DU Discusses Libertarianism

Democratic Underground ^

[NC_Libertarian]

DU discusses libertarianism. I thought some of you might find this interesting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=10179&forum=DCForumID35&omm=0

[VA Advogado]

If Dane actually has "gatered" any "intelliegence," what the #e!! is he doing with it, saving it for a rainy day?!?!? Like you and Kev, he's certainly not using it.

. . . that you know of. :)

[Eagle Eye]

""This is where you constantly err in your assessment of libertarians.

Libertarians call for the government to quit meddling in its citizens private affairs and consensual activities, not because we endorse or approve of all such behaviors but because it is wrong for government to do otherwise."

Simple. Succinct. Worth repeating.

[Yardstick]

Liberals are just so confused about the proper role of government. Their fundamental motivations are generally good, but they screw up everything by wanting the government to be the solution. It's astounding to me that they can be so deluded, and it's frustrating to me that they can be so deaf to reasonable arguments.

My feeling about that DUer's moment of candor is that he (or she) is really a conservative mole pretending to be a liberal having an epiphay about the true nature of liberalism. I could be wrong, though. In any case, I wish more liberals would have such an epiphany. How can liberals believe on the one hand that their ideology is informed by humanist ideals and exalts the inherent goodness of man, and on the other believe that people are so rotten that they must have virtue forced upon them by the government? It boggles the mind.

[Dakmar]

I once asked a young girl who worked with me why she's a Democrat. She said it was because they would make her life better. I told her they had no intention of doing that. If they did that and her economic situation improved, she would become a Republican in an effort to protect it. They want her to remain right where she is.

Thank you, that was worth repeating. The liberals have always loved to claim the moral high ground as long as someone else is paying for the ticket to get them there.

[texlok]

How can liberals believe on the one hand that their ideology is informed by humanist ideals and exalts the inherent goodness of man, and on the other believe that people are so rotten that they must have virtue forced upon them by the government?

I always seperate out liberals into two groups, those who have a vested interest in big government (politicians, those who have jobs that depend on big government, big-name stars that have commited themselves publicly.). These people are not going to change their minds. They have been corrupted/and or believe that big government is the answer.

The other group, normal citizens, probably sincerely believe that government can help people or can do some good. I won't say they are misguided, but if shown the logic of the conservative philosophy (either republican or libertarian), of self-responsibility, of a small government, of people actually owning their property and not renting it (through property taxes among other things), of having a government respect their rights (they never ask themselves why the government and the police are so afraid of their right to bear arms), they might find themselves agreeing with us.

I think after the elections and up through 911, a lot of liberals (the 2nd group I mentioned) began to see eye-to-eye with the right.

After 911, liberals began seeing some of Ashcroft's actions, telling people they are pretty much traitors for disagreeing with Ashcroft/the government, etc., and began to get worried. Even many of my friends who are either libertarian or republican began to feel uncomfortable with the administration. I feel there is going to be a backlash against GWB and his administration, and this bothers me, as liberals could easily get in the Whitehouse in a few years. If you don't think so, ask GWB's father.

GWB was our best hope in years to get a lot of liberals seeing eye-to-eye with us (republicans and libertarians alike). I think that has been blown.

[BillyBoy]

>> I support the death penalty, support Bush's actions in Afghanistan, and believe that abortion should be banned after the 22nd week of pregnancy. <<

You're from the Ron Paul "wing" of the LP. Unfortuantely for you, the national party is currently controlled by the Harry Browne/Gale Norton wing, which opposes all of the above.

P.S. Yes, I am aware Norton is registered as a "Republican". That's solely for the purpose of holding elective office, though. She's a Libertarian and has said so many times.

[BillyBoy]

>> That's libelous; almost all libertarians recognize an attack on the US and want to retaliate. <<

Except for the two-time Presidential nominee of the party and it's most famous member. A few monthes ago, Libertarians were practically insisting Harry was a walking party platform. (References available on request)Now they say his views don't "represent" most members. Who knows?

>>Another libel; Those libertarians who are against [the death penelty] don't trust the gov't enough to allow it to take such drastic action. Next you'll be trying to convince people that the LP organized "Free Jumia" (sp) rallies!<<

Blah...blah...blah. They'r against it for different reasons than the socialist Democrats, so it's okay even though both groups would take their policies to the SAME end result. DItto with the pro-choice Libertarians. BTW, it's "free Mumia", and no, the LP didn't attend those rallies, but they'd probably quitely let him off the hook if they were in charge.

>> I don't remember that, you sure it wasn't just legalizing MJ?

Legalizing Pot was the centerpiece of the campaign (he wanted the hippie vote), but McGovern did quietly admit he was for legalization in every circumstance.

[BillyBoy]

>> Billyboy, you do a serious injustice to George McGovern by implying that he was a socialist. He was an old-style Democrat. Today, he would be considered as far right as Pat Buccannon <<

If you actually believe that, it says more about you that it does about me. What did 49 states know about McGovern that you seem to be missing?

[Antoninus]

I have never had any Christian conservative wish AIDS or homosexual rape on my children, because of my pro-gay beliefs.

Interestingly, I've had AIDS wished on me and my children by a 'friend' who was upset at my pro-traditional family views. And a hardcore leftist, she too.

To be honest, I think it would do you libertarians good to go debate over there for a while. You'll see how good you've got it over here! We may antagonize you from time to time, but generally, we respect the consistency of your views - wrong though some of them may be.

[Antoninus]

Where conservatives and libertarians agree: 2nd Amendment, Repeal of the income tax, abortion (mostly), smaller government.

Where liberals and libertarians agree: Pornography, homosexuality, drugs.

Now I ask you, which of these sets of issues are more important? My biggest problem with libertarians is that they can't 'back-burner' the piddling self-indulgence issues and help us defeat the left on the BIG issues.

[redrock]

"Wow it is about time the drug addled found each other..."

So...since you FIND every single 'Libertarian' thread...it means you're 'drug-addled'???????

redrock--Constitutional Terrorist

[Antoninus]

I have to agree with Hemingway's Ghost. All of the libertarian bashers on FR are here soley to bash libertarian thought, without ever trying to understand it. There are few posters who readily agree with libertarian thought, but do not like the "Libertarian Party". Those posters can be reasoned with and are not bad debators.

And where are those of us who know and understand the libertarian philosophy but reject it as unrealistic, utopian, and prone to dangerous paths when taken to logical extremes?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I know how good I have it over here. Even Kevin Curry and VA Advogado can't hold a candle to the trash I get from the left.

And I agree with you on the big vs. small issues, which is why I am very comfortable being a libertarian Republican, rather than a Libertarian.

There is one other major difference between the GOP and the LP: The LP tends to be non-interventionist with regard to foreign policy -- as witness Harry Browne's rant. That's an issue where I come down easily with the GOP.

[Doctor Doom]

Be more picky about your friends.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Though, I do note that I wouldn't consider homosexuality, porn, and drugs to be "piddling self-indulgence issues," especially as I don't indulge in 2 of those 3. However, I think those issues are decided less in the political ring and more on the personal and social levels.

[jwalsh07]

The LP tends to be non-interventionist with regard to foreign policy -- as witness Harry Browne's rant.

You're giving Harry a bad rap, he's a globalist. Open borders for all and constitutional protection for each and every one of them.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

That's all dine and fandy. But there are a lot of regimes, organizations, and people who don't care for that vision. When the method of expressing this disagreement is to crash a few planes into buildings, one has to stand up to defend oneself.

He didn't. Let's make this clear: When the bullet hit the bone, Harry Browne failed stand up for his globalism. He's toast, as far as I'm concerned.

[jwalsh07]

Me too, I was being sarcastic, I apologise for being obtuse. You don't work at Maimonides Hospital and go be the name of Sean, do ya laddie?

[exodus]

To: Kevin Curry
"This is where you constantly err in your assessment of libertarians.
Libertarians call for the government to quit meddling in its citizens private affairs
and consensual activities,
not because we endorse or approve of all such behaviors
but because it is immoral for government to do otherwise."
# 117 by MadameAxe
************************

Lowelljr, since you don't know what the word means,
and you don't know how to find out,
I looked it up for you.

Moral:
1) of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
2) expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
3) conforming to a standard of right behavior
4) sanctioned by one's conscience or ethical judgment
# 156 by exodus
*******************

To: exodus
"...great, a libertarian defining "Morals".
Just as expected it is reduced to black and white..."
"...I'll just keep my values, morals and character..."
# 158 by Lowelljr
************************

You insist on using the wrong definition for the word.

Moral, in the context MadameAxe used it,
does not mean "unethical."
It means WRONG.

Read it this way:
"...not because we endorse or approve of all such behaviors
but because it is WRONG for government to do otherwise."

I didn't "define" the word, Lowelljr.
I copied and pasted the definition from
the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Look it up.