Libertarian left

I just took this quiz
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
i got in the middle of the libertarian left box.
What is this exactly? Whats a libertarian leftist?

I would think they are like libertarians, exept they would be pro-health care and pro goverment regulation of the economy....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_left

Oh look what a quick search in wiki turned up

>>1 It means you are a left winger, but belong to a less authoritarian crowd than the likes of Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, etc. 

Civil liberties, less government, socialism are the big things. Its what most of western europe is IIRC

>>5
No, most of Europe is social democrat. They're not libertarians. They got things like tight censorship and gun laws. Those are not libertarian.

>>5 LESS government AND socialism? LOL!

>>7
Almost as much as a fucking pipe dream as less government and laissez faire, take that corporate shaft, enjoy your slavery.

>>7
Less government in places, more leveling the playing field when it comes to the workforce. I myself think a mix between capitalism and socialism is probably best, but I am no economics expert

>>6
*forehead smack* Oh, right, I knew that.

>>6
Tight censorship?

I don't see censorship as being tight (even existing) over here, at least until you step on some sore toes (like saying Holocaust didn't happen or some such).

If anyone's doing tight censorship in the Western world, it'll be corpolitical-owned media. Oh yeah, that's right, they don't censor unwelcome news, they just "choose not to run the story"!...

>>10

"I don't see censorship as being tight (even existing) over here, at least until you step on some sore toes (like saying Holocaust didn't happen or some such)."

Yeah, see... you are allowed to say the holocaust did not happen here in the United States.  In fact, you can say whatever you like for the most part.  Even Nazis and Socialists enjoy free speech here, and that is as it should be.  Even if you don't agree with what a person has to say, they should still be allowed to say it.  I hate left wingers, but I would still defend their right to free speech.  The only speech infringing laws that I can think of that we have here are reasonable ones, like no shouting 'FIRE!' in a public place when there is clearly no fire, for instance.  Of course, the democrats are infringing upon this right with their efforts to reform campaigns.  Fortunately, we have conservatives trying to stop them.

"If anyone's doing tight censorship in the Western world, it'll be corpolitical-owned media. Oh yeah, that's right, they don't censor unwelcome news, they just "choose not to run the story"!..."

If they own the networks, and they own the papers, etc, they can run whatever stories they wish.  You can as well, if you choose to (provided you do so with your own resources). 

The key thing is that -the government- won't stop you from doing it.  The right to free speech doesn't mean you are entitled to a news network or a speaking hall at taxpayer or public expense.  It DOES mean the government shouldn't infringe upon your right to express yourself and ideas, provided you do so at your OWN expense.

Here we see a dismayingly common problem these days: just cos censorship's corporate and not goverment, they think it's not really censorship. It's a problem cos it still is censorship, cos it still promotes one view, cos it still forbids free speech for dissidents.

I think it was Noam Chomski that once commented that the Soviet Union under Stalin and the Third Reich under Hitler both had relatively absolute free speech -- for people that agreed with the man on top.

If the US is to have real freedom of speech, then, just to name one example, a girl group from Texas should be able to express disdain for sharing home state with a certain president, without there being disproportionate repercussions. Like death threats.

Also, one aught to be able to point out the physical courage required to undergo a suicide strike (like 9/11), without everybody and his pet German Shepard suddenly pretending that there no longer is a difference between physical courage (to do something you know is gonna kill you) and moral courage (to back out when you realise what you're doing is at best stupid). But then, even over here I heard those voices that questioned the courage of those that "didn't dare" march with Der Busch. All while us over here (especially Germans) knew all to well where we'd heard that kind of talk before.

FYI, the last time that kind of assaults on free speech was norm over here, the boss' name was Adolf Hitler. He was also the last one here to arrange book burnings (cough couch Harry Potter cough cough), the previous one being the Spanish Inquisition.

A tip for everyone; Don't watch TV news. At all. The effect will accumulate as a negative. Read Harpers. Go to sites like c2ore.com, reason, coxandforkum.com, captain capitalist, crooked timber, politicaltheory.info, vpc, angrybear, steynonline etc. You may not agree with them but there is good stuph in general to be had.I frequent these sites to get information primarily - to avoid confirmation bias and get a gist of what it takes to argument well.

>>12
"Here we see a dismayingly common problem these days: just cos censorship's corporate and not goverment, they think it's not really censorship. It's a problem cos it still is censorship, cos it still promotes one view, cos it still forbids free speech for dissidents."

It promotes one point of view, yes, but it most certainly does NOT forbid you from presenting your point of view yourself.  Fox News isn't going to send goons to your home and tell you to shut up or they kill you just because you ran some editorial or story in your paper that goes against something they said, just FYI.

"I think it was Noam Chomski that once commented that the Soviet Union under Stalin and the Third Reich under Hitler both had relatively absolute free speech -- for people that agreed with the man on top."

And we have near absolute free speech for almost everyone here, whether you are the man on top or not.

"If the US is to have real freedom of speech, then, just to name one example, a girl group from Texas should be able to express disdain for sharing home state with a certain president, without there being disproportionate repercussions. Like death threats."

Death threats are against the law, and I agree with you that they should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of negative repercussions.

"Also, one aught to be able to point out the physical courage required to undergo a suicide strike (like 9/11), without everybody and his pet German Shepard suddenly pretending that there no longer is a difference between physical courage (to do something you know is gonna kill you) and moral courage (to back out when you realise what you're doing is at best stupid)."

I don't see how this would violate your free speech.  People can pretend whatever the hell they like as far as I'm concerned.

"FYI, the last time that kind of assaults on free speech was norm over here, the boss' name was Adolf Hitler."

The biggest assault on free speech here in the USA is brought on by the democrats, and Hitler was a Socialist.  Maybe it'd be more accurate to compare the democrats to the Nazis than the republicans.. not to mention the fact that Hitler, unlike Bush, was a strong proponent of gun control, and wanted to ban or infringe upon other people's right to smoke, also unlike Bush, but both are very akin ideas to many democrats.

"He was also the last one here to arrange book burnings (cough couch Harry Potter cough cough), the previous one being the Spanish Inquisition."

