Do You Feel like you have the personality of one party, and

Post Reply New Topic

To me, I feel like a paleo-conservative inside a libertarians body. I am 100% anarcho-capitalist, and I can relate to that wing, but I don't relate so much to the moderate wing. I agree on cutting spending, and on generally getting government out of people's lives, even on social issues. But on certain issues, I just can't agree. I agree thing slike the morning after pill and other medications like that should be legal, but I just disagree on the abortion issue. And on gay marriage, I think a third way solution should come about. Perhaps legalizing gay marriage, but no tforcing businesses or religious orginizations to partake in it. It just seems like many libertarians took the kool aid. In all reality, marriage should be a private ordeal, bu tlibertarians go with consensus, instead of going against the trend. It is kind of funny, I have more in common with a drunk comedian (Doug Stanhope), thN the main libertarian party. Do you think there is a schism between anarcho-capitalist and moderate libertrians? Is one more left, and the other more right oriented. Has something ever happened to you like this?

"Marriage should be a private ordeal."

That is an interesting turn of phrase.

Do you mean- as opposed to a "public ordeal"( throw your own china at each other and dont damage public property).

Or do you mean it should be a private ORDREAL, as opposed to "a private blessing"?

I'm an anarchist. You are not. There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism. It's not a real thing. Anarchism is a left-wing ideology. Anarchism is anti-capitalist. Anarchism is a socialist movement. Please stop misappropriating the term.

To reply to the first post: in other words, treat it like two people living together. I imagine there would need to be some contracts, but they could be handled apart from marriage. So basically, the only thing amarriage would mean would be commitment, gay, straight, or otherwise. So basically, with the exception of property and other matters which would require contracts, just leave it alone.

As to the second post, doesn't anarchist mean against force? If I left you alone, and you left me alone, what would that be? An dassuming ther ewa snot a state, what would it be. I have nothing against socialism, and in reality, some of it is a good idea. The only problem is forcing it on someone. And besides, who said you were right? Who said I was right. Perhaps we are both right. Perhaps you could elaborate.

One shouldn't confuse 'Big L' with 'small l". I do not pay much heed to the Libertarian Party, the party is rather self limiting, incompetent, and prone to bickering amongst themselves. I voted for Gary Johnson but Bob Barr/WAR were a complete joke in 2008. Not that I think any higher of the GOP of course.

I have no allegiance to a political party, you run as what you can win as. Right now the best vehicle for libertarianism is the US is the Republican Party, one can't argue against the progress that has been made over these last few years. Sitting on the sideline is not going to get us anywhere, the Religious Right took over the GOP from the inside the same way.

Anarchism has nothing to do with force whatsoever. Although most self proclaimed ancaps (read: right wing libertarians) love to talk about the state having a "monopoly on force." They user that line of thinking to abolish the state completely to allow the capitalists more freedom to exploit and enslave society. Basically just American style right wing libertarianism pushed to its logical conclusion.

Socialism being forced on somebody is a non sequitur in most cases. The only ones it would be forced on are the capitalists. The privileged minority. It might have to be done so violently. I'd be more than happy with that.

I agree private interests many times exploit people. I guess what I mean by anarcho-capitalist would being allowed to homestead a property, protect my life from danger, and generally enjoy the fruits of my labor, and exchange that if I will. Is there anything wrong with that? I guess all I am saying is that I don't think everyone wants to be an island unto himself, yet I don't think everyone want to be a collective. So why not let them do their thing?

And as for being forced, what if I want to do my own thing? Can me an dother form our own collective, and do what we want? And socialist do what they want. And besides who said your idealogoy is right?

I said my ideology is right.

Prove it.

What your asking is impossible.

So you equate doing things with stuff that somebody else claims is their property, with the act of physically assaulting somebody?

And are there any limits to what sorts of things somebody can claim ownership of? Any way of determining the"rightful" owner of the stuff?

Yeah, whoever claims it first, and can secure it (I can't just say I own North America), but like th settlers, I must homestead it, or exchange something of value for that thing.

Like the homesteaders? Are you referring to when Europeans came to America and committed genocide against the natives? Is that the whole"securing" part?

I'm sorry, but nothing about what you are saying makes any kind of sense. Please think it through.