If we had the aristocracy you're implying we do, Obama would be a janitor not the likely next president.

It was political pandering and class warfare. I have little doubt that obama doesn't really believes in the tax cut and had no intention of implementing it although i don't doubt that he believes in the tax increase component of the plan and that part he will try to implement.

And i disagree with your read of the opposition to the bailout. I think opponents either thought it was bailing out the rich and not helping them in any way or that it wouldn't work and was a waste of money. I don't really believe alot of people thought it would save the economy and that they'd be screwed without it but said I'd rather screw everyone including ourselves if it brings the rich down a notch. There might be a few people here that feel that way but i don't think that's representative of the public at large's opposition.

Which positions on which issues? On most things he is a liberal Republican.

Taxes, Size of Government, Domestic Policy almost across the board...remember i'm a libertarian. I can't vote for McCain based on those issues either. And as much as you guys want to say that he's not liberal, I disagree.

Nice misinterpretation.


You're so right. I never had those conversations with my neighbors and I never heard them agree with the guy who said "Screw 'em. I don't care if there's a depression if they end up down here with me."

It wasn't clear before, but I just got the 'right of Atilla the Hun' thing. I guess there really isn't any point in my listening to your side of the conversation any more.

I'd say that's quite a revealing post. Curious. In your opinion what Congressmen/Senators are worthy enough to survive a presidential ballot scrutiny these two have had to this point?.

No, I called him a liberal... republican. Maybe like Gov. Scranton of Penn circa 1966. So, by these tokens you would never vote for any democrat or republican.

I don't know Gov. Scranton. I do know Jim Jeffords and John Chafee and think Obama is significantly more liberal than both, even recognizing that both are to the left of many democrats.

I could happily vote for someone like Reagan. I could probably vote for Ron Paul although I really disagree with some of his views (most notably his views on immigration). I probably could vote for Steve Forbes. I don't feel at home with the republican party anymore though but I've never voted democrat and don't ever see that changing even if I'd prefer Obama to win over McCain.

I'm not sure I understand your question? what do you mean by survive presidential ballot scrutiny?

As I interpret it means: WHERE DO YOU STAND ON EVER SINGLE ISSUE EVER?

What Senator/Congressman do you have enough respect for that could survive the public scrutiny enough to be electable more than Obama/McCain?

As a Libertarian do you find yourself not voting at all?

Any hero of any ideologue melts in the hot spotlight of longterm media scrutiny.

It seems you have a sentimental, if rigid libertarian. Reagan was a symbolic figure to you guys... and it exposes the "cultural basis" beneath what is claimed to be pure ideas. When Reagan was president, he cut taxes once, and raised them six times. He gave amnesty to illegal aliens, ballooned government spending, and vastly increased the deficit. He was such a big spender that Tip O’Neill’s congress passsed less of it that he requested. The federal deficit ballooned exponentially under the Gipper.

He was also an unrepentant militarist and imperialist, a neocon, hardly consistent with any libertarian schema.

I tend to anarcho-syndicalism myself (with a strong dash of christian communitarianism and taoist distrust for any authority), but I understand that Eric Hoffer has my number, and that these flights of ideological fancy are a luxurious jerk off that may hurt real people with real needs... so I engage in the center RealPolitik of republicans and democrats. I am proud that I have voted for republicans. Not often, but it happens.

I vote libertarian. I don't consider that throwing away my vote. Its a message vote to both parties.

I think you and others are confusing my statement and its probably my fault for not being clear enough. I could vote for Obama if I agreed with his positions. Its not a matter of character. I could maybe even vote for McCain if I agreed with him on policy although I've lost a lot of respect for him.

The point I was trying to make is that the politicians that I respect the most are the ones that are true ideologues in the best sense of the word. They sought public office because they have a core set of beliefs that they believe in and they are loyal to those beliefs above loyalty to party and above their own political considerations. To me, these are the people who are "straight talkers" who you know where they'll stand on a particular issue and feel like you can always trust regardless of whether you'll always agree with them or not. They are also often the most effective because they have the clearest idea of what are the principles that they will never yield on and what are details open to compromise. And the same loyalty to ideas rather than parties enables them to work in a bipartisan fashion when you found yourselves in agreement.

For example, I have a hell of a lot of respect for Barney Frank. He rarely surprises me in how he votes, he has a lot of integrity and he's an effective advocate for his point of view. I could never vote for him if I lived in his district -- i disagree too much with his ideology. But when I did agree with him, I found him very easy to work with. He was happy to work with Republicans when he agreed with them.

I was digressing with this whole argument. It wasn't meant to be a slight against Obama. I was agreeing with Rodney that the idea that stu presented that all politicians are slimy and self-serving is wrong. I think many are very deserving of our respect and didn't do enough to separate the two distinct thoughts.

Mugwump, I wasn't trying to say you didn't have those conversations. i was trying to say that I didn't think those views were very representative of the majority of the public that opposed the bailout.

I don't know that its really worth debating Reagan on this board. I suspect that i'm one of the few fans of his. I maybe disagree with most libertarians on the point, but I find the peace through strength argument very persuasive and don't mind the growth in defense spending under Reagan nearly as much as I mind the growth of domestic spending under other regimes. The federal government has a much clearer role in foreign policy and defense than it does in housing or education for instance. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked a smaller budget still but that's a minor detail to me compared to issues i've had with more recent presidents. As far as the deficit goes, I don't consider the deficit itself as big an issue as the size of government as a percent of the economy and the % was considerably smaller under Reagan. I'm not sure why the amnesty for illegal aliens would be viewed negatively by a libertarian. I support immigration and much more open borders. Ron Paul's immigration policies are the biggest problem i have with him.

And regarding never voting for a democrat, if I allowed myself to fall into the trap of voting for one of the two parties, I'm sure I would have voted for democrats (probably clinton and obama).

one could argue that huge military build ups and interventions in all sorts of foreign conflicts strikes at the very core of the liberty in libertarianism...at least as much as things like entitlement programs, civil rights enforcement, welfare, housing programs, etc. which seek to give people a base level of support so that they can even begin to experience freedom.

one could...i don't

haha

Maybe I haven't spent enough time reading libertarian political theory to understand its intricacies, but I just don't see how it is sustainable or moral.

From what I understand, the basic premise is that the market is good and the market can be used to solve every problem. I just don't see it.

Here are my main issues...

To start with, you need money to make money, and you need to have money to get services. Libertarianism is great if you have access to capital. You build your business, make profits, buy houses, send your kids to private schools, die, and give your money to your kids so they can repeat the process. On occasion someone will move up into your neighborhood from the lower classes and you'll congratulate them on their success and welcome them to the club. Anyone who isn't in your neighborhood is a 'human resource' and shouldn't be given any more than the minimum necessary to pacify them. All else being equal, it seems to me that those with money will end up acquiring more while the others end up with less.

Second--long term investments. Infrastructure is expensive. If its privatized, its only going to show up where its going to be profitable in a reasonable time-frame. Littletown, Somestate is going to have a hard time getting a road to anywhere if there aren't enough people there to justify the cost.

Third--human nature. Granted, the best and wisest of people all think long term in everything they do. Unfortunately, I don't think most of us fall into that category. The education of one person is to the benefit of all, but if we privatize all the schools, how do we convince Mom to switch from chicken and potatoes to beans and rice so she can send her kid to the B-grade school instead of the C-grade?

Fourth--"Survival of the Fittest" is a fair and reasonable rule for business and other competitive enterprises. It is not an acceptable rule for society. Maybe there is somewhere, but I can't think of any mainstream ethical code or philosophy that finds it acceptable to apply this to intra-human interactions.

In a democracy, government is the result of a joint agreement between the people in a society to give up some of their freedoms for the benefit of all. I honestly don't understand how libertarianism reconciles with it from what I've heard libertarians say over the past 20 years. I know there have been some adjustments to the ideology lately to make it more palatable, but it still sounds way too much like 'screw anyone who isn't me' to me. A stable society needs more than an army and a criminal code.

Hopefully what I said is somewhat coherent, I've been wired all day and am starting to crash hard now...

Personally, I think that laying out a tax plan so detailed during a campaign is stupid and you should never have to admit that you are going to raise taxes even if it is only to "5% of americans" as Obama has. BUT, I also recognize that politically, if you are Obama you know that the first thing that your opponents are going to attack you with is taxes so he basically got out in front of it by constructing this plan.

I also wish he would better explain to those 5% that he isn't actually raising their taxes, he is just letting the Bush tax cuts expire and that the top two brackets will be returning to the same levels they were under Clinton (36 and 39.6) when BTW, plenty of jobs were being created in America since the argument is that no one will create any new jobs if their taxes are high (which is ignorant on a lot of levels but i digress).

That was my point exactly bloor - that was that the plan was crafted with political goals in mind not economic ones.

But you see that a democrat can't just run on "Read my lips, no new taxes" and have anyone believe him, right?

Not to invoke Reagan merely to strike you on one of the glaring weaknesses and inconsistencies of your position, but much of what he said during campaigns was "crafted with political goals in mind..." he relentlessly portrayed his opponents (Carter, Mondale) as "tax and spend liberals" and then when elected proceded to spend like a drunken... actor. In this weird warped cognitive pocket of the American mind, republicans "being political" is strong and effective, and democrats "being political" is a sign of weak ethics and questionable character (not saying that Billy G would hold this, but most of the cynical center and right do).

As you surely know, your support for unfettered militarism is not libertarian at all ... you have mitigated philosphy to this extent, but not to vote meaningfully in the general elections. I also know plenty of people who vote for that scumbag Nader purely "to make a statement." The "statement", to my thinking, is masturbatory.

Just as I am not a socialist on the second Tuesday of November every four years, I am an American (heh heh). I take direction from that hero of the right and true libertarians, Eric Hoffer:



In any case, your political contributions to this board over the years have been valuable and quirky, but now I understand your thinking better, thanks.

Sounds like you're trying to describe an oligarchy. You should note, however, the difference between an economic system (e.g., capitalism, communism, socialism) and a political system (e.g., aristocracy, republic, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc.).

Civics 101, dood.

Ugh I just spent far more time than I had trying to respond to Harry, Mugwump and Bloor and was timed out/logged out before I hit submit. I don't have time to respond to the same length again but here's some short hand replies.

Bloor - I agree it was good politics for Obama to do that. The whole issue came up in response to stu's overly skeptical statement that we'd all agree that all politicians and slimy and self serving. I was raising a favorite theme of mine that Idealogue is a much disparaged word. Idealogues are good because they are loyal first to ideas, not parties, special interests or their own ambition. You find a lot more idealogues in the House than in the Senate and certainly less when you get to the two nominees for president. I don't doubt that it was wise politically for Obama to propose that tax plan but it doesn't change that its pandering and it doesn't make me respect him.

Harry - I do oppose the neo-con rogue rollback and the concept of spreading democracy through military action. I think we could spend a lot less on defense but do support the concept of peace through strength. I also think Defense is the single clearest role of the federal government so I more likely to excuse some excess there. Finally, I'll readily admit that defense and foreign policy is the area of government in which I am least knowledgable and least confident in. I recognize that there are inconsistencies in my views but have a hard time reconciling them. For one, how do you reconcile the idea that the world is an unsafe place and that its clearly in our interest to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons with the idea what moral right do we have to prevent other countries from obtaining weapon systems that we have ourselves? I've never been able to resolve that. If I spent more time studying foreign policy maybe i could but I'm not sure of that either. In any case, I don't often agree with you but I do feel like you are always open to hearing opposing viewpoints and never consider it a waste of time to discuss politics with you like I do with many others here.

Mugwump - I think you are simplifying libertarianism, or at least my own form of it. The economic classes are not static in our country. There is a lot of movement up and down the economic spectrum. I'm not going to search for the stat now but there's a rediculously high turnover in the top 20% in our country as there should be. And you don't get wealthy without creating goods and services that people value and that make their lives better. I don't believe the role of government ends at defense and justice but I'm not going to try to delinate where the line ends. That said, I think the government should only do what the private sector can't. I would point out that many states are privatizing their freeways as a means of lowering outlays and raising funds to spend on other programs. I was just reading last month that a major freeway in PA is likely going to be privatized. I view this as a positive development. I don't argue that as a people we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate. i just don't think that it needs to be through governmental programs. And I reject the idea that the same people who in a democratic system support politicians who expand our welfare state wouldn't provide that same assistance through other means absent those programs. Even given that, I'm not that opposed to a safety net. My main beef in this area is with the war on poverty in general. The government does a decent job of cutting assistance checks but it does a very poor job in trying to eradicate the root causes of poverty and homeless and money spent with that goal in mind is largely wasted. And although I'm for limited regulation of business in general, I do recognize the need for some rules and believe in general that its preferable to have them at the federal level than force business to comply with a myriad regulatory system that differs greatly across states. Politics is always the art of the possible. And to construct a utopian system on paper doesn't mean that you could ever get there or that it would be wise to eliminate programs that people have grown to depend on even if we would be better off if they were never created in the first place. That said both repubs and dems are far too comfortable with the growth in government for my taste and i'm not comfortable voting for either.

the second paragraph is the boat I think a lot of people find themselves in. as that guy Bacevich was saying, we still haven't come to an agreement in this country about when and where we should intervene in foreign conflicts. i really don't know either and am also very torn about it. if you support the wrong side you end up fomenting hate for generations and possibly damaging American interests. if you ignore it, you can lose your moral standing in the world. maybe there is no overarching framework to help us decide and we have to slog it out on a case by case basis, but that creates so much tension and diversion that it drains the life out of the everything else.