- Oct 16, 2008
- 11,770
- 347
- 126
In all honesty I thought the libertarians believed what they said. I expect democrats not to be commies and republicans not to be fascist, no matter what 'virtues' they espouse.
That said, I think I still prefer a party that is based on principles that they try to actually follow.
I don't think that a social progressive message is supported by the Libertarians.. more of a "I do not care one bit what anyone does or does not do" message..
example:
I would guess that a libertarian would be against the equal-opportunity laws whilst moderates of both sides can agree that laws protecting people from discrimination vis a vis employment is a good thing.
One of the many misguided bits of conventional wisdom that needs fixing in how we discuss political issues is this notion of "fiscal conservatism".
Conventionally, it's equated to mean "against absurdly wasteful huge government spending", in other words, the position every citizen holds.
There's a straw man in there, the "let's destroy the country through debt" advocate as the 'fiscal liberal'.
Nonsense.
The basic fallacy is the notion that government spending = wasteful spending, instead of the idea that the government *invests* its spending to enrich the nation.
We all understand the idea of investment, in personal lives (buy a new interview suit) and business (buy a larger building for expansion). That includes debt sometimes too.
The same appplies to the government spending, in part. Some government spending is not investment - the government reflects societies' desires for some moral spending as well.
But much government spending is about investing in the nation's people and productivity.
It's ironic but the American people, on the right especially, are hugely vulnerable to the misleading message from the 'self-interested parties'.
Take the defense industry when it's gotten as much as it can get with the budget maxed, how can it get more? By demonizing the money for social spending and freeing those funds.
All you need to do is put some folksy face up as the messenger paid for by the real interests and attack the spending and people say "good point".
One of the biggest problems we have are the huge industries that leech off the taxpayers, who dominate the Washington agenda largely in both parties, yet those interests are terribly effective at getting the American people to demonize the spending for average citizens, and free it up for those corrupt huge industries to get even more.
Put defense aside for a moment, isn't there some indication of the problem when the financial sector far surpasses the manufacturing sector and gets government bailouts while manufacturing does not, when organized labor is slashed - while the propaganda says 'that's just globalization' even while other Western democracies are not seeing the same negative trends (which few Americans know because the corporate media doesn't think it too important to report)?
FDR did not throw money in a hole. When he was faced with a financial crisis, he *invested* money - in employment programs that provided infrastructure we benefit from to this day, that kept the economy moving, in the Social Security program that reversed elder poverty from almost universal misery at 90% poverty to 10% poverty today. Was that 'fiscal conservatism'? Not by thesimplistic conventional definition that only looks at the size of the spending, not the benefits.
The discussion has to separate 'bad' and 'good' spending and not only look at the amount.
A $100 million pork barrel is worse than a $1 billion good infastructure bill that increases our prosperity.
JFK was a very liberal president (no, really, but that's another discussion). He talked a lot about the poor and the war on poverty we needed, his first executive order was to increase food to the poor in West Virginia, he was pro union, and one of his main planks was to greatly increase and expand Medicare, among other things. Yet, the size of the bureacracy under him was a fraction of the size of later administrations, especially starting with Nixon. He did a lot with a little - a 'conservative' approach by a 'liberal'.
It goes to show how the labels have lost relevance, with liberal not referring to what it should - his prioritization of the needs of the people and willingness to meet them - and instead being corrupted to be defined as 'wasteful spending' that everyone is against, which builds support for 'fiscal conservatism' that is really a lie - a shortage of spending for what we should for a JFK-like budget, and either having a budget too low in investment in the nation for what's needed, or one too low in the right aras but filled with corruption.
I'm not a 'fiscal conservative' by the conventional definition because I don't demand a tiny budgetfor its own sake. I am strongly in favor of a close to balanced budget and paying off our debt, of 'pay as you go' except in emergency, of not having 'wasteful' spending. My rule is there are two reasons for government spending: morally justified or an investment in the nation that will pay off. Yet that's not 'conservative' by the wrongheaded defintion usually used.
As long as all spending is equated as wasteful, the dsebate will be not only useless but harmful. The fix needed is to shift the spending from the corrupt to the productive.
Conventionally, it's equated to mean "against absurdly wasteful huge government spending", in other words, the position every citizen holds.
There's a straw man in there, the "let's destroy the country through debt" advocate as the 'fiscal liberal'.
Nonsense.
The basic fallacy is the notion that government spending = wasteful spending, instead of the idea that the government *invests* its spending to enrich the nation.
