I am against EVERYTHING a libertarian stands for...

[jjrjsa]

I know we have managed to turn "big government" into something bad... whatever "big government" means, but I am honestly against everything a libertarian stands for. I think in a society, the government should always work for the common good, not the individual good. Of course, by working for the common good all individuals win! By working for the individual good, in the end individuals suffer because individual welfare goes down when common welfare goes down.

Now, a lot of progressives tend to agree with libertarians on "social" issues like abortion and such. I think this is misguided. I don't believe, as a progressive, that the government should just be silent on social issues. It should PROMOTE freedom and equality. I believe in affirmative action, I believe in government funding for abortions, etc. These are not libertarian beliefs, I don't think the government should say to women "I won't ban abortions, but you're on your own if you get pregnant!"

Now, the whole personal freedom thing sounds good on paper, but it's bullshit in practice. I think it's immoral when a government has the ability to make society better but doesn't. Now, here is where a lot of progressives disagree with me...

I think it's okay for the government to regulate the things we eat, the things we drive, etc. Why? Because it's for the better good! If we get rid of fatty foods, the health of the nation will be better which is good for everyone! If we drive more fuel-efficient cars, we'll have a cleaner environment and cheaper energy, good for everyone! Yet, I hear progressives talk about "The right to eat fatty foods" or "the right to buy a hummer". Come on people! If you are a progressive, it means you understand that the government has to limit the behavior of the individual when it goes against the common good. I mean, by that logic, what about "The right to own slaves" or "The right to keep my money" or any other right.

HOW A LIBERTARIAN FAILS: If we allow too much freedom to an individual, his freedom will intrude on the freedom of another. If we all have so much freedom that we're all taking away each other's freedom with it, what do we have? No freedom at all. A good example of this is the freedom of business people to do business.

So yeah, that's my rant.

[seabeyond]

1. can i be the firt zombie in your line. put the chip in now

no thank you and a huge barf. i will be sure not to vote for you if you run for president.

[Selatius]

2. I am more of a moderate libertarian socialist

I am telling you that you are hardly different than the Stalinists previous libertarian socialists fought against from the farmlands of the Ukraine to the Barcelona countryside in Spain. Your way leads to tyranny of the state. Your way will lead to darkness.

You are perhaps the first left authoritarian I have run across in a very long time.

I have no qualms about occasional state intervention to ban things like transfat in burgers because it has absolutely no beneficial effects on the human body or mandate increased fuel efficiency in cars, but by no means am I going to tolerate an all-encompassing government that regulates what I do with my body or even tells me what I can or can't do in the privacy of my bedroom or a government that keeps massive databases full of private information of its citizens.

[Solo_in_MD]

4. Then you have been quite lucky

Then again, my proximity to college campuses and Wash DC may influence the number I run into.

[Selatius]

8. I'm pretty much alone out here in the Mississippi countryside

You don't often run into the kind of authoritarians who violate free will to shove down your throat leftist solutions. I run into right authoritarians aplenty though.

[seabeyond]

9. ya..... i only come in contact with them on du

oh and my intellectual elitist democratic sister in laws. wink

[seabeyond]

6. there are lots on here. really. i meet em all. bah hahahah.. but

this poster is the most extreme i have yet had the enjoyment of listening too

probably get my ass thrown in jail in his or her world, speaking like that

[jjrjsa]

16. I never advocated any of that...

I am a progressive, so I believe the government should do EVERYTHING IT CAN to promote social and economic progress and justice. Telling you what to do in the bedroom or keeping databases does not fit that.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. There is being proactive and there is telling consenting adults what to do

big difference.

Most left-libertarians or social libertarians (myself included) don't see any problem with proactive government; for instance, I fully support a SPHC system.

But that's a far cry from regulating what people can put in their mouths or what they can do with their bodies; that's a slippery slope, one we've already traveled far enough down as it is.

[Guaranteed]

36. Yeaaaahh....

It's a little more complicated than that.

Do you think cigarettes should be outlawed?

[NashVegas]

70. Pick and Choose Authoritarianism Is Still Authoritarianism

The only difference between your philosophy and James Dobson's is in who feels the sting.

The danger in what you suggest is that it doesn't work with our two-party system, or probably just about any form of democracy. In four years, people can vote out the leader(s) of your choosing and vote in the leaders of Jim-Bob's. Actually, that's already happened (election fraud aside) and we have been experiencing upheaval because of it.

[Vidar]

32. Can I join your party?

[sweetheart]

3. no you're not, you just took the liberty

yourself to speak bullshit about libertarian values. Clearly you believe you should have
the right to that liberty, no matter what *we* think, and then your argument juxtaposes
your very action. Free speech IS the liberty, IS that freedom you seek to defend with your
civil society.

All action starts with individual impetus. Why stifle the individual, rather harness economically,
the power of individuals to your civil means, tax the economic actions and leave your morals
to work through the mechanisms of the market, and the rational explorer will find themself called
to public service if they are called. And then you'll have 10,000 times the public servant, one
who is doing it for the right reasons, and the others who aren't won't be there, as they'll be
following their heart to its own divine plan.

You speak fear about what if human beings were free, really free, and your paranoia that such a
thing would be a violent cesspool, and the alternative, authoritarian leftism? AAHHH... !

[rwheeler31]

5. OK

So can my local hardwear store sell fibrer glass cleaner in large amounts?

