Are there any LIBERTARIAN leaning Democrats here on DU?

[nickshepDEM]

Just curious if there are any Libertarian leaning Democrats or even registered Libertarians here on DU? You know, far right econimically, far left socially, and not very fond of the Federal Gov't?

[Mortos]

1. I fall into some of the libertarian ideologies

but some of their platforms border on the ridiculous. But for the most part I like the live and let live and leave me the fuck alone philosophy.

[nickshepDEM]

2. Which parts border on the ridiculous, IYO?

[silverweb]

3. Only half.

I'm a civil libertarian, but certainly not an economic one. I'm pretty far left both socially and economically.

Why do you ask?

[wli]

ditto n/t

[nickshepDEM]

7. Just curious.

Im a member at another political board, which has a large group of republicans, democrats, libertarians, etc. And there happeneds to be quite a few registered Democrats who are very econmically conservative. Pro-free trade, pro-privitization, etc., but they are also very far left socially. I guess social issues trump economic issues in their mind.

[unlawflcombatnt]

12. Free-Trade Treaties & "Libertarianism"

Nick,

I'd like to go visit that board. Could you tell me which board that is?

Also, a lot of Republicans and independents oppose so-called "free trade." (I oppose it as well.) Many right-wing, libertarian types view free-trade agreements as "libertarian." But other right-leaning groups consider them exactly the opposite. They consider allowing American laws to be trumped by the WTO and other international trade organizations to be very "non-libertarian." In fact, they consider them very authoritarian. Furthermore, a massive amount of non-libertarian government subsidization assists American companies when they outsource.

So free-trade agreements are not universally regarded as "libertarian" by everyone. And they are opposed on "libertarian" grounds by some historically right-wing organizations, such as "The New American," which was formerly the John Birch Society. Here are a couple of their links:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/cat_index_1.shtml

http://www.stoptheftaa.org/default.html

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[eleny]

4. Are you a Libertarian?

[nickshepDEM]

8. Nope. Actually the opposite.

Im socially center, maybe even a hair right of center, but pretty far left economically.

[vernon_nackulus]

5. Social Libertarian

I'm more of a social libertarian, but that's far left economically, a la Noam Chomsky. America is the only country in the world where 'libertarian' means something conservative.

[Cats Against Frist]

6. Can I correct you?

To hate the government, and find it as big of a joke as any other huge bureaucratic institution (church, corporation) that is run by elites does not mean that you are "far right." I'm a (get ready) minarcho-federalist geo-libertarian communalist, and I'm not right wing. I'm just not an authoritarian leftist and large-scale statist.

You can also believe in the free-market, and not be right-wing. Some say it's "idealist," but I always say that it's no more idealist than trying to get 300 million people to form a government that doesn't crush the hell out of someone, somewhere, and hope to god that that huge, powerful government doesn't get taken over by (ahem) corpo-fascists, neoconservatives and theocrats.

Beyond that -- yes, I consider myself a libertarian. A very left-wing, anti-Marxist libertarian, who is social liberal, a free-marketer, and really can't stand the right wing, or anything right-wing.

*edited for HTML

[nickshepDEM]

9. Thanks for the insight. So did you oppose or support CAFTA?

[Cats Against Frist]

10. That's a tough one

When NAFTA passed, I opposed it, even though Democratic President Bill Clinton passed it, but, at that time, I was a state socialist.

Now, I guess the question that I'm asking is why should any government be saying to whom and how people should trade stuff? You have to remember that any question you ask a serious libertarian has a whole 'nother frame of reference, from which to draw. Do I like to see people exploited? No. Do I like to see jobs taken away from Americans? No. Do I like American corporations running slave mills in other countries? Of course not -- but the libertarian solution is that the consumer should find out where his/her shit comes from, and not buy it, if it's not made to his or her standards. Which is exactly what I do. Which is what everyone should do. In lieu of people being responsible and getting a fucking brain, do I think that creating a distant, wasteful, top-down authoritarian bureaucracy, giving them power over everything in our lives, including what we can buy and sell, who we can marry, and whether or not we launch wars of aggression with billions of dollars of taxpayer monies, is the solution to this? Again, another rousing: of course not. That's insane.

There's my answer.

[unlawflcombatnt]

11. Define "Economically Far Right"

Could you define what you mean by "far right economically"? I generally favor a free market, with some exceptions. I think the federal government has helped create a Corporatocracy with laws to protect business and huge amounts of Corporate Welfare.

The bulk of the so-called "onerous regulatory burden" was designed to protect corporate and business interests, not consumers. In most areas, government protection of business has stifled competition, and reduced true "free enterprise."


The workings of the Medical field are a perfect example of Corporatocracy. I also mention it because it is field I'm very familiar with.

A classic example is the banning of medical malpractice action against HMOs. In addition to simply being unfair, this creates an incredible amount of market distortion. This gives HMOs tremendous power, while reducing the power of doctors and patients. HMOs are allowed to reduce payouts by denying service, while the medical liability for HMOs' decisions remains with doctors. The overall profit incentive is to provide as little medical care as possible. In other words, the monetary incentive is to provide as little "product" as possible. Without the risk of malpractice action, HMOs have no counter-balancing motivation. Less service means more profit.

In addition, the advent of 3rd party payers in Medicine has eliminated any demand-related pricing effect. There is no incentive for patients to reduce consumption of medical services, shop for lower prices, or shop for cheaper drugs. Patients are paying a fixed premium, and fixed co-pays. There is little cost dis-incentive for patients to consume less, and there is no profit incentive for insurance companies to provide more.

Doctors are paid a fixed amount, which is determined almost exclusively by Medicare reimbursement. There is NO price difference among different doctors. They are all reimbursed exactly the same amount for the same service, regardless of quality. Doctors are forbidden by law to charge cash-paying patients less than they charge insurance companies. Thus there are strict price controls in place for most medical services. This is not free enterprise.

Many insurance companies receive much of their payment from the government. Many feed almost exclusively off Medicare and Medicaid. General practitioners get as little as $8 per visit from Medicaid patients. So most Medicaid patients are enrolled in HMOs or other insurance plans. And the government pays insurance companies much more generously than it does doctors.

Pharmaceutical companies receive tremendous amounts of Corporate Welfare, in the form of government reimbursement for over-priced medications. The price of drugs would be much lower, if patients were footing the bill. However, government payment has eliminated the effect higher prices would have had on reducing demand. The result is that pharmaceutical companies have profiteered because demand reduction from price increases has not occurred. Government payment has helped perpetuate these higher drug prices.


Pharmaceutical companies also receive tremendous protection from competition through patent laws. They initially receive a very generous amount of time for patent exclusivity. During that time, no company is allowed to sell the same drug. Pharmaceutical companies almost ALWAYS receive extensions on these generous exclusivity periods. Many drugs, such as oxandrolone, have received exclusivity for over 30 years. Though the drug can be purchased in China or India for 1/1000 of what it costs in the U.S., it is illegal to purchase it that way and sell it in the United States. As a result, the price of the drug remains astronomical. But it is still "affordable," if one's insurance will pay for it. Many drugs have maintained astronomical prices in the same manner. This certainly is an "onerous regulatory burden." And it certainly does "stifle" innovation. But it just as certainly protects corporate and business interests, at the expense of consumers.

There are many other examples of Corporate protection from "onerous regulatory burdens." And the massive amounts of Corporate Welfare our government provides are legendary. So when right-wingers start regurgitating their "free-market" hypocrisy, it should be noted how much anti-free market activity they actually favor.

The majority of American laws and regulations are designed to protect business, not consumers or workers. Right-wingers often lose sight of this.

[welshTerrier2]

13. the need for a strong central government

think about power ...

we have today a situation where corporations, i.e. collections of individuals who have banded together to achieve a purpose, have become more powerful than the individuals, on their own, would be ...

in a capitalist state, "the society", i.e. a collection of all individuals, can form a government to ensure that the corporate collection of individuals did not do things contrary to society's interests ... so, for example, "the society" (which is represented (or should be) by a government, would prohibit the corporate collectives from spewing poisons into the drinking water, prohibit them from bringing slaves from other countries to work in their factories and prohibit them from shutting off critical products (e.g. food, heating fuel, airline flights) to jack-up prices or otherwise serve their commercial interests ...

so, because corporate collectives, by their very definition, seek to maximize profits with no stated obligation to serve the public interest, government regulation becomes necessary ... but this system, as we clearly see in our own country, fails when the institutions of democracy become corrupted ...

corporate interests seek to find allies inside the government ... lobbyists, coupled with the revolving door between business and government, lead to a situation where the allegiance of government is no longer to the best interests of the people who elected them but rather to commercial interests that finance their campaigns and their post-government careers ...

so, governments, when they fail are indeed an evil ... but what is the alternative? the solution is not to further demean and weaken the one institution that COULD HAVE sufficient power to see that the best interests of the people are served ... doing that leaves no source of power to restrain the greedy motives of the corporate collectives ...

what is needed is to "out" the evils of bad government; not big government ... what is needed is an education campaign to show Americans the corruption of their democracy by the corporate collectives ... what is needed is an awakening that those who serve commercial interests ahead of the interests of the people should be removed from power ...

for these reasons, I favor a strong central government ... what is needed to ensure that a strong central government, the only source of power ultimately able to restrain the evils of those with selfish motives, is a vigilant, educated populace ... the problem we have in our country is not that our government is too powerful; it's that our citizens take their democracy for granted and we have allowed our government to become infested by those who cater only to the super-wealthy and their commercial interests ...

when we awaken and educate our citizens, the power of the central government will serve the best interests of the nation ... that should be our most important mission to bring about the reforms we all seek ...