God, Libertarians are nuts!

I'm watching the Libertarian Party Convention on C-SPAN and there's this complete wacko Jeffrey Diket up there spewing Ayn Rand and quoting Nathaniel Branden. This guy is so nuts! He's berating the crowd, and they're responding with applause. I love it! :tinfoilhat:

these people make the Fundies look sane.

At least libertarians are consistent. I don't agree with them, but they don't stoop to the outright dishonesty and hypocrisy as conservatives and neo-cons.

they want a dictatorship of property owners. In many ways it's a mirror reaction to communism, which wanted a dictatorship of non-property owners (in a sense). Libertarians came along and reversed the formula, but either way it's dictatorship.

At least yesterday anyway. There are a few things I can agree with that party on. They did bring up peak oil yesterday.

But, there are other things that I heard said that were a little too creepy. All the "free market", and getting rid of regulations, and letting business run wild, and from what I understood, basically no taxes. Those aspects don't sit right.

or thats what they would say to you

better to regulate the greedy bastards and be done with it
:)

They would probably give you four and twenty reasons why regulation either

a) is contrary to the original intent of the Constitutions, thus is unconstitutional

b) is anti-liberty

c) doesnt work anyway.

yep, tax the bastards...I don't care for the libertarian argument.
f*ck big business

..to permit it.

Youll sometimes hear the libs say this is unconstitutional, but it was made such via the working of the political process as specificed in the Constitution.

but the courts have ruled it doesn't have to be

Is why you are on the internet right now, drive cars, and just about anything you do in everyday life.

Well, the internett was developed by the military and state sponsored colleges.

Where did you get your computer from? Who do you pay to connect to the Internet?

But they certainly didn`t want to invest their own money in developing it theirselves "from the ground off". And the company I get my connection from is an old government business.

It is individuals coming together to provide a marketable service to others at a profit for themselves and at a savings to the consumer.

Not in every case. In Scandinavia the government has actually pushed the formerly state run and now state owned companies to expand the availability of the internett as much as possible.

Anyhow, it all is possible because the government imposes property rights and dictates what is right or wrong. Earlier in our history, you had no government, no laws, no rights and no individual property rights. It seems to have worked so well that it took 20.000 years before modern man saw fit to change it.

libertarians would not do not adovocate "no government, no laws, no rights and no individual property rights." In fact, protection of rights including property rights (which requires a government) is a strong tenet of libertarianism (although K-W may disagree with me here).

Is that no government whatsoever would be better than libertarianism, because that is the only neutral "government" there is. The problem with libertarianism is that "natural societies" are egalitarian, because you do not have any property rights protected by the government, and no rule of law. Having a limited government gives some people advantages over others.

I just don`t think that a nightwatcherstate is neutral. I do like anarchism, but it would not be possible in todays world without killing off the large majority of the worlds population.

Actually, I believe that the right to use force against other is a kind of natural right. The use of coercion is an integral part of nature, almost every species of animal uses coercion in some form, either to eat other animals or to compete for resources and status. The problem with libertarianism is that they want people to give up the right to use coercion, even if they does not gain anything from it. In a libertarian society, there will always be people, albeit a small minority, that would be better off in a complete anarchy.

It was academics playing with a "toy" that pleased them. Corporate america was a complete no-show in internet development until VERY late in the game. They got interested when Al Gore worked to provide some serious subsidies and guaranteed profits for infrastructure development. Hence ... the "initiative to create the internet".

Even the WWW was a developement by a nonprofit.
The buisness side came in much later.

That being said, theres nothing wrong with turing over the 'net to the private sector. The front end work of proof-of-concept and early technological work (which wouldnt be profitable) was done, now it can be handed over to the private sector.

I dont really see a big deal with that.

It's the pattern of all these "psuedo-conservatives". Taxpayers make the investments, and the private sector takes the profit.

business charges the most the market will bear not the least.
Big business means eliminating competition.
KL

Is why you are on the internet. The internet existed LONG before corporations got interested in it. An ethernet switch really isn't THAT sophisticated.

An unconsitutional exercise of Federal power...to set up the land-grant university system?

Thats what Southern politicians thought...and this act was only passed after the South seceeded.

With tools you made yourself and materials you mined yourself.

When I read libertarian theory, it appears that you really believe that people makes everything they need themselves.

Actually, you claim that people controls their own destinies, and then, you really can`t have a division of labour, because every action taken on the marked needs the acceptance of two parties, and as long as you can`t control anyone, you can`t control how you fare on the marked with a hundread percent certainty.

I am merely making the assertion that corporations can have a positive impact on society.

There are small businesses doing lots of work.
Big or small isn't really the point, to me. It is the results of the things they do and how they impact our society that we need to look at.
What are the goals and objectives for our society? How will we get there?

:hi:

Laws against murder. Laws against slavery. Laws against rape. Laws against theft.

If you extrapolate the libertarian ideal to it's natural conclusion, you have anarchy.

The role of government is the role of a referee and rules committee put together. They set rules for ethical and fair conduct. THEN they enforce those rules. Otherwise, everybody would solve ALL their disagreemants with violence.

...but the thing about their society is there are some things that couldn't be lesgislated (classic example I guess would be pure food and drug laws).

So theres this question of "drawing the line" when it comes to statutory law.

Is that their "freedom" is akin to Hobbesian "State of Nature". In theory there is a reason why humans entered into society. Libertarians want all the benefits of society with all the "freedom" of the state of nature.

Watching their convention is like watching a Star Trek convention on TV.

I'm all up on the whole Ayn Rand/ Objectivism BS, but this was the first time I saw a true-believer actively spewing it. I mean, I've seen Grover Norquist types, but no one actually quoting Nathaniel Branden.

Don't you love it when you find out your stereotypes are justified? :evilgrin:

dupe post

Had lunch with a friend of mine, and we drifted into politics, and he told me he's basically a libertarian. Everyone has an equal opportunity to do everything... why should anyone be forced to subsidize anyone else or society? If Wal-Mart can do it better and cheaper, why shouldn't they? Unions are bad for America because they've become corrupted and companies are forced to pay people to sit around doing nothing.

It's tough to refute in many ways. Yeah, technically, that unemployed auto worker COULD theoretically buy that empty building next to the new ballpark, open a restaurant and build loft apartments and make millions. But the odds are that some millionaire developer will beat him to it.

To be fair, he's a successful guy who has made it there by working hard... taking over a failing business and turning it around. So, if this guy, who had two parents, a small-town youth as the son of a small businessman, a high priced private college education, and several lucky breaks can make it, why not some ghetto kid with a single mom scraping by on welfare going to a crap inner-city school, surrounded by gangs, drugs, pimps, and hos? Sounds like a level playing field to me. But try explaining that to a Libertarian...

If the US didn't get in the way of "subsidizing" fascist coups in the countries where Wal-Mart manufactures its crap, they wouldn't be making the profits they do. And if Wal-Mart employees weren't getting something like 500K per store in Fed subsidized benefits for their underpaid employees, they'd have higher labor costs. And if their competitors were as politically powerful and got all the tax breaks and breaks in the appeals courts, their competitors would actually be able to compete with them better.

I think that there's a good argument that unions are corrupt. how could corporate profits go up 1000 percent in the last 30 years, but wages totally stagnate?

We need more unions and unions which help labor operate from a much stronger bargaining position with capital, because clearly whatever they've been doing isn't working.

Oh, hey, maybe's it the government which has passed a lot of legislation which makes it impossible for labor to compete on a fair playing field with capital for the wealth they create.

especially the ones who have read the "classical liberal" (libertarian) economists like F.A. Hayek. They know their shit...and as for morality, it is hard to argue the philosophy, because on every issue, economic and social, they always come down to "individuals do it better...individuals KNOW better how to lead their lives than government. Just expand liberty across the board and leave people free to make their own decisions."..What am I going to say? NO, you can't do that?...it makes me sound like an authoritarian (I probably am though..)

uuurg

They are ideologues, not pragmatists.

The individual might know best for himself, but so did Ken Lay, Chanisaw Al Dunlap, and so forth. So, for that matter, did Al Capone and George Pullman

Which is why we have regulation. Thats the historic working of the political process. The problem with the libertarins, and you will have a tough time to get them to admit it, is they are basically against democracy...they will say things like democracy is "mob rule" and we are a "Republic not a democracy", but the kind of freedom or liberty they are talking about will require quite a bit of repressio to enforce.

to be technical about it..

the founders said we were to be a "constitutional republic", guaranteeing basic freedoms for everyone that couldn't be taken away by a majority vote. In a pure democracy, 50.01% could legally enslave 49.99%. The Constitution guarantees certain individual rights so we can't do that..That is why the bottom 90% can't directly confiscate the property of the top 10%...It is also why we don't have WEALTH taxes as Karl Marx envisioned. As for the Ken Lay analogy...I really don't think they LP supports Ken Lay. They don't want many regulations on big business, but they are definately against fraud. If you visit their website and type "Enron", you will find lots of articles condemning him and what he has done to hurt the integrity of honest businessmen. Most libs I debate say they want three laws strictly enforced:

No Fraud
No Theft
No Violence

Other than that, they think people should be free to do as they please with their lives...hard to argue, until you look at reality...and realize a tiny bit of theft and the 'threat' of violence is necessary to maintain a civilized population.

Our form of democracy is a form of republic. There are other forms of democracy.

As for fraud, its how you define it. And if the punishments are strong eouggh to deter it.

The issue behind things like the Pure Food and Drug Act, which was intended to deal with fraud in the medicine and food industry.

Sure, if we didnt have this law setting standards and enforcement, you could sue for fraud for dangerous or fake medicine or bad food.

But this means you would have had to have been injured or somehow other found out the fraud. And you would have had to be able to afford access to the legal system. And the punishment would have to have accted as a deterrent. The libertarian concept is not pro-active, its re-active, and requires some amount of "collateral damage:"to work...

Of course we tried this before, which is why our society moved to regulation as a solution.

The libertarians have forgotten one simple fact. The say that people should control their own lives. That`s okay in a way, but people actually need money to do what they like, and control their own life. You need money to get food and shelter, and you need money to achieve some kind of social status.

I think it is here that libertarianism really go awry. To make money you have to do a trade, and for every trade, there are at least two individuals involved. That means that to do anything that needs money, you have to have the acceptance of another person. That means that the libertarian notion of freedom is completely wrong!

The mob always wants to be left alone to do what they know is best. Next time you debate a libertarian, beat the shit out of him. Than tell him he shouldn't bother calling the "socialist", tax subsidized police department.

I believe the LP is mainly concerned with reducing FEDERAL power. They have no problem with city and state governments...They just want to decentralize/reduce power in washington, which takes more than twice what all state governments collect in taxes.

...as well as unrealistic.

Why would they support repressive state or local legislation if they believe in "liberty"? Or is it all just about lowering their federal income tax bill.

And could you explain to me why you have a Kucinch icon next your name, and you call yourself "lefty and proud"? Are you just playing devils advocate here, or are you really a libertarian flying in under radar.?

Your friend should read this:

Wal-Mart Welfare

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18816

The war on drugs and prostitution thereby causing the crime attendant with a black market to subside and eventually causing that inner-city school to once again flourish as crime goes down and the economy goes up, thereby giving that kid in the ghetto a chance to live a good life.

Sure, prostitution should not be illegal. In Norway prostitution is legalized, and that does not make society any less compassionate or harder. It rather becomes harder in Sweden where they have banned prostitution, and the whole business is now taken over east european mafia bringing women in from poor countries.

I do now hovewer believe that legalizing drugs would solve the problem, as libertarianism does not allievate the reason that many push drugs, lack of decent employment opportunities. Also, many drug addicts and other not so employable people sells drugs for a living, so they don`t have to commit violent crimes or theft to get what they need. It could therefore make crime even worse, not better. If it is legalized, big corporations would step in and outcompete the small businesses that sells drugs on the streets today, making even more money dissapear out of the ghetto.

that most sell drugs. Money. If drugs were legal, and not taxed too outrageously, they would be far cheaper than they are today and almost certainly of higher quality. Plus, if pfizer or some other drug company sells you some bad smack, you or your next of kin can sue them. Good luck with suing your drug dealer today.

I am pro legalizing drugs. Hovewer, people or drugs are not fit for work, and I do not agree that drugs should be legalized in an US type of society, but I am for legalization in Scandinavia.

You're for legalizing drugs, you're just not for legalizing drugs. Makes sense.

I don't see how being a drug user precludes being fit for work.

Is that if you legalize drugs, you have to accept at some of them who takes drugs, will not be fit for work, and still accept that they should be able to live. This is possible exactly because most people taking drugs would still be fit for work.

Actually, Norway also have a kind of "war on drugs", just like you half our prisons are filled by people with "drug related offences", but does it work?

for work if drugs were legalized probably aren't fit for work now, when drugs are illegal. So what does it really matter? If drugs are more important to them than feeding themselves that's their choice and they are going to have to live or die with it.

Actually, Norway also have a kind of "war on drugs", just like you half our prisons are filled by people with "drug related offences", but does it work?

I don't think so, but try explaining things to a rabid drug warrior.

Though this would help eliminate the illegal drug trade. The primary reason is the same reason that poeple generally don't traffic in alcohol. It's easier to get from legitamite dealers. The dealers have a license to protect. If they violate that law, they can lose their business.

Drug dealers don't have anything to lose in the eyes of the law. They make AMAZING profits among a CAPTIVE audience (through addiction). The supply of drug dealers will ALWAYS outpace the supply of cops.

We need to START with marijauna. It's not a harmless drug. But I'd argue it's LESS harmful than alcohol.

I agree with MANY things that libertarians espouse. But I don't always relate it to a religious, ideological principal that CANNOT be proven or disproven. You evaluate EVERY policy on a cost/benefit analysis to society (including side-effects).

Truly the political lingo in America is COMPLETELY screwed up. The only REAL liberals are libertarians. Both words derive for Liber ... FREE. Conservative derives from Conserve as in PRESERVATION. This might have been an accurate description 70 years ago, but it isn't today. Rather, they are REGRESSIVES. They want to turn back the clock on the new deal.

We truly have lazy media pundits to blame for the disfunction of political vocabulary. Add Newt Gingrich to that and you have an environment where NO WORD means what Webster's book SAYS it should.

is if they slapped a hefty tax on them which plenty of people seem eager to do. Even with a big tax on them I don't think they'd be as expensive as they are today. If you can manufacture/grow and distribute drugs without having to worry about being killed by a rival gang or the police or thrown in prison there's really no risk involved that would cause the price to be higher. Stuff is usually cheaper when you can buy it legally, except for guns, but they're a special case.

Don't businesses also need employees and consumers? That is why we need regulation.

These people don't realize how retarded they look to those who have read serious thinkers like Davidson, Searle, Quine, McDowell, Strawson, Chisholm, Putnam, and so forth. Objectivism is to philosophy what Yanni is to classical music.

. . it finds its way into some minds and get's stuck there, rather than in its content.

.... remind me of a quote that popped up as the message of the day (or fortune as the program that issued it was actually called) on Unix systems back in the 80s.

"For every problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong."

.... someone noteworthy, I tried to google it without success.

Thanks for the attribution!

yep, he is...he has lots of anti government quotes...read an article about him a few weeks ago called "the joyous libertarian"

"The ideal Government of all reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone – one which barely escapes being no government at all." – H. L. Mencken

"It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law … that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts." – H. L. Mencken

.... to me - he was probably unaware of the irony of his quote.

I think "misanthrope" and possibly "curmudgeon" would also apply :)

was referring to government 'solutions'.

H.L. Mencken was a Libertarian, but he was also against democracy. He viewed the people ("homo boobiens") as witless morans. I do love Mencken, especially his observations on public religion, but he was no friend of democracy.

He's a good example of how the ultra-individualist Libertarians are actually pro-totalitarianism.

"It is the fundamental PRACTISE of all the more recent Multinational Corporations ... that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts. Hence, the Mass Media Industry and the billions of dollars Corporations spend on advertising in that Mass Media. So that people will believe that toxic waste is not only good for them but is necessary for their very survival.
- Robin aka cryingshame.


"It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law … that the average citizen is
half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts." – H. L. Mencken

I refuse to call it "Objectivism", because that implies that it's somehow objective, divorced from sentiment and preconceived notions. Just a quick read of Rand's philosophies will tell you otherwise. Rand not only ignores the fact that people have the urge for altruism, and that this urge has helped build society; she also ignores many of the core virtues that helped build capitalism, such as loyalty, devotion to the community, and yes, even a desire to help those less fortunate. For, you see, helping the less fortunate not only is the right thing to do from a strictly moralistic standpoint, it has many practical benefits as well, since the people you help join the workforce and become both producers and consumers.

This is the thing that our "business leaders" always miss: their workers are also consumers, and buy things themselves, which helps the economy in general, and their company in particular, in the long term. The better paid the workers are, the more they will be able to buy and invest in, and the better off everyone will do. As the Republicans are fond of saying (in a different context), "a rising tide lifts all boats". But do our great and illustrious "business leaders" notice this fact, and thus hold off on layoffs in order to help maintain a good level of commerce? No, they go for the quick cash that layoffs gain them by raising the stock price. This mistake is so classically Randian.

In Rand's world, you see, there is no benefit to helping the less fortunate. In fact, she felt that it was wrong to do so, since by helping them, you were encouraging them not to help themselves. The "right" thing to do was to help yourself, and encourage others to help themselves, and if everyone just looked after number one, then all of society would somehow be a better place. Sound familiar?

It's not a moral philosophy, because it discourages the very virtues that society depends on, and it's not a practical philosophy, because it discourages the very virtues that classical capitalism (as opposed to corporatism) depends on. So, what's it good for? Why, justifying to the wealthy why they are wealthy, and making them feel better about not helping the poor, of course.

Libertarians would be so much saner if they didn't have so many Randroids in their midst.

from what I've read, Rand had no problem with charity...she just didn't believe in forced charity (government sponsored).

I agree with you about "Objectivism" being anything but. Ironically, her "philosophy" would best be termed "Subjectivism," as it disregards the rights and needs of others.

The guy I mentioned in my original post spent a lot of time screaming about the "baby-killers" and such. I would think that "Objectivists" would be pro-choice, since they would take the cold ultra-rationalist approach that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite (there would be no emotional connection). Was I just wrong? or is this just one of many obvious contradictions?

Lastly, something that really proves that Randians are members of a cult is that they've created their own vocabulary: only from Randians have I heard the term "altruist zealot." How messed up in the head do you have to be to believe someone can be overly "zealous" about helping others?

The liberatarians always use this term as an epitheth, the accusation of being a statist or advocating statism.

I find them pretty annoying.

They're trapped in a kind of perpetual adolescence: all selfishness and "I don't want anyone telling me what to do!"

Kind of sad, really.

after all...isn't that really what most of them are?

Im wondering if there are any points of difference between the two (not being that close to the actual LP).

Noam Chomsky, for instance, is a leftist, or socialist, libertarian. There's not much difference between Randians and capital "L" Libertarians, though. The Libertarians (NB: NOT "libertarians") advocate unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism. Or, to give it a better name, industrial serfdom. They also think things like indentured servitude and debt bondage should be made legal. Along with child labour, and a few dozen other fun things that progress and enlightenment got rid of over a century ago. Not to mention that quite a few of them want to see a return to the gold standard, and we know how great that was for the economy (depression every 20-30 years, anyone?)

I'd be interested to know that. I bet they would support it given their dislike of "mob rule" (or what we would call "democracy").

I'm sure quite a few of them also support literacy tests for voting. In many ways, Libertarians might almost be called "neo-Confederates"...seems there's a kind of similar mindset at work (not necessarily racism, but the whole free trade, rule by the elite, etc).

Libertarians and Randians are exactly the same when it comes to economic policy (ultra-lassez faire). You'll find that most Libertarians are avid fans of Rand.

The primary difference is that Libertarians don't subscribe neccessarily to the metaphysical elements of Rand's pseudo-philosophy. I've read that Objectivists despise Libertarians because of that (sort of, "If you're really a follower of Rand's, you should believe every word she ever wrote!"). It's really just your average sectarian fight you'll find in many cults.

Randians/Objectivists are truly insane: they believe Ayn Rand, a chain smoking old hag who wore a cape (I'm serious!), possessed the greatest mind since Aristotle. If that doesn't prove they're a cult, I don't know what does!

A Libertarian political philosophy will mean that the strong will lord over the weak. Without regulations, Bill Gates and a few other billionaires could just buy up all of the banks and control the economy to their benefit. Or every large corporation could easily merge with each other and therefore rule the marketplace. There goes your freedom of choice.

At some point, the have-nots in a Libertarian world will fight back, and the haves will use their political and military power to crush such a rebellion. The only way for the few powerful to hold onto their power is to crush the not powerful.

Just like Iraq, Libertarianism is a political philosophy that will lead to a host of unintended consequences because it doesn't account for the people who have no power. The key for Libertarianism to work, as we see in Iraq, is acquiescence by the people. IOW, the people have to love the idea of having nothing and having the strong ruling their lives.

"At some point, the have-nots in a Libertarian world will fight back, and the haves will use their political and military power to crush such a rebellion. The only way for the few powerful to hold onto their power is to crush the not powerful"p

They came to be for liberty but their liberty wold reguire alot of political repression.

The last time we came close to the true lassiez faire / states rights society, the after the civil war to the early 1900s, we saw the formation of the first somewhat sucessful third party (populists), the advent of regulation, and quite a bit of labor and racial violence.

If our system would not have been flexibile enough to admit reform there would have been increasing violence and repression, and we would have had another civil war, or the Consitution would had been amended or seriously revised.

Unemployment and prohibition. Thus, it has more to do with over over-regulation, than under-regulation.

The Volstead Act became law in 1920. And unemployment, while somewhat of a problem due to the depressions of the 1870's and 1890's and immigration, wasn't as bad as it was in the 1930's, which sounds like it's the period you're speaking of...in which case you've obviously no idea what you're talking about.

Primarily the 1870s till maybe the Wilson Administration.

This period was probably closest to the laissez faire utopia the libertarians advocate.. but the political reaction to this was radicalism and labor violence, due to the use of the courts (via injunctions), private armys and even the federal army to break strike.

In the rural world the reaction was the granger and later populist movements in the 1870s, 80s, & 90s.

The the progressive movment took up the torch of reform in the pre WW-I era.

Both the progressives and populists where advocates of economic reform and regulation.

And yes, some of this "regulation" was of the racial and moral type, such as Jim Crow laws, and Prohibition, but we could see Jim Crow as also the consequence of a theory of a limited role for the Federal government (which the Libertarains would be sympathetic to), and the states and localities having more leeway.

Prohibition was interesting as it sort of illustrates going too far with regulation, and also on of the few examples of "legislating" via constitutional amendment.

But if you look at the actual statistics on homicide during that time period, the largest spiked area is between 1920-1930 or so, the exact period of prohibition. Afterwards it trends lower again until the 60's and 70's and the advent of the DEA and the war on drugs. Also, if you overlay this chart with one on unemployment, you'll see it also coincides very well.



Unfortunately, pre-1900 statistics are hard to come by, so further analysis of the impact of the Gilded Age is more difficult. However, one could argue that the corruption that pervaded government may have had just as much (if not more) to do with the problems as the robber barons did.

The US is very special, in that you had enough vacant farmland in that period. That combined with a large proportion of the population being farmer during the ninethinth century, that is a factor that lessens poverty in a considereable degree. If you look at Great Britain and France when the were closest to the nightwatcherstate, they were not very peaceful societies. Actually, you had the chartists in Great Britain and violent uppheaval in France in 1848 and 1870 during that period.

I also have the impression that America was really crime infested during the 1800s. Movies like Gangs of New York and several westerns are afterall based on actually existing conditions. Also, I saw pictures of the slums of some eastern cities during the 1880s and 1890s, and they looked like scenes taken right out of the jewish ghettos of nazi occupied Poland.

But I know enough to not get my information from movies, entertaining as they are.

I didn`t state that I took the movies for fact, only that they are based on actual facts. When it comes to the photographs, they were documentary. Anyhow, I really haven`t seen any evidence of the 1800s being a "caring century". It certainly wasn`t in Europe.

Without a photograph of everything, it takes away from the big picture and puts emphasis and agenda on a particular situation in a particular moment in time that the photographer/publisher wants to push.

But it certainly proves that such conditions really existed.

But it still doesn't prove that it was pervasive or prevalent. I could probably drive 20 minutes and take a picture today that would boggle your mind just as equally.

But then again, America is considered fairly libertarian, compared to welfareist Europe or corporatist East Asia(minus Singapore and Hong Kong).

Also, I do not think that it is a coincidence that all the leading socialist thinkers lived in those times. Only libertarianism makes socialism in the strict sense appear to be a good idea.

Its the rich over the poor, the have's over the have not's. For their only regulations would be no theft, no violence, and no corruption. Can you think of a better way for the rich to assert their will over the poor than to unlimit all except that which the have not's could use to gain position.

but only because of their stance on drugs, the military, and U.S. foreign policy. I am now a left-leaning independent, but I am still down with the Libs in those areas.

some hippy dude saying "Stop the draft", and a girl laughed and gave the thumbs up...look like cool people ;)

A lot of libertarians strike me as being every bit as well-intentioned, idealistic and utopian as their ideological mirror-images who become socialists and communists.

Am I the only one who thinks this?

Libertarians, along with socialists and communists, are ideologues who care sweet fuck-all about how their bright, shiny ideas work in the real world. Ideologues are scary people, and they are responsible for most of the fuckery in the world in the past century. (Cf. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, the religious right, u.s.w.)

I tend to really look askance at ideologically-driven, utopian solutions to things, and the libertarians are just one species of this kind of thinking.

any kind of workable social/political system HAS to take into account history (what's worked, and why; what hasn't, and why not); sociology (including social dynamics and group psychology); and the utilitarian principle of acheiving the greatest good through the most efficient means. Anything else is, essentially, mental masturbation. (Which I suppose makes the Libertarians and their ilk wankers. Heh.)

Government left to its own devices will grow bloated with power and greed leaving individual citizens and liberties by the wayside. Sadly, it is a lesson we are learning anew today.

And it is exactly the parts of the government that can be used for that end, the police and the military, that the libertarians want to keep.

Libertarians would severely reduce the law enforcement and military aspect of the government to the point that it can only be used in situations of self-defense and not large enough to be used for empire-building or civil liberty infringing.

All that government may do is "overlook" atrocities taking place. Unlike what libertarians claim, the genoicides and mass murders in countries like Indonesia under Suharto, Argentina under Videla and a lot of other such regimes were not carried out by the state, they were mainly carried out by civil society. The government just didn`t intervene.

government is the only possible protection individuals have, yes, so far in history governments have always been used by elites to exploit, but having no government would just make things worse.

..that "government" is ultimately accountable to the citizens.

Some libertarians see "government" as something outside of society, as this idnependent institution, while I see "government" as ultimatley accountable to the citizens...in theory at least..as somehting more organic, arising out of society and, ideally, responsive to it.

How big or how small a government is, and what it does, is ultimatley decided by the citzens, via their elected representatvies (or referenda), sometimes subject to judicial review.

Libertarians seem to be taking an 18th century view of government as this unaccountable insitution...the king or duke and his court, his ministers and his army.

There is nothing wrong with liking the libertarian, socialist, communist, capitalist, etc uptopia. There is even nothing wrong with thinking that we can move towards them or borrow ideas from them. The problem is leaders who use those ideas in order to gather and retain power.

There are good idealogues. Martin Luther King was an ideologues. The problem is the people who use the power of ideas as propaganda.

Liberatarianism is a dangerous idea, because as a utopia it fits alot of the concepts in our society.

and any suggestion that Immediate Self Gratification is not ultimately beneficial to one's self or others.

A truely Libertarian state would be much like "Lord of the Flies".

wanting something to be true makes it true to them. They cant see the world right in front of them because they refuse to look outside of a filter that predetermines what they are going to conclude.

That includes me, you, and everybody else.

Their aim is not that of a state of anarchy, but one of mutual respect, self-regulation and minimal government interference as opposed to NO government at all (the gov't exists to protect the rights of the people).

Libertarians believe in that and much much more. Their aim is in fact a state of anarchy. They think that if the government just shriveled up and died wed be able to handle running society on our own and at the same time the free market system would properly regulate the economy.

It runs counter to basically every model of government and society we have had in history.

That would be anarchist policy. There is a difference between the two. There may be some people who call themselves libertarian who do believe in the ultimate goal of anarchy, but that is not the idealogical line. Government must always exist in order to protect individual liberties.

for military and defence, other than that, it is pretty comperable to anarchism.

You are still confusing being a civil-librtarian and being an actual librtarian. Librtarians do not believe the government is what protects civil rights, they believe the gov is the biggest threat to individual civil rights and that the best way to protect our rights is to eliminate the federal government.

Their policy is minimal government, not none at all.

I know exactly what you are getting at. And I think if you were trying to rationalize libertarianism youd probably end up concluding what you have, that it is just civil libertraianism.

But that isnt right. It is not about a smaller government that protects rights, it just isnt. It is about an almost non-existant federal government with small local governments to do a very small number of functions.

The idea is that governments hinder individual liberty.

Each individual person has their own definition of libertarianism. The term has been co-opted by so many groups through the years that there is a problem with self-identity. However, today the actual Libertarian party is not an advocate of anarchy and the total elimination of government, at least not officially. :)

They dont advocate tearing down the federal gov, simply because that would make them politically completely unfeasible, so they have a platform tempered to fit with our current political system, but in the end the goal is to reduce the federal governments power to intervene with individuals and with corporations.

But not eliminate. You could be right though, that libertarians are secret anarchists that are politically savvy enough to know not to be called anarchists. Is that what most of them believe? I don't know, but I doubt it.

It would answer your questions. So far you have been articulating a decidedly non-libertarian view.

But I think we are going around and around with this discussion, so I think that'll be it for me on this one for now. :) Good talkin' to ya!

theres no point in ever discussing anything. Certainly we all have our own set of ideas and everyone has a slightly different take on things but there are certain principles that are identified as libertarian. And just because you dont like all of them or have a different view of them doesnt make libertarianism a catch all that now includes your viewpoint. It sounds as if you disagree with the fundemental tenets of libertarianism, thus the concept you are presenting is not a different form of libertraniasm, it is NOT libertrarianism.

That seems somewhat unfair. Anyway, I can tell we aren't going to get anywhere today, so that's it for me. Really this time. :) Still good talkin' to ya though.

lots of stuff and links...you should get a good idea where they stand on most issues here

http://www.libertarianism.com

but their refusal to hold Corporations accountable and liable to regulations which would protect the Individual belies their underlying agenda.

Hell, Libertarians are just hunky dory with Corporations being given the SAME rights as Individuals.

If everyone had lived on their own isolated island with enough food and drink.

the places with almost complete freedom for business--no labor laws, no environmental laws, no licensing fees, no minimum wage or safety standards, taxes absent or extremely low--and almost no government services--no public schools, no public health facilities, no no welfare, no nothing, except for private charity--are about as far from paradise as you can imagine.

They're places like Somalia or Haiti, where a few unusually clever and/or unscrupulous people have amassed great wealth and live like royalty while the masses of people live half-starved in makeshift shacks, desperate to earn even the equivalent of a few cents.

The freedom to open your own business without licenses or permits means nothing if the only business you can afford to get into is selling soup to people just as poor as yourself.

These kinds of societies are terrific for the rich, who have an endless supply of people whose best hope for survival is to become a house servant.

A columnist for the old Minneapolis Star got it right so many years ago when he characterized the libertarian-leaning Young Americans for Freedom as "Young Americans for Feudalism."

I have always thought the reason people are attracted to Libertarianism is because they know they are exactly the kind of greedy eploiter who would do well in that system.