Would a libertarian really narc to the recognized controlling authority because they did not like the content of someone’s writing?
Damn right they would, because libertarian really means nothing more than “people should have all the freedoms that I personally deem appropriate.”
No, liberals have. Liberal means free, so liberals should stand for freedom, and in many ways they do. But in America, the majority of liberals also support an ever growing nanny-state, protectionism, gun control, restrictions on political speech, and on and on.
If they weren’t so illiberal in so many ways, I’d gladly call myself a liberal.
What you’ve listed above largely represent choices between freedoms. If you really believe that liberals wish to quash freedoms for the sheer sake of doing so, you’re an idiot who believes the cartoonish depictions others have provided for you. On the other hand, if you are capable of doing so, try to construct you list above in terms of contrasting freedoms, and see if you are mentally capable of at least understanding why someone might choose the one alrternative that you don’t.
I think the “nanny state” bullshit is a good example of the autistic nature of libertarianism. Sometimes you have to support rights that don’t necessarily benefit you personally, but are generally good for the larger society that you want to be a part of. Thus, it is to my benefit that people in my country not starve to death or die from treatable diseases. A higher level of Kohlbergian moral reasoning may be required to get it.
And if you weren’t an idiot…
No, just kidding. Don’t think you’re an idiot, that was just a cheap shot at your expense.
But those are some idiotic generalizations you have there.
An ever-growing nanny state? Sorry, but it’s the conservatives out there who push for laws that dictate behavior, and conservatives who cry about Constitutional protections being “created” by liberal courts. That the “nanny” government insists that my contractor follow certain environmental regulations gives me the freedom to not have to check up on him. That an employer must follow certain OSHA regulations frees me up to find a job without doing background safety research. That the “nanny” will be there if I lose the ability to work means that it’s there for you too, and I have the freedom to exist in a society without poverty on the scale of the developing world.
Protectionism? Oh, right. Totally liberal. Liberals like Pat Buchanan, too.
Restrictions on political speech? Not too effective, given that you’ve got access to Limbaugh talking points. Who took Freedom Zones to an absurd end? That liberal Bush? Who does their best to fight against the ACLU and other bastions of freedom–the ones protecting your rights?
On gun control, you realize you’ve been sold a political bumper sticker, don’t you. DAMN LIBS COMMIN’ TO TAKE OUR GUNS may get you all hot and bothered and willing to donate to the teabagger of their choice, but it’s not actually happening. Even if you want to play gymnast and contort to the straight guns=freedom lie they’ve sold you, try making a pile out of all the things damn libs have taken away from you and comparing it to all the things conservatives have taken away.
So, yeah. Generalize away, but don’t be an idiot about it.
Oh come now. Bush is a liberal - at least he’s not a “true conservative”…and therefore he’s a liberal. That’s been argued ever since all his fuckups became too big to ignore for the Rightards out there.
-Joe
I hope you’re capable of reading a post in the pit without getting your panties in a twist. I said in that very post:
I’m not making the extreme claim that liberals “quash freedoms for the sheer sake of doing so”, so nice strawman.
And that sense of “generally good” is subjective, and where we can easily disagree.
Of course. But why another strawman? Nothing I mentioned earlier has anything to do with people starving to death or dying from preventable disease. Nice try though. :rolleyes:
To summarize your post: conservatives do it to, or do it worse, so we should give liberals a pass? I never held up conservatives in any way, and recognize that their shortcomings are just as bad - if not more so - than any liberal party in the US. Both parties fall short on protecting freedoms, and I was simply pointing out that one of them tends to label themselves with a word that means something they routinely reject. So I don’t understand what you are trying to do here. I’ll continue generalizing, and you can keep drinking the kool-aid. 
What political speech do liberals “routinely” attempt to quash?
That which attempts to claim liberals are evil, I suppose.
Precisely, and this is, at the most basic level, why libertarianism is completely not functional as a real world political philosophy differentiated from liberalism and conservatism.
ETA: And this is exactly why I asked you to cast your list of “freedoms” that liberals opposed as contrasting freedoms, rather than freedoms liberals are against out of… sheer spite, I suppose.
You’ve lost me here, and it’s probably me, not you. Can you elaborate?
What you seem to be saying to me is, people can disagree with what is “generally good” for society, so liberalism and conservatism are real world political philosophies while libertarianism isn’t. What is it about liberalism and conservatism that makes them better suited to resolve this? Because the fact that people can honestly disagree about what is best for society makes libertarianism all the more appealing to me, as with that political philosophy, a limited amount of coercion will occur. Then you can do what you think is best for society and I can do what I think is best, and neither person is forced to follow the other’s plan.
That’s pretty self-evidently false, because we both have clearly conflicting views of “what’s best for society.” You think that what’s best for society is a non-centralized government that has a bare minimum of functions. I think what’s best for society is a strong federal government with the power to regulate industry and the market. There’s no way a country can be run on both of those principles at the same time, so whichever view is in ascendency at the time, it necessarily means that one of us is being forced to follow a plan they don’t agree with.
Besides what Miller said, that claim is based on the libertarian insistence that only coercion by the government matters. Libertarianism weakens government, which in turn means that non-government organizations and powerful individuals are free to oppress and exploit those less powerful than they are. Which is nearly everyone.
Freedom exists only to the extent a strong government makes it exist. A strong government is not automatically on the side of freedom, of course; but you can’t have freedom without one. Well, I suppose you can run off and hide in the wilderness but that’s not much of a third option.
I see what you are saying. My point is: your best completely eliminates any chance of my choices coming to fruition, as the power of government cannot be ignored. My best still allows yours to come to fruition for you and whoever else wants to take part in your schemes. You can only deal with industries regulated to the degree you desire, or create your own, and all those that want more heavily regulated industries can have that happen for them. My best offers choices, your best offers coercion.
Disclaimer: Yes, this is pie in the sky idealism, take to an extreme it would be anarchy, it wouldn’t work, (fill in objection here). I’m discussing ideals, and not discussing how to translate those ideals in policy.
Second Disclaimer: Yes, I do in fact support regulations of businesses.
This meme is usually a reference to “politically correct” speech. Before I expound on this, let me say I don’t entirely agree with the statement, but I can identify many examples to support it.
Some examples of political correctness: Many university professors do not tolerate unfettered debate on certain subjects, such as race relations. So-called hate crimes seek additional penalties in situations when the perpetrator allegedly acts out of identity-based discrimination. On this message board I’ve seen suggestions that the word “blacks” in a headline is racist, whereas no one seems to think “whites”, “Hispanics”, “Asians” etc are potentially racist terms. There’s a certain word starting with N that black people are allowed to say but white people are not. In the 1980s there was a feminist movement to ban pornography because it demeaned women (even, apparently, femdom, lesbian and gay porn).
I recall a case 15 or 20 years ago where a Jewish college student was expelled for calling some black females a name which was interpreted as racist. My recollection of the story: the women were making a lot of noise outside the man’s dorm room, and in asking them to quiet down he called them water buffalo, which in Jewish or perhaps Yiddish culture is a term for people who talk loudly without saying much (again, my interpretation). The school authorities took the term to be racist because…well, I don’t know why, since water buffalo is not a term that’s ever been applied to black people. When the term was explained, the Jewish student was expelled anyway.
Remember when “Who’s your daddy” became a popular phrase denoting superiority over another? Some Illinois high school basketball players who were white started chanting it at their Indiana opponents (Hoosier daddy–get it??) on a team composed mainly of black players. Apparently, not everyone understood the then-new meaning of “Who’s your daddy?” and it was interpreted by authorities and a liberal Chicago Tribune columnist as an apparent reference to the notion that black high school are less likely to know who fathered them than students of other ethnicities. The coach of the Illinois team apologized without taking into account that the chant might have non-racial connotations.
These are two examples of innocent comments being interpreted as inexcusably offensive. As a white male, I am very careful about jokes and even compliments to my female co-workers, whereas I have worked with several women who make extreme comments and generalizations about men with impunity. To the extent that ‘offensive’ is in the eye of the beholder and there are real repercussions for real or imagined transgressions, freedom of speech is impaired.
By the way, political correctness is not just for liberals any more. Sarah Palin has objected to the use of the word ‘retarded’ to refer to people who’s mental development lags behind the norm. The word ‘retarded’ means ‘relatively slow’ and is in fact a euphemism for clinical words like “idiot” and “moron”.
Right. Which is why, speaking for myself, I support a strong but limited in scope central government. Government is essential to protect freedom. I hope I have never suggested otherwise. In my mind, a government should protect from that oppression or exploitation by the powerful, but enable as much choice as possible. (Recognizing that those choices will not always be good ones, yes.)
Not a good third option, I agree.
Reported for being unintentionally self-mocking.
Hardly. The intent behind a crime is a major factor in the law. Intent is the difference between attempted murder and a gun handling accident, or between fraud and an honest error. Or in the case of hate crimes, the difference between a random crime and a form of terrorism. That’s acknowledging reality, not “political correctness”.
The university example aside, where in all that has anyone’s right to free speech been infringed upon? Idiots getting upset because they don’t understand something isn’t the same as limiting a person’s first amendment rights, and is certainly not limited to one side or the other of the political spectrum - witness, for example, the wholly fabricated “War on Christmas” that becomes a right-wing bugaboo around November every year.
Well, but if non-governmental sources of threats to freedom are relevant in general, aren’t non-governmental sources of attempts to limit speech (getting fired, getting expelled, being subject to a public movement to force you to change your speech) relevant to your exercise of free speech?
If you interpret the actions of a university (or individual professor) as being equivalent to the actions of a government, then there’s at least one instance of someone being censored in the above litany (the Jew who got expelled). The standard Conservative position is that those actions are censorship but mandating filtering software on library computers is not.
acsenray makes a good point, too: Once you accept that the actions of private entities, or even individual people, can be ‘censorship’, where does it end? Is it a violation of my First Amendment rights that I’ll get fired for making fun of my boss’s fat ass?