Album Rating: 2.0
@ wabbit
In theory obviously libertarianism is quite a nice idea, but unfortunately we don't live in a theoretical world. For the record, in case you were implying it, I am left-wing but I wouldn't identify as a socialist.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
On another issue, 'Plain Sailing Weather' really reminds me of something else. Can anyone figure out what it might be? It's doing my brain in.
|
| |
No jesus christ how hard is this to understand? You just keep talking about the
American definition.
Libertarianism is a reduction in state involvement in people's personal lives, not necessarily in
economic terms relating to the free market and less state intervention within it.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
Frankly (no pun intended) I doubt Frank is a particularly staunch libertarian at all, and I suspect it is incorrect to lump him in just one political category.
from frankturner.com/contact-faq/
"15.What are your politics? Are you a protest singer? Nope, no protest singing from here. I suppose I could be called a libertarian, though I prefer “classical liberal” as a label, if I have to have one. I am not a socialist. More pointedly, I’m not an activist, not trying to promulgate a message or change anyone’s mind. I prefer to leave that stuff at the door these days. Politics is divisive, by definition; I try to make music that is inclusive."
just pointin that out
|
| |
I'm starting to wonder if even Frank Turner knows what he's talking about if he considers himself a
"classical liberal" but "not right wing"
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
@Kris.
"Classic liberal" is a term that is, more or less, the same thing as "libertarian". In fact if
anything it is a term that implies right-wing libertarianism. Everything else he says there seems to
agree with what I said so thanks.
@ fish.
I'm not reciting the American definition, I'm reciting what the word means, and I still think it's
an irresponsible idea.
I have never said that he believes in free market economics at all, I have just implied that free
market economics is, in my opinion, an inevitable consequence of attempts at libertarian government.
A lack of state involvement in people's personal lives does not JUST mean that people have civil
liberties (for example it would also mean no nationalised healthcare), nor does it JUST mean that
free market economics prevail. I think every aspect of the state having little or no involvement in
people's lives is HUGELY irresponsible.
|
| |
You're reciting what the word means. In America.
And no, capitalism isn't an inevitable consequence of libertarianism, that's stupid.
|
| |
Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with anarchism, and some express disapproval of capitalists calling themselves libertarians.
In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative"
from that wikipedia page you wanted me to read
And a reduction in the state doesn't always mean the free market will be increased. Communism is usually anarchist itself.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
@ fish.
No I am not. Mate, seriously, I dunno what your problem is but this is just getting ludicrous and very tedious and boring. You seem to have this weird idea that the word has a different meaning in America to everywhere else. In fact you're basically talking as if it only really exists in America, which is weird in itself. It doesn't. All I have said in my definition of libertarianism is "a lack of state involvement" and, as you seem to accept that the word does mean that, I struggle to understand why you keep insisting I am exclusively using an "American definition" of the term.
It's not really that stupid when you think about it. How does any economic system work if the state is not able to involve itself in people's lives? By definition it is going to have to be by utilising an extremely liberal form of economics. I confess that maybe "free market" is the wrong term to use (although it is also not a term that is interchangeable with "capitalism" as you seem to think), but I was just trying to use a term that was easily understandable.
|
| |
In the US "libertarianism" is defined much more by economic liberties than the term is elsewhere. It's
possible to separate economic and civil liberties and treat them apart. That's what you don't seem to
understand.
How does any economic system work if the state is not able to involve itself in people's lives?
God knows if it works, but communism doesn't rely on a centrally planned economy.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
@ fish.
Some political scholars do believe that, yes, and in principle I agree with them. Some communists have also identified themselves as being libertarian as well, which I personally think is completely moronic in every way possible considering that (however they may try to dress it up) a founding principle of communism is control over the way people live their lives.
The same could also be said to be true of capitalism in a way, since it is also a form of controlled economy (although nowadays it seems to be extremely loosely controlled, hence my insinuation that an extremely liberal economic system would be needed in a libertarian state). I accept all of that.
|
| |
a founding principle of communism is control over the way people live their lives.
ok I'm done arguing with you
It's now clear you just have absolutely no fucking idea what you're going on about.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
@ fish.
I agree with you, yes, it is possible to separate the two. What it would not be possible to do is run a country on purely libertarian principles without some form of extreme economic liberalism. That's the point I've been making, not that libertarianism = economic liberalism, in any way.
I don't agree that in the US the term is more defined economically than elsewhere. I think the tendency of US libertarians to get sucked into economic liberal principles arises from the liberal economic values that are at the heart of the United States already and have been since its inception. I think that's combining two things.
I think we all know that communism doesn't work because people ain't no good (to quote Cave). Sad though that may be.
|
| |
I think you guys are on the same page and are just arguing over semantics at this point.
stop.
what this thread really needs is HilaryClitTounge and his two poli sci bachelors lol.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
hilary woudlnt touch this with a 10 foot pole
not enough beatz n rapz
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
@ fish.
If you don't think that communism, i.e. the creation of a classless social structure, involves some
idea of control over people's lives then someone needs to help you. In order to stop some people being
better off than others (i.e. in order to stop class) you need to have some control over people's
lives. Please explain how you think it would be possible to implement communism otherwise. I am really
very intrigued.
EDIT: Restarting the entire world (unfortunately) isn't an option.
|
| |
bodies:
well yeah initially it needs a ton of control over people's lives but fish is probably referring to the end goal where the government completely dissolves
see: semantics and misunderstanding
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
Yeah I get you Sea, I totally agree with you.
Personally I would say that it is impossible to retain the end goal of communism without some retained governmental control anyway, because of most people being so untrustworthy and incapable of resisting some form of superiority, but that's beside the point really.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
Back to my previous question: What song does 'Plain Sailing Weather' really remind me of? I need to know!!!
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
Also, in case anyone is unaware, you can watch Frank playing live in London, erm, live here ( http://www.youtube.com/user/frankturner ) in five minutes time.
|
| |
|
|
