So what do authoritarians in the US believe?

In surveys I found that American authoritarians, compared with non-authoritarians, are more likely to agree that our country should be governed by a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections. They are more likely to support limiting the freedom of the press and agree that the media is the enemy of the people rather than a valuable independent institution. They are also more likely to think the president should have the power to limit the voice and vote of opposition parties, while believing that those who disagree with them are a threat to our country—a concerning trend as we head to the polls this year.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/23/trump-america-authoritarianism-420681

And the opposite of the above.

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Anyone conflating the two positions is either stupid, or a liar.

You don't have to be a libertarian to believe in checks on, and balances of, power.

You're not going to find much of an authoritarian left in America. In fact, the definining characteristic of a Trump supporter (according to several studies) is authoritiarianism. Many Trump supporters essentially believe Trump should be able to act as a king.

Ben Reilly wrote:You don't have to be a libertarian to believe in checks on, and balances of, power.

You're not going to find much of an authoritarian left in America. In fact, the definining characteristic of a Trump supporter (according to several studies) is authoritiarianism. Many Trump supporters essentially believe Trump should be able to act as a king.

My point was that libertarians are not authoritarians.

People that equate libertarianism and authoritarianism are wrong.

Trump and Biden are more similar in the political scale than Trump and Jorgensen.

No, libertarians suck in authoritarians.

Original Quill wrote:No, libertarians suck in authoritarians.

Yeah. Like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:No, libertarians suck in authoritarians.

Yeah. Like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot.

Hitler is a classic example. Here's the principle: Libertarians don't want strong government; ergo: libertarians = weak government. The government of the Weimar Republic was a weak government. As such, it was vulnerable for Hitler to walk right in.

Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot were all preceded by weak or corrupt governments. Corrupt governments = weak governments. It's just another road to the same thing, only more underbrush to wade through.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah. Like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot.

Hitler is a classic example.  Here's the principle: Libertarians don't want strong government; ergo: libertarians = weak government.  The government of the Weimar Republic was a weak government.  As such, it was vulnerable for Hitler to walk right in.

Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot were all preceded by weak or corrupt governments.  Corrupt governments = weak governments.  It's just another road to the same thing, only more underbrush to wade through.

They were not preceded by anything resembling libertarian governments. They were preceded by different authoritarian regimes.

Try again professor.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:You don't have to be a libertarian to believe in checks on, and balances of, power.

You're not going to find much of an authoritarian left in America. In fact, the definining characteristic of a Trump supporter (according to several studies) is authoritiarianism. Many Trump supporters essentially believe Trump should be able to act as a king.

My point was that libertarians are not authoritarians.  

People that equate libertarianism and authoritarianism are wrong.

Trump and Biden are more similar in the  political scale than Trump and Jorgensen.

I know libertarians don't support authoritiarianism and in their ideal world, there would be no authoritarian rulers.

This is the main reason I think libertarians are dangerously naive, actually. They think that they could somehow reduce the power that the current government (of any country) weilds, and somehow that power wouldn't be seized by some other entity.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

My point was that libertarians are not authoritarians.  

People that equate libertarianism and authoritarianism are wrong.

Trump and Biden are more similar in the  political scale than Trump and Jorgensen.

I know libertarians don't support authoritiarianism and in their ideal world, there would be no authoritarian rulers.

This is the main reason I think libertarians are dangerously naive, actually. They think that they could somehow reduce the power that the current government (of any country) weilds, and somehow that power wouldn't be seized by some other entity.

Libertarians are not pacifists. We are strong supporters of the second amendment and we have no qualms about shooting commies or nazis.

Freedom has to be defended. That's why many followers of the two major parties aren't big believers in freedom. It takes work and risk.

Wow, that sounds a lot like you have no qualms about shooting someone because they disagree with you. Hope you didn't mean it that way.

You surely don't speak for all libertarians; I'm sure there are libertarian pacifists.

There are plenty of people from every ideology you can imagine who support and believe in "freedom," which they all feel free to define their own way, just as libertarians do.

Ben Reilly wrote:Wow, that sounds a lot like you have no qualms about shooting someone because they disagree with you. Hope you didn't mean it that way.

You surely don't speak for all libertarians; I'm sure there are libertarian pacifists.

