NationStates Jolt Archive

I consider myself generally liberal (on politicalcompass: -2 econ, -8 libert), but lately I've been following causes that most liberals seem to ignore, or outright oppose. Yes, we agree on gay marriage, drugs, abortion, and all other sex and religion related topics. I'm tired of debating those. The majority of the younger generation agrees with us on those issues and given time the general population will.

But there are other important social issues that get little debate. Seat belt laws. DUI roadblocks. Privacy laws. Excessive cigarette regulations. Searches without warrants. The accused's rights. Police power. Restrictions on cell phones in cars. Increasing restrictions on alcohol.

And gun rights.

The danger of our government becoming too powerful over our daily lives is never greater than when the population is in a state of fear. Knee-jerk legislation can be passed without scrutiny. The majority can oppress the minority through mob rule. Citizens are willing to sacrifice civil liberties they normally wouldn't. Government becomes closed off and distant from the population it represents. And that is the breeding ground for fascism.


Another thought on guns...Gun control has been used against left-wing groups like the Black Panther Party historically. It's not just a liberal-oppressing-the-conservative thing. It's a government-oppressing-the-citizen thing, and social liberals need to ask themselves why they're so hell-bent on regulating them out of the hands of ordinary citizens, while generally sticking up for citizen rights on most other things.

As for social conservatives, you ought to look at your reasons for fighting gun control, and see the inconsistency of trying to ban drugs, etc. The supposedly "conservative" principle of small government is a good ideal, it would be nice if you followed it in social matters as well.

As for social authoritarians, you can goosestep somewhere else.

I'm neither, I'm a bit of an all of the above person.

I believe that with a proper benevolent federal government, elected by the voter constitutency, a all huggles big brother scenerio isn't a bad thing.

But people should always privacy and certain other rights.

I support large Federal Government and small Local Government, democratically elected of course.

The asshats we have now are the fault of the voters. Period.

You got yourselves into this, stop bitching, go vote and get yourselves out.

I consider myself generally liberal (on politicalcompass: -2 econ, -8 libert), but lately I've been following causes that most liberals seem to ignore, or outright oppose. Yes, we agree on gay marriage, drugs, abortion, and all other sex and religion related topics. I'm tired of debating those. The majority of the younger generation agrees with us on those issues and given time the general population will.

But there are other important social issues that get little debate. Seat belt laws. DUI roadblocks. Privacy laws. Excessive cigarette regulations. Searches without warrants. The accused's rights. Police power. Restrictions on cell phones in cars. Increasing restrictions on alcohol.

And gun rights.

The danger of our government becoming too powerful over our daily lives is never greater than when the population is in a state of fear. Knee-jerk legislation can be passed without scrutiny. The majority can oppress the minority through mob rule. Citizens are willing to sacrifice civil liberties they normally wouldn't. Government becomes closed off and distant from the population it represents. And that is the breeding ground for fascism.


Another thought on guns...Gun control has been used against left-wing groups like the Black Panther Party historically. It's not just a liberal-oppressing-the-conservative thing. It's a government-oppressing-the-citizen thing, and social liberals need to ask themselves why they're so hell-bent on regulating them out of the hands of ordinary citizens, while generally sticking up for citizen rights on most other things.

As for social conservatives, you ought to look at your reasons for fighting gun control, and see the inconsistency of trying to ban drugs, etc. The supposedly "conservative" principle of small government is a good ideal, it would be nice if you followed it in social matters as well.

As for social authoritarians, you can goosestep somewhere else.

Hmmm. I'm not sure to which "liberals" you have been listening, but most with agree with you on many points. Some of the other "issues" you seem concerned about seem minor, at best, to me.

Seat belt laws - I'll agree most liberals are not up in arms about this minor intrusion on liberty that prevents thousands and thousands of deaths and injuries (including deaths and injuries to those who wear seatbelts but would be injured if others did not) and saves the public immense amounts of money.

DUI roadblocks - you'll find the ACLU and other "liberal" groups have opposed abuse of roadblocks.

Privacy laws. - definitely a liberal issue

Excessive cigarette regulations - what is "excessive"? are you talking about public smoking bans?

Searches without warrants. - again, something liberals fight against

The accused's rights. - something liberals fight to protect

Police power. - again, something liberals fight against. The Patriot Act isn't a liberal bastion.

Restrictions on cell phones in cars. - not really the cutting edge of liberty and not really a liberal/conservative issue

Increasing restrictions on alcohol. - not sure to what you are referring. Not exactly a big political issue for most, regardless. Liberal states do tend to have a more liberal (pun intended) attitude toward alcohol. Minors, excluded, of course.

As to guns, I will simply agree to disagree. I'm not going to debate this further here. Whether right or wrong, surely you can see why some think guns need to be regulated. Guns are inherently dangerous. A gun owner poses a risk to others. (I recognize that a gun may be a good thing and a gun owner may protect others. I am merely stating some of the reasons why one might make a distinction between wanting to regulate my and neighbors' guns but not wanting to regulate what consensual adults do in the bedroom.)

On a final note, there seems to be a fascination -- even a glorification -- of libertarianism in these forums. (Based in part on a misleading "political compass.") There are very good reasons why the Libertarian Party is little more than a joke in the US. Their positions are often laughable.

I consider myself generally liberal (on politicalcompass: -2 econ, -8 libert), but lately I've been following causes that most liberals seem to ignore, or outright oppose. Yes, we agree on gay marriage, drugs, abortion, and all other sex and religion related topics. I'm tired of debating those. The majority of the younger generation agrees with us on those issues and given time the general population will.[/general]
I agree. I'm a Libertarian, period. I've found that it gives me a larger framework to address social issues, and many of which I defend the liberals won't touch. In other words, freedom seems to be a good thing to liberals, until freedom itself is applied too liberally.

[QUOTE]But there are other important social issues that get little debate. Seat belt laws. DUI roadblocks. Privacy laws. Excessive cigarette regulations. Searches without warrants. The accused's rights. Police power. Restrictions on cell phones in cars. Increasing restrictions on alcohol.
Sounds like someone's having a near-intelligence moment. ;)
Really, liberal social policiy has become a real threat to many liberties that we've taken for granted in the past. Liberty is liberty, and to explain it away in the name of political platforms is a backwards step, whether it's done by the right or the left.

And gun rights.Great example of the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. If the "because we say so, and it'll prevent more harm" argument flies for guns, then it sure as hell works for drugs and marriage too. Liberalism is a slippery slope that has failed to p0rotect us from losing our civil liberties to big government.

The danger of our government becoming too powerful over our daily lives is never greater than when the population is in a state of fear. Knee-jerk legislation can be passed without scrutiny. The majority can oppress the minority through mob rule. Citizens are willing to sacrifice civil liberties they normally wouldn't. Government becomes closed off and distant from the population it represents. And that is the breeding ground for fascism.
The Patriot Act and increasing infringements on privacy, make me feel anything but safe. How about you?

Another thought on guns...Gun control has been used against left-wing groups like the Black Panther Party historically. It's not just a liberal-oppressing-the-conservative thing. It's a government-oppressing-the-citizen thing, and social liberals need to ask themselves why they're so hell-bent on regulating them out of the hands of ordinary citizens, while generally sticking up for citizen rights on most other things.

As for social conservatives, you ought to look at your reasons for fighting gun control, and see the inconsistency of trying to ban drugs, etc. The supposedly "conservative" principle of small government is a good ideal, it would be nice if you followed it in social matters as well.

As for social authoritarians, you can goosestep somewhere else.
Sounds like you've analyzed the "dark side", and have come out into the light. Welcome to libertarianism!
Now don't let either side shake you with spin tactics from the more noble position, namely liberty.

There are very good reasons why the Libertarian Party is little more than a joke in the US. Their positions are often laughable.
If by joke, you mean "lose elections", then join the club Democrat. And know that both the Libertarians and Republicans are laughing at your party at the moment. :rolleyes:

That was just all kinds of unnecessary.

If by joke, you mean "lose elections", then join the club Democrat. And know that both the Libertarians and Republicans are laughing at your party at the moment. :rolleyes:

That was just all kinds of unnecessary.

Given how often Democrats and liberals are bashed in these forums (and Republicans and conservatives as well) & given how many on these forums seem to think its cool to be a "libertarian," I think it is necessary.

By joke, I mean barely registers on the election radar. Have libertarians ever won anything but local dogcatcher (only to lose later when people realize they elected a libertarian)?

By joke, I mean get worked up over silly issues:

Like Boycott the Census! (http://www.lp.org/action/censusboycott.html).
Like opposing involuntary commitment of the mentally ill AND an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment." (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html)
Like isolationism (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html)
Like "the complete separation of education and State" (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/educatio.html)


Democrats definitely took a beating this last election -- although it was close in many respects. We, of course, won the majority in the prior 3 presidential elections. There are 225 Democrats in the House of Representatives, 48 in the Senate, and 21 Governors are Democrats. How many are Libertarians again?

Oh, right, for Libertarians, its "top news (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/)" when a county attorney in a county in Kentucky switches from Republican to Libertarian (after the election, of course).

I really didn't want to turn this into a partisan cocksize contest, but I think that you both overestimate the election goals of the LP, but also underestimate the growth that our party has had in the past year.

It shouldn't matter to you, either way as a Democrat. You've obviously got enough to deal with in the next few years.

You're picky about what offices we hold-- Well, everything from the lowest to judges, mayors, and county execs. We're a grassroots party, if you didn't know.
With over 600 Libertarians in office nationwide, we're not so easily dismissed.
Membership keeps growing, and I'm proud that we've saved the taxpayers over 2.2 billion last year.

Even the New York Times has acknowledged that we wield power to influence elections. Don't be so pissed at us becuase our member's presidential votes often go to one of the major candidate's, and it's often not a Democrat.

Besides, I'm interested in being with the best party, not the most influential or powerful. For one so concerned, why aren't you a Republican?

I just noticed that you've made several mentions of Libertarianism's "cool" factor.

Funny. I only hear this from Democrats. Most of the Republicans seem pretty acceptable of our party, and are more open to our ideas.

Maybe you should get over the fact that the 60's are gone, and the Democratic party hasn't been "cool" since Clinton's second term.
Stop crying about it, and do something to help your failing image, becuase it really sucks when a grassroots third party seems more attractive to the young people who hear about it.

That's all the Dems ever had going for them.

Seat belt laws - I'll agree most liberals are not up in arms about this minor intrusion on liberty that prevents thousands and thousands of deaths and injuries (including deaths and injuries to those who wear seatbelts but would be injured if others did not) and saves the public immense amounts of money.
I disagree that it is a "minor intrusion". Once you ban/regulate something, you need the police to enforce it, which leads to rediculous things like roadblocks and traffic cameras. Also, once you start down that logic of "it saves the public money and prevents injuries" you're just perpetuating the nanny-government mentality, personal responsibility goes out the window, and conservatives will use the same arguments to keep drugs illegal.

DUI roadblocks - you'll find the ACLU and other "liberal" groups have opposed abuse of roadblocks.
The ACLU is the largest defender of our civil freedoms, it's amazing how much hate they receive from the conservatives. Although I think they could improve their image by taking more gun-rights cases. For instance, there was a case awhile back where a man was sentenced to 50 years in jail for selling drugs while armed. He sold pot to an undercover cop while he had a registered and legal pistol on him, he didn't even pull out the gun.

Excessive cigarette regulations - what is "excessive"? are you talking about public smoking bans?
Yes. It's one thing to ban smoking in closed rooms (although I favor better division of smoking/non-smoking sections and better air circulation devices), but banning smoking on the beach, or a public park? Unless you blow smoke right in someone's face it's not a problem. But we're moving to the point when simply smoking in public will be just as criminal as drinking in public.

Searches without warrants. - again, something liberals fight against
Yes, but it seems like liberals just don't make enough noise about this stuff, especially when it comes to roadblocks, which are essentially searches without probable cause. Police are regularly fishing unsuspected citizens for crime, and no one outside of sites like www.DUIBlog.com (http://www.duiblog.com) seems to make much noise.

Restrictions on cell phones in cars. - not really the cutting edge of liberty and not really a liberal/conservative issue
It's sort of a question about how much the government can regulate your safety, before it reaches absurdity. People draw the lines at different places.

Increasing restrictions on alcohol. - not sure to what you are referring. Not exactly a big political issue for most, regardless. Liberal states do tend to have a more liberal (pun intended) attitude toward alcohol. Minors, excluded, of course.
The law used to be against driving impaired. Then the law was against simply having a BAC of .15%. Then it was .10%. Now it is .08%. Groups like MADD are actively pursuing a .05%, and the opposition is rather quiet. For 18-21 year olds the BAC limit is .01%, clearly not even impaired. That is wrong on so many levels, they're inventing new crimes to compound the original crime of underage driking. The anti-alcohol neo-prohibition lobby is fighting for jail time for adults who purchase alcohol for minors. Liberals are generally more sympathetic, but many are complicit in the over-regulation of alcohol.

As to guns, I will simply agree to disagree. I'm not going to debate this further here. Whether right or wrong, surely you can see why some think guns need to be regulated. Guns are inherently dangerous. A gun owner poses a risk to others. (I recognize that a gun may be a good thing and a gun owner may protect others. I am merely stating some of the reasons why one might make a distinction between wanting to regulate my and neighbors' guns but not wanting to regulate what consensual adults do in the bedroom.)
I see why they ought to be regulated, but I also see what over-regulation leads to. And the difference between regulating guns is obviously different from regulating sex. But will banning guns end violence, or must we also ban knives? Or cars, because an automobile can be a very dangerous weapon. I'm still pondering the best way to ensure public safety without trampling on the rights of the minority of America that owns guns, but knee-jerk regulations and police power is usually not the best solution.

On a final note, there seems to be a fascination -- even a glorification -- of libertarianism in these forums. (Based in part on a misleading "political compass.") There are very good reasons why the Libertarian Party is little more than a joke in the US. Their positions are often laughable.

I'm merely socially libertarian, I'm liberal on economic issues, I support restrained capitalism, some redistribution of wealth, the general idea of progressive taxation, welfare, a basic national healthcare, etc., basically the Democratic Party economic platform.

In any case, Badnarik got his name on more state ballots than Nader, and nearly beat him. Considering the amount of attention and hype surrounding Nader this year, and the lack of that given to Badnarik, it's telling. In any case, I'd rather like it if more libertarians and Greens got in office, they typically have more integrity than the deal-making corporate sell-outs we have in Congress right now.

Wow. Definitely touched a nerve.

I'm not the least bit threatened by the Libertarian Party and your "600 elected officials."

I'm just saddened to see young people think its appealing without realizing what the Libertarian Party stands for.

For someone who thinks things are going so peachy for your "movement", you seem awfully angry.

I just noticed that you've made several mentions of Libertarianism's "cool" factor.

Funny. I only hear this from Democrats. Most of the Republicans seem pretty acceptable of our party, and are more open to our ideas.
A bunch of old-school Republicans are in fact more libertarian than strict conservatives, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee (Barry Goldwater) lost big after attacking Social Security, but he would later defend homosexuals in the military. Congressman Ron Paul (14th District, Texas) ran as a libertarian, and nowadays stands up against his party on things like national ID cards, drugs, and gay marriage.

The old GOP in fact was the isolationist party, through WWI, WWII, and up to Vietnam. It wasn't until the 80s that the Republicans became the party of foreign aggression, and more recently the party of complete social conservatism.

I'm both a social and economic libertarian

A bunch of old-school Republicans are in fact more libertarian than strict conservatives, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee (Barry Goldwater) lost big after attacking Social Security, but he would later defend homosexuals in the military. Congressman Ron Paul (14th District, Texas) ran as a libertarian, and nowadays stands up against his party on things like national ID cards, drugs, and gay marriage.

The old GOP in fact was the isolationist party, through WWI, WWII, and up to Vietnam. It wasn't until the 80s that the Republicans became the party of foreign aggression, and more recently the party of complete social conservatism.
Old school conservatives are indeed much more libertarian than the neo-cons.
In fact, the LP was co-sponsoring the annual CPAC convention in DC (for Conservatives).
I'm finding it strange that, being a registered member of the LP for a while now, that these days I find myself in agreement with more Republicans than Democrats. A lot of Libertarians (like Larry Elders and others) are even going Republican to inject some hard-lined libertarianism into the party.

What happened to Liberalism in the past 5 years?... that's really what the question is. And the answer is Big Government.

The people just aren't interested in more government as the solution to all of our problems.

And that's where the liberals, who started out in the 60's as anti-institutional protestors, have been betrayed by the Democratic party.

I also don't think it's necessary to agree with every issue any party aligns itself with. The question is more accurately, who comes closest, and who, if given the job would be best at it?

These days I find myself in agreement with more Republicans than Democrats.
Same here - a lot of my Republican friends seem to tolerate my libertarianism more than my Democrat friends.

Same here - a lot of my Republican friends seem to tolerate my libertarianism more than my Democrat friends.
I guarantee you the situation would be reversed only five years ago.

Now help me with all of these questions about Libertarianism, damnit! :D

I'm an anarcho-communist, so I guess I would probably fall into the category of social libertarian, though I oppose capitalism.

Democrats definitely took a beating this last election -- although it was close in many respects. We, of course, won the majority in the prior 3 presidential elections.
The last time the Democrats won the majority of the votes in a presidential election was in 1976.

I'm an anarcho-communist, so I guess I would probably fall into the category of social libertarian, though I oppose capitalism.
Although I'm a rabid capitalist, I'd rather hang with your kind anyday. At least you're honest about your position, and we could agree that the less government involvement in our daily lives, the better.

I can't say as much for the quasisocialist, psuedo-antiestablishment Democrats, though.

I consider myself generally liberal (on politicalcompass: -2 econ, -8 libert), but lately I've been following causes that most liberals seem to ignore, or outright oppose. Yes, we agree on gay marriage, drugs, abortion, and all other sex and religion related topics. I'm tired of debating those. The majority of the younger generation agrees with us on those issues and given time the general population will.

But there are other important social issues that get little debate. Seat belt laws. DUI roadblocks. Privacy laws. Excessive cigarette regulations. Searches without warrants. The accused's rights. Police power. Restrictions on cell phones in cars. Increasing restrictions on alcohol.

And gun rights.

The danger of our government becoming too powerful over our daily lives is never greater than when the population is in a state of fear. Knee-jerk legislation can be passed without scrutiny. The majority can oppress the minority through mob rule. Citizens are willing to sacrifice civil liberties they normally wouldn't. Government becomes closed off and distant from the population it represents. And that is the breeding ground for fascism.


Another thought on guns...Gun control has been used against left-wing groups like the Black Panther Party historically. It's not just a liberal-oppressing-the-conservative thing. It's a government-oppressing-the-citizen thing, and social liberals need to ask themselves why they're so hell-bent on regulating them out of the hands of ordinary citizens, while generally sticking up for citizen rights on most other things.

As for social conservatives, you ought to look at your reasons for fighting gun control, and see the inconsistency of trying to ban drugs, etc. The supposedly "conservative" principle of small government is a good ideal, it would be nice if you followed it in social matters as well.

As for social authoritarians, you can goosestep somewhere else.

Amen! I am 100 and 10% in agreement with everything you're saying! Preach on brotha :)

Given how often Democrats and liberals are bashed in these forums (and Republicans and conservatives as well) & given how many on these forums seem to think its cool to be a "libertarian," I think it is necessary.

By joke, I mean barely registers on the election radar. Have libertarians ever won anything but local dogcatcher (only to lose later when people realize they elected a libertarian)?

By joke, I mean get worked up over silly issues:

Like Boycott the Census! (http://www.lp.org/action/censusboycott.html).
Like opposing involuntary commitment of the mentally ill AND an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment." (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/govement.html)
Like isolationism (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/foreinte.html)
Like "the complete separation of education and State" (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/educatio.html)


Democrats definitely took a beating this last election -- although it was close in many respects. We, of course, won the majority in the prior 3 presidential elections. There are 225 Democrats in the House of Representatives, 48 in the Senate, and 21 Governors are Democrats. How many are Libertarians again?

Oh, right, for Libertarians, its "top news (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/)" when a county attorney in a county in Kentucky switches from Republican to Libertarian (after the election, of course).

if i remember correctly, clinton actually never won the majority.. he won by plurality. (he can thank ross perot for that -- while repubs are pissed that perot took away so many votes from their candidates)

The last time the Democrats won the majority of the votes in a presidential election was in 1976.

Technically true. ;) Democrats won the pluralities in 1992, 1996, and 2000.

And the most the Libertarians have ever received was 1.06% in 1980. They are down to 0.32% in 2004.

Technically true. ;) Democrats won the pluralities in 1992, 1996, and 2000.

And the most the Libertarians have ever received was 1.06% in 1980. They are down to 0.32% in 2004.
Meh. Every third party was down this year. It was a Dem/Repub blowout. After a huge media frenzy over Nader, he ended up with about 0.4%. Peroutka and Cobb did even worse.

I can't say as much for the quasisocialist, psuedo-antiestablishment Democrats, though.
Is anything left of anarcho-capitalist considered "quasi-socialist"? :p