Originally Posted by sbrombacher

I don't really have a problem with libertarianism as long as individuals are allowed the same liberties as corporations. Too many "libertarians" these days talk about small government, want no regulations for corporations, but still want to police our personal lives--doesn't that require "big government"? It's hypocritical. Ron Paul isn't too bad, although I disagree with his views on abortion, so he isn't a true libertarian in my book.

Abortion is not a settled question among libertarians. Ron Paul is also of the opinion that the abortion question is not among the powers delegated to Congress and is not the business if the federal government. The "libertarians" you are describing are in fact neocons and fundamentalists trying to masquerade as libertarians which is an indication of where the Republican party will end up going in order to survive in the future. I have never had much use for them myself.

Libertarians actually view corporations as being no different than any other group that bands together for a common purpose, they have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else. It is the idea that the state has the right to give special privileges to certain individuals that causes problems. Given that Rothbard started the modern libertarian movement, his Ethics of Liberty is a good place to start. I would also recommend Liberalism by Mises and Our Enemy the State by Albert J. Nock in order to get a feel for what libertarians are about. I must warn you that any book by Mises is going to be a difficult read but well worth the effort.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Well, most federal spending is military in nature, and there's not a generally a big push amongst either party to eliminate that. Second largest is transportation, and transportation is 1) a military program given to public dual purpose when not being used for military purposes and 2) prone to natural monopolies and therefore in the purvue of the government anyway, and because they deal in terms of commerce are within the realm of federal jurisdiction anyway.

Meanwhile, most of the rest of federal spending is distributed to state and local governments anyway, and they are intrinsically less efficient as a result because in order to transfer funds you're forcing the state or local governance to create a reciprocal organization to receive the funds and track and justify said spending. The amounts per capita of state and local spending are only lower because they're largely already funded federally. Attacking the state governments spending would attack the actual in efficiency. Either the feds would find a more efficient means of spending with state and local pipelines closed, our they'd budget less and less each year becausethat's how that works. If a department can't spend its budget, it gets less next year.

Either way, attacking the federal government for its spending habits while not sticking it to the less efficient, in so many ways, state and local governance seems more like an emotional response than any rational plan of attack.

Defense spending is 22% of the budget (this is after the sequestration cuts). Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare programs account for 61% of all federal spending. Transportation is 3%. 6% is interest on the national debt. Just thought you'd like a little info to be better educated about the subject.

[QUOTE=JustPassingThrough;489481
Defense spending is 22% of the budget (this is after the sequestration cuts). Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare programs account for 61% of all federal spending. Transportation is 3%. 6% is interest on the national debt. Just thought you'd like a little info to be better educated about the subject.[/QUOTE]

Except somebody pretty much completely made that up. I mean look at it. There's a section just labeled "general government" there's no Department of Government, it's just something that was clearly made up. There's no law enforcement section, nothing for the EPA, the DOJ, FEMA, Foriegn Service, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, DEA, ATF... all missing, because this chart is just made up. Likewise pensions aren't doled out in one singular expense, they're rolled into the cost of the department they work for.

It also doesn't include discretionary spending, which, understandably is where the military gets most of its money, as it spends over half of the discretionary money available to the government every year. Same with transportation. That 3% is new stuff, discretionary, where they spend most of their money, is the maintenance as needed (because we don't just do routine maintenance like we should). If don't have discretionary spending, you're missing half the budget, and unfortunately, we always are because so much of it is a discretionary spending issue, which we don't know about until after the fact and the agencies that use it are those like the military, like the DOT, who usually don't know what their work load in a given year will be like.

However given spending trends for the past, our military budget will continue to be over half our true spending by the end of the year. Transportation will be over 10%. They'll pull the money out of the discretionary fund, and if that's not enough, they pull from other programs.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Defense spending is 22% of the budget (this is after the sequestration cuts). Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare programs account for 61% of all federal spending. Transportation is 3%. 6% is interest on the national debt. Just thought you'd like a little info to be better educated about the subject.

The additional facts are that

1) Social Security more than pays for itself. Revenue from social security taxes is more than expenditures for it. Social Security is a pay as you go system, that is being tapped into to pay for the military. If you repeal social security, you lose a lot of spending, and even more revenue.

Plus, if you live past retirement, you get back (and maybe more) what you paid in. And it will not run a deficit until baby boomers are dying off. Which means Xers will benefit, because there will be fewer of them to pay.

2) Some of the "welfare" in the federal budget is part of this social security system.

3) Pensions includes a lot of military expenditures, and so does interest on the debt, which wouldn't exist without them or the tax cuts.

Here's another reference.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

(quote)
Safety net programs: About 12 percent of the federal budget in 2012, or $411 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2011 and 2012 as the economy continued to improve.

These programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.

Such programs keep millions of people out of poverty each year. A CBPP analysis shows that government safety net programs kept some 25 million people out of poverty in 2010. Without any government income assistance, either from safety net programs or other income supports like Social Security, the poverty rate would have been 28.6 percent in 2010, nearly double the actual 15.5 percent.
(unquote)

The fact is, without "welfare" and safety net programs, more people would be in poverty, and the money they would not spend would be lost to the economy. It costs money to help them, but it more than pays off in lives that become more productive.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Except somebody pretty much completely made that up

Please stop embarrassing yourself. I used the chart from this site, but if you took a minute to use a search engine before typing your post, you would find the exact same numbers on hundreds of other sites. They are not "made up".

Here's a 2010 chart from Wikipedia that provides more detail:




As you can see, in 2010 SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and welfare and unemployment were 56.7% of federal spending, and the DoD was 18.74%. Some of the smaller items also contain welfare programs.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Libertarianism is not complicated at all. It's a philosophy based on a very simple principle - that liberty should be the goal in any question of politics. That people should be free from coercion, that all associations and transactions should be voluntary, and more or less that the right of one person to swing their fist ends at the tip of another's nose (also known as the "harm principle" in classical liberalism).

The problem with this analysis is that classical liberalism is not libertarianism. The latter can be derived from the principles of the former, but it by no means follows naturally and inevitably.

A classical liberal is somebody who believes in the philosophical teachings of the liberals of the enlightenment and post-enlightenment eras.

These writers include English philosopher John Locke, German philosopher Immanuel Kant, and American philosopher Thomas Jefferson, among others. Liberalism lies upon the idea that all individuals posess inherent rights that are tangible in the right to one's life, liberty, and property. These rights are inherent in each human being and cannot be legitimately taken from another person without that person's consent.

Many classical liberals believe that these rights can be delegated to other people by voluntary actions via contracts. Any use of coercion to elicit actions from individuals is illegitimate in the classical liberal world view.

Classical liberalism is not libertarianism. While many libertarians are classical liberals, not all classical liberals are libertarians. Libertarianism is a political system based on certain issues that relies greatly on classical liberalism, but libertarianism is not directly synonymous with classical liberalism.

