On Banning, Criticism, and Liberalism

[BainsBane]

I was engaged in a discussion about why some people mistake criticism with calls for banning. The question about distinctions of liberalism vs. libertarianism also emerged. Unfortunately, as I was writing my response, that thread was deleted, so I will post it here, along with some context for clarification.

Essentially the other thread, as best as I can recall, asked why people support banning of books and how they see resistance to banning as being libertarian as opposed to liberal.

I noted that people mistake dissent for calls for banning. They seem to think any criticism of anything related to sex is the same as banning. Every time anything related to sex is discussed, a good portion of members insist on bringing out the banning canard, when in fact no one that I've seen has promoted banning. I have to wonder why it is so many have trouble with dealing with dissent as actually articulated and why they time and time again ignore those arguments and instead create false charges of banning? I also noted that most of the criticisms made were not in fact about consensual sex but rape, or what they believed to be rape.

When scolded for refusing to address the question of libertarianism, I wrote this reply (before the thread was deleted). The OP seemed more interested in definitions of libertarian vs. liberal, whereas I was more concerned with substance of arguments being made.

Since most DUers do not describe themselves as libertarian. I choose to avoid such labels whenever possible. A strawman about banning has been set up. NO ONE has proposed banning. No one I have seen, and whenever I have asked for examples they provide none. The question is why is it that people cannot honestly deal with the arguments people make without falsely attributing entire positions people have not taken?

I choose to avoid such labels because people have such widely different understandings of them. As one poster noted, they serve to insult more than anything. However, someone did send me these definitions from Wikipedia:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the idea of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property.

Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies which advocate minimizing coercion and emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with significantly less government compared to most present day societies

.

I have encountered one person on DU who used the term libertarian to describe himself and insisted it could be a leftist ideology. That has not been my understanding, so I cannot speak to that point of view.

I think what is happening is that people have very different understandings of liberalism and ultimately maintain differing core values. Some focus to a large extent on the rights of the individual, while others care more about equal rights, on racial and gender equality in particular. It is my view that many are not aware of the extent to which their conception of liberty is bound by race, gender, and class. The emphasis on sex as inviolate is built around a male-gendered conception of rights in which women are extensions of male desire. Yes, many women maintain similar views, just as many poor people uphold the rights of the wealthy without understanding they undermine their own position in the process. The notion that everything in society having to do with sex is good and should never be criticized ignores the extent to which cultural representations serve the interests of capital and patriarchy. Rape, "elastic" notions of consent, and objectification are examples.

If you want to understand libertarianism or why someone calls others libertarian, you will need to engage with someone who uses that label.

NOTE: This is not an OP to discuss the much referenced book but rather the general ideas outlined above.

[betsuni]

1. I am going to ask this post to marry me.

I love it.

[BainsBane]

3. Aww. Thanks.

Hint: It likes tourmaline

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. off topic but, that is the oddest looking tourmaline I have ever seen or what is that?

[BainsBane]

6. It's an emerald cut green tourmaline

Have you only seen the pink ones?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. I don't think my computer is processing the picture correctly.

I am also thinking of yellow tourmaline ...

[BainsBane]

11. The one on the far right

Is like the one I posted, only darker.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. yes, but it does not look like that on my computer. It is very weird looking, rotating green stripes

it does not look like a rock/gemstone at all. very odd. but Yes the one in the lower left of the picture I posted is gorgeous and No, I don't think I have seen one like that.

I have seen the yellow and pinks.

I have a huge smoky quartz ring that looks a lot like the yellow one - alas, it is only smoky quartz *le sigh*

[Hekate]

12. My favorites are the Watermelon Tourmalines, but that one is gorgeous.

The watermelon stones are half green, half pink, with a silver tone.

Love your OP, btw. You articulate a lot of the problems with the current fights very well.

[BainsBane]

14. TY.

And yes. The watermelon are beautiful!

[randys1]

101. I prefer tanzanite

[link:|

[greatlaurel]

2. Outstanding post. Thank you.

[BainsBane]

16. Thanks very much.

Kind of you to say so.

[kickitup]

4. Some conflate criticism with banning because they ...

argue that criticism is a way to achieve banishment without actually calling for it. Banishment by subterfuge.

Or at least I think that's what they are arguing.

As if those being critical wouldn't be brave enough to just come right out and state their true aim.

If I want something banned, I'll say I do.

