Why is there so much liberal and socialist bias on the escapist?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

DJjaffacake:

cahtush:
Becouse of Europe.
Here, let me demonstrate with a graph:

LEFT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RIGHT
_______EU_______EU__________EU_____US_______________US____________________US
______Left____Centre______Right___Left_____________Centre________________Right

See? Even the most rightwing party in europe about the same place as the american left.
Also the demographics of the users.

Well, perhaps not the most right wing party. I doubt the BNP or Golden Dawn would get on terribly well with Obama. But yeah, when a party specifically called The Conservative Party is to the left of a party considered liberal, something odd's going on.

Well the BNP and Golden Dawn wouldn't get on well with anyone. They might get on with american conservatives on social issues but they wouldn't on economic issues. However since they put so much emphasis on their social stance they will most likely pretend to get on with them in general. It's actually the deviousness of those "extreme right wing" parties.

BOOM headshot65:

recruit00:
Well, the ones I can name off the top of my head are

Xan Krieger
Xanthious
Hardcore_gamer
Gorfias
Heimholtz Wilson
Piffle (debatable)

It's the internet and specifically a game site so of course there will be more of a bias towards the left.

Why am I not on that list >:( I think it is a well known fact on here that I usually lean concervative on most things (thought how conservative depends)

OT: I had to guess, I would have to agree with others and say it has to do with age, location, and hobbies.

I'm guessing it is because you have less than 1k posts and don't hang around the R&P non-stop like the rest of those on the list.

I'll add two more for the list: BlackConservative and NotALiberal.

Danyal:

Hardcore_gamer:
that other guy who wants to have sex with animals.

You mean... me? I'm a conservative?

I can't help but chuckle at the fact that your epithet is now "Animal-sex-guy".
And you are a self-identified Libertarian. To many people, this is meshed up with Conservative.

Realitycrash:
I can't help but chuckle at the fact that your epithet is now "Animal-sex-guy".

People are more amazed by the fact that I don't want to punish non-harmful human-animal sexual interaction than by the fact that I think we're going to be immortal in a couple of decades.

Dafuq.

Realitycrash:
And you are a self-identified Libertarian. To many people, this is meshed up with Conservative.

Isn't Libertarianism rather left-wing on social issues? Legalizing marijuana, abortion, gay marriage?

Danyal:

Realitycrash:
I can't help but chuckle at the fact that your epithet is now "Animal-sex-guy".

People are more amazed by the fact that I don't want to punish non-harmful human-animal sexual interaction than by the fact that I think we're going to be immortal in a couple of decades.

Dafuq.

Realitycrash:
And you are a self-identified Libertarian. To many people, this is meshed up with Conservative.

Isn't Libertarianism rather left-wing on social issues? Legalizing marijuana, abortion, gay marriage?

It sure is, but it ALSO wants (in the more extreme examples, and thus the only ones people tend to remember); No taxes except for police and military. No free health-care. No social securities whatsoever. In fact, no state "intervention" in anything, but everything should be regulated by contracts signed by individual citizens.
I.e very "Conservative".

Realitycrash:
It sure is, but it ALSO wants (in the more extreme examples, and thus the only ones people tend to remember); No taxes except for police and military. No free health-care. No social securities whatsoever. In fact, no state "intervention" in anything, but everything should be regulated by contracts signed by individual citizens.
I.e very "Conservative".

That's like saying "Islam wants to remove the clitoris from every woman". It's wrong, it's prejudiced, it's generalizing, and if you hate Libertarians because of it you're a bigot.

Seriously, where in the Holy Book of Libertarianism says the Holy Prophet those things?

Realitycrash:

Danyal:

Realitycrash:
I can't help but chuckle at the fact that your epithet is now "Animal-sex-guy".

People are more amazed by the fact that I don't want to punish non-harmful human-animal sexual interaction than by the fact that I think we're going to be immortal in a couple of decades.

Dafuq.

Realitycrash:
And you are a self-identified Libertarian. To many people, this is meshed up with Conservative.

Isn't Libertarianism rather left-wing on social issues? Legalizing marijuana, abortion, gay marriage?

It sure is, but it ALSO wants (in the more extreme examples, and thus the only ones people tend to remember); No taxes except for police and military. No free health-care. No social securities whatsoever. In fact, no state "intervention" in anything, but everything should be regulated by contracts signed by individual citizens.
I.e very "Conservative".

.
I seriously doubt the well being of the USA's political analysts because this is not the definition of conservatives.