There are socialists who are classical liberals. The important underlying theme in classical liberalism is a belief in voluntary action and interaction. People can divvy up their property equally within a group and share it for a socially acceptable cause so long as it is voluntary, as is the case in classical liberal socialism. People can operate solely on voluntary interactions within a free-market and not have any institutions that may take or limit wealth, as is the case in classical liberal libertarianism.

Libertarians do not believe in the complete removal of government, so the disagreements often arise about areas where there may be an exception to the principle of individual liberty.

Some libertarians do, in fact, believe in "the complete removal of government", and these people are, in fact, more appropriately described as 'libertarian' than as anarchist.

"Left libertarian" generally means one of three things:

1. "Libertarian socialism" as championed by Noam Chomsky, which is an oxymoron built on a mountain of fallacies, not really worth wasting breath on.

Noam Chomsky isn't a libertarian socialist. But then, he doesn't really identify himself consistently as such, either. The mutualists - free-market socialists - have a much stronger claim on the label than Chomsky does.

2. Shallow hipsters who think libertarianism means "socially liberal and economically conservative", but end up taking totally wrong-headed and contradictory positions because they don't understand how to think about things from a principled libertarian perspective. For example, these types often vehemently support government-sanctioned, subsidized and regulated same-sex marriage, despite the fact that it is not, in any way, shape or form, a libertarian position (it is a radical egalitarian position of the far left).

Because there are no shallow hipsters on the Right, apparently.

(And, I assure you, gay marriage has little to do with radical Jacobin social engineering. It is, if anything, a conservative phenomenon - the radical position would be to abolish the institution altogether and institute a terroristic reign of free-love like our Transcendental ancestors advised.)

3. Anarchists. Anarchists are communists. As noted above, they were the first to appropriate the term "libertarian", despite the fact that it is almost wholly inappropriate for what they believe. It counted then more as a particular flavor of communist thought. These communists could be said to be "more" libertarian than other types, but they were/are not libertarians. The modern American usage is almost completely divorced from that ideology, is much more consistent and accurate to the meaning of the word, and stands in for the loss of the term "liberal" which has been completely corrupted.

There are communists who are anarchists. There are anarcho-socialists who are not anarchists, who are pro-market, and who are every bit as libertarian (more, in the cases of those lame 'paleolibertarians' who compromise wherever possible with pre-existing power hierarchies) as the most devoted followers of Ludwig von Mises.

There is some variation among anarchists, but their belief system generally boils down to this: they advocate a violent revolution, overthrowing the government and appropriating whatever private property they deem to have been ill-gotten.

Odd. None of the anarcho-socialists I associate with are revolutionary. All of them are incrementalist.

At that point, they expect a pure, Utopian communism to arise naturally out of the people, despite the fact that human beings have never exhibited any tendency to behave in that way. That's a simplification, but it's fairly accurate.

I find the Utopianism of the Right far more pie-in-the-sky than anything the left-libertarians advocate, since the former at least stake their claims in the material world, where the latter appeal to all manner of imaginary concepts - a 'natural God' who has instituted a 'natural law', for example.

They believe that without government, there would be a communist Utopia. In that way they differ from the pure Marxists, who believe the revolution must be followed by a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which will re-shape society into the communist ideal, and state-run socialism. Once the state has done the job of completely re-shaping and re-educating the people out of their capitalist habits, the state will wither away, leaving a pure communist Utopia. Anarchists want to go directly from point A to point B. In that way they're arguably even more wrong-headed, naive and dangerous than the doctrinaire Marxists are. They also tend to be Luddites, worshiping an agrarian ideal that never existed, and totally fine with the complete disintegration of modern society, including infrastructure, technology and standards of living, that would occur if modern corporations and government were summarily and simultaneously destroyed.

Or, rather, they believe that the role of the government within a democratic bourgeois context is to serve as gatekeeper of competing and conflicting capitalist interest groups; that democratic parties within this context align a constellation of interest groups to formulate policy beneficial to whichever alignment of capitalist organizations benefit it during the election season; and that public policy in all parties is formulated to subsidize those interests most amenable to the ruling Party in power. In America, this means that the tech industry and related capitalist sectors have pulled themselves into the Democratic coalition, where old energy, agribusiness, and other groups vote Republican. The genuine libertarian sees little difference in the habitual subsidy of these competing interest groups and opposes it altogether - in the name of both the market and socialism.

Because libertarianism (as understood in America) has risen in popularity (and because the 2nd type of "libertarian" exists), anarchists have sought to glom on and resurrect their usage of the term, in the hope of fooling stupid people into supporting them. There is almost no relationship between the two things, but the argument over semantics and who "owns" the term rages on (mostly on the part of anarchists, because anarchists have a bad history and want to improve their image). Libertarians mostly ignore them, because anarchists are almost totally irrelevant to modern society.

Rather more likely is that libertarians simply seem to reclaim that which is historically theirs.

As for Reagan, he never claimed to be a libertarian, so judging him on that basis is rather pointless.

Is that so? He certainly seems to have felt that libertarianism and conservatism were intertwined. From a 1975 article in Reason, dating to his governorship and anticipating his run against Gerald Ford:

http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/0...-ronald-reagan

Those of us concerned about liberty have had good reason of late to be interested in Ronald Reagan. Increasingly, California’s former governor has been turning up in first place among Republican figures in political opinion polls, among Independents as well as Republicans. In addition, in recent months Reagan has taken to using the term "libertarian" (or "libertarian-conservative") to describe his political philosophy. All of which naturally made us interested in taking a closer look at the man and his ideas. Thanks to the efforts of the late Ned Hutchinson (a former Reagan aide), REASON was able to obtain time out of Reagan’s busy schedule for him to be interviewed by Editor Manuel S. Klausner...

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.

That Reagan's analysis here is historically wrongheaded (classical liberals were never 'libertarian' - see also: Prime Minister Gladstone's repeated interventions in the economy) doesn't seem to have prevented him from claiming the label 'libertarian' for himself: and, consequentially, tainting its usage in the United States of America.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Some libertarians do, in fact, believe in "the complete removal of government", and these people are, in fact, more appropriately described as 'libertarian' than as anarchist.

You mean vice versa?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Libertarianism is not complicated at all. It's a philosophy based on a very simple principle - that liberty should be the goal in any question of politics. That people should be free from coercion, that all associations and transactions should be voluntary, and more or less that the right of one person to swing their fist ends at the tip of another's nose (also known as the "harm principle" in classical liberalism). Libertarians do not believe in the complete removal of government, so the disagreements often arise about areas where there may be an exception to the principle of individual liberty.

Thanks for your post.

I think that's right, and the question is what constitutes swinging a fist at a nose.

"Left libertarian" generally means one of three things:

1. "Libertarian socialism" as championed by Noam Chomsky, which is an oxymoron built on a mountain of fallacies, not really worth wasting breath on.

Well worth reading though for people who don't share your perspective. An excellent philosophy.

2. Shallow hipsters who think libertarianism means "socially liberal and economically conservative", but end up taking totally wrong-headed and contradictory positions because they don't understand how to think about things from a principled libertarian perspective. For example, these types often vehemently support government-sanctioned, subsidized and regulated same-sex marriage, despite the fact that it is not, in any way, shape or form, a libertarian position (it is a radical egalitarian position of the far left).

Government sanction means only that the government recognizes a gay couple is married and so allows them all the same benefits and responsibilities as married people. It is a libertarian position, because it is not making a distinction in order to impose a religious doctrine on people.

3. Anarchists. Anarchists are communists. As noted above, they were the first to appropriate the term "libertarian", despite the fact that it is almost wholly inappropriate for what they believe. It counted then more as a particular flavor of communist thought. These communists could be said to be "more" libertarian than other types, but they were/are not libertarians. The modern American usage is almost completely divorced from that ideology, is much more consistent and accurate to the meaning of the word, and stands in for the loss of the term "liberal" which has been completely corrupted.

The term liberal has been updated to reflect the reality that what is coercive today is not mainly government, but big business.

Anarchism might have been a flavor of communism in the past, but the term always means advocacy of no government. As you point out, libertarian does not mean no government, but less government.

There is some variation among anarchists, but their belief system generally boils down to this: they advocate a violent revolution, overthrowing the government and appropriating whatever private property they deem to have been ill-gotten. At that point, they expect a pure, Utopian communism to arise naturally out of the people, despite the fact that human beings have never exhibited any tendency to behave in that way. That's a simplification, but it's fairly accurate. They believe that without government, there would be a communist Utopia. In that way they differ from the pure Marxists, who believe the revolution must be followed by a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which will re-shape society into the communist ideal, and state-run socialism. Once the state has done the job of completely re-shaping and re-educating the people out of their capitalist habits, the state will wither away, leaving a pure communist Utopia. Anarchists want to go directly from point A to point B. In that way they're arguably even more wrong-headed, naive and dangerous than the doctrinaire Marxists are. They also tend to be Luddites, worshiping an agrarian ideal that never existed, and totally fine with the complete disintegration of modern society, including infrastructure, technology and standards of living, that would occur if modern corporations and government were summarily and simultaneously destroyed.

Communist anarchists understood that private property is theft, and that it is a government institution, so they properly extended their anti-government proposal to corporations. It is arguable indeed that corporations are not necessary; that business could be cooperative instead. I tend to think that government is needed as long as organization is needed and people have flaws. That may be a long time, or forever. Corporations, however, are just one way of organizing the economy; there can be others. But personally I'm not sure of that; some combination of regulation, social requirements, taxation, anti-trust limits and perhaps size limits on corporations might be better. Corporations may be a natural thing; people pooling wealth to make it productive. In any case, corporations aren't going anywhere for the next 400 years, so in general the anarchist ideal is pie in the sky for us.

As for Reagan, he never claimed to be a libertarian, so judging him on that basis is rather pointless. He was a conservative. That's always how he defined himself. What is true is that of all the presidents since Calvin Coolidge, he was by far the most libertarian, on balance. Nevertheless, he was not a purist libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. To explain Reagan you have to get into all the variations of conservative thought, of which libertarianism (I believe rightly) is considered a subset.

That's true. And for all practical purposes, Reagan increased the power in society of libertarian economics over what it was before, much as Coolidge, Harding and Hoover did before him, and the social darwinists of the gilded age before them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You mean vice versa?

Not at all. There are many left-wing libertarians who want to do away with the social safety net completely, to abolish welfare altogether - I include myself in their number - but who, rather than seeking to impose a hierarchical, corporate-driven neoliberal State in its place, would prefer to vastly strengthen private-sector unions and to make the cooperative model of business the de facto default in its stead.

I do not feel that genuine leftists should in any way be married to New Deal or Great Society programmes that were implemented in the first place for saving the capitalist system. I would happily see the elimination of each and of all of these programmes in exchange for a working-class economic structure that can compete headlong with the dominant capitalist forms of production.

More evidence of the hypocrisy and treachery of the mainstream Republican Right with regards to libertarianism:

A businessman is challenging libertarian Rep. Justin Amash in the Republican primary for his Michigan House seat. Brian Ellis announced the campaign on Tuesday, saying Amash “has turned his back on conservative principles.”

Ellis’s campaign bio describes him as a “fiscal and social conservative Republican who embraces traditional values, limited government, and strong national security.”

Amash has been an outspoken libertarian in the House, leading the charge to dismantle the National Security Agency over surveillance disclosed this summer. A favorite of the tea party and supporter of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, Amash has bucked his party on numerous occasions, including voting against John Boehner for speaker of the House in January after being kicked off the House Budget Committee for not voting with the GOP.

Ellis, who founded an investment advisory firm, is reportedly well-funded by a group of state business leaders who want to see a more traditional Republican in the House.

At the end of July, Amash’s campaign had $164,000 cash on hand, according to FEC filings. In a late September appeal on his Facebook page, he asked supporters to donate by the quarterly fundraising deadline, saying he was behind his minimum and had “heard in the last few weeks that the Washington political class is scheming to take me out. If we don’t hit our minimum target, they will be emboldened to run a challenger against me.”

In his announcement, Ellis hit Amash on a number of votes in Congress, including twice voting “present” on a bill that would have defunded Planned Parenthood, also voting “present” instead of supporting the Keystone XL pipeline and voting against the House budget.

I hope that Amash is man enough to resist this challenge from the Christ Fetusers and that he doesn't begin to vote more in line with the drones. I'm not a fan at all of the Pauls, but I'd take Amash over any pig the Republicans spew out.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Odd. None of the anarcho-socialists I associate with are revolutionary. All of them are incrementalist.

I would suggest you pay attention to the posts of Justin '77 here on this forum. He's a self-proclaimed anarchist, and a fan of violence.

Rather more likely is that libertarians simply seem to reclaim that which is historically theirs.



Is that so? He certainly seems to have felt that libertarianism and conservatism were intertwined. From a 1975 article in Reason, dating to his governorship and anticipating his run against Gerald Ford:

http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/0...-ronald-reagan



That Reagan's analysis here is historically wrongheaded (classical liberals were never 'libertarian' - see also: Prime Minister Gladstone's repeated interventions in the economy) doesn't seem to have prevented him from claiming the label 'libertarian' for himself: and, consequentially, tainting its usage in the United States of America.

This discussion always becomes boring because it ends up being an argument about semantics. What is clear is that libertarians of the modern American variety - as represented generally by the Libertarian Party, Ayn Rand, etc. - and "left libertarians" are two very different things that need different names. People who believe in private property rights and people who don't cannot fall under the same umbrella.

As much as the left loves to paint Reagan as an ignoramous, the fact of the matter is that he probably read and studied more about political philosophy than any recent president. He also is the only president in U.S. history with a degree in economics. He and Margaret Thatcher had a shared admiration for Hayek, in particular. As such, his description of himself is quite accurate and appropriate - libertarian conservative. Where libertarian is an adjective modifying the subject, conservatism. He was a conservative with libertarian sympathies. In my attempt to accurately define my personal political philosophy, I have come to a similar, but slightly different conclusion - I would call myself a conservative libertarian. I already defined libertarianism as I believe it should be properly understood in my previous post. I would define conservatism this way:

- A belief in and respect for tradition in various areas of life, society and government.
- A belief in nationalism when it comes to foreign policy, and an aggressive posture when it comes to national security.
- A respect for authority, particularly the rule of law, and the belief that laws should be fully enforced. "Law and order" being the common phrase.
- A high value placed on hard work and self-discipline, and respect for those who have achieved success by applying those principles.

I think Reagan was right, and understood what he meant when he called himself a libertarian conservative. He was a conservative with libertarian leanings. I am a libertarian with conservative leanings. My primary philosophy of government is summed up by libertarianism. Where I diverge from that philosophy, it is usually on the right. I don't believe drugs and prostitution should be legalized, and I fully recognize those are not libertarian positions. However, I also support a limited amount of basic public safety nets, which falls slightly to the left of pure libertarianism. When it comes to the never-ending leftist jihads of abortion and same-sex marriage, I oppose both, but find full support for that view within libertarian principle. As I said before, there is nothing libertarian about promoting government-sanctioned same-sex marriage. It is an entirely egalitarian argument, and a radical egalitarian argument at that - an argument for equivalence between two things that are completely different. It has nothing to do with individual liberty. Opposing sodomy laws or other laws that attempt to criminalize private sexual behavior between consenting adults is a libertarian position - one that I agree with. If the government was arresting people for holding gay wedding ceremonies and so forth I would oppose it. But having the government subsidize, regulate and promote homosexual relationships has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, and its only impact on liberty is to inevitably restrict the liberty of anyone who doesn't stand and cheer for it. Abortion depends entirely upon whether or not an unborn child is a human being with rights. If you answer no, the libertarian position is to support abortion. If you answer yes, the libertarian position is to oppose it.

Originally Posted by Einzige

More evidence of the hypocrisy and treachery of the mainstream Republican Right with regards to libertarianism:



I hope that Amash is man enough to resist this challenge from the Christ Fetusers and that he doesn't begin to vote more in line with the drones. I'm not a fan at all of the Pauls, but I'd take Amash over any pig the Republicans spew out.

You are talking here about things you clearly don't understand, and using it as an excuse to exercise your bigotry. Those targeting Amash are not the "Republican Right". They are the "Republican Establishment" - the career politicians, political operatives, lobbyists and big money donors in Washington who run the Republican Party. Amash is supported by the Tea Party movement, which has its fair share of people you would (nonsensically) call "Christ Fetusers".

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I would suggest you pay attention to the posts of Justin '77 here on this forum. He's a self-proclaimed anarchist, and a fan of violence.

So what? Does Justin '77 represent the views of every anarchist? Should we take him as exemplary of all his contemporaries? That stinks of collectivism to me.

This discussion always becomes boring because it ends up being an argument about semantics. What is clear is that libertarians of the modern American variety - as represented generally by the Libertarian Party, Ayn Rand, etc. - and "left libertarians" are two very different things that need different names. People who believe in private property rights and people who don't cannot fall under the same umbrella.

This mindless Manicheanism is more reminiscent of the thought-processes of Baby Boomers than of anything approaching rigorous analysis.

would define conservatism this way:

- A belief in and respect for tradition in various areas of life, society and government.

Whither "respect"? Respect is earned, not given freely. If a tradition fails, if it implodes in upon itself, that tradition is no longer worthy of respect.

- A belief in nationalism when it comes to foreign policy, and an aggressive posture when it comes to national security.

"Nationalism" is a poor man's collectivism - it is the belief that some abstract, nebulous collective - in this case, "the nation" - supercedes the individual.

Quoth Max Stirner:

How is it with mankind, whose cause we are to make our own? Is its cause that of another, and does mankind serve a higher cause? No, mankind looks only at itself, mankind will promote the interests of mankind only, mankind is its own cause. That it may develop, it causes nations and individuals to wear themselves out in its service, and, when they have accomplished what mankind needs, it throws them on the dung-heap of history in gratitude. Is not mankind's cause—a purely egoistic cause?I have no need to take up each thing that wants to throw its cause on us and show that it is occupied only with itself, not with us, only with its good, not with ours. Look at the rest for yourselves. Do truth, freedom, humanity, justice, desire anything else than

[Pg 5]

that you grow enthusiastic and serve them?They all have an admirable time of it when they receive zealous homage. Just observe the nation that is defended by devoted patriots. The patriots fall in bloody battle or in the fight with hunger and want; what does the nation care for that? Joy the manure of their corpses the nation comes to "its bloom!" The individuals have died "for the great cause of the nation," and the nation sends some words of thanks after them and—has the profit of it. I call that a paying kind of egoism.

Moreover, there are conservatives who are not at all nationalistic in any sense - conservatives who in fact oppose any self-identification as a member of a nationality in favor of either some devolved identification (as a member of a particular state or unit) or as part of a greater socio-cultural complex ("European nationalists", those "good Europeans" Nietzsche identified with.)

- A respect for authority, particularly the rule of law, and the belief that laws should be fully enforced. "Law and order" being the common phrase.

Once more, respect ought to be meted out to authority with precisely the same metrics it gives respect.

You are talking here about things you clearly don't understand, and using it as an excuse to exercise your bigotry. Those targeting Amash are not the "Republican Right". They are the "Republican Establishment" - the career politicians, political operatives, lobbyists and big money donors in Washington who run the Republican Party. Amash is supported by the Tea Party movement, which has its fair share of people you would (nonsensically) call "Christ Fetusers".

In his announcement, Ellis hit Amash on a number of votes in Congress, including twice voting “present” on a bill that would have defunded Planned Parenthood,

Incidentally, you can take your victimhood complex and shove it. There's nothing wrong with 'bigotry' - in any form.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This discussion always becomes boring because it ends up being an argument about semantics. What is clear is that libertarians of the modern American variety - as represented generally by the Libertarian Party, Ayn Rand, etc. - and "left libertarians" are two very different things that need different names. People who believe in private property rights and people who don't cannot fall under the same umbrella.

Libertarianism at its worst holds that any transaction made under the direst circumstances is to be enforced by law. At the extreme libertarianism could endorse a hereditary peonage contract (because it is not called slavery it is apparently not slavery!) that one accepts in dire need. Someone who violates the term of such a contract would be a criminal who merits harsh punishment -- even execution -- if one accepted such as a term of the contract. In view of the desire of powerful people to get the cheapest labor possible, such could easily become a norm. A libertarian government in the service of such powerful people could engineer a hyper-deflation that results in people having debts that although fixed in amount could be met only with far fewer 'coins of the realm'. People with unpayable debts could then be sold into slavery.

Paranoid imagination? I most certainly hope so. But greed brings out the worst in people whatever their economic position, and those who have power over others often abuse it. Paradoxically a word that has all but one of the letters of liberty in its name could imply one of the most horrible deprivations of liberty possible -- chattel slavery in all but name.

As much as the left loves to paint Reagan as an ignoramous, the fact of the matter is that he probably read and studied more about political philosophy than any recent president. He also is the only president in U.S. history with a degree in economics. He and Margaret Thatcher had a shared admiration for Hayek, in particular. As such, his description of himself is quite accurate and appropriate - libertarian conservative. Where libertarian is an adjective modifying the subject, conservatism. He was a conservative with libertarian sympathies. In my attempt to accurately define my personal political philosophy, I have come to a similar, but slightly different conclusion - I would call myself a conservative libertarian. I already defined libertarianism as I believe it should be properly understood in my previous post.

You thus turn the word libertarian and its derivatives into peacock words. I can imagine libertarianism becoming a pretext for some of the greatest inequality of freedom.liberty is for all lest it be a sham.

- A belief in and respect for tradition in various areas of life, society and government.
- A belief in nationalism when it comes to foreign policy, and an aggressive posture when it comes to national security.
- A respect for authority, particularly the rule of law, and the belief that laws should be fully enforced. "Law and order" being the common phrase.
- A high value placed on hard work and self-discipline, and respect for those who have achieved success by applying those principles.

Except that some traditions (like racism in the past and homophobia today) deserve to die. Every tradition was once an innovation, perhaps even a revolutionary concept. Do you want children toiling in the mines and factories? Such was the norm about 120 years ago. If you are a Christian... Wicca is more 'traditional'. Find your nearest coven today!

Nationalism is already becoming obsolete. A just peace is always better security than an aggressive injustice.

Authority has not always shown itself benign -- witness totalitarian movements and abusive cults. Unjust laws such as the Fugitive Slave Law, the Nuremberg Laws, and Article 58 of the Soviet Criminal Code deserve to be evaded, rescinded, or abolished. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and we all end up blind and toothless. -- Sholem Aleichem, Fiddler on the Roof

Authority without moral constraint has no validity. Surely you do not miss Ferdinand Marcos, Nicolae Ceausescu, or Moammar Qaddafi. Neither you nor I would be happy where mafia bosses wield real power.

As a liberal I believe in law and order. People need security of person and property if liberal ideas of human rights are to have meaning.

I think Reagan was right, and understood what he meant when he called himself a libertarian conservative. He was a conservative with libertarian leanings. I am a libertarian with conservative leanings. My primary philosophy of government is summed up by libertarianism. Where I diverge from that philosophy, it is usually on the right. I don't believe drugs and prostitution should be legalized, and I fully recognize those are not libertarian positions. However, I also support a limited amount of basic public safety nets, which falls slightly to the left of pure libertarianism.

Ronald Reagan was a reactionary who admired the economic order of America in the 1920s -- a time of severe inequality, of unrestrained power of giant corporations, and government subservient to the interests of Big Business, in essence the big quick buck. He took us on baby steps in that direction, and one of his successors brought about the political vices of the 1920s as a key to prosperity. As in the 1920s those led to ruin. Maybe we need to remind ourselves why certain policies, however ideologically attractive they may be, have bad results and must be taken off the table.

When it comes to the never-ending leftist jihads of abortion and same-sex marriage, I oppose both, but find full support for that view within libertarian principle. As I said before, there is nothing libertarian about promoting government-sanctioned same-sex marriage.

By that standard before Loving v. Virginia one might not have a right to a government-sanctioned interracial marriage.

It is an entirely egalitarian argument, and a radical egalitarian argument at that - an argument for equivalence between two things that are completely different. It has nothing to do with individual liberty. Opposing sodomy laws or other laws that attempt to criminalize private sexual behavior between consenting adults is a libertarian position - one that I agree with. If the government was arresting people for holding gay wedding ceremonies and so forth I would oppose it.

Do you realize the contradiction? Government licenses marriages and has certain regulations -- no marriages of underage persons (in some cases with parental consent), no incest, no polygamy, and no marital fraud.

But having the government subsidize, regulate and promote homosexual relationships has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, and its only impact on liberty is to inevitably restrict the liberty of anyone who doesn't stand and cheer for it.

Subsidy? What subsidy? There are plenty of heterosexual marriages that I would find abominable. Abusive spouse? Drugs? Sexual sadism? Insanity? VD? Criminal records? if there is any subsidy for such marriages it is that their ends often result in huge costs to the rest of us.

Abortion depends entirely upon whether or not an unborn child is a human being with rights. If you answer no, the libertarian position is to support abortion. If you answer yes, the libertarian position is to oppose it.

There is no clear libertarian position on abortion any more than there is a clear libertarian position on whether jazz or classical music is more meritorious.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You are talking here about things you clearly don't understand, and using it as an excuse to exercise your bigotry. Those targeting Amash are not the "Republican Right". They are the "Republican Establishment" - the career politicians, political operatives, lobbyists and big money donors in Washington who run the Republican Party. Amash is supported by the Tea Party movement, which has its fair share of people you would (nonsensically) call "Christ Fetusers".

Have you ever considered that the Republican Party now encompasses much of what FDR called the Lunatic Fringe? What passes as Establishment types have been financing the rise of a ferocious rejection of liberal values.

Ten years ago George W. Bush was President, and he was taking America in some dangerous directions and to a degree unknown in American history. As a liberal I find every one of these traits in a political order despicable.

Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Rampant nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Favored Religion and State Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections.
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. .

Originally Posted by Einzige

Not at all. There are many left-wing libertarians who want to do away with the social safety net completely, to abolish welfare altogether - I include myself in their number - but who, rather than seeking to impose a hierarchical, corporate-driven neoliberal State in its place, would prefer to vastly strengthen private-sector unions and to make the cooperative model of business the de facto default in its stead.

I do not feel that genuine leftists should in any way be married to New Deal or Great Society programmes that were implemented in the first place for saving the capitalist system. I would happily see the elimination of each and of all of these programmes in exchange for a working-class economic structure that can compete headlong with the dominant capitalist forms of production.

I understand your position, though I disagree; but the correct meaning of anarchism is (acc. to Webster) the theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty and are therefore undesirable. It advocates no government; an-archy. Libertarian means advocacy of less or limited government, but not of no government. Neither term makes any distinction between types, departments or functions of government.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

having the government subsidize, regulate and promote homosexual relationships has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, and its only impact on liberty is to inevitably restrict the liberty of anyone who doesn't stand and cheer for it.

This is nonsense. Government-recognized gay marriage does not require anyone to stand up and cheer for it.

We certainly have a government and society that has veered perilously close to fascism, according to that list. It came closest in the Dubya administration, and today it has only somewhat abated. Let's see how we're doing.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1. Rampant nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Less so today than when Bush was in office.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

The NDAA and the Patriot Act are still on the books. This is not yet excessive, but the mindset and the potential for abuse is there.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

America has not been able to do without an enemy to rally support for the government since 1940.

4. Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Certainly fits the USA.

5. Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Opposition to abortion and gay marriage is high, though the latter is decreasing. Still more than in many more-liberal countries.

6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

The censorship imposed after the Janet Jackson "malfunction" was heinous, but has not been upheld in the courts. The media does not seem controlled by the government now, but it is depraved by rampant corporate commercialism and monopoly, which was allowed and encouraged by the government.

7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Not prominent, but still there enough so that our low-level but deadly "war on terror" continues.

8. Favored Religion and State Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Every president feels compelled to end every speech with "God Bless America." The religious right, which now controls one house of congress and many state legislatures, tries to impose its doctrines on national policy, using religious rhetoric and prejudices.

9. Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

America is quite close to fascism here.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

Labor has been suppressed and in decline for 32 years. Rules for unionizing workers have been made more oppressive and congress refuses to repeal them

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Government support has been cut back for 32 years, although there is mostly still free expression.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Our jails have been filled to overflowing with drug addicts and ethnic groups suppressed with racial profiling. Juries routinely return guilty verdicts regardless of any reasonable doubt. Police get away with virtually anything they do.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

David Stockman calls our system "crony capitalism." Big government gives favors, free money and subsidies to business. The revolving door of lobbyists to officials to lobbyists is occasionally regulated, but not effectively.

14. Fraudulent Elections.
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

The elections of 2000 are the most blatant example; some say 2004 also. Most elections are not outright frauds, as 2000 was, but Republicans pass laws in many states to restrict voting, and gerrymandering has been routine for decades. Big corporate money in elections has become even more unregulated and secret, and is used to persuade and mislead voters with smear campaigns and endless attacks.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Have you ever considered that the Republican Party now encompasses much of what FDR called the Lunatic Fringe? What passes as Establishment types have been financing the rise of a ferocious rejection of liberal values.

Ten years ago George W. Bush was President, and he was taking America in some dangerous directions and to a degree unknown in American history. As a liberal I find every one of these traits in a political order despicable.

Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Rampant nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Favored Religion and State Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections.
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. .

A sobering list. IMHO we in America have problems in 12 of the areas. Numbers 5 and 8 are pretty much limited to the culture war coalition that, because of demographics, is slowly losing the 4T. However, our current political culture effectively requires that both major parties make considerable concessions to the other 12. The Democrats try to hold off on number 10. But no one can say that the party is as pro labor as it was tow decades ago.

Six is extreme with FoX Propaganda Channel.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

A sobering list. IMHO we in America have problems in 12 of the areas. Numbers 5 and 8 are pretty much limited to the culture war coalition that, because of demographics, is slowly losing the 4T. However, our current political culture effectively requires that both major parties make considerable concessions to the other 12. The Democrats try to hold off on number 10. But no one can say that the party is as pro labor as it was two decades ago.

I never thought Dubya particularly sexist, and gay rights did not become mainstream until very recently. America has no dominant religion, and such is good for prevention of a monolithic culture. The Religious Right peaked in political power early in the Double-Zero Decade and has since declined because of the aging of the Boomer Generation.

What the Hard Right wants has been consistent even if the message has been changed to fit the media. The tycoons of America would be delighted to see the outlawry of labor unions capable of contesting the desires of Big Business for starvation wages (10) and would be content to see the middle class whittled away until it consists solely of hyper-skilled professionals and brutal enforcers in servile roles (9) who know enough to use the servant's entrance. They would love for the mass media to become as subservient as FoX "News" Channel (6) and for not only entertainment but even information (11) to become formulaic and proprietary, available only through an expensive pay-per-use basis. The ideal for elections in a right-wing America would be those in which either the electorate is culled until it guarantees a reliable majority for politicians that Corporate America wants or in which employers decide how their peons vote (14).

Rampant nationalism allows any economic or political nastiness to be excused if it has a flag or national symbols attached (1); militarism is usually good for huge profits from military contracting although it can also promote captive markets for Big Business while securing cheap labor and undervalued resources in captive countries (4). The Tea Party types are as demagogic as any other extremists, and as usual demagogues offer promises that invariably conflict -- and when such results in abject failure (it is impossible to offer both high farm prices and cheap food and get away with it) those in power who have made impossible and contradictory promises always find others to blame (3). Most likely those would be the poor themselves and the non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight parts of the American middle class who vote heavily Democratic even if they are successful through their own efforts alone but would fit the usual demographics of conservatism as they might have been in the 1950s. The Republican Party is now conservative only as a euphemism.

The ugliest of the characteristics is (2) -- contempt for human rights. The late Idi Amin, who was not a classic fascist responded to complaints about human rights violations in his mad regime with the Freudian slip "Human rights violations? There are no human rights in Uganda!"

Benjamin Franklin said that people who surrender their freedom for some temporary security get neither freedom not security. Now we must decide that promises of economic gain do not merit a loss of personal freedom.

Originally Posted by Einzige

So what? Does Justin '77 represent the views of every anarchist? Should we take him as exemplary of all his contemporaries? That stinks of collectivism to me.

Further, is it at all intelligent to take the words someone puts in his stated opponent's mouth as indicative of that opponent's actual words or views?

Some people have a problem distinguishing between a coming-to-terms with the fact of violence in state power-structures, the advocacy of violence as a part of the response to those contexts, and a love of violence for violence's sake. I'm sure you're not one of those so handicapped, but JPT certainly is.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I never thought Dubya particularly sexist, and gay rights did not become mainstream until very recently. America has no dominant religion, and such is good for prevention of a monolithic culture. The Religious Right peaked in political power early in the Double-Zero Decade and has since declined because of the aging of the Boomer Generation.

This much is absolutely true.

I'll note, however, that even at the height of their power, they religious right endorsed "civil unions" as a solution to the gay marriage issue. The intent was actually to provide gays with ALL of the rights of marriage. They simply asked the gay community to respect the beliefs of the faithful by not using the word "marriage." At the time, it was thought of as a huge olive branch to the gay community.... essentially surrendering opposition altogether.

But, the gay community didn't take it that way. (Understandable, since it is arguably still a subtle form of discrimination.) But, instead of recognizing that the religious right was really attempting to move in the right direction, the left chose to insult them for not moving far enough, fast enough. The result is that while some have come to accept the more liberal argument, some are simply angry and insulted.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

What the Hard Right wants has been consistent even if the message has been changed to fit the media. The tycoons of America would be delighted to see the outlawry of labor unions capable of contesting the desires of Big Business for starvation wages (10) and would be content to see the middle class whittled away until it consists solely of hyper-skilled professionals and brutal enforcers in servile roles (9) who know enough to use the servant's entrance.

This (along with the remainder of your post) is about the silliest and most uninformed analysis of conservative opinion I have ever seen. It actually made me laugh out loud.

Conservative ARE predominantly middle class. The same middle class you seem to think conservatives want to suppress. While it is true that conservatism is not a belief system widely embraced by the poor, it is also not the belief system of the rich. The hyper rich give to liberal candidates at a rate of almost two to one.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The ideal for elections in a right-wing America would be those in which either the electorate is culled until it guarantees a reliable majority for politicians that Corporate America wants or in which employers decide how their peons vote (14).

Uh, no. Those corporations are largely run by liberal CEOs. So, having them run things is actually a pretty scary thing for conservatives.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Rampant nationalism allows any economic or political nastiness to be excused if it has a flag or national symbols attached (1); militarism is usually good for huge profits from military contracting although it can also promote captive markets for Big Business while securing cheap labor and undervalued resources in captive countries (4).

Oh, for God's sakes look at the history of the conservative movement, will you. For the vast majority of it, conservatives were isolationist. That includes right now. Only the neocons endorsed a bit more aggressive use of the military and they have fallen out of favor in the conservative movement.

Get over this, stupid, liberal conspiracy theory crap. It has about as much credibility as the nutty Roswell fanatics.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Tea Party types are as demagogic as any other extremists, and as usual demagogues offer promises that invariably conflict -- and when such results in abject failure (it is impossible to offer both high farm prices and cheap food and get away with it)

I don't care what political ideology you're talking about you're always going to be able to find instances where one politician appears to promise the opposite of what another promises.... because they interpret is differently and because they're prone to exaggerate.

The Tea party, however believes neither of the things you say are contradictory. They're free market capitalists... which means that farm prices should be whatever the market will bear. If the market will bear a high price, it will be high. If it will bear only a miserably low price, it will be miserably low. Period. Quit lying about their beliefs.

It is almost certain that the individuals you discuss believe that fiscally conservative policies create growth. They may be interpreting that as follows:
+ More growth = more money to spend, which creates demand and inflates prices for commodities like food.
+ More growth = more money... so prices for food are more affordable (even if literally higher)

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Benjamin Franklin said that people who surrender their freedom for some temporary security get neither freedom not security. Now we must decide that promises of economic gain do not merit a loss of personal freedom.

I love how liberals misquote him on this one EVERY time.

The actual quote is:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Essential is an important word here. The implication is more nuanced. SOME liberty may be worth trading for safety, particularly if that safety is of a lasting nature. But, not our most basic, most essential freedoms.

You at least were willing to admit the temporary part. Most libs conveniently omit both essential and temporary to produce the far more absolutist:

"Those who would give up liberty to purchase safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Of course, they use that quote only when discussing conservative legislation. When discussing liberal legislation, they seem to think it's OK to limit liberty in the most extreme ways imaginable.... for any reason whatsoever.

Originally Posted by stilltim

... Conservative ARE predominantly middle class. The same middle class you seem to think conservatives want to suppress. While it is true that conservatism is not a belief system widely embraced by the poor, it is also not the belief system of the rich. The hyper rich give to liberal candidates at a rate of almost two to one.

... Those corporations are largely run by liberal CEOs. So, having them run things is actually a pretty scary thing for conservatives.

First, we have two axes to consider here, and the "liberal" CEOs are only liberal on the social axis. On the economic axis, they are just as hide-bound conservative as a Koch brother. Since we're discussing the economic axis, their "liberalism" is, frankly , beside the point.

Originally Posted by stilltim ...

Oh, for God's sakes look at the history of the conservative movement, will you. For the vast majority of it, conservatives were isolationist. That includes right now. Only the neocons endorsed a bit more aggressive use of the military and they have fallen out of favor in the conservative movement.

Get over this, stupid, liberal conspiracy theory crap. It has about as much credibility as the nutty Roswell fanatics.

No, the militarized many were predominantly Republicans, and Republicans are predominantly conservative. Do you want to argue that Dick Nixon was ever an isolationist? How about Barry Goldwater? For that matter, anyone outside the Robert Taft wing of the party. I assume you accept their communal conservative credentials.

Originally Posted by stilltim ...

I love how liberals misquote him on this one EVERY time.

The actual quote is:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Essential is an important word here. The implication is more nuanced. SOME liberty may be worth trading for safety, particularly if that safety is of a lasting nature. But, not our most basic, most essential freedoms.

You at least were willing to admit the temporary part. Most libs conveniently omit both essential and temporary to produce the far more absolutist:


"Those who would give up liberty to purchase safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Of course, they use that quote only when discussing conservative legislation. When discussing liberal legislation, they seem to think it's OK to limit liberty in the most extreme ways imaginable.... for any reason whatsoever.

Your slightly tortured flogging of “essential” notwithstanding, I accept the entire quote as it was presented … and I’m pretty liberal. The biggest issue I have with the paranoid wing of the GOP and other likeminded conservatives is the reason for their isolationism, not the practice per se. There is a fear of “the other” that’s always present. It even impacts trade and immigration issues. They always feel at risk.

Originally Posted by stilltim

I'll note, however, that even at the height of their power, they religious right endorsed "civil unions" as a solution to the gay marriage issue. The intent was actually to provide gays with ALL of the rights of marriage. They simply asked the gay community to respect the beliefs of the faithful by not using the word "marriage." At the time, it was thought of as a huge olive branch to the gay community.... essentially surrendering opposition altogether.

But, the gay community didn't take it that way. (Understandable, since it is arguably still a subtle form of discrimination.) But, instead of recognizing that the religious right was really attempting to move in the right direction, the left chose to insult them for not moving far enough, fast enough. The result is that while some have come to accept the more liberal argument, some are simply angry and insulted.

Tough luck if religious reactionaries are insulted. The tendency in polling shows that people are increasingly accepting same-sex marriage as a benign phenomenon. Such means that some conservatives have begun to recognize that same-sex marriage is innocuous and perhaps even inevitable.

