Posted on 04/10/2010 11:03:39 AM PDT by Lorianne
9:23 Part One
I’m a libertarian too, evidently anyone can be libertarian, Bill Maher, you, Noam Chomsky, Ted Nugent, Ron Paul, David Letterman, John Stossel, Russell Means, are all libertarians.
Libertarians can be far left or far right, Democrat or Republican, they are whatever they say they are, the only way to have a structure to discuss libertarianism in politics is to use the party platform as the agenda of libertarianism in the flesh, where the rubber meets the road, a majority reached, thoroughly debated, party platform.
How libertarian is it to give the LP politiburo the sole power to define who is, or is not, a libertarian?
John Stoessel, CATO, Reason, Heartland, IPI, Drew Carey, Ron Paul, Campaign for Liberty, LP ....
It is the active discussion of what is a libertarian that keeps us all honest.
From my perspective, there is also the dichotomy between belief and action. Some ideological purists do little to advance libertarianism. Meanwhile, others less ideologically pure do more to advance libertarianism because they have chosen actions that are effective vs actions that are ineffective.
Ron and Rand Paul running as a Republicans is effective. And when Ron Paul ran for the LP it was good for the LP and libertarianism in general.
Harry Browne representing the LP was counter-productive and hurt the LP and libertarianism in general.
The only way to have a structure to discuss libertarianism in politics is to use the party platform as the agenda of libertarianism in the flesh, where the rubber meets the road, a majority reached, thoroughly debated, party platform.
Noam Chomsky is a libertarian, the word means nothing, I am a libertarian, you are a libertarian, it means whatever you or I or Noam Chomsky or Jane Fonda wants it to mean.
Libertarians must have political goals, but they will not tell us what they are, they merely create a dialogue and a partial list to fit whichever audience they are addressing.
Liberals are scared shirtless of l/Libertarians because libertarians steal Democrats' thunder on civil liberties and foreign policy, and starve Democrats of the ability to play Santa Claus with our tax money. Libertarians completely deflate Liberals down to normal human size and Liberals hate that.
One of my best friends is a Liberal Democrat in an elected political position and she has jokingly said to me, "I'd like you so much better if you were just a mainstream Republican instead of a libertarian, because that I know how to fight mainstream Republican ideas. Libertarians give me the heebee-jeebees."
So no, ansel, Liberals (in today's sense of the word) and libertarians are not the same thing -- not even close.
As for open borders, you keep equating Libertarian (the Party) and libertarian (the small government, low taxes and freedom variety) and they aren't the same thing. Small "l" libertarians believe that our country is our private property and we have every right and obligation to our citizenry to guard our borders. The real fact is that if we quit subsidizing illegals, we won't have anywhere near the problem we have today with them --this is different from mainstream Republicans who make big bold statements about "border fences" and do nothing, because they are afraid to quit subsidizing illegals lest they lose the Hispanic vote in the next election.
As for drugs, you'll get mixed responses on that from small "l" libertarians, but basically, most agree to decriminalizing marijuana and you'll get disagreement beyond that on other stronger drugs.
You want to paint small government libertarians with the same brush as Party Libertarians and that's absolute BS. Even Reagan recognized the difference that you refuse to see -- because Reagan knew that he needed libertarians in the GOP to get elected. Instead, you want to drive libertarians off with a stick, ansel -- and it's self-defeating. You are just too narrow-minded to see it.
“Liberalism is libertarian as well, do you think that liberals do not agree with this concept of “individual freedom” and foreign policy?”
That is true, ask prominent liberal libertarians, like Hugh Hefner, Jesse Ventura, Noam Chomsky, Frank Zappa, Bill Maher, Sandra Bernhard and Jason Alexander, even Naomi Wolf.
True libertarians want open borders, it is true to the freedom of the individual, that is why the majority still want it in the party platform.
You have just listed people with a variety of political affiliations (Jesse Ventura ran as Reform Party, Hefner is a Democrat, etc. ) and labeled them all "Libertarians". Prove it.
“Hefner considers himself to be a libertarian and has set up the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Awards to recognize those who fight for the first amendment rights of all. “
http://www.yuddy.com/celebrity/hugh-hefner/bio
Noam Chomsky (noted libertarian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
“Jesse Ventura is a Liberal Libertarian”
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jesse_Ventura.htm
“Bill Maher describes himself as a libertarian,[2] and supports libertarian positions such as privatization of Social Security and legalization of marijuana. On foreign policy he was a staunch opponent of the policies of President George W. Bush, especially on the War in Iraq.”
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bill_Maher
Jason Alexander (CA/NY)
Dave Barry (FL)
Sandra Bernhard (CA)
Lewis Black (CA)
Dick Boddie (CA)
Ernie Brown (NV)
Dean Cameron (CA)
John Cantu (CA)
Drew Carey (CA)
Tommy Chong (CA)
Ozell Daniel (HI)
Paul Driscoll (TX)
Brett Erickson (IL)
Jeff Foxworthy (GA)
Chip Franklin (MD)
Kinky Friedman (TX)
Abdul Hakim-Shabazz (IN)
Kaui Hill (HI)
Jeff Jena (MN)
Penn Jillette (NV)
Reginald Jones (NJ)
Paul Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (WA)
Kenny Kramer (NY)
Denis Leary (CA)
David Letterman (NY)
Andrew Levy (CA/NY)
Damian Mason (CA)
Carol Moore (DC)
P.J. O’Rourke (DC/NH)
Doug Powers (CA)
Chris Rock (CA)
Bill Schulz (DC)
Tim Slagle (IL)
Doug Stanhope (CA)
Rich “Jackie Vegas” Stein (NY)
Doug Stanhope (CA)
John Swartzwelder (??)
Teller (NV)
Sheryl Underwood (CA)
Jeff Vachon (MA)
Jimmy J.J. Walker (NY)
Robert Anton Wilson
Tim Wilson (GA)
http://chelm.freeyellow.com/famous_index.html
"Noted Libertarian". Again BS, ansel. Chomsky is some sort weird aberration called a "Libertarian-Socialist" that even he doesn't understand, because it's an oxymoron.
The only person who considers Bill Maher "a Libertarian" is Bill Maher because it sounds good to him. In fact, he is a Flaming Liberal by anyone's account.
This is a partial list of notable individuals who subscribe to the the libertarian philosophy of small government, individual liberty and personal responsibility. Inclusion in this list does not imply support of any political party, organization, legislation, or specific issue. Not all of the people listed are large-L Libertarians.
Jason Alexander (CA/NY) Dave Barry (FL) Sandra Bernhard (CA) Lewis Black (CA) Dick Boddie (CA) Ernie Brown (NV) Dean Cameron (CA) John Cantu (CA) Drew Carey (CA), etc.
On Hefner, he calls himself "a Libertarian" but votes Liberal Democrat like Maher. Hef is more Libertine than Libertarian.
Ventura was Reform Party, then Independent Party, but shows up on a test as a Liberal Libertarian, so even he doesn't know what the hell he is.
Noam Chomsky (noted libertarian) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Sorry but they are libertarians, you are not the master off who is, or is not, they are just like you, they pick and choose which parts of the party platform that they personally approve of and they can make up their own minds, they are even more famous libertarians than you.
You are very adamant about not having to belong to the Libertarian Party and you say that they don't, I will accept that for now.
We have libertarians right here at freerepublic that publicly admit that they vote Republican, libertarians are both Democrats and Republicans, and the most pure are even members of the libertarian party.
I'll agree that neither I nor you are perfect arbiters of who is or isn't "a libertarian", but Noam Chomsky simply made up a name for what his views are that just happened to have the word libertarian in the title but has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism -- and you are trying to exploit that to make him sound as though he is a mainstream libertarian. It's nonsense. If he'd called himself a "Republican Socialist", would that make him "a Republican"? Of course not!
All of those people and many more are libertarians, David Letterman, Chomsky, Bill Maher and many, many Democrats are libertarians just as many republicans are libertarians, and many libertarians are libertarians.
Libertarians can be far left or far right, Democrat or Republican, they are whatever they say they are, the only way to have a structure to discuss libertarianism in politics is to use the party platform as the agenda of libertarianism in the flesh, where the rubber meets the road, a majority reached, thoroughly debated, party platform.
LOL, Republicans would use the Republican Party Platform to show that he was not a Republican.
“LOL, Republicans would use the Republican Party Platform to show that he was not a Republican.”
You mean like the author of that article on Maher did with Maher’s views vs the Libertarian platform.:
And like any pseudo-politician, Maher deserves a pseudo-scorecard. Here’s how Maher rates with the Libertarian Party’s agenda:
Guns:
The Libertarian Party platform compares gun-control laws to Prohibition. The party believes such regulations only harm law-abiding citizens by creating a black market for firearms and increasingly powerful organized crime. Echoing the National Rifle Association, the party asserts that it’s people who kill people and that guns are “inanimate objects.” Libertarians believe police and politicians should encourage gun ownership as well as education and training.
Maher supports gun-control laws. While he says he favors the right to own “a gun,” he questions whether large weapons arsenals are what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Maher recently told Texas legislator Suzanna Hupp, “The Second Amendment doesn’t refer to the world we live in now.” He voiced skepticism about Hupp’s proposal to allow the carrying of concealed weapons. His views mirror the Democratic platform that advocates “stronger laws and stronger enforcement.”
Education:
Libertarians believe America’s public schools have failed. They cite overregulation for turning schools into “dangerous places for our children.” They advocate an end to government control and a full disbanding of the Department of Education. They say control should rest with “parents and teachers, and [they] encourage alternatives to the public school monopoly.”
Maher supports public schooling. He’s particularly outspoken against home schooling, calling it “the social version of inbreeding.” He has also been critical of school voucher initiatives, claiming they would take money away from needy institutions.
Social Security:
Libertarians believe Social Security is heading toward bankruptcy and argue that Americans should be given the option to “opt out” of the government system and invest their money in personal retirement accounts. They say that even the most conservative investment strategies would yield three times the benefits promised by Social Security.
Maher agrees. On his July 12 program, Maher said Social Security was “advancing the term ‘lame’ to people too lame to save for themselves.” He advocates a streamlined Social Security system primarily geared toward the disabled.
Foreign policy:
According to libertarians, U.S. foreign policy is “little more than welfare for nations,” asserting that the $14 billion per year the federal government spends on foreign aid more often than not hurts developing nations. They advocate a foreign policy that focuses on strengthening U.S. businesses, helping them build up their positions abroad.
Maher supports an active U.S. foreign policy, saying that America’s position in the world “is the price we must pay” for being the most influential nation on earth. Long distrustful of big business, Maher believes efforts to strengthen American companies with government subsidies amount to corporate welfare.
Abortion:
Libertarians take no firm stand on abortion, saying that people “can hold good-faith views on both sides.” However, the party does advocate ending all federal funding for abortions and other prenatal services. “It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion,” they say.
Maher is staunchly pro-abortion rights. He believes the ultimate freedom from government is the right to decide what to do with one’s body. On a recent show, Maher applauded a Dutch “abortion boat” that provides abortions to women in Ireland — where the procedure remains illegal.
Environment:
Libertarians argue that the federal government is a far greater polluter than oil companies, chemical companies and nuclear power plants. They criticize federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, saying they are large, ineffective creations that do little to ensure public safety. Instead, libertarians advocate the privatization of public lands by a combination of stewardship organizations and commercial industry.
Maher has railed against proposals to drill for oil in Alaska’s wildlife refuge. He has spoken in favor of the Kyoto treaty on global warming and criticized President Bush’s opposition to it. During his July 24 monologue, Maher made his environmental position clear by saying that the Bush administration “has never been caught in a sex scandal — unless you count raping the environment.” And Maher believes government regulation of clean air and water is one of the cornerstones of what government is meant to do.
Drugs:
Libertarians believe the war on drugs has been lost and is impossible to win. Current drug laws are a “rerun of Prohibition,” they say. The party believes citizens should take responsibility for themselves and asserts that the majority of drug users do so peacefully and recreationally.
Maher agrees. Indeed, it’s on the issues of drugs, pornography and prostitution that Maher is most vocal against government involvement. The Democratic and Republican parties are in favor of current drug laws, though the recent passage of state medicinal marijuana propositions and legalization overtures by some Democrats and Republicans may eventually alter these positions.
Quietly, Maher concedes his attempt to cloth himself in libertarian ideals hasn’t been easy. Nor does his staunch advocacy of the death penalty (”I don’t know why every life is so precious”) make him a prototypical liberal. However, Maher clearly approaches most issues with a decidedly center-left bent. His views are much closer to Clinton’s than they are to Browne’s.
So if being politically incorrect is about telling the truth, why doesn’t Maher just say it?
He isn’t much of a libertarian.
So you agree then that self identified Libertarians can be far left or far right, Democrat or Republican, they are whatever they say they are, that the only way to have a structure to discuss libertarianism in politics is to use the party platform as the agenda of libertarianism in the flesh, where the rubber meets the road, a majority reached, thoroughly debated, party platform.
I agree that when you have someone like Maher who calls himself "a Libertarian" but then spouts a completely different political philosophy on virtually every point, then it is useful to use the Libertarian Party platform to prove that he is not at all what he says that he is. Yes.
But that does not mean that every Libertarian/libertarian subscribes to every tenant of the Libertarian Party platform.
The core values of libertarianism are "small government, individual liberty and personal responsibility".
These use to be core values of the Republican Party as well -- assumed, even if not always clearly stated in the Republican Party Platform.
That has changed as Republicans have become "a big government, low liberty Party", too. Those people who call themselves small "l" libertarians want those values back in the Republican outlook.
As to whether a libertarian/Libertarian can be "either a Democrat or a Republican", if your main hot button as a Libertarian is drugs or sex (like Hef), then the Democrats might deliver for you. But to vote Democrat to get what you want, you'd have to sacrifice the core libertarian value of "small government" by voting for a Party (unlike the Republicans) have never had a small government tradition. Can it be done? Yes, but only by people who either haven't given that much thought or for whom the the word Libertarian means something more like "libertine".
I must admit, ansel, you are a really good debater when you put your mind to it, instead of just mindlessly spewing.
“I agree that when you have someone like Maher who calls himself “a Libertarian” but then spouts a completely different political philosophy on virtually every point, then it is useful to use the Libertarian Party platform to prove that he is not at all what he says that he is. Yes. “
I think that Bill Maher is as libertarian as you are, both of you pick and choose which parts of libertarianism that you choose to wear.
Liberalism is libertarian as well, do you think that liberals do not agree with this concept of “individual freedom” and foreign policy?
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
By the way, I never just “mindlessly spew” but you do, I always know what I am saying.
I spoke too soon -- back to your mindless spewing.
That is the libertarian party platform in summary, which one of those is spewing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.