Skip to main content

It's becoming increasingly clear that being called a Republican is more than some people can take. Even for the registered Republicans.

So now many of Bush's former vocal cheerleaders have decided they're not really Republicans. The Party nowadays doesn't speak for them. No, they'll tell you, they're actually Libertarians. World of difference, they'll say. Libertarians are nothing like Republicans.

Don't tell Ronald Reagan that! More, below the fold...

In 1975, Raygun gave an interview for 'Reason' magazine. Here it is, but the important part was the opening exchange...

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

If the Republican Party had since split with the Reaganesque way of doing things, your Republican friend might be able to get away with their weaselly description of their stance. But the primaries dispel any idea of that happening. Fred Thompson wistfuly talking about "the Reagan revolution, the Reagan coalition of limited government and stronger national security", Mike Huckabee staying "faithful to the things Ronald Reagan stayed faithful to".

But let's give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue. After all, we don't profess to know what goes on in someone else's mind...

In the car trade, this kind of thing is called "badge engineering". Taking a Ford Fiesta...

 title=

...and calling it a Mazda 121...

 title=

...does not make it a new car. But if Reagan was the epitome of everything they hold dear, and he says being a Libertarian and being a conservative Republican is the same thing, then that should be more than good enough for... what do you think? Half the Republicans?

So they should have no problem in voting for Bob Barr in November. Ronald Reagan said so.

 title=

You might want to get them a bumper sticker or two, just to seal the deal!

Originally posted to ShawnGBR on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:52 PM PDT.

Poll

Would you send $5 to Barr?

30%23 votes
8%6 votes
4%3 votes
57%43 votes

| 75 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip-jar. Many thanks. (14+ / 0-)

    The nation can be made to produce a far higher standard of living for the masses of the people if only government is intelligent and energetic... (FDR, '37)

    by ShawnGBR on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:53:09 PM PDT

  •  If they are calling themselves libertarians (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hannibal, fizziks

    We don't want them!

    There is a world of difference between the crony capitialism and interventionist foreign policy of the "conservatives" (some one please tell me what they are conserving) and a real classical liberal/libertarian.

    Results count for more than intentions do.

    by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM PDT

  •  Funny you should mention (7+ / 0-)

    because both my husband, son and daughter-in-law have all become Libertarians.  Actually, I have to say that my husband for the first time in his life, changed to Democrat and voted for Obama in the primary.  He is now waffling back to being a "Libertarian" but I think I can get him back to being an Obamacan because I'm a volunteer with Obama's campaign here in Georgia and he is getting inundated daily with all my Obama stuff, meetings here at the house, etc.

    As far as I'm concerned Republicans "should" be embarassed!

    •  Libertarians Can Vote for Obama Too (6+ / 0-)

      Libertarian has been the only political party I have ever registered for.  Since I was 19.   I have been an Obama support for about 8 months now.  Prior to that I was a supporter of Ron Paul.  

      That being said, my beliefs lean far to the left.  I shop at an organic food co-op and have veggies delivered by a farm co-op I am a member of.  I already put a deposit on a PHEV Aptera.  I ride my bike to work.  I recycle.  I save.   I believe in gay marriage.  I reject consumerism. Since I could vote, I have never voted for a republican president.  But please don't call me a Democrat.  Just because I have an L next to my name, does not mean I lean to the right on most issues.

      I have donated several hundred dollars to Obama this year.  I have an Obama 08 sign in my window that fronts to a busy street.  My girlfriend bought me an "Obama gonna knock you out" pint glass.  I have an Obama t-shirt on its way.  

      The point I am trying to make is that despite what you think about Libertarians, many are not nearly as conservative as you think.  

  •  LOL (7+ / 0-)

    if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.

    Boy, he was senile. The Corporatists of today would have been the Tories of 1776. More Up-is-downism. They don't believe in Liberty, except for freedom from paying their fair share for the privileged.

    Find me if you can..

    by Karl Rover on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM PDT

  •  Well, no (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hannibal

    But I know a confused Democrat who's suddenly a Ron Paul fan.  Oh well, maybe it's because he's old, or something.


    ... and the little plastic castle
    is a surprise every time...

    by Page van der Linden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:10:47 PM PDT

  •  Libertartian is another word for corporatist (4+ / 0-)

    Freedom for all! We especially and particularly demand freedom for enormous, immortal, immoral, multinational, paper "people" who by chance happen to have countless billions of dollars.

