If libertarians spent as much time defending civil liberties as they do economic

[Scam of God]

Yea, obviously.

[k-onmmunist]

Yea, obviously.

[k-onmmunist]

Only problem is, it is economic liberties that are really under attack... civil liberties less so, though the 'War on Terror' sideshow, the 'War on Liberties' makes me think otherwise.

[Sewer]

Only problem is, it is economic liberties that are really under attack... civil liberties less so

[Lief 🗽]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

[Scam of God]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

benconstine, BushOklahoma, HappyWarrior, and NewDealDemocrat are all Democrats, though. They still seem to have at least as large a chunk of populists as the GOP does.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

     I'd prefer to work specifically with certain people (in both parties) rather than give a free ride to freedom-haters. Part of the reason we aren't taken seriously currently is that some of us are afraid to tell Republicans when they are wrong. Why would it be any better if we refused to tell Democrats when they are wrong?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

     I'd prefer to work specifically with certain people (in both parties) rather than give a free ride to freedom-haters. Part of the reason we aren't taken seriously currently is that some of us are afraid to tell Republicans when they are wrong. Why would it be any better if we refused to tell Democrats when they are wrong?

That is why I tell both parties when they are wrong.

[Scam of God]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

benconstine, BushOklahoma, HappyWarrior, and NewDealDemocrat are all Democrats, though. They still seem to have at least as large a chunk of populists as the GOP does.

I want these people to start voting GOP. I want to get rid of them; I want to use Clinton's legacy of fiscal moderatism in the Democratic Party to build one of fiscal libertarianism.

But we have to be willing to be more vocal about social and civil issues than we are presently - every libertarian I've ever talked to has seemed to be clam-mouthed about expressing his real opinions regarding these things, when they are part and parcel of the ideology. We will get nowhere as hangers-on to the political Right.

[Scam of God]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

     I'd prefer to work specifically with certain people (in both parties) rather than give a free ride to freedom-haters. Part of the reason we aren't taken seriously currently is that some of us are afraid to tell Republicans when they are wrong. Why would it be any better if we refused to tell Democrats when they are wrong?

To an extent, yes. The same thing that got us into this mess is capable of getting us out. The reason we're not taken seriously is because we look like purely cold-hearted capitalists. If we can start to find our own voice on civil liberties, the Democrats (surely soon to be in the minority yet again) will follow.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

     I'd prefer to work specifically with certain people (in both parties) rather than give a free ride to freedom-haters. Part of the reason we aren't taken seriously currently is that some of us are afraid to tell Republicans when they are wrong. Why would it be any better if we refused to tell Democrats when they are wrong?

To an extent, yes. The same thing that got us into this mess is capable of getting us out. The reason we're not taken seriously is because we look like purely cold-hearted capitalists. If we can start to find our own voice on civil liberties, the Democrats (surely soon to be in the minority yet again) will follow.

But that is attributable to Obama's fiscal stances being more damaging right now than his social ones. During the Bush years, libertarians gave vocal opposition to things such as the PATRIOT Act, Iraq War, steel tariffs, spending, etc.

We have to influence both sides with small government principles if we are ever to make an impact. We have to stand up and have our voice heard. And most importantly, we have start with local races, by finding appealing candidates with a message and funding them properly on a small scale.

[Scam of God]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

     I'd prefer to work specifically with certain people (in both parties) rather than give a free ride to freedom-haters. Part of the reason we aren't taken seriously currently is that some of us are afraid to tell Republicans when they are wrong. Why would it be any better if we refused to tell Democrats when they are wrong?

To an extent, yes. The same thing that got us into this mess is capable of getting us out. The reason we're not taken seriously is because we look like purely cold-hearted capitalists. If we can start to find our own voice on civil liberties, the Democrats (surely soon to be in the minority yet again) will follow.

But that is attributable to Obama's fiscal stances being more damaging right now than his social ones. During the Bush years, libertarians gave vocal opposition to things such as the PATRIOT Act, Iraq War, steel tariffs, spending, etc.

I don't think you understand. I don't expect Obama to win a second term, ala Bush. I fully expect him to be swept out of office in 2012 on a wave of nationalist/theocratic/racialist sentiment, by either Huckabee or Palin - and then the true face of the enemy will be exposed. And I fully expect that you and I will be increasingly on the defensive after that.

If my prognostications are correct, remember what I've advised in this thread.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

     I'd prefer to work specifically with certain people (in both parties) rather than give a free ride to freedom-haters. Part of the reason we aren't taken seriously currently is that some of us are afraid to tell Republicans when they are wrong. Why would it be any better if we refused to tell Democrats when they are wrong?

To an extent, yes. The same thing that got us into this mess is capable of getting us out. The reason we're not taken seriously is because we look like purely cold-hearted capitalists. If we can start to find our own voice on civil liberties, the Democrats (surely soon to be in the minority yet again) will follow.

But that is attributable to Obama's fiscal stances being more damaging right now than his social ones. During the Bush years, libertarians gave vocal opposition to things such as the PATRIOT Act, Iraq War, steel tariffs, spending, etc.

I don't think you understand. I don't expect Obama to win a second term, ala Bush. I fully expect him to be swept out of office in 2012 on a wave of nationalist/theocratic/racialist sentiment, by either Huckabee or Palin - and then the true face of the enemy will be exposed. And I fully expect that you and I will be increasingly on the defensive after that.

If my prognostications are correct, remember what I've advised in this thread.

I registered as a Republican to ensure Huckabee's defeat in the primary 2012. I am now so certain of his defeat that I am comfortable switching my registration to Democrat this month so I can vote in the Democratic primary for Senate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

Doesn't matter. The more you do - and unconditionally - the more likely they are to come around to your point of view, as reciprocation for your support.

     I'd prefer to work specifically with certain people (in both parties) rather than give a free ride to freedom-haters. Part of the reason we aren't taken seriously currently is that some of us are afraid to tell Republicans when they are wrong. Why would it be any better if we refused to tell Democrats when they are wrong?

To an extent, yes. The same thing that got us into this mess is capable of getting us out. The reason we're not taken seriously is because we look like purely cold-hearted capitalists. If we can start to find our own voice on civil liberties, the Democrats (surely soon to be in the minority yet again) will follow.

     Well yes, we do need to find our own voice on civil liberties. At the same time, forgetting economic freedom is bad, even if it is a better idea than voting for corporatist shills. That's why I advocate disassociating with both parties & existing as a swing bloc so that the Republicans & Democrats must both compromise to try to gain our support.

      With that said, should things continue this way & the populist elements completely leave the Democratic party, I will be glad to throw in my lot with the red avatars.

[Joe Republic]

This entire premise assumes that libertarians have any real strength to begin with.

[Scam of God]

This entire premise assumes that libertarians have any real strength to begin with.

I think we do. Perhaps not the ideological hard-core, but certainly there is a huge segment of the population that leans libertarian, if it's broadly defined as being economically "conservative" and socially "liberal".

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This entire premise assumes that libertarians have any real strength to begin with.

I think we do. Perhaps not the ideological hard-core, but certainly there is a huge segment of the population that leans libertarian, if it's broadly defined as being economically "conservative" and socially "liberal".

Every time I define myself "broadly" like that you attack....is it the libertarian way to attack those who feel they fit in your broad definition?

[Jacobtm]

One problem is that anti-discrimination laws have come from the Federal Government. When women or racial minorities feel they're being opressed, they look for government intervention, and the Federal Government has been the body to pass laws that try to deal with these issues.

So Enzigie, what would the position of a left-libertarian be on workplace discrimination laws? Would the economic liberty of corporations to hire and fire at will be strengthened by a left-libertarian, even if that means that those besides straight white men lost out in the work place?

A more general solution towards changing society so that people no longer have prejudices against groups that are different than them is the ultimate goal, of course, but what would a left-libertarian do right now with workplace discrimination laws?

[dead0man]

This entire premise assumes that libertarians have any real strength to begin with.

I think we do. Perhaps not the ideological hard-core, but certainly there is a huge segment of the population that leans libertarian, if it's broadly defined as being economically "conservative" and socially "liberal".

Every time I define myself "broadly" like that you attack....is it the libertarian way to attack those who feel they fit in your broad definition?

I'm much more into civil liberties than economic ones yet he still attacks me.  Is there anybody he doesn't attack?  He claims to be doing this all for "left-libertarianism", but his constant attacks on everybody always brings me back to thinking he is a sock.  Why else would somebody do such harm to his own "cause".

[Хahar 🤔]

Nothing would change at all.

[k-onmmunist]

Libertarians have a pretty backwards definition of economic liberties anyway.

    This a perfect example of why I don't want to ally with Democrats.

[k-onmmunist]

Thing is, small-l libertarianism is quite common, but the 'Libertarian' Party is too anti-civil liberties (i.e. anti-immigration, pro life)

[Alcon]

This entire premise assumes that libertarians have any real strength to begin with.

I think we do. Perhaps not the ideological hard-core, but certainly there is a huge segment of the population that leans libertarian, if it's broadly defined as being economically "conservative" and socially "liberal".

You vastly overestimate what percent of the population leans ideologically consistent.  There are a lot of people who think the government should "justify its existence" and not intrude on their lives, but many of those people see social permissiveness as being an intrusion.

The number of people who believe in a strict doctrine of non-involvement, and happen to agree with you on which economic model supports greater liberty, and does all of this consistently enough to form a meaningful voting bloc, is probably negligible.