Republicans vs. Democrats

Alright... I get how national defense is controversial among Libertarians, and I suppose I don't think one of us is more of a Libertarian for believing the budget should be cut or not.

As for public nudity, I think that is more of a Libertarian belief? Nudity isn't going to deprive of anyone else's life, liberty or property.

 

Perhaps you should communicate more effectively, and you explanation is still confusing. Why would you have to "ignore economics" in order to vote for "real libertarians"?

 

Because I am not a libertarian economically. Socially, I am much closer to them then, say, to Republicans.

 

Agreed.

I believe states and municipalities should determine those things for themselves. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a community that permitted public nudity, but I wouldn't begrudge another community the right to make that decision for themselves.

 

Okay, that I understand. Had you said, "If I ignore my economic beliefs..." I would have known what you meant. Using the generic term "economics" implies that you're referring to the study of economics and not your personal economic beliefs.

 

Some individuals find overweight people, hard-to-tell gender people, and people who haven't taken showers lately to be nasty, but if the government were to be customary to all of these individuals' likings, there wouldn't be liberty.

BTW, public nudity is legal where I live and have lived for ten years, and I have never seen anyone without clothes in public.

 

Yeap, anarchocommunist

If they resist? Anything, the Revolution have to be peacefull, there are forms of revolting without violence and is more effective.

The Revolution would go with education, but a Revolution well done from the people take years, and for now is something utopic.

The problem would be the violence from the state.

The Revolution is against the state, the corporations and every form of authority existent.

 

Go LIBERALS !

 

Insofar that I did not address my statement to you and you've taken it upon yourself to talk in Ethereal's behalf, I actually agree with all of what you said. You have my vote. However, you absolutely failed to mention anything specific about jobs and the economy...the two issues that were the driving force in this election.

I am not going to hide the fact that I desire to see more government controls enforced to curb corporate US which leads to another thing you did not not mention, and that is "privacy rights" and the present government intrusion into our affairs based on this scare tactic called "homeland security."

I see a balanced role for government. Part to save us from our own stupidity but not so much that they start becoming a totalitarian nanny state.

 

The problem with Democrats and Republicans now are that there isn't much difference between them anymore. They all want to "help us" which basically means taking care of us and telling us not to worry about what they do. If America is the nation it was meant to be, then more people would be questioning what the government is doing instead of believing everything they say without question

 

Well, that's where we're Republican: on economics. I even volunteered to campaign for my local Republican governor candidate this year. Currently, yes, Republican is pretty ideal for us, but that doesn't mean we're Republicans. If the economy was perfect and was completely ignored, and social issues were the huge controversial current issues, then I would be campaigning for my local Democrat... well, maybe not this one, but that's besides the point.

 

That are all the "libertarians"? It's interesting your point of view, and we agree with all social questions(in my modereate position, I'd go farer in some points), but in economical aspects never we will agree, because you're for free market and I'm totally opposed to that.

MMM, you're a typical socialdemocrat, it is what we have in Europe, in the Nordic countries.

And it is interesting to see that the "freedom country" isn't so much, including a country as Spain that from my point of view is represive and we lack with many liberties(social and political) we have more freedom than USA, for example in the points of nudity, is legal in all country go nude where you go, although there are some violations of this legality(Unconstitutional from the cities/towns)

The abortion is legal, no?

The gays have the same rights

The other questions are in the same situation than in USA or a bit worse, for example freedom of speech.

But points of that, for example freedom of speech in the libertarian system would be more theorical that practical, because the freedom of speech would depend of the funding that you have.

But I think that we are going too much offtopic.

 

In other words, Libertarians are nuttier than Librul Socialists.

 

They would be socialists if they would want the nationalization of the economy, but they want free market

 

I find it odd that people who want economic freedom oppose social freedom, and people who want social freedom oppose economic freedom.

 

Socialists want to equally distribute wealth.

 

I think communities have a legitimate role in regulating certain aspects of the public domain, and that the Constitution specifically allows for it. I daresay that if someone who reeked of excrement sat next to me on public transit, I'd demand his removal, and justifiably so.

I also believe in the diversity of thought and behavior in communities, so I generally oppose standardizing them on a national level (like permitting public nudity).

People would always have the Federally-enforced right to leave a community or even a state.

And that works for your area/community, and that's fine, but it might not work in downtown Chicago...

 

Yes, it does, but by a Libertarian stand point, we are permitted to allow as much liberty as we can without affecting others' life, liberty or property, no?

But should it be the law that he must move from you?

