The Libertarian Threat

[Naturyl]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_julian_e_060627_the_libertarian_thre.htm">The Libertarian Threat, by Julian Edney

Ultimately, policy is steered by ideas. So while neocons and their lobbyists guide huge money around, they must fall back on quoting an ideology that's not quite theirs. So Libertarians get outsize respect.

Libertarian ideology is both powerful and backward-looking. It is expounded by older authorities like Ayn Rand and new, and its principles may be found in a few quite readable books. It insists on maximizing personal freedom. It uses ancient concepts like natural law, and its goals are a reversion to the ‘natural state' – simple communities based on the rightness of inequality, and natural selection among humans. It is not democratic. It does not deal with conscience, nor with justice, nor compassion; its single-minded focus is on liberty, and it embraces concepts like survival of the fittest. It claims Adam Smith's principle of the ‘invisible hand,' and it promotes concepts like laissez-faire that businessmen want to use.

With the rise of "libertarianism" in America today, even within the Democratic party to an increasing extent, it's important to be aware of the dangers posed by an emphasis on liberty without a corresponding commitment to equality and economic justice. It is a great article overall, by one of today's most substantial economic authors.

[baby_mouse]

1. Liberty becomes meaningless...

...If you aren't free to do simple things like eat because somebody else was free to just take all your food away because they had a gun and you didn't.

The libertarians bedazzle me with their bankrupt pseudologic. They're almost as stunning as the fundies...

[Lefta Dissenter]

11. OK, so my Libertarian partner is having a fit here...

"one of the most fundamental rules of Libertarianism is that you cannot use force against another individual except in defense of your rights. Libertarians do not recognize a right to somebody else's food!

Most of the problems described result when the government's use of force is coupled with economic issues. This is diametrically opposed to the Lib view that markets work on freedom to contract."

to sum up... LIBERTARIANS DO NOT THINK IT IS RIGHT TO USE THEIR GUNS TO TAKE OTHER PEOPLES' FOOD!!!

I asked him if he's used to this sort of 'attack,' and he said that actually he's more used to their party being pretty much ignored, and it's too bad that lack of understanding of the principles leads to attacks.

By the way, my partner used to be a Democrat, ran for the State Assembly twice as such (garnering roughly 48% and then 49% of the vote), then joined the Libertarian Party, was state chair, and ran for Governor. He's definitely NOT a Republican in a pot-smoker's body!

[Naturyl]

16. Progressives do not think it is right to let people starve

When people have nothing, it is the responsibility of a "civilized" society to provide for them. It is unfortunate that people will not willingly give generously enough to make private charity a viable option, but since they will not, the state must act to ensure the welfare of its citizens.

[SmokingJacket]

31. I just heard a heartbreaking story about hospitals in L.A. that are

dumping indigent, confused, elderly patients on skid row, still in their hospital gowns.

The thing that bothers me about Libertarianism is there's nothing in their ideology that says that's wrong.

I agree with some libertarian ideas, like the one that says people should be more or less left alone by the government and that basic freedoms are important.

But I think it ends with money. Money *only* has value as a social commodity; without everyone else, money has no value. So in that sense I believe the society at large has some claim on people's money, at least insofar as it *improves* the society at large. That's why I'm in favor of steep taxes on the wealthy.

Under the system I would like to live in, "everyone is cared for" comes before "everyone has the right to all their money."

[Naturyl]

33. Yes indeed

I'm glad you have that view. In my opinion, it's the right one.

[mitchum]

42. It must suck having all of those suspiciously stained copies of "Atlas Shrugged"...

in the bathroom. My sympathies.
Sorry, but your partner is a twit. A glinty eyed dreamer.

[Lefta Dissenter]

55. wow, that was nice...

(not) I'm not going to sit here and defend Libertarianism. After all, if I agreed with everything they believed in, I'd be one myself. There are Lib's who are fabulous, generous people, and some who are selfish, judgmental jerks, apparently just like liberals, huh?

I'd put the thoughtfulness and generosity of my Libertarian up against that of any Liberal any day. Just because he doesn't believe that his money should be taken by the government to fund illegal wars and the ridiculous pork projects that legislators slide into law, he's a twit?

Yeah, let's be as inclusive as the religious right and see where that gets us... :eyes:

[Kerrytravelers]

2. I had a libertarian tell me that as a public school teacher, I am a drain on his taxes.

He also said that all schools should be privatized and that we should make this happen through voucher system. When I asked "what about the kids who come from families who can't afford it, aren't supportive of their education, or live in group homes," he just shrugged, "oh well, some will always be left behind." I responded, "And it's nice that you've chosen those who get left behind. How nice of you."

I do hope he doesn't reflect the actual Libertarian philosophy.





(And, on a snarky note, I always kind of though that Libertarians were just Republicans who like to smoke pot and thought fundies were fools. :rofl: )

[w4rma]

4. Yes. That is exactly what capital-"L" Libertarianism is all about. (nt)

[smirkymonkey]

38. Most Libertarians are greedy f**ks just like Republicans.

It all comes down to money in the end.

[Chichiri]

Libertarians = Anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

--Kim Stanley Robinson

[Sammy Pepys]

3. While conservatism and libertarianism are close cousins...

...I think it's unlikely we're going to see any great spotlighting of libertarianism.

[Swamp Rat]

5. I welcome all libertarians into the 'big tent.'

I am for "maximizing personal freedom."



I am for "reversion to the natural state," if that means returning to the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, and a Public Commons.



Just because some libertarians believe in or strive for some sort of "simple communities" utopia doesn't preclude them from learning how to deal with others equitably nor learning to be compassionate for their neighbor. We are all in this struggle -TOGETHER- to keep ourselves from literally becoming slaves to the corporate robber barons, wealthy elite, and their violent and heavily armed Praetorian Guard, and drooling sycophants.

[Kerrytravelers]

6. They're welcome to join the tent. Just don't pull up the tent poles and burn 'em, is all.

[Exiled in America]

22. fuck the big tent. I am sick of that stupid and ridiculous metaphor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2726067&mesg_id=2726369

[Swamp Rat]

28. I am sick of ill-informed, knee jerk responses.

Now that you have read the "Universal Declaration of Human rights," maybe you can learn internalise the ideology therein. GOOD LUCK!

After reading your rant, I think you have confused what is libertarian with what is a Libertarian.

"Now, either I have to leave the party or "they" have to leave the party. But the people who disagree with me on these priorities are not people that I can be reconciled with." - Sounds like YOU are the one with the problem, not the majority of us in the Big Tent. :) We have proven that we can certainly win elections despite people with your attitude.

"These are not mere interesting points of politics - they are moral imperatives. They are right, and they are just. Period." - Who the fuck died and made you king?

"And before a bunch of people come back and start lecturing me about the need to compromise in politics, I respond that I would at least like the compromising to be between my party and THE OTHER PARTY - not my party and other people in my own party who can't get together and agree on what the fuck we actually STAND FOR." - Yeah, right. Like you will get along fine with republicans with that attitude. :eyes:

Again good luck.

[Exiled in America]

30. Projection Sustained!

Wow there was precisely nothing of substance in your response.

Now that you have read the "Universal Declaration of Human rights," maybe you can learn internalise the ideology therein. GOOD LUCK!

Was that a sentence of some sort? I'm assuming its missing a well placed "to" and that the word you're searching for is "internalize." Doing just fine on that front, thanks.

After reading your rant, I think you have confused what is libertarian with what is a Libertarian.

Really? Because neither one of them would characterize my comments.

"Now, either I have to leave the party or "they" have to leave the party. But the people who disagree with me on these priorities are not people that I can be reconciled with." - Sounds like YOU are the one with the problem, not the majority of us in the Big Tent. :) We have proven that we can certainly win elections despite people with your attitude.

Well first of all, you don't speak for the majority. You speak for you. Second, being in the "majority" doesn't make one right. It makes one a majority. We've proven that we can win elections? Really? Wow, that was a major accomplishment this year when the majority of americans would have voted for my crap in the toilet if it has been running against a repbulican. Impressive.

What's more disturbing about your "we can win elections" screed is how blatantly it misses the point. WHO CARES if we can win election if we don't STAND FOR ANYTHING. There is actually something more important than "winning" and that is having a cohesive idea of what the party who "wins" actually stands for. Not all political ideologies are compatible. There is NOT room for everyone under the banner of one party. You can't be the pro-life/pro-choice anti-gay/equal rights corporate/labor polluter/environment hawk/dove unilateral/multilateral PARTY and expect to make ANY progress of any kind.

Democrats should stand for something concrete, and it should be definitive - if you agree with this, you're a Democrat. If you don't, you're something else.

"These are not mere interesting points of politics - they are moral imperatives. They are right, and they are just. Period." - Who the fuck died and made you king?

They're are natural and axiomatic statements. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to differentiate ethical from unethical, just from unjust, right from wrong.

"And before a bunch of people come back and start lecturing me about the need to compromise in politics, I respond that I would at least like the compromising to be between my party and THE OTHER PARTY - not my party and other people in my own party who can't get together and agree on what the fuck we actually STAND FOR." - Yeah, right. Like you will get along fine with republicans with that attitude.

No republican CARES - they don't need to do anything except sit back and watch us not be able to figure out what the hell we're about on our own side of the isle. And we don't need to get along with republicans. We need to oppose them.

[Swamp Rat]

36. "Wow there was precisely nothing of substance in your response." - Projecting again?

Boy, your commentary is full of "substance" alright. :eyes:

"Was that a sentence of some sort? I'm assuming its missing a well placed "to" and that the word you're searching for is "internalize." Doing just fine on that front, thanks." - What are you, a grammar nazi? No, there is no missing "to," and "internalise" is British spelling. You know, ENGLISH. Get a fucking dictionary already.

"Really? Because neither one of them would characterize my comments." - But it does. Too bad you cannot see it.

"Well first of all, you don't speak for the majority. You speak for you. Second, being in the "majority" doesn't make one right. It makes one a majority." - PLEASE! Don't try this old trick on me. I am way too brilliant for that. :) You were the one pretending to speak for the majority. I don't even have to repost your previous talking points. Here is another:

"Democrats should stand for something concrete, and it should be definitive - if you agree with this, you're a Democrat. If you don't, you're something else." - So, I repeat: who the fuck made you 'King of the Democrats?'

"We've proven that we can win elections? Really? Wow, that was a major accomplishment this year when the majority of americans would have voted for my crap in the toilet if it has been running against a Republican. Impressive." - With Democrats like you, who needs enemies. We won a major victory, but here you are denigrating the Democratic party. Keep it up and you will likely be banned from DU.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to differentiate ethical from unethical, just from unjust, right from wrong." - Red Herring. You were claiming to know right from wrong. "Period." So therefore, the onus is on you prove that you are THE qualified arbiter of "moral imperatives."

Since you chose to take an aggressive tone with me, you will find that I will bite back harder and harder. I hope you realise by now that I can (and will if I chose to waste my beautiful mind) deconstruct everyone of your illogical statements and platitudes. I will come back later to see if you have changed your attitude and tone toward me, and decide if it is worth responding.

[Exiled in America]

51. This is the only question I want you to answer:

right here:

How is a "big tent" political party, that wants to include EVERY conceivable political ideology, INCLUDING those that are fundamentally incompatible with one another ever supposed to get anywhere?

Does it not seem a bit ludicrous to you to pretend like every single person from any political perspective can find a home within the Democratic party?

I'm going to assume that your answer is yes, that does seem a bit ludicrous. But if I'm mistaken, and you're answer is no - everyone from any political perspective of any kind should be able to call himself or herself democrat, then I would like you to explain very clearly how and why you think that is possible.

Assuming you don't think that is possible, should we not then have a clear and coherent platform that clearly defines the parameters of what it means to call oneself a democrat?

For the sake of argument, lets grant that you don't need to agree with what *I* would like to see defined as democrat. Let's just ask whether or not there should be a clear and coherent platform that sets the parameters on when one can call oneself a democrat and when one needs to call oneself something else.

What say you?

[Swamp Rat]

52. It's hard to debate with someone who asks questions then answers them for me.

"How is a "big tent" political party, that wants to include EVERY conceivable political ideology," - That is not my definition of "big tent." From this point on, the Straw Man argument builds until it concludes with: "I'm going to assume that your answer is yes, that does seem a bit ludicrous." - No. That is not my answer. You never even asked me what think "big tent" means in the first place. I find this line of questioning and reasoning very tedious, but I will try to work with it.

"But if I'm mistaken, and you're answer is no - everyone from any political perspective of any kind should be able to call himself or herself democrat, then I would like you to explain very clearly how and why you think that is possible." - No again. What I may consider 'possible' has little or no bearing on the narrowly defined concept that "everyone from any political perspective of any kind should be able to call himself or herself democrat."

"should we not then have a clear and coherent platform that clearly defines the parameters of what it means to call oneself a democrat?" - All political entities have platforms by nature. If a political party has a clear platform and the majority of voters agree with this platform, then that political party will likely win elections (barring the possibility of fraud). The Democratic Party has a clear, coherent platform and manages to do this with a lot of internal dissent BECAUSE of its inherent inclusiveness. Its members (the plebius, not the elected officials) are not required to abide by my or anyone else's strict definition of what a Democrat ought to be. From what I gather, the use of "big tent" comes from (or may be related to) the inclusive nature of the Democratic Party, but I will not attempt to refine its meaning beyond this.

What say I? Well, I do not live in a black and white world. My universe is not even shades of gray; it is an infinite number of colors and sounds. I do set boundaries, though. I do not dine with fascists, suffer tyrants, nor do I get along well with authoritarian personalities. Most people who follow this path in life will probably never belong to the Democratic Party, so I never really worry about it. If they change their ways, well then I welcome them into the "big tent." It's not my choice anyway, as I do not control the Democratic Party platform.

I hope this clears things up for you. :hi:

[Exiled in America]

56. Another explanation

I liked your third paragraph. But I think this gets to the heart of the matter:

What say I? Well, I do not live in a black and white world. My universe is not even shades of gray; it is an infinite number of colors and sounds. I do set boundaries, though. I do not dine with fascists, suffer tyrants, nor do I get along well with authoritarian personalities. Most people who follow this path in life will probably never belong to the Democratic Party, so I never really worry about it. If they change their ways, well then I welcome them into the "big tent." It's not my choice anyway, as I do not control the Democratic Party platform.

Your universe is an infinite number of colors and sounds. Great, mine is too. And yet in the very next sentence you say you do not dine with fascists, suffer tyrants, nor get along well with authoritarian personalities. That seems to indicate to me that your universe of rich diversity and complexity also includes some concretes particulars. If not "absolutes" they are at least heuristics - good rules of thumb that are usually true you. This is just a natural fact of life. You're life (and mine) may be full of context and subjectivity, but it still also contains some concretes - like for example, the fact that all things being equal, you don't suffer tyrants. Does that mean some pseudo-intellectual couldn't sit around and think up a counter-example scenario in which you would concede to suffering a tyrant for some reason? Probably. But that doesn't invalidate the principle. It's generally true most all of the time. That's good enough. It doesn't need to be a universal non-negotiable absolute to still carry the weight of being a principle by which one may differentiate what we over-simplistically call "right" and "wrong."


