why don't Democrats understand libertarians?

I've felt the same way for a while. When I was old enough to vote I voted for GW Bush thinking that he was all about small government, fiscal soundness, freedom for all. Then I say the Bush years. I thought McCain might be a change, that the Republicans really were pissed at Bush and his BS, but then in came Palin to tend to the needs oc the social right. I thought the TEA party was going to be a real libertarian rising, but then the main group invited Palin as a keynote speaker, showing me the TEA party was meaningless. I still can't bring myself to vote for a Democrat because they too have some horrible social policies, but they sure are better that what the right is bringing. At least the Dems are trying to help people rather than hurt them.

 

Don't bother. You said you understood Libertarian Foreign Policy, but when push comes to shove, all you could do was Google. So what would be the point of you copying and pasting stuff that you don't understand? If you don't understand it, just go back and read what I wrote on it and consider yourself educated.

 

I'll leave it to hatkimjongilisanucklehed to explain that to you in his own words, but the Libertarian Party articulates its foreign policy as such:

http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy

Personally, I think the LP is too willing to subscribe to the war propaganda of Osama bin Laden and thus engage in terrorist apologetics, and this is typical of people who don't truly understand the ideology, agenda and history of Islamist jihadists, which preceded the existence of the United States by 1000 years.

That having been said, I think there's a legitimate argument for reducing our footprint around the world in the post-Cold War era. As Samuel Huntington pointed out in his book Clash of Civilizations, which was written 5 years after the demise of the USSR, we no longer live in a bipolar global power structure - we live in a multipolar global power structure and it's time America and its allies responded accordingly. We still need to defend our citizens and interests abroad, but our allies need to step up and start assuming more responsibility for the peace and stability in their own regions.

 

That' may be, but I was amused by this from your link:

The best form of anti-terrorism insurance is to remove all troops from the Middle East, stop attempts to either preserve or change their current governments, and end all government-to-government aid.

In other words, just what I said!

 

LOL - Pretty much.

Again, what I find particularly troubling is the willingness on the parts of some Libertarians to legitimize the propaganda of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the presence of our troops in the KSA following the Gulf War, the fact remains that it was not an act of aggression and an illegitimate occupation (not to mention several other insane claims) as OBL stated in his fatwas - it was a voluntary and mutual agreement on the parts of the governments of the KSA and USA to protect both of our national interests against Baathist Iraq. Clearly, bin Laden's opinion on this matter was anything but unanimous, to say the least, and the LP shouldn't be putting itself in a position where it is essentially arguing that US foreign policy should be based on the ranting of delusional megalomaniacs who are trying to pawn themselves off as the Defenders of Islam.

Like I said, the LP can make a legitimate case for reducing our military footprint around the world, but engaging in terrorist apologetics isn't one of them. This speaks to what may arguably be the Libertarians' greatest weakness, and that is their horrible messaging. Libertarians have a lot of great ideas, but all too often they're not great at articulating them in an effective and persuasive manner.

 

The fundamentals of Libertarian thought stem from Non-Aggression... which doesn't mean passive but, rather defensive. Instead of meddling through the International scene to control parts of the globe through puppets and/or outright conquest Libertarians would rather be defensive & diplomatic.

 

The constitution was mostly an outgrowth of Enlightenment philosophies. Where in natural law belief are there the ideas for separation of powers; the rule of law, rather than rule by might; that leaders should be elected by the ruled, the right to a trial? Wouldn’t natural law imply the opposite? It’s not like god gave us rights. We have rights because the government (by way of the constitution) allows us to have them

It’s not like God is real. If you are relying on god to derive your laws then religion is the driving force, not nature.

Where do you get this idea? Not from liberals. The original differentiation between liberals and conservatives was that conservatives relied on authority (religious authorities in this case telling you what is natural law) for knowledge and liberals instead relied on empirical evidence. It is this difference that caused the original liberals to distance themselves from Christianity and to embrace scientific methods. Freethinkers are always very liberal.

 

Because to them we're all heartless bastards who don't care about anybody.

Leftists and libs arrive at some of the same conclusions for different reasons. For lefties it's compassion, for libs it's liberty.

 

During America's Gilded Age is when we had economic libertarianism, which ended in corporations controlling entire towns by monopolizing businesses, shutting down nearby competition using their vast wealth which allowed them to control the means of production (a "free" market is never free) and it also allowed them to pay the people in the towns whatever they felt like paying them because there was no other place to get a job due to the intense monopolization. People started starving and essentially fell into wage slavery where they barley made enough money to live, and they could not make enough money to rise out of their position of poverty thus taking away their freedom. This is why the government stepped in, they were forced by the people to step in or there was going to be serious hell to pay and likely a Communist revolt would have been underway if things did not change. It was the Communists who lead the protests to end child labor, receive a minimum wage, and to receive some sort of social(ism) security. Everything the Communists have fought for and won is under attack by the right wing who wants to take away minimum wage, allow children to work under the guise of "freedom", and most importantly of all they want to end any sort of government program that helps poor people. Capitalism is the party for the bourgeoisie, whereas socialism is the party for the proletariat and these two classes will never stop fighting.

