Why do libertarians support Republicans?

[Dryxi]

Since you made the counterclaim, tag! You’re it.

States’ rights were slavery’s consequence. They remain divide et impera.

Did my response not explain my counterclaim that what you said was biased and misrepresentative?

It is true that states' rights were used as a means to protect slavery in the past, and this is a dark chapter in American history. However, it is important to acknowledge that states' rights have also been used for more positive purposes, such as protecting individual liberties and promoting local control of government.

The idea of states' rights has evolved over time and continues to be a subject of debate and discussion in American politics. The goal should be to ensure that states have the power to govern themselves in a way that does not violate the rights of citizens or the Constitution.

 

[cannabineer]

Did my response not explain my counterclaim that what you said was biased and misrepresentative?

It is true that states' rights were used as a means to protect slavery in the past, and this is a dark chapter in American history. However, it is important to acknowledge that states' rights have also been used for more positive purposes, such as protecting individual liberties and promoting local control of government.

The idea of states' rights has evolved over time and continues to be a subject of debate and discussion in American politics. The goal should be to ensure that states have the power to govern themselves in a way that does not violate the rights of citizens or the Constitution.

see following post. Catechism. It did not explain; it merely quoted articles of faith.

The single remaining use for states’ rights is to push the dominionist/supremacist agenda.

 

[Dryxi]

Would like to offer a counter argument that libertarians do not support DeSantis's actions?

Gov. DeSantis gets ‘C’ grade on fiscal policy from libertarian think tank

'Diverting surpluses from being used to expand programs is good policy, but it would have been better to enact permanent tax reforms, such as cutting the corporate tax rate.'

floridapolitics.com

I would assume the libertarian think tank giving him low points isn't extremely favorable on his policies.

 

[Antidote Man]

I'm not a libertarian. You cant chase me to one side or the other. I know these debates. I'm also shocked that majority of you don't see similarities when they are obvious. Like the similarities between a dog and a fish. You might say they're like apples to oranges where as I say they both have two eyes and drink water. The similarities are there regardless. No matter the differences.

 

[cannabineer]

I'm not a libertarian. You cant chase me to one side or the other. I know these debates. I'm also shocked that majority of you don't see similarities when they are obvious. Like the similarities between a dog and a fish. You might say they're like apples to oranges where as I say they both have two eyes and drink water. The similarities are there regardless. No matter the differences.

it helps if you are specific.

 

[Dryxi]

see following post. Catechism. It did not explain; it merely quoted articles of faith.

The single remaining use for states’ rights is to push the dominionist/supremacist agenda.

So we should just abolish state governments and all only abide by the federal government? If this was the situation, weed would still be illegal throughout the country. You are stuck in a loop of bias. Every post drips with it.

 

[cannabineer]

So we should just abolish state governments and all only abide by the federal government? If this was the situation, weed would still be illegal throughout the country. You are stuck in a loop of bias. Every post drips with it.

That’s nice.

Still waiting on an actual analysis and not a recitation.

 

[Fogdog]

I hope we're not talking about me. I do not want Exxon in power. I'm the last person to hate on the poor. I have no problem with gay people, as a people and certainly don't want their rights taken away. Abortions are great in my opinion. There's too many people on this planet. I've been with women who've had them with mine. And nobody decides what I am for me. Period. You can decide what you think I am for yourselves but I wont be playing along. The way some of you jump to conclusion and turn things around baffles me. It's like your only intention is to argue. And I guess stating you're not republican anymore doesn't mean dick. You have to prove it through deductive reasoning and showing your current assessment of what's happening in politics vs how you interpret the definition of various political strategies and where they overlap. I think its obvious there are connections between republicans and libertarians and also some similarities between libertarian's and liberals. To call it a cognitive process is to challenge the psyche and collective conscious and say the problem is in the wiring of brain matter and/or perhaps a chemical imbalance which I think discounts how people's minds are shaped by #1 - what they were brought up to believe and #2 - on their life experiences. Let's just agree to disagree, oh, but we can't do that anymore, because that's agreeing which seems to be the entire point of this discussion, is not to.

You said you were fine with Exon writing laws that regulate them. You said it aligned with the principle of getting government out of people's business. Now you are saying otherwise?

DeSantis IS conducting a culture war that IS marginalizing LGBTQ. He IS suppressing speech of teachers who AREN'T "grooming" kids to be gay but are instead teaching in a diverse culture. The Don't Say Gay law puts them at risk when a kid asks about how a classmate can have two mommies. DeSantis IS using a false claim of kids being taught CRT to re-write subject material in history classes. You stuck to the principle of getting government out of people's business.

I took you at your word and found your argument consistent with what the founder of the libertarian ideology said. So I don't understand your current post.

Yes, what you said earlier was reprehensible. And I find what you said to be every bit as reprehensible as what any Republican says. So, convergence is achieved.

 

[Dryxi]

That’s nice.

Still waiting on an actual analysis and not a recitation.

What exactly is it you are waiting on? An analysis of the differences between libertarians and republicans? I am pretty sure we can agree they are two seperate things, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

EDIT: I get it, you wanted an analysis of why your statement was bias and subjective. I'll assist you since you asked so very nicely.

1. Generalization: The statement paints all individuals who support small government, states' rights, and a free market economy with the same brush, implying that they all have the same motivations and desires. This is not accurate, as individuals who hold these views may have a variety of motivations and reasons for doing so.
2. Loaded language: The statement uses loaded language, such as "bigoted law" and "unfettered plutocracy," to create a negative impression of the political views being discussed. This type of language is designed to elicit an emotional response, rather than a rational one, and does not accurately reflect the beliefs of individuals who hold these views.
3. Assumption of motives: The statement assumes that the individuals who support these political views are motivated by a desire for "minority rule by landed white Protestant males." This is a highly subjective and speculative assertion, and it is not accurate to assume that all individuals who hold these views share this motivation.
4. Lack of objectivity: The statement presents a highly subjective and one-sided perspective, and does not consider alternative perspectives or acknowledge the complexity of the political views being discussed.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm not a libertarian. You cant chase me to one side or the other. I know these debates. I'm also shocked that majority of you don't see similarities when they are obvious. Like the similarities between a dog and a fish. You might say they're like apples to oranges where as I say they both have two eyes and drink water. The similarities are there regardless. No matter the differences.

How should I know you are not libertarian? You played the role quite well. OK, so it was just an act but then again, you answered my question, so thanks for that.

 

[Antidote Man]

You said you were fine with Exon writing laws that regulate them. You said it aligned with the principle of getting government out of people's business. Now you are saying otherwise?

DeSantis IS conducting a culture war that IS marginalizing LGBTQ. He IS suppressing speech of teachers who AREN'T "grooming" kids to be gay but are instead teaching in a diverse culture. The Don't Say Gay law puts them at risk when a kid asks about how a classmate can have two mommies. DeSantis IS using a false claim of kids being taught CRT to re-write subject material in history classes. You stuck to the principle of getting government out of people's business.

I took you at your word and found your argument consistent with what the founder of the libertarian ideology said. So I don't understand your current post.

Yes, what you said earlier was reprehensible. And I find what you said to be every bit as reprehensible as what any Republican says. So, convergence is achieved.

"Lobbyists from big corporations WRITE some of the bills that Republican Congressmen submit. When they aren't writing it, they are suggesting changes to benefit their big corporate clients. Who do you think is behind Republican efforts to fight bills addressing climate change? Ever hear of Exxon?"

YOU SAID THAT

"Yep, that's my read of it too.

By his logic it's consistent. Exon SHOULD write the laws. Anything else is government interference. Regarding culture wars, government has no business interfering with acts of racism or protecting vulnerable minorities. There shouldn't be public schools anyway, so, Don't say Gay is a big don't care."

AND SAID THAT.


I don't see where we are disagreeing. That is exactly what I stated. Republicans want tax cuts for the rich, and their big businesses (Exon, Big Tobacco, NRA, etc) to be left alone so they can make money, or better stated, keep their money, as much of it as they can.

You seem intent on disagreeing so I'm going to call you a purple banana from the planet Pluto! You've got four arms, I know this because I was there when you were born from your father's mouth. Nothing can be more true!

I SAID THAT.

***I agreed with you that republicans are exon, etc and that's how they work. NOT that I agree with them.***

 

[cannabineer]

What exactly is it you are waiting on? An analysis of the differences between libertarians and republicans? I am pretty sure we can agree they are two seperate things, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No.
Some suggestion that libertarianism is based on something other than the familiar falsehoods.

The greatest strike against libertarianism is that it does not work in practice. It is an unstable condition based on a misread of human nature so considerable that it cannot be accident. Thus its deeper-thinking proponents are after an undisclosed outcome.

The Libertarian to Fascist Pipeline is Shorter Than You Think

Though opposing ideologies, Libertarians can swing toward Fascism quickly

medium.com

 

[Dryxi]

No.
Some suggestion that libertarianism is based on something other than the familiar falsehoods.

The greatest strike against libertarianism is that it does not work in practice. It is an unstable condition based on a misread of human nature so considerable that it cannot be accident. Thus its deeper-thinking proponents are after an undisclosed outcome.

The Libertarian to Fascist Pipeline is Shorter Than You Think

Though opposing ideologies, Libertarians can swing toward Fascism quickly

medium.com

Are we changing the goal posts of the discussion? Am I now attempting to convert you to become a libertarian? Considering that was never the goal, nor the discussion, i'll leave it where it is.

 

[cannabineer]

Are we changing the goal posts of the discussion? Am I now attempting to convert you to become a libertarian? Considering that was never the goal, nor the discussion, i'll leave it where it is.

No.

My request from square 1 was a defense of libertarianism proceeding from sound principles. All I got was a recitation of the Credo, salted with argumentum ad hominem.

You did not even attempt to debate the idea that any attempt to operate a free market descends with the inevitability of gravitation into autocracy. And yet that unicorn of a stable and workable free market is a premier idol of libertarians.

 

[HGCC]

Libertarians do not have a coherent/cohesive enough view to be compared to any group that does.

So states rights is a fun topic to argue about, as said, it can swing from allowing slavery to allowing weed, or whatever phrasing you want to use there. Given that vast chasm, it might not be useful in the context of how we run the country.

Also, not sure if that really falls in with libertarian views. Is state government a vastly different beast than federal? How does that work in the context of protecting personal liberty? Both fed and state government represent the same "type" of control that libertarians claim to oppose.

 

[Dryxi]

Libertarians do not have a coherent/cohesive enough view to be compared to any group that does.

This. The simple definitions being supplied in this thread attempt to say libertarians and republicans are the same, and yet they are not. As you said, there is not a simple definition of what a libertarian actually is. There is a very small sample of people that actually register as a libertarian and so we have no idea how many people who claim they are one, actually believe in the all the facets of libertarianism. Regardless of the fact that some democrats consider themselves libertarians as well as republicans, with a larger subset considering themselves simply independent.

No.

My request from square 1 was a defense of libertarianism proceeding from sound principles. All I got was a recitation of the Credo, salted with argumentum ad hominem.

You did not even attempt to debate the idea that any attempt to operate a free market descends with the inevitability of gravitation into autocracy. And yet that unicorn of a stable and workable free market is a premier idol of libertarians.

No from square 1 you attempted to show how libertarians and republicans stem from the same 'unholy trinity', in a bias and subjective fashion. I am not attempting to convince you of libertarian ideology or defend the views. Search out other resources if you want someone to convince you.

 

[cannabineer]

This. The simple definitions being supplied in this thread attempt to say libertarians and republicans are the same, and yet they are not. As you said, there is not a simple definition of what a libertarian actually is. There is a very small sample of people that actually register as a libertarian and so we have no idea how many people who claim they are one, actually believe in the all the facets of libertarianism. Regardless of the fact that some democrats consider themselves libertarians as well as republicans, with a larger subset considering themselves simply independent.


No from square 1 you attempted to show how libertarians and republicans stem from the same 'unholy trinity', in a bias and subjective fashion. I am not attempting to convince you of libertarian ideology or defend the views. Search out other resources if you want someone to convince you.

then why recite the Credo?

 

[Dryxi]

then why recite the Credo?

Simply to show where you were adding your own bias to conclude how the two groups are the same. Was that not the motive of your first response to me? If not, then I guess there was some miscommunication.

 

[HGCC]

This. The simple definitions being supplied in this thread attempt to say libertarians and republicans are the same, and yet they are not. As you said, there is not a simple definition of what a libertarian actually is. There is a very small sample of people that actually register as a libertarian and so we have no idea how many people who claim they are one, actually believe in the all the facets of libertarianism. Regardless of the fact that some democrats consider themselves libertarians as well as republicans, with a larger subset considering themselves simply independent.


No from square 1 you attempted to show how libertarians and republicans stem from the same 'unholy trinity', in a bias and subjective fashion. I am not attempting to convince you of libertarian ideology or defend the views. Search out other resources if you want someone to convince you.

Well...I guess?

I'm saying libertarians aren't a definable thing. The closest thing I can come up with is the official libertarian party and whatever their platform is, but zero people claiming to be libertarians seem to go with that.

‐--------------
Jumping to a specific explanation of why libertarians and republicans are now the same:


The libertarians, as a party, had a longtime problem of a buncha racists and crazy far righties being members, being out and proud wasn't accepted in the Republicans and those dudes wanted more freedom to be racist, so they hung out with the libertarians. Those guys jumped ship and hopped the trump train when he came around. The republican party got steered towards a specific vein of the vast libertarian network of ideas.

Essentially there was a group deemed too extreme for the republicans of say...pre-2012. I think the tea party stuff was the symbiosis of the the two groups, then trump was the glue that bound them together.

 

[Dryxi]

Well...I guess?

I'm saying libertarians aren't a definable thing. The closest thing I can come up with is the official libertarian party and whatever their platform is, but zero people claiming to be libertarians seem to go with that.

‐--------------
Jumping to a specific explanation of why libertarians and republicans are now the same:


The libertarians, as a party, had a longtime problem of a buncha racists and crazy far righties being members, being out and proud wasn't accepted in the Republicans and those dudes wanted more freedom to be racist, so they hung out with the libertarians. Those guys jumped ship and hopped the trump train when he came around. The republican party got steered towards a specific vein of the vast libertarian network of ideas.

Essentially there was a group deemed too extreme for the republicans of say...pre-2012. I think the tea party stuff was the symbiosis of the the two groups, then trump was the glue that bound them together.

I think then we could conclude that they are in fact even less the same than say.. pre-2012. If you want to be a racist and republican, you can just be a Republican today. Since libertarians hold views that mesh with both sides of the two party system it is easy to say they are not the same as either one, and yet without a clear definition of what is a libertarian (besides the official platform that many libertarians must not fully support as they aren't registered for the party and would prefer to stay 'independent') the broad strokes to say they are one and the same is not applicable.