For my Libertarian friends

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Capitalism needs to be tempered with Socialism.
By the way part of my recent news of the day posting bears repeating here:
Jim Hightower: Enter the Real Populists
Excerpt:
"Few people today call themselves populists, but I think most are. I'm not talking about the recent political outbursts by confused, used and abused tea-bag ranters who've been organized by corporate front groups to spread a hatred of government.

Rather, I mean the millions of ordinary Americans in every state who're battling the real power that's running roughshod over us: out-of-control corporations. With their oceans of money and their hired armies of lobbyists and lawyers, these self-serving, autocratic entities operate from faraway executives suites and Washington backrooms to rig the economic and governmental rules so that they can capture an ever-bigger share of America's money and power.

You can yell yourself red-faced at Congress critters you don't like and demand a government so small that it'd fit in the backroom of Billy Bob's Bait Shop and Sushi Stand, but you won't be touching the corporate and financial powers behind the throne. In fact, weak government is the political wet dream of corporate chieftains, which is why they're so ecstatic to have the tea party out front for them. But the real issue isn't small government, it's good government. (Can I get an amen from Gulf Coast fishing families on that!?)

It's necessary to restate the solid principles of populism and reassert its true spirit, because both are now being severely perverted by corporate manipulators and a careless media establishment. To these debasers of the language, any politicos or pundits who tap into any level of popular anger (toward Barack Obama, liberals, the IRS, poor people, unions, gays, immigrants, Hollywood, community organizers, environmentalists et al.) get a peel-off "populist" label slapped onto their lapels -- even when their populist pose is funded by and operates as a front for one or another corporate interest. That's not populism, it's rank hucksterism -- disguising plutocrats as champions of the people."

Edited by Slartibartfast - June 24 2010 at 12:18

I have to wonder what would have happened to Rand Paul if he had supported drug legalization in his comments rather than restaurants being able to refuse service to people because of their skin color...

Edited by Slartibartfast - June 24 2010 at 12:18

horsewithteeth11 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I have to wonder what would have happened to Rand Paul if he had supported drug legalization in his comments rather than restaurants being able to refuse service to people because of their skin color... He's for the legalization of medical marijuana actually.

You wouldn't know that from the media, but I thought the official libertarian position was for not just the legalization of medical pot but all recreational drugs in general.

Slartibartfast wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I have to wonder what would have happened to Rand Paul if he had supported drug legalization in his comments rather than restaurants being able to refuse service to people because of their skin color... He's for the legalization of medical marijuana actually. You wouldn't know that from the media, but I thought the official libertarian position was for not just the legalization of medical pot but all recreational drugs in general.

Indeed it is! We can disapprove of something without seeking a government ban on it. People should be free to choose what they put into their own bodies.

Captain Clutch wrote: Man of mystery that video is not a legitimate source because it's mostly conservative propaganda

 

The democratic party is as right-wing as Canada's conservative party.  The reason Americans think they don't like left-wing politics and economics is that they've never actually experienced them

thellama73 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I have to wonder what would have happened to Rand Paul if he had supported drug legalization in his comments rather than restaurants being able to refuse service to people because of their skin color... He's for the legalization of medical marijuana actually. You wouldn't know that from the media, but I thought the official libertarian position was for not just the legalization of medical pot but all recreational drugs in general. Indeed it is! We can disapprove of something without seeking a government ban on it. People should be free to choose what they put into their own bodies.

Thank you.

Although that being said, I would still be against legalization of hard drugs (i.e. cocaine, meth, etc.) because I feel they're more harmful for society than marijuana could ever be.


Edited by horsewithteeth11 - June 24 2010 at 16:04

JJLehto wrote:   A TRUE Libertarian would be pro choice, support gay marriage, drug legalization...government can't tall us to do nothing!

Not so.  A pro-life libertarian would say that abortion is murder, and therefore falls outside of individual liberties.

You are confusing libertarianism with total anarchism.

JJLehto wrote: But you will grant that few people seem to be TRUE libertarians? Most talk about the $$ but almost no one touches the social aspects of it. I guess the Paul's are the only politicians to do so. Most Republicans are not true libertarians in my opinion, and can you really disagree with that?

I don't disagree with it at all. I think a lot of Republicans use a few libertarian ideas simply as a tool to gain popularity, but then discard those ideas when they actually have to decide whether or not to put them into practice.

Speaking of the Pauls, here are some of Rand Paul's beliefs:

Paul believes life begins at conception and the government should play a role in protecting all human beings. He is opposed to abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act.^[69][70] In cases of rape and incest, he opposes abortion^[71] but supports use of the morning-after pill.^[72] He opposes federal funding for abortion.^[69] He takes a states' rights position, favoring the overturn of Roe vs Wade and allowing states to decide on the legality of abortions without federal interference.^[73]

Paul opposes the USA PATRIOT Act, and opposes warrantless searches and breach of individual privacy authorized by the legislation.^[77]

Paul supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education. He opposes federal regulation of homeschooling and believes in restoring parental rights to education.^[80]

Paul does not support amnesty. Paul believes the United States subsidizes illegal immigration through taxpayer funded welfare and medical care. He has proposed securing the border by an underground electric fence and helicopter stations.^[83] He opposes birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.^[84]

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.^[70]

Try finding a Republican who has the balls to say that the Patriot Act is wrong or that same-sex marriage should be left up to the states to decide. Because I certainly haven't found one yet.

^ it really depends if we're discussing "classical liberalism" i.e. the ideal American government, or "modern liberalism" i.e. what is favoured in most of the remaining democratic world