Why such animosity toward libertarians?

[Bloodblister Bob]

I'm a "small l" libertarian. Along with my personal comments about topics here, I occasionally post links in DU to anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-corporate welfare, etc., articles which I find on sites which are more or less libertarian in nature.

About half the responses to such posts contain vitriolic comments about libertarians and libertarian thought. I'm very curious why this is, for libertarians and liberals have so much in common.

As I see it, the main difference between us is that liberals believe that if only big government was controlled by the "right" people, everything would be okay; libertarians, on the other hand, see less government as the solution.

We all loathe Bush and the war, we are all pro-choice, we are all against corporate welfare, we all think polluters should be held accountable, we all hate the police state... the list goes on and on.

It sort of breaks my heart, really, that libertarians are met with hostility in these forums. Shouldn't we all pull together now?

[nickinSTL]

1. polluters should be held accountable?

By whom?

Libertarians, as I understand it, are against government intervention...in most areas, and would want polluters to answer to 'market forces'...which doesn't really work, IMO.

For me, libertarians are fine on social issues, but the fact is, libertarian philosophy would require much less regulation of corporations and industry than I think is necessary to protect the public/consumers.

[Bloodblister Bob]

3. Libertarians support government intervention...

..when rights and/or property are violated. Polluters violate both.

[hatrack]

11. And if people owned the sky and the ocean, your approach would work

They don't, and it doesn't.

[Bloodblister Bob]

68. People don't have to "own" the sky to prosecute polluters...

Libertarians don't think that, and firmly believe that pollution should not be permitted. It violates the rights and property of everyone.

[Capn Sunshine]

18. Further, property rights are supreme

Libertarians believe what you do on or with your PRIVATE PROPERTY is solely up to you. This includes environmental degradation if you so choose.

Just as long as no one else is affected.

Think Rain Forest, miles from any humans.

[Bloodblister Bob]

26. Libertarians know polluting the land effects others. n/t

[nickinSTL]

53. YOU might...

most libertarians don't seem to get that.

[Le Taz Hot]

89. After billions of dollars allocated to the clean-up fund . . .

are they accountable now? It's one thing to fund a program, quite another to ensure the monies go to their intended purpose. In government, it rarely does. That's why corporate whore politicians are purchased -- so they'll look the other way while the American Treasury is being looted.

[Realityhack]

124. Sorry but...

I don't think you are on sound ground saying our governments money 'RARELY' goes to ints intended purpose. Our government is probobly one of the most efficent in the world.

[bowens43]

2. I've always seen Libertarians as

nothing more then heartless republicans. They oppose taxes, they oppose assistance for the poor, they oppose regulation of corporations, they oppose labor unions, they oppose social security, they oppose medicare etc etc.

There a few things we agree on but IMO they are few and far between.

[Bloodblister Bob]

9. What is more "heartless" than the state?

Libertarians support taxes to accomplish the legitimate function of government, which is the protection of individual rights and property.

Libertarians do not oppose helping the poor, they simply think that the Federal Government is not the best means to accomplish that task, New Orleans after Katrina being the latest example. Those who depended upon and trusted in the State were the ones who got screwed.

Libertarians would sever the unholy alliance between corporations and the State, which makes often makes "regulation" little more than a charade.

I've never heard a libertarian say they opposed labor unions. Libertarians believe in the right to freely associate.

Social Security is a mess; I think we all can agree on that. As for Medicare and kindred programs, I think we should all think very hard about letting politicians control our health and well-being.

[Mountainman]

20. the ones who got screwed. They got screwed because of the Bush

administration. If a liberal administration were in power they would never have been screwed and no other entity but the government has the resources to take care of such an overwhelming disaster.

[Bloodblister Bob]

28. If only the right people controlled things, we'd all be okay?

C'mon, you can't really believe that.

[Mountainman]

30. Yes I do. In my world selfishness would be rewarded by being

banished from the group and you can fend for yourself while the rest of us build a better world.

[Bloodblister Bob]

34. Would you banish the "selfish" to a gulag? Scary sentiments, my friend.

[Mountainman]

55. No I would just leave you to your own libertarian world

You can't win a debate by demonizing the opposition. That's what Bush and Cheney do.

I look around and ask myself, what kind of a world would I like to live in? One were people cared about each other and about social justice or the world of libertarians and conservatives. If I had my way we could all live in the kind of world we wanted. That way you could live with your libertarians and have you private property and all and I would live in my world were we all worked to make a better quality of life for ourselves.

[Cats Against Frist]

106. People can just as easily care about other without an

overarching, bureaucratic state. Do you think that's where caring starts, or in the individual?

[Mountainman]

133. The state is made up of individuals.

It starts with an individual who meets up with another and forms a government and promotes the common good.

[Cats Against Frist]

105. No, Selfishness is rewarded by allowing the selfish to BUY your system

and still make you believe that it works.

[Realityhack]

127. LOL... and you think a market based system would REDUCE that?

Holly shit man. The only check real check on the power of the selfish IS the government. Thats why they work so hard to try to controll it.

[Cats Against Frist]

148. Hey -- it's what the neocons believe, almost verbatim.

:puke: :hi:

[Mountainman]

22. You have no answers to these problems other than "no big government"

That's what I mean. If you were president you would just turn your back on these problems saying it isn't the governments job to take care if them. You never have a workable solution to the problems, you just walk away from them saying it isn't your business. Screw that!

[Armstead]

23. Charity is fine as far as it goes, but it isn;t the only answer

The problem with leaving social services and the safety net totally at the mercy of the private sector is that it skews the ability to truly do the job.

A lot of people would willingly pony up to help some cute orphan victim of circumstances. But how many would support, say, mnental health services for people whose condition makes them very unpleasant.

Or the stereotype of the Welfare Queen who "pumps out babies while sitting on her fat butt all day." The problem is that such stereotypes have been used to distort the real problems faced by many mothers who are trapped by circumstances.

And if teher were a charity to support a local sewer system, how many peopel would really support that, even though it is a basic necessity?

[Bloodblister Bob]

42. Libertarians know that the state needs to help some people...

No libertarian I know denies that circumstances necessitate that the state provide assistance to some.

The "Welfare Queen" became a stereotype because of the abuses of the system which are encouraged by bureaucrats who make a living off it. They are the true parasites, not the ignorant (in the best sense of the word) welfare recipients.

[Jai4WKC08]

51. So you would banish bureaucrats to a gulag?

The government of a country with almost 300,000,000 people cannot run without bureaucrats. Some may abuse their positions, but to call them all parasites is absurdly unfair. They provide necessary services the same as any other worker. Most work pretty hard for not a lot of pay, and certainly no hope of ever being rich.

[ieoeja]

31. "Social Security is a mess;"

"I think we can all agree on that."


Well, actually, no, we can not. Social Security has been one of the most successful government programs in the history of this country. By very conservative estimates it is currently solvent through the middle part of this century. By more reasonable estimates it is solvent through the foreseeable future. Making that a certainty instead of a possibility would require nothing more than a slight increase in the maximum taxable income.

And as one whose income exceeds that maximum, the slight increase I see in my take home pay each December isn't enough to make much of a difference to me. I wouldn't even miss it if that ended this year.

[ieoeja]

35. "I've never heard a libertarian say they opposed labor unions."

No, but they do oppose regulations forcing companies to permit unionization. And unnions can not exist without gov't support. Market forces are naturally anti-worker and pro-feudalism.

[Cats Against Frist]

107. Unions exist and work through the solidarity of the workers

The failure of unions is not because of whether or not they have organizing rights or collective bargaining rights. When the workers stand together, unions win, government or not.

[Solon]

137. Eventually, but only when they put in labor friendly candidates into...

office, and then those guys come down on the union's side in regards to restrictions on what the bosses can do to workers. Enjoy the 40 hour work week? Thank union-elected candidates for that, same for minimum wage and overtime pay. The government is the people in a transparent democracy, we elect them, they, ultimately, are answerable to we the people.

[indigo32]

39. Katrina is a perfect example of where Libertarian philosophy fails

who, besides the Federal Government, could possibly have the resources to deal with a disaster like that.

They failed there, yes, due to asshole appointing a completely unqualified pathetic excuse of a man to the position of FEMA director, but they succeed in many instances too.

[Bloodblister Bob]

44. There are many Katrina stories about private efforts being squelched...

...by the government.

[indigo32]

46. As I said

a very poor showing indeed. Still an unimaginably huge job requiring FEDERAL resources.

[prairierose]

54. The "state" need not be heartless but..

evenhanded in its dealings with all people. This used to be the way that we dealt with issues.

Your arguments re: govt intervention in Katrina shows that you have fallen into the trap the neocons have laid for you and all who do not look closely at what is happening to our government.

Of course FEMA did a lousy job in these recent disasters. When any agency's budget is cut and cronies rather than professionals are appointed to run the agency it will end up doing a lousy job. The neocons want you to go around saying that govt is not capable of dealing with disasters. They want you to call for the dismantling of govt agencies that deal with social issues. Never mind that medicare/medicaid administration is so much more cost efficient than private insurance or HMOs. Never mind that govt agencies are not allowed to discriminate against people who need help as "faith based" groups are under this administration. Should a poor family that needs help for whatever reason be forced to listen to a "christian" sermon in order to apply for or receive the help they need, regardless of their own religious affiliation? Should that agency be allowed to NOT help someone who needs help because they belong to some group that is deemed to be "wrong"?

Social Security is a mess because the money that was put away for the baby boom bulge has been looted by the neocons for tax cuts for the rich.

I've completely lost my train of thought but I hope that you get the idea of what I'm trying to say here.

[bvar22]

57. I didn't see ANY Libertarians rushing to help in New Orleans.

The ONLY assistance these people received WAS from Big Government (as pitiful as it was), and a handful of volunteers.

YES! The right people in positions of power wouild have meant ALL the difference in the World.

[rman]

108. Fed Govt can ban poverty over-night.

well, greatly reduce it, specifically for the working poor, simply by correcting the minimum wage for inflation, which hasn't been done since like forever, thanks to the Republicans.

So i mean, that's effective isn't it?


If government is working well, it is the means of self-governance representation of the people. In a sense, the government is us.

Having the government "control" as you so negatively put it - our health and well being, which would merely entail the provision of such things as affordable healthcare and a livable minimum wage - is a regulated, formalized way of society taking care of its own.

Now what's not good about that?

What's not good is the fact that the government isn't functioning properly. But that's not because government is inherently bad, as libertarians apparently would have it, it is because it has been corrupted.
When a system is broken it can be fixed - it does not need to be thrown out all together nor in part. What is needed before it can be fixed is for "the people" to see just what is wrong and what the effects on their lives are.

[Doremus]

143. Cloak it in all the "comfy" language you'd like,

Libertarians are in favor of dismantling most of the federal government and its laws.

They would repeal child labor laws, disband the FDA and let drug makers put any kind of crap they want, untested, onto the market. Anybody with a chemistry book and some test tubes in the basement could enter the exciting field of pharmaceuticals. That may be your vision of utopia, but it only reminds me of the reason the FDA was created in the first place: because too many greedy hucksters were killing and maiming too many people.

With OSHA gone, the rank and file could risk their lives everyday working with substandard equipment in deplorable conditions just for the privilege of having a job. Don't like it? I've got 10 more where you came from ... Oops! You got hurt? Too bad, no workers' comp. Just suck it up and take responsibility for yourself. Or go see your preacher and ask for a handout.

They should rename their platform the "I've got mine and everyone else can eat shit" party.

Time prevents me from continuing with the long list of consequences we'd all endure should Libertarians ever come into power. Suffice to say, thank God it's never happened and should it ever become a possibility, I would sell my business and devote 100% of my time to prevent it.

[Bridget Burke]

4. I don't hate the government.

It's never been perfect, but in a democracy, WE are the government. Or, we should be. And I don't think we are yet in a "police state"--or the "nanny state" either.

I don't want to give up social security, public education & environmental protection. Some people need welfare for a while; a few need support for much longer. And health care does not work well when left 100% to the private sector.

Since when is "pulling together" a motto of the self-sufficient, lone wolf libertarians?

[CottonBear]

5. Neal Boortz claims to be a Libertarian. Nuff said. n/t

[prescole]

13. IF Boortz is still a libertarian (BIG if,) he's one in name only...

he knows what kind of talk earns big ratings and big money, and that's what drives him.
I met the asshole at the Libertarian Convention in 2004, and he's as mean and self-centered as it gets. Makes Limbaugh look like a saint.

[CottonBear]

33. He's such a hypocrite. He didn't even vote for the Libertarian

candidate for GA Gov. or for the Libertarian presidential candidate. Hell, he didn't even know the gubernatorial candidate's name when asked by a caller if he voted for him. What a tool and a major league asshole!

[OneTwentyoNine]

86. Libertarian-Bawhahaha...told all his sheep to vote for BUSH in 04...

He said that the election was to close to waste a vote on the Libertarian candidate--Bawhahahaha

Bullshit,he's a full blown republican through and through,although he'll swing a tad left just to keep the ratings up and the cash flowing in. A week or so ago he couldn't pimp hard enough for the Oil companies and them making 10 BILLION in one quarter.

Libertarian my ass.

Boortz,the sound of a turd hitting the water.....

[Vincardog]

6. IF you believe that small government is Always better that is the source,

of the problem. Liberals as a whole do not seem to believe that Government exists "to promote the common welfare".
The libertarians I have heard seem to think Government exists only to provide for Defense. PERIOD. If you want to cut head start; if you want to cut food stamps; If you want to cut funding for public education you will see exactly why we can not pull together.

If you agree that we need Government protection of our environment;
If you agree that government has a necessary roll protecting us from the predatory practices of parasitic corporations;
If you agree that government has an important roll helping with the health education and welfare of all our citizens;
then you and we can pull together.

[Greyhound]

101. You've heard wrong. Libertarians, like the Democrats are not a

monolithic block, but rather a group of individuals. They do, generally, believe that the role of our government has been expanded far beyond that which is necessary. Government should be limited to doing that which it does well. National defense (with a much stronger civilian oversight than has been given since the cold war), Interstate cooperation, control of the currency (Libertarians were among the first to fight the Federal Reserve Act), act as a central repository for data that all citizens can access, etc.
OTOH Libertarians don't think the federal government has any business telling you or others how they should live, whom they should marry, what you are allowed to ingest, who you do business with or if you should do business at all. They would, last I heard, eliminate HEW as well as several departments, but the perceived necessity of those departments came about because of political maneuvering and power grabs. They are also pretty isolationist where matters of diplomacy are concerned, but looking at the mess we've made trying to intervene in foreign affairs leads me to think they might be right there.
As for the rest;
We should protect our environment
There should be no person-hood for corporations and they will be relegated to the original concept of incorporation
Until very recently education has not controlled by the federal government and I think we see where that is going
Health care is one of the issues I definitely don't agree with the Libs on

[MH1]

7. What nickinSTL said.

The problem with "libertarians" is the different definitions. Your post indicates you are a social libertarian but not a corporate libertarian. However, my impression is that many (most) political Libertarians are followers of Ayn Rand, aka "objectivism", which is to dismantle any government regulation of corporations.

I think the hostility you see directed at Libertarians here is because they are all considered to be anti-government and especially anti-regulation of corporations (of any size). Those positions are antithetical to the Democratic philosophy, which supports liberation of individuals from the excessive power of large organizations - which requires that large corporations be heavily regulated.

I should note that most Democrats I know support lightening the burden of regulation on small businesses. It's simple - the bigger the organization, the more potential for exploiting individuals, and therefore the more constraints that are required to prevent that exploitation. You need government reglations to impose those constraints.

Sadly, most political Libertarians don't seem to get that.

[Kickin_Donkey]

87. What MH1 said ...

There are all different types and degrees of libertarians.

For the sake of the argument here, let's say there are left libertarians and right libertarians.

Left libertarians are concerned primarily with social freedoms, as on such issues as abortion rights, gay marriage, censorship, church/state separation, freedom of speech, drug laws, police brutality and intrusion, etc.

Right libertarians are concerned primarily with economic freedoms regarding such issues as taxes, environmental regulations on businesses, less-government-is-better philosophy, etc. They essentially believe the "free market" is the solution to everything, and government is bad.

A "libertarian" can be one of these types or embrace the whole enchilada or be a combination of varying degrees of each. Obviously, most aspects of left libertarianism are congruent with Democrats/progressives/liberals. Right libertarianism would fit right in most most paleo-conservatives/Republicans.

But when push comes to shove, I find that virtually all "libertarians" I have come across are essentially Republicans. It appears to me that the libertarian hatred of taxes and government trumps any affinities they might have with Democrats on social issues. For at least the last 30-40 years (and probably longer), libertarians have considered the Republicans as their working allies. I find that most so-called libertarians give the Republicans a free pass, while loathing Democrats. (However, this is starting to change a LITTLE in the face of the excesses of the Bush regime regarding the deficit, pointless wars, and the erosion of civil liberties a la the Patriot Act.)

Nevertheless, I see libertarians as Republicans for all practical purposes. As somebody said downthread, libertarians are just Pukes without the guile to cover up their social-Darwinist philosophy.

[HamdenRice]

8. Libertarianism and liberalism are fundamentally incompatible ...

given the structure of our society. Libertarianism, unrealistically, posits that every one is equal -- not only in legal status, but in material circumstances.

But if we live in a society of radical inequality -- where there are billionaires and poor people, employers of hundreds of thousands or even millions of employees and workers, people who have inherited wealth or whiteness and people of color -- then the weak need some mechanism to level the playing field and that is democratic government.

As a liberal and progressive, my response to libertarianism is that if you succeed, I will be a pawn of massive corporations and imperial militarists, and your only response is that government should get out of the way so I can interact equally with my adversaries.

That's a prescription for me being crushed by powerful corporate and militaristic interests. So politically and economically you want me extinguished.

[Bloodblister Bob]

16. I'm happy to say that our view of libertarians is incorrect...

Libertarians, in my experience, certainly realize that everyone is not equal in any regard; we are not all the same. In fact, that is the reason why libertarians oppose state-mandated schemes to somehow make us all the same.

For some reason, liberals have gotten the idea that libertarians don't have hearts, souls, or compassion. Nothing is further from the truth. We only differ on the means whereby our compassion can be made manifest. Liberals place their trust in the faceless and heartless State, while libertarians place their trust in individuals.

As for your concern about being a "pawn of massive corporations and imperial militarists" in a libertarian society, may I ask what we all are today? What is the Federal Government if not a massive corporation run by imperial militarists? Libertarians oppose this sickening status quo.

[MurrayDelph]

10. While an idea is not responsible for the behavior of those who espouse it

(such as former libertarian radiohost Larry Elder, who has turned into
another Republican shill. Or is it just him following the money?)

the problem is that most of the proponents of Libertarianism operate
under two delusions:

1. An artificially high (and untrue) view of their value
2. An equally artificially low (and equally untrue)opinion of
everyone else's.

[prescole]

17. Those qualities aren't tied to ideology as much as to personality

I've known liberals and conservatives who fit your description to a T.

[Bloodblister Bob]

21. Wow! Strange ideas about libertarians, I must say.

Libertarians value all individuals and individual freedom. That's what we work for. What we don't value is the intrusive state.

[PassingFair]

48. My favorite definition: Libertarian

(n) A Republican who smokes pot.

:)

[MrBenchley]

152. From Alicublog...

"Often I think Libertarianism is something suburban dorks do when they don't have enough get-up-and-go to kidnap, murder, and mummify hitchhikers."

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2005_05_29_alicublog_archive.html

[Options Remain]

12. there are good libertarians and psycho libertarians

The louder is obviously the less rational and seen as the typical libertarian.

However the more I see libertarian ideas the more I think of them as the latter category. The free market is ultimately opposed to the wellbeing of the majority. Only a moderated compromise balancing reasonable regulation against responsible buisness practice will work effectively. total govt control of economy and oligarchy are the same thing. money works best when its moving. and centralization or wealth/buisness simply cannot move as quickly as a diversified/regulated economy.

O.R.

[Armstead]

14. Conservative Librtarians give all libertarians a bad name

Personally I consider myself a Liberal Libertarian.

Libertarianism is really a non-partisan instinct. It also depends on the issue whether one is a librtarian or is in favor of a strong government role in something.

Your stereotypical liberal has many libertarian positions. For example, the pro-Choice position on abortion is basically libertarian. Free Speech and Anti-censorship are basically libertarian concepts. Individual Rights vs. the Police State is a libertarian idea.

It's also important to see degrees of libertarianism in the context of specific issues. It's possible for a liberal and progresive to be libertarian about the economy in some respects, but to be supprters of activist government in others.

For example, I strongly support the idea of a truly competative free-enterprise economy. However, in order to protect and preserve that, government intervention is necessary to countrbalance the tendencies towards monopoly power in a completely unregulated market.

But librtarianism today has become associated with the rabid right-wing. In some ways it's been hijacked. Today, many so-called Libertarians are nothing more than rabid Republicans in disguise. They are shills for the Bush administration, and they go after all liberals as their "enemy." Instead of being intellectually honest, they have set up liberals and Democrats as the "enemy" and demonize us, while giving the corporate right wing a free pass.

Neil Boortz is a perfect example. Instead of looking at both sides from a detached "libertarian" perspective, he sides with the Bushies and the freepers and demonizes liberals.

[Bloodblister Bob]

25. Just like communists give liberals a bad name, and neocons...

...give conservatives a bad name. I enjoyed your post.

[sendero]

71. Libertarianism is merely the other side of the coin..

... of Communism.

Communists think the state can do everything, Libertarians think the state can do nothing. Both are doomed attempts to define the world in simple terms, and both are unworkable because they fail to take human nature into account.

[Cats Against Frist]

111. libertarian socialism is often compared to true communism

You're referring to state socialism or authoritarianism (which can be of the left-wing or right-wing variety).

[Kickin_Donkey]

83. And that prick John Stoessel ...

on ABC's "20/20."

[Mountainman]

15. The thing that I don't like about libertarianism is that you never have to

prove that what you say is right. Libertarianism does not stand on the same ground as liberalism because liberalism has been put to the test and there is a history of liberal administrations.

Libertarians can say anything they want that shows their system would be better but they never have to put their money or life where their mouth is because there are so few libertarians that they would never come to power.

Also, to me libertarianism is a me first, last and only system. I listen to Gene Burns on KFI at nights and what he says makes me want to throw the radio at him.

Liberals care about the country as a whole not just about themselves.

[Kickin_Donkey]

84. Oh but libertarianism has been put to the test ...

or at least variations of it:

— In the era of Robber Barons and The Jungle in the late-19th/early-20th century in the United States. It got us sweatshops, child labor, human fingers in our hot dogs ... most of the country was living in squalid tenaments or shoveling pig shit next to shacks with earthen floors in rural poverty.

— Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union – hey, no government regulations or taxes to worry about (as the government was/is incapable of carrying out those functions). A real free market paradise! No social safety nets, no SEC, no environmental controls ... mafia and private "police forces" running around. I don't see any American libertarians rushing to set up residence there.

Needless to say, neither one of these was a great success.

[Cats Against Frist]

112. And left-wing libertarian has been put to the test in Spain

google "Spanish Anarchism," -- this is generally the model that many left-wing libertarians are after.

[gmoney]

19. Emo perfectly defines it...

"As a Libertarian, I believe that consenting adults have the right to do whatever they want, except band together."

-- Emo Phillips

Why is it OK in the libertarian mind for a corporation to harness the strength of many people for the purpose of exploiting a labor force, but it's NOT okay for a labor union to harness the strength of many people for the purpose of resisting exploitation?

[Bloodblister Bob]

24. Libertarians don't oppose labor unions. Free association is good. n/t

[gmoney]

27. No libertarians I've ever talked to support unions...

...but maybe they're just corporate anarchists claiming to be libertarians.

"It's my business... why shouldn't I be free to pay $2.00 an hour? If people don't like it, they can go work someplace else! If my pay is TOO low, the market will respond, I won't be able to find workers, and I'll be forced to raise wages to compete."

Yeah, right...

[Bloodblister Bob]

32. If people want to join labor unions, no libertarians stop them.

Of course, the demands of a union may or may not be met, which is how it is today.

[ieoeja]

37. You are correct.

That is exactly how it is today. Wages keep going down because the gov't no longer forces companies to permit unionization. Market forces are naturally anti-worker and pro-feudalism.

[Bloodblister Bob]

38. Without workers, there is no market. n/t

[ieoeja]

40. So what?

People have to eat. They are going to take the best job they can. No company in the entire world in the entire history of mankind has EVER allowed their employees to organize unless forced to do so BY ... THE ... GOVERNMENT. It has NEVER, EVER happened. Not once.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again with the same results while absolutely convinced that this time you will finally get a different result.

[Bloodblister Bob]

61. Libertarians and labor both hate bosses...

Maybe that's some common ground we could explore?

[Cats Against Frist]

113. Any so=-called "libertarian" that doesn't believe in the right to form

unions is not a libertarian, at all. They can still dislike unions and be a libertarian. They're most likely against collective bargaining rights, which is a fancy way for saying that your union is toothless.

[kestrel91316]

29. Why do you people keep coming here and trying to convert

us to your political party and philosophy?? There is a reason this is called DEMOCRATIC Underground and not LIBERTARIAN Underground. We are DEMOCRATS.

You're as bad as the fundies.

[Bloodblister Bob]

36. I come here because I'm not close-minded...

..I figure maybe I can learn something, find some common ground and encouragement from kindred spirits in our efforts to stop Bush and his police state/war machine.

If you really think libertarians are "as bad as fundies", well, that makes me sad, but there's probably nothing I can say that you will hear.

[kestrel91316]

73. Well, I've already heard quite enough. I used to BE a Libertarian.

[Armstead]

41. I think dialogue is important

I agree with DU's policy that pro-Bush right wingers are not welcome here. That'd just be a formula for useless no-win circular arguments.

But I do think that people who share some views with DU but may differ on otehrs should be welcome. There, at least the ability to look for common ground exists.

I also don;t see it as trying to "convert" people, anymore than otehrs do here. Since there are also so many differences between, say the DLC centrists and the radical socialists on DU, it shouldn't exclude others who may not fall under the familiar left/right straightjacket.

[Bloodblister Bob]

45. Thanks for that word of support. We need to find common ground. n/t

[Cats Against Frist]

115. I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I always participate in these thread

s. And I consider myself a libertarian. And, I vote for the Dem candidate, every time, and suggest others do, as well. Of course, that will only last so long, if we're an unwanted part of the party, and other dems can't take five fucking minutes to try to understand that about which we're speaking.

I'm a libertarian, and I'm a communalist, and I believe in reparations for Af-Am (but not affirmative action), and I'm not a consumerist (I try to buy nothing priced beyond its use value, buy secondhand, and buy from responsible companies), I am against imperialism, against corporate personhood, pro-environment, and I'd pit my left-wing credentials and beliefs against any left-wing authoritarian any day. The only difference between the two positions is that the YOU and WE in libertarianism, is a much smaller, local YOU and WE, and that we mistrust the gimungo state.

[newportdadde]

43. Because I don't believe in Social Darwinism and its code for Republican.

At its core thats what Libertarians are about social darwinism and NO TAXES. Thats pretty much it.. well that and anarchy. I mean Republicans believe in that shit too but at least they are creative enough to try and cover it up :)

If you want to see what Libertarianism gets you check out the 1890s or farther pack in peasant days of Europe.. I hope your not to fond of eating food.

[BJW]

60. social darwinism

I've been thinking about "social darwinism" and repug code-speak.

Somehow, SD, "survival of the fittest" has come to be reopug code for "survival of the most grossly aggressive, mean-spirited, pushy and greedy"--which is not the same thing at all what Darwin meant.

The "fittest" is about which organisms, as a whole, are most suited for surviving in a particular environment. So, if there are changes in an environment then the "fittest" organism might be different.

"Survival" is about reproduction--which organisms, as a whole, are successful at sexual reproduction in a particular environment. Again, if the environmemnt changes the "fittest" organism for successful reproduction might be different. Survival of organisms, as individuals and as a whole, depends upon complex interactions of cooperation and competition with other organisms and species for resources necessary to reproduce.

The repugs have been pretty successful in taking the concept of "survival of the fittest" and turning it into a quasi-scientific annointing of the rightness of personal selfishness, aggression, violence, and "greed is good" mindset. But, taken as a whole, what they're promoting is the exact opposite of Darwin's theory. In our modern world, the "fittest" organisms for survival may well be those organisms that control their birthrates, and are the most generous, peaceful, community-oriented and cooperative.

[Kickin_Donkey]

85. You hit the nail on the head ...

well said!

[rniel]

47. One of the reasons Neil Boortz

A neocon bush supporter that calls himself libertarian. Has done a lot of damage to the cause. As well as some of these Ann Rand Cult members that have some seriously screwed up ideas.

When I think of libertarian as strictly...I should be free to do what I want as long as it's not hurting anybody else then I can agree with that. If libertarian means a return to the age of the robberbarons, child labor and slaves then I am not with you on that.

[Jai4WKC08]

49. I have two main problems with libertarians

Altho I don't think I harbor any special animosity against people who consider themselves to be libertarians unless they're completely nutty about it (and some of them are).

First problem: most of the libertarians I've met (and as a Heinlein fan, I've met quite a few) seem to support Republicans. Maybe if there were a Libertarian Party that had a realistic chance of holding any power at all, they wouldn't. But since that's not the case, most libertarians choose Repubs over Dems. Seems to me they put a higher priority on low taxes than all of the good stuff they espouse, and I think it's mostly due to simple greed.

Second, I don't think libertarianism is any more practical as a political system than communism is. They both ignore the basic nature of human beings. We evolved as social animals who band together to solve problems that individuals are not equipped to deal with.

I think most libertarians think it's ok to have government for the problems they personally cannot solve, like defense against foreign invaders for example, but for the problems that don't happen to effect them, they don't want to be bothered. And each one seems to draw the line at his or her own doorstep. This strikes me as hypocritical.

There's a lot that's good in libertarianism in theory, just as there is in communism. But when it comes to real people advocating real policies that affect other real people, both systems are bankrupt in their absolutism. I am not opposed to taking what is good from both, and I think the existance of both extremes is necessary to push and pull the rest of us into balanced positions. But it doesn't mean I agree or support either.

One other minor thing I have against Libertarianism with a capital "L" is that, like it or not, we live in a two-party political system. If I give my vote to a Libertarian candidate, it becomes a vote not given to a Democrat, and thus is the same as a vote cast for the Repub. Now, I realize that in many cases, the Libertarians take more votes from the Repubs than they do from the Dems. But it also seems to me, probably because of the tax thing, that Libertarians back off when the Republicans don't have the election sewn up anyway. In fairness, that impression may be only because I live in a heavily Repub area of a very red state, but one where we have lately managed to elect a Dem to the House (KS-3). Perhaps it is different elsewhere.

[Bloodblister Bob]

67. What's "good" in communist theory? n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

142. What's good in communist theory

(and I'm saying this as someone who completely rejects communist ideology). Communism has some very good ideals which are wonderful in theory, but are impractical in reality because IMO the ideology is based on some fundamental misunderstandings of human nature.

Nevertheless, communism is motivated by the desire to create a truly just society in which all people have their basic needs met, while contributing what they can to the communal well being. The creation of a truly just, classless society based on the common ownership of the means of production is not bad in theory. These ideas do not just derive from Marx and Lenin either. The early Christian church was organized along essentially communist beliefs.

Communist ideology has provided the impetus to some truly horrific regimes, but in a milder form, it has also been part of the drive to create more egalitarianism and social justice in the more democratic societies including our own.

Contemporary communism emerged out of early industrialism as a reaction against the untrammeled exploitation of the workers by the industrial class. It was part of the current that helped bring about reform in that system.

Not being an expert in the field, I've probably completely garbled everything and will likely be corrected. My main point though is that there is some good in communist theory (as in libertarian theory) and that it probably has made some positive contributions to modern society. Also, that something can be good in theory while being largely impractical in reality which, for the most part, I see both libertarianism and communism as being, although both ideologies do have some elements to them that are practical and workable.

[ieoeja]

50. Theory versus historical facts.

I used to be Libertarian. I believed the theories. I still believe in the desirability of the theories.

But I also know historical fact. I know the Gilded Age of Robber Barons was the result of liberarian economic theory. I know there were 7 (or 8; one is disputed) economic recessions in the United States of America prior to our switch to the Keynesian economic model and ZERO such since. I know that the super wealthy live longer and better lives when the masses are better, but that the employer who cuts his costs (pays his workers the least) is the one who will ultimately buy out his more altruistic competitors. I know that history has demonstrated time and again that monopolization, not competition, is the natural result of a free market.

Let us consider the advent of the Personal Computer. The PC was one of those new technologies that created new opportunities that were supposed to level the playing the field. And what happened? In 1980 there were a dozen major computer platforms: IBM, Hewlett-Packard, DEC, Wang, etc. Over the next few years we had new companies sprouting up like weeds. Opportunity was everywhere. Everything in perfect accord with the libertarian theory. And today, less than a quarter century later? We have only three major computer platforms: IBM, Oracle and Microsoft. And Microsoft and IBM have been joined at the hip since inception. The ultimate result of the IT boom was LESS competition, not more.

The theories just do not hold up in the real world.

You would do better to stick to arguing that libertarian economies are just the right thing to do. Crime, for instance, is much less in totalitarian countries than in liberal countries. Yet, most of us agree that crime is worth the price in exchange for individual liberty.

But this is actually a poor comparison. A police-state is to social freedom what communism is to economic freedom. And we aren't arguing libertarian versus communist economic systems. We are arguing libertarian versus Keynesian. And Keynesian is much closer to libertarian than it is to communism.

[padia]

52. I was a surrogate

speaker for the Libertarian candidate for a class last fall. What I concluded is that most smaller parties won't be effective because their platforms are not broad enough o deal with all of the domestic and international issues. Badnariks position on restorative justice is good, but I really have a problem with his private police. Talk about setting up feudalism or a police state. When somebody wants to make more money they start a turf war under the pretense of protecting society and a free-market. Also this opens the door to no training of a police force and accountably for lethal force.

[BJW]

58. ineresting remarks

about the private police forces, etc.

The existence of private police and fire departments was identified by our forefathers as a major problem. Fires would get out of control when fires started in buildings whose fire force hadn't arrived, or whose fire force wasn't identified or notified, and so other buildings would then catch fire too.

This led to the establishment of the passage of government legislation establishing separate police and fire departments supported by taxes.

But, at the time, there was a great hue and cry about it from those who were being taxed, as there always is...

[BJW]

56. I don't have animosity

and also share some small l values, particularly when it comes to social issues.

I do differ with libertarian thought with regard to government regulation of business activity, and taxation of businesses, and with regard to absolute "property" rights.

While I agree with the theoretically valid point that one should ideally be free to do what one wants with one's property, without interference or restriction, in the real world such absolutist thinking is predicated on the idea that totally unfettered and free people will choose to do the "right" thing, and their choices will benefit all in the long run--which is a demonstrably false premise.

One doesn't need to look very far to find multiple examples of criminal greed and the tragedy of the commons playing out, again and again, in response to increased deregulation.

Libertarianism uses examples of poor governance to conclude that government as a whole is the enemy of the people, and then proposes to throw the baby out with the bathwater as its solution to problems with poor governance.

I reject this political position as nonsensical and anathemic to the interests of most of the population. What we really need is good governance, subject to review, changes and refinement as needed.

[Arugula Latte]

59. Libertarianism doesn't work in the real world.

Simple as that.

[bvar22]

62. Libertarians

Libertarians line up for their Agricultural Subsidies and Disaster Relief (Flood or Drought depending on the year) in the morning,
and whine about the "Nanny State" in the afternoon.




Most Libertarians I know denounce Government Programs that don't directly affect them.
Which Government programs would YOU give up.:

FDIC

EPA

Social Security (You really want your parents to come live with you?)

FDA (what's really in those pills?)

Bureau of Weights and Measures (Did you get a FULL gallon)

Corp of Engineers

Weather Dept

Agriculture Dept (suppose everyone grew only corn this year)

Bureau of Land Management

Health Dept (Are there rats turds in your stew?)

Weather Bureau

NASA (I have a problem with manned space projects, but where would we be without the satellites?)

FCC

Federal Maritime Commission (leaky supertankers?)

Highway Dept

SEC

Fire Department
Police Dept

Zoning Commissions (Want a Rendering Plant on your block?)

Federal funding of Medical and Social Science Research

National Parks

Libraries

Museums (Smithsonian)

Public Schools

Corrections

Better Business Bureau

Consumer Protection Agency

U.S. Postal Inspection Service (Fraud)

Dept of Veteran Affairs

FAA

Employment Standards Administration

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)





(ALL of the above are Socialist Programs).


Those are just the ones off the top of my head. There are mny more government programs that improve my quality of life daily.
Each could use some streamlining and upgrading, which should be an ongoing process.
You and I USE (reap the benefits from) each and every one of these programs every single day!
I would not like to see the elimination or defunding or privitization of any.


PS: Ayn Rand wrote FICTION!

[xchrom]

63. i believe in and try to promote an intelligent, secular

planned society.

generally that idea is abhorrent to libertarians.

but i believe in social welfare and healthcare.

strong protections for workers and protection of union rights.

legally protecting human rights and gender equality.

public education.

states rights do not trump federal rights.

private property is not an enumerated right.

etc.

even small l libertarians tend to break out in a rash around me.

[Bloodblister Bob]

66. A "planned society"? Who do you trust to do such planning?

Libertarians don't want you (for example) planning society any more than you want Bush and his henchmen planning it.

I think that if people are free to plan their own lives, society will take care of itself.

As for states' rights not trumping federal jurisdiction, how do you stand on medical marijuana?

[xchrom]

82. why do you assume that medial marijuana wouldn't be

alright in a planned society?

in fact, evidence would suggest that marijuana would be fine period, medical or other wise.
if not left up to ignorant masses.

i'm really not into ''individualism'' -- individuality is fine.
but turned into a philosophy it's destructive.

[Cats Against Frist]

117. Absolutely not

The WE can be internalized in the "I." This is my goal with libertarianism. Better for that than the bureaucratic state.

[Arugula Latte]

99. Somalia didn't have any government for a long time.

That's a frickin' paradise, the way people have planned society there. :eyes:

[rman]

114. You can not have -no- "planned society" -with- regulations;

it's the laws and regulations that implement the plan. By means of democracy (provided it's a real democracy) the plan is one that the people over all agree with.

So, you want regulations? You got a "planned society". Sounds horrible to some, but there's nothing special to it.

[Cats Against Frist]

116. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

That's Latin for "who watches the watchers?" And is my libertarian slogan.

Until I get an answer to that question, then libertarianism is no more "pie in the sky," than anything else.

[Geek_Girl]

64. Most libertarians I know

believe in no taxes and no government regulation. And all of the libs I know voted for shrub. I don't have a very high opinion of libertarians.

[Bloodblister Bob]

65. Libertarians believe in limited government...

...that is, limited to government's only legitimate function - the protection of individual rights and property.

[Crunchy Frog]

144. My question is...

who is it who determines what exactly a governments legitimate function is? You say that it's the protection of individual rights and property, but other people have other opinions and who's to say who is right? And even under your definition, there can be a very wide range of interpretations. What rights do individuals have? Do they have a right to education? Do they have a right to healthcare? Do they have the right to a minimum standard of living?

It all sounds very nice, but the terms are not well defined, and there is the sticky issue of who decides what the legitimate function of government actually is. I like the opening words of the Declaration of Independence, which seems to suggest that the legitimate function of government is whatever the people believe to be "most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness", presumably however they define those terms for themselves.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Odin2005]

69. Libertarians...

...Are selfish fools trying to hide and/or rationalize thier selfishness under the respectability of an ideology. They do not understand human nature. Individuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities are. As the saying goes, no man is an island unto himself. You cannot seperate people from the society in which they live. Humanity without society is like a fish with no water, which is why I always cringe when I hear Margret Thatcher's infamous "There is no such thing as society, there are individuals and there are families" sound bite.

:rant:

[Cats Against Frist]

119. Well, you hit the nail on the head

Individuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities are.

Let me repeat it:

Individuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities areIndividuals are not the atoms of human society, families and communities are


NOT THE STATE.

There is a difference between me-first and people-first and the latter is NOT always compatible with BUREAUCRACY. Community is, and should be subjective.

[Odin2005]

70. Oh, and also...

...A libertarian paridise is not workable, it will either be overthrown or voted out because people will get enraged when the social safty net is gutted, or it will degenerate into corporate feudalism.

[Cats Against Frist]

120. And, eventually, the rich will buy the liberal state.

[Hollow Shells]

72. Hi Bloodblister Bob!

How do you feel about public education and health care. Would you increase funding, decrease funding, cut the programs all together?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[New Earth]

75. wow

i have thought the past few years i am pretty much Libertarian, and going by the feeling i just had by reading most of the replies here, and how pissed off it made me, i realize i must definately be!!!

x(

[NAO]

76. As a former Libertarian, I understand. But they position is deeply wrong

on many issues, and it is wrong in a way that is very hurtful to people. On the surface it is ideologically consistent, but the naive acceptance of the goodness and naturalness of the "free market" and the ability of "market forces" to resolve problems and work to everyone's best interest is simplistic and not empirically based.

In reality, if market forces are not constrained by the State, they will themselves become autonomous forces and impose artificial constraints on the market.

On a large scale, this is the big company driving all the little companies out of business, then using his monopoly to charge whatever he feels like. On a small scale this is a company with a $100 million in cash reserves making a shitty job offer to the father of a family who has been without work for months, has gone thru his savings, and is about to lose his house. You can say he is "free" to accept or reject the employment offer, but I say any employment contract he enters into is a contract of adhesion.

Put another way, if you start everyone out even, and provide a free market, yes, those who work hard will do well while those who slack will suffer. But take it to the second generation, and the children of the ones who do well will have many advantages and may do well even if they slack considerably. Conversely, the children of the slackers will have many disadvantages before they are even old enough to excel or slack. This is the FIRST generation. Each successive generation this skew gets greater, until you have Paris Hilton filming herself screwing and driving around the country getting drunk, and still having more money than she can spend in her entire life; while many are born into cycles of poverty that they will not even be aware that they can escape from.

[NAO]

77. B/C they teach that State Power, rather than Corporate Power is evil

They propagate the idea that "the government is bad" and "the private sector is good". The reality is that in a democratic society, everyone has a (theoretically) equal say in how things are run, while in a a free market society, private corporations can do whatever they want, people have no say, they can be terminated for any reason or no reason.

They only way ordinary people can have a say in what corporations do to them and their fellow humans, is by exercising state power thru the democratic process.

[lostnfound]

80. So, if they could see that giant corporations are as dangerously powerful

as government, many of them might become our allies? In many of our battles, at least.

[NAO]

90. they would have to get over their aversion to exercise of state power

that seems like a lot to ask.

[lostnfound]

98. What individual rights exist if you're born into a corporate slave colony?

Elsewhere in this thread, another poster explained that libertarians believed that the protection of individual rights and property was the only legitimate function of government.

But we are moving towards a planet where many are born without land or resources, without access to food and water. It's not like the days when you could simply get out of the town or city to find a stream or hunt and fish or gather berries to survive. Many live as landless urban dwellers. At the same time, corporate acquisitions and monopolies are killing diversity of opportunities for those landless peasants. There are slums in the world where people are born into conditions from which there is no escape. With the concentration and aggrandizement of wealth and power, the world is trending to be ever more in that direction.

So when the planet - or large sections of it - becomes a corporate slave colony, and all resources are owned by a very few who mete out just enough to live on for the cheap labor pool called "the masses", what individual rights are left? The right to starve?

On edit: with the right imagery, perhaps the libertarians could begin to think about developing their theory in the direction of constraining the power of multiple layers of "states" -- we live in the United States, the Walmart states, the Exxon states, the GE states, and each exercises varying degrees of power over us to the extent that there are no viable alternatives. How would libertarian thinking deal with that -- or with economic entities that have swallowed enough real estate and resources as to have become a feudal colony?

Put another way: the goal is not merely to reduce federal power, but to increase individual power -- it may be easier to find common ground from that perspective. Anything which threatens individual power of the ordinary citizen should be seen as a threat.

[NAO]

100. If libertarians could expand their notion of "coercion" to include

other forms of coercion, such as the economic coercion that results from extreme inequality; and/or if they could expand their notion of "rights" so that the right to access to "the commons" would be protected; and finally, if they could expand their notion of "the commons" to include not just food, water, and land, but education, health care (disease is a form of coercion; health care plays the same role in physical defense as the military does in national defense)...but all this seems very contrary to the very heart of libertarian dogma.

[lostnfound]

134. Eventually living on a planet w/limited resources will force it to surface

i.e., will force the fact of "economic coercion" to the surface. I don't imagine there's too many libertarians living in the slums around Mexico City or Calcutta. I'd bet the incidence of libertarianism is inversely proportional to the uneven distribution of land..!

Hundreds born on a spaceship, dependent for their water and food and their very lives on one or two who own it, because everything is owned. "Rich-vs-poor" may be tolerable but when it shifts to "very-rich-vs-starving", the horribly uneven playing field becomes indefensible.

[Cats Against Frist]

122. People have every bit of say

And, yes, I believe that the discriminating laborer and the educated consumer is where it all starts. I'm sorry you feel such pessimism toward that opinion. In some ways, my libertarianism comes from the desire for qualitative, rather than quantitative change. And, under this HUGE BUREAUCRACY, Paris Hilton is still screwing, and people are still born into cycles of poverty. Now, the corporations own the state. I'd have rather taken my chances with them on their own. State power is bad. Corporate power is bad. Corpo-fascism is worse.

[RazzleDazzle]

78. only some libertarians have a lot in common with Democrats

and many of them are simply awful, and have virtually nothing in common. There are socially liberal libs, and there are socially conservative libs. Bill Maher, for example, is a socially liberal Libertarian, and is one of the better libs around. But he's kinda rare among Libertarians that I know of.

[fujiyama]

79. Because it's more or less

an immature, cold, and unworkable ideaology, just like communism.

Just as communism believes that the state can solve all problems, libertarianism believes the "market" is the panacea.

Most of us here are civil libertarians, with varying opinions on various social programs. However, there is a general consensus that government can play a positive role in peoples' lives.

Does this mean the government can solve all problems? No. Even if we had universal healthcare and an economy that provided the opportunity for every single person capable of working a job, there would be homelessness, crime, and other social ills. Why? Because it's human nature.

Does this mean that we should not try to solve these problems? That's basically what libertarianism says. And no, charities, businesses, and the private sector will only go so far. Libertarianism is right about greed being an inherant part of human nature, but it's adulation of greed as a value is what makes it devoid of all compassion and recognition of society being interdependant.

While you may not be the type I have spoken of, many, if not most self described libertarians are. While the official libertarian organizations like CATO did make some noise before the Iraq war, there was little real uproar until the announcement that there would be an effort to spend money on Katrina.

Spending billions on a war really didn't bother them. Neither did the debt (and no I don't buy their false cries of fiscal sensibility - most really don't give a fuck). Wars, civil liberties, were also irrelevant. Most libertarians are only concerned with taxes and how their wallet is affected.

And that's among the general public among. In congress it's limited to maybe one or two of what I would consider principled libertarians (Ron Paul of Texas is the only one that comes to mind).

Katrina showed what happens with a stripped down government unable and unwilling to handle its duties. Compassion is a positive trait, regardless of what pop culture and over twenty years of conservative brainwashing has made it out to be.

The economic scandals in the last five years also show what happens when corporations are not *gasp* regulated (there's that dirty word).

Libertarians are right to be wary of excess government power, but concentrated power should always be suspect, regardless of whether it is a government or private entity.

[The Traveler]

81. Part of the problem

is that Libertarians want us to invest in the notion of the "rugged individualist". Well, there is certainly a place in the world for such folk, but in truth they are rare. In truth, most libertarians hate the structures of the government until they personally need them. In short, they want a free lunch ... all the protections offered by Our Tribe but without a cost to them.

Libertarians have lost track of the fact that freedom is a two edged sword ... one edge is Liberty. The other is responsibility. To bow before one edge is to lose sight of the other. By virtue of being human, being American, we are obliged to shoulder a certain responsibility to each other. If we neglect those responsibilities our society will break down ... much like it has been doing for the past 30 years or so.

As an example, most Libertarians hate government regulation of pollution. Yet, they are unwilling to pay the costs unregulated production methods would impose on the public, on the tribe. Not only are we expcted to pay for the goods you produce, but you expect us to pay for the health care costs, for the cancers, for the cleanups ... Libertarians want a free lunch.

But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. (TANSTAAFL.) Someone always pays for the lunch. The common man knows this, and experiences the consequences of this thinking. Those consequences are burdensome ... therefore, many who are aware of them are resentful.

It is a common myth that Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. But far more damaging than Star Wars was the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl and the subsequent government cover up. When your lies contribute to your children to develop cancers, you tend to withdraw your support from the government. There is a lesson therein for the right wingers and the Free Marketers.

Similarly, the Free Marketers are losing the support of the common man in the US. The economy grows, but the common man suffers rapidly dwindling prospects. This is an abrogation of the social contract ... a rejection of that absolutist philosophy is at this point inevitable and necessary. My main concern is that an over-compensation, a violent swing in the other direction, is almost equally inevitable at this point.

[Cats Against Frist]

123. You're exactly right -- responsibility is the flip side of liberty

And responsibility is at its most genuine when it takes place within the individual, not mandated from a collective authoritarian conscience.

[bvar22]

128. And OJ Simpson should take individual responsiblility

for his actions, and put himself in jail.

So should Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, and Ken Lay.



I think the "Collective" will be more effective here.
There really aren't enough people who will take personal (individual) responsibility for this Libertarian Ideal to become Reality.

[Realityhack]

129. Bingo.

At best its an unrealistic pipe dream that if actualy implemented would be extrodenarily dangerous.

[The Traveler]

138. Sounds good, and I can kind of agree with it

But I think there our commonality of viewpoint might end. It all depends on your definition of the term "authoritarian conscience".

To me, the issue revolves around the question of balance. The needs and rights of the individual must be balanced against the needs and rights of the social group that brought that individual forth. By the way, I do not believe that perfect balance can be achieved or if achieved long sustained ... I don't believe in utopia. But it is possible to achieve and sustain a workable relationship between the two, so long as one interest is not able to entirely dominate the other.

Your comment prompts questions. One may refuse to pay for one's lunch ... but the tribe may then elect not to feed you when you cannot pay or otherwise succor you from the storm. Is that an execise of an "authoritarian conscience"?

As a smoker, I regard the smoking controversy as an interesting micro-model of the more general problem. I have the right to smoke, but if I so choose do I have the right to expect the tribe to bear the burden of the health care problems I eventually experience as a result? When the group acts to discourage my smoking, is that an act of authoritarian conscience or merely the group reminding me that, indeed, there is no such thing as a free lunch? Or is the group obligated to tolerate my human imperfection and aid me any way?

Similarly, is it an exercise of an "authoritarian conscience" to stop one from urinating in the tribe's water supply? Or to intervene when the strong join forces to exploit the weaker members of the tribe? What is the problem with simply admitting that simple decency compels that to some extent the tribe be organized to better the lot of its less fortunate members? If it is unwilling to do so, should the tribe be surprised when those less fortunate members refuse to defend it, respect its laws, respect property rights, or worse, choose to explicitly undermine the tribe during times of difficulty?

Over the past few years of economic hardship for the common man, I have seen self-styled libertarians suddenly shift their viewpoint when it was their turn to fall down. How the tune changed! In some cases, after accepting the output of "socialistic entitlement programs" these people got back on their feet and regained some measure of prosperity ... and it was OK to be libertarian purists again.

I argue it is their right to shift their perspectives in this manner, but they have no right to my respect as a result. It seems their ideology is based solely on their needs at the moment ... and their philosophy is an intellectual wrapper designed to rationalize their own selfishness.

This is NOT a general indictment of all libertarians. I know others far more principled, and after such experience they express a modification of views. Nor do I deny a certain sympathy for the libertarian viewpoint. I merely feel that their philosophy ignores other necessary aspects of a healthy and resilient social order.

I wonder, by what means may we identify that critical point of "workable balance" between the interests of the individual and the interests of the social group? Where is the point at which the stress between the rights and responsibilities of the individual those of the group results in a creative tension that moves the interests of both forward? My chief objection to libertarianism on philosophical grounds is that it provides no methodology for exploring those questions ... it starts from the conclusion that the collective will of the group must be an expression of tyranny.

Yet, when the evil winds rise, the individual inevitably turns to the group for protection, either through coercion (e.g. a draft of young people into military service) or supplication (e.g. apply for food stamps) ... a mode entirely consistent with the natural instinct for self preservation but in stark opposition to the exaltation of the rugged individualism libertarians claim to profess.

[Cats Against Frist]

140. Thing is, I agree with everything that you say

I just don't believe that that balance is acheived -- excuse me, whatsoever -- by creating a 1)distant, 2)wasteful, 3)usurpable/buyable, 4)bureaucratic state, to govern 300 million people.

I think that is UNHEALTHY and asking for a disaster. For all the people, here, who seem to think that libertarianism is "pie in the sky," they haven't apparently fully come 'round to one hard reality: the liberal society doesn't work. Why? It leaves enough "wiggle room," for the rich to buy the government. If the government is HUGE and POWERFUL, by the time the rich buy it -- that means the rich are working not only from the platform of their own wealth, but now from the "rule of law," which is whatever THEY say it is.

Social Democracy works much better, but, despite waxing poetic about the "american worker," adopting this model would take a cultural change that I don't see happening, so much, without a vital step: the realization of libertarian efficacy.

Liberals continually rail on about consumerism (I do), inequality of the sexes, lack of institutional acceptance for alternative lifestyles and pursuits, lack of concern for the poor and the sick and the young, corporate personhood and racism. I feel the institution basically ENSHRINES these differences and bad practices amongst us, and, through the idea of "national community," only further instigates the dehumanization that great distance brings.

People say "well, I'm a social libertarian, and not an economic one." I don't understand that, because, for me, the libertarian perspective on economics is much-needed, and is, contrary to what everyone seems to believe, the way OUT of corporate rule, as opposed to a foregone conclusion of corporate rule. Does it seem odd to you that a large bureaucratic government is able to force regulation on a company, "for the common good," while most of the COMMON PEOPLE are still working for and supporting that company with their hard-earned dollars? That a LARGE percentage of Americans are still badmouthing unions? That unions and union members, themselves, are more prone to corporate allegiance, than solidarity? Even as these companies are exploiting them, homogenizing their world, trying to equalize them, on a global scale, with workers from developing nations, neglecting to pay their fair share of taxes, making shoddy products, squeezing out smaller and start-up ventures, and gaming the system to make sure that it all goes as planned?

The payoff of a huge bureaucratic government is that it protects people from their own STUPID actions. And, in the case of the US, it protects them in spite of the fact that they pretend they don't want to be protected. Their efficacy as political humans is diminished, because of the distance between themselves and their government. They do not register their every action as having a political or economic impact. Rather than create a caring society, the politics of state and regulation creates an oblivious populace, pitting a few different kinds of social engineers against each other, until the apparatchik that they have wrought is scraping the sky with its power and sheer size, at which time the elite, made rich by the very people that this system is supposed to protect, buy the system, and, therefore, the law. With this power comes the power to manipulate every bloomin' thing that one can imagine -- the language, filial organization, psychology -- very subtle, yet salient chunks of the human operating system.

The libertarian says "no." Unfortunately, many in this thread are right, that so-called libertarians are actually Republicans who have lost their way home. However, real libertarian philosophy has NOTHING to do with conservatism, and much more to do with liberalism. Libertarianism DOES NOT necessarily require allegiance to the "outcome" of the market, or market worship a la neoliberalism. It requires allegiance to recognizing one's place in the market. It requires understanding one's purchase and labor efficacy. Further, it requires a LOCAL view of community and consumption, and a re-assesed view of what community means.

Libertarianism is not pseudo-intellectual, it is ultimately intellectual, and lies on a much more holistic and organic philosophical and psychological plane than the political circus that makes up our national discourse. The "workable balance" between the individual and the group is the uncoersed modification of the behavior of the individual. The goal, in my opinion, is to have the individual act, by his or her her own free will, on behalf of the group. Nothing short of that, in my opinion, is a success or a solution.

I am a minarchist, meaning that I'm not against the courts, emergency services, and a functioning, limited de-centralized government. I am a de-centralizationist, meaning that I think that the political locus should be local and hands-on. I am a communalist, meaning, that my own personal vision of society is that of a non-coersed collective. I am a syndicalist, which means I believe in workers owning their companies. I am a libertarian, which means that I believe that actions have outcomes, and that we deserve to live and die by them.

In essence, the state is one big harm-reduction model. The problem is, you've taken away the keys, you've hidden the cash card, you've broken all the bottles of liquor in the house, and you have, in essence, stopped your alcoholic from drinking, crashing the family car, and spending the family's money on alcohol -- but as the addict sits, sloshing in his rationalization and denial, you understand, fundamentally, a few things: the alcoholic has no allegiance to the family, no rational or principled thought, no love beyond access and no desire beyond the desire to drink. You've stopped the consequences, but you're left with an emotional and qualitative void that penetrates every aspect of the family. This is where we are, as a society. Harm reduction has not stopped the soul inside from rotting. It gets no better, from here.

[The Traveler]

149. What we have going on here

is, methinks, a critical line of discussion. I just got off work and am too tired to properly digest or respond to your line of argument ... let me just say I think we are both barking up the right tree, albeit from different sides.

However, I can give a quick preview of the line of argument I will attempt in the near future.

First, I find find myself in virtually total agreement with your last two paragraphs, both in terms of your expression of "what is the Good (in the classical sense)" and in terms of your expression of the soul rotting quality of intervention and the resultant emotional/spiritual void that inevitably results.

Oddly, we are philsophically quit aligned in the first two paragraphs. Creation of a vast bureaucracy to implement the public good has historically been unreliable at best. The problem, of course, is that the bureaucracy becomes its own entity, pursuing its own interests as it attempts to fulfill its charter.

Yet, locality of action is equally certain to be incapable of dealing with global issues. The mathematics of games virtually guarantees that. We cannot with reliability achieve macroscopic goals by sticking purely to activity on the microscopic scale. There must be an organizing principle or set of standards.

Further, with growth in population and transformations produced by technology, the meaning of "local" versus "global" action becomes fuzzy. (That can be developed into a counter argument for my point in the paragraph above ... don't worry, I have a counter-counter argument.)

Here's the problem ... people are fucked up. Because people are fucked up, idealistic models must be tempered with practical considerations. Because the people injecting those practical considerations are themselves fucked up, there will be unintended consequences and side effects. That is life in the real world ...

We take the drunk's car keys away. At least he won't kill someone by crashing into him. But we have not addressed the fundamental issue and the soul rots. You provide an apt analogy, presenting a problem for which neither you nor I can provide a ready solution ... but the drunk and his local community of friends, family and associates can.

But we can take the keys and keep the poor miserable wretch off the road, and that serves a very practical purpose ... and perhaps that is all we can expect or require of macro level institutions.

"Government" must be regarded as a tool of the tribe that can be crafted to achieve practical purposes, like keeping the drunk off the road and identifying standards of practice which do not expose the tribe to unacceptable risk or harm. It can provide no meaning to the people which the people do not themselves provide. Which takes us back to the requirement for individual and local action.

Thus we are in large agreement regarding diagnosis and objectives, but differ in the treatment we would recommend. Your view is that all macroscopic organization is repugnant. My view is that a proper balance between macroscopic and microscopic organization is necessary to advance the public good.

[WinkyDink]

88. Libertarians try to mask their self-centeredness behind "personal freedom"

Dog-eat-dog Social Darwinians, I've-got-mine-who-cares-about-you, I'm-an-Ubermensch-and-you're-not~~~
Feh.

[LincolnMcGrath]

91. Exactly. The me me me me me party.

[htuttle]

92. I have NO problems with librarians, and they shouldn't get attacked here!

They've given me a lot of research help over the years, and they are often very knowledgeable! Who would put the books away if it weren't for librarians?

[Realityhack]

125. ROTFLOL! n/t

[Chemical Bill]

93. I don't believe there is any one economic theory...

that can cover all situations in the real world. I piss off socialists and capitalists too.

Bill

edit: sorry, governmental theory either. I piss off dictators like * and libertarians alike.

[left of center]

94. Libertarian ideas are also utopist

There have been many thoughtful responses to this subject, so hopefully there is still room for my two cents.

Libertarians often depict Republicans and Democrats as utopist in their thinking about the world, but they are no different in their belief in very limited government and unfettered capitalism. While no system is perfect, it should be clear to people that extremes such as this don't work for the majority in the real world.

There is a reason why Libertarians frequently refer to our founding fathers while articulating their ideas, and this is not because they were intelligent and learned men, though they were. It is because their way of thinking worked back in that day. Back then people were few and land was plentiful. The larger cities were no larger than our small towns are today and most people lived on the land. Our society is now very different. From public safety to environmental protection, old problems have become bigger than they once were and new problems have arisen. There are many more institutions and much more infrastructure to address these problems. These things provide stability for our complex society, and they cost money. These things must be controlled, or at least monitored, by government for the common good.

So much can be said, but one needs only to attend a county commissioner or town council meeting to see why the Libertarian model fails in the real world. There one sees how infrastructure and the like depend upon people cooperating with one another and why an individual's neighbors deserve a say in what he plans to do with his property.

[formernaderite]

95. My wifes a Libertarian...on many issues we agree completely..

she just favors a teenyweeny federal govt, with minimal oversight and I don't. But you're right...this is NOT a libertarian friendly site. In essence the dems "hate" all third parties unless they hurt the republicans electorally. In that sense I've never experienced the same vitriol from the repubs regarding third party candidates.

[left of center]

96. must disagree there

You must have not met many far right Republicans. For example, back when Ron Wyden first won his US Senate seat in Oregon by a fraction of a percent, Rush Limbaugh blamed Libertarians. He ranted for days that the Republican would have won if the Libertarians had just voted for him instead of going with their candidate.

[formernaderite]

141. sorry, don't listen to rush

but I did have numerous Nader yard signs removed and defaced, so did friends of mine....and we live in a safe blue state where our votes had NO impact other than being a vote of conscience.

[left of center]

147. used to like Nader

I like Ralph Nader's ideas and the ideas of the Green Party. If our government were structured differently, say like those in Europe, I'd vote Green much of the time. Be things as they are, I would personally only vote for a third party if I didn't really care about the outcome. Of course, in such case, I could just as well not vote at all.

I did vote for Ross Perot back in 1992. It was my first Presidential election since turning 18 a few months earlier. I had been planning to vote for Bush because most people around me were Republican and I thought that was what I was too. I liked Perot so much I voted for him. I knew quite a few Republicans who did the same or even voted for Clinton. It is no wonder Bush lost his reelection.

Since I'm posting here, it is obvious that I figured myself out.

As for removed and defaced Nader signs, that was shameful. You would be surprise at who does that kind of thing. We had a heated town election earlier this month. While my wife was out canvassing for our candidates, she found brochures on peoples' doorsteps from an opposing candidate. Later in the day she met up with some of our campaign people, one of whom is a well dressed middle aged lawyer. This guy pulled out of his pockets dozens of brochures from this opponent that he had stolen. My wife was less than impressed, to say the least. It turned out that my wife and I later learned this opponent was actually a good person who shared some of our ideas, so we switched gears a few days before the election and secretly helped him campaign, which made all the deference in the end. He won reelection and we got our other two people in as well.

[blindpig]

97. libertarianism is an environmental nightmare.

No commons, that does it for me. No national parks, forests or other lands. No protections for wildlife. :grr: No way, no way in hell.

[rman]

102. What is your definition of "libertarian"?

There is talk about libertarianism is though it is clear to everyone what it is. What is clear to most people is what it means to be left/right, progressive/conservative, dem/repub. Very few people identify as libertarian of one kind or another, holding different views on all kinds of matters, some just say libertarian and be done with it. To me the term seems ambiguous.

What the heck is the libertarian agenda?

Leave everything to the so-called "free market", less regulation, small government or even no government?
That's a Right-Wingers wet dream.

If that's not the kind of libertarian you are, then i think you should be more specific.

[ToeBot]

103. The only thing I trust less than the government is business n/t

[Cats Against Frist]

104. Man -- how did I miss this thread?

I'm going to come back -- but the short answer is that the acrimony is simply a lack of understanding. Period. Liberals who get pissed off at small-l libertarians, and shout the same tired rebuttals, over and over, simply have no idea about which they speak.

[rman]

109. Main problem is there are so many kinds of libertarians,

but they rarely identify themselves specifically.

[Hollow Shells]

135. Hey Cats Against Frist

Do small-l libertarians support increasing education and health care? How do they feel about the Head Start and School Lunch program?

[LSdemocrat]

110. Libertarian ideologues and the US Lib Party give libertarians a bad name

So many libertarian ideologues I've met are so vitriolic in their hatred of government it just puts people off. These are the type of people who call Social Security and other government programs "evil", want to scrap every anti-discrimination law and environmental protection, and want to reduce the government to only the military.

Their vitriol and total disengagement from reality cause non-libertarians to view the word "Libertarian" with suspicion and disgust.

[Realityhack]

118. In short...

because libritarianism is childish, oversimplefied, self centered BS that ignores imperical evidence completely. And unlike some people a lot here do not consider 'the enemy of my enemy' to be a friend.

[bobbieinok]

121. 1st brochure I ever saw about the libertarian party

contained info about how terrible the National Parks were.....they should all be privately owned

info also listed JHelms as a supporter

this turned me off big time......before that I liked what I read about the party's view on pot and abortion, ie private and not something government should meddle with

[Lydia Leftcoast]

126. There are two types of libertarians: social and economic/political

The social libertarians take the view that your neighbor's behavior and beliefs are none of your business unless they harm you. If your neighbor wants to stay quietly dozy on heroin, start a religion based on worshipping a mold stain in the basement, or have two spouses, one of each gender, that's cool.

I think most DUers would be okay with social libertarians. I'm fine with them, too. It drives my mother crazy when she starts raving about someone whose behavior is unconventional, and I just say, "Yeah, Mom, but they're not hurting you, and they're not making you live like that, so what's the problem?"

It's the economic/political libertarians that I can't stand, because they're practically in lockstep with Grover Norquist in wanting to retain only the coercive powers of government (the military and the police) and removing all the beneficial powers (infrastructure, education, all the various ways in which the powerless are supposed to be protected from the powerful).

It sounds as if the OP's attitude is the result of a tactic that Barbara Ehrenreich noticed many years ago, back during the Bush Sr. administration (which is why I don't have a link). She noted that the Republicans were stepping up all the coercive and interfering powers of government (harsh drug laws, anti-choice restrictions) and chipping away at the beneficial powers, such as student aid, housing aid, labor protections, and environmental laws.

Ehrenreich saw this two-pronged approach, along with constant anti-government rhetoric, as an effort to convince people that government didn't work by making sure that it didn't work.

Younger people don't remember when you could have your student loans forgiven 100% if you taught school in a poverty-stricken area. They don't remember how much food stamps were a welcome relief to people who once simply starved for the last couple of days of each month. They don't remember the days before "government meddling" made it illegal to deny service to an African-American in a restaurant or to place a Help Wanted ad specifying "a bright young man under 30." They don't remember when government regulation of the airlines meant that the airlines provided service and comfort far superior to what they provide today and allowed roughly three times as many airlines as now to stay in business profitably. They don't remember when it would have been considered unconscionable to fire workers for striking. They don't remember when national and state parks were symbols of pride rather than commercial opportunities.

Most libertarians I've encountered do not have clear memories of any president before Reagan. They may think that they aren't Republicans, but they have absorbed the Repubican economic ideology more thoroughly than the average Republican.

[Dr Fate]

130. Beacause if you give them their porn & drugs, they are just Bushites.

A libertarian is a Republican who admits he likes to smoke dope & go to strip clubs.

Why is that supposed to impress me, considering I disagee with them on everything else that is actually important?

[Cozmosis]

131. Are there any good libertarian forums like these? I'd like to read them

?

[skipos]

132. Hi Bloodblister Bob,

how would a libertarian would have handled the great depression differently than Hoover? I am curious what you think.

[election_2004]

136. Not all libertarians are socially-conservative

Many people who identify as Libertarian are extremely supportive of homosexuals, America's youth, freedom of speech, religious pluralism, etc.

They just prefer a much smaller size of government than Democrats, Greens, liberals, and progressives.

[Wetzelbill]

139. I like Libertarians

I used to work with one on the columnist staff of a paper a few years ago. I respected his opinion quite a lot. You'll never get any hostility from me, Bloodblister Bob. Hope it doesn't get you too down. Hell, we even meet each other with quite a bit of hostility sometimes, lol.

[robbedvoter]

145. I hate selfishness, that's why. In a society, you help the needy.

A state is NOT a business.

[TNMOM]

146. animosity toward libertarians? how about asking yourself

why there is so much animosity among libertarians toward liberals?

I agree with you that there could be some common ground, but I don't think all the work/blame rests with liberals. There is definitely a difference between our beliefs, I'm not going to question my liberal beliefs any more than you'll question yours (and it doesn't sound like you are questioning any libertarian stance -- other than you don't oppose unions). Well, okay then. I guess we can agreee that unions should exist.

[HulaChicken]

150. self delete

[MrBenchley]

153. Look at how many posts from small or big L libertarians

we get DEMANDING that the Democratic Party be totally revamped to accommodate this or that childish libertarian "ideal," which nine times out of ten is just warmed over Republican crap.

And let's not forget that the Libertarians already HAVE their own political party....which voters regard as a bunch of screwlooses.

[MrBenchley]

151. Why not? It's not like you bring anything worth having to the party...

"libertarianism" (small or large L) is nothing but sophistry in defense of greed and selfish impulse.

"We all loathe Bush and the war, we are all pro-choice, we are all against corporate welfare, we all think polluters should be held accountable, we all hate the police state..."
Except you're not ALL anything....and most of "you" are nothing but right wingers hiding under a new sheet. Any movement whose major public spokespeople are John Stossel, Matt Drudge and Neal Boortz can go fuck themselves, as far as I'm concerned.

And excuse the fuck out of me, but I don't think suing polluters after I've been poisoned by them is "holding them accountable."

"It sort of breaks my heart, really, that libertarians are met with hostility in these forums."
Gee, it gives ME a big laugh to hear people (who insist that the Democratic Party has to be totally revamped to accomodate childish libertarian gibberish) piss and moan when Democrats don't give them the deference due them. Especially when they have their own party NOW that doesn't amount to jack shit.