We all understand the idea of investment, in personal lives (buy a new interview suit) and business (buy a larger building for expansion). That includes debt sometimes too.
The same appplies to the government spending, in part. Some government spending is not investment - the government reflects societies' desires for some moral spending as well.
But much government spending is about investing in the nation's people and productivity.
It's ironic but the American people, on the right especially, are hugely vulnerable to the misleading message from the 'self-interested parties'.
Take the defense industry when it's gotten as much as it can get with the budget maxed, how can it get more? By demonizing the money for social spending and freeing those funds.
All you need to do is put some folksy face up as the messenger paid for by the real interests and attack the spending and people say "good point".
One of the biggest problems we have are the huge industries that leech off the taxpayers, who dominate the Washington agenda largely in both parties, yet those interests are terribly effective at getting the American people to demonize the spending for average citizens, and free it up for those corrupt huge industries to get even more.
Put defense aside for a moment, isn't there some indication of the problem when the financial sector far surpasses the manufacturing sector and gets government bailouts while manufacturing does not, when organized labor is slashed - while the propaganda says 'that's just globalization' even while other Western democracies are not seeing the same negative trends (which few Americans know because the corporate media doesn't think it too important to report)?
FDR did not throw money in a hole. When he was faced with a financial crisis, he *invested* money - in employment programs that provided infrastructure we benefit from to this day, that kept the economy moving, in the Social Security program that reversed elder poverty from almost universal misery at 90% poverty to 10% poverty today. Was that 'fiscal conservatism'? Not by thesimplistic conventional definition that only looks at the size of the spending, not the benefits.
The discussion has to separate 'bad' and 'good' spending and not only look at the amount.
A $100 million pork barrel is worse than a $1 billion good infastructure bill that increases our prosperity.
JFK was a very liberal president (no, really, but that's another discussion). He talked a lot about the poor and the war on poverty we needed, his first executive order was to increase food to the poor in West Virginia, he was pro union, and one of his main planks was to greatly increase and expand Medicare, among other things. Yet, the size of the bureacracy under him was a fraction of the size of later administrations, especially starting with Nixon. He did a lot with a little - a 'conservative' approach by a 'liberal'.
It goes to show how the labels have lost relevance, with liberal not referring to what it should - his prioritization of the needs of the people and willingness to meet them - and instead being corrupted to be defined as 'wasteful spending' that everyone is against, which builds support for 'fiscal conservatism' that is really a lie - a shortage of spending for what we should for a JFK-like budget, and either having a budget too low in investment in the nation for what's needed, or one too low in the right aras but filled with corruption.
I'm not a 'fiscal conservative' by the conventional definition because I don't demand a tiny budgetfor its own sake. I am strongly in favor of a close to balanced budget and paying off our debt, of 'pay as you go' except in emergency, of not having 'wasteful' spending. My rule is there are two reasons for government spending: morally justified or an investment in the nation that will pay off. Yet that's not 'conservative' by the wrongheaded defintion usually used.
As long as all spending is equated as wasteful, the dsebate will be not only useless but harmful. The fix needed is to shift the spending from the corrupt to the productive.
The Libertarian Party is pro-choice, pro-gay in every sense, and many favor open borders although there is some strong dissent within the movement. They are about as socially progressive as you can get.
You are quite wrong IMO.
I don't waste a lot of time on the libertarians as I think they are to politics as Scientology is to religion, but I will give you one example, they are strongly opposed to the civil rights laws requiring businesses who serve the public not to discriminate based on things like race. They would allow a return to 'Whites only' businesses, unless they decide to compromise their 'principles' and change their position. That's not 'socially progressive'.
That is a good point, they don't force social progression on the people. At the same time they repeal drug laws and other such government intrusions on morality, so it is a trade-off. I guess it depends on how much faith you put in the country to be socially liberal on its own and how much the government needs to intervene to create a culture of fairness.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Please. They aren't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ates_Libertarian_Party
They may preach like they're socially progressive sometimes, particularly in their platforms, but their record doesn't actually bear this reality out (both in terms of their Congressional record and state/local records).
Ron Paul, for example, is talked about lovingly as the perfect Libertarian candidate (and ran as such in 88), in Libertarian Party newsletters all the time. Paul's record on social issues is quite clear; pro-life (see HR 3660, pro-life to the core and just short of "abortion=murder"), anti-gay (against gay marriage), anti-immigrant (he talks nice but votes Republican down the line on immigration), and pro-gun. Bob Barr, their current candidate for president, is the same way except his record is even more anti-gay than Paul's (though he has apologized to Libertarians for previously requesting a federal ban on same-sex marriages).
Fact is, Libertarians garner a lot of their support from the hard right, and that has always been the domain of the socially conservative. Nothing wrong with that (even though I disagree), but there's no reasonably way you can conclude Libertarians (their candidates, at least) have been socially progressive.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
And this too. They're 100% against affirmative action. Again, that's not socially liberal, that's socially conservative. Nothing wrong with that stance, though; I happen to think affirmative action can do quite a lot of harm. Though, I also recognize that it has its benefits.
Well, when I weigh the century of ongoing racism that followed the end of slavery, the fact that equal rights did not happen until forced by the government, and that then and only then did the culture follow and change to fit the law so that now virtually no one is on the side that was the dominant culture before those laws, I'd say, Libertarians, man up and admit your ideology falls short and the government was the solution on that issue.
And also note, as strongly as I say that, that the government is only one part of the solution - as even the leaders who passed the Civil Rights bill, JFK and LBJ, said, the government cannot change men's hearts. I'd strongly suggest you read the following speech by JFK that *complemented* his proposal for the law to step in, addressing the issue of the culture. It's an outstanding speech relfecting the sort of leadership government should provide, lost on Libertarians.
Link. Watch it. How a real politician addresses a problem in the people he represents.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,030
- 2
- 61
The Federal government doesn't, or rather shouldn't, have jurisdiction to rule over abortion. This should be a state issue. This is perhaps one issue where there would be a difference of opinion between some Libertarians. Personally, I do not like abortion, but politically I support a woman's right to choose. And I don't think banning abortions works, just like banning anything else.
This is just a totally ridiculous statement to make. I mean, WTF do you even mean here? I personally support the right of homosexuals to marry, but I do think this is also a state issue, for the same reason above, the federal government has no jurisdiction here. This is a state issue.
But to use the term "anti-gay?" I mean WTF?
Yes, all Libertarians support the Bill of Rights, all 10 of them.
Uhhh, anti-illegal immigrant. Big difference.
There is a big difference between socially liberal and socially progressive.
Where are the social progressives when it comes to my right to gamble online? My right to smoke marijuana in the privacy of my own home?
They're nowhere to be found.
That's because social libertarianism is based on the ideas of personal choice and personal responsibility, and social progressives desire to shift the powers of choice and responsibility to government.
Or to put it simply, they like to take away one's freedoms and liberties and call it progress. To which I say, "no thanks."
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,929
- 142
- 106
As a Lib, bam beat me to the punch. He sums it up quite nicely on what we stand for. All in all, we do not support the Federal government to have jurisdiction over the state on issues like abortion. Regarding abortion, Evan is right that most Libs will support pro-life initiatives however it is clear that all Libs believe that it should be left up to the state (especially since there are pockets of more socially liberal Libs who aren't pro-life).Originally posted by: bamacre
The Federal government doesn't, or rather shouldn't, have jurisdiction to rule over abortion. This should be a state issue. This is perhaps one issue where there would be a difference of opinion between some Libertarians. Personally, I do not like abortion, but politically I support a woman's right to choose. And I don't think banning abortions works, just like banning anything else.
This is just a totally ridiculous statement to make. I mean, WTF do you even mean here? I personally support the right of homosexuals to marry, but I do think this is also a state issue, for the same reason above, the federal government has no jurisdiction here. This is a state issue.
But to use the term "anti-gay?" I mean WTF?
Yes, all Libertarians support the Bill of Rights, all 10 of them.
Uhhh, anti-illegal immigrant. Big difference.
There is a big difference between socially liberal and socially progressive.
Where are the social progressives when it comes to my right to gamble online? My right to smoke marijuana in the privacy of my own home?
They're nowhere to be found.
That's because social libertarianism is based on the ideas of personal choice and personal responsibility, and social progressives desire to shift the powers of choice and responsibility to government.
Or to put it simply, they like to take away one's freedoms and liberties and call it progress. To which I say, "no thanks."
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,563
- 9
- 81
Craig
You obviously believe heavily in democracy, in other words majority rule. In order to have a progressive government, one that would ban race based discrimination, the majority would have to be racially unbiased, correct? After all, if everyone were racists like you think, that government would never be democratically elected.
So given that the majority needs to be socially progressive anyway, wouldn't the free market, which consists of that majority of progressive minded people, have enough market force to shut down bigoted businesses, or at the very least provide plenty of opportunity to businesses which cater to everyone?
Or are you trying to see the progressive majority don't have any clout?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Originally posted by: bamacre
The Federal government doesn't, or rather shouldn't, have jurisdiction to rule over abortion. This should be a state issue. This is perhaps one issue where there would be a difference of opinion between some Libertarians. Personally, I do not like abortion, but politically I support a woman's right to choose. And I don't think banning abortions works, just like banning anything else.
This is just a totally ridiculous statement to make. I mean, WTF do you even mean here? I personally support the right of homosexuals to marry, but I do think this is also a state issue, for the same reason above, the federal government has no jurisdiction here. This is a state issue.
But to use the term "anti-gay?" I mean WTF?
Yes, all Libertarians support the Bill of Rights, all 10 of them.
Uhhh, anti-illegal immigrant. Big difference.
I'm not interested in what your beliefs are, rather the aggregate beliefs of the libertarian party (a very recent creation), which I referenced and linked adequately and which can be further researched here: http://civilliberty.about.com/...qt/libert_platform.htm. If you would actually like to address HR 3660, why their pro-gun stance is off-the-charts narrowly defined, why being against gay marriage means you're at least in part anti-gay (that's a political science term, not mine), and why you're anti-immigrant if you don't want an easier path to citizenship for illegals, then be my guest.
Huh? Social progressives uniformly support the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana by a large margin. I'm not sure why you're parsing words over progressive and liberal, they mean the same thing nowadays.
While many libertarians, including Paul, would rather we revert to an era of laws and culture that, currently, no living American citizen was alive to witness. It's radical, impractical, and will die out with the Baby Boom generation.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Dude, you've been bounced around so many times that, frankly, it's a bit embarrassing watching you post. After failing to predict the next business cycle, seeing you come back here for more makes you look like a foaming at the mouth child burning with regret for wimping out of my challenges in our debates over the last few weeks.
EDIT; lmao, just noticed you've been trolling for my posts in the last few hours. I've got my own e-stalker, so flattered! :laugh:
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,030
- 2
- 61
From your own fucking link...
And you read this as opposing gay marriage and being anti-gay?
And how about a better source than about.com. :roll:
Uh, no they don't. And where the hell are these "social progressives" that support "decriminalization of marijuana by a large margin?" They certainly aren't in the the Democrat party.
- Oct 16, 2008
- 11,770
- 347
- 126
Libertarians want to eliminate the social-contract portion of marriage and turn it in to an individual "i says I'm married therefor I'm married".
Makes sense to me.
what doesn't make sense is the idea that you are honestly defending Babar as a social progressive.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Ron Paul on Don't Ask, Don't Tell: "I think the current policy is a decent policy". This military policy is considered anti-gay now because it forces homosexuals to have to hide their sexuality. Btw, I don't think Paul or Libertarians are overtly anti-gay, because I do believe that fundamentally they want maximal freedom. But they're clearly not progressive, especially when Paul still equivocates on whether he supports gay marriage by saying "Let the states decide", as if that actually answers the question. Either way, both characterizations would stretch the definition of progressivism in its modern form.
As opposed to your sources, which have been entirely your personal beliefs? :roll:
This coming from the guy who claims politicians will say anything to get elected.
Frankly, you would have to be out of your farking mind to believe liberals aren't vastly more in favor of decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana than conservatives. To suggest otherwise clearly shows you don't live in the real world. Hell, it's practically decriminalized in parts of Santa Cruz and Northern Cali already; the whole damn area is a liberal bastion with weed as part and parcel of their lifestyles.
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...backroom/1613969/posts
http://hempyreumenglish.wordpr...ack-liberal-pot-rules/
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,030
- 2
- 61
Well, YOU said they were. That's why I had to come in here and correct your ignorance.
Who says the federal government has to decide what marriage is and isn't? They don't have jurisdiction here. Read the Constitution.
And I'm not implying that Libertarians are socially progressive. They are socially LIBERAL. Big difference.
I'm not the one spreading false information, you are.
Again, Obama has CHANGED his stance, he does NOT support decriminalization of marijuana. Only one Democrat candidate supported it. None of the top candidates, not Obama, not Hillary, not Edwards.
Perhaps what you are saying is that all of them are liars. That they are closet supporters. To me, that's worse. Much worse. That shows a lack of leadership, a lack of courage and a lack of integrity. We've had enough of that. That isn't progress, that's disaster.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
You didn't read carefully enough.
Except you have no understanding of the Constitution and couldn't have a debate about it, which is why your generalizations about the Constitution and deflections on libertarian positions (Paul and other candidates) are transparent.
Explain the difference, in detail, right here. Progressive and liberal mean the same thing in political science these days. Though, I guess this makes sense, since your definition of progressive would have to be very different from liberal to make any sense.
And you have yet to specifically point out where except by replying with your personal beliefs, failing to address Paul's statements on gay rights, gun control, et al.
Obama and Biden also don't support gay marriage; are we to believe liberals are against gay marriage too? Liberals support marijuana decriminalization/legalization, especially the core left. You don't live in the real world if you don't know this, and it's actually pretty funny that you're even pretending.
And Ron Paul is a radical extremist that wants to revert back to American policies from an era that no living American citizen was alive to see. I'd rather support the progressive candidate, which sadly enough would include McCain, who at least is smart enough to see that no one sane wants to (or should) revert back to 19th century policy and politics.
Take the historical situation: parts of the country did not have segregated facilities, and parts did.
It's not as simple as saying whatever 51% believe is what happens everywhere. The Libertarians say 'if 51% - or 90% - believe in equal civil rights, let them practice that themselves, but the other 49% or 10% are free to do what they like regarding discrimination'.
The nation taking a stand against such discimination - the banning of it to ensure blacks get equal rights in all public facilities - would be impossible under libertarians.
It's always informative to get a little past the speculative and look at the real history - we had strongholds of discrimination that weren't going anywhere after a century.
The fact is, the government provided leadership both culturally and legally in ending discrimination, and now probably 98%+ of Americans agree with those changes.
That would not happen with Libertarians.
As for democracy - yes, I support democracy, but not because it's perfect and gets everything right, but because it's bette than narrow interests monopolizing power.
In our society, we temper democracy with the idea of the constitutional rights that protect one person who disagrees with the large majority in their individual rights.
That's not literally a democratic principle - the very idea of the constitution says that the majority should be told 'no' on some things - and yet it's still 'democracy'.
In short, Libertarians love the sort of debate you raise, yet IMO, it's not useful and it ignores the real situation. Those ideals were in power for the century after slavery ended and they failed to meet the standard of justice on their own. Remember, the advocates for segregation rarely argued for it directly, but rather tended to argue for 'states' rights', which sounds so much more respectable and principled than 'keep those blacks away from us while we eat dinner'.
That's what Libertarianism is all about, fantasy politics ignoring the real world and causing great harms and injustices in the defense of their ideology.
To a libertarian, the 'right' of the property owner to usehs property hw he wants outweighs the right of the black customer to get equal treatment in society. Most disagree with that.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,030
- 2
- 61
WTF? You don't think I can click the back button and see exactly what you wrote?
Here, let me refresh your memory...
Sounds pretty fucking clear to me. They are YOUR words, I would hope you understand the words that go from your brain to your keyboard.
WTF are you talking about? Perhaps you can point me in the direction where the Constitution gives the Federal government authority over marriages.
No they don't mean the same thing. Maybe they do in your political science book written by a social progressive, I don't know. There's certainly some similarities regarding some issues. But I shouldn't have to tell you the differences.
I have done no such thing. I have clearly stated what Paul's stance is on gay marriage, and gun control. Paul fully supports the 2nd Amendment. Paul believes that gay marriage is an issue for the states. He doesn't have to have a position other than that. He is a Congressman. Not a state governor.
I don't know. And don't care, I'm not voting for them. You are. But it sure is hypocritical of you to say Libertarians are anti-gay, while you go off and vote for Obama who doesn't support gay marriage. Is he a bigot? Are you?
And yet, they elect and praise people like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, all of which do NOT support decriminalization of marijuana.
Are you trying to save face here, or what? You're certainly not doing a good job of it. Get it through your thick skull. Out of ALL the Democrat candidates for president, only ONE supported decriminalization of marijuana. How many Republicans? Exactly the same number. One. Congrats, Democrats, you're as socially liberal as Republicans. Good grief.
I'm not surprised you think that way. But ironically, its the people you support that will revert us back even further. To the days of authoritarians and dictators, where governments manage people, instead of people managing governments.
BTW, how is that government-managed economy working out?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter