Leaving corporations the freedom to create monopolies or oligopolies and lobby with millions of dollars to influence policies definately is!

 

[Dotini]

Giving people more rights versus corporations is the opposite to authotarian. Leaving corporations the freedom to create monopolies or oligopolies and lobby with millions of dollars to influence policies definately is!

I like your thought here. But the people have been outsmarted by the corporations, lawyers and lobbyists. They have the law, all the way to the Supreme Court, on their side. We can cry "corruption" all day long but it avails nothing. Both parties are thoroughly corrupted by lobbyists which outnumber Congress by a ratio of 500:1. Nothing short of revolution or some other cataclysmic event is going to change this status quo. Apparently Biden is being declared essentially mentally damaged by some in the medical community, and Bernie has managed to knock himself out with his own punching bag. Our men are helpless and Tulsi is being relegated.

 

[mustafur]

Can someone explain to me how A Free Market on Water, Energy and even Trains makes sense, all you do is create minor monopolies and no one competes with each other as they get their own dedicated section of the market.

To me it's clear as day that it's just something that makes more sense being a Public utility because there is no free market answer.

 

[Danoff]

Can someone explain to me how A Free Market on Water, Energy and even Trains makes sense, all you do is create minor monopolies and no one competes with each other as they get their own dedicated section of the market.

Give me an example of a non-government-created water, energy, or train monopoly.

 

[mustafur]

Give me an example of a non-government-created water, energy, or train monopoly.

As in originally a Private company from the start or one that even exists?

 

[Joey D]

Can someone explain to me how A Free Market on Water, Energy and even Trains makes sense, all you do is create minor monopolies and no one competes with each other as they get their own dedicated section of the market.

To me it's clear as day that it's just something that makes more sense being a Public utility because there is no free market answer.

Water is already a monopoly since your only choice is whatever your municipality is offering. They can charge whatever they like too since you have no alternative. In most areas, you can't even dig a well if you want to in order to combat excess water prices.

Energy is similar, but it basically comes from municipalities telling you where you can buy your power from. There are no other options unless you want to use a diesel generator, which would be illegal in most areas due to noise.

Railroads are a bit different. We have private railways in the US that work fairly well. Plus you have the option to put cargo on a truck or ship if you don't want to ship it by train. Same goes with passengers, you have options.

 

[Danoff]

As in originally a Private company from the start or one that even exists?

If you can find one that was not private from the start but wasn't created by the government, I'd be shocked, but I guess that would work. Point is find a monopoly in those areas that wasn't created by government.

 

[mustafur]

Water is already a monopoly since your only choice is whatever your municipality is offering. They can charge whatever they like too since you have no alternative. In most areas, you can't even dig a well if you want to in order to combat excess water prices.

Energy is similar, but it basically comes from municipalities telling you where you can buy your power from. There are no other options unless you want to use a diesel generator, which would be illegal in most areas due to noise.

Railroads are a bit different. We have private railways in the US that work fairly well. Plus you have the option to put cargo on a truck or ship if you don't want to ship it by train. Same goes with passengers, you have options.

What if the place you want to Deliver to has no Sea Port?

I was also referring to Passenger trains as well, the way it's designed How can a Free market exist?

If you can find one that was not private from the start but wasn't created by the government, I'd be shocked, but I guess that would work. Point is find a monopoly in those areas that wasn't created by government.

I ask why is it important?

 

[Duke]

Private free market rail lines are what built the United States into what it is.

It can happen again. All it takes is a consortium of investors and operators. But the real truth is, at least in America, there are only very specific places and use profiles that are economically viable. That’s why no one can believe that private railroads can exist - because more than half of passenger railroads would not be economically self-supporting except as quasi-government entities, and require massive taxpayer subsidies.

 

[Joey D]

What if the place you want to Deliver to has no Sea Port?

I was also referring to Passenger trains as well, the way it's designed How can a Free market exist?

If there's no seaport, you just deliver it to a seaport then put it on a truck. It's how most of the world delivers good, even in the US that's how it works for the most part.

As for how does a passenger train work in the free market? Exactly like any other form of transportation. Sure, they don't own the tracks, but it's similar to how Greyhound Bus doesn't own the road. They just pay to use it.

And Amtrak is a quasi-private company that shuttles passengers around the US. It works and could easily work without government involvement...that is if the government would just allow the development of high-speed rails.

 

[UKMikey]

Giving people the right to healthcare isnt nationalizing . I am unaware on what you mean with nationalizing energy , press and industry? I am not aware of such policies.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I can't find the part where he says he wants to nationalise the press. It doesn't seem to be a very specific weblink.

 

[ryzno]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I can't find the part where he says he wants to nationalise the press. It doesn't seem to be a very specific weblink.

He did slam Fox News...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ya...resident-donald-trump-fox-news-003444693.html

 

[UKMikey]

He did slam Fox News...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ya...resident-donald-trump-fox-news-003444693.html

I was referring to @Duke's link to the Bernie Sanders website but talking about Fox, it looks like this is the fifth anniversary of Tansuitgate.

 

[TexRex]

it looks like this is the fifth anniversary of Tansuitgate.

Can you believe it's more than a decade since Mustardgate?

 

[UKMikey]

Can you believe it's more than a decade since Mustardgate?

I don't even remember whether it or Michelle's sleeveless dress even made the news over here.

 

[PocketZeven]

Can someone explain to me how A Free Market on Water, Energy and even Trains makes sense, all you do is create minor monopolies and no one competes with each other as they get their own dedicated section of the market.

To me it's clear as day that it's just something that makes more sense being a Public utility because there is no free market answer.

It just doesnt work. Just look at how essentially broken the market of internetproviders is. They are for profit companies that devided their market into regions, which essentially creates an oligopoly. For the ones who like John oliver (WARNING: may contain swearing):

 

[Danoff]

It just doesnt work. Just look at how essentially broken the market of internetproviders is. They are for profit companies that devided their market into regions, which essentially creates an oligopoly. For the ones who like John oliver (WARNING: may contain swearing):

Can you give me an example of a non-government monopoly in those areas? Or the internet for that matter?