I'm actually not much of an authoritarian. I come off sounding like it in this exchange, because I'm choosing to emphasis one particular side of reality, which is the fact that there are indeed some general principles in life that are almost always true. And you don't have to be a genius to recognize them, and it doesn't take a degree in philosophy to acknowledge them. We simply know that rape is wrong and that justice implies treating our neighbors with compassion and respect and we don't need a four hour debate where we can get to the place where we can call the former wrong or the latter right. It's common sense. The ability to find an abstract corner-case counter example doesn't undermine the heuristic.

It is possible to be an inclusive party without compromising essential principles. The theme for the Democratic party ought to be "freedom in non-essentials, but agreement in essentials." Otherwise, you're not a "party." You're just a group of people with different and disjointed opinions. Once again I point out that you can't be the pro-life/pro-choice anti-gay/equal rights corporate/labor polluter/environment hawk/dove unilateral/multilateral PARTY and expect to make ANY progress of any kind.

For the idea of a "party" to mean anything, there should be a statement of core commitments of values that give that term meaning. Then people should be free to differ and debate the issues that fall beyond the scope of those core commitments. And this is not a ludicrous idea at all - its why in theory parties write party platforms. It's supposed to define what being a "democrat" is about. Unfortunately right now, we live in a climate where too many self-identified democrats don't agree with large chunks of the party platform and continue to call themselves democrats. The word really has little to no meaning anymore, and as a Democrat that makes me feel really sad.

So again, what I am asking for with the Democratic party is freedom in non-essentials, but agreement in essentials - otherwise, it doesn't mean anything to be a "Democrat."

[Exiled in America]

58. nothing?

hmm...

[seabeyond]

7. that seems to be the new talking point on du. if opposed to society

dictating how we are to live avoiding all potential harm that may come our way, for the good of society,.... we are now called libertarian. last week it was if we didnt agree with far left we were moderate of no stnace, no conviction, uninformed and unaware.

is this a party of one thought.... or you are something else? has the democratic party learned its lesson from the republican party of no one stepping outside the lines?

[Jed Dilligan]

18. I'm glad the debate has come to this, very glad

The Old Left/DLC debate has been outdated for years. The Democratic Party now has to take a good, hard look at itself--forget what's politically "safe"--and decide which side it's on in the battle for individual liberties. We need to decide whether we want to keep fighting the Drug War. We need to decide whether we want to keep taking money from prison guards. We need to decide whether we are going to sink government deeper into people's personal lives, or at last pull it out.

This is the issue that keeps the nonvoting majority away from the polls: two police-state parties are battling for their vote; the only way to vote against the police state is not to vote.

The Libertarian (note capital L) error is trying to be consistent in all areas of life regardless of scale. I am for drastically different levels of state control in public and private life. This puts me at odds with the current GOP mainstream, which is public-libertarian and private-statist. I am a statist in the public sphere and a libertarian in the private sphere.

[warrens]

8. Libertarians generally are already rich

And now don't want to pay taxes.

[Mythsaje]

10. Not really...

In fact there are a lot of them that live on the fringes of society--people who refuse to accept unemployment and take contract jobs like newspaper delivery and live as simply as possible. I've met them.

[Lefta Dissenter]

12. OK, excuse me, but...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Mythsaje]

9. I don't have any dispute with personal liberty...

I certainly agree with the Libertarian stance on the drug war.

I think forcing people to act rationally under threat of law is demeaning and, in the end, counter-productive. The whole "for your own good" mentality is as dangerous to liberty as anything else I can think of.

On the other hand, Libertarian economic theory is a bunch of crap.

[Naturyl]

13. Good point, and I should have made that clear

It's libertarian economic policy that both Edney and I are objecting to.

[Ron Green]

14. I'd be inclined to agree with you but for the efficiency of the corporate media.

The idea that we are all capable of making good decisions and ignoring the messages in which we're immersed has dwindled to almost zero. Keeping alive the freedom to act and be accountable for one's actions, while holding in check the power of bad ideas in our mental environment, must be the challenge for policy makers of the 21st century. It's clear that the Market will pay for messages of addiction and slavery, but who will support real education about acting and thinking rationally? Public service announcements vs. MTV? I'll take bets on that.

[Jed Dilligan]

19. This is still the public sphere you're talking about,

there is no reason to restrict and regulate people's private lives just because you think TV makes them stupid. (You're probably right.) Quality of content standards on the media have nothing to do with the invasion of personal liberties by the police state. Once again, the big mistake of the big-L Libs.

[Ron Green]

23. Where to draw the lines, though?

Owning a gun is ok; how about owning a rocket launcher? Or selling flammable toys? Is it always caveat emptor?

My point is that the Free Market is not going to protect anyone; it assumes people will protect themselves. This is admirable, except where, in a complex world, people don't always know enough to protect themselves and rely on government for information and regulation.

[Jed Dilligan]

24. I think people should be as well-armed as the police,

that child safety is overemphasized (better a broken arm than a broken spirit, etc.) and that any emptor who doesn't cavere is a fool, even in a supposedly regulated market. Once again, you are talking about what businesses can sell to the public and not individual citizen behavior. I would draw the line at about a million bucks a year.

[Ron Green]

29. There are some folks down the road from me I hope don't have a SWAT wagon,

but I'm glad they've been required by the state to put their baby in an approved car seat instead of ridin' in somebody's lap.

[Jed Dilligan]

32. My real opinion is that police should only be as well-armed

as the populace. In my view the police now are over-armed.

I would support a welfare program that gave car seats to people who couldn't afford them, but not a law enforcement program to punish people who don't use them.

[Mythsaje]

40. You and I have similar philosophies, in this at least, Jed. n/t

[sweetheart]

15. liberty from the drugs war nazis,

liberty from the smoking nazis,
liberty from the child raising nazis,
liberty from the warmongering nazis,
liberty from the bedroom nazis,
liberty from the womb nazis.

I'm a libertarian in opposition to nazis of both parties, they can fuck themselves
for attacking people's liberty, and i support all measures to restore liberty,
even if people can't distinguish between social libertarians and economic ones.

[Jed Dilligan]

20. Excellent: call them what they are.

A year or so ago I got nothing but flames for saying the perpetrators of the Drug War would go down in history with Hitler and the SS.

[sweetheart]

27. The perps of the drugs war rot in hell

It takes a sick people to wage hate war and hate crimes against their own poor, young and disenfranchised.

Long may the evil drugs war nazis roast in hell for what they done to so many millions of peaceloving
regular people.

[BlackVelvet04]

35. Bravo....

couldn't agree more.

[AndyTiedye]

17. They're Not So Libertarian When Halliburton Comes Looking for a few $Billion

[Odin2005]

21. The Libertarians have a faulty understanding about the nature of Capitalism and property.

Capitalism and private property are inheierently authoritarian in nature. Libertarianism is self-contradictory, you cannot maximize liberty while capitalism and private property exists.

[eridani]

43. They claim to be against violence--

--but overlook the basic fact that property ownership has no other way to be established than violence, with the exception of property occupied when no other people were around.

[ismnotwasm]

25. My brother is a Libertarian

He sends me links, gives me books. I've never been able to see how it would "work" given human nature. He swears the free market would take care of everything from meat inspection to distribution of water. That natural competition in the market would regulate any and every problem that comes up.

In order for it to succeed as a form of government human beings would have to overcome any number of character defects, like greed for instance. Not the Ayn Rand type "greed is not only ok, but good for you" but "I got mine and fuck the rest of you" greed.


I do like the anti-war stance of Libertarian Justin Raimando, even if I don't agree with other things.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. There was a time when Libertarianism was in force

It was called the nineteenth century. The prevailing legal principle was "let the buyer beware," so businesses were allowed to sell tainted food or dangerous equipment, rent out squalid, over-crowded buildings, rape the landscape in any way they chose, sell colored water laced with alcohol or opium as a magic cure-all, and sell fake shares in non-existent companies. There was no unemployment insurance, no minimum wage, and no child labor laws. Meanwhile, the rich lived without any taxes to speak of and had enough money to buy whatever they wanted.

The laws we have today were enacted for a reason.

Anyone who wants to experience a "Libertarian paradise" in today's world just needs to pick any Third World hellhole on the globe, and he will find the same lack of basic services for the poor and the same unbelievable luxury for the rich. Even in so-called "famine" regions, the rich never starve, because they can buy imported food.

[madmusic]

34. You saved me some typing. Thanks.

It was chaos then and if laws were enacted, it was only because the Libertarians did not practice the personal responsibility they so rave about. Regulation was inevitable, and if it had not happened, the people, the mob, whatever we want to call them, would have burned everything down. Any philosophy that doesn't know the masses must be at least a little content is truly ignorant of basic human psychology. This is exactly why I'm no longer a card carrying libertarian, even though I still believe some of their principles. And the neocons are using them just like they use the fundies.

I could go for a balance between libertarianism and liberalism, and really don't think either could survive for long on their own.

[alarimer]

41. We tried that before and had CHILDREN working in factories

And factory owners locked the doors on their employees so they couldn't escape a fire and hundreds died.
If you left business to its own devices, these things would happen all over again. We would have even dirtier air and water than we already have. No EPA, no Endangered Species Act, etc. No thanks. We need more regulation of business practices (wages, safety, environmental control) not fewer.

[557188]

37. The truth

Libertarianism is just another word for Oligarchy.

[readmoreoften]

39. The Libertarian party is different from political libertarianism

One can easily be a left libertarian. Most of what we call "Libertarians" are laissez-faire capitalists who believe in abortion and gay marriage. An impoverished debate.

[Odin2005]

44. Good point, "libertarian" used to be a synonym of Anarcho-Socialist.

Of course, now the same people who hijacked the term "libertarian" have now hijacked the term "anarchist." "Anarcho-Capitalism is one of the most pathetic oxymorons EVER!

[personman]

53. Indeed.

Chomsky sums it up well:

Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.

"There are self-styled "anarcho-capitalists" (not to be confused with anarchists of any persuasion), who want the state abolished as a regulator of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists."

— Donald Rooum in What is Anarchism

[HardRocker05]

45. no reason liberals shouldn't acknowledge and co-opt the good parts of libertarianism. nt

[Swamp Rat]

47. Exactly!

Though, in an exchange above above I encountered opposition to this type of openness. Not everyone is willing to think 'outside the box.'

[upi402]

46. more libertarians help Dems

They rob Repubs that are pissed at the religious right and drunken sailor fiscal policy makers.

[Swamp Rat]

48. Yes, indeed!

:hi:

[upi402]

49. Hey swampy!

Have you seen this one?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2732946&mesg_id=2732946
:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

50. See post #7

I am there. :D

Check your PM. ;)

[izzybeans]

54. Anarchy?

anarchy in politics and anarchy in economics...is how I see it.

Libertarians are just anarchists too dense to recognize it.

They are also the only party whose candidates actually "do not have a plan" outside of "no taxes" and "no regulation". If they were more mainstream they would be the muse of some exceptional satire. Most I know are mildly successful small-business folks who do not know the meaning of corporate governance because they still think it is an "invisible hand" and only encounter that hand when it is too late (when they are about to close up shop because Wal-mart, Starbucks, and Applebees have just moved in down the street). Even then they probably just hold on for dear life and become a franchise owner whose complaints about franchise fees now fall on deaf ears. Not recognizing that the local distributorships they once bought from have been bought up by those they know buy from through the franchise.

Libertarians, a threat, but comical and a bit tragic to boot.

[leftupnorth]

57. We need to dump these unambiguous labels for our ideology, you can be a libertarian and a liberal

It just depends on how you define the terms.

I am a libertarian leftist. I get this description from www.politicalcompass.org it really redefines the political landscape and better reflects reality, IMO.

I recommend anyone who is having trouble determining where they are take the test. I would reckon most Duers and a large majority of Americans are libertarian leftists.