Libertarians are idiots -

[AmandaRuth]

Gawd, they are idiots - Just listening to Air Am, libertarian saying the feds should not fund stem cell research because if people could keep more of their tax money, they would be happy to private research via donation,

Yeah, like I would have so much money for donations of anything after I get done paying for private school tuition, use of private roads and sidewalks, private fees for any park I go into, fees for libraries, and fees for decent fire and police protection, and especially what I will have to pay to take care of my aged parents.

They are so effing stupid, those idiot selfish liberations.

Just had to get that off my chest.

Carry on.

[porphyrian]

1. What they say is theoretically possible...

...however they don't mention the transitional period we'd have to go through to get from this to that and the ensuing chaos.

[KarenInMA]

7. as opposed to the CURRENT chaotic system??

we certainly could just keep ploding along, afraid of any change.

[porphyrian]

11. I didn't say that, you did.

I'm just calling them like I see them.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. Transitional period would be that moment where people are starving

to death because the most corrupt and greediest in the society would be hogging up all the resources? And that would be right before the social revolution? And before we insititute socialism like the French did?

[I Have A Dream]

108. I don't think that it's theoretically possible for someone who is...

even now not making ends meet. The poor in our country would be hurt. I feel that we have an obligation to make sure that the poorest of the poor have a good education, adequate health care, enough food, etc. The amount of money that the working poor makes is not enough to pay for even those things let alone these other things that are being discussed.

[porphyrian]

123. I agree.

With the wealth in this country, there is no excuse. I'm not a socialist, but I do believe that the rich who enjoy their wealth because of America do owe some of that wealth back to the community. No one should be hungry or without health care, that's a sociopathic policy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

151. Owe some of that wealth back?

As a general rule, the wealthy aren't deserving of their wealth. The vast majority of wealth in this country isn't created, it's inherited.

Can you say "Let's return to the 90% upper tax bracket?"

I knew that you could. :)


Fun fact:

$10T divided by 285 million people= $35,088

[mixedview]

161. 90% tax bracket - that's a pretty authortiarian/statist attitude

I believe in the progressive tax system, a social safety net, and many of the New Deal reforms, but I don't agree with using gov't to punish anyone - including the rich. I view democratic socialism as neccessary, but only to save capitalism/liberty from itself - not to replace it.

This is why, even though I am liberal on many issues, I can't really consider myself liberal, but a libertarian leaning independent.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

185. That IS a progressive tax system.

It's not 90% at $60,000 worth of earnings.



Fun fact:
50% of Americans think they're in the top 10% income bracket. :rofl:

[dissent1977]

2. Noam Chomsky is a libertarian, and he wouldn't agree with that.

Libertarian socialist that is. Americans tend to think that all Libertarians are right-wing, but that is only because right-wing think tanks have effectively seized the term as their own. In reality though the word libertarian has nothing to do with economics or privatization of anything. If you support strong civil rights protections, gay rights, an end to the drug war, strong limits on government surveillance etc. then YOU are very likely a libertarian.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

4. I think the OP

is talking about anarcho-capitalists in this particular case.

[KarenInMA]

8. That's not what the OP said,

She said Libertarians are idiots, and selfish. That's not ok.

[zanne]

99. It's not OK with you?

When I read DU every day, I don't expect to agree with all the opinions 100% of the time. Sometimes, I get really upset about what someone has posted and I let them know, but I never pretend to be anything other than a Democrat. It's called Democratic Underground. I've criticized Republicans, Libertarians and even other Democrats. It's perfectly OK to call someone an idiot. We're not going by Roberts Rules of Order here. This is a place to opine and vent.

[I Have A Dream]

102. As long as the following DU rules are folllowed:

Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements.


I'm not saying that the OP has done either of these, but the way that you stated things, it sounded to me as though you considered anything to be acceptable. If what you were stating already took this into account, please disregard this messgae.

[zanne]

105. So we can't call Republicans idiots?

I wasn't the original poster and I did not attack an individual. Also, if we REALLY went by those rules, we'd be admonished for calling George Bush a moron, or for calling the Republicans right-wingers, because that would be broad-brush and inflammatory.

[I Have A Dream]

107. Specifically, I was responding to the following..

sentences:

It's perfectly OK to call someone an idiot. We're not going by Roberts Rules of Order here. This is a place to opine and vent.

I think that I made it clear that I wasn't speaking specifically about what the OP stated. I was concerned that you were saying that it was OK to do that in general. If someone does this to someone who's on our side, it's not acceptable. If this is what you also believe, then we don't have a problem.

[NMDemDist2]

114. the referenced "civility rules" are in regards to other members of DU

not to the RW.

[zanne]

119. Where does it say that?

And where does it end if I can't call Libertarians a bad name? Do we all have to be nice to Libertarians?

[dissent1977]

9. I realize who she is referring to, but I am pointing out that those...

people do not have exclusive rights to the term libertarian, so we should not attack all libertarians.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

18. agreed n/t

[zanne]

104. Bull. We attack Republicans in general all the time.

Let's not limit our own speech.

[dissent1977]

118. Attacking Republicans is much different

Most libertarians do not belong to the Libertarian Party, and most libertarians are actually on the left end of the political spectrum. They are our allies, not our enemies. They oppose the war in Iraq, they oppose the Patriot Act, they support women's rights, gay rights, and the right to privacy. And most of them do NOT support privatization of public resources like the original poster implied.

[zanne]

120. They don't seem like anybody's "allies"

They seem to be pretty much just out for themselves.

[dissent1977]

125. Do you even know what the word libertarian means?

If you think all libertarians are out for themselves and hold a right wing ideology you are wrong.

Here is a site that actually uses the term libertarian in the correct way. http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Go to the site and take the test, because I honestly would be surprised if you are not a libertarian as it seems virtually everyone on this site is. People just don't understand what the term means.

[tocqueville]

138. I did the test and ended up somewhat left of Gandhi

which is of course completely stupid (I think for example that violence is OK for a just cause like fighting facism). I consider myself being a centrist in European politics, which mean that the socialists are mostly to much to the left for me.

the test is completely flawed, because a lot of the questions asked put you automatically to the left. Specially questions about children, sex, religion etc... The obvious responses are mainstream in Europe and don't make a difference between left and right.

The US perception of what is left is not representative worldwide. Most of my "leftist" stands according to the test are center-left in Europe.

DU main tendency on this board (if you take account of the economical stance) would put them somewhere in the left-wing of the French Republican party (Chirac's party) or the Christian-Democrats.

Libertarians in Europe are of two kinds : either marginalized anarchists or marginalized extreme right-wingers. The main difference between them is that the later don't like brown-skinned people.

[Raksha]

132. Most of the Libertarians I run into are selfish Randian pigs.

Anarcho-capitalists, as someone said earlier in the thread. They are social Darwinists and laissez-faire capitalists and I HATE THEIR EFFING GUTS!!! I hate everything they stand for and I'll call them whatever I damn well want to call them, thank you very much!!!!

[dissent1977]

135. Most libertarians are not even Randian

Most libertarians are on the left end of the political spectrum, and do not believe in Randian economics. People just need to learn what the term libertarian means, people are too quick to believe what ever the right-wing think tanks tell them to think. Most libertarians would disagree with most of what those think tanks say, and to let them define the term libertarian is absolutely ridiculous. Take the test at http://www.politicalcompass.org/ and you may well find out that you yourself are a libertarian.

[mondo joe]

142. I think you need to get out more. And for what it's worth, judging the

whole by the actions of a few is not the most enlightened way to go through life.

[silverweb]

12. Thanks for that.

There are social libertarians, fiscal libertarians, libertarian socialists, plain old socialists, and a multitude of other combinations.

I've barely made a dent in reading all the Chomsky I'd like, but I've never read anyone who made more sense -- and a libertarian socialist is what I am.

[Frederik]

33. Not the same type of libertarian

The Libertarian Party is ultra-right wing. I agree that it probably used to have another meaning, but today libertarian means no taxes or almost none, everything should be privatized, pay for what you use and nothing else. It's a back to the Middle Ages kind of philosophy. In the 18th century each insurance company had their own fire department, and they would only come to the rescue of their own customers. This is the world libertarians want to go back to.

[silverweb]

43. Agreed.

But there's Libertarian and then there's libertarian.

As much as they'd like to think otherwise, the Libertarian Party is not the defining authority when it comes to libertarian principles.

[Pithlet]

55. That's why I'm usually careful to to note

Big 'L' Libertarians. In fact, I think in their case it is a misnomer. Life under the Big L's would hardly be free for the majority of us. On DU, when people refer to Libertarians, that's the group of nut balls they are usually referring to, even if they aren't careful to make that important distinction.

[dissent1977]

56. Go tell that to the Europeans...

I am sure that they would disagree very strongly with you, as most people who call themselves Libertarians in Europe are on the left end of the political spectrum.

[Frederik]

100. Yes, in Europe

As other have pointed out, there are Libertarians and libertarians.

[idlisambar]

65. libertarian socialist?

meaningless oxymoron.

[dissent1977]

81. You don't understand libertarianism if you think that is an oxymoron

Libertarian socialists are actually quite common. Libertarianism really does not have much to do with economics, it has much more to do with civil liberties. Go talk about libertarianism with some Europeans, and you will see that their views on libertarianism are generally far different than the views expressed by right-wing think tanks like CATO.