There are plenty of people from every ideology you can imagine who support and believe in "freedom," which they all feel free to define their own way, just as libertarians do.

Ben wrote:somehow that power wouldn't be seized by some other entity.

These people would be the ones shot.  You act like libertarians are incapable of defending themselves from those that would try to oppress people.

You know, naive.  

I can assure you that is not the case.  

I use the terms commies and nazis as they tend to be the most oppressive and most dangerous to people that cherish freedom.  How many millions did they kill in the 20th century? Are you defending them?

And freedom really only has one definition.  A lot of people dont like that definition and try to twist it to justify their biases.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Maybe folks should read this first, then discuss the topic. Seems fo be a lot of poorly informed people.

I expect it from Quill. Others not so much.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Wow, that sounds a lot like you have no qualms about shooting someone because they disagree with you. Hope you didn't mean it that way.

You surely don't speak for all libertarians; I'm sure there are libertarian pacifists.

There are plenty of people from every ideology you can imagine who support and believe in "freedom," which they all feel free to define their own way, just as libertarians do.

Ben wrote:somehow that power wouldn't be seized by some other entity.

These people would be the ones shot.  You act like libertarians are incapable of defending themselves from those that would try to oppress people.

You know, naive.  

I can assure you that is not the case.  

I use the terms commies and nazis as they tend to be the most oppressive and most dangerous to people that cherish freedom.  How many millions did they kill in the w9th century? Are you defending them?

And freedom really only has one definition.  A lot of people dont like that definition and try to twist it to justify their biases.  

How exactly would libertarians defend themselves, in a freedom-respecting way, from a private army led by a power-grabbing warlord?

Asking for a friend.

Also, I'd defend anyone's right to be a communist or a Nazi. That doesn't imply I would have to believe they have the right to hurt or steal from anyone.

You don't shoot a Nazi for being a Nazi, you shoot him if that's all you can do to protect yourself from him, if he's attacking you.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:



These people would be the ones shot.  You act like libertarians are incapable of defending themselves from those that would try to oppress people.

You know, naive.  

I can assure you that is not the case.  

I use the terms commies and nazis as they tend to be the most oppressive and most dangerous to people that cherish freedom.  How many millions did they kill in the w9th century? Are you defending them?

And freedom really only has one definition.  A lot of people dont like that definition and try to twist it to justify their biases.  

How exactly would libertarians defend themselves, in a freedom-respecting way, from a private army led by a power-grabbing warlord?

Asking for a friend.

Also, I'd defend anyone's right to be a communist or a Nazi. That doesn't imply I would have to believe they have the right to hurt or steal from anyone.

You don't shoot a Nazi for being a Nazi, you shoot him if that's all you can do to protect yourself from him, if he's attacking you.

With an army.

The libertarian party supports a military capable of defending the country.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

An army answerable to a weak government which would obviously be vulnerable to things such as having corporate shills in nearly every position of power, which would mostly pass laws written by corporations, etc.

Sounds like quite the independent military which would answer to the people, and not at all that would invade foreign countries that just happened to have vast oil reserves at the behest of a commander-in-chief who himself made his wealth in oil, doesn't it?

What lobstertarians (just coined that phrase, do you like it?) don't realize is that the heat has been turned up so slowly that America is already controlled not by the people, as the Constitution demands, but by wealthy people, and they noticed so little of this that they're still saying that the government is too powerful.

The American government isn't too big and powerful -- it's far too small and far too weak, actually.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I know libertarians don't support authoritiarianism and in their ideal world, there would be no authoritarian rulers.

This is the main reason I think libertarians are dangerously naive, actually. They think that they could somehow reduce the power that the current government (of any country) weilds, and somehow that power wouldn't be seized by some other entity.

Libertarians are not pacifists. We are strong supporters of the second amendment and we have no qualms about shooting commies or nazis.  

Freedom has to be defended. That's why many followers of the two major parties aren't big believers in freedom.  It takes work and risk.  

Sounds like the Vanilla ISIS. Are you in the Klan, too?

I think anyone claiming libertarianism and authoritarianism are the same is clearly wrong. Is anyone actually claiming this?

But it does open the doors to different kinds of authoritarianism (the Weimar Republic is a bad example, it was neither authoritarian nor libertarian, it was very much the kind of liberal democracy we see today). If government is ltaken out of almost everything, it opens the doors to corporations to take absolute control of everything since in a system where the is limited government to regulate, protect worker rights etc, then those decisions would be left to the super rich - who, with no government control, would mass huge control over everything and would have little reason to do what is in the best interests of the vast majority.

A likely endgame would be a revolution in which the wealthy elite were overthrown and a, you know, 'real government' put in place.

Ben Reilly wrote:An army answerable to a weak government which would obviously be vulnerable to things such as having corporate shills in nearly every position of power, which would mostly pass laws written by corporations, etc.

Sounds like quite the independent military which would answer to the people, and not at all that would invade foreign countries that just happened to have vast oil reserves at the behest of a commander-in-chief who himself made his wealth in oil, doesn't it?

What lobstertarians (just coined that phrase, do you like it?) don't realize is that the heat has been turned up so slowly that America is already controlled not by the people, as the Constitution demands, but by wealthy people, and they noticed so little of this that they're still saying that the government is too powerful.

The American government isn't too big and powerful -- it's far too small and far too weak, actually.

Small and limited doesnt mean weak. It just uses its force when necessary.

Eilzel wrote:I think anyone claiming libertarianism and authoritarianism are the same is clearly wrong. Is anyone actually claiming this?

But it does open the doors to different kinds of authoritarianism (the Weimar Republic is a bad example, it was neither authoritarian nor libertarian, it was very much the kind of liberal democracy we see today). If government is ltaken out of almost everything, it opens the doors to corporations to take absolute control of everything since in a system where the is limited government to regulate, protect worker rights etc, then those decisions would be left to the super rich - who, with no government control, would mass huge control over everything and would have little reason to do what is in the best interests of the vast majority.

A likely endgame would be a revolution in which the wealthy elite were overthrown and a, you know, 'real government' put in place.

You do realize that libertarians believe in a government strong enough to enforce the NAP dont you?

Anarchy isn't really workable. Letting someone own a handgun, marry who they want and smoke a plant is.

Would you abuse employees if you owned a company?

Eilzel wrote:I think anyone claiming libertarianism and authoritarianism are the same is clearly wrong. Is anyone actually claiming this?

But it does open the doors to different kinds of authoritarianism (the Weimar Republic is a bad example, it was neither authoritarian nor libertarian, it was very much the kind of liberal democracy we see today). If government is ltaken out of almost everything, it opens the doors to corporations to take absolute control of everything since in a system where the is limited government to regulate, protect worker rights etc, then those decisions would be left to the super rich - who, with no government control, would mass huge control over everything and would have little reason to do what is in the best interests of the vast majority.

A likely endgame would be a revolution in which the wealthy elite were overthrown and a, you know, 'real government' put in place.

I agree, no one is claiming libertarianism and authoritarianism are the same. That is why the place of the Weimar Republic is misunderstood: it is not libertarian or authoritarian, but an example of a weak government, unable to withstand the likes of a dictator. The formula is simple: weak government = capable of being overwhelmed by stronger political forces.

A strong government is one that is knit together by a strong, but elastic ideology. This idea rises above that of libertarianism and authoritarianism. Libertarianism tends in the direction of ‘no-government’, which leaves us with an ideology that preaches nothing to gather around, least of all anything to ‘knit’ together (which is why libertarianism is linked to selfishness). Authoritarianism tends in the direction of singularity, which leaves us with an ideology that, quite simply, cannot be shared. A single dictator, or a small group of privileged people have everything, and it is only knit together by force and violence.

What is missing in both libertarianism and authoritarianism is the (1) elasticity of (2) strongly held beliefs. When we speak of ideology or beliefs, we are speaking ipso facto of communal things—things that must be of the kind to be shared. Authoritarianism is generally reduced to a cult of personality, which leads to a ‘self’; libertarianism is generally reduced to, well—as Friedrich A. Hayek said of liberal conservatism—nothingness: “…by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving.”

In other words, there must be something to believe in…something to which people can subscribe. It need not be a static state of affairs—Marxism or Fascism—although it must result in a state of affairs. The Constitution of the US is ingenious because it offers no state of affairs, but it offers each generation the ability to choose its own state of affairs for itself. That’s the other element: elasticity. Government must be able to stretch to cover all things that people may choose. That’s what Sheldon Wolin, in Politics and Vision meant when he said politics is time and space. Wolin, Sheldon, Politics and Vision (1960). It’s the relativity, or elasticity that makes the US so strong.

In my opinion, libertarianism is, as Hayek said of conservatism, devoid…empty, a vacuum. Hence, there is nothing to subscribe to, except the self. Thus, libertarianism is either a selfishness breeder, or a selfishness acceptor, but is in either case, aligned with selfishness. Therefore, it is inevitable that libertarianism devolves into authoritarianism.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I think anyone claiming libertarianism and authoritarianism are the same is clearly wrong. Is anyone actually claiming this?

But it does open the doors to different kinds of authoritarianism (the Weimar Republic is a bad example, it was neither authoritarian nor libertarian, it was very much the kind of liberal democracy we see today). If government is ltaken out of almost everything, it opens the doors to corporations to take absolute control of everything since in a system where the is limited government to regulate, protect worker rights etc, then those decisions would be left to the super rich - who, with no government control, would mass huge control over everything and would have little reason to do what is in the best interests of the vast majority.

A likely endgame would be a revolution in which the wealthy elite were overthrown and a, you know, 'real government' put in place.

I agree, no one is claiming libertarianism and authoritarianism are the same.  That is why the place of the Weimar Republic is misunderstood: it is not libertarian or authoritarian, but an example of a weak government, unable to withstand the likes of a dictator.  The formula is simple: weak government = capable of being overwhelmed by stronger political forces.

A strong government is one that is knit together by a strong, but elastic ideology.  This idea rises above that of libertarianism and authoritarianism.  Libertarianism tends in the direction of ‘no-government’, which leaves us with an ideology that preaches nothing to gather around, least of all anything to ‘knit’ together (which is why libertarianism is linked to selfishness).  Authoritarianism tends in the direction of singularity, which leaves us with an ideology that, quite simply, cannot be shared.  A single dictator, or a small group of privileged people have everything, and it is only knit together by force and violence.

What is missing in both libertarianism and authoritarianism is the (1) elasticity of (2) strongly held beliefs.  When we speak of ideology or beliefs, we are speaking ipso facto of communal things—things that must be of the kind to be shared.  Authoritarianism is generally reduced to a cult of personality, which leads to a ‘self’; libertarianism is generally reduced to, well—as Friedrich A. Hayek said of liberal conservatism—nothingness: “…by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving.”

In other words, there must be something to believe in…something to which people can subscribe.  It need not be a static state of affairs—Marxism or Fascism—although it must result in a state of affairs.  The Constitution of the US is ingenious because it offers no state of affairs, but it offers each generation the ability to choose its own state of affairs for itself.  That’s the other element: elasticity.  Government must be able to stretch to cover all things that people may choose.  That’s what Sheldon Wolin, in Politics and Vision meant when he said politics is time and space.  Wolin, Sheldon, Politics and Vision (1960).  It’s the relativity, or elasticity that makes the US so strong.

In my opinion, libertarianism is, as Hayek said of conservatism, devoid…empty, a vacuum.  Hence, there is nothing to subscribe to, except the self.  Thus, libertarianism is either a selfishness breeder, or a selfishness acceptor, but is in either case, aligned with selfishness.  Therefore, it is inevitable that libertarianism devolves into authoritarianism.

A powerful government is authoritarian.  It can be either right or left but it's authoritarian.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I think anyone claiming libertarianism and authoritarianism are the same is clearly wrong. Is anyone actually claiming this?

But it does open the doors to different kinds of authoritarianism (the Weimar Republic is a bad example, it was neither authoritarian nor libertarian, it was very much the kind of liberal democracy we see today). If government is ltaken out of almost everything, it opens the doors to corporations to take absolute control of everything since in a system where the is limited government to regulate, protect worker rights etc, then those decisions would be left to the super rich - who, with no government control, would mass huge control over everything and would have little reason to do what is in the best interests of the vast majority.

A likely endgame would be a revolution in which the wealthy elite were overthrown and a, you know, 'real government' put in place.

You do realize that libertarians believe in a government strong enough to enforce the NAP dont you?

Anarchy isn't really workable.  Letting someone own a handgun, marry who they want and smoke a plant is.

Would you abuse employees if you owned a company?

I believe many companies would have little interest in paying a fair wage if they could get away with it, they'd have no qualms about unfairly firing people and environmental regulations would go out the window.

Not all companies, but a significant amount.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You do realize that libertarians believe in a government strong enough to enforce the NAP dont you?

Anarchy isn't really workable.  Letting someone own a handgun, marry who they want and smoke a plant is.

Would you abuse employees if you owned a company?

I believe many companies would have little interest in paying a fair wage if they could get away with it, they'd have no qualms about unfairly firing people and environmental regulations would go out the window.

Not all companies, but a significant amount.

And politicians have more noble intentions than folks that run companies?

I, and most libertarians, support some regulations to prevent harm to things like the environment. The courts are also very effective at punishing those that damage other people's property.

Most wages and employment issues can be handled by the employer and employees. That's why virtually no one over the age of 21 makes the minimum wage in the US. Employers cant just cut wages to the minimum and get employees that would actually produce. It's why clerks in many convenience stores, start out at twice the minimum wage, when employers are under no obligation to pay them that much.

Maddog wrote:A powerful government is authoritarian.  It can be either right or left but it's authoritarian.

No, a powerful government is a sound government.  A powerful government serves its citizens, not to strict and not to permissive.

A powerful government stays within the boundaries of it's ideology, and permits people to maximize their abilities within it.

You are caught within the power dichotomy, rather that within the fulfillment dichotomy.

Maddog wrote:I, and most libertarians, support some regulations to prevent harm to things like the environment.

So the difference between you, as a libertarian, and others, is only a matter of degree?

If so, throw out the libertarianism, and argue over the degrees.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You do realize that libertarians believe in a government strong enough to enforce the NAP dont you?

Anarchy isn't really workable.  Letting someone own a handgun, marry who they want and smoke a plant is.

Would you abuse employees if you owned a company?

I believe many companies would have little interest in paying a fair wage if they could get away with it, they'd have no qualms about unfairly firing people and environmental regulations would go out the window.

Not all companies, but a significant amount.

And politicians have more noble intentions than folks that run companies?

I, and most libertarians, support some regulations to prevent harm to things like the environment. The courts are also very effective at punishing those that damage other people's property.  

Most wages and employment issues can be handled by the employer and employees.  That's why  virtually no one over the age of 21 makes the minimum wage in the US. Employers cant just cut wages to the minimum and get employees that would actually produce.  It's why clerks in many convenience stores, start out at twice the minimum wage, when employers are under no obligation to pay them that much.  

Sounds like your 'libertarian party' isn't really full blown libertarian. If you are for regulations, then we only disagree on the amount of regulation - or as Quill puts it, the degree.

I don't believe all politicians have more noble intentions than bosses, but some definitely do, and politicians are ultimately answerable to the people. Bosses are not.

I want regulations that govern the safety of newly built houses, the ability to form monopolies, the responsibility of the post office, the responsibility of health care providers, schools, wages, holiday pay, equal opportunities, how much pollution is allowed into the air, how companies get rid of their waste etc. I do not believe a truly libertarian government can control all of that.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And politicians have more noble intentions than folks that run companies?

I, and most libertarians, support some regulations to prevent harm to things like the environment. The courts are also very effective at punishing those that damage other people's property.  

Most wages and employment issues can be handled by the employer and employees.  That's why  virtually no one over the age of 21 makes the minimum wage in the US. Employers cant just cut wages to the minimum and get employees that would actually produce.  It's why clerks in many convenience stores, start out at twice the minimum wage, when employers are under no obligation to pay them that much.  

Sounds like your 'libertarian party' isn't really full blown libertarian. If you are for regulations, then we only disagree on the amount of regulation - or as Quill puts it, the degree.

I don't believe all politicians have more noble intentions than bosses, but some definitely do, and politicians are ultimately answerable to the people. Bosses are not.

I want regulations that govern the safety of newly built houses, the ability to form monopolies, the responsibility of the post office, the responsibility of health care providers, schools, wages, holiday pay, equal opportunities, how much pollution is allowed into the air, how companies get rid of their waste etc. I do not believe a truly libertarian government can control all of that.

Why do employers pay more than the minimum wage?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:I, and most libertarians, support some regulations to prevent harm to things like the environment.

So the difference between you, as a libertarian, and others, is only a matter of degree?

If so, throw out the libertarianism, and argue over the degrees.

Why? There us a party with a platform. Just because you are ignorant of it or misrepresent it, doesn't mean I should throw it out.

That's on you.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And politicians have more noble intentions than folks that run companies?

I, and most libertarians, support some regulations to prevent harm to things like the environment. The courts are also very effective at punishing those that damage other people's property.  

Most wages and employment issues can be handled by the employer and employees.  That's why  virtually no one over the age of 21 makes the minimum wage in the US. Employers cant just cut wages to the minimum and get employees that would actually produce.  It's why clerks in many convenience stores, start out at twice the minimum wage, when employers are under no obligation to pay them that much.  

Sounds like your 'libertarian party' isn't really full blown libertarian. If you are for regulations, then we only disagree on the amount of regulation - or as Quill puts it, the degree.

I don't believe all politicians have more noble intentions than bosses, but some definitely do, and politicians are ultimately answerable to the people. Bosses are not.

I want regulations that govern the safety of newly built houses, the ability to form monopolies, the responsibility of the post office, the responsibility of health care providers, schools, wages, holiday pay, equal opportunities, how much pollution is allowed into the air, how companies get rid of their waste etc. I do not believe a truly libertarian government can control all of that.

Why do employers pay more than the minimum wage?

Because they known they need to pay more than minimum to get better employees. But the fact is some employers still pay the minimum and some of those would pay less if they could. If some started paying less, that could see overall wages fall.

Regardless, you are zooming in on just one aspect of what I mentioned.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So the difference between you, as a libertarian, and others, is only a matter of degree?

If so, throw out the libertarianism, and argue over the degrees.

Why? There us a party with a platform. Just because you are ignorant of it or misrepresent it, doesn't mean I should throw it out.  

That's on you.  

It's your words...and your party. I could ignore the whole silly drama, 'cept you wanta make it a issue.

As to why, when something is in degrees, you increase until you have need to elevate to a new category. A ruler is in inches, until you reach a foot. By your own admission, you compromise the principles of libertarianism back into degrees, where it is little different from what you have. So, I conclude, "throw out the libertarianism, and argue over the degrees".

You've lost your weltanschauung.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why do employers pay more than the minimum wage?

Because they known they need to pay more than minimum to get better employees. But the fact is some employers still pay the minimum and some of those would pay less if they could. If some started paying less, that could see overall wages fall.

Regardless, you are zooming in on just one aspect of what I mentioned.

It's a very important aspect. Wages, by your own admission, are tied to demand, not some arbitrary figure set by the government. Yet many politicians have convinced people otherwise.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why? There us a party with a platform. Just because you are ignorant of it or misrepresent it, doesn't mean I should throw it out.  

That's on you.  

It's your words...and your party.  I could ignore the whole silly drama, 'cept you wanta make it a issue.

As to why, when something is in degrees, you increase until you have need to elevate to a new category.  A ruler is in inches, until you reach a foot.  By your own admission, you compromise the principles of libertarianism back into degrees, where it is little different from what you have.  So, I conclude, "throw out the libertarianism, and argue over the degrees".

You've lost your weltanschauung.  

All parties do what you describe. They don't stake out absolute positions. Even liberals dont believe that the government has all of the solutions.

All I'm saying is you've backed off libertarianism, and are now in the realm of ordinary politics.

So now, the devil is in the details. What detail do you favor?

Original Quill wrote:All I'm saying is you've backed off libertarianism, and are now in the realm of ordinary politics.

So now, the devil is in the details.  What detail do you favor?

I'm about 95% with the Libertarian Party platform.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:All I'm saying is you've backed off libertarianism, and are now in the realm of ordinary politics.

So now, the devil is in the details.  What detail do you favor?

I'm about 95% with the Libertarian Party platform.

How do you calibrate that?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm about 95% with the Libertarian Party platform.

How do you calibrate that?

By reading and knowing the platform.

By being informed.

Give it a try.