politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: SHOCKING POLL: Libertarians are too Stupid to Understand What ‘Libertarian’ Really Means!
Source:
aattp.org
URL Source: http://aattp.org/shock-poll-liberta ... what-libertarian-really-means/
Published: Aug 26, 2014
Author: mdesmond
Post Date: 2016-06-29 02:40:53 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 3646
Comments: 23
So what, precisely, is a libertarian? The word gets banded around quite a bit online, but does anyone understand what it truly entails?
It turns out that of the 11% of the so-called libertarian population polled, about one third have no idea what the word means. Pew Research found that answer by focusing on the 11% of respondents who self-identified as libertarian, and found that only the very basic meaning — less government means more freedom — was accepted by all. That’s where the similarities began and ended.
The demographics are interesting, but they don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know: 15% male, 12% in the 18-29 age bracket, 12% white, and 15% college graduate. Almost 20% make above $76,000 a year. What’s telling is that only 7% are women, while only 3% are African-American.
Let’s start by looking at some of the figures. One of the core views of all types of libertarianism is that less government is better. So, how do those self-described libertarians feel about the role of government?
- 41% of libertarians believe that the government should regulate business.
- 46% of libertarians believe that corporations make too much profit.
- 38% of libertarians believe that government aid to the poor is good.
- 42% (almost identical to the general population) believe that police should be able to stop and search people who look like criminals.
- 26% think “homosexuality should be discouraged.”
Keep in mind, libertarians are supposed to be “live and let live” on social issues. And while libertarians supposedly support the legalization of pot, 33% of the respondents did not.
In all of the above questions, libertarians were at least a little likely to align themselves with the libertarian stance. But what about world affairs? The uniform libertarian stance here is anti-interventionism, but you wouldn’t know that looking at this poll:
- 43% would like the U.S. to be more active in world affairs, as opposed to just 35% of the general public.
- 46%, however, think the U.S. makes world problems worse and just 16% believe that privacy should be given up.
- There is one group that Pew believes more closely resembles libertarian values. They represent about 5% of the population and they are typically young. They are conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on LGBT rights, immigration and are against military force. However, they also believe in affirmative action and that environmental laws are a good thing.
Now, in all fairness, libertarianism is a huge school of thought. Some of the earliest libertarians, for instance, were libertarian socialists, and they fought in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. Noam Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. There’s such a thing as libertarian Marxism. The very first man to describe himself as “libertarian” was Joseph Déjacque, and he was libertarian communist.
It wasn’t until the Internet that two radical schools of libertarianism emerged — Deontological libertarianism and it’s cousin, Consequentialist libertarianism. This is about the time libertarian shifted from “socialist” to “selfish,” and those types of libertarianism have since outstretched all the other types of libertarianism; in part because of Friedman and the 80s, and in part because of the radical success of the southern strategy.
At present, “libertarian” no longer means a revolutionary fighting for egalitarianism, freedom, and a flat society in the vein of Nestor Makhno and the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo. Present day libertarians are selfish bigots who have their views informed by the themepark version of Ayn Rand (who utterly despised them), and people who are too ashamed to publicly admit they voted for the Party of Ted Cruz.
Which is sort of what we liberals have been thinking all along.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
URL Source: http://aattp.org/
sort of what we liberals have been thinking all along.
No one wants to join your new libertarian cult...senile ol' socialist fools for Trump. You're a party of one.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#2. To: hondo68 (#1) (Edited)
No one is asking anyone to join anything.
All I am doing is getting you to read what others are saying bad about libertarianism.
And you are interested right down to the last word, even what liberals are saying.
"Mission Accomplished" ... libertarians are "Stupid."
#3. To: Gatlin (#0)
"Now, in all fairness, libertarianism is a huge school of thought."
Yep. So huge it's meaningless. Very common to hear, "I'm a Libertarian except for _____."
Once you have a roomful of 100 Libertarians with 100 different "except fors", you have no coherent philosophy.
#4. To: Gatlin (#0)
Source : Americans Against The Tea Party.
Another example of the blatantly leftist articles found there.
THANKS OBAMA! President Obama Proposes Monumental Increase In Social Security Benefits
‘And we can start paying for it by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more. They can afford it. I can afford it.’
Another leftist screed posted by Gatlin.
No surprise where his loyalties lie.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#5. To: Gatlin, hondo68 (#2)
All I am doing is getting you to read whatothersleftists are saying bad about libertarianism.
There, now it's correct.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#6. To: Deckard (#5)
Nobody likes the libertarian trash, except other libertarian trash.
There, now I am correct.
#7. To: Gatlin (#6)
Nobody likes the libertarian trash, except other libertarian trash.
You don't even know the difference between libertarian and liberal.
The only thing you have proven is what a colossal dumb ass you are.
Again
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#8. To: Deckard (#7)
You don't even know the difference between libertarian and liberal.
There is no DIFFERENCE. Well, with the exception of probably one.
Libertarians and liberals hold and support the same positions on social issues, and individual Liberty with gun rights being the exception since liberals tend to support regulation while Libertarian do not. Well most do not.
Furthermore, you can spot a Paultard a mile away, every post and every reply is some vague concocted statement to try and bait any and all responders into walking into one of their grossly false assumptions.
#9. To: Gatlin (#0)
Gatlin, with all the L articles you've posted today, it's apparent you have a serious fetish regarding libertarianism.
So what, precisely, is a libertarian? The word gets banded around quite a bit online, but does anyone understand what it truly entails?
Does anyone understand what an R's or D's stand for? Try replacing "libertarian" with either "republican" or "democrat" and do the same poll and tell me if you get any more consistent results.
If 11% of the general population call themselves "libertarian" then it means many have come from the R&D ranks and have naturally brought some of their indoctrinated ideals with them, in spite of recognizing merit of the general idea that individual freedom should be given high regard. That's a very normal and natural thing, and if 11% do recognize libertarianism has merit, that's very good news for the movement.
#10. To: Pinguinite (#9)
... 11% of the general population call themselves "libertarian" ...
That's the bad news.
The good news is that the percentage is not higher since an estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.
#11. To: Gatlin (#0) (Edited)
the 11% of respondents who self-identified as libertarian [...] 15% male [...] only 7% are women
Not only are Americans Against The Tea Party lefty shitbags (to be redundant) but they're mathematically illiterate: 15% male plus 7% female adds up to neither 11% (of the population) nor 100% (of libertarians). What the Pew chart conveyed to the mathematically literate is that 15% of men are libertarians and 7% of women are libertarians.
So all your article proves is that morons oppose libertarianism.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#12. To: Gatlin (#10)
When I see people I debate resort to insults, I know I have won.
Thanks for playing.
#13. To: Gatlin (#10)
an estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. --- Gatlin posted
Gatlins disorder is demonstrated by his mania in posting anti- constitutional/anti-libertarian threads.
#14. To: ConservingFreedom (#11)
So all your article proves is that morons oppose libertarianism.
Ah, a situation of "morons" opposing "morons" from which maybe something good will result.
Perhaps subsequent experience will demonstrated that some type of unpredictable success can follow even where there is an underlying Political philosophy clash.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#12)
When I see people I debate resort to insults, I know I have won.Thanks for playing.
Libertarians are losers.
To understand this, you need only Look back at when the 2012 election was considered to be the perfect storm for the Libertarian Party and yet their presidential candidate was able to pull in only 0.99% of the national vote.
After forty long years the LP has been able only once to get above 1% of the national vote and only once earned more than 1 million votes.
Yep, libertarians are always losers.
BTW, since "thanks" are in order ... thanks for providing me with a platform to show up libertariansim.
#16. To: Gatlin (#15)
Of the many voting systems devised, the pluralistic voting system which is used in the USA is the worst system of voting to represent the will of the people. It's natural effect is to draw toward the 2 most popular candidates, or the candidates cast as the most popular. Those inclined to vote for so-called "3rd parties" are discouraged with comments like "A vote for candidate C is a vote for candidate [A or B]" because by voting for C, you are not helping candidate B so it's actually a vote for candidate A. Or vice versa.
The "Approval Voting" system allows each voter to cast a vote for as many candidates as s/he wants. It's in the form of granting one vote for all the candidates each voter "approves" of. The candidate getting the most votes is the candidate that has earned the most approval from the voters. With this system, candidates are not competing against each other as much as competing to actually be the candidate that voters wants.
With this system, we'd actually get a real sense of how popular libertarian and all other parties are. But of course the Republicrats will resist any challenge to the duopoly by doing away with the vote system that favors them.
I do not understand your obsession with libertarianism. But as one who believes in the positive effects of attention, even when the attention attempts to be negative, I don't mind providing the platform. You're welcome.
#17. To: Pinguinite (#16)
With this [approval voting] system, we'd actually get a real sense of how popular libertarian and all other parties are. But of course the Republicrats will resist any challenge to the duopoly by doing away with the vote system that favors them.
I can easily understand why a libertarian voter would like the approval voting system (AVS). As more informed voters, libertarians would be able to “load the election results” by rigging the system as “strategic voters” and therefore earn a significant advantage over all the less informed “average citizen” voters.
Is AVS a viable method of voting in contested elections and if it is not, then what is the problem?
#18. To: Gatlin (#0)
So what, precisely, is a libertarian? The word gets banded around quite a bit online, but does anyone understand what it truly entails?
That's simple. If a tiger ate a Democrat for breakfast, a gun nut for lunch and a paronoid kook for dinner, he'd shit out a libertarian the next day.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#19. To: Gatlin (#15)
Libertarians are losers.To understand this, you need only Look back at....
All the LP & LF kook posts since the wheelchair RINO kicked them all out of FreakRepublic and they squatted in Sally's living room because nobody else wanted them and Sally's family only called once a month.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#20. To: GrandIsland (#19)
That's true.
There are libertarian forums all over the web, funny the don't gravitate to those.
But then maybe they did and got kicked out for the same reason JR kicked them out ... they are obnoxious.
#21. To: Gatlin (#17)
I can easily understand why a libertarian voter would like the approval voting system (AVS).
I can easily understand why *any* voter would like AVS.
As more informed voters, libertarians would be able to “load the election results” by rigging the system as “strategic voters” and therefore earn a significant advantage over all the less informed “average citizen” voters.
AVS is not a libertarian invention. It is one of many voting systems that have been invented. Run-off, instant run-off, proportional voting (every voter gets 100 votes and allocates them proportional to the degree they favor candidates) being others. But AVS is, IMO, the best as the ballots are simple for voters to understand, it compels candidates to compete positively in garnering favor of the voters, eliminates the "wasted vote syndrome" which harms all 3rd parties, and counting vote is easy. (Instant Run-off counting is a nightmare).
But of all voting systems, the one giving people the least amount of say in who wins is the pluralist "vote for only one" system in use today.
As for strategic voting, all voting systems are subject to it. I think it's been mathematically proven that no voting system is perfect. Utilizing strategic voting with any system takes a degree of organization that I'm sure you would believe libertarians are unable to obtain, even if they wanted to. In truth, libertarians are generally not given to controlling the lives of others, so any strategic voting activities are much more likely to be carried out by Republicrats.
Is AVS a viable method of voting in contested elections and if it is not, then what is the problem?
It's completely viable. The ballots would be identical to the current ballots, with the only change being that voters can vote for multiple candidates. What is the problem? There are 2: 1) not many people are aware that there are alternate voting systems that have been devised, much less the advantages of AVS, and 2) Converting over to them would require law changes made by currently sitting R & D lawmakers, few of which would favor changing a vote system that could see them removed from office or give so-called 3rd parties a competing in-road to the R&D duopoly.
#22. To: Pinguinite (#21)
A quick consideration indicates no problems for me except for the "strategic voters" ability to "game" the vote. That is something I don't understand and would need to learn more about.
A couple articles said it definitely would not work in a contested election and a few more said it would never be accepted.
I always look for improvement using newer or better techniques.
#23. To: Gatlin (#22)
A quick consideration indicates no problems for me except for the "strategic voters" ability to "game" the vote. That is something I don't understand and would need to learn more about.
Isn't it "strategic voting" with the current system when people are told not to throw their vote away by voting for a 3rd party candidate? They don't vote for their preferred candidate, but instead vote for someone else in an attempt to make a difference in who actually wins.
That *IS* strategic voting, and what we have with the current system.
With AVS, and perhaps every other voting system, strategic voting is only possible if you know how everyone else voted. IOW, you vote last, and you know who's winning and losing, and by how much. With that information, you might be able to make a difference in the final result by altering your normal voting inclination.
A couple articles said it definitely would not work in a contested election
Ridiculous. It would certainly work. All elections are contested or there's no point in having one. What reasons were given?
and a few more said it would never be accepted.
The current system only allows each voter to express an opinion about a single candidate. AVS allows voters to express opinions about all candidates. It allows far more information from the voting masses than does the current system, and is therefore better on that basis alone.
The only thing holding AVS back is public ignorance about it. That's all. Very few people have any idea that there is any other system of voting besides the current system.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]