Huh. We're starting to go in circles now. By your own definition, Paul isn't a libertarian.
Remember what you wrote a few days ago (we've already covered Paul's position on taxes, in case you forget)?
Do you want limited taxation? Then you are a social liberal. Do you want no taxation at all? Then you are a libertarian.
The portion of my post which you've snipped off contained a handful of other examples that proves labeling people with specific ideologies is inaccurate.
Once again, labeling is for census takers and political parties.
You should not let yourself be boxed by labels.
The world isn't conveniently divided between neatly labeled groups of people; we're not players for a sports team.
I meant no disrespect in snipping off your post, it was so much information that it would bloat my post.
I still think we got your message. (no need to quote a list of "4 libertarians that aren't really libertarians")
"Limited taxation" have different meanings obviously, Ron Paul wants less taxation than Obama.
And Obama wants limited taxes. (if you compare it to European standards)
I realize that my example was very bad, I apologize for that.
I never said anything about limiting yourselves to one label. I'm just against people calling themselves "apolitical".
And the usual "I am better than everyone else because I don't belong to any ideology"
You can't pin everything on the 'social democracy' bogeyman, dude.
The definition of left and right in U.S. and Europe is different - it's as simple as that. They inhabit different areas of the political spectrum.
If you are going to peg some historical or traditional aspect of social democracy to the issue (which still doesn't change their differences, btw), then what about the U.S' own socialist policies?
Do you realize that the greatest ever economic development policy in the history of the United States is also the most socialist in the history of the United States?
Lincoln's Homestead Act.
Little House on the Prairie, anyone?
The federal government offered citizens (and even advertised in far flung regions of Europe) free land and zero interest loans for farming tools, seeds and fertilizers, payable after harvest. It become the single most powerful source of economic growth in the history of the United States. And yet, the descendants of the main beneficiaries of the Act today are among the most vociferous critics of socialism. Going by your theory, the American right wing should look a whole lotta different today.
And to make things more interesting, another of Lincoln's influential policy, the Civil War Pension program, tied the military to the Republicans for almost a century. And yet, in the last presidential election, Paul had the lion's share of support from military personnel. Another damper on your theory.
Look, at this stage, I know my words won''t change your mind. But keep an open mind, and don't create unnecessary internal barriers.
We can discuss European and American politics for years and still not understand it completely. Europe and America is very different let's just leave it at that.
I have a open mind, and I don't have any internal barriers. I just don't like people saying they don't follow any ideology at all.
Very gracious of you, forevernoob. It's hard to find people with enough grace to offer apologies to strangers online. Many pats on the back, you deserve!
Let me assure you though, I am not apolitical. I am very, very political. I am just an equal opportunity asshole, as posters on the Democratic Underground, Daily Paul and Hannity forum will testify. In fact, I am gigantic troll on the Vanguard Forum (those racist supremacists deserve it though).
The thing is, if I accept labels, I have to defend and/or adhere to the parameters of said labels.
If I label myself as a liberal/socialist, I cannot scream in anger at Obama for capitulating to the demands of Congress in keeping Guantanamo open.
If I label myself as a libertarian, I cannot applaud Obama's iron will in preventing the United States from entering into a third war in Syria, despite the insistence of his entire cabinet (including SecState Clinton, SecDefense Panetta, CIA Director Gen. Petraues and CJCS Gen. Dempsey) and the neoncons in Congress (watch
this Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing: )
If I label myself as a conservative, I cannot give credit to Obama for presiding over the lowest growth in Federal gov size since the Eisenhower administration.
If I label myself as a Green, I cannot criticize Obama for signing the FAA Reauthorization Bill.
I will be too busy hedging and hemming and hawing my opinions to toe my self-imposed label. By remaining free of such labels, I can stand on my own principles and beliefs. I am certain, you are also not comfortable with the entire political parameters of libertarianism.
I know of libertarians who get ulcers trying to reconcile the idea of child labor into their belief system, just because it fits with the current paleolibertarian zeitgeist.
I also know of fundamentalist conservatives whose conscience is torn asunder as they attempt to deny gays their right to love (
interesting read: the love affair of David and Jonathan in the book of Samuel).
I know of liberals who froth in the mouth when it was revealed that Obama ordered the assasination of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki (remember the DoJ whitepaper?).
If we are free from the shackles of labels, we are able to develop our own value system instead of relying on party platforms and flavor-of-the-month politicians. I feel insulted whenever someone tells me what I should think and believe in. Don't you feel the same?
Sometimes, I get the impression people are naming their favorite musical genres when speaking about their political beliefs.
Ooh, I'm a fan of techno and house music and I'm a crypto right wing anarchist. Wow, you're so ordinary. I'm a fan of bluegrass and early Texas blues, and I'm a Jedi-liberal-constitutionalist.
) that free & open markets work best in our favour as we're working against the status quo. It's not simply a matter of what's better but also the inevitability of a changing global landscape that we have to adapt to. I want a world based on merit and empathy (if you're egoist, call it "enlightened self-interest", or leftist call it "mutuality"). I love to support people doing cool things or projects with my own money or have nice people around. My method is about creating the tools or means so we can have 10s of thousands or millions of people working together, supporting each other with a philosophy of "why put your money in the corporations, put your money in your friends". We spend lots of money everyday giving to big corporations, but instead if we could satisfy our needs as free people, we can continue to reinvest in each other. From different perspectives you could call this either socialism or capitalism (depending on your definitions of the word).
)
