CDZ What would Libertarians Vote for in this Hypothetical Referendum?

[flacaltenn]

In the Nolan chart -- the 2 pillars of liberty and choice lie on either the Economic axis or the Social axis. It actually reflects the core concept that freedom and liberty are not granted by allowing just one or the other.

.

I find the Nolan Chart under representative, because it does not take into account that anarchists (max libertarian) and fascists (max statist) also have differing economic ideologies that vary from left to right.

While the differences in economic ideology for fascists may be based more on semantics than substance (I might be misspeaking since I am not well versed in fascist philosophy outside Mussolini), anarchism is incredibly varied economically.

We have capitalists, syndicalists, mutualists, communists, and partecons. Then we have those that integrate them together. The best chart at the moment is the political compass.

Unlike the Nolan Chart, the Political Compass does not marginalize left or right as signifying the scale of economic liberty, which allows greater representation of economic ideologies. I do recognize that it does not offer a horseshoe, but I believe it is better to allow for every position to be represented than to illustrate horseshoe theory on the graph.

By the way, the populist on your chart should be replaced with statist or authoritarian.

That confuses me tho. Because there is specific context in being "left or right" Nor do I care if Mussolini was Authoritarian Democrat or Authoritarian Republican. (using the usual context of Left and Right). But if you tell me that Mussolini was more TOLERANT of minorities and social issues than Hitler -- that puts more information and space between the 2.

You are right. There is not ONE version of 2 dimensional charts like the Nolan and many use Authoritarian or statist as the "southland". Some even have more 2 dim. territories to divide up progressives and anarchists for instance. The BEST thing is --- they ALL are better located in a multi-dimensional space.

I agree -- politics is NEVER one dimensional. If America was better educated -- we should be locating politicians in 3 space or 4 space rather than the silly one dimensional L/R "rope pull" that everyone is familiar with.

 

[Onyx]

That confuses me tho. Because there is specific context in being "left or right"

I used to be of the opinion that left and right referred to economic positions only, but that position becomes impossible to support when you analyze the differences in opinion found in heterodox ideologies like anarchism and fascism, which either reject all state power or believe in the total consolidation of state power.

You need to remember that words are just social constructions. If we were to stay semantically pure, and used the method of defining words by their root (as opposed to defining words by their popular usage), then left refers to reformation and right refers to status quo.

I agree -- politics is NEVER one dimensional. If America was better educated -- we should be locating politicians in 3 space or 4 space rather than the silly one dimensional L/R "rope pull" that everyone is familiar with.

Modern mainstream society has zero regard for social sciences and classical studies, which is a result of our conditioning. We are taught to conform our thinking and not question authority figures by both the church and state, which has naturally led to a mindset of complaisance.

As for whether we will ever have a political system that strays away from the orthodox political philosophies? Highly doubtful.

A strong ruling class formulates within every political system that resides within the framework of the state. Even republics cannot go an extended period of time without becoming inverted. The ruling class, logically, attempts to consolidate power overtime, and this is best served when the modern contemporary ideologies are in conflict with each other.

Oh, and if you disagree with that last point, I will readily defend that every state that has ever existed has been totalitarian, inverted totalitarian, or an anocracy (e.g Somalia).

 

[320 Years of History]

The Fed govt was paying that company up to $75 in tax credits (not tax deductions) for every large energy efficient appliance they produced. They wracked up such a backlog of tax credits that they might not have to pay taxes for decades.

Source please.

EVERY household in Ferguson averaged 3 standing Warrants and 1.5 arrest per year is testament to failure of govt.

Source please.

income from LEGAL fees, penalties and fines was the 2nd LARGEST income for the city

Source please.

chaining the NSA back up to spy on strategic global threats -- not us.

• So if not the NSA, then whose job should it be to identify, track and apprehend domestic threats to national security?
• Should that entity then also have to possess its own discrete resources -- human and material resources that are already found, needed and used for domestic and foreign intelligence gathering by the NSA -- in order to do so?

There is no social Darwinism to good govt kept in check within its' legal bounds.

What I wrote is "socioeconomic," not "social." There is a social impact to pretty much all economic policy, and that is why I wrote what I did. If/as we move ever closer to laissez faire, there will be downsides such as some folks simply not being able to thrive or survive. While I know that will happen, and though I don't want anyone to perish, I know it'll happen, but I also think less restricted capitalism is better than more restricted capitalism. Thus while I'm not keen on people perishing, I am willing to endure it happening so that we end up with a population comprised only of folks who thrive, or at least survive effectively under very laissez faire.

We ran as our 1st candidate in the 70s an openly gay man.

As an aside:

If memory serves that was a guy named Hopper or something who died about four or five years ago, right? If so, IIRC, his sexual preference wasn't ever confirmed as gay or not gay. That he was gay was purported and rumored while he was alive. After his passing, I believe his family has steadfastly denied that he was gay.

I don't care if he was or wasn't and I don't take exception with the Lib Party's gay rights positions. I merely raise the aside to note that the fact you cited is hotly contested and both sides to date have only hearsay as the basis for their claim.​

our persistence in being on the ballot in all the 50 states -- despite massive efforts by the Rs & Ds to keep us off-- for every recent Federal election is a CHOICE that America should encourage.

Yes, well, the only thing that, were I a resident in a "battleground state" that would, this cycle keep me from voting for Johnson would be the fear that doing so would mean I end up with Trump. But I don't live in a battleground state; I live in D.C. where Jesus Christ and George Washington could be together on a ticket, and if they aren't Democrats, they'll lose. Thus I can vote any way I want and it won't matter. In light of that, I will vote for Johnson. The fact of the matter is that I like Donald Trump insofar as he, like his supporters, are pleasant enough as individuals. I feel the same way about Mrs. Clinton. I don't like either of them for President, but I like Trump less than I do Mrs. Clinton.

