Libertarianism. .. Even though that isn't how it is. Conservative are for less government meaning less regulations. freedom liberty libertarian conservative liberal politics
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (207)
[ 207 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #4 - slimfadey
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(04/09/2013) [-]
Even though that isn't how it is. Conservative are for less government meaning less regulations.
#16 to #4 - chaotixx
-10 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#44 to #16 - thedrewtard
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
I'm a liberal and this still made me angry.
User avatar #41 to #16 - trojanmannn
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
how great political comment did you major in pollysci? Is this your dissertation? 100%, A+, 5/5, 10/10, 2/2, five stars, two thumbs up, perfect score.
#62 to #41 - elgringogordo **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #47 to #16 - abstract
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Every party has their own nut-cases. Just like every political, religious, and racial group, they shouldn't be generalized due to a small percentage that makes up the group.
User avatar #53 to #47 - chaotixx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
How can I not generalize when conservatives have idiots like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaught, and that snide little cunt Caiden Cowger leading the threshold? Sorry if I came off as a dick.
#7 to #4 - epicx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2013) [-]
Well I think he means republicans. They do a lot of imposing their morals onto other people. Issues like gay marriage, they only reason they fight it is because it is against their religion.
User avatar #9 to #7 - douthit [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2013) [-]
I did mean conservatives, not Republicans. Conservatives are for just as much government intervention and intrusion into people's lives as liberals are, just in different areas.
#50 to #9 - epicx
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Well conservatism has become like communism. The definition got redefined when people who were financially conservative, were generally also for things like a ban on gay marriage. People saw conservatism as the whole scope of their beliefs when really conservatism is no more than a financial belief.
User avatar #8 to #4 - douthit [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2013) [-]
They're really not. That's how they brand themselves, but it's simply not true. I was the most ardent conservative I knew for the longest time, until I realized they're for initiating violence against people, like with drug laws, prostitution laws, gambling laws, giving money to foreign countries, warmongering, spending trillions on the military, etc.
User avatar #68 to #4 - Ruspanic
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
In theory, maybe. But not in practice.
Conservatives in America tend to support using government to enforce "traditional values", usually in accordance with Biblical morality. Opposition to gay marriage and adoption on moral grounds, support for strong anti-drug laws, anti-gambling laws, etc, sometimes even opposition to non-Christians in public office (at the state level), etc.

"Less regulations" generally is limited only to economic policies.
User avatar #10 to #4 - keiishiyama
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(04/09/2013) [-]
Conservatives are the ones interfering with matters like gay marriage and abortion. Libertarians, not to promote them, are the ones who advocate the most free system into which one can enter; they want as little government interference as possible EVERYWHERE.
User avatar #34 to #10 - wafflecopper
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
yeah but Liberals are the ones that force affirmative action, and wish to ignore the pledge of allegiance so as not to offend

There is a saying that goes as such, conservatives wish to change how you act, Liberals wish to change how you think

also if this stupidly enough makes any difference to anyone, I'm not a republican, a democrat, or a libertarian
User avatar #91 to #34 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
You do know that there is a difference between liberals and libertarians?

And besides, both sides of the spectrum are pants on head retarded, better to be a moderate than a zealot.
User avatar #114 to #10 - haaaxderp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
those are the conservatives who have no idea what they're doing and shouldn't be breathing, let alone be involved in politics.
Not all of us republicans are the same, and neither are you democrats.
User avatar #207 to #114 - keiishiyama
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Please don't ever lump me in with the Democrats.
User avatar #209 to #207 - haaaxderp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
please don't ever lump us good republicans in with all of the other ones
User avatar #78 - durkadurka
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Are you sure you know what any of these ideologies actually stand for?
#131 to #78 - sundanceholiday **User deleted account**
-3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#211 to #131 - durkadurka
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Website for jokes? This place? You wouldn't know it by the content.
User avatar #81 to #78 - blackhawksfan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
was about to say the same thing...
#40 - abstract
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
User avatar #49 to #40 - jacklane
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
this.... this thing is way off.

