Question about Libertarians and Secessionists

[TheBisexualProfessor]

I subscribe to TIME magazine and have noted in recent weeks that several articles by different writers in the mag have either stated or suggested that Libertarians, free-market thinkers and states-rights secessionists are extremists or radicals. I'd like the opinion of the folks here. What do YOU think?

[shybipinay]

Anyone who just might possibly have the right idea in a world that is warped by wrong thinking will be considered a radical - even if that radical thinking is really the way to go. These so called radical thinkers need to be silenced otherwise this world would be turned on its head and maybe we, as a species, just might save ourselves from extinction.

So, the authorities, government and media call these people radical thinkers and tell the rest of us not to listen to them.

Make your own informed decision. Research both sides of the argument. The answers are out there. Maybe they are extremists and radicals. Does that make them wrong? The world is going to Hell with the way it is being raped and pillaged in the name of profit and greed, by those that have run our affairs for so many years. Maybe it is time to give another idea a chance. Capitalism, Socialism and Consumerism have been proven not to work.

David Suzuki states that we need 3 more earths to support this one. That being true, can we possibly be on the right path?

Maybe there are ideas and concepts among the Libertarians, free-market thinkers and states-rights secessionists, that make sense.

[allbimyself]

One of the problems is some groups use the word "libertarian" far beyond its scope. I remember someone sending me a link to a group that calls itself libertarian but whose platform is decidedly national socialist. There are other examples.

[FalconAngel]

I have known a few Libertarians and the official and acted on stance of the Libertarian party is to reduce government control to what it was originally established as under the Constitution.

It opposes government intervention in the lives of families and is opposed to the excessive beurocracy that has been created by the growth of scope and power of the government.

They basically want a removal of government from people's lives and want to limit the powers that government has over the people of this nation.

Their stance is that the business of government is supposed to be limited to management and protection of the nation (coordination of federal assistance agencies and national defense). Basically, limited federal authority with most autonomy given back to the states.

[jamieknyc]

I always regarded Libertarians as being closet Republicans.

[Ninnian]

Wow..
Ive never had anyone call ME a radical....and Im Libertarian-soon I'll be living in a "compound" Im sure...
- I look at it very simply-- my Default position is: Freedom, and the constraint of Govt to its originally mandated Consitutional roles. And dang few they are, my friends.

Libertarianism is teh anathema to Socialism. To where we are headed now. When teh established media is helping us down that road... of course they name the Opposing forces "anything but sons of God". The woefully undereducated of our populace will take up the "radical" banner-- and help with teh Purges some day... *shudder*

Nin

[Ninnian]

** AND she then Slaps Jaime..** just dayum, man.....


we're So different Republicans and Libertarians! Didnt you piss me off bad enough calling me that one day in chat enough!??!

[TaylorMade]

I always regarded Libertarians as being closet Republicans.

Depends...social liberal/fiscal con is a cousin to the Libertarian, so I can see your point, but, for the most part, it's not the same thing.

Politics needs a Kinsey scale, 'cause I'd be a 3(or 4) there too.

*Taylor*

[hudson9]

I don't agree with libertarians on economic or social welfare questions (I think their positions are a bit simplistic, sort of economic anarchism), but I do tend to agree with them on civil liberties issues.

That said, I do respect true libertarians for the consistency they apply to their opinions -- unlike the run-of-the-mill capitalist who only really wants less regulation for HIS business, but wants bailouts and special treatment when HE needs it. Or the run-of-the-mill Republican who wants no environmental regulation, but wants to regulate YOUR sexual, reproductive, and civil rights. Libertarians believe that their position will be better for everybody, not just themselves. In that sense, at least we have the same objective.

Libertarians are radicals in the sense that they are at an extreme relative to the "center." Libertarians don't go to the same extreme that anarchists do (no government oversight or control of anything).

Secessionists are another question. They tend to be the people who, when they and/or people they supported were in power, told the rest of us to "Love it or Leave it!" Now, they want to, not "leave it," but go and take "it" with them. And they seem to be cheerfully unaware (or unconcerned) that talk of secession is technically treason(!) -- Remember the Civil War?