But it's funny because this tactic of conflating criticism with banning is what the right does in regard to gun control. One can't make any criticism of guns or gun culture without a chicken little crying how "they are going to take all our guns."

[BainsBane]

7. Have you seen people here argue that

People really want to ban things but are afraid to say so, and they thus use criticism by proxy?

[kickitup]

30. No, I haven't seen that argument. I have seen the argument that enough criticism will . . .

effectively result in banning. I don't know whether the people making that argument believe the people criticizing are expressly working in a round about way to achieve the banning, or if they think banning via criticism is more a case of an unintended consequence.

[BainsBane]

34. Check out the posts

down thread about discussions of rape culture making people feel guilty.

Oh, also I think you'll find this interesting. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125548526

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. very astute obsevation and analogy/comparison with what is going on around here. n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. I think the problem is that we have lost the ability be dispassionate and

to exercise critical thinking. It is not entirely accidental that we have degenerated to such a degree. The hardest part for me to understand is why anyone has allegiance to an ideal. As if our ideology controls us and not the other way around and because it does control many of us, discourse and discussion have little use. Personally I find myself pulling away from it all. You want to talk, discuss, but you can't, you have to get it, or get lost. You desire a discussion with people who so often inisist there is nothing to discuss.

k&r btw.

[BainsBane]

15. It seems you are right

It's a function of your political culture generally, the division of media, the intense partisan divide.

Here what I believe we see is that some encounter a view they disagree with, read no further and decide to project on to others what they imagine their views to be. When confronted with the actual discussion, they refuse to engage (self-deleting a thread, for example). It's easier to counter a stereotype than a more nuanced argument, so they opt for the former.

[Puzzledtraveller]

65. Spot on.

[kickitup]

37. Yes, and some mistake attempts to exercise critical thinking as personal attacks.

And while I hate to bring up FSOG and BDSM again as I don't want this thread to be hijacked, I think one should be able to discuss the sexual politics of BDSM without being accused of thinking certain practices are abnormal.

Is it really that hard for some to understand that a person could think, "My desire to be submissive in sex may be the result of an internalization of patriarchal ideology, but that's okay because I have personal agency and can choose to behave however I want in bed, because after all, we're people, and people act certain ways sometimes due to things that are beyond their control, like the ideology of the culture they grew up in."

I don't understand why it is threatening to people to attempt to place human behavior in a greater context and ask why we do the things we do. Asking why is not the same as saying something is abnormal. It's also not saying that a certain behavior needs to stop.

I hope that makes sense. I'm tired and can't sleep.

[Puzzledtraveller]

64. perfect sense

What occurs in each of us is a mystery even to ourselves. Perhaps many do not want to delve deep for fear what they may encounter. I'm highly introspective and endeavor to understand why I think how I do, react in the ways I do, feel what I feel and knowing that I am always changing. I think many fear such an exercise, ego is strong and will do and create what it must to protect it's reality.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Dissent isn't calling for a ban, but...

Would you agree that if a very angry group of people claimed a book was part of "rape culture", and claim that people who don't "get it" are THE problem, and further that it doesn't need to be explained... it shames a person who wants to read the thing and stops all discussion?

It may not be a call for a ban, per se, but it's a terrible attack against those who would read it with a side order of "your exactly the problem, rape culture lover!"

[BainsBane]

18. I haven't seen such a post

Could you provide links?

I have seen people talk about it as part of rape culture, but I haven't seen posts blaming people for reading it.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. "It's part of 'Rape Culture', but it's fine if you read it"

Do you not think that sentence is a non-sequetor?

Wouldn't reading it be participating in "rape culture"?

[BainsBane]

20. Oh, so you object to their discussing it as part of rape culutre

because you feel guilty and that's their fault?

[MannyGoldstein]

21. I don't feel guilty at all.

But many people, if told by a group that a book was part of "rape culture", would feel condemned if they read the book. Would that be unreasonable?

And of course, if they wanted to discuss whether it's truly something that promotes rape, that would be difficult if they're told that not "getting it" proves that *they* promote rape, and that nothing needs to be explained.

Do these scenarios sound unfamiliar to you? I'm off to sleep now, but can provide examples in the AM if you ask.

[BainsBane]

25. So the fact that some people MIGHT feel guility

Means that others shouldn't discuss their ideas that it is part of rape culture? What happened to free speech?

[Sheldon Cooper]

38. Bazinga.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. I'm saying that it's strange to claim "we have zero interest in banning this"

When you're fighting hard to stop people from reading it.

