• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Should Liberals Like Libertarian Ideas?

Redress said:
And of course that is not what liberals believe. That is simply your spin on it. Core liberal belief: the government can and should be an instrument of the people and should serve the people.
Click to expand...

I think this bit written in 1624 explains it somewhat...

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."​
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Well, libertarianism as we know it is a uniquely American phenomenon with regards to its focus on free markets. .
Click to expand...

Oh, balderdash! Libertarianism is classical liberalism, and nothing else. When I came to America as a young man, I already knew that I am a liberal, pretty much along the lines of FDP in Germany or people who later founded the ruling Civic Platform in Poland. It took me some time to figure out that in the USA, "liberals" are not liberals at all, and the world to use is "libertarian" - which immediately puts you at a disadvantage, suggesting some kind of childish radicalism. Even though there was nothing childish or really radical about, say, Governor Weld of Massachusetts or Governor Johnson of New Mexico - and they were/are definitely classical liberals/libertarians, and nothing else. Bill Weld had a portrait of Hayek hanging in the Corner Office, you know.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
I think this bit written in 1624 explains it somewhat...

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."​
Click to expand...

Except John Donne acutely understood the difference between the State and the Society (kind of hard to miss, when your mother is a great-niece of Thomas More) - which seems to be lost on most "proud liberals".
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
To the extent that the USA was ever number one it was because most of our competitors were seriously harmed by two world wars. The quality of life for the poor and minorities was never number 1 in the USA. Much of the good life enjoyed by middle class and richer white men was made possible by the exploitation of everyone else. (i.e cheap labor by blacks and immigrants)
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm not saying it was perfect, at any point in us history. However, this freedom that was had, was available to most any hard working, dedicated, persistent and or intelligent person could make a life for themselves. If anything the situation for those groups has become MUCH better over time.

It's not a fluke that the US became the most prosperous in the world... Having the freedom to take chances, to risk it all on an idea.

And honestly, the poor here are better off then most of the rest of the world... But unlike most of the rest of the world, the poor here stand a much greater chance at pulling themselves out of their situations... And frankly with the access to information available today, there's really no excuse any longer.
 
Cyrylek said:
Except John Donne acutely understood the difference between the State and the Society (kind of hard to miss, when your mother is a great-niece of Thomas More) - which seems to be lost on most "proud liberals".
Click to expand...

Did he now? I'd like to read his specific notes on the difference between the State and the Society. Gotta link?
 
BmanMcfly said:
This is absolutely false... The opposite of reality, why become an entrepreneur and risk it all when you can just find another job to build enough time to earn the next round of unemployment "benefits"...

Free money breeds laziness, look at the stats, world wide people with unemployment benefits wait until the benefits are almost dried up before even trying to find a new job.

Why take a risk when you are safely caught in the net??

Am I saying we should not have this arrangement?? Well, for some sure it's good... But all in all this system breeds abuse.
Click to expand...

Why quit your job to start something new if you are going to be out on the street if you fail? That's what safety nets encourage, the freedom to take risks. Your hatred of them comes from your hatred of freedom I'm afraid. Freedom from fear is a scary thing for some people. It's been 75 years since it was proposed, you'd think it would have sunk in by now.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
Since conservatives claim that Europe is an awful place, the only people we are falling behind are the Chinese including Hong Kong, the Japanese and residents of Singapore. None of them are bastions of freedom or the type of place I would choose to live in. (possible exception of Japan)
Click to expand...

That's the problem... We are enriching those countries at the expense of our own...
 
LowDown said:
Well, let's see:

Are liberals authoritarian? Darn right they are.

Are liberals elitist? Darn right they are. Or at least a significant number of them.

Are liberals libertine? Only to the extent that they want to tear down all morality and do whatever the hell they please and call it "progress". In other words, of course they are.

Are liberals anti-human environmentalists? But I repeat myself. I can't believe anyone would bother to deny this.

And as for totally "consumed by identity politics and envy of anyone who has any wealth or power", come on now, that's almost by definition. Identity politics and blather about "social justice", i.e. envy. That's all liberalism is any more.
Click to expand...

Thank you for continuing to prove what I say about echo chamber conservatives. You find some editorials that tell you what you want to hear, and do not ever bother to even remotely question them.
 
Redress said:
Thank you for continuing to prove what I say about echo chamber conservatives. You find some editorials that tell you what you want to hear, and do not ever bother to even remotely question them.
Click to expand...