[Jemmons]

7. Works for us here in Denmark

We have McDs serving burgers with no trans-fatty-acids because of laws against that. But you wouldnt know if from eating one: Taste just like the junk that you would be eating at home, but it is not as detrimental to your health.

[seabeyond]

11. ya... lets see 5 years down the road. probably does something

else to you we don't know about yet.

[niyad]

10. welcome to DU--a most interesting rant.

[beyurslf]

12. What about drug decriminlization? Libertarians support....

[snot]

13. I agree with some aspects, BUT

the rub is, who gets to decide what's "for our own good"?

One can look at it in terms of where we each fall on a continuum. There are some matters that, if left to individual decision, have little or no impact on anyone else. There are other matters that affect others more than oneself. There are some that affect both.

A great saying (someone tell me if you can attribute; couldn't find it on Bartleby): "My right to swing my arm ends at the other fellow's nose."

Ditto re- my right to commit felonies, to pollute, to engage in insider trading, to commit antitrust violations, to jaywalk and occasionally get run over, to smoke cigarettes and expect others to subsidize my treatment for lung cancer via insurance and the state, etc.

The key is that a balancing is needed that takes into account ALL consequences of both allowing and not allowing any given individual action. It's not all bad that historically, our system has allowed things to work themselves out to some degree before having the gov't step in -- so we have more info about what all the actual consequences really are, whether gov't regulation is really needed and what kind is needed.

You can say it might be better for someone to try to decide in advance what the balance should be, and that might work well if the person is Al Gore or Jimmy Carter, but guess what if it isn't.

But that's not to say all gov't regulation is bad; on the contrary, I think it's essential under the following conditions and perhaps others:

(a)The subject-matter is too difficult or specialized for the average individual to master to the extent needed to make the best decision. E.g., most consumers lack the expertise required to do their own food and drug testing; non-geeks and even many geeks didn’t know enough about computers to realize that Macs were sufficiently superior to PC’s that the greater expense up front would have been more than worth the man-hours wasted in trying to make PC’s work (among others things, Y2K would have been a complete non-event). Another e.g., most bank depositors lack the time and expertise to examine bank finances and practices. And personally, I find it absurd to blame securities investors for losses they suffered through relying on professional analysts’ advice; indeed, many if not most people lack the ability or wherewithal even to identify a good advisor.

(b)The long-term consequences seem too remote. Most people tend to focus on relatively short-term effects, long-term consequences seeming relatively “unreal”. For example, especially in this age in which corporate leaders come and go every few years, corporations often adopt policies that are profitable in the short run but completely unsustainable in the long run. Other examples: the pain of property taxes in the near-term usually seems more compelling than the prospect of a well-educated work force fifteen or twenty years from now; and we’re reluctant to take action to reduce pollution unless rewarded by a tax credit or other immediate benefit to our bottom line.

(c)Various irrational impulses interfere with good decision-making. For example, the "it can’t happen to me” syndrome; or, once something traumatically bad does happen to us, the tendency to overestimate the risk that it will happen again or otherwise overreact. And sellers savvy to these tendencies often deliberately use them to manipulate us.

(d)Some individuals or groups simply lack the capacity, time, or other leverage to fend for their own interests effectively, e.g., children, the mentally disabled. Or again, even if most individuals had the intelligence and expertise needed to analyze corporate financial statements, few people with jobs and children have anywhere near enough time to actually perform many such analyses rather than relying on professionals’ advice.

(e)There are some areas in which, for various reasons, we just don’t want to leave people to duke things out for themselves; e.g., we want the government to catch and punish criminals rather than letting individuals take justice into their own hands, to regulate automobile traffic, etc.

(f)Natural monopolies: some theorists believe there are certain “natural monopolies,” enterprises that can be undertaken on a cost-effective basis only as monopolies or that by nature should be subject to more extensive governmental regulation. As I understand, this was the approach used when the (wire) telephone system and infrastructure were first created; water systems might be another instance. I for one wish our government had imposed a standard in common with other countries so my cel phone would work in Europe.

Whenever any of the foregoing circumstances prevail, regulation by government or other agencies whose interests are aligned with those of the people for whom protection is needed may be indispensable in order to ensure people aren’t just sitting ducks.

It should be noted that regulation can be of various kinds or structures. E.g., meaningful disclosure of material information can be required instead of imposing specific requirements or standards; or inspection or testing can be imposed at critical points in the supply chain, i.e., in many instances it can be required only at the last point before a product reaches consumers, on the theory that retailers and middlemen will then themselves require that suppliers up the chain provide safe products. Another effective form of regulation is to give consumers the right to sue for an effective remedy from miscreant or negligent suppliers.

[jjrjsa]

17. I believe in democracy...

So I think the people decide. My point is that we should not use the argument "I am against that because the government has no right to tell me what to do". If you think a government action is bad, tell us why, like for example banning sex.

[pitohui]

14. what you don't get

there are situations where a bureaucrat simply doesn't have the information that you need to make a good decision

the classic example is abortion, only the woman should decide, only she knows from the inside out what having a child will do to feck up her life or what having to give a child away like a puppy will do to feck up her mind

you say the gov't should regulate the right to eat fatty foods

well, my husband has metabolic syndrome, his blood sugar levels and weight were ballooning hopelessly out of control on a low fat ornish/pritikin diet -- i was killing him by knowing better, the gov't guidelines were killing him by knowing better

he is now eating an extremely high fat diet with severely restricted intake of carbs and has normal blood sugar levels, normal blood pressure, and has dropped 35 pounds in 5 months

most doctors could not have predicted this result, the guidelines advising you to cut fats -- he actually had to strongly increase his intake of fats -- could not have predicted this

there are areas such as diet, whether or not to have children etc. where the government doesn't and probably CAN'T know the whole story and can't make any reasonable guideline

your gov't refusing to allow intake of fats would have killed my husband by age 50

libertarians stink, of course they do, but what we need is not ideology but flexibility

[bananas]

87. The problem with wisdom

is you have to go through hell to get it.
I've known people who've gone through the same exact thing.
Unfortunately a lot of people are making the same mistakes right now.
And I'm talking specifically about weight and diet.

[Dr Fate]

15. I agree w/ true Libetarians on civil liberties.

But those are few- most Libertarians are just stoned right-wingers.

[jjrjsa]

18. So the government should not fund abortions...

Not take part in racial-equality programs like affirmative action? Not pass laws that protect minorities from discrimination? Is it wrong for the government to take our info, yet they shouldn't do shit when a corporation does it? I could go on, this is the libertarian stance on civil liberties. I do not share it. The government does not promote freedom, in my view, by doing nothing.

[Dr Fate]

42. I should have been more clear and said 1st & 4th amendment issues.

I'm with you for the most part- like I said, most Libertarians are essentially stoned right wingers.

And even though I'm pro-choice, I dont think the govt. should fund abortions either, so I guess I agree with them on that too.

[dailykoff]

19. I think you're a socialist.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't admit it over the phone (that'll bring the NSA on the line).

Welcome! :)

[jjrjsa]

20. Nah, just a progressive.

I am actually pretty pro-capitalism. I am however in favor of a lot of government regulation. So far it has a great record...

RWers always de-regulate and look how it turns out. Environment, economy, food, medicine, media, ANYTHING. Name one area where "less regulation" has worked? Again, I think as long as the regulation is good it works. Before anyonebrings up civil liberties again, I'll use the abortion example. There is three choices:

No regulation on abortion: The government does nothing in regards to women who are pregnant.

Bad regulation: Abortion bans, etc, what "pro-lifers" want.

Good regulation: The government provides funding for abortion, access to abortions, education about the choice of getting an abortion.

Maybe regulation is the wrong word, but I mean government involvement. IMO, the third option is the best, and it's big government. Just big government used for good. So no, I am not a libertarian on abortion or any social or economic issue.

[dailykoff]

24. Capitalism and socialism aren't incompatible.

There's lots of entrepreneurship in Scandinavian countries, also in Venezuela and even Cuba, some legal and some not, but the corporations don't get to kill you.

As long as you're providing health care why not go for the full monty?

Think about it. :)

[Guaranteed]

35. So you think that there should be a state-mandated religion?

Or none at all?

[Guaranteed]

34. Or even a communist. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Actually, it's the whole nanny state thing that sounds good on paper.

And it's bullshit in practice. Choice is just that- Choice. Being Pro Choice means dealing with the fact that sometimes other people make choices you may not like.

If you can't deal with it, if it frightens you, if you need to control what your neighbor does with his mouth or his wallet or his body or his Johnson, I would suggest therapy- or joining one of our Nation's many, fine, busybody churches.

Saw a bird with a tear in his eye
Walking to New Orleans my oh my
Hey, now, Bird, wouldn't you rather die
Than walk this world when you're born to fly?

If I was the sun, I'd look for shade
If I was a bed, I would stay unmade
If I was a river I'd run uphill
If you call me you know I will
If you call me you know I will

Ooo, freedom
Ooo, liberty
Ooo, leave me alone
To find my own way home
To find my own way home

Say what I mean and I don't give a damn
I do believe and I am who I am
Hey now Mama come and take my hand
Whole lotta shakin' all over this land

If I was an eagle I'd dress like a duck
Crawl like a lizard and honk like a truck
If I get a notion I'll climb this tree
or chop it down and you can't stop me
Chop it down and you can't stop me

Ooo, freedom
Ooo, liberty
Ooo, leave me alone
To find my own way home
To find my own way home

Went to the well but the water was dry
Dipped my bucket in the clear blue sky
Looked in the bottom and what did I see?
The whole damned world looking back at me

If I was a bottle I'd spill for love
Sake of mercy I'd kill for love
If I was a liar I'd lie for love
Sake of my baby I'd die for love
Sake of my baby I'd die for love

Ooo, freedom
Ooo, liberty
Ooo, leave me alone
To find my own way home
To find my own way home
I'm gonna find my own way home

[jjrjsa]

23. Name one area of life where no government action...

... is better than a positive government action? Do you support ending affirmative action programs? Do you oppose regulation of corporations, food and drugs, etc?

Seriously, just one area of life where we are better off without the "nanny-state" or as I call it , a good government.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. I think 40 Billion dollars a year for the "drug war" is fucking obscene.

I don't think being the number one per capita incarcerator of non-violent offenders in the industrialized world constitutes good government.

Shit, if only we had good government. A SPHC system. No, our tax dollars pay for shit like a half trillion dollar M/I complex. A bogus war in Iraq, complete with no-bid contractors looting cash out in duffel bags to the tune of $9 Billion totally unaccounted for.

Think what most Americans eat is crap? So do I. But turning cheeseburgers into controlled substances isn't any kind of answer. Decent environmental regulations, along with truth in labeling laws- that's the kind of solution I can get behind. Let organic farmers do their jobs and have a fair shake against agribusiness. But you know what? I think consenting adults should have the right to have sex with other consenting adults of the same gender. I also think they should have the right to stuff their faces with crap if they so choose.

In case you haven't noticed, it's not individuals that need more regulation, it's corporations. Individuals already are micro-fucking-managed by the control freaks in our government, TYVM.

And I think every single "libertarian" you run into on this board (welcome to DU, by the way :hi:) will agree with that sentence 100%.

[rman]

28. especially because it is a farce

Plan Colombia - Cashing-In on the Drug War Failure
http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=1254
http://www.plancolombia.org/
20 years of drug-wars in the Andes have actually increased cocaine imports to the U.S.
Could there be ulterior motives to a plan focused on beefing up the local military and spraying coca-fields in rebel-held parts of the country when coca is grown all around Colombia?
Featuring Noam Chomsky, the late Senator Paul Wellstone, U.S. Members of Congress John Conyers and Jim McGovern, and many others.


The "War on Drugs"
has caused a massive surge in cost for illicit mind-altering substances, in turn raising the market value of the trade in highly targeted drugs such as Cocaine and Heroin to over a trillion dollars. This has had several prominent sociological, economic and political effects. A case in point is the South American country of Colombia, which had developed a commodity market to manage their imports and exports by the late 1960's. The subsequent actions taken by the American government included dumping surplus corn and grain into the Colombian market below market prices, depressing domestic production. The following decade showed a substantial rise in the profile of Cocaine use in American pop culture.

War on drugs Part I: Winners documentary (realvideo, 50 min) explaining 'War on Drugs' by Tegenlicht of VPRO Dutch television. After short introduction in Dutch (1 min), English spoken. Broadband internet needed.
http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vpro/tegenlicht/bb.20030622.rm?title=Bekijk%20de%20uitzending%20WAR%20ON%20DRUGS%20DEEL%20I%20in%20realvideo%20BREEDBAND%20tot%20500%20kbs

War on drugs Part II: Losers documentary (realvideo, 50 min) showing downside of the 'War on Drugs' by Tegenlicht of VPRO Dutch television. After short introduction in Dutch (1 min), English spoken. Broadband internet needed.
http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vpro/tegenlicht/bb.20030629.rm?title=Bekijk%20de%20uitzending%20WAR%20ON%20DRUGS%20DEEL%20II%20in%20realvideo%20BREEDBAND%20tot%20500%20kbs

[High Plains]

29. One area where we would be better off? How about drug policy?

It's a libertarian notion to think we should not be arresting 700,000 a year on marijuana charges or keep 500,000 people non-violent drug offenders in prisons for decades.

[anewdeal]

31. almost every area

sorry but the government is the biggest bunch of f ups I've seen in my life and I want them to have LESS control over my life, not more.

Take responsibility for your own life.

[NashVegas]

71. Terri Schiavo

..

[nick303]

77. I support the end of racist activity, including affirmative action

"Good government" is a subjective term and may not mean the same thing to all people.

[rman]

27. "nanny state", as in

Universal healthcare, non-privatized (and thus state-run) social security, state-regulated food and drug safety, state-run media oversight, state-run oversight of the energy industry (as opposed to energy industry-run oversight of the energy industry...)?

All of which has been broken down or is in the process of being broken down - and look what it got us. It got us Enron, the healthcare debacle, media consolidation as never seen before, etc, etc. You get to choose between one crappy and expensive healthcare plan and another crappy and expensive healthcare plan.
If you ask people who where there how it was in the 50s and 60s, they'll tell you it was better back then.

And just look at who's cracking down hardest on drug use, video games and bedroom activities - the RW or progressives?

[Warren DeMontague]

41. I agree 100% with everything in your post.

I support universal healthcare, I support safety regulations on food and drugs (safety and truth in packaging, labeling. But that doesn't mean I support the government telling people what food or drugs they can ingest)

As far as Enron- dude, I live in California. You're preaching to the choir. I knew that thing was a massive, deliberate ripoff from the get-go.

But social libertarianism or left libertarianism -as I suspect you know from your post below- has to do with individual rights, not corporate- and yes, I consider myself a "progressive", too.

Perhaps, if certain other major parties would find the guts (while simultaneously finding the guts to stand up for, say, a SPHC system) to stand up across the board for individual liberties in the bedroom, or in the bloodstream, or against censorship etc etc. the small-"l" word (which so often gets confused with the big "L" party) wouldn't hold the appeal it obviously does for so many here.

[rman]

61. Who/which party is saying government should tell people what food or drugs

they can or can't ingest?

Is preventing unsafe food and drugs from entering the market the same as "telling people what food or drugs they can ingest?"

Are you saying people should have the choice to drink anti-biotic and hormone-laden Monsanto milk? Why would anyone knowingly make that choice?
If people vote for a party that enacts policies which prevent unsafe goods from entering the market, have people not already made the choice not to consume unsafe goods, have they no chosen for their government to protect them against such things?

In your mind, is there a difference between the government protecting people from unsafe goods (with consent of the governed) on the one hand, and on the other hand "telling people what food or drugs they can ingest"?

[Warren DeMontague]

65. I think if people should have the right to smoke pot, I think I also have

to concede to them the right to consume the crap that currently constitutes much of the 'Merkin diet. Including hormone laden milk. Just tell people what the hell is in it.

I think "protecting people from unsafe goods" is a slippery slope. Alcohol is an extremly unsafe good, but the last time we tried "protecting" people from it, it didn't work out so well. I'm satisfied with restricting the access of minors to it, and making sure that no one is selling turpentine in gin bottles. Regulation works.

Same thing with food- food should be safe (not idiot proof), food should be what it says it is, food processing should be clean and sanitary. But I don't think banning, say, processed sugar, or trans fats, or anything else that might make people fat or give them heart disease and diabetes is any kind of way to go. Again, truth in labeling. California has led the way in this kind of legislation, which is why the corporate food industry is trying so hard to kill our laws in this regard (so much for "States rights")

Now- on the broader scale, which party supports the drug war? Unfortunately, both do. Which party has come out strongly in favor of the rights of people to make their own damn decisions- from reproductive to end of life- about their own bodies? Ours, but not by much.

Which was my point. If our party would come out for sanity in those regards, maybe we wouldn't have so much confusion about the meaning of the word "libertarianism", because honoring individual freedom would be recognized as the progressive value that it is.

Capice?

[rman]

66. Moderate alcohol consumption is far safer than moderate consumption of

'Monsanto milk'.
A life time of drinking a few beers a day won't kill you nor make you ill. The same is true for smoking pot.
Drinking that much 'Monsanto milk' will most likely harm your health.

I agree that the principal of the government protecting people can be abused (not only prohibition but also the current war on terror are examples) - but that's a problem with integrity of government, not a problem inherent to protection.
The radical alternative; no protection, does however have inherent problems.

If all products are labeled properly, and if all consumers are sufficiently educated (you got to know what stuff is bad for your health), then no-one in their right mind will choose to consume something that's unsafe.

In that light, arguing for the right for corporations to put unsafe products on the market, and the right for people to consume those products, seems to me to be a mostly academic discussion.

All in all i do think that we do for the most part agree on the principals involved in this issue.

[rman]

26. Which kind of libertarian?

Left-wing anarcho-syndicalist/socialist-libertarian such as Noam Chomsky, or RW anarcho-capitalist type of libertarian that's really just free-market fundamentalist republicans with a different name?

[nealmhughes]

30. That is why I hate all 'isms.

I consider myself a pragmatic democratic socialist.

Being pragmatic means that one has the ability to see some good in every debate and take something from it.

Being a democratic socialist, I do not want state control of everything, but I do feel that the playing field must be made level and that a portion of the wealth must be shared for the common good.

On the other hand, I don't want to have to live in a grey concrete housing block with 1500 of my closest friends to get that level playing field!

[H2O Man]

33. Librarians?

I like most librarians.

[xchrom]

37. i'm with you.

i think are areas of ''paralell'' aagreement -- and that's fine.

but mostly i don't believe that creating a society is something to be done willy nilly -- it takes thought and work.

i'm a very proud socialist -- i believe that government is there to work on behalf of all citizens -- otherwise why bother?

eduacation would probably be my number one area of concern -- i don't have kids -- but nothing, nothing is more important than the education of the citizens of a country.

[RangerSmith]

38. The whole "I know whats best for you

and I'll save you despite yourself" sounds way too much like where we are headed right now with this bunch of right wing clowns.

Too many citizens have seen the reality of the Corp of Engineers, Fema, DOD, FBI, CIA, etc, etc, in actual action to want to give any more control of anything over to the govt regardless of who is in office.

This is the quickest platform for Republican re-election you could ever come up with.

[regularguy]

39. I'm against Libertarianism to the extent that

they seem to want (at least here in the US) to push aside the government and let corporate power fill the void. I'm with 'em as far as desiring the greatest amount of personal autonomy possible.

Nice thread, BTW

[Ron Mexico]

40. Where I disagree with libertarians is

that I don't think legalizing drugs is the most important issue facing is today, and I don't believe in unrestricted immigration. However, I am against Big Government - largely because when it gets to this size, there's always the chance the Repugs will be running it. After these past five years, I am for cutting the federal government down to bare bones and letting all (I mean ALL) social programs be handled at the local level.

After these years of Bush, I am actually starting to come around on things such as the right to keep a LOT more of my money so as not to fund the slime running the country now. I am more and more for individual rights than I ever had been before because I see what forfeiting them can mean. I am for starving the federal government and getting it the fuck out of my life. Paradoxical as it sounds, I have adopted some conservative / libertarian views, but for what conservatives and libertarians would consider all the wrong reasons.

[genie_weenie]

43. Be careful. Common good vs. Individual Good

means very clearly one thing. If 100 people have vastly improved lives, then the deaths of 99 people are acceptable. Common good to me reads as sacrifice those lesser lives for the greater good. Pure Utilitarian crap.

For example, since the expermints conducted on AMERICAN soldiers in WWII gave rise to several vaccinations, was the fact almost all of those vets died young or developed strange cancers acceptable?

And anyway, "The Right to Own slaves" you reference is a clear indiciation of the EVIL of government, after all the elected officals kept it around.

And you forget the biggest fact of libertarians. libertarians don't believe in force or fraud to accomplish their goals. That is freedom.

I think you need to listen to the Bush Regime, what does he always reference concerning Iraq? That the deaths and maimings of Americans and Iraqis IN THE LONG RUN will be for the greater good.

So yeah, that's my rant.

[flaminbats]

44. Republicans who laugh at Bush..

they rarely vote libertarian, but don't see a reason for paying income taxes. They usually vote Republican while claiming to want a smaller and less powerful federal government. They claim individual liberty is threatened by centralized power, but think the military is underfunded and should keep more info classified from the taxpayers.

Libertarians don't love liberty, they want subsidized darwinism. They don't support the war in Iraq, but refuse to blame Republicans for lacking an exit strategy! Libertarians are only conservative voters who love attacking liberals, but refuse to waste time defending their votes for Republican officeholders. Basically they are Republicans who don't believe in God.

[Quantess]

45. Are you serious?

How do you feel about NSA phone call snooping, then?

You think the government should foot the bill for abortions, because the govt. isn't being proactive enough? Weird, because as a matter of fact, the government is already taking a stand, by severely restricting abortion.

:popcorn:

[Mz Pip]

46. We have a pretty big governement

right now. You like that? Thing is when you have a big government there is a lot of regulation. What if you aren't really crazy about what the government is regulating? THere are 5 Southern states where the government is banning the sale of sex toys. I'm sure those in the government there believe they are doing this to make society better.

It is a question of perspective. If you were the government you would regulate things that you thought were in the common good. Others might not see it that way. There has to be consensus. It's pretty hard to equate the right to own slaves with the right to own a hummer. Pretty much there is a consensus on the slaves, not so much on the hummers.

I do not want the government making decisions for me about what I drive or what I eat. I want more efficient cars and I think the government can certainly encourage them, but mandating them? No way.

I am very uncomfortable with big government interferring in my personal decisions. We get laws like not being able to hang a clothesline because it interfers with the neighborhood's sensibilities.

Your vision is big government that does only what you want it to do. Good luck in that.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[kiahzero]

47. You're really not

If you were, as you claim, against everything a libertarian is for, you'd be for totalitarianism. Then again, maybe that's not far off the mark, because that's what happens when you give the government the right to control your actions in the name of the common good.

[Odin2005]

48. The Free-Market Fundimentalists have hijacked the term "libertarian"

The term originated for non-Marxist, anti-centralization socialists who were not as extreme in thier views as the anarcho-socialists. I myself consider myself a libertarian socialist, similar to Chomsky. A lot of the confusion arised from political vocabulary diferences between North America and Europe. In Europe the people we call right-wing libertarians are called liberals, here in the US liberal have come to mean what the Euros call social democrat.

[Ezra the Prankster]

86. Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought...

...It started out as "Freedom for everyone", but it's been turned into "Freedom for everyone to exploit everyone else" though their economic control of resources. Just as the Nazi party claimed to be Socialists because that was a good way to attract popular support, Libertarianism as a lot of people practice is just corporate Fascism in disguise.

[Jed Dilligan]

49. The evils you mention should be dealt with

through regulation of corporations not personal behavior.

[SmokingJacket]

50. But should an EVIL government have that much power?

I believe in progressive taxes and in laws protecting innocent people, but that's about it.

The individual should have all the freedom possible UP TO THE POINT of it impinging on another's freedom. I think there's a lot of room there -- room to smoke pot, to fill one's yard with beer can sculptures, etc.

[bloom]

51. The trouble with the word "libertarian"

I have ranted against libertarians also. In the libertarian vs. liberal (or progressive) dichotomy.


So then there is this political "quiz" http://www.politicalcompass.org/


And it puts people in categories of either Authoritarian VS. Libertarian and Left VS. RIght. So most people here are probably in the lower left quadrant - which I would say is liberal - maybe leaning toward socialism. The quiz says that is left-libertarian.


Take the quiz - you'll see what I'm talking about. It's not necessarily the best way to put things - but you'll see where some people are coming from.

I agree that people should be concerned for the common good and that doesn't include "the right to buy a hummer" - at least under my definition of progressive.

[K-W]

52. Real libertarianism is based on liberty, not government-phobia. EOM

[jjrjsa]

54. I like that!

Yes, I think my main beef with libertarians today (on either side of the spectrum) is the government-phobia. Simply screaming about how "big government" is bad doesn't solve anything.

[Ezra the Prankster]

53. Libertarianism started out as...

A politically correct synonym for Anarchism. But based on what I've seen from the two people I've known who call themselves Libertarians, it's basically diet Anarchism attempting to be Anarcho-Capitalism for people who don't realize that the acquisition of material wealth far in excess of what you need to maintain your biological survival depends on government to prevent other people from robbing you.

Anarchism depends on people cooperating voluntarily in order to function as a political system. Despite what the mainstream media would like you to believe, Anarchism is not synonymous with chaos and free-for-all competition. Quite the contrary, in fact, Anarchism is the antithesis of competition. Anarchism, by definition, can't survive in an atmosphere of unrestrained competition AND real Anarchists are smart enough to REALIZE that. Because if there's no government to stop you from inflicting damage on other people for your benefit, that means there isn't any government to prevent other people from getting even with you by whatever means suit them best.