    How convenient to sell this swindle under the banner of "liberty".

    •  Bull Shirt!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mary2002

      I'm betting you don't know any real libertarians.

      We are the exact opposite of the crony capitalism and favoritism you are complaining about.

      See my comment above or any of my diaries (except today's which was bit silly).

      Results count for more than intentions do.

      by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:19:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  my dad calls himself a libertarian (4+ / 0-)

    but he is more a right-wing Republican. I am hoping to convince him to vote for Barr.

    Hope is passion for what is possible. -- Soren Kierkegaard

    by lauramp on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM PDT

  •  Didn't Bowtie boy Tucker Carlson say he (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sharman, VA Classical Liberal

    was a (insert cliche "small L") libertarian. I suspect it is going to be like Germany in after WWII, you may not able to find many people who say they are Republicans. Watch for Rush, Sean, Hugh, Glenn, act all of a sudden to be devotees to Harry Hazlitt, Ayn Rand and others.

    America, They were yours, Honor Them, Do Not forget them-IGTNT.

    by Mr Stagger Lee on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:15:23 PM PDT

  •  Yes, the Mazda 121 (0+ / 0-)

    is definitely the far superior vehicle.

    Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest... Gibbon

    by Dinclusin on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:15:48 PM PDT

  •  Libertarian = (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Snud

    person who hasn't spent a whole lot of time thinking.

    Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest... Gibbon

    by Dinclusin on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:16:56 PM PDT

    •  You need to back this up, not just assert. (0+ / 0-)

      Because as a Classical Liberal/Libertarian I can assure you I've spent a whole lot of time thinking about these issues.

      How many libertarians have you actually known?

      Results count for more than intentions do.

      by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:22:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you one of the privitize the police type (0+ / 0-)

        Libertarains? One of those who thinks that private charity is better than social security and disability? One who disdains any collective action?

        "Yes we can!" Barack Obama "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" John McCain

        by UndercoverRxer on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:35:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, Yes, No. (0+ / 0-)

          I certainly don't want to privitize the police.  The use of force is one of the core, legitamate functions of government.  "Privitizing" the police would leave us with a Yukuza style force-against-force system that would be a disaster.

          OTOH, Social Security has a lot of problems.  I.E. It lacks property rights, so you could work your whole life and die one day short of retirement.  In that case your children get nothing!  Is that fair?

          Finally, collective action has its place.  Just not as widely as the left and the right think it does.

          Results count for more than intentions do.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:44:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What are your thoughts on the results of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            green minute

            the massive deregulation proposed by the libertarians?  

            On social issues I generally agree with the libertarians.  On economic issues, I simply can't see why they have so much faith in the market to regulate itself ethically and so much faith in corporations to act ethically and in the greater interest of society.

            They have proven time and time again that they will cheerfully inflict great suffering and hardship on others in order to increase their bottom line.  If we remove the few (and deteriorating) regulations we have, it can only get worse.

            Do I have it all wrong?

            •  On Economic Issuse, we don't trust corporations (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Heiuan, m4gill4

              at all!

              That's why we want a truely free market (which we don't have) to keep them in line.

              In a comment thread the other day someone said "Halliburton IS Capitalism."

              I replied:

              Halliburton IS NOT Capitalism!

              They electrocute their customers and deliver sewage labled as drinking water.  How long would they last if it wasn't for no-bid contracts and a former chariman with his hand up Bush's back, moving his jaw?

              Halliburton and Blackwater and the rest only exist because they can exploit their government connections to get around the free market, not because of the free market.

              If Halliburton wasn't politically connect, their biggest choice might be Chapter 11 or 13.

              Results count for more than intentions do.

              by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That may be, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AnnCetera, Alec82

                but I don't see how Libertarian proposals would change any of that.  The way I see it (which you may feel free to correct), abolishing many taxes and regulations would only make it easier for (for example) Halliburton to get even more powerful, while doing nothing to blunt their ability to influence congressional and executive politics.

                Also, what about problems with monopolies and price-fixing?  Currently it is only government regulation which prevents corporations from engaging in these practices.

                Without regulation, what is to stop powerful corporations from dominating every aspect of society?  What about labor standards and child labor laws?

                I just worry about unfettered corporations after having read a great deal about the early labor movement.  They really treated workers like crap back then, and if they tried to stand up for themselves, in came the strike breakers to kick some worker ass.  Under Libertarian rule, what would prevent this?

                •  That's been my problem... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...with, ahem, the popular American version of libertarianism for some time.  

                  Part of the problem is that libertarianism is rather idealistic and frankly absolutist, but politics is incremental and piecemeal.  

                  That, and they seem as attached to equilibrium points on microeconomics graphs as my professors did.

                •  Politics is the problem. (0+ / 0-)

                  The first thing a Libertarian would say is, "Don't pile 3 trillion dollars in one city and then yell 'Come and get it!'".

                  It is naive to think we can have a $3T federal government and not have companies lobbying to get a slice of it.  That's how Blackwater and Halliburton live, by sucking the "rent seeking" that $3T budget enables.

                  As for treating workers like crap, that only happened when there was no where else for the workers to go.  Company towns and company stores prevented workers for leaving, because there was no where else to go.

                  I'm involved in rural economic re-development in the US.  One of the biggest things I try to get across is that towns don't want a single big employeer.  That just invites the kind of abuse you describe.

                  Instead they should create an environment that attracts many small and medium buisnesses.  That way there is no one player who can dominate the market.

                  Results count for more than intentions do.

                  by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:42:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That works on a smaller scale... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...but the national and large regional corporations are unweildy at the state and federal levels of government.  The problem as I see it is that some policies favored by libertarians will exacerbate the problems at the federal level.

                    And while I am a proponent of free and fair trade, I've never been sold on arguments that we shouldn't use it as leverage...for our sake as well as the sake of workers in developing economies.

                  •  OK that makes some sense, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VA Classical Liberal

                    But I'm still skeptical about what our hypothetical rural town could do in order to "create an environment that attracts many small and medium sized businesses" as you say.

                    As I understand it (poorly), under a libertarian system, the local government could not raise taxes or regulations which could encourage or discourage any business from settling down there.  What mechanism would the town have to decide who can do business there and who can't?  I thought Libertarians were fundamentally opposed to government intervention in the market?

                    Anyway, you don't have to sit here and respond to my badgering questions all day, I doubt either of us will be converting anytime soon, but I always enjoy becoming more informed, even about views I do not myself hold.  I really love exactly half of Libertarianism (the social issues and foreign policy half) but I'm really skeptical about the deregulation aspect of it, as currently I have some (very indirect) power of oversight over corporations (through my representatives who in turn have oversight over the SEC and FAA etc..) but under a libertarian system that would disappear, and one might argue that that would make society just a little bit less democratic.

                    Again, if you don't have the energy to continue to respond to my badgering inquiries, I won't blame you and I promise not to smugly declare victory ;) against Libertarianism.  I'm just killing time at work :P

                    •  Kids just called me for dinner. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Heiuan

                      So no, I can't sit here and respond to your questions all day.

                      But this has been a good exchange.  As usual, I wish we were face to face.  

                      Especially after this week, when 3/4s of the diaries where about troll hunting or how some whiner gave a donut (or got a donut) for disagreeing with someone else.

                      Results count for more than intentions do.

                      by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:24:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  nope, that's exactly it n/t :) (0+ / 0-)

              "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

              by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You wrote.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ShawnGBR, Alec82

            "OTOH, Social Security has a lot of problems.  I.E. It lacks property rights, so you could work your whole life and die one day short of retirement.  In that case your children get nothing!  Is that fair?"

            That happened with both of my parents; neither lived to see retirement.

            Do I consider it fair?  Yes.  Social security is not a savings account.  What my parents paid into social security already has gone to pay others; and that's the way it's designed to work.

            It has its problems, and needs some adjustments, but social security is designed to keep most seniors from dire poverty and homelessness.  For millions and millions of seniors, that's exactly what it does.

            "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker

            by AnnCetera on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:35:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Look forward to the next generation (0+ / 0-)

              Inherited wealth is one of the most powerful ways we have to lift disadvantadge groups out of poverty.  If parents can save and give their children a boast, they can beat the generational poverty trap.

              Social Security prevents that.

              For most people, Social Security takes 15 cents out of every dollar they earn, with no way to pass that money on to their children.  For most people, there is no way they can support that burden and save a nest egg for their own retirement, let alone save something for their children.

              I know lots of retirees depend on Social Security and we can't cut them off.  But we do need to move to a system that is fair to the past, current and future generations.

              Results count for more than intentions do.

              by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:48:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  VACL proves my "end of the nose" parabole (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ShawnGBR

                What makes you think that each and every kid in this country has parents to provide inheritance??

                This is the most poignant issue I have with repubs, and variations- they only see as far as the end of their noses. They are unable to think in larger terms, embracing the whole society and its workings. They think of themselves and only their business. They want to be different, better than others, even if it means having other people starve or die.
                Republicans should hail to Darwin each and every single day.

                "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

                by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:53:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This dicussion needs more than comments (0+ / 0-)

                  We're jumping all over the place here as we find each other's comments.  I've been planning a diary on this topic.  Watch for it in the next few days.

                  Briefly, I don't think every kid in the world has parent who can provide an inheritance.  But what is wrong with allowing those parents who are there to save for their kids?  If you want to take away $.15 of every dollar they earn, you are making it much harder for them.

                  BTW, I do hail Darwin as one of the most original and influential thinkers of all time.  But remember, he also described symbiosis and cooperation.  Not just "Nature red in tooth and claw".

                  Results count for more than intentions do.

                  by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:10:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Just a note in an otherwise (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ShawnGBR

                    excellent discussion: the employee portion of Social Security/Medicare is 7.5%.  The employer matches that percentage, which is where you get the 15% figure.  But, the employee doesn't pay the full 15%.

                    The apocalypse will require substantial revision of all zoning ordinances. - Zashvill Political compass -7.88 -7.03.

                    by Heiuan on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:58:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And where would that 7.5% go? (0+ / 0-)

                      If it wasn't for payroll taxes?  Either the employee would demand it as part of his wage or the employer would keep it as profit.

                      Either way, it would still be in the economy and still driving more business.

                      Results count for more than intentions do.

                      by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:27:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Valid points (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        VA Classical Liberal

                        However, I was merely addressing the total tax split, not the issues themselves.

                        I've been enjoying this debate very much.  Thanks for your efforts.  I've bookmarked this diary so that my husband, who is leaning towards what appears to be your brand of libertarianism, can read it later.

                        The apocalypse will require substantial revision of all zoning ordinances. - Zashvill Political compass -7.88 -7.03.

                        by Heiuan on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:00:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  As the child of an aged parent (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm grateful that he has medicare and social security to allow him to live well in his old age, and not be dependent on me.  So yeah, I am reaping the benefits of the system well before I retire

              •  Insurance (0+ / 0-)

                that's how it works.  You pay in for the insurance, you don't always beat the odds.

      •  Libertarianism is nice... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but if you go after my public radio, there will be trouble ;)

        •  There's a hard choice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          m4gill4

          This particular libertarian also listens to NPR.  I'm an All Things Considered junkie.

          But I also donate and if it wasn't partially publicly funded, I'd up my donations.  That's kind of the point of being a libertarian.  I won't force you to pay for what I like, as long as you don't force me to pay for your stuff.

          Results count for more than intentions do.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Libertarian Credo (0+ / 0-)

    I've got mine, FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "Yes we can!" Barack Obama "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" John McCain

    by UndercoverRxer on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM PDT

    •  Bull Shirt Redux! (0+ / 0-)

      The Libertarian Credo is "We're pro-choice.  In everything."

      We trust people to make their own decisions.  We understand the problems of Public Choice Theory.  And we trust that local governments will make better decisions than a bureaucracy 2,500 miles away.

      How is that "FUCK YOU!!!!!!" to anyone?

      Results count for more than intentions do.

      by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:37:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, In my experiance (0+ / 0-)

        when I push "Libertarians" rhetorically, it often (usually actually) ends up with the person being someone who doesn't think that they benefit from things like public schools, hospitals, roads etc...basically trapped in an adolescent fantasy of being some sort of Jeremiah Johnson in the woods. They want to have all these freedoms, but don't think they are responsible for anything...until they say get in a car wreck and want the ambulance and hospital to take care of them with competantly trained health workers and to have their long term care paid for.

        "Yes we can!" Barack Obama "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" John McCain

        by UndercoverRxer on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:56:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're talking to posers not libertarians. (0+ / 0-)

          Look at serious libertarians like the Cato Institute or the Future of Freedom Foundation.  There is a lot there that progressives will embrace.  

          Please look here and here.  This is what real libertarians believe.

          Results count for more than intentions do.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see those groups as posers as well. (0+ / 0-)

            The truth is that markets are never "free", there is too much to be gained by gaming them for them to ever efficiently distribute goods. I see these groups as heartless to everyone who isn't as clever as they like to picture themselves. Cato ALWAYS falls in line with the GOP and the rich.

            "Yes we can!" Barack Obama "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" John McCain

            by UndercoverRxer on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:17:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  CATO has filed... (0+ / 0-)

              ...many amicus briefs with courts opposing the Bush administration and socially conservative policies, at least.  But their emphasis does appear to be on free marketeer ideology.

            •  Cato DOES NOT always fall in line with the GOP (0+ / 0-)

              I first got interested in Cato when they co-sponsored a forum with the ACLU.  It was protesting Bush's anti-constitutional power grab and  unitary executive theory.

              They also are opposed to the Iraq War, corporate bail-outs for investment firms, proping up Fannie and Freddie and lots of other things that would win them much Mojo here.

              Results count for more than intentions do.

              by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:52:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And against national health care (0+ / 0-)

                and for insurance companies, and PhRMA, etc etc etc which would get lots of negative mojo here.

                "Yes we can!" Barack Obama "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" John McCain

                by UndercoverRxer on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:20:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But have you looked at their reasons for (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Heiuan

                  opposing these things?

                  You might not agree with them, but they are consistent and coherent.  That alone makes them worth at least listening to.

                  You might not be convinced, but you'll see how the other side thinks.

                  Results count for more than intentions do.

                  by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, I hear it constantly from another faculty (0+ / 0-)

                    economist, and the more I hear it, while consistent, increasingly I find it a morally bankrupt Ayn Randish philosophy. It's all mental gymnastics by those who already have money and see those less clever or priviliged than them as theoretic pawns.

                    "Yes we can!" Barack Obama "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" John McCain

                    by UndercoverRxer on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:51:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Libertarianism is cheap talk. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    Under a "Libertarian" government, nothing would prevent the rich from driving every domestic program and foreign policy, and dominating every desirable social niche.

    President Pickens would love it, but the rest of us wouldn't recognize what's left as anything resembling the USA.

    "You can't negotiate with reality" - James Kunstler

    by Bob Love on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:36:53 PM PDT

    •  What exactly do you think a libertarian (0+ / 0-)

      government would represent?

      What policies would it promote?  What is a libertarian foreign policy?

      I'd bet it isn't what you think it is.

      Results count for more than intentions do.

      by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Libertarians are all over the map (0+ / 0-)

        on every issue, so there's no sense trying to be specific. But they clearly want minimal government, which means that most of the current functions of government, especially regulation, would be performed by private business, which would then collude with the entities it was regulating to maximize both.

        Without regulating lobbying, K Street would vastly increase its already huge influence. Without government regulation of energy industries, pollution would soar. Without government prevention, monopolies would develop in most industries. Without government regulation of copyrights, intellectual piracy would be the norm. Without regulating arms sales, arms merchants would buy whatever foreign policy would best promote sales. And so on.

        But of course most Libertarians always add some sort of caveat: "Well, there'd be some restraints ..." At which point they become Lesser Libertarians, or not Libertarians at all.

        "You can't negotiate with reality" - James Kunstler

        by Bob Love on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Libers oppose K St. (0+ / 0-)

          and want to eliminate the conditions which give K St. its influence.

          Businesses only collude when its to their individual advantage to do so.  That usually means government has intervened to prevent new competitors from coming into the market.  Usually that means a classica "bootleggers and baptists" coalition.

          Re: restraints, Libers say "Let government set the rules of the game and enforce those rules.  But never let government pick the winners."  Big difference between that and "Well, there'd be some restraints."

          Results count for more than intentions do.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:58:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Look out (true) Libertarians! (5+ / 0-)

    The VAST majority of Republicans and Republican-leaners in this country are simply Ignorant Reptilian-Brain Authoritarians.  Now that even their pea brains can sense that this country has been destroyed by Republican rule, some of them are jumping ship and considering themselves "Libertarians"

    True Libertarianism is a coherent political philosophy with much to add to real discourse.  These former Republicans are an anethema to that - they have nothing coherent and nothing to add, other than their own knee-jerk stupidity and ridiculous hang-ups and doublethink.  I predict that they will take over and then destroy the "Libertarian" brand just as they have done the "Republican" and "Conservative" ones.

    True Libertarians... if you are out there, defend your philosophy!  When a "former Republican" tries to be one of you, ask if they supported the Iraq war from the start, and if they support the elimination of Habeas corpus and the war on drugs.  If the answer is no to all of those, then maybe someone has seen the light.  However, if the answer is yes to any of those, then they are an Ignorant Reptilian-Brain Authoritarian,  not a Libertarian, and you had better tell them what an awful person they are, and tell them they are not welcome in your tent.

    It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the good half of the country virulently against him.

    by fizziks on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:43:10 PM PDT

    •  Help me out Fizziks (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shaniriver, Heiuan

      I'm trying to keep up with the misconceptions the commentors here are throwing out.  But I can't type fast enough.

      Results count for more than intentions do.

      by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:46:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  well put n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

      by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:47:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I meant this to fizziks (0+ / 0-)

        IMO Libertarians are plain anarchists. Or you can even say cowboys.

        Once someone asked me to imagine what it's like to be a repug, and I did, but it lasted just a minute. I hit against a wall immediately- I couldn't see anything beyond the end of my nose. Not even the happy sunset I was going to drive into on my horse.
        I don't recommend this experience to anyone. Don't try this at home.

        "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

        by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What was wrong with cowboys? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marja E

          Are you talking about Hollywood cowboys or real cowboys?

          Real cowboys form organizations to protect their cattle, created workable social systems and co-oporated with the plains indians for their mutual benefit.  Not exactly the image Bush tries to present.

          Results count for more than intentions do.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  more of a combination (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fizziks, VA Classical Liberal

            of the Hollywood cowboy and today's redneck. That's a perfect image for a rethug, don't ya think?
            Uneducated, dumb, and crony.

            "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

            by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:01:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree but... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Heiuan, fizziks, Alec82, Marja E

              That's not libertarianism!

              I'm typing my fingers off on this thread trying to make that point.

              Libertarians have a lot to offer the progressive movement (and vica versae) and make up 10 to 15% of the electorate.

              The Rethugs are trying to claim our name because they have damaged their brand so badly.  And they just might succeed.

              But that doesn't make them libertarians.

              Results count for more than intentions do.

              by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:16:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe. (0+ / 0-)

                But I think your cause is lost on us.
                Tell you why. Anybody who is against "state", is not progressive.
                Progressive philosophy wants to build a modern, sustainable, interlocking and interweaving society, to promote and uphold the ideals the US constitution is based on. It is dedicated to creating a sustainable environment for not only the local/national population but also one that peacefully interacts with the outside world, by not only taking from it but also contributing in free exchange of ideas and products.
                I believe the word "liberal" is much outdated and falsely portrays progressives as social loonies from the Cold War era.
                Progressivism is a fresh, brand new version of the old liberalism. It does build on it, but goes into different new directions.
                I recommend "Cradle to Cradle" by William McDonough who explains how we can build the new world.
                It is basically new politics, evolving right on our eyes, as we speak, and it is not completely crystallized.
                So attaching new labels such as liberatrianism, obstructs the new pathways of philosophical development.
                It's not gonna work.

                "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

                by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:24:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Libertarians are potential allies in this (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VA Classical Liberal, Alec82

                  Facing a choice between a strong progressivism which vociferously advocates individual freedom but also contains many of those collective governmental solutions... and a conservatism that may contain some elements of 'free market' economics but rejects individual freedom and supports imperialist foreign policy... many Libertarians will vote for us progressives!  Since they are 10% to 15% of the electorate, that is the balance of power right there.

                  I once heard a funny line by a Libertarian:  "Here in the 21st century both major parties want to force us back to 1950.  Republicans want to make us live there, and Democrats want to make us work there."  I think that sums up the position of some true Libertarians, and like I said, they are our natural political allies on many issues.

                  It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the good half of the country virulently against him.

                  by fizziks on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

                    And we can work with them, but there are many issues where cooperation will simply be impossible.  It is a situation similar to what we face with appeasing the far left.

                    •  huh? appeasing the far left? (0+ / 0-)

                      Define the far left please?

                      As the discussion progresses, we are finding that we are needing firm definitions of all the "labels".
                      To progress, we need to stop and define what each really means.
                      Is it even possible?

                      "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

                      by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:48:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes if you're looking for votes (0+ / 0-)

                    I am looking to build the new philosophy, and I shy away from borrowing from any existing ones.
                    So the two are two different discourses.
                    And of course, the current Blue Dog Democrats are totally different piece of the pie. They can go to the 50's and work and live there, as far as I am concerned. :)

                    "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

                    by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:46:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why not borrow from existing ones? (0+ / 0-)

                      Unless you think you have more wisedom and experience than 3,500 years of political philosophy.

                      You'd be a fool to throw out David Hume and John Locke.  Jefferson, Madison and Franklin.  Even Hamilton to some extent.

                      These were very insightful thinkers whose ideas have been tested by time.  You shy away from them at your own risk.

                      Results count for more than intentions do.

                      by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:14:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Goals vs. Methods. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Marja E

                  I agree with every goal you describe above.  But I don't think collectivist, state oriented methods will get us there.

                  You complain about that liberal "falsely portrays progressives as social loonies from the Cold War era", but 100 years ago (and today, in the rest of the world) liberal means something else.  It means trusting people to decide for themselves what is best for them and limiting governments ability to cause mischive.

                  Results count for more than intentions do.

                  by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:56:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  no, you're wrong (0+ / 0-)

                    There is a difference between liberal and libertarian.
                    I've already pointed it out in my other post.
                    You are describing a libertarian. A liberal is much on the socialist side. Most progressives are liberals, not libertarians.

                    As to the subject of the role of state or government- in our constantly changing, evolving world, there is no escaping the state. It is necessary to exist to curb, curtail, and keep up the laws.
                    There are too many people to freely do whatever they deem fit. There are too many different decisions, opinions, views, intentions, etc.
                    And as a mass, it is prone to larger mischief than any government can. You can't trust neither one. But both need to exist to check and balance each other out- this is why political education and involvement is so important, and this is what Obama is accomplishing.

                    "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

                    by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:02:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  HAH! Reagan a libertarian??????!!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary2002

    Even self-described...what an ass.

    The Republican party likes to describe itself as libertarians, and put self-described small l libertarian Republicans in charge of regulatory agencies, but keep them out of the courts, by all means!

    To a certain degree all labels are misleading (I describe myself as a liberal, and I supported intervention in Afghanistan), but libertarianism takes the cake.  As I've said before, when Chomsky and Ron Paul (and apparently, Ronald Reagan) can each embrace libertarianism, you know your tent is a liiiiiiiittle too big.

    •  Or your brand is too strong (0+ / 0-)

      At least compared to the Republican brand.

      Libertarianism has a hard core of solid ideas and a coherent philosophy of government.

      That doesn't change just because a lot of jack-asses are trying to take our name.

      Results count for more than intentions do.

      by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:54:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  arent ya confusing (0+ / 0-)

        liberal and libertarian?
        Those two are quite the opposite.
        In other words, you're just one of the many jack-asses yourself.

        "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

        by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:56:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not opposites. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Heiuan

          Two different dimensions of political thought.

          Liberal and progressive describe goals of the political process (Normative thought).  Libertarianism (and it's opposite authoritarianism) are concerned with the methods of achieving those goals.

          I'm a left-leaning libertarian.  I agree with most of the goals of the progressive movement, but think liberal methods (as classically defined) will better achieve those goals.  Authoritarianism is a bad thing whether deployed by the right or left.

          Results count for more than intentions do.

          by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:28:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  At the end of the day... (0+ / 0-)

        ...libertarian is just the antonym of authoritarian.  I think that is why you have splinter groups.

        The libertarianism popular in the states is better than the authoritarianism promoted by the Republican Party, but I wouldn't call it classical liberalism either...it certainly wouldn't have been embraced by Locke.

        •  classical liberalism? (0+ / 0-)

          I am not that familiar with the precise definitions, not speaking of variotions within concepts, but I agree libertarianism has a lot to do with republicanism and authoritarianism. All three define three different elements of the same brand.

          "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

          by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:04:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Noam Chomsky.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      a libertarian? Better someone explain this "concept" to me- what exactly liberatarian means. For me it means little to nothing, just another poor rethug label.

      "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

      by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:54:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you don't know what "libertarian" means (0+ / 0-)

        then you have no business calling anyone a "jack-ass".  Congratulations on being the first comment to receive its first donut from me.

      •  No, it is not to be confused with the GOP... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VA Classical Liberal

        ...but there are various "strains" if you will of libertarianism.  The political philosophy popular in the states could easily lead a self-described libertarian to vote Democratic.  

        And Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist, I believe.  I think they have more in common with socialists than anything else, but they can lay claim to whatever title they prefer.

        •  Libertarianism- definition (0+ / 0-)

          From Wiki:

          Libertarianism is a label used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which espouse the principle of individual liberty and seek to either minimize or eliminate the state. What it means to be a libertarian in a political sense is a contentious issue, especially among libertarians themselves. Other than upholding liberty, there is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree. Libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.

          If libertarianism is an antonym of authoritarianism, then l. has little to do with "republicanism"- all the while it agrees with the limited government issue. So it must be a criss-cross of different philosophies, but I wouldn't agree it has anything in common with socialism or socialist based philosophies.

          "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

          by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:12:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VA Classical Liberal

            ...there are self-described libertarian socialists, believe it or not.  Going any further than that would require me to pull out all of my political philosophy books from undergrad, which thankfully are in storage.  

            As used in the us, it really describes fiscally moderate free market proponents who sharply disagree with social conservatism in virtually all of its forms and tend to be skeptical of government bureaucracy and, depending on the individual, large corporations.

            •  interesting (0+ / 0-)

              and I would say even self-conflicting, somewhat.
              Boy, those folks are confused! :)

              "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

              by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:26:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know how you can be (0+ / 0-)

              A libertarian and a socialist.  At the very least, a libertarian thinks people should be able to choose their own goals and values in life.

              A socialist believes the state can set goals for all people.  Green Minute is right to say these two views are incoherent.

              Results count for more than intentions do.

              by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:31:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  just admit it VACL.. (0+ / 0-)

                You want to be a full progressive, just need some time to adjust.

                I don't believe the state can set goals for all people, and I don't know if it is ever possible. The human race has proven throughout history that it cannot be bound by monarchs, states, etc. etc. You cannot bind the human spirit, innovation, progress.
                The progressive movement is all about progress, not about the state.
                I don't know if you pay attention to the way Barack Obama is conducting his "governing". He set up round table discussions all over the nation to talk about setting up the new politics. If we were pro-state, we wouldn't discuss the politics. We'd wait for Obama to define them for us.
                See how this is different from the old liberal aka socialist label?

                "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

                by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:38:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Careful GM, (0+ / 0-)

                  You're one step from becoming a classical liberal yourself.

                  You've actually got the time line backwards.  I started as a traditional liberal (what is now called a progressive).  They say you get more conservative as you get older.

                  But by the time I was suppose to become conservative, the Rethugs had been taken over by a bunch of kooks.  So I became a libertarian instead.

                  If you "don't believe the state can set goals for all people, and I don't know if it is ever possible", then we agree on the role of government.

                  Let it set the rules and enforce them, but don't let it pick the winners.  Let people decide for themselves what they want out of life and how best to achieve that.  Government has no role there.

                  Results count for more than intentions do.

                  by VA Classical Liberal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:04:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  not authoritarian government, no (0+ / 0-)

                    but a government made up of people like you and me- it's different.
                    We need to revolutionize the government, so that it means something else than it does today. The government of the people, for the people.
                    Maybe it's idealistic, but we are evolving, politics and policies, and issues are evolving, so we can't rely on old labels anymore.
                    This is what progressivism is about- redefining the world.

                    "It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." Bono

                    by green minute on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:08:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Well there's socialism in theory... (0+ / 0-)

                ...and there's socialism in practice.  Also, socialism is a very broad word that encompasses Marx's socialist theory, but is not limited to it.  European social democrats are bashed by the purists on the left and by the right, but I think it comes closest to maximizing my own liberal political goals, which includes maximization of individual happiness.  And they're basically reform-oriented socialists working within mixed economies.

                But these are all highly developed and well-articulated political theories, and I am definitely not doing them much justice.  

  •  I know a few of those nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  libertarianism=communism (0+ / 0-)

    in reverse.  the same problem condemns both-- they are perfect systems that wouldn't (and don't) work in an imperfect world.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site