How many Libertarians are on board here?

[zanne]

I've been curious about this lately, because I've noticed that some of us are liberal or progressive in most of our thinking, but some of us have definite conservative leanings toward a few subjects, such as gun control, feminism, evolution, etc. These are social issues and I'm wondering if this is a Libertarian thing, a DLC thing, a "Moderate" thing or a really conservative thing? What's your take on it? (I know that everyone has a right to their opinion--it's not about that).

[Tesha]

1. Too many? (NT)

[MrBenchley]

67. Amen to that....

The difference between an ordinary right wing loony and a libertarian is that a libertarian owns a modem.

[Greyhound]

85. That's what I love to see, more exclusion from the party of (some of)

the people.

[Tesha]

100. Sorry, but the Libertarians I've met *AIN'T* our supporters.

*ALL* of the Libertarians I've ever met (and I've met a lot of
them!) are just Fiscal Republicans who want to be allowed to
smoke dope (or whatever their favorite personal vice is which
their otherwise-friends the Republicans would suppress).

*NONE* of them would *EVER* consider casting a vote for a
Democrat because we believe that everyone in society owes a
contribution to our society and Libertarians believe they
shouldn't have to do *JACK SHIT* for anyone else.

We waste our time and dilute our message when we try to
stretch our tent big enough to include Libertarians.

Tesha


NOTE: I'm not speaking of "social libertarians", "civil
libertarians", or any other similar type. I'm talking about
"Big-L Libertarians", that is, people who are members of or
supporters of the Libertarian Party, U.S., or any other
similar *POLITICAL* organization.

[Maddy McCall]

102. So we are to open our party to people who would exclude many of the...

very BASE of our party?

Yeah, that would be constructive.

Hey, I'm all for new people joining us----as long as they don't suggest that we bow on abortion, civil rights, women's rights, and other bedrock planks in our party.

[Greyhound]

132. Why do you think the libs would want to exclude anyone?

Their agenda is primarily less government, no nanny state. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

133. They'd sure exclude

anyone who opposes vouchers (as we see below, they're all for 'em).

Think, as a majority of the country does (and almost all Democrats do), that gun control is necessary? Tough luck....you're outta here under the idiotic libertarian scheme...

Environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act? Tough luck if you're for 'em, because libertarians aren't. Their idea is that we have to wait until we get the toxic waste into the drinking water...then we'll be able to head for court (assuming we didn't die)...

[Greyhound]

136. You don't know anything about it. The libs have the same problem the dems

do. No control over their members mouths, so anything anyone says can be taken as the philosophy of the party.
Let me ask you this, does Lieberman speak for the entire Democratic party? Do you?

[MrBenchley]

141. That's so funny....

"No control over their members mouths, so anything anyone says can be taken as the philosophy of the party."
Funny, last time I looked the Democrats had a platform.

But it is clear libertarians pull their "philosophy" out of their ass as needed....

[whatever4]

150. But it is clear libertarians pull their "philosophy" out of their ass as n

Okay, I was going to read this entire thread. Now, I guess I can see the direction it went, I'm only on the fourth reply or so, and it's the second time libertarians have been insulted outright.

I might as well say Democrats are as narrow minded as Republicans, in their own way. But being insulting and divisive isn't the point. And I don't want to play.

Good luck to those willing to give it a try, other libertarians. I just end up ignoring other posters, because most feel as free to be as insulting to us as they are to rabid neocon Republicans, and if they can't tell the difference between us, in this climate, then they never will and what's the point. To me, it feels like listening to conservatives ridicule the ACLU, hearing liberals ridicule free enterprise. As if this admin really had anything to do with free market. And as if anyone that would sign on to this board would want a free market that ran over consumers and competition, as if that IS a free market.

Sigh. Good luck.

[MrBenchley]

151. Yup, libertarians pull their philosophy right out of their asses....

"it's the second time libertarians have been insulted outright."
And deservedly so. Feel free to stomp over to LibertarianUnderground.com and sulk about it.

"I might as well say Democrats are as narrow minded as Republicans"
Jeepers! Why you'd think from that cri de coeur that Republicans weren't happily snuggling up to libertarians and vice versa.

http://www.rlc.org/

http://www.afn.org/~afn04641/opinions.html

http://gopliberty.blogspot.com/


"Matt Drudge, a no nonsense libertarian"

www.enterstageright.com/ archive/articles/0904/0904freep.htm

""I'm a libertarian," John Stossel proudly proclaims. "But I don't often say that except to an audience like this because the term libertarian is confused with 'libertine' or even worse, "liberal.'"
Addressing a lunch meeting of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a libertarian-leaning think-tank, Stossel..."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/savage/cst-fin-terry154.html


"At the libertarian Cato Institute, vice president for legal affairs Roger Pilon said Roe distorted the idea of privacy ..."

www.inboxrobot.com/news/CatoInstitute


Walter Williams -- Libertarian
www.self-gov.org/williams.html
Townhall.com :: Columns :: Ammunition for poverty pimps by Walter Williams
www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ walterwilliams/2005/10/26/172901.html

"if they can't tell the difference between us, in this climate, then they never will"
Especially when there's so damn little difference.


Dynamist.com
Columnist Virginia Postrel operates this libertarian-leaning site.
Samizdata.net
The site's commentators from across the English-speaking world take a libertarian view of news and events.
Reason's Hit & Run
The libertarian-leaning Reason magazine runs this group blog.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/blogs/

"The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy connects like minded Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans."

http://o.webring.com/hub?ring=tvrwc

[whatever4]

155. Thanks for living down to my lowest negative expectations...

Okay then, let's be plain. All this is is insulting, and you aren't worth the time. Added to my ignore list, obviously only using this topic to bash, and likely this isn't the only topic you use. You're likely a paid right-wing shill only on here to stir up arguments.

"Especially when there's so damn little difference. "

?

Difference between me and "them", or difference between you and "them"?

I know who YOU act like, buddy.

Your actions speak volumes.

Don't bother speaking to me again.

[MrBenchley]

157. Always happy to disappoint a "libertarian" whenever I can

"You're likely a paid right-wing shill "
Well, that IS rich. I'm a "right wing shill" for pointing out that right wing loonies like John Stossel and Matt Drudge are dishing up the same right wing horseshit you're trying to dish up..(snicker)

"Don't bother speaking to me again."
Guess that must be more of that swell "freedom loving" that libertarians are known for.

The wonder isn't that libertarianism isn't dishonest..it's that it's so transparently so.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

165. And the downside for me is...nonexistent

"You have been very rude"
Jeepers, you'd almost think that I called someone a "paid right wing shill" or something.

[MrBenchley]

153. Not just OPEN our party; we're supposed to revamp it totally

to suit a handful of mostly right wing hypocrites (whose own party isn't a pimple on the butt of the body politic).

[MrBenchley]

Geeze, libertarians don't want to take part

...in the "social experiment" and want their own little fantasy world...

It's not exclusion when you shout that you don't want to join.

And I don't see any reason to welcome anyone giving me the finger. If you want to be in the game, you better play by the rules.

[DBoon]

135. a libertarian is a republican that smokes pot

nt

[MrBenchley]

144. 50,000 cranky white data entry clerks can't be wrong (snicker)

"Often I think Libertarianism is something suburban dorks do when they don't have enough get-up-and-go to kidnap, murder, and mummify hitchhikers."

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2005_05_29_alicublog_archive.html

[whatever4]

149. Sigh... See?

But it's better than a theocracy.

[MrBenchley]

152. See what?

Like I said elsewhere, why don't you libertarians head over to Somalia...it's got no gun cotnrol, none of those coercive and oppressive big government welfare programs, in fact, no government whatsoever...why, it must be a libertarian paradise on earth!!

[whatever4]

154. Yeah, we're all about the paradise

and heaven forbid we'd actually have a plan to get there.

No, it's all about the suffering, with you types. Sure. I leave you to suffer alone.

[MrBenchley]

158. Hee hee hee hee.....

"heaven forbid we'd actually have a plan to get there"
Feel free to trot it out then. Because so far all we see is tedious right wing horseshit with a new label pasted on it.

[slackmaster]

162. No, no, no; you have it all wrong

Right wing looneys and poor leftists have dialup modems.

Capitalists and the moderate middle-income people who work for them and aren't particularly politically active use the T1 link at work.

Libertarians have cable modem or DSL at home and smoke weed.

:smoke:

[ScreamingMeemie]

170. I beg to differ MrBenchley....MrG tends to hold some libertarian views

and I take umbrage over you portraying him as a "loony"...I'd smack you in the face in person if you said it. He wants very much what you want, a better future for America. Please try not to be so generalized in the future.

[MrBenchley]

178. So do Neil Boortz, John Stossel and Matt Drudge...

"He wants very much what you want, a better future for America."
Then let him be a Democrat.

[ScreamingMeemie]

182. Not for me to say...I don't agree with all your views, nor you with mine.

Because he has libertarian views ( on some things) does not make him Boortz, Stossel, or Drudge. Sorry, it's attitudes like these that make me very angry. I'd take MrG for all his faults any day, just as he is, over anyone else.

[MrBenchley]

184. Don't ever change for me...

"Sorry, it's attitudes like these that make me very angry."
Funny, hearing that we got to revamp the Democratic party and throw out supporters to attract a handful of folks whose own party don't amount to jack shit makes ME angry.

Guess that's what makes a horserace.

[ScreamingMeemie]

187. Having to accept "my way or the highway" attitudes is also what

makes me angry. I get less and less enjoyment out of calling myself a Dem (not that there is any other worthwhile choice)when these types of generalizations are embraced by the party.

[MrBenchley]

189. Funny, I'm getting a lot of enjoyment out of being a Democrat

sounds like its the libertarians who aren't having any fun these days....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Libertarians tend NOT to be conservative re feminism and evolution.

[Maddy McCall]

101. Exactly! I was wondering where that came from in the OP?

[MrBenchley]

131. So libertarians don't believe in big government

EXCEPT when it comes to the teaching of actual science classes in the public schools? (Funny, I could have sworn they were against public schools)...

In fact, the Libertarians are plugging that imbecilc voucher idea...

