Libertarianism... What a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!!

[devilgrrl]

Let me ask you all something... has libertarianism ever been put into practice other than an individual smoking pot?

Looks good on paper though - don't it?

[NoodleBoy]

1. word

[ixion]

2. actually, there are people working on it...

http://www4.freestateproject.org/

And just because you may disagree with someone else's political beliefs doesn't make them all bullshit, IMHO. ;-)

While I don't agree with libertarians on their environmental stances, I do like their idea of keeping government out of people's private lives. That is not bullsh**, again IMO.

[asthmaticeog]

10. You're mostly right

when you say "And just because you may disagree with someone else's political beliefs doesn't make them all bullshit," but it the case of Libertarianism, sorry, that one in particular is in fact bullshit.

Edited to elaborate: Libertarianism mostly depends on willful ingorance of or pointed disregard for how economics actually works. Ask an economist about Libertarians if you want to hear a nice long guffaw.

[LSU_Subversive]

112. I second that Asthmaticeog! You're absolutely right.

[sendero]

155. Thanks...

... for doing my light work :) Libertarians are just like Communists, they have an idea that is simple, elegant and wrong.

Libertarian economics is the polar opposite of communistic economics, but would fail for the same reasons communistic economics failed, it utterly and completely ignores what really motivates human beings.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Well, Libertarians don't have any problem meddling with

other people's lives. Adverse possession and de-regulation is up their alley. They just don't want anything standing in their way of a quick buck.

[MrBenchley]

3. Amen to that...

A libertarian is nothing but a run of the mill right wing shithead who owns a modem...

[Birthmark]

4. Libertarianism is...

...a wonderful way to run a farming community. Not much use for people in cities with technology, though.

[arbusto_baboso]

5. Libertarianism: The very worst of conservative and liberal values...

combined and put in a vaguely attractive-looking package.

[neverborn]

28. The worst of conservative AND liberal values?

So, let's see a couple conservative values that libertarianism does NOT encompass:

* Constitutional Amendment for Gay Marriage
* Merging more religion with the state

Surely, those are the BEST of conservative values!

Let's see some liberal values that libertarianism DOES include:

* What people do in their bedrooms has NO business w/ the government.
* No draft.
* Government has no say in gay marriage.

Wow, those liberal values suck. I'd hate to defend those.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Yeah, right... It's the sides of Conservatism and Liberalism that

want to tell everybody what to do that RULE, huh?

[JVS]

77. If you don't want to tithe 45% to church and pay 45% income tax...

go find some other country to live in ;-)

[bryant69]

6. Libertarianism

Involves skipping a step or willfully ignoring reality.

It's a three step process but they only talk about the first and last step.

Step 1--Government shuts down all programs except the military.

Step 2--Massive suffering and problems and inconveniences as private businesses move in to fill the cap, continued suffering for those who depend on "unprofitable" programs such as welfare or social security.

Step 3--Society readjusts to it's new circumstances. Life for the wealthy becomes much nicer; possibly a little better for the middle class and upper middle class; lousy for the lower middle class and the working poor. Terrible for the non-working poor.

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

[Union Thug]

7. Libertarianism is best described as...

...the politics of 8 year olds.

[fujiyama]

43. Or those of freshmen college students

I considered myself "libertarian" years ago, then I realized that I am actually a LIBERAL and that I actually believe that government has a place in society, that it should provide a safety net, and education, health care, and a clean environment.

I guess I'm a civil libertarian though. I believe that the government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible when dealing with social issues. That's why I'm pro choice, against the PATRIOT Act, against the drug war, against the draft (except in emergencies), and have even come around on gun control (less in favor of it than I once was).

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Sounds "Left-Libertarian" to me...

Welcome to the club.

[JHB]

61. We have a club!?!

Where? I need a drink! Badly!

[Bill McBlueState]

57. *lol*

Yeah, I went through a short libertarian phase as a freshman in college. Oooh, I read about this on the internet and wrote a paper about it! And even better, my parents have never said anything about it! It must be hip and legitimate!

That's the college freshman mentality for ya.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Right, and now that I'm grown up

I'm so thankful I have the government telling me what I can read, watch, do, eat, who I can screw and how I can do it, what medicines I can take when I'm terminally ill and in massive pain... Yep, I'm so glad I grew out of that "college freshman mentality" of muddled libertarian thinking that I have the right to make decisions about my own body, my own mind, and my own life!

[kiahzero]

174. The government told corporations they can't polute my water...

Those bastards!

Please. We're not complaining about the social side of libertarianism, really... it's the economic policies that are complete and unfettered bullshit.

[NuttyFluffers]

143. i prefer calling myself a civil libertine...

and all the fun connotations that follow thereafter...:evilgrin: anything to avoid giving any credence to that word that might accidentally help that foolish philosophy.

heh, libertarianism is a joke all the way.

[Warren DeMontague]

153. I'm A "Resident Of Hedonia", myself... n/t

[rinsd]

8. So do a whole litany of minor parties....

In addition to libertarians, you have the Natural Law party, Greens of course, Socialists, Communists etc.

Remeber 3rd parties draw from the disenfranchised so their platforms will skew farther to the fringes.

They all look somewhat okay on paper. It;s the practice part that tha stickler.

Common though largely unfair insult of Libertarians is Republicans who smoke pot. But libertarian values shouldn't just be jettisoned entirely. They want what alot of liberals want, namely the gov't out of our personal lives. We just differ from there.

[Nevernose]

9. Primarily appeals to 15-30 year olds smoking weed

Me? I like the fire department. And sidewalks. And laws protecting my health and safety.

[leftyandproud]

11. Libertarians are concerned with reducing FEDERAL power...

so as I understand it, your local libraries, fire departments, and police departments would not be effected. They just want to repeal about 80% of the D.C. burecracy and reduce the tax burden accordingly

[Nevernose]

15. I guess I'm referring to the more extreme Libertarians

Quite a few of these people want top pay no taxes at all. If you want police, you can pay for them. Same thing with fire, streets, everything except the army.

I know these people, the extremists. My friend's parents founded the local militia in the early 90's -- my opinion of the Libertarians has been forever altered.

[guruant]

16. Yeah there are different types...

There are different types of libertarians, so trying to group them all with a singular belief isn't right. There are natural rights libertarians (hold beliefs that rights are natural, and not things that society should decide to create), utilitarian libertarians (rely less on morals and more on economics), moderate libertarians (probably the ones that would keep libraries, parks, fire deparments, and police departments public), anarcho-capitalists, and the pot smoking republicans.

[donco6]

17. Not where I'm from.

the libertarians here are all "fee for service" types. You want to use a library? That'll be $XX/year. Fire dept. responds to your house fire? That'll be $XXX charge. Etc. etc.

Google "Douglas Bruce" to see what we're up against.

[Union Thug]

18. Gilded Age...

...fuck the poor and working class (they get what they deserve, after all), and glory to the rich.. THIS is libertarian economics in a NUTshell.

[donco6]

20. That seems pretty clear to me.

It's popular in the Elbert-county-Live-Free-or-Die trailer parks.

[Columbia]

22. I don't think the Gilded Age is a good representation

Of anything but corrupt business along with corrupt government.

[leftist.]

118. The libertarian answer to everything is

"Well maybe you should have thought about that."

It gets old after like 30 seconds.

[ronabop]

34. Shut down the video stores!

Make video rentals free, pay for the costs with federal tax dollars! Turn video stores into video libraries! The same with all of the book stores!

(Something to think about...)

-Bop

[NuttyFluffers]

145. ?? don't know what you sat on to make you say that...?

but i've been borrowing books, cds, dvds, and vhs tapes from my library system for ages now. all at no cost (as of yet. california is in serious dire straits - thanks to dummy libertarian ideals of deregulation).

sure i can rent it in a movie rental store - and have. but i can still get it at the library too. you'll be surprised at how up to date libraries are and how interconnected they are to other libraries. if they don't have it they can find it and have it brought over.

ps: i've found an infinitely larger collecion of art, drama, and foreign films at most library than i've ever seen in major chain video rental stores. with the gov't out there the market i (and cultural minorities) were in were not deliberately deprived to make way for 300,000 copies of the latest Will Smith flick. food for thought.

[NuttyFluffers]

144. i like freeways, post office, judicial systems, etc...

and no, that's just a trick to lure you in. too often the libertarians i've come across, and the politicians i've heard run for office, really don't believe in those things either.

i've learned really fast to ignore the insane. all the real libertarians (not the fresh faced college freshmen libertarians - and ooh how they love to prey on those) i've come across working in that party qualify as insane.

i don't need to keep banging my head against a wall to figure out that something doesn't work with their preachings.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. You don't have to be a "15-30 year old smoking weed"

to recognize that 50 Billion dollars a year on a drug war is an immense waste of time and money.

Oh, and statistics released the other day say that something like FOUR PERCENT of the Adult US Population is currently under the "power" of the criminal justice system, if not outright incarcerated. Woo-hoo!

Those crazy kids, thinking that our tax dollars have better things to do than run around busting pot smokers and locking up non-violent drug offenders! Sure, anyone who thinks that, must be high!

And, for the record, I'm all in favor of streets and fire departments and sidewalks. Laws protecting health and safety are fine, too, but when they cross the line into nanny government status, I think they go to far. (And, in case you haven't been paying attention, most of your tax dollars don't go to sidewalks or fire departments, they go to a massively overbloated military-industrial complex, among other things..) Give adults the right to make their own damn choices with their own damn bodies. I don't understand why so many so-called "liberals" can see why a woman should have the right to her own body with regards to a pregnancy, but can't make the cognitive leap to understand that it's not any of the government's god-damn business what an adult chooses to do with his or her own brain, provided he or she not get behind the wheel, etc. Or, why a terminally ill person should have the right to choose a dignified, pain-free exit, because his or her body and life don't belong to the "state", or the "church", but to him or her self.

Oh, yeah, what a bunch of crazy extremist ideas, those are.

Frankly, I self-identify as left-libertarian. I think individuals should have more rights in this society, and corporations should have less. The way things are now, is ass-backwards.

And, for the record, I'm not between 15 and 30, and I'm not smoking weed.

[neverborn]

33. Great post =)

[NuttyFluffers]

146. nope, still don't see libertarian in there...

perhaps you are adhering to a name without really realizing you are essentially a progressive liberal.

maybe?

ps: you should see how those incredibly liberal librarians (working for gov't of course) fight tooth and nail against censorship, from both sides of the political spectrum. besides i see more censorship from the conservative side of things than liberal. the gov't in fact keeps tallies on these things about local gov't censorship, (for the most part federal censorship is quite rare. well, until this administration) isn't the gov't wonderful! quite interesting, i suggest you take a look. any local library should be a good place to start. i found copies in a public college library here. thank you federal funding!

pps: you also believe in reasonable restrictions upon freedoms, too, i noticed. that's what a lot of people forget - complete freedom is also bad, that's why a lot of our "rights" are rights up until a point - such as the tip of my nose :)

[Warren DeMontague]

152. I'm right there with you.

See my other posts. My standing up for a small-l libertarian viewpoint on social issues isn't the same thing as me being a big-L libertarian. As I said in the other post, this is semantics. I'm totally a progressive liberal, and damn proud of it. I also refer to my political orientation as "left-libertarian", but that doesn't mean I have anything to do with the Libertarian Party, USA.

...And believe me: nobody dislikes conservatives, particularly conservative censors, as much as me.

[dpibel]

148. The smell of burning straw

Any particular reason to believe that only libertarians hold the view that the war on (some) drugs is a bad thing? Seems like a rather noncontroversial opinion amongst a lot of people. What about the other parts of libertarianism, like the "I got mine" theory of economics?

[Warren DeMontague]

151. We're playing Semantics Here..

To me, "left libertarian" is not nearly the same animal as what is espoused by the Libertarian party, USA. I do also consider myself a "progressive". I'm a registered Democrat, and have been since I was first able to vote. Although sometimes I also find myself agreeing with the Green party. My point wasn't to defend the libertarian party, more a libertarian viewpoint of social issues.. which some folks here do tend to slam with suprising vehemence and frequency. If I made it sound like I am a "Libertarian" in my party affiliation, I gave an incorrect impression.

[Cicero]

179. The difference between "small L" and "big L"

Given that none of the other national parties (in the U.S.) take the same name as their underlying belief system (Democratic party instead of Liberal, Republican instead of Conservative, etc.), its a good rule of thumb when talking about libertarianism to distinguish between the overall philosophy (libertarian) and the actual political party (Libertarian).

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is a good example of someone who is libertarian, but not Libertarian.

And of course, there are left-libertarians and right-libertarians, although the more consistently you support personal freedom and liberty in all things, the less distinction you can make between left and right, at least IMHO.

Later,

[Cleita]

12. The only Libertarian I ever locked horns with believed in

laissez-faire capitalism for everything including health care. He thought this would be the way to control health care costs. I don't know how he expected the sick and elderly to get the care they needed when most often they couldn't work at a job to be able to pay for health care. :shrug:

[Cleita]

13. Deleted

Dupe

[Cleita]

14. Deleted

Dupe

[MajorFlaw]

21. This could have been an interesting discussion of libertarian v.

liberal values. Unfortunately, the comic book presentation of what libertarians stand for is no more sophisticated than a typical freeper rant about liberals. Too bad.

[nightperson]

29. Thank you.

I don't subscribe to any "ism", but I think I should remind people about this site.

This one also has a lot of articles that are tough on many Republicans.

Murray Rothbard in 1968:

"Twenty years ago I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and lone ‘Neanderthal’ (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as one friend pungently put it, that ‘Senator Taft had sold out to the socialists.’ Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist, since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate Black Power, and have just joined the new Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic political views have not changed by a single iota in these two decades!"

If something is interesting let alone helpful, I don't split many hairs about its source. Zig and zag! Use what you can, but trust no one. Remember, Hitler and Manson were vegetarians!

[MajorFlaw]

48. Agreed. Libertarians serve a purpose, as they can always be counted on

to ask, "Do I really want my government to have this much power over me." Any act which interferes with the rights of the individual, whether it is the restriction of speech and expression, the imposition of religious beliefs on people who don't share them or the use of public money to finance private projects including foreign wars of conquest receives condemnation from libertarians. Even if you do not share each and every one of their goals they are not our enemy, and dismissing them as Repugs who smoke dope doesn't help any. There is enough of an overlap to justify treating libertarians as potential allies.

[Nadienne]

54. Especially with the administration currently in power

I can certainly understand not wanting the government to have too much power over me. Our rights can be so easily undermined...

[MrBenchley]

53. There'd have to be a "value" beyond childish self-interest

that was part of libertarianism for there to be any discussion.

And "comic book" level is where the discussion belongs.

[JHB]

62. Don't knock "comic book" values

Helping others not for personal gain but because one can?
Knowing that with great power should come great responsibility?

What's wrong with that?

[MrBenchley]

178. Sell Cloverleaf salve and win a pony...

Now show us where there's anything even remotely like that in the childish, selfish mess that is libertarianism...

[Kinkistyle]

23. Pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-war, church/state seperation stances

What about their pro-civil liberties stances? Yeah, Libertarian economic policies stink, but they are not as bad as pure Repugs.

[durutti]

25. In theory, yes...

But in practice, there are many Libertarians who are pro-life, think gay marriage ought to be "left to the states", and supported the Iraq war.

The sad truth is that until very recently, they were little more than a front group for the GOP.

[Kinkistyle]

36. And Zell Miller and Joementum call themselves Democrats.

So do all the wimp DLC Congressman who bend over backwards for the Neo-cons. Does that mean Democrats and the ideals of the Democratic Party are completely ruined? No. Neither the Libertarians.

[durutti]

24. Libertarianism is just conservatism packaged for marketing to college kids

n/t

[neverborn]

26. Some of you guys sound like FReepers.

Groupthink and not a dissenting word about libertarianism allowed. Flame-filled swear-laden posts with no substance, just personal attacks and "FUCK SHIT 8-YEAR OLDS SHITHEADS!!"

Not everyone, but some. Christ, do we want to become the thing we hate? This looks like a thread about liberalism on Free Republic!

I'm a liberal with increasingly libertarian views.

I'd attempt to argue somewhat on here, but all I'd get is people calling me a dumb Nazi. At least on ProtestWarrior, where I am reviled for being a liberal, there's intelligent debate sometimes.

[Kinkistyle]

38. Funny thing is Freepers hate Libertarians more than we do.

They see Libertarians as immoral atheists. Plus the Libertarian candidate takes votes away from the Repugs.

[neverborn]

40. That doesn't mean the vitriol here is okay.

[Kinkistyle]

46. No it doesn't. Point is, we should be working WITH Libertarians.

Because Libertarians are closer on the political spectrum to us than the Conservatives or the Repubs, and this year, their vote is going to be very important, because they are swing voters. Repugs hate them, so why don't we welcome them under the tent.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Yes, and the fact that the Christian taliban wing has taken over the GOP

is bound to be alienating lots of liberty-minded folk.

[devilgrrl]

117. Sorry for the vitriol...

but I'm tired of hearing people just spout off that they're 'Libertarian'... wtf does that mean? Small government where? How? Who? What? :shrug: It seems like a system that can easily be abused with little chance of stopping it. What can I say?

[Warren DeMontague]

42. I tell people here, who know other people who "cant stomach" Kerry

but are growing pissed off at Bush (I'm talking here about conservatives, now) that they should tell em to vote for the Lib. candidate. Make them feel useful and it's one less vote for el shrubbo.

[Donkeyboy75]

159. And when you say increasingly libertarian, do you mean the

economic side or the social side? Because economically, the libertarians are right of the Repubs. I personally believe that the Repubs are way too far to the right already on many economic/corporate issues. Could you imagine how many more Enrons would occur if our government was MORE laissez-faire?

As far as social issues, I'm about the same as a libertarian.

[Solly Mack]

27. My husband calls them the "Kindergarten wing of the GOP"

Mine!Mine!Mine!Want!Want!Want!

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Really. What does that make the people

who think Dinosaurs are "missionary lizards", or the folks who want to institute "Biblical Law" in the U.S.? Don't have any problem with them, eh?

[Solly Mack]

63. Those are the out and out idiots of the GOP. Got anymore questions?

Feel free to file them in the get the fuck real file. :)

lolololol

rather anorexic leap of logic, btw.

[ronabop]

30. Libertarianism has worked well...

On the same scale as anything else, usually a tribal level. Once a style of governance scales to multiple peoples, with conflicting values, all of the varying systems fail in one way or another, and look like a form of childlike idealism.

Democracy? Well, we don't have that in the US. How many federal bills have *you* voted on? Who did the majority pick for president in 2000?

Modern libertarians are mostly anti-pork, but one's man's pork is anoher man's meat, so...*shrug*.

-Bop
edit: spelling

[porphyrian]

69. Memes in a Petri Dish

The values you describe are memes. When you force conflicting or foreign memes together within a populace, they compete, just like bacteria in a petri dish. This thread itself, an attack on libertarianism, is a defense mechanism of another meme attempting to defend its territory in doing so. Libertarianism itself is neither right nor wrong, just right or wrong with regards to other ideologies and/or personalities.

[Piperay]

35. Most Libertarians seem

to just be repukliCONs who are either too ashamed to admit it or think they sound intellectual by claiming to be 'libertarian'. I don't believe I have ever come across one who doesn't vote for the repug candidate. :puke:

[Kinkistyle]

37. Meet Howard Stern and Bill Maher.

I am sure there are going to be many more this year.

[Piperay]

45. TERRIFIC...

good for them! :thumbsup:

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Are you talking about Libertarian Party Members?

Or people with generally libertarian views?

The ACLU, for example, is an organization that generally espouses a libertarian viewpoint on many issues. Are they a "front" for the GOP?

The only time I haven't voted for the democrat in a race, in over two decades of voting, have been times I've made a statement by voting for the green party candidate. And, no, I'm not talking about Presidential elections, or 2000.

Yet I self-identify as "left-libertarian" in my socio-political views. How can this be?

If you're talking about the libertarian party of the USA, that's one thing. If you're talking about libertarianism as a general philosophy that encompasses many different areas (social, economic, etc.) that's a whole 'nother animal. For example, I'm fairly strongly libertarian on social issues. Economics is another story. I also don't think my views are horribly out of the mainstream for many democrats, at least not in my state.

I agree with the Libertarian party on some issues, and, say, the Green party on others. But I'm a democrat through and through. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see a day when my party grows some more nerve, nationally, on issues like the drug war, and the ridiculous rate of incarceration of non-violent offenders in this country. Unfortunately, in the era of sound-bite politics, it's too easy to label someone as "soft on crime" in a 30 second spot, so we end up with ever-more draconian laws.

[Piperay]

44. Actually I was thinking of some

commentators like Larry Elder who claim they are Libertarian but they ALWAYS promote the republican point on everything. It's a media gimmick so they can appear fair and even handed and claim that they are not repubs but yet they never espouse anything but that viewpoint.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Yeah, I'm with you, the media

is doing an astounding job of trying to disguise their twenty-three flavors of the exact same crappo. I can't even watch it anymore. I Switched from C-SPAN to MSNBC for about 3 seconds during the convention last night, and saw Joe Scarborough's snide sneer, and had to go back..

[toddaa]

47. Individualist Anarchists

Libertarianism is not the sole property of the capitalists. Individualist anarchism was the original reason I joined the LP and it is the reason I left. The problem with libertarians in the LP, is they've cast their lot with Rothbard and Rand. True individualist anarchists, such as Mikhail Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, and Emma Goldman, were antistatists fighting against the corrupting powers of government and big business. Tucker and Spooner are often championed as anarcho capitalists, but they are nothing of the sort.

Some time during the Reagan "revolution", the LP was hijacked by objectivists and "laissez faire" big business worshippers. If you want to know were the bullshit comes from, it's these phonies.

The answer to your question, however, was the anarcho-syndicalist communes established in Catalonia prior to the Spainish Civil War. Given enough time, they probably would have made it work on a national level, but the rest of the world's powers got nervous and funnelled money to Franco and the Loyalists to wreck it all. Nobody really cared who won, just so the syndicalists were wiped out.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Yeah, the minute some chucklehead starts quoting

Ayn Rand, my "asshat" alert bells go off, and I start checking my watch.

[Cats Against Frist]

56. I very much agree with you

And despite the fact that they now pretend not to claim her, Rand is the Godmother of today's Libertarians.

Some of the ideas of Libertarians are wonderful -- and even practical -- the CIVIL libertarian side -- government stays out of your bedroom, your private life, etc., etc.

But the problem with most Libertarian philosophy, is that it doesn't take into account predatory advertising, and the human need to "fit in."

Libertarianism relies on a smaller unit of governance -- but also a smaller worldview. The best parts of the libertarian utopia sound wonderful to me -- almost communal like -- after all, Libertarianism doesn't reject helping the poor, only the government taking and re-distributing wealth.

In the libertarian/anarchist fantasy, there is no Wal-Mart, no Quaker Oats commercials on TV -- it has a certain antiquity to it -- shopping at the local store, farmers' market, helping out the community -- so very Little House on the Prairie -- which I'm down with.

But if you support L-F capitalism, at some point, your local jellymaker decides that his jelly is better, and should sell to the next town, and when he's milking the profit off of that, he decides to go, countywide, statewide and then -- BAM. The corporation gets too big for the locals to register or boycott. Commercials tell people THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE JELLY, preying on their weakness and prurience, and so the consumer overlooks the fact that the jellymaker employees are in a locked building making $.50 an hour, and they're using radiation grapes and bug legs for filler.

It also doesn't take into account technology or natural resources, that are often developed and extracted from certain states, and must spread over borders.

It is arguable that "big government" had to come into existence in the first place, BECAUSE of big business -- and that the two most important things for libertarianism: virtue (willingness to do what's right) and perfect consumer knowledge are in absurdly short supply.

I do like the libertarian idea, too, of separating business from government, on one end: ending subsidies, stripping corporations of their legal status as persons, and bailouts, etc. -- but I can't get on board all the way, because I believe some things should be taken off the capitalist grid, and I believe in regulation and labor laws.

However, if I was given a choice to be governed by the LP or the GOP -- I'd take the LP in its PURE form -- because it cuts out the religious wack-os. This is not to say, however, that the LP is totally down on religion -- I think there are a lot of Christians who don't want to pay their taxes, and think that they can get away with supporting the LP, while at the same time assuming that we'll all be happy governing by scripture "because that's what the founders wanted."

Like Pat Buchanan types.

At any rate, libertarianism and communism aren't so different -- since, in theory, libertarianism doesn't refute the idea that a community can help, by charity, those that need it. And if it were organized locally, by a group of council people, libertarianism also assumes that there would be enough people willing to donate, and help. Which would basically make it communism.

So to sum it up, Libertarianism is a good idea...in a snowglobe...where no one underwent the Industrial Revolution...and everyone is virtuous...and everyone believes in civil rights...and everyone had "perfect consumer knowledge."

In other words -- a jack-off fantasy.

[tomorrowsashes]

76. Bakunin and Goldman weren't individualists

Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman were definitely anarchists, but they weren't individualists. They both advocated collectivism, and Emma Goldman was pretty clear in her support of anarchist communism amalgamated with Peter Kropotkin's ideas of mutual aid. They both argued for individual freedoms, but were social anarchists.

Lysander Spooer, and Benjamin Tucker, were on the other hand individualist anarchists, and you are correct in saying that they fought against capitalism, and private property (e.g. property used to extort a profit). What distinguished them from the social anarchists is that while they both agree that the means of production should be communal, individualists argue that what one produces should belong to that person, while social anarchists argue that the products should as well be communal, particularily anything in excess of a person needs.

[Nadienne]

55. What's so terrible about defending an individual's right

to govern his or her self?

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Kill The HERETIC!!!!!

j/k. I'm with you.

[Nadienne]

157. More like

I'm with you. I actually think of myself as pretty-much a socialist... But the relative ease with which the Bush administration came to power, and abuses its power, makes me wonder if a representative government isn't all it's cracked up to be. I mean, c'mon - it's not that hard to lie and to be believed and get voted in... Especially if you have the media on your side. One term is plenty long enough to do damage that may take decades to repair.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. Beats Communism on the naîvette scale, by a nose.

Nay, by a full body.

[MajorFlaw]

59. Libertarians are cynical, not naive. BIG difference. n/t

[Blue-Jay]

64. Some naive people only THINK they're being cynical.

Not you in particular, I'm just sayin'...

[MajorFlaw]

67. I suspect that most naive people are unaware of their naivete. Thats sort

of the point.

[neverborn]

73. You've got to be joking.

Communism has killed millions of people. Has Libertarianism racked up such an impressive death toll?

[JHB]

60. Speaking as someone who describes himself as "left libertarian"...

... (i.e., one who recognizes that the government is not the only force that tries to limit individual freedoms, that those other sources are usually greater threats on a day-to-day basis, and that sometimes it takes collective action to maximize individual freedoms) could you be a little more specific about what you find to be bullshit?

[sangh0]

66. I'll give it a shot

One thing I think is BS is the idea that libertarianism (in any form) is distinguished from other ideologies by the idea that "govt is not the only force that tries to limit individual freedoms". It's like saying "I'm a Democrat because the sky is blue"

Everyone believes that the sky is blue, and everyone realizes that govt are not the only force that tries to limit individual freedoms. And if you asked a right-wing libertarian if govt was the only force limiting individual freedoms, s/he would also say "No, there are others"

[JHB]

71. Yet Government is the one the obsess on...

...to the virtual exclusion of all others.

[sangh0]

163. Just like the Republicans

which corroborates my point that there is nothing to distinguish the Libs from others. It's not an ideology - It's more like a slogan.

[blindpig]

65. Libertarianism = throwing the environment in the toilet

The concept of the commons is foreign to them. Fuck them.

[69KV]

68. True believers

The problem with libertarianism is the same as with any extreme ideology. It's an all or nothing package, adopting the ideology means tending toward the most extreme interpretation of it, and you cannot have a conversation with them without it going something like this:

Me: "I agree with you that gays should be free to marry, and victimless crimes shouldn't be illegal, and the draft is immoral."

Libertarian: "Then you should agree that since every person should be able to control their own body, they should have absolute say over their own property too?"

M: "Not so fast. Environmental regulations serve a good purpose, corporate power has to be regulated, minimum wage laws are a good thing, and taxation is necessary to run the gover..."

L: "You socialist totalitarian! You are just like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin wanting the government to control everything!"

End of discussion. At this point they think they have just out-debated me. When in fact they haven't proved a thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Well, I guess that's why I've never voted for a Libertarian Candidate

in my life. But I still self-identify as "left-libertarian", despite the fact that the "l" word is used as invective around here.

[69KV]

109. Left-libertarians

Just speaking for myself, when I use "libertarian" I mean the Cato Institute kind.

Left-libertarians are something else altogether. It seems like a word that should be reclaimed from the right wing. But I'm confused on one point: is left-libertarian still synonymous with left-wing anarchism? I've seen it used several ways.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. Not unless we're talking about some weird Gene Roddenberry future...

I'm not sure how left-wing anarchism would really work. Nice idea, though.

Personally, what left-libertarianism means to me is, The government doesn't have any business telling consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies, in their own homes, what they can watch, what they can read, what they can say, who they can screw, etc. etc. Provided, again, that we're talking about consenting adults (so please don't drag kids and animals into it, like someone inevitably always does) and we're talking about activities that don't hurt others or infringe on others' freedoms. I don't feel that's incompatible with a strong communal safety net or a web of interconnected responsibility between people in society.. (man, did Obama NAIL that metaphor tonight, or what?) Likewise, my belief that the government should leave adults alone with their personal choices doesn't mean I think people are or should be exempt from paying taxes. Rather, that falls under collective responsibility, and it's duh-f*cking obvious, to me at least, that there are certain responsibilities that the free market and private enterprise are not going to take care of effectively. (Like, uh, Health Care?) Not to mention the oft-cited example of roads. And I certainly don't think widespread liberty that applies to individuals should apply to corporations. Corporations need more responsibility and less freedom to do as they please. The larger the entity, the larger it's potential for harm, and the greater it's responsibility to the collective whole, IMHO... (And besides, activities that harm the environment, or people's health, do not- to me- fall under the category of 'doing what one wilt so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.')



I also don't think my position is terribly extreme in the democratic party, but I live in California, so what do I know.

[NuttyFluffers]

147. k, just read this one after i replied once already to you...

and now i'm convinced that you are not a "left-libertarian" or whatever you want to call it. you sound straight up liberal.

but, if that's what "left-libertarian" means to you then i'm not gonna rain on your parade. i'm assuming you are a consenting adult and want to choose your own labels for yourself :evilgrin:

anyhoo, now i have a more rounded idea of how you view yourself and it sounds just like what my dictionaries and political science textbooks label as liberal (maybe a tad centrist leaning in terms of corporate responsibility, but strongly liberal). so when you say you are X and all my textbooks, experience, dictionaries, say this means Y you can understand my confusion. but c'est la vie and have fun calling yourself what you wan, k? :D :hug:

ps: i'm gonna take up the label "Libertine Asshat," because it has a certain ring to it... ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

154. I guess they're not exclusive...

At least not as far as I understand 'em.

Hell, yeah, I'm a straight up liberal too. Classic textbook example, as far as I've always understood it. But the discussion in this thread, I thought at least, centered around libertarian ideas- not just of economics, but around social issues as well. Maybe I've been playing with the political compass too much... Or Perhaps part of my itchiness around the issue is the fact that I have gotten into some knock-down, drag out screaming matches recently with a few folks around here (also self-procliamed "liberals", all) who have actually accused me of being 'reactionary' for stuff like, not supporting censorship... or for believing that consenting adults should be free to yadda yadda as long as consenting adults etc. etc.

In short, I always thought "liberal" meant one thing, and around where I live, it pretty much does... But it's been eye-opening to me that there are apparently a good number of "liberal" folks who are nevertheless seemingly much more interested in being in the behavior monitor and control business than I am.

Therefore I've felt the need, lately, to point out that I'm socially libertarian, or have social libertarian leanings, or whatever. I guess it's a loaded word. Maybe I'll go with "libertine asshat", as well. :hippie:

[NuttyFluffers]

158. :) thanks for the site

i can honestly say it is one of the first times i've come across this presentation of the term libertarian. but it is an interesting approach to the scpectrum theory.

i'm used to the derivitive words of liberty (but not liberty itself) to have dictionary meanings of excessiveness and extremes. and this followed in my experiences in poli sci classes/textbooks. so libertarian (just one derivative) was read as extreme personal freedom along with extreme corporate freedom, just like libertine is associated with extreme sexual looseness. 'extreme' becomes a returning key to understanding. the political party here in america represents this extremism well, trying to adhere to the definition i was universally presented with (until today :) ).

in fact, just above in these dictionaries and textbooks, the word liberal was defined as pretty much what most of us call ourselves. liberal liked the easy-going nature and was pretty open, it just wasn't extreme. and considering i like (in fact, really enjoy) a smattering of restrictions with my freedom (like libel, slander, defamation of character, manslaughter, etc) i find this label, liberal, to be a perfect representation of what i believe in, as well as being universally known for the most part.

maybe in time the definition of libertarian will expand from theories expoused on this site, and that would be nice. but now, considering the confusion it draws, and the assumptions of extremism (ideas which i wholly disbelieve), i could not in good conscience wage a one-man-war against the world to change the universally perceived definition of this word. it's an extra battle that really doesn't need to be fought (we already have an adequate term) - it's the theorists' responsibility to change the world to his ideas :)

but i'm keeping Libertine Asshat :evilgrin:

[rniel]

70. Doesn't Neil Boortz claim to be libertarian

Or is he just pretending?

[leftist.]

119. He's still trying to sell himself as one ...

... but no one is buying anymore.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Their views on individidual behavior are fine

Implementation of their views on the economy and body politic would lead to the United States of Third World fast.

Your average Third World country, the kind that attracts big corporate sweatshops, has a de facto libertarian economy, with no labor laws, no environmental laws, and no health and safety laws, at least not any that can't be bypassed with a small bribe.

If libertarian economics worked, then the people of El Salvador and post-Sandinista Nicaragua would be some of the happiest and most prosperous in the world.

Instead, the most prosperous countries, those in North America, Western Europe, and non-Communist East Asia, are the ones that have enjoyed a judicious amount of government intervention in their economies.

Given a choice between being an average Nicaraguan and an average Norwegian, which would you choose?

Don't make the mistake of totally embracing libertarianism just because you like their emphasis on personal freedom. A lot of younger people, especially those who have never had to struggle, make that mistake.

I see libertarianism as the perfect philosophy for rich people: the country club set gets to indulge in its traditional pleasures (drinking, drugs, sexual experimentation) without interference from the police or religious figures, while at the same time being relieved of any obligation to treat their employees, whether in the household or in business, decently, or any obligation to support the common good. As far as they're concerned, it would be a return to the "good old days" of the nineteenth century, only without the Victorian prudery.

ON EDIT: Oh, yes, and if I'm stereotyping libertarians, it's on the basis of having to encountered a lot of them in Oregon.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Libertarian with regards to the adult individual's rights

to do what he or she will with his or her own body and person and choices, insofar as they don't hurt anyone else, is not (in my mind)incompatable with a strong social safety net and collective responsibility on issues such as health care. That's where I sit, personally.. and I'm flabbergasted that such a viewpoint continually arouses such ire in so-called "liberals", among whom I count myself.

Also, for the record, the GOP is very libertarian-- when it comes to the rights of corporations.. Part of the ass-backwardness of the situation we have now, is that corporations (which are not people, and have the potential to damage the environment and individual liberties in ways that individuals cannot) have free reign to do whatever they want, practically, with very little responsibility or accountability.. while the rights of individuals continually are drawn narrower and narrower. I think the opposite should be true, personally.

[Pithlet]

99. When I think of Libertarian (Big L)

I do not think of the views that you just expressed. I would not classify you as a Libertarian, but a left-libertarian. Whenever I express my dislike of Libertarianism on this board, I'm always referring to the Big L, and I assume that many others are, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. That's how I self identify, too...

(as left-libertarian)

Thanks for the clarification.

I just don't like hearing small-l "libertarian" used as invective, which does seem to happen with alarming frequency around here.

[tomorrowsashes]

74. Libertarian Socialism (anarchism) has been put into practice before

If you're asking whether the type of libertarianism advocated by the Libertarians (notice the capital 'L'), then no, that's just stupid, but the word libertarian was first used to describe the ideas of anarchists like Bakunin and Proudhon. These people advocated the abolition of private property, the wage system, the government, and all forms of hierarchy. This has happened many times throughout history, including:

-During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), the anarchist CNT took control of the province of Catalonia, and turned control of all means of production over the workers. They succeeded in abolishing the concept of social class, and the wage system, ended sexism, and got rid of the corrupt churches. Even though the factories had no bosses, and there was no government, people still went to work, and efficiency was as good, in some cases better, as it was before. All resources were shared collectively, and everybody was free to pursue whatever path they wanted in life. Unfortunately, the combination of outside pressure from the Stalinist, Soviet supported, PSUC, and Franco's fascist army supported by Hitler brought an end to this society.

-In the Hungarian Revolution (1956) the workers refused to obey their bosses and formed workers collectives, which took the place of the government, and made decisions in a democratic manner. Voluntary collectives donated supplies and resources to the troops fighting off the Soviet forces until after several months, their relatively small army, fell.

-In Argentina from 2001-2002, after the collapse of the government, workers occupied factories, claiming control, and popular councils were formed which made decisions through direct democracy, in a fair and equitable manner. All economic and social hierarchy was again, abolished.

-The Free City of Christiana, a section of Copenhagen, was taken over by hippies in Denmark in the 70's, and has been functioning without police, in a communal manner ever since.

-Before the establishment of Israel, Jews living in Palestine formed Kibbutzim, which functioned in accord with socialist and anarchist ideas.

-Communities in Chiapas, Mexico, under the control of the revolutionary EZLN, function in a method of direct democracy, though those most indentified with the movement, reject the term anarchist, claiming instead that they are simply Zapatistas.*

So, has what we call libertarianism today ever been put into practice? No, it would never work. There have, however, been many communities which have practiced traditional libertarianism, the kind that modern day Libertarians would hate, and have done so with occasionally great degrees of success. The first libertarians despised capitalism as much as they despised government, and believed that all forms of hierarchy needed to be abolished.

*The Zapatistas take their name from Emiliano Zapata, who was heavily influenced by anarchist thinkers, flew the black flag, and alligned with other explicitly anarchist revolutionaries during the Mexican Revolution.

[69KV]

115. The right-wing kind of libertarianism has been put into practice too

One place I can think of. Somalia.

Here's how it works in practice:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/somalia_warning.html

edit: I'm not knocking the left-wing kind of libertarianism here or trying to refute your post. Just pointing out the difference between the left and right kinds. Put into practice, right-wing libertarianism leads to disaster.

[Lizz612]

75. Ugh I Know...

I'm on another forum where one of them is arguing that ALL drug should be legalized. 'The people would not use them, learn that they are bad or off themselves in the process.' Its the Darwin Awards' version of drug control and I'm going batty try to debate him.

[tomorrowsashes]

78. The problem with drug control

The problem with making it a crime to use certain drugs is that it creates draws a large segment of society into prisons, which are not healthy in the least. If drugs were legalized, there could be more in terms of a support system to help reform addicts, instead of locking them away, and people could get their drugs that aren't filled with other chemicals.

Heroin, for instance, is pretty dangerous in its pure form, but what makes it worse than just about any other drug is the incredibly unsanitary conditions in which it is made and taken in, and the extra chemicals added to increase addiction. If Heroin were legal, people could get what they knew was clean drugs, and clean needles, and many of the problem associated with the drug go away. Most people don't do hard drugs because they are really unhealthy, not because they're illegal. The only thing making drugs illegal does is make it more profitable for the scum selling them.

If drugs were made legal, the price would go drastically down, and this could be made up for with taxes, which would go towards reforming people who are addicted. Drug abuse is a serious problem, but the criminal justice system isn't the right way to deal with it.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. I'm not convinced that law enforcement is the best way

to deal with people who want to use certain chemicals that other people have decided they shouldn't.

Personally, I think pot should be legalized, and taxed- no question.
And whether people want to acknowledge it or not, pot constitutes the vast majority of our "drug war" expenditures..

Other drugs? I can't imagine that adopting a harm reduction/public health approach to them, a la the netherlands, wouldn't make more sense than spending billions of dollars turning these people into criminals. Plow that money into treatment-on-demand, and deal with it that way. The only thing the harm reduction countries don't have that we do is a massively bloated prison-industrial complex.

Beyond that, I will admit that there is part of me that says, really, it's not any of the government's business, period, what an adult chooses to do with his or her own mind or body. To argue otherwise is to argue that your mind and body BELONG to the government, and you are just a tenant in yourself. I find that line of reasoning deeply offensive.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

98. what utter bullshit.

Beyond that, I will admit that there is part of me that says, really, it's not any of the government's business, period, what an adult chooses to do with his or her own mind or body. To argue otherwise is to argue that your mind and body BELONG to the government, and you are just a tenant in yourself. I find that line of reasoning deeply offensive.

To argue otherwise doesn't say what you say it says...in your mind it does, but thats not why there is regulation of harmful drugs.

[Warren DeMontague]

102. Thanks for refuting my argument

by calling it "utter bullshit".. You must have taken debating classes. *yawn*

[Lizz612]

105. *sigh*

Well you are putting it in much nicer terms but you are basically arguing the same thing. You may not think its the governments business but it is the community's business, and a single community cannot do that. I personally don't want people tripping on acid or high on meth wandering the streets of my town. Drug abuse hurt those who live around the user, whether the user realizes it or not. People sometimes forget that there ARE social reasons these drugs are illegal.

That said everyone who has posted on that thread, on a college republicans forum, has agreed that pot should be treated like alcohol. There is just this one libertarian that thinks that drgugs should be legalized, and let the druggies die.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. Well, I'm glad you're enough of an expert on all chemicals

to know which ones other people should be allowed to do, and which ones otherwise non-violent people should be turned into criminals for.

So, *sigh* yourself. Frankly, I find it tiresome that so many, on the left and the right, have an almost sexual obsession with telling other people what to do.

If people "wandering the streets of your community" commit crimes or even behave in such a way as to pose a threat or a danger or even a high level of irritation, then, yes, they're a law enforcement issue. In most communities, it's illegal to "wander around the streets" dead ass drunk. Alcohol is legal, but it hasn't led to an epidemic of drunks wandering the streets. Some people have problems with alcohol, and some people have problems with drugs. There's no reason to think that criminalizing drugs leads to a drastic reduction in those numbers, or works any better than attempts to criminalize alcohol did. And, for the record, as someone with quite a bit of experience around people who've done all kinds of drugs, including alcohol (and It's been a long time since I was in college) I can tell you from my own experience that alcohol is, across the board, one of the most dangerous, socially destructive drugs out there. I agree that meth is bad. However, I think the most potent advertisement against meth is meth users themselves. I don't think they should be "allowed to die", but I certainly don't think that waging a 50 Billion dollar a year drug war is the best way to handle it, either. And "meth" is generally made from cheap, legal products-- so the folks who are doing it are generally people in bad socioeconomic conditions who, frankly, don't have access to other mind-alterants. One thing no one seems to want to deal with on this subject, at least the folks who are gung-ho to impose their own authoritarian viewpoint on everyone else, is that human beings have been altering their consciousness since the beginning of time. The first civilizations, some believe, were built around the fermenting of hops for beer. Like Priests in the catholic church, when you try to stomp out a basic human desire, in some people it's going to get perverted and come out in unhealthy ways.

And, frankly, I've seen enough of both the bad and the good of drug and alcohol use and abuse that I don't point blank say most chemicals are intrinsically "bad" or "good".. Some people shouldn't do psychedelics, just like some people shouldn't drink.. but I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that countless instances of inspired art and music that have come from some people's psychedelic experiences are "bad" or "wrong"--- just because it's PC to do so. I don't do drugs, (not since my "reckless youth", at least, which ended well before Dubya's did) nor do I drink anything stronger than green tea.. but who the hell am I to tell someone like Alex Grey that his psychedelic-inspired visionary art is "wrong" (and, hence, he's a "criminal") just because you think that not locking up 4% of the population for non-violent offenses would lead to acidheads "wandering the streets" of your town?

It's a simple concept- if people commit crimes, and that includes getting behind the wheel or otherwise endangering others, then, yes, deal with them as criminals. But the government has no business going into people's homes, much less their brains and bloodstreams, to monitor what chemicals they choose to ingest. Wow. What a radical, offensive notion.

[tomorrowsashes]

161. Good Post

Good post, impeachdubya. I agree.

To me, saying that treating drug addiction as a criminal problem will reduce the chances of somebody getting addicted to drugs is like saying that if it was made illegal to get AIDS, then less people would have unprotected sex. This isn't the case. Drug abuse is a medical problem, which usually stems from an even deeper psychological problem. It should be treated as such. All the drug war has done is create a more profitable climate for drug lords, and a more miserable climate for addicts.

[Lizz612]

164. Listen

I seem to be trailing flames from one board to another on this one.x(

I don't think that addiction is a criminal problem. I don't think that the war on drugs has been a success, I think it has been a total failure with terrible repercussions in other countries. I just think that there must be a sociological reason some drugs are illegal.

I'm glad that you made it out of your reckless youth. Will legalizing schedule one and two controlled substance keep other users from dying?

I admit that I was pissy last night, but the patronizing tone is less than helpful for your argument.

Edit: "Alcohol is legal, but it hasn't led to an epidemic of drunks wandering the streets." Obviously you and I know some rather different streets.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. Not trying to sound patronizing.

Also not trying to flame you. I don't think everyone needs to always agree with me--- that's probably why I wouldn't make a good republican.

I do think that many of the "sociological reasons" for the illegality of certain drugs are, actually, racial reasons, as well as economic- if you look at the history. There is a good body of evidence to back this up. Anti-Marijuana hysteria was used as a wedge against mexican immigrants, as well as black people. Early cocaine hysteria was fueled by reports of cocaine-crazed black men raping white women.

The push to make psychedelics illegal, in the 60s, had extremely political undertones.

Now, this is not to say that, say, cocaine is a "good" drug. Your question about legalizing sched I & II substances is legitimate. I don't know. Again, I've got two positions on this issue- one is, the more philosophical position that it's really not the gummint's business what chemicals people choose to put in their bodies, and two, the more realistic approach of saying- well, how do we actually deal with this.. And on that level, like I said before, realistically, while I see absolutely no reason why pot shouldn't be legalized, regulated, and taxed, I think with regards to so-called "hard drugs", this country would probably be best served by adopting a "harm reduction" strategy-- similar to what they have adopted in the netherlands. I don't think you have significantly greater numbers, percentage wise, of deaths from those drugs in those countries than you do here. What I think should be done is to take that 50 Billion dollars a year we spend on the law enforcement, prison-industrial gravy train, plow it instead into treatment on demand, as well as public health and public education. Like I said before, the best advertisement against meth, for example, is meth users themselves. The problem is, when you have anti-drug education programs that tell kids if they smoke pot once in their lives, they will have a lifetime of "flashbacks" (yeah, right.. "flashbacks".. um, still waiting on those) or, if they're boys, that their testicles will shrink and fall off, or any other of the ridiculous scare tactic lies they feed kids, well, those kids are going to file everything they are told from an adult "authority" on the subject of drugs, under "Total and utter BS".

Beyond that, though, I don't think that sending, say, cocaine users away to prison for 5-10 years for posession under draconian mandatory minimum laws is the best way to keep them from "hurting themselves". Lots of people don't come out alive from prison, either.

I'm glad I made it out of my reckless youth alive, too. But it doesn't mean I think that the entire experience was bad, or worthless. I will say that, of everything I experimented with, the substance that consistently got me in the most trouble, and endangered my health and life most drastically, severely, and repeatedly, came in a bottle. But I would never argue that alcohol should be illegal. Furthermore, like I said, I can see both the good and the bad of drug use and abuse- there are certainly experiences I had growing up that opened my eyes and my mind in certain ways that I cannot deny or ignore- and just because I've moved on in my life, that doesn't mean I didn't learn from those experiences, some of which did involve certain chemicals-- and I would be lying if I said I regret them or think they were negative.

[Lizz612]

168. I think my thoughts are not solidified yet

Maybe I used the wrong term, I know the history behind the illegality of marijuana and cocaine. The illegality of LSD is an interesting story to say the least. But flunitrazepam is Schedule I for gut wrenching reasons.

I agree that we need to treat drug use as a public health problem and not a crime problem, and that phony science is not worth it ever.

The question I think I'm trying to ask is are these drugs worth the regulation that would be needed to make them safe?

I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense I'm still trying to think this all the way through.

[Warren DeMontague]

171. From where I sit, those are excellent questions...

First off, I had to google "flunitrazepam" just to figure out what you were talking about. (If you'd said Rohypnol, I would have picked it up quicker.) I certainly understand why you wouldn't want a drug that people have used for date rape available, at, say the local bar. That makes sense.

But the criminal act of dosing someone with, say, rohypnol is, in and of itself, a very serious crime. I think if someone drugs someone else, particularly with the intent of raping someone, that's a crime that, to me, rises at least to the level of life imprisonment w/o possibility of parole. If you punish that act severely enough, it will be a much greater deterrent than simply criminalizing the substance, which, in the age of the internet especially, someone with enough determination and inginuity (like a very determined rapist) can find anyway... But another part of the problem with the "drug war", as it stands, is that actual dangerous criminals, like rapists and murderers, are being let out to make room for non-violent drug offenders. And for every rohypnol bust, I would wager there are easily 20,000 marijuana busts. Unfortunately, another of the many dirty little secrets of the drug war is that the vast majority of the law enforcement expenditures go towards fighting the drug that most people consider the least threatening, i.e. pot.

Beyond that, in terms of how do we "make these drugs safe". You're probably right, there's no way to make, say, cocaine safe like baby asprin is safe. That's why I lean towards just treating drug abuse like a public health issue, rather than a law enforcement issue, at least at this time. I think harm reduction, like in the netherlands, is probably much more realistic than full, balls-out legalization. I suppose if you were, in theory, to get to a place of complete legalization of all these substances, the regulatory apparatus would come in simply in determining that they are pure, and that's it. But we really would need to re-evaluate some major issues within our society about the rights and responsibilities of decision-making individuals, and be at a place where we truly felt that individuals have the right to make choices for themselves, even dumb and dangerous ones. I would add that, there are plenty of products freely available in society, that are not criminalized, that will kill you just as dead as heroin or cocaine will, if they are improperly used. And beyond that, there are myriad others which are, without question, "bad for you".

But my position is evolving, too. And I'm certainly not in favor of making it easier for people to rape.

[Lizz612]

172. See we can all be reasonable and open and we can get somewhere!

"I think harm reduction, like in the netherlands, is probably much more realistic than full, balls-out legalization." I think that is perfectly reasonable. I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge it earlier, I've been a little high strung the past few days. The "balls-out legalization" scares me a little, I'm not sure it would ever fly, and it might kill the career of an otherwise wonderful politician if they tried to push it too hard too fast. It would make me less frightened of it if the default legality of a new drug was more control not less, so that scientist can figure out how, most likely, it will behave in a person.

"I suppose if you were, in theory, to get to a place of complete legalization of all these substances, the regulatory apparatus would come in simply in determining that they are pure, and that's it. But we really would need to re-evaluate some major issues within our society about the rights and responsibilities of decision-making individuals, and be at a place where we truly felt that individuals have the right to make choices for themselves, even dumb and dangerous ones." I would think that the regulations would have to be most similar to alcohol, but some would have to be tighter in places and others looser. How much is too much? "Well he fell asleep so I guess it was too much weed." versus "Well he had a had an internal body temp of 110 and cooked his brain so I guess it was too much E." How much does it impare your judgment? Or your ability to distinguish right from wrong? I see years of some controlled legal chaos as the case law works its way through the system. What would be the ripples back out to the law enforcement community as all this works itself out?

This might need its own thread or be finished elsewhere.

Edit: one more sentence and impure does not equal impare

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Re; Your Edit--

"Alcohol is legal, but it hasn't led to an epidemic of drunks wandering the streets." Obviously you and I know some rather different streets.

And what was different about that, during prohibition, other than the fact that you had criminal gangs killing each other over the profits from the illegal alcohol trade?

[West Coast Democrat]

80. Libertarianism=Republicans who like to smoke pot

[Warren DeMontague]

81. So, then, I take it you speak for the entire Democratic Party

When you say you are just as committed to micro-managing the personal choices of individuals as the religious right loonies who have taken over the GOP?

Because if that's the case, I know several thousand people here in my state, myself included, who are registered to the wrong party, then.

[West Coast Democrat]

82. All of the Libertarians I've personally met....

have been Republicans who happen to like smoking pot.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Okay, again, are we talking about registered libertarians,

or libertarianism as a general philosophical outlook that encompasses many things, including social libertarianism, and economic libertarianism--- separately and/or together?

Like I said elsewhere, the ACLU takes a generally libertarian stance on many issues. I'm still not seeing how they're a front for pot smoking republicans.

And I don't have any idea how one could be a pot smoking republican, considering that the party's "brains" have decided you're at least as much of a threat to the public welfare as, say, gays are. Of course, there are Gay republicans, too. Go figure.

[West Coast Democrat]

90. One of the Libertarians I know...

is a gay, pot-smoking Republican. He just doesn't want to admit he's a Republican (although he is a conservative) and he doesn't like Bush* anymore.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Cool. I keep saying, if folks like that can't deal with Kerry---

--like some knee jerk conservatives can't--

I mean, I fully acknowledge that there are people who would sooner gnaw off their foot than vote for a democrat, since this is exactly how I feel about Republicans...

I say, tell em to vote for Harry Browne or whoever the lib. candidate is. One less vote for Bush.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Time for the Political Compass Link

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Economic Left/Right: -4.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

In the interest of full disclosure.

[West Coast Democrat]

93. I'm familiar with that particular political compass test ...

and I don't think it really applies to US Politics. Too much emphasis is put on economics. Also, the placing of Saddam Hussein is rather curious.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Well, I think reducing everything to a linear "right-left"

analysis cuts out a whole side of the debate.

It's a tool, like any other. I happen to think my result pretty accurately reflects how I feel.

And how is Saddam Hussein not Left-Authoritarian? You'd be hard pressed to argue that The Baath party wasn't communist in the old mold, centralized the economy, yadda yadda yadda. You know, the Dalai lama is also on the left side of the chart, too. As am I.

Personally, the people on the top half frighten me more than the people on the right half. But that's just me.

[West Coast Democrat]

97. That's the problem I have with this particular compass

placing any authoritarians to the far left is odd because once you are authoritarian, you sort of come back around to being on the right. The circular compass is a bit more accurate I think.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. So, you wouldn't put Stalin on the "left"?

I think you're getting hung up on semantics, specifically, left="good", right="bad".. But I agree this model, like all of them, has it's limitations.

[tomorrowsashes]

104. Economic: -10.0, Social: -8.87

I've taken the quiz a few times before. I think last time I was around -9.5, -9, but I could be wrong.

[hatrack]

92. They have one big plus in their column

Namely, the idea that the power of government over the individual should be clearly and irrevocably limited. The "War On Drugs,", abortion, gay/sexuality issues, terminal illness and pain-relieving drugs and so forth are all issues where a fundamentally Libertarian stance would do us all some good.

Much of the rest is just plain silly, particularly the idea that an extremely complex society of 300 million people can be best governed by the abolition of nearly every form of taxation and a return to the federal government size and structure of 1805.

The Onion headline that said it all for me (at least on non-civil liberties issues) was "Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department".

[West Coast Democrat]

94. Yes, the taxation and laissez-faire principles......

are where their arguments begin to fall apart.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. I agree 100% n/t

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

100. This is a crackpot, cranky ideology...

....most libertarians Ive crossed swords with are pretty convinced ideologues, but are basically incapable of dealing with the implications of their philosopy, and refuse to recognize its ahistorical, undemocratic character.

[Killarney]

106. Libertarians are selfish

They want zero taxes and screw anyone that needs help.

[Cronus Protagonist]

107. SCREW YOU!!!! What do you have against Librarians?

They never did a thing to you, did they?:

SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[devilgrrl]

114. Show me a few instances where Libertarian ideas have been put into use...

beside filling ones own bong. :smoke:

Seriously, are there any communities in America that are governed by Libertarians? Where is it proven that it will even work? :evilfrown:

[eridani]

108. Libertarians don't think there should be a public sphere at all

It's one thing to want the government out of people's private lives, but the public sphere needs to exist. Otherwise we just have the strongest warlords fighting it out for power over the rest of us slaves.

[Must_B_Free]

110. Liberatarians are Republicans who smoke pot

- Barry

[Scorpious_Maximus]

111. Yes they are

I unfortunately work with a so called "liberterian".

The guy pulls the line for Bush & Co., thinks Saddam was the mother of all terrorists attacks, but it's okay to burn an ounce of smoke a week.


Total BS.

[West Coast Democrat]

160. Hey! I posted that same thing above!

[Hobarticus]

113. I know two...both losers

Basically they want everything for nothing. No taxes but the government's still suposed to foot the bill like they always do. I ask them to explain those natural rock formations that are called 'roads' and 'sewers' and they don't get it.

[leftist.]

116. First thing to ask a libertarian ...

How did you get to work this morning?

[neverborn]

120. The real good political test -- 10 questions.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

According to your answers, your political philosophy is: libertarian.

Your Personal issues Score is 100%.
Your Economic issues Score is 90%.

[devilgrrl]

123. Whose answers?

this is what I got:

According to your answers, your political philosophy is: left-liberal

Left-Liberal
Left-Liberals generally embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but support central decision-making in economics. They want the government to help the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Liberals tend to tolerate social diversity, but work for what they might describe as "economic equality."

[Warren DeMontague]

124. And please explain to me where

"freedom of choice in personal matters"

is inconsistent with

"filling the bong"

[devilgrrl]

125. What?

I'm not arguing about their position on personal matters it's their economic philosophy that I find suspect. :spank:

[Warren DeMontague]

131. OK, that was not entirely clear from some of your posts.

no paddling necessary. Ouch!

[devilgrrl]

133. Sorry...

Here :hug: how is that? :-)

[GoneOffShore]

166. Thanks for that

I'm a left-liberal according to the test.
Your Personal issues Score is 60%.
Your Economic issues Score is 20%.
Though my little red dot was pretty close to the centrist square.

[Tommythegun]

121. As a libertarian (mostly)...

I thought I'd jump in here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to gather that the primary objection that you folks have to my philosophy comes from business/corporate power, yes?

Fair enough. I will concede that this can be a problem. Nevertheless, ask yourself, which is worse, business/corporate power in and of itself or business/corporate power married to and enmeshed with governmental power? Most of the sorts of business scandals that I hear people criticizing, like Enron, Halliburton, etc., usually have some sort of incestuous ties to the government, either to regulatory agencies or to government officials. These business play upon their relationships to government that has grown out of proportion in its power and scope to gain unfair and illegitimate grants-of-privlege that would not stand in a freer market.

The main thrust I gather from your arguments is that the solution would be a powerful, activist government divorced from such links: that it is possible to set up a government whose officials and agencies won't fall sway to and become enmeshed with corporate power. Do you have any examples to back this up? Can you credibly demonstrate how such a government would be set up without becoming a danger in and of itself?

Just thought I'd throw this out.

[father_twilight]

127. i don't think i am alone

when i say i fully embrace libertarianism as far as personal privacy, rights and freedoms go, but where economy is concerned i rater go with liberalism. if we did not have anti-trust and worker rights laws, this place would be hell on earth........
just like russia in 1917, and we don't want that, trust me

[Tommythegun]

128. Russia in 1917...

Was a Czarist state, an old-style monarchy/oligarchy. Hardly a free state in any particular. The majority of the Russian people were serfs, essentially property. I don't know of any libertarians who would advocate slavery.

As for anti-trust and worker's rights, again, I fail to see where the government must, I stress MUST, step in in every case. Anti-trust is based upon the theory that size=power with regards to business but is that always the case? Is business about size or profitability? I remember that AT&T broke ITSELF up years after the government did, into Lucent, etc. Microsoft, Apple and so forth broke into ground held by IBM, Xerox, etc. years ago. And, besides, how often and aggressively are anti-trust laws used anymore (music labels/movie studios, anyone?)

Workers rights, again, what's the absolute need of govt. intervention? Couldn't unions/workers advocate, negotiate, strike or sue accordingly? Suppose I would like to work more hours at work (I live in Los Angeles and work on an hourly wage). I'm limited in how many hours I can work on the day/week because my employer doesn't want to pay overtime and I have to take a 1/2 hour or hour lunch depending on how many hours I work. I didn't ask nor do I care for the state government requiring me not to work.

[father_twilight]

132. ummm

the reason big companies break themselves up is because when they are so successfull in their field that they eliminate all possiblity of real competition they know that govenment will look at them, and the don't want to be investigated/sued. look at what happened with microsoft when they decided not to play nice. anti-trust laws are the only reason why it is still possible in some parts of this country to actually start your own business.

Couldn't unions/workers advocate, negotiate, strike or sue accordingly?

You can't sue if you don't have government that will appoint judges that would rule in your favor, that's #1

Second, why don't you tell child laborers in thailand to negotiate or strike? Doesn't really work, does it, when you have unrestricted capitalism?

[Tommythegun]

134. Competitive?...

The telecom industry is more competitive than ever.

Software isn't too far behind. Microsoft has a fair amount of competition from open-source for servers. And Microsoft was being sued for what it MIGHT do as a monopolist (i.e., close out competitors), not what it WAS doing.

If the government is democratic, then, presumably, the judges will reflect the philosophies of the people who elected the officials that appointed them. The courts are the place to deal with these problems, not the regulatory state.

I question whether Thailand is an example of a free system. Again, what is the relation of business to govt. there? Secondly, remember that the US and Europe once employed child labor widely. Did they stop principally because of labor laws or because their economies shifted towards more-capital and less-labor demanding production, where, for example, children would be better off spending years gaining skills rather than laboring in a sweatshop?

[father_twilight]

135. ummmm, no

microsoft was sued in part because of what it was doing to netscape by including its own iexplorer with windows.

advanced societies stopped using child labor because it became unethical to most people and they, the people, made it illegal because in purely capitalist system nobody cares about what's moral or immoral, the emphasis is on making more profit, not that there is anything wrong with that either;
it's not because 'they want children to gain advanced skills', give me a break.

this is nitpicking, the point is that unrestricted capitalism will lead to monopolies and widespread poverty. you have to establish at least some rules to play by. if you believe that libertarianism does not advocate any rules or restrictions then what makes you better than a lunatic anarchist?

[Tommythegun]

136. Whoa! Quite a lot there...

Lemme see:

First, how did Microsoft including its browser prevent anyone from using Netscape? Last I remember, I could install and run Navigator fine on Windows. My Chevy game with a Delco radio. GM owns Delco. Does that mean Delphi should sue for anti-trust?

Second, it is interest that you note: "advanced societies stopped using child labor because it BECAME (emphasis added) unethical to most people..." When, and why did it BECOME unethical when it was not before? Child labor existed long before industrial capitalism. Children were a source of labor for the family during pre-industrial in agricultural and pastoral settings, whether on smallholdings or on estates. Remember that summer break from school originated with the need of child labor on the farm over the summer. This habit held over when the farm families moved into cities to work in factories. I'm not arguing that people didn't regard child labor as unethical and certainly it is, or at least, we consider it to be today. What I AM saying is that the economic rationale for child labor had to recede before it could be considered unethical and THAT happened when workers in the economy needed to develop more skills through schooling before they entered the workforce.

Aside from that, the children, in some cases, are still working even in the 'advanced' societies, whatever laws may exist. If you doubt this, go to California's Imperial Valley or Florida's orange groves.

Finally, the claim that unrestricted capitalism leads to monopolies and widespread poverty: where is the evidence of monopolies? If capitalism led invariably to monopoly, then I would expect more intervention by government. I would expect more anti-trust suits and actions against mergers.

More on that point, I started this topic arguing that government being wrapped up with business led to something worse than business exercising power on its own. Look at the entertainment industry. It survives pretty much solely on grant-of-privelege and rent-seeking from Congress. It (the recording labels and movie studios) act in very anti-competitive and oligarchic ways yet seem to have little to fear from anti-trust actions. The government acts more like a business agent for this industry than a regulator. Again, how is this better?

Finally, I never advocated no government. That would indeed make me an anarchist and business, of any sort, must rely on some sort of rule of law to enforce contracts and standards in the economy (like the money supply, etc). I merely feel that government ought to act only as a neutral arbiter, and not expand in such a way that it acts as it does to favor or punish one sector of the economy or another.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

162. The U.S. had a pretty libertarian economy in the 19th century

and the excesses and criminal acts of unregulated business and landowners led to the regulations that modern economic libertarians hate so much.

The Securities and Exchange Commission was founded because of massive fraud that made Enron look like a 3-card monte game.

The Food and Drug Administration was founded because farmers were knowingly selling meat and milk from sick animals, food was processed under filthy conditions, and patent medicine manufacturers knowingly filled their concoctions with opiates to ensure that the customers came back for more.

There was no welfare. Unemployed poor people who didn't meet the stringent (and highly judgmental) requirements of the private charities had no alternative to crime or prostitution.

No laws against child labor. Children went to work at age 6 and grew up illiterate.

Workers on strike? The law was heavily on the side of the employers, and workers were told that they could just go work somewhere else if they didn't like it.

You know what would have happened to our national park lands if the government hadn't started preserving them in 1872? Imagine Yellowstone Park with each geyser privately owned and the wilderness entirely replaced with ticky-tacky souvenir shops and amusement parks. Far-fetched? Nope. It's exactly what happened to Beppu, Japan, one of four places in the entire world with geysers.

Oh, yeah, a libertarian economy would produce heaven on earth--as long as you could live in a gated community and hire private guards.

[father_twilight]

122. of course it does

just like any other extremist position.

our way is compromise, between socialism and capitalism

isn't libertarianism just basically saying i do what i want, leave me alone?

[Liberal Classic]

129. As a resident libertarian please let me say

:thumbsdown:

Looks good on paper though - don't it?

So does communism, but I don't believe everything I read.

;)

[Tommythegun]

130. Amen brother!...

n/t

[pbg]

137. I believe libertarianism is a good,,,

...tool and a flawed overall philosophy.

Asking "is there a way to do this with less government intervention?" is a very good questioning process to go through.

What one has to remember (Like God answering prayer) is that sometimes the answer is "no.".

[Tommythegun]

138. True enough...

The problem is, for some people, many people, the answer is always "yes". Sometimes quite emphatically so. And the answer should come only after the most careful deliberation of the alternatives and unintended consequences.

Our foreign policy these days is one example (that ought to be worth a reply).

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Or, like God answering prayer,

sometimes the answer is you should rely on yourself and not imaginary authority figures.

[pbg]

141. And sometimes...

...you shouldn't assume you have all the answers?

[Warren DeMontague]

142. And sometimes...

You shouldn't preach to people and assume they share your superstitions.

[LiberalPersona]

140. Libertarianism doesn't even sound good on paper to me

In fact, it frightens me more than conservatism ever will. Most libertarians I've encountered on the internet sound like they're nothing more than more violent versions of conservatives because they almost always support the conservative side of the argument more than the liberal side.

[Moloch]

150. A Libertarian government would be

mob rule and large corporations running everything.. a nightmare.. but I do have more respect for them than Repubs..

[rman]

156. one thing Libertarians rarely talk about,

is corporate corruption, since that would shed a different light on their proposal that it would be better to do away with government and to have coporations run the world.

[cosmicvortex20]

169. Lets just get rid of the people... that will solve the problem!

[ASanders84]

170. I've got a libertarian friend

with pretty much the same social views as myself (left-wing) but economically he's nuts. He actually believes it's unfair to have a progressive tax rate and there should be a flat tax rate. Keep in mind, he's not rich at all.

[texas is the reason]

173. social libertarians are great, but when it comes to ECONOMICS........

I am a social libertarian through and through, and i think that some of the major problems facing the democratic party have to do with the nanny mentality that we often exhibit. The problem with pure libertarianism is the economic aspect of the philosophy. profit and free markets only serve one purpose: to maximize profits. laissez-faire capitalism is unquestionably the most productive system the world has ever known... but production and efficiency do not lead to sound social and environmental policy, or a fair distribution of wealth. in fact, this form of economics is the antithesis of justice and equality. If you want to see the effects of laissez-faire capitalism, open a history book, and read about our country at the beginning of the 20th century. the time of the robber barrons and the captains of industry- a time of unprecedented production- but also of child labor, 20-hour work days, and a gap between rich and poor that would make modern day america look like a communist utopia. under laissez-faire, there IS no middle class- just the workers, and those lucky few who benefit from thier labor. The handful of fuckers, and those who are getting fucked. Pure capitalism serves ONLY to increase profit- and never to protect the common good. If a corporation can save a few bucks by marketing asbestos ice cream cones to kids instead of the usual ones, well, i hope those kids have good health insurance. we need regulations to save us from corporate greed.. that is all there is to it.

[Democat]

175. Most "Libertarians" are really Bush supporters who don't want to admit it

They vote Bush when the time comes.

[Sirveri]

176. screw the label left libertarian.

When what you really mean is SOCIAL LIBERTARIAN.

In which case I am one. Yes could we please:
Legalise drug use
stop prosecuting people for victimless crimes
not overturn the 2nd amendment and let people own guns
let people marry who they want
let people marry as many people as they want

I support most of these things within reason. I might support other social libertarian issues. But I don't support their fiscal planks, because they're F'ing STUPID. Yes, lets get rid of taxes and let big business do whatever they want. Even though the only reason those regulations are there in the first place is because big business abused the citizenry of this country.

[rman]

177. so, "social libertarian" = liberal, progressive

where liberal also includes 'social economics', as opposed to libertarian laissez-faire capitalism.

On which issues would a libertarian who opposes libertarian economics and agrees on libertarian social issues, disagree with liberals?
Not many i gather, so why would a libertarian who opposes libertarian economics and agrees on libertarian social issues, not simply be liberal?