I'm a small d democrat

I'm primarily a small d democrat. To me the very title "republican" stinks because I believe the concept of a republic, of a select few keeping the majority in check, is absolutely ridiculous. I support direct democracy, but to leave it there would be to miss the point of this thread.

I'm also a socialist, a classical libertarian. I don't expect others here to agree with my ideology. Obviously it's a bit extreme but we live in a time when it's acceptable to be pro-war, pro-school vouchers, pro-working class exploitation, and pro-theocracy.

I think a larger emphasis needs to be made on left-libertarianism. We've heard about the "internet sensation" Ron Paul, but I don't think it takes much for Democrats to debunk the free market myth.

However, my concern is with large government solutions. Currently our public services are run top-down like private enterprises -- why is this?

I think it's time for a movement to arise from the Democratic Party calling for change not seen since the New Deal. But this time I think it should be done differently, with more emphasis on democracy and libertarianism.

Some suggestions I have include.

1.) Restructuring the very establishment we have. Let's reconsider the electoral system. Without it candidates would be forced to protect what are seen as "safe states" from eroding to a point where a sizable minority helps the popular vote. Let's reconsider the way government and private political parties have managed to collaborate over primaries to help exclude third parties. Let's put to the table radical ideas like instant runoff voting, where you can pick candidates in order of how you like them (excluding those you don't entirely). Let's put to the table plans for national initiatives, recalls, and referendums.

2.) Turn state-controlled services into social services. Public services should run horizontally by the workers, not top-down like a business.

3.) Democratize corporations, if not work to destroy them. They only exist because we the people say they can.

4.) Democratize education. This goes along with my second bulletin, but I want to expand on the idea of getting rid of the administrative elements and allowing teachers, parents, and eventually students a way of controlling their own school system.

5.) Cut taxes on the middle and lower class and refocus it on the rich. Since the 70s the top income bracket has seen a DRASTIC drop in the amount of taxes they've had to pay. I think the middle and lower classes are being overtaxed -- they're being overtaxed on behalf of the rich.

6.) Radical social change. If not gay marriage, the elimination of "marriage" entirely from the government's dictionary. Let's put to the table a prison reform plan that finally addresses our despicable prison system. Let's put to rest the War on Drugs. Let's actually talk about our clunky military (size). Let's end the embargo on Cuba. Let's push for lowering the voting age and making conscription illegal once and for all.

7.) Restoring the benefits of the welfare state. Social security, health care, welfare for the needy, living wages, solving world hunger, fair trade -- these are all positions that Americans agree with the Democratic Party over. Unfortunately the message has been lost over the years as the party has moved right.

I think a platform like this would virtually guarantee a victory for the Democrats.

K&R

Libertarian agenda is in direct polar opposite conflict with the liberal agenda.

Check it out.

It's not a new concept.

Anarchy, however, does not equal "chaos".

Anarchism without barbarianism is really only achievable with left-libertarianism.

Unfortunately, "social democrats," "socialists," "communists," and "anarchists" have been left out of the picture whereas the Right (and now Democrats) cater to conservatives, theocrats, and "anarcho-capitalists."

up in "chaos" thus the stigma.

Which of the bulletins listed would lead to "chaos?"

If you want a more tempered version of left-libertarianism, there it is.

be gamed by scammers, cons and A personality types. This theory never takes into account that humans actually have to play by a very strict set of ethical rules in order to make it work.

:D

The Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia had a complete market of social ownership and up until the 80s when the USA/USSR collapsed its economy, liberal reforms occurred, and the different ethnic groups tore the place apart people there had living standards comparable to Western Europeans. The bulletins I listed are less radical than that simple experiment, or the one of anarchist Spain before it was destroyed by the fascists.

If it failed it would be a first.

That's not supposed to happen, & by definition the guys at the top don't subscribe to the ethic.

Libertarianism has two sides: left and right.

I place here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.62&soc=-9.79