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_29.shtml

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

183. Hahahahaha....

"it's obvious that you don't even have a fundamental understanding of what libertarianism is."
Actually what's blindingly obvious is that libertarianism is nothing but mindless sophistry in the service of whatever impulse comes to mind at the moment.

"Left-wing libertarians are some of the most brilliant people that I know"
High praise indeed (snicker)...

"You just need to GIVE IT UP"
Not a chance, binky.

"Left-wing libertarianism is very organic"
Yeah, and earlier it was holistic...what's next? Tubular? Bitchin'?


"a person can have all liberal and progressive values, and STILL have an alternative system for expressing them other than bureaucracy, authoritarianism and statism."
It shows (snicker). Hence this rubbish.

And for all this highblown huffing and puffing, we still yet to hear what "alternative" to public school systems teaching actual science in their science classes you got...much less why we should pay attention to whatever it is.

[MojoXN]

3. I'm a Libertarian.

Registered and card-carrying. If the Democratic Party would come to its senses on gun control and the drug war, among other things, I'd probably switch my affiliation. I'm MUCH more tolerant of higher taxation than are most Libertarians, but then again, I recognize the value of social welfare programs and other "extras" that increased taxes provide for.

MojoXN

[zanne]

17. What are the "other things"?

I'm trying to get a handle on this, because I really don't understand Libertarians, and I'd like to.

[Greyhound]

134. OS libs just want to be free individuals, forming a community of

individuals that work together from mutual benefit as opposed to the current, traditional, coercive system. What government is required should be locally manageable and, therefore, more responsive.
Like Mojo said, if the dems would just give up the idea of restricting firearms and what you are allowed to put into your body, they're a natural fit.
The point, I think, is once you let government decide and enforce what is best for you, you start down the path to the police/nanny/fascist state.
:kick:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Assume Most Liberterians Are

pro guns


pro women's rights


pro evolution.....



pro self autonomy....


sometimes i find myself moving in that direction but i am restrainted by the facts that in a total laissez faire society there will be too many folks left behind and too many people incapable of handling too much freedom....

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. too many people incapable of handling too much freedom

And therein is the problem with the major political parties. Just who is it that get to decides how much freedom any one individual can handle?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Don't Know...

I just don't want to pay for it...



That's the grand bargain liberterians make...


You can do whatever you want but don't expect me to pay for it through my tax dollars....


You know Elton John in his lost years stayed in swank hotels , did coke, and masturbated to porn...


God bless him... He was rich enough to afford to....


If some poor schmuck chooses that lifestyle for himself don't expect me to subsidize it with my tax dollars because I might like to do it too but with a partner and without the cocaine...

[Freedom_from_Chains]

9. Agreed, you want to play, you got to be able to pay. n/t

[freeplessinseattle]

13. whoa, what social program involves that?

seems that most libitarians don't like to pay taxes for anything, or maybe not-maybe it'd be easier to note what exactly you don't mind paying into society for?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. In A Totally Libertarian Society

In a totally libertarian society if a person wanted to destroy himself through drugs, sloth, gluttony , etcetera he could go ahead and do it and just die.... That's his right...The government has no obligation to help him and not with my money...

[freeplessinseattle]

18. so are you saying-no welfare?

be a little more specific. are you stereotyping about welfare recipients, or universal health care coverage, or both, or what?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I Am Stating The Libertarian Case And Why I Can't Be A Libertarian

Libertarians believe we are totally autonomous individual without any legal obligations to one another but to leave one another alone....


If you want to to be a stripper that lives with her boyfriend who runs a crystal meth factory out of his mom's basement than that's your right....


But if that crystal meth factory blows up to kingdom come and you , your boyfriend, and his mom are in the hospital with third degree burns don't expect me (again I'm a libertarian" to pay for your care with my tax dollars...


As a liberal who believes in freedom but also in limits I'm going to want to see your ass busted for running the crystal meth factory in the first place...

[Bloodblister Bob]

48. Simply inaccurate...

Running a meth lab in a basement clearly presents a danger to the lives and property of others. Libertarians are opposed to that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. The Liberterian Dilemma

What if I want to smoke crystal meth all day and let my children starve?

[Bloodblister Bob]

61. Libertarians wouldn't let children starve. Shame on you. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. They Believe Charity Should Be Private...

What if there are no charities that want to take the children in?


Or what happens if private charities are overwhelmed because the welfare state has been eliminated?

[Bloodblister Bob]

65. What if? What if? Oh, my God...what IF?

Does true charity begin in the heart and soul of a caring individual, or does it begin in the mind of a distant bureaucrat, who stands to profit from it himself?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. Nice Duck

eom

[sweetheart]

92. The legacy of the weakness in constitutional law

This thinking that a congress and a law is a solution is a false
conundrum and people should ween themselves from it lest we become
even more infantile.

Making laws is, like war, a last resort. And rather then we trust the
citizen, in the absence of laws, to take good decisions. People are
so afraid of their own dark sides, they don't believe that they could
live without being ordered around by prison guards.

It is disturbing this convenient slipping in to the mindset of the
prison state, eroding the sovereign citizen more and more until they
are a tiny island in a sea of bureaucratic waste. And every spring,
my libertarian heart is filled with joy at the miracle of daffodils.

They don't ask permission, they don't have permits; the little yellow
buggers come up in bouquets all around the garden entirely without
legal precedent. And it seems all of life is that way, entirely wiser
than human law. So why can't we trust judges to maintain a body of law
on precedents in human behaviour, that each case is unique to a
context, and mandatory sentencing, criminalization, and a burdensome
imperial police state is the antithesis of the freedom expounded in
the declaration of indepdendence and the bill of rights... like a
machiavellian twist that libertarian thinking is misunderstood by
the fearful sheeple.

bummer that.

Welcome to DU. Good to read your work, sir.

[porphyrian]

120. That's more or less the part of libertarianism I'm for.

I'm against the Libertarian party's belief in privatization, which I know from first hand experience in Florida, is less efficient, more expensive and always leaves the citizenry worse off.

[sweetheart]

88. oooh libertarians!! booga booga

And remove custody of the children to foster care. Child abuse, spousal
abuse and all that stuff won't end with libertarian'ism.

The point though, is that to be a libertarian is not to have "no laws"
but rahter to trust the guidance of your conscience over a rule book;
as inevitably a rule book is not context sensitive.

It is natural law, a genetic code of nature to take care of children.
My dog had puppies and did not need any state laws or education to
nurse them, wean them, teach them how to hunt mice... Our society has
to trust that people can learn to exercise common sense, as law is
only as good as the foundation of common sense on which it is set.

And it is indeed the choice of the mother to methylate herself, and
it is her choice to stop. It is nobody elses choice. What have we
today? Throw the mother in prison, take away the kids to foster
prisons and destroy all of them in to the concentration camp system.
Now THAT is certainly no solution... talking about false conundrums
given how the status quo treats your scenario..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. My Scenario Was Pretty Clear Cut...

I'll make it easier and remove all moral judgements...


A family of four have a car accident...They have no insurance... All four have life threatening injuries..There are no charitable hospitals in the area...


Under our system of government there are laws to protect the weak and vulnerable... In this instance any hospital with an emergency room is not allowed to turn a person away if they don't have insurance or money to pay...



What should be done with them?


A liberterian would say they have no insurance and should suffer the consequences....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. I See you Didn't Answer My Question Either..

Take out the moral judgements...


In the welfare state the government pays families to take in foster children...


Under liberterianism this function would be turned over to charities...


What if there were no charities or the charities were overwhelmed...


Submitting to the rule of law is the price we pay to live in a civilized society...

[sweetheart]

96. How has it been done for a gazillion years

Every single society on earth has unwanted children, and they are
redistributed to people who want children. Its not rocket science.
Before all the paperwork and bullshit, adoption was like: "Little
nancy, this is aunt Georgina, you're gonna be staying with her for
a while." Kids are like puppies. They find a home. In a society
where children were taught to be libertarians actually, the kids would
probably up and leave the mum by their free choice to be parented by
whomever "they" chose. I presume a libertarian society would allow
that choice from birth, a sovereign right, the right to choose even
your parents and your living arrangements.

So i think the entire state of mind you're using is framing libertarian
as a buerocratic problem. There are ways to implement a fair and just
lightweight state that is 1/10th to 1/100th smaller than the burdensome
machine today. And for all that unwasted pork, the people able to
invest in their own ingenuity for once, and not a military empire by
force of mandatory coercion of its citizen slaves.

Here in britain, if i drop dead, the royal society for the protection
of animals will take my dogs and find them good homes. Surely where
you are, there are people who would volunteer and perhaps be paid to
help match an unwanted child to a home. Individual ingenuity
will fill the vacuum you presume.. 1000 times more flexible and
ingenious than a legislated maxim.

[freeplessinseattle]

19. so are you saying-no welfare?

be a little more specific. are you stereotyping about welfare recipients, or universal health care coverage, or both, or what?

[Bloodblister Bob]

26. Too many folks "left behind" in a libertarian society?

Concern for the indigent is often raised in questioning the libertarian approach to government.

"What about the poor and needy? What would become of them in your laissez-faire libertarian world?"

The simple reply is: "If you want to help them, no one will stop you."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Exactly

The simple reply is: "If you want to help them, no one will stop you."


Under liberterianism charity would replace the welfare state...



Good luck...

[Viking12]

86. Indeed, that approach worked so well during the Gilded Age..

:sarcasm:

[eallen]

6. I lean libertarian, but can't get into the market fundamentalism...

Many libertarians hold a market fundamentalism that I think is purely ideological, no more rational than any other kind of fundamentalism, whether Marxist or Christian or whatnot. The logical endpoint of that fundamentalism is anarchocapitalism. Historically, empirically, I think it is quite clear that capitalism developed under legal environments that favored it. The State didn't ruin capitalism, but fostered it. That is a good thing in one respect, since historically capitalism is responsible for the wealth of the modern world.

That doesn't mean I believe in big government.

That doesn't mean I worship capitalism. Respect might be a better word.

That doesn't mean I oppose reasonable regulations or social programs.

