U.S. Libertarianism: Of the Left or of the Right?

Post Reply New Topic

I'd say Coolidge but I agree that GOP has not lived up to it's small government rhetoric. Hoover was hardly the sit back and do nothing guy that he was made out to be.

Neocons are basically modern day Troskyites. That's where their politicial philosophy came from.

Last edited by Jacoby on 21 Sep 2010, 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Perhaps, reviews differ. Point is, the GOP does not stand for small government any more than the Democrats do. If anything, the GOP is worse in terms of growing government.


I disagree with this one, and I'm sure that any Neocon or Trotskyite would be offended by such a suggestion. The only real similarity between the two movements that I see is a desire to spread an ideology abroad, but in the case of the neoconservatives they still desire for their home country to dominate all others in nationalistic struggle, whereas Trotskyites wanted to erase national borders.

Well actually, Irving Kristol probably wouldn't of minded. He was quoted saying "I regard myself to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory."

I'm just fine with paying reasonable taxes when the money is spent wisely (e.g., not on tremendously expensive wars). Taxes spent on education and training are social investments that pay dividents; a reasonable social-safety net for unemployment, disability, sickness, and old age is eminently reasonable. Government is not an all-or-nothing proposition, and I would despise a Nazi or Stalinist regime as much as a conservative would. I do not feel that we should trust for-profit corporations in place of government. There is a practical, reasonable balance between extreme ideologies, one that creates a society that works for most people.

I have heard this concept spewed by countless libertarians/tea baggers/conservatives, but one serious question that I have regarding this claim is: can you actually provide some empirical evidence to support this position, and not just philosophical/pseudo-historical ramblings? I've yet to get a clear answer.

All I've seen from the right is more government. Even worse, more government in trying to create a socially conservative society.

Right = more freedom and wealth for those who already have it
Left = more freedom and wealth for those who don't already have it

There needs to be a balance between the two, so freedom - social and economic - is free to all people and not just a certain class.

In the US it's more like this...

Right = Preserve the status quo, i.e. more power to those who are already powerful + less power those who fall "outside" the "desired" social prototype.

I can't comprehend why self-professed libertarians support right-wing politicians in the US. They already showed their true colors by obstructing the push to dismantle the "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding homosexuality in the military. The right has no interest in liberty in any sense of the word. They're more supportive of the 2nd amendment rights, but that's about it.

John McCain's daughter Meghan recently appeared on The Daily Show to promote her new book, and the idea she was pushing is that the Republican Party should become more inclusive and tolerant: the party of a bigger tent. She talked about transforming the Republican Party into something socially liberal and progressive except that she would would keep Republicans' core planks on the economy: lower taxes, smaller government, etc.; she would support something like cap and trade for the environment, though. I guess that would make her libertarian mostly. Conservative Republicans would call her a RINO—even more so than her father. She may almost be a "liberaltarian" although she knew that she was appealing to a mostly liberal audience on The Daily Show.

The Tea Party is a right-wing populist movement that is pushing the Republican Party in mostly the exact opposite direction, though. Glenn Beck is quite influential among them, and although he describes himself as a "libertarian conservative"; he has at the same time been exhorting the people of the United States to return to some imagined past shared values based on Christianity and conservative middle-class values. I would pointedly call him right-wing conservative and not libertarian. Despite Glenn Beck's constant protestations against Nazis and fascists, who he sees similarities with in progressives, his movement shows a few similarities with these and other right-wing authoritarian movements (Tea Partiers brandishing guns at town hall forums in August of 2009 being a prime example; the Nazis and Fascists relied on paramilitary thugs to intimidate any opposition on their journey to power). Some of the Tea Party's rhetoric uses violent revolutionary rhetoric, but when push comes to shove, I do not think it's a ready batch of stormtroopers willing to kill their more liberal neighbors.

In the U.S. both major parties are Statist. They see the government as the main engine in society. They have somewhat different agendas. The Republicans want a welfare state for the corporations and the Democrats want a welfare state for the miserable and stupid incompetents of society.

In either case the government will take its cut, hand out jobs to the cronies and pretty well make it impossible for the productive to produce.

ruveyn

Well, I don't know if you've ever heard Meghan McCain speak but she has the intellect of a rock. Nobody takes her seriously. She makes Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell sound like Nobel laureates.

The US is a two party state, supporting a third party movement is futile as has been seen time and time again. So what is alternative? Gain influence and eventually takeover one of two major parties. The GOP has Ron Paul and the Tea Party movement(which as flawed as it is, will at the very least bring in some good new blood in the senate and the house like Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, John Amash, Mike Lee, Glenn Bradley, etc.) while the democrats have a few principled progressives like Kucinich and Feingold(my senator) and not much else who can ally with you on some civil liberties and the war. Feingold appears to be on his way out this year too. Larry McDonald isn't walking through that door unfortunately.(not unless you believe the conspiracy that he's been alive in Soviet/NWO custody all these years. )

I'm not going to vote for Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, New Gingrich, or whoever no matter what.

In the US, party affiliation appears to trump serving the people.

After election, the best action should be to vote to support actions and policies that support people and their choices, and oppose those activities which strip people of their choices.

The initial idea of the constitution was to limit the power of the government, and to empower the governed.

It's unfortunate that those elected cannot act in a non-partisan fashion, but as long as money and greed dominate human activity, what we have is an imperfect government, which is too big to fail. The alternative to it can be seen in Somalia.

You know, I did leave out, "She sounded like a ditz," because I didn't want to take the conversation there. If she manages to persuade some young Republicans not to embrace regressive socially conservative ideas, then that's great. Anything that keeps the Republican Party from drifting ever further right into crazy land is a boon.

What do you mean by this? That if we didn't have a central government we'd all be like Somalia? One, it's not fair to compare an undeveloped African country to the developed western countries like our own and two, Somalia is actually better off without a government now in a most ways than when they were a communist state. Parts of Somalia such as Somaliland in the north are actually doing quite well.

Who exactly are these miserable and stupid incopetents of society? And what exactly are you producing?

The Randian elite shall crush the moocher majority.