Full Version: Libertarians
Today an interesting article/book review(s) about Libertarians showed up in my RSS Reader on my phone:
Questions for Debate:
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
|---
Full Disclosure - In my uncanny ability to have never picked a winner in Presidential Election includes 2 Libertarians and *cough*Ross Perot*cough*
---|
QUOTE
More than perhaps any other American political group, libertarians have suffered the blows of caricature. For many people, the term evokes an image of a scraggly misfit living in the woods with his gun collection, a few marijuana plants, some dogeared Ayn Rand titles, and a battered pickup truck plastered with bumper stickers reading "Taxes = Theft" and "FDR Was A Pinko."
The stereotype is not entirely unfair. Even some of those who proudly call themselves libertarians recognize that their philosophy of personal freedom and minimal government can be a powerful magnet for the unhinged. Nor has recent political history done much to rehabilitate libertarianism's image as an outlier.
The stereotype is not entirely unfair. Even some of those who proudly call themselves libertarians recognize that their philosophy of personal freedom and minimal government can be a powerful magnet for the unhinged. Nor has recent political history done much to rehabilitate libertarianism's image as an outlier.
Questions for Debate:
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
|---
Full Disclosure - In my uncanny ability to have never picked a winner in Presidential Election includes 2 Libertarians and *cough*Ross Perot*cough*
---|
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
Like all stereotypes, I think this is a gross oversimplification based on real empirical evidence. There are some libertarians that are like that - many are not. I think it's slightly more pertinent to capital-L Libertarians (as in the political party of that name.
The problem, for the party as well as for this debate, is that few libertarians are Libertarian. The Political Compass, referred to on
many times over the years, is predicated on the belief that the old left-right axis is too blunt an instrument to describe political views usefully, and that another axis of libertarian/authoritarian needs to be used too.
Using this tool, you find that most people not only vary on their left-right axis but on their up-down, libertarian/authoritarian axis too.
And that, typically, left-wing and right wing libertarians only come down hard on the role of the state in areas where they disagree with state activity.
Lefty libertarians (like me) strongly disagree with government intervention in personal and sexual matters, but see a core role for the state in providing a basic standard of living (through state-funded welfare, health, education etc.) which comes with an acceptance of - no, a demand for - higher levels of general taxation than many other people would accept or support. Also, we see corporations and markets as things that should serve people, and demand strong regulation - it doesn't matter to me whether it's a government or a corporation that violates my rights - my rights should be actively protected from violation, and not simply retrospectively protected form what might happen if I successfully sue.
Righty libertarians strongly disagree with government intervention in business and in markets, and object on principle to the idea of welfare and taxation and - to a point - government itself. They DO however generally support a strong and well funded military, police and penal system, etc. and mostly accept (albeit sometimes grudgingly) that such things should be funded from taxation with a preference of raising said taxes as close as possible to the layer of government doing the funding (which I don't disagree with).
So the problem the Libertarians have of uniting libertarians is he same that the Democrats have with uniting the Left or the Republicans of uniting the Right in a first-past-the-post electoral system - the tent has to be so big that you end up more or less in the centre.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Capital-L Libertarians are not a viable third party because the US electoral system mitigates against any more than two parties. Even in a more proportional electoral system, they'd be a minority party, because the mainstream party view that government is an evil but necessary phenomenon to be kept as small as possible is not (thankfully) universally shared, or even all that widespread.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
Hard to say - I'd tend to say "neither" if my limited experience of Libertarians (mostly from here on) wasn't that there's a slight tendency to be more on the libertarian right than the libertarian left. So, generally, I'd say there's a slight right-leaning bias; the general pro-choice, pro-sexual freedom message of libertarians only really clashes with the Right's general tendency to be more religious and morally authoritarian (the two are linked). Mainstream economic and political rightwingers are more or less indistinguishable from Libertarians until you start talking about what you are and are not allowed to do with your genitalia. 
Like all stereotypes, I think this is a gross oversimplification based on real empirical evidence. There are some libertarians that are like that - many are not. I think it's slightly more pertinent to capital-L Libertarians (as in the political party of that name.
The problem, for the party as well as for this debate, is that few libertarians are Libertarian. The Political Compass, referred to on
many times over the years, is predicated on the belief that the old left-right axis is too blunt an instrument to describe political views usefully, and that another axis of libertarian/authoritarian needs to be used too. Using this tool, you find that most people not only vary on their left-right axis but on their up-down, libertarian/authoritarian axis too.
And that, typically, left-wing and right wing libertarians only come down hard on the role of the state in areas where they disagree with state activity.
Lefty libertarians (like me) strongly disagree with government intervention in personal and sexual matters, but see a core role for the state in providing a basic standard of living (through state-funded welfare, health, education etc.) which comes with an acceptance of - no, a demand for - higher levels of general taxation than many other people would accept or support. Also, we see corporations and markets as things that should serve people, and demand strong regulation - it doesn't matter to me whether it's a government or a corporation that violates my rights - my rights should be actively protected from violation, and not simply retrospectively protected form what might happen if I successfully sue.
Righty libertarians strongly disagree with government intervention in business and in markets, and object on principle to the idea of welfare and taxation and - to a point - government itself. They DO however generally support a strong and well funded military, police and penal system, etc. and mostly accept (albeit sometimes grudgingly) that such things should be funded from taxation with a preference of raising said taxes as close as possible to the layer of government doing the funding (which I don't disagree with).
So the problem the Libertarians have of uniting libertarians is he same that the Democrats have with uniting the Left or the Republicans of uniting the Right in a first-past-the-post electoral system - the tent has to be so big that you end up more or less in the centre.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Capital-L Libertarians are not a viable third party because the US electoral system mitigates against any more than two parties. Even in a more proportional electoral system, they'd be a minority party, because the mainstream party view that government is an evil but necessary phenomenon to be kept as small as possible is not (thankfully) universally shared, or even all that widespread.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
Hard to say - I'd tend to say "neither" if my limited experience of Libertarians (mostly from here on
) wasn't that there's a slight tendency to be more on the libertarian right than the libertarian left. So, generally, I'd say there's a slight right-leaning bias; the general pro-choice, pro-sexual freedom message of libertarians only really clashes with the Right's general tendency to be more religious and morally authoritarian (the two are linked). Mainstream economic and political rightwingers are more or less indistinguishable from Libertarians until you start talking about what you are and are not allowed to do with your genitalia.
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
I would say the pot comment is accurate. Third parties are the only political parties seriously advocating decriminalizing the War on Drugs. As such, the political stereotype fits. Whether they can get a majority in Congress and whether they have the cojones to decriminalize the drug war is another issue. If they don't they will assume the mainstream anti-drug stance Dems and Reps have already taken.
As for the FDR sticker that's really the kind of idiocy I would expect to see on a Republican's car. The GOP has cornered the liberal = pinko market. I've been told by pundits that Democrats are Communists, so I assume I am also a Communist by having voted for Democrats.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Viable third party. I'm all for reforming campaign laws to inject competition of ideas and policies into the horse race.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
They're classical liberals; purists, which retains the libertarian aspects of both modern liberalism and conservatism. When political scientists and economists say liberal they usually mean classical liberalism. Libertarianism hasn't replaced liberalism in academic papers.
But sometimes libertarians give me the creeps. I apologize for not having saved the blogger's page and failing to link it here, but in the comments section at least one person advocated removing the right of the poor to vote to avoid compulsory redistribution. I can't think of anything more elitist than disenfranchising a group of voters.
I would say the pot comment is accurate. Third parties are the only political parties seriously advocating decriminalizing the War on Drugs. As such, the political stereotype fits. Whether they can get a majority in Congress and whether they have the cojones to decriminalize the drug war is another issue. If they don't they will assume the mainstream anti-drug stance Dems and Reps have already taken.
As for the FDR sticker that's really the kind of idiocy I would expect to see on a Republican's car. The GOP has cornered the liberal = pinko market. I've been told by pundits that Democrats are Communists, so I assume I am also a Communist by having voted for Democrats.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Viable third party. I'm all for reforming campaign laws to inject competition of ideas and policies into the horse race.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
They're classical liberals; purists, which retains the libertarian aspects of both modern liberalism and conservatism. When political scientists and economists say liberal they usually mean classical liberalism. Libertarianism hasn't replaced liberalism in academic papers.
But sometimes libertarians give me the creeps. I apologize for not having saved the blogger's page and failing to link it here, but in the comments section at least one person advocated removing the right of the poor to vote to avoid compulsory redistribution. I can't think of anything more elitist than disenfranchising a group of voters.
QUOTE(Julian @ Sep 12 2007, 09:51 AM) 
Lefty libertarians (like me) strongly disagree with government intervention in personal and sexual matters, but see a core role for the state in providing a basic standard of living (through state-funded welfare, health, education etc.) which comes with an acceptance of - no, a demand for - higher levels of general taxation than many other people would accept or support. Also, we see corporations and markets as things that should serve people, and demand strong regulation - it doesn't matter to me whether it's a government or a corporation that violates my rights - my rights should be actively protected from violation, and not simply retrospectively protected form what might happen if I successfully sue.
Righty libertarians strongly disagree with government intervention in business and in markets, and object on principle to the idea of welfare and taxation and - to a point - government itself. They DO however generally support a strong and well funded military, police and penal system, etc. and mostly accept (albeit sometimes grudgingly) that such things should be funded from taxation with a preference of raising said taxes as close as possible to the layer of government doing the funding (which I don't disagree with).
...
Hard to say - I'd tend to say "neither" if my limited experience of Libertarians (mostly from here on) wasn't that there's a slight tendency to be more on the libertarian right than the libertarian left. So, generally, I'd say there's a slight right-leaning bias; the general pro-choice, pro-sexual freedom message of libertarians only really clashes with the Right's general tendency to be more religious and morally authoritarian (the two are linked). Mainstream economic and political rightwingers are more or less indistinguishable from Libertarians until you start talking about what you are and are not allowed to do with your genitalia.
Righty libertarians strongly disagree with government intervention in business and in markets, and object on principle to the idea of welfare and taxation and - to a point - government itself. They DO however generally support a strong and well funded military, police and penal system, etc. and mostly accept (albeit sometimes grudgingly) that such things should be funded from taxation with a preference of raising said taxes as close as possible to the layer of government doing the funding (which I don't disagree with).
...
Hard to say - I'd tend to say "neither" if my limited experience of Libertarians (mostly from here on
) wasn't that there's a slight tendency to be more on the libertarian right than the libertarian left. So, generally, I'd say there's a slight right-leaning bias; the general pro-choice, pro-sexual freedom message of libertarians only really clashes with the Right's general tendency to be more religious and morally authoritarian (the two are linked). Mainstream economic and political rightwingers are more or less indistinguishable from Libertarians until you start talking about what you are and are not allowed to do with your genitalia. Great Post!
I completely agree with the majority of your statements. Right-wing libertarians, however, also could care less if you smoke a little pot or want to be gay and get married.
I'd have to say that smoking pot and the homosexual situation is the stark current contrast between libertarians and republicans. Frankly, most "southern baptist" conservatives shreak when you mention gay marriage, and attempt to fight your feelings with bible verse. Smoking pot is nearly as abhorrid to them, usually as they are standing outside drinking a Busch Light and smoking Marlboros.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Sep 12 2007, 08:46 AM)
More than perhaps any other American political group, libertarians have suffered the blows of caricature. For many people, the term evokes an image of a scraggly misfit living in the woods with his gun collection, a few marijuana plants, some dogeared Ayn Rand titles, and a battered pickup truck plastered with bumper stickers reading "Taxes = Theft" and "FDR Was A Pinko."
The stereotype is not entirely unfair. Even some of those who proudly call themselves libertarians recognize that their philosophy of personal freedom and minimal government can be a powerful magnet for the unhinged. Nor has recent political history done much to rehabilitate libertarianism's image as an outlier.
The stereotype is not entirely unfair. Even some of those who proudly call themselves libertarians recognize that their philosophy of personal freedom and minimal government can be a powerful magnet for the unhinged. Nor has recent political history done much to rehabilitate libertarianism's image as an outlier.
Questions for Debate:
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
In My case completely inaccurate. I drive a black Mercedes S550. No Bumper stickers.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Well both. We are a fringe group. Very difficult to find people nowadays who like to adhere to principles. If freedom means no food stamps or government largesse then they don't want any part of it. The welfare-warfare purveyors act in the same way as drug pushers.
We are viable because when collectivism/parasitism fails then Capitalism and Free Enterprise will provide the answer.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
We are at the center. Freedom across the board, no ifs, and/or buts.
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
Probably the only semi-accurate elements of the stereotype would be the gun collection and the Ayn Rand books in the library. The rest is essentially defamatory, intended to impugn the intelligence, social skills, character, judgement and success of Libertarians.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
I would have to say a fringe group, for two reasons. First, obviously, is the dynamics of our two party system. Second, is the Libertarians inability to conceive of a "moral ecology", an inability that makes their perspective "problematic" for the great majority of Americans.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
Based upon my recent reading of Neal Boortz's Somebody's Gotta Say It! I'm going to have to ever so minutely to the Left, as the Libertarian conception of the person is closer to the Left's than to the Right's. Now, the implications and policies that they draw from their conception certainly look like they could be "cherry picked", but I would consider that to be an unfair characterization. The policies are, on the whole, generally consistent with their base concept of the person.
Probably the only semi-accurate elements of the stereotype would be the gun collection and the Ayn Rand books in the library. The rest is essentially defamatory, intended to impugn the intelligence, social skills, character, judgement and success of Libertarians.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
I would have to say a fringe group, for two reasons. First, obviously, is the dynamics of our two party system. Second, is the Libertarians inability to conceive of a "moral ecology", an inability that makes their perspective "problematic" for the great majority of Americans.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
Based upon my recent reading of Neal Boortz's Somebody's Gotta Say It! I'm going to have to ever so minutely to the Left, as the Libertarian conception of the person is closer to the Left's than to the Right's. Now, the implications and policies that they draw from their conception certainly look like they could be "cherry picked", but I would consider that to be an unfair characterization. The policies are, on the whole, generally consistent with their base concept of the person.
***************************************************
QUOTE(Julian)
Lefty libertarians (like me) strongly disagree with government intervention in personal and sexual matters, but see a core role for the state in providing a basic standard of living (through state-funded welfare, health, education etc.) which comes with an acceptance of - no, a demand for - higher levels of general taxation than many other people would accept or support.
"Lefty libertarian"? Assessing a "core role for the state in providing" is utterly at odds with libertarian philosophy, whether "Big L" or "Little l". You have mistaken "libertine" with "libertarian."***************************************************
QUOTE(Lesly)
But sometimes libertarians give me the creeps. I apologize for not having saved the blogger's page and failing to link it here, but in the comments section at least one person advocated removing the right of the poor to vote to avoid compulsory redistribution. I can't think of anything more elitist than disenfranchising a group of voters.
Its not "elitist", its a perfectly understandable reaction to the redistributionist tendencies of socialists, as evidenced by Julian's post above. As long as "the poor" believe that they can vote themselves the fruits of someone else's labor, denying them the opportunity is in keeping with libertarian philosophy. Control of the ballot box no more entitles one entity to the property of another than control of the guns does.
QUOTE
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
Semi-accurate. I personally drive a Subaru Outback sedan with two bumper stickers on the back [one of the Gadsen Purchase flag and one with a Libertarian party slogan on it], I don't smoke pot and I despise living in rural areas. The stereotype, as could be said about most, is grounded in some fact but is largely misleading. With that said, I think the 'FDR was a Pinko' sticker is fairly dumb. There are so many more worse and completely accurate things that could be said about FDR; to use the word pinko would be like fining Osama Bin Laden for cursing on one of his videos.QUOTE
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
The party is on the fringes of the American political system, the ideology is fairly common. That said, the Libertarian Party has almost no chance at having any kind of meaningful election go there way. That's the result of lack of media attention, the 'two' party system being a major aspect of political socialization in this country and some structural boundaries that make a third party's success virtually impossible.QUOTE
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
I think it is unfair to say that simply being a free-market libertarian makes one a rightist. Libertarians are neither right nor left-wing, so I'll have to say a 'cherry-picking of the two'.CP
QUOTE
And that, typically, left-wing and right wing libertarians only come down hard on the role of the state in areas where they disagree with state activity.
This thread so far reminds me of a website out there where a guy - a Euro of some type - wants to organize the Anarchists. He has ideas for a pretty flag and symbols and how to arrange meeting and colors Yada yada yada.
Sorry Jules maybe in Europe Libertarians dream of big taxes and government to match but none that I have ever met.
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
Not very--but does anyone else remember when the Republicans and their "militias" thought attacking the government through terrorist style efforts was inevitable and probably Needed to be done? The constant justification using the
QUOTE
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
quote.Ah the Good Ole Days of unmarked helicopters, sign of the beast implants and Manchurian Clintons
Libertarians are going to be a permanent third party and a fringe group. Too many are unable to conceive of being able to survive without having every action mapped out by government. What you can Say or Think or where and how you can amuse yourself. Too many want your money for things no one would ever agree to or vote for but MUST BE DONE. and if you do not agreee you must be racist, uncaring or a "Danged libRuhl"--pass the Pabst!
Personal responsibility should be mandated by either JesusMohammed Ali McBuddha or the State or Ben and Jerry.
Ayn Rand--who needed a whole book? "I exist for me, now get lost...."
Me, I follow this.
QUOTE
the scope of democracy should be reduced to as little as possible so that your life will not be run politically by people who act against your interests by using the power of government. The ideal is zero democracy. With zero democracy, the costs of your actions are not forced upon anyone else and their’s are not forced upon you.
I think private organizations--not just business, but groups of like minded concerned citizens can deal with any problems or needs we may have. Unfortunately for some, if you cannot convince by argument you Don't get to force others to submit and even fund their servitude to Your ideals.
I believe that with todays Tech and levels of knowledge--unlike the beginning of the last century we are not such a simple society of laborers who couldn't afford education and would have had a lack of opportunity anyways.-- we can react faster and more efficiently than government. Where once we had a few specialists and options, today our limits are imagination and drive.
Cherry Pick I guess. Half of the left and right platforms are lib based.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 13 2007, 02:43 AM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 12 2007, 11:39 AM)
But sometimes libertarians give me the creeps. I apologize for not having saved the blogger's page and failing to link it here, but in the comments section at least one person advocated removing the right of the poor to vote to avoid compulsory redistribution. I can't think of anything more elitist than disenfranchising a group of voters.
Its not "elitist", its a perfectly understandable reaction to the redistributionist tendencies of socialists, as evidenced by Julian's post above. As long as "the poor" believe that they can vote themselves the fruits of someone else's labor, denying them the opportunity is in keeping with libertarian philosophy. Control of the ballot box no more entitles one entity to the property of another than control of the guns does.
I'm neither moved nor convinced by your embarassing defense of elitism. Your oh so understandable response to Jules didn't take issue with his characterization of righty libertarians. I guess Jules got that one right.
QUOTE
didn't take issue with his characterization of righty libertarians. I guess Jules got that one right.
Actually No.
All Jules did was describe Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats/liberals.
Libertarians want NO government anything and taxes are never correct. Once you lean towards interference from either side you drop off the Libertarian scale.
QUOTE
Its not "elitist", its a perfectly understandable reaction to the redistributionist tendencies of socialists, as evidenced by Julian's post above. As long as "the poor" believe that they can vote themselves the fruits of someone else's labor, denying them the opportunity is in keeping with libertarian philosophy. Control of the ballot box no more entitles one entity to the property of another than control of the guns does.
Whats wrong with the statement? That it is from BD?
This IS one of the things a Lib would hate, and desire. When people can not come by a desired result fairly they resort to force to cover the costs of their dmands. just because a "fair" vote is carefully arranged to justify the theft and coercion doesn't make it right. Quite often people seem to believe they deserve whatever they want from that which they did not create and demand it be handed over. "For the good of society" or "Rich people are evil" being their excuse.
That seems to often be the only purpose of democracy is to lend some nobility and credibility to theft and coersion.
QUOTE
I'm neither moved nor convinced by your embarassing defense of elitism.
Sorry lesly but the elitism isn't coming from BD.
I have been a member of the "libertarians on campus" now for 2 years. We get plenty of wingnuts, no doubt about it, with some quaint notions about reality of the universe.
BTW- I drive a heavily modded Turbo cummins diesel 4x4 truck with only one bumper sticker- my girl's school name.
I have to run off now dang-it, I will mod this post later too!
BTW- I drive a heavily modded Turbo cummins diesel 4x4 truck with only one bumper sticker- my girl's school name.
I have to run off now dang-it, I will mod this post later too!
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 13 2007, 12:13 PM)
Actually no. All Jules did was describe Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/liberals.
If that's your view okay, but it doesn't speak to why I responded to BD the way I did.
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 13 2007, 12:13 PM)
Libertarians want NO government anything and taxes are never correct. Once you lean towards interference from either side you drop off the Libertarian scale.
I don't mean to offend but is there something wrong with recognizing there are libertarian elements in both parties?
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 13 2007, 12:13 PM)
What's wrong with the statement? That it is from BD?
Very funny, Chris. Should I call you an elitist to prove that's not the reason?
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 13 2007, 12:13 PM)
This is one of the things a Lib would hate, and desire. When people can not come by a desired result fairly they resort to force to cover the costs of their demands.
I would think that supporting the disenfranchisement of any group of voters for any reason is elitist but maybe I'm just crazy for believing everyone's interests should be represented. Perhaps I should take back what I said about libertarianism being a viable option.
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 13 2007, 12:13 PM)
Just because a "fair" vote is carefully arranged to justify the theft and coercion doesn't make it right. Quite often people seem to believe they deserve whatever they want from that which they did not create and demand it be handed over. "For the good of society" or "Rich people are evil" being their excuse. That seems to often be the only purpose of democracy is to lend some nobility and credibility to theft and coercion.
All right. Maybe I should call you anti-democratic instead. There's no way you can take the good and ignore the bad in a democracy.
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 13 2007, 12:13 PM)
Sorry Lesly but the elitism isn't coming from BD.
Then you should have no problem quoting an example of my elitism like, you know, disenfranchising the rich cuz they're evil 'n stuff?
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 13 2007, 10:37 AM)
I'm neither moved nor convinced by your embarassing defense of elitism. Your oh so understandable response to Jules didn't take issue with his characterization of righty libertarians. I guess Jules got that one right.
Good job with not debating what he had to say, but back-handedly insulting the notion. Being liberatarian isn't being elistist, but rather believing in the value of capitalism in the American economy.
I think Bikerdad makes a good point about Libertarian philosophy and entitlement. So long as the poor and those who pander to them can control compulsory taxation and distribute the income in their direction... we'll end up with a half-soclialist and welfare state just as it exists today. Spend 30 min in Parkland Hospital here in Dallas, and you'll quickly learn that people drive up in Cadillac's for free healthcare.
And what's this pre-occupation with telling people what they drive. I think the sticker comment was a metaphor. I drive a fire red ferrari that's worth $100,000... OOPS- I actually meant to say a Ford Pick up in need of a wash. It actually is pretty new, because I drove the last Chevy truck until it had about 120K on it and made noises all the time. There is a case of water in the back seat and golf clubs under the bed cover in the back. Does that make me a liberatarian or a bad employee... because I wanna be able to play 9 on a moment's notice? The water is because I drink like 6 bottles/day. Maybe I'm an H2O-aholic, which definitely means I'm conservative.
I dunno that a car really speaks to your political affiliation, excepting people in Tx that seem to be truly liberal rarely seem to have big trucks. However- I do know a lady in Acct that drives a Subaru Outback too who is a MONSTER democrat (and has a number of stickers.. .i.e a rainbow sticker, etc).. for whatever that's worth.
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
I don’t think that it’s necessarily accurate, though the Libertarians have their share of eccentrics. I do believe that it’s the perception most Americans have of the party. A perception that is welcomed if not encouraged by both major political parties.
The perception is not softened by some media portrayals, such as the Libertarian National Convention. Many delegates dress the part in the spirit of fun, but your average uptight American views then as non serious political part timers. Like it or not, most narrow minded or thought challenged Americans see the Libertarian Party as nothing more than the ‘Legalize Pot Party.
I’m a card carrying Libertarian (though more of a small ‘l’), I drive and SUV, I’m career military, and Oh how I hate to say it…..probably look to most like a Republican. Most people probably wouldn’t peg me for a Libertarian, but what disturbs me most, is how many people I come into contact with that have never even heard of the party, or if they have, they haven’t a clue what they stand for.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
A viable third party if the suffocating stranglehold of the Democrats and Republicans can be lifted. What amazes me most about Americans is that most in my experience, don’t believe that their political party really represents their best interests, that the parties are corrupt or that their vote really matters. Yet time and again, they are programmed to vote either how their family raised them to vote, their church tells them to vote, or they are a one trick pony of political thought and only vote for the party that supports that trick.
It is entirely in the interest of the Democrat and Republican Party’s to propel the notion that Libertarians and others are whack jobs that should be excluded from debates and serious consideration.
I believe that certain planks of the platform are courageous; equal rights and drug decriminalization to name a couple. But to attract more members and more legitimacy in the eyes of average Americans, the party must focus more efforts in the areas that may affect more people, but are unaware of the dangers: Eminent Domain and freedom from oppressive taxation.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
A mesh of the two I think. The Libertarian Party can be seen as left leaning by some for its stand on gay rights, marriage and other social issues…….and will certainly be seen as right wing by some for its stand on foreign affairs. Because of the individualistic spirit of Libertarians, we are comfortable in picking and choosing what issues are important to us, rather than marching in lock step with a party platform. I believe this is why you see people use the terms small ‘l’ and big ‘L’ far more than in the major parties.
I don’t think that it’s necessarily accurate, though the Libertarians have their share of eccentrics. I do believe that it’s the perception most Americans have of the party. A perception that is welcomed if not encouraged by both major political parties.
The perception is not softened by some media portrayals, such as the Libertarian National Convention. Many delegates dress the part in the spirit of fun, but your average uptight American views then as non serious political part timers. Like it or not, most narrow minded or thought challenged Americans see the Libertarian Party as nothing more than the ‘Legalize Pot Party.
I’m a card carrying Libertarian (though more of a small ‘l’), I drive and SUV, I’m career military, and Oh how I hate to say it…..probably look to most like a Republican. Most people probably wouldn’t peg me for a Libertarian, but what disturbs me most, is how many people I come into contact with that have never even heard of the party, or if they have, they haven’t a clue what they stand for.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
A viable third party if the suffocating stranglehold of the Democrats and Republicans can be lifted. What amazes me most about Americans is that most in my experience, don’t believe that their political party really represents their best interests, that the parties are corrupt or that their vote really matters. Yet time and again, they are programmed to vote either how their family raised them to vote, their church tells them to vote, or they are a one trick pony of political thought and only vote for the party that supports that trick.
It is entirely in the interest of the Democrat and Republican Party’s to propel the notion that Libertarians and others are whack jobs that should be excluded from debates and serious consideration.
I believe that certain planks of the platform are courageous; equal rights and drug decriminalization to name a couple. But to attract more members and more legitimacy in the eyes of average Americans, the party must focus more efforts in the areas that may affect more people, but are unaware of the dangers: Eminent Domain and freedom from oppressive taxation.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
A mesh of the two I think. The Libertarian Party can be seen as left leaning by some for its stand on gay rights, marriage and other social issues…….and will certainly be seen as right wing by some for its stand on foreign affairs. Because of the individualistic spirit of Libertarians, we are comfortable in picking and choosing what issues are important to us, rather than marching in lock step with a party platform. I believe this is why you see people use the terms small ‘l’ and big ‘L’ far more than in the major parties.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 13 2007, 02:05 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 13 2007, 10:37 AM)
I'm neither moved nor convinced by your embarassing defense of elitism. Your oh so understandable response to Jules didn't take issue with his characterization of righty libertarians. I guess Jules got that one right.
Good job with not debating what he had to say, but back-handedly insulting the notion. Being liberatarian isn't being elitist, but rather believing in the value of capitalism in the American economy.
Why are you touchy about me recognizing that Bikerdad took issue with Jules's characterization of lefty libertarians but not with righty libertarians? Please, please show me where I said being libertarian is being elitist? Perhaps I should have typed "But sometimes some libertarians give me the creeps" so as not to rile up those who consider themselves members of this political minority? I said supporting the disenfranchisement of a group of voters is elitist. Do you disagree with this?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 13 2007, 02:05 PM)
I think Bikerdad makes a good point about Libertarian philosophy and entitlement. So long as the poor and those who pander to them can control compulsory taxation and distribute the income in their direction... we'll end up with a half-socialist and welfare state just as it exists today.
If that is socialism and compulsory taxation is a crime stop supporting a representative democracy. Alternately, we can be a libertarian democracy by de-industrializing and bowing out of globalization so the "underclass" stops voting for socialist policies that support risk offsets.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 13 2007, 01:15 PM)
If that is socialism and compulsory taxation is a crime, then stop supporting a representative democracy. Alternately, we can be a libertarian democracy by de-industrializing and bowing out of globalizations so the "underclass" stops voting for socialist policies that support risk offsets.
Ugh... you should go work with a campaign. You've completely twisted what we are saying.
What I'd like to note is that the distribution of income, from the rich (or in our case middle class) to the poor, happens specifically because of the ballot box. Taxation in it's current form isn't a crime, but surely a travesty. The fact that a welfare recipient who's been on the dole for years (if not generations) has the same capacity to vote their perpetual hand-out is, in my opinion, a load of bologna. It's silly. All able people should work, and in most cases, should have to be self-sufficient.
That's all I'm saying. So long as Susie Welfare-rat can keep politicians in business with their votes, Democrats nationwide will still pander to them. They carry the same weight as someone who has worked their fingers to the bone.
In my opinion, if you've been on gov't assistance completely (as a sole financier) for more than a couple of years... you should have no voting rights. The notion that the same government who finances your apathy can be re-elected by your hand is absurd.
Also- if your total tax burden is under say... 3%, you should have no voting rights. If you're a single mother in Dallas and make $45K (I have one that works for me), chances are you'll get most if not all of your tax money back. Why? So people like my wife and I who made good decisions and worked hard can support our nation? No votes. No taxes, no voting.
Is that libertarian? I don't care. It needs to be said. Perfectly law abiding ex-felons who pay taxes can't vote, but someone who's had 5 kids out of wedlock on welfare can keep stuffing the box and perpetuating the income gap... regardless of their apathy.
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
I think this question is impossible to answer. There does not seem to be much agreement among those on the board who register as Libertarians. Unfortunately, we have not heard from Seamus, an often thoughtful Libertarian and winner of the “Rookie of the Year” award.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Libertarians are not a viable third party at this time.
●1972: John Hospers and Theodora Nathan
2,691 popular votes (0.003%); 1 electoral vote;
●1976: Roger MacBride and David Bergland
173,011 popular votes (0.21%)
●1980: Ed Clark and David Koch
921,299 popular votes (1.1%)
●1984: David Bergland and James A. Lewis
228,705 popular votes (0.25%)
●1988: Ron Paul and Andre Marrou
432,179 popular votes (0.47%)
●1992: Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord
291,627 popular votes (0.28%)
●1996: Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen
485,798 popular votes (0.50%)
●2000: Harry Browne and Art Olivier
384,431 popular votes (0.36%)
●2004: Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna
397,265 popular votes (0.34%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_P...States)#History
Since 1972, Libertarians have fielded presidential candidates. In the 32 years Between 1972 and 2004, they managed 1 electoral vote. If the popular vote for the 32 year period is added up, it amounts to 3,316,646. Compare the cumulative 32 year Libertarian vote and the popular vote in 2004 for Bush (62,040,610) and Kerry (59,028,1110). They dwarf all the Libertarian votes added together.
