"I am very skeptical of people who claim to be libertarian. Libertarian, but to what end? Are you just clinging to a name in a social movement or do you have definitive guidelines for governance and freedom?"
I am very skeptical of people who claim to be liberals. Liberals, but to what end? Are you just clinging to a name in a social movement or do you have definitive guidelines for governance and freedom?
you see? I can make vague statements generalizing a political class too.
"I honestly feel like libertariansim increases the decay of our political capital,"
um... libertarians say less gov't. they think it's corrupt. so... using loaded language like "decay" is a little unfair. if i say
"I honestly feel like libertarianism decreases the corruptive power of our political capital"
it sounds a LOT different. and if you mean "political capital" as in the PEOPLE'S political capital: libertarians supported the people's power in politics more than EITHER party.
"I might even argue it's a consumerist manifestation of a political ideology."
pro-consumerism... but liberal economics - KEYNES - they were the ones who divulged in LARGE stimulus, THEY were the consumers best bud for getting easy, debt increasing cash into the economy. Honestly, do you here yourself when you write these sentences?
"It wouldn't exist without clinging to the social capital of our political elites who fail to inspire their constituents by any other justification."
ok... let's break this down.
"It wouldn't exist without clinging to the social capital of our political elites"
WRONG. the founding fathers were 100x more libertarian than us. Only the federalists, who developed originally as the lessers - and quickly died out - were anti-libertarian. Libertarians have been around since the beginning.
"our political elites who fail to inspire their constituents by any other justification."
soooo... that sounds like a nice polished turd you got there. the political elites... who let the libertarians have power... do so by not being good enough to the voting masses? (If I am failing to understand you, it's because you sound like you're having a tea party with Tolkien) And to that point... that's why ALL parties exist. "failing to inspire constituents" is fancy speak for A DISAGREEING POINT OF VIEW not being appealed to.
"Perhaps libertarianism could find a home in a technocratic society. Promote the hell out of education and social organization and maybe you could force people to behave well enough to govern themselves."
WHAT? WHAT DO YOU THINK LIBERTARIANISM IS? force people to self-govern... wtf... i'm less worried about the average citizen squandering his own money, than a state gov't, FRACKING (lolz) UP THE LAND, AND DEPLETING A BUDGET ON UNIMPORTANT THINGS - which by the way, a lot of it is taxpayers money. not all of it, i understand, but a lot of it is our money, being taken away.
"I would rather reform the state than let it whither."
alright... i agree.
"I say let's start cranking out the amendments"
seems like overkill but let's see where you're going with this
"we need to mitigate the effects of polarization somehow"
*BANG*
i just shot myself in my head, b/c you ACTUALLY proposed AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION: to stop DISAGREEMENT. The 1930s called, they want their fascism back. if you mean Gridlock, or inefficiency: AMENDMENTS ARE STILL OVERKILL - but i can agree to that. for god's sake, if you ACTUALLY mean polarization, you need to be on some kind of watchlist boy
"Maybe when we break down altogether, we can build a new functioning government."
what. so now you WANT to break down??? you JUST SAID "I would rather reform the state than let it whither" WHITHER of course being a word that means nothing but vague talks about gov't cuts (SO SCARY OMGoodness). And build a NEW FUNCTIONING GOV'T
HOW? BY JUST SAYING MAGICAL WORDS AN-
*make America great again*
oh. @sleepsinallday You have justified Trump. FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF?
I'm going to go shoot myself in the head again
There will be no indictment
)
)
)
)