It likely means I can't fit my political philosophy on a postcard.

But still, there is a definite libertarian lean.

[bryant69]

10. What's interseting

I would go along with that, but would not describe myself as a Libertarian. The core of Libertarianism is to me an extreme version of individualism; everybody should take care of themselves, the government should not interfere in individuals lifes at all, and so on and so forth.

The thing is, I think individualism, by itself, does not lead to a strong stable society. We are all individuals, but we are all connected in a society. To deny that what I do or don't do has no effect on others is, in my mind, wrongheaded.

I favor a balance between respecting the rights of the individual while realizing the inter-connectedness of us all.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Exactly

" I favor a balance between respecting the rights of the individual while realizing the inter-connectedness of us all. "



The maximum amount of freedom consistent with order...

[eallen]

14. I am an ardent civil libertarian.

Personal liberty, at the individual level, is my strongest political value.

[Cats Against Frist]

77. The core of libertarianism is that no one has the right to apply "force"

to another individual. The right wing has fucked up libertarianism by co-opting some of the values into their paleoconservative, patriarchal, stateless fascist ideologies. There's nothing in libertarianism that says you cannot care about or help people. It just means that no one should be forced to.

Society is "subjective." The psychological space of "soceity" is subjective. Borders and organizing principals are subjective. The best gaugue of community is "shared values" or cultural homogenization -- it seems to work for liberals just fine, when describing Africa or the Middle East -- but they wig out, when you attempt to apply the idea of a "nation," in the U.S. The worst thing that can happen is to have 300 million people tapped into one bureaucratic consciousness. I'm horrified by the thought.

[MrBenchley]

113. Says somebody demanding guns below

Because certainly nobody who has a gun would ever use "force", or anything....(snicker)

"The right wing has fucked up libertarianism"
Far as I can see, libertarianism was fucked up to start with.

"There's nothing in libertarianism that says you cannot care about or help people. It just means that no one should be forced to."
Geeze, by that measure Scrooge was a big government liberal...

" At the ominous word "liberality," Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time.  Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?"  demanded Scrooge.  "Are they still in operation?"

"They are.  Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?"  said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh!  I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge.  "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth.  We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices.  What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge.  "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer.  I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry.  I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

[Cats Against Frist]

117. There are extraordinary compelling and holistic reasons, sir,

for being anti-welfare state. You have repeatedly, and wrongly, accused libertarians of being "all-me" and coldhearted, when, in fact, this is not the case. The fact is, in libertarianism, the balance is always tipped toward "freedom," more than anything else -- more than anyone's bad decisions, more than anyone's apathy, more than unscrupulous owners of capital, more than consumerism, more than anyone's transgressions, more than anyone's laziness, more than anyone's waste. That's all there is to it, really. The preservation of freedom over that arbitrary value sets of left- and right-wing authoritarianism.

Example: For every argument that one can make for the legitimization of state-backed gay marriage, there is an argument against it -- and though the anti-gay-marriage lobby often picks the most sentimental and hysterical ones, there are good, semi-rational arguments to be made. The libertarian asks: why does the state have a say in who can get married or not?

Example: to get welfare to a recipient, you first have to establish a department of welfare that takes billions of dollars to run. Second, you must siphon money from those who may not necessarily be rich, themselves, who are already getting screwed over by corporations. Third, you have to take money from the rich, who, when pressed far enough can simply BUY your department of welfare, and run it how they please -- and raid its trust to pay for the military industrial complex. Could this be better solved through charity and community intervention? Could this be solved by a restructuring of filial arrangements that run counter to conservative social institutions? Could this be solved by solidarity, and responsible consumers?

Example: "insurance" of all sorts, is a total fucking racket -- particularly health insurance, which boosts premiums ever-higher, while reaping massive profits. What would these people do if people formed their own health-care cooperatives? It's been done through the Christian Brotherhood Newsletter, which was working fine, until the leader started pilfering cash for his lavish digs. I've actually asked this question, on here and someone suggested that it wouldn't be prudent to advocate such, because that (o god save us) might be an "alternative" to a wasteful, bureaucratic national healthcare system. WTF? The government, that the left helped build, which is owned by corporations, would simply funnel tax dollars to corporations, for their over-priced services. Read: Medicare Prescription Drug Giveaway.

There are alternatives to everything that big government can do, and they can be done locally, holistically and efficiently by those citizens who are willing to get off their asses and help out, instead of immersing themselves in NFL football and reality television, and the latest gadget. That's what we're protecting, with big government -- the consumer-go round and the right to RANK APATHY -- brought to you by the corporations who want you to pay too much for the products they make off your back, and don't pay you enough to make.

You're damn right Scrooge was a big-government devotee -- and so are all the capitalists -- big enough to shut down the free market, write legislation to favor those who are already wealthy, and funnel money into crony pockets. You knock libertarianism, but here's where your fucking big-government experiment led.

[MrBenchley]

123. Tee hee hee.....

"The fact is, in libertarianism, the balance is always tipped toward "freedom," more than anything else "
Yeah, Ken Lay loved that kind of freedom. Getting deregulated let the son of a bitch pull off the biggest swindle in recorded history. There's a triumph for libertarianism.

"The libertarian asks: why does the state have a say in who can get married or not? "
Because some people want to have their rights protected in case the marriage breaks up, silly. How else do you decide who gets the house without a state and laws and all that?

"Could this be better solved through charity and community intervention?"
Hey, how about faith based institutions? That would leave more government money for Halliburton. The wonder isn't that this libertarian crap is right wing horseshit, the wonder is that it's so transparently so.

"Could this be solved by solidarity, and responsible consumers?"
Rotsa ruck with that solidarity, chum.

""insurance" of all sorts, is a total fucking racket"
Don't buy any then. The only mandatory kind is auto insurance., and that's so you can compensate ME when you run that red light (of the sort we authoritarians insist on) and damage MY fender.

"It's been done through the Christian Brotherhood Newsletter, which was working fine, until the leader started pilfering cash for his lavish digs."(emphasis mine)
Hee hee hee. Tell me, did you libertarians press charges? (The answer to this is going to be hilarious either way.)

"There are alternatives to everything that big government can do"
Ronald Reagan couldn't have said it better. Of course, he was a feeble-minded right wing shithead.

"those citizens who are willing to get off their asses and help out, instead of immersing themselves in NFL football and reality television"
Guess that must be more of that solidarity building...

"You're damn right Scrooge was a big-government devotee"
And libertarians are even stingier and meaner than Scrooge is. Ought to make you stop and think, but I'm far too old and cynical to even pretend it will.

[Cats Against Frist]

129. You absolutely refuse to hear anything that I'm saying

Deregulation is one thing. What Ken Lay did was illegal. Just like the "Brotherhood Newsletter" guy. When people DEFRAUD others of their money, that is considered a crime. In a libertarian society, people have RECOURSE through the courts for things that rob them of their LIFE, LIBERTY or PROPERTY. Particularly in minarchist libertarianism, to which I subscribe.

I guess I just don't throw up my hands, in the face of 280 million boring, apathetic people, and say, "yeah, they're losers, so I think that I'll invest my money and my trust into a system that will violate my basic rights, waste my hard-earned dollars and kill innocent people in my name. You're right -- let's all go back to sleep and let the government handle it. OH, wait, we already did that and the corpo-fascists bought it.

You're making a GIANT strawman out of me, attempting to make me into something that I'm not, so you can re-affirm you own biases, and play oh-so-cute with phraseology. I'm a small-scale collectivist, a liberal, a constitutionalist and a de-centralizationist. None of those things make me "right-wing" in overall philosophy. I've given you several examples of issues on which the right and left either agree, or have switched positions -- which you called "horseshit." I'm not trying to make you believe in libertarianism, I'm simply trying to explain to you that your pre-conceived notions are absolutely false, and that the caricature that you have of libertarians is a VERY narrow one. Of course, you never respond to those points -- only the ones where you can get cheap shots in.

Do you even understand what I'm saying?

[MrBenchley]

130. I hear it...I just don't mindlessly accept it...

So tell us, did the Libertarians press charges against that guy who swindled them?

By the way, worth noting that Ken Lay wouldn't have been able to pull off his swindle if corporate regulations havdn't been erased by the GOP. But it is nice to know that the libertarian solution is to try and sue the son of a bitch afterwards now that the money is safely stashed in the Cayman Islands. Because lawsuits will certainly deter future swindlers.

"I guess I just don't throw up my hands, in the face of 280 million boring, apathetic people, and say, "yeah, they're losers,"
Guess that must be some more of that "libertarian solidarity building" I heard so much about from somewhere.

"I think that I'll invest my money and my trust into a system that will violate my basic rights, waste my hard-earned dollars and kill innocent people in my name."
Don't let me keep you. Feel free to take a hike. I suggest Somalia...they got no gun control, no social safety laws, and almost none of those laws you find oppressive. In fac,t last time I looked it actually didn't have a government...why, it must be a libertarian paradise (snicker).

"Do you even understand what I'm saying?"
Yeah, you're saying that you want to peddle right wing horseshit and get away with it because you put a new label on it, and the rest of us aren't supposed to notice.

[MrBenchley]

156. By the way, for curious non-libertarian readers...

Here's that health care plan that "was working fine", according to our libertarian chum here...

"All three of the largest plans -- Medi-Share, Samaritan and the Christian Brotherhood Newsletter, headquartered in Barberton, Ohio -- impose strict limits on treatment, restrictions that would be illegal under regulations that apply to conventional insurance.
Tobacco use, immoderate drinking, homosexuality and extramarital sex are strictly forbidden, and anyone caught violating these proscriptions can be expelled. The plans don't pay for abortion,or treatment of sexually transmitted diseases or HIV that was not, as Samaritan puts it, "contracted innocently." While each plan's rules differ, most exclude coverage of preexisting conditions, as well as treatment related to cancer recurrence, serious heart disease, obesity, psychiatric disorders or vision problems.
...Christian Brotherhood Newsletter did run afoul of Ohio authorities after complaints about unpaid claims; it is operating under a court-ordered receivership imposed in 2000. Last year a jury in Akron ruled that its founder, Rev. Bruce Hawthorn, and other former officials defrauded the ministry and ordered them to repay nearly $15 million they spent on luxury houses, motorcycles, expensive cars and high salaries, including one for a stripper whom Hawthorn said in an interview he was "trying to help.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102200046_pf.html

Jinkies, that sure is holistic, the way they refrained from meddling in people's freedom and all...

"Was an Ohio-based nationwide "biblical medical plan" used as a slush fund to enrich the founder and his family members? Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery says that's what happened to "hundreds of thousands of dollars" belonging to the Christian Brotherhood Newsletter, and she filed suit in December to get the money back.
Charging numerous instances of fraud and conversion of ministry funds and property to private use, the lawsuit demands return of property and cash valued at more than $2.4 million, and alleges that Hawthorn took larger sums without leaving a paper trail. Montgomery demands $16.3 million in punitive damages, all to go back to Christian Brotherhood, under new leadership.
Bruce Hawthorn, 59, founded Christian Brotherhood Newsletter in 1982 after successfully appealing to fellow Christians to help with his medical bills following a near-fatal car crash.
...Along the way, however, Hawthorn allegedly raided approximately $728,200 from Christian Brotherhood's accounts for cars, a motor home, real estate, an airplane, and cash to benefit himself and family members. The lawsuit also asserts that, beginning in 1996, "defendant Hawthorn engaged in a relationship with Tabitha Ball, then a 21-year-old employee of an exotic dance club." Ball, briefly on the ministry payroll, was also provided free rent, a car, and credit-card payments totaling over $41,000 during the next two years.
The suit contends that this and other such unauthorized spending hampered Christian Brotherhood's ability to keep up with subscribers' medical bills. Recent delays in payment ranged up to 18 months, and as much as $34 million in unpaid needs accumulated."

http://www.ctlibrary.com/6544

Sure worked like a charm for Hawthorn, didn't it? Wonder how it worked out for the other suckers?

"Two supporters of a newsletter that urged subscribers to drop their health insurance and donate money to pay each other's medical bills now are accusing the group's administrators of skimming money to pay for extravagant homes and airplanes while millions of dollars in subscriber bills go unpaid.
The monthly “Christian Brotherhood Newsletter,” at its peak, had 80,000 subscribers donating $50 million a year to cover the health costs of the group. They paid a set monthly fee to the newsletter to cover each other's medical bills; one payment a year went to Christian Brothers to run the program.
Several states said the newsletter was an illegal insurance program and tried to ban it — a handful, including Wisconsin, Delaware, Washington and Maryland succeeded.
But now friends and supporters of newsletter founder, the Rev. Bruce Hawthorn, are speaking out against him and subscribers are being harassed by collection agencies because $8 million in claims haven't been paid, the Akron Beacon Journal reported Sunday.
Half the newsletter's subscribers have dropped out and the IRS has started an investigation that already has resulted in the organization agreeing to pay more than $180,000 in back taxes.
Attorney General Betty Montgomery filed a lawsuit against the Rev. Hawthorn Dec. 11. Allegations range from financial fraud to having an exotic dancer on the payroll. "

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/02/05/loc_newsletter_accused.html

Yeah, but even as the participants dodge those dunning calls from the collection agencies and sweat out the IRS liens, they can take heart in knowing they helped advance the noble libertarian cause (snicker)...

[Cats Against Frist]

175. Again, irrelevant

It's the system I'm in favor of. I'm not a biblical fundamentalist, neither do I support corrupt heads of organizations. You can have the same system WITHOUT posing the same restrictions. How come you can't understand something, so simple? All it is is a not-for-profit, insurance co-op. The specifics, for the Christian experiments do not have to apply to every incarnation of this system.

[MrBenchley]

179. That IS just hilarious....

"It's the system I'm in favor of."
Jeeze, you must think three-card monte is a nifty investment if you didn't see that was a swindle from the git-go.

"You can have the same system WITHOUT posing the same restrictions."
So what's stopping you? After all, you're so devoted to solidarity, and all. Go get 'em, tiger.

"All it is is a not-for-profit, insurance co-op."
Says the guy who was pissing and moaning about what swindle insurance is...

So feel free to peddle insurance, chief.

[Cats Against Frist]

181. Do you even know what a cooperative is?

It means that the services are provided to the owners or member-sharers of the cooperative. Some co-ops are for-profit, and the members get paid dividends, and some are not. Some offer services, for a larger fee, to those outside the co-op. Co-ops are used for utilities, food-sharing, housing and many other programs in the U.S. You don't mean to tell me that you have a problem with co-ops, which are some of the most leftist, anti-big-business, independent ways of providing services? Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're REALLY saying?

[MrBenchley]

186. No shit, sherlock....

So what's keeping you from starting one?

[Cats Against Frist]

191. Are you asking what's keeping ME, or are you really asking

what the hurdles there are to starting one? I have any number of projects that I'm conceptualizing, and trying to iron out -- but how does this contribute to your overall argument? What points are you trying to score? Elucidate, please.

[MrBenchley]

169. "why does the state have a say in who can get married or not?"

So what happens when two libertarians who are married to each other want a divorce? Do they whip out their guns and shoot it out over the house and car and savings?

Do the libertarian children whip out their guns and plug the parent they don't want to live with?

[Cats Against Frist]

176. Depends on what kind of libertarian you are

Some libertarians do not believe in using the rule of law to enforce contractual agreements -- suggesting that the right to bow out, though scummy, is also a right.

I'm a minarchist, and I believe in civil unions, granted by states -- for everyone who wishes to incorporate. Why are you making all of this so difficult?

[MrBenchley]

180. Jeeze, you were the one demanding to know

why the state should have any say in marriage...

"I believe in civil unions, granted by states -- for everyone who wishes to incorporate."
Thank heaven for small favors (snicker)...

"Why are you making all of this so difficult?"
It's not my fault that your silliness is so silly.

[ProfessorGAC]

91. We Are Social Animals

The liberterian philosophy, far too often, takes to the extreme the "party of one" perspective. It is anthema to the human condition to be solely motivated by self-interest to the complete exclusion to all social constructs.

I suggest that most of these folks wouldn't actually like what they wish for, if they actually got it.
The Professor

[Loonman]

7. Libertarian leaning

Mostly because I agree with some of the planks, and Democrats can't seem to do anything right, lately.

[Liberal Dose]

11. Every time I take one of those stupid online political affiliation quizzes

I always get told I'm a Libertarian. I absolutely do not agree. I am and always have been a Liberal. Flaming bleeding heart Kennedy loving, even. Maybe I get classified Libertarian because I'm pro gun. Totally against assault weapons, but definitely pro gun. :shrug:

[William769]

28. I am also pro gun

on the online political affiliation quizzes I always score as a centrist.

[Liberal Dose]

30. Hmm, then maybe it's because I think that all drugs should be made legal

and taxed to the hilt. :shrug: I'm going to have to take another test and analyze it.

[William769]

34. Well thats where we differ

I always put to keep them illegal.

[Liberal Dose]

38. When prohibition ended, so did the bootleg related violence. I firmly

believe the same would happen with drugs. Tax them and control them just like cigarettes and alcohol (both of which are also drugs, but that's a whole other discussion).

[Kipling]

173. That's because alcohol was already in the mainstream.

As it stands, the average person is not a drug user. Keeping them illegal (the really destructive ones) keeps it this way. If we legalise drugs, they would become ever more popular, as they did in the 19th century, completely destroying the economy and any type of civil society.
Furthermore, if we legalise them, crime will soar because, unlike alcohol, drugs are addictive. Crimes are connected to drugs that people just wouldn't commit for a beer. Organised crime wouldn't fall - it would go legal.
I dread a day when heroin is legalised. Expect to see multinational corporations ploughing billions trying to develop ever more addictive formulas. Expect to see product placement, advertising, etc trying to get ever greater numbers hooked. And don't for a minute think that any type of stigma will remain attatched to addiction, not with the multinational money behind ad campaigns. Not only will crime, particularly violent crime and theft, rise, but life expectancy will also plummet. An ever-increasing number of people will crawl along in the half-life of drug addiction. One possibility is a two-tier society, where the addicted who make up most of the population will be ruled by a clean elite who can use them as slaves, knowing they'll do absolutely anything for a quick fix.

[Liberal Dose]

31. Just noticed that you're in Florida.

:hi: neighbor

[William769]

35. ...

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Socialist Libertarian - aka Anarchist

Power wielded by the government or the capitalists is still power over the people.

American "libertarianism" has more to do with Ayn Rand and Donald Trump than with the classic libertarianism of Kropotkin, Goldman, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Zapata, and the others who opposed the bosses.

[zanne]

20. With some Libertarians, it seems to be mostly about money.

I mean their money. They don't want to pay taxes, or not alot of taxes and they reject some social programs, not because they're morally opposed, but because they're thinking about their own wallets. Am I wrong?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. I think of "libertarians" of the right the same as I view sociopaths.

As long as I got mine to hell with everyone else.

[Loonman]

27. Better a libertarian

Than a bleedin' commie.

[Bloodblister Bob]

29. Incorrect view of libertarianism...

Libertarian political philosophy is simply concerned with limiting the coercive power of the State in favor of individual rights. The problem of greed you are rightly concerned about transcends political parties. Greed and unconcern for one's fellow man is a human failing, but the "right" (which libertarians are really not a part of) doesn't have a monopoly on it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Just pointing out the difference between left/right libertarians.

The "Libertarian Party" isn't "libertarian" in it's devotion to capitalism. Liking one master better than another master isn't "libertarian", it's just switching bosses.

[Loonman]

40. Send me all your money, then

If you hate capitalism, you don't need it. Cash please, tens and twenties.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. You sound just like a capitalist. Let somebody else to the work.

While you grab the proceeds.

[Loonman]

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

I am a capitalist. I work for a living, pay my bills, pay my rent and purchase goods and services to support other folks who get a paycheck, just like me. I also pay taxes to support the common good.

Ahhh..callow youth.....enjoy it while you're young, then you can join the real world. Move to Cuba with your Marxist pals if free market capitalism is not for you.

[Selatius]

79. Are you sure you are a capitalist?

To be a capitalist is to be in a state of ownership over the means of production and/or essential resources people need to survive. Do you own the railroads? Do you own the mineral wealth of this country or any country? Do you own significant segments of the telecommunications infrastructure in this country? Do you have large holdings in major corporations in this country or any country?

No? Then you are not a capitalist in any meaningful sense. If your primary source of income comes from payroll income, I would submit you are nowhere near those who derive the majority of their wealth through dividends, interest, and stock options, and if they have their way, they will keep more and more of that, while you pay more and more of the tax burden.

In this society, you either own, or you are owned.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. If you're a capitalist, then why are you working?

As a capitalist, you must own the means of production. Why don't you hire some proles to do the work like a real capitalist? As an owner of the means of production, you must be getting generous tax breaks from the politicians you help finance, so your tax burden shouldn't be too high, if any. And, if you "pay your taxes to support the common good", your capitalist pals in Halliburton, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Exxon, and the other war profiteers appreciate your support.

Ahhh..callow youth..enjoy your delusions while you're young, then you can grow up to be old, tired, and watch your capitalist pals cut your health insurance and send your kids off to war so they can make a buck.

[Bloodblister Bob]

45. I understand why you dislike "capitalism" today...

What we have in the US today isn't pure capitalism; it is a corrupt corporate oligarchy. Libertarians don't like that, either.

[Cats Against Frist]

78. devotion to capitalism v. pro free-market

I think there's a subtle distinction that people miss. I'm a pro free-marketer, but I'm not "devoted" to capitalism, in the sense that I worship the market. I do, however, believe that the freedom to buy and sell is cental in ALL kinds of libertarianism, but like anarcho-syndicalists, I would much prefer that more corporations be worker-owned, AND that there were strong unions with SOLIDARITY as their motivating factor, and that the third check was a responsible consumer.

[Solon]

97. I don't see how a free market is possible in the world today...

we never had a free market, we never will either, its about as practical as pure communism or socialism. Whenever we try a totally free market, two things happen, usually in the order I'm about to state. First, the market's major forces start to take over government functions or legislation, leading to laws favoring them over competitors, hence monopolies, and then second, they overstep their bounds in atrocious ways that government is forced to act against them because of popular pressure.

[zanne]

42. If I wanted to read about Libertarianism...

Would I have to read a hundred different books? You guys are all over the place.

[zanne]

43. If I wanted to read about Libertarianism...

Would I have to read a hundred different books? You guys are all over the place.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. You are clueless about Libertarians.

You would be very foolish to confuse Libertarians with Fascists or Authoritarians.

Libertarians are extremely progressive about civil rights. There is a broad strain of enlightened cooperation among many libertarians. It is just that: cooperation, not forced coercion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. I Agree...

I don't think all liberterians are purposefully heartless but that would be the effect of their policies...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Sounds like you and I agree about libertarianism.

See my post #15.

[Bloodblister Bob]

41. Libertarians are morally opposed to having their pockets picked...

...for things like the Bush wars, corporate welfare, pork-laden bullshit programs.

Yes, there are things that those on the left and libertarians will always disagree about, but there is vastly more common ground between the two than there are differences.

These days, we all need all the help we can get.

[Darranar]

90. No. There is a basic irreconciliable difference.

Right-wing libertarians consider the exploitation and subjugation of human beings by authoritarian but non-governmental institutions to be a perfectly legitimate expression of economic "freedom."

Leftists do not.

[Cats Against Frist]

110. Well said.

At first, I was about to jump your shit, until I realized -- what I hope you're saying -- is that left-wing libertarians don't believe that "exploitation and subjugation of human beings by authoritarian but non-governmental institutions to be a perfectly legitimate expression of economic "freedom."

The fact is, that left-wing libertarians don't believe that -- the difference, though, between the libertarians and the authoritarian left is that the authoritarian left wants to build a huge apparatus, aendow it with near-unlimited powers and use the force of the apparatus to "make" the NGOs straighten up their acts. The problem with this, as we see, is that the infrastructure, the bureaucracy can be usurped or bought by the very corporations that it was developed to check.

The libertarian, on the other hand, would see that a far better solution would be to be a responsible consumer and a discriminating laborer -- a large corporation cannot make money, if people don't buy their stuff, and they can't make products if there is a strong union, deriving its legitimacy from solidarity, that will refuse to work for them. The libertarian believes its much more effective to save oneself, than to devote one's life to saving 280 million people, who don't give a fuck, while creating a all-powerful big brother.

That is the difference.

[jody]

21. Right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a civil right. Our Dem

2004 platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

Those who would ban handguns or all guns do not support the Democratic Party position.

[MrBenchley]

68. Only in John AshKKKroft's wet dream....

"2004 platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms"
Hey, nobody's disputing that we have a collective right to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia...as the courts have ruled again and again and again...

[William769]

24. Here is their website decide for yourself.

http://www.lp.org/

[zanne]

52. But how many websites are there?

And how many different websites have their own philosophies?

[William769]

59. As this is the Officially the Democratic website.

http://www.democrats.org/

I can only assume that, thats their official website. :shrug:

[savemefromdumbya]

128. Democratic socialist

the European type

[Nordmadr]

25. I'm not a libertarian, I am actually regsitered with the

Green Party. I am very liberal in most things socially and believe the government needs far better management of how tax dollars are utilized. The government seems far less concerned with the general public and especially the middle class and the poor. The rich don't need anymore help.

I support allowing citizens having guns for both personal protection and for supply of food, though I do believe that certain limitations and restrictions should apply to that.

I think that the "drug war" is a huge scam...and that some drugs that are currently illegal should be legalized, especially with how this relates to marijuana and hemp cultivation in general.

I believe the country has gotten away from having anything remotely resembling true communities where people interact regularly and are at least partially reliant upon each other. We have become too corporate and too commercial in my opinion and we need an approach that will get us back to the basics. How many people really know how to do anything for themseleves anymore? I think fewer and fewer all the time. Provide your own food, make your own clothing...those sorts of things. The natural disasters highlight that. We are dependent upon the system and the system is sick. I don't know how to make all that happen, but I think it needs to start with the education system.

Women should be equal and have equal opportunities. Abortion should be legal up to a point, my personal belief is that if the fetus would be able to survive out of the body...then it should not be able to be aborted. Abortion options have helped women obtain more equality in my opinion. Not that women need me to tell them that. Having an abortion is a very tough and personal decision that should be made by the woman. They are the ones that must live with their decision.

Evolution should be taught unless someone has got anything scientific that is better. Scientific.

Religion does not belong anywhere in the classroom except in a philosophical and histroric analysis...unless everyone is permitted to participate or not participate based on their own choosing. There are far too many beliefs to set one religion up on a pedestal. Spirtitaulity is another matter, and I draw a very clear distinction between the two ( I consider myself spirtitual, but not religous, and lean towards more of a Buddhist/Pagan combo approach).

That's my two cents for now.

On edit: I know this wasn't the original question but wantd to offer my opinion since I am not actually a member of the democratic party.

Olaf

[seabeyond]

33. i am liberterian, democrat and conservative. go figure n/t

[mia]

73. The same goes for me.

I believe in personal responsibility, hard work and helping others who are truly in need. It really bothers me to see so many people taking advantage of the system. How many of us know people who deliberately racked up credit card debt - planning to declare bankruptcy the whole time?

I see plenty of families lie about their incomes to qualify for government services. Subsidized housing turning into slums, free lunches being thrown away. Too many parents give their kids the cost of the lunch to buy cafeteria junk food. I see this every day.
Fruit, milk, vegetables - in the trash! The kids who really need the food eat it all up, and that's what these programs are for.

There ARE a lot of people who don't want to work for what they want. Then there are the corporate scammers on the other side.

[seabeyond]

80. but we need a business in integrity to help the people that want

help. and that help will be in them accepting personal responsibility. it behooves us all to support the companies that value employee. as it behooves a the business. win win.... that means all sides. throwing greed in messes up the equation, on all sides.

[mia]

83. Big fan of "The Scanlon Plan" here.

It's a win-win for employees and business owners. Someone should write a book on appling these principles to family finances. Get the kids involved in using resources more efficiently.

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/ARossett/pie/Interventions/gainsharing_1.htm



The Chinese were right:

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

[nodehopper]

36. libertarians by definition are liberal about social issues

in terms of non-legislation/non-interference.

and conservative on fiscal issues.

[zanne]

53. So, how are Libertarians different than the DLC?

The DLC says it, too, includes more people than the liberal Democrats do.

[nodehopper]

139. libertarians are for smaller government across the board

don't legislate social issues and let "the invisible hand" run the market.

[MrBenchley]

105. That's ridiculous....

Who the hell thinks liberalism has anything to do with "non-legislation"?

[nodehopper]

138. libertarianism, not liberalism

libertarians are "socially liberal" in that retared binary diagram of liberal vs. conservative that maps american politics, meaning they have a live/let-live philosophy when it comes to issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc. They don't want the government legislating in the bedrooms and doctors' offices etc.

[MrBenchley]

142. Far as I can see....

libertarianism is basically mindless selfishness and a smattering of right wing horseshit....

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

164. There's not much difference between far right and far left

The effects of an an authoritarian right-wing government on the lives of citizens are indistinguishable from the effects of an authoritarian left-wing government.

A left jack boot up your ass doesn't feel any better than a right jack boot up your ass.

[MrBenchley]

167. And less difference between libertarians and right wing loonies

eh, slack?

[slackmaster]

168. Only in your fantasies

Libertarians are right in the middle.

[MrBenchley]

171. libertarians are right in the middle of right wing craziness, slack

Just ask Neal Boortz (snicker)....

[slackmaster]

172. This thread is about libertarian philosophy, not the Libertarian Party

Typical of a far leftist to cast everything in terms of group membership. Any kind of personal freedom you support gets you tarred as a member of some conspicuous political group that happens to support some of the same things you do. You think it's OK for people to own guns, you're in bed with the NRA.

Of course the far right does EXACTLY THE SAME THING, except it pigeon-holes people into groups defined by race, ethnicity, class, religion, etc. You think it's OK for women to choose an abortion, you're a godless baby-killing atheist thug.

