Libertarians?

[ddye]

I'm pretty new here. I would categorize myself as a socially liberal, strong defense Democratic moderate. Libertarians intrigue me though, with their stances on legalizing drugs and other things. Is that politically incorrect here? I've only occasionally voted Libertarian in state elections, it would take a LOT to throw away my vote that way nationally.

How do you feel about Libertarians?

[mot78]

1. Depends on the person

I agree with some of them because of their stand on social issues, and because they're anti-Patriot Act. But it's hard for me to embrace them as a whole because many Libertarians I talk to would rather privatize every aspect of government then reform it. They're also pro-rich tax cuts. Most "libertarian with a lower-case l" types tend to agree with them on fiscal and gun control issues only, and they're mostly Republicans.

[wysi]

2. Some people...

... would call me one, though I'm a bit all over the map really. I'm in favor of legalizing any and all consensual behavior (drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.), and I'm fiscally conservative in the sense of balanced budgets etc (Clinton economics). I would strongly support a real national health care system however, prioritization of education, and a strong (i.e. adequate) defense.

I guess that makes me a 'social libertarian' (i.e. the government should mind its own business unless I'm hurting someone or violating their rights), but not a real one!

[sendero]

3. Libertarians....

.... absurd economic policies more than negate any positives they have on social issues.

Didn't like Enron, Worldcomm or Global Crossing? Under Libertarian policies you'd be seeing them every damn day.

[Character Assassin]

6. You don't know what you're talking about.

Didn't like Enron, Worldcomm or Global Crossing? Under Libertarian policies you'd be seeing them every damn day.

Really? What, pray tell, is Libertarian (or libertarian) about those fiascos?

Did it perhaps escape your notice that what those corporations did was illegal as it was fraud? Or maybe you forgot that under a Libertarian/libertarian code of law, there is no personhood for corporations, thus making the officers stricly liable?

Please, step right up to the mic.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. I can't answer for the previous poster

but my guess is that the post was a crack at the problems with deregulation.

[sendero]

12. libs..

... in general call for LESS REGULATION and LESS OVERSIGHT over business activity. The exact things that made Enron possible.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[Character Assassin]

15. They also call for strict enforcement of fraud laws

... in general call for LESS REGULATION and LESS OVERSIGHT over business activity. The exact things that made Enron possible.

Yawn. And they didn't happen under a libertarian gov't, now did they?

No coporate personhood. No corporate 'free speech'. Strict anti-fraud laws and enforcement.

Yeah, that libertarianism sure worse is than what we have now. You know, the environment that allowed this to happen.

[sendero]

20. Without oversight and regulation...

.... those reforms are useless. By merely following the Reagan model and deregulating some, the Enrons and Worldcomms thrive. But you say we can roll it all the way back with no ill result because of "fraud laws".

You might be acquainted with the fact that it is well proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime. You think your "fraud laws" are going to stop someone from stealing a billion and hoping to be gone before it is discovered? Not freaking likely.

As a concept, I like Libertarianism fine. As a concept, Communism has a lot going for it. But in reality, both ignore human nature to the point that they are useless theories.

[Character Assassin]

22. You're missing the point, and making the classic mistake

By merely following the Reagan model and deregulating some, the Enrons and Worldcomms thrive. But you say we can roll it all the way back with no ill result because of "fraud laws".

I hear that sort of opinion all the time by those who mistakenly think libertarianism is a de facto sweeping away of all gov't. It isn't. It is a political philosophy, whereas Libertarianism is a political platform. If you conflate the two, such cognitive dissonance is likely to take place.

You might be acquainted with the fact that it is well proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.

Indeed I am.

You think your "fraud laws" are going to stop someone from stealing a billion and hoping to be gone before it is discovered? Not freaking likely.

Really? So if self-regulation exists in an environment where individual culpability exists for fraud and financial malfeasance, rather than what we have now, things are going to get, somehow, magically, worse? I disagree.

As a concept, I like Libertarianism fine. As a concept, Communism has a lot going for it. But in reality, both ignore human nature to the point that they are useless theories.

Same mistake. Libertarianism is a platform put forth by a party. It is not a concept, per se, like libertarianism is.

[Dogmudgeon]

30. But wait, it gets even worse

There are several Libertarian platforms and several libertarian philosophies.

The most prevalent of the philosophies is sometimes called "minarchism". It is based on a state with a minimum of enforcement. The libertarian catchphrase "force and fraud" (which is really an old theatrical description of Tragedy and Comedy) is usually associated with them.

What we now call anarchism has usually also been called libertarianism.

Then there are monstrosities like Zonpower and Neo-Tech.

There is also an interesting libertarian political-economic philosophy that would abolish all taxation, but apply a fair-market royalty fee to all "grants of title", which includes real estate, corporate charters, and "intellectual property". This is the kind of libertarianism I most agree with. The value of such property is enormous, and even a modest royalty would allow for the establishment of a system with many of the benefits of classical Democratic Socialism, but without taxation as we know it now.

Henry George, a congressman in the early 1900s, was the primary innovator of this kind of libertarian thought. www.henrygeorge.org and www.progress.org are two places to start. George proposed a system he called the "Single Tax" system that was based on the taxation of such governmentally chartered property.

Here's a pithy quote from Agnes George DeMille, Henry's granddaughter and a well-known choreographer:

There is nothing wrong with private corporations owning the means of producing wealth. Georgists believe in private enterprise, and in its virtues and incentives to produce at maximum efficiency. It is the insidious linking together of special privilege, the unjust outright private ownership of natural or public resources, monopolies, franchises, that produce unfair domination and autocracy.

The means of producing wealth differ at the root: some is thieved from the people and some is honestly earned. George differentiated; Marx did not. The consequences of our failure to discern lie at the heart of our trouble.

This clown civilization is ours. We chose this of our own free will, in our own free democracy, with all the means to legislate intelligently readily at hand. We chose this because it suited a few people to have us do so. They counted on our mental indolence and we freely and obediently conformed. We chose not to think.

(www.progress.org/books/george.htm)

Most of the libertarians I have encountered, though, are attracted to it because many of the libertarian theories offer neat, formal, closed-ended ideologies. My own opinion is that the current state of libertarian thought is similar to the state of socialist though in the 1920s. It's in sad shape, intellectually, as a movement, but there are some thinkers whose work is well worth considering. Henry George is one of them.

--bkl
A kinder, gentler George.

[Liberal Classic]

36. BKL glad to hear someone mention George

I like George's method for countering monopolism yet retaining laissez-faire economics. I don't believe the free-market is bad. A lot of people on DU have a bad opinion of the free trade of goods and services based on the bad actions of some people and companies. Part of the problem is that financial fraud isn't punished agressively enough but another part of it is our tax system punishes thrift and investment while rewarding debt and monopoly. It's kind of backwards in my opinion.

[Dogmudgeon]

51. Along George's lines of thought

I've really come to the conclusion -- after considering myself a L/libertarian from 1974 until about 1992 -- that the political/economic ideology is less important than how much the people in a nation participate in its governance. George's critique came from the fact that the people had allowed powerful people and business entities to grab more and more power. Eighty years later, the problems that George saw as Herculean have become so powerful that even a Hercules would tremble before them.

The Augean stables? A mere doggie poop on the sidewalk!

Our entire economic system is based on an elaborate series of frauds. Just the fact that the 14th Amendment was used to turn Corporations into entities with all the rights of human beings should be enough of an example ... but people continue to insist that Corporations are somehow a normal part of the world, and that any public control over them would constitute a crime against nature.

The idea of the free market was based on individuals trading with other individuals. It was, and still is, a revolutionary idea. Corporate economics is a monstrous atavism, a return to feudalism through law, political manipulation, and naked economic force.

--bkl
So say I.

[durutti]

48. Wait-a-minute...

You're proving the poster's point for her/him. In a "libertarian" society, the things Enron did *wouldn't be* illegal.

[IrateCitizen]

49. Not quite, durutti...

In a truly "libertarian" society ("little-l" libertarianism is actually classical anarchism, and bears little resemblance to "Libertarianism" today), there would not BE an Enron in the first place -- at least not at the point at which it evolved to. There would be no government favors in setting up contracts, the corporations would not enjoy personhood nor be able to donate to political parties, nor would it likely have evolved beyone a simple supplier of oil and natural gas.

It is Libertarians who are in favor of corporate rule. True libertarians, OTOH, are distrustful of large corporations -- as they are distrustful of ANY centralization/accumulation of power. See, power leads to exploitation, and chief among the liberties prized by true libertarians and anarchists is the freedom from exploitation. Without that basic universal freedom, no other freedoms have any meaning.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

50. Corruption

Actually, under libertarianism corruption wouldn`t be a crime, because everything is privatized, and it is not a crime for a owner of a privat business to give the contract to his school buddy, rather than the one who can supply the goods for the lowest price.

Capitalism doesn`t combat corruption, it legalizes it!

[Character Assassin]

56. What are you talking about? Fraud is illegal in a libertarian society

Why would you think otherwise?

[DrWeird]

4. Just another word for republican, IMHO.

Maybe republicans who are ashamed of other republicans.

[ddye]

11. ashamed of other republicans?

If you look at it like that it would be fairer to call them Republicans without the Religious Right, a definite plus, in my opinion.

I guess that I'm a closet Libertarian except for the government programs that I LIKE!

That was a JOKE, people...

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I'd vote for a geo-lib

for a municipal office where conservation and ecology is concerned.

But I wouldn't try to put one in a position of power over policy because most libs would not support the social programs that I believe in. Ditto for trade issues since I believe in fair trade and not free trade.

[durutti]

64. What is a geo-lib, exactly?

I've heard the term before.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

65. Geolibertarians

They believe that the economy should be "free", but that government should tax use of land and natural resources.

You can check this out:

http://www.henrygeorge.org/isms.htm

[leftist_rebel1569]

7. As a former libertarian,

I have to say I don't mind them as much as other people on DU. But, I don't consider myself a libertarian anymore because of their stances on economic issues, which are really pro-huge corporation and anti-labor. You can read more about their stances on issues here...

http://www.lp.org/issues/

[JohnKleeb]

13. You in GD?

Frankly I am amazed. I know you were a libertarian at one time. I am a libertarian socialist lets say :D.

[leftist_rebel1569]

19. Yeah...

since they filtered out the "Dean sucks, Clark sucks, Dean can't win, Clark can't win" crap that I was frankly sick of after the first week I got here, I found GD to actually be a lot better. So, I'll post here as long as it doesn't get really bad.

And yes, I was a Libertarian. I liked the idea of total social freedom, and economic freedom, to an extent. I still like a lot of their ideas (especially a few of their enviromental issues). But, like I said, some of the economic stuff really started to bug me, so I decided to not associate myself with them

[JohnKleeb]

24. I see

[Character Assassin]

16. No, those are Libertarians, not libertarians.

A world of difference exists between the two.

[leftist_rebel1569]

21. I know what you're saying

and I used to be a Libertarian, I should have said. I'm still technically a libertarian, but not a Libertarian

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. Ask CA what he thinks about affirmative action.

There is just enough similarity between Libertarians and libertarians to dismiss them all. If you don't believe in government social programs, you're not a democrat, and frankly, I don't know why a libertarian would spend time on a newsgroup called the democraticunderground.

[Character Assassin]

32. Why don't you ask me?

There is just enough similarity between Libertarians and libertarians to dismiss them all.

I've asked you time and again to support that statement, and you never have. Don't go changin', hmmm?

If you don't believe in government social programs, you're not a democrat, and frankly, I don't know why a libertarian would spend time on a newsgroup called the democraticunderground.

If you can't figure it out, I can't help you, but I can assure you it's certainly not for the dubious quality of discourse that I have seen from you on this topic.

[leftist_rebel1569]

45. Okay, there's something wrong with what you said

"There is just enough similarity between Libertarians and libertarians to dismiss them all."

That's really not true. That's like saying there's enough similarity between Socialists and liberals to dismiss them as the same. Libertarians fall under a category of libertarians, you could say. Libertarians are affiliated with the Libertarian Party, and libertarians are just opposed to authoritarians the same way liberals are opposed to conservatives.

[sweetheart]

9. libertarians are friends

I am a libertarian, just i also believe all human beings have human rights like universal healthcare.. and that business regulation is a healthy realistic thing given our world.

I think most libertarians would vote against bush if there was a truly socially liberal democratic ticket. There are MANY libertarians on this board...

(ending the drugs war is root to solving the social decay of american cities)!!! a very important policy.

You are more than welcome here in my views..

best regards,
-sweetheart

[arcane1]

10. I voted for Ron Paul when he ran for president

Helps me in my debates with my dad :)

I'll take a Libertarian over a Neocon ANYTIME

[Rhiannon12866]

14. Welcome to DU, ddye!

I think it's safe to say that we have a pretty big tent here. The one issue that unites us all is "Anyone but Bush* in 2004." As long as you agree with that, you should be fine here. Again, welcome to DU!:-)

[IranianDemocrat]

17. Libertarians are republicans that do drugs.

.

[Beaker]

53. yup.

a libertarian is a republican with a bong.

[K-W]

18. Most liberatarians vote republican, lets not forget that

I think it is a niave and massively flawed political philosophy that ignores the importance of government in protecting freedom and it contains a very conservative view of social classes.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Libertarians are not to be trusted.

The legalized drug angle is about the only issue that far leftwingers can relate to. (Not all Democrats really care, one way or another.) However, everything else is CATO material. When you look at Libertarians, you have to look at the entire animal. Not just the little piece that you agree with. They are at heart, anarchists. They don't believe in social programs to the extent that Democrats to. Libertarians are pure idealists and many of the ills that we are suffering in the free market, are direct results of their theories being put to use.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

26. They are NOT anarchists

The libertarians are certainly not anarchists, because the support the most drastic government programs in history, property rights and the judicial system.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Yes they are anarchists.

Their concept of property rights is winner takes all. Is that isn't anarchistic, I don't know what is.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

29. That`s not anarchism

For someone to accumulate wealth and thereby power, you have to have property rights. If you don`t have property rights, noone will manage to get powerful enough to dominate the rest. Just look at stoneage and pre-state agricultural societies.

[IrateCitizen]

37. You have a very mistaken view of anarchism

Anarchism is not belief in a "winner takes all" system. Rather, it is a highly utopian/idealistic belief system in which people all work for the common good. The original anarchists referred to themselves quite often as "libertarians" -- because they believed highly in the ideal of personal liberty.

But they believed that chief among these personal liberty was the liberty from exploitation. Liberty was not, in their view, the "liberty" to amass as much personal wealth as possible. Liberty was rather the freedom to live your life without intrusion from others.

Economically speaking, they were true communitarians. Where they differed from the early socialists was that they did not believe in the concept of state intervention to achieve their aims. They believed that the innate goodness of human beings could be tapped in order to achieve their goals.

Want to look at a prime example of a true early "libertarian"? Read up on the life of Emma Goldman. I read her 2-volume autobiography several months ago, and came away with a profound respect for her and her beliefs -- even if I didn't agree with all of them. But one thing is certain -- she was a "libertarian", and certainly not a "Libertarian". She would have been in the street fighting the "Libertarians" if she were alive today, and condemning them for beseeching her philosophy.

[Character Assassin]

40. I think that would be 'besmirching' her philosophy

If they had been 'beseeching' it, it would have been more similar to requesting that it be implemented.

But you're wasting your time trying to discuss something like the extremely esoteric subtlety of Libertarianism doesn't equal libertarianism doesn't equal communism with someone who refuses to understand that words actually have meanings.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think.

[IrateCitizen]

42. My vocabulary gets ahead of me sometimes -- thanks. (nt)

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

41. You are wrong

Anarchism is not utopian, Anarchism is the economic and social system that comes natural for man. For several thousands of years modern man lived i anarchist tribal societies with no social classes, and where everyone cooperated for the best of the tribe.

[IrateCitizen]

43. Only if human civilization had remained static

As human settled into agrarian communities which began to develop into towns and cities, anarchism lost out. It is only really possible in a society in which everyone is acquainted with one another. As soon as the society grows to the point that you have people who do NOT know each other, anarchism breaks down -- you need laws and a civil government with authority to administer those laws. The very existence of a government with authority goes against the ideals of anarchism.

Perhaps the best example of a moderately evolved community that lived by an anarchist code were the Iroquois. They shared equally in everything, but without a central civil government needed to enforce that sharing. It was true communitarian anarchism.

But within the larger frame, tribes DID still fight with each other, which would have been a clear violation of true anarchism -- the principle ideal of such being freedom from exploitation in any manner.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

44. Yes

Yes, anarchism broke down, but in most places it was because of external pressure, not internal development. A "civilization" only developed independently four places in the old world and two places in the new. When it comes to the rest of the world, government was forced on the people either by contact with centralized states or outright conquest.

They did fight, but it was a conflict between anarchistic societies.

[Spinoza]

57. There never was an anarchistic "Eden".

On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: The peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

61. Mixed things up?

The tribes you mention are not from the anarchist period, they are from later periods of time. Aztecs and Incas were civilized people, and not in any way anarchist. Therefore the mention of human sacrifice has no relevance for this discussion.

What you refer to is man in the "warfare period". In Europe almost no signs of humans killed by other humans exist from the true anarchistic periode, but when collective property rights were invented, violence bloomed. And when you got property rights in some form, you no longer had a true anarchy.

When it comes to infanticide, it actually was the sensible thing to do, because nature wouldn`t support to many people in that kind of society.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. Depends on whether you mean "libertarians" or "Libertarians".

There's a difference. Libertarians with a capital L are insane Ayn Rand worshippers who think a return to the glorious days of feudalism would be just peachy. They refer to themselves as "anarcho-capitalists", which seems to mean that they feel government should make no law which interferes with the right of capitalists and industrialists to do as they damned well please, consequences to the environment, the public health and their employees be damned.

Small L libertarians advocate perfect freedom of choice and conscience for the individual, within the bounds of civilised conduct. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", essentially, but recognise that everyone ELSE has the same right, and respect it.

Compare and contrast: Right wing capital L libertarian Ayn Rand vs. left wing libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky.

[Liberal Classic]

31. As a moderate libertarian myself

Welcome to DU! If you can believe such an animal as a moderate libertarian exists, then I am one. As libertarians go, I am somewhat hawkish and like you believe in a strong national defense, as well as being opposed to the drug-prohibition. Libertarians tend to believe in laissez-faire and tend towards the Austrian school of economics with a bit of Chicago school thrown in. If you have ever read about a 19th century economis named Henry George, you may get a feel for my economics.

[IrateCitizen]

38. By Austrian/Chicago, would you mean Hayek/Friedman?

If that's the case, then you're no true friend of true "libertarianism", and much more of a "Libertarian". Ditto with being a proponent of a strong armed forces.

True libertarians believe in freedom from exploitation. Hayek and Friedman, through their laissez-faire policies, embrace worker exploitation.

[info being]

33. Libertarians have a lot in common with Greens

Both Parties are anti-autocratic (power to the people) and pro-freedom. The main difference is that Greens recognize we live on a spaceship, not a never-ending frontier. Also, Libertarian thought is a little irrational in that humans do not live in isolation and need strong communities...but I sympothize with any group that is against the Fascist power we have in Washington.

[durutti]

71. I disagree.

I would say that both the Greens and the Libertarians represent the interests of different segments of the petty bourgeoisie -- small property owners, middle managers, and professionals -- historically, the backbone of any fascist movement.

[IrateCitizen]

34. I don't care much for "Libertarians"...

IMHO, they're complete hypocrites who want to return us to the bygone "Gilded Age".

"libertarians", on the other hand, I am more of a fan of -- even if I don't agree with them on everything.

Want to look at a classic "libertarian"? Look at Emma Goldman, an anarchist expelled from the United States in 1919 due to her speaking out against US involvement in WWI. She is mistakenly labelled a "socialist" or "communist" due to her opposition to the exploitation that accompanied industrialization, but her views are classic anarchist, the original "libertarians".

[MysticMind]

35. too little government, too unrealistic

Libertarians can say their philosophy offers the utmost freedom from government intervention and property rights but you don't see starving children saying, "At least we have property rights."

[brainshrub]

39. Libertarians = The Uncle Tom of the Right Wing (nt)

If we just give corporations everything they want, why, ole massa will watch over us employees.

[rman]

46. I don't trust 'm

I'v heard libertarians argue that since government can't be trusted, we should do away with all together and let the corporations run the place.

They don't mention what kind of system of national management we'd then have; some form of anarchy? Or would it be that corporations take on the role of government? Doesn't sound like a swell idea to me.

[durutti]

47. Great Web site on the topic...

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

[classics]

52. Libertarians are Economic and Social anarchists.

They are basically neo-cons who dont cling to religious social dogma about sex and drugs.

[ddye]

54. Oh well...

Man, I just wanted to not have to worry about that little wooden box under my coffee table...

[GinaMaria]

55. There are left leaning and right leaning

libertarians. When taking a political litmus test, I usually 'score' as a left leaning civil libertarian. :shrug: I think labels don't always work. I think there is a libertarian underground. You might want to check it out. It might be better to go to the source to find out what libertarians believe.

[lotteandollie]

58. Some of their ideas intrigue me

Legalizing drugs for instance. Three years ago I would have thought it was an insane idea. I'm support the idea now. Making them illegal hasn't worked.

[rucky]

59. Another good 3rd party idea that got coopted by special interests

gun nuts & Cato corportists

There is a small Democratic-leaning branch called the DFC or something. I don't know what it stands for. They seem to like Howard Dean & hate *, tho.

[nemo137]

60. i'd like them more if not for little things, like

how they want to abolish public education, and turn over everything from parks to police to private investors. socially, and on some governmental issues, i like them.

[durutti]

62. Something you might disagree on...

By "strong defense", I assume you mean "wanting to at least maintain the current military budget". Libertarians want to cut the military budget.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Durruti? Would that be from Buenaventura Durruti?

Anarchist? Just curious. I have anarchist leanings myself.

[Character Assassin]

69. Or possibly the music group 'The Durutti Column'?

[durutti]

72. The name...

It's from both Buenaventura Durutti and Durutti Column. I'm not personally an anarchist, however. I consider myself a socialist (what anarchists would call a "state-socialist").

[durutti]

63. Socially "libertarian" does not equal socially progressive.

Another mistake people commonly make in discussing Libertarians.

Libetarians take a laissez-faire attitude towards social issues; they don't believe in criminalizing consensual behavior, but they don't necessarily believe in promoting it or regulating it in any way, either.

So, while progressives favor clean needle programs, affirmative action, hate crimes legislation, etc., Libertarians do not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. A once proud label defamed by the capitalists.

It once truly stood for the freedom of the individual, but based on a cooperative (re: socialist) community in which individual freedoms were respected as long as they didn't do harm to the community.

It has since been coopted by the right wing, which has transformed it into a philosophy (if it can be called that) of unregulated "individual freedom" no matter what the cost to the community and laissez faire capitalism.

American "libertarianism" has a lot more to do with the goofy ideas of Ayn Rand objectivism than it's original European concept.

[TheDonkey]

67. They are unrealistic and dangerous

Especially considering their laisez faire approach to economics.

I think we all realize that if a big corporation can get away with it, they'll do it. Not matter who is hurt in the process (mostly middle class, working class folks).

Libertarians give far too much faith in economics working peacefully with society and "theoritically" making sense. We all know theory and reality are not equal.

Socially speaking I do agree with many of their views that government should not be bothered with limiting OUR rights but actively protecting them (which is democratic all the way).

[schultzee]

70. Libertarians believe in Social Dawainism, and that the market place

will solve everything. Except for their strong support of first amendment rights and other rights, they are like super strong republicans: selfishness and greed rules all.