Goolsbee and Obama's understanding of the free market as a useful means of promoting social justice, rather than an obstacle to it, contrasts most starkly with the rest of the Democratic field on issues of competition, free trade and financial liberalism.
_________________

In other words and in short, Obama's slogan, "stand for change", is not a vacuous message of uplift, but a content-laden token of dissent from the old-style liberal orthodoxy on which Clinton and Edwards have been campaigning. At the same time, Obama is not offering a retread of (Bill) Clintonism, Liebermanism, triangulation, neoliberalism, the Third Way or whatever we might wish to call the business-friendly centrism of the 1990s. For all its lofty talk of new paradigms and boundary shifting, the Third Way in practice amounted to taking a little of column A, a little of column B, and marketing the result as something new and innovative. Obama and Goolsbee propose something entirely different - not a triangulation, but a basis for crafting public policy orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis.

I get tired of all the people who don't have the slightest clue in the differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on many of the most pressing issues facing this nation and our future. These differences cannot be defined in neat soundbites, it takes more effort than listening to soundbites to discern the dramatic contrasts.

As with this entire campaign, Obama is offering a new and untried way of doing things, fairly polar opposite from Clinton in most fundamental ways. However, Obama's way isn't to use government as a weapon to dictate choice to the American people, but instead he advocates creating my relationships that create free market choices that people will likely choose from because the former impediments to participation have been removed.

For all those theorizing that Obama is an avowed liberal, maybe they should actually take a closer look to see that the strings of libertarianism remain interwoven throughout his platform. The same cannot be said for his opponents.

Tony - good article!

WSJ says Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will endorse Obama today.

Hillary has "stolen" the "CHANGE" mantra, but we know she doesn't mean "CHANGE" at all.

Obama is puzzling to orthodox Democrats and republicans because he does mean "CHANGE" when he says "CHANGE". 2008 change, as opposed to 1992 change.

Anybody, right, left or center who doesn't think we need CHANGE needs to think about that. How do we not need CHANGE?

And the reason Obama will be able to deliver change is because his entire campaign is based on building a majority coalition that encompasses Americans from across the political spectrum, and then a Congress already on board with this coalition giving it the force of the US Government behind its efforts. When the old interests sit down at the table, they've already LOST because the coalition will be able to enact draconian laws if compromise isn't reached. This is the FORCE behind the words, and its something that Hillary and Edwards never thought of because they're both still entrenched in polarized politics like they've been for the last couple decades.

Obama's candidacy isn't just about the presidency, its about creating a working majority in Congress which will be able to do all the things we people clammor for because the minority will not have the numbers or power to stop it. It would be one thing if the Democratic candidates all understood that the future is based on embracing this emerging coalition, not in mocking it or trying to subvert it for the sake of returning to the 51/49 dynamic. Whomever becomes the nominee, they need to recognize the coalition and continue to build it as an unstoppable force that will engender the change all of us are thirsting for.

Neither Obama's candidacy nor message is a mistake. Its based on the same success that garnered him 70% of the vote when he was elected to the Senate in 2004. I doubt that either Hillary nor Edwards could garner 70% of the electorate if they ran unopposed by the Republicans.

Even though I am a Paul supporter, there is something about Obama I like and I do hope the Dems pick him over Hillary.

Many Republicans who cynically support Obama because they think he'll be easier to beat than Hillary might very well find that their strategy could backfire. I remember when Republicans laughed at Clinton in 1992 saying that governor from Arkansas couldn't be elected president, famous last words.

Many Republicans who cynically support Obama because they think he'll be easier to beat than Hillary might very well find that their strategy could backfire.

I don't think there are too many who think this. Hillary is the most reviled person in Republican circles. No one can unite the base like her at the head of the Democratic ticket will do. She's a boon for Republican fundraising too.

At present, there is no visceral hatred of Obama in conservative circles, but they have to be worried about the momentum of his growing coalition. His candidacy has the potential of sweeping numerous Republicans from Congress along with placing him in the White House. Obama should be their biggest fear, imo.

Riiiight!!!
the insurance companies and the health care industry are going to sit and cooperate with Obama because he's a uniter not a divider. Hey, it's only hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, they'll recognize his good intentions and cooperate with him in a way they never could have with Clinton.
Pure poppycock.
Obama may be a great leader, he may soon be president but the corporate oligarchy will still fight him just like any other LIBERAL who wants to bring about significant change to our health care system.
Expecting Republicans to forget who butters their bread is wishful thinking. They will work just as hard agains Obama as any other Dem.
Me thinks the corporate CEOs are giggling at the Dems naivite in regards to Obama.

Tony, I read the whole article now and I have to say that if the GOP doesn't nominate Ron Paul and the Dems nominate Obama, I might just vote for him, Might, if I can be convinced he would truly abnandon the 60's style heavyhanded liberalism.

"Left-libertarian", yeah, I can see, how Obama could be viewed by some as that.

Tony you can put labels on me or pretend that what I am saying isn't true but it won't change reality which, it seems, the most extreme Obama supporters want to do. I am just trying to bring y'all back down to the reality that....no matter which Democrat we nominate the Republicans will mount a very strong, very nasty attack. If we elect a Dem they will still fight us using millions or even billions of dollars to protect the cash cows they have built. Pretending that Barack Obama is somehow going to be able to avoid this is ridiculous.

*Danni's right. We should just shut the fuck up and accept our lot.

Maybe if we beg at the feet of our corporate masters they will share a little bread?*

Danni, find a new party. Please. Your lack of sack, fear of change, and general myopic douchbaggery is mucking up our chances at a new beginning.

p.s. * __ * denotes *mild* sarcasim.

Danni...

You are the one who's missing the forest for the trees. Why do you fear that a movement can destroy the old paradigms when Obama's history already shows that it can? I'm not labeling you, you're doing that to yourself. You don't believe that PEOPLE can change the very government which is supposed to be controlled by us. I do, and the reason I do is because I know the majority of Americans are fed up with the politics shoved down our throats the last two decades. We're tired of fighting each other instead of taking the power away from entrenched interests because this IS the power a united Congress can wield.

Your fear of what Republicans might do has never been a reason for settling for the status quo instead of changing the dynamic altogether. Do you really think that Senator Kerry, Governor Napolitano, Ned Lamont, and others endorsing Obama are politically naive and dreamers too? How about Pelosi's right hand man? Obama is growing the party base while Clinton continues to fractionalize it, so I do understand why you don't see the coalition as a viable force of change: Clinton supporters don't beleive that people make a difference, only Bill and Hillary can given the platform.

Sorry, but we are going to make a difference, and pretty soon you're going to be a believer too, not because of Obama, but because of US!

"In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Saturday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.

Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed."

Jest...

The more revealing fact comes from MSNBC's Exit polling in NH. 58% of Hillary's supporters would have voted for Bill had he been eligible instead of Hillary. 73% of Obama's supporters would still have voted for him even if Bill was on the ballot.

If this can be trusted as a barometer, much of Hillary's support is actually for Bill and not for her. People are voting on experience, but it isn't Hillary's, its BILL'S!

Nobody is "pretending" Danni.

What we have to do is try it to see if it really does make a difference. You can't just dismiss it before it is even possible. "A Roll of the Dice" as old Bill says, is what we need, not what we need to fear.

I know you want Hillary, and that's OK for you, but she is going to sell out to those drug companies and you know it.

Sorry Tony, the most I gathered from the article is that Obama's being called a libertarian because he put a non-mandatory option in his national healthcare plan. "You don't have to take this big government option, but you will have to subsidize it" is a far cry from being libertarian.

The rest is extrapolated from articles written by his economic advisor, which while a novel application of Free-MArket theory, is a far cry from Rothbard or Mises.

Don't get me wrong, I like Obama, I dont much care for his political philosophy, but out of the people presented to the general public as "Viable" I wish him the best of luck.
But this "co-opting" of labels thought to be politically popular is getting out of hand.

Of course you know, if this works, Mitt will be the second coming of Friedman...

Of course you know, if this works, Mitt will be the second coming of Friedman...

I thought he was already....lol.

Says Tony: "With Ron Paul finally exposed as a right wing extermist and not a true libertarian, Obama remains the only sensible choice for opponents of the war who lean libertarian."

What a crock of shit! Obama is an insult to the libertarian cause. He's another big government politician.

Obama's preference for reducing healthcare costs while preserving the freedom to choose whether or not to participate in the healthcare system,

A real libertarian would abolish the healthcare welfare system altogether.

Perhaps it goes without saying that Obama's belief in freedom in labour markets and freedom in capital markets, sets him apart from the Republican field as well as the Democrats.

A real libertarian would abolish the Federal Reserve and restore the gold standard.

Obama's slogan, "stand for change", is not a vacuous message of uplift, but a content-laden token of dissent from the old-style liberal orthodoxy on which Clinton and Edwards have been campaigning.

Drug laws have devastated black and other minority families. I haven't see Obama say he wants to eliminate them.

If Obama is libertarian, I'm a communist.

Ron Paul comes the closest to libertarianism of any candidate I've see since Barry Goldwater. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Tony. You haven't the foggiest idea what libertarianism means.

Obama, on the other hand, is inviting voters to vote for him because, in doing so, they can demonstrate the power of people to fix the country for themselves.

The people have proved themselves to be too incompetent to fix anything. They made a wreck of this country by picking an unbroken string of morons to political office.

Yeah and they keep getting worse. The last 4 goons make the Nixon administration seem like the good old days.

You haven't the foggiest idea what libertarianism means.

Sorry to disappoint you Ray, but I do. I can also READ and COMPREHEND that the title of this article doesn't proclaim that Obama IS a libertarian, but that some of his policy prescriptions embody libertarian principles. I fail to see where your critique has negated the facts presented by the author.

Anyone with half a brain knows that pure libertarianism can never be a viable form of government because it disdains the communities needs for those of the individual. Its a great theory, but an impractical and impossible way to govern the society we live in today.

By the way, I'd rather have access to fresh water and the means to produce food than I'd like to own pounds of gold. You can't eat gold.

"By the way, I'd rather have access to fresh water and the means to produce food than I'd like to own pounds of gold. You can't eat gold."

Good call as usual, Tony!

Hope you're doing well!

Sorry to disappoint you Ray, but I do.

No you don't. What you know, you learned from its big government enemies.

I fail to see where your critique has negated the facts presented by the author.

I just outlined the major faults of his reasoning. Do I have to write a book? If you understood libertarianism, I wouldn't have to go into more detail.

Anyone with half a brain knows that pure libertarianism can never be a viable form of government because it disdains the communities needs for those of the individual.

Anybody with half a brain would know that if you steal from producers and give it away to non-producers, it's only a matter of time before you go bankrupt. That is where the US is now - bankrupt and living on borrowed money.

You can't eat gold.

You can't eat paper either. Paper money always makes good fireplace fuel. If you pay attention, foreign countries are dumping dollars and buying gold. Gold buys any currency in the world.

Tony - you don't know what you don't know. You're as incompetent as all the rest.

Good call as usual, Tony!

Thanks Lisa, I'm doing fine.

It cracks me up that so many people hold minerals as important repositories of wealth beyond their innate utility. It was stupid before and it makes even less sense now. Whenever I see someone talking about returning to the gold standard, I think of the Twilight Zone episode where gold thieves spend 100 years in stasis only to emerge in a world where gold can be manufactured for next to nothing. And of course, each thief ends up giving up their lives in pursuit of cashing in. But a hundred pounds of gold isn't worth jack in the desert if you don't have water and food.

Ray...

Why do you build strawmen over things I haven't said? You outlined major faults? But does that mean Obama's approach still isn't more towards libertarianism than those he's compared to? Thats the only point being made here. No one is or isn't claiming its pure libertarianism except for you.

Gold is only worth something for the same reason people believe paper money is worth something. What can you or I do with gold if governments break down? I wouldn't give you a place to piss for all the gold you have, and most people would be the same way because gold has no UTILITY! Food does, and water does, but there isn't a human alive that NEEDS gold to survive.

Hoard it Ray, hold it tightly and protect it from thieves. I can't believe you're being so obtuse! You're playing the same stupid game you accuse everyone else of buying into. If you had any sense, you'd buy remote productive land with a water source instead of gold. But I guess when the governmental structures break down as you forecast, you think gold will remain worth more than its utility. It will be the same as paper money if society devolves into a bartering one.

The dollar is well along the way to worthlessness. Gold has a history as money that goes back over 2,000 years. Without exception, every time fiat money was tried, it ended in disaster. After the inevitable collapse of the dollar standard, it wouldn't surprise me if nobody ever trusts a paper standard again. Those are the facts. You keep dreaming Tony.

Trust the politicians? Or trust gold? Given the record of politicians, it should be a no brainer.

Obama isn't even close to libertarianism. He's a big government politician.

But I guess when the governmental structures break down as you forecast, you think gold will remain worth more than its utility.

The market economy will survive without government structures. Gold has an earned reputation as a safe haven during times like these. It always has intrinsic value.

Gold has an earned reputation as a safe haven during times like these.

So? Tony is arguing that there are other investment opportunites in ALL markets that have great value.

Why insult people? Because you think are stupid for accepting and recognizing the downside of investing into precious metals.

Like he said, buy it, hoard it and protect it.

Gold is only worth something for the same reason people believe paper money is worth something.

That shows how little you know about money. All commodities have intrinsic value. Relative to mineral commodities, the intrinsic value of paper is close to zero. Look up Weimer Republic to see what I mean.

No matter what happens to the world economy, there is always a market for gold. Even if it's a black market. I'm giving you a tip, you'll wish you heeded. Even as an investment, chances like this come once in a hundred years.

Because you think are stupid for accepting and recognizing the downside of investing into precious metals.

Stupidity comes in believing national salvation comes from faith in politicians - any politician. It's religion in another form.

Stupidity comes in believing national salvation comes from faith in politicians - any politician. It's religion in another form.

I agree with that.

"Thanks Lisa, I'm doing fine."

Glad to hear that, Tony!!

"It cracks me up that so many people hold minerals as important repositories of wealth beyond their innate utility."

I'm with you on that one!

I'd rather have a way to consistantly continue providing for my family.

You could sell your gold, but once the money is gone...what then??

Your theory is far superior!!

Ray...

While in a historical context you indeed are correct, today isn't history, its the present. The intrinsic value of gold is tied to the same imaginary construct you demonize. Its worth is only based on what people like you believe it to be worth. If society breaks down, I wouldn't give you a sip of water for a pound of gold because I can't DO anything with the gold except look at it. It isn't worth jack unless I can find another rube like you to trade me something of ACTUAL value in its place. Money has always been representative of society's beliefs and not its reality. You've broken no new ground with your assertions.

Good luck finding anyone to take your gold for food in a broken world. Just like I said, having fertile land, a few animals, and a fresh water supply is worth more than all the gold in the world if one is seeking to survive. If one is seeking "intrinsic value" then they always have you I guess.

You could sell your gold, but once the money is gone...what then??

If the money is gone, you better be armed with a few boxes of ammunition and a shotgun.

The destruction of a national currency is nothing new. It just hasn't happened here since the Civil War.

Do you realize Lisa that the dollar has lost 95% of it's purchasing power relative to gold since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913? Look at it this way. When Nixon was president, it took $35 to buy an ounce of gold. Today it takes $900 to buy that same ounce of gold.

Whatever currency replaces the dollar, you'll always be able to swap for gold. That's why gold is a store of value and paper money is not.

If society breaks down,

I haven't been saying that. That's what you think if government breaks down.

"Do you realize Lisa that the dollar has lost 95% of it's purchasing power relative to gold since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913?"

That is such a stupid, irrelevant argument. Have Americans' standard of living declined by 95% or actually increased by much more than 95%?

Money has always been representative of society's beliefs and not its reality. You've broken no new ground with your assertions.

You are right as far as you go. But reality always wins in the end. The whole history of mankind can be termed as a consistent failure to uproot reality through belief.

Only problem I see with the Gold standard is that the value of Gold will become artificially inflated. Even still at least the money will always retain value. With our current reckless spending I could easily see our Fiat cash system crumbling and the dollar being worthless.

That is such a stupid, irrelevant argument. Have Americans' standard of living declined by 95% or actually increased by much more than 95%?

Aren't you the one complaining about a declining standard of living - the Iron Law thing. Always contradicting yourself, Reilly. Keep me entertained.

Only problem I see with the Gold standard is that the value of Gold will become artificially inflated.

That's impossible on a gold standard because the supply is limited to what can be mined. I think you are confusing value with price. For example, the value of a loaf of bread hasn't essentially change in forty years although the price has increased ten fold.

If the "price" of gold was artificially inflated, it wouldn't be a gold standard. On a broad average in terms of weight, the same unit of weight can buy today what it did decades ago.

I'm still waiting for a recipe to make a goldbrick souffle. How about a gold leaf milkshake? Anybody priced Goldschlager lately?

You can't eat paper either. Paper money always makes good fireplace fuel. If you pay attention, foreign countries are dumping dollars and buying gold. Gold buys any currency in the world.

Throughout history, as gold (wealth) has been concentrated to a few people, it has brought revolution and anarchy. And, once the world slips to a certain level of anarchy, if someone has the will and the bullets, they will take your gold. Or, they will walk right around your gold for your food water and heating oil. Much as you like to believe gold is perfect, there is no perfect plan Ray. Throughout history, as gold (wealth) has been concentrated to a few people, it has brought revolution and anarchy. There are many scenarios where gold is merely metal.

As Tony says, "You can't eat gold".

How old are you now Ray, in your mid to late 60's? Aren't you at the point in your life where you should be having a little fun? My dad died of cancer, when he was 69. He spent much of his life protecting his money from danger that only he seemed to be aware of. Damn lot of good it did him! His last 25 years were NOT a happy existence.

Though I understand the need to protect your investments such as to continue your lifestyle, you need to lighten up Ray, Seriously. You of all people should know you can't take it with you.

You go right ahead and trust the State to maintain the dollar Tony. You earned it.

I'm not saying anything of the sort Ray. I'm projecting your belief that government and its money will devolve into meaninglessness. My contention is that I'd rather have the staples of life, than all the gold in the world. I guess you just don't understand that.

I can see it now in a post-catastrophic society. Ray and his ilk will be standing in the public square begging people to take their gold for food and water while everyone laughs at the old fools, killing themselves by dragging all those needless pounds around which nobody wants. "But, but its worth $5000 an ounce!" Tough. Can you eat it? Then what's it worth compared to a loaf of bread or a dozen eggs?

What

I'm 65 and having the time of my life. What I have is stashed in a safe place where only my son knows how to get it. While all the rest of you see the price of your homes destroyed, your pensions destroyed and maybe your jobs destroyed, I can relax and enjoy life with the insurance I bought for myself.

By the way you talk about anarchy, you're more of a pessimist than I am. Take a tip from a wise old man. Get some monetary insurance. You won't regret it. Maybe you'll be one of the few left with real wealth.

My contention is that I'd rather have the staples of life, than all the gold in the world.

Tony - All you are doing is demonstrating a complete ignorance on the nature of money. There will always be a marketplace to trade your gold for whatever the prevailing currency happens to be. Silver coins are better yet for smaller denominations.

I'm projecting your belief that government and its money will devolve into meaninglessness.

That's your projection. You sound like a Christian who thinks life is meaningless without God. Perhaps it's too much trouble to see what Germans went through during the Weimer Republic days.

My contention is that I'd rather have the staples of life, than all the gold in the world. I guess you just don't understand that.

What you don't understand is that the declining dollar will buy an ever limited supply of staples. Your standard of living is declining relentlessly.

Ray...

I see everything you're saying. What you don't see is that bartering will become the new/old currency and that your gold will make good doorstops, nothing more, nothing less. Read your own words. People like me WON'T have money, so why would we want gold when it serves no utilitarian purpose? What if the next society decides that silicon chips are more valuable than gold? You are putting all your eggs in one basket, but that basket is based on the past, not the future. Rocks and minerals are rocks and minerals. Only people like you want to see them as valuable beyond their constructive use. Give me livestock, poultry, water and land. Keep all the gold you want, but don't come to me expecting a trade.

We both have predictions, so let's just leave it at that.

Tony
You're blowing this out of proportion. I don't equate a breakdown of the dollar with a breakdown of society. That's your misconception.

Precious metals are on the way to becoming the most lucrative investment of the century. If you want a way out of your declining standard of living, it's the surest and safest way. Obama or whoever the next president is can't change the inevitable.

When I come to this site, I'm always impressed at the overwhelming number of posters who think they know what they don't know. Look at you. Not even a whiff of curiosity. Not even the thought that maybe I know something you don't know. Even for what is at stake for you, I sense no thought towards investigating the idea further. Didn't even look at the Weimer Republic link. We'll leave it at that.

I love the way this has broken down into a debate of whether or not Mad Max will be able to trade gold boullion for his next loaf of bread (which is silly because we all know ole Mel would have been taken in the rapture).

Either way you guys are debating currency in some version of a dystopic global collapse. I think the point Ray is trying to make is that, historically speaking, when a fiat currency has collapsed, gold and silver have resurfaced as the currency of choice. Which would mean if we do believe the dollar is headed for a meltdown, throwing your current savings/investments into hard gold/silver wouldn't be a bad idea.

Back onto the topic, I must admit I was fairly unfamiliar with the term "Left-Libertarian" until recently. I know Markos from Daily-Kos tried to push this as the next step in democrat polit du'jour. His idea of what a "left-libertarian" seems a far cry from the actual political philosophy I've come across.

Upon a little further investigation, It seems "Left-Libertarian" has a bedrock in the idea of "No individual property rights".

What? How in gods name could this be considered libertarian?

Well thing is, they still place a high value on individual liberty, they just believe that the wilderness is "community owned" instead of "individually owned"

Which I still haven't figred out how this works exactly. So apparently everyone can do what they want, but if you do anything productive that makes use of the "commons" it belongs to everyone.

Rand is rolling in her grave...

I must admit I was fairly unfamiliar with the term "Left-Libertarian" until recently.

Rand is rolling in her grave...

It's all about discrediting real libertarianism by confusing the language.

"I must admit I was fairly unfamiliar with the term "Left-Libertarian" until recently."

The original anarchists, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman were all left libertarians. In fact, libertarian originally is a synonym for leftwing anarchism. Only in the US has the term been perverted to mean extreme rightwing pro-capitalism. In Europe, libertarian still refers to leftwing anarchism.

"Rand is rolling in her grave..."

She was a crazy bitch who had nothing to do with the original libertarians, who were anti-statist and anti-capitalist.

"It's all about discrediting real libertarianism by confusing the language."

It is rightwingers who confuse the language by hijacking terms like "libertarian" and giving them their own rightwing spin.

BILL O

While I don't back down from the premise of my posts yesterday, I do want to say I felt bad we had words. I don't usually let my emotions go nuts over anyone but George Bush and the mess he's made.

Anyway, as a fellow human being I'm sorry I talked to you like I did. That's not my nature. I was pissed and should have just walked away from the computer like I usually do and not let my emotions get the better of me.

Hope you have a good night.

AU :-)

"Anyway, as a fellow human being I'm sorry I talked to you like I did. That's not my nature. "

I know how it is. I've lost my cool and regretted things I've said myself on this site. It happens.

We're cool.

BILL O

Thanks man

AU :-)

The original anarchists, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman were all left libertarians. In fact, libertarian originally is a synonym for leftwing anarchism. Only in the US has the term been perverted to mean extreme rightwing pro-capitalism. In Europe, libertarian still refers to leftwing anarchism.

Posted by Bill_OReilly


On the other hand, in some countries Liberal refers to what we would call Conservative here. In many countries, people fighting Neoliberal economics are fighting globalization and "free trade" which is really not "free trade."

It's very confusing when you got anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-syndicalists, libertarian socialists, etc.

Many Libertarian would gladly call themselves classical Liberals to diferentiate themselves from the moderm (Socialist) Liberals.

I forgot to add: It is so confusing taht I gave up a long time ago trying to apply precise classification to people. I decided that I am just a plain Libertarian.

CORKY

If you stop by this thread the same apology goes out to you.

I don't like to get angry at people, and it doesn't happen too often in my life. So, like I told Bill, while I don't back down from the premise I apologize for the whole event.

Peace, Headbands, and a new President in 2008

AU :-)

I don't negotiate with terrorists.














;^D

"On the other hand, in some countries Liberal refers to what we would call Conservative here."

That's true.

"In many countries, people fighting Neoliberal economics are fighting globalization and "free trade" which is really not "free trade.""

I agree. Neoliberal refers to a set of policies which promote "free trade" and market liberalism.

"Many Libertarian would gladly call themselves classical Liberals to diferentiate themselves from the moderm (Socialist) Liberals."

Yes, they would like to call themselves "classical liberals". Problem is, classical liberals like Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, Bentham, etc., were egalitarians. Libertarians have nothing to say, and don't care about, inequality and poverty.

Gee, how big of you CORKY

Later

:-)

"Libertarians have nothing to say, and don't care about, inequality and poverty."

In other words, because Libertarians do not want to redistribute wealth you conclude they must not care about the poor. That is like saying there is only one way to skin a cat.

What?

I said it with a smile....


Some people are SO hard to please!

Libertarians have plenty to say about poverty. Inflation is one contributing factor to poverty and prevents people from getting out of poverty. How can you save if you are running in a threadmill where the more you earn, the more you have to spend to keep up with higher prices? Libertarians also believe that the houses of poor people should not be taken by local governments under the guise of "economic development" which is a fancy way of saying they are giving land to their campaign contributors wihout letting market forces do their job. Yeah, Libertarians have plenty to say about poverty.

I don't negotiate with terrorists.

;^D

Posted by Corky

I thought you were a Clinton supporter, not a JulieAnnie supporter.

Oh well, one New Yorker is as good as another I suppose. They are all traumatized about 9/11.

CORKY

I'm not negotiating, I'm laying down arms and cleaning my side of the street. I come in peace

The only phrase in my people's people's ancient past that could be construed as 'terrorist' sounding might be:

"Yaba daba doo"

AU :-)

"Yaba daba doo"

AU :-)

Posted by AMERICANUNITY


I didn't know you were a Fredisdead supporter.

John Stuart Mill was a fairly big proponent of Property rights. MAdison, Paine, Bentham to name a few others.

To claim the modern Libertarian is far removed from Classical Liberal philosophy is a bit disengenuous.

Admittedly that objectivism has done alot to steer modern libertarian thought, especially away from the belief in a "social conscience" that classic liberals probably held more strongly then their modern day counterparts. Still, the basic beliefs of property rights, individual rights, and "my rights end where yours begin" is still a strong theme in the current movement. Themes that more closely tie modern day libertarianism to Classic Liberals then the Anarchists you propose.

What?

I said it with a smile....

Me too. I put the smile all by itself in it's own post so you wouldn't misss it. My facetiousness didn't come thorugh. I still need a little more sleep than I got last night. I couldn't do 2 minutes of standup right now. In fact, I'm too tired to even stand up for 2 minutes.

Anyway, I'm sorry for my part, and just that we had words at all. I don't care if I'm right or wrong. It's good we have some qualified people running for president period.

I'm not gonna keep score. The voters will decide. Then the mud will REALLY we slinging at whoever the Dem nominee is. Personally, I'm hoping to avoid all that until we have nominees, and even then I'd rather discuss issue differences than resort to 'tear down politics'. Everyone has their horse in the race. I respect your right to support yours as much as you do, and for whatever reasons you do.

Have a good night CORKY.

AU :-)

All libertarians want to do, Member, is replace government bosses with corporate bosses. They won't say that, of course, but it is the inevitable effect of the policies they propose.

Anarchists/left-libertarians say: down with all bosses.

"John Stuart Mill was a fairly big proponent of Property rights. "

Hmmmm. Is that why is correctly labeled a socialist?

correction: Is that why HE is correctly labeled a socialist?

CORKY

If you stop by read the 12:16 am post on this thread

AU :-)

"In other words, because Libertarians do not want to redistribute wealth you conclude they must not care about the poor."

Libertarians don't talk about inequality. For good reason. Their free market utopia leads to greater inequality. That's a demonstrable fact.

"Smaller government" is a Corporatist code-word for more power to the corporation and less to the people.

Unless they are in office, however, when they then become Big Government Republicans.

I stand corrected. Mill was not a proponent of Property rights.. It seems I misattributed

"Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock, and he will turn it into a garden; give him nine years lease of a garden and he will convert it into a desert." to him.

Apparently that was some guy named Arthur Young

"I stand corrected."


"No longer enslaved or made dependent by force of law, the great majority are so by force of property; they are still chained to a place, to an occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and debarred by the accident of birth to both the enjoyments, and from the mental and moral advantages, which others inherit without exertion and independently of desert. That this is an evil equal to almost any of those against which mankind have hitherto struggles, the poor are not wrong in believing.

John Stuart Mill, "Chapters on Socialism", Collected Works, pg. 710

Bleh, I still stand by Madison, Paine, and i'll throw in Locke, Smith and Adams for good measure. I never did read much Mill, suppose its time I do.

You win this round ...I concede

"Bleh, I still stand by Madison, Paine, and i'll throw in Locke, Smith and Adams for good measure. "

Well then, let's talk about another of the "classical liberals", Adam Smith. Bet you won't hear a libertarian saying anything like this:

" The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'
Adam Smith

Nope, Can't say that I have.

Although I do rememebr reading somewhere that he was a fan of luxury taxes.

I now have about an hour off work, and I'm quite curious about how Left Libertarians assign value to individual production? Is property use merely heavily taxed?

And if property rights are all federally owned....what is to prevent government corruption?

If left-libertarian is so closely tied to anarchism how does socialism and big government programs work in this model? How close is this to resembling communism? IS it merely Classicaly Liberal but using Property rights as an equalizing factor (production being free, but everyone gets their portion of the rent check?)

How do you fairly tax land use without being over stifling to different corporate entities (microsoft uses far less land then Exxon)? Wouldnt a mroe federalist system be more conducive to this sort of practice then the top down version of washington politics? (state owned property, as opposed to federal).

Anarchists/left-libertarians say: down with all bosses.

Posted by Bill_OReilly


Leftwing anarchists also don't believe in private property. To which rightwing anarcho-capitalists would argue that how can you garantee rights in an anarchistic society without private property. Anarchy without private property, they argue, would lead to chaos.

"Smaller government" is a Corporatist code-word for more power to the corporation and less to the people.

Unless they are in office, however, when they then become Big Government Republicans.

Posted by Corky

That is right Corky. If Big Business supported the real free market, the Libertarian Party would not be relegated to a third party. Big Business does not want the real free market that Libertarians advocate, they wnt to continue receivin their corporate wellfare in the form of subsidies, bailouts, barriers to entry for competitors, etc. Libertarians hate Big Business as mush as Big Government.

"Libertarians hate Big Business as mush as Big Government."

Yeah, right. That's why Any Rand called big business "America's oppressed minority".