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

[Dane]

To bad so many are to blind to see.

It takes one to know one.

[exodus]

You're one too.

[Native American Female Vet]

Yep, and all of you sound the same too.

[JakeWyld]

re: 158

I know I am a little late, but I have been busy...

I checked your profile and see that you are rather obsessed with libertarians...chill out.

Secondly you cannot define morals any better than anyone on this forum so drop the "holier than thou" attitude...you sound like you are 12 years old.

Last of all, your poison filled, paranoid post shows a lack of character on your part. You claim to have morals and character so act like it.

Thank You

[JakeWyld]

re: 170

A well written post. However, I see a problem...this "us (conservatives) vs. Them (libertarians)" attitude is all wrong.

I would argue that we agree more than we disagree and dispite the paranoid libertarian haters' rhetoric...we support more conservative causes than we do liberal ones.

I would like to add, that many of us have held conservative beliefs in the past (and still do!) and came to libertarianism through FR. You post seems to say that "you're lucky we let you stay". Some of us have been here for a long time and this is just as much our forum as it is yours.

I'll pass on going over to DU. If anyone should go over there...it is the "selling out is okay" conservatives who say stuff like "give it to daschle today and live to fight another day". Go over there and find out what you are up against...then maybe you will not be satisfied with Trent Lott in the Senate.

[mindprism.com]

"All challenges to the spirit of man are usurped by government intervention and milked by politics."

This removes potential for growth and understanding, and, dammit, tolerance (yuk-putooi, hate that word as much as "offended" -- interesting, no?).

Without challenges conquered, there is no self-confidence, or faith in your fellow man, or security. It (politics, law, government) is all a way of fostering helplessness, dependence and fear.

[mindprism.com]

Bush has declared that the War on Drugs IS the War on Terrorism.

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

[jackbob]

I don't know what a "pretty big warm fuzzy for the left" is. But I found your dissection of my left/right, choice of words, quite accurate. I purposefully chose to give that view, as I believe it also to be quite accurate. Having said that, I also say that their are otherways of presenting the contrast, which just as accurately shade the right in a slightly better light. But that would be preaching to the choir.

As I see it, the right in America has as an equally distorted view of the left, as the left has of the right. The conscious center encourages those distorted views on both sides. I do not believe the left is capable of opening its eyes as quickly as much of the right can. So in the short term, I expect clearer vision from the right than I do from the left.

As far as Brad Pitt goes I think it was him I saw in the movie "Titanic" and another movie about two German mountain climbers escaping British internment and living in Tibet during WWII. I'll agree, both movies presented a full leftwing cultural view of realty.

As far as leftist governments go, I find the entire idea a contradiction in terms. There is, as I see it, no such thing as a leftist government. There are conservative right, moderate right, and ultra right governments. The latter, depending on the type, may also be considered a pseudo-left government.

Over all, I agree with every word you wrote, except that bit about "fuzzy" whatever. On which I claim ignorance as my defense.

Thanks for an interesting counter reply.

[jackbob]

You have gone completely over my head. I'm not sure what you are saying. Please excuse my own ignorance.

[RightOnline]

"This is really basic, folks. The Conservatives, including the Fundamentalist religious right, and I disagree on many issues; but I have almost always received respect and a decently fair hearing from them. I have rarely received such consideration from the left."

Oh yeah?????? Well, up YOUR..........

JUST kidding. :) Had ya for a split second, didn't I?

Seriously, as a hard-right Conservative, I've always considered Libertarians our brethren to the core. Now, I see Libertarians as a hair off of anarchists, but I infinitely prefer that mind-set to the classic, liberal mind-set of "MORE and BIGGER Government; take from them whats got and give to them what doesn't". I find liberals petty, stupid, grossly uninformed and happy to stay that way, obnoxious, utterly incapable of intelligent discussion, rude, greedy (yep; greedy........they want what I have, but not willing to give up what THEY have), and downright un-American. Libertarians and I don't agree on everything, but they're pretty cool people.

[exodus]

"...Bush has declared that
the War on Drugs IS the War on Terrorism..."
************************

To: exodus
"Surprise, surprise, surprise!"
# 207 by mindprism.com
************************

Yes, it's suprising how un-surprising that was.

[xm177e2]

DU Discusses Libertarianism

"FR Discusses DU's Discussion of Libertarianism"

[exodus]

************************

"...This removes potential for growth and understanding,
and, dammit, tolerance (yuk-putooi, hate that word as much as "offended" --
interesting, no?)..."
# 206 by mindprism.com
************************

I also hate "getting closure"
and "for the children,"
and "hate crime."

"For the children"
really gets me uptight.

[mindprism.com]

Here is an anology:

Every parent comes to the realization that they cannot play judge to every conflict between thier children-- punishing this one or that one.

Eventually, the parent punishes all conflict equally, a no-fault policy. Hence, motivation is given for all sides to 'get along'.

Government does the opposite, stealing our opportunity for growth in conflict management that doesnt resort to 'men with guns' at your door because you violated section B, subparagraph 4... or require a bunch of pre-emptive law designed to curtail any action that may lead to conflict.

[Yardstick]

By "you've got a pretty big warm fuzzy for the left", I meant "you're pretty fond of the left". It's related to that phrase, "a warm and fuzzy fealing", which has been shortened to "warm fuzzy". If you see a baby playing happily with a puppy, you might say "aw, isn't that cute -- seeing them playing together gives me a warm fuzzy." I don't know, maybe it's a regional thing. Sorry if it was confusing.

It sounds like your left/right scale has anarchy on the left and totalitarianism on the right. Your right/left axis is analogous the statist/non-statist axis that some of the new political-spectrum charts show -- like the one associated with the Are-you-a-Libertarian? quiz. If this is the case, then I can see why you've cast the left in a favorable light.

I think the statist/non-statist gradient is the clearest, in that it has clearly definable end points, but it seems to me that there are some other ways to differentiate right from left that feel intuitively correct but are harder to quantify and capture more of the conventional flavor of the two camps. You could use relativist/absolutist, secular/Christian, feminine/masculine, integrative/separative, internationalist/nationalist, and intuitive/concrete.

Then again, maybe these distinctions are arbitrary and useless. This left/right stuff is tricky. Modern leftists are statists for sure, yet the end result of Marx's vision of communism is anarchy, so which "left" do you choose? I guess I come back to the idea that only the statist/non-statist axis has any real meaning.

Brad Pitt has been in a bunch of movies recently, but the only one I can think of right now is Fight Club. He usually plays guys that are charming and heroic but also iconoclastic, somewhat self-destructive, and very willing to take "undue risks" and to horrify reactionary rightist squares who just aren't hip to chaos.

One quick question for you: who makes up the "conscious center" that you mentioned?

[jackbob]

I remember all the conservatives wining and crying over the mass media reporting the Left/liberals challenge, then later bringing down the Rightwing Conservative Soviet Communist government in Russia. The way it was reported in the media, the terms were used consistently with the 4th grade spelling dictionary I used in Ohio in the 1950s; the same book my children used in the late 70s/early 80s, in Washington State. Those definitions are also consistent with most of the historic of the terms. As well as most dictionaries (with regard to 'liberal').

Democrats pride themselves as being a continuation of the traditions of Thomas Jefferson, and believe it. Policies encouraged by Democrats, are quite often nothing more than compromise positions to moderate the power elites and their corporate-religious conspiracy. In short, conservatives and liberals do not speak the same language. They do not understand each other. They continually talk past each other.

My experience it both the adolescent left and the grown up moderate left, has shown me that their hearts are anti-statist, their minds are anti establishment, and their actions are anti-conservative. If a conservative says their for something, the left's first reaction is to be against it, at least until the conservative turns his back.

I fear for this country, when the next wave of anti-establishment activism popularizes itself in a future generation of the young. Unless a truly liberty oriented movement is ready and able to capture that Left, they will grow into an authoritarian power beyond anything we can imagine now.

[Yardstick]

So how is it possible for modern leftists to be anti-statist and anti-establishment at heart, but still manage to be statists? Do you think it's a reaction against conservative small-government rhetoric? Or is it an attempt to balance statist conservative power? Or are they just duped by their leadership, which isn't anti-statist at heart?

My theory is that "leftists" will tend to erect God-like governments in place of God. Since they don't have God to motivate people to altruism and to dispense cosmic justice (to use Thomas Sowell's term), they make the government take on this role, and naturally they give it God-like powers to accomplish its task.

That's a tough one to sell to leftists, many of whom will cease to be rational once the "G" word has been mentioned, not that I blame them. I think the reconciliatory angle may be the most effective with leftists -- i.e. "let's just get along and quit trying to beat each other over the head with the government club." I know this appeals to me, and I think it appeals to most cultural leftists, because I know that on an absolutely fundamental level people want to enjoy other people rather than hate them and react against them.

[jackbob]

I don't think of leftists as statists in the slightest. But yes, most are easily manipulated into forming alliances with, and often becoming short term anti-statist, statists. This is do in part to a reaction to conservative rhetoric. They do not view conservatives as being rationally or honestly, pro-individual and pro-liberty, but rather as working for, or being manipulated by, the power elite and pro-establishment people. An often used term is "conservative lackey." Who they also view as being corrupted or just plain anti-human rights, and thereby anti-individual rights.

Interestingly, I would agree that many leftists will seek to make government take on the 'role of altruism' and "dispense cosmic justice." But I don't envision them erecting any kind of government or any thing else for that matter. Leftists tend to bring down, rather than build up.

I do not think a 'lets just get along' strategy will ever work with them. It is my opinion, the only thing that will work with them, is a continual outright confrontation of the statists who manipulate them, right on the leftwing stage itself. But to do that, libertarians will need to take on additional burden. That burden, to use Pete Seager's phrase, is the burden of 'tadegedy and stratics.' Something the right looks up to leadership for, while the left discusses and argues it themselves at the bottom.

[Yardstick]

I don't think of leftists as statists in the slightest.

Well, it seems to be that leftists are functionally statists, except for some tiny fringe that actually may be anarchist or minarchist. But who are these fringe people and where do you find them?

The right has a very visible group of anti-statists in the patriot and constitutionalist crowd, and also in the right-leaning libertarians. I don't see many truly anti-statist leftists. Most of the "anarchists" you see are just stone-throwing statist socialist punks.

How many people on the so-called left would actually fall on the left end of the left/right scale if you label the ends "statist" and "anti-statist" (with anti-statist on the left), as you seem to do. I think you'd end up with more people conventionally identified with the right falling towards the left end of the scale.

And how can leftists be anti-statist if they would approve of a government that forces altruism on people and metes out cosmic justice? And why wouldn't they seek to create such a government? Is the left dependant on the right to create governing structures? Can the left even exist without the right?

It seems to me that the leftists you describe may exist only in theory or folklore. By your definition, leftists are anti-statists, but by your description of their beliefs, they can't be anti-statists. Could it be that you just wish leftists actually had an anti-statist core?

[Mark Bahner]

"Let's see; abolish the IRS and Department of Education, get out of the UN, drastically cut government spending; yep, right out of Hillary's platform."

Yes, what a joke. Libertarians are a H@LL of a lot more fiscally conservative than "conservatives."