Government or any other type of social structure, if it works the way it's supposed to, is an agreement among the memebers of a civilization to cooperate toward their mutual goals. Despite what a lot of Anarchists would like to believe, government is not inherently evil any more than an alternate social structure would be inherently good. If our government worked the way it's supposed to work, with all that of, by, and for the people business, it would be the social structure Anarchists long to build. Our government just doesn't seem that way, because it was not founded as an agreement among ALL the members of our civilization to cooperate toward their mutual bebefit, nor did it even attempt to be mutually beneficial to all the members of our civilization, and it had never been used that way. Our government doesn't work the way it's supposed to work because it's founded on the faulty premise that wealthy White heterosexual Christian men know more about how to build a civilization than anybody else does. And it can't possibly work the way it's supposed to work as long as it's "controlled" by "votes" "cast" by a majority of voters who are not well enough educated nor worldly enough to see that wealthy White heterosexual Christian men DON'T know more about how to build a civilization, they've just seemed that way for a long time because they were lucky enough to inherit the material resources that enabled them to build the most physically powerful civilization in the world. Which doesn't prove a goddamned thing.

Have you ever noticed that NO type of political system in history has ever worked as well as its founders thought it should? Not even democracy. Every form of government that has ever succeeded at some point has succeeded because it seemed like a good idea at the time and enough people were willing to cooperate with it that it worked for a while. But then every form of government has gone wrong somewhere. Libertarianism is hardly unique in that.

Speaking as a pioneer in the field of evoultionary psychology, I can tell you that there is no existing political system or political party that can serve humanity adequately, because so many critical discoveries into the origins of human behavior are only a few years old. And the first step in turning a working understanding of human behavior into a funtional political system is teaching the public a working understanding of human behavior. Which is not happening...

I would characterize the evolutionary origins of real Libertarianism (not illusionary Anarcho-Capitalism) as an attempt to apply Anarchistic principles to our existing government and other social structures. Anarchism as a political ideology values personal responsibility more highly than any other form of government (because it depends on it exclusively to make the political system function), but essentially it elevates free will to the status of a supernatural power that could supposedly solve all the world's problems. That's as much a delusion as the belief that the Second Coming of Christ will solve all the world's problems.

While Anarchism does serve a valuable political function, it can't possibly replace our existing government simply because no voting majority of people would ever agree to such a thing. If you define Libertianism as an attempt to apply scientific laws to society for the sake of creating a peaceful, sustainable, functional, mutually beneficial society, without regard to ancient superstitious beliefs of how the universe works, then really, Libertarianism is the most highly evolved political ideology to date. Or at least, it is if people use it that way...

[NashVegas]

72. Welcome to DU, Ezra

Nice post. Many moons ago, when living in the Albany NY area I was introduced to a young man who described himself as an anarchist and ran a free'zine. His idea of anarchy was 180 degrees from everything I'd ever been told that anarchy was. His idea was pretty much what you've described. Yet, it's the nihilists who get all the press.

[PWRinNY]

55. Do you not like CHOICE?

Seriously.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. But some things don't have a government solution

Sometimes you need to force people to take personal responsibility.

[flaminbats]

58. indeed..

and some things need a government solution..like 9/11, and sometimes the voters need to punish government officials for not taking responsibility. :spank:

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Damn straight

Voters definately need to punish government officials more often.

[rman]

62. "some things, sometimes" - which things, when?

[Terran1212]

57. The Libertarian Party = selfish nuts and people who don't understand

sociology.

Said it here won't take it back.

[Imajika]

60. Couldn't disagree more...

I want the freedom to make my own choices, and I flat out don't much care what any of you do so long as it doesn't hurt me or anyone else. Pro-choice all the way.

Tell me what I can or can't eat, drive or can't drive, etc, etc and I will vote for whatever political party opposes you.

I vote Democratic for precisely that reason. I detest the religious right. Do we Democrats have too many nanny state types running around wanting to regulate everything? Yup. Are the Republican religious zeolots worse? Yup.

If the Democratic Party every evolved into what your ranting about, I would not only leave it I would actively work against it.

Pro-choice. Let people pretty much do what they want to do.

Decriminalize drugs, eliminate most if not all moral laws, government out of people's bedrooms, leave citizens alone.

[rman]

63. You already have freedom to make your own choices,

except for those things that hurts others.

RW libertarianism is about doing away with the any and all regulation because supposedly the free market will take care of everything.
For instance, if you die from some unhealthy medicine, you can sue the corporation that made it - so who needs government. That's the kind of arguments RW libertarians come up with.

I think that a Progressive Democratic agenda would provide the freedoms that you (and most people) want; no need to support RW libertarianism for that.

I guess what it comes down to is that "libertarianism" is just to vague and ambiguous a concept to be of use as a point of reference in discussions about politics.

[Pushed To The Left]

64. Libertarianism is great on social issues, but is one-dimensional

Both liberals and libertarians tend to agree with less government (for social issues) and more personal freedom. However, when less government and personal freedom come into conflict with each other, libertarians will stick with less government, while liberals will go with personal freedom. For example:

A man smokes marijuana before going to bed on Saturday night. He doesn't come to work under the influence and doesn't drive after he smokes the pot.

Conservative position: He should go to jail for using pot and his employer should have the right to fire him for it.

Libertarian position: He should not be arrested for pot, but his employer should have the right to fire him for it.

Liberal position: He should not be arrested for pot, and his employer should not have the right to fire him for what he does on his own time.


In this case, the liberal position is best when it comes to personal freedom, while the libertarian position sticks with the "less government" approach.

[IdaBriggs]

67. I used to think they were cute, but harmless.

Then I made the mistake of reading the platform of one who was looking to be on the board of a local public university.

His avowed purpose for running was to SELL THE PUBLIC UNIVERSITY TO PRIVATE INTERESTS.

So, an asset that had taken over one hundred years to build, that was intended to benefit the community for decades (if not longer) to come, was something he wanted to just sell off for short term gain of funds?

Moran.

Done now. Here's a shock: he didn't get my vote.

[Matriot]

68. Divide and conquer anyone?

I love how everyone is categorizing everyone else in this blog into a certain stereotype which conveniently divides and conquers. Don't you see that by putting a stigma of political categorization without looking at the issues and how one reacts to them, completely divides us like the government wants us to be.

[NashVegas]

73. Welcome to DU, Matriot

Just FYI - this is not a blog, this is a message board.

Personally, I have my doubts about the sincerity of the OP.

[Matriot]

75. I stand corrected however you get my meaning

[sendero]

69. I dunno...

... I've issued many a rant and polemic, some long and reasoned, most short and vitriolic, against Libertarianism.

I've had many conversations with them, and I find them to be mostly "me, me, me" people, so it's no surprise that many of them are cropping up in the younger generation which is more and more ruthlessly "me, me, me" than the boomers could have ever imagined being.

But I digress. Fact is, on almost every issue other than anything involving business (and that would include environmental regulation since business comprises 99% of the offenders in that area) or economics, I'm a functional Libertarian.

I believe the government should butt the hell out of my life. Things like gun ownership (not military-only stuff - there is a limit on everything, drugs - (government is merely wasting time and money trying to stop people from doing what they've done since the dawn of time), and I of course believe in 100% civil liberties.

While I think government should but out of everyone's personal life, I think it should butt well into business life even more. Look at something like Enron or Worldcom - these things should have NEVER HAPPENED. If the government weren't so damn busy trying to enforce the unenforceable, they might be able to, with oversight commensurate witht the public interest involved, catch these thieves before they wreck an entire company and economy.

When I try to talk to a Libertarian about this sort of thing, they always fall back to "we don't need oversight of business, we have criminal laws to protect us". Yeah, look how well THOSE are working. Fact is, if true Libertarian philosophy were implemented tomorrow, we'd be seeing an Enron every few days, not every few years.

No thanks.

[NashVegas]

74. So You're For The Patriot Act, Data Mining, Etc?

Sorry to hear it.

[dysfunctional press]

76. screw that.

what kind of fascist utopia are you looking for?

[fleabert]

78. ...

[Batgirl]

79. Are you being sarcastic?

"Now, the whole personal freedom thing sounds good on paper, but it's bullshit in practice."

"I think it's okay for the government to regulate the things we eat, the things we drive, etc. Why? Because it's for the better good!"

"Come on people! If you are a progressive, it means you understand that the government has to limit the behavior of the individual when it goes against the common good."

[donsu]

80. isn't individual good also the common good?

common good is people, people are individuals

you must be a suit

[Radical Activist]

81. Libertarians transfer all power in society to the wealthy few.

That is the result of taking away the power people have to regulate wealth through the government. It is the ultimate "me" philosophy that will help no one but those with great wealth and land.

[recidivist]

82. I agree with you on one condition.

My condition is that I get to decide what is good for everyone else. I am smarter than most people. And kinder, wiser, more perceptive, and more humane. I find it easy to impose discipline on other people and I am eager to solve their problems for them. Since I know you are sympathetic to this point of view, I will start with you.

Oh, and one other thing: I am incorruptible, so there is no danger of me abusing my position for personal gain or of not living up to the standards I set for everyone else. I am the true philosopher king. You can trust me. Really.

[anewdeal]

83. Are you going to convert everyone to Christianity?

so that we all get to go to Heaven? It is for the common good.

[recidivist]

85. Absolutely. But only for the greatest good of all concerned.

What's the matter -- you have some kind of crazy libertarian objection to that?

[w8liftinglady]

84. don't lump all libertarians into the Rand/Greenspan Objectivist mold..

There are a lot of libertarian DUers.i was a registered libertarian for about 20 years.I always saw libertarian philosophy as one of-granted idealistic-equality.One where people were free to act on their own principles,as long as they didn't infringe on another's rights.The thought that libertarians are all money-hungry elitists was fostered by Ayn Rand,who's symbol of Objectivism was"$".Trust me,most of us are interested in a more socialist model,where everyone is supported to self-actualize and reach their highest potential.No-we DO NOT like Government infringing on our activities.However,when corporations have policies that affect others' well-being-they have crossed that "Moral" line where they infringe on my rights.Where i split from the Libertarian Party was on the issue of taxation,as i believe all citizens have a duty to contribute to the upkeep of the country, public education,and universal health care.but,In true Libertarian sentiment-good education and a healthy populous reduces the drain on the government,and increases the standard of living for all.

[NuttyFluffers]

88. why are you against young republican dropouts and their marijuana?

:evilgrin: