Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Liberal vs Conservative Issue

briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 8:50:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As everyone already knows, I am a liberal or as some conservatives on here would call me "a gun hating, baby killing, gay loving, everyone who disagrees with me is a racist/homophobe, hippy libtard". Anyway, now that that has been established I thought I would address some concerns I have regarding the discussions I have had with and the posts I have observed from the conservative right wingers on this site. I didn't open this forum for people to start any conflicts but to address certain concerns if anyone would care to enlighten me. I do NOT want any conflict, just people to state their honest opinion about various issues and open the discussion.

First of all, I would like to explain WHY I am a liberal. I identify as a liberal because my views typically coincide with those of the left wing. I am pro-gay, prefer science over religion, favor bigger government in most cases. I learned that I was a liberal because of a few heated discussions I have had some self-identified conservatives regarding a few topics, mostly gay marriage and religion. When I declared that I had no issue with the legalization of same-sex marriage or that I was not very religious, I was immediately attacked, and called a "liberal" on several occasions. At first I didn't have much knowledge of politics and how they were divided until I did a little bit more research. I will admit, part of the reason why I became a strong liberal is because I have yet to ever have rational discussion with a conservative that we disagree upon without them insulting me in some way or using fear-based tactics and propaganda to explain their views. For example, I would say I am pro-gay, mainly because I see no logical reason to be against homosexuality or gay rights. I believe everyone should be treated like human beings regardless of their sexual orientation. Yet, any time I would mention this to an anti-gay conservative, suddenly I am supporter of faggotry, a pervert who hates Christians, then they go on to associate homosexuality with child molestation and make other illogical comparisons. Things like this happened so often that at one point I started to really hate conservatives. And for some reason, any time I point these things out, conservatives criticize me for me because according to them liberals only ever call people racist homophobes, and "can't have a rational discussion" but that is not true, in my experience it is quite the opposite actually.. I have tried to talk to conservatives many times, being respectful and considerate of their views, trying to understand how they think, but they never make sense and often come off as very hateful and ignorant. I realize that there are good conservatives out there but honestly I meet more bad than good, especially on this website.

So I am here to genuinely and respectfully ask you all your thoughts, both liberals and conservatives, or anyone else. First tell me why you identify as what you are and what you believe in. Then feel free to explain to me why your views are beneficial to the world. I feel as a liberal, I support things I feel is best for society, yet conservatives have a different view of what they think is best so feel free to elaborate WITHOUT trashing liberals (or anyone else), I have noticed a lot of that here too. This is not place to argue who is dumber than who and who is and is not destroying the country. I want you to express your views and rely using logic and facts to support yourself. I feel like this would give us all a better understanding of one another. Thank you.
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 8:52:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm a liberal because I understand that freedom and opportunity do not exist without basic necessities.
Tsar of DDO
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 8:59:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:52:14 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm a liberal because I understand that freedom and opportunity do not exist without basic necessities.

May I ask what basic necessities are you referring to?
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:00:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:59:03 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:52:14 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm a liberal because I understand that freedom and opportunity do not exist without basic necessities.

May I ask what basic necessities are you referring to?

Food, education, health care, shelter.
Tsar of DDO
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:00:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

What are your thoughts on social issues? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Do you still feel that government should stay out of those issues too?
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:03:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:00:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:59:03 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:52:14 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm a liberal because I understand that freedom and opportunity do not exist without basic necessities.

May I ask what basic necessities are you referring to?

Food, education, health care, shelter.

Well I definitely agree with that. Part of the reason I am a liberal is because I support the poor and Middle class. Without food, education, health care, or shelter a society cannot function. And those who cannot afford it should get assistance that makes it all possible.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:14:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:00:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

What are your thoughts on social issues? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Do you still feel that government should stay out of those issues too?

I haven't given any thought on abortion so it might take me a little bit to figure out my stance.

On same-sex marriage. I do think that gay marriage should be legal, but i don't think the government should force churches to marry them.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:15:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am a realist in all fields. I think that government should be neither big nor small, but should be structured in such a way that it maintains long term stability and efficacy within its given sociological and historical conditions. I think that government is constantly transforming and adapting, and that whatever form can maintain itself in the long term must be cultivated carefully in order to prevent its collapse in to chaos. When it comes to the US, I am a classical liberal. I believe that the most dire problems facing this country are:

1. A broken judicial system which has sidelined the importance of juries in holding those with power and influence accountable, and has resulted in abuse of the powerless and disenfranchised as little more than slave labor.

2. A glut of direct democracy which gives the average citizen far too much impact on political decision making, and feeds histrionics at the federal level which cripple the legislative branch. I do not believe that senators should be elected directly.

3. Executive overreach and dereliction of duty, in matters both military and domestic, spanning several presidencies.

4. A two party system which thrives on a FPTP voting system which doesn't reflect the will of the people in the area where it ought to be exercised.

5. Overextension and stupid, half-assed decisions on the world stage, also spanning several presidencies. If we aren't willing to commit to total war, then we shouldn't be engaged in war. Half-committing is a waste of resources and an invitation for blowback down the road.

6. An ill-informed yet entirely confident general populace which is steering their country onto the shoals without a second thought.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:22:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:14:35 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:00:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

What are your thoughts on social issues? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Do you still feel that government should stay out of those issues too?

I haven't given any thought on abortion so it might take me a little bit to figure out my stance.

On same-sex marriage. I do think that gay marriage should be legal, but i don't think the government should force churches to marry them.

Okay I agree, but I doubt that the government was ever planning to force churches to marry same-sex couples anyway. That would be unreasonable and a violation of religious freedom. However, I don't think religious people should discriminate against LGBT individuals in public businesses etc... Many conservatives I have had this discussion with usually believe that people should have the right to discriminate against gay people (or any people) in the work place and public businesses on grounds of "religious freedom". As a libertarian, do you think that is rational? Do you believe that certain policies should be made to protect LGBT citizens from discrimination?
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:26:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:22:30 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:14:35 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:00:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

What are your thoughts on social issues? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Do you still feel that government should stay out of those issues too?

I haven't given any thought on abortion so it might take me a little bit to figure out my stance.

On same-sex marriage. I do think that gay marriage should be legal, but i don't think the government should force churches to marry them.

Okay I agree, but I doubt that the government was ever planning to force churches to marry same-sex couples anyway. That would be unreasonable and a violation of religious freedom. However, I don't think religious people should discriminate against LGBT individuals in public businesses etc... Many conservatives I have had this discussion with usually believe that people should have the right to discriminate against gay people (or any people) in the work place and public businesses on grounds of "religious freedom". As a libertarian, do you think that is rational? Do you believe that certain policies should be made to protect LGBT citizens from discrimination?

I don't believe that private businesses should be forced to make these polices, but most businesses already have these polices on their own.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:28:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:15:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I am a realist in all fields. I think that government should be neither big nor small, but should be structured in such a way that it maintains long term stability and efficacy within its given sociological and historical conditions. I think that government is constantly transforming and adapting, and that whatever form can maintain itself in the long term must be cultivated carefully in order to prevent its collapse in to chaos. When it comes to the US, I am a classical liberal. I believe that the most dire problems facing this country are:

1. A broken judicial system which has sidelined the importance of juries in holding those with power and influence accountable, and has resulted in abuse of the powerless and disenfranchised as little more than slave labor.

2. A glut of direct democracy which gives the average citizen far too much impact on political decision making, and feeds histrionics at the federal level which cripple the legislative branch. I do not believe that senators should be elected directly.

3. Executive overreach and dereliction of duty, in matters both military and domestic, spanning several presidencies.

4. A two party system which thrives on a FPTP voting system which doesn't reflect the will of the people in the area where it ought to be exercised.

5. Overextension and stupid, half-assed decisions on the world stage, also spanning several presidencies. If we aren't willing to commit to total war, then we shouldn't be engaged in war. Half-committing is a waste of resources and an invitation for blowback down the road.

6. An ill-informed yet entirely confident general populace which is steering their country onto the shoals without a second thought.

Wow I agree with everything you said. However, I have been described as a radical liberal instead of a classic liberal, mainly because many who oppose my views feel I am radical for having them in the first place. Thanks for sharing.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:35:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:26:32 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:22:30 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:14:35 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:00:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

What are your thoughts on social issues? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Do you still feel that government should stay out of those issues too?

I haven't given any thought on abortion so it might take me a little bit to figure out my stance.

On same-sex marriage. I do think that gay marriage should be legal, but i don't think the government should force churches to marry them.

Okay I agree, but I doubt that the government was ever planning to force churches to marry same-sex couples anyway. That would be unreasonable and a violation of religious freedom. However, I don't think religious people should discriminate against LGBT individuals in public businesses etc... Many conservatives I have had this discussion with usually believe that people should have the right to discriminate against gay people (or any people) in the work place and public businesses on grounds of "religious freedom". As a libertarian, do you think that is rational? Do you believe that certain policies should be made to protect LGBT citizens from discrimination?

I don't believe that private businesses should be forced to make these polices, but most businesses already have these polices on their own.

Yes but I am speaking of public businesses in which same-sex couples have been denied service and told to leave. This is a common issue. Many bakeries for example, are ran by anti-gay Christians who refuse to provide service gay couples and do their jobs, and claim that it is justified by their religious views but wouldn't even think of turning away Jewish people or Atheists who ask for their service. That make it about religious when it's really about biased discrimination. I don't believe that anyone should be forced to violate their religious beliefs, so long as it's actually about religion, which these issues are actually not. Many conservatives I know believe that their discrimination is justified and anyone who feels differently is attacking their religious freedom when that is not the case when you analyze the issue.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:39:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:28:18 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:15:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I am a realist in all fields. I think that government should be neither big nor small, but should be structured in such a way that it maintains long term stability and efficacy within its given sociological and historical conditions. I think that government is constantly transforming and adapting, and that whatever form can maintain itself in the long term must be cultivated carefully in order to prevent its collapse in to chaos. When it comes to the US, I am a classical liberal. I believe that the most dire problems facing this country are:

1. A broken judicial system which has sidelined the importance of juries in holding those with power and influence accountable, and has resulted in abuse of the powerless and disenfranchised as little more than slave labor.

2. A glut of direct democracy which gives the average citizen far too much impact on political decision making, and feeds histrionics at the federal level which cripple the legislative branch. I do not believe that senators should be elected directly.

3. Executive overreach and dereliction of duty, in matters both military and domestic, spanning several presidencies.

4. A two party system which thrives on a FPTP voting system which doesn't reflect the will of the people in the area where it ought to be exercised.

5. Overextension and stupid, half-assed decisions on the world stage, also spanning several presidencies. If we aren't willing to commit to total war, then we shouldn't be engaged in war. Half-committing is a waste of resources and an invitation for blowback down the road.

6. An ill-informed yet entirely confident general populace which is steering their country onto the shoals without a second thought.

Wow I agree with everything you said. However, I have been described as a radical liberal instead of a classic liberal, mainly because many who oppose my views feel I am radical for having them in the first place. Thanks for sharing.

It sounds like most of the conservatives with whom you have spoken have been idiots. Basically, a classical liberal is what the mainstream Republicans used to be before so many of them turned into a pack of slavering morons. Barry Goldwater is probably the most recent example of a classic liberal; he was the Republican presidential candidate in the 60s. Here are some of his views:

"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the @ss."

"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:45:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:35:54 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:26:32 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:22:30 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:14:35 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:00:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

What are your thoughts on social issues? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Do you still feel that government should stay out of those issues too?

I haven't given any thought on abortion so it might take me a little bit to figure out my stance.

On same-sex marriage. I do think that gay marriage should be legal, but i don't think the government should force churches to marry them.

Okay I agree, but I doubt that the government was ever planning to force churches to marry same-sex couples anyway. That would be unreasonable and a violation of religious freedom. However, I don't think religious people should discriminate against LGBT individuals in public businesses etc... Many conservatives I have had this discussion with usually believe that people should have the right to discriminate against gay people (or any people) in the work place and public businesses on grounds of "religious freedom". As a libertarian, do you think that is rational? Do you believe that certain policies should be made to protect LGBT citizens from discrimination?

I don't believe that private businesses should be forced to make these polices, but most businesses already have these polices on their own.

Yes but I am speaking of public businesses in which same-sex couples have been denied service and told to leave. This is a common issue. Many bakeries for example, are ran by anti-gay Christians who refuse to provide service gay couples and do their jobs, and claim that it is justified by their religious views but wouldn't even think of turning away Jewish people or Atheists who ask for their service. That make it about religious when it's really about biased discrimination. I don't believe that anyone should be forced to violate their religious beliefs, so long as it's actually about religion, which these issues are actually not. Many conservatives I know believe that their discrimination is justified and anyone who feels differently is attacking their religious freedom when that is not the case when you analyze the issue.