[idlisambar]

96. I looked it up

It looks like you're right -- libertarian socialism is a term for a genuine political philosophy otherwise known as Anarchism. It bears little resemblence to the philosophy normally associated (in the present day US) with the term "libertarianism", which does have a lot to do economics and was the subject of the original post.

[Touchdown]

121. That's the point. Big L, little l, has been factioned, and incoherent...

for decades. It is a term that has been splintered out to so many different ideologies by those who claim to be libertarians or Libertarians, that there is no meaning left in the word.

You can't blame the rest of us for not understanding a term that doesn't make any sense, and has no definable meaning anymore. BTW: what you just described is called LIBERALISM, not libertarianism. Just one more example of the libertarians trying to co-opt evvery POV out there so they can claim to everybody they meet..."Suprise! You're a libertarian!" Ridiculous stealth tactics.

Want someone to blame for this? Blame Ayn Rand, not us.

[dissent1977]

126. When did I blame you?

And yes what I described is libertarianism. There is meaning left in the word, but the term can not be used on a scale of left to right because there are libertarians at both ends of the spectrum. Instead when thinking about libertarianism we use a scale from libertarian to authoritarian. In other words do you believe that the state should have absolute power over a person's life or do you believe it should have very little power. It is perfectly clear what the term means as long as you don't pretend that one small group of people has a monopoly on the term. Take the test at http://www.politicalcompass.org/ as I think it does a pretty good job at showing people what libertarianism is.

[Touchdown]

177. I have. The test is meaningless, and the questions fixed.

So you admit that the term is co-opted. Good. My point exactly. You might have described libertarianism, but so did Atlas Shrugged, and the economic theories of Ludwig Von Mises.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. Libertarians have deluded themselves

into thinking that the free market can literally solve everything when it's obvious that it can't. Of course the free market can be especially beneficial to one's own wealth if you're wealthy to start with.

EDIT: In light of misunderstandings, I should note I'm referring to uppercase "L" Libertarians of the US Libertarian Party.

[Cats Against Frist]

37. Uh...but what protects wealth, even more, is a behemoth

of a corrupt government, using the rule of law to enact "trickle down" economic theory -- or, even more blatantly: paying off their cronies, letting CEOs write legislation, starting war for profit -- and building a big fucking army to back up their corpo-facism and authoritarianism.

Yeah, that beats the free market, any day. :eyes:


People say that libertarianism (which is based as much on MINARCHY, as anarchy/anarcho-capitalism) is a pipe dream, but no one ever questions the delusional, fucked up and moon-headed idea that 280 MILLION PEOPLE are going to consent to, steward and monitor a giant "democracy" that is fair, just, egalitarian and free from corruption, and go skipping off into the sunset, licking each others' bodily orifices and wearing pink & purple spin dresses.

You wanna hook up with some cognitive dissonance, get a piece of THAT acid tab.

People think libertarianism sucks because only like three people understand it. Noam Chomsky, and myself, are two of them. ;)

The ONLY thing that makes libertarianism impossible is that a)somebody didn't think of it, before Big Brother/Uncle Sam put on his bubble butt and spare tire and b) there is a good argument that concentration of capital furthers technology -- or is, at least, a motivator that works better than "good wishes" or a hammer and sickle stuck in your ass. To be a libertarian, one must be a Luddite and denounce, as far as I'm concerned, anything outside of one's local sphere. It's hard as fuck. I'm working on it -- but, as you can see, it's not coming along too well.

There is another option though -- parasitic libertarianism -- which can be either right or left-wing, depending on how you think about it, and would involve minarchy and a healthy dose of elitism, which, of course, I have.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

54. I find the Swedish socio-economic model to be much preferable

than the US-system of corporate oligarchy, or the right-libertarian theory of capitalism gone wild.

A socially-liberal, social democratic system would be a better stepping-stone to a liberatarian socialist society. As the Nordic social democracies have proved, if you have civil liberties and checks and balances - and you bring out the best side of peoples' character (fully-fund education) then a fairer, greater society is achievable.

[Cats Against Frist]

57. Sweden is a small country

Sweden has fewer people than CHICAGO. That's my main argument -- minarchy, before, anarchy.

On that kind of level, I think those types of policies are more workable and apt. Plus, the Swedish have CULTURAL mores that enable them to be so goddamned sensible -- lagom and push-ups, toward the sun, every morning...

I lived in Stockholm, and though I think that $10/mo. cell phones, subsidized computers, 30-hour work weeks and lots of gravlax is the place I want to be, there are some drawbacks to the Swedish model. The first, being that I still think it covers too many people. The second, that they're so egalitarain that they're going to destroy their society with their immigration policies, that there is an unspoken caste system that has a ghost of Sovietism as its inspiration, and the ugliest urban sprawls, in the cities, that make the storefront of a Barnes & Noble look like the gates of heaven. Not to mention that they ran one of the best filmmakers in human history, out of the country, because they were going to tax his brilliance at 90 percent.

There's a lot of payola going on there, too -- and the only thing that keeps the whole thing together is, as I said, their cultural values, which are not only being chipped away by immigration policies, but by the influx of Western Capitalism. Swedes are not immune -- they are getting fat off McDonalds, like every other European country, and they have as much American television available, as we do.

Don't get me wrong, though -- I love it. I'm trying to get a Fullbright, to go back. And I do envy the fact that they can, though sometimes tenuously, hold a more communitarian society together, and still maintain one of the highest standards of living and life expectancy statistics, in the entire world.

[Touchdown]

178. So by your logic, a larger country needs a smaller government.

How do you come to such a loopy conclusion?

[Cats Against Frist]

180. This is the second post that I've had to address that made me want to

chop my own foot off, and eat it, because I had to answer it. Particularly because you're accusing me of bad logic.

I'm saying that community is arbitrary, nation is arbitrary, and the damn constitution already largely allows for the states to govern themselves -- we need smaller units of direct government, local spheres of existence and humanized policy. Sweden is better at doing this, because they are small. If we divided up, into smaller units, for governance, which is what de-centralization IS, then we would be more likely to succeed with other models.

[KarenInMA]

5. hey-bite me.

Calling someone an "idiot" is a bit harsh, mmm? Do you think that every single person needs to march lock step in agreement with everyone of your political believes?

You disagree with one thing, and you think "libertarians are selfish idiots?"

Do you know that most people work for three months out of the year to pay their taxes??? Did you read the "highway bill" that our congress just passed? Do you know how much MONEY this country wastes because politicians, ON BOTH SIDES, like Pork? Yummy yummy pork?

The next time you want to smear a political threory, you may want to find out a little bit about it first.

[rockymountaindem]

13. There's a difference

between trimming pork from spending bills, which I think everybody can support, and privitizing practically everything like the people the OP referred to.

I once read a column in the Colorado Springs Gazette by a libertarian saying that the "government monopoly on roads" was tyrrany. So what, we're supposed to have a bunch of parallel, privately-owned roads going the same place all the the name of competition? Yeah right.

[Cats Against Frist]

39. There's also a difference between assuming that

Libertarianism simply means "no government," rather than de-centralized government.

[Iris]

106. I'm benefiting from the "pork"

My city will receive $1,000,000 to fix a road that has cut our community in half. There is constant flooding and sink holes appear frequently because of it.

This is a community that was blighted by big business at one time and it is now revitalizing itself. Through private entities, we've just received the funding and labor for a new playground for a population of children who have been woefully underserved. The cost of that is way less than fixing that road, but there never would have been funding to do either without assistance from the gov't. AND the private sector.

Don't assume the original poster doesn't know anything about your political theory. From what I can see, it has helped get us in the mess we are in. No one has any concept of social responsiblity anymore. People will vote for a psycho trust fund baby just to save a few bucks on their taxes and the hell with the rest of the world. That's a really fine way to live.

Honestly, if 3 months out of my year can make life easier for everyone, I consider it a small price to pay.

[zanne]

110. so you are a Libertarian?

You sure sound like one. Y'know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck?

[AmandaRuth]

6. i like the idea of government out of my personal decisions

but will never go along with privatization of education, roads and social security - Sorry but for the taxes I pay, I get a mighty good deal there

Hey Karen, I calls them like I see them. and They are idiots, IDIOTS I tells ya,

[KarenInMA]

15. You don't need to privitize education, roads and social security

to be a libertarian. You just have to understand that both parties waste WAY to much money.

I do not appreaciate being called an idiot. :mad:

this is what I beleive:

The war on (some) drugs is a farce. all drugs should be legal and regulated.

We spend to much money on things that a economy could handle- public transportation, enegry, ultities.

The governement should NEVER be allowed to tell me how how to live my life, including what I can do to my body, who I can marry, what I can eat, drink, read think and feel.

If you still think I'm an idiot, I'm done with you.

[AmandaRuth]

20. did i say anything about my opinions on the amount of money

both parties spend. Now who is being condescending?

If you read some of the idiotic stuff the libertarian think tanks put out, they certainly are for private schools, roads and especially SS.

And yes, if you think public transportation, energy (see oil companies) and utilities would be cheaper if left 100% to private markets, then I do think you are a -----.

Check out what some of our biggest corporations have done with privatizing utility systems (particularly water) in some South American countries. Scary stuff.

