To me, libertarianism is a bigger threat to democracy than fascism or communism

[divideandconquer]

To me, libertarianism is like some guy in love with the gorgeous airbrushed photoshopped women in magazines, a desire for something that can't exist. For better or worse, the Red army, the Casto brothers or a fascist dictator do exist and make many things work, sometimes very well but with well known failures as well. Libertarianism is an unattainable ideal that destroys any meaningful political discussion.

[Taverner]

1. Depends on the Libertarianism. Ex. I think most of us here are Social Libertarians

[MajorChode]

48. Most people associate the generic "libertarianism" with economic libertarians

Most people wouldn't call Noam Chomsky a libertarian, although technically he is at least a certain flavor of libertarian.

[HughMoran]

55. This is why broad-brush statements don't work

I do NOT want the government in my bedroom.

If I smoke weed at home, not bothering anybody - I don't want to worry that I could be in jail for choosing pot over beer.

I don't think the government should be taking people's property by eminent domain.

I could go on - there are lots of libertarian principals that most on the left would agree with.

[The Straight Story]

2. Do you think "Her Body, Her choice" is a libertarian idea?

Or "your body, your choice"?

Not saying you do, just wonder if others view that as a libertarian ideal or not (and all it's implications on personal freedom).

[JVS]

3. Libertarianism is fascism when viewed through beer goggles.

WTF do these people think is going to happen when the capitalists are allowed totally free reign to buy the government?

[Sebastian Doyle]

20. Or as Thom Hartmann often says...

"Libertarians are Republicans who like to smoke dope and get laid"

[HughMoran]

56. & Democrats

That saying applies to both sides WRT libertarianism.

[nradisic]

4. Its about me, me,me...

It's like the modern GOP and folks who vote Republican but call themselves "Libertarians". Libertarianism is like true Anarchy, everyone has so much freedom, that there really are no restrictions on personal or business behavior. No taxes, no rules, no government spending, allow everyone to carry guns....that is insane and that is total anarchy.

[Lasher]

18. Correct, libertarians are anarchists with money.

Video clip: Somalia, libertarian paradise

[MajorChode]

42. or anarchist that just lack commitment

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Every time I am told by a Libertarian why they support that platform

I ask them what the plan is to uncap unchecked greed?

They got nothin'.

It is the fatal flaw that their utopian, myopic vision doesn't take into account.

[FLAprogressive]

7. "The Invisible Hand". I was once told by a libt kiddie that it was a valid economic theory.

[Democracyinkind]

10. Well, to be fair - in Adam Smith's work the invisible hand is only half of the hands.

But yes, Republicans and libertarians like to act as if Smith had not also written about the visible hand. Even Smith realized that the invisible hand would start to fingerfuck people if it wasn't checked by the visible hand.

[Democracyinkind]

8. Yes, like communism, libertarianism only functions when people are inherently good..

And yeah, well, good luck with that.

I always love how Ron Paul says that communism crumbled because they believed man was good. He doesn't seem to get that that is a Libertarian viewpoint too.

Try to live in a Libertarian state with Rupert Murdoch or Jeffrey Dahmer. I wouldn't want to be on my own against the crazy.

[LeftishBrit]

43. Or when people live in very small groups

Communism can work quite well as long as people live in small collectives; and libertarianism can work quite well when people live in small extended-family groups, which look out for one another as kin rather than as members of a state.

However, the large-scale imposition of communism in larger states (like other ideologies, such as Christianity and Islam) has generally resulted in authoritarian quasi-theocracy. And libertarianism in a large society has generally resulted in a massive number of people being thrown on the rubbish-heap.

[Democracyinkind]

49. A very worthy addition. Thanks.

[FarCenter]

17. What is your plan for unchecked greed?

There is no reason to believe that politicians are less greedy than capitalists.

Perhaps politicians are a little more into power and less into money, but that is the only difference that I see.

[Ruby the Liberal]

28. Regulations. Glass-Steagall needs to come back.

Force derivatives into the market and shine the light on them.

Make it illegal to buy insurance on something you don't own.

Too big to fail? Nationalize them and sell off the pieces.

The reasons I am a Democrat.

[Posteritatis]

24. Most of the ones I know think unchecked greed is a Good Thing. (nt)

[Democracyinkind]

25. A country full of wannabe Gordon Geckos .... nt

[FLAprogressive]

6. I consider myself a left-libertarian/progressive but I really fucking hate most Libertarians.

[AllentownJake]

9. I don't think you have to worry much

The number of people on social security, medicare, some form of government assistance, and currently on unemployment ensures that libertarianism isn't going to be making much headway anytime soon.

[Stargazer99]

11. We got another freeper crusing the board obviously

You can't fool a rational thinking demo, try again

[Sinti]

12. To me libertarianism is no threat - it's never going to take hold

We already have too many poor people. I think monopolization is the biggest threat to democracy, i.e., the multinational corporation state.

[divideandconquer]

13. Republicans use libertarians to cause mayhem in the political process

For instance, the teabaggers started as a libertarian movement.

[Sinti]

16. The "teabagger" movement is not dangerous of itself - it's guided

The guidance system is in place to serve the multinational monopolies. Many of the people in that movement could be reasoned with, if you were patient, listened to them, explained things clearly and didn't just react. More, better paying jobs, a better education system and a potentially bright future for all Americans would certainly put an end to most of the "teabagger" affair - the others are just hardcore racists or something, they need to be integrated with people so they get over their weird fear of melanin. At least that's how I see it :)

[Gman2]

14. You dont have a clue.

Libertarianism, is the perfect form, of neocon. It is like Plato's untouchable pristine copies of real world things and ideas. They recently got together with neocons, and made common cause. The reason why you see all this Rand shit lately, is that PURE LIBERTARIAN ideas, are the only ones not sullied by Bush and history. When they talk about not being conservative enough these days, Repubs are referring to hard core libertarian ideas.

The Libertarian Party will reap all the disaffected Repubs. Then, at the appointed time, the Repubs will woo all of them back, in some grand gesture. Teh Libs being promised the rhetorical throne. That is why all the Beck/Fox jockeyong for anti-everyparty. The base aint goin anywhere. And the Libertarians can be collected at the appropriate time. By elevating the spector of an Obama sweep, in 2012.

The standard Republican history has taken quite a lot of horsepower, to deny Hitler, Mussolini and any other fascist. So, the Libertarian party, is there to stay above being EVER proven wrong, in any degree, forever. It is employing the no true scotsman technique. When we assail a rightwinger, they simply fall back to, well we never REALLY tried the concept, in a laboratory. There were a few Dems around, or ? It is intellectual dishonesty, elevated to religion.

But most of all, it is the salve, against giving a FUCK, about your fellow man.

[Gman2]

15. Jsut cuz yer socially libertarian, is NO reason to give Libertarianism any respect.

Two different animals.

[mmonk]

38. No, neoconservatism is a world economic domination push using

the military industrial complex. Libertarianism is more isolationist.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Libertarianism is a vital avenue of political thought

Some political philosophies are philosophic and aspirational. But not practical.

The totalitarian ones sometimes gain power. The weak-state ones don't because they can never accrue power... weak states are funny that way.

I find economic libertarianism foolish and often grotesque.

I find civil libertarianism the most important element of our system.

Just because Ron Paul supporters are a-holes doesn't mean the individual>state concept isn't a necessary element of a rich political discourse.

It's one of those perspectives that will never gain power because of its absurd inner-contradictions, and should never gain power but is still an important voice.

[hansberrym]

21. You miss the point of libertarianism, it is not a utopian ideal such as

Facism or Communism, it does not promise free health care or other shiny baulbles that supposedly flow from the inexhaustible spring of a benevolent and omnipotent government.

On the contrary, it recognizes that there is an optimum level of government beyond which the individual and society in general will experience diminishing returns. Too little government and the individual can not prosper because he has to invest too much time simply defending himself and his property. Too much government and the individual can not make use of his own efforts/resources in ways that best suit his own needs and desires, while the balance has tipped so that power is no longer constrained and corruption destroys the government.

All governments eventually fail, either by too much centralized power as in fascism or communism in which corruption and collapse is inevitable, or by too little power in which anarchy/lawlessness ensues.


Things did not turn out well for the facists in Italy or the communists in USSR, But the US prospered for many years until subverted by those who dreamed of empire. The Wilsonians and the Neocons have drained the country, other utopians will finish her off if we the people fail to constrain government growth/spending.


What can we learn from history? Reject the utopian ideals of fascism and communism, and keep government within its proper bounds. This takes work.

Asking fellow citizens to reject the siren song of ever more free services eventually will lose out, as it has countless times in the course of history, but the alternative suggested by the OP, that we can have the shiny benefits without the omnipotent government is the same pipedream as Marxian socialism. People will not labor long and hard for the benefit of some "collective" ideal. Instead greater and greater force will be needed to make the few labor for the many.

How often have we heard a similar refrain: Single payer is the goal and we can make it happen by taxing the richest (someone other than the demander)?
Do you suppose "the rich" will simply hand over their earnings/wealth, or do you think increased government power will be needed to wrest if from them?

[divideandconquer]

22. It's an irresponsible worldview that is false.

Like "independent" voters who want Democratic party governance and Republican party taxes.

[Gman2]

23. Bullcrap, you are setting up Libertarianism as the common sense adult.

There is NO level of Gov that is allowable. As it pertains to gov being intended to service humans. Your crapola about all democracies failing, when the parasites learn that they can vote themselves a free lunch, should get you TOMBSTONED, libertarian. It is crap, and YOU are crap. Libertarianism, is like Bill Gates seed bank. A reboot, for when we FUCK UP food crops, or in this case, when Republicans make rightwing, a disease.

[hansberrym]

27. Well, what you said is crap.

You said:
"There is NO level of Gov that is allowable. As it pertains to gov being intended to service humans.

and of course that is crap, as government is intended to serve humans(by that I take it you mean individual, or is that a dirty word?) , unless of course one subscribes to Communism or Fascism -in which case the individual human serves the state.

I don't care what you call it, call it middle of the road, call it centrism, call it liberal lite, whatever floats your boat. But the OP's suggestion that libertarianism is more a threat than Fascism and Communism is foolish in the extreme. Both libertarianism and liberalism occupy the middle, while fascism and communisn occupy the extremes. Unless one is closer to the extremes than the middle, one has to reject the OP's claim.


How far to the authoriarian side of the scale must one travel to come to the conclusion that liberalism has more to fear from libertarianism than communism or fascism? What ails you?

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. Libertarianism is hardly "centrist"

That comment actually made me laugh!

Lets see what we have:

No foreign aid
No troops on foreign soil ever. For any reason.
No need for the Army and the Marines (just the navy to patrol the shores).
No regulations on anything (and how well is that working out for us).
No federal programs that aren't in the Constitution (Women having the right to vote, Civil Rights, American's with Disability Act, etc....)
No Social Security
No Medicare/Medicaid
No FDIC
No SEC
No Federal Reserve
No Roe v Wade - make it a states issue

How I could go on...

The ONLY thing liberals have in common with Libertarians are End The Wars and Free The Weed.

[DireStrike]

47. If this were true, libertarians would be begging for more government

We are not even close to that "diminishing returns" point. We are still continually raped by criminals that the government refuses to deal with.

Instead modern libertarians keep insisting that we need less government!

[anonymous171]

26. At its core, (economic) Libertarianism is extremely anti-democratic.

Democracy is egalitarian (1 person, 1 vote), Libertarianism is plutocratic (1 person has 1,000,000 dollars, therefore they get 1,000,000 votes. ALL HAIL THE FREE MARKET!)

[LeftishBrit]

41. I would like to give your post 1,000,000 votes!

[Hutzpa]

29. There are some on this forum

that thinks its better than the repugs, IMO they both are useless with no emotion
for the less wealthy.

It's pisses me off when some will try and justify Libertarian.

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. I am greatful for their End The WARS support

But they are pretty much off the cliff on everything else.

[divideandconquer]

32. The stopped clock is right 2 times a day, since they support no government anything

Heck, now that I think of it a pure libertarian wouldn't support standardized time.

[The Straight Story]

33. Again I will ask - is 'Her body, her choice' something one considers a libertairan view?

And why or why not?

[LeftishBrit]

40. Yes; but ironically many 'libertarians' including Ron Paul do *not* treat it as such

[HughMoran]

57. Exactly. Who says Ron Paul is a libertarian?

I see you put the term in quotes - good for you. Just because he (and his zombie followers) says he's a libertarian, doesn't make it so. I wish more people here could/would distinguish between the right-wing separatist nut bags who call themselves libertarian and the political philosophy which involves a lot more than just economic selfishness and can be discussed rationally by thinking people.

[LeftishBrit]

76. In Britain, libertarianism until recently tended to mean 'social libertarianism'

And economic libertarianism used to be termed 'laissez-faire economics', and still often is. With greater influence of American political discourse on ours, 'libertarianism' is now used here more in the American sense. But being aware of the different uses is what made me put it in quotes.

I think that there is no necessary relationship at all between economic and social libertarianism and the Right are spreading a lie by frequently implying that there is.

[philly_bob]

34. To me, there's hope for Libertarians, they just fell for the economic fairy tale.

and the bank bailouts under two administration pretty much destroys their arguments.

There's no hope for Neocons. And the Teabaggers -- they're just simple and deluded.

But the Ron Paulians -- I think we should be open to them, as their goldbug/business does it best/government is evil mental heuristic collapses.

[Gman2]

35. Go away

[philly_bob]

45. No, I will not Go Away. n/t

[Gman2]

52. Then learn something about Libertarianism.

[HughMoran]

58. Your sophisticated argument is appreciated

:rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

37. If their mental heuristic hasn't collapsed yet, it's unlikely to.

As you point out, the economic fairy tale has been disproved. Anyone who still believes it, is under the grip of some ideological dogma.

[philly_bob]

67. The beauty of Libertarian economics was its simplicity. It's wrong -- but simple.

Free market theory explained everything. Other than Marxism, there's no other easy-to-digest economic theory. Real economics is messy and confusing and often contradictory.

I suspect any disenchanted Libertarians are going through life with no economic theory, but a generalized anger at the rich and powerful.

[the other one]

36. Libertarians would end the war on drugs

Unlike those that run our democracy

[LeftishBrit]

39. True, but although I support this policy, it's not the ONLY thing that matters

Libertarianism would kill lots of people, or reduce them to abject poverty. Read some history about life in the early 19th century, for example.

[MajorChode]

44. Hitler ushered in paid vacations and the 40 hr workweek too

That doesn't mean fascism is a great idea. Lots of liberals would end the war on drugs too and even a few conservatives. You don't have to be a libertarian to understand it's not in the nation's best interest to bust potheads.

[JVS]

46. No they wouldn't. Because it would fuck with for profit prisons

[Stevenmarc]

51. Not because it's the right thing to do but because they're annoyed with the cost

[Stevenmarc]

50. Libertarians are the water carriers of the 1%

It's a greed based political viewpoint of a bunch of wannabees that rush to vote against their own self interests because they are under the opinion that it will put them on the path to the 1% club.

[Gman2]

53. Only cuz they intend on privatizing all municipal water supplies!

[el_bryanto]

54. I don't know why libertarianism gets singled out in this way

Most extremist philosophies have the same problem, and that includes the ideas of Karl Marx and Benito Mussolini. And yet for all the danger of libertarianism, it has yet to produce it's Stalin or it's Hitler.

Make no mistake Libertarianism is a bad idea. But it seems less pernicious than some of the other ones out there.

Bryant

[Gman2]

59. There is ONLY ONE reason why there has never been a LIB Hitler.

Cuz we all have the good sense, never to vote one in.

[el_bryanto]

60. Oh. So if we were to elect a committed Liberterian

he would be like Hitler?

I rather think he'd be more like Pinochet.

Bryant

[SIMPLYB1980]

61. Simple answer to your question is

Yes.

[Gman2]

63. Any committed Lib, will cut off all social programs,

They will sell off all our birthrights, for a mess of porridge. They will go a huntin' any and all less capitalists, than thee. They will dissallow any deficits. They will generally do the worst of what the Republicans do, as they are the evil core of repub theology.

[el_bryanto]

65. On the other hand they will let us smoke all the marijauna we want n/t

[JonQ]

62. Meh, libertarians never had death camps

or gulags, or gas chambers.

That seems significant to me.

[Gman2]

64. And they've NEVER had to work a budget, or address a natural disaster, or

fight a war, or choose the lesser of two evils, or compromise, or live in the real world.

[JonQ]

68. Ok

but I'd still say the lack of genocide puts them ahead of communists/fascists, contrary to the point stated in the OP.

[hansberrym]

72. Hey, what's a death camp or two if the trains run on time?

There is some scary shit on this board lately, some of these people do not seem to understand that Fascist and communism not only killed a whole bunch of people, but the supposed efficiency was just smoke and mirrors.

[Gman2]

66. But the worst part is, that Libs are against the INITIATION of violence.

They LOVE violence, they just dont initiate it. They call any tax they dont like, violence. And they ALWAYS start history at the point THEY SAY. the effect is, for instance, the Israeli's can glass all the PAlestinians, cuz history started whenever theri side thinks advantageous. This gives ZERO rights to anyone they say can be glassed.

[LAGC]

69. I'd sleep better at night if all Republicans became Libertarians.

No more threat of theocracy, no more wars, no more war on drugs, no more anti-abortion movement, no more corporate welfare. We'd see gay marriage legalized nation-wide.

I could get used to that.

[Geek_Girl]

70. Whenever I hear someone tell me they are a Libertarian

they're really saying, "I'm a republican I just don't want to admit it."

[Blue_In_AK]

71. It depends on what your definition of libertarian is.

[TexasObserver]

73. A libertarian is a guy who never paid his own way for 18 years, but is "self sufficient" at 19.

Or so they think.

How do they think we got roads, sanitary sewer, railroads, utilities ...?

While I find some libertarian thoughts appealing, the messy business of governing must go on. It's easy to critique than to do.

[ShadowLiberal]

74. Libertarians are more liberal then conservatives, our founding fathers were libertarians

I'd rather face an opposition of libertarians then conservatives, at least then abortion and rights of persecuted minority groups (gays, Hispanics, and blacks to in the past) would be protected forever.

But if you look back at how our country was founded, a lot of our founding fathers were quite libertarian. I mean think about it, the colonists were antibig government, and talked about fighting for their liberty and freedom. They even tried to create a small weak central government under the articles of confederation, a government that could have never grown into a big powerful government. But then after they saw years later that the articles of confederation weren't working they got together and made our federal government.

But back in the days when our founding fathers ran the federal government it was mostly a very bare-boned operation, hardly a big government interfering in everything. For example, the US didn't even used to have a standing army for the most part until after WW1, we only had a few thousand people before then who called the military their lifelong career, compared to probably the millions of people in our military today. On business the federal government also used to for the most part aside from taxes leave businesses alone, just what libertarians would want.

My point basically is this, just because a radical hardcore libertarian would want to destroy social security and medicare and medicaid and other 'socialist' redistribution of wealth systems our government runs, doesn't mean they'd get anywhere close to doing it if they replaced the GOP. Heck, Britain's conservative party has gotten itself into hot water when a very conservative member of their parliament appeared in an antihealth care ad in the US talking about how horrible Britain's healthcare system was. Even media outlets with a heavy conservative bias there ran a bunch of stories accusing Britain conservatives of wanting to demolish the NHS (the government group that runs Britain's healthcare system).

[LeftishBrit]

75. British Conservatives are not usually 'libertarians'

There are numerous factions, and the Thatcherites come closer to right-libertarianism (what used in this country to be called 'laissez-faire' until we started to be more influenced by American than French political terminology!) than the other factions. But pure 'libertarianism' is rare in our elected officials. Ron Paul and the like would not easily get elected here these days; and I don't think that you can extrapolate from Cameron et al's distancing themselves from Hannan to anything that would happen if the Libertarians replaced the Republicans in the USA.