Common Ground Between Libertarians and Progressives: Is it possible?

[matt0611]

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...

There's no adherence or respect to private property in third world countries, their governments can come in and take whatever you have. All of them have centralized governments.

 

[Phokus]

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.

You're fighting an uphill battle because most tea partiers and conservatives are full of shit when it comes to 'small government'. Tea partiers who bitch about big government yet love their government bennies are like social conservatives who publicly hate gays but secretly search for dick in gas station restrooms. They're IN THE CLOSET about their love of government spending.

 

[soundforbjt]

wrong thread.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

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

I really don't understand why you keep harping on TEA Party people and Medicare.

Medicare is something you PAY for, you can see it on every one of your paychecks.

How people wanting something they have actually paid for, for 40 yrs or so is anything but understandable is beyond me.

It's simply insurance they've bought and paid for.

Fern

 

[Arglebargle]

As always, I would like to see some examples of successful libertarian societies or governments, large or small. No libertarian I know has come back with good examples. Usually it is just excuses why it can't be done.....without a complete, and apparantly untested, change of how everything works.

Seems Utopian to me. In a perfect world, it works perfectly. So does every other system.

I appreciate libertarian ideas on social freedoms, but am suspicious of the untried economic upheavels that get suggested.

 

[Phokus]

I really don't understand why you keep harping on TEA Party people and Medicare.

Medicare is something you PAY for, you can see it on every one of your paychecks.

How people wanting something they have actually paid for, for 40 yrs or so is anything but understandable is beyond me.

It's simply insurance they've bought and paid for.

Fern

It's GOVERNMENT insurance that they paid for. However, the rest of the population wants something similar for themselves but they can't get it because to a tea partier, THAT'S SOCIALISM. The people on Medicare are also getting more out of what they paid into it so that 's a bit disingenuous to say they paid for the whole thing as well.

Tell you what, lets dismantle Medicare, give them back all they paid into it plus interest and let them try to get private insurance. These assholes will come CRYING back for the government bennies.

 

[chucky2]

Deal.

Can I get back my retirement insurance (SS) too? Thanks, send that on as well....

 

[Phokus]

Deal.

Can I get back my retirement insurance (SS) too? Thanks, send that on as well....

Considering i'm subsidizing it, i'd do that in a heartbeat.

 

[Howard]

You're a complete idiot if you don't think the Tea Party is a significant part of who/what you're talking about. You're trying to find common ground among two groups, one of who you're wildly misinterpreting what they really want.

I don't know that you've ever entered a P&N thread without it rapidly becoming a insult-ricocheting battlefield...

Pardon me if you feel that I'm singling you out.

 

[irishScott]

I think you've all missed the point I was trying to make, so it must be the way I phrased it. Given that both libertarians and progressives exist in a given society, I'm trying to achieve a way for both sides to at least see where the other side is coming from and allow some sort of rational discourse rather than the typical nonsense we've been seeing. I'm trying to speak in generalities rather than addressing the insanity that some people on each side stake out in the current "debate," looking at the way things should be so we could at least consider moving in that direction.

That's down to the individual. There are people on this forum I debate with, and people I publicly bitch slap with simple facts they refuse to acknowledge. The categories are not determined by political party, a lot of people simply don't want rational discourse. They want the gratification and nobility of an unquestionable "cause" so they can feel like they have a tinge of importance. Ironically most are too busy gratifying themselves on internet forums to actually further their adopted "cause" beyond paypaling relatively miniscule amounts of money. That's why you'll hear all about Craig234 and ProfJohn here, and maybe on some other site I don't know about, but despite their fanaticism they'll never amount to anything more than a slightly-above-average campaign contributor.

 

[QuantumPion]

As always, I would like to see some examples of successful libertarian societies or governments, large or small. No libertarian I know has come back with good examples. Usually it is just excuses why it can't be done.....without a complete, and apparantly untested, change of how everything works.

Seems Utopian to me. In a perfect world, it works perfectly. So does every other system.

I appreciate libertarian ideas on social freedoms, but am suspicious of the untried economic upheavels that get suggested.

Actually every time you ask that question people give you multiple examples, to which you come up with excuses as to why they weren't really libertarian or that they weren't really successful by your definition.The two most obvious off the top of my head would be the US pre-FDR and Hong Kong.

 

[Arglebargle]

Actually every time you ask that question people give you multiple examples, to which you come up with excuses as to why they weren't really libertarian or that they weren't really successful by your definition.The two most obvious off the top of my head would be the US pre-FDR and Hong Kong.

That just makes me think you don't really understand what 'libertarianism' claims to be.

Those are your examples of actual libertarian style success stories?

 

[Fern]

It's GOVERNMENT insurance that they paid for. However, the rest of the population wants something similar for themselves but they can't get it because to a tea partier,

If you think you don't have Single Payor/UHC because of the TEA Party, you're mistaken. You give them too much credit, or blame.

Back when it was up for a vote, the Dems who controlled the Senate (and the House) could never get more than 25 Dem senators to support it. I'm pretty sure the other 25 Dem Senators who opposed it weren't TEA Partiers.

Fern

 

[Phokus]

If you think you don't have Single Payor/UHC because of the TEA Party, you're mistaken. You give them too much credit, or blame.

Back when it was up for a vote, the Dems who controlled the Senate (and the House) could never get more than 25 Dem senators to support it. I'm pretty sure the other 25 Dem Senators who opposed it weren't TEA Partiers.

Fern

Unfortunately we have two problems: a) These assholes called 'blue dog democrats' who might as well be republicans and b) Obama trying to be seen as someone who compromises reaches across the aisle on EVERYTHING with people who are obviously fucking crazy. Obama caved on so much shit in the Bill just to get some GOP support (and i believe none of them voted in favor of it), and the real irony is, it was extremely similar to the GOP healthcare bill compromise that they drafted when Bill Clinton was trying to push for a healthcare bill.

 

[MotF Bane]

That just makes me think you don't really understand what 'libertarianism' claims to be.

Those are your examples of actual libertarian style success stories?

Haha, you perfectly fulfilled his quote.

 

[Arglebargle]

Haha, you perfectly fulfilled his quote.

By pointing out that neither of these appears to be very libertarian? Though if you think that is the case, I would be happy to read up on the reasoning.

 

[Rainsford]

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.

I'm not sure that's how all libertarians really feel about things. But if it was, it would be a major obstacle to finding liberal/libertarian common ground if libertarians can only be persuaded to care about things that directly affect them. Ignoring for a moment that it's pretty naive to think you're only affected by things that DIRECTLY affect you, talking big about "freedom" and "small government", but only DOING something about it when it benefits you directly comes across as less than sincere.

 

[Rainsford]

/thread


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

I think there is a reason the label "libertarian" is pretty popular, I'm not sure the actual ideology has caught on quite so well though. "Libertarian", like "patriot", is one of those positive adjectives some Republicans really like to think describes them. But I'm not so sure it goes any deeper than the self-image that goes along with driving a big truck or a sports car.

 

[Pia]

I'm not sure that's how all libertarians really feel about things. But if it was, it would be a major obstacle to finding liberal/libertarian common ground if libertarians can only be persuaded to care about things that directly affect them. Ignoring for a moment that it's pretty naive to think you're only affected by things that DIRECTLY affect you, talking big about "freedom" and "small government", but only DOING something about it when it benefits you directly comes across as less than sincere.

It's not insincere to focus on the problems that affect you the most and which you understand best. No one can fix everything. We have to choose our battles. Moreover, fixing the problems that affect you the most will make you stronger, and put you in a better position to fix others in the future. If you can eliminate a tax you are affected by, that's that much more money you can spend to support non-property rights if you so choose.

From watching US politics from the outside, it's my impression that libertarians are more likely to take a long-term view and liberals more likely to take a short-term view in some things. For instance, in dismantling a given city program the libertarian might see a future where the city is debt-free and can afford to spend the tax money on useful stuff instead of loan interest, and people previously being employed by the city being employed more productively and thus generating extra well-being around them. In the same situation the liberal might be more likely to stop their consideration at the immediate impact of so-and-so many city workers losing their jobs.

That long-term vs short-term divide explains a lot of the focus on the economy. With many types of problems, every year the problem is not fixed will tend to suck about as much as the last for those affected. That's not the case with the economy and compound interest.

As an example of another long-term vs short-term opinion difference, I'm against "gay marriage" laws, not because I think same-sex unions are wrong, but because I want to take government out of marriage business entirely. Carving new types of marriages in law is to accept that it is the government's business who sleeps with whom. Someone whose relationships also do not conform to the new law will still be left in an unequal, inferior position. For instance, polygamists' unions will not have equal status.

 

[Argo]

If you think about it, there should be significant overlap between liberals and libertarians on many equality issues like gay marriage, religious freedom, various civil liberties issues, etc. Yet it seems like the majority of people who call themselves Libertarians not only ignore these issues in favor of economic concerns (as you did in the OP), a lot of them are actively hostile to liberal views on these issues or ally themselves with people who are.

You bring up an interesting point. I consider myself a libertarian, yet I too tend to spend more time worrying about economic liberties, over social liberties.

There are probably several reasons for that. First and foremost, the pure selfishness - economic issues affect me more deeply than social. But for the most part, I feel like there are a lot of people in support of social liberties. While a lot less are there to support economic liberties (and no, I don't consider republicans to do that)

I feel like social liberties are on their way up, IMO it's only a matter of time before things like gay marriage, equality in the workplace become common place. At the same time, economic liberties, I feel are on the way down. Taxes will probable go up sooner rather than later. Money gets spend on things that don't benefit majority of citizens.

Just my $b0.02

 

[QuantumPion]

Actually every time you ask that question people give you multiple examples, to which you come up with excuses as to why they weren't really libertarian or that they weren't really successful by your definition.The two most obvious off the top of my head would be the US pre-FDR and Hong Kong.

That just makes me think you don't really understand what 'libertarianism' claims to be.

Those are your examples of actual libertarian style success stories?

 

[Jaskalas]

You bring up an interesting point. I consider myself a libertarian, yet I too tend to spend more time worrying about economic liberties, over social liberties.

There are probably several reasons for that. First and foremost, the pure selfishness - economic issues affect me more deeply than social. But for the most part, I feel like there are a lot of people in support of social liberties. While a lot less are there to support economic liberties (and no, I don't consider republicans to do that)

I feel like social liberties are on their way up, IMO it's only a matter of time before things like gay marriage, equality in the workplace become common place. At the same time, economic liberties, I feel are on the way down. Taxes will probable go up sooner rather than later. Money gets spend on things that don't benefit majority of citizens.

Just my $b0.02

Economic liberty is a requirement for social liberty. That is why it is important, people become subservient to those who hold power (money). Keeping economic power from being centralized is a crucial aspect of social liberty.

 

[Denbo1991]

From watching US politics from the outside, it's my impression that libertarians are more likely to take a long-term view and liberals more likely to take a short-term view in some things. For instance, in dismantling a given city program the libertarian might see a future where the city is debt-free and can afford to spend the tax money on useful stuff instead of loan interest, and people previously being employed by the city being employed more productively and thus generating extra well-being around them. In the same situation the liberal might be more likely to stop their consideration at the immediate impact of so-and-so many city workers losing their jobs.

I believe this is related to my problem is libertarians. I would consider myself a liberal, and your example showcases my issue with libertarians. The libertarian envisions a time when we should be debt free, the economy is doing well, and tax dollars are being used efficiently. Their policy decisions try to work towards this ideal. That is the problem it's just an ideal. For the foreseeable future, this ideal is not reachable. We can't expect to implement policy that would work in an ideal world to operate effectively in a non-ideal one. Their policy decisions are more ideological than practical. This is like saying you want to be able to run a mile in under six minutes. You start off at a six minute pace, regardless of your current fitness level or experience. You injure yourself, but ignore the injury claiming that you wouldn't have be injured if you were fit enough to run a mile in six minutes.

Liberals, on the other hand, realize that there are problems with the country and are simply trying to do their best to deal with them. Sure in an economy with perfect information, perfect markets, and rational consumers, a libertarian economic policy agenda might work, but not in a system with corruption, market failures, and irrationality. I would love if the US was debt free and everyone's taxes were lowered because we wouldn't have to pay the interest anymore. In the current economy, however, there WILL be recessions and there WILL be deficits. If taxes have to be raised during booms to pay for the busts, I am willing to accept that. In this way I feel that the liberal mindset is thinking about a realistic future, not the ideal one (a much tougher pursuit in my opinion). To go along with the running analogy, I make a fitness plan charting my progress. I take each workout one day at a time, and when I get injured I adjust my goals accordingly. I expect that one day I will be able to run a mile in six minutes, but I don't live my life pretending that I currently can.

Hope that made sense.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh dear, the OP has disappeared.