What secessionists (and other hyperbolic right-wing complainers) fail to understand is that governing (as opposed to ruling) is about establishing consensus -- you're not always going to get your way. Debate and state your opinions, by all means, but accept the fact that you may have to compromise, or even loose once in a while. Lord knows, we on the "left" have had to put up with that for the last 30 years...
:2cents:

[silberwolf1960]

To be very truthful,I really follow no party i.e. GOP,Democrat,Green Party,or really any other.I am a registered voter (Thank the God and Goddess),I vote after listening to all the speeches,debates (and some of them can be fucking hilarious),I served my country in peace and war.All I want is to be left alone,to be bisexual,and to live without the threat of some assbag coming to my house and telling me I don't know what's good for me and how I am going to live my life and infringing on my right to live peacefully and within the limits of laws that do not take that inaliable (don't know if i spelled that right ) right a way.
I just want to finish bi saying if ya want to make a change vote.If ya don't vote and express your self at the polls.If ya don't vote well,ya can't cpmplain and ya can't voice your opinion in in local,state and federal goverment.
Voteing is your way to tell the politicos that you want change.

Take my advice,pull down your pants and slide on the ice.:2cents:

[FalconAngel]

Well, without regard to party, Obama has done more to help this country in the first 3 months, than Bush did in the first 3 years.

AND Obama has had to fix all of the relations and bad press that Bush created.

"Is there anyone that you haven't pissed off?" -- Barak Obama to George W. Bush after returning from his overseas trip.

[MetaSexual2]

I haven't got the sense of the press painting Libertarians as extremists, but I have seen several stories pointing out that their economic ideas have failed. This has been presented this in a somewhat simplistic way in the press, but the core idea here is correct. Libertarian economic philosophy has a deep flaw at its heart... that powerful corporations or individuals will act in a way to eventually collectively benefit the rest of the population. This just doesn't square up with the historical record, and those lower on the power scale have often needed mechanisms to keep those higher on the scale in check. Libertarian economists typically deny the need for these feedback mechanisms, despite the strong evidence that they are necessary. (Hayek, von Mises, etc.) The current crisis is a direct expression of the flaws of this type of thinking.

BTW I was generally interested in Paul for his defence of the constitution and his performance during the republican debates. He was the best of a bad lot among the republicans, however his understanding of economics is extremely simplistic (as is most politicians). There is far too much centralised control in the banking system right now, but the ideas he is proposing would result in almost no controls. A return to a 19th century economic system will not solve anyone's problems in the 21st... we need to find a way forward, not backward. The current administration's economic policies are short term perspective and reactionary, which certainly isn't ideal, but its far better than policies which are based in flawed ideology.

States rights secessionists are a different story, they are extreme in proposing that instead of trying to improve the US, they should destroy the union. This is not a main stream or politically viable idea, so I think press are justified in referring to them as radical.

[JP1986UM]

Well, without regard to party, Obama has done more to help this country in the first 3 months, than Bush did in the first 3 years.

AND Obama has had to fix all of the relations and bad press that Bush created.
.

Yes I agree. All Obama has done is take over the Auto industry and run it from the White House, which we all know needs to be done. He's also taking over the banking industry, because god knows, we all need some cash in our accounts and he appointed some tax avoiding lackey to do it. Yes, I agree he's doing a marvelous job. He's about to send the country into purely unadulterated socialism by nationalizing the health care industry. (Having been a student within the NHS, I can't wait to hear the howls about waiting times to get a MRI when you have a brain tumor).

Oh and of course he's fixing all those bad relationships Bush screwed up by telling the world today we are a muslim country. Wow, that took brains. Someone must have muzzled Joe Biden to let Barry let that one escape on its own. Then he insults Israel and essentially says Iran can have Nukes, which one of them will be lobbed at Jerusalem shortly killing 6 million more Jews by a notorious Holocaust denier.

Yes Barry is doing such a splendid job of getting the economy going with that stimulus thing too:
http://www.layoffdaily.com/

Please, don't insult our intelligence by laying out vagueries. Bring some facts. Barry voted on that first bailout Stimulus in 2008 as a Senator. So he's just as culpable for it as any other politician. He was a fraud then, he's a fraud now. He should be impeached, the only problem is Biden is worse.

Maybe America will implode and we can start over in 2012.:(

[MetaSexual2]

JP - There are legitimate criticisms of the Obama administration, and I don't really want to act as its defender, but pretty much everything you just said is parroted right wing media talking points that have no basis in reality. The banking and auto industries are not being forced to accept government investment and are those that are not accepting bailouts are free to compete against those who are, and not accept the government's terms. In the UK, private insurance competes against the NHS, and so you are free to pay for faster medical care if you are not satisfied with the speed or quality of service in the public domain. However, the NHS provides a high standard of care at far less cost than what you have in the US where private insurers are artificially inflating medical costs because there is no effective competition. Why exactly is it that social programs for defense, national infrastructure, science, etc. are ok, but medicine is not?

From an objective standpoint, its very difficult to say that Obama has not been a relatively more effective executive than Bush. The previous administration was one of the most inept the US has had in the last century across nearly every sector of government and by nearly every objective performance measure you want to look at, so its not hard for Obama to look good in comparison.

To bring this back towards the original topic... for all my criticism of Libertarians, I think they form the core of what should be a new Republican party. Right-of-center, laissez faire economic policies should be continually compared to left-of-center ones to guard against too much centralized control being put in place. What is happening in government now is a correction because of a total lack of regulation in areas where it was needed over the past couple of decades. The government should serve as a check on the worst excesses of the market, but not seek to exert overt control, and in general this looks like what is happening now.

To survive politically, the right needs to reject idiotic arguments and childish behavior, and start to attack on issues that really matter... personal freedom, govt transparency, small business creation, etc. Name calling and arguing against a rational foreign policy and effective economic regulation are not effective political strategies.

[12voltman59]

The notion of Libertarianism is at first blush an appealing one---but the fact is--with the way things have developed over time----in reality I don't think that true Libertarianism could work.

We do need government to place some controls on things---could you imagine what life would be like if the government had not put into effect laws and such that set at least a fundamental level of environmental rules and regulations, workplace rules regarding things such as the amount of time we work, safety rules, etc.????????

Think of what the environment would be like if we had not placed at least some rules regarding air, land and water quality????----we would not be able to breath the air, drink or swim in the water or do much else that is healthy. The planet would really be one big sewer.

As far as all this talk about going back to the way things were when the Constitution was written----that would mean that blacks would still be in slavery and women would be disenfranchised----do you all want that???

As I have said before-----all those "Conservative Constitutional Scholars" always make a big fuss about being "strict Constitutional Constructionists"--but it seems they are only referring to the "rights" that most of us have come to assume as birthright---with such things being as relatively meaningless as being able to watch or read material that not too long ago was considered "obscene"(porn or erotica) and was banned to bigger things like doing away with Jim Crow sorts of laws.

Those conservative strict constructionalists never ever say one word about turning back the rulings that granted the same sort of rights and "freedoms" to corporations----show me in the Constitution where it says one word that corporations have the same rights as individuals and maybe I will bite on this notion of "going back to the original intent of the forefathers" and all that CRAP!!!

I say---if we make it like it was in the beginning of the republic that corporations had only a very limited grant from the government to operate---under limited and specific conditions that if not filled--the grant was revoked--I say--fine--I'll go with us setting back the clock on all the other rights that they seem to have no problem doing away with!!

If "they" got their way---we can forget about being GBLT people and living a decent life----we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of living life in the way we would like!!

[12voltman59]

I forgot to address the question of sucessionism-----

To that---all I can say is---"Yeah, right--how smart would it be to break up the US in this day and time???"

If it really is true the "terrorists want to kill us for our freedom"---don't cha think that would make the resulting broken up countries even more vulnerable to attacks from foreign terrorists????

There would be lots of issues to resolve with such a situation--not the least of which---how would you make a fair and equitable break up of military bases, equipment, personnel, areas of control and operation and all of that???

The notion that of parts of the US would break off to form their own new countries is total lunacy!!!! We already went down that road and it was not a pretty situation---it resulted in one of the deadliest wars our nation has ever been party to---with the casualties being ourselves!!!

It is something---these "conservatives" go and talk about such a thing and it almost gets a serious consideration in some quarters---but my God----if any "liberals" in the media or in Congress would say such a thing as did some right leaning talking heads and Congress people as well as the governor of Texas---the right wingers---would with good cause---go ballistic that some liberals had said such a thing---they would get met with responses like "if you don't love America, why the hell you just leave and go to France or some place!"

Conservatives say it and its "hey--that might be a good idea!!!"

Ed Schultz---a liberal version of a rightie radio talking head has a new show on MSNBC---he as a segment each night during the show he calls "Psycho Talk"---when this talk broke out on the right a month or so ago and during the "Tea Bag Party" thing that was happening---Schultz discussed this in the "Psycho Talk" section of his show----this is a good term for this subject--it is simply crazy to even bring up such a notion.

I do have to wonder about some of these conservative folks----do they not have any sort of filtering mechanism between their brains and their mouths????

[canuckotter]

I haven't got the sense of the press painting Libertarians as extremists, but I have seen several stories pointing out that their economic ideas have failed. This has been presented this in a somewhat simplistic way in the press, but the core idea here is correct. Libertarian economic philosophy has a deep flaw at its heart... that powerful corporations or individuals will act in a way to eventually collectively benefit the rest of the population. This just doesn't square up with the historical record, and those lower on the power scale have often needed mechanisms to keep those higher on the scale in check. Libertarian economists typically deny the need for these feedback mechanisms, despite the strong evidence that they are necessary. (Hayek, von Mises, etc.) The current crisis is a direct expression of the flaws of this type of thinking.
Fundamentally, every economic argument I've seen from Libertarians relies on people acting rationally and always being fully informed. The problem is that there are decades of advances in economics proving over and over again that humans are not, in fact, perfectly rational, even if given full access to all relevant information. It just ain't gonna work the way they want it to, the same way communism will never work the way the communists want it to. Our modern economic system is based on centuries of tinkering and trial and error to find a system that basically works and has been tested in the real world. Does it have flaws? Of course. But they're fixable, and they're generally the result of ignoring past experience in favour of some ideology du jour.

[fairbankswingers]

This is mainly because of folks like Ron Paul, who is trying to finish what Jackson started and ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's a reason they call him 'Dr. No' in Congress. He is a staunch defender of the Constitution in a time when it is being deliberately destroyed. Also, he is one of only four or five Physicians in the upper echelon. God, I hope he lives to be a hundred.

and if you dont agree with the current POTUS you are branded a racist, if you disagree with the far left or speak out you are a racist, or bigot, or anti-gay or what have you in order to silence you...free speech to some in this nation means only free speech for their line of thinking, and that goes for both sides...just seems the main stream media is the worse offender of it...just look at the abortion doc who was killed...tragic...but then no news on the Muslim extremest who killed an Army private in Little Rock...why...becuase it did not suit their needs or their agenda...the far right also has their extremist, just they dont control the media...look at Al Gore, running around making millions with the fraud of global warming in his private jet...

As for some of us being in the secessionist it is because crap like Californians thinking we (rest of the US) should bail them out...I say fine, but first lets drop the prop 13 crap and ACTAULLY PAY TAXES on the ACTUAL VALUE of your home...you want those nice home equity loans, but yet dont want to pay taxes on it...yep your home is worth a million dollars and your only being taxed on the value when you bought it 10 years ago (600K) and love those loans...wonder why you folks have a serious deficit problem there in Hellifornia...If you look the states with the worse problems right now, being run into the ground are those with tooooooo many social programs...that is also a problem...time to stop the Nanny state and folks start fending for themselves...a helping hand once in a while is fine, 20 years on welfare, in public housing, food stamps...that is a serious PROBLEM...drive through some public hosing sometimes (if you dare) and take a look at the Hummers, BMWs and other luxury cars parked there by the drug dealers living on my damn dime...make it legal, make prostitution legal, tax it, and these criminal problems disappear...prisons soon lose their populations...you want to do drugs, fine, but you pay for it, you want to get help you pay for it, you want to spend time in jail because you cannot live within the rules, well then you should be paying for it, and why should I pay for you to live in jail, and to top it off pay you to "work" in jail, then provide you a free education, and you think your "Owed" something...this is the bigger problems and these are the ones some of us are tired of dealing with in the current Nanny state...

[MetaSexual2]

Fairbanks - We can debate about what constitutes a "nanny state" but first I think you need to check your figures. People in California on the whole are paying much more for your Alaska state rebate check than you are for their social programs. As a quick example, in and 2004 and 2005, Alaska received $1.84 of federal funds per $1 of federal tax paid. In comparison over the same period, California received $0.78 of federal funds per $1 of federal tax paid. Over the history of its existence as a state, Alaska has received far more federal money from the rest of the states of the Union than it has given back. California, being the seventh largest economy in the world, is paying for much more of its fair share (even per capita) of the federal budget and has presented a much better return on investment of US tax dollars.

I agree with you on legalization and regulation of drugs and prostitution, but I think you need to look at the corruption and inefficiencies closer to home before pointing the finger at others.

[MetaSexual2]

Apologies Fairbanks, in the previous post I think I confused you with someone who used to post here from Alaska. The argument I made is not as strong for Indiana, whose tax burden/spending ratio is roughly about even. However California still contributes more than their share of tax revenues.