Different communities can evolve into whatever style they want, but why should this be the government's responsibility?

But why should government force people to go to other areas if they are not affecting anyone else's life, liberty or property?

I was just saying that, realistically, just because public nudity is legal, doesn't mean everyone is going to be dancing down the street naked.

If someone were to dance down the streets naked, why should that be prevented by the government?

 

I'm a small-l libertarian. It's just a loose philosophical label which I ascribe to myself. More specifically, I'm a decentralist and a minarchist, and I believe communities should be able to restrain certain behaviors and liberties in the interest of normalizing their public domain.

I never said they must move, only that they could. If your town doesn't allow public nudity, and you find this intolerable, then simply find a more suitable community.

I said it was the community's responsibility.

But I never said that or even implied it. You don't have to leave and nobody could force you to leave. You simply have the choice. Whether you exercise it or not is entirely up to you.

Because public nudity is abnormal, unsanitary, and potentially disruptive. It's the same reason we shouldn't let people have sex on the sidewalk.

 

Alright, that's your belief, but this conversation started on how public nudity is not necessarily a Libertarian belief.

Why should it be the law to "fit in" to the rest of the people? Isn't the country of liberty better than the country of "if you want to appear that way, go find the proper community so you can fit in."

So leave it up to the community; don't get the government involved at all.

I believe you did imply that if you want to stay in a certain community, you have to follow their laws, even if those laws are stupid. Why should you have to follow stupid laws?

Abnormal should mean illegal? Gays, Blacks, Jews, etc. should all be outlawed in that case.

I'm not saying you have to touch the naked people.

It could also be disruptive to wear a funny looking hat. Outlaw hats?

Personally, I think sex should be legal on sidewalks, but that's a whole different conversation.

 

I call myself a Centerist, because I like a bit from all the party platforms, and somethings that none of them espouce.

I have never understood how any person can have all the same beliefs as any "PARTY". We are individuals and should form our own beliefs about things, not adopt those of some politician.

 

Without saying as much, you imply something that most people forget....what liberal really means. Liberal (classic) stresses the importance of "personal liberty" or the freedom to do as we please. This is balanced constitutionally against the "possible harm" such freedoms might cause.

I don't buy into, for example, this paleolibertarian concept (conservative on social issues and liberal on economic) that Rand Paul espouses. That's bogus. You can't say, I'm for liberty, the freedom to do as you please EXCEPT for these things I don't believe in (abortion, prostitution, gay rights, etc).

Nor am I in agreement with the most outspoken of liberals, Noam Chomsky, who pushes the envelope.

What this country doesn't need is hundreds of different definitions for the combination of two basic ingredients: liberalism and/or conservationism.

 

I was going by the current definition of Liberal. Classic Liberals are now known as Libertarians.

 

As a Conservative, I did vote to legalize Marijuanna. Does that make me Librul???

 

It still is. I consider myself a "libertarian" just as much as you do, but, more specifically, I'm a libertarian minarchist, which means I believe the government exists, not only to protect the rights of the people, but to maintain a semblance of law and order in society, especially within the public domain, and maintaining a minimum standard of law and order requires the people, via the law, to grant to government certain powers which, when exercised, may temporarily infringe upon the natural right of an individual to live in a state of perfect liberty.

Because certain cultural traditions (like wearing clothes in public) are so longstanding and ingrained within the human tradition that they should be adhered to as a matter of practicality.

It does one no harm whatsoever wear clothing in public, and is far more "natural" than being nude.

Can't the community choose government for itself?

Because communities have a lawful and morally legitimate role in normalizing their public domain. The natural consequence of granting communities this authority is that some stupid laws will be made, but the freedom of movement throughout the country - protected by the Federal government - ensures that communities with overly stupid models will fail in the market of ideas, while ones with good models will flourish and be imitated.

So, if you think a community has stupid laws, don't move there; and, if you already live there, move away. It's not perfect, but it's the best model anyone's come up with, and is perfectly consistent with "libertarian" political philosophy.

I'm talking about things that are "abnormal" within a public or social context, not a demographical one.

Do I have to sit next to them on public transit, or touch the same surfaces they've touched? If so, it's unsanitary.

Wearing a funny hat is not disruptive to anything. If you wore a funny hat on the streets of a major city, I doubt anyone would give you as much as a second look.

If you were nude, however, you'd cause disruptions everywhere you went.

And if someone wanted to stroke their penis in public while they stared longingly at your teenage daughter, you'd have no legal issues with that either? I mean, he's not infringing upon anyone's rights, is he?