CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
20
Libertarians against liberals Libertarians for Obama
Debate Score:54
Arguments:30
Total Votes:58
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Libertarians against liberals (19)
 
 Libertarians for Obama (11)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40163) pic



Libertarians and Republicans Unite

 

Forcing someone to work is called slavery, forcing someone to pay is called theft. When democrats support forcing people to work they are are supporting slavery, and when they support all these massive government social programs they are supporting extrortion. Incase you haven't noticed, big government works a lot like organized crime.

Libertarians against liberals

Side Score: 34
VS.

Libertarians for Obama

Side Score: 20

"Libertarians and Republicans" unite would have been a better title for this debate.

Libertarians aren't likely to unite with conservatives because libertarians are all about personal freedom while conservatives are all about stifling civil liberties. They're on completely opposite sides of the spectrum in that regard.

Republicans and libertarians obviously have similar opinions about how to run the government and the economy (which is why I occasionally refer to myself as a "Liberal Republican," in part because of the disgusting number of people here who don't know what a "libertarian" is), but they are juxtaposed on social issues.

So sure, Republicans and Libertarians can agree, as they always have, that small government is the way to go. But good luck getting conservatives and Libertarians to agree on anything.

Side: Libertarians against liberals

I respect your position and I will change the debate title as per your suggestion in show of good faith. ;)

Side: Libertarians against liberals

This November, liberals must NOT win ;)

Side: Libertarians against liberals
3 points

It's sad that Liberals are not against bigger government, considering that's what their name means.

But it's ironically true. now, folks like Romney and Santorum (especially Santorum) don't like Libertarians because of our beliefs in personal freedom (and even economic freedom, something that a lot of Republicans have abandoned or don't truly support.)

In general, though, especially among the younger crowd, it's easier to have a Conservative turn Libertarian than to have a Liberal turn Libertarian. Stossel said that he was surprised by this since Conservatives seemed to believe in moral restrictions while Liberals seemed more open minded. He thought that Liberals would be logical enough to look at the facts behind free market economics and just make a rational choice.

How we were all wrong. Conservatives, in touting typical stuff about "pull yourself by your own bootstraps" and "Live by your decisions" have actually found these economic principles to transcend into personal choices. Now, most Conservatives do not view economics in the same way as Libertarians (since Libertarians have shown free markets to benefit far more than a currently Statist intervention that we have today), they usually just do stuff to favor self-interest and greed, but their policies, ironically, are more in tune with Libertarian ideology. So it's not so hard to push them a little further on economics and to show them how it's not about "dog-eat-dog" but about mutuality and non-aggression.

Liberals, on the other hand, are not really good on even personal freedoms. While they like the usually politically correct stuff like abortion and gay marriage, most don't give a shit about the War on Drugs or even the War on Terror (based on Obama type Liberalism, of course.) Democrats and Liberals are nothing more than Authoritarians who ever once in a way cater to a minority. Conservatives cater to the rich and the religious, but at least many of them are abandoning those policies after being shown Milton Friedman or Reason magazine.

Side: Libertarians against liberals

If it's easier to have a Conservative turn Libertarian, then let's beat the liberals first and then we'll turn whatever conservatives we can to become Libertarian. Currently, for me, libertarian is too much in the middle. Exactly where we ought to be. However, if you start there and make concessions to the liberals, you'll end up further left than if you started out with a conservative position to begin with.

Side: Libertarians against liberals

There is no way that I would unite with Neo-conservative or Republican.

Side: Libertarians against liberals

OK..., So..., Are you gonna vote for Obama? Is he the lesser of two evils? I'm just looking for scraps now..., anything you can throw our way ;)

Side: Libertarians against liberals

As far as I'm aware, both liberals and republicans and libertarians all want liberty, for all. However, they differ on how this aim can be reached.

Libertarians believe in a minimum level of government intervention (or often none), and believe that this increases the maximum freedom that any individual can attain.

Republicans believe in a low level of government intervention, in order to maintain a structure in which personal freedom can grow. For example, a strong military, to defend the nation, or the application of certain moral values, to teach and protect the population against evil.

Democrats also believe in government intervention in order to maximize personal freedoms, more so in some regards. However, they believe that dreams of America the meritocracy are dishonest, and that attempts to support those of the lower class are requirements of justice, as these people have a lack of opportunities through reasons beyond their control. They believe that a different structure is required to maximise freedom (less focus on traditionality, and more on tolerance for all, as well as social support for those who need it).

While their main targets may all align (somewhat, rhetoric is rhetoric, and very simplified), it is mainly through their methods that they differ.

Side: Libertarians against liberals

Democrats also believe in government intervention

The government is extremely inefficient. A more efficient method would be small, localized, private enterprises. For example, if banks were prevented from getting too-big-to-fail, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. If small, local charities were the norm, more money would reach the intended individuals because of less overhead/management and because it would easier to audit them (i.e., more transparent). If government was smaller, then maybe we wouldn't have $600 hammers or toilet seats.

a lack of opportunities

I was not born on U.S. mainland. I came here after the fact.

1. There are plenty of opportunities here. I joined the army for 2 years and had enough money to pay for 6 years of college and get my B.S.

2. Lowering the bar is detrimental. I was not offered a bi-lingual education. I was told to sink-or-swim. It brought out the best in me. Lowering the bar is the same thing as saying, "You can't do it on your own because you are not as good as we are so we must help you get to our level." It's a very racist attitude to have. And yet, people don't see that. They don't see that as being a disservice. Lowering the bar removes the incentive for people to better themselves. Lowering the bar promotes a perpetual lower class that lacks the incentive to rise above it.

more tolerance for all

Is disingenuous. If Democrats truly believed in more tolerance for all, then they would find solutions that are more palatable to the opposition. But the evidence doesn't support that. Democrat tolerance means tolerating what they believe ought to be tolerated and not tolerating the opposite. If you don't tolerate what Democrats deem worthy of tolerating, they have a word for you..., like, "racist," "bigot," "sexist," "homophobe," etc.

But this is not what this debate is about. All I want to know is..., are you for Obama come November ;)

Side: Libertarians against liberals
2 points

The government is extremely inefficient.

Smaller government isn't necessarily more efficient (economies of scale v diseconomies of scale, there is a balance between the two). And are you suggesting that government intervention should be ended simply because it is inefficient?

1. There are plenty of opportunities here. I joined the army for 2 years and had enough money to pay for 6 years of college and get my B.S.

Did you use a grant, parents money, or some other form of loan to do that? And also, a) college fees have increased significantly b) a degree is far from an assurance of jobs nowadays, in many countries.

Lowering the bar is detrimental.

What do you mean? Most forms of social support, in America especially, requires people to put in work to get anything (your unemployment benefits only last 6 months, where most countries are 2 years or so, I believe). Black people are not being given a free ride to do whatever they want, people who are unable to afford certain things that would help them - and society - in the long run are being given certain opportunities to work for these things, things which those born into better positions typically take for granted. Although I'm not really going to get into a debate over social support, I'm on holiday and just really can't be fucked.

Is disingenuous.

Agreed.

Democrats want to set up a society where tolerance is nigh on universal. However, to reach such a point, intolerance is necessary.

Any theory of justice that does not include some form of punishment is a utopian dream (if punishments include not getting a reward which everyone else does). If people act in ways that are negative for society (go against ideals of tolerance, for example), then it is perfectly legitimate not to tolerate this.

And that is what I meant to say last time, but I was simplifying the idea.

But this is not what this debate is about. All I want to know is..., are you for Obama come November ;)

I am, yes. But I a) don't agree with libertarianism, or b) put liberty at the top of my agenda and c) I am not a democrat. I just think Obama's a better person for the job than Romney, for various reasons.

Side: Libertarians against liberals
1 point

Once libertarians figure out that economic anarchy is really corporate slavery, they figure out that conservatives have nothing to offer.

On social issues it's only the conservative in libertarian clothing who even suggests the two parties are the same. Anyone who equates "political correctness" (which most liberals don't give a shit about) to things like whether weed should be legal, if pregnant women should be probed against their will, if post-insertion type birth controls should be made illegal, if gays should be allowed to get married etc. etc. is insane.

That said, the "libertarian" movement is just conservative rebranding.

Don't look behind the curtain Dorthy, you'll only find corporate suits pulling levers.

Side: Libertarians for Obama

So..., are you saying that libertarians are not for Obama? Cause that's what I'm hoping for come November ;)

Side: Libertarians for Obama
1 point

Libertarians who call themselves outwardly "Libertarians" have never voted democratic to any greater degree than a moderate republican. It's no gain for you.

It's those with libertarian-type ideals but have not been so hard core to label it, which do make up a part of the undecided vote, you'd want to attract.

Unfortunately for you they don't like billionaires who's main economic policy is another tax cut for themselves, and who picks a VP straight from the the Medieval times when it comes to social issues, any more than liberals do.

Side: Libertarians for Obama