Show me where Bush arranged a Harry Potter book burning.

"Fox News isn't going to send goons to your home and tell you to shut up or they kill you just because you ran some editorial or story in your paper that goes against something they said, just FYI."

No, granted. They'll just put words in your mouth and not let you get a word in edgewise to defend yourself.


"I don't see how this would violate your free speech.  People can pretend whatever the hell they like as far as I'm concerned."

Ok, I'll rephrase that. Replace "pretend" with "act as if". A de facto establishment clearly didn't want people to know the existance of moral courage (as opposed to physical courage), as that would nullify charges of "cowardice" next time someone had the (moral) courage to speak up against, say, out-of-control warfareism. (Like, say, remembering how previous ones on that path spoke German, or how those, too, had perfectly reasonable (to them) reasons for warring all over the place...)


"The biggest assault on free speech here in the USA is brought on by the democrats"

So Rupert Muroch is a Democrat?

Last time I checked, all major media (radio, TV, papers, book presses...) in NA was owned by 4 -four- entities. That kind of monopolisation is an almost bigger threat to freedom of speech -- and democracy! -- than the government de juro censoring, or downright owning, the same media. The reason is simple: when one owner controls all media, he gets to control what people get to hear, read etc, and with it, what people get to know. And with it, how they're likely to vote. (This is, after all, the main reason dictators keep seeking to control media.)

Seemingly OT: the record (selling) industry over here seems to define "diversity" as "two extra Britney Spears clones". When their surveys ask what kind of music you like, the tickable alternatives are invariably pop, rock, jazz, classic, folk, dance (some perverted version of a local variety, not the electronica ver by&for teenagers), period. Not even an "other" box. If they feel generous, they might throw in hip-hop, "Eurovision Song Contest" or somesuch. Anything else, and not only isn't it on the survey, they're not selling it. You have to go to a specialty shop selling (some) African, Indian/Pakistani or even Vietnamese music. If you still haven't found what you're looking for, (like Caribbean, electronica, JPop etc) then good fkin luck!

What this has to do with anything? How about manufacturing a uniformist culture with uniformist music taste, where everybody listens to the same music, dances the same dance, even thinks the same thoughts?

In both these cases (media monopoly & music pseudo-diversity) there is a war going on. A war on deviation. A war on independent thinking. And as with the (Christian) Devil, its greatest triumph is tricking people into thinking it doesn't exist.


"and Hitler was a Socialist"

Actually, National Socialist, "Nazi" for short ("Nazionalsozialist" in German). If you look at the analysis page in the site >>1 linked to, you'll see there's a certain difference between him and Stalin.

I mention this because way too many Americans seem to think "Social* == Communism", because of the "social" in the name. This makes, say, Social Democracy difficult to explain, mainly because of the lack of, erm, social intelligence resulting from this short-circuit.

And speaking of Stalin, there's no shortage of people over here willing to argue how Stalin wasn't a real Socialist, just as people have started to argue how the US doesn't do real Capitalism anymore, or those Christians arguing how Bush isn't a real Christian...


"Hitler, unlike Bush, was a strong proponent of gun control"

I've noticed taking guns from an American is like taking alcohol from a Scandinavian...

One reason for wanting all those guns seems to be the (mythical) ability to rise up against a gummint-turned-tyrants. Yeah sure, Joey Sixpack's sawn-off shotgun's gonna be re-e-ally handy going up against an army that's got stealth planes, attack helicopters, tanks, nukes, aircraft carriers and all that jazz. Sure! Bring'em on!

...think I just found out who took my booze! :-)


Oh, and as for that Rep-vs-Dem gobbledygook, I'm really not into two-party systems whose main preoccupation is pretending those two parties are actually different...


"Show me where Bush arranged a Harry Potter book burning."

He doesn't need to. Not with the way Der Busch and his ilk have poisoned a nation where such churches were already popping up like the weed they are (in my oh-so-humble opinion). With this new millieu, these Sieg Halelujah sects (my generosity just ran out) have got more bold, and less afraid to copy some "juicy" stuff from the "Greatest Commander Of All Time"(1). Like burning books.


1: "Grösster Feldherr aller Zeiten", or GröFaZ for short. The term mocks Hitler, so usage of it would easily carry the death penalty, and definitely a vicious treatment previously reserved for blasphemers...

>>15

"No, granted. They'll just put words in your mouth and not let you get a word in edgewise to defend yourself."

You don't have to talk to them if you don't want them to edit what you say. 

"Ok, I'll rephrase that. Replace "pretend" with "act as if". A de facto establishment clearly didn't want people to know the existance of moral courage (as opposed to physical courage), as that would nullify charges of "cowardice" next time someone had the (moral) courage to speak up against, say, out-of-control warfareism. (Like, say, remembering how previous ones on that path spoke German, or how those, too, had perfectly reasonable (to them) reasons for warring all over the place...)"

Acting as if terrorists don't have courage or whatever the hell you are talking about does not infringe upon free speech, sorry.  On the other hand, governments forbidding people from displaying the Swastika, or discussing one political idea or another DOES.

"So Rupert Muroch is a Democrat?"

Rupert Murdoch is not an assault on free speech.  The largest and worst assault on free speech was brought on by the democrats, and was opposed largely by the republicans.

"Last time I checked, all major media (radio, TV, papers, book presses...) in NA was owned by 4 -four- entities. That kind of monopolisation is an almost bigger threat to freedom of speech -- and democracy! -- than the government de juro censoring, or downright owning, the same media."

No it isn't.. you still have the freedom to say what you want, and you still have free speech regardless of the fact that most media is owned by a few people.  This doesn't change the fact that you can say what you wish without fear of government reprisal.

"The reason is simple: when one owner controls all media, he gets to control what people get to hear, read etc, and with it, what people get to know. And with it, how they're likely to vote. (This is, after all, the main reason dictators keep seeking to control media.)"

Nobody is stopping you from going out and starting your own little political newsletter.  One of the great things about the USA is that we still have a somewhat free market.  If you don't like the media outlets out there currently, start one yourself.

