I am a libertarian and (lately) a defeatist...

Somedays I just feel like I have NO home at all when it comes to political leanings. I used to back the LP, but they keep nominating whackos. Then I tried to back the Dems, thanks to their opposition to the erosion of rights and things of the like, but the fiscal policies just scare me. Then I even tried to back Republicans for their supposed fiscal policy...which is now the greatest of all evils: don't tax people who can pay and spend more than ever. Hell, I think I will just write in my dog (big black lab)...at least she is transparent and you KNOW what is coming (eat, sleep, go out, chew bone, chew shoe...)

I may get banned for my statements, but I hope not. You people here at DU shed light in an otherwise hopeless day.

TheProdigal

fiscally. What is your specific objection to them in that regard? During the Reagan years the Dems appropriated a total of 16 billion less than Reagan even ASKED FOR!!!!

No one pays taxes. No government. All in utopia.

And none of them that I've ever encountered have advocated no gov't.

Where did you get that little gem?

but seem to come down fairly conservative, fairly republican.

Here is a link to a rather long explantion. There are others if you are interested and Google it. The basic theoretical differences are between social anarchists and libertarian anarchists.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1931/secA3.html

decidedly different from anarchists. I believe the government has definite functions that are required to maintain a stable society. But those functions should be well defined and fairly harshly limited...

TheProdigal

... they would be limited to such a degree as to almost guarantee anarchy ultimately. So, I'm a'gin it. :)

that individuals cannot do for themselves..

roads
schools
defense
food safety
pollution control
air safety
transportation infrastructure
regulations of large companies & corporations
banking regulations
insurance regulations.

In other words, the central government must somehow mesh the states and the people in them into a cohesive unit that works TOGETHER..

It's not really about taking from the rich to give to the poor, it's about recognizing that in the richest country on the face of the earth, we should not have people deciding between food or medicine...

we should not have a military that is attractive because there are no decent jobs..

ALL politicians are corrupt at the core when they get enough influence and are lobbyed long enough..

Government MUST provide certain things in order to maintain civility.. We are seeing a steady breakdown of civility and it's a direct result of playing the haves against the have-nots..

When a person has more in life, they should be expected to GIVE more.. Most people are never going to be wealthy,no matter HOW hard they work, and some people will be RICH if they never do a day's work... Who is the more righteous human?? A guy who busts his ass for 65 hrs a week and ends up with $450.00 take home, or a guy who SITS on his ass and makes phone calls all day , before getting into his Lexus and going home to the million dollar home & the trophy wife??


It's unfair to put the burden primarily on those who can least afford to pay it.., but that is what republicans do.. I have watched them since Eisenhower , and with the exception of him, they have all been "cheap-labor, borrow and spend thugs"...

The so-called middle class is just that...so-called.. If every middle class person had their debt "called in" suddenly, they would all be on the street.. People say they "own" their homes, but in fact, most do NOT.. They are leasing their homes from a bank or mortgage company, they are leasing their vehicles fronm a bank or laon company.. They are a few paychecks away from being homeless..

That is the truth in America.. We are living as much of a sham existence as the old Soviet Union.. The world thought they were strong, but they were a paper tiger..

The US presents itself as invincible, but the middle class is disappearing and once it's gone, who will build it back up??? The rich?? NOT ON YOUR LIFE..


At least the democratic party has been on board for the projects that tried to make life better for the masses.. They may not have always been successful, but their track record shows that they at least try..:)

Libertarianism is probably net even realistic anymore, since everyone is interconnected with each other.. My opinion of Libertarians has always been a person who wants to be left alone, and one who does not really want many laws..

That works fine , if you can truly BE independent and if people around you are decent people, but without a mean of keeping things in check, how long would decency prevail?? NOT LONG..

We all need each other and the next 10-15 years will be very hard ones, so stay involved..do research.. give people credit for at least trying..:)

'The only legitimate business of government is the defense of Americans.'

At least with every libertarian i've ever hashed out politics with.

What this translates to in my eyes is the law of the jungle, where the largest/richest group gets their way, often by force or intimidation. And that's just the domestic front. Now tell a bunch of greedy corporations who croon constantly about (corporate) freedom that military protection doesn't extend to them (and their international interests) as well.

Hah!

you're thinking of Communism.

Communists advocate the elimination of all taxes?

in a true communist state there is no government and therefore no need of taxes.

Libertarians accept that there are taxes needed to support the constitutional mandates.

Sounds like anarchists. Which communists are you talking about?

have no government because there is no need for one.

utopianists :-)

TheProdigal

There is a huge amount of disinformation about Libertarians here at DU. I expect that they are a distraction (equally for the right) and that this may be the cause.

Communists advocate the elimination of all taxes?

Which of the fiscal policies scare you?

Clinton was a fiscal conservative, as are most of the democratic contenders....

so policy was a strong word. Please forgive my heavyhandedness in the midst of my malaise...

In my misguided youth of a couple of years ago, I was of the belief that the republicans were for smaller, more efficient and less invasive government and that the Democratic Party was for a greater roll for the government and therefor more funding for government programs (some of which I do not approve at the federal level). But in later days (like a couple of years ago minus a couple of days) it seems that everyone wants to increase the size and roll of government thus its intrusion into our lives.

I believe the government has some regulatory role, so I am not an anarchist (even though it sounds fun sometimes) just not the extent that they have.

D

My own observations are that the societies that take care of and provide a safety net for workers, their poorest and the elderly may have some financial issues but they are outweighed by the benefits of the stability to the society and relative peace.

The soieties where the poor must fend for themselves are more prone to unrest, instability and violence. One can even see aspects of this in American comunities.

Comparing the costs of programs wthout weighing the benefits versus the instability present in their absense seems penny wise and pound foolish.

cannot FIND work should be cared for...no doubt. My wish is that would be taken care of in communities (we just lost 6000 jobs in my area last week and churches and community groups are rallying to help) but I realize that there must be some compensation for those communities where that cannot or will not happen.

My big problems are federal funding for things that I believe were meant to be state level functions. Education. Arts. Agricultural Subsidies. These are all admirable things...but not at the federal level. The federal government cannot do a good job at things like this. It cannot anticipate need at the more granular level of states and communities and it cannot fairly allocate funds for various programs.

I don't have or know all the answers here...I just want the federal government stripped of much of its power and much of that power given to the people and the states.

TheProdigal

the 10 commandments would not get funded in Alabama. Frankly with some states I favor federal reach into people's lives more than the state's.

not that certain things should never be funded, even on a state level, but part of the design of this country was to be a loose confederation of separate states with local powers and resources all to be bound by certain overall rights as deemed by the people (2/3 passage for ammendments to the constitution and all). With the way the federal government works, the whole point to getting to D.C. is to bring back as much pork as you can to your state. That is the MAJOR problem with the government funding everything. The Pillowtex workers here in NC lose their jobs while someone who raises buffalo in ND keeps his because their congresspersons bring home more subisdies...ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

Whew...I feel better now.

TheProdigal

Each state was considered to be controlled by the land owner.
The opposite direction was toward democracy, where the power of all citizens was what constructed government, not just the wealthy.
In America today, people are fairly mobile and not only move from state to state, but do business in different states without living in them. The days of living and dying in the state(or town) where you were born are long gone.

program...hey I'm in the state that pays to pave all your roads..I could go on all day about that one..California doesn't get back NEAR what we give.

well, except with the road paving part...have you ever DRIVEN the roads here??? Sheesh!

There should not be subsidies for businesses or projects that are doomed to failure without them. It seems as if it is written somewhere that the Fed only is allowed to throw good money after bad.

You know, I probably wouldn't feel this way if there were a way to cut the fat out of Washington. Let's get rid of the unnecessary pork spending on pet projects and trim out redundant government functions and the like and that would probably help. We could probably keep and fund all of the stuff that is currently in the budget AND lower taxes if we could get rid of the inefficiency in gov't.

TheProdigal

It's like I said about anarchists, you want good government without having a government. Seriously, who is in favor of ineffeciency?

I want very limited government...but would be happy with THAT as a start...

TheProdigal

on edit : I am actually beginning to believe that the Republicans DO want government waste right now. Keep on spending wherever and whenever you can on anything and everything while giving tax cuts so that they can bankrupt the gov't forcing the deletion of many programs...

TP

As has been said here, many Libertarians argue for Defense and Property Rights. What is your notion of limited government?

Well, I think that the main purpose of gov't (at least a central gov't) IS to protect the citizenry from foreign aggression and erosion of liberties. I do believe (unlike most libertarians) that there should be regulation on corporations that protect workers and the environment...but that is part of protection as a whole. I do not think the gov't should have the right to tell me how I cannot hurt myself (drinking, smoking, drug use, helmet laws, seatbelts etc.) nor how to live my life (religion, sexual orientation, how I play) as long as what I am doing poses no threat to others. The government should not fund projects or business (via subsidies etc.)that would fail without said subsidies and last but not least, that the government should not support me if I choose not to work (notice CHOOSE).

Very brief summation above, but you get the idea.

This is by no means comprehensive...
TheProdigal

You might find many people here at DU support those positions.
I see how you do not feel comfortable with mainstream Libertarians. Last I heard from them they seemed rather right wing.
Years ago when the "Chrystler bailout" was making Lee Iacoca a hero(especially in Michigan) no one anticipated a takeover by a German company. (Kirk Kerkorian a major stockholder is suing them for deception). Where was the federal government when General Motors broke their contract with Flint, displacing thousands of workers?
I would agree with you, if free market capitalism allows handouts to corporations, that is wrong.

affordable without nuclear bombs. BTW darlin...do your homework..Clinton and Gore CUT fed waste and inefficiency

Therefore, in my heart based on everything you have ever said..I believe you are a DEMOCRAT with libertarian leanings...and I have no issue with that. :D

So now do you want to have a moonpie and RC on the hood of my car??? :evilgrin:

I know I know. But but but...I don't care who makes the cuts as long as someone does!!!

Much love from NC!
TheProdigal

did you think they had the right to keep out non-whites?

not a funding issue. I am ALL for equal rights for every individual. Denying anyone access to any state or federally funded program (whether I view it as right or wrong that it is funded) is something that should be fought by the government.

TheProdigal

The federal government stepped in because they said all students deserve a quality education.
Here's the problem, you want a very select use of federal government, but it is only if the federal government is there in the first place that school segregation in the south could be fought. Otherwise we would just be sending in the calvary everytime there is a problem. And that becomes much more costly.

and we could certainly argue the point of 'quality' education as it is presently given...another thread another day.

Equal access is NOT a funding issue. Whether funded or not (by the Federal Government) the power to use the militia or federal forces to guarantee rights (rather to stop the denial of said rights) could and probably would have been used.

The point to the federal level of government is to protect our rights and defend the country. Not give subsidies to the buffalo raising (or hash growing) community. Not to take my money and try to stop .01% of drugs from entering the country. Not to take my money and go propping up some tinpot dictator somewhere. Not to take my money and make ads telling my brain is an egg in a frying pan. And the list goes on and on and on.

TheProdigal

That is why libertarianism breaks down. You can't keep trying to trump someone else's argument with "let's just have limited government."
I really didn't want to argue about education so much, but just to show that issues around the cost of education are much more complicated than saying let the state pay for it. States can find ways to defund schools for people they don't like.

Saying that states should handle most education is fine by me, although I disagree in some cases, like student loans. (And Federal spending on education is tiny.)

But many/most libertarians really do want education spending slashed or eliminated at the state level, too. And many/most propose eliminating all/most environmental and labor regulations.

And that's just an unacceptable position, since it would basically lead to a society where corporations rule and only children of the rich, like Bush would get a decent education.

We're heading that way in California with the raising of public university and community college tuition. If you're not fortunate to be born with enough money, getting an education is getting harder. And many/most libertarians are happy with that, as long as they get their tax cuts.

are populated by some of the people who have now lost their jobs.. The contributions that they might have made in the past will be no more..

We are all connected.. The "pebble" cast into the water makes ripples..

The community groups and churches who USED to be able to help the core group of poor in any community are now being asked to spread that net wider and wider, and they are getting little if any outside help.. This is repeating itself all over...in every community..

Think back to when you were a kid.. If Mom was making dinner and you brought a friend home, she could always throw on another vegetable and cut the meatloaf a bit thinner, but if you brought home 6 friends, someone went hungry..

That's what's happening here.. Too many people are needing help from too few who are available to help..

Rubberbands will stretch....but only until they break..:(

are populated by some of the people who have now lost their jobs.. The contributions that they might have made in the past will be no more..

We are all connected.. The "pebble" cast into the water makes ripples..

The community groups and churches who USED to be able to help the core group of poor in any community are now being asked to spread that net wider and wider, and they are getting little if any outside help.. This is repeating itself all over...in every community..

Think back to when you were a kid.. If Mom was making dinner and you brought a friend home, she could always throw on another vegetable and cut the meatloaf a bit thinner, but if you brought home 6 friends, someone went hungry..

That's what's happening here.. Too many people are needing help from too few who are available to help..

Rubberbands will stretch....but only until they break..:(

And then vote for who ever comes closest. I know that sounds simplistic, but most people don't do that. You also need to research what someone has really done/not done, not just what they claim.
I have 2 dogs myself, 1 black lab mix & one golden. I think the world would be a much better place if people were more like my dogs.

IMO, is the lack of any sense of national community; that we are all in this struggle together, and that we are only as good as the least of us.
It's great to say "government out of everything, now!", but there is a duty we have as supposed civilized people to help the less fortunate, restrain corporate greed, and provide educational and cultural benefits to the community.

I WANT my tax dollars used for these purposes- I can't do these things alone as a private citizen, but when added to others' taxes, important stuff CAN and SHOULD be done.

The free market does work, but some guidance and regulation is needed because the winners in it tend to want to take all the spoils, leaving nothing for the 1/2 of the population less fortunate.

don't believe that the government has some regulatory roll in life. Heck, some of the things that are in place are good things. I just think both parties have gone way over the edge of what the government of the United States was designed to be.

TheProdigal <---feeling we are past the point of no return

Concern for civil liberties (ACLU?) plus sound fiscal policy. A lot of Dems are in those categories. The Reagan defecits have had a profound impact on the party.

In some ways I stand in one corner and in other ways I stand just as firmly in the other. I feel as if I have bipolar syndrome or something its equal!

TheProdigal

I have voted democratic all my life and
consider myself a small "l" libertarian.

The red ink republicans are not fiscal conservatives
at all. I suggest Dean who has a strong record on
fiscal issues and is pro-gun ownership as a good fit
for a libertarian.

If you are a social liberal the the Democratic party
may now be the place for you. 2/3 of democrats in
the house supported a bill cutting off funding for
anti medical marijuana actions by the administration.

Their have been many disappointments and many high
profile party leaders who are anathema to my convictions.

However the party as a whole is not beholden to
fundamentalist intrests that I find to be the most
anti-libertarian forces in society.

I have voted democratic all my life and
consider myself a small "l" libertarian.

The red ink republicans are not fiscal conservatives
at all. I suggest Dean who has a strong record on
fiscal issues and is pro-gun ownership as a good fit
for a libertarian.

If you are a social liberal the the Democratic party
may now be the place for you. 2/3 of democrats in
the house supported a bill cutting off funding for
anti medical marijuana actions by the administration.

Their have been many disappointments and many high
profile party leaders who are anathema to my convictions.

However the party as a whole is not beholden to
fundamentalist intrests that I find to be the most
anti-libertarian forces in society.

YEE_HA!

And I agree with everything you just said.

I'm libertarian leaning as well, but feel very comfortable supporting the Democratic Party, especially in my part of the country.

It is my impression that libertarianism doesn.t give a fig for the environment. Certainly almost everytime some schmuck wants to fuck up this planet the arguement is tricked out in libertarian drag.
Seems to me that libertarianism is dependent on equal access to resources. At the current rate, to bring all world's population up to American standard we'd need FOUR planet Earths.
The sooner we adopt some socialism the less we'll need in the long run.

Many Rand type libertarians are what I would call
smoke stack libertarians.

The idea is that any pollution from an industry
is an expropriation of property from all who
come in contact will the industries output.

The people who own property effected by the polluter
all have standing to bring a suit to stop the
polluter stealing their air and water ect.

This is a libertarian eviromentalist platform.

In general you are correct about the "libertarians"
in the republican party.

I however believe all people effected by a polluter
have standing for a suit against a polluter.

The problem with pollution is a problem of undefined property rights. If somebody owns a house, they should also own the right to the air around the house. If a factory opens and pollutes the air, the owner of the house should be able to negotiate how much compensation he receives in exchange for the dirtier air. As it stands now, the house owner doesn't get anything and some bureaucrat as taking a stab in the dark as to the appropriate level of pollution. To say that libertarians don't care about the environment is very dishonest. Some of the most inovative solutions to the problem - carbon taxes, pollution cap and trade, toll roads - are all libertarian ideas.

How do you deal with endangered species, biodiversity & human overpopulation? These are the real bottom line issues.

Endangered species:

Form groups that buy land and don't develop it.

Biodiversity:

Buy land. If a developer holds the land first
offer a better price than the destructive use
would.

Human overpopulation:

There is no solution to this problem that I know of.

Do you have one?

I don't have a problem with zoning and permiting
to manage the first two issues.

Maybe that is because I am a Democratic voter.

I support the endangered species act, clean air act,
ect. but I believe that the socialzation of enviromental
pollution but the privatization of the profits distorts
the rewards for enviroments destruction.

Although they got into hot water because of some shady dealings, the Nature Conservancy buys land for the exact purpose that Ezmo describes.

Where's the money to come from? Most of it is in the hands of those who profit from the destruction of that which we wish to preserve. And what if they own it?
I've been a member of the Conservancy, they do some good work but are too cushy with the destroyers for my stomach.
I think a real problem is our definition of property. I see a real difference between movable property and real estate and don't believe that people should be able to treat the land as something disposable, to be used up.{I own & live on 11 acres}
Overpopulation is the killer problem. I see no humane choice other than restricting the right to unlimited breeding. How to do this in a way thats fair to all has got me stumped, but if some whiz doesn't figure it out we're doomed.
Libertarianism can't address these issues with its focus on individual rights.
A libertarian would be possible & desirable if world population were much smaler, say maybe 1 billion or even 100,000 million.{ possible carrying capacity).

I am afraid that "restricting the right to unlimited breeding"
would take the form of genocide in almost all cases I can
envision.

I will have to stick with education as the best bet
for population control. I doubt we are doomed but
we are certainly heading into increased war for
resources...

Then again we might be doomed.

"Libertarianism can't address these issues with its focus on individual rights."

The alternative must involve some elite making choices about
who can and can not breed. This can only be oppressive to
the non-privilaged. To me a world breeding freely spinning
toward doom is better than some distopic technocracy sterilizing
the un-chosen.

I hate it that our species has painted itself into this box. If however, it comes to a choice of inflicting some "inconvience" on humans in order to prevent the extinction of say 90% of vertebrates and countless other species then I'm afraid we must.
I'm just glad that I'm a nonbreeder and won't be around when the real shit comes down.
To take down the entire biosphere on the basis of political philosophy is madness. Come to think of it, Isn't that whatThem Bastards are doing?

From what I understand from conversations with my right of right of right of center brother in law (he claims to be libertarian, but a republican version who worships limbaugh)...

Anyways...

He says that environmentalism is just another form of socialism, or governmental control, which is why he (as a libertarian who wants no government control) hates it...

I think that's the reason used, that environmentalism is just another way of giving government control over free enterprise...

The funny thing is that he cant figure out how all the anti-environment research(specifically global warming issues here) is funded by American Pertroleum et. al....and almost 90% of the scientific community, which would have no reason to disagree with something if it wasn't true based on science agree.....

Sigh, what can I say, he's stubborn....

last 20 years or so, a lot of things changed across a lot of our political "classifications" and labels. I've enjoyed talking to libertarian types of late. I find I have a lot in common with them--except, as you noted, when they get too wacky. But moderate libertarians are very interesting to talk to and I can respect them.

Many people are without a political "home" right now.

Maybe you should just relax and not rush to affiliate yourself with anything, opting just to vote for the candidates you think are best fit. (I hope you check out Howard Dean!)

But welcome, welcome to DU. I hope you choose to stay.

I have NEVER voted a whole party ticket. Just too many people on the 'non-party' side of issues that matter to me.

TheProdigal <--- thanking you for the welcome! :-)

I am very close to Libertarian and he is an excellent candidate in my eyes.

We have much more in common with Libertarians than the Dems do. We believe in maximizing personal freedom, yet also recognize that in many ways we are inevitably part of a larger community. However, unlike the Dems, we are for "power to the people" vs. "power to the establishment."

Check out the Green Platform: http://www.gp.org/platform.html

The Republican Party that you were thinking of, the one that, years ago, advocated fiscal conservatism and a balanced budget, has disappeared. Disappeared during the Reagan Admin.

Please see: http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/gop-charts.html

And you are very welcome here.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

It's the very best place on the web for all who value true freedom and liberty.