Interesting dialogue going on between liberals and libertarians

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

when I sieze control of the Democratic Party in 2032

Ah, the GOP never looked so appealing.

You do realize that if you backed me, we wouldnt have anything to fear from populists like him because they'd either be in gitmo or simply disenfranchised completely.

[MaC]

Sounds good to me.

Question is, can the "Green"-type democrats and the populist type democrats take an infusion of libertarians into the fold?

EWWWWWWW

Aww...whats wrong with us

Absolutely nothing.  It's the far left that's icky.

[Colin]

This seems like just another name for the social liberals that have always been a factor within the Democratic Party. Trying to strain libertarianism, both big and small L, into some sort of corporation hating government love-fest is dilusional as the root of libertarian distrust of the corporation comes from the state power that is associated with its creation.

Well we've seen big-government conservatism come to the forefront in the past five years what is this now? Big-government libertarianism?

In order to gain my vote the centre of the Democratic Party, and I mean the area where most Democrats are located on the ideological spectrum, moves, economically, into the Clinton-esque centrist third way position. The only way that Democrats will ever gain more actual libertarians, even moderate ones and not social liberals, is to move to the right economically which would be a hideous option for most involved in the party.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I agree with you. I'd vote Democrat on a national level because of social issues but vote republican for local/house/senate positions due to economic issues. If the dems became more economically capitalist and ditched the populist types I'd support the dems on a local level too.

[MaC]

Yeah, the democratic party should change and throw out the socialists and welfare statists-we're not the ones that should have to change.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yeah, the democratic party should change and throw out the socialists and welfare statists-we're not the ones that should have to change.

Indeed. And also remidn the PC minority interests that their populations ARE the minority so they've got no call for demanding  affirmative action(read: special status that non-minority peopel can't get)

[MaC]

Well, anybody in Economics, the think tanks, the professors, have generally set a neo-classical overtone for the authority on economics.  We've seen Keynesian economics come and go.  Stagflation in the '70s kinda refutes a big chunk of Keynesianism.  I think if the Democrats got with the times and understand that we have to do more to free up markets from regulation, lower taxes, lessen tariffs, and so forth to bring about a prosperous nation-and that this isn't a rich versus poor thing.  As a matter of freer markets the poor should have more money to invest, and less regulation keeps them from losing their jobs.

[Bono]

There are 'civil liberties' Libertarians, ones that are pro-free speech above all else.  To appeal to the left we should try to emphasize matters such as being against war (except for the last resort) and for separation of church and state (at least the extent we can be).  Sorry jfern, I can kinda see where you're goin with this, be you can't expect me to support a 'libertarian' that's against a free market.

Well, really it all comes down to who you would have voted in the 1933 election in Germany.

Godwin's law.
You lose.

[Alcon]

There are 'civil liberties' Libertarians, ones that are pro-free speech above all else.  To appeal to the left we should try to emphasize matters such as being against war (except for the last resort) and for separation of church and state (at least the extent we can be).  Sorry jfern, I can kinda see where you're goin with this, be you can't expect me to support a 'libertarian' that's against a free market.

Well, really it all comes down to who you would have voted in the 1933 election in Germany.

Godwin's law.
You lose.

Godwin's law doesn't say that bringing up Hitler makes you lose a conversation.

[Bono]

There are 'civil liberties' Libertarians, ones that are pro-free speech above all else.  To appeal to the left we should try to emphasize matters such as being against war (except for the last resort) and for separation of church and state (at least the extent we can be).  Sorry jfern, I can kinda see where you're goin with this, be you can't expect me to support a 'libertarian' that's against a free market.

Well, really it all comes down to who you would have voted in the 1933 election in Germany.

Godwin's law.
You lose.

Godwin's law doesn't say that bringing up Hitler makes you lose a conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Corollaries and usage

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.