"What this has to do with anything? How about manufacturing a uniformist culture with uniformist music taste, where everybody listens to the same music, dances the same dance, even thinks the same thoughts?"

If you don't like it, you are always free to go start your own newsletter or whatever.  In the USA, nothing is stopping you.  We have a free press, free media, and free speech. 

"In both these cases (media monopoly & music pseudo-diversity) there is a war going on. A war on deviation. A war on independent thinking. And as with the (Christian) Devil, its greatest triumph is tricking people into thinking it doesn't exist."

I'm not denying that big media outlets have a lot to do with the way the general public thinks... but I am not about to infringe upon their free speech or free press rights for the sake of changing things.  If I wanted to change things that badly, I'd go start my own paper or something.  THAT is a right I have.  I do not have a right to dictate what stories Fox decides to report.

"Actually, National Socialist, "Nazi" for short ("Nazionalsozialist" in German). If you look at the analysis page in the site >>1 linked to, you'll see there's a certain difference between him and Stalin."

Yes, for one thing, Stalin was far more left wing.  This doesn't change the fact that hitler was definitely a big-government loving leftist.  So yeah, Hitler was a Socialist.. a national socialist.

"One reason for wanting all those guns seems to be the (mythical) ability to rise up against a gummint-turned-tyrants. Yeah sure, Joey Sixpack's sawn-off shotgun's gonna be re-e-ally handy going up against an army that's got stealth planes, attack helicopters, tanks, nukes, aircraft carriers and all that jazz. Sure! Bring'em on!"

LOL! And again, the radical liberal says gun rights won't help you against the government... sigh.  Yes they will.  There are countless times that they have.  Armed guerillas turned back the tide of one war vs. one of the most powerful nations in the world as recently as the Vietnam war... and they were fighting the strongest military in the world too (the United States).

"Oh, and as for that Rep-vs-Dem gobbledygook, I'm really not into two-party systems whose main preoccupation is pretending those two parties are actually different..."

Well then vote 3rd party.  You can do that here as well.. and can publish papers about the wonders of IRV, if you like.

"He doesn't need to. Not with the way Der Busch and his ilk have poisoned a nation where such churches were already popping up like the weed they are (in my oh-so-humble opinion)."

How does churches popping up here and there infringe upon individual rights? What, you wish the government would say 'no more religion allowed'? I hate religion, and a good chunk of religious people, but I hate the notion that you might be allowed to violate invididual rights in such a serious manner as to dictate what other people's religions, thoughts or beliefs  could be even more.

"With this new millieu, these Sieg Halelujah sects (my generosity just ran out) have got more bold, and less afraid to copy some "juicy" stuff from the "Greatest Commander Of All Time"(1). Like burning books."

LOL, so its all Bush's fault that a few religious radicals burnt some books...  You find ways to blame Bush for everything don't you? Furthermore, I have yet to hear of an organized book burning in the USA in which the governments came around from house to house collecting everyone's Harry Potter books against their will and burned them.

"1: "Grösster Feldherr aller Zeiten", or GröFaZ for short. The term mocks Hitler, so usage of it would easily carry the death penalty, and definitely a vicious treatment previously reserved for blasphemers..."

How does this pertain to the USA and free speech? You can critisize Bush all you want here, without fear of government reprisal.

>>10
Violent movies, games and some porn(I don't mean cp) etc. Mostly non-political although places like Germany have political censorship too. US has almost no govermental censorship, but corporate censorship for profits is heavy. It's not as bad as European style govermental censorship though.

Eugenics is the answer.

>>18
I recommend you to start by voluntarily removing your genes from the pool.

Man europe sucks.

>>20
no u

>>17
It's getting worse than it's been, atleast in some of those respects, granted. But I'd still have gov than corp censorship.

The main reason is that gov-c is official policy; everyone knows it's there. It can't "not happen" in shapes like the newscaster "chosing to not run the story" of how, say, his owner's child pajamas factory is putting out a notorious fire hazard that just claimed its 50th victim to spontaneous combustion. Y'know, unimportant stuff like that.

>>22
It can, since goverment and corporate censorship aren't exclusive. Privately operated news agencies are free to do that in Europe too.

Everyone should have the same set of rights.  Taking from the rich to provide a speaking hall or news station for everyone else is a violation of a right from the same list of fundamental and basic human rights as would be a government deciding to infringe upon free speech.

>>24
Fuck richie, not like they don't bribe politicians to get tax cuts and legislation to make thier businesses more profitable, i.e. tariffs, lax regulation, etc.

>>24
Some are more equal than others though.

>>16
Funny, because as "armed guerrillas" the Vietnamese were an ARMY, practicing GUERRILLA WARFARE.

As for the Mass Media not preventing you from your opinion's expression, you have no idea how coercion and public humiliation factor in.
As an independent individual, I have nowhere near the ability of major corporations to express my opinion to a wide audience of people, whereas the Networks do, and they have a much, MUCH stronger ability to smear your name, generate outrageous rumors, make unchallenged accusations and in general ruin my good name.
Networks play upon the inherent need for trust between the source and the audience, and people will believe a powerful company with numerous talking heads rather than one nobody who speaks his mind.
Speaking up in America means risking your reputation, and regardless of what you children want to believe, what people say CAN fucking hurt you, as in how the rest of your community treats you, how police will call you up when FOX news calls you a terrorist, how your family may be terrorized by radical opposition. (Like death threats to Cindy Sheehan, etc)
The field is imbalanced, and don't fucking act like the 1st Amendment takes away the consequences of what you say, corporations and people have as much or more power than the government ever has.
Say that you openly oppose the War in Iraq at a republican caucus in, oh say, Alabama, and tell be that you stand very little chance of being hurt.

>>28
"As for the Mass Media not preventing you from your opinion's expression, you have no idea how coercion and public humiliation factor in."

You still have the right to say what you want without fear of *GOVERNMENT* reprisal.  This is what the 1st amendment protects, not your right to say what you want without any kind of refutation of your arguments by other people.  They have their property rights, and their first amendment/other constitutional rights as well, you know.

"As an independent individual, I have nowhere near the ability of major corporations to express my opinion to a wide audience of people, whereas the Networks do, and they have a much, MUCH stronger ability to smear your name, generate outrageous rumors, make unchallenged accusations and in general ruin my good name."

If I'm not mistaken, libel is illegal (not saying it never happens).  Some things may have and likely do happen which would push the limmits.  Nonetheless, we all should have the same set of rights, regardless of income or whether we have a news network or not.  Yes, the news companies have more power to express their opinions than you, but so what? It is their networks, they should be able to use them how they want.

"Networks play upon the inherent need for trust between the source and the audience, and people will believe a powerful company with numerous talking heads rather than one nobody who speaks his mind."

So? They have the right to believe who they want, and the media company has the right to say what it wants.  We have a free press, and that press has a closely related right to free speech.

"Speaking up in America means risking your reputation, and regardless of what you children want to believe, what people say CAN fucking hurt you, as in how the rest of your community treats you, how police will call you up when FOX news calls you a terrorist, how your family may be terrorized by radical opposition."

Speaking up anywhere always means risking your reputation, this is nothing new.  As for the terrorist bit, the cops aren't going to just toss you in jail because FOX refers to you as a terrorist.  If there is an accusation of lawbreaking, you gotta go through the standard law process before anything happens, and you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

"The field is imbalanced, and don't fucking act like the 1st Amendment takes away the consequences of what you say, corporations and people have as much or more power than the government ever has."

I never said the 1st amendment takes away all consequences of anything you say.  Whenever you say anything, your reputation is always up in the air.  So what? Yes, I'm sorry, but you can't say WHATEVER you want, WHENEVER you want, with no consequences whatever.  If your boss is a republican, and you are a democrat, and you say something that irritates him, he can and may well find an excuse to get rid of you.  So the fuck what?

"Say that you openly oppose the War in Iraq at a republican caucus in, oh say, Alabama, and tell be that you stand very little chance of being hurt."

Your personal safety is your personal responsibility and right.  Go get a concealed carry permit (shall issue there I believe, thanks to republicans) and defend yourself.  Unless I'm mistaken, that state should also have some kindof Castle Doctrine-like pro self-defense legislation as well to protect victims of crime.

>>29
Jesus was an extra-terrestial.

>>16
You don't want to get it, do you?
For starters, if you don't visit FoxNews for a discussion, they just can't edit what you say on their show. But they can still tell all sorts of lies about you, and this time you "didn't dare show your face" there. And if you're an activist for a specific cause, they can fuxxor that case (aswell as u) to no end, and you can't do buttkiss about it, cos they're too big and can afford too many lawyers.

One problem is all the sheeple out there, that fall for the "big lie" bluff (the more outrageous the lie, the more likely ppl/spl will think it can't be a lie cos why would someone this respectable lie about something this big...)

And then there's this magical newsletter. Look, I'm not saying freedom of speech doesn't exist on paper, cos the ppl behind this part of the system ain't that dumb. You're not explicitly forbidden to speak up, or set up a small newsletter, or anysuch. Any of that crap would be spotted and removed faster than you can say "Nazi punks fuck off".

Rather, you need to have a shitload of money, or that small zine is gonna stay small. And in the long run, it's gonna achieve precious little in the way of getting alternative thoughts across.


That music thing is another side of the same problem; put out all the zines and stuff you want, you still can't get the goddamn music itself! Which is why I love the internet. (Which in turn is why RIAA et al are getting pissed, but that's tl;dr even if it is relevant...)


hitler was definitely a big-government loving leftist
Then why does everyone now see him as extreme right-wing? Would it by any chance be cos the 1-D left/right chart is constrictive and uninformative (actually downright misleading) in charting political ideas? I mean, look at OP's link again. That chart's 2-D.

And as for armed gerillas fighting down the system: is that what happened in Waco, or Ruby Ridge? Wow.

Not that I mind a hunting rifle or two laying around, or a little something for self-defense. Just spare me the fanatics, OK? Fanatic gun-lovers, fanatic gun-haters, fanatic reps, fanatic deps, fanatic nazis, fanatic commies, fanatic christians... birds of a goddamn feather! Gimme a fkin break, man!

You can critisize Bush all you want here, without fear of government reprisal.
However, the only time I've seen (corp) media dress anyone down for critisizing Bush for not going far enough, it's been one from the Fred Phelps bunch.

Also, you seem to think I'm blaming Bush personally for everything that's bad in this world. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not that bigotted. For starters, he's a bit dim for that. But he's still a part of the problem. In much the same way a figurehead is a part of a ship. And when I speak against Bush, it's Bush as a symbol, or even symptom, of why America's going to the dogs right now. That much I can see it even from over here, some 6,000 miles away.

Like those churches. They're no more gov-controlled than any of the Mid-Eastern Mullahs or Ayatollahs (outside of Iran where they are the gov), but they can be every bit as rabidly mud-hut. And the audiences are equally controllable sheeple flocks. And they're both a blight on the planet for much the same reasons; for starters both have "hate weeks", whether it be for Rowling or Rushdie.

And this has been legitimized by Team Bush, mainly by polarizing the world so it's harder to be neutral, or even 3rd-party. Speaking of which; as for voting 3rd party, over here there's a 10th party. And an 11th. Roughly a dozen, with real differences.

Your personal safety is your personal responsibility and right.  Go get a concealed carry permit (shall issue there I believe, thanks to republicans) and defend yourself.  Unless I'm mistaken, that state should also have some kindof Castle Doctrine-like pro self-defense legislation as well to protect victims of crime.

You'd be surprised what people can get away with in this country if the crime is against someone the state doesn't like.
Like, oh, Homosexuals, Muslims, Black People.
I have the right to not be fucking killed for what I say, and I don't fucking care about the justice meted out to the perpetrator, after all, I'm fucking dead. And as long as I'm dead, I'm silent, the criminal wins.
You seriously don't fucking get it.

Libertarians are an odd bunch, they have all their bases covered, yet since they've never held any real power, they don't have the balls to outright support liberal social laws (legalized drugs, abortion, making them practically indistinguishable from Republicans) and as long as terrorists are being played up as trying to get us, a "weak government" party isn't going to be fucking elected, regardless of how mindlessly isolationist they are.

As long as I hear horror stories about corporation's ravaging of the environment and scratching the backs of politicians at home and abroad, and as long as I keep hearing "OMG GROWING ECONOMY" rather than pursuits towards sustainability, I say fuck corps, their greed is going to fuck the environment and eventually fuck us all.

If Libs ever want to be elected, they will have to take a MUCH MUCH more liberal stance on Social issues, they will have to present a SOLUTION to Terrorist threats (or a better one than the existing parties, like that's hard), they will have to stand ASIDE from the special interest groups of the DEMS AND THE REPS, they need to drop the pandering to the Christian Right, which is a hypocrisy, as they ought to be against religious regulation or protection, and should be licking Thomas Jefferson's Deist balls. (Since the 1st Amendment only says that no federal law can be implemented to support or suppress religion) And most of all, most of all, most of all, they have to not appear to be pawns of corporations and the rich, there IS a limit to what corporations can do, and it involves the environment, and coersive economics. Libs also better fucking work for their living, not fucking move money around.  I will not elect a stockbroker, CEO, banker, or other peddler of filth.

>>33
>they don't have the balls to outright support liberal social laws (legalized drugs, abortion, making them practically indistinguishable from Republicans)

Green Party is pretty Libertarian Leftist. Not that they are getting elected any time soon, Nader got fucking trashed just for saying he wanted to legalize weed.

>>31
"But they can still tell all sorts of lies about you, and this time you "didn't dare show your face" there."

This is illegal if I'm not mistaken.  Defamation at the very least.  Just toughen up the laws, possibly reform them or something, but the people who run FOX have rights just like everyone else, and to infringe upon theirs is just as downright unacceptable to me as infringing upon the other said individual in opposition.

"And if you're an activist for a specific cause, they can fuxxor that case (aswell as u) to no end, and you can't do buttkiss about it, cos they're too big and can afford too many lawyers."

This also has a negative effect on the media though.  When the media offers massive amounts of biased and in general shitty reporting, they lose credibility really fast, and with their lost credibility, they lose viewers as well.  You act like they can do or say anything they want, do anything to anyone, with zero consequences, which is complete BS.

"Rather, you need to have a shitload of money, or that small zine is gonna stay small. And in the long run, it's gonna achieve precious little in the way of getting alternative thoughts across."

Many people with many said magazines and papers can have a net effect that is more like they were a larger company... like FOX for example.  Further, thanks to the internet, the spread of ideas of all sorts is easier than ever before.

"That music thing is another side of the same problem; put out all the zines and stuff you want, you still can't get the goddamn music itself! Which is why I love the internet. (Which in turn is why RIAA et al are getting pissed, but that's tl;dr even if it is relevant...)"

What do you mean?

"Then why does everyone now see him as extreme right-wing?"

Because 'everyone' is stupid, or at least ignorant of history.  I suppose I might have been a little bad at communicating this to you.  What I meant was that Hitler was not very 'right-wing' in an ECONOMIC sense.  Hitler was very authoritarian/totalitarian/oppressive in terms of personal freedom, but his economics were really not all that 'right-wing'.  Just because you are 'right-wing' does not mean you are against personal freedom - there are many 'conservatives' that take a more or less libertarian stand on the issues.  Are they still 'right-wing'? Could libertarians be called 'right-wing'? I think so, but whatever.  I tend to think of the right-wing as favoring less government economically.  Thus, from my perspective, not all right-wingers are libertarians, but not all libertarians would be right-wingers in my view.

"Would it by any chance be cos the 1-D left/right chart is constrictive and uninformative (actually downright misleading) in charting political ideas? I mean, look at OP's link again. That chart's 2-D."

I agree, the 1-d left/right chart should really be tossed.  See my answer above. 

"And as for armed gerillas fighting down the system: is that what happened in Waco, or Ruby Ridge? Wow."

Not enough people were irritated then, and that was just a handful of people against the massive federal government, so obviously it wouldn't do squat.  Do you think our government could handle a 'Waco' type incident in every household across america simultaneously? Could they be effective if there was a  hostile rifle poking out of every window or crack? Would they even try? Face it, an armed citizenry is generally a safe citizenry.  It isn't absolute protection on an individual basis, but it is certainly helpful against criminals, certainly has a positive overall effect on crime, there is seemingly a correlation between genocide and gun control (http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/), and moreover, aside from all this, it is a basic individual right to be armed and to defend oneself.

"Not that I mind a hunting rifle or two laying around, or a little something for self-defense. Just spare me the fanatics, OK?"

No,  not ok.  People can love guns if they want.  Gun collecting and shooting is a legitimate hobby/sport just like many other activities, and as long as you aren't hurting others in the process, is entirely legitimate.  Gun control is an abomination of individual liberty.

"And when I speak against Bush, it's Bush as a symbol, or even symptom, of why America's going to the dogs right now. That much I can see it even from over here, some 6,000 miles away."

America isn't 'going to the dogs right now'..  Just what did you mean by this? I'd still rather live here than just about anywhere else in the world.  People die trying to come here.  People like you just don't know how fucking great it is here.  Bush isn't the best candidate, but I'd surely rather have him as a 'symbol' than say Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, or Mayor Bloomberg.

"And this has been legitimized by Team Bush, mainly by polarizing the world so it's harder to be neutral, or even 3rd-party. Speaking of which; as for voting 3rd party, over here there's a 10th party. And an 11th. Roughly a dozen, with real differences."

It is just as much perpetuated by the democrats as it is by the republicans.  If you want things to change, go write up a column on the virtues of IRV, and start voting 3rd party.

>>33
"Libertarians are an odd bunch, they have all their bases covered, yet since they've never held any real power, they don't have the balls to outright support liberal social laws (legalized drugs, abortion, making them practically indistinguishable from Republicans)

"and as long as terrorists are being played up as trying to get us, a "weak government" party isn't going to be fucking elected, regardless of how mindlessly isolationist they are."

The government wouldn't be 'weak' in a libertarian society, it just wouldn't be so overbearing/restrictive of freedom.  The government would still exist to solve and sometimes prevent crime, to provide a strong military, police force, etc.  I think the term 'weak' is inaccurate to describe this government..  Reagan was one of the more 'libertarian' (though more conservative than libertarian, in my view) presidents we have had in a while, and I would hardly describe our government as being any 'weaker' under him, just less restrictive overall.

"As long as I hear horror stories about corporation's ravaging of the environment and scratching the backs of politicians at home and abroad, and as long as I keep hearing "OMG GROWING ECONOMY" rather than pursuits towards sustainability, I say fuck corps, their greed is going to fuck the environment and eventually fuck us all."

Proove it.  If corporations posed a demonstrable and provable serious threat to the lives and general well being of the people, a libertarian government would hold them accountable, in the courts at the very least, if not elsewhere.  A libertarian government protects life, liberty, and property... this is good government.

"If Libs ever want to be elected, they will have to take a MUCH MUCH more liberal stance on Social issues,"

The libertarians are more socially liberal than the actual liberals themselves (the democrats).. (with the exception of gun policy..).  They can't really get much more 'socially liberal.'

"they will have to present a SOLUTION to Terrorist threats (or a better one than the existing parties, like that's hard),"

They did a while ago. 

"they need to drop the pandering to the Christian Right, which is a hypocrisy, as they ought to be against religious regulation or protection, and should be licking Thomas Jefferson's Deist balls."

How does the libertarian party pander to the Christian Right? Again, the libertarian party is more 'socially liberal' than the actual liberals (the democrats) themselves... far more.

"there IS a limit to what corporations can do, and it involves the environment, and coersive economics."

Of course.  Corporations aren't allowed to violate the rights of other people.  This is the limmit.  As long as they aren't  demonstrably harming people, they should be allowed to do as they wish, for the same reason that homosexuals should be allowed to do as they wish provided they don't harm others, or that gun owners should be allowed to do as they wish as long as they don't harm others.

"Libs also better fucking work for their living, not fucking move money around.  I will not elect a stockbroker, CEO, banker, or other peddler of filth."

Then go ahead and vote for someone else.  I don't see what is wrong with being a banker, CEO, or stockbroker.

>>34
Not really, if they were libertarian-leftist, they'd support gun rights, which they don't.. they are even worse on guns than the dems.  I'd describe them as being more like democrats on steroids than libertarian-leftist, although they are decidedly more hippylike than the dems I suppose.

>>37
Gun rights is not the determining factor of a libertarian-leftist, you know, there is actually a lot bigger issues such as the a decentralized government, the rule of the people instead of the authority, civil liberties, and a more socialist view on the economy.

>>33
You're mistaken Libertarians SUPPORT drug legalization. Quite strongly too. I think they're actually only party in America doing that. Abortion is issue most libertarians don't like talk about, but then again it's very hard issue. I still think most libertarian support that too though. As for social welfare you don't see American libertarians supporting it, because American libertarians are capitalists to bone. You know social welfare is great thing, but that money doesn't come from just anywhere, it's taken from people in form of taxes.

>>38
Though libertarian should support gun rights. Civil rights and liberties are main focus of all libertarians.

>>33 I can agree with a lot of that. Agnosticism should be official religion, and there shall be no prayer in school, outright bans on abortions, enforced bans on preconceptuals, or swearing on the bible. If libertarians don't want to demand that, they won't get my vote.

>>41
I agree with you, but there should be no official religion. Nothing. Also no prayer on public schools, but on private school it's up to them what they do.

>>39
Yeah, for drug legalization, libertarian is the way to go.

>>38
It isn't the SOLE factor, but it is one of them.. and thus, as the Green Party is so vehemently anti-gun, ... yeah.  A Green Party member who happened to be pro-gun would be a good example of a libertarian-leftist though.

>>41 No.  That would violate the 1st amendment. 
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

>>44
How would it? I think he meant school organized prayer, which is kinda odd at best and not invidual praying, which should ofcourse be legal.

>>45 Correct me if I'm wrong, but it reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Now, to quote Xel: 

"Agnosticism should be official religion,"

Obviously, his statement runs contrary to the spirit of the 1st amendment. 

Xel is a statist. I believe I'm right and the world would be a better place if people agreed with me, however I also know for a fact that if I forced people to agree with me I would make the world a worse place. I must PERSUADE people I am right, not force it down their throats.

"Oh but but fundies force religion down peoples throats!" Says Xel the statist.

I don't give a fuck, I'm not going to sink as low as them, or you.

>>47
Truth. When people resort to measures of their enemies they're as worse as their enemies.

"Obviously, his statement runs contrary to the spirit of the 1st amendment." Spirit. That sugary, warm vague word again. Okay, then isn't it in line with the 1st amendment to officially say that "we simply can't be 100 % sure!"?. Because that is agnosticism - it is not a religion, and my semantics were thusly poor for framing it as such.

"Xel is a statist. I believe I'm right and the world would be a better place if people agreed with me, however I also know for a fact that if I forced people to agree with me I would make the world a worse place. I must PERSUADE people I am right, not force it down their throats.

"Oh but but fundies force religion down peoples throats!" Says Xel the statist.

I don't give a fuck, I'm not going to sink as low as them, or you." How noble and grand. Well, since agnosticism isn't a religion, just a theoretical position, why the fuck would that be equal to enforcing prayers in school or putting "god" everywhere?

>>49
Hmmm... Well... I was thinking maybe the government should have NO religion whatsoever. I take it you are so stupid it takes you time to absorb new ideas.

>>50 But I have just said that since agnosticism doesn't presuppose a supernatural dimension acting on ours nor reject the notion it isn't a religion per se, just a philosophical stance that doesn't force anything but a desire to know more and think hard. Guess you're so inclined towards being a idealist smart-ass you don't need to care about actual definitions. I corrected my semantical mistake and apologized for it. You are being precocious.

>>51
The idea and spirit behind the 1st amendment is that the government should really have no say in whatever personal beliefs you have, as long as you aren't injuring other people in the process.  Whether or not it is a religion, or the absence of a religion, congress should not make any sort of law infringing on people's right to think or believe as they wish, nor should they establish any sort of belief/thought system or whatever.  There should be no 'official' religion or belief system.  People should be allowed to think whatever they want, and the government should have no say whatsoever.

