Libertarian Swagger

[undergroundpanther]

Libertarian Swagger

Libertarian, arrogant ,contrarian.
Full of himself.
Adolescent swaggers upon the scene
Uncooperative,heavy handed, piss-poor additude.
An over optimistic penny pinching one-man band.
He says he goes where freedom goes- syncophant of corporates
He sings the winner gets all tune until he has to wipe his nose
than it's everyone else's fault he got hurt.

Whiney little bully boy in a smart business suit
Patriot fanatic in a porn booth
jerking himself off in front of a mirror.
Defensive,clueless and,crass
A horses ass...of a different color.

He wouldn't know how to survive despite his own two feet,
Talks alot of Social Darwin fluff,
when things get rough
He is such a great pretender.
Does he talk to please his own ego?
Look he never gets enough
To admit he may be blinded by ambition.


Libertarian fool
uncivil tool
Another lame "lifestyle" game
put on pretension posing as a "philosophy"

Angry white males ,shoulders full of chips
walking down the slaughter chute saying little pithy quips
Looking for excuses for thier secret greed,
Playing independant,to forget that others bleed..

Libertarians won't share
No one can make them care,
As long as they got thiers
And find a place to rule
and no one complains,
They're happy ,believing thier own bullshit..
Oblivious as thier beliefs collapse into Libertarian self deception..

[devilgrrl]

1. kick. nominated.

:applause:

[FrenchieCat]

2. Thank you for that!

[prescole]

3. Was this written by a grammar/spelling Libertarian?

Just askin.

[undergroundpanther]

7. I tend to put brain on paper

Run it through a spell check than.

If you read it and enjoyed it and understood it's meaning..Good.That's all I can hope for.If not..well..I don't write for you than.
If cheesy grammar and my crappy brain on paper spelling gets in the way ..May I ask..why? How much of it is me and how much is you?

[BlueIris]

4. NOMINATED.

Made. My. Night.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. That's funny. Control Freaks bother me much more.

You know, I don't agree with the corporate and fiscal agenda of the Libertarian Party, but I do consider myself Socially small-l libertarian, as do many liberals.

So sue me, I think consenting adults should be left the hell alone as much as possible in a free society. I'm funny that way.

I always find it interesting when people here get so bent out of shape about Libertarians, to the point of publicly grinding an axe like this. I mean, if you're talking about left-(small l) libertarians such as myself, who believe in personal freedom coupled with a reasonable social safety net, you're talking about a LOT of Democrats. And if you're talking about members of the Libertarian Party, then presumably -at the very least- they're not voting Republican, are they?

Seems to me someone with a pro-corporate, anti-tax agenda who isn't ALSO voting for homophobia, theocracy, war, and a police presence in people's bedrooms and womens' uterii would be, shit, maybe marginally preferable?

Slightly? Or maybe not.

[undergroundpanther]

6. Libertarian the belief system

Is about control freaks wrapping themselves up in the cloak of liberty.
Social darwinism is abusive to human beings..

I think all control freaks are bad.But when you turn competition and liberty as an ultimate,social responsibility goes pouf.And we are responsible for our freedom and our well beings of ourselves and each other.

Why do we form societies to extend the common good and to protect the weak from domination by the strong.And to do that you need to have two principles together in balance.. as expressed by these two quotes.


“What we want . . . is the complete destruction of the domination and exploitation of man by man; we want men united as brothers by a consensus and desired solidarity, all cooperating voluntarily for the wellbeing of all; we want society to be constituted for the purpose of supplying everybody with the means for achieving the maximum well-being, the maximum possible moral and spiritual development; we want bread, freedom, love and science--for everybody.”Errico Malatesta (1853-1932)


“We came equals into this world, and equals shall we go out of it. All men are by nature born equally free and independent. To protect the weaker from the injuries and insults of the stronger were societies first formed; … Every society, all government, and every kind of civil compact therefore, is or ought to be, calculated for the general good and safety of the community. Every power, every authority vested in particular men is, or ought to be, ultimately directed to this sole end; and whenever any power or authority whatever extends further, or is of longer duration than is in its nature necessary for these purposes, it may be called government, but it is in fact oppression.George Mason (1725-1792) Author, Bill of Rights

Libertarianism only hass 1 half of societies creation's intent. Hence it fails as a philosophy.

[ruggerson]

8. I find the religious rightwingers

far more dangerous than the libertarians. The libertarians control nothing. The religious rightwingers currently control the White House and both houses of Congress. Their agenda for this nation is far more alarming than a small band of people bent on radical individualism.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Considering that control seems the rule, rather than the exception

all over the planet, I find a little small-l libertarianism refreshing.

I agree about protecting the weak from the strong, particularly when the strong is government or corporations- but when that goes overboard, you end up with "men united as brothers" (or their self-designated representatives) as the strongest, most oppresive force of all.

Lots of evil has been done in the name of "the common good"- maybe even almost as much as has been done in the name of "God".

I'm in complete concurrence with both those quotes; but note in the Malatesta quote he speaks of cooperating voluntarily, consensus, and desired solidarity. Noble sentiments, but hardly the province of government by force- and nothing in those phrases contradicts a philosophy of left-libertarianism, or of your freedom ending where my nose begins.

I'm wondering if there was a specific thread or incident here recently which brought out this particular poetry? If so, I missed it.

Here's my quote for you:

Oooooooo, Freedom
Ooooooo, Liberty
Oh, Leave Me Alone
To Find My Own Way Home.
---Robert Hunter

Peace.

[Qibing Zero]

32. I object to that "God" comment.

There's no way in hell the amount of horrible things that have been done in the name of "the common good" come anywhere close to the amount of ones that have been done in the name of "God".

