(04-29-2013 11:47 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='EagleX' pid='9279389' dateline='1367251311']
yeah, so, anyway, you got me. I misspoke (or mistyped, or whatever).
please allow me to rephrase my statement; once you strip away
everything from libertarianism that isn't utterly and uselessly abstract,
impractical, bizarre, or impossible, what you are left with is a small
government, fiscal conservative; just one with a rather inflated sense of
the relative value of his own individuality. in other words, anything found
in the libertarian impulse that is actually useful or applicable to the real
world can also be found in your garden variety small government fiscal
conservative. the rest belongs in a petri dish.

Quote:Let's take this one at time.

Current Republican economic ideology is largely Keynesian. Are you dismissing Austrian economics under one of the above write-offs you list? If so which, and explain why.

you proceed from a set of false assumptions. I am a follower of the austrian school. you're attempting to set a series of conditions that don't exist, and insist that I defend a position that I simply don't hold. the GOP economic policies only appear to be keynsian (for crying the hell out loud) if you view the world as a series of clinical abstractions, and that's just not the way it works.

governance isn't an academic debate. it would be more obvious if there was such a thing as a libertarian legislative record, but there isn't because there are no libertarian office holders on a national level -- so the vast majority of what libertarians refer to as their "policies" never see the light of day. it's easy to advocate, and even easier to defend, what essentially doesn't exist.

Quote:Current Republican foreign policy ideology is overwhelmingly Neoconservative. Are you dismissing non-interventionism (which IS NOT isolationism) under one of the above write-offs you list? If so which, and explain why.

once again, it depends on what your definition of "neoconservative" happens to be. I would be glad to defend conservative foreign policies as long as you didn't insist on telling me what they are.

I would certainly observe that the brand of "non-interventionism" practiced by ron paul is actually indistinguishable from isolationism.

Quote:I have many many many more ... but we'll go one step at a time.

you can go one step at a time. I'm already bored with this conversation.

Even if libertarianism is founded on unachievable goals, it still provides a counterpoint that creates necessary discussion. The libertarian wing of the GOP keeps it from going full Bachmann/Santorum, and it forces the Democrats to own up to policies on social issues that it tries to take for granted.

(04-29-2013 12:28 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 11:47 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='EagleX' pid='9279389' dateline='1367251311']
yeah, so, anyway, you got me. I misspoke (or mistyped, or whatever).
please allow me to rephrase my statement; once you strip away
everything from libertarianism that isn't utterly and uselessly abstract,
impractical, bizarre, or impossible, what you are left with is a small
government, fiscal conservative; just one with a rather inflated sense of
the relative value of his own individuality. in other words, anything found
in the libertarian impulse that is actually useful or applicable to the real
world can also be found in your garden variety small government fiscal
conservative. the rest belongs in a petri dish.

Quote:Let's take this one at time.

Current Republican economic ideology is largely Keynesian. Are you dismissing Austrian economics under one of the above write-offs you list? If so which, and explain why.

you proceed from a set of false assumptions. I am a follower of the austrian school. you're attempting to set a series of conditions that don't exist, and insist that I defend a position that I simply don't hold. the GOP economic policies only appear to be keynsian (for crying the hell out loud) if you view the world as a series of clinical abstractions, and that's just not the way it works.

governance isn't an academic debate. it would be more obvious if there was such a thing as a libertarian legislative record, but there isn't because there are no libertarian office holders on a national level -- so the vast majority of what libertarians refer to as their "policies" never see the light of day. it's easy to advocate, and even easier to defend, what essentially doesn't exist.

Quote:Current Republican foreign policy ideology is overwhelmingly Neoconservative. Are you dismissing non-interventionism (which IS NOT isolationism) under one of the above write-offs you list? If so which, and explain why.

once again, it depends on what your definition of "neoconservative" happens to be. I would be glad to defend conservative foreign policies as long as you didn't insist on telling me what they are.

I would certainly observe that the brand of "non-interventionism" practiced by ron paul is actually indistinguishable from isolationism.

Quote:I have many many many more ... but we'll go one step at a time.

you can go one step at a time. I'm already bored with this conversation.

Sorry Eagle....non interventionism is not isolationism. Libertarians fully support diplomacy and free trade with others even with those we may not particularly like. It is actually the NeoCon philosophy that is isolationist. When ever they see a nation acting in a fashion they disapprove of....they seek to stop diplomacy and trade.

(04-29-2013 01:51 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The libertarian wing of the GOP keeps it from going full Bachmann/Santorum, and it forces the Democrats to own up to policies on social issues that it tries to take for granted.

(04-29-2013 01:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Sorry Eagle....non interventionism is not isolationism. Libertarians fully support diplomacy and free trade with others even with those we may not particularly like. It is actually the NeoCon philosophy that is isolationist. When ever they see a nation acting in a fashion they disapprove of....they seek to stop diplomacy and trade.

And