How/why Liberals Attack Free Speech

[vidcc]

Originally posted by John91783@18 January 2004 - 20:22

Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

Native Americans will be very happy to hear that, as will native Hawaaians

[Biggles]

Originally posted by John91783@18 January 2004 - 20:22
Biggles

Anarchists also believe that property ultimately enslaves people and should be shared collectively (not owned by the State, as was the case in the Soviet Union). The logic being that if we all collectively own the wealth then we are all rich.

Libertarians DO NOT believe that property enslaves people!!!!!!!
Or that it should be shared collectively like communists!!!! THE SUGGESTION OF THAT MAKES ME FEEL SICK. :x

Libertarians strongly support the rights of owners of private property to the greatest extent... WE CONDEMN EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN INDIVIDUALS PRIVATE PROPERTY... (SUCH AS TAXATION)

I did say that is where you part company with the Anarchists (although a bit more dramatically than I envisaged)

As Country Joe and the Fish once said, "everyone's got their limits"

I enjoy the debates too.

[John91783]

Biggles

<span style='color:red'>Libertarians Do Not have the same goals or share similar beliefs with anarchists (even in the most general way)&#33;&#33;&#33; You have gone too far in attempting such a poor comparison....</span>


Libertarians stand for individual rights.... that is a HUGE difference from anarchists by itself, aside from our numerous other principles.


ANARCHY IS DEFINED AS an absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion, and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government).

[vidcc]

yes John you are right libertarians are not anarchists. But Biggles does have the right to make a comparison be he right or wrong. He could even hire a hall and preach his views, or print flyers and hand them out in the streets or even broadcast on his own radio and TV station to put his case.
You pointed out that you enjoy the debate, well you will find that debate in here can turn into less of a debate and more a name calling match, which i find very sad as there are quite a few people putting valid points.
i tend to just turn off and discontinue debate once someone comes up with..."your views are wrong" but they can&#39;t justify why they oppose them. There is a blinkered view that has infected many people. I try to play devil advocate sometimes just to keep the debate sharp but getting some people to look at both sides of a debate even if they still keep their opinions is like trying to convince the pope there is no God.
Reading Biggles post he isn&#39;t really trying to suggest that libertarians are anarchist, but that&#39;s probably just how i read it being used to trying to get what people actually are saying.
It&#39;s hard sometimes reading instead of actually hearing the person talk and often it&#39;s easy to think that one is being criticised when one actually isn&#39;t, especially if the person is trying to be clever. (not suggesting that Biggles is trying to be clever)

[B.Helto]

I can&#39;t wait &#39;til election time, so we can kick those damn liberals out of the white house.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by B.Helto@19 January 2004 - 18:03
I can&#39;t wait &#39;til election time, so we can kick those damn liberals out of the white house.

a very well presented case

[j2k4]

Originally posted by B.Helto@19 January 2004 - 14:03
I can&#39;t wait &#39;til election time, so we can kick those damn liberals out of the white house.

Just so-



But to replace them?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@19 January 2004 - 10:37


But to replace them?

Let&#39;s see now...who is right of Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft?

Hmmm.....

Gee, too bad Attila the Hun is otherwise occupied, huh?

[vidcc]

Personally, and this has nothing to do with being left or right wing, i think G.W. has been the worst president for the good of the USA in history.
He has turned a strong economy into a shambles when he inherited more than any other president before him.
He has lost the USA a lot of goodwill and respect around the world.
he has turned a generally open friendly country into a hotbed of paranoyer ( i believe to sway attention from the mess he has created with the home economics )
How many millions have lost their employment ?
it doesn&#39;t matter what the political area you stand in, the job is to build a strong, healthy and viable country for all citizens and alas the present government has failed.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by John91783@19 January 2004 - 03:40
Biggles

<span style='color:red'>Libertarians Do Not have the same goals or share similar beliefs with anarchists (even in the most general way)&#33;&#33;&#33; You have gone too far in attempting such a poor comparison....</span>


Libertarians stand for individual rights.... that is a HUGE difference from anarchists by itself, aside from our numerous other principles.


ANARCHY IS DEFINED AS an absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion, and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government).

John

Vidcc is right, I did not say Libertarians are the same as Anarchists - although I was rather taken with your red writing above.

If you go back to my original posting you will see the comparison I was making was regards to Utopian political ideals. I call them Utopian because I can&#39;t see either viewpoint gaining much ground in the corridors of power. The current US administration is busily rolling back freedom of information and the right to privacy which I would guess you consider anti-libertarian.

The dictionary definition of Anarchy has come to mean chaos but Gramsci et al were not writing about chaos. They were writing about freedom from government. I have quoted this before, and I apologise for repetition, Gramsci said "it doesn&#39;t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in". The point I was trying to make was that from both the left and the right there is a history and culture of wanting freedom from excessive government. The need to control property appears very central to your definition of Libertarianism, but I have read European libertarian pieces where such issues come secondary to personal freedom. That is not to say it is not there, it is just not as big an issue.

I apologise if it appeared as if I was trying to somehow criticise Libertarianism by saying it was the same as Anarchy (or vice versa for that matter). I was more trying to draw a parallel between two diverse and seemingly opposed political trains of thought with regards their disdain for governmental control over individuals&#39; lives. Whereas mainstream Conservatism and Socialism cannot (despite rhetoric to the contrary on both sides) resist to the temptation to tinker with what we can and cannot do.

I may be wrong in this comparison and it may be a rather dry academic exercise for this board, but I would be interested in where you think the early Anarchist writers erred in their rejection of governmental control and governmental structures. I take it as read that your favoured party rejects them better, but a comparison would be interesting nonetheless.