;)

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I think I qualified it with a maybe.

But you're probably right.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

55. Communism..

.... I'll agree. Socialism is working quite well thank you in many Scandinavian countries.

Libertarianism as an economic philosophy is as utterly ridiculous as Communism, merely the other side of the "ignores actual human nature" coin.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

46. The people here who degrade libertarians are the ones

who hate big corporations, but love big governments. Trade one taskmaster for another.

[Rich Hunt]

78. not quite

The government belongs to the people.

Corporations don't.

What we're seeing today is evidence of a systematic discrediting of ALL government.

That's because the crooks are in open rebellion, and part of their agenda is to discredit government in the eyes of the people. If you can accomplish that, you're well on your way to corporate dictatorship.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

80. The government only belongs to the people

if the people take charge of it. Unfortunately, Americans have been too busy for such time consuming tasks.

[Rich Hunt]

77. not necessarily

Incidentally, I like libertarians personally. I like reading their literature.

But I'm not convinced that they would be 'marginally better'. They certainly wouldn't be better for those who are economically vulnerable.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. ultimately, I think they are just as dangerous as the religious right

they just want to privatize oppression and make selfishness a virtue

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Wow. That's astounding.

No fucking way do I think they're anywhere near as dangerous. I consider the Religious Far Right the gravest threat to American Freedom and Democracy in a VERY Long Time.

Edit: And you're really in Saudi Arabia? You honestly think that a theocracy sounds less noxious than a society run on libertarian principles? Wow.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Libertarian = corporate fascism

So yeah, it's just as scary. I am not sure whether an Ayn Rand-esque libertarian corporate state or a Christian theocracy is scarier. Both suck hard.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Well, Ayn Rand people freak ME out, too.

And I agree, with regards to the corporations running the whole show, we're practically there, as it is.

I guess my notions of small-l libertarianism, left libertarianism and social libertarianism are all predicated, like the other poster mentioned, on the end of corporate personhood. People need the rights, not corporate entities.

[Qibing Zero]

41. What about libertarian socialism?

Now that's a fun cup of tea. :D

[Warren DeMontague]

45. I think that's about where I'm at, nowadays.

I mean, I don't know the details, but it sounds 'bout right.

[lvx35]

26. nah, not that bad.

I've spent a lot of time with these guys. They are mostly about individual liberty, including civil rights. They are adamantly anti-fascist or any other totalitarian state. That free markets can lead to corruption and corporatism is what they need to know but don't. So lets help inform em.

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. .

[Cats Against Frist]

64. WRONG WRONG WRONG

What we have NOW is corpo-fascism, cloaked in the guise of the "free market," which is actually a corporate state. The corporations bought your "big government" and turned it into a trillion dollar apparatus for funneling wealth to their cronies, and protecting that wealth.

Libertarianism is the furthest thing from corpo-fascism. You can't have corpo-fascism without a state. Beyond the state, it becomes the consumer/citizen/workers CHOICE if he or she is going to contribute his or her money, or his or her labor to corporations. With a state, you don't get a choice of whether to give Raytheon, a Christian Fundamentalist High-Tech Weapons producer, billions of dollars a year -- the corporations that bought your representatives get to make that decision. In a libertarian society, you would get to choose whether or not your money would go to Raytheon, and if you didn't want it to, you could send it off to a not-for-profit community organization that helps poor children. You wouldn't have to pump billions into prisons and drug interdiciton, and could give your money to treatment and local community activities for bored kids.

I don't think that libertarianism is perfect, but anyone who still believes in the system needs a big wake-up-call slap to the face. The corporations bought your big government, and now they have not only the money, but the rule of law.

Maybe if consumers, workers, etc., had a larger interest in their lives, and had to take some responsibility for themselves and their communities, and what they buy and what they waste, then maybe we wouldn't be so bad off. That's libertarianism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. yes, ultimately ... at least almost as bad

Of course I am not thinking of libertarian socialism as advocated by such people as Noam Chomsky,

most third world societies such as most of Latin America or the Philippines for examples are already essentially "libertarian" in the sense that there is no affective rule of law for the elite classes. The rich literally and not just figuratively get away with murder all the time. For example in the Philippines where I live part of the year; if a member of your family is murdered, you have to pay to have the case followed up and the culprit prosecuted. And there is no safety net beyond the mercy of the privileged. Again for example, in the Philippines if a child is left homeless and has no family to take them in, they will most likely live their life as a servant of a family that takes them in and feel damn good lucky that they are not on the street. This is not exceptional to the Philippines. This is how life was in the west only a couple of generations ago and is still the way of life for the vast majority of the world's population.


American style capitalist libertarianism would return us to the same Dickinson-ian conditions; rule of law only for those who can afford to have it work for them and a safety net of only the mercy of the elite. A few years ago, I found myself looking into running a business which helped assemble baby clothes for an export company in the Philippines until I discovered that the only companies that could remain competitive and viable were those that relied on bonded labor from deep in the provinces. From a libertarian stand point; no one was forced to sign a contract to work 15 hour days for two years in sweat shop conditions and live in squalor. They were simply earning what the market would bare. But, what does one think the market will bare in a world with an unlimited labor supply of desperate people?
This type of libertarianism does bring out the dark side of the human condition by making total selfishness an admired virtue. I do not doubt that there are many libertarianism who on a personal level are quite moral. For that matter, my Aunt is right wing fundamentalist yet on the personal level she is not only compassionate, she is actually quite tolerant and has no desire to persecute anyone.

I suppose theocracy would be worse in some respects and perhaps better in some respects. It' s hard to say which would be overall worse.

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. the neutral state is presumed by many philosophic libertarians

to be possible. When in the history of the world has the state ever been neutral? Again, it is has always been against the law for both the rich and the poor to sleep under a bridge.

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. I would fight on the side of the devil if the devil was fighting George W.

Bush (I am bastardizing Churchill)

I just wanted to say that of course politics always requires coalitions and of course I welcome anyone who has common cause against George W. Bush and the right wing of the Republican Party.

[lvx35]

25. Libertarians aren't so bad.

they agree with republicans on half the issues, democrats on the other half. "Privatizing oppression" is something they share with republicans. Supporting abortion rights, lots of civil liberties, gay rights etc they share with Democrats. I've argued with libertarians, they can be made to see the light...all you need to do is show them that excessively free markets can lead to totalitarian oppression through corporatism and corruption.

[Lilith Velkor]

10. This should be a punk song

:yourock: :headbang:

[Extend a Hand]

13. hmmm... I think you must be laboring under some misconceptions

I'm in agreement with libertarians on almost all personal freedom issues
and in addition:

I agree with the libertarian philosophy that would eliminate corporate person hood.

I also don't think the libertarian position on immigration is terribly unreasonable-- make it extremely easy to immigrate and then treat illegal immigrants as invaders and those that would hire illegals them as traitors.

I also agree with the libertarian position on war that is defensive on our shores only.

While I disagree with libertarians on a number of other issues-- regarding government functions such as the need for a social safety net, health care, public education, and the maintenance of infrastructure, liberals do have a significant amount of common ground with libertarians.

In addition, the libertarian that I am married too is the most moral man I have ever known. And libertarians tend to be extremely rational, unlike the fundie freaks in the current republican party. At least we could have a rational discourse with these people.

I am married to a libertarian and he is the most moral man I have ever known.


edit to spell check

[prescole]

14. Libertarianism can't be pigeonholed so easily

To condemn all libertarians, in fact to ridicule and demean us, doesn't sound at all liberal or progressive to me. I don't get the anger or the judgmental attitude.

"Libertarianism only has one half of societies creation's intent. Hence it fails as a philosophy." Don't get that either. Could you explain that for us?

Also, to call Libertarians "control freaks" makes no sense at all...exactly the opposite is true--we don't want to control anyone, nor to be controlled by anyone.

But hey, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Peace.

[Extend a Hand]

16. Did you mean to reply

to the original poster?

[prescole]

22. Yup.

Just tryin' to add to what you said.

~(8^)

[devilgrrl]

17. It's pigeonholed because many people who claim to be "libertarian"...

are jerks like the South Park creators. The CATO Institute! Sure, not everyone is like that but a lot of them are. :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Yep. Beavis and Butthead were where it's at.

Or maybe the original Ren & Stimpy. I wonder where John Kricfalusi (sp?) sits on the Political Compass...

South Park is WAY overrated, and Parker and Stone are flatulating buttheads, to boot.

[Extend a Hand]

29. It seems to me that alot of the people that call themselves

libertarian aren't really. Especially those willing to get in bed with this current batch of theocrats with the idea that they'd get some kind of a tax break.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. I was contrasting libertarians with control freaks

not calling them that. FYI.

[undergroundpanther]

37. Liberty?

To condemn all libertarians, in fact to ridicule and demean us, doesn't sound at all liberal or progressive to me. I don't get the anger or the judgmental attitude.

Well Ayn Rand was a cultie. I am frustrated with libertarians every libertarian I met and talked to has the stench of elitism lurking under their"freedom".It's social darwinism.

"Libertarianism only has one half of societies creation's intent. Hence it fails as a philosophy." Don't get that either. Could you explain that for us?

Well we need each other that is WHY we have a society.We need to share the fruits of society with each other because we need each other to survive..We all need to give to get.
No man is an island no matter how much you own or fortify it.

And if the state regulates how we live when we are not hurting, abusing, depriving ,exploiting, others or endangering them,it is indeed meddling and controlling..But when the state meddles in your life for your own good or to enforce"norms"(and no other reason) that is the excuse of control freak tyrants to control your life.But also notions like you are on your own, compete or die,that is a way of tyrants to dominate people too ,through abandonment,deprivation and internecine strife..

There is the meddling/nanny state and the strict/abuser father state. BOTH suck and both systems are controlling and harmful to a societies freedom,responsibility and human rights and the pursuit of happiness.
Ironically they both make people suffer.

Libertarianism is the On your Own side of the spectrum.
There is very little provisions in extreme individuality for encouraging community and inter relational negotiation needed to co exist in a related existence like this world is.Where does your nose begin and Mine end when we share a community a world,inhale the same air,etc?In libertarianism where does your individual rights end? really?

And if your freedom to do what you want cramps my freedom to exist safely or peacefully along side you how would we ever settle it?
Competition? War? How?

What prevents a libertarian fire department demand people pay fees before they put out a fire? What in Libertarian philosophy restricts the"freedom " to charge for fire service? What if the fire chief OWNS the fire dept?? And don't you think some things HAVE to be communally used and communal run besides the roads??

Some libertarians think everything is dandy with rampant individual rights and "economic transactions" trumping the purpose of a society to those ends.(A societies purpose is to protect people from the predatory and over successful sociopath greed too)

Taken to the logical end result, nothing is free in a libertarian society. There is no freedom for individuals who are not'elites' . So if you can't endure a life of competition and strife to build your island to "get yours" and defend it and your"freedoms" and pay off the individuals most successful and wealthy who do not have to care if you are a inefficient individual who can't manage to compete. You will pay out the ass to defend your"freedom"..and you will lose your freedom at the same time.Because freedom isn't free if you have to pay for every bit of sustenance of existence,or pay for every bit of help you need from your fellow human beings . Or pay the" hoarder/owners/robber barons" prices who delight in their own"success" built upon making you pay for existing in the human condition,we all share by default for misery and need is the cornerstone of profit. When I say human condition I mean as in having a stomach that needs food, lungs that need air etc. .


Also, to call Libertarians "control freaks" makes no sense at all...exactly the opposite is true--we don't want to control anyone, nor to be controlled by anyone.

And you know what?.. to live in a world that is unpredictable,dangerous and uncontrollable as ours is we need each other's help and to share the burdens of life and the bounty of this Earth by necessity.. Since we all by default are equal and we share the bounty and burdens of this existence regardless of what we believe this means on some level we all must be able or at least willing to co exist as an individuals while surviving as a species/community at the same time.

And that is balancing act of freedom from rulers with freedom from rules . This means on some level we must cooperate to work together and share our success with each other to be free of the burden of survival and the human condition and the oppression of the predatory people. So to do this,you have to agree to give up SOME of your freedoms in exchange for the benefits a society gives us all to MAXIMIZE the freedom of all of us, in a world to some degree limits us.Society acts as a collective respite from the pain of this human condition and the dangers of human domination and the horror of on your own survival which as individuals we are ill equipped to do in this world (if as individuals we are forced to live all alone as in in the jungle).

This is why we are not just a bunch of "free" rugged individuals. We are both : rugged individuals looking for freedom,and a social being cooperating and negotiating and sometimes sacrificing our freedoms and needs with each other to get along in various relationships, because in order for us to survive as a species we need to be in a society to protect each other from the harshness of Natures bloody teeth and claws and morally corrupt human bullies and tyrants who abuse freedom and power and anything else they can get away with..

"Self interest" of overreaching in individuals and the state is dangerous to individuals and corrosive to cooperation sometimes it's the pursuit of "self interest"what makes for the violence and mind games that come from individuals and governments causing strife with others resisting the demands put upon them by others and their overvalued 'selfish freedoms'.

With that sort of "free" social darwinism being the order of things eventually nobody is free except for the biggest thieves and most ruthless bullies.And NOBODY is secure from the ruthlessness of competition for freedom turned into tyranny.

Libertarianism is a false Liberty that is NOT really all that free and I do not want to live under that kind of overdone "individualism".


Take Care!

[Warren DeMontague]

38. So how about some specifics

what freedoms do you think individuals ought to give up?

I'm just curious as to where this is all coming from.

[undergroundpanther]

51. Well

Wanna negotiate?

What do you need a society for?

Or are you able to TOTALLY survive on your own?

It takes ALOT of work to survive... So,if you want the benifiet of some of the basic things society gives us,like heat in winter you gotta gather wood at least.. and if you want a regular food supply I could teach you to flintknap if you are willing to gather all the roots and berries you see with me,and hunt with me so we have a better chance of catching something..If you expect me to do ALL the work I will stay here and you can be alone with your absolute"freedom".If you want clothes that takes more work and more work to clean them.I think we need the help of more people to help us if we want a better lifestyle.Willing to negotiate with them and give up a little freedom?


In a wolf pack the wolves are not"free" they all cooperate on the hunt to bring down a kill.If a wolf Including the alpha steals the packs kill for himself ,the pack limits his "freedom" by attacking him and sometimes even driving him OUT of the pack to die.
The alpha wolf in exile has so much freedom on his own yet he is a prisoner of his own limited skills of survival and the capricious impersonal cruelty of nature and rival wolves.The lone wolf is not free to rest,to socialize anymore,food is scarce,it is cold sleeping alone..he is a prisoner of survival,until death comes to free him from his miserable" obligation free" life..

[Warren DeMontague]

60. I'm not talking about taxes, services, or a social safety net

on those issues, I think the Libertarian party is full of it.

I'm talking about what personal freedoms you're talking about- you know, consenting adults, behavior involving their own bodies, in the privacy of their own homes, terminally ill people looking for a pain-free exit of their own choosing, what adults choose to read watch or listen to, that kind of thing... or other social libertarian positions you disagree with.

[freeplessinseattle]

53. Excellent point

And if the state regulates how we live when we are not hurting, abusing, depriving ,exploiting, others or endangering them,it is indeed meddling and controlling..But when the state meddles in your life for your own good or to enforce"norms"(and no other reason) that is the excuse of control freak tyrants to control your life.But also notions like you are on your own, compete or die,that is a way of tyrants to dominate people too ,through abandonment,deprivation and internecine strife..


-I'm going to be borrowing your words a lot from now on, hope you don't minfd, for some reason Seattle's turned into Libetarian mecca.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Can we have some examples of "hurting, abusing, depriving or exploiting"?

Do you mean minimum wages and 40 hour work weeks?

Or do you mean something else?

[Cats Against Frist]

65. Dear Panther

I agree with everything in your post, about how we're responsible for one another, and should band together. While I'm not totally egalitarian, because I believe while all people are inherently equal, it's OK for you to pick a "preferred group" with whom to align yourself and take care of, I believe in communitarianism, cooperation, cooperatives, the union backed by solidarity, minimalism and peace. And I'm a libertarian. I really am. You can do all the stuff that is progressive with de-centralized planning and smaller, local governments. It's not about wealth, it's not about control, it's not about "freedom from rules." It's about personal responsibility for everyone. EVERYONE -- including the boss, the capital owner, the politician. That is WHY I'm a libertarian.

[GRLMGC]

20. make it extremely easy to immigrate and then treat illegal immigrants as i

What's the point of that? Why make it easy to immigrate if they're just gonna be treated inhumanely when they arrive?

[Extend a Hand]

24. ?? I'm not sure I understand

but what I think you are saying is that in a libertarian run country citizens would be treated inhumanely.

Let me make it clear that I do not want a libertarian run country. The point I was making was that liberals and libertarians have a lot of common ground.

However, the fascists and the theocrats that have gained so much power in our government scare me more than the libertarians would.

[GRLMGC]

30. the quote didn't post completely

you said that you didn't think it was unreasonable to allow people to immigrate easily and treat them like invaders when they are here. I may have misunderstood you so if I did, I apologize. I understand punishing employers but the reason they immigrate is part of a bigger problem that needs to be taken care of in the immigrant exporting nation. I don't believe any human beings should be treated like animals

[Extend a Hand]

42. oooohhhh

no, I should have been more clear. The current libertarian position on immigration is that it should be extremely easy to immigrate into the country legally but those that enter *illegally* would be treated as invaders. Those entering legally would have legal status and could become citizens if they chose to.

[GRLMGC]

43. Oh

Yeah, if it was easy to immigrate legally then that would be more understandable

[lostinacause]

23. I have found libertarians to generally be nice people. A little

idealistic but nice none the less.

[Lilith Velkor]

27. Yup, and I can say the same for communists.

[lostinacause]

31. I haved mixed experiences with communists. Some seem to be very

bitter. Others are really nice.

[Qibing Zero]

33. It's hard not to be bitter if you keep perspective though, isn't it?

I would imagine even moreso for a communist, as the word itself has basically been a curse for 50+ years now.

[lostinacause]

34. Perhaps, yes. I guess my major complaint with that type is they think

you ought to believe as they do.

[Lilith Velkor]

35. Hehe, try libs & commies in the same room

:popcorn:

[lostinacause]

36. by libs I'm assuming you mean libertarians

it would be quite amusing

[Lilith Velkor]

40. Yes

Organize war protests, you'll see it happen.

[undergroundpanther]

44. A challenge...

Read up on what Anarchy is..
Than tell me what kind of Morality they demonstrate .

http://a4a.mahost.org/moral.html
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html]
http://www.derrickjensen.org/



Than read this about Libertarianism and tell me how moral it is by comparison..
http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/liberty.htm

[Extend a Hand]

47. very interesting

I enjoyed and bookmarked the link on moral development and anarchy:

When you look at the stages of moral development, what becomes apparent is that the lower stages are more authoritarian, whereas the highest stage is the most libertarian. While much attention has been paid to Kohlberg's theories, I think that inner biases of researchers have led them to overlook that, for some operating at the highest stage of moral development (Stage Six), government can only be viewed as an evil -- an affront to their moral reasoning. The history of the 20th century backs this view.

I really think that the reason my husband is willing to embrace the philosophy, to the extent that he does is because he is operating from a high level of moral development. He behaves in a moral and ethical manner and assumes that others will too but so many (probably most) people don't.

In my quick read, I wasn't really clear on the differences between libertarianism and anarchy but my husband tend to gravitate to anarchist web sites as well as libertarian ones so maybe he is some combination?

I did not find the conservative critique of libertarianism to be accurate. Particularly this premis:
What happens when people in a society feel that all restraint by a government is a type of "bondage," and take it upon themselves to live a life with no restraints whatsoever? They move beyond the mere concept of liberty, and slip into a concept known as license. Again, Webster's Dictionary gives us a good working definition of license: "authority granted to do any act; an excess of liberty." Usually, this "authority" is granted by no one but the individual, who takes it is a natural right.

Now a fine distinction needs to be drawn concerning natural rights and self-conferred rights. It's already been said that liberty is one's natural right as an individual, and that is completely true. WhenThomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable natural rights - among them being liberty - he was certainly correct. However, when it's taken to an EXCESS, and becomes a self-conferred license to commit ANY act, however heinous, demeaning or damaging to both society and others, then it has ceased to be a natural right, and has become an excess.

I am a "bleeding heart liberal" and believe that a social safety net provided by the government is a necessary component in a civilized society.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that I don't think libertarians are evil or our enemies. I think progressives and libertarians should seek common ground politically to get rid of the
the truly evil ones: the neocon, theocratic conservatives.

And, Thanks for the links.

[undergroundpanther]

50. Some thoughts

>I really think that the reason my husband is willing to embrace the >philosophy, to the extent that he does is because he is operating >from a high level of moral development. He behaves in a moral and >ethical manner and assumes that others will too but so many (probably >most) people don't.

I agree most people are not highly morally developed and our society because it is authoritarian,does not encourage moral development.I was bullied relentlessly growing up,because I was morally more developed than my peers.Alot of sensitive, creative,intelligent,people who think for themselves and express it are scapegoated by morally inferior people.
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/bully.htm#Why

>In my quick read, I wasn't really clear on the differences between >libertarianism and anarchy but my husband tend to gravitate to >anarchist web sites as well as libertarian ones so maybe he is some >combination?

Yes! alot of anarchists go through a "libertarian Phase" Until they work it out and begin to see the insufficiencies of libertarian views and the characters of people that espouse libertarianism and begin to supplement it with anarchy and decide what fits them better.


>I am a "bleeding heart liberal" and believe that a social safety net >provided by the government is a necessary component in a civilized >society.

Alot of Anarchists feel this way too.Alot of Anarchists have tender hearts too.This is why there is a focus in Anarchist circles on developing CONSENTING non hierarchical community that meets the needs and well being of all the members without enroaching on freedoms with"authority".For it is in this type of community where Highly Morally developed people flourish,be free,co exist and NOT sacrifice their integrity to survive together and meet everyones needs.

And this is precisely the type of community an Empire cannot tolerate to exist.If a anarchist community exists in an empire the ethical and oppressed people would choose to be free of the brutality and soul crushing system of empire and would not so easily compromise with the oppressive evil hearted rulers and try to abandon the authoritarian and hierarchy of the state.
This is why colonialists colonize wherever they conquer.

The empire is a cancer on this Earth ,a perversion of the natural consensual social soul of a healthy free and moral community.All Empires are held together not by consent but by hierarchies who employ sophisticated coercion(reward punishments bribes,threats etc.) and if that game fails there is always state force.To destroy a state one has to simply abandon it and not consent to it's demands.but that is easier said than done unless alot more people get some higher moral understanding fast .

[lostnfound]

56. Great websites, thank you very much.

I heard Derek Jensen speak on TUC radio a couple of times. Very passionate speaker.

[Cats Against Frist]

66. libertarianism and anarchy are the same thing

The right co-opted libertarianism, but they both have the same roots. When I say that I'm a small-l libertarian, it means that basically I'm a minarchist, which is like half an anarchist. Or an anarchist with the Constitution. A pro-decentralization liberal.

Confusing, isn't it?

[MojoXN]

28. Well, as a registered Libertarian, I have to say...BRILLIANT!

Very, very good job, undergroundpanther! I've thought many of the same things about people who self-identify as "Libertarian". Most of them are Republicans in third-party clothing. I personally find much wrong with Libertarian economic doctrine; I don't truck with that much lasseiz-faire capitalism. Why am I not a registered Democrat you might ask?

Very few minor points, in the grand scheme of things, yet things that matter to me. The drug war, for example, and the regulation of private activity, particularly consensual crimes of ALL sorts, restrictive personal safety and public welfare legislation, and gun control.

If the Democratic Party would change its doctrine with respect to these items, I'd change my "official" affiliation.

Any thoughts?

MojoXN

[undergroundpanther]

48. I am only a bit"democratic

>Very, very good job, undergroundpanther!
Thanks.


>I've thought many of the same things about people who self-identify >as "Libertarian". Most of them are Republicans in third-party >clothing. I personally find much wrong with Libertarian economic >doctrine; I don't truck with that much lasseiz-faire capitalism. Why >am I not a registered Democrat you might ask?

I am registered Democrat because I wanted to get the * TYRANT out of the White house but Dibold kinda fucked up my vote both times.I am a registered Dem to keep the right checked. That is WHY I registered. Technically the closest "philosophy" to my political stance I know of is Anarchist.

>Very few minor points, in the grand scheme of things, yet things that >matter to me. The drug war, for example, and the regulation of >private activity, particularly consensual crimes of ALL sorts, >restrictive personal safety and public welfare legislation, and gun >control.

I am against the drug war.I think it should be legalized and spaces set aside for drug use so that it does not cause problems in areas that desire a place free of drug abuse and the attendant problems. Bars are in certain places for a reason.And I think it's fair to contain the "fallout" of drugs and the problems drunk people cause..But I think also people need to be educated about drugs,and some real HONEST research done into what addiction is and what causes it.

Addicts get helped when they hit bottom and decide they've had enough.(enablers with their misguided "helping" just prolong an addicts suffering and the damage done BTW)You cannot force an addict into recovery if they are not willing. People got to accept the reality there will always be some people who get addicted and use to their own ruin sadly,and there is no way to force them to stop using.Jail doesn't work,forced treatment doesn't do anything either.Because until the person hits bottom and sees through their addictions,they will not be ready recover from it.For addicts it really is hit bottom and decide to recover/stop using or to die.And I know it is painful for loved ones to watch their loved one kill them self it is harsh.But a drug war does not help anyone. treatment must be the best it can be,readily available(as part of the social safety net)and all treatment(including psychiatric) must be CONSENTING and affordable and supported(no scapegoating)..IF drugs are legalized.

As for "consensual crimes" I agree most of it's bullshit, especially if it's stuff like sodomy laws ,cussing in movies and shit like that.Things that really causes no demonstrable harm and is not a symptom of manipulation,abuse or domination shouldn't be regulated or banned. Some churches and some other groups are dysfunctional in how they use"consent". As in they warp the meaning of consent itself..
Manipulating members and changing the definition of free will to suit their own agendas is wrong. Groups and organizations who manipulate people and abuse them so they lose their inner locus of control and surrender to a leader are dangerous to individuals and society. People need to be educated in what manipulation is,how to defend themselves from cons,and such,how to spot when someone it fucking with their consent.. Engineering consent is an unethical process that is subtle.
The twisting of consent is slowly done and on a emotional level so it blurs the joining the will of the con man with the persons own understanding of what they wanted out of that organization..Until consent and con get so blurred the person is unaware they are being abused consciously.



Sometimes consent is not really consensual.For instance A woman becomes a prostitute not because she likes sex but because she needs food or she is an addict or she needs shelter or she was young and naive. She was not asking to be pimped and fucked all day but she submits to the job because she lacks opportunities to do something else or was not aware she was being manipulated. That kind of situation is not true consent,that is ignorance, desperation or confusion..
People who seek to take advantage of others misfortunes,of people who are ignorant,young, weaker, in desperate situations, or who are more vulnerable are predatory dominator's and I think domination and manipulation of consent and abuse of power is a crime against humanity.

Problem is alot of society is not able to grasp this problem accurately or honestly or understand it because they lack the ethical wisdom and emotional clarity to see through it fully.Sometimes it is very hard to ARTICULATE the real issue.

I do not ever excuse bullying "narcissistic" people who seek to subjugate or dominate others and "engineer" consent for reasons of self gain or power.It is morally repugnant and ethically wrong~always.One who desires power to rule is a dangerous person IMHO.Sadly the language of laws is not sophisticated enough to legislate against this kind of crime so we get bullshit like"consensual crimes" to describe a subtle and very real problem and a law that does nothing to solve the problem.

These are my understandings of 2 of your issues.

>If the Democratic Party would change its doctrine with respect to >these items, I'd change my "official" affiliation.

Well I don't know how I feel about the Dem's really. I both disagree and I agree with the Dem's on many different issues and my thoughts shift around as policy and reactions to policy shifts,I am very mixed and ambivalent about politics.I claim agnosticism on some things until I think out how I feel about Dem Policies and reason it through for myself fully.I don't just look at a political stance in relation to howe I feel,I look at the mental space of society and I ask how will they cope and can I live with the effects of the political trends currently going on in this society or not as in myself or living with others? I know I can't live under The Neocon fascist Empire or tolerate living in a Fundamentalist Christian Theocracy.

So I registered as a Dem because I wanted to use my vote against the Neocons.I will stay Dem until they are OUT.I also like the way Dem's support the idea of a strong social safety net.A safety net is very important. because not enough people have the ethical wisdom inside themselves or the sensitive empathy to grasp WHY a social safety net is necessary for our collective human well being.. So if the Dem's can give the ignorant and unwise a fluff reason to care for the weaker looks to me like the Dem's are a more sane party(ethically) despite their flaws and stupidities they are working in my interest and in the interest of a healthier culture in general,and they are against the Neocons..Good enough for now. When things change,I may change my affiliation or I may not want one..

Be aware I am not loyal to any "party" and definitely not loyal to any "leaders".I am loyal to myself only.I am very anti hierarchy and anti authoritarian.But I add I do respect my communities rights in regards to my "freedoms" and I am aware this Planet and the life all around me has rights too. I can be very negotiable as long as domination,abuse or hierarchy is not part of the picture..

[dcfirefighter]

49. Democratic Freedom Caucus

libertarian Democrats

http://www.progress.org/dfc/

[sweetheart]

54. Libertarian love

Against all the rules,
the libertarian loved the earth,
the fragile remainder of the untouched skin of the planet, her lover,
and as horrible has things have become,
to celibrate human liberty over corporate rights,
and draconian systems of law designed to repress.

And inbetween the cracks of the empire grows the
complexity of organic intelligence,
unfettered bowing only to natural law,
flowers requiring no license to blossom
and love finding mostly a vacuum in this world.

And the libertarian meditates,
silently aware of the ocean, the
mountain wind and the pulse of all of
life, eternally free without the institutions
and lies of man. On every square inche of
the surface of the earth, in every human heart,
grows the possibility for awakening, that
the only institution that "can" be truly
awake in our world is the individual,
sovereign beyond law,
dignified, and following only ones own
heart and conscience, needing no slavery
of man to spread goodwill.

But apologists for empire, loathe libertarians,
as we represent the collapse of the lies.
Swagger and a load of wooly framing designed
to create a hate persecution of a minority of
the progressive coalition. The true conservative
libertarian has no home, and finally disgusted with
bush to no end, stands with the progessives for
fiscal prudence, the end of ALL wars, a culture of
coporate subsidies, eroded civil rights and lies,
where corporations have more rights than citizens.

So to oppose the coalition of interest is to explore
the cracks in the coalition, and it seems the methods
of this op's propaganda, to divide and conquore a
coalition by exploring wooly stereotypes equating
bush to a libertarian. sadly, a total trash of
lies, in both content and intent.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. kcik

[Cats Against Frist]

68. Thank you.

:hi:

[Lilith Velkor]

69. Wow, what a "loving" personal attack on the OP

:eyes:

[sweetheart]

81. Yes, frankly it is

I'm defending the goodwill of libertarians, and the integrity of many
persons on this board who this post slanders. As this op is part of
an ongoing propaganda effort on DU to spread ignorance about
libertarians, and divide a coalition of progressive interests set
against the bush criminality.

That is love, my friend. And the ontology of the op is unsuprising,
given this ongoing propaganda effort. I wholly respect free speech,
being libertarian, and as well, notice when free speech is used to
make people feel unwelcome on this board, used to spread political
ignorance and stereotype hatred.

[Lilith Velkor]

82. Inferring the OP is a Bush propagandist

...shows neither goodwill nor integrity on your part.

In case you didn't notice, the poem is about the rightwing, Fundie Capitalist type of libertarian, some of whom have visited this board very recently.

As a libertarian socialist, I know this doesn't apply to me, so I'm not offended. The OP never stated that all libertarians are alike, and inferring that in order to make a personal attack is dishonest and low IMFO.

[sweetheart]

83. charming

there you go, take it all personal.

I've a different editorial standard than you.
If its pointless dross dumping on people and spreading a hate view
of libertarians, it is done excellentlly in pure column inch dumping,
in an attempt to break down a strategic coalition... effective media
spamming to create a rovian truth.

And all it takes are repeaters, so why repeat hate views, no matter
who they are about, and then a whole lot of people vent a lot of bile,
like on this thread, and then people who are sick of this kind of
bile dumping, speak up, like myself and accuse the initiators
of intentional editorial belligerance. If the word "libertarian"
were replaced with "women", "jewish" or "democratic",
the bile would be censored.

No pardon asked from your "..FO".

[mcscajun]

62. There are a fair amount of Left-Libertarians at DU.

Not all libertarians are right-wing fuckers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4973064&mesg_id=4973064

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4971876&mesg_id=4971876

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4976879

[Selatius]

67. A-frickin-men!

Not all libertarians are rightwingers. Left libertarianism seems to be ignored quite a bit. "Libertarian" used to be associated with left libs, but the word was co-opted by the right.

[Cats Against Frist]

70. Oh, and can someone tell me why the libertarian threads keep

getting pulled?

And, I once tried to start a libertarian/anarchist/de-centralizationist group on DU, and got enough replies to make a group, but nowhere near what I suspect the left-libertarian contingent is, on DU.

I understand the need to keep these issues in the forefront, but if they're just going to get pulled, can there not be a discussion forum? I think that we're no less a part of the left coalition than the greens, or liberals or DLC or progressives or social democrats. This is a debate that needs to happen. As far as I can tell, no one is pimping the LP, and most are as likely to vote Democratic as the
"if Hillary Clinton doesn't do this, I'm taking my rainbow and leaving," contingent.

[really annoyed]

71. OK then....

Libertarians are not THAT bad, geez....

[Agent Orange]

72. Your post has convinced me that I''m wasting my time here...

Hey you got your wish, with this libertarian. I know when I'm not wanted, and my ideas will be scorned. Alert on me, or maybe a Mod will ban me. I'm tired of the constant attacks on Nader and Libertarians anyway.

You go ahead spouting your hate, and continue voting for people that vote for war resolutions handed to a monkey-liar. And continue to vote for those that think "we" need to spend 50 billion declaring war on our own citizens via the "drug war", and be especially proud of the Patriot Act that John F. Kerry proudly advertised here in Seattle that he "helped to write" (on 710 KIRO am). That's "opposition". Lobbyist style.

I came here thinking that somehow I could force myself to side with the "opposition" to the bush cabal that ushered these things in, with the complicity of most dems, but when you attack people that are trying to find a way out of this 2 party bullshit that has all but turned this country into a work camp, I'll find a *real* progressive site where people can try to work together to dig this nation out of the hell created for us by the elite pigs in power.

When the time comes to vote, I'll vote for the person that most fits my view of what this nation should be. And the dems havn't come close lately. Furthermore, I won't lose any sleep, like you should, because you continue to elect elite scumbags that rape our liberty and freedoms, yet you tolerate it because you somehow think it's not so bad if a "democrat" does it.

And don't you dare call me a freeper or some such nonsense, I'll bet I'm more "progressive" than you. For one, I vote for actual change, not lip service. And I was there, when Clinton was dodging reporters and bombing Bagdad, asking where in the hell his alternative energy program was. 8 years, some of them boom times, and not a single program or strategy laid out and persued.

Over and out, and best of luck if your party runs a warmonger like hillary clinton, who hasn't done a god damned thing for the common man/woman in the last 20 years.


One last question for you "democrat" fans: Why is it that Clinton is excused for his PNAC adventure (http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm) bombing (without UN approval) civilians in Kosovo when the "other side" is attacked for an almost identical PNAC adventure in Iraq? I don't expect an answer, as 3 years have passed and the issue hasn't got a single speck of traction in that time. I remember when William Rivers Pitt was asking the tough questions about that illegal immoral war, but I havn't seen em lately. And, curiously enough, the general that led that illegal immoral assault is a front runner right here on DU for 08. Like this country needs more of the "military industrial congressional complex".

And instead of focusing on getting "democrats" to stand up for what they once believed in, you complain about the insignificant numbers of those that actually take elections seriously. Did you ever stop and think that you are angry at .02 percent of voters while more than *100 MILLION PEOPLE* have given up entirely? Did you ever stop and think that if there was actually a party that stood for the common man and liberties maybe you wouldn't have to worry about non entities like Nader? But NOOOOO it's obviously more fun to bash someone that actually speaks out about corporate corruption.

It's enough to make a proud libertarian barf. Instead of getting sick, I'll just be moving on like a good citizen.

[really annoyed]

73. Please stay

We need your voice.

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

I believe you would fall under "other progressives."
:)

[mcscajun]

74. Don't go! And please see my post upthread. You are Not Alone.

There are other left-libertarians here at DU; we're quite vocal, we're not banned or silenced.

Your voice is welcome. :)

[Cats Against Frist]

76. Yes -- I've been called everything in the book

from a right-winger, to a corpo-fascist, to a racist, to a freeper, and I've lived to tell about it, on DU. We are "other progressives," and can have mostly the same values and goals as progressives, we just see the route to those goals through personal responsibility and autonomy, AS WELL AS COOPERATION, de-centralization, the destruction of the police state, non-artificial communities, and the primacy of the town square, as opposed to the national discourse.

We're more pro-peace and anti-corporation than the Democratic Party, and we're EXTRAORDINARY useful in elucidating the LIES that the GOP wants smaller government or has any kind of real libertarian interest. Someone quite brilliant explained, either in this thread, or another, how the tax cuts have nothing to do with "freedom," and more to do with corpo-fascism. It's true.

The overclass has bought the government -- both parties -- and they now own the huge bureaucracy that, thanks to the Patriot Act, has the power to spy on you, hold you without a trial and torture you. Sounds sweet, doesn't it? Also, our legislators are busy writing bills that almost hand-deliver HUGE amounts of tax monies to energy monopolies, insurance monopolies, the military-industrial complex and now, even churches for their "faith-based" programs.

I agree with the original poster, and others who assert that right-wing libertarians who align with the GOP are the dumbest people on Earth. How one can align themselves with former Trotskyites who believe in Empire (the biggest of the big governments), and who derive their power from people who wish to turn the U.S. into a Christo-Corpo-Fascist state, and call him or herself a libertarian is beyond my comprehension. And those who believe that all libertarians are this way, or are not useful or needed in fighting right-wing authoritarianism are equally beyond my comprehension.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. No Man Is An Island...

I agree with that but there is something to be said for any kind of system that lets a man or woman rise or fall of their own weight....


I don't want a fucking nanny state....


I'll be there with my time, counsel, and tax dollars for anybody who tries and fails but at least try....