Johnson / Weld

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The dictionary considers any literate person qualified to read the definitions. Why can't you?

Again, who appointed you defender of all things libertarian?




The dictionary?

Being literate is what appointed me.

You're just upset that I dare point out that the board definition differs from the definition of the whole rest of the whole world.

 

[laughing dog]

You're just upset that I dare point out that the board definition differs from the definition of the whole rest of the whole world.

What board definition? This thread is not even about the definition of "libertarian" the Johnson/Weld ticket of the Libertarian Party..

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Again, who appointed you defender of all things libertarian?




The dictionary?

Being literate is what appointed me.

You're just upset that I dare point out that the board definition differs from the definition of the whole rest of the whole world.

Actually, strike that. What you're really upset about is that I took that job from you. You were the board's arbiter on what is libertarian until an actual libertarian came along and actually said "wait a sec, we don't believe that nonsense." I guess libertarians are the least qualified people to speak about what libertarians believe, and you are the most.

You should contact the Libertarian Party and explain to them that you should be the one writing our position papers, since you know more about what we believe than we do. You should also go to the next national convention of the LP and insist on being seated on the platform committee because our platform is WAY off. Then you should contact the major libertarian websites (Reason, Cato, Mises, etc) and send them articles explaining the libertarian position on current issues.

Of course, you're going to find that libertarians as a group are going to disagree with you about what libertarianism is, but that is because libertarians are foolish enough to think that libertarians define what libertarianism is. You'll just have to tell the whole of libertarianism that you're right and they are wrong.

What's ironic (and this is what probably broke laughing dog's irony meter) is that while there are areas of disagreement between libertarians, you have yet to touch upon a single one of them. Every time you've spoken up about what I really believe and I dared to disagree and point out what it is I mistakenly think I believe, I've been giving the mainstream libertarian view held by a vast majority of libertarians. I've yet to see you comment on any of the issues within libertarian circles that actually divide libertarians.

Not that those issues matter, of course, because you're here to tell us what we really believe.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If libertarians can't do a good job of explaining to people what libertarianism is, that's their own fault for having their philosophy fail in the marketplace of ideas. It's not our job to go out and find the definition of libertarianism for them while those lazy bastards just sit on the couch suckling off the government's teat.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Isn't the Libertarian Party basically where washed up republican politicians go to fade into oblivion?

No. Remember that guy that made all that noise before about some principled value? Oh, wait. Never mind. That was Deez Nuts.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Being literate is what appointed me.

You're just upset that I dare point out that the board definition differs from the definition of the whole rest of the whole world.

Actually, strike that. What you're really upset about is that I took that job from you. You were the board's arbiter on what is libertarian until an actual libertarian came along and actually said "wait a sec, we don't believe that nonsense." I guess libertarians are the least qualified people to speak about what libertarians believe, and you are the most.

You should contact the Libertarian Party and explain to them that you should be the one writing our position papers, since you know more about what we believe than we do. You should also go to the next national convention of the LP and insist on being seated on the platform committee because our platform is WAY off. Then you should contact the major libertarian websites (Reason, Cato, Mises, etc) and send them articles explaining the libertarian position on current issues.

Of course, you're going to find that libertarians as a group are going to disagree with you about what libertarianism is, but that is because libertarians are foolish enough to think that libertarians define what libertarianism is. You'll just have to tell the whole of libertarianism that you're right and they are wrong.

What's ironic (and this is what probably broke laughing dog's irony meter) is that while there are areas of disagreement between libertarians, you have yet to touch upon a single one of them. Every time you've spoken up about what I really believe and I dared to disagree and point out what it is I mistakenly think I believe, I've been giving the mainstream libertarian view held by a vast majority of libertarians. I've yet to see you comment on any of the issues within libertarian circles that actually divide libertarians.

Not that those issues matter, of course, because you're here to tell us what we really believe.

I just joined this thread and see you arguing with yourself. You are definitely a libertarian.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If libertarians can't do a good job of explaining to people what libertarianism is, that's their own fault for having their philosophy fail in the marketplace of ideas. It's not our job to go out and find the definition of libertarianism for them while those lazy bastards just sit on the couch suckling off the government's teat.

Every time I try to explain, people push back telling me that I'm wrong about what libertarianism is because it doesn't match what they want it to be.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If libertarians can't do a good job of explaining to people what libertarianism is, that's their own fault for having their philosophy fail in the marketplace of ideas. It's not our job to go out and find the definition of libertarianism for them while those lazy bastards just sit on the couch suckling off the government's teat.

Every time I try to explain, people push back telling me that I'm wrong about what libertarianism is because it doesn't match what they want it to be.

And that s my point. Competing philosophies don't have this issue and libertarianism isn't measuring up to the competition. If libertarians can't define their positions then the onus isn't on others to do the work for them. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread in the Private Feedback forum and have the site's administrators impose a mandatory, top-down education program for the rest of the users so that you and the rest of the libertarians can get what you want without needing to put in any effort yourselves?

 

[laughing dog]

If libertarians can't do a good job of explaining to people what libertarianism is, that's their own fault for having their philosophy fail in the marketplace of ideas. It's not our job to go out and find the definition of libertarianism for them while those lazy bastards just sit on the couch suckling off the government's teat.

Every time I try to explain, people push back telling me that I'm wrong about what libertarianism is because it doesn't match what they want it to be.

Y Many people "push back" by showing libertarianism is impractical or in some ways internally inconsistent or that there are disagreements among libertarians. For example, according to you, neither Johnson nor Weld are really liberatarians. Yet other libertarians apparently thought they were libertarian enough to put on the Libertarian party ticket. Those people do not "want" libertarianism to be anything except, perhaps, practicable. Now, those people may want libertarians to be either coherent or quiet, but that is a different issue.

 

[laughing dog]

What's ironic (and this is what probably broke laughing dog's irony meter) is that while there are areas of disagreement between libertarians, you have yet to touch upon a single one of them.

No, what broke my irony meter is your idiosyncratic "dictionary driven" claim of incompatibility of monetarism or Keynesian with capitalism.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Every time I try to explain, people push back telling me that I'm wrong about what libertarianism is because it doesn't match what they want it to be.

And that s my point. Competing philosophies don't have this issue and libertarianism isn't measuring up to the competition. If libertarians can't define their positions then the onus isn't on others to do the work for them. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread in the Private Feedback forum and have the site's administrators impose a mandatory, top-down education program for the rest of the users so that you and the rest of the libertarians can get what you want without needing to put in any effort yourselves?

Oh but libertarians DO define their positions and don't put the onus on others to do the work for them. The problem is, there are many non-libertarians unsatisfied with the how libertarians define libertarianism and insist they are better at defining libertarianism. Not "explaining why it does/doesn't work" but "defining it". That is why I told Ford he should go to the LP convention, join the platform committee, and then get a job writing our position papers, because all libertarians are wrong and he is right when it comes to what is the meaning of "libertarian".

 

[Rhea]

There appears to be no point in an actual libertarian commenting in this thread.

Why not? Is there nothing you have to add to the question of why my friend thinks the Libertarian party is a good choice? Nothing to correct in my impression of them from their list of issues on their web page?


Out of curiosity, when YOU read Johnson/Weld's web page and their list of issues, do YOU think they are Libertarians?
Do you think they are a good example of Libertarians?
Do you like their issues list?
Which Libertarian would you like to see as your nominee?
Will you be voting for Johnson Weld?

I commented on what I thought about their issues list.
Feel free to comment on what you think about it.

 

[Rhea]

Of course, you're going to find that libertarians as a group are going to disagree with you about what libertarianism is, but that is because libertarians are foolish enough to think that libertarians define what libertarianism is. You'll just have to tell the whole of libertarianism that you're right and they are wrong.

Watching the Libertarian convention on the TeeVee made it clear to me that I cannot possibly have any idea what Libertarianism is about. Talk about a holy shit moment!


Here are some things I heard and I can't agree to:

Oh, wait, I said it in the first post, really clearly, already. Well, that's a partial list. But yeah those are some reasons why I think the Libertarian Party is not a good governing party.

Maybe their best role is gadfly.
Get those low-level drug offenses decriminalized. I support that.
But eliminating educational standards, driver licensing and global warming efforts? If those things come as a package, I'm willing to fight the marijuana laws without y'all, thanks.

 

[Ford]

Being literate is what appointed me.

You're just upset that I dare point out that the board definition differs from the definition of the whole rest of the whole world.

Actually, strike that. What you're really upset about is that I took that job from you. You were the board's arbiter on what is libertarian until an actual libertarian came along and actually said "wait a sec, we don't believe that nonsense."

First off, I haven't seen this much projection since the last time I was in an IMAX theater. Second, it would be pretty hard for me to have been the board's arbiter until you came along, since I didn't even join until after you'd already been here five years.

I guess libertarians are the least qualified people to speak about what libertarians believe, and you are the most.

Wow, you've got me there, chief. I'm not a libertarian. Never claimed to be one, and though there was a time in my life when I registered and voted libertarian, I am not one anymore. It was a fling with alleged rationality that turned out to be delusion dressed as reason.

You, on the other hand, have twice in just this thread referred to yourself as "an actual libertarian." This is par for the course. Whenever the "L" word comes up on the board you swoop in and present yourself as - if not an expert - then at least the only "actual libertarian" and as such, the board's arbiter of what is libertarian.

You should contact the Libertarian Party and explain to them that you should be the one writing our position papers, since you know more about what we believe than we do.

Again, I have never presumed to speak for libertarians generally or the Libertarian Party specifically, as you are doing here. If you hold some position of authority in the LP (as opposed to being a supporter) I suppose now would be the time to reveal your bona fides.

Of course, you're going to find that libertarians as a group are going to disagree with you about what libertarianism is, but that is because libertarians are foolish enough to think that libertarians define what libertarianism is. You'll just have to tell the whole of libertarianism that you're right and they are wrong.

Again, I'm not attempting to defend or define. That's you, "actual libertarian."

Every time you've spoken up about what I really believe and I dared to disagree and point out what it is I mistakenly think I believe

What? We've established that you own a dictionary, but this fragment brings your claim of literacy into question.

I've been giving the mainstream libertarian view held by a vast majority of libertarians.

As Ronald Reagan once said, "there you go again."

I've yet to see you comment on any of the issues within libertarian circles that actually divide libertarians.

Well that would be presumptuous of me, as I'm not a libertarian. Not even an actual one. You, on the other hand, have presented yourself as not just an actual libertarian, but the only person on this board who has the ability (and dictionary definitions) to speak authoritatively on the topic.

Here's your chance, sport. The OP is a link to the official positions of the Libertarian Party's top tier candidates. As our resident "actual libertarian," you can edify us all on whether or not Johnson/Weld are "actual libertarians" like you.

 

[lpetrich]

Isn't the Libertarian Party basically where washed up republican politicians go to fade into oblivion?

Seems like it. It's like the joke that a libertarian is a Republican who smokes pot.

There was an exception: Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska. He was in the Democratic Party for a long time, running for President in 2008. But that year, he switched to the Libertarian Party, because (to quote the Wikipedia article on him),

"My libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American; elites that reject the empowerment of American citizens I offered to the Democratic Party at the beginning of this presidential campaign with the National Initiative for Democracy."

However, he returned to the Democratic Party in 2010.

 

[SimpleDon]

The problem seems to be not that we non-libertarians don't know what the definition or the philosophy of the libertarians is. It seems to be that the libertarians here and in general don't understand what a political philosophy is to the rest of us.

More precisely libertarians don't understand that the purpose of a political philosophy is to form the theoretical basis for governing. The libertarian philosophy essentially forms the basis for not governing*. There is no policy derivatived from the philosophy because policies are used to govern and the libertarian philosophy is to not govern*.

Therefore the libertarian philosophy isn't deficient, it isn't a political (nor an economic) philosophy. Therefore it doesn't provide a meaningful platform to run for an elective office under. Since the slogan "elect me and I won't do anything in office" is not a proven vote getter they have resorted to plagiarizing the Republican platform, which has allowed them to surge from about one percent of the national vote to their most recent almost two percent.

It isn't therefore the libertarians fault that we are so confused about libertarians. It is that we expect more from them that their philosophy allows.

Things like rationality.




* except to enforce contracts and property rights.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There appears to be no point in an actual libertarian commenting in this thread.

Why not? Is there nothing you have to add to the question of why my friend thinks the Libertarian party is a good choice? Nothing to correct in my impression of them from their list of issues on their web page?


Out of curiosity, when YOU read Johnson/Weld's web page and their list of issues, do YOU think they are Libertarians?
Do you think they are a good example of Libertarians?
Do you like their issues list?
Which Libertarian would you like to see as your nominee?
Will you be voting for Johnson Weld?

I commented on what I thought about their issues list.
Feel free to comment on what you think about it.

*crickets*

 

[James Brown]

 

[lpetrich]

A friend has expressed enthusiasm for Johnson/Weld.

I'm not so convinced.

https://johnsonweld.com/issues/

(Details snipped for brevity)

Looking at what they say, it's hard to distinguish their rhetoric from typical Republican rhetoric or movement-conservative rhetoric.

 

[Terrell]

We'll have to wait and see what they do. If they can move the Libertarians into a party that's somewhat non-interventionist, moderately conservative economically, and socially tolerant, they might make a pretty good 2nd party. They'd have to avoid holding any extreme or untenable positions. Problem is that "if" is the biggest 2 letter word in the English language.