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
/əˌTHôriˈte(ə)rēən,ôˌTHär-/
1. favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

That seems accurate enough.


e·lite
/əˈlēt,āˈlēt/
1. a group of people considered (by others or themselves) to be the best in a particular society or category


Again, he's right... A significant number of liberals fit this description.


lib·er·tine
/ˈlibərˌtēn/

1. a person, esp. a man, who behaves without moral principles or a sense of responsibility, esp. in sexual matters.
2. a person who rejects accepted opinions in matters of religion; a freethinker

Once again, he has a valid point.

As for that last one, I'll say this... Every single group of people with that mind set, are liberals, not conservatives.
 
iguanaman said:
Why quit your job to start something new if you are going to be out on the street if you fail? That's what safety nets encourage, the freedom to take risks. Your hatred of them comes from your hatred of freedom I'm afraid. Freedom from fear is a scary thing for some people. It's been 75 years since it was proposed, you'd think it would have sunk in by now.
Click to expand...

In theory, you don't own a business, do you?

Well, when you register your business, you forego the option to use that business for unemployment benefits, at least where I'm at...

Now what you are saying, IN THEORY, sounds like a great plan... When you put it into practice however, you wind up with people who, damn how many examples should I limit myself to? Let's stick with the one of the husband / wife combo, the wife would arrive early and clock herself and her husband in, then would leave early and have her husband clock both out at the end of the day...

Then, had the gall to say that they would pay back for the extra hours if they were marked as laid off so that their employment would still count towards unemployment... THAT is the type of risks a safety net encourages.

People don't take the BIG risks when they KNOW that even failing, and if they take those risks, it's not done whole heartedly since even failure is no real threat.

Then, it becomes a culture of people doing the minimum to pull themselves into the safety net....

I could go on... You are a dreamer, and I would put money that you have never started your own business. (not that this is a bad thing per se, but it explains your position since otherwise you would have seen the reality of workers)
 
BmanMcfly said:
In theory, you don't own a business, do you?

Well, when you register your business, you forego the option to use that business for unemployment benefits, at least where I'm at...

Now what you are saying, IN THEORY, sounds like a great plan... When you put it into practice however, you wind up with people who, damn how many examples should I limit myself to? Let's stick with the one of the husband / wife combo, the wife would arrive early and clock herself and her husband in, then would leave early and have her husband clock both out at the end of the day...

Then, had the gall to say that they would pay back for the extra hours if they were marked as laid off so that their employment would still count towards unemployment... THAT is the type of risks a safety net encourages.

People don't take the BIG risks when they KNOW that even failing, and if they take those risks, it's not done whole heartedly since even failure is no real threat.

Then, it becomes a culture of people doing the minimum to pull themselves into the safety net....

I could go on... You are a dreamer, and I would put money that you have never started your own business. (not that this is a bad thing per se, but it explains your position since otherwise you would have seen the reality of workers)
Click to expand...

Actually I do own my own business and have for 30 years. It is obvious that you are a cynic probably from working hard at something you hate. Don't squash the dreams of those with bold ideas just because you didn't. It is also admirable to be responsible and take the safe route in life.
 
Redress said:
Thank you for continuing to prove what I say about echo chamber conservatives. You find some editorials that tell you what you want to hear, and do not ever bother to even remotely question them.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm influenced by things I read and see on the tube and whatnot, just like anyone else. What I don't get is people who complain about the fact that people are influenced by others, as if their own thoughts spring fully formed out of the pure ether, revelations from God Himself or some such, not sullied by anyone else or tainted by ideology. It's nonsense. As I might have mentioned, liberals are ideologues who don't think they are ideologues. They think that they are just being sensible. But no, they are being ideologues, perhaps the most unthinking type of ideologues and the most unquestioning of their own ideas. Their lack of self awareness is astonishing at times.
 
iguanaman said:
Actually I do own my own business and have for 30 years. It is obvious that you are a cynic probably from working hard at something you hate. Don't squash the dreams of those with bold ideas just because you didn't. It is also admirable to be responsible and take the safe route in life.
Click to expand...

Lmao... No, not doing something I hate, not sure how you even derived that.

Ok, well, it's surprising that you own your own business given the attitude there.

Anyway, it's just a reality free money breeds laziness no matter the intention behind it. Those that are hard working will not take advantage of that free money, or if they do it's from a legitimate and minimally temporary need.

Yes, as you agreed with me, there is nothing wrong with the safe route, but the safe route as an antithesis to the risk taking required to put it all on the line to start a business, especially when you consider the odds against new businesses.
 
ernst barkmann said:
its law....period.
Click to expand...

Can you cite an example where the Declaration was successfully used to enact policy or avoid prosecution in a way that was upheld by the courts? In other words, when has the Declaration ever actually impacted the application of law?
 
Cyrylek said:
That's anarchism, not libertarianism.
Click to expand...

I am constantly reading calls for significantly less regulation, and often virtually no regulation (especially for business), from self described libertarians. In my view, at this time, corporations have so much power that we need more regulation of their actions or they will completely undermine our freedom and quality of life.
 
Hard Truth said:
Only if you define "better" as providing full rights and privileges to white men only.
Click to expand...

That's what it boils down to, doesn't it. Libertarianism is a bad faith philosophy, which pretends to be one thing, but is really about something else. It talks about freedom, but its politics involve enriching the rich and powerful, and exploiting everybody else with impunity, a nostalgic return to the good old days when kids worked in mines and workers worked 6 days a week with no worker protections.

The fact that libertarians may proposes some half-way decent views about decriminalizing drugs and or gay marriage, doesn't change the fact that they basically want to de-criminalize all corporate crimes and allow individuals to discriminate against minorities all they want.

I don't think there is any real difference between conservatives and libertarians, except libertarians don't want their servants to have indoor plumbing.
 
BmanMcfly said:
And honestly, the poor here are better off then most of the rest of the world... But unlike most of the rest of the world, the poor here stand a much greater chance at pulling themselves out of their situations... And frankly with the access to information available today, there's really no excuse any longer.
Click to expand...

In general, the poor are better off, have more opportunity for higher education, and are more likely to improve their status in the more socialistic Western European nations so feared and hated by conservatives than in the USA today. They are also much less likely to have their lives destroyed by the cost of a medical crisis. (medical costs were one of the leading causes for roughly half of the mortgage defaults in the USA during the recent economic crisis)
 
Hard Truth said:
I am constantly reading calls for significantly less regulation, and often virtually no regulation (especially for business), from self described libertarians. In my view, at this time, corporations have so much power that we need more regulation of their actions or they will completely undermine our freedom and quality of life.
Click to expand...

It all depends on the mode of regulation. "More" or "less" is not the issue. Policing, safety measures - sure. Just don't forget the cost-benefits analysis. But all too often the government interferes in business, picks winners, distorts markets - and the very pernicious "corporate power" you are decrying is exercised exactly through these channels.
 
head of joaquin said:
That's what it boils down to, doesn't it. Libertarianism is a bad faith philosophy, which pretends to be one thing, but is really about something else. It talks about freedom, but its politics involve enriching the rich and powerful, and exploiting everybody else with impunity, a nostalgic return to the good old days when kids worked in mines and workers worked 6 days a week with no worker protections.

The fact that libertarians may proposes some half-way decent views about decriminalizing drugs and or gay marriage, doesn't change the fact that they basically want to de-criminalize all corporate crimes and allow individuals to discriminate against minorities all they want.

I don't think there is any real difference between conservatives and libertarians, except libertarians don't want their servants to have indoor plumbing.
Click to expand...

oy vey :roll:
 
BmanMcfly said:
That's the problem... We are enriching those countries at the expense of our own...
Click to expand...

To a large extent other countries have grown their industrial sector at our expense because of their supply of cheap labor (thanks to a lack of legal protection for workers who advocate for their interests) and lax environmental laws. The conservative/libertarian solution is for the USA to do the same. Although the lack of regulation of business combined with a lack of freedom for individuals benefits a portion of the residents of those countries, a large portion of the workers are being exploited and the environment is being destroyed. That is not a just, desirable or sustainable situation, and the people of those countries will not tolerate it indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
Cyrylek said:
It all depends on the mode of regulation. "More" or "less" is not the issue. Policing, safety measures - sure. Just don't forget the cost-benefits analysis. But all too often the government interferes in business, picks winners, distorts markets - and the very pernicious "corporate power" you are decrying is exercised exactly through these channels.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is why I agree with the liberal calls for more government transparency, more real democracy, less corruption, more accountability for corporations and other big money interests and more fact-based regulation. Cost-benefit analysis of regulations should examine the costs and benefits for society as a whole, not just the businesses' bottom line. All I hear from most libertarians and conservatives is calls for less regulation and more power for business interests, not for better processes and smarter regulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom