PDA

View Full Version : Is this an accurate portrait of the community?




Blueskies
01-08-2010, 02:20 PM
I'm not trying to create a divisive thread here, but after browsing these forums for a while it appears to me that there are two camps here. Generally speaking, when a debate breaks out about an issue on these forums the lines of opposition seem to be formed between these two groups.

Camp A

I would call these people "classical liberals".

People that are drawn to the movement because of a dislike of all things collectivist. Generally oppose big government, big business, organized religion, scientific establishment, etc. Beliefs align with Ayn Rand (minus the war hawkish-ness). See the state as a collectivist establishment, and therefore would prefer anarchy, if they don't outright support it as a legitimate form of government (or lack thereof).

-Strong proponents of separation of church and state
-Support Gay marriage
-Strong proponents of free immigration
-Generally support abortion rights
-States rights over Federal Government, but bigger on individual rights over State rights.
-Example: Peter Schiff

Camp B

I would call these people "small government conservatives".

Drawn to the movement because their beliefs align with the old right of the 1930s (and before) much more than the neocons or modern day left. Obviously oppose big government and corporations that collude with it, but have a more favorable view of religious institutions. Argue for isolationist foreign policy on the grounds that it is the best thing for us as a nation, rather than as an opposition to collectivism. Very strong dislike of international foreign bodies like the UN, but view the US and its member states as legitimate wielders of power.

-Generally against gay marriage, or support a state's right to ban it.
-Against open immigration
-Generally oppose abortion
-Ex. Ron Paul

Do think this a fair sociological profile, or am I being too simplistic?

jkr
01-08-2010, 02:26 PM
isolationist?

NO

erowe1
01-08-2010, 02:26 PM
Those camps exist, but I don't think the term "classical liberal" applies any more to the one than it does to the other. Also, I don't think Ron Paul has ever expressed his gay marriage position as states having the right to ban it. And I definitely don't think he would disagree with the idea you attribute to group 1 that individual rights are more important than states' rights.

libertygrl
01-08-2010, 02:30 PM
I'm so confused I no longer know what I am! :confused:

I like what Ron Paul said to describe himself - a champion of the Constitution. I don't like labels but if I had to choose I would pick that one - a Constitutionalist.

fisharmor
01-08-2010, 02:32 PM
No, I don't fit into either category.

I appreciate that you're not trying to be divisive. But when you reduce complex topics to soundbites, throw those soundbites into categories, and then toss people into those buckets, it's very definitely divisive.

When your whole statement consists of "this is what you think", you're asking for conflict. Maybe not at democratic underground... but here, I think that's guaranteed to rankle folks.

Instead, state what YOU think, and allow us to respond.

stu2002
01-08-2010, 02:33 PM
Many RPF members are immature and juvenile

LibertyEagle
01-08-2010, 02:33 PM
Argue for isolationist foreign policy on the grounds that it is the best thing for us as a nation, rather than as tan opposition to collectivism. Very strong dislike of international foreign bodies like the UN, but view the US and its member states as legitimate wielders of power.
We believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy. Basically, this means to be well-wishers to all, trade with all and travel to all. All foreign aid should be ended and we should get our own ship in order for own good and if we do that, others may want to emulate us. But, by all means we should stop the empire-building, imposing our will through occupation and stationing of our soldiers on sovereign nations who have not attacked us, nor offer any immediate threat and certainly not to "spread democracy" around the world. Our soldiers should be used for our own defense.

MelissaWV
01-08-2010, 02:34 PM
I'm a person.

cbc58
01-08-2010, 02:38 PM
Most people are here because they don't fit in anywhere else... at least that's me.

Most voters don't know what a neocon is or who thier Senator is for that matter. This movement could be huge if the message was transmitted in a way the average voter could understand.

RM918
01-08-2010, 02:40 PM
I suppose I err toward the latter camp (Both camps are, in my opinion, very poorly defined by the OP and if there are a mere two predominant factions here, neither of the definitions would make sense) as I don't think the state should be able to force churches to marry (or not marry) anyone they don't want to, and the state should in fact get out of marriage entirely and if it must be involved, for EVERYONE to have civil unions regardless of whether you're marrying a man or a woman or a desk lamp. I don't think you'll find anyone on these forums towing the traditional Republican 'Sanctity of Marriage' stuff.

stu2002
01-08-2010, 02:40 PM
Most people are here because they don't fit in anywhere else... at least that's me.

Most voters don't know what a neocon is who thier Senator is for that matter. This movement could be huge if the message was transmitted in a way the average voter could understand.

Most people who are here are here cuz they know more than your average idiot who voted for O or Mac

cbc58
01-08-2010, 02:44 PM
Most people who are here are here cuz they know more than your average idiot who voted for O or Mac

True. all .001% of us.

MelissaWV
01-08-2010, 02:45 PM
-Strong proponents of separation of church and state
-Support Gay marriage
-Strong proponents of free immigration
-Generally support abortion rights
-States rights over Federal Government, but bigger on individual rights over State rights.
-Generally against gay marriage, or support a state's right to ban it.
-Against open immigration
-Generally oppose abortion

I would add:
-Supports a community's/state's right to ban abortion.

Oddly, I'm all of those things except a proponent of free immigration.

I believe the state should neither interfere in religious matters, promote an individual religion, nor attempt to purge all religious references in the past from its history.

I support the concept of gay marriage in that, in our current structure, it's the only means by which a certain group of people can obtain priviledges many of us take for granted and are given automatically (versus having to go through extensive and sometimes non-binding contract processs). Ultimately, I think many of the laws about who can make decisions or visit you in the hospital, who can be on your insurance, etc., are idiotic. A lot of the company-generated regulations are no better. Ultimately, I'd rather the state were entirely out of marriage, which would let you marry a goat or five women or your favorite car if you wanted. The consummation of at least two out of three of those marriages should be perfectly legal, too :p

I support abortion rights, but I also support a community being able to decide it doesn't want clinics in its town/county/whatever. I do not support the Government defining life and deciding, as a blanket rule, what's best for the country on this issue. In fact, the Government shouldn't be "deciding" much of anything.

The smaller Government gets, the more fair it is. This comes all the way down to the smallest unit: the individual. If you can't be fair to yourself in a nation of one, you have issues.

Open borders are a cute idea, and could work if we removed all the incentives to come here. I still believe in nations, though. I don't think you can really say you have a nation without borders (I don't think I'd agree if someone stood in a field without a roof, foundation, or walls around them and told me we were standing in their house, either). I believe they need to be enforced in a totally different way than what we're doing, and I'd still like those incentives to be gone.

So, in short, yes; you're being a wee bit simplistic :)

LibertyEagle
01-08-2010, 02:50 PM
As you can see, we don't agree on everything. :D

Met Income
01-08-2010, 02:54 PM
I start at non-aggression principle and property rights. Don't violate those and do whatever you want after that.

someperson
01-08-2010, 03:01 PM
I love to see responses like MelissaWV's, in support of specific policies, as opposed to simply identifying as, or accepting, some collectivist label. It would be wonderful if more individuals would voluntarily drop their self-assigned labels, stop attaching labels to others, and reject the notion that others must label themselves.


I'm a person.
+100000


Camp A
I would call these people "classical liberals".

Camp B
I would call these people "small government conservatives".
I'll just add that I believe focusing on forming group labels, such as these, is counter-productive.

newbitech
01-08-2010, 03:03 PM
I'm not trying to create a divisive thread here, but after browsing these forums for a while it appears to me that there are two camps here. Generally speaking, when a debate breaks out about an issue on these forums the lines of opposition seem to be formed between these two groups.

Camp A

I would call these people "classical liberals".

People that are drawn to the movement because of a dislike of all things collectivist. Generally oppose big government, big business, organized religion, scientific establishment, etc. Beliefs align with Ayn Rand (minus the war hawkish-ness). See the state as a collectivist establishment, and therefore would prefer anarchy, if they don't outright support it as a legitimate form of government (or lack thereof).

-Strong proponents of separation of church and state
-Support Gay marriage
-Strong proponents of free immigration
-Generally support abortion rights
-States rights over Federal Government, but bigger on individual rights over State rights.
-Example: Peter Schiff

Camp B

I would call these people "small government conservatives".

Drawn to the movement because their beliefs align with the old right of the 1930s (and before) much more than the neocons or modern day left. Obviously oppose big government and corporations that collude with it, but have a more favorable view of religious institutions. Argue for isolationist foreign policy on the grounds that it is the best thing for us as a nation, rather than as an opposition to collectivism. Very strong dislike of international foreign bodies like the UN, but view the US and its member states as legitimate wielders of power.

-Generally against gay marriage, or support a state's right to ban it.
-Against open immigration
-Generally oppose abortion
-Ex. Ron Paul

Do think this a fair sociological profile, or am I being too simplistic?

false left right paradigm. Please keep exploring the topics in more depth. There are many things that you did not mention such as economic views regarding sound money, economic foreign policy that regards militaristic intervention as a detriment to trade, education, media, health care, etc etc..

I am certain that while you may be identifying some philosophical divides within the broader liberty movement, you haven't quite put your finger on the ideals that bind these apparent philosophical differences. In comparison to the current mainstream paradigm the divide is negligible. Please take a look at the broader importance of issues such as individual sovereignty, self-government, non-aggression, economic freedom, and personal liberty, responsibility, freedom, and accountability.

Thanks for you opinion.

LibertyEagle
01-08-2010, 03:05 PM
Well said, newbitech. :)

Brian4Liberty
01-08-2010, 03:30 PM
Is this an accurate portrait of the community?

How were you introduced to the RPF and how would you describe yourself?

BenIsForRon
01-08-2010, 03:48 PM
No, it's not an accurate portrayal. Especially not of the liberty community at large, which isn't completely represented by this forum. The larger nationwide movement literally has a little bit of each possible political background you could imagine. As far as the forum goes, you did describe a couple big groups, but you forget that many of us are reformed liberals, as opposed to many who are reformed neocon supporters. Then there are the anarchists, who I think aren't really as interested in the political struggle as they are just arguing with some "statists".

georgiaboy
01-08-2010, 06:16 PM
Not sure I totally agree with what I've written, so feel free to poke holes. Trying to put this group into only two buckets will give one a headache. I recall Operation Cat Herder as a section title or thread at one point. We pride ourselves on our individuality. Overall, though, I think this community wants much, much less government at all levels, restraint of tyranny, and maximum individual liberty & preservation of individual rights. There is a spectrum on how to best implement the vision of freedom & rights, from just getting us back to U.S. Constitutional government, as originally envisioned, all the way to no government anywhere at any level. We get a kick I think out of testing just how far we can take the notion of freedom. Individual beliefs on specific issues can be in some cases very divergent, but we can find common ground on how best to legislatively implement keeping in mind the uniting principles of freedom, rights, etc. we share. Much of the debate on here is healthy, to help keep us all sharp as iron sharpens iron, and to foster continual testing and re-examining of our principles against the real-world. It's pretty much awesome.

newbitech
01-08-2010, 06:18 PM
Not sure I totally agree with what I've written, so feel free to poke holes. Trying to put this group into only two buckets will give one a headache. I recall Operation Cat Herder as a section title or thread at one point. We pride ourselves on our individuality. Overall, though, I think this community wants much, much less government at all levels, restraint of tyranny, and maximum individual liberty & preservation of individual rights. There is a spectrum on how to best implement the vision of freedom & rights, from no just getting us back to U.S. Constitutional government, as originally envisioned, all the way to no government anywhere at any level. Individual beliefs on specific issues can be in some cases very divergent, but we can find common ground on how best to legislatively implement keeping in mind the uniting principles of freedom, rights, etc. we share. Much of the debate on here is healthy, to help keep us all sharp as iron sharpens iron, and to foster continual testing and re-examining of our principles against the real-world. It's pretty much awesome.

+1, couldn't have said it better!;)

tremendoustie
01-08-2010, 06:20 PM
Not sure I totally agree with what I've written, so feel free to poke holes. Trying to put this group into only two buckets will give one a headache. I recall Operation Cat Herder as a section title or thread at one point. We pride ourselves on our individuality. Overall, though, I think this community wants much, much less government at all levels, restraint of tyranny, and maximum individual liberty & preservation of individual rights. There is a spectrum on how to best implement the vision of freedom & rights, from just getting us back to U.S. Constitutional government, as originally envisioned, all the way to no government anywhere at any level. We get a kick I think out of testing just how far we can take the notion of freedom. Individual beliefs on specific issues can be in some cases very divergent, but we can find common ground on how best to legislatively implement keeping in mind the uniting principles of freedom, rights, etc. we share. Much of the debate on here is healthy, to help keep us all sharp as iron sharpens iron, and to foster continual testing and re-examining of our principles against the real-world. It's pretty much awesome.

+2, well said