Given that freedom of speech is a bedrock principle in the US, nobody but the fringe-iest fringe would call for actual banning. But some folks will push as close as they can to a functional ban by fiercely attacking the readers of a book with all kinds of terrible, terrible insults. How the recipient deals with those terrible insults is a whole different conversation.

[kickitup]

55. Are people attacking the book or the readers?

I think there is a huge difference. Plus, as a reader, I'll read what I want and would not even consider other people's outrage about a text as a reason not to read it.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. It can be tough to separate the two

The accusation has been made on DU, repeatedly, that "50 Shades" is part of "Rape Culture". Assuming the "Rape Culture" promotes rape, it's implicit that by reading "50 Shades" one is complicit with promoting rape. Seems to me that this is a pretty awful thing to accuse a person of.

[BainsBane]

62. By your standard

There is very little we can say since your desire to not see anything that might make you feel uncomfortable trumps the rest of our right to speech. That is a pretty sad defense of free speech. In fact it's an attack on speech.

[alp227]

100. So criticism is not ok if it risks harm of reputation,

like the accusations of 50 Shades being rape culture? I'm not convinced that's an instance where criticism heads the slippery slope to censorship.

[treestar]

120. Censorship is where the

Government can punish people for reading it. No one advocates that. Probably because in the US such a law could not be upheld due to the First Amendment

[treestar]

119. So?

One has freedom of speech no? Answer the accusation or ignore it. Nobody is banned from saying anything

[BainsBane]

60. "Fighting hard to stop people from reading it"

Another absurd argument. I could care less what people read. When asked to provide evidence of that before, you had none.


"But some folks will push as close as they can to a functional ban by fiercely attacking the readers of a book with all kinds of terrible, terrible insults." Insults are not nice, if they indeed occurred, but they are still covered by freedom of speech. I can tell you I have been met with all kinds of insults for expressing my views on this and I never equated that with a ban. You maintain the absurd view that freedom of speech is supposed to make you feel good about yourself, to affirm your view of the world and your taste in books, whereas not saying anything what makes you uncomfortable. That tells me you are in fact hostile to free speech and actually oppose it. You give a whole host of excuses for why the free speech of others is actually a "ban," because it doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. That you can't see that you are actually opposing what you claim to support truly is unfortunate.

[treestar]

118. Trying to stop people from reading it

Is perfectly fine. They can be persuaded not to read or not. It's not banned.

[kickitup]

22. This is what I was talking about in the post above.

But it works the other way as well. Someone wants to talk about rape culture, perhaps saying a certain book is a part of the problem. Others dissent, saying that person is a prude or is guilty of taking away personal agency or whatever. That's also a terrible attack that can shame a person.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Agreed.

Respect is needed, and is sorely lacking.

[BainsBane]

63. The first and most basic aspect of respect

Is actually engaging with people's arguments as they are rather than continually accusing them of positions they did not take.

[Squinch]

40. You are saying that the statement "this (book/movie/act) is part of the rape culture"

is tantamount to banning because the person reading/watching/doing might see their action in a light which brings them shame, and therefore they will stop doing it. Thus it is now banned.

I believe what you are calling "shaming" and describing as a sort of banning through shaming is actually what is called "argument." If it makes people rethink their love of the book/movie/act and no longer make them want to engage with it because they realize there are elements to it that they do not like, that is called "effective argument."

Equating it to banning requires the belief that the person making the argument has agency over the person hearing the argument. None of us here is magic. None of us here is your mother. Equating it to banning, therefore, is ridiculous. Change your behavior or don't change your behavior, feel shame in the face of the argument or don't feel shame, it is up to you. If you feel differently, you should examine why you imagine that others have more power over you than they actually do.

I am often given the flip side of the rape culture argument (which says: "that's just prudery, you fun police, you!&quot . That is an "ineffective argument." It is not based on anything that is true about me, so there is no shame to me in having that hurled at me.

If those who insist that there is nothing to see here but prudery are frustrated with the fact that they feel shame in the face of the argument of rape culture, perhaps what they need to do is come up with a better argument to defend their position. Or, if they can't find an argument that makes them more comfortable with their position, perhaps they need to reexamine their position.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. No.

I'm saying that it's a strange argument to say "We're fighting as hard as we can to stop anyone from reading this, but that's totally different from wanting to ban it - how dare you accuse of us of that?" Yes, accusing people of furthering serious crime by reading a book is technically different than wanting to ban the book, but it's not *that* much different it comes from the same place, a belief that the book is very, very bad for people.

