Is it possible to be a liberal Libertarian?

I think that's what I am. I believe that everyone should have healthcare, as much education as they want and that major industries like energy and transportation should be nationalized; the rest should be heavily regulated.

But I also believe individual citizens should not be protected from themselves with a bunch of nanny-state laws against victimless crimes.

By special request, here's a link mentioned downthread : http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I think of myself as a civil libertarian.

:P

My chart; http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.00&soc=-5.03


WOuld you mind making an OP directing ppl to the link? It's very cool!

Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

I'm down there, too... not quite as far left... ec=-5.38 soc=-6.56

I knew there had to be a name for what I am!

Phew, now I can sleep nights. (hee hee)

completely impossible. What you describe above is not libertarian by any commonly accepted definition.

Like Kucinich or Nader.

A libertarian is for the smallest government possible. 'Nanny-state laws' are not really a liberal thing, at least not any of the liberals I know. Most liberals want less intrusion in personal lives and more regulation for businesses.

The word has gotten trashed.

After turning slightly left Andrew Sullivan wrote a tedious-ass book about what kind of conservative he is and every thoughtful reviewer noted that he was describing classical liberal democracy without even realizing it. But his whole career is trashing "liberals." Too much kool-ade had destroyed his ability to even characterize his own views.

Check out Left-libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Behold, my political compass!




Basically, I'm to the left of Gandhi

As at least one poster has already pointed out.

I find the political compass to be quite accurate about my positions relative to the rest of the nation and the nation's mainstream politicians.

Here's the analysis:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

On the FAQ page, there is this comment and response:

<snip>

You can't be libertarian and left wing

This is almost exclusively an American response, overlooking the undoubtedly libertarian tradition of European anarcho-syndicalism. It was, after all, the important French anarchist thinker Proudhon who declared that property is theft.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the likes of Emma Goldman were identified as libertarians long before the term was adopted by some economic rightwingers. And what about the libertarian collectives of the mid-late 1800s and 1960s?

Americans like Noam Chomsky can claim the label 'libertarian socialist' with the same validity that Milton Friedman can be considered a 'libertarian capitalist'.

The assumption that Social Darwinism delivers more social freedom is questionable. The welfare states of, for example, Sweden and The Netherlands, abolished capital punishment decades ago and are at the forefront of progressive legislation for women, gays and ethnic minorities - not to mention anti-censorship. Such established social democracies consistently score highest in the widely respected Freedom House annual survey on civil liberties. Their detailed checklist can be viewed at http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm . Such social developments would presumably be envied by genuine libertarians in socially conservative countries - even if their taxes are lower.

Interestingly, many economic libertarians express to us their support for or indifference towards capital punishment; yet the execution of certain citizens is a far stronger assertion of state power than taxation.

N.B. The death penalty is practised in all seriously authoritarian states. In Eastern Europe it was abolished with the fall of communism and adoption of democracy. The United States is the only western democracy where capital punishment is still practised.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq16

"Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it." Mikhail Bakunin

:hi:

My latest:

Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

Somewhere near the Dalai Lama.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.12&soc=-4.97

Provide a real safety net and a level playing field.

That provided, leave me the hell alone.

This term comes straight out of the right-wing narrative. It frames the idea of "the state" as a more or less alien entity that's inherently intrusive and needs to be fended off.

This framing is in direct contrast to "we the people." The democratic state, as the agent of our collective public and civic life, should certainly avoid foolish use of its powers like making laws against victimless crimes. But governing more wisely is an ongoing learning experience for us as a society. It's everybody's responsibility.

It's our public job, then, to remedy such imperfections -- not throwing the baby out small enough to drown it in the bathwater, or whatever the Groverism might be.

Nowhere in the Constitution or BOR can you find that mentioned. Yet too many Americans think there is, and these same Americans keep trying to or actually passing laws to try to ensure that. When that happens, then the term "nanny-state" is fully applicable.

The term "nanny-state" is part of the right-wing lexicon, and your straw man about "no Right to be Safe" fits in very well with a RW worldview.

Visiting, are you?

It's usually called a right to FEEL safe, which is not enumerated anywhere.

as it's essentially the raison d'être for government in the first place....

It is hard to find a document more conceptually hostile to government that the US Constitution. Each word exists only to hamper government.

I have a bit of a soft heart, and I don't like people telling me what to do, whether that nanny-statism comes from the right or the left.

There are civil libertarians, economic libertarians and total libertarians of the "government shouldn't exist except to make bombs" type. (Militarist anarchists, really)

I am a First Amendment ABSOLUTIST, but don't much care how money is swapped around beyond some acknowledgment of property as a concept. So I call myself a Civil Libertarian, which is easy to get because everyone's familiar with the ACLU.

I don't fret much about taxes and such.

(I think half of DUers are total Stalinists and don't even know it. Mucho contempt for individual autonomy up in here.)

Me, Me Me.

I can have everything I want- and no one can tell me what to do, no matter what the cost may be to society at large due to your behavior.

It's funny to call people selfish for not doing whatever you tell them to.

Your invocation of society is a thin dodge unless you are praising authoritarian measures with which you utterly disagree, which nobody ever has or ever will.

as in the social contract.

You know- those enlightenment ideas and all. The ones that this country was founded on and that other western nations still honor and abide by.

"Us" is a poisonous term because where there is an "us" there must be a "them."

You are free to disagree with the underlying theory of American civilization, but not free to just make it up.

The framers were supremely indifferent toward cooperation and social welfare. Their sole intention was to secure individual liberties against the government. The constitution treats the government like a mad dog, not the hope of the down-trodden.

You can say that's a terrible way to think. Maybe it is. But that is the founding idea of this nation and it doesn't do to pretend the framers were something they were not.

Without at least a basic understanding of enlightenment ideas, you lack a context within which to view the intentions or the values held by the framers of the constitution (or key figures in western nations)- nor any real comprehension about how those values and ideals have developed into modern times.

The whole consumerism house and a car bullshit was created to make our company's money and to strengthen the hold of the ruling class on our nation. The exact thing that the Founders warned against time and again.

You're not a Libertarian if you believe in universal health care or regulations on business.

The Libertarian Party has been taken over by a largely authoritarian, reich-wing population, thus the "Republiks that want to smoke dope" moniker.

So, just as Democrat does not equal liberal, libertarian does not equal authoritarian.

civil liberties, legalized drugs, and their right to own firearms. Then Milton Friedman wrote "Free to Choose", and Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" became a "Libertarian Bible", and libertarianism became more concerned with private capitol than human rights. Frankly, I liked the old incarnation of libertarian much better! :-)