Libertarian DUer's - check in

[toddaa]

Time to circle the wagons and defend ourselves from the Statists. I'm curious, how many other libertarians belong to DU and what kinds do we have?

I am a Daoist Libertarian, meaning my political philosophy is best expressed in the Daodejing. For the nonmystical, just call me a syndicalist libertarian.

[Catholic Sensation]

1. IDIOTS

GOSH!

Social Libertarian, economic liberal.

[KittyWampus]

Economic Liberal Means Unregulated Business.

Neo-Liberalism means Free Market.

[Catholic Sensation]

34. i mean i'm a liberal when it comes to the economy

progressive taxation, spending on healthcare and social services, etc.

[spacelady]

32. WooHoo , I love getting the last word!

Oops, meant to respond to OP. Does that make me an idjit?

[Tinoire]

2. I'm not a libertarian but after reading that incredibly offensive post

I'll be one for a day!

[johnaries]

3. I'm a Daoist, but I'm not a Libertarian. But I would NEVER call

Libertarians "idiots". I know there are different kinds of Libertarians, and I agree with some things. I'm curious how you compare De to Libertarianism. Although the Great Teacher Lao was talking to Chinese emperors, I think today it applies more to Leadership in general than modern politics.

[toddaa]

7. Daoist Libertarianism

Rule a nation with justice.
Wage war with surprise moves.
Become master of the universe without striving.
How do I know that this is so?
Because of this!

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

Therefore the sage says:
I take no action and people are reformed.
I enjoy peace and people become honest.
I do nothing and people become rich.
I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life.

[Just Me]

11. How does the "rule" work within the libertarian framework?

Jus' wonderin' 'cause I really haven't a clue. :shrug:

[johnaries]

39. And what about Chapter 77:

The Dao of Heaven is like the tensing of a bow:
- what is above is drawn down
- and what's below is drawn up,
- what has plenty is drawn from
and is given to what doesn't have enough

The Heavenly Dao takes from those who have too much,
And gives to those who have little or nothing.

Ah, but the human way is different.
Even the wealthiest leech the poor
So they can have even more.


Remember that in Chapter fifty-seven that you are quoting, when he speaks of the people becoming "rich" he means "rich in themselves, in their souls". In one of my translations it says "the more we want luxuries, the more we abandon simplicity". Lao always spoke of learning to find joy and happiness in that which we already have, and that way learning to be desireless.

Also remember that Lao lived in a time of absolute despotism (although he called on the Emperors to realize that the people were the root of their powers and to put the people first), and there were many oppressive laws at the time.

Lao also said "the earth is a sacred vessel - and it cannot be owned or improved. If you try to possess it, you will destroy it. If you try to hold on to it - you will lose it"

Sounds a little too much like Socialism for the tastes of many Libertarians I know. But, as I said, I've noticed there are a lot of different kinds of Libertarians.

on edit - I apologize if the chapter numbers I gave don't match your translation. I've noticed many different translations of chapters in different orders, depending on which manuscript they were translating from.

[toddaa]

48. I'm a libertarian socialist

Which is why I find the current "Libertarians are IDIOTS" rubbish on DU both frustrating and amusing.

[johnaries]

51. Really! That's interesting. I would have thought the 2 were mutually

exclusive. I'll have to do some research. In the meantime, I would love to hear your conception of Libertarian Socialist. The Dao De Jing principles are rather broad. I would love to hear how you would apply them to Modern Politics.

And, for the record, I think calling Libertarians "idiots" is, frankly, idiotic. :evilgrin:

[toddaa]

61. Daoism is about how to live

Government is only one aspect of it. And a very small one at that. Personally, I find Zhuangzi far more interesting than the Daodejing.

Anyway, the historical precendent for libertarian socialism is the old school anarchists like Mikhail Bakhunin, Emma Goldman, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhun. You know, the old "property is theft" crowd. Anarchy, however, is an absolute. Something to strive for, like the Dao, but unreachable.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. I'm an existentialist, and that requires lot's of liberty!!

[Rex]

5. Constitutionalist here.

Don't fuck with my Constitution!!!!!

[Taxloss]

6. The problem is not liberty, the problem is the economic structure it

exists in. Libertarianism within a capitalist system is, I think, problematic in many ways, although I sympathise greatly with its aims. The crucial thing is to change the framework of economic relationships away from a pure capitalist system, so that everyone can share and participate in success and true economic freedom is possible.

[w8liftinglady]

8. Not a Randian Objectivist

I am a civil-liberties Libertarian,but strongly believe we have a moral obligation to society.I was a regidtered libertarian for over 20 years,but now am a democrat(I'd like to see my candidate at least get to DEBATE)

[toddaa]

10. Cult of Rand

Sorry, but those people are as loony as Scientologists.

[w8liftinglady]

13. Alan greenspan is randian

[Cats Against Frist]

23. How can the chair of the "federal reserve board" be a libertarian???

???

[w8liftinglady]

44. His economic leanings-

are reflective of a group of Libertarians who called themselves 'Objectivist".civil libertarians but very financially driven as well.
http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/62greenspn.html

[toddaa]

62. He was in her inner circle

n/t

[JanMichael]

50. He literally "sat at her feet". Amazing isn't it?

Read that somewhere a few years ago, Geenspan was tight with Ayn and used to hang out at her NYC pad.

As far as I know the Randroids are the only "sect" of Atheism to hold right-wing economics beliefs.

Before I got fed up with debating Atheism/Agnosticism v. <insert religion here> I actually had the worst arguments with the Randroids.

It's a cult. She's a cult.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Ewwww.

Another mental image I don't need.

[JanMichael]

60. Were you at the DC Atheist march a couple of years ago?

If so I believe we have met.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Only in spirit.

Or, you know, its secular equivalent :)

[Cats Against Frist]

9. You know I'm a libertarian!

and a former state socialist, and Democrat, since I was nine. I guess I'm a libertarian minarcho-syndicalist federalist communalist!! (I think....:))

This one's for TJ!!! :headbang: :smoke: :toast: :hi:

[immoderate]

12. Civil libertarian.

And a little socialist.

--IMM

[dissent1977]

14. Libertarian socialist here, I'm with people like Chomsky

[Just Me]

16. Chomsky defines himself as a "libertarian socialist"?

I didn't know that.

[toddaa]

17. Does that mean he's an IDIOT?

Chomsky, along with people like Emma Goldman and Lysander Spooner, are names that immediately pop into my head when some ignoramus posts the "Libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot" cliche.

[Just Me]

19. Huh? WTF are you talking about?

:shrug: I just don't recall from my reading of Chomsky that he identified himself in such a way.

Your response is perplexing.

[KarenInMA]

21. There's a thread here that says "Libertarians are idiots".

The poster apparently thinks in black and white. ALL libertarians are anti-tax nuts, NONE of them simply think the government should just be reduced a little bit... :eyes:

[Just Me]

24. Ah,...glad I missed yet another divisive hammer.

It would be nice if we could discuss how governance should contribute to a healthy society rather than exploit and oppress it.

[Vektor]

29. I think that was a joke.

If you mean what Catholic Sensation said. The "IDIOTS, GOSH" thing is from Napoleon Dynamite. He later added that he was a Social Libertarian, and an Economic Liberal. If that's not the poster you meant, please disregard. :-)

[dissent1977]

26. Read the intro

"Noam Chomsky is widely known for his critique of U.S foreign policy, and for his work as a linguist. Less well known is his ongoing support for libertarian socialist objectives. In a special interview done for Red and Black Revolution, Chomsky gives his views on anarchism and marxism, and the prospects for socialism now. The interview was conducted in May 1995 by Kevin Doyle."

I will try to find another interview in which he directly states that he himself is a libertarian socialist, this one it is just the magazine that is interviewing him that says it directly. I assure you though this magazine is not wrong on that point.

[toddaa]

49. I found it on Spunk.org

http://www.spunk.org/library/pubs/rbr/rbr2/sp001124.txt

[dissent1977]

18. Yes he does, here is one link

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

There are many other places he talks about libertarian socialism, but this is the first link I found.

[Just Me]

22. That appears to be a discussion about a variety of political orientations.

eom

[Cats Against Frist]

27. I believe that "anarcho-syndicalism" is what's usually connected

with his name -- and they're very close -- libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2B%22noam+chomsky%22+%2B%22anarcho-syndicalist%22&btnG=Search

[dissent1977]

28. read the intro

"Noam Chomsky is widely known for his critique of U.S foreign policy, and for his work as a linguist. Less well known is his ongoing support for libertarian socialist objectives. In a special interview done for Red and Black Revolution, Chomsky gives his views on anarchism and marxism, and the prospects for socialism now. The interview was conducted in May 1995 by Kevin Doyle."

I will try to find another interview in which he directly states that he himself is a libertarian socialist, this one it is just the magazine that is interviewing him that says it directly. I assure you though this magazine is not wrong on that point.

[dissent1977]

30. Here is a direct quote from him

“We have today the technical and material resources to meet man’s animal needs.We have not developed the cultural and moral resources or the democratic forms of social organization that make possible the humane and rational use of our material wealth and power.

Conceivably, the classical liberal ideals as expressed and developed in their libertarian socialist form are achievable. But if so, only by a popular revolutionary movement, rooted in wide strata of the population and committed to the elimination of repressive and authoritarian institutions, state and private. To create such a movement is a challenge we face and must meet if there is to be an escape from contemporary barbarism.”

http://www.sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100407170

[KG]

15. Ronin libertarian

[KarenInMA]

20. I would, but I'm too selfish to check in!!

:eyes:

[spacelady]

25. Conservative Libertarian, old school n/t

[charlie]

31. Cast my first presidential vote

for Ed Clark, Libertarian. Even then, I'd sooner eat a grilled weasel sandwich than support Reagan and his dangerous crew of malcontents. Libertarians of the hardcore variety may be guilty of utopianism, but they aren't idiots.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[expatriot]

35. how can you be an "anti-statist" and progressive?

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals"

Correct me if I am wrong, but libertarians oppose the role of government in every sphere of public life except for property protection and national security. They fundementally oppose government's interference in the realm of providing education to the masses, building roads, regulating business, they oppose all "welfare" and "entitlement" programs, etc. Being so anti-government, they naturally oppose almost all forms of taxation since their view of the government's role is so miniscule.


1) How is this progressive and how, if you believe the previous general ideas of government, do you rationalize your support of the Democratic Party?

[Cats Against Frist]

37. You can have many of the same end goals as Democrats

and yet, disagree with the means of getting there. And, libertarian doesn't have to mean "no government," it can also mean minarchism, or less government, or de-centralized government.

There are some libertarians who disagree with statism, for many reasons -- the first and foremost that state power, particularly in regard to state-sanctioned violence is dangerous -- but are still socialists, communalists, syndicalists, or anarchists. You can be for "progressive values," but maybe not on the national stage, and you can value freedom of ideas and association, more than quasi-Marxist statism and social engineering.

Political parties are broad coalitions. Just as conservative Democrats and Greens can find a way to co-exist and build a coalition, left wing and middle-wing libertarians can also identify with Democrats, and the ideals of liberalism, more than the dominant social institutions of patriarchy, consumerism as a way of life, and the philosophies of order and religion.

I became a libertarian, because it was clear to me that the squabbling between left and right, no matter how progressive/regressive, is/was two sets of authoritarians trying to impress ideals on the other group. Rather than attempt to heard 280 million people into one agreeable national consciousness, I'd prefer to have government de-centralized, as to allow for MORE diversity, and more freedom.

This is me, personally -- others might have other reasons.

[expatriot]

41. Thanks for the nice response... I understand

where you're coming from a bit better and believe you are sincere but I still think you are are totlally off-base here.

IF the power of the state is decentralized and dilluted, the power and control corporate governance has over governments will only grow unchecked.

What about the power of workers to organize? Who will protect that?

IMO, it is not the powers of the state that is the problem but rather who has the power over the state. The "state" is the political central nervous system over a societal community, bonded together by an economic network, etc. Economic interests within a socio-economy implement a political order out of a mutual necessity to maintain power and/or expand control power. Authoritarian pressures within a state are the "down-current" while, democratic pressures, exerted by the classes of the ruled, hold the state accountability and, in turn, give the working masses some degree of power over the economic empowered, the vested interests... this is the up-current.

The only way to curtail the pressures of the "down-current" of the state is to fight to progressively increase the pressures of the "up current" upon those who wish to exploit the state for the purpose of increasing its "down-current."

I need to go to bed. Later.

[expatriot]

36. The only thing that makes Libertarians less dangerous than the GOP

is that the Libertarian philosophy of government is so whacky that they can't sell it to more than a handful of Americans.

They believe the government should stop intervening in everything besides property protection, law enforcement and national security.

Schools should be privitized, no more "welfare" programs no "entitlement programs, roads should be privitized and made into privately owned tollroads, all government agencies that regulate industry and corporations should be abolished. And then, of course, taxation can be almost wiped out completely.

Believe me, if the Corporate Powers that be believed that they could sell Libertarian politics and the Libertarian Party to the American people they would abandon the Republicans so quickly and back the Libertarians en masse.

[Cats Against Frist]

38. No, what's dangerous is that people can't conceive of any

alternatives to investing large amounts of political power in a giant bureaucratic apparatus that is capable of being USURPED or BOUGHT, as well as creating it's own police state and standing army to squelch any dissent.

The Patriot Act is scary. The Military-Industrial complex is scary. Even the free market, under its worst-case possibilities allows for the creation of various markets, and forms of payment, accountable to the responsible consumer, aware producer and discriminating laborer. State power, concentrated in the hands of corpo-fascists who managed to hoodwink enough idiots into supporting them, and are backed up with nukes, and "the rule of law," is accountable to no one, but high-level idealogues.

[expatriot]

42. The question is... do you want to have a strong political state

that has the ability at least to keep the corporate state in check a bit and still holds eminence over what survives of the public sector or would you rather smash the political state into bits so that the corporate powers that be gobble everything up.

You are naive if you believe that a decentralization of state power would some how strengthen democratic control over the community.Every inch that the political state stepped back from, the corproate state would soon fill. The only way to technically resist it would be to create economically insular communes but that attempt to be completely self-sustaining... definitely not a model that could support our current society.

Remember, we only think the Patriot Act is scary because we know of a thing called the Constitution. If there was no statist armies, the corporate world would field massive mercenary armies to crush any dissent in the commodity-producing developing nations with out any guise of a pretext.





because there would be no Constitution.

So you'd rather hand over power to corporations? Who would there be to stop them? Yes, our federal government is weak in the face of them but at least we have

What allows us to have the current level of economic productivity that allows for the development and utilization of technology which in turns increases our technological capacities and allows for the increased food production and efficiency in the means of production, of distribution, of communication, etc. is that the interconnecivity of our economy. IF our economy were to keep that level of economic integration and the powers and resources of our centralized government were to be reduced substantially, the vacuum created by the federal government's retreat would be filled by corporate governance.

[toddaa]

47. Your questions are good, but I think your answers are too narrow.

Checking the power of corporations is the trick. The first thing to recognize is that the corporation is an artificially recognized government entity. Without that recognition, corporations lose their power. Secondly, putting corporations above labor means simply valuing the liberty of the corporation above the liberty of the workers. This is where the split between capitalist and socialist libertarians occurs.

By eliminating this bizarre notion that corporations have the same rights and liberties as individual, gives organized labor much greater power and provides a far more legitimate check to corporate than what we have now. Frankly speaking, what we have now is corporatocracy and given it more power isn't going to help. What has to be done is for the government's power to be curtailed and the rights of workers to assemble and strike enforced. This a legitimate function of government.

[mondo joe]

57. Exactly. The first step in any "transition" would be to eliminate the

abomination of "corporate rights".

[Warren DeMontague]

54. So it's either corporate rule or Nanny Statism?

Let government regulate the corporations. Change our legal system so corporations aren't the responsibility-void entities they are today, with more rights than individuals.

Put our government's priorities in order, and it wouldn't HAVE to be so huge.

But don't use the spectre of corporate control as an excuse to let the government micro-manage the affairs of individuals.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Define what you mean by "Libertarian", firstly.

There are several competing flavours of "Libertarian"; personally I consider myself a left-libertarian, anarcho-socialialist, syndicalist, call it what you will...but I'm pragmatic enough to realise the revolution isn't coming anytime soon and we have to work within the system we have.

[not systems]

43. check...

not a left or right libertarian but an centrist anti-statist.

Don't have a problem with anarco-socialism or anarco-capitalism.

I think both could exist mix if people organized and interacted
without coercion.

Stuck in a world where voting Democratic always seems like
the best move when the election happens.

But not if they support the bloody mind war again next time.

[sweetheart]

45. Libertarian Socialist

Thanks for speaking up on the positive side of things. Individual
liberty is the most sacred remnant of advanced society, and libertarians
have an eye towards stoping the erosion.

In all honesty, you could just as well say, that libertarian socialism
is what Buddhism would be were it manifest as a secular government.

[rman]

46. which kind are you looking for? RW or LW?

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Left-Libertarian Here

That's how I define myself. That's not Libertarian Party Libertarian, that's social libertarianism.

Unfortunately, the "L" word tends to get some people around here as badly worked up as do the threads on the relation of porn to the first Amendment.

Here's my take:

Corporations should have fewer rights, individuals should have more. (The opposite of the up-is-down scenario we have now) Certain social compacts are not effectively handled by the free market; public services, roads, and I would add Health Care, which should be covered by a SPHC system. There is room for a decent social safety net, workers rights, and a liveable minimum wage in my vision of society.

That said, I support the concept of a free market within the confines of environmental, truth in labeling, good business and safety regulations- I think a real level playing field, instead of the crony capitalist situation we have now, would benefit the little guy.

Lastly, I think what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and with their own bodies, insofar as they don't harm or endanger anyone else, is NONE of the government's business.

[JHB]

58. I also call myself "Left-Libertarian"...

...and for pretty much the same reasons as impeachdubya gives.

The "stereotypical libertarian" view, IMHO, ends up as "freedom for the most ruthless". Safety net programs and proprer regulations increase personal freedom for most people.

[mondo joe]

55. Libertarian-leaning guy here.

I'm not quite a libertarian, nor am I quite a liberal.

I'm mostly pro-personal-autonomy.

[GreenPartyVoter]

56. Social libertarian and into states rights' and decentralization, but

I do not believe in a completely unregulated economy and I am socialist in terms of state-funded lifelong healthcare, education, and so forth.

[lostnfound]

59. Politically undefined but I'm glad you guys are here.

As long as you have a solution for the environment, and don't have an interest in being an empire..I'm open-minded about libertarianism.

[Armstead]

64. Everybody's libertarian -- But only selectively

I'm libertarian about a lot of things. But I think the state has an important role in otehrs.

I think most peopel are that way. They want government intervention in the issues they care about, but they want individual li9berty on the things they want to be left alone.