Jump to content

The Trump Presidency


silentbob1272
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, capologist said:

Sounds more socialist than Libertarian to me...

 

56 minutes ago, capologist said:

I don't see the relevance of that question...

 

49 minutes ago, capologist said:

Again, I don't find it relevant. It doesn't matter to me whether he's right or wrong, I don't agree with the concept of taking from someone just because someone died.  His argument has no bearing on my statement...

 

48 minutes ago, capologist said:

Yes, I understand that but as I just responded, whether he's right or wrong has no bearing on my statement...

 

44 minutes ago, capologist said:

Not sure what Libertarians you've been talking to but that's entirely against the Libertarian philosophy so no, I'm not rejecting libertarianism, I'm rejecting your premise.

 

30 minutes ago, capologist said:

To say you are oversimplifying and distorting  would be an understatement...

the effort to which you avoid answering a simple question is marvelous. truly, you are a valiant crusader for libertarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Libertarian economic philosophy is rooted in Adam Smith’s theories.  So obviously it’s not against libertarian philosophy.  In fact, it is an important part of ensuring a true economic meritocracy, which is the core of libertarian philosophy.

and the Democrats used to be the party of slavery but whenever someone brings that up you all claim it isn't relevant today

them goalposts be a-movin again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

and the Democrats used to be the party of slavery but whenever someone brings that up you all claim it isn't relevant today

them goalposts be a-movin again

 If you don't distinguish between ""core" and "history". 

  How many St. Louisans,  at least those born after 1980, are Arizona Cardinal fans? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

This is such a laughably lazy attempt to muddy waters.

how so?

you all are trying to hold the modern Libertarian party that started in the early 1970's to the strict words of Adam Smith yet hold that the Democrat party is allowed to evolve and change

people who need to defend their position with multiple caveats aren't arguing on principle or equality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dago 3.0 said:

how so?

you all are trying to hold the modern Libertarian party that started in the early 1970's to the strict words of Adam Smith yet hold that the Democrat party is allowed to evolve and change

people who need to defend their position with multiple caveats aren't arguing on principle or equality

So modern libertarianism doesn't promote economic meritocracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

how so?

you all are trying to hold the modern Libertarian party that started in the early 1970's to the strict words of Adam Smith yet hold that the Democrat party is allowed to evolve and change

people who need to defend their position with multiple caveats aren't arguing on principle or equality

Again, this is a very lazy attempt to muddy waters.

We're talking about the ideology (libertarians), not the party (Libertarians).

Also, libertarianism was not founded on the ideologies of Adam Smith, as has been explained, or even the Founding Fathers. Rather, its roots are in the philosophies of figures like Ayn Rand and Rose Wilder Lane (of Little House on the Prairie fame).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

On a musicians message board where I also post, I recently messed with a wfw-like poster (old clueless guy who trolls the off-topic section of that board) by only responding to his posts with Eagles' lyrics. 

Well, right or wrong, what's done is done -- it's only moments that you borrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Again, this is a very lazy attempt to muddy waters.

We're talking about the ideology (libertarians), not the party (Libertarians).

Also, libertarianism was not founded on the ideologies of Adam Smith, as has explained, or even the Founding Fathers. Rather, its roots are in the philosophies of figures like Ayn Rand and Rose Wilder Lane (of Little House on the Prairie fame).

and the Democrat party was founded on the ideology of white supremacy and manifest destiny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

You understand the difference between political parties and ideologies, right?

 
white supremacy certainly qualifies
 
i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
 
  1. 1.
    a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
    "the ideology of republicanism"
    synonyms:

    beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; More

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dago 3.0 said:

is that the only way to promote economic meritocracy? if so, then no it does not

if not, then you are playing a semantic game

Having a small number of people accumulate large amounts of wealth and give it to their children, who do not have to work or achieve anything, undermines economic meritocracy.  

So yeah...the libertarian party, according to you, is promoting aristocracy over meritocracy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, capologist said:

It really took no effort at all.  Sorry, I'm not going to play his little gotcha games...

challenging your statements with thoughtful questions isn't playing 'gotcha'. if your input is to merely tell us what you 'fundamentally disagree' without bothering to engage in a discussion about which you disagree, then this is merely a waste of everyone's time. don't offer your thoughts if you don't plan to defend them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...