[Squinch]

45. Again, this argument requires that you believe that those making the statement have magical powers.

That they have control over the actions of the people hearing the argument, and control over the way the argument makes the hearers feel.

And to say that this argument is the one shutting down the discussion requires you to believe there is more shaming embedded in the statement "you are contributing to rape culture" than there is in "you are a prude, you are a book banner, you are the fun police, you are censoring me."

It is a strange argument, too, to say, "You are not allowed to say those things because they are censoring me and making me feel shame."

If the argument is making people see things in the book/movie/act that they didn't see before, then, again, the argument is an effective one.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. You're assuming that I'm making an argument that I'm not making

My argument is simply that it's strange to claim that such behaviors come from a different place than calls for banning books. If one attacks a book, particularly if they attack it by trying to shame the would-be reader by leveling awful charges against the readers e.g., "you're furthering rape", then they clearly see the book as a terrible danger, no?

And that's the same sentiment used to ban books - that the books are dangerous.

[Squinch]

52. I see guns as terribly dangerous. I don't want to ban them. I do want the people who use them to

know what damage they can do. My attitude is, have your gun but don't point it at me, and if your gun is ever (again) pointed at me, I want there to be a culture of non-acceptance of that behavior to back me up. A culture that doesn't see that as business as usual, but that has lots of laws and mores to protect me from it. I argue for those laws and mores.

My attitude toward this is: Understand what you are defending and furthering here. Clearly many here do not. Understand the attitudes that it fosters. Understand that those attitudes are inextricably linked to normalization of the abuse of women, the treatment of women as a second class, and to the fact that something more than a quarter of women are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Understand that we do not readily accept depictions of the same abusive treatment of men in entertainment media or in real life as is being portrayed here. And when I point out these things, don't take that as "the fun police" ruining your fun. Understand that even the use of the phrase "the fun police" in relation to this subject is explicit proof of what I am talking about.

Yes, I think the book furthers rape culture. Just like the NRA literature and republican glorification of the gun cause gun deaths. I feel those are attitudes that need to be shown up and argued against wherever they arise. And if I run into the argument, "that's just prudery" or "guns don't kill people, people kill people," I know I'm dealing with an ignorance that needs to be argued against harder.

No, I don't want to ban it. I would love for there to come a day when everyone reads it and says, "Can you believe people ever felt it was acceptable or entertaining to abuse women?"

[BainsBane]

79. Excellent response

Especially this:

Understand that we do not readily accept depictions of the same abusive treatment of men in entertainment media or in real life as is being portrayed here. And when I point out these things, don't take that as "the fun police" ruining your fun. Understand that even the use of the phrase "the fun police" in relation to this subject is explicit proof of what I am talking about.

Thank you.

[Squinch]

46. Also, I disagree with your interpretation of this. Instead of saying, "we're fighting as hard as we

can to stop anyone from reading it," I think those you disagree with are saying, "we're fighting as hard as we can to make people see what it is actually depicting, and to see that it is a product of an attitude that says it is OK to abuse women."

[MannyGoldstein]

49. They are claiming that the book furthers criminal activity.

Is your argument "Just so you know, this furthers criminal activity, but we're fine with you reading it"?

[Squinch]

54. And here we are back at the old discussion about the fact that rape culture is different from rape.

Which I am sure you are perfectly well versed in, and we don't need to review it here.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. "Rape Culture" doesn't encourage rape?

Is that your claim?

[Squinch]

57. Oh, Manny, you're going to do this old thing, aren't you?

Is it weird for me to say, "Bill O'Reilly is contributing to a culture in which the poor are ground down into an impossible existence, and I hate his positions, and I think anyone who reads Bill O'Reilly's books is an idiot" while at the same time not calling for a ban on Bill O'Reilly's books? Do you think his books are beneficial to our society? If not, are you calling for their banning? If not, is that weird? Feel free to respond with a tedious semantic argument about the relative criminality of Bill O'Reilly vs. rape.

Yes. Rape culture encourages rape. Hence the name. We live in a culture in which rape is encouraged through attitudes that make it acceptable, commonplace, and "entertaining."

Would I banish rape culture if I could with the wave of a magic wand? Yes I would.

Do I think this book furthers rape culture? Well, let's see: does it depict rape in a way that is meant to be entertaining and acceptable? I think it does.

Do I think banning this book would help to banish rape culture? No. On the contrary. I think this book is one of those things that very clearly shows us what rape culture is. It gives us a chance to have this discussion with some really creepy descriptions of abuse of a woman being used as entertainment right at our fingertips.

We are talking about rape culture right now because of this book. Even if you are, disappointingly, just looking for a clever way to trip me up, you are talking about it. You are more aware of it than you were before the awful feminists here pointed it out to you. You are probably less accepting of it than you used to be, whether you know it or not.

So. Yes. I think it contributes to rape culture. No, I don't think it should be banned. No, I don't think that is contradictory.

[Sheldon Cooper]

58. Brava!!!

I love watching you and Bane handing Manny's ass to him.

[redqueen]

61. Seconded.

[betsuni]

66. Thirded.

Extremely satisfying.

[Bobbie Jo]

67. FYI

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:12 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Brava!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5311038

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack. This "cliquish" behavior should not be allowed.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 30, 2014, 07:27 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, manny. This is not only fine....it's accurate.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Don't see how this is a personal attack. It is commenting on the success of the various arguments. I also don't see how it is "cliquish", either.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Attack opinions, not people.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Some of the earlier posts by others were more offensive in my opinion
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[Sheldon Cooper]

69. Hahaha!!

That's funny! Thanks.

[redqueen]

70. Wow. That is the most pathetic alert I've ever seen.

And they actually had three people on the jury who agreed with them!



It's interesting that they keep referring to cliques.

[Bobbie Jo]

71. Interesting use of "cliquish" but

but mostly, ironic as hell.

[BainsBane]

84. clique, swarm

More than one woman agreeing. That cannot abide.

[mokawanis]

109. I would have voted to hide that comment

on the basis that it's just mean and nasty. Mean people suck, and I don't enjoy reading their snark.

[BainsBane]

82. I cannot rise to Squinch's greatness

she is the Queen.

[Squinch]

89. Oh, no. You can't say that. This point has been made by all of us, for a long time. We all

just rephrase it from time to time.

Long may we all reign!

[historylovr]

83. Bravo!

[kickitup]

68. If that is the argument, I don't see a problem with it.

[BainsBane]

78. You are missing the point

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

People are not fighting to stop others from reading it. They are voicing their concerns. Those are not the same thing at all.

You also fail to understand how culture, let alone rape culture, works. The point is not that reading a book causes someone to rape. Rape culture is a broader set of beliefs and behaviors in which rape is excused and victims vilified. There are many aspects to rape culture, but one that this novel may convey is the idea of rape as a form of seduction. (This is what I garner from excerpts, if wrong, so be it. It is only an example) Grey breaks into the woman's house, without her consent, and proceeds to compel her to have sex. She ends up wanting him. That is a common trope in film and fiction, and that idea that a woman can be seduced by force is part of rape culture. There are similar scenes in Game of Thrones. I watch and enjoy GoT and don't feel even slightly guilty about it. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of the cultural messages contained in it. The same with a whole host of thrillers I watch. I love me a serial killer story. Those things are full of misogyny. So whether you want to enjoy 50 Shades of Grey is your business. Holding us responsible for your feelings is ridiculous. You and you alone own them. The idea that we should refrain from engaging in cultural criticism because it might make you feel bad is ridiculous on many levels. It assumes your rights trump ours, that your right to never be exposed to uncomfortable ideas trumps our right to speech. It thus violates the principles of free speech you say you value.

[historylovr]

88. Also an excellent response!

It's worth noting that here in these posts you and Squinch have replied to so brilliantly we have a perfect example of just what you said in #15, about people projecting onto others what they think your views are.

[BainsBane]

98. But I give him credit for at least being direct about it

and engaging us rather than snickering in other threads about "prudes" who are afraid of sex.

[Squinch]

99. Yes. I have a lot of respect for his willingness to do that.

[kickitup]

103. Bravo!

[betsuni]

50. I want to marry all your comments, too.

"None of us is your mother." I think this is important.

[Squinch]

53. I think it is the thing crawling around at the base of the issue.

[BainsBane]

85. This discussion is the best evidence of that I've seen thus far

The whole guilt thing.

[tblue37]

111. People who feel shamed about wanting to read it can simply

order it quietly online and hide it from everyone who might raise their eyebrows at them. They are not being prevented from reading it if they want to, and they don't have to tell anyone that they have.

[treestar]

117. Why can't we argue

That we think porn is a bad thing for society? We know it can't be banned. But we have a right to argue that it has a bad influence on views of women.

If someone feels ashamed that is their problem. They are free to argue it is not harmful but they don't so that but feel ashamed? They should examine why they feel that way

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. I have no idea who that person is, but they are very clearly ignorant.

"Libertarian" means "one who advocates liberty", most frequently construed as "civil liberty". Things like the First Amendment to the US Constitution are, in fact, profoundly libertarian in this sense. "Libertarian" in the sense of "intellectually and morally stunted Ayn Rand acolyte who'd like to see the widespread implementation of industrial serfdom" is a much later hijacking of the term by those Randians, and it's a sense of "libertarian" that's generally unknown or unused outside the United States. There is in fact such a thing as left-libertarianism (Noam Chomsky for instance identifies as a libertarian socialist). Further irony for ignorant unnamed, there, libertarian socialist political philosophy is in fact interested in questions of the intersections of things like race and gender with power.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. isn't there a Libertarian Party with a Platform etal

The Libertarian Party is an American national political party that reflects, represents and promotes the ideas and philosophies of libertarianism (freedom as a political end) and free-market, laissez-faire capitalism (no government interference in economy).[7] The Libertarian Party was formed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the home of David F. Nolan on December 11, 1971.[8] The founding of the party was prompted in part due to concerns about the Vietnam War, conscription, and the end of the gold standard.[9] Although there is not an explicitly-labeled "left" or "right" designation of the party, many members, such as 2012 presidential nominee Gary Johnson, state that they are more socially liberal than the Democrats, but more fiscally conservative than the Republicans. The party has generally promoted a classical liberal platform, in contrast to the social liberal and progressive platform of the Democrats and the more conservative platform of the Republicans.[10] Current policy positions include lowering taxes,[11] allowing people to opt-out of Social Security,[12] abolishing welfare,[13] ending the prohibition of illegal drugs,[14] and supporting gun ownership rights.[15]

In the 30 states where voters can register by party, there is a combined total of 330,811 voters registered under the party.[16] By this count the Libertarian Party is the third-largest party by membership in the United States and it is the third-largest political party in the United States in terms of the popular vote in the country's elections and number of candidates run per election. Due to this, it has been labelled by some as the United States' third-largest political party.[17] It is also identified by many as the fastest growing political party in the United States.[18][dated info]

Hundreds of Libertarian candidates have been elected or appointed to public office, and thousands have run for office under the Libertarian banner.[19][20][21] The Libertarian Party has many firsts to its credit, such as being the party under which the first electoral vote was cast for a woman in a United States presidential election, due to a faithless elector.[22] The party has also seen electoral success in state legislative races. Three Libertarians were elected in Alaska between 1978 and 1984, with another four elected in New Hampshire in 1992.[23][24]

Platform
The preamble outlines the party's goal: "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others." Its Statement of Principles begins: "We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual." The platform emphasizes individual liberty in personal and economic affairs, avoidance of "foreign entanglements" and military and economic intervention in other nations' affairs, and free trade and migration. It calls for Constitutional limitations on government as well as the elimination of most state functions. It includes a "Self-determination" section which quotes from the Declaration of Independence and reads: "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty." It also includes an "Omissions" section which reads: "Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval."[36]

This includes favoring minimally regulated markets, a less powerful federal government, strong civil liberties (including LGBT rights), the legal abolition of marriage (but, should it not be abolished, the party supports same-sex marriage), the liberalization of drug laws, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations, free trade and free movement to all foreign countries, and a more representative republic.[36] The party's position on abortion is that government should stay out of the matter and leave it to the individual, but recognizes that some libertarians' opinions on this issue are different. Ron Paul, one of the former leaders of the Libertarian Party, is strictly pro-life, but believes that that is an issue that should be left to the states and not enforced federally. Meanwhile Gary Johnson, the party's 2012 presidential candidate, is pro-choice.

The Libertarian Party has also supported the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, and similar trade agreements, as well as the United States' exit from the World Trade Organization and



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. You'd note that I addressed that in my post, if you'd bothered to read it (n/t)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. Sorry, but, that is not how I read your post. you address some ideals but I see nothing about

the actual LIBERTARIAN PARTY.

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. Except I did:

"Libertarian" in the sense of "intellectually and morally stunted Ayn Rand acolyte who'd like to see the widespread implementation of industrial serfdom" is a much later hijacking of the term by those Randians, and it's a sense of "libertarian" that's generally unknown or unused outside the United States.

I am sorry you can't read.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. I am sorry you do not say The Libertarian Party of which there very much is one in The United States

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. It's very heavily implied.

Who did you think I was referring to when I said "Ayn Rand acolytes"? The Rotary Club?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

86. thank you. subtle and, too little too late but, thanks anyway. done here. peace out. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

91. Rude. But, carry on.

[BainsBane]

31. Yes, but the question implied was what DUers mean when they say libertarian

and as Americans, they typically mean it as a right-wing laissez fair approach to government, the economy, and society.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. This is important to me because The Libertarian Party is recognized in my state.

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. Or they mean it as "civil libertarian".

[deutsey]

42. I share your understanding of the word

The way language is fluid and evolves over time and the way terms are often hijacked and distorted make it very difficult to discuss how we identify ourselves any more.

"Liberal," "libertarian," "anarchist," "socialist," "fascist"...we throw these words around and think we understand what we're saying, but someone else will inevitably define them differently from what we mean.

It's very frustrating when I have to explain to a conservative (and even to some liberals) that "socialism" is not just another word for Soviet Communism or that Hitler was not left wing because "socialist" is in the name of the party he led. Same with anarchism. In terms of politics, anarchy is not a synonym for "chaos," yet I've had to lay out its historical meaning to liberals and conservatives alike.

In my darker moments, it seems like these words are intentionally being obfuscated in order to thwart meaningful dialogue. In my lighter moments, it all seems, like in The Big Lebowski, that we're always going to misunderstand each other to some extent.

"Is that some kind of Eastern thing?" says the Dude, referring to Asian philosophy.

"Far from it, Dude," says the cowboy Stranger, thinking he means something from the eastern U.S.

Like Walter says of Donny in the film: We have no common frame of reference any more and are like children who wander into the middle of a movie when we try to discuss them...

[get the red out]

39. I agree

Discussion is limited by accusations of banning, it the loaded questions like "how do expect to ban it?" I have seen thi in numerous message boards on numerous topics. I think it why some posts get next to no comments and certain groups reflect only the very opposite if their names.

[el_bryanto]

44. That seems reasonable to me - you get used to your conditions

And you think they are normal. It's pretty natural, and happens to everybody, on both the right and the left. So you think that the liberties you enjoy are the same liberties everybody is enjoying - unless you rigorously look at the world and how things are really working out for people in other conditions.

Bryant

[PowerToThePeople]

48. I believe in banning

BAN ALL GUNS!!!

see?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. There's a lot of intellectual dishonesty floating around.

People take what you write, and then proclaim you actually mean something entirely different and far worse, on a variety of topics, as it suits their own agenda and worldview. Even when you clarify, they insist you mean something else, and imply that you're simply lying, and that your position is the far more extreme position they pretend you hold.

[historylovr]

92. +1.

[L0oniX]

72. "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, ...

... not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." - Abbie Hoffman

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Straight culture banned all LGBT culture for decades in the US, criminalized it in fact.

Straight people should therefore tread very lightly when they decide to take stances against any form of art. Straight people have in fact been known to arrest and jail people for writing words, particularly gay words. Ask Ginsberg. Ask Burroughs.
Thus, when they might have a legitimate area of discussion, it is inherent upon them as a people who have done great wrongs with heavy handed and dogmatic oppression of creative arts and cultural differences, to arrive at the subject matter mindfully, aware of their own cultural failings. Because straight folks should be assumed to be seeking to impose their standards until such time as they stop doing so under the law, religion and literature they produce.
Fact is censorship of literature has been one of the international Straight Culture's most useful tools in oppressing LGBT equality. So straight folks who are into that sort of thing make me very nervous.

[BainsBane]

74. If art can't be crtiicized or discussed

Its meaning is erased. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum outside of society. If we only look at it and never engage with it, we reduce its importance to nothing more than an object.

NO ONE here is advocating banning of the 50 Shades book. In fact I would strongly oppose it. To equate a discussion of rape culture with banning is to repress free speech.

I will also note that the same gendered conception of rights I discussed is heteronormative. The first paper in this panel discusses sexual violence and social reproduction as related to capital and how it is produces normative gender roles and heteronormativity; the two nearly always go together. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125548526

[Bluenorthwest]

75. None of what you are saying relates to anything I said.

I said nothing about not discussing nor about not criticizing, nor did I mention your Straight Book of the Month. Nor did I equal a discussion of rape culture with banning.
I spoke of Straight Culture, the use of artistic repression to oppress sexual and other minority groups, and the fact that Straight people should always be mindful of their cultural past when they engage in these discussions.
I noted that I personally do not have a large amount of trust in Straight Culture around these issues. I noted reasons for that.
I do not need you to speak for me nor to rewrite me. If you are flummoxed for an actual response, don't make one.

[BainsBane]

76. I see. My mistake

Straight people should therefore tread very lightly when they decide to take stances against any form of art

I interpreted stance as meaning discussion.

I thought your post related to my OP. Naturally I assumed it did. Sorry to interrupt your monologue.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. An urging to use care and respect when discussing is not the same as saying 'don't discuss' and

that is as clear as can be. Your desire to 'interpret' should be replaced by a desire to hear what was actually said.
Nothing I said called for snark that you are delivering. It was a call for respect, mindfulness and self awareness in a cultural context.

[BainsBane]

80. You can't be serious

You clearly have no awareness of how your posts come off.

[snooper2]

87. oh jeez we have gender cultures now? LOL

I'm going to start something new called Brown Eye Culture...


We even have our theme song!

[Zorra]

96. Brown eyes and blue eyes Racism experiment:

Yes there are gender cultures, sexual orientation cultures, race cultures, ethnic cultures, national cultures, etc.

Even cheese cultures.

Ever been to a gay bar? They are different from straight bars.

Wanna know why?

Because no one in a gay bar hates LGBT people, or treats us like we are unusual.

[BainsBane]

97. You might want to pick up a cultural anthropology text book sometime

Because there are all kinds of cultures, and the concept is far from new.

[hifiguy]

81. A superb point, which you made most eloquently.

[seaglass]

93. Hope you are well. I noticed you were gone for about a year and was concerned. Even if we don't

connect or agree on much.

[hifiguy]

95. Muddled through some very bad times

and a trip to look at an opportunity in China that turned out to be a disaster last summer. Definitely on the uptick these days. Sane, healthy and a roof over my head. The rest will get worked through in time. As opinionated, snarky and hyperlogical as ever, though.

[ismnotwasm]

90. Beautiful.

Point so clear I could cut myself on it. And the single reason I may put off my planned DU break for today is to see what happens here.

[BainsBane]

94. Wow. That's high praise

Thank you. Your contributions always add a great deal.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. Great OP ...

It is my view that many are not aware of the extent to which their conception of liberty is bound by race, gender, and class. The emphasis on sex as inviolate is built around a male-gendered conception of rights in which women are extensions of male desire.

Great observation!

That is what many of us have tried to communicate in our familial gender/racial/LGBT wars ... when one's conception of liberty is rooted in/viewed from a status quo that oppresses others; one would be wise to listen ... or, stop claiming "liberalism."

[BainsBane]

106. Thanks

I suppose it's difficult for people who haven't been on the outside to imagine that what they assume to be absolute rights for themselves could exclude others. When confronted with that, they can become hostile.

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. Yes.They.Do. eom.

[99Forever]

104. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[BainsBane]

105. Protest about what, 99?

What exactly do you take exception to?

[99Forever]

107. It's self explanatory. n/t

[BainsBane]

110. What's evident

Is that you don't appear to have a substantive point about the OP.

[99Forever]

112. No mam.

What's evident is that you can't accept that anyone not agree with you 100%.

[BainsBane]

113. Just trying to figure out what it is you disagree with.

For some reason, you refuse to say.

[99Forever]

114. It's just not that difficult.

Perhaps if you were to look inward for a change, instead of constantly pointing fingers and assigning guilt to anyone who dares to not knuckle under to your uncivil barrages, you might actually gain some insight.

[BainsBane]

115. You don't want to engage.

Fair enough. There is clearly nothing uncivl in my OP. It is an intellectual exchange of a subject matter. That doesn't interest you, which is your perogative. Projecting and free-association, however, don't cut it.

If you do think something in this OP is uncivil, I would appreciate knowing what that is, and why. If not, well . . . I'll just chaulk it up to same old, same old.

[treestar]

116. Yes the banning straw man

Comes up almost immediately.

[BainsBane]

121. It's easier to project a false argument

that deal with a real one, I guess.