Guy Incognito
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Brink Lindsey said:The real problem with our politics today is that the prevailing ideological categories are intellectually exhausted. Conservatism has risen to power only to become squalid and corrupt, a Nixonian mélange of pandering to populist prejudices and distributing patronage to well-off cronies and Red Team constituencies. Liberalism, meanwhile, has never recovered from its fall from grace in the mid-'60s. Ever since, it has lacked the vitality to do more than check conservative excesses--and obstruct legitimate, conservative-led progress. As a governing philosophy, liberalism has been moribund: When Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton managed to win the White House, they did so only by successfully avoiding the liberal stigma.
Today's ideological turmoil, however, has created an opening for ideological renewal--specifically, liberalism's renewal as a vital governing philosophy. A refashioned liberalism that incorporated key libertarian concerns and insights could make possible a truly progressive politics once again--not progressive in the sense of hewing to a particular set of preexisting left-wing commitments, but rather in the sense of attuning itself to the objective dynamics of U.S. social development. In other words, a politics that joins together under one banner the causes of both cultural and economic progress.
Conservative fusionism, the defining ideology of the American right for a half-century, was premised on the idea that libertarian policies and traditional values are complementary goods. That idea still retains at least an intermittent plausibility--for example, in the case for school choice as providing a refuge for socially conservative families. But an honest survey of the past half-century shows a much better match between libertarian means and progressive ends. Most obviously, many of the great libertarian breakthroughs of the era--the fall of Jim Crow, the end of censorship, the legalization of abortion, the liberalization of divorce laws, the increased protection of the rights of the accused, the reopening of immigration--were championed by the political left.
Liberaltarians | Brink Lindsey | Cato Institute: Commentary
Brink Lindsey said:I’m a libertarian because I’m a liberal. In other words, I support small-government, free-market policies because I believe they provide the institutional framework best suited to advancing the liberal values of individual autonomy, tolerance, and open-mindedness. Liberalism is my bottom line; libertarianism is a means to promoting that end.
http://www.brinklindsey.com/
Libertarianism cannot be squared with the Republican party. But don't just take my word for it:
I feel to be a true libertarian you have to give the finger to both parties.
I agree with this premise.
What many modern Libertarian-Republicans, including candidates like Rand Paul, seem to forget is Libertarianism's fundamental exception: people should be left alone to do what they please so long as their actions do not significantly harm the life, liberty, and happiness of others.
Finally, Republican opposition to the gay rights agenda contradicts the notion that people have the right to do what they wish when it causes no significant harm to anyone else.
Only two Republican positions fairly follow the idea of Libertarianism: (1) the idea that the federal budget needs to be balanced, and to some degree (2) abortion . . . which theoretically should balance the interests of the mother in controlling her body and the interests of the unborn child in life. However, in recent years, moderate Democrats appear to have taken up both of these positions.
I feel to be a true libertarian you have to give the finger to both parties.
Ok, so is it then assumed that libertarianism cannot besquared with the Democratic party as well?
I think it's more of a stretch to call the thread starter a "libertarian" than to link "republican and libertarian". Neither works.
One can not be called a libertarian while holding monetary and wealth redistribution statist views. :shrug:
Yeah, but in this system that is basically throwing your vote away. I respect ideological purity, but for those of us who want to be pragmatic, we have to pick one of the two major parties to align with. So the question is, which is closer to us? The answer: the Democratic party by a wide margin.
Re-read what i posted. I dont view you nor republicans as libertarians.
Not all Libertarians do so. For example, Warren Redlich in New York is in favor of gay marriage.Too true. It is flagrantly unlibertarian to oppose gay rights, so why have libertarians aligned themselves with a party that is not only anti-gay but opposed to civil liberties in general?
I don't know how you took that from the original post, it's precisely the opposite of what I and Brink Lindsey are arguing. What is your argument to support this?
A question mark - usually indicated a question is being answered. The OP identified libertariansm does not square with the Republican party so I'm asking if Libertarianism squares with the Democratic party and that's a question. And you already answered it, tha in your opinion, if you had to choose Democrats (ie., progressive liberalism) is more in line with Libertarian values than Republicans. And if that's true, that's sad. I would think Libertariansm is closer to Conservatism --- whether or not that Conservatism is based in a (R) or (D) ideology. I know only a few Libertarians on DP I would trust in their views of Libertariansm and Ikari probably tops the list and he's been consistent for years on multiple forum boards about what is and is not Libertariansm. I'm not sure your view is correct and if it is, like I said, it's sad.
One Tea Party position I forgot to mention in my original post is at least somewhat Libertarian, in my opinion. That is their opposition to the health care mandate.Hey, that's cool, we're on the same page. I don't view the Tea Party as anywhere close to libertarians, either. They're about as authoritarian as you can get.
Well said, I totally agree with this statement. It's like republican-libertarians only care when it's government violating the rights of the people, and they lose sight of the fact that individuals can infringe on your rights too.
And I guess I don't understand yours either.I guess I don't understand your view of proper libertarianism.
The use of the word "liberalism" isn't today referencing the 18th or 19th century view or definition of the word. Liberalism today has more in common with Progressivism than traditional views of Liberalism. And while we untangle ourselves from labels, the major point here is this - Progressives won't have you. Progressives today are as partisan biting gnashing teeth nincompoops as the hardest Conservative ideologue. The difference is, Progressives will throw Libertarians under the bus before any of their own, which they also do regularly. When I look at the Libertarian Party platform, I don't see Progressives or Liberals - I see a moderate Conservative view. If you choose to buy off on Lindsey's view of Libertarianism, that's your choice. But I don't think you'll get a majority agreement that Liberaltarians is an accurate description. The tents of all political party's have gray area's and some tents are bigger than others. If you think throwing in with Progressives is the way to go, the Conservatives will still be here to wipe the mud off you when they throw you out on your ass by not supporting the next big spending bill or backing some Progressive pet project.I think the quotes in the OP made it clear how the Democratic party is closer to libertarian ideals than the Republican party. Who supported civil rights and desegregation? Who supports equal rights for gays? etc.
I guess I don't understand your view of proper libertarianism. I think the quotes in the OP made it clear how the Democratic party is closer to libertarian ideals than the Republican party. Who supported civil rights and desegregation? Who supports equal rights for gays? etc.
Republicans do not support libertarian the libertarian ideal of social liberalism. They do purport to support the libertarian ideal of economic (classical) liberalism, but in practice they betray that ideal too.
I agree with this premise.
What many modern Libertarian-Republicans, including candidates like Rand Paul, seem to forget is Libertarianism's fundamental exception: people should be left alone to do what they please so long as their actions do not significantly harm the life, liberty, and happiness of others.
Thus, when viewed in whole, the Libertarianism philosophy is somewhat indifferent to the size of government, because government needs to possess the power to prevent people from unfairly and selfishly acting to benefit themselves to the detriment of their peers.
What does this mean? Most modern conservative positions are indefensible under the lens of Libertarianism. Rand Paul's famous questioning of the Civil Rights act has no support in Libertarianism, because discrimination clearly falls under the government's power to regulate. Gun control. Smoking prohibitions. Environmental regulations. The republican stances on these issues similarly ignore the Libertarianist exception by refusing to account for the damages that can be done when individuals are permitted to own weapons and pollute without regulation. Financial reform can also find support in Libertarianism, as allowing businesses the freedom to engage in high degrees of risky dealing poses a severe risk on everyone in our country. Finally, Republican opposition to the gay rights agenda contradicts the notion that people have the right to do what they wish when it causes no significant harm to anyone else.
Only two Republican positions fairly follow the idea of Libertarianism: (1) the idea that the federal budget needs to be balanced, and to some degree (2) abortion . . . which theoretically should balance the interests of the mother in controlling her body and the interests of the unborn child in life. However, in recent years, moderate Democrats appear to have taken up both of these positions.
We cannot abide by the Republican party, I would say we cannot abide by the Democrat party either. Both want to expand their power and influence over the People. Proper government would be first and foremost concerned with the security of our rights and liberties. Even the Democrats voted for the Patriot Act.
Brink Lindsey said:I’m a libertarian becase I’m a liberal. In other words, I support small-government, free-market policies because I believe they provide the institutional framework best suited to advancing the liberal values of individual autonomy, tolerance, and open-mindedness. Liberalism is my bottom line; libertarianism is a means to promoting that end.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?