I see that I ruffled some feathers about my comments on youth and idealism. The upcoming US presidential elections will be an excellent vehicle to show what I'm talking about.

Young people (18 - 22) were very enthusiastic about Obama. If after seeing President Obama in action these same young people now 22 - 26 still support Obama I'll be very surprised. If someone can prove that the 22 - 26 years olds vote in as great or equal numbers for Obama as the 18 - 22 years olds did four years ago I'll delete my account and stop posting here. One less old fart :)

I know it's not really fair but it will show how the idea of Obama changes when faced with the reality of Obama. Disillusionment can be a harsh lession but the wisdom gained makes up for it.

Danyal:

Realitycrash:
It sure is, but it ALSO wants (in the more extreme examples, and thus the only ones people tend to remember); No taxes except for police and military. No free health-care. No social securities whatsoever. In fact, no state "intervention" in anything, but everything should be regulated by contracts signed by individual citizens.
I.e very "Conservative".

That's like saying "Islam wants to remove the clitoris from every woman". It's wrong, it's prejudiced, it's generalizing, and if you hate Libertarians because of it you're a bigot.

Seriously, where in the Holy Book of Libertarianism says the Holy Prophet those things?

Well, then you better do YOUR job better by describing Libertarianism in a more nuanced way. And yes, I am claiming it is your job, since it is your belief ^^ So go promote it!
My only major source of information about Libertarianism is Nozick, the only Libertarian I have studied and read work of. And Nozick is motherfucking crazy. Hands down, pants on head retarded.
But I still know that not every L is. But not everyone knows this.

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

Danyal:

People are more amazed by the fact that I don't want to punish non-harmful human-animal sexual interaction than by the fact that I think we're going to be immortal in a couple of decades.

Dafuq.

Isn't Libertarianism rather left-wing on social issues? Legalizing marijuana, abortion, gay marriage?

It sure is, but it ALSO wants (in the more extreme examples, and thus the only ones people tend to remember); No taxes except for police and military. No free health-care. No social securities whatsoever. In fact, no state "intervention" in anything, but everything should be regulated by contracts signed by individual citizens.
I.e very "Conservative".

.
I seriously doubt the well being of the USA's political analysts because this is not the definition of conservatives.

Well, no. But I did not say that Analysts would claim to be. I said a few things, and that those few claims are what people in general (i.e casuals at the Escapist) would consider "Conservative".

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

It sure is, but it ALSO wants (in the more extreme examples, and thus the only ones people tend to remember); No taxes except for police and military. No free health-care. No social securities whatsoever. In fact, no state "intervention" in anything, but everything should be regulated by contracts signed by individual citizens.
I.e very "Conservative".

.
I seriously doubt the well being of the USA's political analysts because this is not the definition of conservatives.

Well, no. But I did not say that Analysts would claim to be. I said a few things, and that those few claims are what people in general (i.e casuals at the Escapist) would consider "Conservative".

.
I can't believe that conservatives can contain people as extreme as these liberaterians I heard of, like Danyal. Conservatism is keeping the status quo, rescinding social programs set up by the previous government and resisting change. Nowadays you have bloody reactionaries going head-strong with reintroducing religion into every fathom of the government and the state, something I just can't stand to hear as being called "conservatives". When you want to abolish universal suffrage and deny women the right to vote along with other minorities, I do not dare call them Conservatives. I call them bloody revolutionaries that have romanticized the old times to such an extent they believe slavery was something good.

Realitycrash:
Well, then you better do YOUR job better by describing Libertarianism in a more nuanced way.

Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that advocates minimizing coercion and emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

That's what I am, and that's what I take full responsibility for.

Realitycrash:
My only major source of information about Libertarianism is Nozick, the only Libertarian I have studied and read work of. And Nozick is motherfucking crazy. Hands down, pants on head retarded.

I don't know him...

Realitycrash:
But not everyone knows this.

Katatori will protect us against he bigots, right?

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

.
I seriously doubt the well being of the USA's political analysts because this is not the definition of conservatives.

Well, no. But I did not say that Analysts would claim to be. I said a few things, and that those few claims are what people in general (i.e casuals at the Escapist) would consider "Conservative".

.
I can't believe that conservatives can contain people as extreme as these liberaterians I heard of, like Danyal. Conservatism is keeping the status quo, rescinding social programs set up by the previous government and resisting change. Nowadays you have bloody reactionaries going head-strong with reintroducing religion into every fathom of the government and the state, something I just can't stand to hear as being called "conservatives". When you want to abolish universal suffrage and deny women the right to vote along with other minorities, I do not dare call them Conservatives. I call them bloody revolutionaries that have romanticized the old times to such an extent they believe slavery was something good.

And isn't reducing womens rights also reactionary..Just a bit more reactionary than the average conservative?

And no, I doubt the average Libertarian is as extreme as Nozick. My point is that Libertarians have several views-points that are usually considered "Conservative", and thus they get bunched up with them.

TheIronRuler:
I can't believe that conservatives can contain people as extreme as these liberaterians I heard of, like Danyal.

I'm an extremist? In what way?

I don't mind being an extremist but most people use the word like it means "terrorist".

Winston Churchill once said "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.". While I certainly don't agree that any conservative under 30 is a heartless bastard nor any liberal over 30 a mouth breathing idiot I do think the quote is correct in saying that people tend to trend more conservative the older they get.

Hell, when I was in my late teens to mid 20s I thought feeding the poor, green energy, and raising taxes on the rich was just tits. Then I got a few promotions and I got a little older and had to write a check or two to the IRS and all of a sudden green energy is simply too damn expensive, the poor can go feed themselves, and the rich pay enough in taxes.

The fact of the matter is that people's priorities change as they get older. Being idealistic is all well and good when you are younger when you are spending other people's money but once you start writing checks to the government every April those things that once seemed important don't seem quite as important anymore.

The reason you have more liberals than conservatives on here is simply because this side skews younger as will most any site dealing with video games or movies or comic books etc. Any place where you have more younger people than older you will have more liberals than you have conservatives.

Danyal:

TheIronRuler:
I can't believe that conservatives can contain people as extreme as these liberaterians I heard of, like Danyal.

I'm an extremist? In what way?

I don't mind being an extremist but most people use the word like it means "terrorist".

.
Your views are extreme in the spectrum that is Equality - Liberty. Your views correspond very strongly with Liberty, which is why they are extreme in my opinion. Your views also dictate the destruction of today's establishments no different than a communist would want to see, but you seek a different end goal.

Correct me if I've misunderstood you.

TheIronRuler:
Your views are extreme in the spectrum that is Equality - Liberty. Your views correspond very strongly with Liberty, which is why they are extreme in my opinion.

We are rather equal, and thus, in a free society, equality will be the natural balance. The government, by protecting for example property rights, also causes a lot of inequality.

A farmer shouldn't be forced to hand over 75% of his harvest to the government - but he should pay some kind of taxes for the right to own the land he uses.

TheIronRuler:
Your views also dictate the destruction of today's establishments no different than a communist would want to see, but you seek a different end goal.

I want change, not destruction... I mean, I believe that if we stay on the current route, we'll have the Singularity in a couple of decades. I just think it's beneficial if European countries/the Netherlands/Scandinavia become a bit more Libertarian.

Danyal:

Realitycrash:
Well, then you better do YOUR job better by describing Libertarianism in a more nuanced way.

Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that advocates minimizing coercion and emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

That's what I am, and that's what I take full responsibility for.

Realitycrash:
My only major source of information about Libertarianism is Nozick, the only Libertarian I have studied and read work of. And Nozick is motherfucking crazy. Hands down, pants on head retarded.

I don't know him...

Realitycrash:
But not everyone knows this.

Katatori will protect us against he bigots, right?

Dude, what you quoted was very, very vague. The things I said can fall under this claim as well. And what you quoted can be said by a Conservative-politican without any problem. Pure Freedom and liberty? Check! Small government? Check!
You have to be far more specific.

Probably the same reason why there is so much atheist bias... because that is what the majority is here? Personally, I'd guess I lean more on the conservative side of the two, but I don't care for either. Just like with political parties, I don't care if someone is democrat or republican, and I don't really know or care the difference, just how I don't really know or care the difference between liberals and conservatives. Someone I work with told me liberals make choices based of feelings while conservatives make choices based on logic, which seem to hold pretty true based on what I've seen (good example - gun laws).

Realitycrash:

Danyal:
Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that advocates minimizing coercion and emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Dude, what you quoted was very, very vague. The things I said can fall under this claim as well. And what you quoted can be said by a Conservative-politican without any problem. Pure Freedom and liberty? Check! Small government? Check!
You have to be far more specific.

Do you want a term that correctly describes Libertarianism, or do you want a term that supports your prejudices?

It's not like the terms "Liberal" or "Conservative" are less vague....

