A new source of opposition that could destroy the Republican Party

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
Second, libertarians would privatize land and beast to save endangered species, preserve our parks, protect our national forests, and improve our vast cattle ranges.

The idea of privatizing animals probably does seem a bit odd, but I could see how it would make sense, at least in certain cases. Apparently even Nelson Mandela supported the idea in South Africa, under the rationale that African governments simply didn't have the resources or the political will to protect animals from poachers. Some of the criticisms seem valid to me, but I'm open to the idea, especially since certain animals (like tigers, for example) are very likely to go extinct in the future, if they're reliant on the protection of governments who are clearly not interested enough in their survival.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
There are plenty of tigers that have been "privatized" already, many kept in people's houses and the like. It works out okay for some - not so much for others. As to the people who live in areas where tigers roam freely, most seem more interested in shooting them to avoid herd loss than preserving them.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Getting rid of silly regs that stop people from braiding hair for money without 2000 hours of schooling, or babysitting more than two kids without a daycare license would stop government from preventing people who have tried to do those things to generate an income. There are tremendous hurdles that keep Main Street businesses from flourishing that have severely reduced the number of new small businesses we see each year. Wipe all that out and you've opened huge new opportunities for people who don't want to be slaves to corporations.

Government standing in the way of those who want to create new business opportunities at the smallest level have a lot more to do with the moribund economy and high unemployment than most people realize. The centralization of employment may be great for the corporations, but the democratization of employment would be much, much better for society and individuals as a whole.
In addition to Monkey's excellent deconstruction, these paragraphs are nothing more than standard right wing Republican ideas dressed up in libertarian clothing.

Those pesky government regulations – like making sure that people operate day care centers are actually qualified to do so, are just one part of the right wing agenda.

The other part is getting rid of those pesky regulations on corporations – the ones that keep them from polluting the environment and exploiting their workers. Climate change? All nonsense. Minimum wage? Let's do away with it. The freedom to screw over others in the name of liberty? Let's hear it for the new order.

The idea that libertarians are nothing more then right wing conservatives who don't mind gay people and like to smoke pot is of course simplistic. But you know, there's a great deal of truth in it.
 

Dommo

On Mac's double secret probation.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
1,917
Reaction score
203
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Don,

The problem is that without governance a purely capitalistic system is self-destructive. You want a libertarian paradise, move to Somalia. There the all mighty dollar truly governs, even to the point of life and death.

What we have in the USA right now is an oligarchy where the votes of politicians are bought and paid for through large PACs. If we ever end up with in a libertarian USA, we'd have a situation like that portrayed in Snowcrash and other dystopian fiction, where corporations essentially rule their own little fiefdoms, and where the government is little more than a vestigal organ.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I think the core Libertarian party values would attract a lot of millenials, except that Democrats and Republicans fight so hard to keep Libertarians off the ballot. It's the one thing the two parties seem to agree about.

I'd agree with you, except that my experience with "people who like to call themselves Libertarians" is that way too many of them are nothing but social right-wing Republicans in Libertarian clothing. For "core Libertarians", in your terminology, to gain traction, they will need to eschew the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-etc. faction, and do it vociferously and vigorously.

The far right social agenda that currently dominates the GOP has spilled into the territory of people who like to call themselves Libertarians, and pollluted it in a disturbing way. Ask the saint of anti-tax acolytes, Grover Norquist, about his views on hot-button social issues. If you get an answer, which I doubt you will, you'll see this situation in hi-def color.

"Millennials" really don't gravitate toward restrictive social agendas, and there's not much doubt about which of the two major political parties that currently applies to. Democrats will have an easier time putting together an agenda that restricts taxation and spending that Republicans will putting one together that expresses social tolerance to minorities not popular among the religious right. And Republicans aren't exactly blemish-free on the issues of taxation and spending, either.

caw
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
I doubt it. I have heard a LOT of people over the years claim to be the same -- socially liberal, fiscally conservative -- and lamenting the lack of a party that really seemed to represent those views. And I'm old already!
As several others already mentioned, libertarians fit this. But many see it as a dirty word for many reasons, one being the strawman that all libertarians are anarchists, as depicted in this Twitter post I found today in my Facebook feed (forwarded from Occupy Seattle's Facebook page, which I'm sure has more along these lines):



The person who posted it to show up in my timeline is an atheist, which made it a convenient comparison, so I made this comment:
I'd have no more respect for a bartender who doesn't serve tainted alcohol solely because he fears regulations than I would for for one who doesn't serve tainted alcohol solely because he fears God.


ETA: And the lack of distinction between libertarianism and anarchy extends into post in this very thread.
 
Last edited:

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
"Our vast cattle ranges" has been among the most environmentally destructive of human endeavors since Europeans arrived in North America.

caw
Which indicates there's significant room for improvement beyond the current heavily-subsidized model, no? That's a great case of the unintended consequences of government meddling, BTW. Government in collusion with the railroads killed off the bison herds and replaced them with critters imported from totally different climates and ecologies.

Bringing fragile critters from Asia and raising them in the arid and dangerous west would have made no economic sense if not for the socialization of a whole range of costs associated with the process, including stealing most of the west from indian tribes and handing it over to the railroads, cattlemen and general population, then encouraging the wholesale slaughter of bison to make the land "safer" for the new inhabitants. Can't have bison herds disrupting train schedules now, can we? Cattle are so much more docile and far easier to pen up and domesticate.

Instead, we'd probably be feasting on more-nutritious and far less expensive bison meat - you know, those critters that spread like rats across the west before government stepped in, paid for their wholesale slaughter, and handed the lands they grazed on over to the railroads and the cattle industry. Cattle's different requirements for food also had terrible impacts on the native prairie grasses, and one of the worst of government's unintended consequences followed with the dustbowl of the thirties.

Lewis' The Third Revolution takes a serious look at cattle vs. bison in what is otherwise a fictional setting.

Oh, and bison are also a great example of one of those species that would be extinct were it not for those that were privatized for a period of time.

Once again, we see government breaking legs and handing out crutches, and people lining up to say thank you.
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Instead, we'd probably be feasting on more-nutritious and far less expensive bison meat - you know, those critters that spread like rats across the west before government stepped in, paid for their wholesale slaughter, and handed the lands they grazed on over to the railroads and the cattle industry. Cattle's different requirements for food also had terrible impacts on the native prairie grasses, and one of the worst of government's unintended consequences followed with the dustbowl of the thirties.

You seem to be forgetting that another reason for killing off the buffalo was to destroy the way of life of the plains tribes. One genocide to effect another. I'm sure you'll argue otherwise, but I don't think racism and manifest destiny can be blamed on statism. Private settlers are just as effective at colonization and imperialism.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Srsly? Manifest Destiny was the first embodiment of American Imperialism (and a serious bone of political contention), and racism was enshrined in the constitution and after that in Jim Crow laws and Supreme Court decisions, as has been routinely pointed out here. The state can be used to legitimize the most vile acts... and quite frequently is. Had the Whigs triumphed, America would have been a far different place. That's what comes of the "either-or" of statism.
Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept—Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity.... Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest."
Tribal genocide wasn't the raison dêtre, expansion was. Genocide was just a nasty byproduct of the lust for "unclaimed" wealth. After all, if indians aren't really people, then why shouldn't some nice white folk claim what's never been spoken for and make it their own?
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Srsly? Manifest Destiny was the first embodiment of American Imperialism (and a serious bone of political contention), and racism was enshrined in the constitution and after that in Jim Crow laws and Supreme Court decisions, as has been routinely pointed out here.

You're begging the question.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
You're begging the question.

...which is kind of the central flaw in trying to argue with a libertarian.

If the government does something bad, then it's the fault of the state, therefore statism is bad.

If private individuals do the exact same thing, then it's the fault of those individuals, but the political philosophy that allows them to do those bad things and get away with it isn't held accountable, because freedom.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
There are plenty of tigers that have been "privatized" already, many kept in people's houses and the like. It works out okay for some - not so much for others.

Right. I don't advocate keeping tigers in houses.


As to the people who live in areas where tigers roam freely, most seem more interested in shooting them to avoid herd loss than preserving them.

An even bigger problem is habitat loss. If you could hand over at least some of the Sumatran rainforest to Greenpeace, would you do it? I'd probably do it. For one thing, they don't have the same thirst for palm oil production as the Indonesian government. Even if they had challenges, it's hard to see how they could make things worse.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
The idea that libertarians are nothing more then right wing conservatives who don't mind gay people and like to smoke pot is of course simplistic. But you know, there's a great deal of truth in it.

There's not a great deal of truth in it, imo. Mainly because it's too simplistic. The big part it misses is that libertarianism's overarching philosophy--the big picture, in other words--is quite different from conservatism. Perhaps it's easy to overlook that because the two philosophies end up in the same place on a number of issues. But why do libertarians rarely end up in the same place on, say, foreign policy issues? Because it's a very different way of looking at things.

The same could be said for comparisons between libertarianism and liberalism, imo. It's a different way of looking at things. And most discerning people understand that, I think, even when those two rivers flow into the same lake on specific issues.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
Privatizing our public parks and getting rid of the endangered species act hardly seem like things liberals would get behind. In fact, those have both been pushed for by the far right. Personally, I think those sound like terrible ideas, for all the author thinks it would save the world. And restitution?

Big IF to what I'm about to say: IF we agree that neither of the two major parties is at all interested in the plight of the common man, that each is only playing to their own particular special interests...

Why not take up the cause of a third party and help it adapt when and where we disagree?

I tend to vote Libertarian for exactly that reason. I think they are far closer to the kind of government that I want, though I, too, would oppose some of their planks.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Speaking of liberalism versus libertarianism, there's another point: in the US, we often act as if Democrat==liberal and Republican==conservative, but this is also and obviously too simplistic.

Many liberals and conservatives surely identify as independents because they no longer feel the Democrats or Republicans represent them. Independent doesn't mean moderate, either.

Nor does that mean libertarianism should be the default third option. Just because you're a liberal and don't agree with the Democratic party line doesn't mean you'll necessarily find the libertarian one any more enticing.

And that's the thing: it usually isn't.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
There's not a great deal of truth in it, imo. Mainly because it's too simplistic. The big part it misses is that libertarianism's overarching philosophy--the big picture, in other words--is quite different from conservatism. Perhaps it's easy to overlook that because the two philosophies end up in the same place on a number of issues. But why do libertarians rarely end up in the same place on, say, foreign policy issues? Because it's a very different way of looking at things.

The same could be said for comparisons between libertarianism and liberalism, imo. It's a different way of looking at things. And most discerning people understand that, I think, even when those two rivers flow into the same lake on specific issues.
There's so much movement--with regards to those who commonly self-identify as conservatives and liberals--on issues as to make the labels something of a joke, by and large. A "conservative" point of view becomes a "liberal" one almost overnight (and vice-versa), solely because a politician in power switched their point of view. A great example is the brouhaha over recess appointments.

Libertarians--in general--enjoy an advantage over run-of-the-mill conservatives and liberals insofar as they (the libertarians) have an element of consistency not present among the other two groups.

'Course, it's this same element of consistency that causes libertarians problems. They're automatically--to some--intractable ideologues. And they are given to eating their own, to declaring who is and who is not a "real" libertarian with far more gusto than can be found--usually--in other political groupings.
 
Last edited:

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
Libertarians--in general--enjoy an advantage over run-of-the-mill conservatives and liberals insofar as they (the libertarians) have an element of consistency not present among the other two groups.

Broadly speaking, I agree. Though, on some issues I think it's more difficult to establish what policy should result from a libertarian philosophy. Immigration, for example.

'Course, it's this same element of consistency that causes libertarians problems. They're automatically--to some--intractable ideologues. And they are given to eating their own, to declaring who is and who is not a "real" libertarian with far more gusto than can be found--usually--in other political groupings.

Yes, I think a large part of that stems from the fact that libertarianism is so heavily deontological. Of course, libertarianism doesn't have to be approached in such a way. One could also support libertarian policies simply because they seem to best address a specific problem.
 

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
Libertarianism goes against some of my liberal views, because of the role of the government. I am a moderate. Moderates can take libertarian views, too - or at least I do.

But full libertarianism seems very easy for governments to abuse in ways that hurt the groups liberals tend to pony up for. Businesses can hire whomever they want, for example, without regard for the civil rights act or disability laws. No wonder the far right jumped all over that, you know?

Distrust of 'big government' got hijacked to be an excuse for the same policies the right has loved forever. Cut social programs, let business do what it likes, cut regulation. Nothing new there.

So to me it doesn't seem like the libertarian choice is socially liberal + fiscally conservative. That is better found in moderates (when they exist). Socially liberal can't involve leaving social problems to anarchy or however we should phrase it, imho. That is the role of the government in a big way, I think: ensuring that the weak are protected in a society where it's often survival of the fittest.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Regarding Don's post on bison:
The points made here are debatable, but Kuwi has that covered. I will just say that privatization of wildlife is not in line with "socially liberal" politics.

Michael Wolfe said:
If you could hand over at least some of the Sumatran rainforest to Greenpeace, would you do it?
That's the thing. With privatization of the type and scale libertarians are calling for, I - nor you, nor any agency with any interest in the well-being of tigers - don't get to decide who owns what part of that Sumatran rainforest. Money decides. Maybe Greenpeace *would* end up with a cut. Maybe loggers and such would end up with a bigger cut. Maybe a nice little cut would go to those who see big money in big game hunting, or the sale of tiger fur rugs. Does it seem like a sound plan to me?

Hell no. Two things I've noticed about libertarianism:

1) Those who espouse it like to suppose everything will work out the way they think it should; they tend not to even acknowledge the ways in which it could go horribly, horribly wrong and
2) it is very much akin to "free-market conservatism" taken to extremes that not even most die-hard conservatives have the stomach for.

Robjvargas said:
Big IF to what I'm about to say: IF we agree that neither of the two major parties is at all interested in the plight of the common man, that each is only playing to their own particular special interests...

Why not take up the cause of a third party and help it adapt when and where we disagree?

I tend to vote Libertarian for exactly that reason. I think they are far closer to the kind of government that I want, though I, too, would oppose some of their planks.

First, I don't assume that neither party has any interest in their country or in their fellow man. It's become very fashionable to be that cynical, I know, and by not, I open myself up to claims of "sheeplehood" but no, I don't buy in.

Nor do I buy that the libertarian party is somehow different or more altruistic than the other two. Nor do I see it adapting in a positive way; the reason Don distinguishes between "big L and little l" libertarianism is because even as stalwart a champion for libertarianism as he has been, he feels the political party (L) is moving away from the ideals (l). So much so that, when faced with the official libertarian party platform, he - and others here - will say that that's not the libertarianism they are talking about. They will say that was not what it was meant to be. Rather than adapting to a become a new, original option, the libertarian party is becoming one that competes in the Republican primaries and is seen to "cost" primarily Republican votes. It is becoming the new voice of free-market capitalism taken to the extreme - although, on that point, I think big L's and little l's are in agreement.

Robeaie said:
A "conservative" point of view becomes a "liberal" one almost overnight (and vice-versa), solely because a politician in power switched their point of view.

If a conservative was for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana as well as abortion rights, immigration rights - and VERY IMPORTANTLY - supportive of our social safety net, interested in regulations on pollution and in conservation, and not determined to push religion into politics, then I would be really happy to vote for them. (But note: here I mean supportive as the liberals are, not supportive as in letting the free market or local governments decide as the libertarians usually are. There IS a difference.)

How long has it been since there was a conservative who pushed that social agenda? And how long will it be? And when they are... do you have any doubt that they will be considered "socially liberal?" There are some issues that are quite fluid. The ones that matter to me right now have not been fluid within my voting lifetime, if not my entire lifetime.

Libertarians--in general--enjoy an advantage over run-of-the-mill conservatives and liberals insofar as they (the libertarians) have an element of consistency not present among the other two groups.

'Course, it's this same element of consistency that causes libertarians problems. They're automatically--to some--intractable ideologues. And they are given to eating their own, to declaring who is and who is not a "real" libertarian with far more gusto than can be found--usually--in other political groupings.

If by consistency you mean each member picks a hard-line stance and sticks to it, I think most conservatives are just as consistent. If by consistency you mean that people know what "libertarian" stands for and have a set view of what that means, your last sentence goes against that pretty much outright.

When each libertarian candidate claims to be the "real" one, and the party platform is disliked by a good deal of those who vote (L), and yet they do so because of their own idealogical views of what that (L) should represent, the party is about as nebulous as parties can get.
 
Last edited: