Libertarian vs. Conservative vs. Liberal vs. Whatever -- The Egalitarian Rumble, Redux

[filkertom]

We did this awhile ago, and after the two posts yesterday it seems to be on again. Keep it polite, no personal zingers, and may the best philosophy or combination thereof save the country.

Comments

[lizziecrowe.livejournal.com]

Barg barg. I honestly don't mind others' views as long as they do nit infringe on the non-negotiable human/civil rights of others. All people have a right to build their lives and live those lives in the way that works best for them. But it becomes the biggest problem when someone somewhere tells other people how they should and should not exist. This is why I'm a charter member of the First Church of Leave Each Other the Fick Alone.'

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I offer a perhaps-useful scale of political positions, from radical right to radical left.

1 - Grover Norquist (Radical-right activist and policy theorist.)
2 - Orrin Hatch (Conservative Senator from Utah. He may actually be somewhat to the right of this.)
3 - Nancy Pelosi (near the actual center of the US population measured by neutral polling, see (http://mediamatters.org/reports/progmaj/).)
4 - Bernie Sanders (democratic socialist Senator from Vermont.)
5 - Noam Chomsky (Radical-left anarchist whose politics are similar to, though more nuanced than, Leslie Fish's)

Take-aways here:
a. The scale is broader than most people realize.
b. Most US political discourse is in the 2-3 region, though we see some substantial dips into the 1-2 region.
c. What are called "centrists" fall at perhaps 2.5. They are at the center of discourse, not the center of political philosophy.
d. Obama is a centrist.
e. The Republicans have a far-right faction, including Norquist himself.
f. There is no major US far left. The Democrats do not have a far left faction, despite all claims to the countrary.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I distrust the right-wing bias the above scale reveals. I believe there are many useful policy solutions in the 3-4 area of that scale that we are not adopting, out of fear.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

Do you want to live in the United States or in a collection of fiefdoms? The US has laws that apply to everyone equally and a means of keeping itself in check. Fiefdoms ("counties") are tiny nations where the laws vary and if you're in the minority you can find yourself on the wrong end of law enforcement with no recourse. As a country the US has done things like put a man on the moon, create the internet, manage disaster relief, completed monumental projects like Hoover Dam and the Interstate Highway System. Counties are lucky if they can hold a successful fair once a year.

SO yes, a country is better than a county.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

As a Brit I sometimes doubt the USA has a Left faction, let alone a far left faction.

[valkyrwench.livejournal.com]

What I don't understand, and would love somebody to give me a *rational* reason for is this - if we're so hot to shove Democracy down the throats of other countries, and theocracy is Bad, why is the Republican right so hell-bent on turning this country into a theocracy? And why are we letting the majority make moral judgments on the minority - why are they being allowed to ignore the constitution on a religious whim?

I would love it if somebody could give me a thoughtful, reasoned, rational answer to the above. Something other than "They're going to hell, it's in the bible", or "because God said so".

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Ascyooz pliss.

Would like to point out that the most recent space innovations have come from private companies, the Internet as we know it has been privately run for profit since the mid '90's, and the best disaster relief is not FEMA, but NGO's like Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross. Governments are good at research, but once the basic tech is established, they generally suck at large-scale implementation. Which is why they generally hire such things out. Hoover Dam? Bechtel. The Interstates? A bazillion local and regional contracting companies. FEMA? Not hired out, and a *disaster* itself. See also, Katrina.

This is not to say that businesses do everything better. BP, Enron, AIG, GM, etc. ad nauseum. *That* is what government is for, is to make sure those cats' damage is as limited as possible. It's when government has been captured by the likes of those that you're in deep doo-doo. Oh, wait...

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

You'll forgive me, but as a card-carrying rational anarchist I'm just whooping with laughter at the idea of an ideological cage-fight to determine who's best.

Go to it guys and gals... and may chaos take you all!

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Power.

And it's not really about theocracy if you study it carefully. It's really got jack-all to do with what any rabbi (or imam or preacher or guru) said. It's about consolidating power in the hands of them with the bucks, to make sure they have more, and we pay it. Look at the message of any of those megachurch shows (if you have the stomach). What's the real underlying message? Gimme all your money.

And what with governmental capture, and the rise of the Permanent Incumbent Party, I'm not real sure how to fight it. It can be fought; we know this because we know names like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel. But right now it's mighty tough.

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

"card-carrying . . . anarchist" is the best oxymoron I've seen in a while. Thanks for the laugh.

(No, that wasn't snark, it was a genuine compliment. I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to be using the phrase with conscious irony.)

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

WRT 5a there:

The Fish is neither Left nor Right, but Up. Lefties in general don't believe in guns or rugged individualism; the Fish is *hardcore* about *both*. See also, Heinlein's early-to-middling work (Starship Troopers through Stranger; the best of it WRT governmental viewpoints is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which really needs a movie made of it as a training film, but Hollywood would never stand for it). The Fish, Radical? Yes. Lefty? I wouldn't say that anywhere within range...

[umbran.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that philosophy won't save the world. Reason, evidence, backed by human empathy - that's what'll save the world.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

*grins*

Yuppers. Although you'd be surprised how often that goes unnoticed.

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

I'm well aware of, and tend to agree with, the old saw that democracy is the worst system in the world, except for all the others. In other words, yes, there are big flaws, but I'm not ready to scrap everything without a whole lot of convincing.

So I'm asking this question out of genuine interest. Can any of the libertarians out there give me historical precedents? Has there, at any time in human history, been a successful (i.e., stable and enduring for at least a couple of generations) nation that was based on libertarian principles?

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, but there have to be underlying principles that interpret the evidence and direct reason and empathy, leading to action.

[hanabishirecca.livejournal.com]

I lean towards both libertarian and liberal in my political standing. If humans weren't so damn selfish, it wouldn't matter if there were little to no regulation. But, because humans are selfish, we need to have regulations in place.

I think that the government should have the power to swift come in and slap the hell out of a business for acts that take advantage or knowingly harm of individuals. For example, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 is a great bill to go out and support right now. If passed, it gives the FDA the ability to regulate shampoo, soaps, and cosmetics the same way the regular medical equipment. Many companies knowingly use chemicals that are cancer causing agents.

At the same time, the regulations should not go a step beyond. There is a case before the Supreme Court right now about the right to sell violent video games to minors. Buying a violent video game does not cause anyone harm and it should not be restricted under any circumstances.

The same goes for gun control. I fall very conservative in this category. Almost all gun related deaths are both drug related and involved the use of an illegally owned firearm. Those that are not, typically are domestic violence. In the side of me that leans more liberal, I point out at this point that by providing more supports to people in our country, we can reduce these incidents dramatically. Most couples experience difficulties due to financial problems. A system that is in place to help families get on their feet and offers affordable mental health coverage can help prevent these incidents from happening.

[phillip2637.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if this is generally true, but I've lately heard people with widely different political views all claim to be in the center. This may be an expansion of your point a), where people can only see distinctions for a small "distance" to their own left or right and everything beyond that is a lump called 'extremists'.

I think this has implications for whether issues are discussed rationally or not, but that's far too subtle for my brain at the moment. :-)

[phillip2637.livejournal.com]

My main problem with the labels is that they are often used to imply beliefs in one domain based on stated beliefs in an unrelated domain. There may be some statistical relationship involving religion, military, finance, civil rights, and all the other things that political activity touches but too often the correlation assumptions are used even at an individual level.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

The most successful intellectual processes known to man allow* the evidence to tell us what the underlying principles are, not the other way around.

All ideological sides have the basic problem that their ideology does not match real-world conditions well at all.




* with some time, experiment, trial and error, and churning, admittedly.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I've got a fairly simple ideology: Everyone's part of the human family. Try not to hurt anyone; try to help people where I can. Don't steal, not even to help someone else. Do my best to tell the truth, and find more truth. Mind my business, clean things up, get along.

It works pretty well. I may not have money, power, or the latest cool toys, but I feel good about myself and have a lot of friends whom I care about, who care about me. Which is what I think is what matters.

[sveethot.livejournal.com]

I've lived in a kingdom 30+ years ago, which although it is a "moderate" Middle Eastern country was sadly missing some of the rights we take for granted. Not a democracy and if you didn't like, too bad. Keep your big yap shut unless you felt like redecorating a prison cell.

There: Not a theocracy, per se, but enough religion tossed in there to know I do not want to live in anyone's theocracy.

There: Freedom of speech ... not so much. So it really chafes my chaps when some people say one is not patriotic or American for disagreeing with them and their views. To the contrary, I believe one of the most patriotic things an American can do is exercise the First Amendment.

There: Women's (etc.) rights? ... fuggedaboudit. No one should be second (3rd, 4th) class citizen. Human rights apply across the board.

Now relinquishing the soap box.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Oh, there are a few. Senators Sanders and Franken; Reps Waxman and Mcdermott, etc. They're just not given much attention in the media, except in that the 1s and 2s point at them and call them dangerous 5+ kooks.

Reposted from my journal

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Contrary to popular belief, I respect and agree with some conservative ideas. Those ideas are not being advanced by the modern Republican Party, and especially not by the teatards, who continue to exhibit both the stupidest and cruelest publicly acknowledged ideas and behavior I have seen in my lifetime.

Here is a near-tragic tale of soon-to-be ex-Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC), a man kicked out of public office by teatards for being a Conservative with a fully functional brain.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/147732/gop_politician_confirms_what_was_long_suspected:_republicans_intentionally_feed_the_racism,_anger,_and_paranoia_of_the_far_right/?page=1

Maybe he has a remaining career as a blue dog Democrat, but today's GOP doesn't want him.

[tikiera.livejournal.com]

We exist darn it.

I know we don't get press, I know I often feel like the lone voice crying out into the wilderness, but the USA has a left.

I am very, very liberal.

And I exist.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

And, for an individual, that may work well. Governments are not people.

Let's take a basic bit: "Try not to hurt anyone." Seems simple, doesn't it? Until you look at how broad that really is. Either it becomes paralytic (Can't enter a defensive war because someone will be harmed) or logiced away ("Well, we are doing the gretest good for the greatest number.").

Even a major company (Google) can't use that as a philosophy. They have to go with the weaker, "Don't be evil," for a reason.