 

Hmmm and would you say we're right about that??

What do you really think about your countrymen? Given the common worship of money and the monied and lambasting of the American populace by American leaders such as Mitt Romney and Fox News what else are we to think?

 

That's very vague, and it kind of sounds like a conspiracy theory.

What monopolies would that be? A monopoly is very hard to hold onto without government priviledge. Many corporations did indeed grow very large and took a very big part of the market share in their branch, but they did so because they could sell at lower prices due to increased efficiency in production, like rockefeller and his oil.

The funny thing though is that banning child labour and raising the minimum wage actually hurts both children and low wage earners. Of course the communists, economic illiterates as they are, are expected to be in favour.

 

Democrats in the US do understand US "Libertarians". You are really asking why the Democratic Party doesn't embrace and pander to self-professed Libertarians the way the Republican Party does. It's because they don't need to. The Republican Party needs every little voting bloc that they can cobble together to form an electoral majority in national elections. That's why the GOP implemented the Southern Strategy back in the early 1970s. That's why they pander to religious fundamentalists with lip service, but rarely (if ever) implement the asinine social policy proposals that they employ to gain their votes when they do have complete control of the federal government, as they did back in 2001.

Conscientious Libertarians already have their own political party. There is no need for a true Libertarian to vote for a Republican like Ron or Rand Paul simply because they try to pass themselves off as Libertarian Lite politicians. If these guys were actually Libertarians, then they wouldn't have an R next to their political title and they wouldn't advocate policies that are diametrically opposed to libertarian ideals.

Then again, real Libertarians don't vote for Republicans. They remain true to their ideals and vote Libertarian. As for Republican voters who call themselves Libertarians simply because they are embarrassed to be labeled "Republicans", the Democrats don't want or need them in their party. They have been managing to form an adequate electoral majority in national elections recently without having to pander to voters who disagree with their basic policy positions. Anarchists have no place in a political party that believes that it is feasible to have a functional government that actually serves the needs of our society, rather than serving only the needs and desires of the oligarchy.

 

Actually I used Wikipedia. I didn't use google at all. Those links say "Wikipedia" in them, which is a free online encyclopedia. It's just odd because typically people are thrilled when someone does research and uses resources that are linked to scholarly works, but apparently you're an anomaly.

You mean this?

Where you entirely mischaracterize what libertarians believe regarding foreign policy? Isolationism? Are you kidding me?



"Isolationism is a category of foreign policies institutionalized by leaders who asserted that their nations' best interests were best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance, as well as a term used, sometimes pejoratively, in political debates. Most[who?] Isolationists believe that limiting international involvement keeps their country from being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. Some[who?] strict Isolationists believe that their country is best served by even avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.[1]

Two distinct and unrelated concepts that are occasionally erroneously categorized as Isolationism are:
1.Non-interventionism – is the belief that political rulers should avoid military alliances with other nations and to avoid interfering in wars bearing no direct impact on their nation. However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, unlike isolationists.

2.Protectionism – Relates more often to economics, its proponents believe that there should be legal barriers in order to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states."

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



"Libertarians" are not isolationists in the slightest. "Libertarians" try to limit the amount of money, resources, and American lives lost to the bear minimum, and this means avoiding war at essentially all costs, while simultaneously advocating for a strong national defense. So like I said earlier, you don't know anything about "libertarian" foreign policy, which is understandable considering your gross mischaracterization of the position. It's okay - I know people generally fear of what they don't understand. Maybe you should just take some time and read the links next time to get a better idea of what "libertarians" believe instead of plugging your ears and holding your breath while stomping around like a child. Here they are again. These links are essentially a summary of the foreign policy philosophy of what "libertarians" believe.



"Armed neutrality, in international politics, is the posture of a state or group of states which makes no alliance with either side in a war, but asserts that it will defend itself against resulting incursions from all parties.[1]
Military preparedness without commitment, especially as the expressed policy of a neutral nation in wartime; readiness to counter with force an invasion of rights by any belligerent power.[2]
Armed neutrality is a term used in international politics, which is the attitude of a state or group of states which makes no alliance with either side in a war. It is the condition of a neutral power, at war, which holds itself ready to resist by force any aggression of either belligerent. Such states assert that they will defend themselves against resulting incursions from all parties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_neutrality
Oppenheim, International Law: War and Neutrality, 1906, p. 325.


"Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. An original more formal definition is that Non-intervention is a policy characterized by the absence of interference by a state or states in the external affairs of another state without its consent, or in its internal affairs with or without its consent.[1]

This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[2] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[3]

Nonintervention is distinct from, and often confused with isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. Non-interventionism is a policy in government only and thus does not exclude non-governmental intervention by organizations such as Amnesty International."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
1. The doctrine of intervention (1915) by Henry G. Hodges.
2. Carpenter, Ted Galen. The Libertarian Reader. pp. 336–344. ISBN 0-684-83200-3.



"In political science and international relations, anti-imperialism is the opposition to colonialism, colonial empire, Hegemony, and imperialism. As such, anti-imperialism includes opposition to wars of conquest, especially wars meant to conquer and colonise countries whose territories do not border the imperial power, and wars meant to subjugate peoples of different cultures; the term also comprises political opposition to the territorial expansion of a country beyond its established borders.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-imperialism
Imperialism: The Story and Significance of a Political Word, 1840–1960 (2010), by Richard Koebner and Helmut Schmidt.



"Diplomacy (from the Greek δίπλωμα, meaning making a deal with other countries) is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations[2] through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics, culture, environment, and human rights. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians. In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy
1. (French) François Modoux, "La Suisse engagera 300 millions pour rénover le Palais des Nations", Le Temps, Friday 28 June 2013, page 9.
2.Ronald Peter Barston, Modern diplomacy, Pearson Education, 2006, p. 1




Please don't respond to me until you've made a conscious effort to actually understand what "libertarians" believe instead of continuing with your warped perception of their foreign policy.

 

The big problem is some of it does come from conspiracy stuff, but sometimes there is some truth to their claims as well.

For example. Obama does want to take away the firearms. There is video evidence of him stating that he does have a program meant to do that. And people are eroding away the Constitution, such as the National Defense Authorization Act which gives the President and the military to indefinitely detain unlawful combatants. These are actual things going on in America today. Eventually that unlawful combatant will be misused against the American people in some way.

And if you dig behind the scenes of things like this going on, well, who or what is behind it all?

I don't know for certain if it's something like the Illuminati or reptilian overlords and so on, but there is definately an effort from some people to turn America into some sort of tyranny.

 

What does this have to do with "globalists"? Also, couldn't it be the case that Obama just wants to limit gun ownership because he really does believe it's bad dor america? And that he and the gov really does believe the NDA act is necessary to combat terrorism? Isn't it better to assume they're just well-meaning fools, rather than that they're acting in some conspiracy? I mean, what reason do you have to suspect that other than a hunch?

 

Well first off I'm not American. But regardless, it's really a simple case that lefties take offense when we oppose something they see as a compassionate good (like minimum wage or welfare), and they honestly never understand that we don't oppose it because we don't care about the people you're supposedly helping, we oppose it because you're ordering people around, telling people what to do and taking more of our money in the process.

 

And more importantly, it actually hurts those it was intended to help, in many cases.

 

Our military helps poor people. Public schools help the poor. Few folks in the right wing want to end the military and public schools.

Your assertion that the right wing wants to end any sort of government program that helps poor people isn't true.


​

 

Unfortunately, you've added nothing to what I already knew. I considered myself a Libertarian for decades. I read the magazines and I read the books. So I as I've already said, I understand the libertarian take on foreign policy quite well. Ultimately, it's reaction to dealing with foreign policy crisis's boiled down to what I've already said. You've not contradicted that.

 

Well, here's but one example of the globalist agenda, but be skeptical about it. Some of it is true other parts of it is not.

http://www.globalistagenda.org/

I'm sorry, but no. I just can not see obama that way, nor can I see gun grabbers that way. Any sort of control is an infringement on the second amendment, and it is based on historical events.

They are not fools. They are very intelligent people who know the techniques of manipulating people to get what they want.

 

Wrong. Go back to square one and read the op.

 

What separates man from animals is our ability to organize and progress. Libertarians are more of the "survival of the fittest types". It makes no sense when organization has proven to be far more effective than people just running around doing anything they want. There's a reason why not a developed country in the world chooses to be unorganized and less efficient. Libertarians just believe in magic, that if everyone does what they want things will work out. That has really been apparent throughout history, lol.

 

Given the fact that the Left hasn't had a new idea since the day Gracchus Babeuf's head was separated from his torso by his Jacobin friends in 1796, I have to wonder what sort of animal we should classify "progressives" under? Care to help us out here?

Guffaw.

It's amusing that a votary of the "progressive" faith would see fit to accuse anyone of believing in magic. Again, another classic case of projection on the part of the Cult of the New Left.

And here's a newsflash for you, prog - unlike the Scofflaw in Chief, the Alinskyites that surround him and the New McCarthyites on Capitol Hill who are running around doing anything they want, libertarians actually believe in adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution. That's more than can be said for the Constitution-hating nihilists on the Left who want to fundamentally transform the United States of America by hook and by crook.

As for paragons of disorganization and inefficiency, one need look no further than the bumbling neo-socialist "community organizer" who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. You know things are bad when the #BOWDOWN MSM starts whining about the "relentless incompetence" of the dolt who has made a mockery of the sham of the manufactured intelligence of the Left. It most certainly sucks to be them, but it couldn't happen to a more deserving crowd of irrational saps.

 

More like, why-are-you-expecting-me-to-do-your-work types?



​

 

You asked the question. Sorry if the answer bothers you.

I'm sure you would have preferred something along the lines of: "Democrats don't understand us "Libertarians" because they're just a bunch of poopy-heads."