Should the democratic party move to co-opt moderate libertarians?

[TXlib]

I'm not talking about the radical, I-exist-on-an-island variety... just the ones who believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and personal freedom.

There are a lot of moderate Republicans who are essentially moderate libertarians. I believe that now that the Republicans are pretty much in charge, it will not be good for their party. They won't be able to blame us for their failures, and party cohesion will weaken; they will become their own opposition as the moderate factions clash with the more conservative ones.

If you believe this could be a good strategic move, what compromises do you think we could make?

Do you see any areas where it wouldn't have to be so much a compromise, as a blending of ideas that strengthen each other?

[Vincardog]

1. what compromises do you think we could make?

Compromise from what position? We have no core platform to start with

[LoZoccolo]

3. Gun control.

One of the reasons I supported Dean (who is a moderate).

[BurtWorm]

2. With all due respect, TL

I think you've been spending too much time with those loons. Have they consented to any compromises? Why should we?

[TXlib]

10. Hey BW

The fact is, I am a *moderate* liberal. I tend to shy away from more extreme ideas. I tend, actually, to have more fiscally conservative opinions than many here. I think there are a great many republican moderates with whom we could find enough common ground, especially if I am right about the moderates and conservatives in the Republican party falling out of each other's good graces.

[BurtWorm]

15. Well, I do think you're right about the coming crackup over there.

But I'm not sure Democrats need to make any compromises to attract them. If they're smart, the libertarians will have the sense to avoid the train wreck that is the Republican Party and find their own ways to compromise with the Democrats.

[TXlib]

35. To assume we need never make any compromises assumes

that we are always right.

I certainly do not think I am always right. I am happy to give my opposition a fair chance to explain to me why their idea is better. Maybe they will change my mind, or maybe their ideas will blend with my own. Or, maybe I'll reject them entirely after considering them carefully, and feel that much stronger in my own convictions.

[BurtWorm]

41. It depends which issues you're planning to compromise about.

If you want the Dems to rule out tax increases, that, I think, in any era of massive deficits, is not going to happen. If you want them to participate in the gutting of Social Security, that's asking too much.

For the last generation, the Democrats have been in the danger of compromising themselves into permament irrelavence. They've very nearly succeeded. They need to develop a spine, stick to their principles and fight back against the corporatist take-over of the country. Libertarians will have a choice to make: enable the corporatist/Dominionist coalition on the right, or join the battle to win back the democracy on the left. I don't see any alternative.

[TXlib]

46. well,

I don't think we should rule out tax increases.

But we should consider just as seriously where we may cut spending. Perhaps we could do a review, similar to an employee review, where the bottom 10% of programs (eg), based on usefulness and efficiency, are cut.

And then there's so much waste in pork-barrel spending; but perhaps I'm being hopelessly naive in assuming any real inroads could be made there.

As far as gutting SS, I think the program is untenable in it's current state. I don't expect I will see a penny of SS when I retire. I think several things about it need to change, in order for it to help without becoming an undue burden at the same time.

All I'm asking is that we not dig in our heels on matters of dogma, assuming the other side is just as willing.

[BurtWorm]

47. If the Republicans gut the program, you may NOT see a penny of SS.

But if they don't screw with it and you retire before 2072 (or something like that), you're pretty much guaranteed to get SS payments.

PS: As for making substantial cuts in the budget, that almost goes without saying. Dems should target corporate welfare for BIG cuts.

[TXlib]

53. Absolutely

Conservatives always complain that liberal programs are nothing but wealth redistribution, and I think that they must clean up their own house before they criticise ours on this point (corporate welfare).

