why don't Democrats understand libertarians?

I'm not a Democrat, but I understand libertarianism.

I just prefer the Chomsky version of libertarianism that is more common outside of the U.S. Here, we would refer to this as libertarian socialism.

Why liberals here disagree with most of economic libertarianism is because they view economic policy in terms of leveling the playing field and countering the power of big business. To them, things like labor rights and consumer rights are the most important parts of economic liberty.

I agree with them on this.

That being said, liberals and people like myself can agree with libertarians on ending farm subsidies, ending corporate bailouts, and reducing military spending.

 

OP: I get that. ALOT. The closest political ideology to my own is libertarianism and I know just what you mean about the "o you're for this and that. That must mean you want to vote for my party". It gets fairly aggravating. Personally I think its because of how polarized US politics has become. Its always an "us v them" mentality with a partisan and that's all they know or understand. If they think you match up in any way with their beliefs they will try to sway you to clicking the partyline button and pulling the lever.


TramLaw: Alot of people call themselves "libertarian" (howdy!) but aren't technically speaking libertarians. Libertarians believe in the NAP, and I for instance, do not hold to it so strictly. As a general rule of thumb one should not be an aggressor, yes. But in certain situations aggression is called for, often in an "as hard as is possible" sort of fashion, to achieve a more desirable result. Conflicts between nations for instance: Its like a prison yard out there. If someone jams you up (acts seriously against your interests without initiating physical violence. See Hussein in Iraq quite literally rattling a saber on international broadcasts, challenging the US to come and get some. At that point, the gauntlet is thrown and in the dog eat dog world of international relations, you are forced to respond despite a lack of naked aggression), you HAVE to respond and you HAVE to respond with overwhelming force and do so as quickly and seamlessly as possible. <<< The acceptance of that reality (the fact that sometimes you have to get your hands dirty by striking the first blow) disqualifies me from being a "true" libertarian. But as a short answer if someone asks me what my beliefs generally are, I'm going to answer libertarian.

 

You should read "The Road to Serfdom" by F. A. Hayak (famed economist and political theorist). He explains classical liberalism, socialism, and how socialism a) doesn't work and b) co-opts the names of things that DO work (classical liberalism) to make itself seem more palatable.

 

Now, is that a real poncho or is that a sears poncho?

 

Not that simple, but mostly right. You should read that article he linked to for specifics.

But that is pretty much what I am about, is limiting government power and obtrusiveness. I don't want a big daddy government regulating every aspect of my life, I want to be able to take care of myself and my family and make my own decisions. You can not do that in a highly regulated society.

I am not opposed to government programs to help people. I will balk at and fight it when they are made mandatory, which is why I am against things like insurance and Obamacare. I believe that insurance is an excellent idea but should not be mandatory on to people. i am not opposed to a government helping people because the reality of it is that in some places in America there just no job prospects or educational prospects beyond high school, as well as there being no charitable organizations there.

Charity at the point of a gun is not helping people. Forcing people to pay for others is not charity and helping people.

And there is no liberty in a highly regulated or totally regulated society. None what so ever.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry but I don't get the reference.

 

Id say some of the confusion comes from social conservatives who call themselves libertarian. For instance some people who call themselves libertarian oppose gay marriage even though following the libertarian tenents of maximizing individual freedom, small government, and equality under the law most libertarians have reached the conclusion that gays should be equal so long as the government is involved in marriage (which it shouldn't). Many people also have a hard time with the concept of less law which they see as meaning murder should be legal. Then you have libertarian economic policies which can be frightening because they rely on the free market and competition, something democrats and major companies fight vehemently against. It's also worth noting that the Libertarian party doesn't have a unified platform, but people who are libertarian are not generally united either. The philosophy is the same but sometimes different conclusions are reached, and som issues, like abortion, are left untouched. In the end though the vase philosophy is to maximize freedom for the individual which also translates to trade.

 

Yes, that's what I said. The primary political value of classical liberals is freedom. Small government, obamacare, charity etc are not political values, they are particular issues. Classical liberalism is an ideology so that's why I was talking about their ideas and values, not their position on issues which aren't really that informative of relevant. The question was about their beliefs, so I answered what their beliefs were. I mean, you're not opposed to obamacare because you don't like government intervention. What kind of a non-answer is that? Giving that answers like that really begs the question. The real answer is because you value freedom.

 

Actually you made a mistake. I said I opposed obamacare because it is mandatory. Other reasons I oppose is because it IS very intrusive into another persons' life.

For example, how does the government ensure you pay for things? You have to report it it to the government. In order to enure one pays for another's health care is that they will have to file a lot of paperwork detailing their finances in every single minute detail you can think of. The purpose of such detail is for the government to take it away on top of all other taxes. I don't understand why people think that's okay.

You also have to file a lot of paperwork detailing your finances if you want to move in to a low rent housing or apartments, at least, here in California.

And. I suspect that the government will not be forthcoming on what it actually spends that money on. one other problem with government programs like this is other politicians will raid the money for their own personal pet pork projects. As as when politicians raid money from lotteries that are supposed to be set aside only for schools.

