Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Age Superiority and The State

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 4:58:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In our society, there is an established consensus that people shall not possess full rights until they reach a certain age. Therefor, adults exist in a superior class. This is accepted as justified because children are incapable of the proper judgment to use these rights responsibly. The great majority of Libertarians believe in this age separation.

However, once we step over that line and accept that we are allowed to make exceptions in self-ownership, based on the mental capabilities of individuals, it follows that there may be other exceptions. One could just as easily envision a world even more hegemonized than today's society, yet all with Libertarian justifications, so along as this ageist exception is allowed. It can also be used to justify the use of certain regulations, as to prevent the actions of people from using their rights irresponsibly. Or, in the same way age does, we could limit people's rights for a set amount of time, such as until they acquire a certain education.

Libertarian consistency gives way under the ageist exception.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 5:11:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And so it continues... that endless rigmarole - seeking consistency from a system that was never truly based on such.

We are impulsive and self-interested creatures whose opinions are the projections of feelings. In that transient instance that it becomes necessary to argue that opinion and forward it above an opponent's, we appeal to general principles we invented for that specific purpose. When the issue changes, and our feelings can no longer be justified under the principles thence forwarded, we simply ignore them and invent new ones. Consistency was never the object. Politics and ethics, with their flighty parade of emotive trigger words - justice, equality, liberty, virtue, rights - are simply the implements of opportunism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 5:40:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 5:11:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
And so it continues... that endless rigmarole - seeking consistency from a system that was never truly based on such.

We are impulsive and self-interested creatures whose opinions are the projections of feelings. In that transient instance that it becomes necessary to argue that opinion and forward it above an opponent's, we appeal to general principles we invented for that specific purpose. When the issue changes, and our feelings can no longer be justified under the principles thence forwarded, we simply ignore them and invent new ones. Consistency was never the object. Politics and ethics, with their flighty parade of emotive trigger words - justice, equality, liberty, virtue, rights - are simply the implements of opportunism.

Very well said, my friend.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 8:22:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Somewhere from infancy to death, one's evolution as a human being reaches the stage at which certain rights are properly recognized. This age varies from person to person, but an arbitrary age has to be agreed upon that will work for everyone , as there is no conceivable alternative - one that wouldn't lead to disenfranchisement and corruption in the political sphere. The problem of arbitrary qualification will always exist, no matter the method of discrimination involved. The only way around this would be to eliminate discrimination all together, in which case you're left with baby voters, which is silly.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 8:29:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 8:22:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somewhere from infancy to death, one's evolution as a human being reaches the stage at which certain rights are properly recognized. This age varies from person to person, but an arbitrary age has to be agreed upon that will work for everyone , as there is no conceivable alternative - one that wouldn't lead to disenfranchisement and corruption in the political sphere. The problem of arbitrary qualification will always exist, no matter the method of discrimination involved. The only way around this would be to eliminate discrimination all together, in which case you're left with baby voters, which is silly.

You've misunderstand the argument of the OP. The principle implicit in ageist legal limitations is that the right to vote (and presumably other rights) can be withdrawn from those who lack the intellectual faculty to make reasoned and informed decisions. So as you can probably see, this principle extends far beyond the context of children. Yet people are simultaneously opposed to literacy tests, IQ tests, and laws preventing the mentally disabled from participating - usually on grounds of rights and representation. It's a contradictory and selective application of supposedly "objective" principles that undermines the credibility of all of them.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 8:56:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 8:29:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/23/2013 8:22:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Somewhere from infancy to death, one's evolution as a human being reaches the stage at which certain rights are properly recognized. This age varies from person to person, but an arbitrary age has to be agreed upon that will work for everyone , as there is no conceivable alternative - one that wouldn't lead to disenfranchisement and corruption in the political sphere. The problem of arbitrary qualification will always exist, no matter the method of discrimination involved. The only way around this would be to eliminate discrimination all together, in which case you're left with baby voters, which is silly.

You've misunderstand the argument of the OP. The principle implicit in ageist legal limitations is that the right to vote (and presumably other rights) can be withdrawn from those who lack the intellectual faculty to make reasoned and informed decisions. So as you can probably see, this principle extends far beyond the context of children. Yet people are simultaneously opposed to literacy tests, IQ tests, and laws preventing the mentally disabled from participating - usually on grounds of rights and representation. It's a contradictory and selective application of supposedly "objective" principles that undermines the credibility of all of them.

Yeah, I got the sense that I did. I don't deny that some people who currently have the right to vote shouldn't, and that some people who currently don't have the right to vote should, but a government that is in the position to define non-objective qualifications for who can and can't vote is inevitably going to exploit that power in its benefit. So yes, the current system is arbitrary, and no, when people turn 18 they don't magically become qualified to vote if they weren't the day before, but I don't see any viable alternative. If there were some way to objectively identify those attributes that we currently substitute for age, I would support it for the same reasons I support age limits, but I see no such system available at present. Basically, I think every person is either fit or unfit to vote, and the best (least violating) way of determining this is through the current age restrictions.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:01:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:58:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
In our society, there is an established consensus that people shall not possess full rights until they reach a certain age. Therefor, adults exist in a superior class. This is accepted as justified because children are incapable of the proper judgment to use these rights responsibly. The great majority of Libertarians believe in this age separation.

However, once we step over that line and accept that we are allowed to make exceptions in self-ownership, based on the mental capabilities of individuals, it follows that there may be other exceptions. One could just as easily envision a world even more hegemonized than today's society, yet all with Libertarian justifications, so along as this ageist exception is allowed. It can also be used to justify the use of certain regulations, as to prevent the actions of people from using their rights irresponsibly. Or, in the same way age does, we could limit people's rights for a set amount of time, such as until they acquire a certain education.

Libertarian consistency gives way under the ageist exception.

It's weird how the leftists that supposedly lean on science and statistics for their arguments have to make up their own facts. The honest truth is most libertarians (including myself) are against age of consent on pretty much everything besides drug usage and alcohol consumption. (Even this is only due to physical, not mental constraints, because obviously a 90 pound 11 year old is very alcohol sensitive and has low tolerance, the same goes for drugs), I personally believe in testing for things like voting.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:02:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because I see one leftist skew facts and make up their own facts(FREEDO) all leftists must therefore be fallacious liars and hypocrites.

#deductivereasoning
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 1:10:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 9:01:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"If there were some way to objectively identify those attributes that we currently substitute with age"

Fixed

Testing makes the most sense to me. You should have to renew your right to vote biannually (once every two years). You should also have an present to vote. Some people (probably the same people who make up their own facts to support an anti-libertarian narrative, like the OP), will claim having an ID (to prove you are a citizen in local voting and aren't an illegal immigrant) is racist, and that having to test to vote is also racist and discriminatory. To this I would have to ask, racist or discriminatory towards whom? Is it possible that the same politicians and people who are afraid of testing and ID's for voting are only afraid of it because a large part of their constituency are politically apathetic?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 12:51:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 1:01:00 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I'm sorry, only users with a certain level of mental capacity are able to participate in this thread.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 12:51:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Classic slippery slope fallacy. "There are some justifiable restrictions of rights therefore all restrictions must be considered justifiable."
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 12:59:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 12:51:53 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Classic slippery slope fallacy. "There are some justifiable restrictions of rights therefore all restrictions must be considered justifiable."

My contention is not that all other restrictions become justified. But that they become allowed.

I have no problem with practical Libertarians who adopt it purely as a general pragmatic solution.

But the Libertarian movement is infested with dogmatists and puritans who insist that the truth of their world view is essentially mathematical. Their sense of consistency is deluded.

This is directed in that sense.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 1:11:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 5:40:37 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/23/2013 5:11:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
And so it continues... that endless rigmarole - seeking consistency from a system that was never truly based on such.

We are impulsive and self-interested creatures whose opinions are the projections of feelings. In that transient instance that it becomes necessary to argue that opinion and forward it above an opponent's, we appeal to general principles we invented for that specific purpose. When the issue changes, and our feelings can no longer be justified under the principles thence forwarded, we simply ignore them and invent new ones. Consistency was never the object. Politics and ethics, with their flighty parade of emotive trigger words - justice, equality, liberty, virtue, rights - are simply the implements of opportunism.

Very well said, my friend.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 1:48:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd mainly agree that ageism is unfair and that those under 18 are treated very poorly under the current system.

However, it should also be recognized that if a person is living under the subsidization of another (parent), then its perfectly consistent under libertarianism that he or she needs to follow what he or she has the right to evict them. In order to avoid eviction, he or she can receive punishment instead. So those that don't have the money to support themselves (children) will not have the ability to become completely free.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 12:38:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 12:51:29 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/24/2013 1:01:00 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I'm sorry, only users with a certain level of mental capacity are able to participate in this thread.

I'm sorry that you deem me of substandard intelligence because I didn't swallow your force fed propaganda on libertarian-ism.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 12:42:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm guessing this means that anyone who disagrees with your radical left doctrine is also of substandard intelligence (i.e the vast majority of the of academics, intellectuals and the human populous).
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:21:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 12:42:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I'm guessing this means that anyone who disagrees with your radical left doctrine is also of substandard intelligence (i.e the vast majority of the of academics, intellectuals and the human populous).

Not really a new concept with lefties, you know. Kinda one of those standard tactics to evade evaluation of your childish philosophies, you just smear your opponent.

I suppose it should be pointed out the OP makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims regarding Libertarian philosophy such as "the great majority of libertarians."

Of course, if he wants to attribute the "established consensus" to the great push for libertarianism in this country, I'd love to see his argument. If he's just wanting to rail on "those dumb hypocritical libertarians, lolz" I say he's already made his point and we can move on.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:49:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:21:52 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/25/2013 12:42:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I'm guessing this means that anyone who disagrees with your radical left doctrine is also of substandard intelligence (i.e the vast majority of the of academics, intellectuals and the human populous).

Not really a new concept with lefties, you know. Kinda one of those standard tactics to evade evaluation of your childish philosophies, you just smear your opponent.

I suppose it should be pointed out the OP makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims regarding Libertarian philosophy such as "the great majority of libertarians."

Of course, if he wants to attribute the "established consensus" to the great push for libertarianism in this country, I'd love to see his argument. If he's just wanting to rail on "those dumb hypocritical libertarians, lolz" I say he's already made his point and we can move on.

I would tend to say that there is an elitist faction of both sides that has disdain for people who don't coddle them when debating with that person. I guess I should have made him feel nice by saying something like "Well I guess you could be right", when he's really not. If FREEDO wishes to be coddled in debate, maybe he shouldn't have made a senseless critique that was primarily rhetoric and a couple made up statistics. I'm sure I would get the third degree from FREEDO if I reciprocated his critique. The thing is, FREEDO is usually one of the more intelligent members of DDO who is willing to justify himself, so I was shocked when he disdainfully refused to respond to me. Oh well.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:50:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 12:42:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I'm guessing this means that anyone who disagrees with your radical left doctrine is also of substandard intelligence (i.e the vast majority of the of academics, intellectuals and the human populous).

1. I am not a leftist.
2. I grew up conservative, converted to Libertarianism and converted many more times before giving up on politics entirely.
3. This thread is one in many politically themed threads I make directed at, not a specific ideology, but dogmatists within an ideology.
4. The amount of assumptions and logical fallacies you resort to is unsettling.
5. My last comment was meant to be an ironic joke.

It's unfortunate for an intellectual topic to degrade into a self-defense. Back to the subject. Please address the issue with, logic, facts and not personal attacks, or I'll just ignore you.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:55:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:21:52 PM, Naysayer wrote:
"the great majority of libertarians."

Is there actually anyone besides CA who disputes this? I figured it was a given. Libertarianism covers a very wide range of people, not just the Minarchists and Ancaps who hang out on the internet. Most Libertarians, it seems apparent to me, are normal people who would find the idea of abolishing child-adulthood separation as drastic, to say the least. Most people aren't ok with pedophilia.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:57:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:55:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/25/2013 2:21:52 PM, Naysayer wrote:
"the great majority of libertarians."

Is there actually anyone besides CA who disputes this? I figured it was a given. Libertarianism covers a very wide range of people, not just the Minarchists and Ancaps who hang out on the internet. Most Libertarians, it seems apparent to me, are normal people who would find the idea of abolishing child-adulthood separation as drastic, to say the least. Most people aren't ok with pedophilia.

It's not apparent.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:58:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 1:48:39 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I'd mainly agree that ageism is unfair and that those under 18 are treated very poorly under the current system.

However, it should also be recognized that if a person is living under the subsidization of another (parent), then its perfectly consistent under libertarianism that he or she needs to follow what he or she has the right to evict them. In order to avoid eviction, he or she can receive punishment instead. So those that don't have the money to support themselves (children) will not have the ability to become completely free.

Would this also extend in a society where indentured servitude is legal? As is often accepted under Libertarianism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:59:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:50:21 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/25/2013 12:42:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I'm guessing this means that anyone who disagrees with your radical left doctrine is also of substandard intelligence (i.e the vast majority of the of academics, intellectuals and the human populous).

1. I am not a leftist.

I am aware that you are libertarian, but I reject the Chomsky-esque form of Libertarianism that you seem to be a proponent of, which is left libertarian ism. The main facet of libertarianism, in my opinion is the championing of the individual and individual rights, which in a lot of cases Left-Libertarianism violates.

2. I grew up conservative, converted to Libertarianism and converted many more times before giving up on politics entirely.

Politics is a frustrating subject, especially when you hold a more radical view, as you and I both do.

3. This thread is one in many politically themed threads I make directed at, not a specific ideology, but dogmatists within an ideology.

Fair enough, I guess since I am libertarian, it's only natural that I might jump to assumptions and jump to my ideologies self defense too quickly. I apologize for this.

4. The amount of assumptions and logical fallacies you resort to is unsettling.

Some of them were a pointed satire at the OP.

5. My last comment was meant to be an ironic joke.

I just caught on to that now that you said it, and I would have been less offended had you still replied to my other posts, while making the joke.

It's unfortunate for an intellectual topic to degrade into a self-defense. Back to the subject. Please address the issue with, logic, facts and not personal attacks, or I'll just ignore you.

My whole point (which was illustrated a little bit inappropriately, granted) is that I am not willing to give a thread like this legitimacy, especially when all it seems like you did was make a few generalizations. I am not one to cherry pick, but the generalizations you made were vital to your point, and as far as I know none of them are true. Most libertarians I know and most libertarian party platforms renounce age of consent, or want to cut down on victimless laws regarding age of consnt, such as sexual relationships.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 3:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:55:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/25/2013 2:21:52 PM, Naysayer wrote:
"the great majority of libertarians."

Is there actually anyone besides CA who disputes this? I figured it was a given. Libertarianism covers a very wide range of people, not just the Minarchists and Ancaps who hang out on the internet. Most Libertarians, it seems apparent to me, are normal people who would find the idea of abolishing child-adulthood separation as drastic, to say the least. Most people aren't ok with pedophilia.

If the parent of the child is concerned about who their child chooses to have a sexual or dating relationship with, it should be the responsibility of the parent to intervene. As I have stated, I believe testing makes the most sense for deciding when someone has reached a mature point in their life where they will be able to make calculated, rational decisions. Like voting and sexual relationships, of course this test will not serve as a legal way for a child to divorce their parents, their parents will still have authority over them and if they do not believe their child is ready for a relationship with another person of a certain age, it is the responsibility of the parent to intervene.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 3:04:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:57:09 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/25/2013 2:55:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/25/2013 2:21:52 PM, Naysayer wrote:
"the great majority of libertarians."

Is there actually anyone besides CA who disputes this? I figured it was a given. Libertarianism covers a very wide range of people, not just the Minarchists and Ancaps who hang out on the internet. Most Libertarians, it seems apparent to me, are normal people who would find the idea of abolishing child-adulthood separation as drastic, to say the least. Most people aren't ok with pedophilia.

It's not apparent.

This is just weird. I can't even begin to start an argument against this. Because there's nothing on it. There's no polls on it. There has been no large Libertarian organizations that have dedicated any resources to supporting or endorsing it. It isn't something people typically ever think about. There's been discussion about dropping the age, usually to 16. But abolishing it? That's been left to the Anarchists.

You need to show me how.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 3:11:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:59:21 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I am aware that you are libertarian, but I reject the Chomsky-esque form of Libertarianism that you seem to be a proponent of, which is left libertarian ism. The main facet of libertarianism, in my opinion is the championing of the individual and individual rights, which in a lot of cases Left-Libertarianism violates.

I am not a left-libertarian. Stop making assumptions. They only detract from the subject and create a false picture of who you're talking to, as to form an idea of how you should judge me.

Fair enough, I guess since I am libertarian, it's only natural that I might jump to assumptions and jump to my ideologies self defense too quickly. I apologize for this.

Thank you.

I just caught on to that now that you said it, and I would have been less offended had you still replied to my other posts, while making the joke.

I apologize for the way I did it.

My whole point (which was illustrated a little bit inappropriately, granted) is that I am not willing to give a thread like this legitimacy, especially when all it seems like you did was make a few generalizations. I am not one to cherry pick, but the generalizations you made were vital to your point, and as far as I know none of them are true. Most libertarians I know and most libertarian party platforms renounce age of consent, or want to cut down on victimless laws regarding age of consnt, such as sexual relationships.

What are the specific generalizations I made, which you have issue with, and why you think they are invalid?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 3:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 3:04:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/25/2013 2:57:09 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 9/25/2013 2:55:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/25/2013 2:21:52 PM, Naysayer wrote:
"the great majority of libertarians."

Is there actually anyone besides CA who disputes this? I figured it was a given. Libertarianism covers a very wide range of people, not just the Minarchists and Ancaps who hang out on the internet. Most Libertarians, it seems apparent to me, are normal people who would find the idea of abolishing child-adulthood separation as drastic, to say the least. Most people aren't ok with pedophilia.

It's not apparent.

This is just weird. I can't even begin to start an argument against this. Because there's nothing on it. There's no polls on it. There has been no large Libertarian organizations that have dedicated any resources to supporting or endorsing it. It isn't something people typically ever think about. There's been discussion about dropping the age, usually to 16. But abolishing it? That's been left to the Anarchists.

You need to show me how.

Alright. I've been reading and researching and trying to come up with how I feel about Libertarianism. Everything I'm seeing is that Libertarianism boils down to one form of anarchy or another.

Those pushing the movement seem to be pushing for some form of judicial anarchy, if there is such a thing, where everyone is responsible to each other to respect their rights and not infringe on their freedoms. How they are responsible is left open ended and I think that's because there really isn't an answer. They are anarchists.

Those following the movement seem to be made up of cranks, druggies, prostitutes, radical LGBT activists, anti-war folk, and sometimes constitutional conservatives. Either those that want to do whatever they want or just to be left alone altogether: anarchists for the most part.

Libertarians seem to be, for the most part, against rules. The fewer the better. So to say that the majority of libertarians support the age restriction on voting is not at all apparent. I'm going to have to see the push for it in the movement to believe it
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 3:19:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 3:11:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/25/2013 2:59:21 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I am aware that you are libertarian, but I reject the Chomsky-esque form of Libertarianism that you seem to be a proponent of, which is left libertarian ism. The main facet of libertarianism, in my opinion is the championing of the individual and individual rights, which in a lot of cases Left-Libertarianism violates.

I am not a left-libertarian. Stop making assumptions. They only detract from the subject and create a false picture of who you're talking to, as to form an idea of how you should judge me.

Fair enough, I am just telling you what I have seen based on the posts you have made, which are usually not that revealing, but are anti capitalistic. I am not sure if this is true, but to make a calculated critique of this post it would be useful to know this. That's why I usually advocate that if you are a frequent poster in the Social, Religious, Political or even philosophical forums, that you have your 'Big Issues' updated. Which granted, you do. At any rate, retraction. lol

Fair enough, I guess since I am libertarian, it's only natural that I might jump to assumptions and jump to my ideologies self defense too quickly. I apologize for this.

Thank you.

I just caught on to that now that you said it, and I would have been less offended had you still replied to my other posts, while making the joke.

I apologize for the way I did it.

My whole point (which was illustrated a little bit inappropriately, granted) is that I am not willing to give a thread like this legitimacy, especially when all it seems like you did was make a few generalizations. I am not one to cherry pick, but the generalizations you made were vital to your point, and as far as I know none of them are true. Most libertarians I know and most libertarian party platforms renounce age of consent, or want to cut down on victimless laws regarding age of consnt, such as sexual relationships.

What are the specific generalizations I made, which you have issue with, and why you think they are invalid?

"The great majority of Libertarians believe in this age separation." This was my main point of contention, as if this can't be proven or can be disproven, it pretty much makes your whole point here invalid, at least regarding the libertarian aspect.