Thanks for illustrating my point MrBenchley - There's no real difference between the far left and the far right.

:nuke:

[MrBenchley]

177. This is thread is about right wing horseshit

that libertarians are trying to pass off under a phony label, slack....

"Any kind of personal freedom you support gets you tarred as a member of some conspicuous political group"
Geeze, I'm not the one calling this right wing horseshit "libertarianism", slack. It's libertarians trying to wave that banner and screaming in rage when I point out that it's right wing horseshit.

By the way, some swell "personal freedom" being supported in this thread by the libertarian contingent..we got libertarians boosting a "holistic health scheme" that excludes sinners and folks with cancer; we got libertarians demanding an end to programs like food stamps and aid to the indigent; and we got libertarians pimping for neoNazi fuckwit Lew Rockwell.

"You think it's OK for people to own guns, you're in bed with the NRA."
Geeze, slack, if you don't like the smell of your playmates,. don't get in the fucking sandfbox.

"Of course the far right does EXACTLY THE SAME THING"
By that idiotic "logic" or whatever the fuck it is, people who oppose Nazis are as bad as Nazis. Don't you ever get tired of sounding so silly in public.

[Cats Against Frist]

185. That's bullshit, Benchley

I never suggested that a not-for-profit cooperative insurance company should exclude sinners and people with cancer. That's just nuts. You've overstepped, and you're beginning to sound hysterical.

[MrBenchley]

188. Gee, binky

one of us brought up a health care swindle for suckers that excluded sinners and people with cancer and said it was a swell example of what we ought to have...and it sure as shit wasn't me.

Of course, when you were describing it you failed to mention that it excluded sinners and people with cancer...I found that out on my own. You just told us how dandy it was.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[Celebration]

39. Libertarians

As you can see, libertarians are about as diverse as conservatives or liberals. What I am against is control freaks, and they are rampant EVERYWHERE. Libertarians would say that a large government encourages control freakism. Government should be the smallest possible--when it gets larger than necessary, the propensity to interfere with individual rights expands. As for social programs, they would probably like to go back to the days where people in neighborhoods felt certain responsibilities for each other, so that some huge bureaucracy was not necessary. Generally libertarians are anti-war, anti large defense expenditures. Again, though, there are all stripes of libertarians. Some don't even want meat inspection!!

[jody]

46. Suggest you visit Lew Rockwell's libertarian site below

Lew Rockwell

[Bloodblister Bob]

49. Excellent suggestion...

Rockwell's site regularly presents a variety of concise, well-written and well-reasoned articles. The sentiment is profoundly anti-war, anti-Bush, and it's fresh every weekday.

[MrBenchley]

70. If you don't mind anti-Semitism, racism and the like

Rockwell's just a peach...

By the way, I believe he's the son of George Lincoln Rockwell, the former head of the American Nazi party...

[MrBenchley]

69. That would be neoNazi nutcase Lew Rockwell....

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#11

He's also at the center of the racist neoConfederate movement....

"For proof, check out the bulging "King Lincoln" archive on the libertarian Web site LewRockwell.com (see also Ludwig von Mises Institute, in Into the Mainstream), where the headlines tell the story: "Heil, Abe," "Lincoln vs. Liberty," "Hitler Was a Lincolnite," "Lincoln: Slavery A-OK," and, for Lincoln's birthday, "Happy Dictator Day." "

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=52

[Bloodblister Bob]

87. Really? An anti-war, anti-US imperialism, anti-big brother Nazi? n/t

[MrBenchley]

98. A Nazi. Really.

Check out his own odious website. Or the SPLC.

[JanMichael]

160. Otherwise known as a loon.

Good luck.

[devilgrrl]

54. Hey Libertarians! Get off my road!!!!

Some of us tax payers whose funds help maintain that road need to get to work! Why should we share with those that don't feel like they should contribute? Now BEAT IT!!!!

[MrBenchley]

108. What I find truly wonderful, looking up and down this thread

is the notion that screwloose right wing bullshit somehow isn't screwloose right wing bullshit if a libertarian says it isn't...

That's akin to thinking Tinker Belle exists because you clapped your hands...

[devilgrrl]

112. Personally, I find that Liberatrians are much worse than Repukes...

Now get yer objectivist ass out of my way - I'm off to a national park that MY tax dollars help keep beautiful.

[MrBenchley]

114. I agree...

An old fashioned Republican will just mutter something about "welfare bums" to explain why he hates black people...a libertarian will drag out some sort of half-assed statistics to "prove" why he hates black people.

If there's anytthing more to the movement than childish selfishness and fantasy, I yet to see it.

Enjoy the National park!

[MrBenchley]

118. For a laugh, check out the pouting post below

where libertarians don't want to share air and water anymore...

[DanCa]

55. You really can't pigeon hole me

While I am against the war, and for choice, for gay rights, and stem cell research, I have strong feelings on gun safety - not control - go to church - and several other issues that are not really left or right. I think all these labels are meanningless, unless maybe like captain america i am just a democrat of a different era.

[lagged_variable]

57. Big L little l

I think Tierra_y_Libertad (Oct-27-05 08:25) got close to this distinction:

Here's my opinion. I think I am fairly libertarian (little l, the political attitude). Which is so say, as others have mentioned, the maximum freedom from regulation and interference should be allowed (from both government and "society") as is commensurate with an ordered, peaceful society. This is in the mold of John Stuart Mill - "classical liberalism".

I am NOT Libertarian (big L, the US political party). It is a group of ardent right-wing nuts who are free-market zealots. I'm an economist, and I can't choke down 90% of what they say. Libertarians simply assert that all markets are efficient and competitive and thus are in all circumstances the best method to allocate resources. But as is obvious to members of DU, this is rarely true in the real world. "Free markets" in the Libertarian sense really are a religion you need to accept to be (big L) Libertarian. As a result, the rest of us (little l) libertarians have the Democratic party as best option.

[jody]

60. Efficient and competitive markets depend on informed consumers, that

is rarely the case today.

Some/many libertarians ignore the simple fact that unlimited accumulation of wealth is a zero-sum game that ends when a very few people control all the financial wealth of a country and its government.

That's corporatism at its worst with plutocracy for a government.

[Bloodblister Bob]

72. We don't have "free markets"...

Even the so-called Black Market (in drugs, for example), which one might think would be free, isn't. Prohibition keeps prices high in order to pay graft and justify the risk imposed by government officials.

Before we knock the "free market", we should actually try it sometime.

[lagged_variable]

74. exactly my point

Who's knocking it? If their assumptions hold up, of course they're exactly right. But there are really TWO requirements to make Libertarianism the "best" political position:

1) Free makets. This one could probably happen if we really wanted it to.
2) Perfect Competition. This one ain't never going to happen in a million years (by construction of the concept) for all relevent markets.

If both 1 and 2, then Libertarianism must be best, all must concede. But if ever one person is able to manipulate market power, there will be inefficiencies and breakdowns in optimal provision of goods.

Free markets are the permanent rallying cry of Libertarians and Supply-siders. But the second bit, perfect competition, is never mentioned. And if it fails (which it almost always does), the whole system of Libertarian (big L) logic breaks down. A free market in the hands of a monopolist or cartel are never optimal. Just as I can't argue with Libertarian logic, neither can they (reasonably) argue with this.

[Cats Against Frist]

81. But, you forgot the checks

It's not totally zero-sum, because there are two "checks" -- the responsible union laborer (solidarity) and the responsible consumer. These, in my mind, go right to the problem of consumerism and this shallow society. Were people responsible consumers, and unions strong in solidarity -- both things that take values like thrift, loyalty, restraint, trust, camraderie, brotherhood/sisterhood, awareness, trust, humility and reason -- then we'd be a hell of a lot better off, as a society, than pitting an ever-growing, ever-more-corruptible government against frothing, pugilistic corporations, and letting consumers and workers off the hook. The fucking irony is that the consumer and the worker are contributing to their own worst nightmare. Why should someone save them from that?

[distantearlywarning]

62. I think I am closer to Libertarian than any other political affiliation

But I'm not totally in the Libertarian camp either. For one thing, I don't believe that most people are mature enough to make a truly Libertarian society viable. Also, I have sympathy for the less fortunate and recognize that in some cases social factors, rather than personal deficiency, are a primary cause of poverty, illness, obesity, criminal activity, etc. I'm not sure that I support welfare and other social programs the way they are now, but I have come to believe that in a pragmatic sense the goverment/society-as-a-whole MUST address problems such as poverty, illiteracy, and homelessness or accept the alternative: an unpleasant life for all of us (i.e., the more desperate people there are out there, the more rich people get robbed).

What makes me more Libertarian than anything else, I think, is my fierce desire to get the government out of its adult citizens' personal lives. I strongly support the right to bear arms, the legalization of personal drug use, dropping the drinking age to 18, repealing laws having to do with sexual activity between consenting adults, the separation of church and state, gay/womens'/minority rights, and the right to protest. It is for this reason that I despise the fundies more than the neocons in our current government, and why I don't have any sympathy for Muslim fundies either. However, I do not approve of the way that the neocons have handled the war in Iraq. Specifically, I am unhappy that they are holding prisoners without trials or lawyers or any other legal mechanisms, and I am unhappy that they engaged in the use of torture, apparently for fun (a true mark of a totalitarian, oppressive state).

I also see George Bush as a spoiled little rich baby who can't stand it when he doesn't get his own way. And he's deliberately ignorant and worse yet, appeals to all the other deliberately ignorant trailer-trash out there. He's making a good effort to hand this country over to the superstitious, uneducated Jim-Bobs, and I will not fucking have it. (Yes, I am an intellectual snob, possibly even an "elitist", maybe even "classist", and I refuse to apologize for it.)

[alkaline9]

63. thanks for posting this and all the replies...

...I am relatively new to the political forums... I have NO idea how most of the political "groups" define themselves... And it's always good to educate yourself about such things. I can tell that I have some libertarian "leanings" as others have put it ... but really, it's probably just some of the overlapping ideas of the greens and the dems??

I would not like to classify myself as anything in particular (except NOT repuke)... and that is part of why I love these discussion boards. There are many free thinkers here that can disagree on certain issues, but do so in a non "spin" and non "slime" fashion.

I suppose if I had to classify myself, I would be a dem. I think these days, regardless of your specific liberal leanings, it is wise to back the dems. They have the best shot at taking out these neo-cons. I truly hope that once this cabal is out of power, the specific "leanings" of the liberal americans can be discussed and legislated properly under our democratic system. That certainly isn't possible right now.

[Jed Dilligan]

71. I'm against "sin" laws

But that doesn't make me a libertarian. Every "sin" law has a specific problem that makes me oppose the class of laws in general. Let me explain:

Gambling is illegal--great! It's probably humankind's third or fourth oldest problem and messes up more lives than possibly any other activity. Let's illegalize gambling--oh, except in Nevada. Let's make slime pits out of some places to keep other places squeaky-clean. Or maybe--let's not?

Cocaine should be legal for the Colombians' sake. I hate the drug and people on it, but that doesn't mean I advocate destroying a beautiful country just because my countrymen have a taste for it.

People should be allowed to drink on the streets so they won't chuck (and break) their bottles when they think they see a cop coming.

Prostitution should be legal so that whores, whom I do not patronize, can work in nice clean brothels instead of outside my bedroom window. I would rather "turn my back" on
"explotiation" of people--and don't make this a feminist thing, because the hookers on my block have penises--than step in condoms when I go out for my morning coffee.

I'm against these laws not because of a philosophy, but because all in all their enforcement brings more problems than it's worth. It's the same psychology that demands a war because a building was destroyed.

[Cats Against Frist]

75. Uh, "liberal" and "gun control" only exist under the Democratic umbrella

Any time you back abortion, gay marriage and an end to the drug war, but also back gun control, affirmative action and a larger bureaucracy, you're not necessarily "liberal," you're just a DEMOCRAT. Which is fine -- I happen to vote for the Democrats, and was a Social Democrat, my whole life, up until a little over a year ago.

I consider myself progressive AND a libertarian/minarchist, as I'm a de-centralizationist and a communalist. I'm a feminist, and I support the overturning of Roe v. Wade (only in the sense that it would return the decision to the states), and I'm race-sensitive, but I'm something of a segregationist (so I don't have to live near freepers, and so we can have strong black/hispanic/asian, etc., communities. I'm against gun control, and I'm anti-war, anti-police state. I'm, of course, against the drug war. I'm a free marketer, and a minimalist.

So, lots of my opinions could seem "conservative," but they're really not. I simply believe that community works best on a smaller level, and that over-reaching authoritarian bureaucracies (be they left or right), are ineffective, a threat to freedom, and encourage homogenization of culture. I don't believe that people can "save the world," and that people have to save themselves, and their communities, and that personal responsibility is for both the worker and the owner of capital, that an educated consumer beats regulatory red tape, and that the welfare state is a hopeless prison that needs to be replaced with capital in the hands of poor communities. Do I think it could happen? No, because people are too stupid, so I vote for the Dems, because I hate the religious right and the patriarchs.

You're being too simplistic by suggesting that those who have some issues in common with the right are Republicans or are conservative. When it comes to radicalism -- libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and anarchism, the line is very blurry -- in other words -- some people are so "far right" that they're "left," and some are so "far left," that they're "right."

[MrBenchley]

104. What rubbish...

There's nothing liberal about gun rights--it's racist right wing extremism hiding under a new sheet. And opposition to affirmative action has been one of the code words for the old Jim Crow crowd since the 1960s.

"lots of my opinions could seem "conservative," but they're really not"
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride....

"You're being too simplistic by suggesting that those who have some issues in common with the right are Republicans or are conservative."
No, trying to pretend that those issues are not conservative is sophistry to the point of meaninglessness....

[porphyrian]

76. Libertarian the party or libertarian in beliefs?

The Libertarian party platform can be found here:
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

Libertarian in general is defined as follows:
lib·er·tar·i·an n.

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

2. One who believes in free will.

I am not the former, but I certainly believe in free will.

[Selatius]

82. My ideology would make me a Left Libertarian

I believe the state is the vehicle of oppression at worst, coercion at best. You have to be pragmatic about it though.

Yes, programs like Social Security I agree with because it is for the ultimate benefit of us all, but on the other hand, I do realize the involuntary nature of such a system. Nevermind the fact that great harm can be done if corrupt bureaucrats are allowed to take over.

On the other hand, when the government fails, and it fails quite a lot, then I advocate true libertarian socialism to fill the void. For example, if the state is too enamored with corporate interests to give the people a universal health care system, then I advocate the people, in their respective communities should:

1) Educate themselves and their neighbors
2) Organize, set up a means of cooperation/communication
3) Work together directly according to democratic principles

The end result is voluntary collectivization for the purpose of caring for one another in case of injury or illness. The more cooperation between the several communities, the bigger the safety net. The churches do this with their members sometimes, especially the more devout churches. In this case, I simply advocate a secular version that doesn't discriminate based on religious beliefs.

[Darranar]

89. Plenty of left-wing libertarians, I would guess.

Not too many right-wing ones.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

103. Actually, most would trend towards the right.

Particularly concerning taxation, guns, property rights, etc.

I consider myself a hybrid liberal/libertarian. My libertarian positions are almost all on the social end (drugs, gay marriage, etc.) and foreign policy, but my classic liberal side comes out mostly on the economic end.

Overall, I'd classify myself as an economic moderate/social libertarian/foreign policy dove.

[High Plains]

95. I'm not a libertarian, just a libertine n/t

[formernaderite]

99. tell me...what's "consevative" about the pro choice position on

Guns? Conservatism is an ill used term...it means to be a reactionary, it has nothing to do with left/right politics. I happen to have the "liberal" position on personal fire arms...ie. personal choice. What was once called classic liberalism has now become Libertarianism. You still can't get away from the meaning of the word "liberal"....don't confuse policy issues with actual political philosophy.

[MrBenchley]

107. Quite happy to tell you what's conservative about it...

Let's start with the gun industry itself, made up of folks like
--tax evader and right wing cult leader Sun Myung Moon;
--neoNazi sugar daddy Gaston glock
--convicted stick-up artist J.J. Minder of S&W (forced to step down as chairman, he remains on the gun makers board of directors)
--GOP fundraiser Richard Dyke of Bushmaster.

Then let's go to the "gun rights" movement and its spokespeople:
--Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America is a racist so virulent that even Pat Buchanan had to flee his company
--NRA board member Ted Nugent is synonymous with racism
--NRA board member Grover "drown government in a bathtub" Norquist is a right wing crazy
--NRA board member Jeff Cooper calls black people "Orang-outangs"
--NRA board member Robert K. Brown publishes the disgraceful "Soldier of Fortune" magazine, a stroke book for would be mercenaries and hit men
--NRA board members Harry Thomas, T.J. Johnston, Leroy Pyle, and Neal Knox all have ties to white supremacist paramilitary groups
--NRA board member Roy Innis has long had ties to right wing groups and often functions as a conservative token
--NRA keynote speakers in recent years have been Zell Miller, Jeb Bush, Trent Lott, Tom Delay and Dick Cheney
--the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms were both started by the right wing Young Americans for Freedom and are little more than GOP front organizations
--Second Amendment Foundation and CCRKBA head Alan Gottleib is a Republican fundraiser who has been convicted of tax fraud. He also looms large in the anti-environment movement.
--The Second Amendment Caucus in congress consists of some of the most right wing members in the GOP, including such racist dimwits as Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Tancredo
--The Pink Pistols, the astroturf "gay gun owners" group, endorses anti-gay political candidates and tried to disrupt a peaceful gay rights march in Ohio last year. Its enemies list includes liberals such as Barney Frank but DOES NOT include right wing gay haters such as Fred Phelps or James Dobson. Until recently, it had a link on its site to the right wing think tank Northbridge which created them, that in turn had an essay chortling what a "good trick" the group was "on"liberals."
--Doctors for Reponsible Gun Ownership is an astroturf committee of 1,000 gun nuts (most of whom are not doctors) created by the right wing Claremont Institute to spread disinformation on the public health questions.
--the Law Enforcement Association of America is an astroturf group created by the NRA to pretend that police officers oppose gun control.
--the "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" is another astroturf group that routinely promotes neoConfederate and racist gibberish.

Any more questions?

[Cats Against Frist]

109. Completely. Fucking. Meaningless.

It's not about who/what back anti-gun control. Everybody can come up with a reason why something's "wrong." There are lots of issues that liberals and conservatives (even extremists) share that don't make one "tainted" with the foul ideology of the other. I agree with the KKKs right to march, much like the ACLU, and I disagree with the LIBERAL Kelo decision that makes government land grab for corporations legal -- and I suspect that most freepers and most DUers agree on those issues.

Gun control is not about pragmatism or conscience. It's about freedom and freedom from tyranny -- a freedom enshrined in our Constitution. Sure, it's a blurry and oft-wrongly interpreted, but it's no. 2, right after the freedom of speech -- and if you don't think that's pretty damn important, then you have a problem with the Constitution. The purpose of the second amendment it to arm the populace, as to not be oppressed by a tyrannical government. It's the final check, so to speak -- and that right shall not be infringed upon, no matter how many pacifist daydreamers and social engineers think the world would be "prettier" without guns, or that if guns were wiped out, people wouldn't find other ways to hurt and kill others.

I don't give a fuck about Ted Nugent and the Rev. Moon -- I care about the Constitution, written by the MOST LIBERAL, ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE in the Western World in the 18th century. The people who want overzealous gun control are not liberals, at all, but authoritarians. AUTHORITARIANS. In the U.S., the authoritarian left has stolen the word "liberal," and changed it to mean something very different from the classical liberalism from which it came.

Like I said, I still vote Dem, because the alternative is far more authoritarian and hideous. That doesn't change the fact that there's nothing liberal about gun control.

[MrBenchley]

111. So in other words if you pout enough

right wing crap isn't right wing crap. And Tinker Belle will live if you clap your hands...

"I disagree with the LIBERAL Kelo decision"
Who but Rush Limbaugh and his idiotic ilk says that was liberal?

"Gun control is not about pragmatism or conscience. It's about freedom and freedom from tyranny "
Bullshit. But it is disgraceful to see how many of the trigger happy have an "I need my popgun for the glorious revolution" fantasy. Still a pretty penny is made by opportunists peddling that sort of horseshit to fetishists at gun shows and the like, and every once in a while one of these charmers gets overheated and kills a postman or blows up a daycare center.

"a freedom enshrined in our Constitution. "
Only in John AshKKKroft's wet dream. Here in the real world, the Constitution has a Second Amendment that allows the collective people to have well-regulated state militias, as the courts have ruled consistently. The closest the gun lobby's got to otherwise is in the most right wing court in the land, where the conservatives inserted a bunch of NRA claptrap into the Emerson decision--before they ruled that the Second Amendment didn't apply to the case and took away Emerson's guns.

"I don't give a fuck about Ted Nugent and the Rev. Moon"
So in other words, you don't care what sort of scummy folks you line up with as long as you get to play with your cheesy hobby. And the rest of us are supposed to ignore what's going on in the real world because you want to pretend the issue applies only to some ethereal ideal plane of existence...fat chance.

"AUTHORITARIANS."
Oh no! Not that!!! Aiyeeee.....

Guess the rest of us who want strong environmental laws, and strong corporate conduct laws and RICO indictments against those who harass womens' health care clinics and the like will just have to labor on under the burden of that meaningless and idiotic tag.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

116. Pouting...

Where does the Supreme Court ever say "This is a liberal decision" or "This is a conservative decision"?
There's seven right wingers, one moderate and one actual liberal on the Court.

"Ask any insurgent -- "pop guns" can do a lot. "
Hey, I'll ask Randy Weaver.

"This may be so -- but I don't agree with a lot of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the amendments."
Tough luck, bunky. When you get to be emperor, you can have them changed.

"Aren't we all supposed to pray to the apparatchik?"
Geeze, warmed over 50's-style red-baiting? That sure convinces me that libertariansm isn't right wing loonies hiding under a new sheet (NOT)....

"If you think that leftists don't sometime align with the extreme right, then you obviously missed the 1-2-3 switch in ideologies with the Iraq War. "
In other words, you got nothing but horseshit to back up your claims.

"Lots of people on here cheer Pat Buchanan for his war stance"
So fucking what? He's still a racist turd.

"What you don't know about libertarianism could just about fill the grand canyon"
What I DO know makes me care even less.

"many libertarians believe that the air, water, etc., are actually the collective property."
Fine. Let them go off and get their own and stop using ours.

"they just don't believe in the ARBITRARY value set of the Democrats and social Democrats"
So they make up their own arbitrary (and really silly) value sets. And when they clap their hands, Tinker Belle is alive! (snicker)

[formernaderite]

140. Now that's a stretch....

Just because the repubs have rightly decided that gun rights were a great campaign issue, doesn't make it right wing as policy. But you go ahead and stroll down that road you're on....we'll lose based on YOUR fears...not mine. Gun control was inherently begun as a "racist" policy to keep minorities from firearms...particularly ones they could afford. It follows the same legislative history/reasoning as drug prohibition.
I argue daily that we on the left should embrace the word "liberal"...particularly for what it really means. I'm very progressive..I just don't believe progressive politics is about banning private rights.

[MrBenchley]

143. No stretch at all....just FACT.

"Gun control was inherently begun as a "racist" policy"
Funny how every racist piece of shit around is bitterly opposed to gun control. Why, it's almost as if that claim was just so much gun nut horseshit or something...(snicker).

"the repubs have rightly decided that gun rights were a great campaign issue"
Geeze, last time I looked, the Republicans were paying lip service to gun control publicly while bending over and spreading 'em for the gun lobby in private. Funny they didn't run around during the election campaign shouting "Keep the gun show loophole open!" and "Assautl weapons in every store!" and "Give up your right to sue the gun industry!"

But then "gun rights" is nothing but good old fashioned racist right wing insanity under a new sheet.

"But you go ahead and stroll down that road you're on...."
Happy to--the smell is much better than it is on the side of the trigger-happy. And you just keep on peddling right wing crap and trying to pretend that the actual gun industry and the corrupt gun lobby has nothing to do with gun policy.

[toddaa]

106. Libertarian socialist here

There's nothing libertarian about capitalism.

[Mr_Spock]

119. I guess you could call me a "Liberaltarian"

Leave me alone but take care of me if I need help - that's why I pay taxes after all...

[blindpig]

121. Libertarianism is poison for the Environment.

Seems their only answer is to privatize everything. There is no consideration of the planetary life support systems that a healthy environment provide. They have no problem with the exploitation, destruction or negligence of anything not owned.Preservation of biodiversity for it's own sake is beyond their comprehension.

Though I might like to agree with Libertarians on matters of personal liberty I cannot extend that freedom to the freedom to use up, destroy or otherwise degrade a biosphere already teetering on disaster.

Libertarians oppose the Endangered Species Act. That alone really pisses me off.:mad:

[MrBenchley]

124. It's also total deregulation for polluters and corporate swindlers

[4bucksagallon]

122. to win!!

There are two things that the democrats should ease up on and they are gun control and gay marriage. These two issues alone, in my opinion, will keep the dems from winning many national elections.

[Greyhound]

146. Good luck with that, and welcome. n/t

[ourbluenation]

125. I need a system in place because I'm fine, but my neighbor is a

freakshow and his weird behavior needs to be harnessed. I'm thankful for the big harnessor that my taxes pay for...money well spent.

[Greyhound]

145. LOL

I hope! :rofl:

[New Earth]

126. I'm more Libertarian than anything else.

Kind of a 'Green' Libertarian, but I follow democrats when it comes to the big picture in politics. My views are so mixed - I am socially liberal (support gay rights, legal abortion, against the drug war, etc.), but support gun rights, 'not' for affirmative action, and for 'limited' welfare programs, etc. - and concerned about the environment, animal protection...

I'm a Green Libertarian that follows Democratic Leaders :shrug:

[Zynx]

127. Libertarian leaning liberal. I want the government to stay out of people's

personal lives, but I believe in social welfare programs.

[DBoon]

137. I'm a left wing libertarian

I believe in the minimum government necessary to protect worker's rights to a decent existance and to ensure an orderly society of free and equal human beings.

The only legitimate function of government is to ensure social justice and to eliminate opression and social justice.

Private property? What's that?

[MrBenchley]

147. So to sum this up....

A right wing puddle of pus like the gun rights movement magically becomes progressive if I say I'm a libertarian while pushing it...

Of course, by that measure, I could call myself a libertarian, dump styrene in the river, get Tom Delay to get rid of those "authoritarian" laws against it and even hire Jack Abramoff to lobby for me and still SAY I'm progressive because it's about "freedom." Because after all, it's not "our water" and besides, you could always sue after you get poisoned.

By the way, on that subject of suing versus "authoritarian" laws, I'll bet all the libertarians here and elsewhere throughout the country went absolutely fucking ballistic when the GOP just passed that recent draconian law that arbitrarily took away every American's freedom to sue the gun industry. I mean, after all, could there BE a more blatant example of big government taking the side of those evil corporations? Or of big government arbitrarily abridging personal freedom?

I'm sure the libertarians here will be able to point us to all the posts they put up protesting it...as well as all the broadsides condemning the law by the Libertarian party, and by libertarian deep thinkers (like John Stossel, Walt Williams, Tom Sowell or the gang at the Cato Institute)....in a pig's eye.

[whatever4]

148. You rang?

Wow, long thread already, this should be a good read!

I'm a libertarian. You're a libertarian too, I take it? I agree with your impression, I'd say I lean social progressive and fiscal conservative, and I think it's typical of libertarians.

I want complete absence of religion in government, which I think is generally true for libertarians. The only kind of gun control I want is strict control of how our authorities are permitted to use all types of force on us, the citizens. I think the drug war has corrupted our society, our justice system has become very unjust, and I look at stopping the drug war to stop gun violence and violence overall, not gun laws. I'm not sure how typical that view is for other libertarians, so I can't really speak to it.

In general, libertarians are more individualized in their points of view, as I understand.

I've noted many a hot and angry comment directed toward libertarians and those types of beliefs here on DU. Sometimes, it's just pointlessly insulting. Other times, it's much harder to confront, because this admin has used and abused valid conservative concepts. They used conservatives. They made anyone that even looks like a conservative look bad. Every halfway decent-sounding idea proposed has been intended all along to do harm, the concepts were twisted to be used to skew the numbers and screw the people, like with bankruptcy.

It would have been fine, just f'in fine, if the "problems" with bankruptcy were a lot of people taking advantage of the system and basically ripping us off that way, ripping off the tax payer. Making it more restrictive might have made sense, if that had been the reality. But, it wasn't. It isn't. Most people affected by the law change were people who lost their jobs or who encountered catastrophic medical costs, and those were never the people our nation needed to shortchange. What the hell for? They were the types we want to help out, with bankruptcy.

It made no sense, the bankruptcy changes, though they sounded quite reasonable, in the crudely sketched arguments. They used and abused conservative concepts. Just to make a buck. Our representatives didn't represent us. Pandering to the ultra-wealthy has NEVER been a libertarian concept, but it's a hell of a job, now, to convince liberals of that fact. Even on their side, because I surely AM on their side.

I feel that I absolutely have to BE on their side, though. Economic issues are important, but religion in government and losing the vote are issues that make the economic differences irrelevant. Past that, none of the rest of it matters. I'd take a decent socialism, hell even a lousy socialism, over a totalitarianism/ theocracy. As I understand those terms.

I also believe in the value of pursuing social programs, so in that, I disagree with most libertarians.

Now I'm off to read this long thread, hoping it won't make me feel like a creep (libertarian = "I got mine and F you") and an idiot. Living in the US of A, I already feel that way, generally.

[laureloak]

163. Please define the thinking of Libertarians and Progressives.

I want to know where I fit in.

[Gold Metal Flake]

192. Locking

Unfortunately, this thread has devolved into a flame war.