decentralize government and conservative anarchist or libertarian

[sweat209]

@Human_Action

Anarchists advocate a stateless society of voluntary free association. They aren’t looking for a decentralized government, they want no government.

Also Human Action may be I’m getting confuse here but what I read on other message boards go like this.

Libertarian movement and talking big protest and really.

Big government , warfare state ,FDR , Big government now , feds taking over state rights ,founding fathers would be bad really bad now ,socialism , big government ,lack of state rights the feds too big and powerful.

The anarchist movement and talking big protest and really.

Evil government , big government , big concentration of power ,power in hand of only handful of people, not true democracy.
So may be I’m getting the too mixed up and getting confused. Both seem to hate big government and concentration of power at the federal level.

[Human_Action]

@sweat209

So than who would fit that view of more decentralized government ?

New Federalism

New Federalism is a political philosophy of devolution, or the transfer of certain powers from the United States federal government back to the states. The primary objective of New Federalism, unlike that of the eighteenth-century political philosophy of Federalism, is the restoration to the states of some of the autonomy and power which they lost to the federal government as a consequence of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

@sweat209

I thought there was some anarchists not so radical one that want the state or community to decide on laws and politics be it liberal , conservative or socialism or want ever be at state level or community / colony level.

If the idea involves the state doing something, it ain’t anarchism.

[Human_Action]

@sweat209

Also Human Action may be I’m getting confuse here but what I read on other message boards go like this.

Libertarian movement and talking big protest and really.

Big government , warfare state ,FDR , Big government now , feds taking over state rights ,founding fathers would be bad really bad now ,socialism , big government ,lack of state rights the feds too big and powerful.

The anarchist movement and talking big protest and really.

Evil government , big government , big concentration of power ,power in hand of only handful of people, not true democracy.
So may be I’m getting the too mixed up and getting confused.

Both are unhappy with the current system of government, so there’s that in common. But, beyond that, they diverge sharply.

Libertarians generally believe that the proper role of government is to protect individuals from infringements upon their liberties. They believe that, in the absence of a government of some kind, humanity would be ruled by the law of the jungle, the strong dominating the weak.

Anarchists generally believe that all government is morally wrong, and destructive to the human spirit. They believe that, in the absence of government, humanity would form voluntary associations for their mutual benefit, and share all property.

For me, the most fundamental divergence is that latter point: Libertarians think that man without government is a savage beast; anarchists think that man without government is finally free and equal.

[NotfooledbyW]

@tomndebb

sweat209:

Libertarianism: philosophy that holds that government should be used in a minimal fashion to guarantee that individuals are not harmed

Anarchism: philosophy that government is inherently bad and that the removal of government would improve the lot of humanit.

@BrainGlutton

Valid definitions so far as they go, but better ones would make clear that anarchism arises out of a left-wing tradition very closely associated with Marxism and aims at the abolition of private property, which libertarianism is explicitly concerned with protecting.

Why is bringing up the ‘historical roots of anarchism being associated with Marxism and abolition of private property’, a ‘better definition’ in the context of any discussion today about libertarianism and the role of that ideology that is playing out in our politics and lives right now today?

American leftists today do not favor abolition of private property, but they certainly oppose the current strand of economic anti-government libertarian anarchism, seemingly led right now by a Republican US Senator who may have been named after the famous atheist libertarian Ayn Rand. His father and that US Senator appear to be somewhat kindred to Ayn Rand’s philosophy and would like to impose it upon the rest of us if they can through Republican Tea Party style political bitterness and unreasonableness.

Isn’t this the best description of what could be considered a harmful movement to American civil well being that is present in the here and now?

American leftists Marxists anarchists left the American domestic scene long before the outbreak of WWII.

I believe this is the best definition of current libertarian thought affecting the world and America today:

Individualist Anarchism (or Libertarian Anarchism) holds that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority, and that the imposition of democracy leads to oppression of the individual by the majority. It has been argued that Individualist Anarchism tends to emphasize negative liberty (i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual), whereas Social Anarchism (see below) emphasizes positive liberty (i.e. the achievement of potential and fulfillment of human needs by society). Individualist Anarchism, also unlike Social Anarchism, is supportive of property being held privately, often in a market economy, although some hold that any surplus should be given away.

Free-Market Anarchism (or Anarcho-Capitalism) is a more extreme form of Individualist Anarchism that attempts to reconcile Anarchism with Capitalism, and it forms part of the broader movement known as Libertarianism. It advocates the elimination of the state; the provision of law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services by voluntarily-funded competitors in a free market rather than through compulsory taxation; the complete deregulation of non-intrusive personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market.
The Belgian-French economist Gustave de Molinari (1819 - 1912) is considered the single most important contributor to the theory, although the American Murray Rothbard (1926 - 1995) is perhaps its most outspoken proponent, and in general its popularity was centered in the United States.

Anarchism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

Does anyone agree?

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Why is bringing up the ‘historical roots of anarchism being associated with Marxism and abolition of private property’, a ‘better definition’ in the context of any discussion today about libertarianism and the role of that ideology that is playing out in our politics and lives right now today?

First, that discussion is not what the OP is trying to discuss (I think, the OP is rather mangled). Second, the OP treats three distinct political schools of thought as being interchangable on the subject of federalism, which is unwise.

@NotfooledbyW

American leftists today do not favor abolition of private property…

You are the first person to bring up the mainstream American left. Anarchists absolutely favor abolition of private property.

@NotfooledbyW

…but they certainly oppose the current strand of economic anti-government libertarian anarchism, seemingly led right now by a Republican US Senator who may have been named after the famous atheist libertarian Ayn Rand. His father and that US Senator appear to be somewhat kindred to Ayn Rand’s philosophy and would like to impose it upon the rest of us if they can through Republican Tea Party style political bitterness and unreasonableness.

Rand Paul doesn’t even call himself a libertarian:

@Rand Paul

It’s often repeated in stories about me or my race for U.S. Senate that I am a “libertarian.” In my mind, the word “libertarian” has become an emotionally charged, and often misunderstood, word in our current political climate. But, I would argue very strongly that the vast coalition of Americans — including independents, moderates, Republicans, conservatives and “Tea Party” activists — share many libertarian points of view, as do I.

I choose to use a different phrase to describe my beliefs — I consider myself a constitutional conservative, which I take to mean a conservative who actually believes in smaller government and more individual freedom. The libertarian principles of limited government, self-reliance and respect for the Constitution are embedded within my constitutional conservatism, and in the views of countless Americans from across the political spectrum.

Rand Paul shares some ideas with some libertarians. Calling him an anarchist is absurd.

Rand Paul doesn’t want to impose anything on “the rest of us”, all strands of libertarianism are democratic.

@NotfooledbyW

Isn’t this the best description of what could be considered a harmful movement to American civil well being that is present in the here and now?

No.

@NotfooledbyW

American leftists Marxists anarchists left the American domestic scene long before the outbreak of WWII.

They are still around, they’re just in the margins, and sometimes destroying other peoples’ property, as they do.

@NotfooledbyW

I believe this is the best definition of current libertarian thought affecting the world and America today:

Individualist Anarchism (or Libertarian Anarchism) holds that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority, and that the imposition of democracy leads to oppression of the individual by the majority. It has been argued that Individualist Anarchism tends to emphasize negative liberty (i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual), whereas Social Anarchism (see below) emphasizes positive liberty (i.e. the achievement of potential and fulfillment of human needs by society). Individualist Anarchism, also unlike Social Anarchism, is supportive of property being held privately, often in a market economy, although some hold that any surplus should be given away.

Obviously not, libertarians are democratic.

@NotfooledbyW

Free-Market Anarchism (or Anarcho-Capitalism) is a more extreme form of Individualist Anarchism that attempts to reconcile Anarchism with Capitalism, and it forms part of the broader movement known as Libertarianism. It advocates the elimination of the state; the provision of law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services by voluntarily-funded competitors in a free market rather than through compulsory taxation; the complete deregulation of non-intrusive personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market.
The Belgian-French economist Gustave de Molinari (1819 - 1912) is considered the single most important contributor to the theory, although the American Murray Rothbard (1926 - 1995) is perhaps its most outspoken proponent, and in general its popularity was centered in the United States.

Anarcho-Capitalism shares some ideas with the most radical forms of libertarian thought, such as the privatization of nearly all state functions.

@NotfooledbyW

Does anyone agree?

No. If you want to learn what Rand Paul believes in, the article I linked to above is a good start.

For more libertarian thought, try reading the Libertarian Party platform.

[NotfooledbyW]

I was addressing BrainGlutton, and Human Action missed my point, so I must ask the question again if Human Action would care to address this point directly:

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton: “Valid definitions so far as they go, but better ones would make clear that anarchism arises out of a left-wing tradition very closely associated with Marxism and aims at the abolition of private property, which libertarianism is explicitly concerned with protecting.”

So I asked BrainGlutton what that had to do with whatever the (mangled) OP is about:

“Why is bringing up the ‘historical roots of anarchism being associated with Marxism and abolition of private property’, a ‘better definition’ in the context of any discussion today about libertarianism and the role of that ideology that is playing out in our politics and lives right now today?”

To which Human Action assails me for deviating from an OP that I read as questioning some current ideologies that affect us today.

Marxist Leftist anarchism had no bearing on political reality today, so I want to know the reason or the motive that BrainGlutton brought it up.

And now I’d like to know if Human Action is a proponent/supporter of Rand Paul’s re-brand of his libertarianism as Constitutional Conservatism Republucanusm with a hearty dose if Tea Party style.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

I was addressing BrainGlutton, and Human Action missed my point, so I must ask the question again if Human Action would care to address this point directly:

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton: “Valid definitions so far as they go, but better ones would make clear that anarchism arises out of a left-wing tradition very closely associated with Marxism and aims at the abolition of private property, which libertarianism is explicitly concerned with protecting.”

So I asked BrainGlutton what that had to do with whatever the (mangled) OP is about:

“Why is bringing up the ‘historical roots of anarchism being associated with Marxism and abolition of private property’, a ‘better definition’ in the context of any discussion today about libertarianism and the role of that ideology that is playing out in our politics and lives right now today?”

To which Human Action assails me for deviating from an OP that I read as questioning some current ideologies that affect us today.

Marxist Leftist anarchism had no bearing on political reality today, so I want to know the reason or the motive that BrainGlutton brought it up.

Ok then, I’ll refrain until BrainGlutton stops by to explain why defining and contrasting libertariansim, conservatism, and anarchism in a thread about a similar position (smaller government, particularly central government) held by libertarians, conservatives, and anarchists might be a good idea.

@NotfooledbyW

And now I’d like to know if Human Action is a proponent/supporter of Rand Paul’s re-brand of his libertarianism as Constitutional Conservatism Republucanusm with a hearty dose if Tea Party style.

It’s not a re-branding of libertarianism, it’s a distinct political viewpoint. Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He shares some positions with libertarians, but not others.

One major digression is on abortion, Paul is a committed pro-lifer. He introduced a Life Begins At Conception Act that would appear to ban all abortion.

He also believes states should decide whether to permit same-sex marriage.

On balance, Rand Paul is exactly what he says he is: A Republican, constitutional conservative. He’s the junior Senator for my state, and I’m always glad to have a voice for smaller government that actually means it representing me, but I don’t consider him a libertarian.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

It’s not a re-branding of libertarianism, it’s a distinct political viewpoint. Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He shares some positions with libertarians, but not others.

One major digression is on abortion, Paul is a committed pro-lifer. He introduced a Life Begins At Conception Act that would appear to ban all abortion.

He also believes states should decide whether to permit same-sex marriage.

On balance, Rand Paul is exactly what he says he is: A Republican, constitutional conservative. He’s the junior Senator for my state, and I’m always glad to have a voice for smaller government that actually means it representing me, but I don’t consider him a libertarian.

Prefixing constitutional to his small government conservatism does not hide the fact that he is a darling of libertarians.
I consider myself a Constitutional American citizen who has no inclination to surrender that sacred secular document to small government political opportunists like Rand Paul that seek to hijack the Framer’s document as an expression of small libertarian style limited government as libertarians opposed to many Federal Government services and policies that I support and want sustained.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Prefixing constitutional to his small government conservatism does not hide the fact that he is a darling of libertarians.

Well, any port in a storm. He’s the closest thing to a libertarian in the Senate, after all. There are no out-and-out Communists in the Senate either, so Communists support Senators who are closest to their ideal. This is political reality.

Paul isn’t trying to hide the fact that he has some support from libertarians; he isn’t one, so he doesn’t describe himself as one. Refreshing honesty, really.

@NotfooledbyW

I consider myself a Constitutional American citizen who has no inclination to surrender that sacred secular document to small government political opportunists like Rand Paul that seek to hijack the Framer’s document as an expression of small libertarian style limited government as libertarians opposed to many Federal Government services and policies that I support and want sustained.

So don’t vote for libertarians. I don’t know what else to tell you. I have no idea what you mean by “no inclination to surrender” the Constitution; Rand Paul isn’t about to launch a coup or anything.

Also, the Constitution establishes a federal government that is, in fact, limited. Congress is checked by a (fairly short) list of enumerated powers; the powers of the President and the Supreme Court are similarly limited.

How many of those Federal services and policies you support are explicitedly authorized by the Constitution, I wonder?

[WillFarnaby]

I’d wager Rand Paul is unable to transcend metaphysics and “impose” libertarian anarchy (or market anarchy or anarchic-capitalism) through the democratically elected government of the United States.

[NotfooledbyW]

I have no idea what you mean by “no inclination to surrender” the Constitution; Rand Paul isn’t about to launch a coup or anything.

Perhaps if more of my words were left intact perhaps what I meant would come through. I was addressing the offensive way right wing politicians like Rand Paul assume they can use the Constitution as an adjective for their ideological view of how the world should be.

“**Prefixing constitutional **to his small government conservatism does not hide the fact that he is a darling of libertarians. … I consider myself a **Constitutional American citizen **who has no inclination to surrender that sacred secular document to small government political opportunists like Rand Paul that seek to hijack the Framer’s document as an expression of small libertarian style limited government as libertarians opposed to many Federal Government services and policies that I support and want sustained.” -Ntfldbw #028 04-05-2013 01:21 PM

[NotfooledbyW]

@WillFarnaby

I’d wager Rand Paul is unable to transcend metaphysics and “impose” libertarian anarchy (or market anarchy or anarchic-capitalism) through the democratically elected government of the United States.

Perhaps you’ve noticed the role of spoiler that the Republican Party has played on the economic recovery since the great recession of 2008.

We know that Republicans rigidly lean toward the spirit of anarchic-capitalism that is more blandly known as Reaganomics. The Republican majority in the House has been doing what they can to stifle economic recovery and have done nothing to promote job creation since taking over the majority in 2010. They’ve been busy on Rand Paul’s abortion issues though.

Who needs it.

[sweat209]

@Human_Action

Both are unhappy with the current system of government, so there’s that in common. But, beyond that, they diverge sharply.

Libertarians generally believe that the proper role of government is to protect individuals from infringements upon their liberties. They believe that, in the absence of a government of some kind, humanity would be ruled by the law of the jungle, the strong dominating the weak.

Anarchists generally believe that all government is morally wrong, and destructive to the human spirit. They believe that, in the absence of government, humanity would form voluntary associations for their mutual benefit, and share all property.

For me, the most fundamental divergence is that latter point: Libertarians think that man without government is a savage beast; anarchists think that man without government is finally free and equal.

Okay I think it was wrong for me to put anarchists in here because they want no private property ,no police , no court , no country , no state , no government at all levels be it feds or state.

Well conservatives , classical liberals ,libertarians all hate big government and some conservatives in US and all classical liberals or libertarians would do away with FDR and all forms of welfare and food stamps.

In past American was more classical liberals before progressive liberals of welfare state , food stamps ,civil rights movement and quality race,age and gender and more economic relations.

True classical liberals or libertarians are ati all forms economic relations like monopoly laws , environmental laws ,minimum range ,bank relations.In US history never had 100 free market .

Well classical liberals and libertarians do want more decentralized government and small government but when I posted .

state or community to decide on laws and politics be it liberal , conservative or socialism or want ever be at state level.

New Federalism would fit better because classical liberals or libertarians are anti- economic relations , anti- new liberals or socialism and anti-welfare state , food stamps ,civil rights movement and quality of race , age and gender.

When comes to social issues libertarians they are anti government of telling people want they can or cannot do to one own body.

I think if I started thread of talking about conservatives , classical liberals and libertarians more in common some issues where new left ,socialism or anarchism will have more in common their issues.

[NotfooledbyW]

@sweat209

I think if I started thread of talking about conservatives , classical liberals and libertarians more in common some issues where new left ,socialism or anarchism will have more in common their issues.

Why must we link today’s left generally as having socialism and anarchism more in common with their issues?

It appears to be an attempt to portray social liberalism as being somehow diametrically opposed to free market (classical) liberalism in order to make libertarianism and social conservatism look better, more rational, and more productive for modern governing and more in line with protecting human liberty.

I know of no ‘new left’ leaders or spokespeople who oppose free market capitalism or private property rights or accumulation of wealth.
I agree with the following that that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism, but with acceptance of the realization that the free market does not necessarily lead to improvement in the human condition overall for everyone, including the disadvantaged and weak, without strong government regulation and assertion of power of the democratic process to stand up against the ‘captains of industry’ that hold all the best cards.

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarises this viewpoint, which

reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes… The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy… When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. **It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end… [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.[**74]

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia

I prefer to focus on what impacts our lives in the here and now.

My concern is that whatever labels people go by to define themselves, do they actually by their actions stand for universal ‘human liberty’ or do they stand for ‘human liberty’ mostly for the advantaged class they find themselves in whether by birth, luck or their own hard work and drive.

I find Senator Rand Paul to be an example of one who, by virtue of his own words, admits, that he considers those who own property must be given preference over the civil liberties of certain people that those owners may choose to disrciminate against.

On MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, Rand Paul being interviewed as the newly elected Senator from Kentucky, made a rookie mistake when he blurted out that he did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and then tried to explain why.

He later flipped himself back by saying that he would have voted for the critical Civil Rights legislation that forbade racial and other discrimination in restaurants and other businesses and facilities that were open to the public.

I think Rand Paul revealed where his heart is on the matter, and there is no fixing it for me by the typical political flip flop correction procedure.

The seductive demand for limited government has to be modified by a concept of what is fair and not fair in the human condition and where those limitation must be accepted.

I don’t think libertarians have the capacity for reason that can transcend the self-centeredness and selfishness that dominates their thinking 99.9 percent of their time.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Perhaps if more of my words were left intact perhaps what I meant would come through. I was addressing the offensive way right wing politicians like Rand Paul assume they can use the Constitution as an adjective for their ideological view of how the world should be.

“Constitutional” is an adjective:

2. Consistent with, sanctioned by, or permissible according to a constitution.

Calling yourself a Constitutional conservative means, in part, that your vision of the role of government is consistent with the Constitution, and/or the intent of its framers. How on earth is that offensive?

@sweat209

Okay I think it was wrong for me to put anarchists in here because they want no private property ,no police , no court , no country , no state , no government at all levels be it feds or state.

Agreed, anarchists are their own kettle of fish.

@sweat209

Well conservatives , classical liberals ,libertarians all hate big government and some conservatives in US and all classical liberals or libertarians would do away with FDR and all forms of welfare and food stamps.

Conservatives, in the sense of the modern right-wing, is fine with big government that suits their ideology; a massive military, for instance, or farm subsidies. The Republican party hasn’t exactly been falling all over itself to shrink government. They have some small-government rhetoric, but do nothing in practice.

@sweat209

In past American was more classical liberals before progressive liberals of welfare state , food stamps ,civil rights movement and quality race,age and gender and more economic relations.

True classical liberals or libertarians are ati all forms economic relations like monopoly laws , environmental laws ,minimum range ,bank relations.In US history never had 100 free market .

Which is why I think libertarians are too-frequently lumped in with conservatives; libertarians aren’t trying to return us to some bygone age where their values were in power, because for the most part that’s never happened. Even during eras of much smaller government, there was a shameful amount of what Burton Folsom calls “political entrepreneurship”, men like Edward Collins who competed in the statehouse for subsidies instead of in the market with customers.

@sweat209

Well classical liberals and libertarians do want more decentralized government and small government but when I posted .

New Federalism would fit better because classical liberals or libertarians are anti- economic relations , anti- new liberals or socialism and anti-welfare state , food stamps ,civil rights movement and quality of race , age and gender.

Yes, the split of power between the national and state level is a question of federalism.

Wait, libertarians are “anti-civil rights movement and [e]quality of race, age, and gender”? What are you talking about?

@sweat209

When comes to social issues libertarians they are anti government of telling people want they can or cannot do to one own body.

I think if I started thread of talking about conservatives , classical liberals and libertarians more in common some issues where new left ,socialism or anarchism will have more in common their issues.

The New Left was defined by abandoning Marx and labor struggle, so they don’t actually have much in common with anarchists except for hostility to privilege and social inequality.

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

I find Senator Rand Paul to be an example of one who, by virtue of his own words, admits, that he considers those who own property must be given preference over the civil liberties of certain people that those owners may choose to disrciminate against.

On MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, Rand Paul being interviewed as the newly elected Senator from Kentucky, made a rookie mistake when he blurted out that he did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and then tried to explain why.

Yeah, that’s not what happened:

Paul told Maddow that** he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II)**, that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:

@NotfooledbyW

He later flipped himself back by saying that he would have voted for the critical Civil Rights legislation that forbade racial and other discrimination in restaurants and other businesses and facilities that were open to the public.

Again, nope.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.”

Paul said he supported the Civil Rights Act, except for Title II, and had no plans as a Senator to revisit it. His “flip” was to say that he supported the Civil Rights Act in aggregate, and had no plans as a Senator to revisit it.

@NotfooledbyW

I think Rand Paul revealed where his heart is on the matter, and there is no fixing it for me by the typical political flip flop correction procedure.

His “heart” being what, that freedom applies to racists too, especially on their own property? Sounds fine to me.

I’m also amused that you characterized Paul as a “political opportunist”, but now excoriate him for being too sincere with his views.

@NotfooledbyW

The seductive demand for limited government has to be modified by a concept of what is fair and not fair in the human condition and where those limitation must be accepted.

Fairness is exactly what libertarians want.

@NotfooledbyW

I don’t think libertarians have the capacity for reason that can transcend the self-centeredness and selfishness that dominates their thinking 99.9 percent of their time.

Nothing’s more selfish than advocating other peoples’ freedom and equality. You got us there.

Just for my notes, it’s offensive to say that your views are Constitutional, but not offensive to say that millions of people have no capacity for reason and are dominated by self-centeredness. Good to know. Is there any political issue where you don’t put everyone involved on the “good team” or the “bad team”?

[NotfooledbyW]

Human Action:Paul said he supported the Civil Rights Act, except for Title II, and had no plans as a Senator to revisit it. His “flip” was to say that he supported the Civil Rights Act in aggregate, and had no plans as a Senator to revisit it.

His “heart” being what, that freedom applies to racists too, especially on their own property? Sounds fine to me.

Rand Paul admits he puts the rights of open-to-the-public white businesses owners over the rights of non-whites to have freedom of choice to conduct business there and he is defined as a fair minded for protecting the freedom of racists to be racist.

That freedom is automatically protected unless a crime is committed.

It had nothing to do with there being a need to protecting the racists right to engage in public enterprises as an outlet for his/her hatreds.

What racists do on their private un-public property is not what Title II is dealing with.

So do you agree with Rand Paul on his displeasure with Title II?

[sweat209]

@NotfooledbyW

Why must we link today’s left generally as having socialism and anarchism more in common with their issues?

The new left supports capitalism and private property. They believe in welfare state but are bit critical free market more than conservatives are and it should be far same with far trade.

Some one who supporter Adam smith would be disgusted of lack more true free market.They believe free market will take care self with no laws or government saying what can or cannot do.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Rand Paul admits he puts the rights of open-to-the-public white businesses owners over the rights of non-whites to have freedom of choice to conduct business there and he is defined as a fair minded for protecting the freedom of racists to be racist.

That freedom is automatically protected unless a crime is committed.

It had nothing to do with there being a need to protecting the racists right to engage in public enterprises as an outlet for his/her hatreds.

What racists do on their private un-public property is not what Title II is dealing with.

So do you agree with Rand Paul on his displeasure with Title II?

President Obama supports the rights of racists, like the Neo Nazis, to march in Jewish neighborhoods over the rights of Jewish citizens not to be threatened by such actions. So, he is fair minded in protecting the freedom of the racists to be racists.

[sweat209]

@Human_Action

Conservatives, in the sense of the modern right-wing, is fine with big government that suits their ideology; a massive military, for instance, or farm subsidies. The Republican party hasn’t exactly been falling all over itself to shrink government. They have some small-government rhetoric, but do nothing in practice.

That contradictory when right-wing go on and on about big government they normal hate welfare state:o:o:o:o but big police force , large prison population ,large army and voice police no problem

Which is why I think libertarians are too-frequently lumped in with conservatives; libertarians aren’t trying to return us to some bygone age where their values were in power, because for the most part that’s never happened. Even during eras of much smaller government, there was a shameful amount of what Burton Folsom calls “political entrepreneurship”, men like Edward Collins who competed in the statehouse for subsidies instead of in the market with customers.

Both are very unhappy with welfare state and FDR of today.

There are libertarians movement in US but I think some people who call them self libertarians are not true libertarians.They don’t like high debt , welfare state today ,FDR and feds on abortion , LGBT rights and way feds are today.Small government and lack of decentralized government

There where many Americans got really bad doing civil rights movement saying how dare the feds tell us what we can or cannot do in are state .Today it less about civil rights and blacks but abortion , LGBT rights and feds overstepping boundaries of state.

The true libertarians are very much about liberty and believe there should be no law or government on issues of one own body on abortion , LGBT , sex ,smoking ,drugs ,common law living ,same sex marriage ,porn , seat belt laws and other laws .

Yes, the split of power between the national and state level is a question of federalism.

Wait, libertarians are “anti-civil rights movement and [e]quality of race, age, and gender”? What are you talking about?

On proper free market the views would be we need no laws the free market would take care self.Likes of oh man so what stopping you from starting a business and getting girls or blacks to work their if other work places will not take you.

The New Left was defined by abandoning Marx and labor struggle, so they don’t actually have much in common with anarchists except for hostility to privilege and social inequality.

The new left wants quality for all and make capitalism far some may goes has far has Michael moore the far left but still keeping private property and capitalism.Many new left or more so far left thought they can reform capitalism with out doing away with it .Where Marx would say no it must be done away with.