This (along with the remainder of your post) is about the silliest and most uninformed analysis of conservative opinion I have ever seen. It actually made me laugh out loud.

Is there a valid distinction between 'conservative' and 'reactionary'? If Marxists started calling themselves 'liberals', would you find a problem with that? I have seen the word conservative in use to describe far-right activities -- such as a "Kombined Konservative Kampground". If the odd spelling doesn't tip you off to the participants in that 'Kombined Konservative Kampground' -- participants wore robes and 'lighted' a cross.

Conservatives respect process. They have no use for Machiavellian techniques in politics. They believe in moderation. They reject demagoguery. They have no use for revolutionary rhetoric. Try seeing that in the Tea Party movement. Ask whether the practices of such figures as Rove and Norquist are more consistent with one party trying to squeeze the other into oblivion or irrelevance (which is not democracy) and whether government rightly represents wealth and bureaucratic power more than anything else.

I have little doubt, in view of the politicians that our economic elites support, that they would be delighted with political realities that exact labor with brutality instead of with fair pay. Overworking employees while underpaying them is a dream close to achievement.

Conservative ARE predominantly middle class. The same middle class you seem to think conservatives want to suppress. While it is true that conservatism is not a belief system widely embraced by the poor, it is also not the belief system of the rich. The hyper rich give to liberal candidates at a rate of almost two to one.

As it is the Democratic Party may be the true conservative party even if it has a left-wing faction. Many in the middle class have good cause to distrust the American Hard Right which vilifies their cultures and core beliefs. Becoming a Republican used to be an attribute of minorities joining the economic mainstream when the Republican Party wasn't so much an anti-intellectual clique.

Uh, no. Those corporations are largely run by liberal CEOs. So, having them run things is actually a pretty scary thing for conservatives.

Those CEOs may be liberal on religion and sexuality, but other than that they generally believe the whole right-wing doctrine of economics -- all from the Many, all to the Few, and in essence government of the Rich, by the Rich, and for the Rich -- the rest of humanity be damned.

Oh, for God's sakes look at the history of the conservative movement, will you. For the vast majority of it, conservatives were isolationist. That includes right now. Only the neocons endorsed a bit more aggressive use of the military and they have fallen out of favor in the conservative movement.

The Right is all for militarism if it delivers them captive markets, cheap labor, and cheap natural resources. Its only concern is that the wars not risk confiscation or destruction of their assets, let alone harsh judgment upon them as war criminals. They would not provoke war with a country like China that has great military power -- or a country like Japan that could quickly develop it.

Get over this, stupid, liberal conspiracy theory crap. It has about as much credibility as the nutty Roswell fanatics.

Would that I were wrong! I have read my history and I see no reason to believe that America's current plutocrats, big landowners, and executives are any better than those that Germany had around 1930. Greed of the rich and resentments of those who have little are the usual ideological cement of fascism. I see people like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist using Commie methods in support of a reactionary agenda -- a very bad sign, one far worse than both without connection.

I don't care what political ideology you're talking about you're always going to be able to find instances where one politician appears to promise the opposite of what another promises.... because they interpret is differently and because they're prone to exaggerate.

One thing is better this time: in view of the media that we have, politicians can no longer get away so easily with saying one thing in Columbus, Ohio and its diametric opposite in Columbus, Georgia without being called to the account by some media for deliberate lying. One cannot synthesize opposite sides of a logical contradiction. Add to that -- it is no longer so easy to say something that excites a cheering audience in one place that offends multitudes elsewhere and get away with it. Sarah Palin made one of her 'Real America' speeches in 2008 in Chillicothe, Ohio (on the fringe of the Columbus, Ohio TV market) in which she castigated urban America as a veritable Sodom and Gomorrah.

The problem for Sarah Palin was that that speech circulated around America, and people in Sodom and Gomorrah -- excuse me, metropolitan areas around Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, the Twin Cities, Denver, Albuquerque, Seattle, Portland (either one!), San Francisco, and Los Angeles -- generally found it insulting. Oh yes -- also Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, and Cincinnati. It might have done her no political harm had it stayed in Chillicothe -- but the news cameras were from the Columbus TV stations as were the microphones. The speech went viral, and ensured that every large metro area in America except Phoenix.

That speech would have well fit America in the 1920s when America was still heavily rural and had few really-large cities. But not now.

The Tea party, however believes neither of the things you say are contradictory. They're free market capitalists... which means that farm prices should be whatever the market will bear. If the market will bear a high price, it will be high. If it will bear only a miserably low price, it will be miserably low. Period. Quit lying about their beliefs.

The Tea Party exhibits some very befuddled beliefs. Did you ever see signs that said "Keep the Government Away From My Medicare"? It claims to be patriotic, yet it some of it puts out such signs as "The zoo has an African Lion -- the White House has a Lyin' African". But it is on the way out, much like the Know-Nothings of the 1850s.

People often believe in the "free market" until they learn that a "free market" means the right of those in command of the market (through ownership and bureaucratic power) establish that a "free market" is "free to do great damage to people on behalf of the Master Class".

It is almost certain that the individuals you discuss believe that fiscally conservative policies create growth. They may be interpreting that as follows:
+ More growth = more money to spend, which creates demand and inflates prices for commodities like food.
+ More growth = more money... so prices for food are more affordable (even if literally higher)

If the "growth" implies great sacrifices by the Many and that a few plutocrats and big landowners along with the corporate bureaucrats and political hacks in their tow get everything -- maybe something is wrong with the premises.

Don't get me wrong. America needs more competition in business, which means more capitalism -- not less. The vertically-integrated giant corporation has the advantage of economies of scale in advertising, tax compliance, and paying off politicians and buying lobbying services. Taxes are essentially flat for business income, so a mom-and-pop diner effectively pays as big a share of its income as taxes as does a great fast-food chain. Yes, our system is corrupt.

I love how liberals misquote him on this one EVERY time.

The actual quote is:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Essential is an important word here. The implication is more nuanced. SOME liberty may be worth trading for safety, particularly if that safety is of a lasting nature. But, not our most basic, most essential freedoms.

Picky, picky, picky. Liberty (let us say to write and publish a letter disparaging a politician) is of course not to be confused with "taking (inappropriate) liberties". There is obviously no right to produce or distribute child pornography or narcotics -- or to operate a Ponzi scheme. Liberty is not synonymous with lawlessness. What does unmitigated harm is the subject of the criminal code.

You at least were willing to admit the temporary part. Most libs conveniently omit both essential and temporary to produce the far more absolutist:

"Those who would give up liberty to purchase safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Of course, they use that quote only when discussing conservative legislation. When discussing liberal legislation, they seem to think it's OK to limit liberty in the most extreme ways imaginable.... for any reason whatsoever.

Freedom has meaning only when it entails choice between good alternatives. Hunger is not freedom.