I have to disagree. Libertarians rarely support the GOP, many can tolerate it as the lesser evil. Others despise the GOP, which I did for a long time. Some also support the Dems. It’s not so clear cut and there isn’t some established party line. Many Libertarians are also Christian, like me. Many libertarians draw the basis of their belief from the idea of God given inalienable rights.
Well that’s fine. I’m speaking from personal experience. I’m from the state where the libertarian party was founded, Colorado. And it was founded in the conservative epicenter of the state, Colorado Springs. There is a strong libertarian streak here and mostly affiliated with conservatives.
Yes, there are no doubt some that are.
I’ve been in some conservative and liberal forums, and they mostly agree with each other and shit on the other side. Libertarian forums shit on everyone…but mostly each other on there haha. It’s rather interesting to see, libertarian ideas vary a lot.
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.
1 Like
This thread may interest you:
Go ahead and post your results there too 
2 Likes
Voting machines. 
Spend a pile of money on them “to save money”, then after a few years admit they’re crap and donate them to third world countries and spend more money on more crap. Rinse and repeat. Not a great business model, unless you (1) sell voting machines or (2) are trying to wreck democracy.
1 Like
Replied in PM, the response is not fit for the boards.
Edit/ Just to add to the conversation, over in the UK we have some affirmative action rules, but are very narrowly defined. The reason is we kind of like the principle where people should not discriminate on a basis of sex, race, sexual orientation or religion.
In fact as far as exception to the principle above I have given numerous instances I think it reasonable to break the principle. It’s not set in stone IMO.
But I don’t want this to be a discussion on affirmative action, I know very solid arguments with long lists of reasons can be made. that would be more a distraction.
What are the actual consequences of doing away with that principle entirely in favor of a new one that says it is ok to discriminate on a basis of sex, race, religion and sexual orientation when the goal is to even the playing field.
I think we’ve been over this. That is not what AA says.
Well, when you have something there are always proponents for something and those against.
Without getting into an argument over the merits we can say the UK and the USA a different in what can and can’t be done under the guise of affirmative action. The UK’s application is much narrower that the USA.
I’m reading the original post thinking: I’m engaged
Then I get to this:
Which led me to ask, if in fact the belief of the more progressives is we should be discriminating on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation and so on. To balance the field so to speak.
And I’m like, Huh?
Can you put that last part in layman’s terms, please.
1 Like
Come again?
1 Like
Sure. Let’s use gender as an example. A progressive goal might be that there is equal representation of men and women in the workforce, that management be properly represented by women.
Simple example, would you say that was true? I hope I am not creating a strawman.
AA deals with equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.
Have to soooo disagree with that if you are saying that about the US. Race and poverty have always intersected there. Constant companions.
1 Like
I agree but they have some sort of value in the US. Labels are applied from birth and follow us thru to death.
TBH it’s not about having labels but which label you have.
Yes…but iirc you mentioned something about doing away with it being ok to discriminate. So I’m wondering what hypothesis it is that you’re putting forth.
I am getting there. so, impatient. Or I am doing a bad job.
Anyway, this is just one piece in a larger picture. I would like to outline where we run into problems. My field is EE, so in my university the class was 99 men and maybe 1 or 2 women, depending on the year.
Which would make a firm in Engineering very hard to meet this outcome unless they were to discriminate very heavily on the basis of sex, something we were always told not to do. Even then it might be impossible. But we have thrown away the rule where we look at people on their character, not on the basis of race or sex or sexual orientation.
Are you not at all surprised Biden came out and so far has two things he would like in a VP, she should be a woman and she should be black. An employer would be sued for putting up an ad like that.
Which would make a firm in Engineering very hard to meet this outcome unless they were to discriminate very heavily on the basis of sex, something we were always told not to do. Even then it might be impossible. But we have thrown away the rule where we look at people on their character, not on the basis of race or sex or sexual orientation.
Are you currently on or have been on an admission selection board? How do you know not know that they are already discriminating and that’s why there are 99 men to 1 woman in your class/field? Ever think that the idea of having more men in a field that pays extremely well, enables or maintains a sort of social hierarchy.
Are you not at all surprised Biden came out and so far has two things he would like in a VP, she should be a woman and she should be black. An employer would be sued for putting up an add like that.
Don’t know labor laws in the UK but I’m sure that there are loopholes in US employment law to allow for this.
It’s how people circumvent affirmative action.
1 Like