This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
It's not really an either-or situation, though. Hayek argued persuasively that when the government limits people's economic freedoms, it will in short order, and of necessity, limit their personal freedoms as well.
after george w bush, i don't see how libertarians can feel possibly feel more aligned to the republican party thna the democratic.
BTW, I just came across this essay by Megan McArdle on Hayek's Road to Serfdom: Who’s Afraid of Friedrich Hayek? The Obvious Truths and Mystical Fallacies of a Hero of the Right.It fits in well with this thread.
I think the article does a good job of explaining the anti-communism fears they both shared following the post war boom and the fact that socialism is no longer a viable economic threat. Not too surprising to me that the shared values with Republicans is waning.
I do understand that, and it is true. Like I said, lesser of two evils.
The odd part is that the republican party is really 4 or 5 large factions. And while the RR has owned it the last 10 years or so, even when these nutcases select someone as their candidate that isn't the RR chosen one, they manage to select an expansionist federalist.after george w bush, i don't see how libertarians can feel possibly feel more aligned to the republican party thna the democratic.
Are you sure it was McArdle that you meant to link? The link you provided sounds nothing like McArdle and the by-line doesn't include the McArdle name.
If you have libertarian ideas, you can NOT vote for Obama. There will be a Democratic controlled Senate, and a Democratic controlled House. Add in a Democratic president and we are looking at expansion of government like we have never seen since the New Deal. Fiscally responsible people realize what a catastrophe this would be.mon said:
Here's the problem with the above, though - the Democrats are often gun-banning haters of the 2nd Amendment, so members of the Libertarian Party (such as I am) who also hold with the notion that the 2nd Amendment is one of the most important parts of the Bill of Rights (as I do) are stuck with a dilemma when it comes to voting for candidates from one or the other of the big 2 (in races where there is no Libertarian on the ballot). Most Democratic candidates get "D" or "F" grades from the NRA. Certainly, this is true of Barack Obama, who wishes to ban licensed, concealed-carry firearms everywhere in the United States (among other attacks on the 2nd Amendment that Obama supports). Happily, in my case the above does not hold for Representative Jim Marshall (D) of Georgia, who is a fine supporter of the 2nd Amendment, so I can pull the lever for him with no regrets when there is no Libertarian on the ballot.Orange Crush said:
I vehemently disagree. I have lived through a few presidencies (I turn 50 tomorrow, wah) and it has been my experience that not much changes even when one party controls it all. Also, where are you getting your ideas that Obama will expand gov't such a huge amount? Have you been listening to FoxNews again? And you want to talk fiscal responsibility? The Dems could spend their hearts out and not come close to how much this administration has spent on war. And let's not forget the collateral damage of the war, which also affects our pocketbook -- global standing (which affects trade) and gas prices (call me a conspiracy theorist because I don't have proof, but I think you have to be insane not to believe there's a link). And those gas prices have just begun to affect cost of living. I predict in a year we'll be paying 50% more on food. And McCain is a military man who believes in war. I don't know what he's said recently, but I've heard he's said we may be in Iraq 10 years or 100 years. He's also said there will be more wars, whatever that means. Nope, in these times, fiscal responsibility is more a Democratic thing than a GOP thing.
Orange Crush said:
FYI-Two of the three economist listed are ...
... Nobel Prize winners in Economics that are listed as supporters of a Basic Income Guarantee! which we discussed briefly yesterday in your Is Democracy Dooming Us? thread.
I was just trying to be funny with that old cliche. Sorry, I forgot Libs don't have a sense of humor. My true feeling is that we will take less of your money than the GOP will, as I attested to in my post above. Remember, we're not all that "capitalist", either.
Yes, but instead we seem to be moving toward the opposite.
My answers would be:Aren't the fiscal policies of liberals a major turn-off to true libertarians? - Yes, but tax-and-spend policies aren't restricted to the Democrats by any stretch of the imagination. President Bush signed the prescription drug benefit legislation (an awful, unfunded addition to Medicare/Medicaid which vastly increased the future liability of that program to taxpayers, especially now that the definition of "necessary" medication has been expanded to include "life-style/happiness enhancing" pharma like Viagra). Both of the major political parties have become "liberal" in their embrace of expanding federal spending on various fronts. As alluded to in my earlier post, the liberal tendency to encourage expanding social spending is one of the problems that libertarians have with liberal Democrats in particular.
". But I digress
Democrats are awfully eager to take away your 2nd amendment rights. I don't see Democrats tripping over themselves to support my right to use mind-altering substances in the privacy of my own home. All major Democratic candidates for President campaigned against my right to buy goods produced in foreign countries. A majority of congressional Democrats voted for the UIGEA and McCain-Feingold. And once you get outside of Washington, there's actually not a lot of love for the first amendment among people on the left; I can't help but notice that it's not right-wingers who are responsible for speech codes on US campuses and in Canadian law. I think both parties have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they each suck on economic and social issues. This isn't to say that the GOP is better, mind you. The Republicans are just differently bad.
This is wicked good ownage right here.
Funny thing though, the LP candidate for President, Bob Barr, is considered an isolationist by the Cato Insitute due to his previous votes in trade.Free Trade, Free Markets: Rating CongressIvanKaramazov said:
This is very
.Democrats want to increase taxes, in order to pay for the services that the American people demand. Republicans have proven unable to cut spending, and all too eager to dramatically increase military spending, while the deficits they run up cause the Fed to undertake inflationary actions. So the Republicans don't take away as much of our money. They just reduce the spending power of our money.bullfeathers, both parties give us all 0 out of 2. both are causes of the ongoing economic collapse and both are socialist big spenders. There's hardly a dime's worth of difference between them
I'm a libertarian. Yes the religious right turns me off, and so does religious left. involuntary taxation takes away personal liberty to whatever extend the moral or immoral majority chooses. It negates property rights, that's communism, nothing else.
You have a deep understanding of politics, don't you? I can tell.
I've never really felt the tug of libertarianism, maybe because the way I always viewed it that the philosophy rejects some of the classic hallmarks of post WW2 Western Civilization, like the world bank, IMF, the UN, the modern Fed system, and even NATO. Domestically, the resistance to any or most drug laws and a lot of policing always seems overly idealistic, growing up in NO I always had the sense that drugs were causing a huge amount of damage and if parents wanted it out of their neighborhood to keep it away from their own children they should be able to call the police to do that. Economically, I have no doubt we want some regulation, even a lot, if it's designed to increase competition, prevent monopolization and protect the little guy from predatory practices. So between those three, it always seemed like it was about isolationism, social apathy or ambivalence, and laissez faire markets. Correct me if I'm wrong as I hate it when people misrepresent ideas that they really don't know anything about, but that's my perception.
I think these are a lousy couple assumptions to start with.
I think we have some more oversimplification here. It's good stuff for sure, and thought provoking, but I have to confess I rather like the idea of employing people in ways that help society. I think we should do more of it. Maybe this article makes me question my own assumptions but I see an awful lot of people, way more than previously, standing around on street corners in my town begging. I think people are happier when they do things, are active and when they feel like they are contributing. I see nothing wrong with welfare, I even like it and am glad we help the poor... but if people can work, I think it's better. NO had a massive immigration of the poor from MS & NorCenLa here after the collapse of the cotton industry, post turn of the 19th century, we still feel it, this industrial revolution style shedding of the poor with nowhere to go. I wish that part of our city could be vibrant and enjoying the kinds of things that so much of the rest of society does of its own accord, the only way out of that it seems to be is to have autonomy and independence, drive and dreams. That's not impossible with welfare but the experience around here shows it's very hard to escape generationally.
I have a hard time making sense of this section. He thinks MW is basically welfare. Ok. It's not IMO, but I can't even tell if he objects to MW altogether, or just at a certain point. His point seems to be that all labor laws are "sending people a check."
Is this that what he's proposing? Because that's George Bush, Sr.
This is the Sebelius case on the ACA mandate. The 17th Amendment apparently overrides all other constitutional provisions (and it might) but the problem arises, like Roberts said, when the tax controlling personal autonomy and the right of privacy becomes too onerous. When does that happen? Roberts said he did not have to decide that and left it at that. However I think we could see where this could allow state control over every realm of human activity. That would be an extreme state of affairs but we are essentially just relying on legislative and executive self-restraint. I think this writer has left the world of alleged "libertarianism" far behind at this point and may have marched straight past liberal and left into the great beyond.
Oh sure, what could possibly go wrong? This will lead to untold corruption. I say this as a citizen of LA where our DEQ (state EPA) is bought and sold on a regular basis. Let's do the calculus on what corporations will be offering politicians to keep that tax at a reasonable level. Horrible idea.
Again with the false alternatives, we have anarchism vs squishiness. Those are really the only choices? I think his use of taxes for almost every area of activity seems like a very dangerous idea in that it is almost unlimited in scope. I see zero libertarianism in this, and it might not even be liberal.
Just a follow up thought - I think the opposite has happened. Given the trend towards deregulating marriage and pot I think actually liberalism has trended more towards liberatarianism, which is still essentially conservative in that it rejects state authority to govern personal affairs. This is a very subtle line that has been crossed in some places. Some of the Democratic campaign consultants who are using these as wedge issues are riding a bit of a wild tiger here.
differently bad, indeed.