[BurtWorm]

65. TXLib, Check into Paul Krugman's columns for a correction of your

misimpression about SS. He writes about the subject frequently, debunking the myth that SS is in imminent danger. The Bushists are "punking" us on this. I hate that expression, but that's what they're doing. They're lying as usual. Don't be taken in by them. They're trying to complete the anti-New Deal program begun by the oligarchs in the 1930s, trying to return the US to a time when corporations were only obligated to themselves, not to their employees or communities. You can try to put a positive spin on that if you want, but I can't. In any case, you can't positively spin the fact that they're lying about how endangered SS is. See also dailyhowler.com, which has been very good at getting the facts about the SS "crisis" straight and has been covering the story regularly for the past month or so.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Socially, they are very compatible.

Fiscally not so much. It would probably mean more privatization.

[jonnyblitz]

7. their obsession with privatizing EVERTHING trumps the social

from my experiences talking with them. Thus they tend to side with the GOP.

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. I'm not comfortable with the free-market aspect either

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[StopTheMorans]

64. I agree; I don't think that true libertarianism is even CLOSE to what

the Dems believe in (i.e. almost all of the libertarians I've met equate democratic beliefs with socialism).

[TXlib]

11. Perhaps

But the devil is in the details.

I'm sure we could find a way to privatize some things in a manner consistent with our ideals (or at least, less inconsistent than it would be if we let the republicans do it).

[jonnyblitz]

5. they believe the GOP is the lesser evil.

they are too obsessed with private property (private everything)and unfettered capitalism. I have never known a "moderate" libertarian.

[Allenberg]

8. Hello.

Registered Libertarian since 1999, with a moderate viewpoint on alot of issues. :hi:

[jonnyblitz]

20. I guess I have known only ayn randian types who vote GOP

as the lesser of evils. :hi:

[Allenberg]

28. Works for me.

:D

[TXlib]

14. You must not know many libertarians

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the "lib" in "TXlib" is as much for "libertarian" as it is for "liberal".

[jonnyblitz]

19. the ones I knew bitched about liberals and DEMS day and night

and always sided with the GOP in the end despite whatever qualms they had about them.

[DS1]

22. Or, they were absolutley Republicans, until I actually ran down the

list of positions with them and showed them why they were libertarians and not republicans.

[TXlib]

26. The problem is

many people (perhaps most) rarely critically examine their beliefs. This even includes people who are very passionate about those beliefs. It also includes a good fraction of the people on internet political message boards. Too many are there for affirmation, rather than enlightenment. And this is a fault that is universal.

[jonnyblitz]

33. it's the obsession with "free markets "

that overrides anything else, even the social, legalize drugs thing. I encountered most of these people during the Newt Gingrich "Contract on America" era when they were feeling cocky and on the rise. They could possibly be disgusted by now with the Bush regime and the soaring debt. etc.

[BurtWorm]

37. jonnyblitz, there are grades of difference among them.

Like Penn of Penn and Teller (and maybe Teller too?) is a lefty libertarian whose unashamed atheism would never permit him to cast a vote that would enable the religious right. There are also strange hybrid types who are fervently against every single instance of war (because they see it as a form of statist tyranny), but they're also fervently against putting any control on ownership of weapons. Most of the far-out radical libertarians are as unlikely to participate in elections as Kropotkinite anarchists.

I'm guessing that a lot of the so-called "Libertarians" you're talking about are just big-talking Republicans.

[NewJeffCT]

27. agreed

I had one guy at work that was telling everybody that Bush was terrible, vote for Kerry, etc, etc a few months before the election.

But, he ended up voting Bush as he was the lesser of 2 evils, according to him.

[DBoon]

6. Yes, in some cases

I imagine there could be a lot of support for Democrats in western states, where a "live and let live" attitude is popular.

Some folks who are libertarian in a personal rather than ideological sense might be attracted to the correct positions. We'd position ourselves against the fundie/morality police types. Pro gay rights, tolerant of marijuana, etc.

We'd be libertarian on social issues (as good Democrats are). I think the hardest compromise would be environmental issues in these places, esp on land use issues.

[demnan]

9. Issues we have in common should be emphasized, like

fiscal responsibility, social liberalism and tolerance, environmental issues, support for small independent businessmen and judicial reform, to name a few.

[ThorsHammer]

12. Exaclty; IMO it's better to redefine the message than actually move

[TXlib]

18. I think both should happen

For example, libertarians are never going to buy the idea of universal health care, at least, not as envisioned by many liberal democrats.

That's not to say we'd have to abandon it entirely. Both sides would have to be willing to flex, and to ask if there's any way they could envision such an idea in a manner that is not (completely) inconsistent with their principles.

I think the most important thing is not to see the process as one of compromise, but as an opportunity to take an influx of new ideas, apply them to old goals, and see if we can make them more workable to all parties.

We have a lot of big-government spending programs... one thing we might try harder to do is ask if there is any way we can run them more efficiently, without any loss of service. One way to do that is a renewed effort to root out and quash pork-barrel programs, on both sides. This is an area where everybody can tighten the belt and free up federal dollars for other uses, or use them to reduce taxes. The only people who get hurt there are the contractors who have been on the federal teat for decades, using it as a jobs program for engineers.

[Zebulon]

13. This is me you're describing

I'm not talking about the radical, I-exist-on-an-island variety... just the ones who believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and personal freedom.

There are a lot of moderate Republicans who are essentially moderate libertarians.

Frankly, I'm more comfortable politically as a moderate Democrat than as a moderate Republican in a party increasingly controlled by the religious right.

what compromises do you think we could make?

Fiscal responsibility is a big one. The Republicans have completely blown this, leaving Democrats with an opportunity. This is an issue that resonates with the voters.

Governor Jim Doyle in Wisconsin is a good example. He inherited a huge budget mess courtesy of the Republicans. And he's fixing it, while keeping his campaign promise not to raise taxes.

[BurtWorm]

17. I think it's the Republicans' enslavement by the religious right

that is going to do them in. "Moderate" libertarians (of the lower case variety especially) are going to have to ask themselves which party is at base more about freedom? The Party of God or the Party of People. Which freedoms are more important to you? Religious freedoms? Civil freedoms? Political freedom? Freedom from taxation (about the only freedom the Republican Party respects, besides corporate freedoms to pollute, exploit, amass)?

[Zebulon]

21. Yep

"Moderate" libertarians (of the lower case variety especially) are going to have to ask themselves which party is at base more about freedom? The Party of God or the Party of People. Which freedoms are more important to you? Religious freedoms? Civil freedoms? Political freedom?

My observation is that, to the Republican party, economic freedom equates to deregulation and government subsidy of large corporations. It isn't about individual freedom or encouraging small business (which is where most real economic and employment growth occurs).

[BurtWorm]

25. That's also true.

They sucker these poor slobs with the promise of lowering their taxes, but that's about all they do for them. Put a couple extra hundred in their pocket a year. Boy, these suckers are cheap!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. I don't see it happening

Libertarians don't believe in organized labor nor labor rights.

Libertarians don't believe in a social safety net and are hell bent on privatizing.

I also wish someone would define socially liberal and fiscally conservative and tell me specifically what that means. More often than not when someone claims they are this, they really mean they want to smoke dope while the devil may care about society in general.

[TXlib]

23. Practical, moderate libertarians

may not believe in a social safety net, but they are willing to accept that it isn't going away, so they might as well do what they can to try to make it as efficient as possible.

As far as privatizing... there may well be some governmental services that could be done privately, as a contractor of the government. There are some that you definitely don't want privatized. But I'm talking about a shaking-up of ideas, of trying to look anew at all our beliefs (from both sides).

Here are my definitions:

socially liberal (or libertarian): Laws seeking to establish morality have no business being passed unless the behaviour targeted by the law can be shown, materially, quantifiably, objectively, to be harmful to society. Banning a behaviour should be similar to a criminal trial: there is a presumption of harmlessness, and it is up to those seeking to legislate against something to show, with overwhelming evidence, that such a law is needed. It shouldn't be up to the opponents to defend the behaviour, except to point out when the evidence submitted is untruthful or misleading.

Fiscally conservative: Not spending more than you take in. Being loathe to issue bonds unless there is great need, and not enough tax base (i.e. war bonds). Being loathe to initiate new public spending programs unless a careful cost/reward analysis has been completed. Preferring to cut less useful/efficient programs to pay for new ones, rather than raise taxes. (That doesn't mean you never do it; but it means that you make all federal spending programs explicitly compete for funding, forcing them into a mindset of thrift and efficiency.) And by all, I mean all, including programs in the military. If that mindset were rigorously applied, wasteful programs like Cruader would be abandoned in favor of more promising ones, rather than just increasing the budget.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. Can you name one?

The post office pays for itself..we began many projects privatizing aspects of the DOD..not a single one has come in under budget or for less than it would have cost the military to do it including the building of bunkers.

Name one and I will consider it. Name one thing that has been privatized that is MORE efficient than the gov't program that preceded it...name on business that has been DEREGULATED that is IN THE LONG RUN, more efficient than it was before.

[Zebulon]

24. Re: I don't see it happening

I think TXlib was referring more to moderate Republicans who are "small 'l'" libertarians. Not to full-fledged Libertarian Party members (there aren't many of them anyway). The kind of people who would vote for Barack Obama rather than a right-wingnut like Alan Keyes.

[Zebulon]

30. Re: I don't see it happening

I also wish someone would define socially liberal and fiscally conservative and tell me specifically what that means.

IMO, "socially liberal" means A) government staying out of the morality business, and B) support for traditional social safety net programs.

"Fiscally conservative" means limiting the scope of government to those areas where government can operate more efficiently than private enterprise, and, within this scope, operating in a financially prudent manner with a minimum of wasteful spending.

Obviously, within each of these, there is a great deal of room for debate.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. Again...name one aspect of gov't that has been privatized that is more

efficient and less expensive and just as accountable to the taxpayer.

[TXlib]

42. That would require more research than i have time for

But I would imagine I would turn up a few that work, and a few that don't. My guess is more that don't.

The interesting thing, then, would be to analyse the differences between the programs that made one successful, and another on not so much, and use that as a model for future programs.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. Privatizing simply removes all accountability

I am not saying things don't need to be done differently, but you are asking for a coalition with a group of people whose platform is essentially that of the wild west....it didn't work then..it won't work now.

[TXlib]

48. So

If we could find a way to privatise and maintain accountability, that would be a step in the right direction? Then, what we need to do is come up with ideas that allow for privatisation with accountability.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. Why? Why privatise that infrastructure which is in the public domain so

that for profit entities can compete with it? What is the benefit to the public? More job benefits? No. Better job security? No. More reliability? No.

Why do it ?

[Zebulon]

52. Re: Why do it ?

Why do it ?

Greater return on investment. You can, over the long haul, count on money invested in stocks or bonds yielding a better return than the 2% (or so I've heard) from Social Security.

The reason not to do it is that, with the possibility of a greater return comes a commensurately greater risk.

[TXlib]

55. As far as SS goes

I don't think I agree with the government investing in the private market. I'd be content if they invested in instruments with an implied guarantee, like mortgage-backed securities, in addition to US risk-free bonds.

[TXlib]

54. why

*If* it can be done more efficiently, with a higher percentage of dollars going to the intended purpose, by private industry, then there is clear benefit in savings, or else increased utilisation of budgeted dollars.

I think that *some* governmental programs could benefit this way. But if it were clear that not only had no such privatised program worked, but that there was a fundamental reason that it couldn't, then you convince me. I certainly am not arguing that most (or even necessarily many) programs could be privatised; clearly, the profit motive is incompatible with much of what the government does. But I do think it has a place, properly done.

[BurtWorm]

69. Can you give examples of government programs that should be privatized?

Do you think public schools should be? Prisons? Military operations? Space agency operations?

[Zebulon]

43. Re: Again...name one aspect of gov't that has been privatized that is more

Again...name one aspect of gov't that has been privatized that is more efficient and less expensive and just as accountable to the taxpayer.

I was giving you a definition of "fiscal conservative", I wasn't saying I agreed with it.

[blindpig]

29. the environment is a deal breaker

Although I agree with them on civil liberties I am completely repulsed by the libertarian position on the environment. They would sell our public lands to the highest bidder and destroy the ESA. The concept of the commons is alien, nay abhorrent to them. Nature should not require a dollar value in order to exist.

I also believe that a socialist approach is necessary in a world with too many people and dwindling resources.

[JohnnyCougar]

67. The Libertarian position on the environment

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

They want to turn national parks over to nature watchdog groups, who will REALLY watch over them. Furthermore, they make the case that private lands are more well taken care of than public lands. I think the last one is a stretch, but I like the idea of the Audobon society running our national parks!

[blindpig]

68. that's just one small aspect

As you noted, the private land claim is dubious at best considering the level of education and adoration of greed in this country. Judging from that link the government is at fault for EVERYTHING. Damned few issues were actually addressed; no mention of the ESA(which they hate), no mention of National Forest or BLM land, no mention of managing the ocean commons, & so forth. What is proposed in that link is IMHO little more than window dressing for a policy of shameless greed and mindless destruction of that which cannot be remade.

[NewJeffCT]

32. You only think Republicans have nobody to blame...

A dollar collapse will be due to George Soros & European leftists who hate America...

Another terror attack in the US will be because Bill Clinton turned down the offer of Osama's head on a platter from the Sudan...

Oil at $100 a barrell? Cuz Democrats blocked the Cheney/Enron energy bill...

Iraqi civil war? Because John Kerry & John Edwards voted against the $87 billion and it emboldened the insurgents...

[ulysses]

34. no.

When they get sick enough of fundie intrusion in their lives, they can come to us or vote for Harry Browne. We should not move one inch.

[guitar man]

36. I think so

I know a few libertarians and have talked with 3 of them in the past couple of weeks. We all agreed on one very important issue. We all despise *W*.

It seems we are all in agreement on the social issues, so the only thing left to hash out is the fiscal issues. They have a hard time understanding my pro-union stance, but really, the libertarians I know aren't too terribly far from where I am in ideaology. A damn sight closer than the fundier-than-thou *bushbots I encounter on a daily basis.

[TXlib]

45. How important are unions today?

I recognise this could be an incendiary topic, so please don't mistake my ignorance for malice.

I feel that the original job of unions has largely been taken up by the government. I think that many unions have become self-perpetuating bureaucracies that no longer as as necessary, and so do counter-productive things to justify themselves.

I also have experienced the frustration of not being allowed to fix something broken in my office because "it's a union job", but then not having a repairman come by (to install a frickin lightbulb, ferchrissake) for a couple of weeks, requiring me and my officemates to sit in the hallway to read, or else invade somebody else's library. I feel that unions have gone from protecting workers from abuse to merely ensuring job security. Rather than depending on a union to make sure that the hourly wage and number of hours are sufficient for all the (eg) plumbers in a region, wouldn't it make more sense to control the number of plumbers so you didn't have too many for the amount of work available?

I'm also sure there must be some industries for which unions are most definitely still needed.

Now, I'm sure there are issues here I'm not considering, and this is merely my gut opinion, not based on anything other than my own experience, so my opinion is malleable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. TxLib..with all due respect, before you bring the RW talking points

of another political forum here, perhaps you should do your homework. If unions are not important, perhaps you can explain why air traffic is as dangerous a subject as ever following the dissolution of PATCO and for the very same reason that PATCO went on strike in the 80's.. Perhaps you can explain why Wal Mart costs communities billions in social services for their employees damn near every time they set up shop in a town thereby sucking up jobs that were previously union by killing the competition. Perhaps you can explain why workers still die of negligence on the part of the employer such as occurred with a plant in Tyler Texas just last year. Perhaps you can explain why mine workers still get trapped in mines due to faulty reading of mineral charts by corporations.

Yes,....you are asking to get flamed by not doing your homework. Study privatization and deregulation and then get back to us all.

[TXlib]

56. Sounds like you HAVE done your HW on this issue

And I'm not saying unions do no good at all. I'm merely saying we shouldn't automatically assume the union is *always* looking out for the "little guy" anymore.

If you have some web resources on this issue, I'd very much appreciate if you'd point me to them.

Yes, I admit I've not done my HW. All I have are a scant number of (possibly non-typical) personal observations, and gut reactions. That's why I'm trying to get both sides' arguments on this issue.

I suspect this same thread on other political forums would probably have gotten me flamed for bringing in the liberal talking points.

I know I'm where I want to be politically if both sides seem equally pissed at me! :-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

59. I'm not pissed at you...I think the middle got where they got for a reason

Lack of principle. Now...before you slam me, what I am referencing is a group of people Kevin Phillips referred to in his book Wealth and Democracy as the "radical middle." This group tends to NOT have deep seated beliefs and their emotions blow with the latest news fad...they've been picking our elected representatives for about a decade and doing a very poor job of it.

My main advocacy of unions comes from my knowledge of American history and the changes following the last guilded age.

Ask yourself this...if CEO's can bargain for employment contracts, why can't the average worker? They CAN if they belong to a union...they also can use that bargaining power to get less expensive BETTER healthcare. They also can bargin TERMS of employment meaning they cannot be fired for any old whim. That's a lot of protection NOT present in the market right now.

Unions a Powerful Force Lifting All Workers, Study Finds (October 7, 2003)

By Cynthia Green

Unions’ positive impact on workers’ wages, job security and benefits is well documented, but what isn’t as widely acknowledged is how these higher standards raise the compensation and improve the work lives of even non-unionized workers.

A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute, "How Unions Help All Workers," outlines a virtuous circle of organized labor’s beneficial effect on the general workforce, from pay and total compensation to benefits and workplace protections.

"Unions have set norms and established practices that become more generalized throughout the economy, thereby improving pay and working conditions for the entire workforce," particularly for the vast majority of workers who are not college educated, authors Lawrence Mishel and Matthew Walters write.

A dynamic known as the "union threat effect" tends to improve compensation and labor practices for nonunion workers in industries, occupations and markets where unions have a strong presence, according to the report. Put simply, nonunion employers who fear unionization will often pay their employees more to discourage the move to collective bargaining.

Mishel, EPI’s president, and Walters cite a recent study showing a positive threat effect for the 1970s, ‘80s and mid-‘90s. Though tricky to quantify, the average nonunion worker in an industry with 25% union density appears to enjoy 5.0% to 7.5% higher wages because of union presence. As union density erodes, however, the positive threat effect on wages also slows.

Because the nonunion sector is large, according to the EPI report, "the impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages."

Still, unions raise the pay of their members by about 20% and increase total compensation, which includes benefits, by roughly 28%, the report said. The average union wage premium – the amount that union wages exceed nonunion pay – is about 15%, the authors write.

And unions contribute to reducing wage inequalities because they improve pay for lower-income workers more than higher earners, for blue-collar employees more than white-collar, and for workers without a college degree.

Disparities are even greater in the arena of benefits, the report notes.

"Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans," the authors write.

http://www.laborresearch.org/story.php?id=322

Here's a fairly accurate assessment of the history of labor unions in America:

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Eco_Unionization.htm


Here's an article about privatization of water and issues associated with it:

http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/KORTHKP/

And if you have the stomach to read about all the work this site has done...here's a nice piece on deregulation:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr001328.php3

[TXlib]

61. Thanks, NSMA!

I'll read through the info you provided.

[guitar man]

51. I agree

to a certain extent. The system and practice of unionization is in need of some reforming to fit the 21st century without a doubt.

I wouldn't mind seeing an end for the need for unions, but the government would have to start doing a hell of a lot better job of protecting the rights of workers. As it is now, especially with *bush and the rethughs at the helm, the common worker is getting it in the ass more and more every day.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. You can start by showing them this:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=76&ItemID=7056

Sucked from this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x100789

[SarahB]

57. Why not ask the Republicans....?

Why, if they believe so strongly in letting the market truly decide the economy, they support a party and an administration that instead support continual corporate bail-outs for companies that represent their own economic interests instead of truly market-based economics? (Not to mention, fair trade? Outsourcing?)

In terms of various services, allowing them to run under public domain lowers costs. If services such as health insurance/HMO's are run by for-profit companies, it drives up administrative costs and by simple logic as they are FOR-PROFIT companies. Not to mention, what would be one of the single biggest factors to aid true growth for American businesses? Small business people not having to endure the expense of providing health insurance for their employees because everyone has it under the federal government. Besides, you realize Medicare doesn't pay for long term care? Are you ready to lose all your assets in your old age when you or your wife could need long term care? Lots of issues. Lots of factors, but nothing is ever as simple as the right wing talking points that the wealthiest of the wealthy spout out who are the ones who benefit most from many of the current (faulted) systems in our country are based upon.

A little food for thought:
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7271
http://cthealth.server101.com/faq_about_public_health_insurance.htm
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/NEJM5_2_91.htm (older stats, yet valid argument)
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1994/9417/941705.PDF

[ClassicDem]

58. Never going to happen.

I have several Libertarian friends and although they absolutely despise Bush they have no love for Democrats either. Their major concern is the lack of free market thinking on the side of Democrats, the only thing a Libertarian hates more than a Fascist is a Socialist.

I do respect Libertarians though; they are one of the few parties that as a whole have come out in support of Gay marriage and the abolishment of the Patriot Act. They are also extremely minority friendly which is a big selling point for gaining new members. I have heard that both blacks and gays who are sick of feeling like they are being taken advantage of by the Democrats are fleeing to the Libertarians.

I have looked into the Libertarian Party several times and read a few of their books on paper it's a nice philosophy but in reality there is to much possibility for corruption and the idea of depending on individual charity to take care of the impoverished will never happen.

One thing that my friends who are in the Libertarian party did mention that I found interesting was that the party itself will never hold power. They will win a couple of minor victories here and there in local elections but they are never going to be big. What they did say was they hope to hold enough power to change either the Republican or Democrat Parties. They claimed after the 2004 election which ever party was on the losing side would start to incorporate a more Libertarian attitude to attract voters from the Libertarian party. I don't think it will happen; the libertarian party only has about 80,000 registered members not nearly enough to swing a big party.

[TXlib]

62. There may only be 80,000 Libertarians (i.e. party members)

but there are many more libertarians (i.e. poeple who generally have a libertarian attitude).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Oregon is full of libertarians

They vote to cut taxes to a nearly unsustainable degree, causing real suffering, and have succeeded in essentially crippling the land use laws that made the state so livable.

I have no use for them.

Their emphasis on loosening drug laws and gun laws is simply another aspect of their essentially bratty and selfish "mine, mine, all mine!" attitude.

[TXlib]

63. Could you give me some more details?

This sounds like an example of an experiment that could change my mind, if i had more details on it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Oregon is a very non-religious state (perhaps the most non-religious)

and yet the Republicanites are strong in the rural areas. The reason is that the rural people are basically libertarian: they want the least possible amount of taxes, no environmental laws, no land-use laws, and as far as they're concerned, the schools always have too much money, there should be no regulations on businesses, and those lazy mentally ill people should just get jobs.

They like programs to build prisons, but since the Libertarian party allows prisons as a government function, that's not inconsistent.

Yet these same people have also voted for assisted suicide, decrimininalization of marijuana, and medical marijuana.

The only definitely Republican thing (as opposed to possibly libertarian) they've done is vote against gay rights, but that's probably because of the macho-macho tradition of the ranchers, lumberjacks, and fishermen who dominate the rural areas.