Monkeybot

IIRC there are civil libertarians and economic libertarians. The former support less government regulation in social issues, the latter support less gov't regulation in economic issues. I could see where one might be a civil libertarian and, say, a socialist at the same time.

Melkor

It's still not a very consistent platform to be standing on.... it basically says that "it's wrong to use force or coercion because liberties and freedoms are too important".

While at the same time it says "it's okay to use force and coercion where OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY is concerned".


I've never understood the position of some on the left who detest the right for trying to use government to impose their moral world view on everyone.... but when you ask the left why it's okay to use government to take wealth from some and give it to others, it's "the right thing to do".

In other words, it's not okay for people they disagree with to impose their morals on everyone via the government, but it's okay for THEM to.

Myself, I've always tried to be as consistent as possible. If government sucks at trying to impose morality, then one shouldn't use it for such purposes, civilly or economically. It's a lot easier to argue from such a position as well, since one part of the LP platform doesn't blatantly contradict any other parts of it.

seanie

It's not inconsistent. It stems from a recognition that the economic structure of the system itself restricts freedoms and liberties.

Therefore we wish to take measures to redress this.

To comfort the afflicted we afflict the comfortable.

Melkor

So, like I said.... it advocates the use of force only against those with whom you morally disagree.

Melkor

In a system where there are no real property rights, one is basically a slave.

Personally, I find it much more consistent to advocate freedom across the board rather than just one or the other. Taken to its logical conclusion, removal of economic freedoms basically leads to a pretty dismal scenario.

seanie

Kinda inherent in any democratic sytem dontcha think?

After all the libertarian right is seeking to promote a particular poilitcal economic system in opposition to my wishes ain't it.

moon

This is meaningless. What do you mean by property rights? The right to personal possessions, or the right of Bill Gates to own Microsoft?
Freedom for whom? That is the crucial question.

Under capitalism, or any class system, one class rules over another. Freedom "across the board" makes no sense in this case, since one group is in charge, while the rest are left to sell themselves in order to survive. Thus, freedom "across the board" really means freedom for the ruling class.

Happy Wonderer

That just might show that people are attempting to think for themselves and that this forum isn't just an echo chamber? Give people credit where credit is due. Kudos to people on either (any) side who use real history to argue their points.


If one were to say that "invading Iraq would be just like when the Allies invaded Germany because the Germans violated the naval treaty, and see how much trouble that caused" I'd feel obligated to point out that the statement was incorrect historically, no matter what I thought of the poster's politics or conclusion.

HW

99Percent

Basically Harry Browne's thesis is that excessive U.S. interventionism has made things worse, not better, starting from WWI of which I believe entirely. For example he says that WWI was about to be resolved on its own yet the U.S. had to send in troops and force the issue which made Germany lose completely instead of letting European countries find a compromising solution.

moon: You are confusing economic wealth with political power. Its pretty clear that one cannot subjugate, or force people with money alone. Money ie, capital can only offer options to work to those who want to earn it.

moon

Worse for whom? It is not the case that U.S. interventionism has made things worse for the people who do the intervening. Here, again, you are treating the American people as a homogeneous mass, with the same interests and desires. For one segment of the population, U.S. imperialism's military adventures are very good; for the rest, they aren't so good. The question, as always, revolves around which class benefits and which class suffers.
It is stupid to draw a line between political and economic power. Clearly, also, one can force people to do whatever you like if you have the money.

Apart from that, though, is the nature of the state itself. The state arises exactly to the extent that there are objectively irreconcilable class antagonisms. The state is merely an organization of violence for the suppression of one class by another. The capitalist state, despite the "democratic" veneer, is a mechanism for protecting the dictatorship of the owning class. Political and economic power are inseparable.