General Politics Thread

[Alan Stubbs]

Funny how most self-described Libertarians are actually quite in favour of dictating how other people live their lives.

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

8 minutes ago, Alan Stubbs said:

Funny how most self-described Libertarians are actually quite in favour of dictating how other people live their lives.

If you're referring to me, I'm pro-choice but it's the least issue I could be bothered to care about when I vote.

If you believe in the pure libertarian non-aggression principle you can make a decent ethical argument that abortion should be illegal in most cases. There's nothing contradictory about being libertarian and pro-life at the same time.

[NotThePars]

20 minutes ago, Alan Stubbs said:

Funny how most self-described Libertarians are actually quite in favour of dictating how other people live their lives.

 

Most libertarians believe the job of the government should be restricted to finding them a girlfriend.

[Jmothecat2]

People are libertarian because the status quo suits them. They are disproportionately rich, white, male, heterosexuals because society heavily favours that social group. They know government intervention will make things more fair, which tries to redress their privilege. They don't want this, so they are 'libertarian'.

[mjw]

If only the anti abortion conservative types gave as much of a f**k about the child once it is actually born.
If its not going to Eton or inheriting the family pile it doesn't seem to be as important to them.

[strichener]

12 hours ago, Jmothecat2 said:

 

You are making a completely irrelevant point and taking the view I had to an absurd extreme. I never said 'except in the case of displacing and murdering minorities' because it's frankly obvious that's not what I meant. Seriously, why do you focus so much on this vacuous line of argument? Why not just engage in the point I was making instead of making absurd comparisons and taking logic to extremes it's pretty obvious I'm not talking about? You seem to do this with everyone, arguing semantics, making false equivalences, and revelling in logical fallacies rather than actually engaging the essence of the argument?

The point was yours - You stated that you thought that politicians should forget their principles for the greater good.  In the words of Auberon Herbert - “There never was invented a more specious and misleading phrase. The Devil was in his most subtle and ingenious mood when he slipped this phrase into the brains of men.”

[harry94]

JRM's position that abortion is always unacceptable is clearly an extreme position, and an indefensible one IMO. Although,  I don't think the view that life begins at conception is a completely insane opinion to have.
 

To be honest, I could see the defence. If you're agreed that there's a third party involved at some stage, it does stand true that there's a moral obligation to protect them. The government has arrived at the figure of 24 weeks with some caveats in special circumstances.

If your view is though that the third party involvement starts at a much earlier stage, I'm not really sure it's that unreasonable that you'd say it is wrong as you now see the creation of another life. In fact, I don't think it'd be logical if you didn't think it was wrong (barring health risks) if you saw a human life being terminated.

I think our current law is the best it can be with the research we have up to date but I understand the definition of life thing does play on people differently.

As a person, JRMs views on abortion don't really make me dislike him but wanting to impose limitations on liberty with same sex marriage is something I think is indefensible. Quite controversial but although I don't necessarily dislike them, I think a genuine belief in religion is a real character defect which correlates to being less reasoned in decision making and less suited to politics at a high level.

[welshbairn]

I'm generally pro choice but wouldn't be against a 12-16 week limit unless there are exceptional circumstances. How many women suddenly realise they're pregnant 5 months in?

[Bully Wee Villa]

Just the fat ones, I suppose.

[welshbairn]

Throbber should invest in a baseball glove.

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

12 hours ago, Jmothecat2 said:

People are libertarian because the status quo suits them. They are disproportionately rich, white, male, heterosexuals because society heavily favours that social group. They know government intervention will make things more fair, which tries to redress their privilege. They don't want this, so they are 'libertarian'.

Switch rich to middle of the road economically and you are correct. A more charitable reason for this is that people who are confident in their ability to take care of themselves and who also hit the balance between individualism and the ability to voluntarily cooperate with others are most likely to be attracted to libertarian philosophy. So straight, white, male, heterosexuals. 

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

9 hours ago, harry94 said:

 

As a person, JRMs views on abortion don't really make me dislike him but wanting to impose limitations on liberty with same sex marriage is something I think is indefensible. Quite controversial but although I don't necessarily dislike them, I think a genuine belief in religion is a real character defect which correlates to being less reasoned in decision making and less suited to politics at a high level.

 

There are very defensible reasons for a society and the state to elevate the traditional nuclear family structure above others. For anti-state conservatives / libertarians specifically, it's that the nuclear family is the greatest bulwark against the need / desire for a large state. Any policies which contribute to the breakdown of the nuclear family at the margins (and not insignificant percentages of people will just go with whichever way the cultural winds are blowing when it comes to sexual morality and family structure) inevitably lead to an increase in the role of the central state in our lives from this perspective. 

I'm sure you disagree with this logic, but it's the way I've seen it presented.

[Jmothecat2]

In other news

[Jmothecat2]

In student political news it seems University of Edinburgh's pet twat has finally found someone to fight his corner...The Spectator's pet racist twat Rod Liddle.

[Crùbag]

W@nker.

 

[Crùbag]

17 minutes ago, Jmothecat2 said:

In student political news it seems University of Edinburgh's pet twat has finally found someone to fight his corner...The Spectator's pet racist twat Rod Liddle.

He (?) is one ugly mutha. The b*****d spawn of Princess Fergie and Farge perhaps?

[harry94]

50 minutes ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

There are very defensible reasons for a society and the state to elevate the traditional nuclear family structure above others. For anti-state conservatives / libertarians specifically, it's that the nuclear family is the greatest bulwark against the need / desire for a large state. Any policies which contribute to the breakdown of the nuclear family at the margins (and not insignificant percentages of people will just go with whichever way the cultural winds are blowing when it comes to sexual morality and family structure) inevitably lead to an increase in the role of the central state in our lives from this perspective. 

I'm sure you disagree with this logic, but it's the way I've seen it presented.

2

Even just accepting that (I don't) as an argument in smaller government though, it seems quite twisted and fundamentally flawed. If you're open to preventing people this liberty and interfering with their life, it's asserting very refined selective control over people. Libertarians often scream about market intervention even in cases where it can be argued as intellectually rigorous and argue with caution and suspicion over any government regulations. The same people then deciding to invest themselves in a very specific social limitation based on some sort of logic that it'll give people more freedom seems like some shite people try to delude themselves and hide behind their own bigotry.

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

3 minutes ago, harry94 said:

Even just accepting that (I don't) as an argument in smaller government though, it seems quite twisted and fundamentally flawed. If you're open to preventing people this liberty and interfering with their life, it's asserting very refined selective control over people. Libertarians often scream about market intervention even in cases where it can be argued as intellectually rigorous and argue with caution and suspicion over any government regulations. The same people then deciding to invest themselves in a very specific social limitation based on some sort of logic that it'll give people more freedom seems like some shite people try to delude themselves and hide behind their own bigotry.

Anti-state conservatives might argue against homosexual liberty using the logic I presented above. Conservative libertarians would be arguing against state recognition of gay marriage or the cultural promotion of homosexual relationships, but never against the right of people to engage in the type of sex which they desire.

I'm not saying that logic is correct. Many people find a large state less stifling than a conservative society with a small state. Many people would reject the logic of the argument outright.

[Jmothecat2]

I don't think Theresa May knows how to be human. She's on TMS just now and Agnew said 'it's a pity you've come down here and the rain has stopped play' and May has now spent five minutes talking about how we shouldn't complain considering what's happened with Irma and now is talking about the government response. She can't even talk whimsically about cricket properly.

[The Chlamydia Kid]

In student political news it seems University of Edinburgh's pet twat has finally found someone to fight his corner...The Spectator's pet racist twat Rod Liddle. 

 

 

Rod liddle for PM!

 

And how is the student a twat? I wouldn't think many people one here follow internal uni campus politics...,