Dems (and others on the left), do you prefer to "battle" Libertarians or Fundies

[7,052,770]

Why do you defend fundies?

I don't.  I disagree with them on so many things.

[dead0man]

Why do you defend fundies?

Because he fears libertarians.

[Reluctant Republican]

Why do you defend fundies?

Because he fears libertarians.

With respect to Harry, I'd never understand how a Progressive could dislike Libertarianism more then Fundamentalism. At the very least, progressives know Libertarians will be with them on most social issues. Do they have any issues they know Fundies will be with them on? Many of them do seem to have economically liberal sympathies, but I don’t think its as ingrained in their philosophy as social tolerance is in Libertarianism. Not to sound elitist. 

[7,052,770]

Why do you defend fundies?

Because he fears libertarians.

With respect to Harry, I'd never understand how a Progressive could dislike Libertarianism more then Fundamentalism. At the very least, progressives know Libertarians will be with them on most social issues. Do they have any issues they know Fundies will be with them on? Many of them do seem to have economically liberal sympathies, but I don’t think its as ingrained in their philosophy as social tolerance is in Libertarianism. Not to sound elitist. 

The devil I know is better than the devil I don't know.  Or something like that.  Also, fundies are easier to beat in arguments.  And fundies aren't going to win nationwide ever.

[dead0man]

....or ignorance is bliss.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Libertarians are good fellow travellers. After all their only crime is going too far. But fundies are bigoted, hateful and want to repress any change American society and keep it white and protestant only. Therefore, fundies are the enemy.

[John Dibble]

The devil I know is better than the devil I don't know.  Or something like that.

Exactly... except when the devil you know happens to be worse than the devil you don't. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fundies being easier to beat in arguments means their positions are probably less well thought out, but even if you think you've beaten them it doesn't mean they've admitted defeat. (same for Libertarians, we're stubborn as hell a lot of the time, but I digress...) Fundies are also probably a larger portion of the population, and I can tell you they've got a hell of a lot more political pull than we do. Neither fundies or Libertarians are likely to get everything they want, but I'd say the fundies have a definite advantage in influencing the outcome towards what they want.

[ilikeverin]

They are far more dangerous and intrusive than libertarians who aren't really dangerous at all. They don't give a damn what you do...

That's the whole reason why they are dangerous.  They- just- don't- care.

[Albus Dumbledore]

The only danger with libertarians is that they go too far in their beliefs.

[John Dibble]

They are far more dangerous and intrusive than libertarians who aren't really dangerous at all. They don't give a damn what you do...

That's the whole reason why they are dangerous.  They- just- don't- care.

I'm going to tell you this - bulls**t. I'm sick and tired of a lot of you people acting like libertarians are heartless demons or something like that. It can't be that we think that our views would be better for society in general, no, it has to be that we're selfish evil jerks who only think about ourselves. No, we couldn't possibly be human. We couldn't possibly have people we love and care about. We couldn't possibly be working towards what we feel is the greater good. No, it's all about us.

In fact, we can't stand the thought of helping others. If we see a Santa ringing a bell for Salvation Army donations, we make sure to punch him in the face. If we've got extra clothes we don't need, we make sure to burn them so they won't be donated to Good Will or the Kidney Foundation. If we see a bin for Toys for Tots, we defecate in it. After all, we're just a bunch of soulless bastards who don't care about anyone but ourselves. In fact, I'd bet everyone involved in this incident is a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, and if not we'd be damn proud to have them!

Get over yourselves you self-righteous, holier-than-thou pricks. You're just as bad as the fundies, but at least they're more straightforward about thinking they're better than everyone who dares to disagree with them. I'm super cereal!

[dead0man]

We're much easier to dismiss if they demonize us first.

[nclib]

Many of them [fundies] do seem to have economically liberal sympathies, but I don’t think its as ingrained in their philosophy as social tolerance is in Libertarianism. 

It does seem that most fundies are economically conservative, or at least those in Congress vote that way.

As for Libertarians, they seem to put far more emphasis on economics and the one social issue they care about (guns), is the one where conservatives support less regulation.

[SPC]

Funnily enough none of those three ideologies have any credibility(? Perhaps the wrong word - followers maybe?) outside the United States.

Libertarianism is just a silly form of US nationalism, however it is silly enough to be attacked while maintaing some sort of credibility which the fundies don't have.

Funny, given that we oppose nationalism. Also, Gully, how can you claim to be an anarchist when you defend the state at almost every opportunity?

Most libertarians tend to invoke the "founding fathers" and the "Constitution" as an arguement and believe that the US has been corrupted in recent times by "Big government" and often by association "Socialists". How is that not nationalism? Especially when considering that rugged individualism and hatred of central authority have always been "American" traits and that libertarianism has very little following outside the US.

Also I never claimed I was an Anarchist. Rather I am sympathetic towards certain branches of Anarchism. However, I don't think I have ever defended the state, at least not for the purposes of defending the state.

Unlike many libertarians, I personally would have opposed the Constitution if I were alive at that time. Nationalism is a collectivist concept that you duty in life is to serve the greater good (your country). Individualism and nationalism are inherently contradictory ideas. Hatred of central authority is also incompatable with nationalism, since nationalists want everybody to serve a central authority.

[7,052,770]

Another thing - Fundies are starting to quit denying global warming.  First it was science on board, then soon after liberals and moderates.  Conservatives and Fundies are coming on board.  Libertarians remain the last holdout.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It's amazing how many people confused a sense of responsibility with being a spoiled rich poor hater

[The Mikado]

Wiki claims a lot more "factions" in the GOP. cite  But most of them overlap with big three above.  I'm just curious.  I always assumed the left would be friendlier with Libertarians than they would be with Fundies and other more "traditional" Republicans, but recently I've seen a LOT of anti-Libertarian posts.  Culminating with the thread in U.S. GP where left leaning posters are hammering Libertarians and praising Fundies.  I could have sworn that you guys have been bemoaning the Fundies as the worst thing since Hitler for the past 7 years or so, has Ron Paul scared you?  I have a theory or two as to why this is, but I'll wait and see how this turns out.

In my personal opinion, Libertarianism is a far more dangerous ideology than politicized religious fundamentalism (though I of course oppose both).  This is mainly because Libertarianism's infantile grasp on government and its role in society manages to capture the imagination of many intelligent and talented people, something that politicized religious fundamentalism, for the most part, cannot do.

Libertarians who engage in so-called "good government" rhetoric and try to take away earmarks and so-called "pork projects" that revitalize communities and smooth the passage of good legislation.  Libertarians who oppose government subsidies of attempts to culture and enlighten Americans (from the NEA to PBS&NPR) assist in the dumbing-down of our great land.  Libertarians attack one of the largest employers in the nation, the US Federal Government, along with state and municipal governments all the way down, endangering the livelihoods of countless civil servants while slandering these hard-working Americans as "inefficient bureaucrats."  Libertarianism is a dangerous ideology that I wholeheartedly oppose.

[Emsworth]

Libertarians who engage in so-called "good government" rhetoric and try to take away earmarks and so-called "pork projects" that revitalize communities ...

It is undeniable that pork barrel projects produce positive effects for some parts of the country. However, these effects are not produced for free. They cost money, which could hypothetically have been used elsewhere for some other purpose. For all we know, that other use could have been far more beneficial. The question then becomes whether the government or the market is better at determining which purpose is more important.

Some government expenditures are so obviously critical to society that sacrificing the hypothetical private alternatives is justified. Almost everyone would agree that defending the nation or maintaining a legal system falls into this category of absolutely imperative government expenditure; most would add public education and welfare to the list; some might even support universal healthcare. But to put a $70,000 appropriation for the Paper Industry Hall of Fame on the same plane simply revolts the intelligence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who is the government to determine what the nation's culture should be? The very notion sounds quite elitist to me.

[dead0man]

In my personal opinion, Libertarianism is a far more dangerous ideology than politicized religious fundamentalism (though I of course oppose both).  This is mainly because Libertarianism's infantile grasp on government and its role in society manages to capture the imagination of many intelligent and talented people, something that politicized religious fundamentalism, for the most part, cannot do.

Awesome!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hilarious! 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you think a good chunk of the knowledge gained by children comes from the NEA, PBS and NPR?  And that we'd be substantially dumber as a nation if these, ahem, great organizations were to leave us?  Sesame Street and Barney would never be seen on TV again?  Terry Gross would starve? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because supporting inefficient industries is what the statistleft is all about.

[John Dibble]

In my personal opinion, Libertarianism is a far more dangerous ideology than politicized religious fundamentalism (though I of course oppose both).

Right, the ideology that wishes for freedom of speech, thought, belief, etc. is far more dangerous than the ones that throw rocks at you until you die because you dare to disagree with them. Clearly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given they'd be following a non-aggressive philosophy for the most part, I don't see what would be so frightening about that. Frankly I'd be more scared of the ideologies that appeal to the uneducated and gullible masses, given that's where the real power is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Ernest mentioned, some projects can do a lot of good, but frankly I don't see a $25 million bridge to an island of just 50 people who were already content to live there without a bridge as a wise investment. There's numerous other ridiculous items as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I doubt if those disappeared that the nation would become any dumber. And you know, I think we could do without Barny or the Teletubbies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the government was downsized, a number of the services would legitimately have a good chance of privatizing. (not all of course, but I don't advocate downsizing every bit of government) And yes, many of those civil servants are inefficient bureaucrats - again, not all, but enough to significantly slow down important projects and increase their costs.

[/quote]Libertarianism is a dangerous ideology that I wholeheartedly oppose.[/quote]

Yes, non-aggression and freedom are exceptionally dangerous.

[Albus Dumbledore]

It's amazing how many people confused a sense of responsibility with being a spoiled rich poor hater

Having a sense of responsibility doesn't equate to favoring economic policies that were disproven by the 1930s. Yes, avoiding state over-regulation is important but so too is avoiding going too laissez faire/pro-corporate.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's amazing how many people confused a sense of responsibility with being a spoiled rich poor hater

Having a sense of responsibility doesn't equate to favoring economic policies that were disproven by the 1930s. Yes, avoiding state over-regulation is important but so too is avoiding going too laissez faire/pro-corporate.

If one thing the last eight years have shown is that the super rich don't believe much in their own responibility.

[SPC]

I realize that dead0man and Dibble have already taken the time to dismantle your arguments, but I have nothing better to do:

Wiki claims a lot more "factions" in the GOP. cite  But most of them overlap with big three above.  I'm just curious.  I always assumed the left would be friendlier with Libertarians than they would be with Fundies and other more "traditional" Republicans, but recently I've seen a LOT of anti-Libertarian posts.  Culminating with the thread in U.S. GP where left leaning posters are hammering Libertarians and praising Fundies.  I could have sworn that you guys have been bemoaning the Fundies as the worst thing since Hitler for the past 7 years or so, has Ron Paul scared you?  I have a theory or two as to why this is, but I'll wait and see how this turns out.

In my personal opinion, Libertarianism is a far more dangerous ideology than politicized religious fundamentalism (though I of course oppose both).  This is mainly because Libertarianism's infantile grasp on government and its role in society manages to capture the imagination of many intelligent and talented people, something that politicized religious fundamentalism, for the most part, cannot do.

Infantile grasp on government? All we realize is tht people should be free to live their lives as they see fit so long as they don't hurt anyone else. Is massive government intervention really needed to fulfill that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that Bridge to Nowhere really revitalized the 50-person community.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously? You think that the NEA and PBS/NPR have done more to enlighten Americans that websites, universities, or news? You must be joking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And when that organization has an over 70% customer dissatisfaction rating and is $9 trillion in debt, that organization should be taken out of its misery, so its employees can actually find a job that serves the community efficiently, rather than stealing money, counterfeiting money, stealing medication, invading foreign nations, driving out competition, etc.

[Beet]

This is such a stupid, stupid poll. Generally though, I'd say I'm more sympathetic to libertarians, as on most issues they have less influence in society.

[The Mikado]

In my personal opinion, Libertarianism is a far more dangerous ideology than politicized religious fundamentalism (though I of course oppose both).

Right, the ideology that wishes for freedom of speech, thought, belief, etc. is far more dangerous than the ones that throw rocks at you until you die because you dare to disagree with them. Clearly.

No, the ideology that wishes for the dismantling of the intergenerational social contract known as Social Security, that opposes the very concept of societal responsibility with their divisive "individualism" rhetoric, that is opposed to every protection and reform the reformers of the 1930s bravely fought for, especially calling for the deregulation of public utilities which puts institutions crucial to the functioning of our country into the hands of plunderers like Enron...that's the ideology I oppose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given they'd be following a non-aggressive philosophy for the most part, I don't see what would be so frightening about that. Frankly I'd be more scared of the ideologies that appeal to the uneducated and gullible masses, given that's where the real power is.[/quote]

Those people never actually make it to the seat of power.  People who pander to them (like George W. Bush) do.  With a few exceptions, like Governor Huckabee and Senator Brownback, true believers in the message of Christian conservatism don't rise to prominence and elected power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Ernest mentioned, some projects can do a lot of good, but frankly I don't see a $25 million bridge to an island of just 50 people who were already content to live there without a bridge as a wise investment. There's numerous other ridiculous items as well.[/quote]

You know, I've actually met someone from Ketchikan who said that he'd really appreciate a bridge so that he wouldn't have to take a ferry to get to the airport on the island.  I tend to agree that some cases are a bit beyond the pale, like that one, but constituent service, including pork, is actually a legitimate government function.  All these attacks on earmarks and government projects in congressmen's home districts as if they were evidence of corruption really aggravates me.  There are legitimately corrupt people on Capitol Hill, but the relatively small amounts of discretionary spending spent on pet projects is necessary for the horse trading needed to pass major legislation, and many times, has legitimately beneficial results for the districts it is used on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I doubt if those disappeared that the nation would become any dumber. And you know, I think we could do without Barny or the Teletubbies.[/quote]

Ha ha.  I was first exposed to Charles Dickens by a made-for-TV adaptation of David Copperfield on PBS.  Without that, I might still not know who Mr. Micawber was.  I've seen some fairly incredible things on Masterpiece Theatre.  And all for free on the public airwaves, not on some premium HBO channel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the government was downsized, a number of the services would legitimately have a good chance of privatizing. (not all of course, but I don't advocate downsizing every bit of government) And yes, many of those civil servants are inefficient bureaucrats - again, not all, but enough to significantly slow down important projects and increase their costs.[/quote]

Privatized and deregulated like the power companies?  No more Enrons, please.

[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, non-aggression and freedom are exceptionally dangerous.
[/quote]

Any ideology whose definition of "freedom," undermines social cohesion, involves the further atomization of society, and advocates a lack of interest in collective action to benefit mankind, yes, is dangerous.

[John Dibble]

No, the ideology that wishes for the dismantling of the intergenerational social contract known as Social Security, that opposes the very concept of societal responsibility with their divisive "individualism" rhetoric, that is opposed to every protection and reform the reformers of the 1930s bravely fought for, especially calling for the deregulation of public utilities which puts institutions crucial to the functioning of our country into the hands of plunderers like Enron...that's the ideology I oppose.

If you oppose the most extreme elements of it, that's not a problem - so do I. But just because of that you can't ignore the valid points Libertarians make. Privatizing SS, partially or in full, might just save it. As things stand the government is just sitting on its hands.

As far as 'societal responsibility', society is made up of individuals. Maybe we feel that what's best for society is individual freedom, did you ever once consider that? Nationalist facism and communism were ardent advocates of the good of society over the individual, and we can see how well the nations that implemented those were run.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, those people NEVER make it to the seat of power.





Can you even name one Libertarian who gained a significant position of power, much less one that made such a terrible society?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure he would. And I'm also sure he wouldn't like to fit the $500,000 per person bill to build it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's so legitimate that they have to hide it in seperate bills to get them to pass.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'm aggravated because many of them are rather corrupt (see Rangel's "monument to me" for example") and/or wasteful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Admittedly it's often a small cost compared to the overall costs of government, but it's a symptom of greater financial irresponsibility. I think such local projects should be left to the state and local governments if they are really all that necessary. The federal government should be dealing with federal issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I've learned a great deal from the Discovery, Science, History, and Learning channels. Admittedly not free, but not premium either - just regular cable. I'd imagine that if the public free stations went away that at least some of their content would be picked up by the private, non-cable networks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some things can be privatized but not deregulated. Local monopolies like power companies are a good example.

[qyote]Any ideology whose definition of "freedom," undermines social cohesion, involves the further atomization of society, and advocates a lack of interest in collective action to benefit mankind, yes, is dangerous.
[/quote]

You act as if we advocate anarchy. We don't. Government would still operate, albeit not at the same degree as it currently does. Personally I favor a smaller federal government, with more powers over domestic affairs given to the state and local governments. The more localized it is, the greater the understanding it can have for the needs of the local community, and the easier it is for you to have your say.