Im perfectly fine with public businesses having these polices
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:54:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:45:28 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:35:54 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:26:32 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:22:30 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:14:35 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:00:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

What are your thoughts on social issues? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Do you still feel that government should stay out of those issues too?

I haven't given any thought on abortion so it might take me a little bit to figure out my stance.

On same-sex marriage. I do think that gay marriage should be legal, but i don't think the government should force churches to marry them.

Okay I agree, but I doubt that the government was ever planning to force churches to marry same-sex couples anyway. That would be unreasonable and a violation of religious freedom. However, I don't think religious people should discriminate against LGBT individuals in public businesses etc... Many conservatives I have had this discussion with usually believe that people should have the right to discriminate against gay people (or any people) in the work place and public businesses on grounds of "religious freedom". As a libertarian, do you think that is rational? Do you believe that certain policies should be made to protect LGBT citizens from discrimination?

I don't believe that private businesses should be forced to make these polices, but most businesses already have these polices on their own.

Yes but I am speaking of public businesses in which same-sex couples have been denied service and told to leave. This is a common issue. Many bakeries for example, are ran by anti-gay Christians who refuse to provide service gay couples and do their jobs, and claim that it is justified by their religious views but wouldn't even think of turning away Jewish people or Atheists who ask for their service. That make it about religious when it's really about biased discrimination. I don't believe that anyone should be forced to violate their religious beliefs, so long as it's actually about religion, which these issues are actually not. Many conservatives I know believe that their discrimination is justified and anyone who feels differently is attacking their religious freedom when that is not the case when you analyze the issue.

Im perfectly fine with public businesses having these polices

So you think that it is just for the government to force the general population to support a public business with tax incentives and public amenities when that business refuses to serve certain members of that population on an arbitrary basis? I have no problem with a private business denying me service for being gay, but if I'm paying more in taxes so that your business can enjoy a tax write-off, you're baking me a goddamn cake no matter how badly it hurts your fee fees.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 11:56:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In no certain order, I am a realist, constitutionalist, independant, capitalist who generally leans conservative on most issues. I don't have the time to anticipate your interests or questions so I'll leave it at that. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them for you.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:24:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

This is contradictory. Peoples business is with each other (contracts). And part of Government is to uphold/enforce peoples contracts with each other. That function in itself prevents a "minimalist" (w/e that means) government. An expansion of government is to make sure unfair contracts are not made upon weaker/desperate negotiates. Why would you support a minimalist government that allows the strong to capitalize on the vulnerability of the weak?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:35:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:24:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

This is contradictory. Peoples business is with each other (contracts). And part of Government is to uphold/enforce peoples contracts with each other. That function in itself prevents a "minimalist" (w/e that means) government. An expansion of government is to make sure unfair contracts are not made upon weaker/desperate negotiates. Why would you support a minimalist government that allows the strong to capitalize on the vulnerability of the weak?

And what makes you think that government will use it's clout to help the disadvantaged and not the advantaged? Why would government officials help those who cannot offer a quid pro quo arrangement over one who can? In any situation in which the government is empowered to intervene, it is only a matter of time before that ability to intervene is perverted and placed into the service of those who already hold power, because those who hold power in a society are in a position to threaten and/or entice those who administer the policy. Any system of government tends towards exploitation, and by minimizing government you minimize that exploitative potential.

Just look at the current situation in the US. How many laws have been created to ostensibly help poor people and the middle class? Yet how many are twisted by the powerful to crush competition, siphon wealth to themselves, and create an environment in which they are not held accountable for their wrongdoings?

"The shaft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the eagle's own plumes. We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction."
- Aesop -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 2:06:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:35:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:24:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

This is contradictory. Peoples business is with each other (contracts). And part of Government is to uphold/enforce peoples contracts with each other. That function in itself prevents a "minimalist" (w/e that means) government. An expansion of government is to make sure unfair contracts are not made upon weaker/desperate negotiates. Why would you support a minimalist government that allows the strong to capitalize on the vulnerability of the weak?

And what makes you think that government will use it's clout to help the disadvantaged and not the advantaged? Why would government officials help those who cannot offer a quid pro quo arrangement over one who can? In any situation in which the government is empowered to intervene, it is only a matter of time before that ability to intervene is perverted and placed into the service of those who already hold power, because those who hold power in a society are in a position to threaten and/or entice those who administer the policy. Any system of government tends towards exploitation, and by minimizing government you minimize that exploitative potential.

Just look at the current situation in the US. How many laws have been created to ostensibly help poor people and the middle class? Yet how many are twisted by the powerful to crush competition, siphon wealth to themselves, and create an environment in which they are not held accountable for their wrongdoings?

"The shaft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the eagle's own plumes. We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction."
- Aesop -

You forget the other side of the coin. Yes, governmental power can be corrupted over time. What is to prevent this? Nothing but adherence to the rules set before. If an agent of the government remains loyal and uncorrupted (as is expected) then the legitimacy of the government shall persevere. Of course there is nothing to guarantee this perseverance, after all the government is made of human beings. There is a agency V. institution debate to be had here.

I digress back to my main point. What is the alternative? Yes the government can be corrupted, but what if we were to live in a society w/o government? Who shall hold power and what would define said power (forget about legitimacy of said power). I imagine in a libertarian society money would define power. As such a minimal government would not need be corrupted because the centers of power are already corrupted by the personal bias of the rich. Without standard laws physical might might as well be law (but if you allow standard law then you simply invite a host of more regulations and laws). Anyways, w/o a democratic systems there is not even a hit of responsibility to the masses. If there are no tertiary rules that the government is responsible to the people the plebs have no right to claim any form of grievances. If a government's sole function is to protect property (not people) then the government is solely responsible to the landed gentry (circa 1776). I find oligarchies vile and detestable.

It's hard to rebut the libertarian point because I do not know how little government is in their mind. They could range from near anarchy to state enforced contact law/police/fire department/public education etc. On a personal note I find libertarianism to be contradictory/arbitrary at least and cruel/antisocial & self defeating at best given the specific idea. I hope I addressed at least some of your points and hope to continue this conversation.

If we are going to end with a fancy quote then fine: "Freedom means nothing if you do not have the resources to act upon it" - Bennett91

PS: in reference to the US, it is neither a socialist nor "true" libertarian state, but it has been corrupted by money. It is an example of governmental corruption by the rich, but you should understand (as I tried to show in my post) that the government is a mere middle man in the corruption. W/o the government the rich would simply use a more straightforward method of coercion, something a libertarian market would uncountably be able to provide.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:47:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:50:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
As everyone already knows, I am a liberal or as some conservatives on here would call me "a gun hating, baby killing, gay loving, everyone who disagrees with me is a racist/homophobe, hippy libtard". Anyway, now that that has been established I thought I would address some concerns I have regarding the discussions I have had with and the posts I have observed from the conservative right wingers on this site. I didn't open this forum for people to start any conflicts but to address certain concerns if anyone would care to enlighten me. I do NOT want any conflict, just people to state their honest opinion about various issues and open the discussion.

First of all, I would like to explain WHY I am a liberal. I identify as a liberal because my views typically coincide with those of the left wing. I am pro-gay, prefer science over religion, favor bigger government in most cases. I learned that I was a liberal because of a few heated discussions I have had some self-identified conservatives regarding a few topics, mostly gay marriage and religion. When I declared that I had no issue with the legalization of same-sex marriage or that I was not very religious, I was immediately attacked, and called a "liberal" on several occasions. At first I didn't have much knowledge of politics and how they were divided until I did a little bit more research. I will admit, part of the reason why I became a strong liberal is because I have yet to ever have rational discussion with a conservative that we disagree upon without them insulting me in some way or using fear-based tactics and propaganda to explain their views. For example, I would say I am pro-gay, mainly because I see no logical reason to be against homosexuality or gay rights. I believe everyone should be treated like human beings regardless of their sexual orientation. Yet, any time I would mention this to an anti-gay conservative, suddenly I am supporter of faggotry, a pervert who hates Christians, then they go on to associate homosexuality with child molestation and make other illogical comparisons. Things like this happened so often that at one point I started to really hate conservatives. And for some reason, any time I point these things out, conservatives criticize me for me because according to them liberals only ever call people racist homophobes, and "can't have a rational discussion" but that is not true, in my experience it is quite the opposite actually.. I have tried to talk to conservatives many times, being respectful and considerate of their views, trying to understand how they think, but they never make sense and often come off as very hateful and ignorant. I realize that there are good conservatives out there but honestly I meet more bad than good, especially on this website.

So I am here to genuinely and respectfully ask you all your thoughts, both liberals and conservatives, or anyone else. First tell me why you identify as what you are and what you believe in. Then feel free to explain to me why your views are beneficial to the world. I feel as a liberal, I support things I feel is best for society, yet conservatives have a different view of what they think is best so feel free to elaborate WITHOUT trashing liberals (or anyone else), I have noticed a lot of that here too. This is not place to argue who is dumber than who and who is and is not destroying the country. I want you to express your views and rely using logic and facts to support yourself. I feel like this would give us all a better understanding of one another. Thank you.

I'm a social liberal and an economic conservative. Be nice to people, and let business sink or swim. When you get this around the other way it gets ugly..
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:58:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:03:25 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:00:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:59:03 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:52:14 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm a liberal because I understand that freedom and opportunity do not exist without basic necessities.

May I ask what basic necessities are you referring to?

Food, education, health care, shelter.

Well I definitely agree with that. Part of the reason I am a liberal is because I support the poor and Middle class. Without food, education, health care, or shelter a society cannot function. And those who cannot afford it should get assistance that makes it all possible.

What happens when farmers, teachers, doctors, and land lords refuse to provide their service for free?

Let me guess, take money from one human and give it to another with an elected middle man enforcer skimming some for himself.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:20:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:54:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:45:28 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:35:54 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:26:32 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:22:30 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:14:35 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:00:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

What are your thoughts on social issues? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Do you still feel that government should stay out of those issues too?

I haven't given any thought on abortion so it might take me a little bit to figure out my stance.

On same-sex marriage. I do think that gay marriage should be legal, but i don't think the government should force churches to marry them.

Okay I agree, but I doubt that the government was ever planning to force churches to marry same-sex couples anyway. That would be unreasonable and a violation of religious freedom. However, I don't think religious people should discriminate against LGBT individuals in public businesses etc... Many conservatives I have had this discussion with usually believe that people should have the right to discriminate against gay people (or any people) in the work place and public businesses on grounds of "religious freedom". As a libertarian, do you think that is rational? Do you believe that certain policies should be made to protect LGBT citizens from discrimination?

I don't believe that private businesses should be forced to make these polices, but most businesses already have these polices on their own.

Yes but I am speaking of public businesses in which same-sex couples have been denied service and told to leave. This is a common issue. Many bakeries for example, are ran by anti-gay Christians who refuse to provide service gay couples and do their jobs, and claim that it is justified by their religious views but wouldn't even think of turning away Jewish people or Atheists who ask for their service. That make it about religious when it's really about biased discrimination. I don't believe that anyone should be forced to violate their religious beliefs, so long as it's actually about religion, which these issues are actually not. Many conservatives I know believe that their discrimination is justified and anyone who feels differently is attacking their religious freedom when that is not the case when you analyze the issue.

Im perfectly fine with public businesses having these polices

So you think that it is just for the government to force the general population to support a public business with tax incentives and public amenities when that business refuses to serve certain members of that population on an arbitrary basis? I have no problem with a private business denying me service for being gay, but if I'm paying more in taxes so that your business can enjoy a tax write-off, you're baking me a goddamn cake no matter how badly it hurts your fee fees.

I was saying I'm perfectly fine with public businesses having polices that get rid of discrimination, but i don't think that these polices should be forced on private businesses.
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:22:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:00:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:59:03 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:52:14 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm a liberal because I understand that freedom and opportunity do not exist without basic necessities.

May I ask what basic necessities are you referring to?

Food, education, health care, shelter.

Do you believe that Food, education, health care, shelter are rights and the government must provide people with it or just that the government should give people money like welfare to help them afford these things.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:55:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm a moderate libertarian because I think that freedom in economic and social spheres will lead to greater prosperity, liberty, and general well-being.

For instance, when it comes to social policy, I support legalizing same-sex marriage, legalizing marijuana and different substances, and abolishing the draft.

With regards to the economy, I think that the government should prioritize spending and make prudent fiscal decisions that will put us on a healthy fiscal footing. We should simplify taxation and regulation simultaneously. To help the middle class directly and those striving to reach it, we should allow parents to have school choice, income-sharing agreements for college education, infrastructure investments, and health-care reform that empowers patients and not special interests.

I can empathize with liberals and their viewpoints, I can understand their logic, but I think that their proposals are usually misguided. For instance, I think that increasing spending on K12 education, health care subsidies, antipoverty programs, and college loans will have no appreciable impact on policy outcomes.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:04:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:35:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:24:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

This is contradictory. Peoples business is with each other (contracts). And part of Government is to uphold/enforce peoples contracts with each other. That function in itself prevents a "minimalist" (w/e that means) government. An expansion of government is to make sure unfair contracts are not made upon weaker/desperate negotiates. Why would you support a minimalist government that allows the strong to capitalize on the vulnerability of the weak?

And what makes you think that government will use it's clout to help the disadvantaged and not the advantaged? Why would government officials help those who cannot offer a quid pro quo arrangement over one who can? In any situation in which the government is empowered to intervene, it is only a matter of time before that ability to intervene is perverted and placed into the service of those who already hold power, because those who hold power in a society are in a position to threaten and/or entice those who administer the policy. Any system of government tends towards exploitation, and by minimizing government you minimize that exploitative potential.

Just look at the current situation in the US. How many laws have been created to ostensibly help poor people and the middle class? Yet how many are twisted by the powerful to crush competition, siphon wealth to themselves, and create an environment in which they are not held accountable for their wrongdoings?

"The shaft of the arrow had been feathered with one of the eagle's own plumes. We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction."
- Aesop -

I agree with this. Charity should be in the hands of an individual, not a clique group.
The other alternative would be mob rule, and that would be a poor instrument of charity indeed.

Instead of fixing handicapped people with a dollar, you might want to seriously consider supporting the elimination of handicaps altogether through science and possibly genetic manipulation.
The alternative to that is to allow some people to suffer through life handicapped and a burden to someone, regardless of the amount of charity, and call it the "natural order of things" to keep sane.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:29:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:15:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I am a realist in all fields. I think that government should be neither big nor small, but should be structured in such a way that it maintains long term stability and efficacy within its given sociological and historical conditions. I think that government is constantly transforming and adapting, and that whatever form can maintain itself in the long term must be cultivated carefully in order to prevent its collapse in to chaos. When it comes to the US, I am a classical liberal. I believe that the most dire problems facing this country are:

1. A broken judicial system which has sidelined the importance of juries in holding those with power and influence accountable, and has resulted in abuse of the powerless and disenfranchised as little more than slave labor.

2. A glut of direct democracy which gives the average citizen far too much impact on political decision making, and feeds histrionics at the federal level which cripple the legislative branch. I do not believe that senators should be elected directly.

3. Executive overreach and dereliction of duty, in matters both military and domestic, spanning several presidencies.

4. A two party system which thrives on a FPTP voting system which doesn't reflect the will of the people in the area where it ought to be exercised.

5. Overextension and stupid, half-assed decisions on the world stage, also spanning several presidencies. If we aren't willing to commit to total war, then we shouldn't be engaged in war. Half-committing is a waste of resources and an invitation for blowback down the road.

6. An ill-informed yet entirely confident general populace which is steering their country onto the shoals without a second thought.

Do you think privileges to vote (it is not a universal right since there are rules you have to comply with to enter the booth already) should be modified to ensure responsible voting? How would you do that?
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:52:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 8:50:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
As everyone already knows, I am a liberal or as some conservatives on here would call me "a gun hating, baby killing, gay loving, everyone who disagrees with me is a racist/homophobe, hippy libtard". Anyway, now that that has been established I thought I would address some concerns I have regarding the discussions I have had with and the posts I have observed from the conservative right wingers on this site. I didn't open this forum for people to start any conflicts but to address certain concerns if anyone would care to enlighten me. I do NOT want any conflict, just people to state their honest opinion about various issues and open the discussion.

First of all, I would like to explain WHY I am a liberal. I identify as a liberal because my views typically coincide with those of the left wing. I am pro-gay, prefer science over religion, favor bigger government in most cases. I learned that I was a liberal because of a few heated discussions I have had some self-identified conservatives regarding a few topics, mostly gay marriage and religion. When I declared that I had no issue with the legalization of same-sex marriage or that I was not very religious, I was immediately attacked, and called a "liberal" on several occasions. At first I didn't have much knowledge of politics and how they were divided until I did a little bit more research. I will admit, part of the reason why I became a strong liberal is because I have yet to ever have rational discussion with a conservative that we disagree upon without them insulting me in some way or using fear-based tactics and propaganda to explain their views. For example, I would say I am pro-gay, mainly because I see no logical reason to be against homosexuality or gay rights. I believe everyone should be treated like human beings regardless of their sexual orientation. Yet, any time I would mention this to an anti-gay conservative, suddenly I am supporter of faggotry, a pervert who hates Christians, then they go on to associate homosexuality with child molestation and make other illogical comparisons. Things like this happened so often that at one point I started to really hate conservatives. And for some reason, any time I point these things out, conservatives criticize me for me because according to them liberals only ever call people racist homophobes, and "can't have a rational discussion" but that is not true, in my experience it is quite the opposite actually.. I have tried to talk to conservatives many times, being respectful and considerate of their views, trying to understand how they think, but they never make sense and often come off as very hateful and ignorant. I realize that there are good conservatives out there but honestly I meet more bad than good, especially on this website.

So I am here to genuinely and respectfully ask you all your thoughts, both liberals and conservatives, or anyone else. First tell me why you identify as what you are and what you believe in. Then feel free to explain to me why your views are beneficial to the world. I feel as a liberal, I support things I feel is best for society, yet conservatives have a different view of what they think is best so feel free to elaborate WITHOUT trashing liberals (or anyone else), I have noticed a lot of that here too. This is not place to argue who is dumber than who and who is and is not destroying the country. I want you to express your views and rely using logic and facts to support yourself. I feel like this would give us all a better understanding of one another. Thank you.
I'm moderate.
I agree with you on gay rights
I pointed out the fact that black on black crime is higher than white on black crime and black on white crime is higher than white on black crime. I also pointed out facts showing that Darren Wilson shot mike brown out of self defense. I was called a racist moron for disagreeing with them and proving them wrong. They couldn't reply with facts because the facts were ok my side so they resorted to name calling. It's typical for a liberal to do thy when an argument doesn't go their way.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:09:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:20:01 AM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:54:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:45:28 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:35:54 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:26:32 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:22:30 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:14:35 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:00:28 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/9/2015 8:57:02 PM, Josh_debate wrote:
I'm a Libertarian because i feel that society would be better if government was minimal and just got out of peoples business.

What are your thoughts on social issues? Same-sex marriage? Abortion? Do you still feel that government should stay out of those issues too?

I haven't given any thought on abortion so it might take me a little bit to figure out my stance.

On same-sex marriage. I do think that gay marriage should be legal, but i don't think the government should force churches to marry them.

Okay I agree, but I doubt that the government was ever planning to force churches to marry same-sex couples anyway. That would be unreasonable and a violation of religious freedom. However, I don't think religious people should discriminate against LGBT individuals in public businesses etc... Many conservatives I have had this discussion with usually believe that people should have the right to discriminate against gay people (or any people) in the work place and public businesses on grounds of "religious freedom". As a libertarian, do you think that is rational? Do you believe that certain policies should be made to protect LGBT citizens from discrimination?

I don't believe that private businesses should be forced to make these polices, but most businesses already have these polices on their own.

Yes but I am speaking of public businesses in which same-sex couples have been denied service and told to leave. This is a common issue. Many bakeries for example, are ran by anti-gay Christians who refuse to provide service gay couples and do their jobs, and claim that it is justified by their religious views but wouldn't even think of turning away Jewish people or Atheists who ask for their service. That make it about religious when it's really about biased discrimination. I don't believe that anyone should be forced to violate their religious beliefs, so long as it's actually about religion, which these issues are actually not. Many conservatives I know believe that their discrimination is justified and anyone who feels differently is attacking their religious freedom when that is not the case when you analyze the issue.

Im perfectly fine with public businesses having these polices

So you think that it is just for the government to force the general population to support a public business with tax incentives and public amenities when that business refuses to serve certain members of that population on an arbitrary basis? I have no problem with a private business denying me service for being gay, but if I'm paying more in taxes so that your business can enjoy a tax write-off, you're baking me a goddamn cake no matter how badly it hurts your fee fees.

I was saying I'm perfectly fine with public businesses having polices that get rid of discrimination, but i don't think that these polices should be forced on private businesses.
Ah, that makes more sense.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -