Common Ground Between Libertarians and Progressives: Is it possible?

[ProfJohn]

There is no common ground between "we know what's better for you than you do" progressivism and "I know what's better for me than a bureaucrat does" libertarianism. They are, by definition, complete opposites.

/thread


There is a reason libertarianism is successful within the Republican party.

 

[Moonbeam]

This could be a very interesting thread to me, but unfortunately I have to address my attention elsewhere at the moment, the pressure of WOW dailies and many toons, so let me just ask a question if I may. CW, is insurance inherently unfair as you need to have a claim to collect? Is mandatory insurance fair is we are required by ethics and law to emergency room treat those who don't buy it but want help when things go bad? Are there not parallels between taxes and insurance? So as to the unfairness issue, it seems that if the rich wanted to collect on welfare, all they would have to do is give away their wealth and they would be eligible. Similarly, they could lose it in a disaster. Also, as I have said many times any libertarian who does not like taxes or redistribution of wealth can always go live in the jungle. All the infrastructure that makes it possible for somebody to get fabulously wealthy were paid for by other people. From successful users of the wealth of the nation much may be expected, no?

 

[ProfJohn]

Who gives a flying fuck what common ground is between liberals and libertarians? "Tea Party" libertarians are a complete contradiction of what you posted: They want government programs only for THEMSELVES (everything else is 'big government socialism').

You are such an idiot. Why do you even waste our time by making us read through your crap??

You hear conservatives talk about entitlement reform all the time, but liberals won't even touch the subject. They would rather scare people than deal with our pending disaster.

If the tea party types were for government programs they wouldn't run around talking about getting rid of them. They understand that the problem is too much spending overall.

 

[Jaskalas]

Liberals are just libertarians who want a safety net to go with their liberties.

There's nothing wrong with safety nets, but these things become a way of life with permanent living arrangements. Our disagreement is in the details, on the scope and limits of the subject.

Using your definition, then I am a liberal. Go figure.

 

[ProfJohn]

Liberals are just libertarians who want a safety net to go with their liberties.

Not even close.

Ever look at the freedom index reports about different states? Notice that the most liberal states are the least free states?

Notice how the western states are the most free and the least liberal?


Liberals do more to control of lives than the right could even dream about. The religious right doesn't want gays to marry or abortion, otherwise they have very little effect on how you live your life. The left on the other hand wants to tax everything you do.

 

[BoberFett]

Stupidity Snipped

http://www.lp.org/platform

 

[CycloWizard]

Liberals are just libertarians who want a safety net to go with their liberties.

So you want the rewards without the risk? Sounds good to me. The problem with that approach is that risks exist, and it's hardly fair to give you the benefits without making you assume the associated risks.

 

[dank69]

...

This thread is about addressing the method by which the US has enacted its social programs. For these programs to treat all citizens equally under the law, they must be available to everyone without regard for race, color, creed, wealth, income, marital status, or anything else. It is contrary to justice to charge someone for a service that they cannot access because of their income level, rendering the program nothing more than wealth redistribution.

For example, I paid taxes for Medicaid while I was a grad student living below the poverty line, but I did not have access to Medicaid because of my status as a student. I was paying for a service for someone else, period. The little money I had was taken from me and used to pay for someone else to receive a service. That is nothing more than wealth redistribution. The same argument holds for wealthy individuals paying for Medicaid or any other social program.

Any government program with the goal of helping the poor is going to have to be some sort of wealth redistribution almost by definition. Of course, you have the choice of looking at it as wealth distribution or looking at it as investing in your country's well being, or somewhere in between those two extremes.

There are two just solutions to this problem. One is to scrap all of the social programs outright. The other is to offer the programs to everyone equally. Which solution is correct depends on whether the fundamental "right" the program supposedly protects is deemed a protected right by society. Is healthcare a right? If so, government is obliged to cover it for all its citizens to an equal degree, whatever that degree might be. Is "peace of mind" a right? If so, government can only treat its citizens equally by offering all citizens the same degree of protection of that right. Individuals would still be free to go over and above the level of protection government provides.
...

I don't believe that our only options are either no programs for the poor or outright socialism, which are the only two options you are listing as solutions.

...

These programs ARE inherently redistributive as they exist now - that's not even a question. Tax dollars go directly to pay for someone else's benefits. Qualification for these benefits relies on inherently arbitrary criteria: you make less than $x per year, you're over age y, you aren't a student, you belong to minority group z, you live in state s, or whatever it happens to be. These same issues arise in the tax code, where it's possible to net more money by earning less in some cases, just as it's possible to come out ahead using government programs rather than working to earn above the threshold level. Thus, these policies are arbitrary, redistributive, and often counterproductive when they act as disincentives.

I am not aware of any cases where it is possible to net more by earning less, except in the very upper brackets by getting paid in stock rather than cash or some other similar tax evasion methods.

As for coming out ahead by using government programs rather than working, I do not believe that this is always a negative thing. Take for example a single mother of one child. How much would she have to earn in order to provide for herself and her child? How much extra would she have to earn in order to pay for childcare while she works? How much worse off will that child be for having been raised in childcare rather than by the mother? Let's pretend that this single mother was raised in similar circumstances with little education which led to her current situation, but she is a bright girl who has learned from her mistake and wants to make sure her own child does not go down the same path. Now, I know this seems like a preposterous situation to most conservatives, who believe that every single poor person is a lazy leech on society, but I assure you it is realistic.

Now lets look at some solutions to this girl's situation. Your first solution is to do away with all government assistance programs. Now what does she do? Is it even possible for her to earn enough money to support herself with no education, let alone her child, let alone childcare while she works? She'd be lucky to land even a minimum wage job, which by the way, many conservatives want to remove, lol, but that's another thread for another day. She would not even be able to afford childcare alone with a minimum wage job if she had no other expenses. So her only other option now with the exception of maybe stripping if she has the body for it, is illegal activity, and any which way she goes, her kid is doomed to the same type of life. The idea of eliminating government assistance may seem good in theory, but it just contributes to more crime.

Your only other solution is what amounts to socialism, and I don't believe that you really see that as an option, so I am not going to bother addressing that. You are just putting that out there because you don't want to or can't see that there can be solutions somewhere in the middle. As soon as there is assistance for the poor, it automatically equals wealth redistribution to you. For some reason, you don't see that every penny that is given to the poor is immediately spent, right back out to the companies most conservatives want to help. That money is then able to be sent directly to China and India used to create more jobs in China and India. Conservatives are just trying to cut out the middleman, except that middleman at least helps keep crime to somewhat managable levels.

Regarding your definition of "liberal" as seeing government as an entity which provides help for people who need it: how do you decide who needs help? Everyone needs help all the time. Bill Gates could do better if you helped him more, as could the homeless guy. How do you decide who to help? What criteria do you use to decide who to help, and to what degree is government supposed to help? These are the fundamental questions I was trying to pose in the OP. If government becomes a vehicle for raising everyone above some minimum standard of living, then, in terms of the OP, we have essentially declared that that minimum standard of living is a right which the government exists to protect. Hopefully that makes sense.

Agreed. I think the libertarians (small L) are a small minority here and that the Libertarians are largely Republicans in sheep's clothing.

I agree, it isn't easy to decide where to draw the line. It used to be easy. Food/shelter/clothing, but now we have medical care/child care/basic utilities(not tv! but probably internet at this point if you want the children to have any chance at a proper education). But it can be done. I don't know why you feel the need to throw out a straw man in the form of Bill Gates.

 

[theeedude]

So you want the rewards without the risk? Sounds good to me. The problem with that approach is that risks exist, and it's hardly fair to give you the benefits without making you assume the associated risks.

Risks can and should be managed to limit the downside. I don't think people who take risks that don't pan out should then become homeless, lose health coverage, etc.

 

[CycloWizard]

This could be a very interesting thread to me, but unfortunately I have to address my attention elsewhere at the moment, the pressure of WOW dailies and many toons, so let me just ask a question if I may. CW, is insurance inherently unfair as you need to have a claim to collect? Is mandatory insurance fair is we are required by ethics and law to emergency room treat those who don't buy it but want help when things go bad? Are there not parallels between taxes and insurance? So as to the unfairness issue, it seems that if the rich wanted to collect on welfare, all they would have to do is give away their wealth and they would be eligible. Similarly, they could lose it in a disaster. Also, as I have said many times any libertarian who does not like taxes or redistribution of wealth can always go live in the jungle. All the infrastructure that makes it possible for somebody to get fabulously wealthy were paid for by other people. From successful users of the wealth of the nation much may be expected, no?

Your analogy is great except that in the case of government programs, the taxpayer pays for insurance which benefits someone else and the person who benefits doesn't pay anything. Pass a new federal law mandating free auto insurance for everyone who can't afford it, pass a law mandating free health insurance for everyone who can't afford it, pass a law mandating free life insurance for everyone who can't afford it. Those who can't pay for anything will have their every need wiped away, those of us in the middle will work our asses off to pay for their life of leisure, and those at the top will keep doing what they always do. Those at the top don't make enough to pay for all of the programs liberals want, so the bill gets passed down. Those of us in the middle pay the highest real tax rates while getting none of the benefits of those making less than us. What's our motivation to keep trying to do better? At some point, it's much easier to slip down into oblivion and let the working schmucks wipe my ass for me. The larger the government program base, the larger the upper and lower classes will become as the middle ground becomes untenable.

 

[CycloWizard]

Risks can and should be managed to limit the downside. I don't think people who take risks that don't pan out should then become homeless, lose health coverage, etc.

They should if those were the stakes of their gamble. People shouldn't risk more than they can afford to risk. I'm tired of paying for people who bet the farm to try to make it big. I assume you are also against bailouts for bankers, which is the same thing.

 

[Phokus]

You are such an idiot. Why do you even waste our time by making us read through your crap??

You hear conservatives talk about entitlement reform all the time, but liberals won't even touch the subject. They would rather scare people than deal with our pending disaster.

If the tea party types were for government programs they wouldn't run around talking about getting rid of them. They understand that the problem is too much spending overall.

It's called REALITY you dumbshit:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/04/tea-partiers-dont-like-medicaid-medicare-cuts

The government-blasting Tea Party doesn't want any changes to two of the government's biggest programs. The vast majority of Tea Party supporters - 70% - oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, a new McClatchy-Marist poll found."

It's not my personal opinion that Tea Partiers are disgusting self centered hypocrites, it's fact.

Also, during the last election, the GOP used scare tactics about Democrats cutting their medicare to win elections.

 

[z1ggy]

snip

As for coming out ahead by using government programs rather than working, I do not believe that this is always a negative thing. Take for example a single mother of one child. How much would she have to earn in order to provide for herself and her child? How much extra would she have to earn in order to pay for childcare while she works? How much worse off will that child be for having been raised in childcare rather than by the mother? Let's pretend that this single mother was raised in similar circumstances with little education which led to her current situation, but she is a bright girl who has learned from her mistake and wants to make sure her own child does not go down the same path. Now, I know this seems like a preposterous situation to most conservatives, who believe that every single poor person is a lazy leech on society, but I assure you it is realistic.

more snip

.

You are unfortunately correct in your story here. Things like this def. do exist in our country. However, there are solutions or things she could have done other than get welware, etc. Firstly, she could have done the smart thing and use a condom. If she was raped or something tragic, then she could have gave her child up for adoption, went to school/got a job then had a family when she was ready. This is no reason to have a child and be forced to take care of it if you don't have the means. Although shows like Maury are funny, they are probably true. Woman both black and white having multiple kids with multiple people then trying to take care of them...which is turn requires government programs to assist them. How many of these men and women are really trying to make something of there lives? Very few I bet.

 

[Throckmorton]

Are you blind/retarded?

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/04/tea-partiers-dont-like-medicaid-medicare-cuts



"GUBMINT BETTER NOT TOUCH MY MEDICARE" <-- This slogan pretty much sums up what the majority of the tea party is about.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/04/tea-partiers-dont-like-medicaid-medicare-cuts

Another fun fact, a majority of Tea Partiers are also against free trade.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39407846



The tea party is an incoherent and hypocritical movement. They have no real beliefs.

80% of them oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid, 45% support increasing taxes on the rich. So why are they in the Tea Party? Because it makes them feel cool to wear tricorner hats and wave Gadsden flags?

 

[Phokus]

80% of them oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid, 45% support increasing taxes on the rich. So why are they in the Tea Party? Because it makes them feel cool to wear tricorner hats and wave Gadsden flags?

I suspect having a "black kenyan muslim socialist" as president has a lot to do with it.

 

[p0nd]

Those who can't pay for anything will have their every need wiped away, those of us in the middle will work our asses off to pay for their life of leisure, and those at the top will keep doing what they always do. Those at the top don't make enough to pay for all of the programs liberals want, so the bill gets passed down. Those of us in the middle pay the highest real tax rates while getting none of the benefits of those making less than us. What's our motivation to keep trying to do better? At some point, it's much easier to slip down into oblivion and let the working schmucks wipe my ass for me. The larger the government program base, the larger the upper and lower classes will become as the middle ground becomes untenable.

How do you arrive at these conclusions, when the real world offers evidence that points in other directions? Look at the social programs in Scandinavia or Germany, for example, which are much broader, more "re-distributive," more entrenched than in the U.S. The middle classes are not struggling at all in these countries, in fact they are prospering relative to the rest of the world during the economic recession. Of course in these countries there are also many differences from the US, including more worker protection, proportionally larger manufacturing base, for example. Which are 2 of many variables your idea above ignores. This is not to say i think the US should take the same direction, as there are great cultural and geographic differences, though perhaps there is something to learn from the rest of the world.

What you say would only ever come true if US government were to increase the size and scope of social welfare while ignoring everything else at all cost, which is something i think we can both agree will never happen. Be realistic. An invented scenario doesn't hold water to support your views.

You are also partially incorrect that those in the middle class do not receive the benefits that their taxes pay for. Yes, some of your taxes (a few cents on the dollar if that) go to pay for someone else's food stamps. And so does everyone else's taxes, including the recipient and everyone else on gov't assistance. What you, and the rest of the middle class receive, are the indirect benefits of living in a society where the poor have food to eat that they don't have to get by stealing. What is better, for a family to get food stamps or a family to turn to crime to feed themselves out of desperation (Not everyone can get a job, and not all jobs pay a living wage). It's the same as if you don't have children but still pay taxes for public education. You receive the indirect benefits of living in an educated community - lower crime, more skilled workers, etc.

 

[ProfJohn]

It's called REALITY you dumbshit:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/04/tea-partiers-dont-like-medicaid-medicare-cuts

"The poll revealed 92% of Democrats, 73% of Republicans and 75% of independents also oppose the cuts."
Tea Party is 70%
So Democrats are FAR more opposed to the cuts than Republicans and Tea Party types are the least resistant.

So if you support reduction in government which party should you join?

 

[Phokus]

"The poll revealed 92&#37; of Democrats, 73% of Republicans and 75% of independents also oppose the cuts."
Tea Party is 70%
So Democrats are FAR more opposed to the cuts than Republicans and Tea Party types are the least resistant.

So if you support reduction in government which party should you join?

LMAO, the tea party was supposed to be a grass roots reaction to both major political parties against 'big government', and you're seriously trying to be an apologist to a movement where 70% of the movement don't want cuts to medicare/medicaid? Give me a fucking break PJ. Does "overwhelming majority" mean anything to you (this is obviously a rhetorical question)?

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: The US was founded on the idea that government should treat every person equally by protecting his fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.

M: How so? We the People of the United States ( a collective, not I the person), in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense (The community again) , promote the general Welfare (Crap, the collective again), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity(We not I me me mine), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. So what is life and liberty and property will be collectively decided.

CW: We have strayed so far from that path at this point that we can barely recall ever having followed it. Rather than treating people with the blind eyes of justice, we treat them according to arbitrary principles of fairness and leveraged inequality.

M: This, of course, is simply your opinion and it is obviously wrong because all our laws are legal or they wouldn't exist. There has been no straying from anything but rather the application of the collective will which you just seem not to agree with.

CW: There are plenty of ways in which taxation can be made to fulfill the fundamental principles of justice and equality under the law, so I'll leave that for another thread.

M: OK

CW: This thread is about addressing the method by which the US has enacted its social programs. For these programs to treat all citizens equally under the law, they must be available to everyone without regard for race, color, creed, wealth, income, marital status, or anything else.

M: Were this factual you can challenge them successfully in court.

CW: It is contrary to justice to charge someone for a service that they cannot access because of their income level, rendering the program nothing more than wealth redistribution.

M: Then your idea of justice is different than justice in law. You have only to convince the court by challenging what you call unjust.

CW: For example, I paid taxes for Medicaid while I was a grad student living below the poverty line, but I did not have access to Medicaid because of my status as a student.

M: But you chose a status that was exempt because you are free.

CW: I was paying for a service for someone else, period. The little money I had was taken from me and used to pay for someone else to receive a service. That is nothing more than wealth redistribution. The same argument holds for wealthy individuals paying for Medicaid or any other social program.

M: You don't have to be a student and the wealthy can give away their money. You are free. You chose to take on a burden for even greater gains.

CW: There are two just solutions to this problem. One is to scrap all of the social programs outright. The other is to offer the programs to everyone equally.

M: There is a third choice, the one we actually chose and which has passed Constitutional muster.

CW: Which solution is correct depends on whether the fundamental "right" the program supposedly protects is deemed a protected right by society. Is health care a right?

M: What is right in law is what has been enacted in law and not successfully challenged. And health is a right. Doctors are sworn to treat.

CW: If so, government is obliged to cover it for all its citizens to an equal degree, whatever that degree might be.

M: The government should strive for equality. Equality, itself, is an impossibility.
CW: Is "peace of mind" a right? If so, government can only treat its citizens equally by offering all citizens the same degree of protection of that right.

The government can do nothing to insure peace of mind. What it must not do is do something unconstitutional to inflict mental hardship. We are all responsible for our own mental health because mental health is our natural state and a mind is only disturbed by illusions. A healthy mind is a rational mind that can tell the difference between what must be and what one wishes were factual. Sadly we will all die. The government has no obligation to make us live forever. If we lack piece of mind as a result, so it goes.

CW: Individuals would still be free to go over and above the level of protection government provides.

M: Why? That is inequality by your notions. Equally valid would be to ban any medical treatment not affordable to all. This would insure better funding of medical research.

CW: Perhaps by framing elections in terms of rights rather than positions is a better way to approach the whole idea of political compromise. It is well known that position-based negotiation leads to the type of shenanigans we just witnessed regarding the debt ceiling bill. However, if negotiations instead focus on the underlying issues of each party, real compromise can be achieved without either party losing face. For example, if one party can cede that "peace of mind" is not really a right, then the other might be willing to cede that health care is, even if only to an extent.

M: Piece of mind isn't a government requirement, health care is.

CW: In any case, it should be clear to everyone that we cannot absolutely protect every right that people think they ought to have simply due to financial constraints.

M: Greed propels medical research. The most expensive and money intensive treatments are developed at the expense of vaccines that could cheaply save millions. Socialize medicine and remove the greed factor. Offer free medical education and secure employment a living wage and good retirement benefits to medical professionals and let those with a real calling to help others and not get rich fill the medical ranks. Create socialized medical research facilities with the same features. Remove worldly concerns from research and let those who have an interest in solving problem rather than make money do full time focused research.

CW: As the financial constraint is lessened due to continuing economic growth, the list of rights society chooses to protect, as well as the degree of that protection, may grow accordingly. A corollary of this approach is that, when the economic constraint contracts for whatever reason, the protections must similarly contract unless the protections are not currently financially constrained (when has this happened?).

M: Let expansion and contraction happen with the numbers who need medical attention.

CW: Anyway, just some thoughts I had that might frame a path for debate with common ground between libertarians and progressives.

M: There's some of my take.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Progressives and libertarians are by definition both socially liberal, so they should have common ground on most social issues....

 

[ProfJohn]

LMAO, the tea party was supposed to be a grass roots reaction to both major political parties against 'big government', and you're seriously trying to be an apologist to a movement where 70% of the movement don't want cuts to medicare/medicaid? Give me a fucking break PJ. Does "overwhelming majority" mean anything to you (this is obviously a rhetorical question)?

No doubt we are fighting an up hill battle.

But anyone with a brain can do the math and realize that we can't stay on our current path.

Eventually benefits will have to be cut and the longer we wait the harder it will be on the people getting them.

 

[theeedude]

"The poll revealed 92% of Democrats, 73% of Republicans and 75% of independents also oppose the cuts."
Tea Party is 70%
So Democrats are FAR more opposed to the cuts than Republicans and Tea Party types are the least resistant.

So if you support reduction in government which party should you join?

This is good, Tea party should join with Democrats to push for the Thanksgiving cuts to not impact Medicare and Medicaid, and instead be centered on defense spending. Oh yeah, at GOP insistence, we shouldn't count Iraq and Afghanistan draw downs as cuts

 

[bfdd]

That was basically what I was getting at. I think there SHOULD be some common ground, but modern Libertarians are almost entirely about the economic issues where they disagree with liberals. At least that's the public perception. I'm sure there are Libertarians who think the anti-gay marriage movement is retarded too, but I don't see that as a national level Libertarian issue.

The reason it's not a national level Libertarian issue is because to the Libertarian mind gays not being able to marry doesn't make any sense and is an after thought. The economy effects all of us directly, Libertarians don't like when other people fuck with their shit so economy takes center stage. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who was against gay marriage because that just doesn't make sense.

 

[matt0611]

The only solution is to have anarchy-capitalism for the world (for libertarians) and then the progressives can live in their communes with each other, with all the taxes / regulation / control over the peoples lives (that voluntarily choose to live there) that they want.

Libertarianism is not compatible with a socialist / progressivist world.

However, socialism / progressivism is compatible with living in a libertarian world.

 

[dank69]

The only solution is to have anarchy-capitalism for the world (for libertarians) and then the progressives can live in their communes with each other, with all the taxes / regulation / control over the peoples lives (that voluntarily choose to live there) that they want.

Libertarianism is not compatible with a socialist / progressivist world.

However, socialism / progressivism is compatible with living in a libertarian world.

That's what the whole world is right now. The former is what we call third world countries and the latter is what we call first world...