Looking forward, given the current state of the Democratic and Republican Parties, I hope in the next four years, the Libertarians (LIBs) get their act together enough to win some seats in Congress that they can caucus on their own instead of with Republicans or Democrats. The main thing I find troublesome about LIBs isn't the policy, but rather that they can't get enough traction to be a real player in the political process. The result of that is that I have to consider whether if by voting for a LIB I risk getting stuck with the Dem or Rep I like least.


The rest of this post is sort of "stream of consciousness," so if you want to skip it, fine....

A bit about how I see Johnson, Trump and Clinton as individuals, not as politicians:

• Johnson: I think of a camel when I think of Mr. Johnson. (That's a good thing.)
  • I probably wouldn't invite him to a soigne party, but if he showed up at it unexpectedly, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
  • I'd absolutely have him on the guest list for a laid back style party, maybe the sort where we convert the barbecue pit into a "sweat lodge."
  • I'd absolutely go to Burning Man with him or do a road trip to go backpacking or hang with him on any other occasion/event.
  • I could work with him or for him or be his boss.
  • I could easily be friends with him.
• Trump: I think of Ben Franklin's description of a bald eagle or a dolphin when I think of Trump.
  • I wouldn't deliberately have him present at any event I hosted, but if he shows up as someone's "plus one," fine.
  • I wouldn't have any sort of relationship/interaction with him that calls for more involvement on my part than according one another civil social accommodation when more than a subtle nod from across a room is required.
• Clinton: I think of a large cetacean (no particular one) when I think of Mrs. Clinton.
  • I'd invite her to the soigne party.
  • She can sit on the board of my company.
  • She can work for me or I for her; or together.
  • I'd interact with her and exchange a lot of ideas with her.
  • I suspect we would not be friends, but we would maintain a professional acquaintanceship with her that occasionally spills into each other's social world.

Now that we are here....
So, first, thank you for a well developed response. So very few folks here show enough respect for the act of political discourse and thought to actually do that. Indeed, I recently was "given the finger" for complementing someone's simple and thoughtful remark. So, hopefully you won't do the same. (I'm quite confident you won't, actually.)

First:
As goes the notion of Libertarians (LILBs) being conservatives, I should probably have qualified my statement to that effect by noting that LIBS caucus with the GOP in Congress. That's my fault for not having done so, but there's no denying that's an important factor in why I see LIBs as conservatives. Some folks might say that LIBs "sell out" to Republicans. The guy whom you'll see in the video below ascribes it to a "Suzy One Note" emphasis on tax cuts.

I don't really care how one sees it. The reality is that currently, LIBs aren't in a political position to get their way on the mix of policies, so they do have to choose a side. The "on camera" guy in this post's videos, like you, doesn't see LIB as really being conservative. I get why he says that, but I see LIBs vote with Reps, so whether they are rightly classified that way or not, they end up at the very least enabling conservative initiatives.

Second:
Fiscally conservative and socially "whatever one wants to do is good with me so long as it doesn't impede me doing what I want to -- works both ways" is pretty much how I've seen myself for as long as I can remember having any interest in politics.

Fourth:
My kid told me about a video he'd seen on the Internet earlier this year. I "dug it up" for this post because I pretty well align with the idea articulated in the video, particularly those of the guy shown in the segment. I'm not nearly as irked by taxes as either guy, but otherwise, I'm fine with all they said.

​

In other words, I don't see taxes as the single greatest evil in the world wide world, most especially not this cycle when Trump is among the alternatives, whom I'm so opposed to based purely on what strikes me as his personal prosperity duplicitousness that I am okay with sacrificing just about anything to make sure he doesn't win. Were any number of other Republicans at the top of the ticket, I would just vote LIB and if I got a Republican, I wouldn't like it so much, but I could live with it.


Sidebar:

If Trump didn't strike me as doing "everything" for his own personal satisfaction -- money or ego -- I could get past that he is a scoundrel of sorts. The man strikes me as a goddamned social climber and even though I know for a fact he's not one, he is one.

I'll explain that in a nutshell ... Think of the guy in your high school or college peer group who, by all rights belonged and would have fit right in, but he didn't know he belonged and so he tried too hard to fit in and be impressive, thereby making a social ass of himself and as a result was really just tolerated. That's Trump in my eyes. Social climber.​

End of sidebar.


The guys from above did another video where they discuss what they see as LIB-ism and it's key "flavors" or themes. Walking through the themes they note....

​

• Conspiracy Theory -- I have no time for that foolishness. I just don't have that much "Taylor Coleridge" in me for that. The predilection for conspiracy theory rants among LIBs is one of the two, maybe three major things that led me to go Independent from being a LIB. Too much slippery slope thinking, argument, whatever you want to call it. Whatever; I'm just not having it.
  
  Another reason I have no tolerance for conspiracy theory is that as an auditor, I learned that if folks are of a mind to conspire/collude to do "whatever," they will not be stopped -- short of a lucky break or tyrannical means -- no matter how hard one tries. Conspirators will only be discovered after the fact, well after the fact. Pragmatically speaking then, it just doesn't make sense to pursue proactive conspiracy interdiction ideas. One implements internal controls, to the extent one can given cost-benefit considerations, monitors their operation periodically and gets on with the business of doing whatever productive thing it is that one does.
  
  For me, if reducing collusion/conspiracy is important enough, then one has to realize that the best solution is one that will take a long time to effect, a very long time; therefore, now is not too soon to get started. So the question is started with what? Get started inculcating new cultural ethics and morals because that's what's best at curtailing malfeasance. For example, in Japan, one doesn't "get way out of line" because doing so can effectively, depending on what one does, make social and professional pariah's out of everyone in one's family for generations to come. Not a lot of Catholics and Jews in Japan, but they sure understand how to use guilt and shame to effect social accord.
• Peaceful, honest people deserve to be left alone -- Totally works for me.
• Bottom up institutionalists -- Indifferent about this in its own right. I think government can work bottom up or top down. Gov't is too big to understand it all at the top level down, so the solution is to go bottom up where it's more approachable.
  
  I get that idea, and I'm okay with it. I don't think any one person -- elected or voter -- necessarily has to grasp it all; that's why we have representative government by committee, regardless of the level. I think getting really well informed on the handful of topics that really drive one is doable, and relying on others to do the same for their "pet" topics.
• Money and politics -- Money used to buy ads that mislead the public. You discussed this idea earlier and I concur, but this theme teeters on the edge of conspiracy theory, at which point, I have no taste for it.
  
  I buy the "if you're getting fooled, it's your fault," but only to an extent. I am sympathetic to folks who get fooled but they're really working hard to get informed so they won't always be fooled, but I have no sympathy -- I don't mean "little;" I mean "none" -- for folks who are told they are being deluded and who yet don't do a damn thing but continue consuming ever more of whatever partisan content they think is actually on the up-and-up.
• Critical thinking -- Absolutely. This is the key for me. People who don't have little to no traction with me. This sort of goes with the "bottom up" and "manipulation" thing.
• Money -- Money is important, for obvious reasons, but it's not the most important thing in my mind. What it costs doesn't sit behind every decision I make in my personal lie, but it plays into plenty of them. At work, sure, it's always a key factor.

FWIW, the whole discussion between those two guys is here: .

 

[320 Years of History]

BTW, flacaltenn, the discussion of the sort those two dude had is frankly what I expected to find on this forum. Not necessarily in terms of ideology, but rather in terms of the quality of the discourse.

 

[Two Thumbs]

A Hypothetical Referendum for Libertarians – Get Rich Bang Babes

Your countries have tons of states, like US. People can easily move from one state to another without restriction.

One day there is a referendum.

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish

Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.

Which one will you choose?

You're a libertarian.

If people pick choice 2, everyone that doesn't like the decision can have 5 years to move out and settle on other states they prefer. So the law is not in effect too soon.

Also some people like color red so much they want to live in a state where all houses are red. Some people like color green so much they want to live in a state where all house are green.

If everyone can paint their house as their wish, then those people, that like to live among people with similar preference with them, will have to move to another country, or another planet.

However, if the state can decide which color the house is, those who like red can group up among themselves and live together. Those who like green can easily go to another.

So the second choice has more "positive choice" namely the choice to live among people with similar preferences with you. If you like to paint your house with any color you wish you can still do that if choice 2 passes. You just need to move to another state within 5 years.

Let's just say all states are equally wealthy and they vary with one another just on those house painting preferences.

What about if movement between states are not free? What about if some states only accept people that like green or accept people that like red? I mean it's impossible to ensure that everything is red if deep down some people prefer green. We got graffiti and stuffs.

I would gather all my heavily armed friends and murder every pol in that state.

If they are down to telling me what I can paint my house, or even voting on such, the people should have moved on the government long ago.

 

[320 Years of History]

Off Topic:
Does anyone here recall Ron Paul being asked during a GOP debate about what he'd want were he on a deserted island? The other debaters -- I don't recall who was in the debate...want to say Bush, maybe Huckabee, but can't really recall -- wanted books, a Bible, spouses, their kids, and whatever else. I recall listening to that and thinking, "Yeah, whatever. Pandering pansy idiots." Ron Paul answered last saying, "A boat."

That style of thinking -- the mode that says, I don't want to drag others into my misery, I don't want stuff that won't get me out of my misery, I don't want something that will slightly paliate my misery, I want an implementable solution that gets me to where I want to be -- that mode and approach to governance is what will forever make Libertarianism an "ism" to which I am amenable if I'm required to align with an "ism," which is something I'm perfectly happy not doing.

 

[320 Years of History]

In the Nolan chart -- the 2 pillars of liberty and choice lie on either the Economic axis or the Social axis. It actually reflects the core concept that freedom and liberty are not granted by allowing just one or the other.

.

I find the Nolan Chart under representative, because it does not take into account that anarchists (max libertarian) and fascists (max statist) also have differing economic ideologies that vary from left to right.

While the differences in economic ideology for fascists may be based more on semantics than substance (I might be misspeaking since I am not well versed in fascist philosophy outside Mussolini), anarchism is incredibly varied economically.

We have capitalists, syndicalists, mutualists, communists, and partecons. Then we have those that integrate them together. The best chart at the moment is the political compass.

Unlike the Nolan Chart, the Political Compass does not marginalize left or right as signifying the scale of economic liberty, which allows greater representation of economic ideologies. I do recognize that it does not offer a horseshoe, but I believe it is better to allow for every position to be represented than to illustrate horseshoe theory on the graph.

By the way, the populist on your chart should be replaced with statist or authoritarian.

That confuses me tho. Because there is specific context in being "left or right" Nor do I care if Mussolini was Authoritarian Democrat or Authoritarian Republican. (using the usual context of Left and Right). But if you tell me that Mussolini was more TOLERANT of minorities and social issues than Hitler -- that puts more information and space between the 2.

You are right. There is not ONE version of 2 dimensional charts like the Nolan and many use Authoritarian or statist as the "southland". Some even have more 2 dim. territories to divide up progressives and anarchists for instance. The BEST thing is --- they ALL are better located in a multi-dimensional space.

I agree -- politics is NEVER one dimensional. If America was better educated -- we should be locating politicians in 3 space or 4 space rather than the silly one dimensional L/R "rope pull" that everyone is familiar with.

Red:
I agree. 2D doesn't really capture it. I recall posting at least one of these on here somewhere, but God only knows where now.

Not 3D, but I like that it is very comprehensive

 

[Onyx]

Not 3D, but I like that it is very comprehensive

All three of these charts are ridiculous

 

[jwoodie]

I don't want stuff that won't get me out of my misery, I don't want something that will slightly paliate my misery, I want an implementable solution that gets me to where I want to be

Perhaps this should be labeled "MEism" - the notion that the government's primary responsibility is to alleviate one's personal unhappiness.

 

[GaryDog]

My point is, even if I am libertarian, I might choose 2. Yes that may seem to reduce choices. Now the state can decide the color of my house. However, on bigger scale of things, it's not too bad. If I don't like the color the state choose I can just move somewhere else.

I wonder what other libertarians think? And this seemingly unlibertarian choice actually give people more freedom. You can replace house paint with any other issues.

Some states may have tough laws on crimes and safer, like Singapore. Some states may legalize drugs but filled with liberals, muslims, christians, etc. Sometimes, if the choice is to befriend everyone and ensure that no fraud or force happens is a fantasy. What makes sense is to just get close to people you like and that's it. Then, fraud or force will happen less naturally.

Red:
Okay. You made your point. You would choose option #2. Now we know; TY for telling us.

Blue:
Well, one can exchange house paint with some other issues, but were one to trade it for certain of any other issues, one would find that one has, at detriment to one's credibility, oversimplified things, leading folks to perceive that one cannot or does not distinguish among relevant factors pertaining to issues of varying complexity, scale and scope.

Green:
Are you aware that Libertarians are considered conservatives?

Who considers Libertarians "conservatives"? I can out liberal you on any number of issues. The only thing we're "conservative" on the the Constitution and keeping the govt solvent and within the BOUNDS of that document. Other than that -- we've been AHEAD on "social liberalism" for several decades.

Ideologically, it's not very controversial to say that Libertarians have closer cousins in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. Of course they're conservatives.

We judge positions and policy on maximizing personal choice and freedom. In the spirit of the original liberals -- the founding fathers. That's actually Liberal in the strictest sense. It's the Liberalism of H. D. Thoreau, at a time when true liberals still had an innate distrust of a powerful government.

Our current platform is in accords with 1/2 of what Bernie was pitching. On foreign policy, civil liberties, ending corporate-govt collusion etc. The only "conservative" part is we PREFER economic solutions not designed and dictated from bureaucrats in D.C. It's very simple -- liberal on social issues, free market choice and smaller, more efficient govt on economic issues.

To paint the founding fathers with one brush is to misunderstand the amount of controversy that surrounded the constitutional convention in 1787. Madison, Jefferson, and the others (whose ideas are most closely hewed to the end result of the constitution) were in favor of a strong central government, and they hated the Articles of Confederation, which failed miserably (and necessitated a convention to fix them).

 

[GaryDog]

Was not RACISM that flamed out Ferguson. It was FRUSTRATION with big unresponsive incompetent govt.

.

LOL, really? You know this because...you're a black man living in Ferguson?

 

[PK1]

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish.
Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.
Which one will you choose?
You're a libertarian.

Choice 1.
For a Libertarian, individual freedom is paramount.

 

[PK1]

Looks like this thread evolved to defining and/or advocating for certain views on what Libertarianism is or should be.
My view is sympathetic to Thomas Paine.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Fed govt was paying that company up to $75 in tax credits (not tax deductions) for every large energy efficient appliance they produced. They wracked up such a backlog of tax credits that they might not have to pay taxes for decades.

Source please.

EVERY household in Ferguson averaged 3 standing Warrants and 1.5 arrest per year is testament to failure of govt.

Source please.

income from LEGAL fees, penalties and fines was the 2nd LARGEST income for the city

Source please.

chaining the NSA back up to spy on strategic global threats -- not us.

• So if not the NSA, then whose job should it be to identify, track and apprehend domestic threats to national security?
• Should that entity then also have to possess its own discrete resources -- human and material resources that are already found, needed and used for domestic and foreign intelligence gathering by the NSA -- in order to do so?

There is no social Darwinism to good govt kept in check within its' legal bounds.

What I wrote is "socioeconomic," not "social." There is a social impact to pretty much all economic policy, and that is why I wrote what I did. If/as we move ever closer to laissez faire, there will be downsides such as some folks simply not being able to thrive or survive. While I know that will happen, and though I don't want anyone to perish, I know it'll happen, but I also think less restricted capitalism is better than more restricted capitalism. Thus while I'm not keen on people perishing, I am willing to endure it happening so that we end up with a population comprised only of folks who thrive, or at least survive effectively under very laissez faire.

We ran as our 1st candidate in the 70s an openly gay man.

As an aside:

If memory serves that was a guy named Hopper or something who died about four or five years ago, right? If so, IIRC, his sexual preference wasn't ever confirmed as gay or not gay. That he was gay was purported and rumored while he was alive. After his passing, I believe his family has steadfastly denied that he was gay.

I don't care if he was or wasn't and I don't take exception with the Lib Party's gay rights positions. I merely raise the aside to note that the fact you cited is hotly contested and both sides to date have only hearsay as the basis for their claim.​

our persistence in being on the ballot in all the 50 states -- despite massive efforts by the Rs & Ds to keep us off-- for every recent Federal election is a CHOICE that America should encourage.

Yes, well, the only thing that, were I a resident in a "battleground state" that would, this cycle keep me from voting for Johnson would be the fear that doing so would mean I end up with Trump. But I don't live in a battleground state; I live in D.C. where Jesus Christ and George Washington could be together on a ticket, and if they aren't Democrats, they'll lose. Thus I can vote any way I want and it won't matter. In light of that, I will vote for Johnson. The fact of the matter is that I like Donald Trump insofar as he, like his supporters, are pleasant enough as individuals. I feel the same way about Mrs. Clinton. I don't like either of them for President, but I like Trump less than I do Mrs. Clinton.

Looking forward, given the current state of the Democratic and Republican Parties, I hope in the next four years, the Libertarians (LIBs) get their act together enough to win some seats in Congress that they can caucus on their own instead of with Republicans or Democrats. The main thing I find troublesome about LIBs isn't the policy, but rather that they can't get enough traction to be a real player in the political process. The result of that is that I have to consider whether if by voting for a LIB I risk getting stuck with the Dem or Rep I like least.


The rest of this post is sort of "stream of consciousness," so if you want to skip it, fine....

A bit about how I see Johnson, Trump and Clinton as individuals, not as politicians:

• Johnson: I think of a camel when I think of Mr. Johnson. (That's a good thing.)
  • I probably wouldn't invite him to a soigne party, but if he showed up at it unexpectedly, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
  • I'd absolutely have him on the guest list for a laid back style party, maybe the sort where we convert the barbecue pit into a "sweat lodge."
  • I'd absolutely go to Burning Man with him or do a road trip to go backpacking or hang with him on any other occasion/event.
  • I could work with him or for him or be his boss.
  • I could easily be friends with him.
• Trump: I think of Ben Franklin's description of a bald eagle or a dolphin when I think of Trump.
  • I wouldn't deliberately have him present at any event I hosted, but if he shows up as someone's "plus one," fine.
  • I wouldn't have any sort of relationship/interaction with him that calls for more involvement on my part than according one another civil social accommodation when more than a subtle nod from across a room is required.
• Clinton: I think of a large cetacean (no particular one) when I think of Mrs. Clinton.
  • I'd invite her to the soigne party.
  • She can sit on the board of my company.
  • She can work for me or I for her; or together.
  • I'd interact with her and exchange a lot of ideas with her.
  • I suspect we would not be friends, but we would maintain a professional acquaintanceship with her that occasionally spills into each other's social world.

Now that we are here....
So, first, thank you for a well developed response. So very few folks here show enough respect for the act of political discourse and thought to actually do that. Indeed, I recently was "given the finger" for complementing someone's simple and thoughtful remark. So, hopefully you won't do the same. (I'm quite confident you won't, actually.)

First:
As goes the notion of Libertarians (LILBs) being conservatives, I should probably have qualified my statement to that effect by noting that LIBS caucus with the GOP in Congress. That's my fault for not having done so, but there's no denying that's an important factor in why I see LIBs as conservatives. Some folks might say that LIBs "sell out" to Republicans. The guy whom you'll see in the video below ascribes it to a "Suzy One Note" emphasis on tax cuts.

I don't really care how one sees it. The reality is that currently, LIBs aren't in a political position to get their way on the mix of policies, so they do have to choose a side. The "on camera" guy in this post's videos, like you, doesn't see LIB as really being conservative. I get why he says that, but I see LIBs vote with Reps, so whether they are rightly classified that way or not, they end up at the very least enabling conservative initiatives.

Second:
Fiscally conservative and socially "whatever one wants to do is good with me so long as it doesn't impede me doing what I want to -- works both ways" is pretty much how I've seen myself for as long as I can remember having any interest in politics.

Fourth:
My kid told me about a video he'd seen on the Internet earlier this year. I "dug it up" for this post because I pretty well align with the idea articulated in the video, particularly those of the guy shown in the segment. I'm not nearly as irked by taxes as either guy, but otherwise, I'm fine with all they said.

​

In other words, I don't see taxes as the single greatest evil in the world wide world, most especially not this cycle when Trump is among the alternatives, whom I'm so opposed to based purely on what strikes me as his personal prosperity duplicitousness that I am okay with sacrificing just about anything to make sure he doesn't win. Were any number of other Republicans at the top of the ticket, I would just vote LIB and if I got a Republican, I wouldn't like it so much, but I could live with it.


Sidebar:

If Trump didn't strike me as doing "everything" for his own personal satisfaction -- money or ego -- I could get past that he is a scoundrel of sorts. The man strikes me as a goddamned social climber and even though I know for a fact he's not one, he is one.

I'll explain that in a nutshell ... Think of the guy in your high school or college peer group who, by all rights belonged and would have fit right in, but he didn't know he belonged and so he tried too hard to fit in and be impressive, thereby making a social ass of himself and as a result was really just tolerated. That's Trump in my eyes. Social climber.​

End of sidebar.


The guys from above did another video where they discuss what they see as LIB-ism and it's key "flavors" or themes. Walking through the themes they note....

​

• Conspiracy Theory -- I have no time for that foolishness. I just don't have that much "Taylor Coleridge" in me for that. The predilection for conspiracy theory rants among LIBs is one of the two, maybe three major things that led me to go Independent from being a LIB. Too much slippery slope thinking, argument, whatever you want to call it. Whatever; I'm just not having it.
  
  Another reason I have no tolerance for conspiracy theory is that as an auditor, I learned that if folks are of a mind to conspire/collude to do "whatever," they will not be stopped -- short of a lucky break or tyrannical means -- no matter how hard one tries. Conspirators will only be discovered after the fact, well after the fact. Pragmatically speaking then, it just doesn't make sense to pursue proactive conspiracy interdiction ideas. One implements internal controls, to the extent one can given cost-benefit considerations, monitors their operation periodically and gets on with the business of doing whatever productive thing it is that one does.
  
  For me, if reducing collusion/conspiracy is important enough, then one has to realize that the best solution is one that will take a long time to effect, a very long time; therefore, now is not too soon to get started. So the question is started with what? Get started inculcating new cultural ethics and morals because that's what's best at curtailing malfeasance. For example, in Japan, one doesn't "get way out of line" because doing so can effectively, depending on what one does, make social and professional pariah's out of everyone in one's family for generations to come. Not a lot of Catholics and Jews in Japan, but they sure understand how to use guilt and shame to effect social accord.
• Peaceful, honest people deserve to be left alone -- Totally works for me.
• Bottom up institutionalists -- Indifferent about this in its own right. I think government can work bottom up or top down. Gov't is too big to understand it all at the top level down, so the solution is to go bottom up where it's more approachable.
  
  I get that idea, and I'm okay with it. I don't think any one person -- elected or voter -- necessarily has to grasp it all; that's why we have representative government by committee, regardless of the level. I think getting really well informed on the handful of topics that really drive one is doable, and relying on others to do the same for their "pet" topics.
• Money and politics -- Money used to buy ads that mislead the public. You discussed this idea earlier and I concur, but this theme teeters on the edge of conspiracy theory, at which point, I have no taste for it.
  
  I buy the "if you're getting fooled, it's your fault," but only to an extent. I am sympathetic to folks who get fooled but they're really working hard to get informed so they won't always be fooled, but I have no sympathy -- I don't mean "little;" I mean "none" -- for folks who are told they are being deluded and who yet don't do a damn thing but continue consuming ever more of whatever partisan content they think is actually on the up-and-up.
• Critical thinking -- Absolutely. This is the key for me. People who don't have little to no traction with me. This sort of goes with the "bottom up" and "manipulation" thing.
• Money -- Money is important, for obvious reasons, but it's not the most important thing in my mind. What it costs doesn't sit behind every decision I make in my personal lie, but it plays into plenty of them. At work, sure, it's always a key factor.

FWIW, the whole discussion between those two guys is here: .

I'm gonna skip your "grading" of my response by asking for links for that are pretty obvious. Source of all Ferguson comments are the DOJ report prepared in the aftermath. The GE tax credit situation should not take a smart fellow more than a minute to find. I don't lie. And I don't consume "spin".. One of the advantages of BEING outside the maelstrom and insanity that this country has to endure from retail politics.

The Ferguson example is KEY to understanding the "socially liberal" side of Libertarians. You have all the noise and spin about racism and bias and "law and order", but if you READ the DOJ report -- it's all the systematic and PERSISTANT abuse of the citizens by a callous, inept, and inefficient DELIVERY of justice to the citizens. And WHY doesn't that LOGICAL AND FACT based conclusion get expounded on?

Because here you have a captive constituency in working poor Dems who CONSISTENTLY support larger and more muscular govt. Who run to Mommy with every grievance and the statists in charge ASSURE THEM that it is all about racism and NOT an inherent failure in the delivery of ALL their govt interactions. A system that will break them economically, and eventually INCARCERATE them over a snowball of paperworrk and formality.

And you can not have a reliable constituency like poor urban black Americans questioning their over-valuation of bigger govt. Bernie and the DNC like to TALK about "social justice". We KNOW how to make it better. They will NEVER admit to the facts in any report as clear as DOJ Ferguson report. You NEED Libertarians and Independents that think for themselves to point all this out.

As for who we "caucus with".. That's a very sore point. Because like the division and control of the political dialogue that the statists exert thru the power of the 2 parties to ENFORCE censorship on the general public discussion -- POLITICIANS themselves are Victims of the 2 party system control. There are really only 4 folks on Capitol Hill that control EVERYTHING about the process and dialogue. Those are the majority and minority leaders. (and the Prez as the titular leader of that party). The other 531 members are pretty powerless and irrelevant. And they KNOW THIS.

So any politician that runs AFOUL of party management will find themselves bullied, have their offices reduced to a broom closet and face a party faithful opponent in their next primary funded heavily by the party trying to remove them.. Happens to the Tea Party (both parties worked to subdue them) and it happened to all the "Blue Dog Dems" that the DNC hunted to near extinction when they "abandoned" the South. The rout of the Blue Dogs was so bloody and mean that today, mostly only Governors and state reps can still be Blue Dog.

DNC hated their fiscal conservatism. And their "hawkish" views on military and foreign policy. Couldn't be relied on for votes. So they were purged or outright executed. And you know what? These guys weren't much different from Libertarians. (except for their foreign policy views).

There's always been a "Liberty Caucus" in Congress. Populated with the likes of libertarians either "hiding out" -- like Ron Paul or various "socially inclusive" GOP folks. If the Blue Dogs still existed, there might be a more "bipartisan independent" Liberty Caucus today. But you need to realize that party discipline and rewarding political dynasties based on party loyalty is WORSE for those trying to do true public service in Congress than it MIGHT be for the rest of us. EVERYONE is suffering from the effects of consolidating power in the 2 arrogant dysfunctional parties.

 

[flacaltenn]

In the Nolan chart -- the 2 pillars of liberty and choice lie on either the Economic axis or the Social axis. It actually reflects the core concept that freedom and liberty are not granted by allowing just one or the other.

.

I find the Nolan Chart under representative, because it does not take into account that anarchists (max libertarian) and fascists (max statist) also have differing economic ideologies that vary from left to right.

While the differences in economic ideology for fascists may be based more on semantics than substance (I might be misspeaking since I am not well versed in fascist philosophy outside Mussolini), anarchism is incredibly varied economically.

We have capitalists, syndicalists, mutualists, communists, and partecons. Then we have those that integrate them together. The best chart at the moment is the political compass.

Unlike the Nolan Chart, the Political Compass does not marginalize left or right as signifying the scale of economic liberty, which allows greater representation of economic ideologies. I do recognize that it does not offer a horseshoe, but I believe it is better to allow for every position to be represented than to illustrate horseshoe theory on the graph.

By the way, the populist on your chart should be replaced with statist or authoritarian.

That confuses me tho. Because there is specific context in being "left or right" Nor do I care if Mussolini was Authoritarian Democrat or Authoritarian Republican. (using the usual context of Left and Right). But if you tell me that Mussolini was more TOLERANT of minorities and social issues than Hitler -- that puts more information and space between the 2.

You are right. There is not ONE version of 2 dimensional charts like the Nolan and many use Authoritarian or statist as the "southland". Some even have more 2 dim. territories to divide up progressives and anarchists for instance. The BEST thing is --- they ALL are better located in a multi-dimensional space.

I agree -- politics is NEVER one dimensional. If America was better educated -- we should be locating politicians in 3 space or 4 space rather than the silly one dimensional L/R "rope pull" that everyone is familiar with.

Red:
I agree. 2D doesn't really capture it. I recall posting at least one of these on here somewhere, but God only knows where now.

Not 3D, but I like that it is very comprehensive

Except from my science/engineering rigor -- those graphs need LABELS on the axes so that folks know exactly what is being measured. And the dimensions have to be in FUNDAMENTAL political metrics. Like Economy, Social Choices, Foreign Intervention, etc.

 

[flacaltenn]

My point is, even if I am libertarian, I might choose 2. Yes that may seem to reduce choices. Now the state can decide the color of my house. However, on bigger scale of things, it's not too bad. If I don't like the color the state choose I can just move somewhere else.

I wonder what other libertarians think? And this seemingly unlibertarian choice actually give people more freedom. You can replace house paint with any other issues.

Some states may have tough laws on crimes and safer, like Singapore. Some states may legalize drugs but filled with liberals, muslims, christians, etc. Sometimes, if the choice is to befriend everyone and ensure that no fraud or force happens is a fantasy. What makes sense is to just get close to people you like and that's it. Then, fraud or force will happen less naturally.

Red:
Okay. You made your point. You would choose option #2. Now we know; TY for telling us.

Blue:
Well, one can exchange house paint with some other issues, but were one to trade it for certain of any other issues, one would find that one has, at detriment to one's credibility, oversimplified things, leading folks to perceive that one cannot or does not distinguish among relevant factors pertaining to issues of varying complexity, scale and scope.

Green:
Are you aware that Libertarians are considered conservatives?

Who considers Libertarians "conservatives"? I can out liberal you on any number of issues. The only thing we're "conservative" on the the Constitution and keeping the govt solvent and within the BOUNDS of that document. Other than that -- we've been AHEAD on "social liberalism" for several decades.

Ideologically, it's not very controversial to say that Libertarians have closer cousins in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. Of course they're conservatives.

We judge positions and policy on maximizing personal choice and freedom. In the spirit of the original liberals -- the founding fathers. That's actually Liberal in the strictest sense. It's the Liberalism of H. D. Thoreau, at a time when true liberals still had an innate distrust of a powerful government.

Our current platform is in accords with 1/2 of what Bernie was pitching. On foreign policy, civil liberties, ending corporate-govt collusion etc. The only "conservative" part is we PREFER economic solutions not designed and dictated from bureaucrats in D.C. It's very simple -- liberal on social issues, free market choice and smaller, more efficient govt on economic issues.

To paint the founding fathers with one brush is to misunderstand the amount of controversy that surrounded the constitutional convention in 1787. Madison, Jefferson, and the others (whose ideas are most closely hewed to the end result of the constitution) were in favor of a strong central government, and they hated the Articles of Confederation, which failed miserably (and necessitated a convention to fix them).

Articles of Confederation probably WERE insufficient. But the arguments back then ended in a MINIMALIST Constitution and the attached ILLUMINATIONS of the Bill of Rights that clearly limited the powers and scope of the Fed Govt. One document that most any Libertarian can live with. .

 

[flacaltenn]

Was not RACISM that flamed out Ferguson. It was FRUSTRATION with big unresponsive incompetent govt.

.

LOL, really? You know this because...you're a black man living in Ferguson?

If you actually read the DOJ Ferguson report cover to cover as I did -- you would know this is the TRUTH that I'm telling you here. How do think these folks got so flamed-out? You ever live in a place where EVERY Freaking HOUSEHOLD had an average of THREE warrants and 1.5 arrests every year?

Ever tried to pay off a simple $220 traffic fine in installments and had the money sent BACK TO YOU? Ever had that situation end up with you losing your job over long days waiting for a judge, have a WARRANT issued over non-payment? Get incarcerated for living on the street because a simple $200 fine ruined your life?

And cities that operate that operate that way are morons anyways. Because MOST of these folks are paying fines using GOVT subsidies in the FIRST place.

Read the report -- learn what it's like to have to be faced down with men with guns and robes over simple things that could HAVE BEEN avoided.

BTW -- I'm off the Ferguson deal. It was an example of how the dialogue never really gets to the root causes because parties/lazy media control the dialogue. Not rational people... And how for "neutrals" or Libertarians the answers just scream out for govt reform and efficiency and focus on their BASIC tasks.


So let's not do this topic here. There is actually a thread I started on this somewhere. If you want to discuss -- I'll dig it up. .

 

[grbb]

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish.
Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.
Which one will you choose?
You're a libertarian.

Choice 1.
For a Libertarian, individual freedom is paramount.

I used to agree with you. Choice 1 all the way. The problem is, there is no state that do choice 1 all the way. There is no libertarian state. And that's for many reasonable reason.

Choice 2 is as good as choice 1 and it's actually closer to the world we live in right now. It's actually achievable. Think of our planet as that country and all the country as the "states". As time goes by, it's easier for capital, corporation, ideas, and everything to "cross border". Once you get rich through trade, you can be free anyway.

If you have 1% super rich people in the middle of 99% poor people, how do you keep the 99% content?

You can bullshit them with religion like in Arab countries. You can terrorize them like in real communist countries and kleptocracy, or you can just pay them to shut up and vote for moderately libertarian candidates. The latter is called welfare.

None of those are good or libertarian solution. You got to do "something".

Then there are other things that even most libertarians consider grey.

What about immigration?

Imagine all of you are libertarians. You are richer than the rest of the world. Suddenly a bunch of syrian refugees come. Then they see, you know what let's loot people around here, rape women, etc., like what happen in europe.

A "pure" libertarian solution is to let all immigrants in and somehow "enforce" some laws so that they don't fuck around. That is IMPOSSIBLE.

If you want to be free from evil people, you should distance yourself from evil people. You don't get close to them and "be careful" latter.

What about drugs? Of course drug should be totally legalized and not even taxed. What about if some states want to tax it? Some people may prefer state that tax drug than state with income tax. I know I would.

And what about racism? Racism is stupid. But if some people want to live only with their own kind, so what?

 

[PK1]

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish.
Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.
Which one will you choose?
You're a libertarian.

Choice 1.
For a Libertarian, individual freedom is paramount.

I used to agree with you. Choice 1 all the way. The problem is, there is no state that do choice 1 all the way. There is no libertarian state. And that's for many reasonable reason.

Choice 2 is as good as choice 1 and it's actually closer to the world we live in right now. It's actually achievable. Think of our planet as that country and all the country as the "states". As time goes by, it's easier for capital, corporation, ideas, and everything to "cross border". Once you get rich through trade, you can be free anyway.

If you have 1% super rich people in the middle of 99% poor people, how do you keep the 99% content?

You can bullshit them with religion like in Arab countries. You can terrorize them like in real communist countries and kleptocracy, or you can just pay them to shut up and vote for moderately libertarian candidates. The latter is called welfare.

None of those are good or libertarian solution. You got to do "something".

Then there are other things that even most libertarians consider grey.

What about immigration?

Imagine all of you are libertarians. You are richer than the rest of the world. Suddenly a bunch of syrian refugees come. Then they see, you know what let's loot people around here, rape women, etc., like what happen in europe.

A "pure" libertarian solution is to let all immigrants in and somehow "enforce" some laws so that they don't fuck around. That is IMPOSSIBLE.

If you want to be free from evil people, you should distance yourself from evil people. You don't get close to them and "be careful" latter.

What about drugs? Of course drug should be totally legalized and not even taxed. What about if some states want to tax it? Some people may prefer state that tax drug than state with income tax. I know I would.

And what about racism? Racism is stupid. But if some people want to live only with their own kind, so what?

U.S.A. was founded on the Libertarian principle of individual freedom ("don't tread on me"), except for the native "Indians" and black slaves who got screwed. The latter groups could not be included in the early days due to inherited cultural racist practices that were not given up easily by the majority power brokers, who did not accept their hypocrisy.
I'm glad we evolved to a more equalitarian view, but there is still a long way to go on that issue.

Of course, we live among others, so individual liberty has to be balanced with costly social services, such as public safety (military, police), legal system, infrastructure, and public services (schools, hospitals/ERs, etc).

As long as a citizen is not endangering others or the other's family/property, and paying their fair share (taxes/etc) toward their community, regardless in which state they live, that citizen should be FREE to do as they please, such as enjoy drugs/alcohol, engage in prostitution, kill themselves, abort their fetuses, etc ... as long as they are not deemed incompetent or immature,

USA is a nation of immigrants from various cultures, so i don't understand that concern, as long as an immigrant agrees to adhere to our laws.

 

[grbb]

And that is exactly the point. There will always be power broker somebody will always get screwed.

Okay, let's try something.

Do you want to live in a state where people eat cats? What about freedom to torture cat.

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish.
Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.
Which one will you choose?
You're a libertarian.

Choice 1.
For a Libertarian, individual freedom is paramount.

I used to agree with you. Choice 1 all the way. The problem is, there is no state that do choice 1 all the way. There is no libertarian state. And that's for many reasonable reason.

Choice 2 is as good as choice 1 and it's actually closer to the world we live in right now. It's actually achievable. Think of our planet as that country and all the country as the "states". As time goes by, it's easier for capital, corporation, ideas, and everything to "cross border". Once you get rich through trade, you can be free anyway.

If you have 1% super rich people in the middle of 99% poor people, how do you keep the 99% content?

You can bullshit them with religion like in Arab countries. You can terrorize them like in real communist countries and kleptocracy, or you can just pay them to shut up and vote for moderately libertarian candidates. The latter is called welfare.

None of those are good or libertarian solution. You got to do "something".

Then there are other things that even most libertarians consider grey.

What about immigration?

Imagine all of you are libertarians. You are richer than the rest of the world. Suddenly a bunch of syrian refugees come. Then they see, you know what let's loot people around here, rape women, etc., like what happen in europe.

A "pure" libertarian solution is to let all immigrants in and somehow "enforce" some laws so that they don't fuck around. That is IMPOSSIBLE.

If you want to be free from evil people, you should distance yourself from evil people. You don't get close to them and "be careful" latter.

What about drugs? Of course drug should be totally legalized and not even taxed. What about if some states want to tax it? Some people may prefer state that tax drug than state with income tax. I know I would.

And what about racism? Racism is stupid. But if some people want to live only with their own kind, so what?