Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,382
- 1,830
I don't agree. Socially, liberals and libertarians are pretty close until you get to the legislative aspect and then we typically part ways because liberals would advocate laws for a lot of things that libertarians wouldn't.
Interesting how libertarians have bought to rightist myth that liberals think that all problems can be solved by government which liberals dont believe, btw.
Liberals merely perceive government as a common venue where Americans can realize a shared goal: dealing with a Great Depression, fighting a World War, sending a man to the moon.
And of course when it comes to economic matters we're not even in the same universe.
Liberals advocate fiscal responsibility as much as any other political philosophy; its liberals' economic pragmatism and rejection of fiscal dogma that confuses libertarians and enrages conservatives.
And liberals acceptance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence is an example of that pragmatism; the post Lochner era Court established the foundation of a modern American industrialized society not possible with libertarian and conservative reactionaryism.
Closest you'll get is foreign policy, at least in the sense of limiting wars. But again, we part ways on things such as intervention and nation building.
Interventionism and nation-building are neo-con policies.
Yeah, I guess liberals are fiscally responsible. If you like the idea of increased taxes to balance the budget rather than cutting spending.
You're right...liberals don't advocate interventionism and nation building at all. Truman and Kennedy didn't initiate major conflicts during their time, with one using nuclear weapons. Clinton didn't send troops to multiple different countries in Europe and Africa. Obama hasn't gotten involved AT ALL in the Middle East.