JRslinger:

Hardcore_gamer:

Is there any reason for why the forum doesn't have more conservatives? The only guys I have noticed is me and that other guy who wants to have sex with animals.

Anyone?

The public education system in the U.S. is dominated by liberals. Thus many young people get indoctrinated to be liberals.

My half joking, half not really answer is that statements like this (it's a librul conspiracy) are why there aren't many conservatives on here. I'd like to think that such statements are obviously ridiculous and blatant in their lack of any actual substance.

My slightly more serious answer is that the reality of much of the world is that young people (the sort of people who dominate forums such as this) identify far less with conservative social ideology than previous generations. Which should be pretty easy to understand when much of what politicians such as those in the Republican party espouse supports things like discrimination. The problem for conservatives then becomes that when their prime spokes people are so easily recognized by younger folks as being some awkward combination of stupid, bigoted, and crazy on social issues, it's far harder to take them seriously on other issues. Particularly when people such as Romney refuse to detail real solutions to actual issues, and far more often stray into the realm of trying to create ideological issues through the back door of fiscal responsibility (such as the hubub about planned parenthood and abortions), even when the thing they're talking about isn't an actual fiscal issue.

That they're also caught frequently lying about facts and figures only makes it worse. So I guess my answer to why aren't there more conservatives on the forum is pretty simple: why would their be when conservative political representatives are pushing ideologies that young people don't care about and are so blatantly either lying or simply being stupid to do it? When your political representatives don't represent the interests of most of the people who come on forums like this, expecting people to follow that ideology is kind of insane.

Xanthious:
Hell, when I was in my late teens to mid 20s I thought feeding the poor, green energy, and raising taxes on the rich was just tits. Then I got a few promotions and I got a little older and had to write a check or two to the IRS and all of a sudden green energy is simply too damn expensive, the poor can go feed themselves, and the rich pay enough in taxes.

Wait, so your argument actually is that people become conservative because they're selfish bastards? Have to say I think I agree with you, though I don't agree that it's a consequence of getting older. Simply getting older isn't going to turn someone into a selfish bastard who doesn't care about the future of the society they live in (and anyone who doesn't care about the push to renewable green energy sources could be argued to not even care about their own future that much).

Danyal:

Realitycrash:

Danyal:
Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that advocates minimizing coercion and emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Dude, what you quoted was very, very vague. The things I said can fall under this claim as well. And what you quoted can be said by a Conservative-politican without any problem. Pure Freedom and liberty? Check! Small government? Check!
You have to be far more specific.

Do you want a term that correctly describes Libertarianism, or do you want a term that supports your prejudices?

I want you to describe the major differences between what YOU support, and what "my" (they aren't mine, by the way, I hold no such prejudices about Libertarians, I only said that I have actively stuided one of the Extrmeists) prejudices claim.
All Libertarians do not support the extreme claims of Nozick. I GET THIS. Now explain to me, and keep explaining to the rest of forum when Libertarians gets called 'Conservative', your more moderate Libertarian views.

TheIronRuler:
I can't believe that conservatives can contain people as extreme as these liberaterians I heard of, like Danyal. Conservatism is keeping the status quo, rescinding social programs set up by the previous government and resisting change. Nowadays you have bloody reactionaries going head-strong with reintroducing religion into every fathom of the government and the state, something I just can't stand to hear as being called "conservatives". When you want to abolish universal suffrage and deny women the right to vote along with other minorities, I do not dare call them Conservatives. I call them bloody revolutionaries that have romanticized the old times to such an extent they believe slavery was something good.

Definitely (well, dunno if it's only the preiouvs government's social changes which they'd undo). It's bizarre how the term "conservative" gets applied to them.

Vivi22:
My half joking, half not really answer is that statements like this (it's a librul conspiracy) are why there aren't many conservatives on here.

Heh.

Xanthious:
Hell, when I was in my late teens to mid 20s I thought feeding the poor, green energy, and raising taxes on the rich was just tits. Then I got a few promotions and I got a little older and had to write a check or two to the IRS and all of a sudden green energy is simply too damn expensive, the poor can go feed themselves, and the rich pay enough in taxes.

Since this may be my only opportunity to talk with you as a person without arguing ideology, why do you suppose your views changed as they did? There's the bit about getting a job/promotion/dealing with taxes yourself, but I'm sure there's more to it than that. This is a subject that fascinates me, as much of my father's side of the family has remained fairly liberal since they were in their teens despite being brought up in a fairly conservative household. Yes, some of the youthful fervor and idealism that they had has waned, but they haven't flipped their views as you seem to have.

To everyone else, I respectfully ask that you don't dogpile Xanthious; it hasn't ever worked before. Xanthious, if you feel that this would be a discussion better made over PM (or perhaps that it shouldn't be continued at all), just say so.

Realitycrash:
I want you to describe the major differences between what YOU support, and what "my" (they aren't mine, by the way, I hold no such prejudices about Libertarians, I only said that I have actively stuided one of the Extrmeists) prejudices claim.

Prejudice, my response.

No taxes except for police and military.

The government has more tasks than merely providing us with a police force and an army, and thus, they'll probably have to tax us for it.

No free health-care.

In my libertarian society, health-care would be privatized, but those who don't earn enough to pay for it would get subsidized.

No social securities whatsoever.

I just described a form of social security. Do you know Hayek?

Friedrich August Hayek was a British economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism.

Hayek also wrote that the state has a role to play in the economy, and specifically, in creating a "safety net". He wrote, "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."[65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

In fact, no state "intervention" in anything, but everything should be regulated by contracts signed by individual citizens.

Again, no. But a lot of people here for example supported the EU forcing Steam to make games resellable. I think that's ridiculous and immoral.

Realitycrash:
Now explain to me, and keep explaining to the rest of forum when Libertarians gets called 'Conservative', your more moderate Libertarian views.

Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism, and some express disapproval of free-market capitalists calling themselves libertarians.[9]

In the United States people commonly associate the term libertarian with those who have "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States).[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Vivi22:
anyone who doesn't care about the push to renewable green energy sources could be argued to not even care about their own future that much

Just as soon as green energy sources become financially viable and not a massive pain the ass I'll start caring about them. However, as it is they have LONG way to go. Car companies can barely give away hybrid cars because there is so little interest in them. Meanwhile solar and wind power can't hold a candle to the convenience of coal. It's been proven time and again that green energy can not exist currently in the free market without some bloated government subsidy propping it up.

Beyond that though the green energy movement is causing more headaches then they are providing benefits. Just look at California right now. It's because of the same people that push for all this green energy garbage that people in that state are paying 5 or more dollars a gallon for gas.

It's also because of these green energy loving people that the US is not allowed to utilize our own natural resources. The US is sitting on a massive amount of oil and fossil fuels but in the name of "environmentalism" isn't allowed to touch it because some rare species of mouse might be inconvenienced.

So while you may think looking to the future is all well and good it doesn't do a damn thing to help anyone in the here and now. In the here and now green energy and things done in the name of green energy are providing way more of a hassle than they are any kind of benefit and it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.

Danyal:

Realitycrash:

Danyal:
Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that advocates minimizing coercion and emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Dude, what you quoted was very, very vague. The things I said can fall under this claim as well. And what you quoted can be said by a Conservative-politican without any problem. Pure Freedom and liberty? Check! Small government? Check!
You have to be far more specific.

Do you want a term that correctly describes Libertarianism, or do you want a term that supports your prejudices?

It's not like the terms "Liberal" or "Conservative" are less vague....

.
Liberal and Conservative aren't vague terms.

Realitycrash:

Danyal:

Realitycrash:
It sure is, but it ALSO wants (in the more extreme examples, and thus the only ones people tend to remember); No taxes except for police and military. No free health-care. No social securities whatsoever. In fact, no state "intervention" in anything, but everything should be regulated by contracts signed by individual citizens.
I.e very "Conservative".

That's like saying "Islam wants to remove the clitoris from every woman". It's wrong, it's prejudiced, it's generalizing, and if you hate Libertarians because of it you're a bigot.

Seriously, where in the Holy Book of Libertarianism says the Holy Prophet those things?

Well, then you better do YOUR job better by describing Libertarianism in a more nuanced way. And yes, I am claiming it is your job, since it is your belief ^^ So go promote it!
My only major source of information about Libertarianism is Nozick, the only Libertarian I have studied and read work of. And Nozick is motherfucking crazy. Hands down, pants on head retarded.
But I still know that not every L is. But not everyone knows this.

How exactly is Nozick "crazy"? I disagree with several of his principles - on property rights, and so on, but he makes some very good ones otherwise which can't just be dismissed as the rantings of a madman. He makes a good critique of Rawls if anything.

TheIronRuler:
Liberal and Conservative aren't vague terms.

They're not? In the Netherlands, we've got progressives and conservatives. Progressives are socialists and conservatives are liberals. Our prime minister, Rutte, is liberal, thus he is right-wing.

Liberals=conservatives=not vague?

Xanthious:

Vivi22:
anyone who doesn't care about the push to renewable green energy sources could be argued to not even care about their own future that much

Just as soon as green energy sources become financially viable and not a massive pain the ass I'll start caring about them. However, as it is they have LONG way to go. Car companies can barely give away hybrid cars because there is so little interest in them. Meanwhile solar and wind power can't hold a candle to the convenience of coal. It's been proven time and again that green energy can not exist currently in the free market without some bloated government subsidy propping it up.

Beyond that though the green energy movement is causing more headaches then they are providing benefits. Just look at California right now. It's because of the same people that push for all this green energy garbage that people in that state are paying 5 or more dollars a gallon for gas.

It's also because of these green energy loving people that the US is not allowed to utilize our own natural resources. The US is sitting on a massive amount of oil and fossil fuels but in the name of "environmentalism" isn't allowed to touch it because some rare species of mouse might be inconvenienced.

So while you may think looking to the future is all well and good it doesn't do a damn thing to help anyone in the here and now. In the here and now green energy and things done in the name of green energy are providing way more of a hassle than they are any kind of benefit and it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.

.
In a few decades the deposits will run out. We will either have to find new ways of exploiting similar or other resources, dig even deeper or dig in space. Otherwise we should work towards finding an energy source that can be used instead of those that can be renewed and sustained for a long, long time.

Do you know why the USA won't touch some of its oil and coal reserves? Because they're reserves. When the shit hits the fan (And it WILL), the USA will be one of the few nations on earth with their own supply of petrol and coal to run their industry independently. You think that oil prices are inflated now? Wait till they start getting scarcer in half a century. They're thinking for the future, thinking big.

Danyal:

TheIronRuler:
Liberal and Conservative aren't vague terms.

They're not? In the Netherlands, we've got progressives and conservatives. Progressives are socialists and conservatives are liberals. Our prime minister, Rutte, is liberal, thus he is right-wing.

Liberals=conservatives=not vague?

.
Right wing and Left wing are relative to each specific parliament. French or not, I assure you that not that many traditionalist and aristocracy rooted political parties remain in the world. Thus the right wing had been given a different name and appearance, such as nationalists and in some cases liberals (When the left which opposes them is socialists/communists). The term right wing and left wing is relative to the parliament itself and the parties within in. That's all.

Because of shit like this:


and this:

and this:

and so on and so on and so on...

Both political parties are filled with hypocritical people who are full of shit, but when it comes to people who are full of crazy the republican party is in a league of its own.

Xanthious:
Winston Churchill once said "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.".

The actual quote is "Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head" by François Guizot. Just thought you should know.

TheIronRuler:
Right wing and Left wing are relative to each specific parliament. French or not, I assure you that not that many traditionalist and aristocracy rooted political parties remain in the world. Thus the right wing had been given a different name and appearance, such as nationalists and in some cases liberals (When the left which opposes them is socialists/communists). The term right wing and left wing is relative to the parliament itself and the parties within in. That's all.

And Wikipedia's definition of Libertarianism is relative in the same way.

Danyal:

Realitycrash:
Snip

Alright, thank you.

MammothBlade:

Realitycrash:

That's like saying "Islam wants to remove the clitoris from every woman". It's wrong, it's prejudiced, it's generalizing, and if you hate Libertarians because of it you're a bigot.

Seriously, where in the Holy Book of Libertarianism says the Holy Prophet those things?

Well, then you better do YOUR job better by describing Libertarianism in a more nuanced way. And yes, I am claiming it is your job, since it is your belief ^^ So go promote it!
My only major source of information about Libertarianism is Nozick, the only Libertarian I have studied and read work of. And Nozick is motherfucking crazy. Hands down, pants on head retarded.
But I still know that not every L is. But not everyone knows this.

How exactly is Nozick "crazy"? I disagree with several of his principles - on property rights, and so on, but he makes some very good ones otherwise which can't just be dismissed as the rantings of a madman. He makes a good critique of Rawls if anything.

His ideas of property rights, of minimal social welfare and security nets, and the whole "taxation is slavery"-rhetoric lands him in "crazy-land" for me. He advocate a state which only provides a police and a military, enough to protect citizens from unlawful violence. The rest is up for grabs.
He isn't a madman, but his society is so extreme that it is as unlikely to succeed as the most extremes of the Communists. It's not to be taken as a feasible, realistic alternative.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked