GOP Primary Megathread!

[derspiess]

I'm semi-intrigued, 'koot.  Do you think my views are devoid of principles, or are they just principles you don't like?

[Eddie Teach]

Derspeiss is demonstrating the big problem with Libertarianism and why it will never get off the ground (at least in the US).  It's inherently selfish.

It has gotten off the ground big time in the US, and that is its major selling point.

[garbon]

Derspeiss is demonstrating the big problem with Libertarianism and why it will never get off the ground (at least in the US).  It's inherently selfish.

It has gotten off the ground big time in the US, and that is its major selling point.

Big time?

[Razgovory]

2%.

[Eddie Teach]

Pffft, there's a strong strain of libertarianism in the Republican party and a strain of civil libertarianism in the Democratic party.

The thing that separates the big L Libertarian party from those two isn't selfishness, it's the lack of pragmatism.

[Valmy]

One guy may be concerned about gun rights but not care if the guy in the state over gets arrested for smoking dope.  Hell, he might even support it.  So one party picks up the the pot head and the other picks up the gun nut.  Their power is thus divided because neither is sympathetic to the others plight.  They are only concerned with themselves.

Not much money in liberty.  Strange one would support it out of crass self interest.

[Razgovory]

Pffft, there's a strong strain of libertarianism in the Republican party and a strain of civil libertarianism in the Democratic party.

The thing that separates the big L Libertarian party from those two isn't selfishness, it's the lack of pragmatism.

Same thing.  The libertarianism in both parties is very much a one way street.  The Civil Libertarians in the Democratic party are fond of the nanny state and the libertarians in the GOP aren't interested in helping people who don't look like them.

[Razgovory]

One guy may be concerned about gun rights but not care if the guy in the state over gets arrested for smoking dope.  Hell, he might even support it.  So one party picks up the the pot head and the other picks up the gun nut.  Their power is thus divided because neither is sympathetic to the others plight.  They are only concerned with themselves.

Not much money in liberty.  Strange one would support it out of crass self interest.

Ron Paul does pretty good.  He talks about ending the Fed and is heavily invested in Gold Mining.  Funny that.

[grumbler]

Pffft, there's a strong strain of libertarianism in the Republican party and a strain of civil libertarianism in the Democratic party.

The thing that separates the big L Libertarian party from those two isn't selfishness, it's the lack of pragmatism.

That's actually quite well-put. 

[DGuller]

Which is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.

Not to derail your fruitful line of discussion with derspiess, but who on languish do you think hold some semblance of principles?

grumbler, you, CC, Marty (in certains contexts, not at all in others), Yi, garbon, Shelf, Oex. I am sure there are plenty I am missing, so if I didn't mention you that doesn't really mean much.

Did you forget Strix?

[Razgovory]

I think it's cute when Berkut gets this way.  Talking about tribes and such.  He mistakes his opinion for irrefutable facts, and gets mad when our biases cause us not to agree with these "Facts".

[garbon]

I think it's cute when Berkut gets this way.  Talking about tribes and such.  He mistakes his opinion for irrefutable facts, and gets mad when our biases cause us not to agree with these "Facts".

Don't be sad that you didn't make the list.

[Berkut]

I'm semi-intrigued, 'koot.  Do you think my views are devoid of principles, or are they just principles you don't like?

I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women. That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.

[Berkut]

Which is fine, you are in good company. Very few people actually even understand the concept of a principle, much less allow them to get in the way of their cherished allegiances.

Not to derail your fruitful line of discussion with derspiess, but who on languish do you think hold some semblance of principles?

grumbler, you, CC, Marty (in certains contexts, not at all in others), Yi, garbon, Shelf, Oex. I am sure there are plenty I am missing, so if I didn't mention you that doesn't really mean much.

Did you forget Strix?

I certainly try to.

[grumbler]

I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women. That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.

Even someone who doesn't support the basic (original) conservative value of liberty should reject the proposition that unnecessary ultrasound procedures for no announced purpose was a wise policy for governments to introduce.  Besides the costs to the individual involved (a liberty issue), there are the costs to government and society:  the taxpayers will pick up the costs for a lot of these ultrasound procedures, plus the costs of enforcement, and will forgo whatever government services are abandoned to free up resources to track which women seeking abortions have, and have not, actually completed the requirement.  Fiscal conservatives like to talk cost-benefit (I certainly do), and yet this law proposes to impose significant costs for absolutely zero gain.  No matter where in the country such a thing was proposed, it seems to me impossible for an actual conservative (other than a social-engineer-"conservative") to not scoff at the 'wisdom" of such a law.

The claim of indifference to this law on the basis of "it doesn't affect me" seems so feeble and transparently disingenuous coming from a person who supports laws banning abortion, even though such a law would not affect him, his being unable to get pregnant, let alone get an abortion.  The "principal" at work here seems to be "I don't want to try to defend a law that I support even though I know it is absurd."