Stop using the word Libertarian

[toddaa]

Unless you qualify it properly. The Libertarian Party has pretty much tainted the word beyond redemption and too many people on DU post knee jerk rants when it's used.

Here's some useful qualifiers:

Civil Libertarians - ACLU, Nat Hentoff, etc.
Libertarian Capitalists - The LP crowd, Ron Paul, etc.
Libertarian Socialists - Anarcho-syndicalists, Noam Chomsky, etc.

I've seen the qualifier economic used, but it strikes me as vague. Are libertarian capitalists, who are big private property advocates, economic libertarians? If so, why isn't a libertarian socialist, such as myself, who wants to see an end to wage labor also recognized as an economic libertarian? And Social Libertarian is also somewhat vague. Do you mean Libertarian Socialist or Civil Libertarian?

Hey, I'm just trying to figure out who hates me and why. ;)

[rman]

1. seconded

-

[sandnsea]

2. Every party has that problem

There's different kinds of Democrats and even different kinds of Republicans. Libertarians are generally equated with people who want little or no economic regulation and little or no social regulation. A wild free for all with people fending for themselves. I'm for less social intrusion than what we've got, but Libertarianism seems to take it to extreme.

[Sgent]

4. The Libertarian Party

The LP solidly embraces almost every libertairian socialist idea I've seen, from freedom of speech to freedom to use/buy drugs. Their economics are very different than the progressives, but on issues of choice and freedom they are equally at peace with most progressive views. The only real area's of disagreement is whether government is a neccissary evil or a useful construct, the LP believes the former, so many problems errupt.

[sandnsea]

29. Big assumption

I don't think most progressives believe in completely legalizing all drugs the way Libertarians do. That's fairly unique to Libertarians. I know Libertarians who don't even believe in public education. So not even all Libertarian social ideas fit nicely with progressives. To me, it's as if Libertarians are spoiled children who received all the benefits of a progressive society, and now just don't want to pay for it or accept that basic rules of conduct are necessary for any functioning society.

[Jack_DeLeon]

36. I support the legalization of all drugs...

we need to end the war on drugs. Its a failure.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Jack_DeLeon]

44. Then we need to control our own government...

the war on drugs has far more negative effects on our society than legalizing drugs ever would have.

[VOX]

51. Stop trying to hijack the term "liberal."

Sorry, but your site is the nth rehash of every right-wing talking point ever dreamed up.

Isn't the GOP "big-tent" big enough? :shrug:

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. That is an utter absurdity.

I'm sorry, but to say "some drugs are too dangerous for society" is a ridiculous statement, by and large. The only drugs I can think of which would render the user in any way a "threat to society" would be crack cocaine and methamphetamine. And even those are bad not because of any short-term effects, but because long-term use seems invariably to result in psychosis.

And the drug with the greatest social costs is alcohol, which is legal. Heroin is actually a safer and less physiologically harmful drug than ethanol, so I would assume you'd have no problem legalising it?

[blurp]

59. Then we have a right to control speech. Good logic.

We the people, through our government have a right to control anything that impacts on us as a society.

That's a terrible argument and a great excuse for unlimited government power. The Chinese use it all the time.

Afterall, what you say impacts us as a society. Regulate speech.

The number of children you have impacts society. Regulate reproduction.

What you're allowed to read impacts society. Government filtering of the Internet.

Your sexual preferences impact society. Ban homosexuality.

Bah. The idea that what you do "impacts society" is the justification for dictatorship.

Systems that emphasize the social (socialism) instead of the individual (individualism) often turn into totalitarian monsters. All in the name of protecting society.

[New Democrat]

66. Craig, you have some serious issues.

You claim to be a liberal, yet your website says you are for removing the income tax, against homosexual rights, against the unions, against evironmental rights, against the "feminization of boys", for preemptive war and almost every other right wing cause. You are in the wrong party.

Your website claims you are making the word liberal safe again. If in order to be a liberal I have to support those postitions, count me out. I'd rather be a "compassionate conservative."


The best part of your website is your free research link. You click on it and it says you will research any topic for 1 hour for 19.99. Well I guess we can't expect honesty from someone like you who calls themself a liberal.


Call up Fox News. They need a "liberal" like you to sub for Alan Colmes whenever he is sick.

[xequals]

45. I don't believe the founding fathers were "spoiled children",

rather, they understood that even a "good" government is much more dangerous than a "bad" individual.

I don't believe in public education or most other forms of socialism. The public school system is a prime example of the anti-growth, anti-individual, "nanny statism". Lines of faceless, nameless, unmotivated children/individuals operating like robots according to some government approved "standards". "We only expect the very least of little Johnny or Jane."

IMO, real people working through the private sector -- not the State or the Church -- can do a much better job at everything as far as results and achievement is concerned -- including schooling.

There would be no ghettos, no trailer parks and no permanent underclass without socialism to keep it that way, IMO. (by "socialism", I'm referring to the "government should remake society" mindset of both liberals and conservatives).

[sandnsea]

55. The founding fathers

Maybe you should read more.

"...but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked...At every of these schools shall be taught reading, writing, and common arithmetick, and the books which shall be used therein for instructing the children to read shall be such as will at the same time make them acquainted with Graecian, Roman, English, and American history..."
A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge (1778)
- Thomas Jefferson
http://facweb.furman.edu/~svecmichael/ED11/library/jeffknow.html

"The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a taxgatherer of the United States? These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the Government..." - Thomas Jefferson 2nd Inaugural Address

"These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the Government, to fulfill contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts as places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected the revenue thereby liberated may applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State....War will then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement..." Thomas Jefferson 2nd Inaugural Address

[sled]

61. So

Could we combine all these ideas, somehow, import tariffs, a living wage, where only one parent's labor was required, to support a family, & the magic of this new-fangled "internets", to produce a better result??? Since so many folks, apparently have a beef with public schools, & don't like their kids, even attending them, could we maybe think outside the box, & use this technology, that I have to believe, an enlightened individual like Jefferson, would probably love & embrace? Make parents more responsible for their own offspring's education, instead of them blaming teachers, cause little Jr.'s an idiot? "Taught reading, writing, and common arithmetick, and the books" & if that's the only measure, I have to believe the "internets" are the bomb...no more monuments to education, that sit idle, 3 months out of every year. Might be good housing for the homeless, etc., already have kitchens in place...just a thought...maybe a brain fart...

[sandnsea]

63. Go back 250 years?

Your plan is why Jefferson created his plan. How hard is that to figure out. :eyes:

[sled]

67. I can't, but I'd really love to...

Please explain, for us less enlightened.

1. Unless you know something, I don't, the possibility of me going back 250 yrs. doesn't exist.

2. The "internets" did not exist, 250 yrs. ago, so how is one to assume, that Jefferson would choose brick & mortar, paper, etc., over the "internets"?

3. Is it an absolute, that we need brick & mortar schools, etc., to house new computer technology, when most homes already have them, & the ones that don't could probably acquire one for free, through the same school system, sans the brick & mortar, prime real estate, etc.?

4. I live by a local school district's bus barn, & a question maybe an environmentalist could appreciate...why do we fire up literally thousands of school buses, everyday, to haul Jack & Jill to school, when a system like I suggested, would solve the problem, instead of polluting our air, with tons of hydrocarbons, just to continue a ritual, that's time may have come & gone? The savings on buses, fuel, & drivers alone, would pay for a computer, in every home in America.

5. With a need for decent teachers, wouldn't it make sense to have one excellent teacher, even a professor, teach thousands, maybe millions of kids, online, at one time, instead of whining about class sizes, the need for more classrooms, & the teachers to lead them, etc.?

6. Would another Columbine, even be possible?

The questions could go on & on, but by the same logic you use, where new ideas are just something to roll your eyes about, & dismiss, out of hand, would have probably left Jefferson, continuing to embrace King George, & America would be, just another eye-rolling brain fart, easily quashed, by the vested interests, of his day.

If a "More General Diffusion of Knowledge" is the key, it'd be hard to argue, that the current system of schools, accomplishes that, better than the "internets" could, or would. Hell, Google just signed a deal, to put massive libraries of books, on the web. Why haul Jack & Jill, to the computers, to view these books, in a school, when they can be under their own parents control, at home, & thereby, not leave teachers responsible, for kids turning into juvenile delinquents, unless of course, teachers would be out of work, & have to find employment elsewhere? If teacher employment's your point, then that would end the debate, because I would understand that a better, more efficient education of these kids, etc., was never the issue, to begin with.

[sandnsea]

69. Pretty simple

Because Jefferson chose brick and mortar over simply mailing out books. Because a paid teacher is going to do a better job than a parent who may or may not be capable or may or may not be educated or may or may not be able to afford electricity, computer and internet access or may or may not even have the time to supervise. Close mouth, engage brain.

[sled]

70. Thank you

You seem to base a lot on assumptions, like assuming you have some direct line to Jefferson, & know how he would address public schooling, were he alive today. You assume that a paid teacher, is always better than a parent, to instruct their offspring. You assume that these same parents, most of which, I assume, attended public schools, like so many of us, left it completely uneducated. You assume that there's this mass of Americans, out there, who can't afford "electricity, computer and internet access", when I clearly wrote, the taxpayer would provide that for them, pro bono. You assume that parents just don't have time, to supervise their young, when I clearly stated, that if we might define a living wage, provide for that, one parent could stay home, & provide this same supervision. You also, assume I open my mouth, when I type, while disengaging my brain, which is not what I was doing at all. I was actually trying to provide food for thought, which is what all Americans, should be doing, I assume, in these troubled times, with burgeoning federal deficits, which some parents truly worry about, & we assume might be left, for other generations to pay, including our own children.

Let me assume one more point, if you don't mind. That you may just be somehow involved with public education, possibly as a teacher, & if that's the case let me provide you one fact, not an assumption. When I asked my first questions, etc., I was attempting to throw out a few ideas, just to see if anyone else, may have thought of them, too, or even have some better ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. I have no axe to grind, with public schools, or at least I didn't until reading your responses. In light of your dismissive nature, & assuming you may be involved, in some way, with public schools, here's the fact. 75% of my property tax money, goes straight to public schools, & I don't have a child in any one of them, & I always felt that went to the public good, so I didn't mind, although I feel that buys me a ticket, to at least have a voice, & ask questions, concerning how they're run. But assuming you may be involved in public schooling, & that you may even be, what passes these days, as an educator, & considering your childish responses, to the simple questions I put forth, any support I had for public schooling, disappeared, in the blink of an eye.

Thank you, you've produced an idea, I never had, in the first place. Public schooling must actually be, in one hell of a mess.

[sandnsea]

72. Isn't that always the way

"Let me assume one more point, if you don't mind. That you may just be somehow involved with public education, possibly as a teacher,"

Couldn't possibly be that I just care about what's best for this country and that there is a historic basis for public education. No, I'm not in any way involved with public education and it's pathetic that you would jump to that conclusion in order to "be dismissive" yourself.

"75% of my property tax money, goes straight to public schools, & I don't have a child in any one of them.."

Which was my original point, libertarians sound like whiney babies who just don't want to pay their share.

"..I always felt that went to the public good, so I didn't mind, although I feel that buys me a ticket, to at least have a voice, & ask questions, concerning how they're run.."

You do, at your local school board which is exactly the method Jefferson proposed over 200 years ago. Listening to local voices is also why parents already have the option of homeschooling their children. It's worth noting, only 2.2% of our children are homeschooled. Must be parents prefer teachers.

[sled]

80. You're right

And exactly the reason I left the Democrat Party, after 30+ yrs. being a "Yellow Dog Democrat". No place for new ideas, different beliefs, & entrenched with, & beholding to, the bureaucracies they've helped to create. Legalized vote buying, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm as socially liberal, as they come, in many respects, but I'm also a fiscal conservative, who wants my tax money spent, like I would spend it myself, not pissed away on failed policies of the past.

Keep doing what you've always done, & you'll keep getting what you've always got.

[kk897]

85. whatever problems there are in the public school system

I think it's better than home-schooling in general, as it stands today. The home-school movement has been taken over by right wing extremists. The Akron Beacon Journal did a terrific series on home-schooling recently. I think it's a registration only site, sorry. But home-schooling seems to basically be a front for instilling in kids racist and extreme fundamentalist values, and often home-schooled children are terribly abused. The most vocal proponents of home-schooling have direct ties to groups like sovereign citizens (like the Montana freemen), Christian Identity, and other hard-core groups.

There's almost no oversight for home-schooling. In the series, a guy home-schooled his dog, just to see what would happen, and naturally his dog did very well and was learning everything that kids his age were learning in public school.

Home-school advocates point to the terrific successes, like several kids winning the national spelling bee, others getting into ivy-league schools, etc., but it's really anecdotal evidence.

On the other hand, I can't say I'm against the basic idea of home-schooling. It's just that I'm really worried this little kids who have been programmed to hate will be the leaders of tomorrow.

[sled]

90. Agreed...my bad...I guess...

I honestly wasn't putting out an argument for home-schooling, per se, just thought I'd ask, if we might use all this new technology, to make education more efficient, to maybe save some money, etc. Maybe home-schooling, too, who knows?

I used to work with a guy who home-schooled, & he was exactly what you wrote about. In my view, a far right-wing fundamentalist, who wasn't actually educating his kids, as far as I could tell, but indoctrinating them into a "Rapture" based cult. I felt sorry for his kids, cause it sounded like they wanted to go to school, & play with their friends, to me. But it got me to thinking of ways to end all the bickering, about church-state, etc., & those guys' belief, that school was all about the Ten Commandments, prayer, etc. Thought maybe if we'd help them home-school, it might stop all the fighting, make a little peace, & let the rest of the kids, learn about reading, writing, & arithmetic, instead of another's religious beliefs.

The longer I thought about it, figured if we provide it to them, maybe we could help everybody, that wanted to, try it, & see if it worked for them, too. Same thought on the shortage of good teachers, etc. Why not one great teacher, through the internet, whatever, to teach larger groups of kids? I think everybody might agree, there is a difference in educators, at least I saw a difference, back when I was in school.

Never knew I'd get attacked, for throwing a brain fart, out there. I'm all for new ideas, progress, evolving, etc., instead of believing we just stop, at some point, & say that's it, things are now in stone, & we can never change them. To me, that's the same thing I oppose out of Republicans, & apparently inhabits the Dem Party, too.

Just like, I never knew this "Rapture" cult, was alive & spreading, until I met that guy at work, I never knew some Dems freak out, about, what I thought might be an enlightened, progressive idea. Maybe I need to get out more, who knows.

My bad...I guess...sheesh...

[kk897]

93. hi sled---no attack from me!

Sorry if you thought so! No, I figure most people are unaware of this element of home-schooling. It was news to me until just a couple of weeks ago. I just thought I'd share a little of what I found out.

[sled]

94. No..no...

I thought you made very legitimate points, that I'd experienced myself. I generally don't like to get into all the name-calling, etc. If someone's got a problem, with my opinions, I truly want to hear my argument's weaknesses. If their points are valid & convincing, I'll change, in a heartbeat. Anything less, & I fear undermining my own credibility. New ideas, etc., are good things.

Thanks a lot, for pointing that out. I've seen, with my own eyes, exactly the folks you wrote about. They exist, no doubt about it, & that's their right, but when they cross the line, & start encroaching on the rest of us, by rule of law, etc., then I think they go too far.

I like diversity, etc. We can learn a lot, from each other, it's a good thing.

Thanks again

[sled]

83. So, what would Jefferson do???

Don't you think you undermine your own argument, a little, by attempting to take Jefferson out of context, alledging it supports your opinion, & ignoring the fact, that the things he wrote about in Section I, of his bill, "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge", addressed the need to "protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy", by this "diffusion of knowledge", & that he wished to defend against those, who have when, "entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth"?

Could it possibly be, he was more interested in acheiving an end, & the means wasn't necessarily the issue, at all? Was it infrastructure, he addresses, or was it the "diffusion of knowledge", & the need "to illuminate, as far as practicable"?

Kind of interesting that you would point to an online guide, that links to a digital archive, entitled "Thomas Jefferson Digital Archive", & then argue that brick & mortar, paper, buses, etc., are the best tools for the "diffusion of knowledge", in the 21st century.

Maybe next time you channel Jefferson, you might ask, if he'd prefer 18th century technology, over that available in the 21st century, to achieve those ends. My opinion? He was far smarter, than you give him credit, & far & away, smarter than you, or I. A man for the ages.

* * * *

"SECTION I. Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that the people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked:"

[htuttle]

3. I find the term 'Libertarian Socialist' too confusing

I just stick with 'Anarcho-Syndicalist' when I'm trying to explain my politics. Anarcho-Syndicalism really doesn't describe anything but an economy and manner of operating that economy anyway. It might imply libertarian social values, but I don't think it requires that (though I'm socially liberal as well, I don't think it's directly related to being an anarcho-syndicalist).

In fact, since Anarcho-Syndicalism can exist within the decaying 'husk' of a capitalist economy, I think it mostly describes a way of running a business or production concern. It hints at how syndicates would relate to one another, but concentrates more on how a syndicate itself might operate, assuming that inter-syndicate relations would be modeled after intra-syndicate relations. At least that's been my experience.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. When I hear "anarcho-syndicalist' I think of Monty Python

and not much else, I'm afraid. I'd have to ask for it to be explained - and I suspect most people would.

[htuttle]

17. Well, in real life, I use the term 'Worker Cooperative'

Or 'worker owned and operated business'.

I do agree, however, that strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!


:evilgrin:

[nickgutierrez]

23. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!!

Come see the violence inherent in the system! See the violence inherent in the system!!!

:evilgrin:

[bloom]

5. What do you call the kind of Libertarian

that thinks all liberals are evil, and George Bush is great? He might not like our country helping other countries - but we have to defend ourselves or something. Also thinks school vouchers - esp. when they help the religious community - are great.

[bryant69]

6. An idiot?

But he's as confused about the term as anybody because that's not what libertarianism means. I agree with the main post--and I've probably been as guilty of misusing the term as anybody.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bloom]

48. I think if I refer to him as

the "Idiot Libertarian" - that is not going to make "toddaa" very happy.


This seems like a new thing to me - libertarians who are compatible with democratic liberals. The self-described Libertarian I know is as different from me about nearly everything but interest in politics in general.

[genieroze]

16. Neocons. eom

[Paranoid_Portlander]

50. I would call that kind of Libertarian "Neal Boortz".

Boortz is a LINO (libertarian in name only) who thinks Bush is a swell guy, except for the pot prohibition.

[sled]

62. Right

A lot of these guys are now calling themselves "Libertarians", because they're so ashamed of Jr., they don't want to admit, they're actually Republicans, & always have been...they always vote Republican, 100% of the time...think it makes them appear independent...

Boortz is a perfect example, & they think they can scam libertarians, into supporting the idiot, too.

[bloom]

89. I think he is a Libertarian

who listens too much to right wing hate radio - and has surrounded himself with fundies.

I think there are Libertarian principles he agrees with - but just like being in the Green party will not get you a president or anyone elected in a lot of places - he identifies more with Republicans than Democrats.

[xequals]

53. that is not a libertarian, but simply a socially progressive Conservative.

There is a huge difference between libertarians (neo-classical liberals) and Conservatives who are progressive on a few social issues, who tend to refer to themselves as libertarian, but who support imperialism, who don't respect separation of Church and State and Corporation, and who tend to favor capital punishment - the ultimate act the State can commit against the individual. Capital punishment is antithetical to libertarian ideology, which is rooted the belief that the rights of The Individual trump the power of The State. (The State has no rights, only duties).

[ever_green]

54. Confused. Not Libertarians.

That's for sure.

[Xenus Sister]

7. Democratic values and Libertarian values are polar opposites

Libertarians hate poor people and want to privatize everything exept the military. Libertarianism is a mean, nasty, selfish, hateful, disgusting, evil philosophy, worse than the worst radical right-wing hatefulness. At least the right-wing are fairly up-front about their agenda. Libertarians cloak their philosophy in terms of "protecting civil liberties" (something we can all get behind, right?) and hide the fact that in a true libertarian society, there would be chaos and riots. There would be 2 classes of people: the rich/wealthy, and the desperately poor. Libertarians would destroy the environment far faster than than the at least somewhat cautious Republicans because they'd dismantle and privatize the National Parks (hey, what's wrong with a McDonalds on top of Devil's Tower, eh?).

I used to write a lot about Libertarians, but my blood pressure couldn't handle the strain. I'm tense and getting a headache just writing this much.

Libertarian Bottom Line: Selfish Fucking Bastards. As I said before, thanks for the recount efforts and all, but after that, go crawl back under your rocks and rot.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. my sentiments exactly!!!

[xequals]

22. The difference between collectivist thinking and libertarian thinking

is that the libertarian wants to keep growing the pie so everyone's slice will be bigger, while the collectivist wants to stop the pie from growing as to prevent any one person from having more than anyone else. The libertarian is concerned with the individual being the most he or she can be, while the collectivist is concerned with the individual being and doing the least. The libertarian is concerned with shared blessings, while the collectivist is concerned with shared misery. Libertarians want everyone to be rich and great and their best; collectivists want everyone to be poor and unproductive and their worst.

"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: No man should have so much. The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: All men should have as much." Phelps Adams

[blindpig]

28. the primary fallacy of libertarianism

is that growth can be eternal. In medicine they call that cancer. We live in a finite world. For all people on earth to live"the american way" would require 4 planet Earths! Quite impossible, and that's leaving aside moral considerations.

[0rganism]

35. That's a fallacy of our entire culture, not restricted to Libertarianism

Even our "mainstream" politicians have embraced the religion of eternal growth without limits. As physics professor Al Bartlett puts it, "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

[xequals]

43. Growth cannot be eternal - but it can be pretty darn close to it.

The libertarian thinking person looks at "boundaries" as limits to be pushed; the collectivist looks at the same boundaries as limits to be accepted.

If it were up to the collectivists, we'd all still be living in primitive hunter/gatherer societies, accepting of the boundaries around us.

The libertarian looks at limits and invents his/her way out of them. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but one day there will be more than one "Earth", more than one "planet" humans live on. It is only a matter of time before man invents his way out of his terrestial entrapments.

It is only the power of the human spirit - the power of the individual to believe in him/herself - that has pushed humanity forward. No government can ever stop the human spirit - it can only help facilitate it.

The standard of living is so high in this country relative to other countries because of our belief in the power of the individual - the desire for personal freedom, happiness and betterment.

The egalitarian utopia collectivists dream about will come about one day, but will be brought about by libertarians and pro-growth individuals who believe in rising all humans up where even "poor" is rich - a class structure consisting of haves and have mores.

[blindpig]

58. what a statement of faith!

If I were a Christian I might accuse you of idolatry, your faith in man is boundless. And to my view, ill founded. Your ability to ignore the environmental catastrophe that is looming is equal to that of the End Times wackos. Put down that Rand for a bit and read some biology. I'd suggest EO Wilson.

I suppose it might be some consolation to me that libertarian thinking will be it's own downfall as the quest for continual growth collapses upon itself. But the devastation wrought upon the biosphere and biodiversity in particular by this quest is unacceptable for reasons that range from survival to spiritual and aesthetic.

It is good to strive for improvement but it is wise to recognize limitations.

[kk897]

86. what's wrong with "primitive" hunter/gatherer societies? n/t

[WoodrowFan]

79. wow, what total BS

"collectivists" want less for everybody and want people to be poor???

I've not ever seen so many RW BS talking points here in a long, long time. And your quote at the end is typical, forcing a choice between only 2 alternatives. The simple truth is that the libertarian is only interested in what he gets for himself and Devil take the hindmost.

bye bye

[toddaa]

26. Did you even read the original post?

[sled]

8. A big tent???

Maybe "anti-corporatists" would be a better term, to describe all
three. This subdividing, re-dividing, & labeling, will sink us all. A
little cohesion may be the order of the day, instead slicing & dicing,
America, right now, just for a sociology, political philosophy debate.

"Tainted"??? That knife probably cuts all ways...time for something
like, hang together, or hang separately, at least until this mess is
done...bury the hatchet, for now...please...

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I don't think 'libertarian capitalists' are anti-corporatist at all

They would regard any corporation as a contract that was freely entered into, and thus A Good Thing. I've never heard a libertarian capitalist explain how (or if) they would prevent monopolies and cartels. I suspect they think they would also be Good Things.

[cattleman22]

27. Capital L Libertarians are anti corporations

There was a plank in the Libertarian party to completely get rid of government recognition of corporations and limited libaility whihc makes corporations possible.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. They like corporations, but without limited liability

The Principle: Anti-trust laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by limiting competition. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association.

Solutions: We condemn all coercive monopolies. In order to abolish them, we advocate a strict separation of business and State. Laws of incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege. In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions. We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge. We further oppose efforts, in the name of social responsibility or any other reason, to expand federal chartering of corporations into a pretext for government control of business.

Transitional Solutions: We call for the repeal of all anti-trust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act, which restricts price discounts, and the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. We further call for the abolition of both the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/monopoli.html

So cartels are fine; but company owners would be responsible for anything the company does.

Slightly worryingly, the first thing they want to do is repeal anti-trust laws, and sometime later get around to the limited liability stuff. I would predict huge cartels almost at once, and complicated structures designed to prevent the real owners getting made bankrupt.

[sled]

42. No question about it

That is the party platform, no doubt, but by the same logic, to say all Libertarians agree with this, is to say that all Democrats agree with everything their party leadership does, everything their platform says, & must agree with everything, any other Democrat says, or does. I would never hold a Democrat, to that criteria, & I think it's a little unfair & disingenuous, to hold a Libertarian, responsible for the same. The Libertarian party's like herding cats. We often times, agree, to disagree, but we've left the name-calling, & hatred behind...most of us, anyway.

I like Ron Paul, former Governor Gary Johnson R(NM), but at the same time, I like Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, & Jesse Jackson. That's not to say, every word they utter, represents me, but I like folks who say what they mean, & mean what they say. I think Bill Clinton's probably the best president I'll see in my lifetime, but I'm not responsible for the mistakes he made, just because I think he's a brilliant guy, that finally made the trains run on time. Considering the cards dealt him, I'll take his "wonkishness", over the current resident, of the White House, anyday, anytime.

As "sweetheart" writes in another post, & exactly why I left the Democrat party, after 30+ yrs. "An ever increasing government, wars abroad, the war on drugs, and the restrictions on civil liberties" & the Democrat party leadership's failure to address these points, forced me to look for more fertile ground, where folks don't form a circular firing squad, everytime things don't work out, for their party.

Party names are meaningless, to me, it's the issues, that should drive these debates. It's just like the Democrat leadership, whining about the "disenfranchised" felons in Florida, as though they're blameless, in all of it. A large majority of those "disenfranchised" voters, were victims of the miserably failed, war on drugs, in the first place, & for the Dem leadership, to act like they had no hand in it, is to believe the cow really did jump over the moon.

Maybe compassionate conservatives actually exist, because for me to see, homeless & poor on the streets of the richest, most powerful nation, on the face of the earth, after throwing hundreds of billions, maybe trillions of dollars, at the problem, & seeing things just get worse, tells me, as stupid as I may be, that this crap just doesn't work, & it's time we try to fix it, whatever the answer may be.

Libs come in all stripes, big "L", little "l", & everything in between, & the one thing, that changed me, more than anything else, was Peter McWilliams' book, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do", & for the record, Peter was a gay Libertarian, as if it mattered, & I'm damn proud, Americans like him existed, & ashamed he met his fate, at the hands of the federal government, because he spoke truth to power. A travesty...an American treasure, dead for what he believed...it shouldn't happen here, but it does, & the beat goes on...

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Fair enough - I actually tried to show they weren't 'anti-corporation'

where you had actually said they were 'anti-corporatist', so I wasn't really answering your point properly in the first place (and I think others have made the same mistake as me too).

But if you are a libertarian who wants to abolish anti-trust laws, I'd love to hear an explanation.

[sled]

60. OK, I tried....

Let me start with a disclaimer. I'm not at DU trolling around for converts, etc. I do think this election could very easily have been rigged, & probably was, & that John Kerry could quite likely be the rightful winner of our last election. Not only, as a vet, I did vote for Kerry, & went out & got more votes for him, including my wife's (although that wasn't hard to do), who had voted for Ralph Nader, in 2000. I have no problem that she voted for Nader, in 2000, & could easily understand why a person would vote for him, just as she can understand why I voted for Harry Browne, in 2000, & had I not believed, like so many Americans, that the 2004 election, could very likely be the election of our lifetimes, I would have been very comfortable voting for Badnarik, in 2004.

OK, now let me write this, as best I can. I started a piece, last night, attempting to address this, on the terms you laid down, & two paragraphs in, I realized, that I'd written such a convoluted, bucket of crap, that it even confused me, just trying to explain this, so I got up this morning, & deleted it, & started from scratch.

Please understand, I'm a simple guy, not an attorney, & I believe that's why Americans debate these things, without ever convincing the other of what may be valid arguments, because we try to pose as highly educated intellectuals, when in fact, most of our education occurs, long after our formal education has ended. Since I think this probably describes most Americans, including Michael Moore, exactly as he's stated, I must make arguments, in simple words, & ideas.

I consider myself a strict Constitutionalist, not in the vain of Scalia, etc., but more in line with Dr. Paul. Scalia's an "activist judge", in my opinion, because he has to twist his opinions, to match his politics, & ends up sounding like the fraud, he is. To me, the Constitution is a very simple, straight-forward document, that only a political activist, or self-serving lawyer, could twist into, this mishmash, labyrinth of law, we have today. And therein lies the rub, of anti-trust, etc. The idea of corporate rights, is foreign to me. I believe all rights lie with the individual, except those clearly defined, in the Constitution, & no group of citizens' rights, trump those of anyone of us, individually, & that no group of people has any right, greater than they would have, as a person...equal justice, under the law.

That "anti-trust" laws become necessary, in the first place, has more to do, with prior erroneous court decisions, like those that have somehow bestowed "super rights", upon corporations, when these "rights" are in fact, on their face, unconstitutional. From a libertarian position, I believe, that's the crux, of it all...a bad court decision, a law to override it, a bureaucracy to enforce it, a new court decision to override the law, etc., etc., etc., in whatever order you choose.

A more modern perspective might be 9/11, with the "Patriot Act(s)" as an example. A new law, obliterating the Constitution, bogus court decisions, to support bad law, bureaucracies, upon bureaucracies, to enforce them, & over, & over, & over again, as the Constitution & our individual rights, are trampled in the process. That's why, I can easily understand, why Ron Paul is labeled "Dr. No", when he genuinely believes in what he does. He believes the vast majority of these laws, to be, on their face, unConstitutional, & votes against them, at every opportunity. A very principled man, who loves his country, & the ideas it was founded upon. I have spoken to his former chief of staff, & he has told me as much, & that's good enough for me. You either stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.

Same with Maxine Waters, I met her, some years ago, & I find her to be a very honest, credible individual, & although we may disagree, on some points, I still believe she's a great lady, & have no problem, at all, supporting her, when we agree, & would never dare criticizing her, where we don't. Personally, I think she's the bomb. A great American, our nation's lifeblood.

I know I haven't written, directly about these "anit-trust" laws, but I honestly can't attempt to address each one individually, because I do have a life, & could run on all day, attempting to pick each one apart, & probably make a circular argument, & not even convince myself...I'm not even that smart, in the first place, but as I wrote earlier, I don't see the Constitution, as a complicated document. It says what it says.

One more point, before I close. I do believe 100% in states rights, but not the modern definition, & surely not the bogus argument, the south tried to twist, in the support of slavery. I was born & raised in the south, & I've always held the south fully accountable, for trying to use, such a righteous document, & concept, to support something, I believe, on it's face, was so cruel & unconstitutional, trying to deny the rights of man. Even though, my great-grandfather fought from 1861-1865, for the Confederacy (hell, my whole family did), I do not hold it against his legacy. He didn't even have, 40 acres & a mule, the day he died, & economically speaking, he was not much better off, than a slave himself. Was he on the wrong side? Absolutely, no question about it, but to say he fought for slavery, I think completely stretches, the bounds of reason. I think he was a nationalist, & was sadly convinced, he fought for his country, by the monied & powerful, of his day, much the same as John Kerry, myself, & so many like us, were convinced, we served our nation's best interests, during the Vietnam era, & much the same, as our young people are misled, to believe the same thing today, in Iraq. Poor men fighting, rich men's war, just the fate of man, I suppose, but it's wrong, & once again, I allude to Dr. Paul...he & his beliefs, would have never allowed Iraq to happen, in the first place, it's unConstituional, pure & simple.

I also believe a women has the right to choose, but I have a hard time understanding, why folks who defend abortion, allow this to remain a federal issue, where it rides on the blade of a knife, just one rigged election, or one bad court appointment away, from being lost from them, forever. I don't write this to pick a fight, but personally, just to throw an idea out there, if this was an issue, that was so important to me, I'd want it returned to the states, post haste, where it would be far harder to overturn, on a national level. Sure, Utah might outlaw it, & that's heavy on the might, cause who really knows what they'd do, but I'm absolutely certain, it would remain legal in most all the states, just a plane ride, or bus ticket away, & the states who chose to outlaw it, couldn't stop a women from crossing state lines, to do as she wished. And, not only that, through the power of economics, boycotts, etc., women in the states where it remained legal, could use these powers, to help free their sisters, in neighboring states, if that's what they choose to do. Better that, I think, than risking it in the hands of Scalia, Thomas, etc.

If we can ever stop talking past each other, & start talking to each other, I honestly believe, a lot of the debates, of our day, could be settled, & the answers lie in our own Constitution. No doubt, the federal government would be much smaller, taxes would be much lower, at least at the federal level, with people in each state, individually deciding, within the bounds of the Constitution, what each & everyone of them might do. To me, there's magic in that, just as the Founders may have intended, in order to form a more perfect union. Maybe give each other some room, allow for a little more diversity of opinion, with the Constitution as the boundaries, other than that, anything goes, with freedom & justice for all. Just like Rummy said, although I don't think he truly meant it, democracy can be quite messy, & should be. It should be damn hard, to make a law. We've got far too many, & most of them just muck up the works, anyway. Quit trying to outlaw, what we don't like, about the other guy. "They're should be a law"...no there shouldn't. "A nation of laws"...I just don't buy it, give me freedom, any day, anyway, the more the better, for my neighbors, & myself. I truly believe, the freer I can make you, the freer I also shall be...& I intend to free you, at every opportunity...& to corporate rights, in my mind, even though the yahoos in Washington tell me different, they don't, or shouldn't exist, if we can ever pry corporations, from the halls of our government, the better off we'll all be, & if the Libertarian Party doesn't like that, they can kiss my ass...I'm free to say that, what can they do, the same way in, is the same way out...but I kind of think that's what my party actually intended, to say, even though it gets twisted into some legalese, that personally, I can't even decipher...good intentions, terrible wording...

"We condemn all coercive monopolies. In order to abolish them, we advocate a strict separation of business and State."

Pardon the mistakes, & please don't bash me too hard...gotta run... ;-)

[kk897]

87. I think one problem may be LaRouche. Isn't he one of the big voices of

Libertarianism?

[Xenus Sister]

15. Are you kidding me? Libertarians LOVE Corporations!

Anti-corporatists my ass. It's regular people and wage earners they hate.

[sled]

21. No

I'm not, why kid you, I don't even know you...keep dividing, great "plan"...Rovian...

[Tace]

9. Good Points -- Good Post

For the past decade, I've simply described myself as a political Independent, in order to avoid the morass you describe. I understand, however, that my views are considered by many to be to on the Libertarian left.

[Tace]

64. I'd Just Like To Point Out That I Didn't Consider "Big L", "Little L" When

I made my post above. I was responding to the original post. When I awoke this morning, I saw some 30 posts above mine, many describing the difference between "L" and "l."

One thing for sure, there's sure lot of semantic difficulties in this thread. Sort of like a discussion about god, or God.

Here's a couple of dictionary definitions of libertarian (notice small "l."):

lib·er·tar·i·an Audio pronunciation of "libertarian" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-târ-n)
n.

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.


liber·tari·an adj.
liber·tari·an·ism n.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
---

libertarian

n : someone who believes the doctrine of free will

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
---

For those who care to understand the meaning of the word "libertarian," Wikipedia has a real nice entry found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Cheers

[coloradodem2005]

11. How I feel about it.

I am a left libertarian. However, many self-proclaimed libertarians are Bush supporting republicans who like the economics of the Bush administration and may only be slightly more liberal than Republicans.

[sled]

20. Hi coloradodem2005, like minds...

Thanks for describing such a critter, cause I consider myself one, too. I think the operative being "self-proclaimed", says a lot. I've listened to that nut job, Neal Boortz, be described as a Libertarian, on the rube tube, & he's not even close. A Republican, in sheep's clothing, nothing more.

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU, supported Kerry, donated all I could afford to Kerry, voted for Kerry, voted for Clinton, in two elections, but also support gun ownership, & ran for state congress, in Colorado, in 2002...as a Libertarian.

Before folks claim to know everything there is to know about Libertarians, they might try attending a Libertarian state convention &, at least, talk to a Libertarian. You'll find most of them describe themselves, as recovering Dems, or Republicans, who just gave up on big government, to cure what ails America. The government got bigger, & nothing got cured.

I have no problem, agreeing with Bill Clinton, & Ron Paul, at the same time. They're both right, in a lot of ways. The way Clinton/Gore kept their hands, off the internet's a good example. Let Americans, do what they do, hands off, we'll find our way, sans a government program, simple as that. Can't see a lot of difference between the federal government, & a corporation. Take from the poor, & give to the rich...

Don't like "anti-corporatists"??? Maybe Jeffersonian, whatever...I sure as hell ain't for Jr. ...the worst, of all possibilities...

[Xenus Sister]

12. Oh, and, what the hell does "see an end to wage labor" mean?

Explain that in practical terms. Explain to the good, caring people here what that would mean to the corporations and the people they employ?

[genieroze]

18. Who do they employ, Indians, Chinese?

They aren't employing us, yet they are complaining at their profits. Well duh, people who don't work, can't buy things.

[toddaa]

25. Wage labor is a kind of slavery

Think of this way, when you go to work for another person selling your "labor" in exchange for money, are you exchanging goods? No, your selling yourself into a form of temporary slavery. The company can do with you as it wishes. If you don't like it, you lose your job. In a sense they hold the rights to you for 40 hours a week. Where's the liberty in this?

In order to minimize the authority of wage labor, a voluntary cooperative would replace the current corporation and the workers would assume democratic control over the company. The corporation ceases to exist as a legal entity, which is an absolutely ridiculous concept imo, and the dignity of the individual is restored to its proper place.

Obviously, ending wage slavery doesn't happen over night. The way to minimize its impact is to establish a living wage and to inforce the power of collective bargaining. If every hourly and salaried worker got together and said, "ENOUGH," wage labor would disappear in an instant. That's not going to happen as long as corporations can threaten you with poverty and starvation.

Make sense?

[blurp]

39. But you DO receive goods for your labor

Think of this way, when you go to work for another person selling your "labor" in exchange for money, are you exchanging goods? No, your selling yourself into a form of temporary slavery.

So the kid I pay $25 to mow my lawn is my slave?

What a bunch of bunk.

The whole point of money is that it lets you, at some time in the future, collect some good or service in exchange for the labor you provided.

You work to help make the pie and the money you earn means you get a piece later on. How is that anything like slavery?

In the case of the kid mowing my lawn, maybe he'll spend that $25 buying a program I've written. There. We just exchanged services. I got a mowed lawn and he got a piece of software.

Oh wait, I guess I was his programming slave.

Your whole argument is an insult to all those that have suffered under real slavery.

Stop promoting hate. It doesn't help anyone.

[toddaa]

47. Wage labor and profiting off the work of others

He mows your lawn for $25 and keeps the money for himself is one thing. That's a fair exchange. The problem is, if he works for a lawn service and making minimum wage and the owner profits off of his work. This is wage labor. Laissez faire capitalism is built on the premise that owners can profit off the labor of others. Left unfettered, you end up with a system very much like what we are experiencing today. A concentration of wealth in the hands of the few made off the labor of others who do not receive proper recompence for their work. Before you know it, you end up with a bunch of Walmarts on your hands.

So how do you rectify the situation. First, get rid of the ridiculous notion that corporate entities have rights. Individuals have rights, not corporations. Second, increase the power of the worker by strengthing existing labor laws. Finally, encourage cooperative ownership of companies by all workers over the more top down authoritarian structure that we have today.

What libertarian socialists want is an increase in the freedom of workers, without falling into the Marxist trap of state authoritarian control of industry. We keep a free market, but the inequity between rich and poor is greatly reduced. Sure, in its purest form its anarchistic utopia. Probably won't happen on a large scale, but by minimizing the entanglements of government and increasing the power of voluntary collectivization, you can get to a much more egalitarian economic system. The key is we work together.

[blurp]

49. No. They profit from each other.

The problem is, if he works for a lawn service and making minimum wage and the owner profits off of his work. This is wage labor. Laissez faire capitalism is built on the premise that owners can profit off the labor of others.

They profit from each other and that's not a problem.

And what of the labor of the capitalist?

You think the tools and machines come about by magic?

What about the money used to buy such things? Someone had to earn it.

If I work for 10 years, buy a house, then mortgage it and use the money to start a dry cleaning store employing "wage slaves", are you saying I don't deserve anything?

I provide the tools, equipment, building, structure, and business knowledge which labor uses to mostly earn money for labor.

Just who is using whom?

The key is we work together.

The trouble is that it's often difficult to see the work of the owner because chances are he's done it long ago. The example I gave of mortgaging a home for money to buy business capital is a real one. It's one of the primary ways people finance their new business.

It of course takes years of work to buy a house -- work that labor will never see.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[tomorrowsashes]

82. An equal playing field is impossible under capitalism

The employer has the choice whether or not to hire a worker. The worker has no choice over whether or not to hire him or herself out. They must do it to survive. This gives the employer almost all the power in the agreement. The employer sets the wage, the conditions, and, in almost all cases, the worker has no choice but to accept them. This is inevitable in capitalism. It is implied by the concept of capitalism, which requires two classes, one to profit off the labor of the other. Profit is innefficiency. Our planet has resources for all. Profit is the reason people starve. It is taking food off the tables of the workers to buy the rich scum big screen TVs. It is precisely because I understand capitalism that I oppose it.

I completely accept that not everybody has equal ability. I simply reject the concepts of earning and deserving. People do not need the threat of death or poverty to do good work. As Bakunin said, "from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs."

[tomorrowsashes]

71. Wage labor = slavery

The wage system is simply slavery, masked to seem as a choice. A vast majority of people have no choice but to work at a job they probably don't enjoy, and most people don't even get to pick which job, in order to survive. When at a job, you are basically renting out your freedom for a period of time. You agree to give up your freedom of speech, and, to a certain extent, your right to determine your own actions. Since most people don't have the choice whether or not to work, they are being forced to give up essential freedoms. This IS slavery.

There are a variety of ways a society could function without the wage system. First, there is complete collectivsm. That is, both the means of production and what is produced belong to the whole community. Nobody 'owns' anything, though people do have personal property that is essential to maintaining their way of life, such as a home, a family heirloom, or a toothbrush. People work because it is natural to enjoy doing good work, especially if you can see it benefitting your community, and you don't have a boss breating down your neck. All goods go to community stores, where people can go and get whatever they need or want, without the exchange of money.

Another possibility is individualist anarchism. This differs from collectivism in that while the means of production are communally owned, what is produced belongs to whoever produces it. They can trade it, and do with it what they desire.

Between these possibilities are various forms of mutualism. Those who produce the goods have varying degrees of societal expectations for what they do with them. Trade might exist in some form, but a majority of exchanges would probably be made under a gift economy, where whoever has excess gives to those who have need.

Syndicalism is not really an economic system, but an organizational strategy. It employs some form of federalism through trade unions, which don't have any authority, other than being the means of communication across the world. There is not a government, but instead workers collectives, who decide through consensus and compromise what actions to pursue. There are no bosses, and everybody is considered equally important, from the assembly line worker to the person in charge of distrobution.



Suggested Reading:
-The Wage System by Peter Kropotkin
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/wages.html
-Anything at http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/


Property is theft. Government is tyranny. Capitalism is slavery.

[xequals]

19. "small l" libertarian is mostly associated with "classical liberalism"

and the general idea of free societies and free markets. Libertarians are much less concerned with using government to remake society than with fair and just rules - regardless of what type of societal distribution results. As long as the rules are fair, it is fair and natural to have a dynamic class system of constantly changing winners and losers -- not a static class system where everyone is equal and has equal amounts of everything (socialism).

Probably the more accurate term for "liberarianism" as commonly referred to is "neo-classical liberal". But most folks know what people mean by libertarian: the Ayn Rand/Robert Nozick school of thought, i.e. the modern ideological disciples of the founding fathers and other thinkers of the Enlightenment.

[sled]

24. Excellent

Agree, 100%...most rank & file libertarians, fit that nicely, thanks. I love Dems, Greens, Ron Paul republicans, etc. We're Americans first...that "hate's" not in me, sorry to let some folks down, but they're wrong, on that...respect goes a long way, agree, to disagree...

[Taxloss]

30. I like to point out the world's only Libertarian country when

debating with fundie free-market, tiny-government types.

It's Somalia.

[sweetheart]

33. and as well switzerland

Just so you can stay balanced in your "proof".

Geesh, the hatred of libertarians here, that people who claim to
want to know truth over power, is a bit misguided.

[Taxloss]

37. I said "fundie free-market, tiny-government types"

not the types you mentioned.

They self-describe as Libertarian. The term cannot be "reclaimed". It's a term as generic and misused as "socialist" or "democrat" or "conservative". That's the way it goes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Switzerland libertarian?

With compulsory military service, where every new building had to have a nuclear shelter? Where, rumour has it, you can't flush the toilet at night in an appartment? It doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

[sweetheart]

52. socially libertarian

cannabis legal, injecting rooms for intravenous drugs users, no
engangling alliances or supranational arrangements. You may not like
the building standards (but gosh, were britain to be populated by
swiss bathrooms and showers, it would make for a happier place). ;-)

[SteveG]

31. I always refer to the Libertarian Party as

the Social Darwinist Party. It describes them perfectly IMHO.

[sweetheart]

34. Its because the big "L" libertarians appearantly are bush criminals

As for libertarian socialist (small "l") people like myself, its
just tiresome to see the silly rhetoric bandied about on DU regarding
libertarian thinking.

I'd wager easily 1/3rd of democratic voters are very libertarian
in terms of their views on an ever increasing government, wars abroad, the war on drugs, and the restrictions on civil liberties.

Rather than embrace like minds, a divisive immiture set of folks on
DU think that by being rovian and rude about libertarians that they
are being clever... rather it makes them sound like the bushies they
eschew.

I find it pays to patiently repeat yourself, and ask for proof as
people say stupid things. Ignorance comes in all flavours.

[greekspeak]

40. It is no more a misnomer than Democratic or Republican as a party name

[Tace]

65. Good Point

And, just for fun: I'd wager most Democrats would rather live in a democratic republic than a pure democracy, with a tyranny of the majority. Cheers

[Spider Jerusalem]

57. I already qualify it when I use it, thanks.

I refer to libertarian capitalists (or anarcho-capitalists, or Ayn Rand cultists, etc) as 'capital "L" libertarians', and to libertarian socialists, etc.

[nolabels]

68. What the heck is with all the names anyway?

Call me anything you want if it makes you feel better :crazy:

Wasn't there a book about this at one time?

Something of title like "All I need to know, I learned in Kindergarten"

Love them people that live in glass houses :loveya:

[BurtWorm]

76. "Anarcho"-capitalists are full of crap.

You can't be against the state if you worship private property. It's an utterly phony, utterly untenable position.

[renaissanceguy]

74. I think we're thinking of this

in terms of the two-party system. As we're seeing, it sucks to have this system. A bunch of important voices are excluded from public policy. That's why we need to let these groups in, so we can, as a society, have real discussions and more options.

------------------------------------------------
Buy liberal, anti-Bush, and other outspoken political merchandise at www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

[BurtWorm]

75. I call right-wing "libertarians" proprietarians.

Because they're really all about property, not liberty.

[whirlygigspin]

77. I totally need a Monty Python fix after this conversation

or maybe some Marx brothers

[BurtWorm]

78. Oh! You want an argument!

This is abuse!

[sendero]

81. I don't know much...

... about all these flavors of Libertarianism. The only material I've ever read talks about a dog-eat-dog world where everyone is allowed to do whatever they want, especially with regards to economics and property.

"Libertarian-socialist" sounds like any oxymoron to me and I've never met one or talked to one online.

In general, I find the basic concept behind libertarianism to be a simplistic over-response to the problems of effective governance that are solved by simply throwing up ones hands.

[toddaa]

84. A very good Libertarian Socialist primer

http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp001631.html

[Selwynn]

88. You forgot to add "libertarian party" which is what most people mean

when they just say "libertarians" and yeah, they usually use it right, in that context.

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. It is the difference between Libertarians and libertarians

One is a political party and the other is a followers of a particular political philosophy.

[sled]

92. And the twain do meet...

I think most folks take the fringe elements, of all these parties, Libs, Greens, Dems, Reps, etc., & try to define each other, by pointing at the most extreme, in any one of them.

I know good people, in all these parties. Hell I'm a Lib, married to a former Green, for the last 32 yrs., & we get along just fine. I could vote for a Green, & she could vote for a Lib, & we both voted for Kerry, this time around, cause we see Jr. as a full blown fascist.

I try my damnedest, to meet, who I vote for, especially in local races. The very reason I believe ex-Governor Gary Johnson R(NM), is a great guy, & administrator. I've met him, know a lot about him, & think he's a good, honest man.

But if Clinton could run again, I'd be out there beating the streets, trying to get him re-elected, cause I think he did a mighty fine job, for what we were paying him to do.

Most (L)(l)ibertarians, I know, & I know a lot of them, are basically social liberals, fiscal conservatives, that believe in the Constitution, as written, & don't believe the government's the answer, to all our problems. Individual rights, personal responsiblity.

As for myself, I slam a neo-con, every time I get a chance, & probably a lot harder, than any Dem, I know.

An example of a Libertarian, I know, & think's a great guy, is Sheriff Bill Masters, from Colorado. Just a good guy..."Liberty Bill"...

http://www.libertybill.net/