48 votes

Libertarians vs. Republicans vs. Democrats. Using the political compass to see how they fool us.

A cool tool to wake people up.

http://youtu.be/tCaMU1qJQ78

As always I love your comments.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great Video

I think it sums it up very nicely.

The people of the world are mostly Libertarian, 1% are physcopaths, and Tyrants, They rule the world.

They offer false choice, and only ever deliver on the tyrannical policies that they convince the people are good for them.

Brilliant video if you ask me, I believe it could awake many minds from the two party duopoly slumber.

His analogy is inaccurate and emotionally biased...

Obama = Shooting two or more babies
Romney = Shooting two or more babies
Johnson = Shooting one baby
Write-in for Paul = making it easier for two or more babies to be shot and you getting to tell yourself you take no responsibility even though you could have done something.

One or more babies deaths end up on your hands with a write-in for Paul vote.

If voting was about making yourself feel good about your choice (since that's all a write-in will achieve compared to voting for Johnson)... we'd put pieces of paper into a machine with people we like marked off every day.

Don't take personal offense to that. I had originally planned to write-in myself. But whether you like it or not, voting for Johnson helps the liberty movement and the country 6 TIMES AS MUCH as writing-in Paul does. Feel free to list the number of positive things that happen because of writing-in Paul and I'll prove it to you with a MUCH longer list for voting for Johnson.

It's not sanctioning or endorsing evil. It's realizing that "baby deaths" are going to happen whether you vote or not so you should do what you CAN to reduce the number of potential baby deaths that makes it easier to vote for 0 baby deaths the next time you are given the choice. It's being objective to what's going on in reality versus only concentrating on our ego... making believing we're a good person a higher priority than proving it with real action that causes positive change.

If a write-in for Paul causes or enables negative change, whether you condone it or not doesn't matter, because you've still made it easier for it to happen.

It's not as simple as "lesser of THREE evils" either. Exaggerating Johnson to be as bad as the two main parties is a fallacy when he's clearly DRASTICALLY different than what make the two "evil". You exaggerate in order to get to stick with your emotional bias rather than try to use critical thinking. People choosing the easiest way to feel good about themselves is as careless as the mentality Obama and Romney and all of their supporters justify what they do to feel good about themselves as well. Being libertarian doesn't make you immune to willful ignorance.

If Johnson were to become president... and libertarian positions worked at improving the country and proved they did... people would want even truer libertarian positions FROM a true libertarian.

His analogy is oversimplified and emotionally biased. Sucks that 99% of the video was great.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Agreed. I did not like the

Agreed. I did not like the end either. I thought it ruined the rest of the message. I think with such discussion on the quadrent he would have said to vote Libertarian dont you?

I agree mostly

I actually made the video before the RNC. I have been on holidays for the last month and just didn't get to upload it until today.

I stand by the analogy though. Not voting at all is better than voting for Obomney. And writing in RP's name is better than not voting at all. I don't take any part of it back.

Introducing Gary Johnson as an option is on par to writing in RP's name at present IMO. As I dont think either will win. However, I will concede campaigning for Gary Johnson now is better than campaigning for RP, because miracles happen.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

The second comment has my GJ list...

http://www.dailypaul.com/254092/poll-what-is-the-1-reason-yo...

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

So Do I

I mostly agree with what he is saying too.

Its xRegardsx attitude that puts so many off. Nobody has any right to TELL people how they should vote, its YOUR decision.

The problem is, is that he doesnt see how Gary Johnson could be a net negative for the movement by watering down the libertarian message by getting people to be willing to compromise on critical issues, which could cause great divison.

We need to do like Ron Paul says and Unite on the ISSUES! Not a Candidate!

You do realize that it's

You do realize that it's OBVIOUS that what I think the liberty movement should do is my opinion... right?

It's not my right to share my opinion or the evidence that hasn't once been invalidated?

OBVIOUSLY people are going to do what they want to do regardless of what I say.

I've already told you multiple times that I'm not trying to convince the willfully ignorant. That would be a waste of my time. I only reply to them for the sake of the non-willfully ignorant who may be paying attention. Every day I'm on this site I find that's a smaller and smaller amount of people.

"I'm not going censor myself to comfort your ignorance." - Jon Stewart

If someone isn't CAPABLE of being humble to the truth regardless of who the messenger is... then that's THEIR flaw... and in turn THEIR responsibility.

Gary Johnson wouldn't water anything down seeing as the vast majority of the nation ALREADY compromise on critical issues. If Johnson were to become president, the libertarian aligned positions that he does have would improve and prove to the country that libertarian in nature policies work. Because of the nation's own look into "libertarianism" and learning about Paul and his message... they would want an even truer libertarian for even better policies.

What makes "the lesser of two evils" so destructive is that one of the two only SLIGHTLY does less harm.

Now imagine a president that not only does a DRASTIC amount of less harm... but potentially A LOT of good as well. That's how I justify Johnson not being an "evil" as so many write-in Paulers are doing with their exaggerations.

We need to do like Ron Paul says and promote this message... getting Johnson in the debates to show both parties to be the same as they are and if not... getting all 3rd parties to have their own debate.

http://youtu.be/_b3y7BxFPJ4?t=4m25s

Taking over the GOP is a long-game strategy that may still be too late. We still need to try and break up the duopoly every chance we get.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

And

If Johnson were to become president, the libertarian aligned positions that he does have would improve and prove to the country that libertarian in nature policies work.

You know that for sure how?

Why can it not all come crashing down on his head, and then the media spins things to the Sheeple MAJOURITY and they lay blame at the feet of libertarians, DESTROYING everything that we have worked for?

Why is that not a possibility?, That's my opinion, I dont understand why your opinion is right and my opinion wrong?

Do you see what Im getting at, who says Gary Johnson will promote freedom and not destroy it? You? Your Opinion? Why should we believe you? Why are they not both possibilities?

I agree get Gary Johnson into the debates and hold his feet to the fire, make him prove himself on a national stage.

You seem to have blind faith that Gary Johnson would be a good thing for this liberty movement, Many dont share that view.

I've already provided you a

I've already provided you a list of the ways that he would be a good thing for the liberty movement even if he didn't win. Anything is "possible"... so we have to weigh the evidence... and so far the evidence is much higher on my side of the argument. All you've got on yours is "he's not a true libertarian!" and "anything is possible!"

The evidence shows that he will.

When there's evidence there... it's not "blind faith".

Let me know when you can tell me how LESS war, more civil liberties, smaller government, and a balanced budget are bad things that "could come crashing down on his head".

If he ran on a platform for governor and fully delivered... and did that so well that he got reelected... I'm pretty sure I'm going on more than just what he says.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Yes

you keep blindly supporting someone who could, and I say again could be a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Thats all I have ever said! You like to ignore that possibility.

Have fun in YOUR pursuit of liberty.

As I already explained...

As I already explained... since "anything is possible"/"could happen"... we need to weigh the evidence. Using evidence makes it NOT "blind". "Blind" would be flipping a coin or pulling a name out of a hat.

Paul himself "could" have been a wolf in sheeps clothing... but we don't believe that because of EVIDENCE. I don't think Johnson is one either despite the SAME fact that he "could" be because of the EVIDENCE I have to believe he's not one.

I've admitted to the possibility... so how could I be ignoring it?

Again... saying the obvious "anything could happen" doesn't discredit my arguments as much as you seem to want it to.

My pursuit of liberty is the promotion of the liberty movement to its full potential. Sadly, not everyone that claims to have the same is on board, because as explained, they intentionally ignore the possible potential so they can continue down a path to lesser potential where they've made that decision to go down that path a part of their defining identity/ego.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I decided to vote for Johnson

I decided to vote for Johnson on the last day of the RNC convention because of the conclusion I ended up coming to.

It isn't "on par" though. The challenge I give people regarding the list of positive things that happen with a write-in for RP vs a list of positive things that happen with a vote for GJ (EVEN IF he doesn't win) shows that one promotes the liberty movement to its full potential while the other doesn't. Do you really think Ron Paul would write himself in at this point even if he thought he was the best candidate?

I doubt it.

My problem with the video is that the message here is on par with the oversimplistic "vote your conscience". People use these messages to justify throwing out critical thinking on their part. They simply take the think you did and agree with it and tell themselves it's a fully sound argument. Yes, a write-in for Paul is better than not voting, BUT it isn't better than a vote for Johnson regarding promoting positive change.

Ventura went from 10% to winning a 3-way race because of the debates. Add in that 46% of Americans don't like either main candidate and 60-80% of Americans were polled at saying they were willing to consider a 3rd party candidate... and after he's on the ballots in most states... what could either party actually do once he got into a debate and showed them up to be the same in the worst ways?

If you want to see what I'm talking about, let me know what positive things happen from a write-in for Paul and then I'll show you the comparison to the list of things that happen with a Johnson vote.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

The King is back

Everyone listen to him or he will get mad!

Look, he even managed to quantify exactly how much voting for Johnson is better than writing in Ron Paul, 6 Times better he says!

I bow to your obviously superior intellect.

I thought the video summed up where to parties pretend to be and where they are quite well.

Vote for Ron Paul, Vote for Gary Johnson, Vote for Virgil, Vote for Obamny or Dont Vote at all, do what you want!

Just do it as an INDIVIDUAL! We are not collectivists here!

Collectively individuals no

Collectively individuals no doubt.

"As the circle of light increases, so does the circumference of darkness around it." - Albert Einstein
"Now, more than ever, the choice between Obama and Romney will be which one do you want to ruin your country?" ~ Wead

Haha

yeah I suppose.

Nothing inherently wrong with going with the crowd, As long as do it because YOU wanted too after weighing up all information.

Have you weighed up all the

Have you weighed up all the information?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Have you?

Why are you intent on missing the point of what people say!

I'm not intent. I'm not

I'm not intent. I'm not perfect and make mistakes. Instead of simply correcting me and explaining your point in a different way... you go on about how arrogant I am and how dare I think you meant one thing when you meant another.

You've missed my points plenty and never acknowledged it or when your arguments HAVE been invalidated. You're being a hypocrite.

It's the arguments you choose to ignore as though they were never said that show a striking difference between us. At least I engage in every point and counter point you try making. You ignore MANY of my counter-points and simply move onto another topic... cherry picking which arguments to go after.

Now answer the question.

If you were given a list of 8 positive things that would happen for the country and the liberty movement by voting for Johnson and compared that to the ONE thing writing in Paul does for the voter them self... which one promotes the liberty movement to its potential and which one sabotages it?

I linked you to that list... did you truly consider all the information?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

When you have the list in

When you have the list in front of you... and one has 6 things and the other only has 1... the math is pretty easy to figure out.

But thanks for the sarcastic attempt at mocking :]

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Is

Is everything that black and white to you?

Also to correct myself...

...the list of good things that come out of voting for Johnson is "8 times" larger than the list for writing in Paul.

http://www.dailypaul.com/254092/poll-what-is-the-1-reason-yo...

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I use my head (logic) for the

I use my head (logic) for the sake of what I care about (emotional).

Too many people let their emotions influence their reasoning... and this is where our irrational problems come from.

Do I blame or hold someone accountable that had good intentions for what they're responsible for but didn't have the thinking capacity to think everything through and accurately before listening to their conscience?

Why wouldn't I pay more attention so I didn't become someone that paved the road to hell with good intentions if I knew how to?

People don't pay enough attention... a vast majority of them don't.

There are 6 levels of thinking capability...

Stage One: The Unreflective Thinker
Stage Two: The Challenged Thinker
Stage Three: The Beginning Thinker
Stage Four: The Practicing Thinker
Stage Five: The Advanced Thinker
Stage Six: The Accomplished Thinker

This is not only the vast majority of the human race... but it's also a very large portion of those in the liberty movement.

Stage One: The Unreflective Thinker

Defining Feature: Unreflective thinkers are largely unaware of the determining role that thinking is playing in their lives and of the many ways that problems in thinking are causing problems in their lives. Unreflective thinkers lack the ability to explicitly assess their thinking and improve it thereby.

Knowledge of Thinking: Unreflective thinkers lack the knowledge that high quality thinking requires regular practice in taking thinking apart, accurately assessing it, and actively improving it. In fact, unreflective thinkers are largely unaware of thinking as such, hence fail to recognize thinking as involving concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view, etc. Unreflective thinkers are largely unaware of the appropriate standards for the assessment of thinking: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness, etc.

Skill in Thinking: Unreflective thinkers may have developed a variety of skills in thinking without being aware of them. However, these skills are inconsistently applied because of the lack of self-monitoring of thought. Prejudices and misconceptions often undermine the quality of thought of the unreflective thinker.

Some Implications for Instruction: We must recognize that in the present mode of instruction it is perfectly possible for students to graduate from high school, or even college, and still be largely unreflective thinkers. Though all students think, most students are largely unaware of how their thinking is structured or how to assess or improve it. Thus when they experience problems in thinking, they lack the skills to identify and “fix” these problems. Most teachers do not seem to be aware of how unaware most students are of their thinking. Little is being done at present to help students "discover" their thinking. This emphasis needs shifting.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-deve...

My "vote your conscience" post was showing how unreflective thinkers used that phrase to justify being careless with their vote.

Hate on me all you like for my assertiveness (not "arrogance" because again, you and no one else has been able to quote a single thing I've said showing "exaggeration of self-importance")... but don't ignore the points I made. If I was only saying something for your sake... then it would simply be your loss... but it's for everyone's sake. If you want to let emotional bias allow you to perceive assertiveness as arrogance and in turn miss accurate observations that you may have not thought of before... then that's an act of aggression towards all of us... sabotaging the potential of the liberty movement and in turn the betterment of the country.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

What are you saying?

Sorry that I didnt just bow to you obviously superior intellect.

I'm sorry... did I exaggerate

I'm sorry... did I exaggerate anything? Did I use fallacies in order to make myself seem more important than you or anyone else?

This is like an occupier who hates every rich guy regardless of who they are. You going out of your way to try making me out to be a bad guy with your sarcastic comments... simply because I'm assertive and you CHOOSE to take it as arrogant, even though you can't quote a single "exaggeration of self-importance" which would prove me being "arrogant".

Your "You ain't all that" quotes that give very obvious messages don't change the facts. They don't magically turn me into an "Stage 1: Unreflective Thinker". Those "6 stages" only go one way.

I was saying that things are as black and white as they are because I understand that the clearer you see something, the more accurate your information is, and the more proactive and productive your decisions are based on your conscience/principles... and I don't want to sabotage myself or others I care about. Many would CLAIM the same thing... but they sure as hell don't act like it... they are the "unreflective thinkers". The higher you go on that list... the more rare it becomes. This is why "common sense" isn't common in the least bit.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Yah

sure!

This is kinda old stereotype

Today, both GOP & DEM have settled for "mixed economy" - first introduced by Mussolini - private property is allowed but its use is totally controlled via regulations and taxes. Similarly, DEM do not shy wars: Clinton - Kosovo, Somali; Obama - Libya and Syria. Socialist parties and trade unions were the ones who lobbied for WWI since they understood non-bid contracts.

Individual Liberties are only possible via private property, so we have:

Totalitarian=Monarchy=Fascism=Communism=Socialism=Mixed Economy/Corporatism, more of the same.

Since Anarchism cannot be realized and is not practical, the only free system is free-market capitalism under small government of a Republic. It is black & white issue: free private property or not, nothing else. The degree of totalitarianism is the degree of limits put on your private property (body is part of your private property.)

Remember RP advised not to split liberties. Since they all come from private property.

Its what people

think that they represent, without realising the errors of their ways.

This could be used as a great educational video for those still snoozing.

Democrats

Democrats wants to legalize drugs? Democrats are non-interventionist?

News to me.

Eh.

Yeah, a joke! . . thats at

Yeah, a joke! . . thats at least what they try to portray.

Good vid..

but there's only one axis. there's no separating social and economic liberty. there's only liberty. you simply posses it or you do not. package deal.

are you free if you only have a shackle on one leg?