[rocksteady]

Ok, I just want to point out that I've been in some pretty heated discussions with socialist/liberals lately, and it seems our core philosophies are diametrically opposed.

Why do you think this is?

we disagree on many issues, but what are the core beliefs that we do not share?

is it just that we differ in the amount of liberty we are willing to sacrifice to maintain security? Is it deeper than that?

[prometheus]

Originally Posted by rocksteady To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ok, I just want to point out that I've been in some pretty heated discussions with socialist/liberals lately, and it seems our core philosophies are diametrically opposed. Why do you think this is? we disagree on many issues, but what are the core beliefs that we do not share? is it just that we differ in the amount of liberty we are willing to sacrifice to maintain security? Is it deeper than that?

My experiences are that Liberals and libertarians hold almost 100% of the same opinions on civil rights (except self defense) and 0% on property rights.

Conservatives use to be (prior to eminent domain, and drug laws) almost 100 on property rights, and 0% on civil rights (except self defense)

[Tsuru]

The difference between modern liberalism (aka progressivism) and classical liberalism (aka libertarianism) is that progressives want to encroach on the economy and individual finances for social agendas, while libertarians do not.

In other words, the fundamental core difference is that libertarians see economic rights/sovereignity and non-infringement of trade as an essential dimension of a free society and a free person, while progressives do not consider it so. Progressives see it as a function of government to confiscate the property of some individuals for the sake of the common good.

[prometheus]

Originally Posted by Tsuru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The difference between modern liberalism (aka progressivism) and classical liberalism (aka libertarianism) is that progressives want to encroach on the economy and individual finances for social agendas, while libertarians do not. In other words, the fundamental core difference is that libertarians see economic rights/sovereignity and non-infringement of trade as an essential dimension of a free society and a free person, while progressives do not consider it so. Progressives see it as a function of government to confiscate the property of some individuals for the sake of the common good.

Well put, and have you noticed the liberals moving away from that label and adopting progressive more and more................they are still nothing more than socialists though.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[AgentofGaming]

What about Progressive Conservatives? Like the Progressive Conservative party of Ontario.
It seems contradictory to be progressive and conservative.

[Riverratt]

The Democrats have skewed the definitions...

Liberals, tend to be Communistic, or Socialist now.

Libertarians, are the TRUE Liberals.

Heck even the Republicans have become like the Democrats "of old", more than willing to implement the "10 planks of Communism"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Remember, it is for the children.

[quentin]

Liberals care about other people.

[Riverratt]

	Originally Posted by quentin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Liberals care about other people.

Yea, ONLY if it is political correct to do so.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[wise]

	Originally Posted by quentin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Liberals care about other people.

Having been employed in state government for 26 years, largely liberal in composition, my experience is that liberals care about numero uno. Come to think of it, politicians in total care about numero uno. I don't believe what a politician says; their actions are often contrary to their promises, albeit with excuses, and blame for their retractors and oppponents, as to why.

[Bossy Mom]

	Originally Posted by quentin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Liberals care about other people.

That is funny. They just like the appearance of caring about other people -- and they want other people to fund their "caring."

[Sylvanus]

	Originally Posted by quentin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Liberals care about other people.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[thod]

The odd thing is that the US election is a contest between a right wing conservative and an even more right wing conservative. You have to go outside the narrow politics of that "bought and paid for" country to get some real political diversity.

[Sylvanus]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The odd thing is that the US election is a contest between a right wing conservative and an even more right wing conservative. You have to go outside the narrow politics of that "bought and paid for" country to get some real political diversity.

Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson? All the real right wing conservatives dropped out already.

[thod]

From my non US perspective Bill Clinton was a rabid right wing loon too. You dont get any real middle ground politicians in the US.

They only picked McCain as a lame duck. Nobody that was any good would want to run this time around so they picked an old man. You only get one shot and this time is going to be a democrat win. All the good repulicans would play the strategic game and wait for next time where they have a chance.

[Bossy Mom]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

From my non US perspective Bill Clinton was a rabid right wing loon too. You dont get any real middle ground politicians in the US. They only picked McCain as a lame duck. Nobody that was any good would want to run this time around so they picked an old man. You only get one shot and this time is going to be a democrat win. All the good repulicans would play the strategic game and wait for next time where they have a chance.

This reminds me of 1996 when the Republicans ran Bob Dole, another middle-of-the-roader. He lost very badly. I voted for him, but very reluctantly.

Bill Clinton right wing? That is funny. He just followed the polls and make his decisions based on Gallup, etc.

You will never see a best selling book on the ideals of middle-of-the-roaders, because they have no principles or ideals. They just compromise everything.

You'd probably call me a rabid right wing loon, but I don't care. Principles, honor and integrity mean everything to me. If that is rabid, great. If I am right wing, that means I don't believe in legalized theft or physically enforced charity. Great. A loon? I believe in personal responsibilty, taking care of my family and always doing the right and honorable thing. If that is a loon, then I am one.

[OneBadMother]

Libertarianism vs. liberalism, from what I'm given to understand, is like the difference between anarchism and socialism. Libertarianism is essentially looking out for oneself and maintaining a sort of self-sufficiency. Liberalism is trying to look out for everyone equally, perhaps at the cost of some individual freedoms. The social viewpoints may be similar, but the practices are not. I don't think either one really works, since people in general are both needy and selfish, so we end up with a kind of compromise as evidenced by most first-world governments today, tending a bit more towards the socialist side due to our increasingly centralized government.

[AgentofGaming]

	Originally Posted by Bossy Mom To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You will never see a best selling book on the ideals of middle-of-the-roaders, because they have no principles or ideals. They just compromise everything.

Compromise is not always a bad thing, if you can satisfy both ends.
Or politically picking up the advantages at each end and avoiding the disadvantages at each end.
I think they called Clinton an adherent of the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Flexibility is useful. people change, politics change, parties change.

There are also aren't many centrist parties in North America.

[Riverratt]

Politics is like a two lane highway, You can either be in the RIGHT lane....or the LEFT lane....

Anything in the middle of the road is ROAD-KILL, as both sides run over it.

[quentin]

Politics is ALL about compromise. That's the definition of politics. That's why there are no genuine left or right wingers in Congress, or running for President. Ideologues can rant their hare-brained theories all they want but they never achieve the power to put their extremism into action. If you want results, it's the middle-of-the-roaders who do all the work. Compromisers are what make the world work.

[Lights]

	Originally Posted by Riverratt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Politics is like a two lane highway, You can either be in the RIGHT lane....or the LEFT lane.... Anything in the middle of the road is ROAD-KILL, as both sides run over it.

Poor Ron Paul...let him rest in pieces.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[pavman]

	Originally Posted by OneBadMother To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...tending a bit more towards the socialist side due to our increasingly centralized government.

"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442

Long live the Anti-Federalists! :o)

[Lights]

	Originally Posted by pavman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442 Long live the Anti-Federalists! :o)

Is it an INTJ thing to quote long dead guys? Personally I don't see any relevance to it. Thomas Jefferson was also one of the first people to suggest that blacks may be biologically inferior to whites, which seems a bit hypocritical considering he would write something like, "All men are created equal" and he would bang a slave. Hm...weird how I never see anyone quoting that shit. I wonder why...

That is alright. I'll do it!

Originally Posted by From Notes on Virginia, 1785

They secrete less by the kidneys and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor. They seem to require less sleep...They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. In general their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labor. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to whites; in reason, much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless and anomalous...

[Bossy Mom]

Originally Posted by Lights To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is it an INTJ thing to quote long dead guys? Personally I don't see any relevance to it. Thomas Jefferson was also one of the first people to suggest that blacks may be biologically inferior to whites, which seems a bit hypocritical considering he would write something like, "All men are created equal" and he would bang a slave. Hm...weird how I never see anyone quoting that shit. I wonder why... That is alright. I'll do it!

So...only people of your generation have the answers to the fulfilled life? People of the past have no knowledge or wisdom to pass down to us? And people with principles and ethics are irrelevant? I don't understand how anyone could dismiss principles and universal truths as you do -- as though they are just comedic. You also need to cleanup your language -- it is quite offensive.

[Lights]

	Originally Posted by Bossy Mom To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So...only people of your generation have the answers to the fulfilled life?

Nope, I don't think any generation has that. Who is to say what is fulfilling in my time is the same as what was fulfilling in Thomas Jefferson's time? Apparantly he was quite fulfilled doing the dirty with his slave woman. I personally don't think I would find that quite fulfilling in the present.

	People of the past have no knowledge or wisdom to pass down to us?

Oh, they certainly do. But you have to treat their knowledge and wisdom as relevant to their time, and not necessarily to the present. Aristotle said that the brain is the most useless organ in the human body, serving only to cool the blood. Should neurosurgeons today be taking his knowledge as the truth? Has there not been significantly more knowledge and wisdom gained since then? Thomas Jefferson clearly thought black people were inferior, and yet abolitionists used his own words, "All men are created equal" to fight for a cause that contradicted his knowledge. Were they wrong? Should they have ceded to the greater wisdom of the past?

	And people with principles and ethics are irrelevant?

Principles and ethics are based upon values. And those are only as relevant as the people who hold them. One person may value individualism and property rights, so they become a libertarian and uphold those ethics and principles. Another person may value equality and social justice, so they become a liberal and uphold those ethics and principles. Who is to say that one person's values are inferior to another's?

	I don't understand how anyone could dismiss principles and universal truths as you do -- as though they are just comedic.

It isn't hard. It's called "
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
". But being an objectivist, I can understand where you are limited in that respect. You have my pity.

	You also need to cleanup your language -- it is quite offensive.

You can buy patches for your browser that will censure people's language. You can't expect people to change the way they behave just to suit you.

[Caramel]

The INTJ forum must be the only place on earth where being a 'F' in stead of a 'T' is considered an insult lol.

Anyway, back on topic.. in my search for more information on the libertarian political position, I found this website:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I found it an interesting read, but I don't know if the text on it is valid. (Prometheus, maybe you can shed some light on that? You're more educated on this.)

(They also have this page about MBTI, which correlates the temperaments to the political chart.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)