Interesting, jsgoddess. That’s certainly a resonable explanation, on the surface at least. A couple of points, though:
While it might seem relatively easy to avoid repercussions for smoking a joint, there are thousands of people in American prisons whose practical experience suggests that it’s not so easy after all. And it took a Supreme Court decision (Lawrence v. Texas) to establish some firm ground for the right to have gay sex without being arrested.
I’m also interested in your second-last paragraph. As i’ve said before, i understand why libertarians oppose Democratic economic policy. But it seems to me that Republican policy is no better, at least under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Sure, Republicans have been “better” at reducing taxes, especially on the upper-level income earners, but they have proved no “better” than Democrats at curbing spending, and this is, or should be, a crucial aspect of economic policy. You say that the Democrats’ spending policies were “unacceptable,” but make no comment about the massive Republican spending over the past few GOP administration. And this goes beyond the White House. While Newt Gingrich was making rhetorial calls for smaller government, his own constituency in Georgia was floating on more federal funds than any other single place in the United States.
When libertarians talk only about Republican tax cuts, and about Democratic spending, can you see why some of us jump to the conclusion that, for some libertarians, the key philosophy is lining their own pockets?
Sure, but I can also avoid repercussions, should I choose, by avoiding the behavior. This isn’t to say that I think any libertarians would argue that you should have to make such a choice, but that having the choice makes it better than not having the choice.
Perception is everything. The Democrats say they oppose tax cuts and are for higher spending. The Republicans say they are against those things. You know better than to think truth has any bearing on politics!
In addition, I don’t think you could find a libertarian who believes this way still supporting Bush II. The balance, whether you believe it was a valid one or not, has definitely been tipped.
I scored 100% on personal issues and 20% on economic issues (I’m against corporate welfare). Obviously the results on such a quiz are skewed depending on the questions they chose to include. The questions that they consider important. There was nothing about the environment, nothing about feminism, nothing about safeguarding democracy, nothing about foreign adventurism or imperialism.
And yet it did correctly identify me as a Left Liberal, which I am proud to self-identify as. It placed my dot just one notch above the far left corner in the direction of libertarianism (see remarks on skewing above).
To those who want to eliminate all taxes, I say: Do you like driving on paved roads? Would the libertarian solution be to privatize all roads? You’d have to pay a fucking toll to go anywhere? Please.
This was indeed partly the case at one point - toll roads were quite common in the U.K. in the era of the stagecoach. Previously, communities were responsible for the upkeep of roads in their area.
Are there any statistics about whether most Americans who call themselves libertarians tend to vote Democratic or Republican? Please, I’m not asking for your personal opinions about which party they should vote for. I’m asking for the results of a survey.
I found this poll of readers of “Liberty” about the 1996 election, which showed libertarians basically mirroring the rest of the US in that election. Of course, that election was a leeetle different.
Well, yeah. But it’s not as simplistic as you make it sound. I’m not saying that we have a good Republican in office, but given the alternative, what would you suggest? A Democrat? Hah!
Like I said, not good Republicans. I imagine Goooore would have been way worse – liberal worse!
Yeah, but so are the Democrats. Gaydom is good. Abortion is good. Meat is bad. Screw 'em all. It’s all personal choice to a good extent.
Yeah, but again, liberals are worse. At least Republican spending buys us something. Liberal spending just kind of ends up flushed down the toilet.
This is where I diverge from the big-L libertarian. I believe fully in the military under civilian control, as we have now. Big military is what protects us. I know I got some libertarian criticism for expressing a possibility of needing a draft, but I defend it like this: in our society now, if it were to suddenly become libertarian, would still have to deal with leftist assholes that value their personal safety over the greater good. There seem to be a lot of these. So in the short term, yeah, we may need a draft – I didn’t say definitely. Of course, were we already a well versed libertarian country, then a just war would have the volunteers that are required. For all you Iraq haters, we do have enough volunteers. Yeah, they’ve recalled some people in specialized fields, but that’s not a wholesale draft.
Where’s a good example of corporate welfare that doesn’t involve taxes? I don’t mean farm subsidies, which I am against. And our bad Republican screwed up on steel tarifs, but did the right thing. But that’s taxes; not welfare.
In principal, I’m against this. But then it will never affect me, so I don’t care. Well, I don’t mean that, but it’s expedient to overlook it.
Well, yeah! What would the Democrats have done that wouldn’t have been worse?
This annoys me as much as the people who claim that anarchists are all about bombs. If you’re going to participate in a conversation about political parties, especially in GQ, don’t misrepresent what the parties stand for, at least not deliberately. If you believe that “abortion is good” or “meat is bad” is a platform of the Democratic party, I’d be interested in a cite. I’m not entirely sure what “gaydom” is, so I don’t know if that one needs a cite or not.
I never suggested that you vote for a Democrat. All i said was that you’re kidding yourself if you believe that the Repubicans are even remotely concerned with libertarian principles in their everyday policymaking.
Again, i never made any observation about Gore. But again, your rationale sounds like nothing but sophistry.
Now you’re just sounding silly, and are either obviously unaware of the facts or are deliberately misrepresenting them.
People who support gay rights need not have any particular notion that “gaydom is good.” All we ask is that gays be allowed to enjoy the same liberties and civil rights as the rest of us. I similarly hold no particular notion about whether “straightdom” is good or bad; it happens to be my orientation, but i don’t think that makes it inherently better or worse than “gaydom.” By the way, is “gaydom” sort of like a kingdom, except for homos? Maybe it’s Canada? Your choice of phrase is really rather silly.
Your “abortion is good” accusation is simply offensive. I know many people who support reproductive freedom, but who would never make the argument that abortion is, in itself, a good thing. It might be necessary at times. It might be the best option on many occasions. But i don’t think “good” is a term that Democrats often use to describe it. Of the people i know who’ve had abortions, every one of them feels very strongly that they made the right decision and that they deserved the right to make that decision. But none of them took the decision lightly, and none of them described the experience as good.
“Meat is bad.” Now you’re really sounding deluded. I move in circles of people who are generally left or liberal, and i know that virtually every one of my friends voted Democrat last week. And guess what? No more than ten percent of my friends are vegetarians; the rest like nothing better than a nicely-cooked steak or a juicy burger. You’ll have to point out to me where vegetarianism became part of the Democratic platform.
And once again, you miss the point. I never said you should vote Democrat, or agree with liberals. If all you’ve got is “The Republicans aren’t quite as bad…” then you’ve built your political allegiances on pretty shaky ground.
Personally, i think people who support the Patriot Act are just as guilty of valuing their own safety over the greater good. With the added problem that the Patriot Act compromises their liberties without actually making them any safer. I guess it depends which liberties you really care about, huh?
And you’d better be careful with your rhetoric. If you start complaining about those who value their own interests over the “greater good,” people will start mistaking you for a Democrat. Or even a socialist.
I see. So is it only libertarians who know well enough when to enlist in order to keep the country secure? I seem to remember plenty of leftists and liberals signing up for service in World War Two, when there really was a threat to Americans’ liberty and security. You might believe that the Iraq War constitutes another such instance, but many people do not, and the fact that they don’t share your view does not make them cowards, as you imply.
Well, you just answered your own question. Farm subsidies are a perfect example, especially considering that most of them nowdays go not to “mom and pop” operations, but to corporate agribusiness. The awarding of no-bid contracts to companies like Haliburton is another good example. And you opened another hornets’ nest with respect to tariffs—the US is very good at preaching free trade while slapping tariffs and import duties on a variety of stuff that competes with Ameriocan business. Just ask the producers of Australian and New Zealand lamb and other meat products.
Actually, your argument suggests that you really don’t care, and that political expediency is more important to you than principles. As i said earlier in the thread, one of the things i’ve always respected about libertarians, even when i disagreed with them, was that their absolutist stance on issues of liberty was generally consistent and principled. You’re making me eat my words in that respect at least.
Another non-sequitur. I’m not asking you to justify why you’re against the Democrats. I already understand that. I’m asking you to explain what there is for a real libertarian to like about the Republicans. If your libertarian principles involve nothing more than opposing the Democrats, i submit that you aren’t really much of a libertarian.
I got a 80% economic and a 90% personal score, I used to be a hardcore Libertarian (100% on both) but went through a transformation of sorts in the past year from Libertarian -> Paleo-Libertarian (100% personal, 50% or less on economic score) -> Neo-Libertarian (80% economic, 90% personal). And I voted for Bush.
For the Patriot Act, I’ll see to that and raise you “Hate Speech” which is at least a hundred more times poisonous than the Patriot Act. Also, it’s my belief that the Fourth Amendment is useless without the Second Amendment.
It’s also interesting to note that Badnarik (382,310 votes) got fewer votes than Brown in 2000 (384,431 votes), which adjusted for turnout means that the Libertarian candidate got a much lower percentage of the vote versus 2004.
In the end, yes, there are many libertarians who voted for Bush II. Ayn Rand also exhorted her readers passionaitely to vote for Nixon rather than McGovern–because while Nixon could not be trusted to save the country, McGovern could be trusted to destroy Western Civilization.
“Domme” is a slang term in the BDSM community for “dominatrix”. Presumably a “gaydom” is a lesbian dominatrix. I leave it to the interested reader to decide whether gaydoms are good or bad.
Step back, read my post again with a lighter mind, and imagine that I’m not yelling anything that I said. Imagine a smirk on my face. Imagine a devil’s advocate type of attitude. Imagine that I’m purposely exagerating some concepts just so they’ll sink in.
No sophistry involved anywhere, but I’m trying taking it for granted that you all are smart enough to realize I’m not taking us into GQ category. So depending on how you read things…
But it’s not that your concepts haven’t sunk in with me. It’s just that you’re making a very weak case for them. Even if you are playing devil’s advocate, your devil’s position is still built on a particularly poor argument.
First, i’ve made no argument in favour of hate speech legislation. In fact, i don’t like it and think that it’s counterproductive.
Also, like Balthisar, you will continue to remain rather unconvincing if all you have to offer is that there might be something worse than the Patriot Act.
Finally, your belief that hate speech is “at least a hundred more times poisonous” suggests that you have little idea of the curbs on liberty encompassed by the Patriot Act.
My Social Studies Teacher once gave us this half-witted[his own comment] rule of thumb: Conservatives believe in no economic restraints, but in social restraints. Liberals believe in social restraints but in economic restraints. Libertarians believe in no economic or social restraints. Communists believe in economic and social restraints.
:rolleyes:
:dubious:
:eek:
