PDA

View Full Version : Libertarian Offspring?



Anti-fiat
11-19-2006, 05:27 AM
When I was in high school I listened to all sorts of punk rock, never really listening to the lyrics - I just liked the speed. Anyway I went back to them after having spent some time in the "real world" and two songs really stood out as being uncharacteristically conservative for a punker:

1. Why Don't You Get a Job and

2. Change the World - and this one truly shocked me. I didn't write the song, but it sounds like they're making a stab at so-called revolutionaries.

And once you start looking for them, you can see some pretty hard-right views in a lot of their songs, expressed better than any republican can. "Pay the Man" comes to mind.

No matter how hard they try, seems the Offspring can't escape their OC roots!

wheelchairman
11-19-2006, 05:29 AM
I can see where you are coming from with the first two songs. However I think you are confusing political apathy with being right winged.

And Noodles is pretty outspoken about his anti-Bush views, at least back when he posted.

Anti-fiat
11-19-2006, 06:04 AM
That Noodles is anti-bush, I would submit to you, has little to do with being leftist or rightist. There's a correlation, but not a rule.

More and more people are being apathetic about politics don't realize that they are really just TO THE RIGHT of both political parties.

Everyone who says they hate politics really just hate government, with all it's waste and wars. That's why the GOP got pummeled - the Iraq war is the epitomy of government waste. Bush also found a way to expand bureaucracy faster than Clinton.

America's rightward shift never really stopped, it just moved to the point where any government is frowned upon, tolerated as a necessary evil.

What I'm trying to say is that Noodles is a Libertarian and Bush is a National Socialist, and all this talk of left and right is actually a schism within the right.

wheelchairman
11-19-2006, 06:14 AM
1. Read Noodles' posts in the politics forum, he comes off as very leftist.

2. Political apathy in the US is largely due to the political parties not reflecting the interests of the people. Among other things. It has nothing to do with all of America being extremely far right. That is ludicrous.

3. It's shocking, but government waste is just one of those issues that the majority of people really don't care about. At all.

4. I've never noticed that about the "rightward" shift. As an Oregonian, I can tell you that you are certainly wrong.

JohnnyNemesis
11-19-2006, 09:59 AM
I definitely agree that political apathy is an inherently rightist view. I wish I had more energy to put this all into as coherent a collection of thoughts as the both of you just did, but I don't have that energy right now so all I'll say is that I fucking despise libertarianism.

wheelchairman
11-19-2006, 12:30 PM
Political apathy is a disenfranchised viewpoint, whether it benefits the left or the right is solely dependent on the government in power.

And yes, Libertarianism is despicable.

Endymion
11-19-2006, 01:54 PM
And yes, Libertarianism is despicable.

that hurts, comrade :(

wheelchairman
11-19-2006, 02:43 PM
that hurts, comrade :(

Well I like you. :(
Although considering my opinions, it shouldn't be surprising that I would have..different opinions concerning that ideology.

XYlophonetreeZ
11-19-2006, 02:48 PM
I definitely agree that political apathy is an inherently rightist view. I wish I had more energy to put this all into as coherent a collection of thoughts as the both of you just did, but I don't have that energy right now so all I'll say is that I fucking despise libertarianism.
Libertarianism fascinates me. That's not to say that I am a libertarian at all, but I just find the new movement among the younger generation towards those views to be really interesting.

You see, for years now, people have been talking about the apparent demise of the Democratic party. After the Reagan/Bush I years, people began thinking it was dead, then Clinton offered a brief period of hope for Democrats. I say "brief" because only the first 5 or so years of his presidency really count. He was way too strongly vilified by conservatives for the rest of the time. When Bush II "won" the election in 2000, and then 9/11 went down, the Republicans controlled congress, Bush won in '04 despite Iraq, Enron, the Patriot Act, and Michael Moore, and once again everyone was talking about how the Democratic party was dead. Even Jon Stewart had an illustration in his book showing a grave being dug for the Democratic party.

Now of course, after the midterm elections, people are rethinking this, which is good. But even before then, I was kinda starting to not really buy the notion that Republicans were going to dominate the country and Danza-slap the Democrats with their giant collective penis. And Libertarians are precisely the reason why. The fact is that Bush and the rest of the neoconservatives have taken the party in such a dangerous direction that, well, no SHIT there's gonna be some division among the Republican party. Libertarians will be the new Republicans. The whole anti-gay rights and anti-abortion crowd, while rooted in archaic religious views, are just becoming part of a generation gap. I really believe that gay marriage is going to happen. I even believe that eventually, the legalization of marijuana is going to happen. It might be a long time, but these liberties are just a matter of time, and all you have to do is to look at history to figure that out. By "these liberties," I mean basically everything that separates Libertarians from Republicans.

There will always be your religious maniacs who will fight to uphold neoconservatism. This isn't gonna happen right away, but unless some liberal Republican is elected in '08 who can successfully redefine the party after Bush bastardized it, I really believe that the Republican party will die before the Democratic party. And in '08 or '12 or whenever, if the Libertarian party can get themselves a decent candidate and a decent campaign, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they can get themselves a good, Ross Perot-sized minority.

*By the way, I do realize that not ALL Libertarians are reformed Republicans. Just wanted to clear that up.

wheelchairman
11-19-2006, 02:52 PM
I don't think you can so easily state the Republican party will die so quickly. It'll be a while longer. Even if it's just a generation thing, it'll be 20-30 years at least.

Venom Symbiote
11-19-2006, 02:52 PM
I don't know about "right wing", but we know Dexter at least is a little more moderate than friend Noodles.

Yeah, you do bring up some good points, Anti-Fiat. The "Change the World" idea is something I agree on.

It's pretty safe to say that, Noodles aside, this band isn't in the Republican-hating camp of modern trendies. I don't know if that can be attributed to the OC upbringing or whatever, it's hard to say.

I mean, I'm not saying Dexter is out there supporting big multi-national corporations subduing the little guy or anything like that, but he definitely seems to be a bit more sane than Mr. Wasserman in that "extremity" respect.

That being said, Noodles is an intelligent guy and I respect what he says, even if his points usually aren't ones I agree on. He knows his shit, and overall is just a complete champion.

Greg and Atom are somewhat wildcards, we don't know their stance. But I'd guess Greg, at least, would lean more towards Dexter's political views than Noodles'.

XYlophonetreeZ
11-19-2006, 02:55 PM
I don't think you can so easily state the Republican party will die so quickly. It'll be a while longer. Even if it's just a generation thing, it'll be 20-30 years at least.
No doubt. Actually, I never said it would die quickly. Just that it would die before the Democratic party.


Greg and Atom are somewhat wildcards, we don't know their stance. But I'd guess Greg, at least, would lean more towards Dexter's political views than Noodles'.lolz, Greg plays golf. He's gotta be some kinda right-wing racist whitey nutjob!:p

Llamas
11-19-2006, 03:30 PM
Huh... I can totally see the Why Don't You? being a little more conservative... I never thought about change the world that way, though. I do see it now that I re-read the lyrics, though.

pay the man I always thought of as dexter maybe considering god and the likeliness that god is out there, especially with "all that I believe now, anything is possible, a simple explanation for the evil in this world and in our souls".

Anyway, I think I'm confused on something. Maybe libertarian has two meanings? I fail to see how libertarianism and conservativism are related. Is libertarianism not the believe in individual freedom and not having one government control everything? I honestly have liked the idea of libertarianism for a very long time, and if I were to associate myself with a party, it would be that. However, I believe that it's very unrealistic and only works in theory in a society like ours. Much like communism.

XYlophonetreeZ
11-19-2006, 03:41 PM
Libertarians believe in limited government all the way around. Therefore, they're fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Basically.

Llamas
11-19-2006, 03:48 PM
ohh okay, thanks for the clarification. I mean, I knew what it meant, but I didn't make the connection that it was fiscally conservative. But yeah, makes sense.

wheelchairman
11-19-2006, 03:50 PM
Greg and Atom are somewhat wildcards, we don't know their stance. But I'd guess Greg, at least, would lean more towards Dexter's political views than Noodles'.

This has to be a completely baseless conclusion...

Llamas
11-19-2006, 03:52 PM
This has to be a completely baseless conclusion...

A lot of people claim that because Greg wanted to go to law school and plays golf. A lot of lawyers are left wing, though. and I really don't see playing golf as a good determiner.

JohnnyNemesis
11-19-2006, 03:56 PM
I fail to see how libertarianism and conservativism are related.

He never said that they're ideologically related; what he said is that the way the conservatives in power now have bastardized and redefined conservatism is the kind of thing that would turn those folks into libertarians.

They're ideologically different but have played out in a way that ties 'em together. For some.

ermdevi@tion
11-19-2006, 05:08 PM
What I'm trying to say is that Noodles is a Libertarian and Bush is a National Socialist, and all this talk of left and right is actually a schism within the right.

National Socialist? Um, no.

Venom Symbiote
11-19-2006, 05:54 PM
Calling Bush a Nazi is about the most retardedly fucked-up thing ever.

And as for the Greg thing, I was basing it more on personality. But the fact he's a qualified finance dude and used to be an aspiring lawyer, added to the fact he plays golf, might add a little to that assumption.

Just by personality though, he doesn't really seem like an outspoken anti-establishment type.

Like Noodles is.

Llamas
11-19-2006, 06:01 PM
However, I know quite a few business and finance people who are rather shy and nerdy... who are majorly liberal. You don't have to wear torn jeans and tops and announce your views to be a liberal anymore! I have a good friend who's very reserved and shy, and who never talks about her beliefs... who's a raging liberal. You honestly can't assume anything from personality.

Anti-fiat
11-20-2006, 12:29 AM
And in '08 or '12 or whenever, if the Libertarian party can get themselves a decent candidate and a decent campaign, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they can get themselves a good, Ross Perot-sized minority.


All that would do is spoil an election. The Libertarians' best hope is to take over the GOP and make it the Libertarian party.

Glad to see you guys don't like Bush, but you seem to give him and his cronies way too much credit. What about eminent domain? Title IX, affirmative action, government monopoly on schools? You guys jazzed up about Social Security? How about Title III, the real way to spy domestically.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Patriot Act was designed to lure all those rubes at truthout away from the real thing.

Vera
11-20-2006, 02:49 AM
I have to question a few songs being a basis for figuring out these guys' political views. I mean, I thought Dexter was the sort who wrote more about other people than himself and anyway, isn't everything you write just a reflection of that moment.. I don't know, I'd go for interviews more than "Change the World" on this matter.

XYlophonetreeZ
11-20-2006, 04:43 AM
All that would do is spoil an election. The Libertarians' best hope is to take over the GOP and make it the Libertarian party.
And they'd do that how?

3rd parties spoil elections sometimes, no doubt. But libertarians wouldn't take away voters predominantly from a single side as much as, say, Ralph Nader. Ross Perot didn't spoil any elections, for instance.

wheelchairman
11-20-2006, 04:52 AM
Glad to see you guys don't like Bush, but you seem to give him and his cronies way too much credit. What about eminent domain? Title IX, affirmative action, government monopoly on schools? You guys jazzed up about Social Security? How about Title III, the real way to spy domestically.


What are you....retarded? I didn't know you were actually a libertarian.
Affirmative action is necessary because it has been the most effective way to absorb large parts of the black population into the middle class. Breaking an evil cycle.

There is no government monopoly on schools. That's why we have things called private schools.

Yes, social security is a good thing. I am currently living in a welfare state. Here I can afford to go to the hospital no matter what. If my qualifications are good enough, I can go to a University without worrying about money. And I get paid to do so. The only homeless we have are those who choose to be (like, the mentally unstable.)

And eminent domain isn't something I particularly care or worry about.

Little_Miss_1565
11-20-2006, 06:38 AM
Ross Perot didn't spoil any elections, for instance.

Tell that to George Bush, Sr.

Llamas
11-20-2006, 08:32 PM
And they'd do that how?

3rd parties spoil elections sometimes, no doubt. But libertarians wouldn't take away voters predominantly from a single side as much as, say, Ralph Nader. Ross Perot didn't spoil any elections, for instance.

Perot took votes away from GB.

Little_Miss_1565
11-20-2006, 09:08 PM
:P @ Llamas.

XYlophonetreeZ
11-20-2006, 09:27 PM
I think the only reason people say that is because Bush happened to lose the election. People needed to point a finger somewhere. I thought polls showed that Perot's votes would have been pretty evenly split. He was pretty middle-of-the-road, whereas Ralph Nader was unquestionably closer to Gore in his views.

Llamas
11-20-2006, 09:28 PM
;) :p
I disagree. I remember a lot of people of voting age who were republican complaining about Perot while the campaigns were going on. I also knew a lot of republicans who were torn between bush and perot. I dunno. I was like 12, so I could be wrong.

JohnnyNemesis
11-20-2006, 09:32 PM
I was like 12, so I could be wrong.

Yeah, no offense, but I'll take "I thought polls showed that Perot's votes would have been pretty evenly split" over "I remember a lot of people of voting age who were republican complaining about Perot while the campaigns were going on".

You know I love you and wish I could marry you (if only whites and blacks were allowed to marry in this country!), so don't hate me 4dispostkplz?

XYlophonetreeZ
11-20-2006, 09:40 PM
I was like 5 when it happened. So don't trust me either. That's just what I've always heard.

llamas, I don't think you're THAT much older than I am.:p Were you maybe thinking of '96, when ol' Ross ran against Clinton and Bob Dole?

Little_Miss_1565
11-20-2006, 09:54 PM
;) :p
I disagree. I remember a lot of people of voting age who were republican complaining about Perot while the campaigns were going on. I also knew a lot of republicans who were torn between bush and perot. I dunno. I was like 12, so I could be wrong.

No, Llamas, I was :P-ing because I said the exact same thing 12 hours earlier!

:P

endlesst0m
11-20-2006, 10:02 PM
Libertarians believe in limited government all the way around. Therefore, they're fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Basically.What would you call someone who is fiscally liberal and socially conservative?

0r4ng3
11-20-2006, 10:03 PM
Whatever their name is!

lolololololol

endlesst0m
11-20-2006, 10:04 PM
Whatever their name is!

lolololololol

Why I oughtta clobber you.

JohnnyNemesis
11-20-2006, 10:07 PM
What would you call someone who is fiscally liberal and socially conservative?

An asshole.

DeAtHsTaR
11-20-2006, 10:17 PM
4. I've never noticed that about the "rightward" shift. As an Oregonian, I can tell you that you are certainly wrong.
Heh, all of Oregon EXCEPT for Klamath County is liberal, I swear. It's so conservative here. I'm a Libertarian so not that many in Oregon share my views.

Llamas
11-20-2006, 10:19 PM
so true... to jn.
lolz @ dain.

DeAtHsTaR
11-20-2006, 10:22 PM
This has to be a completely baseless conclusion...

Well, he has a BA in Finance...

DeAtHsTaR
11-20-2006, 10:26 PM
What would you call someone who is fiscally liberal and socially conservative?

A stain on society.

XYlophonetreeZ
11-20-2006, 10:27 PM
What would you call someone who is fiscally liberal and socially conservative?
I think "centrist" would be the proper term for them. You don't seem to see too many of them, although I could imagine that Quakers or some weird, old-fashioned religious people might fall in that region. And, ya know, Stalin.

Llamas
11-20-2006, 10:34 PM
Well, he has a BA in Finance...
Way to read my post at all and sound like a complete idiot (more).


However, I know quite a few business and finance people who are rather shy and nerdy... who are majorly liberal. You don't have to wear torn jeans and tops and announce your views to be a liberal anymore! I have a good friend who's very reserved and shy, and who never talks about her beliefs... who's a raging liberal. You honestly can't assume anything from personality.

Tigger Army
11-21-2006, 12:16 AM
And they'd do that how?

3rd parties spoil elections sometimes, no doubt. But libertarians wouldn't take away voters predominantly from a single side as much as, say, Ralph Nader. Ross Perot didn't spoil any elections, for instance.


Perot took votes away from GB.

I really fail to see how anyone can spoil elections by making use of the right to run for president. So what if these people take votes away from others, if only Bush would run all the votes would go to him, so Al Gore spoiled the elections too!

I'd personally would like to have something to choose between, and not necessarily two rightwinged people of which one is called a democrat and one a republican.

Ofcourse this is said by someone from a country with about 27 different political parties of which about 4-8 actually matter...

Llamas
11-21-2006, 01:12 AM
I really fail to see how anyone can spoil elections by making use of the right to run for president. So what if these people take votes away from others, if only Bush would run all the votes would go to him, so Al Gore spoiled the elections too!

I'd personally would like to have something to choose between, and not necessarily two rightwinged people of which one is called a democrat and one a republican.

Ofcourse this is said by someone from a country with about 27 different political parties of which about 4-8 actually matter...

I don't think anyone was actually serious about using the word "spoil". some people honestly do think that the third party candidates actually work for one of the two main candidates, though, and that it's some sort of deal set up, which is fucked up. Most people are more sane, though. It was more of just "it sucks that one candidate loses votes because of a third party".

wheelchairman
11-21-2006, 04:05 AM
old-fashioned religious people might fall in that region. And, ya know, Stalin.

Stalin was fiscally liberal....? dude wait..what?

ermdevi@tion
11-21-2006, 09:23 AM
I was going to question this too...someone who is fiscally liberal would be a free marketeer.

Surely someone who is fiscally liberal and socially conservative is the perfect description of what most of us would just call "conservatives" - defenders of the markets and upholders of tradition, resistant to social change.

I guess the confusion here may arise from the North American use of the term liberal to be synonymous with left wing?

Venom Symbiote
11-21-2006, 03:09 PM
Surely someone who is fiscally liberal and socially conservative is the perfect description of what most of us would just call "conservatives" - defenders of the markets and upholders of tradition, resistant to social change.

ie. Non-dreadlocked sane people?

wheelchairman
11-21-2006, 03:14 PM
ie. Non-dreadlocked sane people?

are you really that insecure?