Only once - 1980 when Jimmy Carter was so unpopular – has the Libertarian candidate approached one million votes (1.1%). By comparison, John Anderson (for whom I voted) got 7%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden..._election,_1980
In 1968 George Wallace got nearly 10 million votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace
In 1992, H. Ross Perot got nearly 20 million votes.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/pre_1992_...es-h-ross-perot
In 1996, Libertarians came in 5th, behind both Perot and Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm
In 2000, Nader got nearly 3 million popular votes.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/pre_2000_...tes-ralph-nader
Libertarians have not done well, even when compared to other 3rd party candidates. Their record is not impressive. I don’t anticipate a huge Libertrian future.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
That’s a toss up. I am registered as a Liberal Democrat, yet I take a libertarian position on things like legalization or at least dropping penalties for marijuana sale and possession and anything where the government attempts to get into our bedrooms. Please note that I'm not a big proponent of marijuana law reform in and of itself, but favor it because of the vast amount of money wasted apprehending an jailing users of pot and other low level drugs. I am more passionate
in my defense of bedroom privacy.
BTW: Sorry if I've rained on anyone's parade, but Libertarianism is not the wave of the future.
I think this question is impossible to answer. There does not seem to be much agreement among those on the board who register as Libertarians. Unfortunately, we have not heard from Seamus, an often thoughtful Libertarian and winner of the “Rookie of the Year” award.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Libertarians are not a viable third party at this time.
●1972: John Hospers and Theodora Nathan
2,691 popular votes (0.003%); 1 electoral vote;
●1976: Roger MacBride and David Bergland
173,011 popular votes (0.21%)
●1980: Ed Clark and David Koch
921,299 popular votes (1.1%)
●1984: David Bergland and James A. Lewis
228,705 popular votes (0.25%)
●1988: Ron Paul and Andre Marrou
432,179 popular votes (0.47%)
●1992: Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord
291,627 popular votes (0.28%)
●1996: Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen
485,798 popular votes (0.50%)
●2000: Harry Browne and Art Olivier
384,431 popular votes (0.36%)
●2004: Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna
397,265 popular votes (0.34%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_P...States)#History
Since 1972, Libertarians have fielded presidential candidates. In the 32 years Between 1972 and 2004, they managed 1 electoral vote. If the popular vote for the 32 year period is added up, it amounts to 3,316,646. Compare the cumulative 32 year Libertarian vote and the popular vote in 2004 for Bush (62,040,610) and Kerry (59,028,1110). They dwarf all the Libertarian votes added together.
Only once - 1980 when Jimmy Carter was so unpopular – has the Libertarian candidate approached one million votes (1.1%). By comparison, John Anderson (for whom I voted) got 7%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden..._election,_1980
In 1968 George Wallace got nearly 10 million votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace
In 1992, H. Ross Perot got nearly 20 million votes.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/pre_1992_...es-h-ross-perot
In 1996, Libertarians came in 5th, behind both Perot and Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm
In 2000, Nader got nearly 3 million popular votes.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/pre_2000_...tes-ralph-nader
Libertarians have not done well, even when compared to other 3rd party candidates. Their record is not impressive. I don’t anticipate a huge Libertrian future.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
That’s a toss up. I am registered as a Liberal Democrat, yet I take a libertarian position on things like legalization or at least dropping penalties for marijuana sale and possession and anything where the government attempts to get into our bedrooms. Please note that I'm not a big proponent of marijuana law reform in and of itself, but favor it because of the vast amount of money wasted apprehending an jailing users of pot and other low level drugs. I am more passionate
in my defense of bedroom privacy.BTW: Sorry if I've rained on anyone's parade, but Libertarianism is not the wave of the future.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 13 2007, 04:23 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 13 2007, 01:15 PM)
If that is socialism and compulsory taxation is a crime, then stop supporting a representative democracy. Alternately, we can be a libertarian democracy by de-industrializing and bowing out of globalizations so the "underclass" stops voting for socialist policies that support risk offsets.
Ugh... you should go work with a campaign. You've completely twisted what we are saying.
You think I'm joking? Do you know that as trade increases, so does the size of government?
Oh, I get it. Twisting my words was simply a misunderstanding on your part. Thanks for not answering whether supporting the disenfranchisement of voters is elitist, btw.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 13 2007, 04:23 PM)
What I'd like to note is that the distribution of income, from the rich (or in our case middle class) to the poor, happens specifically because of the ballot box.
Although the inequality in the tax scale for top earners has shrunk considerably since Bush took office they still take the lead by leaps and bounds as contributing individuals and as a tax group. Certainly more than the ever shrinking middle class. I don't credit the middle class as paying for social programs. Why do you?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 13 2007, 04:23 PM)
Taxation in its current form isn't a crime, but surely a travesty. The fact that a welfare recipient who's been on the dole for years (if not generations) has the same capacity to vote their perpetual hand-out is, in my opinion, a load of bologna.
These generational dole-living voters must represent a significant number of people making up the free handout vote. It sounds like you assume the middle class and the rich would not willingly support free handouts, so we should be able to single out the poor who live off on welfare. And if it's possible to single out this homogenous group someone has compiled information on this poor, albeit powerful policy-setting majority. Are you suggesting the welfare poor are responsible for our tragic progressive tax?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 13 2007, 04:23 PM)
That's all I'm saying. So long as Susie Welfare-rat can keep politicians in business with their votes, Democrats nationwide will still pander to them. They carry the same weight as someone who has worked their fingers to the bone.
Yeah, a real shame, that.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 13 2007, 04:23 PM)
In my opinion, if you've been on gov't assistance completely (as a sole financier) for more than a couple of years... you should have no voting rights. The notion that the same government who finances your apathy can be re-elected by your hand is absurd.
Again, this goes back to what I said about a sizeable majority made up of the poor. Is there some report or statistic supporting your claim that the welfare state is politically maintained by the poor?
I agree with the rest of your post (mostly), but the above sounds like warm and fuzzy rightwing talking points.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 13 2007, 01:23 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 13 2007, 01:15 PM)
If that is socialism and compulsory taxation is a crime, then stop supporting a representative democracy. Alternately, we can be a libertarian democracy by de-industrializing and bowing out of globalizations so the "underclass" stops voting for socialist policies that support risk offsets.
Ugh... you should go work with a campaign. You've completely twisted what we are saying.
What I'd like to note is that the distribution of income, from the rich (or in our case middle class) to the poor, happens specifically because of the ballot box. Taxation in it's current form isn't a crime, but surely a travesty. The fact that a welfare recipient who's been on the dole for years (if not generations) has the same capacity to vote their perpetual hand-out is, in my opinion, a load of bologna. It's silly. All able people should work, and in most cases, should have to be self-sufficient.
That's all I'm saying. So long as Susie Welfare-rat can keep politicians in business with their votes, Democrats nationwide will still pander to them. They carry the same weight as someone who has worked their fingers to the bone.
In my opinion, if you've been on gov't assistance completely (as a sole financier) for more than a couple of years... you should have no voting rights. The notion that the same government who finances your apathy can be re-elected by your hand is absurd.
Also- if your total tax burden is under say... 3%, you should have no voting rights. If you're a single mother in Dallas and make $45K (I have one that works for me), chances are you'll get most if not all of your tax money back. Why? So people like my wife and I who made good decisions and worked hard can support our nation? No votes. No taxes, no voting.
Is that libertarian? I don't care. It needs to be said. Perfectly law abiding ex-felons who pay taxes can't vote, but someone who's had 5 kids out of wedlock on welfare can keep stuffing the box and perpetuating the income gap... regardless of their apathy.
I think this fantasy deserves a bit of light shone upon it.
First, what welfare are you talking about? Please show it to me. Your silly 'generations on the dole' was hardly true during the days of AFDC, and is impossible under TANF (which, let's remind readers, replaced AFDC in 1996 under President Clinton). The fact is that even during the AFDC years, the average welfare recipient spent five years or less receiving welfare money in their entire life. The number of families who received welfare for longer than that, for say 25 or 30 years, comprised such a small percentage of all welfare cases as to be irrelevant to any discussion about the program. I won't bother telling you what TANF is, I'm sure you can do some research and read about its limits - and why it makes your statement ludicrous on its face.
And really, have you ever done any welfare research at all, beyond reading some sort of conservative hackjob? Don't you think that if the "welfare-rats" had any voting power, that one, TANF would have never passed, or two, AFDC funds would be more generous? In 1992, the poverty threshhold for a single woman with two children was $11, 186. Assuming she makes that amount or less, her average AFDC payout was $4,572. Food stamps add another $2,469. If she makes up any kind of powerful voting bloc, why would the amount be so low?
In fact, AFDC payments amounted to - generously - one percent of state and federal budgets. There's hardly been any widespread redistribution of wealth to the poor in this country. Further, there are far more "wealthfare" programs than there are welfare programs. Too bad you're not railing against them.
And saying that people below a certain income level shouldn't be able to vote? Wow, I've seen some interesting statements on these boards, but this one really makes me shake my head.
Let me ask you a question. You are opposed to capital gains taxes, yes? You'd like to see them eliminated? So let's say they get axed. If my income happens to come through capital gains, are you saying I couldn't vote? Even though my tax burden would be zero, I might be very wealthy. Why should that guy not be able to vote? Or is it just those lazy good for nothing poor people... people like the VAST majority of welfare recipients who work - since welfare has never paid a 'living' wage.
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
Like all stereotypes, it may describe a certain portion of that population with some degree of accuracy. But also, like all stereotypes, it is ultimately unhelpful and wrong.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
Fringe. Particularly the 'free market libertarians.' Never gonna be viable in a democratic state. Heck, even Friedman admitted that in order to implement these types of policies it would be necessary for the people to be distracted by some crisis or shock.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
As a party, more to the right, though their civil side is embraced by a large portion of the left. I would be more willing to embrace the economic side of libertarianism if it included as one of its base platforms the elimination of the corporation-as-citizen as it was created by the Santa Clara case.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 13 2007, 11:41 AM)
All right. Maybe I should call you anti-democratic instead. There's no way you can take the good and ignore the bad in a democracy.
That is the reason the Founding Fathers REJECTED democracy in favor of a Constituional Republic. Our rights to Life, Liberty, Property and to Pursue Happiness are UNALIENABLE.
For example I have a right to Life and to defend the same. But if 51% of the citizens in a particular area are naive, gullible and suicidal they may adopt legislation infringing upon my right to bear arms.
Tyranny by the majority is tyranny nevertheless.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 13 2007, 10:37 AM)
I'm neither moved nor convinced by your embarassing defense of elitism. Your oh so understandable response to Jules didn't take issue with his characterization of righty libertarians. I guess Jules got that one right.
See, you're in the wrong thread. If you want to see an "embarrassing defense of elitism", you should go over to the thread addressing the matter of political dynasities, i.e. Bush-Clinton-Bush-?Clinton?. 
But hey, as long as you think it's "elitist" to look skeptically at the prospect of any group using the threat of lethal force (aka gubmint guns) to take property from others, then call me elitist. I don't care whether its poor folks voting themselves my Mom's extensive holdings or rich folks convincing City Hall to condemn some old poor woman's home so they can put up a Mercedes dealership. Democracy does not automatically confer legitimacy. If "Lefty Libertarians", as characterized by Jules, don't give a rat's patootie for private property, and hence, are not libertarians. That is my heartburn with his definition, and also provides my understanding of why the wealthy, in a democratic regime that doesn't protect property rights, wouldn't want the poor voting. Methinks its probably the same reason why a ram in the company of two wolves might be pretty skeptical about the whole notion of voting on what's for dinner.
As for why I didn't take issue with Jule's Righty characterization, why should I? As far as it goes, its a fairly accurate portrayal of libertarians as a whole. I think he may have overstated their perspective on defense/police some, but only as a matter of degree. They aren't interested in a "strong" defense, simply one adequate for the task, from a generally isolationist perspective at that. If that means a military as stout as Canada's current military, then that's what they'll fund, nothing more. If it means something more on the lines of our military, that's what they'll fund. Ditto for police, of which, you'll have to agree, the libertarians are theoretically going to need far fewer.
Now, if you take it that Jules doesn't think that "Righty" Libertarians go in for the whole sex, drugs and rock'n'roll thing since he didn't mention that, well, I don't think Jule's was suggesting any such thing, so I didna address it. AFAICT (as far as I can tell), "Righty" Libertarians are down with those things just as much as Lefty Libertarians. So, the upshot is, yes, Jules did pretty much "get that one right."
QUOTE
I would think that supporting the disenfranchisement of any group of voters for any reason is elitist but maybe I'm just crazy for believing everyone's interests should be represented.
No, it isn't elitist. I agree with you that everyone's interest should be represented, but their rights must also be protected.*************************************************
QUOTE(DTOM)
but your average uptight American views then as non serious political part timers. Like it or not, most narrow minded or thought challenged Americans see the Libertarian Party as nothing more than the ‘Legalize Pot Party.
...
It is entirely in the interest of the Democrat and Republican Party’s to propel the notion that Libertarians and others are whack jobs that should be excluded from debates and serious consideration.
And it is entirely in the interest of the Demopublicans when Libertarians characterize the bulk of Americans as "uptight", "narrow minded" and "thought challenged." ...
It is entirely in the interest of the Democrat and Republican Party’s to propel the notion that Libertarians and others are whack jobs that should be excluded from debates and serious consideration.
*************************************************
For the record, I am not a libertarian, nor a Libertarian. I am sympathetic with many of their goals, but cannot buy into either their isolationist tendencies nor libertine naivete.
QUOTE
I would think that supporting the disenfranchisement of any group of voters for any reason is elitist but maybe I'm just crazy for believing everyone's interests should be represented. Perhaps I should take back what I said about libertarianism being a viable option.
To steal Mike's Quote "I am not a Libertarian."
I make Libertarians look Conservative.
You went off on BD's statement and were upset because he didn't attack the other side. Did he need to? As for disenfranchising anyone, what is wrong with being offended that some people think they are able to steal from others even if they vote majority to gain it--its still wrong and its still theft. Democracy is quite often rarely fair or reasonable. If I am one of ten voters and the rest of them are christian and I am not is the vote actually fair? No I am screwed from the beginning.
Its like claiming gang rape was permissible because she lost the vote.
The alternative to democracy may be --and often IS far worse--but democracy is more often than not, far from fair or even reasonable. Why shouldn't I be angry over people thinking they have a right to take from me what I made,earned, built, etc. If they had NO involvement but still demand it because they say I should be grateful for the opportunity to serve,submit,give--am I supposed to just cheerfully submit to their demands? "Just grab your knees folks".
I see NOTHING wrong from not allowing someone who does nothing at all but expects others to pay their way to have ANY say in any matter. why is it even disenfranchment--they have not been part of the group for a long time, contributed nothing.
Shouldn't I have some measure of protection from mob rule?
Yes they are the minority of minorities among the poor--but shouldn't there be some limits? anything? or is the free for all approach to be the rule.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 14 2007, 01:08 AM)
But hey, as long as you think it's "elitist" to look skeptically at the prospect of any group using the threat of lethal force (aka gubmint guns) to take property from others, then call me elitist.
Hm, nope. That sounds close, but I didn't set the bar that low for an elitist. Nice attempt, though.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 14 2007, 01:08 AM)
I don't care whether its poor folks voting themselves my Mom's extensive holdings or rich folks convincing City Hall to condemn some old poor woman's home so they can put up a Mercedes dealership.
This has very little to do with my posts on this thread. When someone writes disenfranchising the poor is "a perfectly understandable reaction to the redistributionist tendencies of socialists" and "denying them the opportunity is in keeping with libertarian philosophy" there is something very wrong with libertarian philosophy, BD, or both. What you care and don't care about is legit; supporting the disenfranchisement of a group in a constitutional democracy—just for you, Con—is not no matter how strongly you feel about a subject.
Maybe you don't really support disenfranchising the poor. Maybe you only sympathize with a libertarian who wants to disenfranchise the poor (as if that's not bad enough), but you don't provide anything in your response that suggests I was off.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 14 2007, 01:08 AM)
Democracy does not automatically confer legitimacy.
It hasn't been my intention to suggest otherwise. Regimes are as legitimate as people think they are. My ongoing favorite example is Iraq. But you must admit redistribution is legitimate enough in this democracy—sorry Con, this constitutional democracy—to survive Reagan's retrenchment policies and politics that still exist today. Your "job" and the job of those who agree with you, is to convince people to stop voting for a welfare state (such as it is today).
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 14 2007, 01:08 AM)
If "Lefty Libertarians", as characterized by Jules, don't give a rat's patootie for private property, and hence, are not libertarians. That is my heartburn with his definition, and also provides my understanding of why the wealthy, in a democratic regime that doesn't protect property rights, wouldn't want the poor voting.
This doesn't make sense. I reread Jules's idea of lefty libertarians but he doesn't mention private property. He doesn't bring it up for righty libertarians, either. Perhaps you're projecting in an age of rightwing corporate welfare?
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 14 2007, 01:12 AM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 13 2007, 12:41 PM)
I would think that supporting the disenfranchisement of any group of voters for any reason is elitist but maybe I'm just crazy for believing everyone's interests should be represented. Perhaps I should take back what I said about libertarianism being a viable option.
You went off on BD's statement and were upset because he didn't attack the other side.
I went off on BD because he supports disenfranchising voters. I suspect he thinks disenfranchising voters is okay because in his view conservatives inherited the bulk of libertarian philosophy when the trajectory of classical liberalism and classical conservatism in U.S. politics intercepted during the Great Depression and again in the 60s and as such, conservatives have the right of it, and as such, disenfranchising voters is "perfectly understandable" because a libertarian feels this way.
As far attacking the other side goes I don't really expect him to. Unless BD gets his news from another country his idea that righty libertarians are down with the social aspects of libertarianism (sex, drugs and such) must originate from his imagination. Ohh maybe he knows plenty of conservatives that don't mind gay marriage and doing 10 bong hits, but that's not the platform most righty conservatives vote for and that's what I have to go by. That's the nice thing about rose-tinted glasses.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 14 2007, 01:08 AM)
As for disenfranchising anyone, what is wrong with being offended that some people think they are able to steal from others even if they vote majority to gain it—it's still wrong and it's still theft.
Again, nothing wrong with being offended but BD wasn't merely offended, was he? That blogger I mentioned wasn't merely offended, was he? Should I second guess and assume neither meant what I think they meant or should I go by what they wrote?
As for stealing from others, I don't know, but this is sounding like a boogeyman tactic to me. I'm feeling like I'm on trial for thought crime because the welfare state is exponentially larger in your minds than my own.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
But again, being socially permissive is a libertarian trait that defies 'left' and 'right' labels.
CP
QUOTE(Lesly)
Unless BD gets his news from another country his idea that righty libertarians are down with the social aspects of libertarianism (sex, drugs and such) must originate from his imagination.
Right-leaning libertarians ARE down with the social aspects of libertarian [sex, drugs, etc.]. That has nothing to do with the distinction between right and left libertarians. All libertarians socially...er...libertarian. I'll use extreme examples to differentiate between a leftist libertarian and a rightist libertarian. The leftist libertarian is an anarcho-communist who believes in the abolition of the state and the market, an ex-poster here [unless he's come back, and he really should], Unabomb was a textbook example of this kind of libertarian. A 'rightist' libertarian is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in the abolition of the state and the preservation of a privately established market. Everyone's favorite anarcho-capitalist here is your's truly. But again, being socially permissive is a libertarian trait that defies 'left' and 'right' labels.
CP
Poor Jules. I've mentioned him half a dozen times now.
When Jules described lefty and righty libertarians I don't think he was speaking of real libertarians. I think he was speaking of libertarian traits in modern liberalism and modern conservatism. That's what I've been debating with BD about. He wrote: "Lefty libertarians (like me) strongly disagree with government intervention in personal and sexual matters [snip]". Jules isn't a libertarian, is he?
But yes, libertarians are socially permissive, as you say.
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Sep 14 2007, 11:37 AM)
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Right-leaning libertarians ARE down with the social aspects of libertarian [sex, drugs, etc.]. That has nothing to do with the distinction between right and left libertarians. ... But again, being socially permissive is a libertarian trait that defies 'left' and 'right' labels.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 14 2007, 02:54 AM)
Unless BD gets his news from another country his idea that righty libertarians are down with the social aspects of libertarianism (sex, drugs and such) must originate from his imagination.
Right-leaning libertarians ARE down with the social aspects of libertarian [sex, drugs, etc.]. That has nothing to do with the distinction between right and left libertarians. ... But again, being socially permissive is a libertarian trait that defies 'left' and 'right' labels.
When Jules described lefty and righty libertarians I don't think he was speaking of real libertarians. I think he was speaking of libertarian traits in modern liberalism and modern conservatism. That's what I've been debating with BD about. He wrote: "Lefty libertarians (like me) strongly disagree with government intervention in personal and sexual matters [snip]". Jules isn't a libertarian, is he?
But yes, libertarians are socially permissive, as you say.
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
Libertarians are too individualistic to "stereotype" unless counter-conformity is a "stereotype"- oh damn, I think I just chased my tail until I bit it
-
Like I said, I drive a hot-rodded turbo diesel that runs on bio-fuel when I can get it. I realize my tax burden is very low, so I have little to complain about, and realize some level of goverment is needed to maintain real freedom, and that some regulations are needed to maintain real freedom. If I am free to own a gun, but can't leave my house because it is a war zone outside my door- how much freedom do I really have?
It is the practical increase of freedom that interests me.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
BOF has quite nicely pointed out how libertarians are pretty much "fringe"- but, I wonder, if a viable, middle-ish centrist libertarian came along, how fringe it would continue to be? This is a big debte in my own local circles of "libertarians on campus" and Ron Paul/ Mike Gravel supporters.
I have suggested many times that if we, as a party, could adopt slightly more centrist doctrines, and stop harping on things like privatizing fire departments and police departments- which pretty much guaruntees un-electibility, and, instead, points out how anti-freedom the two other parties are, and how we would be practical instead of idealogues when it comes to the end product- more freedom and less goverment for all. It is an uphill battle, but I have my converts
But lets face it- if we have another cycle of Clinton Bush going on- the libertarian party may look ALOT more appealing in the future!
I would say that Colin Powell would be the dream ticket here
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
Neither- Libertarians are more diverse than the fringes of both the dems and repubs, and have strong "single issues" just like repubs and dems sometimes. Libertarians, if anything, can be characterized as "non-monolithic" party. If I had to start a party, I would call it "the pragmatic party" and my platform would be "fix it if is broke, all ideas are on the table, don't F with it if it ain't broke". That is what I want my part to do.
In this libertarians viewpoint- big corporations are the root of anti-freedom forces in this country- it is quite clear just by the Clinton-Bush dynasty we are living in. We need to break that power in order to continue to be free. We need to break the power of the religoius lobby as well- they are the tool of the most profoundly anti-freedom forces of this century and the last.
I don't see too much opposition to private property use, something BD alluded too- but that may be due to my region.
Really- libertarians, as a bunch, diverse as we are, are just mostly fed up with the biz as usual and have started looking somewhere else.
I would characterize DTOM in that regard, and Daytonrocker as someone that would be a targeted recruit in my instace- he used to go republican, but he is so disgusted with the republican party- we can tailor some of our platform to him.
Libertarians are too individualistic to "stereotype" unless counter-conformity is a "stereotype"- oh damn, I think I just chased my tail until I bit it
- Like I said, I drive a hot-rodded turbo diesel that runs on bio-fuel when I can get it. I realize my tax burden is very low, so I have little to complain about, and realize some level of goverment is needed to maintain real freedom, and that some regulations are needed to maintain real freedom. If I am free to own a gun, but can't leave my house because it is a war zone outside my door- how much freedom do I really have?
It is the practical increase of freedom that interests me.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
BOF has quite nicely pointed out how libertarians are pretty much "fringe"- but, I wonder, if a viable, middle-ish centrist libertarian came along, how fringe it would continue to be? This is a big debte in my own local circles of "libertarians on campus" and Ron Paul/ Mike Gravel supporters.
I have suggested many times that if we, as a party, could adopt slightly more centrist doctrines, and stop harping on things like privatizing fire departments and police departments- which pretty much guaruntees un-electibility, and, instead, points out how anti-freedom the two other parties are, and how we would be practical instead of idealogues when it comes to the end product- more freedom and less goverment for all. It is an uphill battle, but I have my converts
But lets face it- if we have another cycle of Clinton Bush going on- the libertarian party may look ALOT more appealing in the future!
I would say that Colin Powell would be the dream ticket here
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
Neither- Libertarians are more diverse than the fringes of both the dems and repubs, and have strong "single issues" just like repubs and dems sometimes. Libertarians, if anything, can be characterized as "non-monolithic" party. If I had to start a party, I would call it "the pragmatic party" and my platform would be "fix it if is broke, all ideas are on the table, don't F with it if it ain't broke". That is what I want my part to do.
In this libertarians viewpoint- big corporations are the root of anti-freedom forces in this country- it is quite clear just by the Clinton-Bush dynasty we are living in. We need to break that power in order to continue to be free. We need to break the power of the religoius lobby as well- they are the tool of the most profoundly anti-freedom forces of this century and the last.
I don't see too much opposition to private property use, something BD alluded too- but that may be due to my region.
Really- libertarians, as a bunch, diverse as we are, are just mostly fed up with the biz as usual and have started looking somewhere else.
I would characterize DTOM in that regard, and Daytonrocker as someone that would be a targeted recruit in my instace- he used to go republican, but he is so disgusted with the republican party- we can tailor some of our platform to him.
Wow - it seems I've set a few hares running with my last post.
I think there is confusion caused by using "libertarian" and "Libertarian" interchageably, and in a dual-meaning between "Libertarian" meaning "conforming to all aspects of libertarian thought" and "being a registered member of the Libertarian Party".
While the debate questions all use capital-L libertarianism, I thought the wording opened debate up to include small-l libertarianiam. So in my opening post I was trying to confine myself to making a distinction between small-l "libertarianism" and "Libertarianism" the philosophy. Clearly I didn't do a very good job.
When I talk about small-l libertarianism, and this being a political axis that can be held independently of one's left-right position. In other words, a belief that the state has no business intervening in certain areas of human activity but that it not only can but SHOULD intervene in others (to a verying extent). Where the state should or should not intervene is driven mainly by one's left-right viewpoint. It is therefore possible to be very libertarian in some aspects of life while at the same time being very authoritrian in others. That doesn't make someone a "Libertarian" with a capital "L", but neither does if make the application of the word "libertarian" a misnomer.
A right-libertarian might take an entirely laissez-fairse view of taxation and market regulation because they have faith that capitalism will sort everything out (or at least, and IMO most commonly, sort things out in a way that benefits them most and/or damages them least) - that is a libertarian position to take, and the word is correctly applied to those views. But that same person can take a very dim view of anything other than sex for procreation, with a member of the opposite sex, within the sanctity of marriage; anything other than moderate consumption of alcohol and no other chemical mood enhancers of any kind (and only then as part of Holy Communion); music that does anything other than glorify the name of God/Allah/Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc.
Conversely, a left-libertarian holds that the state should not intervene in personal or social matters, but should in economic ones i.e. where there is a clash between one persons rights to do things and another person's property rights, the property rights suffer. In practice this mainly means not only an acceptance of taxation, but an insistence that it be progressive (and in some areas, aggressive).
Now, a "Libertarian" may sneer at both these positions as not really libertarian, because "true" libertarians would apply their antipathy to government to all aspects of life. Certainly the attitudes described are not "Libertarian", but sniffing about that is like saying that nobody on the left can be small-c conservative, which is arrant nonsense, or "republican" for that matter. A left-winger might want to keep welfare as it is, and might support the idea of a republic above the restoration of monarchy, in which case they are accurately described as "conservative" and "republican" on those subjects.
If you want to get snippy about who is or who isn't entitled to call themselves a Libertarian, I suggest you change the name of your party or philosophy to somehting less ambiguous.
(Wikipedia has a usefully thoughtful article on the idea of left- and right- libertarianism here and here)
I think there is confusion caused by using "libertarian" and "Libertarian" interchageably, and in a dual-meaning between "Libertarian" meaning "conforming to all aspects of libertarian thought" and "being a registered member of the Libertarian Party".
While the debate questions all use capital-L libertarianism, I thought the wording opened debate up to include small-l libertarianiam. So in my opening post I was trying to confine myself to making a distinction between small-l "libertarianism" and "Libertarianism" the philosophy. Clearly I didn't do a very good job.
When I talk about small-l libertarianism, and this being a political axis that can be held independently of one's left-right position. In other words, a belief that the state has no business intervening in certain areas of human activity but that it not only can but SHOULD intervene in others (to a verying extent). Where the state should or should not intervene is driven mainly by one's left-right viewpoint. It is therefore possible to be very libertarian in some aspects of life while at the same time being very authoritrian in others. That doesn't make someone a "Libertarian" with a capital "L", but neither does if make the application of the word "libertarian" a misnomer.
A right-libertarian might take an entirely laissez-fairse view of taxation and market regulation because they have faith that capitalism will sort everything out (or at least, and IMO most commonly, sort things out in a way that benefits them most and/or damages them least) - that is a libertarian position to take, and the word is correctly applied to those views. But that same person can take a very dim view of anything other than sex for procreation, with a member of the opposite sex, within the sanctity of marriage; anything other than moderate consumption of alcohol and no other chemical mood enhancers of any kind (and only then as part of Holy Communion); music that does anything other than glorify the name of God/Allah/Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc.
Conversely, a left-libertarian holds that the state should not intervene in personal or social matters, but should in economic ones i.e. where there is a clash between one persons rights to do things and another person's property rights, the property rights suffer. In practice this mainly means not only an acceptance of taxation, but an insistence that it be progressive (and in some areas, aggressive).
Now, a "Libertarian" may sneer at both these positions as not really libertarian, because "true" libertarians would apply their antipathy to government to all aspects of life. Certainly the attitudes described are not "Libertarian", but sniffing about that is like saying that nobody on the left can be small-c conservative, which is arrant nonsense, or "republican" for that matter. A left-winger might want to keep welfare as it is, and might support the idea of a republic above the restoration of monarchy, in which case they are accurately described as "conservative" and "republican" on those subjects.
If you want to get snippy about who is or who isn't entitled to call themselves a Libertarian, I suggest you change the name of your party or philosophy to somehting less ambiguous.
(Wikipedia has a usefully thoughtful article on the idea of left- and right- libertarianism here and here)
It's nice to know I rate more anarchic than Gandhi and Friedman on the The Political Compass.
I guess some clarification on my part is in order. I don't dispute the Wiki links you provided. I think they, and the compass, accurately reflect mainstream political positions today in the U.S. and Europe, although I think you can still find classical conservatives in Europe like the Polish twins.
However, in the U.S. the northern Republican Party started out as the classical liberal (economic and social libertarian and at times oddly imperialistic) party, and the southern Democratic Party started out as the classical conservative (social conservative and economically protectionist) party. Both parties have, in my view, divvied up libertarian principles twice in the last century.
Sorry if my participation thus far has been American-centric.
QUOTE(Julian @ Sep 14 2007, 12:39 PM)
If you want to get snippy about who is or who isn't entitled to call themselves a Libertarian, I suggest you change the name of your party or philosophy to something less ambiguous.
I guess some clarification on my part is in order. I don't dispute the Wiki links you provided. I think they, and the compass, accurately reflect mainstream political positions today in the U.S. and Europe, although I think you can still find classical conservatives in Europe like the Polish twins.
However, in the U.S. the northern Republican Party started out as the classical liberal (economic and social libertarian and at times oddly imperialistic) party, and the southern Democratic Party started out as the classical conservative (social conservative and economically protectionist) party. Both parties have, in my view, divvied up libertarian principles twice in the last century.
Sorry if my participation thus far has been American-centric.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 14 2007, 11:38 AM)
BOF has quite nicely pointed out how libertarians are pretty much "fringe"- but, I wonder, if a viable, middle-ish centrist libertarian came along, how fringe it would continue to be? This is a big debte in my own local circles of "libertarians on campus" and Ron Paul/ Mike Gravel supporters.
We are pretty much on the same page CR.
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 13 2007, 04:11 PM)
Libertarians are not a viable third party at this time.
Metaphorically speaking, I closed the door, but I didn't slam or lock it.
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 14 2007, 12:06 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 14 2007, 11:38 AM)
BOF has quite nicely pointed out how libertarians are pretty much "fringe"- but, I wonder, if a viable, middle-ish centrist libertarian came along, how fringe it would continue to be? This is a big debte in my own local circles of "libertarians on campus" and Ron Paul/ Mike Gravel supporters.
We are pretty much on the same page CR.
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 13 2007, 04:11 PM)
Libertarians are not a viable third party at this time.
Metaphorically speaking, I closed the door, but I didn't slam or lock it.
I agree- and further- if we do get another cycle of Clinton-Bush- I believe at least ONE of the "third parties"- adn I believe the libertarian party is the most viable of all of the "fringe" parties- I believe the libertarian will see an enormous jump in membership, especially since the republican party has pretty hard core betrayed the "moral majority" types at this point in thier reign of incompetancy
I also don't think you will see disaffected republicans running to the dems like you saw with the dixiecrats running to the republicans. I believe the libertarian leaning, small goverment, anti-religion republicans will probably be the first defectors, with the anti-war dems that are so disappointed with the dem party right now will be following close behind, especially IF Clinton is elected- I have a feeling they won't be too happy with her either!
How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?
Its extremely inaccurate, even as far as stereotypes go. The author of this article really seems to lack a basic understanding of libertarianism or classical liberal philosophy. The most obvious example is in his thesis about the philosophy's reliance on the family.
I have yet to read Mises, but in the three works of Hayek that I have read, the family was never an institution that was essential to the ideas of freedom. Even if it was mentioned, never was it emphasized to the extent that this author is leading us to believe. The author claims that libertarian philosophy depends on the family (which it doesnt) and then defeats the philosophy by pointing out the complexities of the family. Completely dubious. Yes, I would agree that a traditional stable family may be most conducive to a successful experiment of freedom, but in no way is it a necessity. This section completely discredits the author in my opinion.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
The Libertarian Party is a finge group as all third parties apparently are. (l)ibertarians as a group are far a fringe group are probably one of the most prominent voting blocs out there. Believe it or not, there are many people who support the notions of freedom (limited government, free markets, no interference in the private lives of everyday Americans.) These are not really just libertarian ideals - they are uniquely American. Thats whats many people forget. Over the two centuries of existence, we have gone from a nation that respects the Constitution, one that emphasized decentralization of government power, and one that does not engage in an imperialist foreign policy, into what we see today. The Constitution is a living breathing document that is akin to a ball of clay - it can be molded in any way that we want. The government is growing at an unprecedented rate as the growing bureaucracy affects every aspect of commerce and relations. Finally we have spent billions on foreign adventures based on idealism and metaphysical principle.
The problem is that this group, like many Americans have become disenfranchised with how the system is being run. Their apathy is due to the idea that they do not have power to bring about change - that it is in the nature of government to grow. This hopelessness is what has to be fought by libertarians. Show people that they have a voice and that their ideas can become policy. There was a time when freedom was worth fighting for.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
Neither. Libertarians or classical liberals (which I prefer to be called) are an animal all their own. They reject government intervention in most of individual relations. It is an ideology that is appealing do to its consistency. Modern liberals support government intervention in the economy with none in the private while modern conservatives are vice-versa. Classical liberals recognize that democracy is not an ends, it is a means to an ends. Freedom is what is to be valued. Freedom from arbitrary government power that can coerce you into choosing someone else's will over your own. As revealed by a recent thread by ConservPat, there are many people who are under the incredible impression that the private sector can perpetuate the same abuses as government. I think that thread more than any other shows the divide between individualists and collectivists. Left-leaning libertarians are quite a weird animal. Its an anti-statist ideology that still wants the enforcement of equality. Quite a contradiction from my point of view for I do not see how equality can be enforced except through increased government power. To me, it is amazing that people do not just look at history and see where the problems and where the largest abuses come from ---- centralized government power. You can't control it. Democracy is not your safety net. Tyranny by democracy is no different than tyranny by fascism or by dictatorship.
Its extremely inaccurate, even as far as stereotypes go. The author of this article really seems to lack a basic understanding of libertarianism or classical liberal philosophy. The most obvious example is in his thesis about the philosophy's reliance on the family.
QUOTE
On the one hand, libertarians make a fetish of freedom; it is their totalizing goal. On the other hand, libertarians depend on the family--an institution that, in crucial respects, is unfree--to produce the sort of people best suited to life in a free-market system (not to mention future members of their own movement). The complex, dynamic economy that libertarians have done so much to expand needs highly advanced human capital--that is, individuals of great moral, cognitive and emotional sophistication. Reams of social-science research prove that these qualities are best produced in traditional families with married parents.
Family breakdown, by contrast, limits the accumulation of such human capital. Worse, divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing leave the door wide open for big government. Dysfunctional families create an increased demand for state-funded food, housing and medical subsidies, which libertarians reject on principle. And in courts all over the country, judges who preside over the manifold disputes occasioned by broken families are forced to be more intrusive than the worst mother-in-law: They decide who should have primary custody, who gets a child on Christmas or summer holidays, whether a child should take piano lessons, go to Hebrew school, move to California, or speak to her grandmother on the phone. It is a libertarian's worst nightmare.
A libertarian, according to Brian Doherty, "has to believe" that "the instincts and abilities for liberty . . . are innate," that we possess "an ability to fend for ourselves in the Randian sense and to form spontaneous orders of fellowship and cooperation in the Hayekian sense." But this view of the relationship between the individual and society is profoundly and demonstrably false, especially when applied to the family.
Children do not come into the world respecting private property. They do not emerge from the womb ready to navigate the economic and moral complexities of an "age of abundance." The only way they learn such things is through a long process of intensive socialization--a process that we now know, thanks to the failed experiments begun by the Aquarians and implicitly supported by libertarians, usually requires intact families and decent schools.
Family breakdown, by contrast, limits the accumulation of such human capital. Worse, divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing leave the door wide open for big government. Dysfunctional families create an increased demand for state-funded food, housing and medical subsidies, which libertarians reject on principle. And in courts all over the country, judges who preside over the manifold disputes occasioned by broken families are forced to be more intrusive than the worst mother-in-law: They decide who should have primary custody, who gets a child on Christmas or summer holidays, whether a child should take piano lessons, go to Hebrew school, move to California, or speak to her grandmother on the phone. It is a libertarian's worst nightmare.
A libertarian, according to Brian Doherty, "has to believe" that "the instincts and abilities for liberty . . . are innate," that we possess "an ability to fend for ourselves in the Randian sense and to form spontaneous orders of fellowship and cooperation in the Hayekian sense." But this view of the relationship between the individual and society is profoundly and demonstrably false, especially when applied to the family.
Children do not come into the world respecting private property. They do not emerge from the womb ready to navigate the economic and moral complexities of an "age of abundance." The only way they learn such things is through a long process of intensive socialization--a process that we now know, thanks to the failed experiments begun by the Aquarians and implicitly supported by libertarians, usually requires intact families and decent schools.
I have yet to read Mises, but in the three works of Hayek that I have read, the family was never an institution that was essential to the ideas of freedom. Even if it was mentioned, never was it emphasized to the extent that this author is leading us to believe. The author claims that libertarian philosophy depends on the family (which it doesnt) and then defeats the philosophy by pointing out the complexities of the family. Completely dubious. Yes, I would agree that a traditional stable family may be most conducive to a successful experiment of freedom, but in no way is it a necessity. This section completely discredits the author in my opinion.
Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?
The Libertarian Party is a finge group as all third parties apparently are. (l)ibertarians as a group are far a fringe group are probably one of the most prominent voting blocs out there. Believe it or not, there are many people who support the notions of freedom (limited government, free markets, no interference in the private lives of everyday Americans.) These are not really just libertarian ideals - they are uniquely American. Thats whats many people forget. Over the two centuries of existence, we have gone from a nation that respects the Constitution, one that emphasized decentralization of government power, and one that does not engage in an imperialist foreign policy, into what we see today. The Constitution is a living breathing document that is akin to a ball of clay - it can be molded in any way that we want. The government is growing at an unprecedented rate as the growing bureaucracy affects every aspect of commerce and relations. Finally we have spent billions on foreign adventures based on idealism and metaphysical principle.
The problem is that this group, like many Americans have become disenfranchised with how the system is being run. Their apathy is due to the idea that they do not have power to bring about change - that it is in the nature of government to grow. This hopelessness is what has to be fought by libertarians. Show people that they have a voice and that their ideas can become policy. There was a time when freedom was worth fighting for.
Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?
Neither. Libertarians or classical liberals (which I prefer to be called) are an animal all their own. They reject government intervention in most of individual relations. It is an ideology that is appealing do to its consistency. Modern liberals support government intervention in the economy with none in the private while modern conservatives are vice-versa. Classical liberals recognize that democracy is not an ends, it is a means to an ends. Freedom is what is to be valued. Freedom from arbitrary government power that can coerce you into choosing someone else's will over your own. As revealed by a recent thread by ConservPat, there are many people who are under the incredible impression that the private sector can perpetuate the same abuses as government. I think that thread more than any other shows the divide between individualists and collectivists. Left-leaning libertarians are quite a weird animal. Its an anti-statist ideology that still wants the enforcement of equality. Quite a contradiction from my point of view for I do not see how equality can be enforced except through increased government power. To me, it is amazing that people do not just look at history and see where the problems and where the largest abuses come from ---- centralized government power. You can't control it. Democracy is not your safety net. Tyranny by democracy is no different than tyranny by fascism or by dictatorship.
As you grow older Leder- you realize that there are some very gray areas in this political stance- there is a circular nature in the argument of big business and big goverment- one creates the other and vice versa- the notion that, without goverment, that private enterprise can't repress. I think that is a bit pie in the sky- that private enterprise is as easily corrupted as goverment um, "enterprise"- checks and balances are needed for both.
Leder- the problem with libertarians, being one myself- is too much theory for folks to take a risk on the unknown. For instance- our health care system is an embarrasment. It is not free enterprise, and it is not socialized- it is some kind of abortion from hell in between. Folks are too scared to go full free enterprise- because no one has done it succesfully on a population scale we have in the US, and the corporate system keeps us from fixing what is broke.
It is not at all "fringe" to suggest- hey, lets abolish the AMA, drug laws except that deal with quality. (as a start, just for argument, I realize this is too simplistic and off topic for this debte) - but, darned if folks can't make it "fringe"-
I, personally, would like us to go free enterprise, instead of single payer insurance, but, I think single payer insurance has a more realistic chance of getting through, and, the US would be much better off overall, and there would be a net increase of freedom- just not to the degree that free enterprise would have in a net increase of freedom.
Implementation vs reality is the real divide. Folks are afraid of the unknown, and not hungry or desperate enough to go with the more free system.
Leder- the problem with libertarians, being one myself- is too much theory for folks to take a risk on the unknown. For instance- our health care system is an embarrasment. It is not free enterprise, and it is not socialized- it is some kind of abortion from hell in between. Folks are too scared to go full free enterprise- because no one has done it succesfully on a population scale we have in the US, and the corporate system keeps us from fixing what is broke.
It is not at all "fringe" to suggest- hey, lets abolish the AMA, drug laws except that deal with quality. (as a start, just for argument, I realize this is too simplistic and off topic for this debte) - but, darned if folks can't make it "fringe"-
I, personally, would like us to go free enterprise, instead of single payer insurance, but, I think single payer insurance has a more realistic chance of getting through, and, the US would be much better off overall, and there would be a net increase of freedom- just not to the degree that free enterprise would have in a net increase of freedom.
Implementation vs reality is the real divide. Folks are afraid of the unknown, and not hungry or desperate enough to go with the more free system.
What I said:
That is my heartburn with his definition, and also provides my understanding of why the wealthy, in a democratic regime that doesn't protect property rights, wouldn't want the poor voting. Methinks its probably the same reason why a ram in the company of two wolves might be pretty skeptical about the whole notion of voting on what's for dinner.
What Lesly thinks I said:
The difference between what I said, and what Lesly thinks I said?
Must be liberal symmetry.
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, Just in case you don't know, "pursuit of Happiness" meant, to the folks who signed this document, private property. And note that just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
Again, nothing wrong with being offended but [b]BD wasn't merely offended, was he? That blogger I mentioned wasn't merely offended, was he? Should I second guess and assume neither meant what I think they meant or should I go by what they wrote?[/b] You should, as I noted above, read what I actually wrote. Nowhere do I advocate disenfranchisement, I simply note that its a perfectly rational response to theft via the ballot box. Stealing the property of the minority in a constitutional democracy that gives everybody a vote is no more legitimate than disenfranchising the poor in a constitutional democracy that protects property rights. Fail to protect property rights, and you've violated the founding principle of this country just as thoroughly as disenfranchisement.
Left-leaning libertarians are quite a weird animal. Its an anti-statist ideology that still wants the enforcement of equality. Quite a contradiction from my point of view for I do not see how equality can be enforced except through increased government power.
That is my heartburn with his definition, and also provides my understanding of why the wealthy, in a democratic regime that doesn't protect property rights, wouldn't want the poor voting. Methinks its probably the same reason why a ram in the company of two wolves might be pretty skeptical about the whole notion of voting on what's for dinner.
What Lesly thinks I said:
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 14 2007, 01:54 AM)
This has very little to do with my posts on this thread. When someone writes disenfranchising the poor is "a perfectly understandable reaction to the redistributionist tendencies of socialists" and "denying them the opportunity is in keeping with libertarian philosophy" there is something very wrong with libertarian philosophy, BD, or both.
Maybe you don't really support disenfranchising the poor. Maybe you only sympathize with a libertarian who wants to disenfranchise the poor (as if that's not bad enough), but you don't provide anything in your response that suggests I was off.
Maybe you don't really support disenfranchising the poor. Maybe you only sympathize with a libertarian who wants to disenfranchise the poor (as if that's not bad enough), but you don't provide anything in your response that suggests I was off.
The difference between what I said, and what Lesly thinks I said?
Must be liberal symmetry.
QUOTE
Regimes are as legitimate as people think they are.
Then the Khmer Rouge, the Third Reich, and the Swiss Confederation are all equally legitimate, by your reckoning. Sorry, but that type of reckoning is utterly at odds with this: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, Just in case you don't know, "pursuit of Happiness" meant, to the folks who signed this document, private property. And note that just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
QUOTE
But you must admit redistribution is legitimate enough in this democracy—sorry Con, this constitutional democracy—to survive Reagan's retrenchment policies and politics that still exist today.
Nobody has to admit that redistribution is legitimate, whether accomplished by the state using a gun at the behest of the majority of voters or by a thug using a gun at the behest of his own greed.QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 14 2007, 01:08 AM)
As for disenfranchising anyone, what is wrong with being offended that some people think they are able to steal from others even if they vote majority to gain it—it's still wrong and it's still theft.
Again, nothing wrong with being offended but [b]BD wasn't merely offended, was he? That blogger I mentioned wasn't merely offended, was he? Should I second guess and assume neither meant what I think they meant or should I go by what they wrote?[/b] You should, as I noted above, read what I actually wrote. Nowhere do I advocate disenfranchisement, I simply note that its a perfectly rational response to theft via the ballot box. Stealing the property of the minority in a constitutional democracy that gives everybody a vote is no more legitimate than disenfranchising the poor in a constitutional democracy that protects property rights. Fail to protect property rights, and you've violated the founding principle of this country just as thoroughly as disenfranchisement.
QUOTE
As for stealing from others, I don't know, but this is sounding like a boogeyman tactic to me. I'm feeling like I'm on trial for thought crime because the welfare state is exponentially larger in your minds than my own.
Exponentially larger? Since I don't know how large it is in your mind, I can't speak to that. But that it is large, there's no doubt. Large as in "massive." The various levels of government consume more than 1/3 of our GDP, and most redistributionists want even more.QUOTE
Jules isn't a libertarian, is he?
No, he's not, he's a libertine socialist. Failure to respect private property = not a libertarian. Lederuvdapac nails it on the head in identifying why:Left-leaning libertarians are quite a weird animal. Its an anti-statist ideology that still wants the enforcement of equality. Quite a contradiction from my point of view for I do not see how equality can be enforced except through increased government power.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 15 2007, 12:26 AM)
What I said:
That is my heartburn with his definition, and also provides my understanding of why the wealthy, in a democratic regime that doesn't protect property rights, wouldn't want the poor voting. Methinks its probably the same reason why a ram in the company of two wolves might be pretty skeptical about the whole notion of voting on what's for dinner.
What Lesly thinks I said:
That is my heartburn with his definition, and also provides my understanding of why the wealthy, in a democratic regime that doesn't protect property rights, wouldn't want the poor voting. Methinks its probably the same reason why a ram in the company of two wolves might be pretty skeptical about the whole notion of voting on what's for dinner.
What Lesly thinks I said:
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 14 2007, 01:54 AM)
This has very little to do with my posts on this thread. When someone writes disenfranchising the poor is "a perfectly understandable reaction to the redistributionist tendencies of socialists" and "denying them the opportunity is in keeping with libertarian philosophy" there is something very wrong with libertarian philosophy, BD, or both.
Maybe you don't really support disenfranchising the poor. Maybe you only sympathize with a libertarian who wants to disenfranchise the poor (as if that's not bad enough), but you don't provide anything in your response that suggests I was off.
Maybe you don't really support disenfranchising the poor. Maybe you only sympathize with a libertarian who wants to disenfranchise the poor (as if that's not bad enough), but you don't provide anything in your response that suggests I was off.
How does your "understanding of why the wealthy, in a democratic regime that doesn't protect property rights, wouldn't want the poor voting" refute my impression that you sympathise with the idea of disenfranchising a group of voters? I mean if you didn't you wouldn't correct my impression of this blogger. Does this understanding somehow contradict "denying [the poor] the opportunity [to vote] is in keeping with libertarian philosophy"? You tell me, BD. Without backpeddling if you can. Is denying a group vote in keeping with libertarian philosophy or not? I'll drop the matter if you tell me you miss-typed, didn't explain yourself well, something other than trying to shift my contention with your first post to something else.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 15 2007, 12:26 AM)
The difference between what I said, and what Lesly thinks I said? Must be liberal symmetry.
Nyuk nyuk! That's some Oscar material but you might wanna tone down the bright orange 10 font and huge blue text. It detracts from your hilarious cracks.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 15 2007, 12:26 AM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 14 2007, 02:54 AM)
Regimes are as legitimate as people think they are.
Then the Khmer Rouge, the Third Reich, and the Swiss Confederation are all equally legitimate, by your reckoning.
orly? I wasn't aware Cambodians and Germans had full knowledge of their respective governments' workings and approved. Learn something new every day at
.QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 15 2007, 12:26 AM)
Sorry, but that type of reckoning is utterly at odds with this: [...] Just in case you don't know, "pursuit of Happiness" meant, to the folks who signed this document, private property. And note that just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
This doesn't contradict my statement. Regimes are as legitimate as people think they are. When people no longer believe regimes are legitimate they withdraw support for policies and sometimes the government itself. If the regime doesn't seek the people's support, they are no longer legitimate. I guess to avoid confusion I should have spelled out who grants legitimacy. Anyway, I'm curious; how do you reconcile our legitimate regime with the governed's consent to strip you of happiness? Because:
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 15 2007, 12:26 AM)
Nobody has to admit that redistribution is legitimate, whether accomplished by the state using a gun at the behest of the majority of voters or by a thug using a gun at the behest of his own greed.
tells me our regime/constitutional democracy is illegitimate.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 15 2007, 12:26 AM)
You should, as I noted above, read what I actually wrote.
Thanks. I did the first time. A few times in fact. With blinking.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 15 2007, 12:26 AM)
Nowhere do I advocate disenfranchisement, I simply note that its a perfectly rational response to theft via the ballot box.
I'll take this to mean that you were just sympathizing with the libertarian that gave me the creeps. That's not as bad as supporting disenfranchisment, but that leaves this part: "As long as 'the poor' believe that they can vote themselves the fruits of someone else's labor, denying them the opportunity is in keeping with libertarian philosophy."
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 15 2007, 12:26 AM)
QUOTE(Lesly @ Sep 14 2007, 02:54 AM)
As for stealing from others, I don't know, but this is sounding like a boogeyman tactic to me. I'm feeling like I'm on trial for thought