Example: liberal guy-face tried to ban soda over 16 ounces in NY.
User avatar #76 to #40 - babyanalraper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
In Sweden, the Democrats would be considered as a right-wing party.
User avatar #80 to #76 - niggernazi
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
thats becouse sweden are under communist dictatorship lead by comrad reinfeldt
User avatar #171 to #76 - thephantur
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
You look familiar...
#174 to #171 - babyanalraper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
User avatar #175 to #174 - thephantur
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
no.exe
User avatar #178 to #175 - babyanalraper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Wait, what? To what are you referring with an executable no-file? Am I missing something?
User avatar #180 to #178 - thephantur
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Yes.inf
User avatar #127 to #76 - robertolee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
This would be the same for the Democrats in the UK. They would be considered on par with our conservative party.
#104 to #40 - tomthehippie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Only on the eminent domain issue, you have it on the wrong side. Liberals have been fighting against that while Conservative judges have ruled in way that expanded eminent domain to the extent that in Florida the government can take your house to build a mall.
#100 to #40 - software
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
this seems particularly biased
#1 - teranin
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(04/09/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#64 to #1 - elgringogordo **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#15 - allamericandude
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
My humble contribution. Not fixed, just more-relevant-ed.



No chart can handle my MS Paint skills.
User avatar #18 to #15 - chaotixx
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Ron Paul would have been far worse than Obama
#58 to #18 - elgringogordo **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#45 to #18 - abstract
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #25 to #18 - douthit [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Can you give a coherent reasoning as to why you think this is?
User avatar #67 to #25 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Ron Paul has the right principles, but he's far too idealistic and inflexible in applying them.
User avatar #20 to #18 - douthit [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
LMAO Ignorant statist.
User avatar #21 to #15 - douthit [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Sweet. Thumbs up for the P-man.
#83 to #15 - downtoabsolutezero **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#26 to #15 - thethc
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Gary Johnson should be in Ron Paul's spot.
User avatar #48 to #26 - allamericandude
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
I could only choose one.
User avatar #17 - KayRed
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Libertarians piss me off, because they always talk about how people should be allowed to do what they want without thinking about the consequences. Regulations don't exist to stop a person from doing what they want, regulations exist to prevent stupid people from hurting the innocent.

Seatbelts, for example. A libertarian might argue that laws restricting texting and driving are ********. If you want to kill yourself by texting and driving, go ahead, I don't care about you; however, I do care about the people you are going to hit, and potentially kill.

The libertarian idea of complete and total freedom would be great, if it weren't for a fairly large group of dumbasses ruining it for everyone else.
User avatar #77 to #17 - Yardie
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
There you go again internet. Confusing Libertarianism with complete anarchy.
User avatar #42 to #17 - allamericandude
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Laws that protect people from the actions of others are still consistent with libertarian values (if you do something that puts someone else in danger, you're infringing on their right to...not be in danger...so that's bad). The problem are the laws that stop you from doing something even if there wasn't the remotest possibility you were going to hurt someone (as with most laws, there's some grey area here--that's why we have politicians).

To take your texting and driving example: That would still be illegal, because it puts others in danger, just like alcohol does. Drinking and driving is illegal. Drug use and driving are illegal.

BUT...texting itself isn't illegal. Drinking isn't illegal. And neither should drug use. All three of those, by themselves, are victimless.
User avatar #71 to #42 - Omegashenron
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Lol I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue texting by itself is harmful to anyone lol But I agree I'm very much a libertarian
User avatar #23 to #17 - douthit [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
The libertarian ideal isn't about raw freedom, because eliminating rape laws means more freedom for rapists, etc. It's about the initiation of force. Most everyone agrees that when condensed down into a single, cogent ideal, initiating (or starting) the use of violence against someone is the definition of immorality and evil. For example, rape, murder, assault, etc. But when nonviolent and victimless "crimes" like drug use, gun ownership, or not wearing a seatbelt are enforced, those making and enforcing such laws are the ones initiating violence--either actual through the assault, kidnapping, and encaging of one via the police, or coerced through the intimidation and threat of said arrest and imprisonment. Not wearing a seatbelt in itself harms nobody but the "perpetrator". And you're wrong: laws are made by those in power to maintain the status quo.
User avatar #28 to #23 - KayRed
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
You see, this is the problem, libertarians are self centered. it's all about what they want to do to better their lives, and again, they do not look at the consequences this "do what you want" lifestyle will have on others. Those aren't victim-less crimes . Drug use for example, does effect judgement and motor skills, and they can lead to dangerous situation that can harm other, innocent people, and while I don't necessarily agree with how strict drug enforcement is now, there needs to be regulations.
User avatar #82 to #28 - douthit [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Everyone's self-centered, but I like to use the more accurate term "self-interested". For the vast majority of people, the majority of the time, people do what they believe will benefit them the most. That's just natural, and even you are self-interested, so stop being so self-righteous like you're above everyone else here, because you're not. The reason you even hold the beliefs you do is that deep down, you think if things went as you want them, you'd get a net benefit to your life--whether it's safety, happiness, peace of mind, monetary gain, employment, etc.
User avatar #43 to #28 - abstract
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
With drugs, I think they should be legalized for personal use, but the punishments for public intoxication or harming others under the influence should be increased. Of course there would be people that go out under the influence, but no system is perfect. Legalization of drugs will allow for taxing and for use of hemp in place of certain paper and rope products which could give a little boost to the economy.

Really, the most attractive part of Libertarianism is their stance on foreign policy. Stop the unnecessary billions and trillions of dollars spent on trying to police the world.
User avatar #22 to #17 - weightedtemp
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
I fail to see what seat belts have to do with texting while driving. Libertarianism is all about letting people live however they want and pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit so long as it doesn't impede another's ability to do the same. Most of America's founding fathers were libertarians.
#66 to #22 - stormtrooperface
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
have my babys, iwas going to say the same but it was gonna be an essay. you are ontop of ****
#54 to #22 - anon id: ab403e77
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
they also owned slaves, so we should still have slaves?
#210 to #54 - anon id: 0b807ff1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
That doesn't sound so bad. Especially if they're all people like you
User avatar #24 to #22 - KayRed
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
OH, because I was originally gonna make my point about seatbelts, but decided to change it to texting while driving, I guess I didn't delete back far enough.

As to your point, that is all well and good, but many take it to a stupid extreme, to the point where "government shouldn't interfere in our lives, at all", and if that were the case, it would be hell. I'm all for pursuing happiness, but I also don't want some dumbass to kill me accidentally before I reach that state of happiness.
User avatar #27 to #24 - weightedtemp
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Absolutely. That's hardly libertarianism though. That's more like anarchy and they're not the same. The government should exist primarily to protect, not regulate.
User avatar #29 to #27 - KayRed
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
But protection sometimes works best as regulation. For example, regulations on alcohol have significantly reduced deaths by drunk driving in the united states.
User avatar #30 to #29 - weightedtemp
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
To counter, with less regulation of alcohol the government could make more money from the taxes and pay police officers to patrol more and catch more alcoholics in the act of drunk driving. The higher threat of being caught would also dramatically decrease drunk driving.
User avatar #31 to #30 - KayRed
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Alcohol is already fairly heavily taxed I believe, in my state, you can only by alcohol through the state (or an eatery with a permit), so that's already a lot of money going to the government. Besides, drinking and driving is systemic, it is better to try and reduce from the start, rather than casting a big net and hoping you catch the drunks before they hurt some one. (The higher threat of being caught is a good point, but you have to consider that people that are drinking don't exactly have the best judgement at that moment).
#36 to #31 - ShadowOfSkorm
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
All im going to say is Libertarians believe that government should be limited to the defense of its citizens. Actions such as murder, rape, Robbery, theft, Embezzlement, Fraud, Arson, Kidnapping, Battery, Trespass, and Pollution violate the rights of others, so government control of these actions is legitimate. Libertarians acknowledge human imperfection and the resulting need for some government deterrence and punishment of violence, Nuisance, and harassment. However, government control of human activity should be limited to these functions.
#88 - mrstalin
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #11 - abrielhernandezg
Reply -18 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Well we all know someone thinks they are better than the rest of the world simply because they have liberal social views. I mean JESUS **** why the **** am i even talking about politics I'm 15 I shouldn't be worried about the government until APUSH but god do I hate pretentious douche bags that think they are better than the rest of the world. But do you know what I hate more than anything else? ******* twinkies! they are just so amazing I think I'll go make love to one right now
#37 to #11 - anon id: 862beddb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
you are a detriment to society
#169 to #11 - Pompano
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
User avatar #52 to #11 - chuckey
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
you, you no stay here.
#32 to #11 - MattSwan
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Leave this place, and never return.
Leave this place, and never return.
#119 - komradkthulu
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
Libertarian's mentioned outside of forum sites, all rejoice.
Libertarian's mentioned outside of forum sites, all rejoice.
#101 - unmercifulgod
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/10/2013) [-]
LIberal? Conservative? NOT IN FORT KICKASS!!
LIberal? Conservative? NOT IN FORT KICKASS!!