[TwilightZone]

27. "all drugs should be legal and regulated"

Including meth?

[KarenInMA]

38. yup. I've argued this before. If we could stop

people from blowing shit up to make it, we can sell it ourselves.

someone wants to ruin there life, let'em.

[TwilightZone]

89. Nice social conscience, there.

Sorry, but I can't agree with you. Making drugs like meth, cocaine, and herion legal isn't my idea of good social policy.

[mondo joe]

128. My social conscience calls on me to respect personal autonomy.

So I'm pro choice with regard to almost anything one does to their OWN body.

[Warren DeMontague]

134. How about treating hard drugs as a medical issue instead of a criminal one

we spend $40 Billion a year on the "Drug War" (not including the costs of our highest per captia incarceration rate of non-violent drug offenders, that's a whole nother ball of our tax dollars) and for all the blip-blap-blather about meth and heroin and yadda yadda yadda, what does the vast majority of that 40 billion go to fighting? That's right, pot... pot growing, pot smoking, grannies with cancer who eat pot brownies. Meth makes an excellent justification for a drug war that is waged primarially on millions of pot smokers, just like "protecting the children" is always dragged out as an excuse to tell consenting adults what they can't do with their own bodies..

The irony is, of course, that meth is made from legal ingredients. And the communities where meth is most prevalent are ones where the "Drug war" has had particular success in keeping pot off the market.

The best advertisement against meth is meth users themselves. Take that 40 billion and plug some of it into real education (not the kind of bullshit that tells kids that if they smoke a joint they will be date-raped, or their testicles will fall off... because then they'll never listen to anything the government tells them about drugs, ever again) take some more of that money and plug it into treatment. Alcohol causes all kinds of social and health issues, but criminalizing it didn't do a whole lot of good; all it brought was a criminal gang element into the distribution network, much as we have with illegal drugs today.

My take? Legalize and tax marijuana, and adopt a 'harm reduction' strategy for other drugs like the Netherlands has. I can't imagine that turning millions of people into criminals because of what chemicals they choose to ingest, and letting murderers and rapists out of prison cells to make room for non-violent drug offenders, makes more sense than THAT.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. You wrote:

"We spend to much money on things that a economy could handle- public transportation, enegry, ultities."

Public transit used to be mostly privatized, but company after company went out of business and ASKED to be taken over by the public. We don't need public transit, you say? Tell that to the millions who are too young, too old, too poor, too disabled, or simply too environmentally conscious to drive.

Libertarians love to point to Curitiba, Brazil as an example of a successful privatized transit system. It's sucesssful all right, wildly so, accounting for 80% of all trips in the city. The only trouble is that it's not really private. Only the buses are privately owned and operated by drivers who work under contract from a central authority that sets routes, schedules, and fares. The drivers are given a share of the fares collected, based on their mileage for the pay period. In addition, much of the success of the "successfully privatized" transit system is based on the fact that cars are banned from the downtown and from many arterial streets and that land use is strictly regulated.

Energy and utilities privatized? Does the name Enron ring a bell? How about our friends the oil companies?

Maybe you're too young to remember when flying was pleasant and there were more airlines that flew everywhere, competing on who could offer the best service, as opposed to what we have now, four major airlines that bleed money despite massive subsidies. Oh, and in constant dollars, domestic trips didn't cost any more than they do now.

Yes, isn't the private sector wonderful.

[Solon]

78. Not to mention that most of those industries NEED the subsidies...

Just to survive, to be honest, I would think that we should outright nationalize many of them, in a similar system as Amtrak or the USPS, but properly funded for once. Why the hell should the CEO of GE get millions of dollars that are supplemented by our tax dollars? And people talk about the waste in "public services" usually those helping the poor and disabled. If you want to look at the REAL waste, look no further than our Defense Budget and Corporate subsidies which outweigh the "waste" of welfare by several billion dollars.

[helderheid]

10. I consider myself a left wing libertarian

Bill Maher claims to be one as well. I am not registered as one though as the closest I match in the 2 party system is Democrat.

[eauclaireliberal]

129. The term is "Liberaltarian"

I use it a lot, fo I am one as well.

Ever go to LF? It's a pretty cool forum.

http://libertyforum.org/

[clement]

14. I'm not sure about selfish....

....As much as very very misguided. I've spoken to quite a few American libertarians and they seem very level headed people and of a far more decent and moral character than Republicans and the average conservative.

However they believe that unbridled, unfettered capitalism is the way forward to complete blissful and true liberty. Any form of government is ultimately evil in their minds, including democracy.

This is inherently wrong and so they are wrong.

[MojoXN]

31. Welcome to DU!

"Any form of government is ultimately evil in their minds, including democracy."

No, you're not thinking of Libertarians, you're thinking of Anarchists. Please, everyone, refrain from stereotypes of any sort, including those regarding political ideology or affiliation. There are many Republicans and other conservatives who oppose Bush as much as we do.

MojoXN

[Frederik]

36. But Libertarians do believe government is evil

At best a necessary evil which should be restricted to providing security (military and police) and not much more.

[newyawker99]

98. Hi clement!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MisterP]

16. right-libertarians, that is

ironically, it's the right-libertarians that will inist on right-and-left being "outmoded" (if that's the case, then so's the distinction between "drill bit in forehead" and "no drill bit in forehead")

[MichaelHarris]

17. Libertarians:

Hippies that got older, joined some new age religion, and found out they could make a bunch of money and put their kids in private schools to protect them from the "evils" of society. They want less government intervention, well as long as they get good roads for the SUVs, immanent domain for the shopping malls near their private subdivisions, a well paid police force, National Parks for their kids to visit, and a space program that puts up the Direct TV and Satellite Navigation for their Escalades. Other than those kind of things they are for less government. Born out of the "Me" generation, remember the "Me" generation?

[walldude]

19. Yeah it's all the fault of those new age hippies....

:eyes:

[MichaelHarris]

24. friggin'

chrystal worshipers, and don't forget about the pyramid that sharpens razor blades. I've had a razor blade under a pyramid since 76 and the damn thing still ain't sharp.

[zanne]

111. Bingo!

Well put, MichaelHarris. In other words, just plain selfish.

[jazzjunkysue]

21. you got that right. They should never drive on a road, again.

Cause they resent paying for it. That goes double for garbage pick up and education, clean water, you name it. Let's see the libertarians purify their own water,and pave their own roads. If they're ever injured, boy do they run to a government court lickey split, too.

[sweetheart]

22. People who wear nylon socks are idiots

Fuzzy propaganda just takes a slanderous stab at the inky black night,
blindly groping for response, the appearance of consensus, or the
appearance of dissent.

Theres a lot more things in your line of reasoning.

"Women are idiots for wanting choice over their own bodies."
"Black people do more crimes... that's why so many of 'em are
in prison."
"Inside of every one of them gooks (viet nam), there's a democrat
waitin' ta get out."

The reasoning of the unsupported assertion, as an attempt to measure
the temperature of intelligence of your community, fails.

The logic of baseless assertions is republican propaganda framing.
.. and the same framing will not work for the left. Libertarians
are part of our coalition. They are smart, poltiically coherent
individuals, many of us, and don't take too kindly to blanket
slander from ignorance.

[MichaelHarris]

25. only

those nylon socks with the sock garters, and only when they wear them with Burmuda shorts.

[AmandaRuth]

29. sorry, i always thought that being for smaller government, financial

responsibility and personal freedom made me a democrat.

Remind me never to blow steam here again.

I am a PCO and canvassed quite a bit for Kerry Edwards and never once, in talking to a couple of hundred people did I meet a Libertarian who would even consider voting for a democrat for any reason. Most of them were so over propagandized, they couldn't even say the word Democrat. I heard a lot of screaming about taxes for social services. (see selfish reference) So I have some measure of my community, as you say it. Granted things may be different where you live, I live in a rural red area.

And I wonder if I am not allowed to steam off here, at Democratic Underground, then what gives? Libertarians are for politically correct speech? This is a forum for democrats or so I thought.

[sweetheart]

35. Bashing bigotry is blowing off steam?

I'm sorry you've such bad experience with libertarians.

I am a libertarian socialist, and i don't agree that government has ANY
business in the bedroom, in the drugs i choose to take, or in taking
taxes from me to finance corporate welfare and a prison state.

You are not just speaking freely. You're slamming libertarians and
what i believe are extremely intelligent values... and you slam with
heresay and stereotypes. I hope you would extend as well the free speech
for another libertarian to defend "ourself" from your slam.

The lounge can help you blow off steam, and you can blast tom cruise for
his views on womans health... but instead, you hammer at members of
the dem anti-bush coalition... with a too-broad brush.

I did not say or infer that you should not speak, just that you might
consider making the topic something more penetrating and uplifting than
a divisive repeat of so so so many infights amongst the various
factions of the democratic consensus.

[AmandaRuth]

42. Sorry to offend you

"you hammer at members of
the dem anti-bush coalition... with a too-broad brush"

" divisive repeat of so so so many infights amongst the various
factions of the democratic consensus"

Sorry, in all my life and canvassing, I have never met a self proclaimed libertarian who voted democratic. Encouraging to see so many here on the forum.

Please don't tell me what I can and cannot post here.

[sweetheart]

45. "Please don't tell me what i can and cannot post here."

I made no such effort. I merely suggest that you should expect some
backlash when you slam people of a particular persuasion.

Put your words in someone else's mouth. I did not tell you what to
say or what not to. I think you're being divisive by your thread,
and had you replaced your headline word "libertarian" with "democrat"
or "women" or "blacks", it would read with the same bigotry... except
the moderators would have locked this thread long ago.

But libertarian is fair game, because we have voltaire's views on free
speech. SAy whatever the fuck you want, blow ignorant bigotry around
the place and piss on the carpet while you're at it... Just don't
expect agreement from this quarter.

If you were sorry, you might change your stereotyping in future to
reflect your contrition. But i expect that you are not really
sorry, and did not start this thread to be the wiser.

[AmandaRuth]

51. Thats your opinion, and welcome to it

I could accuse you of ignorant bigotry and pissing on the carpet, but that's not the point. The point is that I think liberation economic policies are idiotic. And I just may be right. What I have learned from this thread is there are many kinds of libertarians and far right libertarians are the idiots.

I also have learned that there are democratic libertarians. Who Knew? Hey, I may be a bigot, but a little less ignorant. Am I sorry? Yes, for getting everybody's panties in a bunch over words, and expecting (EXPECTING, can you imagine, on a Democratic forum, no less) to be able vent about about my unpopular opinion concerning a third party's economic views.

[zanne]

112. Maybe you should change your username--

Sweetheart? Are you serious?

[sweetheart]

137. Maybe you should change yours.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/User:Sweetheart

Silly zanne, go attack an enemy.

[idlisambar]

66. Libertarians are part of our coalition?

Not really. On economic issues liberals and libertarians are in opposition, though on social issues a marriage of convenience is possible.

[zanne]

113. I didn't realize Libertarians posted here.

Next time I read a divisive post, I'll know why.

[Trajan]

23. I dont think it fair ...

... to cast such broad aspersions ... There are liberal libertarians, conservative libertarians, and everything in between ....

Libertarians are known as 'classic' liberals, and I certainly agree with some of their stances, like legalizing drugs, prostitution and maintaining moderate access to abortion ....

I agree that some of the 'detachment' of extreme libertarians can be ridiculous ... but again, they dont represent the whole of the libertarian spectrum ...

[WinkyDink]

26. As long as they

vote Democratic.
Heh.

[MojoXN]

28. OK, first of all...

While ethe Libertarian party leadership may not agree with federal funding for stem cell research, that certainly isn't true of all Libertarians. Me, for example. Next time, be sure to make that distinction. Second, that's why the Libertarian party exists; it's doctrine combines fiscal conservatism with social liberalism. I believe in higher taxation of the rich, most Libertarians do not. Third, well, there is no third, just a first and second. But remember, aside from that asshat Neal Boortz, I've never heard of a Libertarian supporting Dubya. I, and the vast majority of members of my party, support the Democrats, especially at present.

MojoXN

[helderheid]

32. high five!

edit for a REALLY dumb typo

[AmandaRuth]

34. If only, and I wish

Talked to plenty of libertarians last election cycle, not one voted democratic and most said they never would.

Not trying to argue, I am just relating my experience. Area could explain the difference, I live in rural red area.

[helderheid]

41. I worked with Libertarians during Kucinich's primary run

who ALL worked for Kerry afterwards.

[dissent1977]

58. I am willing to bet you know a LOT of libertarians who vote Democrat

That is of course assuming you know a lot of people who voted Democrat. If they support a right to privacy, women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, and less stringent drug laws then they are probably libertarians. It doesn't matter what they think on economic issues, because in reality economic issues don't have anything to do with libertarian principles as much as some people like to pretend they do.

[Iris]

109. You are right AmandaRuth. Many libertarians still believe the Republican

party is the party of less government, so they vote for Republicans as "the lesser of the 2 evils." It happens in my state as well.

Of course, perhaps the Republicans are the party of less gov't. It could be that the increase in gov't since W became president is part of a "starve the beast" plan in which leaders bankrupt the gov't., thus making it inconsequential.

[TwilightZone]

30. Don't judge an entire group of people based on the views of one person.

Some libertarian beliefs - their pro-medicinal marijuana stance, for example - make sense (in my opinion).

Many don't.

[Catholic Sensation]

40. I love these "everyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot" posts

Libertarians have been the best party as it pertains to being anti-war. Libertarians have fought against the Patriot Act better than the Democrats have. Libertarians for the most part are against the drug war (in that respect I disagree). How about doing some research into a group or ideology before making generalized claims against them.

Libertarian economic policy would not be beneficial to the country, but it's hardly more "idiotic" than this Corporate Socialism we're seeing from our federal government.

[AmandaRuth]

44. How much more research do you want me to do?

I've read the positions from the lib think tanks, and talked to plenty of them when I canvassed.

You admit that libertarian economic policy would not be beneficial to the country. Isn't that what my original post was about?

[Catholic Sensation]

46. no your initial post was about insulting an entire group of people

because you simply don't believe the same as they do politically. You didn't say "LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIC POLICY IS IDIOTIC" you said "LIBERTARIANS ARE IDIOTS".

[AmandaRuth]

60. come on dude, (or dudette) read my post

I totally say that liberation economic policies do not make sense.

However, you are correct, I should have put in the words "far right" and "economic"

Everyone will be relieved to know that i am leaving for camping now, and won't be posting again. ;) Me and my bigoted self. Who spend the whole day working on meeting notices for her local democratic group. Who heard the offensive bit on the radio on the way home from the post office. And still thinks that far right economic policies of the big L libertarians are idiotic.

[dissent1977]

59. Read some Chomsky

He is a type of libertarian, but I don't think you will be able to find too much that he agrees with those right-wing think tanks on.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. We should put all the Libertarians on one island and let them eat each

other alive. The last man can have it all.

[Solon]

49. Last I heard, not an Island, but Delaware was the destination.

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. New Hampshire, I heard.

[Solon]

75. I don't keep up with these things, its silly to begin with...

but you are probably right.

[Pithlet]

52. I didn't even have to click on this thread

to know it was my kind of thread. I agree (Big L Libertarian, of course). Libertarian fantasyland would be a pretty grim place in reality.

[Cats Against Frist]

53. I am a libertarian, and I am, most certainly, NOT an "idiot"

Libertarianism is one of the most intelligent -- and nuanced -- political positions that exist. There are both left-wing and right-wing libertarians, both anarchists and minarchists, and classical liberals and pre-modern idealists. This is much more than "college kids, who want to take drugs, and anti-tax warriors."

I consider myself to be a left-wing libertarian federalist minarchist, MEANING that my personal beliefs are secular, (somewhat)egalitarian, communal and that my values are largely liberal, in nature. I believe in the philosophies of the Enlightenment, modernity and the democratic movement born of it, therefore, I recognize the U.S. Constitution, as the law of the land, BUT, I am a federalist -- MEANING -- that the federal government should only exist for defense, interstate law, and other, very minimal things.

Things that I do not believe in, that many leftists do: I am not Marxist, and I don't believe in saving 280 million people from themselves, and their poor choices. I believe in personal responsibility, as well as community help, rather than a broad welfare state -- though, on a state, county or municipal level, I am more comfortable with it. I am elitist, segregationist (meaning not RACIST, but that I believe in the right of free association, meaning that ALL people should be able to seek out those who share their values, culture, religion, philosophies, etc., and establish community on behalf of shared goals and vision), and I believe that "community" is subjective, as well as a construct, and that we should be left to arbitrarily decide who our peers are.

I believe in a TOTALLY unhindered free market, except for pollution, because I believe, as geolibertarians, that land and resources belong to everyone (within an agreed-upon community -- most likely state), and that people should be free to be ENLIGHTENED CONSUMERS and DISCRIMINATING LABORERS. I believe and vehemently support the labor union, born of solidarity -- but not that which relies on bargaining rights to function.

Now, these are things that I believe -- and, if you get me drunk enough, I'll tell you that some of these things are impossible. I'd also tell you that it's no more impossible than some of the goals Democrats or Republicans have in mind, BUT that libertarianism exists in an alternate universe, before the creation of the Federal Reserve, and The Patriot Act -- the two most, in my opinion, liberty-stripping pieces of shite to ever come down the pike.

When I come to the table, I come as a libertarian. When I vote, I vote Dem, because I WAS a Democrat, and a state socialist, until April of 2004. And, I will vote Dem because I fucking cannot stand the Religious Right, whose quasi-Dark Ages agenda of patriarchy, mysticism, anti-reason, anti-Enlightenment, ideas of order, delusion, self-hatred and bodily shame is the biggest threat to the human spirit of liberty that there is.

[Pithlet]

63. Community is not subjective.

This is one of the major flaws in the (Big L) libertarian argument. Unless you live on an island somewhere and are completely 100% self sufficient, you belong to a community, whether you want to believe it or not. You benefit from being a member of that community, whether you want to believe that or not. Things that happen to other members of that community can and will have an effect on you.

A lot of your arguments don't even seem so much Big L as they do outright conservative, particularly your arguments about personal responsibility and the segregation bit.

I'm glad you vote Democratic. You're one of the few Libertarians I've ever heard that say that. Most will vote Repub if they vote for either of the big 2. But your beliefs as you posted them above don't mesh very well with most progressive ideals, and DU, for the most part, is a progressive board.

[Cats Against Frist]

67. Uh, you don't have to be a left-wing authoritarian to be progressive

and community, is, of course, subjective. We have borders, and within those borders is the United States. States have borders. I'm not suggesting that anyone be independent of those around them. I simply think that the "sphere of government" is subjective, and that what's good for one locale, may not be good, or suitable, for another. I also believe that people can, and should, create a local sphere, in which to exist. Part of being "brand conscious," relies on a "national consciousness." Part of mass brainwashing, i.e. the right-wing hate media, relies on a national consciousness. Preservation of the corpo-fascist state relies on a national consciousness. Wal-Mart relies on national consciousness.

I don't believe that the U.S. has "absolute" borders, just like I don't trust the "authoritarians" that cut up Africa and the Near East, to determine where a true nation is, or where a community is.

You're goddamn right, I'm progressive -- I'm just not authoritarian, or Marxist, two things, that, in my humble opinion, have ruined progressivism, democracy and classical liberalism, and are partially responsible for the corpo-fascism that we have, today.

What seems progressive to you, may be a giant, bureaucratic welfare/regulation state, full of pork and waste and bloat, that, at any time can be usurped by a triumvirate of corpo-fascist, neoconservative and theocratic interests, and use the very apparatus to squash any and all progressive thought, but, for me, I don't particularly love the Patriot Act, Columbia/HCA writing my healthcare laws, or the FCC telling me what I can and can't watch. Left wing authoritarianism and right-wing authoritarianism are two heads of the same monster -- and people wonder why there's all this Orwellian, binary-switching shit going on with consciousness and the language -- it's because the two heads are mirror images of each other -- willing to indoctrinate, re-educate, and social engineer as much of the nation, or the world that they can get their hands on, until it comes out, just right. It's the perfect neocon dream.

As for the segregation and elitism bit -- people always pick that out, and harp on it. The woo-woo sensibility of "can't we all just get along," political correctness, and the diversion that is identity politics (including white identity and the white male), have nothing to do with practical governance, whatsoever, and a just, fair and liberty-minded solution to all of these things is possible, if we would truly learn to respect and tolerate each other's differences.

[Solon]

71. Your arguments on several fronts fall flat...

Some of my objections are practical, and others more moral. To give you "Segregationist" argument a try at both. I agree in large part with it, for individuals, but that is a far cry from, let's say a bunch of contractors building a neighborhood in a area, with city maintained roads and streets, putting up a sign saying "Whites only". People have every right to associate with others of their "type" all they want, just don't expect a dime or public service to help you with so much as trash pickup or police protection in such a neighborhood. Unless you are an advocate of totally private roads and services, as some Libertarians are, then that is idiocy of the highest level.

On the labor and "free" market front(note the quotes). There has YET to be an example of an unhindered free market in the world that has been successful. As far as I can tell, most major industries in the world are subsidized by governments worldwide, why shouldn't the people through government "interefere" with what it bought and paid for to begin with? (If you have difficulty, think airlines, telephone, Internet, and of course electricity, namely rural electrification).

Labor laws are an example of this, why shouldn't there be any safety or labor laws to protect consumers and laborers? You bring up the "commons" which is anti-libertarian position if I ever saw one. This is one of the few areas we agree with each other on. I also support the commons of the world, the waterways, air, and land. So I suppose you oppose the water privatization schemes of South America and some U.S. towns?

Also, you contradicted yourself on the labor union part, how, pray tell, are they supposed to function without the power of collective bargaining?

Lastly, your remarks in the third paragraph are insulting to most people of this nation. Not all crises and problems are caused by the person who needs help to get out of that problem. Illness, accidents, and other circumstances can change someone overnight from a "productive citizen" to a what many would call a "leech". I assume that what you mean by community help are private charities. If that's the case, how will those charities, even with the most generous contributions, help the 45 million people without health insurance, that we know about, get medical care when needed, including many children?

Just like all problems cannot be solved by private means, not all can be solved by government means either. We are not talking about the government building unnecessary widgets to take care of a widget shortage. We are talking about national policies on the NEEDS of the people, food, shelter, medical care, and education are all considered needs of a modern society, and if that society cannot provide many, or even most of its citizens with those needs, that society will fail. It is really that simple. And many consider such policies "Socialist", I consider them common sense.

[Cats Against Frist]

80. Oh, now...

Some of my objections are practical, and others more moral. To give you "Segregationist" argument a try at both. I agree in large part with it, for individuals, but that is a far cry from, let's say a bunch of contractors building a neighborhood in a area, with city maintained roads and streets, putting up a sign saying "Whites only". People have every right to associate with others of their "type" all they want, just don't expect a dime or public service to help you with so much as trash pickup or police protection in such a neighborhood. Unless you are an advocate of totally private roads and services, as some Libertarians are, then that is idiocy of the highest level.

You have to remember, I'm a minarchist, before I'm an anarchist -- and, I never said that I was in favor of privatized roads, water, etc. (though, I am in favor of privitized education). De-centralization and minarchy are elements of libertarianism that people completely ignore. Just as people become more free with less authoritarianism, they also become more free with a more localized governing body, and the power to establish communities of like-minded individuals. Someone, in another post, called my values "Republican," when, it sounds, strangely enough, like a "commune." I guess if you have it together enough to like, have actual, roads, as opposed to having naked orgies in a mud pond, all day, the "commune," becomes distinctly "Republican." :shrug:

I think that infrastructural things could be run on the state level, and be OK. Remember, I never said I was against government, altogether.

On the labor and "free" market front(note the quotes). There has YET to be an example of an unhindered free market in the world that has been successful. As far as I can tell, most major industries in the world are subsidized by governments worldwide, why shouldn't the people through government "interefere" with what it bought and paid for to begin with? (If you have difficulty, think airlines, telephone, Internet, and of course electricity, namely rural electrification).

Labor laws are an example of this, why shouldn't there be any safety or labor laws to protect consumers and laborers? You bring up the "commons" which is anti-libertarian position if I ever saw one. This is one of the few areas we agree with each other on. I also support the commons of the world, the waterways, air, and land. So I suppose you oppose the water privatization schemes of South America and some U.S. towns?

One of the joys of being a postmodernist rationalist is that I get to make up value sets, and realize that they're no different from other, more common value sets -- just less popular. There is, in fact, an example of a fairly unhindered and successful free market, and that would be the Spanish anarchists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities#Spanish_revolution_.281936-1939.29

These, too, were free of Marxism, and were de-centralized, and, as I think, I said, above, somewhat against technology.

At any rate, what you mean to say is that governments and large amassed sums of wealth have grown, hand in hand, in a perfect, symbiotic relationship. The government, you think, is "regulating" the wealth, but, what it is, in fact, doing, is protecting the wealth. And they call the subsidization of industry, when the industry is privately owned, "corporate welfare." When the corporation has more power than the government, one might call it corpo-fascism -- which, is what we have now, backed up by a huge army and police state -- and, what do the people have? Right.

Again with the arbitrary value set: I am not necessarily against the state-ownership of some things, (meaning like the 50 states), or the state overseeing cooperatives. Luckily, the infrastructure is already there. That can all be negotiated. In fact, I would prefer to live in a community that had electric/telephone/etc., cooperatives. I am against privitization of water -- and I am more like the geolibertarians, in that sense -- BUT, I would only assert that idea for MY community. I certainly wouldn't say that anyone else has to do it my way.

Also, you contradicted yourself on the labor union part, how, pray tell, are they supposed to function without the power of collective bargaining?

Like they did, in Europe, before they were granted bargaining rights, by the state -- it's called "solidarity," and, as a moral value, it makes for a stronger union than any of the quasi-unions we have, in the USA, today.

Lastly, your remarks in the third paragraph are insulting to most people of this nation. Not all crises and problems are caused by the person who needs help to get out of that problem. Illness, accidents, and other circumstances can change someone overnight from a "productive citizen" to a what many would call a "leech". I assume that what you mean by community help are private charities. If that's the case, how will those charities, even with the most generous contributions, help the 45 million people without health insurance, that we know about, get medical care when needed, including many children?

And, well, they should be -- insulting, that is. My "personal responsibility comment," isn't directed at a horde of welfare mothers, but squarely at the middle class, their apathy, their wastefulness, their greed. It's also aimed at the polluters, the CEOs, the people who abandon their elderly parents to nursing homes, fathers who don't see their children, the unscrupulous politicians, the snake oil preachers, the righteous, the indignant, me, you, and everyone. The main reason that I ended my great left-wing, authoritarian crusade, is because I wised up to the fact that most of the work goes not into helping children or getting people to be economically viable and independent, but it goes to the cold walls of institutions, and allows everyone else to safely munch on Cheetos, at a distance, while watching reality television. That's one argument that the Republicans have right: that social programs have perpetuated a cycle of poverty. And it's not only the fault of the institution, or any fault, on the part of the disadvantaged (though, after three years in social service, I can say that the poor are no more noble or deserving than anyone else), but the fault of every goddamn citizen. Like Hillary said: it takes a villiage. It doesn't take a goddamn institution. You're damn right that I want small, non-profit charities, and, yes, churches running the welfare system, partially subsidized by whatever the LOCAL community deems fit. None of this unfunded mandate/block grant shit from the feds, where half of the money's laundered through Japanese Maples for the Governor's lawn, war for profit, and a new library, next to the old library that was perfectly fucking good, and didn't look like a Rubik's cube, on steroids.

:rant:


Just like all problems cannot be solved by private means, not all can be solved by government means either. We are not talking about the government building unnecessary widgets to take care of a widget shortage. We are talking about national policies on the NEEDS of the people, food, shelter, medical care, and education are all considered needs of a modern society, and if that society cannot provide many, or even most of its citizens with those needs, that society will fail. It is really that simple. And many consider such policies "Socialist", I consider them common sense.

You lost me at "national policies..." :)

[zanne]

117. You sound very much like a Right-Winger

So, you have a couple of left-wing opinions. But the majority of your opinions are right-wing and selfish as hell.

[Cats Against Frist]

172. No, I sound very much like a person who is a progressive,

AND a liberal, but is NOT Marxist, or a universalist, about any concern other than personal autonomy. Yes, I said PERSONAL AUTONOMY -- the right of the human spirit to create, produce, HELP, make better, conserve, consume, destroy, fail, bond, form alliances, make connections, make love, etc. -- be human, in otherwords, without an over-arching set of authoritarian rulers, who decide, for you, what your human spirit is about.

Therein lies the difference, my friend. Like I said, in another post -- seems like as long as people are having mud orgies and eating pumpkin blossoms, a commune is left-wing, but as soon as you get it together enough to have roads, it becomes "right-wing." Sorry to disappoint you, but my philosophies fall "lefter" on the scale than big government "progressives," Democrats, Social Democrats and Left-Wing authoritarians. The only people more "left" than myself are anarcho-syndicalists, anarchists and pure communists.

I believe everyone should strive to be responsible, and that others should help, as much as they can. "From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need," doesn't say anything about a nameless, faceless, wasteful bureaucracy that protects the concentration of wealth, and allows everyone else to be as apathetic as they can, nor does it say anything about the physical boundaries of nation, nor does it say that those in "need" don't have the ability to do many things, nor does it say that "ability" can't mean charity, good business practices, conservation, or community stewardship.

I'm sorry, but if you think I'm right-wing, you simply don't understand.

[dissent1977]

61. Go take the test on this site

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

You might be surprised to find out that you yourself are probably a libertarian. Of all the people I know of on DU who have taken that test every single one of them came out in the libertarian section.

[Solon]

77. Yep, no surprise there...

My "coordinates", last time I checked were somewhere along -9, -9, which is no surprise to me. Its the economics section that is atrocious about Libertarian ideology. Randians and CATO types are more insidious than Repukes in my mind.

[mixedview]

62. Authoritarians are idiots

With all due respect, I don't think you don't really understand what you are saying.

"Small l" libertarianism (the classical liberalism of our founding fathers) is the basis of ALL mainstream American political ideology - both liberalism and conservatism.

Jeffersonian democracy is a libertarian concept.

If it wasn't for libertarians there would be no freedom of speech and no internets (which itself was largely created by libertarian minded techies) for you to say they are idiots.

Question most Americans of any political orientation (including apoliticals) and you will quickly see how libertarian most really are. Most believe in democracy, privacy, civil rights, human rights, less regulation (govt, economic, social, moral or otherwise) of their personal lives, i.e. "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - all of these are libertarian/classical liberal concepts.

Western values are libertarian values.

I think your problem is with far right, anti-government, anti-tax, "big L" Libertarians.

And even those guys are better than authoritarians from either party when it really counts, IMO. They would quicker get down and dirty to defend your RIGHTS than some cozy, upper middle class authoritarian soccer mom who may think of herself as "liberal".

Personally, I was more of a liberal a few years ago, but I have come to the realization that I am not a liberal, although I do agree with the general liberal idea of "positive liberty"- that the govt should be responsible for protecting the rights of the vulnerable, and responsible for managing/protecting the spaces we all share (the commons).

FDR was right about a lot of things.

But, I consider myself an independent, and a moderate libertarian - much more like Bill Maher than Ron Paul.

I tend to support socially liberal/fiscally conservative candidates (which is essentially a moderate libertarian) whether Dem or Repub.. candidates who first believe in liberty and see regulation as a means to spread and protect liberty - not regulation as a means to punish or moralize.

[Cats Against Frist]

69. Thank you, very much.

Your post was delightful.

[eridani]

184. So, who paid the salaries of all those libertarian techies?

Last I heard it was the big, bureaucratic Pentagon. And luckily for us on a contract basis, with no intellectual property rights at all for the creators. If Bill Gates had bought the TCP-IP protocol instead of MS-DOS, we would not be having this conversation. The Internet would have been strangled at birth with fees and charges for every click.

[idlisambar]

64. yes they are , but they think they're smart

hence a name like "Reason" magazine.

[not systems]

68. Definitions...

from a good anarco-capitalist site.

I'm for a mixed economy myself.

http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/definitions/

http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=libertarianism

LIBERTARIANISM

The principled rejection of all proactive coercion, whether by individuals or by groups.

bkMarcus

The libertarian position is that there is no legitimate initiation of force. Whether or not there is justification for reactive force is outside the definition of libertarianism, but do note that the pacifist position presumes the libertarian position: you cannot oppose all use of force without also opposing the initiation of force. To be true therefore to pacifist principles requires an acceptance of the libertarian position ...

bkMarcus, A Brief Introduction to Philosophical Anarchism

Libertarian Partisans (a.k.a. minarchists) "are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity."

World's Smallest Political Quiz

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

L. Neil Smith

...

http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=theState

THE STATE

...

That organization that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory.

bkMarcus

...

The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence (though not against States, of course) in self defense. The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called 'taxation') is the keystone of State power.

Murray Rothbard, The Libertarian Manifesto

[Disturbed]

73. "This is a forum for democrats or so I thought."

Wrong. This is a forum for democratic minded people, not excluseve to "Democrats".

[not systems]

97. Umm... you talkin' to me?

I think we agree but I have know idea why you posted
this after my post.

[greekspeak]

72. Most of the libertarians I have known are college kids who want pot legal

I want drug laws fixed too, but I am not going to buy the rest of their platform to get it. I have little difficulty with most of their social views, but their economic ideas are nothing short of social Darwinism-only the richest could thrive under their system.

[Liberal In Texas]

74. There's a saying that goes something like Libertarians are Republicans who

want to smoke pot.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[mondo joe]

131. That saying is wrong. I don't want to smoke pot or do any other drugs,

yet my leaning is libertarian.

I'm simply not pro-authoritarian, whether the authority is left or right wing.

I'm pro choice about most things, which I think makes me pretty progressive, and I believe the flip side of that is personal responsibility - you know, the thing most of us here would like the Repigs to have more of.

[Liberal In Texas]

164. Hummm. You espouse some Libertarian beliefs that match some

liberal beliefs. That in itself does not make you a Libertarian.

I have a very good friend (well, used to be before the division of this country happened) who says he's Libertarian.

(BTW, he laughed at my above description and agreed.) He is as right-wing as they come.

He HATES Arab people with such a passion that he wants to nuke them. (This guy lived in Iran as a child and somehow picked up some racial hatred that he harbors to this day, 40 some years later.)

He promotes the Liberian agenda so much it makes me want to puke.

He has NO idea how we would fund things like streets and roads, public schools, or take care of needy people. His main agenda is smaller government so that HE WON'T HAVE TO PAY MORE -OR- ANY TAXES!

What a selfish stupid agenda.

What's even more bizarre is that he has a GF with huge medical problems with no insurance. He bemoans the fact that they couldn't get married because he couldn't afford the insurance!

I tell him, dude, if we had controls and gov't sponsored insurance benefits, you'd be covered, and so would she! But no. It's better with no taxes and the private corps running everything.

NOW, to the rest of the story (as PH says)...his GF has cancer and another whole host of problems, and the only thing that relieves her symptoms is POT!

So as much is he is a Bushie kool-aid drinker, he still buys the stuff illegally, sometimes smuggling it over the Mexican/Texas border.

SO...that's where I come from on this NO GOV'T let private enterprise run everything BULLSHIT.

[Tinoire]

76. Bite me

What an incredibly offensive post. Most of the Libertarians I know are with us on the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT issue of the day which happens to be the WAR- something many democrats seem to give a rat's ass about unless it suits their anti-Bush agenda.

They are so effing stupid, those idiot selfish small d democrats.

Bite me.


Just had to get that off my chest too.

[lotus]

79. Fortunately, unelectable == irrelevant

Its laughable how incredibly bad they are at attempting to get someone in office, so the good news is that they are pretty much irrelevant.

Any discussion with them quickly degrades to why even the roads, fire department and police should be private.

[Zenlitened]

82. Libertarianism strikes me as a form of utopianism.

Interesting for dorm-room bull sessions, nothing more. Any sentence that begins with, essentially, "If only all people would..." is just hopelessly naive.

[Cats Against Frist]

83. No more naive than the idea that a gimungous bureaucracy

can govern 280 million people, remain free from corruption, and not be usurped by unscrupulous corpo-fascists, theocrats or neoconservatives, who have the GIANT army and police state that the GIANT bureaucracy built to protect wealth and plunder other nations.

[Zenlitened]

84. Oh, that's right. It's either/or.

No middle ground between fantasy and fascism. :eyes:

[Cats Against Frist]

86. Just as you assumed that libertarianism was all "utopian"

My point is, that the "perfect" ideal of a democratic government of 280 billion is no less "utopian" than the perfect libertarian society. There are shades of gray in libertarianism, too, you know.

[Zenlitened]

87. "There are shades of gray in libertarianism."

Okay.

[sendero]

124. Exactly... just like communism....

.... and both are equally stupid ideas for the simple-minded who think they can just make all the complications of humanity dissapear by applying one 3-year-old's view of the world to everything.

[mondo joe]

130. I think all political models are utopian.

I don't know why this is different.

[Zenlitened]

136. I disagree. I don't think a system like (what remains of) ours, which....

... attempts to codify the rights of the few as well as the many... I don't think that's utopian at all.

[mondo joe]

139. Which system would that be? And why do you think a libertarian model

would have different rights?

[Zenlitened]

140. "Ours," as in this place we call America. What would a libertarian...

... constitution look like? :shrug:

[mondo joe]

141. But what are you calling "our" system? Democracy? Plutocracy?

And what would a libertarian constitution look like? A lot like the Constitution of the United States. I don't know what you think in the Constitution is so anti-Libertarian.

[Zenlitened]

143. You've misunderstood. I'm more inclined to think a libertarian...

... constitution would be anti-US Constitution, and the system of goverment based on it (edited to add). Would place more emphasis on how things "should be," less on mapping out protections for the few.

[mondo joe]

144. But the US Constitution is very consistent with a libertarian ideal.

I don't know why you'd think a libertarian constitution would be anti-US Constitution.

What in the US Constitution do you think a libertarian would oppose, and why?

[Zenlitened]

145. Better yet, why don't you tell me why we need to throw out...

... our present system of government in favor of a libertarian model?

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

146. If I'd ever said we should, I would. But I didn't. The libertarian model

is as consistent with the US as the Republican or Democratic.

I don't know where you got the idea some system should be thrown out, nor do you seem able to NAME the existing system.

[Zenlitened]

147. Why does it matter to you what label I attach to our present system?

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

148. It doesn't, especially, but given your hysteria that it might be replaced

I'd just wonder what you think it is to begin with.

Definitions are an important part of communication.

But I'll settle for you simply explaining what about libertarianism you consider incompatible with the US Constitution.

[Zenlitened]

150. My "hysteria." Nice.

:eyes:

As for libertarianism's shortcomings: It's the utopianism, as I've said. Wishful thinking does not = a system of government.

[mondo joe]

152. I did not ask for shortcomings. I asked what about it you consider

incompatible with the US Constitution. You seem unable to name anything.

And all political models are utopian - they all depend on the best case scenario to work as they're supposed to. So that shortcoming is not unique to libertarianism.

[Zenlitened]

153. Well, let's see. How about the very concept of a federal constitution...

... itself? One that sets out protections for all people, coast to coast? One that creates a federal court system to oversee the laws over every jurisdiction, coast to coast? One that describes mechanisms for raising revenue for the federal government, as a means of securing the general welfare of all Americans? Or are these all libertarian ideals that I've somehow overlooked?

[mondo joe]

154. There is nothing in libertarianism that requires or calls to eliminate

the federal constitution. Nor the federal courts. Nor the federal government itself.

And I don't know what in the federal constitution you believe "describes mechanisms for raising revenue for the federal government" that you are concerned about.

I don't know what you're talking about. It may be you don't either.

[Zenlitened]

156. Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Section 7:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Amendment XVI:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Perhaps you should be a bit less free with your insults, no? Or is that the custom among cafeteria libertarians, when they're desperate to hang on to their pie-in-the sky illusions?

[mondo joe]

158. And there is nothing in those sections or the amendment that is

antithetical to libertarianism. Libertarians - like Democrats, Republicans, Socialists and all others - will differ on how those decisions should be carried out.

For example: I have no problem with any of them.

But I did get a laugh out of anyone on DU going on about "pie in the sky illusions". We are all quite the pie in the sky set.

As I've said already, all poltical models depend on the BEST case scenario to function as touted.

So since you're wrong about the federal government, I wonder what else you think is so incompatible with the US Constitution.

As a gay man I am reminded by your posts of all the rants against gays in general and samme sex marriage in particular -- a lot of generalized (and frequently incorrect) furor without a real issue.

[Zenlitened]

159. Wow, that's an interesting debate style you have there.

Am I to defend my record in support of GLBT rights now? Oh, but wait... you didn't actually accuse me of anything. Just a little metaphor you decided to share, for illustration purposes only, right? :eyes:

But please do tell me more about how I'm wrong about the federal government... as a follow-up to your ridiculous claim that the US Constitution does not address the issue of revenue-raising.

Just admit it... you're making things up as you go along. What you call libertarianism is nothing more than a Whitman sampler of comfy notions you've selected for yourself -- and can re-arrange at any time, as the whim strikes you. All you have to do is say "everything's utopian," and hocus pocus, all criticisms are magically wiped away.

And, hey, if that doesn't work, throw in a strawman or two. "As a gay man..." or "As a noted scientist..." or maybe "Ever since I injured my knee playing high school football..." -- whatever it takes. Anything to avoid admitting you're wrong. Can't wait to see what you've cooked up next.

[mondo joe]

162. You might do better to note what people say rather than project onto

what they say.

There was NOTHING in my post to suggest you are anti-gay. Rather, I was pointing out that your anti-libertarian stance is as uninformed and as unspecific as the anti civil rights for gays set.

For example you say libertarians are anti-US-Constitution but can't demonstrate a single way in which this is the case.

I don't need to make up anything about libertarianism, because these things are all true. There are a variety of libertarians, as there are a vaariety of liberals. You might as well say every liberal is a PETA member and any other silly stereotype based on the extremes.

I'm surprised that as a DU member have you learned nothing about the absurdity of these stereotypes so typicallly used against democrats by republicans.

Additionally, I did not throw out any straw man. You seem to not even know what a straw man IS. For the record, that would be my positin a sham argument on your behalf to easily strike down.

But anyone can review the posts and see I have never posited any argumennt on your behalf. To the contrary I have consistently asked you for examples of the claims you - not I - have made.

And I note you have yet to point out anything about the US Constitution that is inconsistent with libertarianism. You may as well just admit you can't, because there isn't.

[Zenlitened]

163. You've got it backwards again. The issue is libertarianism being...

... inconsistent with our Constitution and system of government. Want a do-over? Or does the apparent fact that libertarianism has no definition -- or, is a set of characteristics so amorphous and wide-ranging that it can be all things to all people -- does this make the issue moot at this point? Ceratinly it's rendered any examples invisible to your eyes.

I mean, we've learned through this discussion that libertarianism just lurvs federal government, in all its scope. Embraces taxation, strong federal courts, wants government to be the source of setting civil rights law, and on and on. At least from your perspective -- other "libertarians" are free to agree or disagree or sort-of-agree but-not-always on any and all of it, I suppose. Maybe we should poll them, so you can get at the sort of label you cherish in communication?

Or are you just a step away from the "I'm rubber, you're glue" or "I know you are but what am I?" type of post that seems so inevitable here. You've shown a few signs of that angle already, so feel free to let it launch!

[mondo joe]

165. Simple question: what about Libertarianism is inconsistent with our

Constitution?

I've been asking and still haven't gotten an answer.

And you are now engaged in a straw mann of your own - no one said the ridiculous things you posted about libertarianism so you have to make them up.

The fact is that libertarians - like republicans and democrats - cover a broad range of opinion which co-incide on a number of points, and don't on others.

You can ignore that if you like, but I'd still like you to address my simple question: what about libertarianism is inconsistent with the US constitution?

[Zenlitened]

166. Please try to focus your reading, of both my statements and yours

For example my post #153

Well, let's see. How about the very concept of a federal constitution... itself? One that sets out protections for all people, coast to coast? One that creates a federal court system to oversee the laws over every jurisdiction, coast to coast? One that describes mechanisms for raising revenue for the federal government, as a means of securing the general welfare of all Americans? Or are these all libertarian ideals that I've somehow overlooked?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4341340&mesg_id=4351776

Or your post #154

There is nothing in libertarianism that requires or calls to eliminate the federal constitution. Nor the federal courts. Nor the federal government itself. And I don't know what in the federal constitution you believe "describes mechanisms for raising revenue for the federal government" that you are concerned about.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4341340&mesg_id=4351795

That one's a particular favorite of mine, where you not only argued that libertarianism is just fine with federal government... but then (hilariously) went on to claim that the Constitution makes no provision for raising money for the federal government. An oldie but a goodie!

But this whole thing is getting old, frankly. You've countered criticism of libertarianism by manufacturing a definition of libertarianism that is all things to all people at all times. An effective way to bog down a discussion, I'll grant you that. Particularly when combined with an insistence that one's questions aren't being answered in exactly the way that you'd like. But tiresome. And it makes the strident defense of libertarianism all the more surprising when, by your account, it is even more fragmented and disconnected than the Democratic party itself. Doesn't sound like you've picked yourself a winner.

[mondo joe]

168. Again, libertarianism is not opposed to the federal government - it is

more focused on a limited federal government. Not in eliminating it.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how libertarianism is inconsistent with the constitution. You still can't do it.

And I didn't say there is no provision for revenues, but that I didn't know which mechanism you were WORRIED about in relation to libertarians. Again, try to read what's written rather than what you want to project.

I'm sorry you're unable to have a civil discussion about the matter, and equally unable to back up any of your claims. But as a gay man I've grown accustomed to specious arguments about how I'm part of a group that wants to destroy the Constitution. It's weak then, it's weak now.

[Zenlitened]

169. Well, you've done it. The "I know you are but what am I?" post.

Didn't take you long, did it?

Shall I respond in kind, saying it's YOU who have failed to understand a single word I've said? You who've resorted to sidetracking the discussion when it hasn't gone your way? You who've made shrill demands but covered your ears when the answers weren't what you wanted to hear, or resorted to insulting language?

Here, I'll give it a try, too: G'nite, sonny. Come back when you're ready to sit at the grown-ups' table.

[mondo joe]

170. Again, please state why Libertarianism is inconsistent with the US

Constitution.

Hard to see why you can't do that one thing - other than there is no inconsistency.

Good night. And I forgive you for your ad hominems.

[Zenlitened]

171. Good night. Maybe you'll wake up in the morning feeling refreshed...

... and able to comprehend how your questions have already been addressed. And how your ad hominems backfired on you after all.

[mondo joe]

173. You were factuallly incorrect. Libertarianism is not opposed to the US

constitution, no the existence of the federal government. Libertarians tend to favor a smaller government, but with more individual autonomy.

Perhaps you'd like to say goodnight yet one more time.

If you do perhaps you can articulate how you think libertarianism is inconsistent with the US constitution in a factuallly accurate way. Thanks.

[Zenlitened]

174. See ya, Joe. Maybe you'll dream up a new line while you sleep.

This same old complaint of yours is getting pretty tired.

You're welcome to get in the last word tonight, though, if you'd like. :hi:

[mondo joe]

175. Goodnight once more. Maybe tomorrow you'll have an answer.

I know, however, you won't have a factually correct answer, because Libertarianism is consistent with the US Constitution.

[spacelady]

85. Conservative libertarian here, not an idiot, ideals maybe.

with Democratic leanings. Shades of grey.

[spacelady]

88. Woo Hoo, I love getting the last word!

[Mr_Spock]

116. Why would a conservative libertarian feel welcome here?

Did I get your drift from your post - were you saying that you are a conservative libertarian? Please clarify...

[spacelady]

157. Why wouldn't I feel welcome? Civil liberties, less gov't intrusion,

see, that is why I responded, because all these labels have been skewed from their original meaning-- and that's all they are -- labels.

[BiggJawn]

90. It's all that dope they smoke.

I have seen that Libertarians are usually so well-off financially that they could pay fair market value for the service taxes pay for now and not miss it.

These were the assholes that told me during the Ray-Gun Era "I don't know what your problem is, maybe you're a lazy fuck. I'm doing just GREAT! Supply Side ROOLS!"


Libertarians=ReTHUGlicans who smoke dope and don't wanna pay taxes.

[spacelady]

91. Ho hum, I like self medicating and less governmental influence,

so sue me.

[BiggJawn]

92. Sue you?

Wouldn't that require a Government Institution to become involved?

[spacelady]

94. You Funny.... Though I'm sorry about your wipeout.

[BiggJawn]

95. Thanks. It hurts.

:-)

[mondo joe]

133. That's untrue. I don't do pot or any other drug, though I'm pro-choice

on the matter as I am abortion.

I'm probably more libertarian than liberal, but I'm deeply anti-republican.

[Darranar]

93. The Libertarian capitalist ideal is a load of trash...

but to a large degree they are right - the government is an oppressive force representing the interests of the ruling class, and it should have its powers limited more than it already has.

What they fail to see is the use of the government as a tool against the ruling class, through popular mobilization to that effect in countries with some degree of democratic forms. Such programs are derided as corrupt and ineffective because of a fundamentalist viewpoint on government intervention.

Their theory is nice, and the overall thought behind their policy is more or less accurate, but the practical effect of Libertarian policy would be a sharp increase of the power of the ruling class through the elimination of popularly instituted barriers to its depradations. The other reforms they would enact - such as ending corporate welfare - would swiftly be reversed as the ruling class reasserted itself with its newfound power.

[MikeNY]

101. No

The libertarians that the news media interviews are genuine right-wing wackos but there are alot of libertarians out there with a more moderate viewpoint that simply think the federal government is violating its Constituional authorities and needs to be limited. For some reason the libertarians being interviewed on the major news media always have some outlandish thing to say, which is not representative of the majority of libertarians in this country

[Iris]

103. Yep. And then there'd be NO restrictions on the use of stem cells.

Imagine - if people sell their own body parts now, then what would stop some from harvesting and selling human embryos?

On second thought, I guess that COULD be a way to pay for private school tuition, use of private roads and sidewalks, etc.


Good post.

[Mr_Spock]

115. CONSERVATIVE Libertarians are idiots

I agree with the posters above trying to clarify the true meaning of libertarianism. I am a libertarian liberal - not only do I want to be free, but I want to be free from harassment by the government as well. I want government to provide services - including national healthcare coverage for everyone, but I want them out of my bedroom and no cameras pointed at me - that's my libertarian liberal philosophy.

[flaminbats]

155. Don't say that to Neil Boortz!!

you'll probably be forced to change his undersized diaper :cry:

[spacelady]

160. I would never call YOU an idiot--Bless your heart.

[Touchdown]

122. Amazing so many social darwinist/survival of the fittest...

lib/Lib magpies get all bent out of shape over a bit of mud in the face. Aren't they the ones who rail against the "PC Culture"? Now who is being PC and overly sensitive? You sond like some of those "Bashing Christians" people who can't stand criticism of any kind. I've always thought Libertarians were a sort of economic cult...the similarities between them and Christians with a siege mentality are more than obvious.

"Oh' there's different meanings of Libertarians/libertarians, and I'm offended that your not talking about me." Social or economic? Same thing. Simplify the language so everybody is a libertarian. Here's a plan. Decide for yourselves what you people think, EVERYBODY with your ideology, including Chomsky, so that we can actually communicate with your species.:eyes:

[mondo joe]

127. You mean like how Democrat means Kucinich AND Zell Miller?

[Touchdown]

176. No. Like Noam Chomsky and Ayn Rand.

Kucinich>>>>>>>>>>>>>Miller
Chomsky>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>Ra...wait>>>>>>>>>>>Rand.

[Placebo]

149. There are no rules restricting the private funding of...

stem cell research, correct?

[Liberal In Texas]

167. There are no rules for funding space exploration (NASA) the CDC

The Centers for Disease Control, the National Highway system, the National Park System...

If the nation didn't do it as a whole...it probably would never happen.

Becasue private industry is pretty much interested in short term profits. Not long-range, perhaps, dead-end (which rarely turn out that way) programs.

We would never have, say, a space program in this (or any other country) without government funding. Period.

NO Libertarian can convince me otherwise.

[Telly Savalas]

179. Reading this thread, I get the senses that a lot of people define

libertarian as the belief that the government shouldn't meddle in private affairs for things that said "libertarian" doesn't want meddling, but should get involved if the "libertarian" deems it necessary. (e.g. "The government shouldn't tell me to wear my seatbelt, but it's a good thing we have minimum wage laws.") If you give a word such a wide berth, you render it meaningless.

[MrBenchley]

181. Amen to that...

As somebody said, "Libertarianism is what suburban nerds do when they don't have enough get up and go to kidnap and kill hitchhikers."

[Tactical Progressive]

182. Actually, the correct nomenclature is 'kook', not idiot

They don't believe in government, which essentially means they don't believe in America. Or humanity, really. They try very hard to 'reason' using 'principles' as to why they shouldn't have to pay taxes and should be able to do whatever they want. Of course, that's insane.

Ayn Rand is the archetype for the modern Libertarian, so if you want to see what their adolescent philosophy is all about all you have to do is read one of her masterworks. I've tried. They love to spout their 'reasoned' philosophy which is, not surprisingly, as unreasonable as anything political you're likely to ever hear, and it doesn't take long before their entire tangled edifice of contrived reasoning collapses in on itself in the most surreal of ways.

The latest tactic is to talk about how there are so many different Libertarian-this and that-Libertarian and pseudo-anarchical-protoliberal-Libertarians, but it's just their way of trying to evade being tarred with the fundamental, unsupportable 'reasoning' that makes libertarianism, big L or small, the absurdity that it is.

Right now they are useful against Bush because:

1) They are against war. (In a broken-clock kind of way - today's libertarians would have been against our involvement in World War II as well.)

2) They are pissed that Bush is spending three times as much as any Democrat ever did.

3) They don't like the Patriot Act and the Drug war.

Which is to say that some of their ideological rigidity occasionally aligns with the right thing to do, but overall, the core of their 'philosophy' is as anti-Progressive as anything that normal Republicans would spew.

[spacelady]

186. With what part of your "kook" 1,2,3, bullet points do you disagree??

and why would you alienate people who are "useful against Bush"?

[rman]

183. Ah, Right-Wing L(l)ibertarians are at it again.

It's not a coincidence that Right-Wing L(l)ibertarians get a lot of airtime while socialist-libertarians such as Chomsky do not.

[spacelady]

187. We idiots are so very tiresome.

Oops not right wing, almost painted myself into a corner.