Thoughtful Progressives See Common Ground With Alt Right

[piezoe]

Dude, you've droned on and on about this repeatedly. No current political party actually stands for what they stood for when they were created. Not Liberals, not Conservatives, and certainly not Libertarians. You need to face the fact that living in your 18th century history book is now irrelevant and reclass yourself accordingly. Unless you just want to shout at the rain and not make sense to anyone unaware or uncaring of the past.

Get with it. You are not a Libertarian anymore. The definition of the political party has changed. Your views are more aligned with Liberals today, and that makes you a Liberal. If you go to a social event (assuming you get out of the house) and tell people what you believe in, they'll label you a Liberal (like we all do here) and when you object and say something like "Technically, I'm a libertarian the way it used to be 100 years ago", people will nod politely, forget what you said 5 min later and label you a kook (which isn't far from the truth).

Get over it.

I did acknowledge that if this label continues to be misused to denote a form of anarcho-captialism, or 'minarcho' as in the article I am going to give you a link to, it will eventually change its meaning. It hasn't yet however. But what's happened is that the differences between those referring to themselves as Libertarians has has become so broad that the term by itself has lost its usefulness. There are still plenty of those around, such as myself, and Governor Weld, who use the word correctly in its modern context. See Chomsky for example, who is the expert linguist.

please see this rather up-to-date article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Advance to ~3:25 in the above video

 

[fhl]

I did acknowledge that if this label continues to be misused to denote a form of anarcho-captialism, or 'minarcho' as in the article I am going to give you a link to, it will eventually change its meaning. It hasn't yet however. But what's happened is that the differences between those referring to themselves as Libertarians has has become so broad that the term by itself has lost its usefulness. There are still plenty of those around, such as myself, and Governor Weld, who use the word correctly in its modern context. See Chomsky for example, who is the expert linguist.

please see this rather up-to-date article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Tyranny of the intellectuals

"What the intellectual craves in his innermost being is to turn the whole globe into a classroom and the world’s population into a class of docile pupils hanging onto the words of the chosen teacher."-Hoffer

 

[Tsing Tao]

I did acknowledge that if this label continues to be misused to denote a form of anarcho-captialism, or 'minarcho' as in the article I am going to give you a link to, it will eventually change its meaning. It hasn't yet however. But what's happened is that the differences between those referring to themselves as Libertarians has has become so broad that the term by itself has lost its usefulness. There are still plenty of those around, such as myself, and Governor Weld, who use the word correctly in its modern context. See Chomsky for example, who is the expert linguist.

please see this rather up-to-date article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

There aren't "plenty of you" around. That's just what you tell yourself to ease the bitterness.

 

[piezoe]

There aren't "plenty of you" around. That's just what you tell yourself to ease the bitterness.

I am very much in the minority in the U.S. But I wasn't referring exclusively to the U.S. Sorry if I confused you.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I am very much in the minority in the U.S. But I wasn't referring exclusively to the U.S. Sorry if I confused you.

Really. Pray tell, what international political arena were you claiming to have extensive knowledge of in relation to our discussion?

 

[piezoe]

'Extensive' it seems is your word. But thank you nevertheless. In Europe, Great Britain and Scandinavia you will find that Libertarianism is not generally associated with "anarcho-capitalism." Spend some time with the Chomsky videos I gave links to , or better yet, read, should you want to know more. He's written extensively on this subject, Also the Wiki article I linked to is excellent! I'll ask my Libertarian friends in Canada this summer to give me their take on the term 'Libertarian.' I'm curious to see if the U.S. subversion of the word has crept into Canada. I like to get out of the heat by going to Quebec for the worst of it.

 

[Tsing Tao]

You are quite incorrect about the UK. I can't imagine there is a large libertarian following in the rest of Europe, though I cannot say for sure. But on the UK, you're flat out wrong.

What you refer to as "anarcho-capitalism" (which is a totally ridiculous classification of today's Libertarian following) is quite prevalent due to the rise of media outlets that lean in that direction (Breitbart UK, for example).

As for Chomsky, I have no wish to listen to another person spout the same nonsense you are spouting with the fascination in anarchy. Libertarians today don't want anarchy. They want the government to leave them alone. In no way is this the same thing.

 

[jem]

why even play that game with Piezoe.
Piezeo is a supporter of powerful govt and removal of liberty.

anybody who supported the IRS going after citizens who opposed the party in power... is the opposite of a libertarian (in any generation.)

Chomsky also plays games with definitions and completely misrepresents today's libertarians. I can't believe choamsky takes such an intellecutally lazy way out of this argument. To argue that today's libertarians are in favor of corporate domination instead of state domination is specious at best and dishonest or worse in all likelyhood. But, you can see that argument is necessary for the rest of his beliefs.

He creates a false dichotomy.

Chomsky seems to be saying you need bigger govt (and therefore less liberty) because its better than bigger corps and less liberty.



The very vast majorities of today's Libertarians are in favor of bigger individual rights and smaller govt a less powerful govt. We know the state is now the instrument of the cronies and we want that power reduced by reducing big govt and decentralizing the power.

You are quite incorrect about the UK. I can't imagine there is a large libertarian following in the rest of Europe, though I cannot say for sure. But on the UK, you're flat out wrong.

What you refer to as "anarcho-capitalism" (which is a totally ridiculous classification of today's Libertarian following) is quite prevalent due to the rise of media outlets that lean in that direction (Breitbart UK, for example).

As for Chomsky, I have no wish to listen to another person spout the same nonsense you are spouting with the fascination in anarchy. Libertarians today don't want anarchy. They want the government to leave them alone. In no way is this the same thing.

 

[java]

I don't know what your true politics are. That's your business. But I hope you realize that Gary Johnson , like the majority of others here that are calling themselves Libertarians, is not a Libertarian. That's just a label they have co-opted. Of course if they keep this up people will eventually forget what traditional Libertarians stood for and just associate the label with what ever it is that these anti-government folks espouse. Johnson's running mate, Bill Weld, was a Libertarian, and I guess that's why they fell ought with each other. Noam Chomsky had something to say about this co-opting of the Libertarian label. He hasn't quite figured out what these folks who are running around insisting on calling themselves "Libertarians" are either, but he has referred to them as "anarcho-capitalists," and this seems to me to be a fair description.

Liberty being our highest value, everything else subservient to liberty. If I am an imperfect libertarian as soon as I join the party the party becomes imperfect. Government is a very important and useful tool to preserve our liberty and that is what it should be used for. It looks like anarchy to a liberal. The liberals mistakenly judge the finished structure based on the initial actions of the wrecking crew.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Libertarians today don't want anarchy. They want the government to leave them alone. In no way is this the same thing.

Good point. A government, like that of Berkeley, that does not protect the exercise of basic rights is not fostering liberty. It is promoting anarchy. Anarchy might seem like a cool idea to pampered college students until they have armed gangs ruling their communities.