You must have missed my later post:
Clearer now?
To clarify further: You stated that a Republican-leaning poster who is socially and economically libertarian is libertarian, not conservative. You then suggested that a Democrat-leaning poster who is socially and economically libertarian would be libertarian, not liberal, although you appeared skeptical that such a creature existed on these boards. I pointed out that by your definition, Bill Clinton and the DLC, while admittedly not SDMB posters, were libertarian, not liberal…and thus maybe saying “well, most of the conservatives on these boards are more libertarian than conservative, anyway,” really isn’t saying much of anything, if the mainstream of the “liberal” party in this country could also so be characterized.
“If” they could be characterized that way, which I don’t think they can. Does the DLC propose:
eliminating the minimum wage
a flat income tax
privatizing (or partially privatizing) social security
dramtically reducing the size of the federal budget
Those are the kind of radical economic positions that many of the so-called conservatives on this board, like Sam Stone, typically favor. While the DLC can’t be characterized as anti-business in the way that someone like Dennis. Kucinich could be, to call their economic positions “libertarian” simply isn’t accurate.
sigh You asked about someone being a “strong free market type.” This is a far cry from holding “radical economic positions.” You stated that:
Is it your contention that many of the “conservative” posters here hold radical economic positions? And if they do, doesn’t that invalidate your objection to a characterization of this board as centrist? That is, if the liberal posters here, like the “liberal” leaders of the Democratic party, by and large do not hold radical economic positions – if they have a healthy respect for the free market and “market-based solutions” combined with a belief that government regulation has a legitimate, if optimally minimal, place – doesn’t that make it these libertarian “conservatives” who are skewing this board away from mainstream American beliefs, and not the liberals?
Again, the position of the DLC:
So no, it’s not radical. That’s the point.
Would you feel better if I had said “really, really, REALLY strong free market type”?
For crying our loud, you’re making a semantic mountain out of a molehill. In the end, if you can find some posters here who are often called “liberal” by other posters but who could more accurately be called “libertarian”, tell us who they are. I can name plenty of posters who are typically called “conservative” but who could just as easily by called libertarian, starting with me and moving on to folks like Sam Stone, Lemu866, XTISME, and even Bricker or Shodan.
You’re tlaking about 2 completely different things. My objection to this board being called centrist has more to do with not even knowing what that word means in the context of characterizing this board. See my post in response to Bricker (#271) for details on that.
Secondly, I never said that libertarians weren’t skewing this board-- in fact I’ve explicitly said that they were. They skew it away from social conservatism, which is pretty comon in America, but is almost nonexistant on this board. That doesn’t mean that the liberals here also can’t be responsible for skewing the board as well. I expect that the “liberals” here, in aggregate, would be to the left of a random sample of American “liberals”, which makes perfect sense considering the many Eropeans, Canadians, Australians and other non-Americans who post here.
See it? I fucking quoted it.
I’ll respond more level-headedly later; I’m in a really foul mood for reasons which have nothing to do with this thread. I will say that “left-libertarians” – of which I am one, and which I characterize in my most recent post – are at least as common, both on this board and in the US, as are “right-libertarians,” even if you expand your definition to include people like Bricker and Shodan, who are about as solidly conservative as they come. “Left-libertarians” are never going to advocate the elimination of the minimum wage or of all environmental regulations, because they (or at least I) believe these things increase individual liberty. Which is a reasonable position that doesn’t require a slavish devotion to big government, or centralized government, or government in general, and which leaves plenty of room in which the market can and should maneuver. It’s just not a right-libertarian position – so to the extent you’re asking me to find someone who’s considered liberal but who holds radically right-libertarian positions, it’s a self-evidently null set.
With the “left-libertarian” caveat from above, off the top of my head:
Myself
Kimstu
jshore
wring
mhendo
Hentor the Barbarian
Maeglin
minty green
Hamlet
(If I’m wrong about any of the aforementioned, my apologies; I’m working from my own impressions and a minute or so of thought. These are the people who came most readily to mind.)
I don’t think it’s a particularly uncommon set of beliefs.
The only folks on that list with whom I am familair are minty, jshore and kimstu. If they are “libertarian”, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. The last two have explicitly slammed libertarians on this board. One of them, can’t even remember which, said something like “libertarians are morally bankrupt”. But hey, bring 'em in here and let’s see if the self-describe as libertarian. That would be very interesting.
Do you grant my distinction between left-libertarian and right-libertarian? Do you acknowledge the validity of the cohort I describe, even if, arguendo, Kimstu and jshore don’t belong within it (though I think they do)?
Will you pretty please address the long-ass paragraph from my previous post?
So have I. Muchly. The kind of libertarians I have slammed are those with the radical right-libertarian positions, the kind who, for better or worse, have appropriated the popular mantle of “libertarianism” in this country. The fact that those libertarians, or some watered-down version thereof, are the capital-L Libertarians in this country, doesn’t mean that left-libertarians are not a gen-yoo-wine breed. I’m almost certain that Kimstu, at least, will say as much as well.
Oh, and Little Nemo, too.
I don’t understand the left/right-lib construct. In traditional classification schemes, “right” means socially and economically conservative and left means socially and economically liberal. Libertarians, roughly speaking, are socially liberal and economically conservative. What are the economic principles of the left-libertarians? What specific tax policy do they advocate, for instance? I especially don’t understand the idea thatthe min wage increases freedom. It might increase economic equality, but that isn’t freedom. The hallmark of a libertarian approach is eschew coercion and to not interfere with voluntary agreements between adults. No?
I know it wasn’t directed at me, but I’m gonna jump in here. I don’t think you can make a blanket statement like, “economic equality isn’t freedom”. That’s completely subjective. I most certainly have more freedom when I make a living wage. Look at any society - the destitute always have the least freedom, while the wealthy have the most. Don’t misconstrue this as advocating communism; I only intend it as a refutation of your blanket statement.
To “eschew coercion” is also open to interpretation. Coercion takes many forms; often it manifests itself in an employer using the threat of termination as leverage to treat the employee unfairly. If the employee needs the job to survive, and quitting isn’t a realistic option, then it’s in reality not a “voluntary agreement”. For example, “Work overtime for no pay or you’re fired”, is not a voluntary agreement any more than “Give me 50 thousand dollars or I’ll kill your wife” is a voluntary agreement.
I’ve certainly read posts from Libertarians here who advocate reducing government regulation without necessarily eliminating it. I don’t think that makes them not Libertarians.
Great post, IDCAYC; thanks for stepping into the fray. I’m in complete agreement.
More later, when I’m off work and after my date.
No, the wealthy don’t have more “freedom”, they have more “opportunity”. Those are two completely different things.
Of course it is. A person’s survival is rarely, if ever, tied to one particular job. Suppose the employer says: “work overtime for no pay or I’ll shut down my business”. Is the employer obligated to keep his business open? If I accept your argument, I have to say “yes”-- ie, that closing down a business is a form of coercion. That’s absurd. In fact, forcing the business owner to remain open IS a form of coercion.
I wouldn’t argue with that, and that’s one reason why I’m a small “l” libertarian and not a large “L” Libertarian.
I disagree.
I currently reside in a Third World Nation and I only need look out the window to confirm the above definition.
How so? From where I’m sitting, the two terms seem pretty much interchangable, within the context of this debate.
In this country? Sure. Of course, we live in a society that is both wealthy and free. Part of that is because, IMO, we have things like labor laws and a minimum wage.
I’d say that yes, that is definetly coercion. Wether it is unlawful, unethical, or immoral coercion is a seperate issue, but I don’t see anything absurd about your example. If a General Motors plant is trying to unionize, and GM says “Knock it off, or we’ll close the plant down and move it to Taiwan,” how is that NOT coercion?
In the context of a libertarian political discussion, it makes no sense to separate “coercion” from “physical coercion”. If you want to redefine “coercion” in that way, then almost anyone is a libertarian, and that term ceases to have any meaning.
In other words, you won’t get a libertarian to admit that anything short of having a gun pressed to your forehead is coercion, unless you press a gun to his or her forehead.
I’m down with that.
But before warm milk and cookies? 
You know what? If you don’t like the word “coercion”, then pick another word that means “physical threat to life, limb or property”. But honestly, that’s all I have to say on the subject. We’ve been over this a number of times in GD, and doing it again here just ain’t all the exciting. If you’re interested in an honest debate, open a GD thread on the subject since it’s a hijack of this thread anyway.
Ah, the golden time, between first meeting and the restraining order,