>>51
I understand well the philosophical stance of agnosticism, but the governemnt doesn't have to choose a philosophical stance concerning religion. The government's purpose is to enforce justice. Even if there is some religion which encourages people to commit crime, then the government should not oppose the religion, just the crime. If there is something wrong with the crime then the religion's faults should be self-evident and people will stop following it.

Just admit you are wrong. That's probably why you spend so much time here, you make a mistake and then spend hours trying to prove the unprovable.

>>52 US: Official motto since 60s - In God We Trust (because we can't trust ourselves). Agnosticism isn't favoring or disfavoring of any religion - it is a standpoint that by its fruit one shall know it, since its claims regarding the order and nature of the universe can not be empirically verified. All religions are simply ideologies that incorporate a supernatural dimension and/or undiscover/undiscoverable forces acting upon our dimension. Atheism is the rejection of all said notions, and it is equally irrational though probably not as harmful (as long as it too does not enthuse it being forced on non-believers). I am a practical atheist because I prefer its fruits. I am a theoretical agostic because I am reality-based. Agnosticism is probably the immediate thinking behind the 1st amendment. It is not a religion. Taking agnosticism officially could be simply symbolical but it is compatible with the first amendment (no plusses or minuses distributed, since agnosticism doesn't hold any position to be the correct one, it simply is an argument that no stance is intrinsically better) and it would send a message to islamists, rabid atheists and christianists: "Show us absolute proof or your faith will be considered faith and therefore unendorsable. Show us proof that your system is validified by and compatible with actual reality and it is not a faith. So why bother trying to impose on others?".

>>54
Xel, I do see issues with having any establishment of religion or belief like the 'in god we trust' stuff, but honestly, they are VERY minor.  I think you are just anti-religion, and you want the government to be as well.  There are far bigger and more important REAL issues to be concerned with (such as drug legalization, the death penalty, erosion of civil liberties, etc) than stupid shit like having 'in god we trust' written on our money. 

>>54
The government should not endorse agnosticism just like it shouldn't endorse athiesm, christianity, islam, or whatever else.  There should not be ANY 'official' religion-like or possibly religion resembling sentiments in our government.  There is no place for that here.  To be an athiest, agnostic, or religious person is a personal decision, and should remain that way.  The government should not take an official position.

>>54
Just because they commit a crime, doesn't justify you to.
I think you're through with the usual run of the mill fallacies. Agnosticism shouldn't be an enforced extremist ideal of the government. Give it up.

Ok I admit, making agnosticism the state "religion" is idiotic and I was being stupid.

Seriously, I know this is the intarweb and you will take the piss because I'm saying this, but I feel a lot better, I feel relieved because I no longer have to spend 30 minutes on google trying to find up proof to back up my incorrect opinion.

>>56 But. It. Is. Not. A. Religion. And. It. Is. Not. A. Decision. It. Is. The. Only. Viable. Position. That. Can. Be. Had.
>>55 Agnosticism is not an anti-religious position.
>>57 Not extremist ideal. Position. Position based on reality. Reeee-aaaaa-li-teeeee. Reality gooooood. Also, who said anything about enforcing? Stop inferring things you Ben Franklin-wannabe.

>>56 But. It. Is. Not. A. Religion. And. It. Is. Not. A. Decision. It. Is. The. Only. Viable. Position. That. Can. Be. Had.
>>55 Agnosticism is not an anti-religious position.
>>57 Not extremist ideal. Position. Position based on reality. Reeee-aaaaa-li-teeeee. Reality gooooood. Also, who said anything about enforcing? Stop inferring things you Ben Franklin-wannabe.

>>59
It. Does. Not. Matter. If. It. Is. A. Religion. Or. Not.  People. Should. Think. As. They. Want. Individually. The. Government. Should. Not. Have. A. Say.

>>60
"It. Is. The. Only. Viable. Position. That. Can. Be. Had."

Some people aren't logical, and simply believe things whether they are viable or not.  They should be free to do so if they wish, and the state should take no position on this issue.

>>59
"Not extremist ideal. Position. Position based on reality. Reeee-aaaaa-li-teeeee. Reality gooooood. Also, who said anything about enforcing? Stop inferring things you Ben Franklin-wannabe."

Some people believe in things that have no reasonable basis in reality.  Regardless of the absurdity of this, they should be free to do so, and the state should take no position.  It is not the proper function of good government to take a position on issues like this.

>>61 It can tell these people that as long as these thoughts are beliefs they are not superior to any other belief not based on relief. The government should do that.
>>62 You fail at patronizing.
>>63 Yes it is, it is acceptable of a government to make an official statement that no existential position or system of ethics not based on reality is to be imposed on others. It may not have an effect but the idea that it is unethical or should not be done because it is an imposition (it is an acceptance of relativity regarding matters we have not investigated completely) is just... Pussy. Also, what have we said about patronization? "You fail at it" was the message.

>>64
"Yes it is, it is acceptable of a government to make an official statement that no existential position or system of ethics not based on reality is to be imposed on others."

I don't see how it would be 'imposing' something on people to require that the government obey and follow the spirit of the 1st amendment, and not take any official stand on these issues.

>>64
"It can tell these people that as long as these thoughts are beliefs they are not superior to any other belief not based on relief. The government should do that."

No, the government should do -absolutely nothing- regarding this matter.  This is a personal matter, and should be left as such.

JEWS DID WTC

>>65 It is not an official stand, it is an official recognition that only fundamentalists and chickens could object to.

>>68
Or true-blue libertarians be they fundamentalists, chickens, athiests, or agnostics, who would realize the fact that the government simply should not have a say - that this is a personal matter and the government should be kept out of it entirely.

