Skip to main content

View Diary: Libertarians provided the margin for Democrats in at least nine elections (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I lived with a Libertarian for two years and they (4+ / 0-)

    can be obnoxious and crazy.  To me, Nick Gillespie and Peter Schiff are no better than Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck but we can at least thank them for steering GOP votes.

    •  I subscribed to Reason magazine 25 years ago (6+ / 0-)

      Little did I know it was the house organ of the Libertarian Party. Was only vaguely aware that a Libertarian Party even existed. All I knew was Reason had the most unreadable fonts of anything printed in the English language, before or since. That was undoubtably a Godsend as it shielded me from exposure to Teh Crazy.

      •  Font abuse (4+ / 0-)

        I worked with typography people a fair bit over the last 25 years. And if you want to have your ear talked off bring up the subject of font abuse. Everyone of them has images of puke inducing "designs".

        To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

        by ontheleftcoast on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:31:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think you can compare them to Hannity (8+ / 0-)

      Libertarians are right on civil liberties, they're right on most foreign policy issues, they're right on the war on drugs, marriage equality, separation of church and state, abortion, most corporate welfare, and a number of other issues.

      Republicans are wrong on none of these issues. Libertarians believe in refuted austrian economic theories and defend these theories like a religious zealot, but they agree with progressives on many other issues.

      Would you rather have the republicans or the libertarians as the main opposition party?

      "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

      by Johnnythebandit on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 03:39:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  *Wrong on all of these issues (6+ / 0-)

        "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

        by Johnnythebandit on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 03:39:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well let me explain what I meant, they can be (9+ / 0-)

        as obnoxious as Hannity and Beck.  Like I want to talk to them and work with them but I've known too many of them, including my old roommate, who say "I agree 60% with the Republicans and 40% with the Democrats".  Yes, they support marriage equality but they keep arguing that if you push for a constitutional amendment that it will violate religious freedom.  They're argument is "I personally support gay marriage but let the states decide" and this argument can be used for abortion.  The problem is that citizens shouldn't be voting on whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry or if women should have abortions, those are guaranteed rights.  Plus the whole religious liberty freedom argument doesn't work for me because gay people can also get married in a courtroom and be granted legal recognition of marriage.  It just comes back to the whole states rights argument that they can be huge zealots about.  They never learned their lesson from their hero Barry Goldwater.  States Rights can be good when it comes to issues like marijuana legalization, but marriage equality, women's right to choose and civil rights are not meant to be States Rights issues.  You know what I mean?  Plus Fox News allows obnoxious Libertarians like Napolitano and Stossel to spew their bull shit.  Libertarians in my view always desperately want to be friends with the Republicans but they don't want to acknowledge they have more friends on the left than the right.  They just don't like paying taxes, want a free, unregulated market and believe that Social Security and Medicare don't work.  They also love talking about ending the Federal Reserve and act like everything was grand under the Gold Standard, which it wasn't.  Plus my old roommate, who was obsessed with Libertarianism and so desperately wants to be a corporate suit actually said that "Greed is good" and there are a lot of them who agree with that.  When you start talking like Gordon Geecko, your done in my book.

        •  being anti-civil rights make them too attractive (12+ / 0-)

          to racists and militia types. For me that overcomes any good things they believe in and makes it too hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

          America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

          by cacamp on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:02:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The question is, are republicans any better? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            The party that hates "bla people," and has consistently embraced and exploited racism, homophobia, and sexism for political gain. There's definitely some stuff coming from Ron and Rand Paul that I find reprehensible, but Gary Johnson seems to be moving libertarians in the right direction on civil rights.

            "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

            by Johnnythebandit on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:31:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Understandable misconception, but still a (0+ / 0-)

            misconception. Their website (www.lp.org) states their party platform, and it's worth a read. My read is that the Libertarian Party is definitely NOT "anti-civil rights," as you assert.

            They actually appear to be pro civil rights, often to an extreme.

            Please don't hesitate to call me on this -- I'd welcome the correction if I'm mistaken.

            I maintain that the "libertarianism" expressed by racists and militia types is actually "sham libertarianism."

            My take is that Johnnythebandit's assessment is fairly accurate, which makes the party attractive to many young thinking people, the types who would typically be horrified by the Republicans' insanity regarding social issues.

            "...pero mi corazón me aconseja, que los nacionalismos - ¡qué miedo me dan!" - Enrique Bunbury (El Extranjero)

            by JustGiaco on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:05:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What about the libertarianism (7+ / 0-)

              of Rand Paul and the Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964? Both of them expressed the view that businessmen have the right to choose to serve or not serve whomever they like, and therefore, that any civil rights law regulating their conduct is wrong. Restricting civil rights laws to those regulating government conduct only amounts to an anti-civil rights position, in the real world.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 01:38:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's the real problem with libertarianism (4+ / 0-)

                Their rhetoric expouses a pro-civil rights agenda insofar as it supports treating everyone equally.  The problem, though, is that whether those policies actually produce the desired outcome is of completely secondary importance to libertarians.  Rather, what is important to libertarians is how intellectually satisfying and consistent the policy is.

                Personally, I don't care if libertarians are "right" on civil rights or foreign policy.  The extent they are is purely coincidental.  Anyone who cares more about being intellectually consistent, and being able to apply a small set of principles uniformly, regardless of the outcome, is a monster, plain and simple.

                To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

                by sneakers563 on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:19:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Monster is a little strong (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JustGiaco

                  I'd just say that they may have good intentions, but their refusal to bend their principles means they can pave several roads to Hell without really looking back.

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:07:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I see where you're coming from (0+ / 0-)

                    Sorry it's too late for me to rec you.

                    I once saw a lecture, "Monstrous Geographies" or something, where they said that the original meaning of "monster" was a creature where one trait is exaggerated to the detriment of all else. It was in that sense that I used it.

                    For instance, we all value people who "follow their principles", and want to live in a world guided by just principles.  I think most of us temper that, though, depending on the situation, because we recognize that you can't just expect a simple set of basic principles to account for all the vast complexity of reality.  Principles should be a map, not a straightjacket.  Unfortunately, what I often see in libertarians is a tendency to believe that because the principle is "good", any outcome produced by the application of the principle must also, therefore, be "good", or at least acceptable.    

                    Obviously, the modern meaning has a more sinister connotation, so you're right that it's a bit strong.  I don't think they have ill intentions.  I do think, though, that they elevate principle to such a degree that they lose sight of why we value principles in the first place: to help us arrive at a desirable outcome.  We need to understand that "good" principles can lead to bad outcomes.

                    To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

                    by sneakers563 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 08:54:38 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Here's an area where I disagree with (0+ / 0-)

                progressive politics. What's wrong with allowing businesses to choose who they serve?  If enough people disagree with a business owner's policies, he/she will have no recourse other than to serve people he/she doesn't want to serve or risk going out of business.  Creating a law that forces him/her to serve people does make him/her want to do it.  All it does is make the business owner hate his/her country.

                Let's face it.  Different races do not want to live together.  If they did, we wouldn't have overwhelmingly black middle class counties like Prince Georges County, Maryland or overwhelmingly white counties like Carroll County, Maryland.

                The truly crazy thing about progressive politics is that P.G. County gets a pass while Carroll County gets persecuted. It's okay for middle class black Americans to live in a middle class black enclave because they are only exercising racial affinity.  However, when middle class white people do the same thing, they are written off as racists.  That's just plain stupid.  All it creates is resentment.

                •  That's never how things worked (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  IowaLibert, JustGiaco

                  Segregation was not about the free market. White businessmen who wanted to serve blacks were often effectively denied the right to, either by law, by violence or threats from the KKK or some good old boys who reminded the owner they had guns they could bring next time, or through social pressure or boycotts by white racists.

                  I'm trying not to be inordinately angry at your post, but are you sure you've studied enough of the history of the two periods of violently resisted civil rights movements (Reconstruction and about 100 years after that)?

                  Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                  by MichaelNY on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:20:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  both sham libertarians! (0+ / 0-)

                But I like your comments, MichaelNY, keep 'em coming.

                I live in a red part of PA right now, so I have to keep a low profile -- can't have too many political discussions out loud -- they all have guns and I don't.

                "...pero mi corazón me aconseja, que los nacionalismos - ¡qué miedo me dan!" - Enrique Bunbury (El Extranjero)

                by JustGiaco on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  It's important to distinguish btw states rights (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, Sparhawk

          and "states rights." One form of states rights is based on criticizing the overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause by Supreme Court liberals. This is perfectly rational and something I generally agree with. The other form of states rights is based on ignoring the 14th amendment so states can pass discriminatory laws. This is clearly wrong.

          I wouldn't say all libertarians agree with the second form of states rights, but even if they did I'd say it's far better than the GOP support for a federal marriage amendment.

          "Poor man wanna be rich, Rich man wanna be King, and the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything." Bruce Springsteen.

          by Johnnythebandit on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:38:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, but too many of them agree with (0+ / 0-)

            the first kind, and while you have a point about the Commerce Clause - it would have been more elegant if a constitutional amendment had been passed than simply new precedents during the New Deal - "states' rights" historically has meant slavery and Jim Crow/segregation. Plus, my point of view is that while states have powers, only individuals have rights. It's a bit too simplistic, as associations of individuals clearly have rights, but I really reject the notion that there's any inherent right of a state, whereas there are constitutional powers reserved for states. And taking away the notion of states having rights puts the discussion in a different perspective, which amounts to this: How much power should be reserved for states, as opposed to individuals or the Federal government?

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 11:34:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  There are types of Libertarians (5+ / 0-)

          the "intellectual" conservative but socially liberal types who really hate fundies, the Southern militia confederate and crazy religious types, and younger Dem-leaners who hate the drug war/foreign wars to name a few.

      •  Those are the doctrinaire Libertarians (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, shenderson

        There are an awful lot of what I call glibertarians, who only have one or two true libertarian positions, usually pot and economics, and very RW authoritarian positions on things like abortion or gay marriage.

        Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

        by milkbone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:32:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site