Libertarianism on the rise in the last three years

[Lars]

One label does not fit all, or even many, it seems only those on the fringe advocate a pure ideology. Most elected officials are phonies, they preach to a choir, candor is rare and rarely do they stray from political corectness.

Some aspects of Libertarianism appeal to me, Ron Paul offers some very common sense examples but his brand of libertarianism seems very extreme and impractical. A pragmatic libertarianism would have greater appeal, an ideological orthodoxy where decisions are made by a litmus test and not 'boots on the ground' does not.

The current crop of Republicans have no appeal. Though I support and practice living within one's means Republicans tout but have never practiced this principle. There is not a hint of pragmatism withihn the Republican Party at this time; in seeking an identity the 'leadership' seem to believe the past is the way to the future. While I'm not an iconoclast I understand doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is foolish. I also see an ingrained intolerance within the GOP and a fear by their leaders and those who aspire to lead to engage in real debate on important issues.

The Democratic Party seems to represent the vast majority of our citizens, yet seems unable to form a coherent plan or a common message. The concept of herding cats provides and excellent image of their problem. In effect it is the opposite of lock-step Republcanism, Democrats cannot seem to reduce their ideas into a short, concise and easy to understnd phrases. Every idea or policy is vetted intenally and no nuince is ignored. Yes, but ... is the most common response to any opinon offered (Obama was successful with "Hope and Change" which is the proof that the exception proves the rule). Yet when they did get power they overreached, something not uncommon by both major parties.

I support:

Universal preventative healthcare for all American citizens.

Reducing Defense spending and our practice of policing the world

Taking responsible action to reduce the deficit and control spending, based on pragmatic considerations and rejecting ideological extremes.

Recognizing we live in a global economy and international corporations intersts are not always in the interest of the United States.

Protecting our borders and other portals (sea and airports).

Ending the war on drugs; decriminalizing many and allowing the states to determine the status of Marijuana.

Reevaluating the 'war' on terror. Ten years in Afghanistqn, two billion dollars a week (or month, I've heard both), 1,500 of our troops killed - seems there must be a better way to combat what is essentially criminal behavior.

Recognizing alternative energy is the future.

Reducing air and water pollution.

Reducing STD, unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, with age appropriate sex educartion and free contraceptive information and pills, condoms, etc. through health centers, public schools or other sources as determined by each state.

Yep, but you realizr that is gonna make the pinheaded RWingers heads hurt trying to figure out how to label you now.

Moderate Social Democrat Statist

 

[flacaltenn]

They're here for me...

There is a role for welfare and safety nets.

what prevents you - and your followers - from privately - setting a charity for those who you choose to help??????????????????????????
.

There are orgs that ADMINISTER funds to individual causes. Like the United Way. It's a consolidated means of making sure that every needy org gets to plead their case. I look at govt "donations" to safety nets and welfare the same way. I don't want govt DIRECTLY involved with the individuals in need. That doesn't solve ANYTHING with a check or a handout. But I DO see a role as a clearinghouse -- much like United Way or other bundlers to make certain that gaps are filled and INNOVATION in working problems with the poor and disadvantage is encouraged and results are disseminated. THAT PART -- is what govt has some affinity to accomplish.

 

[Lars]

but in all fairness there is contradition (or focus on special interest agendas ) in both the other parties
examples
the democrats rage on about large monopolies yet support the unions
the republicans are against killing the fetus (as in abortion ) yet support vitro fertalization
there are inconsistances in all parties

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do. If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

special interest dont have votes they have something much more powerfull
MONEY ( power )
They fund the parties so they get what they want the politicans tell to the citizens listening what they want to hear to get votes but do what the SI say ...

They wouldn't be in a position to do what the SI's say if the people didn't put them there. What you are essentially saying is the average voter is retarded and cannot figure out that the average politician is lying to their face. I actually agree that the average person is incapable of making an informed vote, which is while we have a democratic variant of a government, it should be very limited through civics and literacy tests.

 

[JohnA]

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do. If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

special interest dont have votes they have something much more powerfull
MONEY ( power )
They fund the parties so they get what they want the politicans tell to the citizens listening what they want to hear to get votes but do what the SI say ...

They wouldn't be in a position to do what the SI's say if the people didn't put them there. What you are essentially saying is the average voter is retarded and cannot figure out that the average politician is lying to their face. I actually agree that the average person is incapable of making an informed vote, which is while we have a democratic variant of a government, it should be very limited through civics and literacy tests.

i dont think its that its so much the average person is incapable of making a informed vote its more they dont BOTHER TO QUESTION
40% will always vote republican come what may and 40% will always vote democrat come what may
even if by a landslide vote a party gets into power you still only see a small swing of voters from one party to another .
if we had literacy tests it would help solve the problem but be against the constitutional one,man one vote clause
see your point thou

 

[Lars]

special interest dont have votes they have something much more powerfull
MONEY ( power )
They fund the parties so they get what they want the politicans tell to the citizens listening what they want to hear to get votes but do what the SI say ...

They wouldn't be in a position to do what the SI's say if the people didn't put them there. What you are essentially saying is the average voter is retarded and cannot figure out that the average politician is lying to their face. I actually agree that the average person is incapable of making an informed vote, which is while we have a democratic variant of a government, it should be very limited through civics and literacy tests.

i dont think its that its so much the average person is incapable of making a informed vote its more they dont BOTHER TO QUESTION
40% will always vote republican come what may and 40% will always vote democrat come what may
even if by a landslide vote a party gets into power you still only see a small swing of voters from one party to another .
if we had literacy tests it would help solve the problem but be against the constitutional one,man one vote clause
see your point thou

So voters enable the corrupt system. Sorry, that is just how it is, I am not going let the blame off the voters and just go after these vague special interests groups that are mentioned here. The voting public is the real problem, there is simply no way around this fact.

 

[Steelplate]

How does Goldman Sachs, for example, influence citizens into voting for Barack Obama, who was the largest recipient of their campaign contributions? Also, provide me with some proof of the large scale brainwashing by corporations. BTW, I am not denying that politicians grant corporations favors through law, I am just saying the average voter isn't that concerned by it, or concerned enough that it is a primary factor in their vote.

I disagree. I'll tell you what. When the general election rolls around, follow the money of these "Concerned Taxpayer/Americans for Prosperity" ads.

When they come on... write the name down when they say or flash..."this ad brought to you by...., then get on the internet and find out who really paid for the ad. When you do, don't be afraid to use non-conservative sources... Your eyes won't fall out of your head. Because Conservative Sources will never do the investigative research and reporting on entities that support their cause.

In short... you are right. The average taxpayer isn't concerned about the corporate pandering.... but they should be. However, when they see the vitriolic ads that I speak of... They are concerned about that.

 

[editec]

I just want to remind some of you that Social Security is not "broke"

Social security bought four trillion dollars worth of US government bonds.

The same bonds that your private banks, your insurance companies, your pension funds, you rprivate corporations ALSO purchased...to the tune of about $9 trillion?

I note that none of you who think SS is broke becauswe the government is in debt, but you fail to note if that happens so too are those banks and insurance companies, pension funds and private corporations,

Is that because you are unaware that the SS owns government bonds, or are you unaware that your banks and insurance companies and pension funds also do?

Now obviously if the government renigns of its bonds, SS is in trouble.

But if that happens, the world's "private banking and financial commuity will melt down for the rest of us, too.

 

[midcan5]

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey [see Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World ]

How does Goldman Sachs, for example, influence citizens into voting for Barack Obama, who was the largest recipient of their campaign contributions? Also, provide me with some proof of the large scale brainwashing by corporations. BTW, I am not denying that politicians grant corporations favors through law, I am just saying the average voter isn't that concerned by it, or concerned enough that it is a primary factor in their vote.

This is a fascinating question as it get at how we know anything at all. How many voters would vote for increased taxes today that "destroy jobs?" Isn't that an idea, and isn't that a corporate position. How many voters would vote for "tougher regulations that increase costs?" Ever watch the commercial on government wanting to tax soda? The position that ads, aka propaganda, does not influence voters is naive at best. If ads didn't work Americans wouldn't know... I am always amazed at the wonderful Chevron Ads, considered many years as one of the worst corporations on earth, how many know that? The alternate position is that reason decides and voters really do think of the implications of their vote. If you truly believe that I have some wonderful real-estate for you, cheap.

Carey's book is an eye opener for those interested in a bit of reality.

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy'

 

[sparky]

I just want to remind some of you that Social Security is not "broke"

Social security bought four trillion dollars worth of US government bonds.