>>69 "True-blue" my balloon-knot. What did the founders say, wasn't it so that they took some maxims as absolute truths, basing these on empirical knowledge about human nature, existence, knowledge, experience and reality? Once again, governement has the right to admit the truth about the extent of contemporary human knowledge about her surroundings and do so proudly without the fussing of fence-sitting idealists who think that the strength and rigidity of a belief is a measure of its worth contra objective reality. The value of government is not intrinsically minuscule - this is one of few cases I would appreciate some arbitrary notions, be they only semantic.

I CAN'T STOP WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH SOMEONE HALP ME PLEEAASEE

Holy fuck Xel! You are so fucking stupid you cannot understand such a simple concept! Shut the fuck up immediately!!!

The government should not involve god in it's decision making process. It should involve only those dogmas which have been time proven to be necessary for civilisation to work, which are pretty much coverred by justice.

Sure not taking god into account can be called agnosticism, but what does agnosticism have to do with law? The government shouldn't declare itself to be agnostic, it should only ask "What does this have to do with the services I am providing?"?

>>72
-? + .

>>72 The constitution is an admittance and reflection of the human nature and situation. The rejection of government favoring or supressing any religion is good. Agnosticism is not a religion, nor a belief, and the admittance of the extent of human knowledge and the realization that reality has not been fully understood is a prerequisite of a stable civilization. Telling people that want government to side with their beliefs (You think there are few such Americans? Think again.) to STFU until they have complete proof that their belief is perfectly compatible with human nature and existence is not statism. Your argumentation is that this is not good, black and white, it violates a holy principle, this and that is sacred, thanks for playing, you are stupid, you need to shut the fuck up immediately,and we do not need to look at this from a practical perspective because it violates a theoretical threshold I don't want to define or argument about. I try to see your point and all I can discern is "Badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers muuuushroom muuuushroom".

>>74
Haha wtf! I didn't realise I was doing you a favour when I told you to shut the fuck up!

"I try to see your point and all I can discern is "Badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers muuuushroom muuuushroom"."
That's because you are an idiot.

The government doesn't need a stance on religion, none at all. Can you get that through your head stupid asshole?

>>75 Agnosticism isn't a stance on religion, it is a stance, an accepting stance, on reality. Religions have to comply with defined and scientifically proven aspects of the universe to be acceptable, that is a message that should be spread.

>>76
There is a difference between not taking god into account and claiming that the government should be agnostic. I don't care whether you have religious beliefs or not, it has fuck all to do with the law.

Someone rapes your child. Do you want the forensic scientist to spend days trying to find out if the suspect is agnostic or not? You probably would, but I prefer the forensic scientist not to bother at all with any irrelevant bullshit and just bring the child rapist to justice before he can escape to mexico (a barbaric nation to the south where child rape is practically legal).

>>76
"Agnosticism isn't a stance on religion, it is a stance, an accepting stance, on reality."

Some people simply believe things to be true that have no basis in reality.  This is their individual right to do so, so long as they are not harming others. 

Also, while the Bill of Rights may not say this in the first amendment, the freedom of religion/belief (or lack of belief, or anything in between for that matter) is likely what was MEANT by the founders, regardless of whether or not it is there on paper. 

Of course, then we have amendments 9 & 10 to consider, aside from the 1st amendment. 

Amendment 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

So Xel claims that agnosticism isn't a religion, and that the government can thus establish it as our official national stand. 

The spirit and meaning of the 1st amendment is clearly to keep the government out of this issue, and to prevent it from taking a particular position on it.

Amendment 9: 
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The powers not granted to the United States government by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 

Show me where, in the Constitution, it specifically says that the government has the authority to establish a national or official stand on whether or not god exists, which god exists, maybe exists, or doesn't exist.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

Taking all of this into consideration, I would say it is obviously clear that Xel's suggestion would violate the core values of the Bill of Rights & Constitution - the very foundation of american liberty.

>>77 But, agnosticism isn't a religious belief. Also, your analogy is deranged in it's irrelevancy.
>>78 Oh So you know what is meant and what is not? Not buying any interpretation from people who aren't perfectly suited. Regarduíng 1: Agnosticism is not a religion. It is comparable to a scientist not guessing exactly how much landmass there is on earth back in medieval times when all of it wasn't discovered.
Regarding 9: Irrelevant. Theory =/= practice.
Regarding 10: Irrelevant. Everybody can and should have an individual opinion, nobody get to have their own facts.

>>79
You didn't address amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights.  Any National recognition of Agnosticism, unless authorized by the Constitution, is forbidden under amendment 10 of the United States Bill of Rights. 

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

>>79
A victim of a crime doesn't give a fuck what the government's favourite food, colour and opinion on god is. The government shouldn't declare itself to be agnostic because there is no point.

>>81 Government could and it should, since it would be setting an example.
>>80 Agnosticism is not a religion ^^, therefore I and X not apply.

>>82
Wrong.  The 10th amendment violation he is talking about is not dependant upon whether or not agnosticism is a religion, and therefore you have yet to explain why the 10th amendment would not apply.

>>79
"Everybody can and should have an individual opinion, nobody get to have their own facts."

Faith:

"2 a  (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God  (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b  (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof  (2) : complete trust"

Religion: 

"b  (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural  (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance"


It has nothing to do with facts, it has to do with faith.

>>82
Sure, of course it could. There are 1000s of things the government could do or anyone can do. You could strip naked smear your sweaty black balls in jelly and throw rocks at a bee hive, but why should you? Why should the government declare itself to be agnostic?

bump for defeat of extremist liberal

Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

>>82
Agnosticism may not be a bona fide religious belief like theism or atheism is, but it is perceived in the same way by the general population.  The government should not favor any sort of religious view over any other.

Agnosticism is geared to be safe ground between theists and atheists, but is hated by both for not being extreme enough.

This quiz makes you an expert, I should know since I too took this quiz and I too am an expert.

>>88
Agreed.

Agnostic and apathy with respect to god issues are practically  the same thing, except agnostics talk about it more.

The government should be apathetic.

The goverment should't even be pondering that. They should be thinking about.....governing!!

>>93
Age for truth

You're an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

xel is a freedom less whore for stalin.

Xel is a revenous masochistic dick sucker who's perversion leaks into his political opinion. As long as someone is abusing and dominating him he loves it.