It all stems from one thing: greed.

 

Point being that it all stems from that you value liberty. And that my very short description of classical liberalism was correct in its entirety.

 

That sounds really really great. So why did it take til 1875 for all this libertarianism to work so well?

Did this libertarianism work across the world?

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds really really great. So why did it take til 1875 for all this libertarianism to work so well?

Did this libertarianism work across the world?

Why was it known as the gilded rather than the golden age?

 

Sigh, the industrial age before the advent of progressive ideology starting with Woodrow Wilson.

 

why are you talking about capitalism? This is about libertarianism.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah so it was industrialism that created this economy? Or libertarianism as the OP suggests?

You seem to be confused.

 

Because it started just before that. The middle ages weren't exactly libertarian in case you thought so.

Yes.

to gild means to cover with gold. It is thus, the age covered with gold, which by all means is exactly the same as the golden age.

- - - Updated - - -

Libertarianism in the economy is capitalism.

Libertarianism, or rather classical liberalism, or even more specifically, capitalism, created industrialism.

 

Democrats and Socialists do get Libertarianism its this: free market is fine, most government is bad and barring government oversight the free market will crush those who are disadvantaged in life since the businesses don't care its heartless and will abuse everyone as far as it can. The only counter to that is a strong government offering services to those disadvantaged and who need help which is not profitable to society - welfare.

I got it right on the money because during the time before big government that is exactly what happened.

I saw the future under Libertarianism its the jackboot of corporate leaders stepping on the face of the disadvantaged and poor, with small government clapping. I for one see that no less evil than other systems such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

 

It is mainly ignorance, at least that is my observation on this board. Same with Republicans though. The ability for the human mind to compartmentalize is amazing, and for most since it does not neatly fit in their ideologue's version of reality it is demonized.

- - - Updated - - -

It is mainly ignorance, at least that is my observation on this board. Same with Republicans though. The ability for the human mind to compartmentalize is amazing, and for most since it does not neatly fit in their ideologue's version of reality it is demonized.

 

Of course, but you must realise that free markets are what has made is so that the poor of today have luxuries like phones, cars and computers that the richest industrialists a hundred years ago couldn't have dreamt of. Yes, capitalism does perhaps distribute wealth unequally, but it's the system which by far produces the most wealth. More total wealth means more wealth to redistibute you know, which is why Sweden is so successful: Our markets are actually very free.

 

You might rethink that thing about the soviets and nazis being no worse.

Here is an interesting quote by CS Lewis to tease your thoughts with: &#8220;Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.&#8221;

 

Interesting, yet just before that period of industrialisation we had libertarianism too, and even during the period of industrialisation we seen the mass movement of a subsistence agriculture population into cities for employment in mass production the result of which was mass squalor, rampant disease and social degradation.

In fact it was so bad that establisment leaders became concerned that the populace was so under nourished it would be able to fight its various wars for access to resources in the the making of these finished goods.

Moreover, this period of industrialisation wasnt kicked off by libertarianism as by technological developments. The liberalism you speak of merely represented the ability of various industrialists to access both labour and goods to produce finished products. In the modern age , in fact since the advent of the welfare state and progressive tax none of this whas been hampered in fact its been boosted over and over again. Therefore we have seen greater and greater improvments in the lives of Americans - meaning the argument of classic liberalism, that it is what we need and all we need, is unmade.

 

Maybe you should spend more time studying the history of the economic systems of the world prior to 1875 instead of being a sarcastic, condescending (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Youre also one of most involved states in the economy and most willing to engineer capitalism for the benefit of the people.

 

I'll never understand the benefits of small government and small taxes, it's like a " go go go " flag for corporations to size all the power and wealth, reducing every other people to a slave like condition, which is the exact opposite of freedom. But to each their own i suppose

 

Libertarians live in a made up world while actually existing in the real world. Their problem is that they have no clue what reality is because they prefer fantasy.

 

LOL, maybe you should look for the historians of the time lauding the 'libertarianism'.

Or just perhaps explain why it cant be productive improvement and access to resources that brought about the growth.

 

Yes, exactly, and what happened afterwards? Oh nothing, just industrialisation, and a subsequent exponential increase in the standard of living for all... And no, you are wrong. Industrialisation nor capitalism didn't create squalor or poverty. You are totally ignorant of history and utterly lack any kind of perspective if you say so. Those were already there, before capitalism and industrialism -they are in fact what we've had for most of history. But just look how those are retreating before capitalism!

You do know that the industrial revolution started in great britain, which had one of the freest markets, right? Could there perhaps be a reason for why it started in britain, and not in russia? Yes, there is: free markets. For your information, the west still operates under a free market system, and a welfare system nor a progressive tax isn't necessarily incompatible. Though, the systems could be made to work better.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

*sigh* I'd really like to call you something right now, to discipline you for your ignorance.. But perhaps embarassment will be enough. Notice Sweden is in 18th place, and rising.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would the corporations do that? Coerce me into buying, or what?