Skip to main content

View Diary: A guide to the conservative movement in one handy chart (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  not if libertarian is seen as a function (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, skrekk

    of white male privilege.  Just because some libertarians may be pro-choice, e.g., they're more like necocons or corporatists in that regard in not really giving a shit.  Just because most don't want to devote energy to ban it, doesn't mean they can be counted on to protect the gains to date.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:58:35 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, I think you can (and should) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nattiq

      be both Progressive and Libertarian.  At the purest level, Libertarianism exalts personal freedom which I hope is something everyone on Kos agrees on.  We also want a level playing field, not one where white male privilege trumps individual effort.

      Reporting from Tea Bagger occupied America

      by DrJohnB on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:11:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  a level playing field still favors the rich (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DrJohnB

        "Equal opportunity" is already soshulizm, because how else do you plan on making sure that a poor black kid from the ghetto has the same opportunities as Mitt Romney's grandkids?

        •  That sort of goes into 'life's fair or not' (0+ / 0-)

          doesn't it?

          Equally Opportunity as an umbrella concept requires a Brave New World societal order, starting from conception. You in?

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:48:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that would be the logical conclusion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hirodog
            That sort of goes into 'life's fair or not' doesn't it?

            Equally Opportunity as an umbrella concept requires a Brave New World societal order, starting from conception. You in?

            If I wouldn't want to be disadvantaged from birth, regardless of the reason, then why would I be OK with it happening to anyone else?
            •  I sort of delineate from 'not disadvantaged' and (0+ / 0-)

              'child of Mitt' but ymmv.

              I see what you did there.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 02:35:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I used Mitt's kids as an example (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DrJohnB

                of the kind of people who are going to have better lives than 99.999% of all humanity - longer, fuller, safer, cleaner, healthier, more fun, more meaningful (at least to them), more support by family, friends, and the state, more opportunity to develop and exercise one's faculties, etc. - but all for no other reason than whose kids they are.  In a just society, there can be no reason why one person is constrained to have, do, and be less than someone else.

                I would be the first to concede that "natural inequality" exists, but I won't call it just ... and I don't believe for a moment that all inequality is natural.

                •  So, naturally, there are not dominant males (0+ / 0-)

                  in a herd of elk, for instance?

                  I think there will always be Mitts. Question is whether the other side are destitute, or can always find a job, housing, and healthcare.

                  I see what you did there.

                  by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:28:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  humans are not elk (0+ / 0-)

                    What animals with no self-awareness or capacity for intentional action do is irrelevant.

                    We should not have to live under Mitts.  To me, it's more than a question of poverty.  It's a question of whose world do we live in and for whose purposes do we live in it: ours or someone else's?

                    In the old days, aristocrats could be poor too, but you still had to bow to them. You had no rights which they were bound to respect, while they were owed your respect and deference, and pretty much any life but that of a peasant was simply not an option for you.  Even if you had money, you could not display it, lest you be seen as aping the trappings of aristocracy.  The rise of classical liberalism during the late 18th and early 19th Centuries boiled down to the desire of wealthy commoners to ascend into the ruling class and enjoy the power and perks of status that they felt was their due, and by and large they succeeded.

                    But just as we abolished the de jure privileges of birth, now we must abolish the de facto privileges of wealth.

                •  Hell Mitt's horses live better than most people! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Visceral

                  Reporting from Tea Bagger occupied America

                  by DrJohnB on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:01:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  In point of fact, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Visceral

          yes, this is what socialism is all about, equality of opportunity on steroids.  It is a shame that traditional liberals only focus on formal legal equality of opportunity. They fail to recognize that running a race with the same rules for all where one persons starting line is 30 yards behind the rest of the contestants is not equality of opportunity!

          Or to quote Lyndon Johnson, "It is really discouraging to meet people who were born on third base who think that they hit a triple."

          Reporting from Tea Bagger occupied America

          by DrJohnB on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:00:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You don't seem to know actual libertarians. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Simplify, Jahiegel

      I was active with the Libertarian Party for a long time (but you can only do politics for so long before burning out, especially if you don't get "actually winning elections" as a reward.)  

      I asked Ron Paul how he justified his anti-immigrant position; he gave some odd answer about controlling your own property that implied that the US government owns the country's property so it can decide.  Most Libertarians are strongly pro-immigration, and think that governments don't have the right to tell anybody where they can or can't live, even the ones who aren't anarchists.  It's not quite as strong a majority as the belief in drug legalization or opposition to a military draft, but it's pretty close. The last few years we've had a bunch of Republican types moving into the party who don't like immigrants or want to stop immigration until we get rid of the welfare state.

      The Libertarian Party has a fairly strong majority pro-choice position on abortion.  There's a minority anti-abortion faction, because there are libertarians who think that fetuses are human and deserve to have their rights protected, and before you let your knee start jerking too much, I should remind you that the woman who founded Libertarians For Life was a Jewish atheist who'd been in the Ayn Rand movement.  (Many of the LFL people were Christian, about half women, and most of us were from the anarchist side of the party rather than the minarchist side, so it's not too clear what to DO about abortion other than acknowledging that it's murder.  As a man I generally stay out of abortion arguments because men who oppose abortion are presumed to be patriarchists.)  Dr. Paul wasn't involved with LFL, but he got a lot of slack about being anti-abortion because he's an ob-gyn.

      •  i know more libertarians than is necessary (0+ / 0-)

        to maintain a high quality of life, from my time being educated in Hyde Park Chicago.

        and while I don't disagree with the take on immigration (the Libertarians are closer to corporate cons in that regard), my point about abortion wasn't that they're necessarily anti-choice, it's that their pro-choice views are unreliable or frequently subordinated to economic concerns.  Saying the government doesn't have the right to tell doctors how to make money is fairly close to the spirit of Roe v. Wade, but also misses the point.

        Men (and women) who oppose abortion are accused of being patriarchists mainly because they are.  

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:47:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just need to point this out on this thread. (0+ / 0-)

        Libertarianism is the idea that people's personal lives are not the gov't's business. Most liberals are libertarians.

        But with a capital L (big difference!), Libertarianism is the idea that government's purpose should be only defense, plus a very limited police force.

        Anarchism opposes all government.

        •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

          The original libertarians were libertarian socialists  dating back to France in the mid 19th century (basically anarchists.)

          Right wing libertarianism is a misnomer, since it has little or nothing to do with real liberty of the people. It's slavery of the people and liberty for the wealthy.

          Briefly, Anarchists actually advocate a highly organized society that is self-managed by the community, using direct democracy, with worker groups and community general assemblies forming federations, which extends to regional, national, and international levels, with delegates elected who are mandated and immediately recallable, with no authority other than that which is given them by the community which elects them.

          As you can see, central state government is replaced by a different form of structure, but there is in fact a structure.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:04:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site