Convert me to a Liberal/Progressive
Options
Comments
-
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »CMR is a guy who should post more, that's what he is
stop dickriding -
see, this where people may run into a little ideological trouble. you don't think the gov't should force businesses to give into people's demands. ok, cool, but at what point does that no longer work? was it wrong for gov't to tell businesses that they can't discriminate based on skin color, religion, etc., or tell a mining company that they cant hire 6 year olds to mine for coal, or tell a factory that they cant pollute the ? out the water and air? or a DOH, that sets sanitary standards for restaurants, who had to shut that burrito place up the street because it was so damn nasty, who the hell wants to deal with that ? ? i get where you coming from, if reducing gov't regulation leads to increased competition, then i'm all for it. i guess i dont understand idealogical purity. it seems to me, what works for some things may not work for everything.bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Government is supposed to be there to protect people's individual rights, not to force businesses into giving into their demands.
You just hit the nail on the button. The corporations would be powerless with out using the forceful hand of government to FORCE workers into submission. Government = Force. Thats what they do. Corporations without that government force is simply and entity that can easily go out of business.
The State has a monopoly on violence and force which is why the most powerful and evil corporations only survived because of government and buying off politicians. -
see, this where people may run into a little ideological trouble. you don't think the gov't should force businesses to give into people's demands. ok, cool, but at what point does that no longer work? was it wrong for gov't to tell businesses that they can't discriminate based on skin color, religion, etc.,
Yes it was wrong, businesses should be able to discriminate. If a white business doesn't want my black ass in there, I don't wanna be in there, and if a black business doesn't want any crackers in there, IT'S THEIR BUSINESS!!! Their businesses will suffer since they decide to discriminate based on color and they will eventually go out of business. I will look for this article I once ready about how a lot of businesses in Jim Crow south had already begun integrating before the Civil Rights Act. Why? (a) because it wasn't economical and (b) because they got a lot of flack from their non-racist white customers. If you run a business its all about the bottom line. Now will they be some hard headed ? who just dont want brown and black people in their place of business? Sure, but that ? is on them. I just think that would have been an opportunity to band together and build up our own community instead of trying to integrate with theirs. ? them IMO. Now I do agree that government ran facilities should not be discriminating i.e. public schools, govt. buildings, courts, public transpo, etc.
C'mon son, thats a clear violation of someone's parental rights and if the kid has no parents, its a violation of that kids rights.or tell a mining company that they cant hire 6 year olds to mine for coal
Once government took on the responsibility of regulating air pollution is when we got into trouble. If a businesses operations is effecting your health or you property, the proper tort laws would have been enough to get them in line. Problem is the government took over that responsibility and said "hey folks, dont worry about that pollution, we will look out for you" Meanwhile they were granting plants and factories permission to ? the Earth!or tell a factory that they cant pollute the ? out the water and air?
Since it was so damn nasty why was it still in business. Obviously a place this nasty should not be in operation, and Im sure that business would not have lasted too long since businesses like this rely on word of mouth. But the thing is most of the time, larger more well connected restaurants use the DOH to extinguish it's competition. For example, lately there have been a lot of these lunch trucks at my job, serving all kinds of foods, and its good because they have a lot of choices and most people are sick of the same ? around here everyday. Now, the more well established restaurants don't like this too much because its competition. They dont want to compete for consumer business so they go to their friends in the local govt, now health officials are giving these lunch trucks the run around trying to make them comply with all these dumb regulations. A lot of these people that run these lunch trucks are regular folks and college grads who cant find work, so the sunk a couple bucks into a truck and a grill and decided to make some money by providing a decent service to the community. But the big guys dont like that ? .or a DOH, that sets sanitary standards for restaurants, who had to shut that burrito place up the street because it was so damn nasty, who the hell wants to deal with that ? ?i get where you coming from, if reducing gov't regulation leads to increased competition, then i'm all for it. i guess i dont understand ideological purity. it seems to me, what works for some things may not work for everything.
Thats a good view to have. I just feel like where ever you can reduce or eliminate govt intervention the better. -
Anyways, why am I explaining my position. You guys are supposed to be converting me.
-
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Anyways, why am I explaining my position. You guys are supposed to be converting me.
Are you really open to being converted? There are lots of libertarians who can be saved, because libertarianism is the trendy thing right now and a lot of people jump on the bandwagon without fully understanding it. But once we get into the territory of talking ? on the Civil Rights Act, I'd say you're a lost cause. The laissez fair is in your blood. -
shootemwon wrote: »Are you really open to being converted? There are lots of libertarians who can be saved, because libertarianism is the trendy thing right now and a lot of people jump on the bandwagon without fully understanding it. But once we get into the territory of talking ? on the Civil Rights Act, I'd say you're a lost cause. The laissez fair is in your blood.
lol, What the hell is trendy about being a libertarian?! -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »As some a you know I am a devoted libertarian. I feel libertarians and liberals have a lot in common in some regard. We both are anti-war, pro-peace, we both believe in freedom of expression and freedom of speech, religion, etc. We believe the government should not be telling you what is the moral/immoral way to live. We are anti drug war, and pro choice. We both don't like huge corporations that take advantage of people and corporate welfare. We both hate Neo-Cons, Fox News, and wing nuts that want to beat you over the head with their bible. We believe every human has a right to life and liberty. We both dislike xenophobia and racism.
That's about where it ends. When it comes to economics, private property, taxation, welfare, etc we are on totally opposite ends of the spectrum.
So convert me, make your best pitch as to why being liberal is the way to go. Tell me why Obama is the ? and why capitalism sucks.
I'm feeling lazy but that's alright because my argument boils down to a simple principle.
Autonomy has no intrinsic value, a right to autonomy is useful to the extent that it increases the welfare of every individual who has that right. People are happier when they are free to do what the want to do with their bodies and their lives but there is no reason, beyond increasing the general standard of living, why a right to autonomy is desirable. If violating autonomy prevents more harm than it causes then doing so is justifiable since harm is the only reason why violating autonomy can be considered wrong. The evidence suggests that the societies with the highest standard of living, throughout history as well as today, are the ones that operate on heavily regulated capitalism. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »lol, What the hell is trendy about being a libertarian?!
Keep in mind, I'm not talking about people like you. You're well educated on the matter and principled in your beliefs.
But Ron Paul's 2008 campaign has made libertarianism the "in" thing for lots of people who aren't as well versed. Ron Paul appeals to a lot of young people because he's straightforward on social issues in a way that Democrats never are. A lot of young people voted for the first time cause of Obama. But I also know plenty of people who were completely uninterested in Obama and in politics altogether, who eventually registered and voted after learning about Ron Paul. Why? Common answers were "He's the only honest one out there" and "He wants to legalize weed". So obviously, these people weren't all that familiar with political ideology in general, but they have now become politically active through Ron Paul, so as they do begin to develop ideology, they tend to categorize themselves as libertarians, and adopt libertarian-leaning views.
I'm sure some of them really are libertarians (that is, they will be if/when they fully understand the ideology) , but it's so common when I ask someone who calls himself a libertarian what he thinks about the government prohibiting businesses from segregating and discriminating, his response is "Uh, well I mean yeah the government should do that. Are you sure libertarians oppose it? I think you might be wrong about that. I mean, libertarians want equal right for everyone. I don't think that was a libertarian who told you this stuff."
Now guys like that are what I mean about "trendy" libertarians, and they likely aren't really libertarians at all. They failed to realize that they don't want the government to be as limited as possible, they just wanted government limited in the areas where they don't like the current policy. These guys can be convinced.
You, on the other hand.....You seem to have a pretty firm grasp of both libertarian and progressive ideology. You understand both, and you agree with one. Considering that in your own view, there are no real life examples of authentic libertarianism being applied, what could I present to you that would possibly convince you to change your mind? If it worked the way you picture it, libertarianism would be pretty swell, but I don't think it would work like you picture it. No matter what kind of concerns I have, you will believe the free market will address the problem better than government can. Until someone devises a real life example of a completely free market, I don't think there's anything I can show you that would convince you otherwise. -
shootemwon wrote: »Keep in mind, I'm not talking about people like you. You're well educated on the matter and principled in your beliefs.
But Ron Paul's 2008 campaign has made libertarianism the "in" thing for lots of people who aren't as well versed. Ron Paul appeals to a lot of young people because he's straightforward on social issues in a way that Democrats never are. A lot of young people voted for the first time cause of Obama. But I also know plenty of people who were completely uninterested in Obama and in politics altogether, who eventually registered and voted after learning about Ron Paul. Why? Common answers were "He's the only honest one out there" and "He wants to legalize weed". So obviously, these people weren't all that familiar with political ideology in general, but they have now become politically active through Ron Paul, so as they do begin to develop ideology, they tend to categorize themselves as libertarians, and adopt libertarian-leaning views.
I'm sure some of them really are libertarians (that is, they will be if/when they fully understand the ideology) , but it's so common when I ask someone who calls himself a libertarian what he thinks about the government prohibiting businesses from segregating and discriminating, his response is "Uh, well I mean yeah the government should do that. Are you sure libertarians oppose it? I think you might be wrong about that. I mean, libertarians want equal right for everyone. I don't think that was a libertarian who told you this stuff."
Now guys like that are what I mean about "trendy" libertarians, and they likely aren't really libertarians at all. They failed to realize that they don't want the government to be as limited as possible, they just wanted government limited in the areas where they don't like the current policy. These guys can be convinced.
You, on the other hand.....You seem to have a pretty firm grasp of both libertarian and progressive ideology. You understand both, and you agree with one. Considering that in your own view, there are no real life examples of authentic libertarianism being applied, what could I present to you that would possibly convince you to change your mind? If it worked the way you picture it, libertarianism would be pretty swell, but I don't think it would work like you picture it. No matter what kind of concerns I have, you will believe the free market will address the problem better than government can. Until someone devises a real life example of a completely free market, I don't think there's anything I can show you that would convince you otherwise.
Good response. You are correct. There were a lot of fake libertarians that came out of the 08 Ron Paul campaign. Thing about libertarianism, is it forces you to critically think about an issue and look for the root cause and the solution to the problem absent of force. Some people cant grasp that concept...even some libertarians. People like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff believe govt is a necessary evil. While others believe its an unnecessary evil. And of course some, like you mentioned, just like the thought of little to no taxes and legal weed and prostitution. For me, it all comes down to force. Should individuals have full control over their lives or should the be forced to do things, live a certain way, and give up ownership of their body and property to an external entity. That's all it boils down to in my view. As far as all the technical details on policy, and historically what would have happened if the govt did this or didn't do that, it doesn't really concern me. Fact is we don't have a time machine to change anything in the past so it is what it is, all we can do is learn from and figure out ways to progress from it. The thing is, progress to some is different from progress to others. For me, progress would be for humans to get a point where they feel government is pointless. Obviously we are a long way from that because humans in general like to have some authority to tell them what do, how to do it, and to offer protection. My view is an entity that has a monopoly on violence is more likely to abuse it's position that an entity that relies on market forces.
But IMO being progressive is the most trendy of them all, considering its an ideology that is pushed by Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the media, the govt, scientists, some corporations, etc. Also, it's pretty difficult to argue with "Everyone should have free health care" or "Everyone has the right to health care, housing, food, and clothing" and "Why should the rich have all that money while people are poor and starving" Those are tough arguments that are hard to rebut because they strike at the core of human compassion. But the fact that most people will always side with the poor or the needy should tell you that humans ARE compassionate and will do what they can to help their fellow man. My thing is just don't force me to do anything. I do a lot of thing for my community i.e. the big brother program, I donate to different education and food programs, and Im always trying to help lil ? out when I can. But nobody needs to force me to do that. -
bornandraised - thoughtful posting. I'm used to the Ron Paul idiots.
My question to you is if you feel that government coercion and force are potential sources of evil then how are the force and coercion created by the market not potential sources of evil? -
bornandraised - thoughtful posting. I'm used to the Ron Paul idiots.
My question to you is if you feel that government coercion and force are potential sources of evil then how are the force and coercion created by the market not potential sources of evil?
Any monopolistic force IS evil. Be it from government or corporations. The thing about markets are they depend on the consumer of the service or good. You are not forced to patronize that business. If you are born in this country, you are forced into having a portion of your labor value taken away and wasted, you are forced to use it's policing and justice system, you are forced to contribute to it's wars and foreign aggression. You are forced to contribute the imprisonment of human beings for unjust reasons. You are forced to give up control of your body. You are forced to giving up your privacy and civil liberties. You are forced, to use a currency no matter how much it is devalued by the same entity the prints it.
You have to understand, there is a reason there aren't many, if any, Libertarians who run huge corporations. Why? Because libertarians don't like corporations because most of them are only large and powerful because the power they've been granted by government. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Any monopolistic force IS evil. Be it from government or corporations. The thing about markets are they depend on the consumer of the service or good. You are not forced to patronize that business. If you are born in this country, you are forced into having a portion of your labor value taken away and wasted, you are forced to use it's policing and justice system, you are forced to contribute to it's wars and foreign aggression. You are forced to contribute the imprisonment of human beings for unjust reasons. You are forced to give up control of your body. You are forced to giving up your privacy and civil liberties. You are forced, to use a currency no matter how much it is devalued by the same entity the prints it.
You have to understand, there is a reason there aren't many, if any, Libertarians who run huge corporations. Why? Because libertarians don't like corporations because most of them are only large and powerful because the power they've been granted by government.
But the market always allows for the exploitation of the poor by those with a higher capital. This forces the poor to do things for money that they would not otherwise do. There will always be a few that control the resources and capital and these few will thereby control the many.
Without government intervention, one business underpays its employees but receives more business because of their lower prices. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Good response. You are correct. There were a lot of fake libertarians that came out of the 08 Ron Paul campaign. Thing about libertarianism, is it forces you to critically think about an issue and look for the root cause and the solution to the problem absent of force. Some people cant grasp that concept...even some libertarians. People like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff believe govt is a necessary evil. While others believe its an unnecessary evil. And of course some, like you mentioned, just like the thought of little to no taxes and legal weed and prostitution. For me, it all comes down to force. Should individuals have full control over their lives or should the be forced to do things, live a certain way, and give up ownership of their body and property to an external entity. That's all it boils down to in my view. As far as all the technical details on policy, and historically what would have happened if the govt did this or didn't do that, it doesn't really concern me. Fact is we don't have a time machine to change anything in the past so it is what it is, all we can do is learn from and figure out ways to progress from it. The thing is, progress to some is different from progress to others. For me, progress would be for humans to get a point where they feel government is pointless. Obviously we are a long way from that because humans in general like to have some authority to tell them what do, how to do it, and to offer protection. My view is an entity that has a monopoly on violence is more likely to abuse it's position that an entity that relies on market forces.
But IMO being progressive is the most trendy of them all, considering its an ideology that is pushed by Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the media, the govt, scientists, some corporations, etc. Also, it's pretty difficult to argue with "Everyone should have free health care" or "Everyone has the right to health care, housing, food, and clothing" and "Why should the rich have all that money while people are poor and starving" Those are tough arguments that are hard to rebut because they strike at the core of human compassion. But the fact that most people will always side with the poor or the needy should tell you that humans ARE compassionate and will do what they can to help their fellow man. My thing is just don't force me to do anything. I do a lot of thing for my community i.e. the big brother program, I donate to different education and food programs, and Im always trying to help lil ? out when I can. But nobody needs to force me to do that.
Well my only response to what you're saying about why you're a libertarian is that it would be great if I could ever see it actually working, but I don't think it's really possible. Looking at your last statement, "My view is an entity that has a monopoly on violence is more likely to abuse it's position that an entity that relies on market forces.", I say yes, but, market forces will only keep them in check if consumers are informed and rational. The average person is rarely informed about much of anything, and I see us(humans) as naturally irrational beings. Advertisements for products are constantly appealing to our emotions rather than our logic, and it works, so it's easy for me to imagine abuse of position without market repercussions. Now, in fairness, the same can be said about our democracy. We are uninformed and irrational at the ballot (that is if we even show up), but it's not as severe. Candidates for office go through pretty vigorous vetting by the media, and we only vote, at the very most, twice a year (primary and general), so we have a good amount of time to review the facts and think about our decision. But as consumers, we make decisions almost non-stop and don't even realize/consider it. The inherent irrationality of consumers is what always kills the idea of a responsible free market in my book.
And yes, being progressive is permanently trendy. Supporting Obama was trendy, but even with an uncool candidate like John Kerry, it was still trendy cause hating Bush was trendy. It's been trendy for a long time now, and I think people know that. Which, I think, is another reason for all the fake "libertarians" appearing since 2008. It was something different than the liberals and conservatives they always heard about. In their mind, it was new. Most fake libertarian I've met seem to enjoy the idea that they're more unique, rebellious, and free thinking than others. I respect libertarians though I strongly disagree, but the fake ones just ? me off. -
but these businesses were not desegregating on their own. maybe some where, idk. but it took gov't intervention to force these businesses to hire and accept people of color. ? , libertarians have made a case against a civil war, saying eventually slavery would have died out without gov't intervention. how does anyone know that? slavery and discrimination has existed since the beginning of civilization, whats another 100 or so years.bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Yes it was wrong, businesses should be able to discriminate. If a white business doesn't want my black ass in there, I don't wanna be in there, and if a black business doesn't want any crackers in there, IT'S THEIR BUSINESS!!! Their businesses will suffer since they decide to discriminate based on color and they will eventually go out of business. I will look for this article I once ready about how a lot of businesses in Jim Crow south had already begun integrating before the Civil Rights Act. Why? (a) because it wasn't economical and (b) because they got a lot of flack from their non-racist white customers. If you run a business its all about the bottom line. Now will they be some hard headed ? who just dont want brown and black people in their place of business? Sure, but that ? is on them. I just think that would have been an opportunity to band together and build up our own community instead of trying to integrate with theirs. ? them IMO. Now I do agree that government ran facilities should not be discriminating i.e. public schools, govt. buildings, courts, public transpo, etc.
the point im trying to make is the gov't sets age limits and certain types of work. and parents did let their kids work in coal mines . if the gov't says to parents, you cant let your kids work in a coal mine, are they violating parental and business rights?bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »C'mon son, thats a clear violation of someone's parental rights and if the kid has no parents, its a violation of that kids rights.
perhaps more tort and less regulation is needed in certain areas, idk. but when in comes to tort, plaintiffs has to decide on ? like causation and courts places limits on recovery. it seems to me, courts are not equipped to deal with that mass effects of pollution, because of insurance, bankruptcy and liability issues. in other words tort is good when it effects a few amount of people, and the causation is clear. but regulation is better, when pollution effects a large amount of people and harmful effect is not so easily traceable. and related to that, rooselvelt, a republican president, set land aside for national parks, land that cannot be touched by private industry. if it wasnt for him, yellowstone would be a ? parking lot. idk, if libertarians are against public parks or not.bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Once government took on the responsibility of regulating air pollution is when we got into trouble. If a businesses operations is effecting your health or you property, the proper tort laws would have been enough to get them in line. Problem is the government took over that responsibility and said "hey folks, dont worry about that pollution, we will look out for you" Meanwhile they were granting plants and factories permission to ? the Earth!
i understand what you are saying here, but anything can be corrupted. even judges in tort cases. and i feel uncomfortable if the dude who is making the salsa is cutting onions next to the toilet. but i do understand what your saying here, and its ? up.bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Since it was so damn nasty why was it still in business. Obviously a place this nasty should not be in operation, and Im sure that business would not have lasted too long since businesses like this rely on word of mouth. But the thing is most of the time, larger more well connected restaurants use the DOH to extinguish it's competition. For example, lately there have been a lot of these lunch trucks at my job, serving all kinds of foods, and its good because they have a lot of choices and most people are sick of the same ? around here everyday. Now, the more well established restaurants don't like this too much because its competition. They dont want to compete for consumer business so they go to their friends in the local govt, now health officials are giving these lunch trucks the run around trying to make them comply with all these dumb regulations. A lot of these people that run these lunch trucks are regular folks and college grads who cant find work, so the sunk a couple bucks into a truck and a grill and decided to make some money by providing a decent service to the community. But the big guys dont like that ? .
you are absolutely right. im not making a case for progressives or liberals, im making a case for moderation. i think a bad referee is one who makes too many calls or none at all.bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Thats a good view to have. I just feel like where ever you can reduce or eliminate govt intervention the better. -
shootemwon wrote: »Well my only response to what you're saying about why you're a libertarian is that it would be great if I could ever see it actually working, but I don't think it's really possible. Looking at your last statement, "My view is an entity that has a monopoly on violence is more likely to abuse it's position that an entity that relies on market forces.", I say yes, but, market forces will only keep them in check if consumers are informed and rational. The average person is rarely informed about much of anything, and I see us(humans) as naturally irrational beings. Advertisements for products are constantly appealing to our emotions rather than our logic, and it works, so it's easy for me to imagine abuse of position without market repercussions. Now, in fairness, the same can be said about our democracy. We are uninformed and irrational at the ballot (that is if we even show up), but it's not as severe. Candidates for office go through pretty vigorous vetting by the media, and we only vote, at the very most, twice a year (primary and general), so we have a good amount of time to review the facts and think about our decision. But as consumers, we make decisions almost non-stop and don't even realize/consider it. The inherent irrationality of consumers is what always kills the idea of a responsible free market in my book.
And yes, being progressive is permanently trendy. Supporting Obama was trendy, but even with an uncool candidate like John Kerry, it was still trendy cause hating Bush was trendy. It's been trendy for a long time now, and I think people know that. Which, I think, is another reason for all the fake "libertarians" appearing since 2008. It was something different than the liberals and conservatives they always heard about. In their mind, it was new. Most fake libertarian I've met seem to enjoy the idea that they're more unique, rebellious, and free thinking than others. I respect libertarians though I strongly disagree, but the fake ones just ? me off.
very good post -
CMR, question. At the start of this thread, you talked about some similarities between progressives and libertarians, before asking us to make a case for progressives in the areas that we don't agree. You laid out some pretty substantive stuff. The stuff about free speech goes to the heart of our core principles, for both ideologies. Matters such as neocon attempts to use public policy to enforce bigotry go beyond a difference in philosophy. It's disgusting and shameful.
So with that said....Why are a good number of people I meet who describe themselves as Libertarians registered Republican? Yeah, there's a lot of independents, some actually registered Libertarian, and some other 3rd parties, but there's also a lot of Republicans. But rarely, if ever, are any of them Democrats.
Why is it that if a libertarian decides to join a major party, it's always the Republicans? Is that just Ron Paul people? But why is Ron Paul a Republican?
I know the Democrats aren't immaculate on the social issues themselves, but the contrast is so apparent there between them and the GOP. Also, Republicans haven't really delivered on the whole "small government" thing.....at all. So why are they (apparently) closer to matching up with libertarianism than Democrats? -
I consider myself pretty pragmatic when it comes to economic issues, and when I argue with my conservative colleagues and friends I always emphasize that it's within the context of our time and place within the wider economic cycles that progressive economic policies are preferable. And in short the two big issues that most American people look at in progressive/conservative terms are regulation and taxes/entitlements. I would argue that deregulation of financial services over the last few decades lead to this great recession and therefore we should better regulate the markets (I know most libertarians don't think deregulation caused the recession so this might be one where we have to agree to disagree). When it comes to taxes/entitlements, look bottom line here is that the country is wrecked right now and people need some relief and (although this is a whole different conversation) so do the markets -- and that money has to come from somewhere, so we have to look to those people who can afford it. And I know libertarians don't really see that as fair or maybe it's that they think it's every man for himself or whatever, but hey sometimes when you are part of a society you have to give a little to help insure the survival of that society.
On social issues, imo things were way worse before we had anti-discrimination laws than they are now. -
This isn't even about liberals nor conservatives anymore, this is about americans vs. globalists.
-
tupacfan35 wrote: »This isn't even about liberals nor conservatives anymore, this is about americans vs. globalists.
shut the ? up ? -
lol at opposing globalization
-
tupacfan35 wrote: »This isn't even about liberals nor conservatives anymore, this is about americans vs. globalists.
lol @ this autistic ? -
shootemwon wrote: »CMR, question. At the start of this thread, you talked about some similarities between progressives and libertarians, before asking us to make a case for progressives in the areas that we don't agree. You laid out some pretty substantive stuff. The stuff about free speech goes to the heart of our core principles, for both ideologies. Matters such as neocon attempts to use public policy to enforce bigotry go beyond a difference in philosophy. It's disgusting and shameful.
So with that said....Why are a good number of people I meet who describe themselves as Libertarians registered Republican? Yeah, there's a lot of independents, some actually registered Libertarian, and some other 3rd parties, but there's also a lot of Republicans. But rarely, if ever, are any of them Democrats.
Why is it that if a libertarian decides to join a major party, it's always the Republicans? Is that just Ron Paul people? But why is Ron Paul a Republican?
I know the Democrats aren't immaculate on the social issues themselves, but the contrast is so apparent there between them and the GOP. Also, Republicans haven't really delivered on the whole "small government" thing.....at all. So why are they (apparently) closer to matching up with libertarianism than Democrats?
Mostly because a lot of Libertarian feel the the core values of the Republican party lie in constitutional conservatism. Democrats have never been fans of the constitution...ever. A lot of libertarians today would have been considered Goldwater Republicans only 20-30 years ago. A lot of libertarians feel that they can bring the Republican party back to those ideological roots and ways from the NeoCon era. But I feel it pointless to even involve yourself in the process.
There all kinds of Libertarians out there though. ? , I vote for Obama and I was libertarian, why? Because he said he was going to bring our troops home and end the Unpatriotic Act, and close Gitmo....he lied. I disagreed with most of the issues, but I felt I agreed with more with him than the idiot McCain.
To be honest, the real libertarians barely even vote or even involve themselves in the political process. They feel its pointless because the entire system is designed to control people. The real libertarians just rather buy some land somewhere, grow some fruit and veggies, strap up and be left alone. The ones you speak of are the ones that feel a more libertarian society can be brought about through the political process...to which I dont believe.
Republicans are only interested in the same thing any other politician is interested in, having more power. -
There are all kinds of libertarians out there:
* The Constitutional Libertarians - These are your Ron Pauls, Judge Napolitano, Peter Schiffs, etc. They believe the constitution = libertarianism and if we fight long enough we will get it.
* The Lite Libertarians - The people at Reason magazine come to mind.
* Ideological Libertarians - These are people like Lew Rockwell, Jim Rogers, Stossel, Walter Block, Hayek, etc. They try to further libertarianism as not just a political ideology but a way of life and society.
* Whacky Libertarians - People like Alex Jones.
* Anarchist Libertarians - These are people you see at G-20 riots and ? . -
Also, I wanted to add..you see a lot of libertarians siding with Republicans right now, but if you go back to the Bush years you will see a lot of libertarians were siding with the left because of the Anti-War effort. Right now, the economy is the biggest thing going on right now, and the biggest difference between libertarians and liberals are their stances on free market capitalism...so naturally, they will side more with the Republicans even though they do realize that Republicans are just as if not more liable for this dismal economy as Democrats.
Kucinich (sp?) was very well respected among libertarians for his anti-war stance. So much so some libertarians tried pushing for a Ron Paul/David Kucinich presidential ticket. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »There are all kinds of libertarians out there:
* The Constitutional Libertarians - These are your Ron Pauls, Judge Napolitano, Peter Schiffs, etc. They believe the constitution = libertarianism and if we fight long enough we will get it.
* The Lite Libertarians - The people at Reason magazine come to mind.
* Ideological Libertarians - These are people like Lew Rockwell, Jim Rogers, Stossel, Walter Block, Hayek, etc. They try to further libertarianism as not just a political ideology but a way of life and society.
* Whacky Libertarians - People like Alex Jones.
* Anarchist Libertarians - These are people you see at G-20 riots and ? .
Lol @ using such a broad, systemic brush to paint us with. we're not all like that. just like i know better than to think glenn beck is a proper representative of many, some even, of the american version of libertarians. but you seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject. in fact, i know you are. so im sure you also know that historically we were one of the first people to actually use the term "libertarian" right?
