Where are the "libertarians" when you need them ?

Or do they just show up when the Democrats are in power? Do they have a national spokesman? I thought they were all about protecting our "liberties" and our Constitution? Where did all the "libertarians" go? Were they sent to a secret gulag? Surely they would be speaking up if they were around?

nt

Grippin grain.

"Still in Love Wit Ma Dough"
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=353472&songID=2498952


;)

All of the things they hysterically accused Clinton of wanting to do i.e. suspend the Bill of Rights and make himself a de facto dictator, exempt from the constitution and the law, Bush has actually done and there is nary a peep from them by and large, Ron Paul from Texas a notable exception.

There is no shortage of material highly critical of the Bush administration on Iraq, the war on terrorism, and civil liberties under threat.

Would that our Democrats were so eloquent.

This whole thread is a red herring based on a false premise: that libertarians have no values and are blindly beholden to George Bush.

It is easy to attack them if you don't look at what they've actually said.

a Republican who wants to smoke pot. If they are really Republicans at heart it figures they wouldn't speak up against Bush. I know a guy who claims he's a Libertarian, but he cares mostly about guns -- he's been convinced for years that the Democrats want to take his guns away. And during the Clinton administration he'd frequently rant about the evils of Big Government and how Clinton was trying to grab more power for the government and the violation of people's Constitutional rights as demonstrated by the Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidian incidents. Lately, though, he's been strangely silent. I think he's not a real Libertarian at all -- just a Republican anti-tax gun nut. Are there any real Libertarians out there (and I don't mean the idiots who read too much Ayn Rand in college)?

and I can tell you they just flat don't think this could ever happen to them. They subscribe to the "If you haven't done anything wrong you don't have any reason to be worried" school of thought. I did get them thinking on Christmas by asking them if they'd still feel the same way if Hillary was elected in '08. That raised a few eyebrows especially when I wondered how easy it would be to tap into the NRA's membership rolls and find out just who owned firearms in the US.

They are active but because of the two-party political structure, have little nationwide authority. Same with the Greens.

Justin spends all his time trying to implicate Democrats in all this. Neocons are, to him, simply ex-Liberals. No matter that they aren't liberals now. No matter that whatever opposition exists against BushCo thuggery, which would have previously been an unthinkable assault on libertarian 'principles', is Democrats trying without enough votes to stop REPUBLICANS from instituting it all.

Never mistake libertarians for anything but hard-core regressives.

I read articles every day that strongly and straightforwardly implicate and delineate actions Repubs take to curb our freedom. Justin may be the EIC, as it were, but there are many many more who write there. Were it not forbidden here at DU to link to antiwar, I would do so to show a few examples.

I go there every few months and rummage around if an interesting link leads me there. Mostly Raimondo. I'll say this, JR is smart, thorough and well-researched, and I like his embedded-link format. But he's still a libertarian, so who cares. I really don't much care what they think even when they are sporadically on our side. I just don't respect the ideology even if I respect his writing.

I go there occasionally after Bush violates another whole raft of civil liberties or privacy laws or record federal spending to see what the libertarians are saying, just out of idle political curiosity. Kind of like looking what a Republican might say against their own after an especially eggregious violation. I know libertarians will never be more than marginally on the side of progressives even when Republicans violate their principles more than any Dem would ever do, but I want to see how much as a political wind-sock. I can't imagine they'd vote progressive on any meaningful scale. They'll vote Repub in the next election, same as always, as if it were just Bush doing wrong and not the entire Republican Congress ramming his stuff through. Maybe some will stay home or vote third-party.

The thing I notice is that with Raimondo at least, he always has to work in how Democrats are bad too, even though they've got little to no power to stop Bush and the Republicans in all of this. If he can't find a way to implicate one now, then he'll go back to a neocon who used to be a leftist to do so. I will say that JR seems pretty pissed, but then he kind of always does.

But I never forget what side of the fence libertarians sit on.

Loathe as I am to shatter the Liberals=dove/Conservatives=hawk equation held by many posters, many of America's greatest destroyers were deemed progressive (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson) or liberal (Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson). Take away their Square Deals, Fair Deals and Great Societies, and you're forced to plumb legacies mired in the blood of millions, who were murdered for ideology and the almighty dollar.

Justin is rightfully wary of ideologues and utopians, whether they be rightists, leftists, or centrist.

I'll take an anti-war libertarian over a "guns n' butter" liberal any day. At least the former won't send my future children to murder, and kill, for the state.

Great, you just proved that even the most "liberal" presidents engaged in authoritarian and/or imperialist policies. What else is new? Imperialism and authoritarianism have always been a part of American politics, and having a MORE liberal (read: less rightist) president will not change that.

Teddy - Started our little campaign of oppression in the Philippines (200,000 Filipinos dead, I believe, not to mention our use of concentration camps)

Wilson - Espionage and Sedition Act. Need I say more? Perhaps I do, for he entered us into WWI for no reason

Harry Truman - Oh, just ask the people who were living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki what he did. What's that? They were all slaughtered? Oh....

JFK - Invaded Cuba for imperialist aims, but thankfully failed...badly.

LBJ - One word: 'Nam.

These presidents, although being supposedly among our most liberal, are guilty of many injustices. Why is that? Because they were American presidents. Just because they were less imperialist than the ones that came before and after them doesn't change the fact that they were also imperialist and authoritarian.

We seem to be on the same wave length.

I was merely articulating why principled libertarians like Justin are wary of liberalism.

I didn't put in something I wanted to say. My apologies.

Many of those presidents' policies were about as anti-liberal as you can get. Labeling that as "liberalism" borders on slander (not really, but you get my point), and is at the very least extremely mistaken. Again, those policies are the antithesis of liberalism, and therefore they should not be considered "liberal" just because the president that instituted them was supposedly a hair to the left of the former president.

Libertarians are scared of liberalism because they adhere to the "screw other people who don't have enough, this is mine" mentality. Liberals, on the other hand, strive for equity and justice, things that seem quite alien to most libertarians.

Just my opinion.

Here's a link to one of the most fascinating essays I've come across: "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal," by Murray N. Rothbard.

--snip--

I joined the right-wing movement—to give a formal name to a very loose and informal set of associations—as a young graduate student shortly after the end of World War II. There was no question as to where the intellectual right of that day stood on militarism and conscription: it opposed them as instruments of mass slavery and mass murder. Conscription, indeed, was thought far worse than other forms of statist controls and incursions, for while these only appropriated part of the individual's property, the draft, like slavery, took his most precious possession: his own person. Day after day theveteran publicist John T. Flynn—once praised as a liberal and then condemned as a reactionary, with little or no change in his views—inveighed implacably in print and over the radio against militarism and the draft. Even the Wall Street newspaper, the Commercial and Financial Chronicle, published a lengthy attack on the idea of conscription.

All of our political positions, from the free market in economics to opposing war and militarism, stemmed from our root belief in individual liberty and our opposition to the state. Simplistically, we adopted the standard view of the political spectrum: "left" meant socialism, or total power of the state; the further "right" one went the less government one favored. Hence, we called ourselves "extreme rightists."

Originally, our historical heroes were such men as Jefferson, Paine, Cobden, Bright and Spencer; but as our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker. One of our great intellectual heroes was Henry David Thoreau, and his essay, "Civil Disobedience," was one of our guiding stars. Right-wing theorist Frank Chodorov devoted an entire issue of his monthly, Analysis, to an appreciation of Thoreau.

--snip--

http://www.mises.org/story/1842

It is largely insignificant to how a person describes themselves. An imperialist who calls themselves a "liberal" is still an imperialist. An anarchist who calls themselves an "extreme rightist" is still an anarchist.

The individual who you quoted was using a bad perception of governmental style. In government style, the right favors larger governments, while the left favors less powerful governments. Stalinism is decidedly rightist in this case. Economic and fiscal styles add more factors, as do social values and their relationships with policies. In my opinion, that person was merely confused.

The thing is that the left-right political scale can cause a lot of faults, mistakes and mislabeling. When some ideological groups get jumbled up through misnomers, difficulties like the ones you outlined can arise, but it changes nothing about their actual stances.

I was actually just reading "On Civil Disobedience", and Thoreau's first line is in support of "smaller government". Anarchists and Libertarians may agree on one concept, but will fight each other in the streets over just about everything else.

it is the typical media shut out of all things third party at work. You don't hear much from the greens either, because no one reports what they say. Both organizations send out press releases. Funny how they're bitching about NOT hearing from third parties now, but never during the debates.

His outrage is palpable. He'll be back in January BTW.

Conservatives are speaking out against Bush's wiretaps.

I saw something from The Federalist Society against it.

George Will has spoken out against it.

Bob Barr has spoken out against it as well...

We are going to need to identify conservatives and Republicans opposed to Bush's wiretaps and work with them to impeach Bush if we are going to be able to do it before 2007.

Doug D.

The answer is: they'll be back in force as soon as Democrats are back in power.

Libertarians are nothing but a right-wing anti-government cult narrowly based on selfishness and all of its supporting strictures.

This entire episode of the Bush presidency doing away with civil liberties, and the indifferent reaction of libertarians towards it, will be useful against libertarians from now till forever. I can't wait until Hillary is President and they start screaming. I'll just point out that they had nothing to say when Bush was running rampant over the Constitution that they pretend to care about, so they can STFU now and forever.

They have no credibility, but then, they never had any to begin with.

Bush administration's war on terror, war in Iraq, and war on civil liberties.

You don't have to like 'em, but you should at least know what you're talking about before you start blathering. Check out www.cato.org to see some examples of what libertarians have to say on these issues.

I won't watch his drivel- but I'm sure others did.

:shrug:

if they spent as much energy defending free speech as they did defending the right to bear arms America would not be in the mess it is just now.

(IANAL) I just spent a few minutes reading up on constitutional law, the ninth amendment seems to state explicitly that no constitutional right has precedence over another, in other words, they are all equally important.

Maybe the libertarians should start defending their constitutional rights equally too.

is that the libertarian owns a modem....

and since 2000, it's like many their brains stopped processing critical thought---I've had self-described libertarians defend to me with a straight face:
1. Ashcroft and the Patriot Act
2. Racial profiling/driving while black
3. Airport searches/profiling (just as long as THEY are not the ones being searched)

the funny thing is they now defend bush for all the things they were scared shitless about; they types of things they swore Janet Reno would eventually do...As far as i can tell, today's libertarian agenda consists of:
1. guns
2. not wanting to pay taxes for anything
3. completely unregulated business, or the free reign to make a buck however you like without legal interference

don't expect them to say a word about bush's crimes.

...or here is a link to their blog, http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/

They have been very critical of the Patriot Act since its inception.

Imagine that! ;)

n/t

It helps the Bush administration to have all opposition seem to be coming from the left and from the Dems. If I were Karl Rove, I would instruct my whores at CNN and FOX and my new whores at Viacom to black out any dissent from Libertarians, GOPers and independents. The GOP base mights be swayed by the opinions of Libertarians or well known right wingers or Republicans, but they will not listen to the criticism of well know Democrats or left wingers, choosing instead to close ranks and protect Bush no matter how horrible his policies.


Anyway, dont blame the Libertarians without at first considering the possibility that they are the victims of a media blackout. Sort of the reverse of what the MSM does to the Greens whenever we get close to an election---giving them way more publicity than you would think they merit, in order to disenchant the Democratic base.

Now I don't always agree with the Libertarians, in fact I disagree with them on pretty much every thing related to the economy. When it comes to civil liberties though they have been extremely critical of the Bush regime.

Here is an article that is linked to on their front page that even quotes Russ Feingold.

Senator Russ Feingold (D - Wisconsin) has stated that President Bush has broken the law. "FISA law says it's the exclusive law to authorize wiretaps. This administration is playing fast and loose with the law in national security. This issue here is whether the president of the United States is putting himself above the law, and I believe he has done so."

http://www.lp.org/article_253.shtml

Once again do not think I am defending the Libertarian party in general, but when it comes to the Patriot Act and the wiretapping scandal they are standing up to Bush in a good way.

some sort of "point/counterpoint" segment. When they announced it, I wasn't sure what side he'd be on, but, at least, he was anti warrantless search. They had some appellate judge (affiliation undisclosed) on to defend it.

They are not invited to participate in any public forums,per se.

That's when they say life isn't fair.

Until then, they don't care.

Funny how that works.

nuff said

Some are more left-wing then most progressives here on DU.
Ie Noam Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian socialist, and he definitely is not a republican. Chomsky also sympathizes with anarcho-syndicalism. It doesn't get much more Left then that.

From what i understand Libertarianism originally was rather left-leaning (pro-labor), but at some point in history the term was more or less hijacked by the RW.

...between right-wing libertarians, who concentrate on economic and business issues (anachists that want protection from thier slaves, to use a quote from the scifi book Blue Mars), and left-wing libertarians (which grades into anarcho-socialism), which emphazize civil rights and civil liberties. Jefferson is a good example of a left-wing libertarian.

Libertarians are:
Republicans who smoke pot
Republicans who like porn
Selfish assholes
Sophomoric Ayn Rand fans

If any of you smart-asses actually read anything by libertarians on these issues--civil liberties, the war on terror, and the war on Iraq--you might be taken aback. But I guess we don't have to worry about that. After all, a smart-ass, dismissive response is so cool.

Now, that said, I'm not claiming to be a libertarian. Too many self-styled libertarians do fit the cliches I've listed above. And I'm no fan of untrammeled capitalism. So I guess I'm something like a left libertarian: Get the government out of my house, please. Or as I sometimes tell disappointed rightists, "I'm not a Libertarian, just a libertine."

Still, for people here to reflexively insult libertarians and dismiss their principled critiques of Bush's power grab is just plain short-sighted. On this issue, libertarians are your friends.

My own take on self-described libertarians is generally pretty bleak, but that's because the large majority of them that I've spoken to have all but described themselves as Republicans who smoke pot, Republicans who like porn, selfish assholes and sophomoric Ayn Rand fans. I've heard more self-styled libertarians casually advocate genocide in the past few years than I've heard advocate diplomacy, to put it bluntly.

And yes, I've read plenty of things by libertarians on a variety of issues. I have a problem seeing most of them as anything other than solipsists who equate one's wealth with one's worth, and see no reason to bother respecting that attitude.

In response to the original question, most libertarians these days seem to be wedged firmly up the GOP's ass, if they're not busy condemning the administration as too "liberal."

The original poster asked where the libertarians are on issues related to the war on terror, the war on Iraq, and civil liberties. Principled libertarians have been absolutely on the ball on these issues. Check out Reason magazine (www.reason.org) and the Cato Institute (www.cato.org), then come back and tell me how firmly wedged up the GOP's ass they are on these issues.

They're a lot better than many of our elected Democratic officials on these issues.

EDIT: added "on theses issues" to the last sentence.

House to house right now and they would remain silent. Libertarians are just republicans with a different label as far as I've seen.