Libertarians Rising

(apologies if already posted)

From TIME

Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007
Libertarians Rising
By Michael Kinsley

To oversimplify: Democrats are for Big Government; Republicans are against it.

To oversimplify somewhat less, Democrats aren't always for Big Government, and Republicans aren't always against it. Democrats treasure civil liberties, whereas Republicans are more tolerant of government censorship to protect children from pornography, or of wiretapping to catch a criminal, or of torture in the war against terrorism. War in general and Iraq in particular--certainly Big Government exercises--are projects Republicans tend to be more enthusiastic about. Likewise the criminal process: Republicans tend to want to make more things illegal and to send more people to jail for longer. Republicans also consider themselves more concerned about the moral tone of the country, and they are more disposed toward using the government in trying to improve it. In particular, Republicans think religion needs more help from society, through the government, while Democrats are touchier about the separation of church and state.

Many people feel that neither party offers a coherent set of principles that they can agree with. For them, the choice is whether you believe in Big Government or you don't. And if you don't, you call yourself a libertarian. Libertarians are against government in all its manifestations. Domestically, they are against social-welfare programs. They favor self-reliance (as they see it) over Big Government spending. Internationally, they are isolationists. Like George Washington, they loathe "foreign entanglements," and they think the rest of the world can go to hell without America's help. They don't care--or at least they don't think the government should care--about what people are reading, thinking, drinking, smoking or doing in bed. And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism. The term is not as familiar, and communitarians are far less organized as a movement than libertarians, ironically enough. But in general communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights.

The relationship of these two ways of thinking to the two established parties is peculiar. Republicans are far more likely to identify themselves as libertarians and to vilify the government in the abstract. And yet Republicans have a clearer vision of what constitutes a good society and a well-run planet and are quicker to try to impose this vision on the rest of us. Now that the Republican Party is in trouble, critics are advising it to free itself of the religious right on issues like abortion and gay rights. That is, the party should become less communitarian and more libertarian. With Democrats, it's the other way around.

Very few Democrats self-identify as libertarians, but they are in fact much more likely to have a live-and-let-live attitude toward the lesbian couple next door or the Islamofascist dictator halfway around the world. And every time the Democrats lose an election, critics scold that they must put less emphasis on the sterile rights of individuals and more emphasis on responsibilities to society. That is, they should become less libertarian and more communitarian. Usually this boils down to advocating mandatory so-called voluntary national service by people younger than whoever is doing the advocating.

(snip)


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673265,00.html

Going back as far as the Reagan years, I've noticed some dissatisfaction among some people who identify nominally with the Republican party. Some were opposed on issues like so-called free trade and others didn't like party leadership cozying up to fundies, whom they viewed as religious nutcases.

Let their party split three ways, for that matter, with the libertarians taking some and whatever the theofascist party wants to call itself taking others. I see a rise in the political clout of either faction as hurting Republicans much more than Democrats.

I don't read Time regularly, so I don't know much about the author of this piece. There are some digs at Democrats apparent in the opening paragraphs, exemplified by the sentence, 'Democrats self-identify as libertarians, but they are in fact much more likely to have a live-and-let-live attitude toward the lesbian couple next door or the Islamofascist dictator halfway around the world.' He's correct in the reference to the lesbian couple, but mentioning the 'Islamofascist dictator' is a dead giveaway to his political inclinations. His sweeping generalities have the overall flavor of 'truthiness' as a result.

so you please and offend both sides equally

:hi:

"It's ok for me to pollute your backyard, but don't you dare come in and pollute my backyard!"

...it actually works out pretty nicely.

Libertarians don't take responsibility for their own actions, and refuse to acknowledge the needs of those around them. They didn't cause much harm on the frontier (except to indigenous people who were already there), in an urban industrialized society its an insane ideology. They epitomize the "me first" attitude that's destroying this country.

perhaps even sending him money.

Sure, he wants out of Iraq but he is first for small government, which means we can kiss good bye to any social programs, to taking care of the poor and the sick, the children and the elderly. Or, worse, rely on the charity of religious foundations.

This is what bothers me about DU sometimes: the tunnel vision that the war in Iraq is the only issue, thus they would prefer Ron Paul to Hillary Clinton.

