liberal or libertarian

[talldave]

So I have a great sympathy for both liberals and libertarians. The question I have is which group do I most closely resemble?

Let me start by saying where I stand. Here's my "manefesto", here's what I think:

I consider myself to be a liberal, an "Al Franken" liberal. I listen to Air America on an almost daily basis. I watch the Daily Show almost every night there's a new episode.

I'm a skeptic. I'm a physics and math instructor. I believe in science. I enjoy watching Penn and Teller's series "BS". I've read almost every book James Randi's written.

I think there is most probably life outside of Earth. I also think that is has most probably not visited us. I also think it is really dumb to think that they are interested in anal probes or making pretty patterns in crops.

I'm uncomfortable with some of our nation's zeal to make the federal government into the morality police.

I think prostitution should be legalized and well regulated (and even unionized), even though I would never pay for sex and would be sad if any girl I cared about entered that profession.

I think pot should be legal, even though I'm a teetotaler. I think a sensible and scientific standard should be established to decide whether a drug is legal or not. I think sending someone to prison for pot is not only excessive, but a waste of money. I think prohibitions do nothing but fund organized crime.

I think minimum sentencing requirements are a violation of separation of powers since they deprive judges of being able to use their good judgement. I think judges should be given more latitude in sentencing, not less.

I can, at the same time, think something is bad and not necesarily want a law enacted to punish it. A law should require a higher standard and should look to whether something is a predatory act.

It drives me nuts that we have a President that claims that the jury "is still out" on evolution and creationism. It makes me feel like we're bring up the tail end of western civilization.

I am equally saddened by those that think God healed them and those that think quartz crystals healed them. I think applying magnets to sore muscles is silly. I think convincing diabetics to throw away their insulin because they are "healed" is criminal and should be prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

I think Ann Coulter is awful. I think she is more likely to be Andy Kaufman than to relate credible facts.

I like sci-fi shows with people with super-powers, except when they are "based on a true story", then they lose me.

I think some people are rich because they are smart, talented and savvy. I think some people are rich because they are plutocrats and a cancer on the face of humanity.

I think Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole are crimes against humanity. (Not really, but they offend me.)

I think the U.S. being good friends with any country that treats women as second class citizens is bad on principle. I think theocracy is the worst form of government and it is fundanmentally a bad idea to be allied with any.

I think cutting down trees in tree farms is sensible, especially if selective cutting is used. Spiking trees is not only criminal, but wrong and stupid. How much better would it have been to have the loggers on the side of sane environmentalists? Well, that will never happen now, even though loggers are the first to want good forest management. Being a logger is skilled labor and bad forest management could be quickly and easily ended by a logger's union. I think the logging in the U.S. should not be equivocated with the environmental destruction of the slash and burn farming of the Brazilian rain forests.

I think Fox News has about as much crediblity and objectivity on American politics as J. Jonah Jameson has on Spider-man.

I think the "myth of parity" that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to deceiving the American people appeals to those who want to feel wise and above the fray, but is in fact pure sophistry. The fake news the Republicans are producing these days leads me to ask, "if you have to fake it, do you deserve the job in the first place?"

I think we should have a President that we look at and say "man, that guy is really smart, that's such a good idea."

I think Social Security privatization is a bad idea for the same reason the FDIC is a good idea.

I think the 2000 recession that President Bush "inherited" was triggered by Enron pillaging the California Energy economy. This was led by Ken Lay, who seems to be a friend of President Bush. I think the Enron guys were a billion times worse than anything Martha Stewart did.

I think paying people to gather signatures for a petition may be a subversion of democracy.

I think either Colin Powell or Senator McCain would make better Presidents than the one we have now.

I think the Monica thing was the business of exactly three people.

I think Janet Jackson's boob appearance deserves a collective yawn, not the media frenzy that ensued. It's a boob: get over it.

I think Fire and Police departments should have a sensible height and weight requirement, but should not limit the job by explicit gender rules.

I think Scientology is nuts.

I think convincing starving people that genetically modified crops are poison is criminal. I also think that Monsanto's business model is predatory to say the very least.

I think the ACLU and Amnesty International do good work.

I think we should work to end diseases in the world because it's the right thing to do and because it will keep the diseases from mutating and biting us on the ass later.

I think the Taliban was our mess and and our responsibility to clean up; I've thought so before 9/11 when that mess was key in biting us in the ass.

I think the U.S. could be truly heroic, but pretending like we haven't done some awful things isn't a step in that direction. Trying to take credit in democratic advances we have nothing to do with only serves to discredit that movement, hindering the spread of democracy.

So there it is. There's my rant. Looking at it, it seems to me that I could easily qualify as either a liberal or a libertarian. But I know I don't qualify as a neocon. I also think liberals and libertarians have far more in common than either has with neocons.


David

 

[RandFan]

I think the "myth of parity" that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to deceiving the American people appeals to those who want to feel wise and above the fray, but is in fact pure sophistry. The fake news the Republicans are producing these days leads me to ask, "if you have to fake it, do you deserve the job in the first place?"

Can you demonstrate that Republicans are more likely to deceive than Democrats? Do you believe that Republican ideology is inherently bad or do you just believe that it is the current state of affairs that Republicans are more deceptive than Democrats.

I find liberal and conservative ideology to be at odds with libertarianism. Both seek to limit freedom via government.

 

[crimresearch]

I would say that your desire to use the full force of law against those with whom you disagree would disqualify you as a libertarian...but there is always the Libertarian Party, which has similar notions, at least as expressed by their candidates.

You would of course have to get over that silly science bias and start drinking colloidal silver in mass quantities.

 

[Rouser2]

>>I would say that your desire to use the full force of law against those with whom you disagree would disqualify you as a libertarian...but there is always the Libertarian Party, which has similar notions, at least as expressed by their candidates.<<


And just who and what would that be???

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by talldave [/i]

>>I think Social Security privatization is a bad idea for the same reason the FDIC is a good idea.<<

Well at least that is consistent with your love of science fiction -- being that you in one sentence support a continuing Ponzi scheme called Social Security and and buy into fictional bank deposit insurance which in reality is nothing more than a sticker on the bank's window. Libertarians do not buy into either fiction.

 

[Darat]

>>I would say that your desire to use the full force of law against those with whom you disagree would disqualify you as a libertarian...but there is always the Libertarian Party, which has similar notions, at least as expressed by their candidates.<<


And just who and what would that be???

Apparently their last presidential candidate for one, I have been led to believe these were some of his statements during his campaign:

"b) Declare that all 20,000+ gun control laws in the United States are unconstitutional and unenforceable. I would also issue a valid executive order to the BATF and other pseudo police agencies informing them that any agent who confiscates a weapon of any kind, from someone who is not currently engaged in a murder or robbery, will not only be terminated from their position, but they will also be prosecuted for violating the unalienable rights of the citizens they have sworn to protect.

c) Issue another valid executive order to my subordinates executives working for the IRS. That order would instruct them to come to work, make a pot of coffee, and begin working on their resumes' pending a federal grand jury investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code. High ranking officials from that department would be closely monitored as flight risks, pending indictments for fraud in the event that evidence proves that they knew that no statute exists that requires Americans to fill out a 1040 form and relinquish a significant percentage of their hard earned money to an unconstitutional government that refuses to operate within a budget.

e) I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. Those videos could then be used as future evidence should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again.
"

and

"The United Nations HAS no authority over our national sovereignty, and I would demonstrate that to the world in a dramatic and unmistakable way. The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.
"
"

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: liberal or libertarian

Originally posted by talldave [/i]

>>I think Social Security privatization is a bad idea for the same reason the FDIC is a good idea.<<

Well at least that is consistent with your love of science fiction -- being that you in one sentence support a continuing Ponzi scheme called Social Security and and buy into fictional bank deposit insurance which in reality is nothing more than a sticker on the bank's window. Libertarians do not buy into either fiction.

And the proponents of the Libertarian Party I've read here don’t want people to have the ability to make up their own mind if they want a social security system or not.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think a sensible and scientific standard should be established to decide whether a drug is legal or not.

How are you going to do that?

 

[Kerberos]

Apparently their last presidential candidate for one, I have been led to believe these were some of his statements during his campaign:

"b) Declare that all 20,000+ gun control laws in the United States are unconstitutional and unenforceable. I would also issue a valid executive order to the BATF and other pseudo police agencies informing them that any agent who confiscates a weapon of any kind, from someone who is not currently engaged in a murder or robbery, will not only be terminated from their position, but they will also be prosecuted for violating the unalienable rights of the citizens they have sworn to protect.

c) Issue another valid executive order to my subordinates executives working for the IRS. That order would instruct them to come to work, make a pot of coffee, and begin working on their resumes' pending a federal grand jury investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code. High ranking officials from that department would be closely monitored as flight risks, pending indictments for fraud in the event that evidence proves that they knew that no statute exists that requires Americans to fill out a 1040 form and relinquish a significant percentage of their hard earned money to an unconstitutional government that refuses to operate within a budget.

e) I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. Those videos could then be used as future evidence should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again.
"

and

"The United Nations HAS no authority over our national sovereignty, and I would demonstrate that to the world in a dramatic and unmistakable way. The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.
"
"

Oh, oh! Badnarik has been mentioned, I predict that this thread will die a violent and messy death.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Apparently their last presidential candidate for one, I have been led to believe these were some of his statements during his campaign

That guy would be scary if he wasn't so insignificant.

 

[shanek]

So I have a great sympathy for both liberals and libertarians. The question I have is which group do I most closely resemble?

Just curious: where do you stand on this quiz:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I consider myself to be a liberal, an "Al Franken" liberal. I listen to Air America on an almost daily basis. I watch the Daily Show almost every night there's a new episode.

FWIW, I watch The Daily Show regularly as well, as do many Libertarians, including Harry Browne. It's about the only news show that takes all the politicians—conservative and liberal—to task.

And I agree with everything you say, exept for:

I think prostitution should be legalized and well regulated (and even unionized), even though I would never pay for sex and would be sad if any girl I cared about entered that profession.

I don't understand what you mean when you say prostitution should be "regulated." If you're referring to industry self-regulation of the kind we see in the parts of Nevada where prostitution is legal, then I agree.

I think some people are rich because they are smart, talented and savvy. I think some people are rich because they are plutocrats and a cancer on the face of humanity.

I agree with this, however, there is one big difference I see: regardless of whether the rich are savvy or power-hungry, they know how to handle money. Otherwise, they wouldn't be rich. Whereas poor people tend to be poor because they don't know how to handle money, and so they don't take advantage of the real benefits that are there for them and they end up losing money on things that are just bad ideas. A lot of people in trailer parks around here are making more money than I am and have very little to show for it.

I think Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole are crimes against humanity. (Not really, but they offend me.)

I think the U.S. being good friends with any country that treats women as second class citizens is bad on principle. I think theocracy is the worst form of government and it is fundanmentally a bad idea to be allied with any.

I think cutting down trees in tree farms is sensible, especially if selective cutting is used. Spiking trees is not only criminal, but wrong and stupid.

Do you agree that the spiking pretty much takes place on government land, while the private tree farms and forests are much more well-maintained?

How much better would it have been to have the loggers on the side of sane environmentalists?

Just ask Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace. He'd love nothing more.

And there are many such cases. For example, one of the executives at Weyerhauser is a VP of the World Wildlife Fund.

Of course, that doesn't make for a great political movement...

I think Social Security privatization is a bad idea for the same reason the FDIC is a good idea.

Can you clarify? Do you mean true privatization (like url=http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/SocialSecurity.htm]this idea advocated by Harry Browe[/url]) or Bush-esque pseudo-privatization?

I think the 2000 recession that President Bush "inherited" was triggered by Enron pillaging the California Energy economy. This was led by Ken Lay, who seems to be a friend of President Bush. I think the Enron guys were a billion times worse than anything Martha Stewart did.

I agree. Do you agree that they were able to do what they did because of the so-called "deregulation" (which was nothing more than re-regulation) of the California power system? In fact, I would go so far as to say that it actually encouraged them to do this.

I think paying people to gather signatures for a petition may be a subversion of democracy.

Why? We're talking about gathering petitions, not voting. Have you ever been involved in a petition drive?

I think either Colin Powell or Senator McCain would make better Presidents than the one we have now.

I agree, but then, I think Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would make a better President than the one we have now...

"I think HR418 is a very good bill...for me to poop on!" Now that's a veto!

I think we should work to end diseases in the world because it's the right thing to do and because it will keep the diseases from mutating and biting us on the ass later.

I agree. But do you think people should have their money taken from them by force in order to pay for it?

 

[CFLarsen]

That guy would be scary if he wasn't so insignificant.

Good ol' Americans. At least they don't vote for Libertarians (0% and dropping)...

 

[shanek]

Apparently their last presidential candidate for one, I have been led to believe these were some of his statements during his campaign:

These are examples of the President ordering his executives not to violate the Constitution, something that is sorely needed. How on Earth does that constitute "[using] the full force of law against those with whom you disagree"?

 

[CFLarsen]

These are examples of the President ordering his executives not to violate the Constitution, something that is sorely needed. How on Earth does that constitute "[using] the full force of law against those with whom you disagree"?

No, these are examples of the President ordering his executives not to violate the Constitution as he understands it.

Which is pure mind control.

 

[Donks]

These are examples of the President ordering his executives not to violate the Constitution, something that is sorely needed. How on Earth does that constitute "[using] the full force of law against those with whom you disagree"?

Regarding point e) on the list, does the President have the power to require Congress to do anything?

 

[shanek]

Regarding point e) on the list, does the President have the power to require Congress to do anything?

Article II Section 3 gives him the power to convene and preside over a joint session of Congress. Congress is bound by Article VI Clause 3 to take an oath supporting the Constitution, and as the President is charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States (Article II Section 1 Clause 8 and Article II Section 3), the Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI Section 2), then he most certainly has the power to make them swear the oath.

 

[Donks]

Article II Section 3 gives him the power to convene and preside over a joint session of Congress. Congress is bound by Article VI Clause 3 to take an oath supporting the Constitution, and as the President is charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States (Article II Section 1 Clause 8 and Article II Section 3), the Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI Section 2), then he most certainly has the power to make them swear the oath.

Are Congressmen required to assist to a joint session convened by the president?
Does the oath for members of Congress say that they must support the Constitution, or that they must support the President's interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[Kerberos]

Article II Section 3 gives him the power to convene and preside over a joint session of Congress. Congress is bound by Article VI Clause 3 to take an oath supporting the Constitution, and as the President is charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States (Article II Section 1 Clause 8 and Article II Section 3), the Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI Section 2), then he most certainly has the power to make them swear the oath.

They already swore it once, there's nothing in the Constitution that allows him to force them to reswear it.

 

[shanek]

Are Congressmen required to assist to a joint session convened by the president?

According to current House rules, yes.

Does the oath for members of Congress say that they must support the Constitution, or that they must support the President's interpretation of the Constitution?

They must support the Constitution. But understanding the President's Constitutional views will give them an idea of what laws he will consider uncosntitutional and, therefore, refuse to execute.

 

[Darat]

Oh, oh! Badnarik has been mentioned, I predict that this thread will die a violent and messy death.

I wouldn’t have brought him up but someone seemed not to know what the "Big L" party was about. Perhaps we should codify a new internet law akin to "Godwin's Law".