The same bonds that your private banks, your insurance companies, your pension funds, you rprivate corporations ALSO purchased...to the tune of about $9 trillion?

I note that none of you who think SS is broke becauswe the government is in debt, but you fail to note if that happens so too are those banks and insurance companies, pension funds and private corporations,

Is that because you are unaware that the SS owns government bonds, or are you unaware that your banks and insurance companies and pension funds also do?

Now obviously if the government renigns of its bonds, SS is in trouble.

But if that happens, the world's "private banking and financial commuity will melt down for the rest of us, too.

egggzatcly

Bernake & Giether's only card to play is artificially creating market confidence via monetary exchange , thus the Fed's been buying up T notes from the Treasury like drunken sailors on leave


This is akin to picking one's own pocket on the way to one's accountant btw, just to the tune of more zero's than the average Joe can string together.....

 

[sparky]

How does Goldman Sachs, for example, influence citizens into voting for Barack Obama, who was the largest recipient of their campaign contributions? Also, provide me with some proof of the large scale brainwashing by corporations. BTW, I am not denying that politicians grant corporations favors through law, I am just saying the average voter isn't that concerned by it, or concerned enough that it is a primary factor in their vote.

perhaps properly naming it Government Sachs would help Lars....

 

[JWBooth]

A recent CNN poll shows that libertarianism is on the rise in the last three years in the United States, more than at any point in the last two decades.

The poll, which CNN has conducted yearly since 1993, tracks the strength of social and economic libertarianism and reveals that both ideas are gaining popular support.

Sixty-three percent of respondents believe that government is doing too much, up from 52 percent in 2008. Half of all respondents said that government should not promote any set of traditional or moral values, up from 41 percent in 2008.

Libertarianism | CNN Poll | On The Rise | The Daily Caller

This sounds nice but my problem is that while people may look at those two questions and conclude that libertarianism is on the rise nowhere was the word "libertarian" used in the questioning. Just because you think the government is generally doing to much, and you don't think the government should promote any kind of values doesn't mean you're a libertarian. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the people polled would actually consider themselves libertarian.

People say, and respond in polls, a lot of stuff. Yet, when they walk into the voting booth it is always the status quo that they vote for.

 

[Contumacious]

But I DO see a role as a clearinghouse -- much like United Way or other bundlers to make certain that gaps are filled and INNOVATION in working problems with the poor and disadvantage is encouraged and results are disseminated. .

What prevents the Mormons, or any other private charity, from " making certain that gaps are filled and INNOVATION in working problems with the poor and disadvantage is encouraged and results are disseminated"?!?!?!?

.

 

[editec]

Leanign toward "libertarianism" might be meaningful if any of us had a CLEAR definition of what that really means.

But as I talk to libertarians what I discover is a wide range of views about what the word means.

I have seen people calling themselves libertarians with ranges of governance ranging from pure anarchy to social democracy.

A big big part of the reason that the American voter is fucked is because words like LIBERTARIAN, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE, really have no clearly DEFINED meaning.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Leanign toward "libertarianism" might be meaningful if any of us had a CLEAR definition of what that really means.

But as I talk to libertarians what I discover is a wide range of views about what the word means.

I have seen people calling themselves libertarians with ranges of governance ranging from pure anarchy to social democracy.

A big big part of the reason that the American voter is fucked is because words like LIBERTARIAN, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE, really have no clearly DEFINED meaning.

Libertarians for the most part believe in small federal gov't, low taxes, low spending, not being the world's hall moniter through warmongering especially, and there's of course going to be different ideas within those who share that idealogy on how to accomplish those things.

 

[Contumacious]

Leanign toward "libertarianism" might be meaningful if any of us had a CLEAR definition of what that really means.

As opposed to the demopublicans, in their case you know exactly where they stand.

.

 

[flacaltenn]

Leanign toward "libertarianism" might be meaningful if any of us had a CLEAR definition of what that really means.

But as I talk to libertarians what I discover is a wide range of views about what the word means.

I have seen people calling themselves libertarians with ranges of governance ranging from pure anarchy to social democracy.

A big big part of the reason that the American voter is fucked is because words like LIBERTARIAN, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE, really have no clearly DEFINED meaning.

Quite simple to state the mainstream libertarian philosophy , which despite all the different caucases that exist within the party are pretty clearly defined. My personal reasons why I am a libertarian.

1) Acceptance of the US Constitution, operation of the govt within those bounds and respect for the legal system and all appropriately powers of government.

2) Pro-choice on EVERYTHING. (doesn't mean you ENDORSE the choice, but protects the the choices of others).

3) Non-Initiation of Force -- we abhor "FORCING" folks to do anything under duress. Especially in the case of Govt force. That leaks towards foreign policy too. Where we encourage a STRONG defense and non-interventionist policy.

4) Abolishment of corporate/government collusion by reducing the scope of govt influence on the free market. This inevitably leads to smaller more effective govt and a more ethical corporate climate that doesn't prostitute for govt bucks. . A smaller govt. that MIGHT be capable on concentrating on "accurate elections", border control and the stuff they're SUPPOSED to be doing.

That little summary is LOT more specific and intractable than anything you'll get from other "party animals"..

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This thread should be retitled

"Intelligence on the rise in the last 3 years:

 

[flacaltenn]

But I DO see a role as a clearinghouse -- much like United Way or other bundlers to make certain that gaps are filled and INNOVATION in working problems with the poor and disadvantage is encouraged and results are disseminated. .

What prevents the Mormons, or any other private charity, from " making certain that gaps are filled and INNOVATION in working problems with the poor and disadvantage is encouraged and results are disseminated"?!?!?!?

.

Well -- you just made my argument. Mormons will tend to focus on Mormons, Jews on Jews, farmers on farmers, country-club members on country-club members, ect. The role to play for govt is to get these orgs to share secrets to success, and make certain that every needy applicant has a lot of options. And that those options remain viable in good times and bad..

 

[flacaltenn]

I just want to remind some of you that Social Security is not "broke"

Social security bought four trillion dollars worth of US government bonds.

The same bonds that your private banks, your insurance companies, your pension funds, you rprivate corporations ALSO purchased...to the tune of about $9 trillion?

I note that none of you who think SS is broke becauswe the government is in debt, but you fail to note if that happens so too are those banks and insurance companies, pension funds and private corporations,

Is that because you are unaware that the SS owns government bonds, or are you unaware that your banks and insurance companies and pension funds also do?

Now obviously if the government renigns of its bonds, SS is in trouble.

But if that happens, the world's "private banking and financial commuity will melt down for the rest of us, too.

Unfortunately Editec: THis is part of the heist.. Those "bonds" you refer to are SPECIAL issue bonds. Not transferable, not really negotiable. So they are NOT part of the general bond. Can't be transferred. They are nothing more than an IOU placed in the broken cookie jar. A message to the CURRENT congress that finds them to just - SUCK IT UP and pay the bill.

It's ALREADY broke since revenues are behind outlays.. There is nothing of VALUE to the GOVT in those bonds that will get them cash to pay recipients.. I've even heard lefties claim that we're making 8% on "those bonds".. I hope they don't try that trick at home.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Here is a very interesting presentation given by George Mason University Professor Bryan Caplan. Basically, the gist is that in broad terms, people call themselves libertarian, and say they support spending cuts and reductions in the size and scope of government. However, data shows that when you ask most of these self-styled small government advocates about cutting specific programs or specific regulations, a very small amount actually support getting rid of such things. The only libertarian plank a large plurality and a soon to be majority support is Marijuana legalization, and a smaller amount(still not close to a majority or large plurality) support defense spending cuts. But Defense spending cuts and Marijuana legalization are probably the most popular libertarian planks. I say this as an anarcho-libertarian btw.
Public Opinion for Libertarians | Foundation for Economic Education

but in all fairness there is contradition (or focus on special interest agendas ) in both the other parties
examples
the democrats rage on about large monopolies yet support the unions
the republicans are against killing the fetus (as in abortion ) yet support vitro fertalization
there are inconsistances in all parties

Special Interests don't have votes, the people do.
If people opposed the "special interests", they would vote for candidates whose policy positions didn't intersect with said special interests.

Like this guy? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A8AYa5JqmU]YouTube - ‪Obama Speech to Congress Part 1/6‬‏[/ame]
2009 State of The Union Address





First time I ever heard a real politician call 'bullshit' on the corporate / legal bullshitters.
I applauded my T.V. for the first time EVER that night, about something serious.

Then..... nothing.

I wonder if they have him on the payroll, or just have something on him?​