I really disagree with that statement. I do see SOME support for him here, but usually from new DUers (who have an obvious agenda).

but, especially, after a Republican debate when the media is full of some of his sound bites, I have seen posts in support of him.

His recent surge in money raising must have come from Democrats, too.

than he would surely win over the democrats that want a little democrat and i'm sure they could compromise on a lot of issues.

Libertarians are all about taking responsibility for their own actions, hence their idea of getting rid of all social safety nets. At the heart of the Libertarian philosophy is the notion that government should not be in the business of caring for people--people should take care of themselves. I'm not saying that I agree with them, I merely suggest that you are not representing their positions accurately.

Even the libertarian poster boy, Ron Paul wants the govt to monitor the sex lives of adults & believes the govt has the right to kill its citizens.

One of the reasons the Constitution was adopted was "to promote the general welfare", and the fact is that we have - as a nation - chosen to take on the burden of caring for our fellow citizens, because its better for everyone in the long run if we do. The fact that "libertarians" bitch & whine when they have to pays taxes (which we ALL pay for & benefit from) doesn't show they they have some grand philosophical opposition to the programs & services they're paying for - it just means they're cheap-ass bastards.

So are you saying you don't?

Just curious.

I admit that I have libertarian leanings, but I'm not a completely heartless bastard like most of them. For example, I see nothing wrong with a progressive tax structure. Mostly my libertarian leanings manifest themselves when it comes to the notion of choice. I consider myself pro-choice all around: on abortion, drugs, education, health care, etc. In general, government shouldn't be in the business of telling it's citizens what to do. There are exceptions of course, but they are not the rule.

especially when it comes to food, drugs (legal, that is) and other items.

Government should educate us on what is good for us and what is snake oil. The final decision, however, should be ours. And if I want to buy a product made from Albanian bat shit to restore my youth, or something, as long as that product does not contain the Ebola Virus or arsenic or is actually harmful, hey, it is my money, and my (false) hopes.

Yup, that's the "libertarian" mantra.

The chorus goes like this:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term= I'm+all+right+Jack!



I'm all right Jack!

(originally: "Fuck you, Jack, I'm all right!!" - described the bitter dismay of sailors ("jacks") returning home after wartime in the Navy to find themselves not treated as patriots or heroes, but ignored / sneered at by a selfish, complacent, get-ahead society - phrase was subsequently toned down for acceptable general use.)

Attitude of "every man for himself, survival of the fittest, devil take the hindmost", ... but also, that all the possible advantages (however gained), success (however won) and satisfaction (whatever the cost to others) belong to me first!" Narrow-focus, narrow-gauge pseudo-Darwinian selfishness glorified as a sensible philosophy of society and life.

...have a monopoly on selfishness I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. No, the difference between libertarians and everyone else is that libertarians are honest about their selfishness.

So no FDA or EPA?-- :shrug:

when products had to be proven safe.

After the Thalidomide scare of the 60s which, by the way, was kept out of this country thanks to the then existing law, Congress added the "effective" to the rule.

Since then it takes 10 years for a new medication to come to the market while many die needlessly waiting for approval. Worse, effectiveness has to pass a threshold of stats. which means that, if only 1% benefits, the drug will not be approved. If you or a loved one happens to be that 1% - too bad. Second, since drug tests have to pass that statistics threshold, if you are very sick with nothing left to treat you, you will not be part of the experiment. Why tilt the results down?

And, taking that long to bring a drug to the market is a great excuse for the pharmaceutical companies to charge high prices.

Thanks to the AIDS activism of the 90s, some relaxations entered the FDA code for really sick people and the orphan drugs for rare disease. Clearly the FDA, even with tightening the rules is missing many drugs that still harm patients.

And the, there was former FDA commissioner, David Kessler, who was raiding Supermarket fridges because orange juice did not say "from concentrate." And every several years the FDA wants to go after herbs and supplements, and now even to include tobacco as regulated drug.

I am not a smoker but have no idea what else can be done to prevent smoking. Smokers know their risk, and we charge them heavy taxes to support everything else.

Yes, I have a libertarian streak in me. I am for personal responsibility - this is, BTW, how Clinton won in 1992.

Let the FDA and EPA and USDA concentrate on safety of products and let the market, and the education effort, determine the effectiveness. The problem now is that since most of us have our insurance pays for medications, not having the FDA seal of approval will create havoc in that system.

On the other hand, if pharmaceutical companies can bring drugs sooner to the market, and if they have to convince doctors and patients about their efficacy, we may see a reduction in prices.

Yes, nice to dream. But this is one issue that I feel passionate about... losing a job because of such interference some 15 years ago adds, too...

Oh, one more thing about herbal supplements. Eastern Medicine existed long before our modern, Western style medicine. People lived and died thanks to herbal remedies. But the FDA is looking for the "active ingredient" that herbal will not always have. We are composed of different parts that work in harmony. Modern medicine do possess "active ingredient" and this is why they are so powerful with side effects. But we need to interact with nature in harmony to gently coax changes to health, not nuke our bodies with strong chemicals when a gentle one can do the same, perhaps in a slower pace.

I am healthy person - so far - but dread the possibility that in the future I may be dependent on a basket full of powerful drugs.

We Civil Libertarians are distressed by the tax nuts hijacking the word "Libertarian"

you are at the right website. ;) Just a guess.

we will see a drop in Republics and a corresponding rise in Libertarians. Not earth shattering reporting I would say.

If the Republicans ever got behind stopping putting everybody in prison for every pitiful defiance of even petty social norms I might be a republican. But, of course, that will NEVER happen, because they are nazis at heart, and nazis love jails.

That said, as an ACLU guy right down the line, the Dem party does sometimes abrade my libertarian sensibilities, so I see where Kinsley's going with this.

There is "big government" as in cost and "big government" as in control over people.

Republicans are completely for "big as in cost" government. Look at the debt and spending we have right now. With spending so much on the military and nothing on services they can still claim they are "small as in control" people.

Dem's need to make it clear they are neither. They don't want "big as in cost" or "big as in control" they do however want big as in "service" and "protection".

Tough to point out these nuances with a public that can't pay attention though.

and children schools (prayers) is "big in control." I would say.

claiming they want "small government" advocate for big control for their issues.

Libertarianism an inherently selfish and irresonsible set of principles. While socially it may be appealing to some (or most) of we liberals, economically, it could not be farther from desireable. They basically eschew any responsiblities people might have to others in favor of "letting the free market handle it". Well in the free market, people act in their own self interest, and if you're one of the have nots, the haves couldn't give two shits about how you live. Dangerous and irresponsible...

I agree.

I think in a nutshell, the Libertarian position is 'Individual Good at the Expense of the Common Good-- Regardless.'

Nothing more than a social justification for greed. Nothing more than republicans without the strength of their own convictions. Nothing more than people who want 350 million different national flags flying across America.

Systematic irresponsibility defended simplistically by redefining the historic role of government. The Free Market as the moral and legal (and only) adjudicator of Law and The Social Contract.

Ayn Rand in birkenstocks and tie-dye. A failed philosophy with new branding.

But... some people think it's a good idea. :shrug:

http://www.politicalcompass.org

The quickest, if somewhat simplistic, representation of all this.

Republicans are (overall) authoritarian on matters involving people's personal/private lives, and right-wing on economic/public issues.

Democrats are (overall) less authoritarian on matters involving people's personal/private lives, and less right-wing on economic/public issues.

A social democrat, for instance, is more libertarian and more left-wing in the two realms, respectively.

"Libertarian", in the US context, generally refers to people whose primary focus is economic/public issues, on which they are right-wing; they may be libertarian on matters involving people's personal/private lives, but basically don't give a crap.

There is nothing genuinely "libertarian" about taking a live-and-let-live approach to a foreign dictator, since such foreign dictators tend to interfere rather mightily in people's personal/private lives, and real libertarians generally do give a crap about other people.

And "communitarian" is just a label applied in the US to anybody that somebody doesn't like.

I think someone mailed him a copy of Ayn Rand, and he decided she was the greatest thing since the wheel. Or he smoked dope with Alan Greenspan on night and though osmosis absorbed some of Greenspan's dopey ideas on humanity. Whichever it is, he's irrelevant to any mature person in America today.