Are the Repubs trying to displace Dems with Libertarians...

[AP]

...as opposition party?

This may be crazy. Consider this:

I have thought in the past that, if I had total, dictatorial control of a gov’t, I would consolidate my power not by being dictatorial, but by creating the illusion of a two-party system. I’d create an opposition party that debated the issues along an axis that would still result in things working out in the favor of the interests I preferred.

In Eric Margolis's book, War at the Top of the World, , he says that one thing every SENSIBLE non-western government does when it takes power is that it makes sure there's an opposition party so that opposition to the gov't in power doesn't manifest itself through violence and subterfuge. Instead, it manifests itself through legitimate means. (To this end, it's important that all voices are represented.)

The debate along the Dem-Rep axis is over how much political and economic power should be in the hands of the masses vs. the ultra-wealthy. The Republicans, however, are now in a position of power – controlling all three branches of the government – so that they can create a different kind of opposition, thus shifting the debate to an axis which works better for them.

The axis along which Libertarians and Republicans would debate would be: how little government should we have. The Republicans would happily lose that debate once they finish shifting all the remaining wealth in America to the wealthiest Americans. The other axis they’d debate on is personal liberties. If there’s one thing we’ve learned about social issues it’s that the Republicans only care about them if they can be used as wedge issues to steal votes from Democrats.

Is this crazy? It probably is crazy, but it’s fun to talk about.

So, is the Republican party trying to displace the Democratic party and replace it with the Libertarian party as their legitimate opposition?

[blm]

1. Good call.

The Repub mouths like Coulter and Norquist have long been spouting that the Democratic party is dead.

[AP]

4. It's more than that.

I think the Cato Institute has been trying to set itself up as the body voicing the opposition to the way Bush is conducting itself in Iraq.

The reason a Dem should not like the Iraq funding thing is because it's a transfer of wealth from regressively collected tax revenues to big business Republican cronies who aren't doing anything to earn the money. The Libertarians don't like it because they think that the free market should determine who gets money in Iraq, and the don't believe there should be tax revenues in the first place.

If you're a Republican, you'd prefer to have a debate on the Libertarian-Republican axis rather than the Democratic-Republican axis.

[blm]

12. I agree. I have ZERO trust in the CATO Institute

and I despise their push into Democratic party politics.

[AP]

13. I think Cato has a goal -- corporate domination of American

-- which came first, and they're trying to wrap a politcal philosophy around that goal, and they came up with Libertariansim. And I think it was chosen because it has a certain appeal which could potentially peal away people who think they're liberal from the Democratic party.

[Hep]

2. I must be the crazy one.

I disagree with the premise of what the debate is between the reps and dems. I reall think that it comes down to issues.

Libertarians fall in with republican on some issues and democrats on others. But it isn't that simple.

I think one major thing affecting this is that over the past few decades, democrats and republicans have both moved to the right, which makes dems look more like libertarians. But by no means do the core principles mesh. Dems are simply not for a free market. I'm not talking free trade, which dems are also not completely for, but a free market. There's other things, but I have a dinner to go to.

[AP]

6. Ron Paul doesn't get confused for a Democrat

except by people who aren't paying attention or have an INCREDIBLY narrow view of what a democrat is (a Democrat isn't defined by being against Bush; a Democrat is defined by being for the things I've mentioned above -- accumulating wealth, and therefore political power, in the hands of the entire populaton).

[ozone_man]

3. No, it's trying to replace it with the DLC.

Two sides of the same coin. PNAC/DLC. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see it land on it's edge. Clark!

[AP]

7. The DLC's candidate, Lieberman, isn't going to win. However,

the Libertarians candidate seems to be doing reasonably well, no?

[cprise]

5. I consider the Democratic Party to be the false opposition

.

[AP]

8. See, I think that's part of the mantra the Cato Inst.-types

are repeating and spreading so that they can get the Libertarian party to replace them.

I'd rally around even the DLC (which I don't like) if I thought the alternative were a country in which the axis of debate was over how little government we should have and how much we should let the unregulated free market determine outcomes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. I've seen Libertarians come onto this board

and argue that Dems and Libertarians should be allies because they both believe in abortion rights and no restrictions on sexual behavior between consenting adults.

But they conveniently fail to mention their feudal, elitist economic policies, which would take us straight back to the social order of the nineteenth century: a few wealthy individuals, with the majority struggling to put food on the table.

Actually, I can't think of anything that would promote the rise of a truly leftist alternative faster than having the Libertarians be the only opposition to the Republicans.

(From what I've seen of Libertarians in Oregon, they're basically hard right Republicans who don't like the fundies' Puritanical attitudes.)

[DBoon]

10. A Libertarian

Is a Republican who smokes dope.

[no_arbusto]

22. My only experience with a "libertarian"...

is a paraplegic, Vietnam vet, with a 1/4 oz. a day pot habit that sides with the Palestinian stone throwers and bombers (he's one of a kind). He hates "big government" and "big brother" (the Internet), sides with the Dems on social issues and believes in God but not organized religion. Obviously, he's a little hard to read, but I think that sums up "libertarianism".

[AP]

11. You know how you see libertarians at DU misrepresenting what

they stand for (or conveniently ignoring it). Well, take the lesson learned form CA, which is that media totally controls thet terms and the terminology of the debate, and you can see how, on a national scale, you get get the Libertarians more political power.

You pretend that it's all about the social issues, and you never talk about the economic issues. And you pretend it's all about criticizing Bush over Iraq (narrowing the issue as the Cato Inst. does).

Hmmm. That actually sounds like a feature of the current democratic primary campaign.

[AP]

14. Elaborations required? Disagree? Agree?

???

[onebigbadwulf]

15. Libertarians...

would rather eat rotten meat from unregulated companies than have the FDA check them out and give them a grade...

anyone who would rather eat rotten meat than see government intervention is a f-ing idiot.

[AP]

16. I think the bottom line is that you have two parties --

the public/consumers/income earners on the one hand, and sellers, employers, finacial corporation on the other. One party has something that the other party wants ($$$), and you desperately need a referee to govern the playing field. Most commerce is very good, some is a complete waste of money. Sometimes the government leans a little farther in serving the interests of the wealth takers rather than the wealth creators, and that's not good. But I don't see how anybody could believe that not having any referee would work better than having even a biased referee. At least when you have this position of 'referee' who can work towards getting better referees. Without any referee, you have no recourse except armed rebellion.

[QuestioningStudent]

26. Only an anarchist...

Only an anarchist would ever argue that there shouldn't be goverment presence in the free market, and whatever else they are, libertarians are not anarchists. The libertarian ideal of a free market is one that ensures all transactions are voluntary, and those transactions that are not voluntary through the commission of an act of force or fraud by one of the involved parties should be redressable in a court of law. The libertarian 'referee' attempts to protect the individual's rights of property and freedom of contract, but would steer completely clear of any attempt to promote an equality of outcome.

[Loyal]

18. ever heard of UL?

Underwriters Laboratories. They certify electrical equipment, and, SURPRISE, they're NOT a govt agency. The fda could easily be privatized.

[AP]

19. Fortunately, small claims court and the free market provide

a nice arena within which the quality of my radio alarm clock and desk lamp can be assessed and addressed.

As for the FDA...well, I'm glad that there's a gov't agency which looks into the safety of drugs which are (1) usually prescribed to people (ie, not really a free market for the person who uses them), and (2) have consequences that are a lot more serious than, oh, say, my alarm clock breaking resulting in my sleeping in late.

If you want to imagine a world without an FDA, look no farther than the UK, home of BSE! When the Tories were in power, they had something that's sort of like the FDA, except that the food industry ran it (fact A). Guess what? They completely deregulated the meat rendering industry (fact B). Voila. Mad cow (fact C). Practically a direct connection even a child could discern connects A, B and C. I believe Tony Blair brought and end to that bullshit, or bullbrain, or whatever.

So, uhm, you can take your notions of a privatized FDA, render it, and then shove it up your ass.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Privatize the FDA?

Turn it over to the drug companies or to former executives of drug companies?

You may be too young to remember the word I am about to type: "Thalidomide."

The sedative thalidomide had been available in Europe for a while, and back around 1962,the drug company that made it was pushing hard for it to be legalized in the U.S.. But one woman who worked at the FDA had heard rumors of a sudden epidemic of severe birth defects in women who had taken thalidomaide during pregnancy.

The drug company poo-pooed the concerns and insisted that it was just a coincidence that there was a sudden rash of babies being born without arms and legs or with their hands attached directly to their shoulders.

Thanks to this one FDA official, the approval of thalidomide was held up until researchers proved that it did cause the limb development of fetuses to go wrong.

I was only 12 years old when that happened, but no one who ever saw the pictures of the armless and legless children from all over Europe will ever forget them.

We are damned lucky that we had an effective FDA on guard. I fear that a private agency would have just taken the drug company's word that thalidomide was safe.

[Loyal]

27. Yes, Lydia,

and the FDA has also kept numerous medicines like beta blockers OFF the market, until they were SURE they were safe, indirectly killing HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of Americans. Far more people have been killed by the FDA than have been saved. What happened to PERSONAL REGULATION? What happened to CONSUMER REGULATION?

[QuestioningStudent]

25. False conclusion.

The Libertarian argument is not that one should eat rotten meat from unregulated companies, but rather that the mechanisms of a free market (the company's incentive to form and maintain a good reputation in order to increase sales, the existence of private regulatory/inspection agencies which companies would voluntarily join in order to gain the perception from the public that their products are safe, etc.) would be sufficient to ensure quality food. The Libertarian argument would also state that if the companies selling the food did not disclose that it was rotten/unsafe, and consumers purchased it WITHOUT KNOWING that fact, then the company ought be legally punishable. The Libertarian argument would acknowledge that such an outcome would not necessarily be realized in our CURRENT system of laws, where the assumption of risk doctrine has been undermined, etc., differ significantly from the Libertarian ideal. The Libertarian would advocate systemic reform, obviously.

The Libertarian WOULD say, however, that if a consumer knowingly bought rotten meat and consumed it, in a voluntary transaction in a free market, "Oh well. The consumer got what they deserved."

My $0.02 based on my understandings of Libertarian philosophies.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. You are not crazy. I've been trying to point this out on DU for over a

year now. The Libertarians are the greatest co-opters around. Even if the Republicans weren't the ones sending them, they'd come on their own to accomplish the same thing.

[AP]

20. Do you think Dean is their candidate?

?

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Seriously, I've been keeping my eye on the ball and not paying

attention to the players. Not since Graham stepped out. If Dean is a Libertarian, it is up to the Democrats to let him know that they've had enough of free market principles. They need to flesh the man out now, before it's too late.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. No

He is a libertarian nightmare, because he is winning without corporate money, but you have been spinning that line for days. Your DLC buds actually look more like Libertarian Corporatists.