JohnnyNemesis
11-21-2006, 03:17 PM
are you really that insecure?

He's already proven that he is.

Venom Symbiote
11-21-2006, 03:19 PM
Quite obviously.

ACYD
11-27-2006, 09:03 AM
I'm a big supporter of Third Parties, though I'm merely registered as an Independent. I hold most closely with the views of Libertarians, but there's a few minor issues we disagree about. I would say the Offspring have some very Libertarian attitudes, as does most punk. There are a lot fewer Anarchists than everyone likes to pretend.

endlesst0m
11-27-2006, 11:28 AM
I'm a big supporter of Third Parties, though I'm merely registered as an Independent. I hold most closely with the views of Libertarians, but there's a few minor issues we disagree about. I would say the Offspring have some very Libertarian attitudes, as does most punk. There are a lot fewer Anarchists than everyone likes to pretend.

That's interesting to me.You think most punk is Libertarian? I always thought it was mostly liberals and anarchists(most of the anarchists in the scene are simply ignorant).

ermdevi@tion
11-27-2006, 12:42 PM
Anarchists hold libertarian (with a small "l") views regarding social issues, and as such, agree with the social aspects to the Libertarian (with a capital "L") Party's policies.

ACYD
11-27-2006, 06:07 PM
I think a lot of punks like to pretend to be anarchists, but if it came down to literally having no government at all, which is what anarchism is all about, I doubt that many punks would actually like it that much.

Personally, I like having the government around just to have something to fight.

Little_Miss_1565
11-27-2006, 09:29 PM
Personally, I like having the government around just to have something to fight.

You should attribute quotes to their original speaker, you know.

ACYD
11-28-2006, 10:37 AM
I wasn't aware that that's a quote. It's a matter of truth for me and if someone else has said the same thing, well good for them. We're both right.

wheelchairman
11-28-2006, 11:16 AM
I wasn't aware that that's a quote. It's a matter of truth for me and if someone else has said the same thing, well good for them. We're both right.

You are a complete fucking tool.

ACYD
11-28-2006, 07:27 PM
I really don't know what you guys are talking about.

endlesst0m
11-28-2006, 09:31 PM
Anarchists hold libertarian (with a small "l") views regarding social issues, and as such, agree with the social aspects to the Libertarian (with a capital "L") Party's policies.

I see. But what about fiscal issues? I don't really know that much about politics yet, but I know that Republicans call for a "smaller" government with business and fiscal issues. So wouldn't that appeal to punks? That's why I don't get why punks hate Republicans so much, when they actually call for a smaller government.

endlesst0m
11-28-2006, 09:33 PM
I really don't know what you guys are talking about.

Everything has to be a fight with those fuckers, they won't even consider that you simply didn't know.

wheelchairman
11-29-2006, 01:04 AM
I really don't know what you guys are talking about.
Then why are you arguing?


Everything has to be a fight with those fuckers, they won't even consider that you simply didn't know.

It's not required to know anything. Pretending to know things and then trying to act smart, probably like what you do, is pathetic and easily revealed online. Don't be bitter about it, and certainly don't whine about your own shortcomings.

endlesst0m
11-29-2006, 09:38 AM
Then why are you arguing?



It's not required to know anything. Pretending to know things and then trying to act smart, probably like what you do, is pathetic and easily revealed online. Don't be bitter about it, and certainly don't whine about your own shortcomings.

You made that statement as if its a pure, unarguable fact that he was purposely "pretending" to know things. I honestly don't think he did, and I'm sure most other (non-belligerent) people would agree. Additionally, if by chance he subconsiously qouted something he's read before, it's no big deal(to people not obsessed with intellectual superiority). Furthermore, you're a jackass.

wheelchairman
11-29-2006, 09:47 AM
No, I'm saying you pretend to know things you moron. I've never seen this guy before.

endlesst0m
11-29-2006, 09:59 AM
Then why are you arguing?



It's not required to know anything. Pretending to know things and then trying to act smart, probably like what you do, is pathetic and easily revealed online. Don't be bitter about it, and certainly don't whine about your own shortcomings.


Ok wheelchairman, we'll all pretend that the above statement was directed towards somebody who hasn't even attempted to present ONE fact in the ENTIRE thread. Just for you.

Edit: What's even more hilarious than wheelchairman pretending that he was adressing me, is that only THREE POSTS AGO I wrote " I don't know that much about politics yet". Yet he still claims that I "pretend to know things".

wheelchairman
11-29-2006, 10:04 AM
But you continually act like you know what you're talking about, and only say you know jack shit when someone calls you on it. It's tiring and rather pathetic.