22 Percent of Americans identify at libertarian

[Redalgo]

If 22% of Americans identify as libertarian, 30% have a positive opinion of social democracy and/or democratic socialism, and a significant number of folks in neither of those camps are Independent would it be fair to say that - regardless of how competently they pursue agendas in government - the two major parties only satisfactorily represent a minority of voting-age Americans nowadays? (Edit: on second thought, maybe not if only 7% are really classical liberals.)

Because young white males opinions are not as worthy as Hispanics, Woman, older White Males, or African Americans, or any other random demographic right?

Well, personally the stats seem hilarious because the demographic provided is that which has the most to gain from traditionally privileged social groups remaining so, and the most to lose from a level competitive playing field and any political agenda aimed at promoting equality of opportunity. It paints a ridiculous caricature in much the way it would if, say, a study found 70% of American communists are poor, chronically unemployed substance abusers aged under 30.

It's funny how much lefties care about this.  Oh noes, the libertarians are coming to take away our.....huh....right to....hmmmm.....

Well, you know - little things like rights to income sufficient for one to survive, some measure of formal education, free and fair elections, economic democracy, natural environs neither totally devastated by exploitation nor so toxic as to severely detract from ones quality (not to mention duration) of life, rights of association and adequate means of defense in the criminal justice system, to not be a slave, have working hours that leave healthful amounts of time for rest and leisure, to live in a society with a fair degree of social mobility, to render services via gainful employment and be served as a customer without being barred from it by others' bigotry, etc.

Idealistic libertarians are scarcely more than rejecting a few civil liberties away from being the fiercest enemies of actionable freedom and the Good Life out there, from a leftist perspective.

[dead0man]

Well, you know - little things like rights to income sufficient for one to survive,

How are libertarians going to do that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could be wrong, but I don't think most libertarians are against public schools...I'm certainly not

You must be logged in to read this quote.

libertarians are against free and fair elections?  cite?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

same

You must be logged in to read this quote.

libertarians are all for punishing people that hurt others, when you hurt the environment you hurt everybody....I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.  Yes, of course, some libertarians are stupid when it comes to the topic, but so are some ___fill in the blank___

You must be logged in to read this quote.

again, libertarians aren't against that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the hell?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

something that should be left up to the employer/employee to decide...but I doubt most libertarians are against proper overtime compensation for anything over 40hrs/wk

You must be logged in to read this quote.

how would libertarians stop this....plus, aren't most libertarian fear mongerers already under the assumption that there is no social mobility today?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the hell?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you really think a business would survive if it out and out banned black people or gays or whatever in 2013?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well it wouldn't be the first time the "leftist perspective" was wrong and it won't be the last.


again, libertarian ≠ anarchist

[Hifly]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     People love having every program they can for themselves. I don't believe that 22% of the population is capable of having a principled stance.

[Donerail]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis' feelings on the gays are far more in line with your own position. You'd like it there.

[Hifly]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis' feelings on the gays are far more in line with your own position. You'd like it there.

In what way exactly apart from the fact that gay marriage is not legal? Be specific and selective if you're going to insinuate that I'm homophobic.

[Redalgo]

@dead0man:

1. The lack of a basic income or comprehensive, universalistic welfare regime requiring a very significant amount of tax implies a livable income is a privilege each individual must successfully seek out and compete for, or otherwise do without - not a right each person has regardless of their diverse abilities or productive outputs. The economic primacy of property rights for classical liberals does not allow for such redistributive "theft" or "confiscation" from the individual.

2. Likewise is true in principle for public, regulated, and taxpayer supported institutions of learning. Since not every student can afford to attend quality private schools, and vouchers to do so would not suffice to ensure children have access to primary and secondary education in all instances, education is also a privilege one must first acquire sufficient income to deserve.

3. The integrity of elections is compromised by private donations and media coverage of elections being protected as a form of personal expression. Those with the most resources have a competitive advantage in capturing and then exerting influence over capital, which in turn empowers candidacies to better compete against other contenders. The respective arsenals of capital at the disposal of each candidate creates an unfair competitive playing field - one on which victory comes from manipulating appearances and symbols - i.e by winning on a public relations front rather than actually having the ideas, values, experiences, etc. most compatible with and in the interests of the electorate. Libertarians, incidentally, are largely shut out of government because of this unless they allow themselves to be co-opted into the GOP. The end result is a government of the few, by the few, and - whether intentionally or not - oft for the few in spite of having an electoral process that mostly looks alright on paper.

4. Libertarians generally do not hold a position that workers cannot agree to own the means of production so long as they acquire the property consensually and without violence in the first place, and do not argue that workers should not be allowed to negotiate for workplaces run in a democratic fashion, yet in practice authoritarian models of firm management better lend themselves to efficiency and are often desirable to the self-interested actors who tend to found businesses in the first place. Also, workers are at a competitive disadvantage against managers, administrators, and/or owners under most conditions - individually having relatively little capital to use for influencing the outcomes of negotiations. It takes a lot more effort and organization for the disadvantaged many to successfully out-compete a highly priveleged few. Under most tolerable economic conditions, there is thus little hope for socialism to take root. An economic democracy of producers does not exist and nor does it - evidenced by the low number of consumer co-ops in the States - exist for those choosing which goods and services to buy.

5. But do environmental regulations not coerce private property owners to abstain from using what is theirs how they please without intentionally, directly inflicting harm upon others? It seems to me the classical liberal would contend that the only recourse for those detrimentally affected by pollution, loss of biodiversity, or other forms of environmental degradation should be through filling suit against the offenders - receiving compensation if they can clearly demonstrate how the accused has harmed them and is responsible for that harm. Environmental protections are also likely to affect prices, thus punishing some firms but helping others. Along those same lines, state ownership of properties set aside for environmental protection inhibit resource development and obstruct the People from providing supplies of resources in response to consumers' demands. State intervention and distortions of the market are not things I think go along well with a traditionally classical liberal attitude toward capitalism.

6. With all due respect, allowing businesses to bar their workers from forming one or more unions to collectively bargain or even allowing them to form a union while not allowing for workers to opt out and negotiate unilaterally steps on the metaphorical toes of freedom of association. Likewise, so too does letting employers discriminate for or against employees or prospective hires for either choosing to associate (or not) with any of a wide assortment of outside social circles and organizations. Many people are put under pressure to conform to the dictates of social mores (or at least an employer's expectations) or to fearfully conceal their associations rather than being truly free to openly, autonomously decide who to consort and identify with in day-to-day life. In regards to the criminal justice system, the main point of contention I have is that those who cannot afford competent, quality legal representation are basically screwed if those pressing charges want to see them punished for something; it is once again a matter of who has how much capital to help stack the cards in their own favor. To be honest, I am not entirely sure a system of common law can be made to guarantee the poor legal representation equivalent to that of relatively privileged others.

7. I am familiar with the arguments made by many libertarians that it should be legal to subject debtors to indentured servitude or a more complete form of slavery, which they fiercely argue is protected under rights to private property. On a different front, it is also slavery to coerce any prisoner of the state to work. A great many libertarians oppose both practices, but these are things I am nonetheless wary about because they are compatible with classical liberal thought.

8. With respect, it is not libertarian to command firms to modify the compensation they award employees if they work more than a number of hours set by the state. And even without such requirements the workers would once again be at a competitive disadvantage negotiating with management, administrators, or owners. Firms do not really need to offer attractive terms of employment if there is sufficiently little competition to force them to within a given community, or if employers in that area generally offer terms similarly unsatisfactory to workers. Without a basic income or generous set of welfare policies a typical worker generally cannot afford to go without work for as long as elites can afford to go short a few hands in the workplace while trying to find other, less demanding (or more desperate, for that matter) people to hire. The individual is not necessarily an empowered, non-coerced actor under capitalism, and it is the classical liberal embrace of and support for capitalism that makes it so very objectionable.

9. Libertarians today are often concerned that social mobility has been restricted by state imposition of social rights that inhibit the individual's autonomous use of private property. But without efforts to promote equality of opportunity and a relatively egalitarian distribution of resources in society regardless of ones social statuses, wealth, income, etc. the prevailing class hierarchy will be one of privileged people making use of their privileges (made possible by superior degrees of influence over capital) to defend those privileges or even transfer them to their children (and occasionally also friends) while those who are deprived have much fewer options for escaping from deprivation and ensuring their progeny do not suffer the same fate. As a general rule, it is easier to experience downward social mobility than to go up, it is easier to go (and stay) up the higher ones class already is, and easier to go (and stay) down the lower in the hierarchy one already happens to be.

10. The classical liberal will not require businesses by law to pay a living wage, force them to hire people at least a certain number of hours per week, or otherwise guarantee that if one starts a new business that it will generate enough income to support the worker. Not only do many people lack a guarantee of sufficient income to make ends meet - they also lack a guarantee of sufficient income if they work and guarantee of even getting to work for pay (e.g. any of the long-term unemployed who have set low standards for themselves and are applying for any work for which they are qualified). Gainful employment is a privilege to the classical liberal rather than a morally justified entitlement.

11. Yes, businesses with bigoted standards can get by or even flourish anywhere locals allow for it. They tend not to because of state intervention in the economy and restrictions placed on the individual's right to private property, but in practice it is still possible for frequent customers themselves to ensure folk in certain minorities are dealt with (e.g. threatened, beaten outside, subjected to a hostile social environment) and will not return if they come to implicitly off-limits establishments. Though I may be mistaken, one of the saloons in my community comes to mind in offering this explanation. Without enough regulation I reckon at least some segregation in business would return to the U.S. There are people out there who get by just fine not putting their own rational, economic interests first on this matter.

12. In all honesty I do believe "libertarian" as a label only really should apply to anarchists but in this case I was using it for full adherents to classical liberalism so as to be more American in focus. There may be ways for some of these folks to rationalize traditionally anti-libertarian policies as, in fact, being pro-libertarian instead but on the whole your replies to my previous post strongly suggested to me that you are neither anarchist nor classical liberal. Respectfully, your responses read like those I would expect from a social liberalist. Perhaps that is where your convictions truly lie, and mainstream adherents to that way of thought in the U.S. are simply more communitarian, paternalistic, and otherwise excessively hands-on when it comes to what government's role should be in a liberal society? I am curious to read more of your thoughts on the matter.

[courts]

22% of americans probably don't know what a libertarian is

[TNF]

22% of americans probably don't know what a libertarian is

[courts]

It's funny how much lefties care about this.  Oh noes, the libertarians are coming to take away our.....huh....right to....hmmmm.....

our right to

• go out in public and not be subjected to poisonous, cancer-causing second-hand smoke
• live in a world that tries to solve climate change
• live without fear of the daily massacres usually committed by people who bought their guns legally
• have the potential for universal affordable health coverage through Obamacare
• not have our fate and fortunes be solely bound to the cruel invisible hand of capitalism
• etc.

Granted, those are all overgeneralizations that don't apply to all libertarians, but let's not pretend like libertarians have some kind of monopoly on freedom-oriented ideas.

I never suggested they did, but thank you for shooting your points to death for me!

harry almost makes me want to be a libertarian

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis' feelings on the gays are far more in line with your own position. You'd like it there.

In what way exactly apart from the fact that gay marriage is not legal? Be specific and selective if you're going to insinuate that I'm homophobic.

Insinuate? You excrete homophobia.

[Hifly]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis' feelings on the gays are far more in line with your own position. You'd like it there.

In what way exactly apart from the fact that gay marriage is not legal? Be specific and selective if you're going to insinuate that I'm homophobic.

Insinuate? You excrete homophobia.

Again- I invite you to be specific and selective.

[Paul Kemp]

We all make mistakes.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

tch... at least they're not so-cons, I guess.

[TNF]

tch... at least they're not so-cons, I guess.

Social Conservatives > Libertarians by far

[Donerail]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis' feelings on the gays are far more in line with your own position. You'd like it there.

In what way exactly apart from the fact that gay marriage is not legal? Be specific and selective if you're going to insinuate that I'm homophobic.

Insinuate? You excrete homophobia.

Again- I invite you to be specific and selective.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=9912;sa=showPosts

[Hifly]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis' feelings on the gays are far more in line with your own position. You'd like it there.

In what way exactly apart from the fact that gay marriage is not legal? Be specific and selective if you're going to insinuate that I'm homophobic.

Insinuate? You excrete homophobia.

Again- I invite you to be specific and selective.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=9912;sa=showPosts

You've literally just proven yourself to be an idiot. Try again.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Disgusting.

Degenerate.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis' feelings on the gays are far more in line with your own position. You'd like it there.

In what way exactly apart from the fact that gay marriage is not legal? Be specific and selective if you're going to insinuate that I'm homophobic.

Insinuate? You excrete homophobia.

Again- I invite you to be specific and selective.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=9912;sa=showPosts

You've literally just proven yourself to be stupid.

Yes, you in all of your 430 posts should be able to weed the stupid posters out from the enlightened ones like yourself .

[Leftbehind]

     People love having every program they can for themselves. I don't believe that 22% of the population is capable of having a principled stance.

Are those the ones that rail against state coercion whilst ignoring and/or accepting all coercion implicit in market capitalism and hold resolutely to the principle of non-violence right until the point it effects the professed sacrosanctity of property rights?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     People love having every program they can for themselves. I don't believe that 22% of the population is capable of having a principled stance.

Are those the ones that rail against state coercion whilst ignoring and/or accepting all coercion implicit in market capitalism and hold resolutely to the principle of non-violence right until the point it effects the professed sacrosanctity of property rights?

     I don't claim that political reality is simple. Pointing out the flaws that exist in a given set of principles has little to do with what I was saying there.

[Indy Texas]

As someone who formerly moved extensively in libertarian circles, I can attest to the general whiteness, maleness and relative richness of the whole scene.

I recall having a discussion with several libertarians who seemed genuinely concerned about the lack of diversity and wondered what they could do to attract minorities and the poor. No one seemed able to come up with anything.

[The Free North]

Awful.

Libertarians should be exiled to Saudi Arabia.

Yes, disagreeing with someone politically means they should be kicked out of the country.

[Peeperkorn]

22% of americans probably don't know what a libertarian is

This.

[dead0man]

@dead0man:

1. The lack of a basic income or comprehensive, universalistic welfare regime requiring a very significant amount of tax implies a livable income is a privilege each individual must successfully seek out and compete for, or otherwise do without - not a right each person has regardless of their diverse abilities or productive outputs. The economic primacy of property rights for classical liberals does not allow for such redistributive "theft" or "confiscation" from the individual.

I'm not 100% sure what you're going on about here, but I'll admit we/they are going to have to change this kind of attitude over the next half century or so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and like I said, most libertarians aren't against public schools, I'm certainly not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, this isn't (just) a libertarian issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're going to need to use smaller words for me

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and they should.  You can't dump your extra mercury into the stream that runs through your property, it negatively affects your neighbor when that stream runs into his property.  You can't pump arsenic into the air, it hurts everybody.  You can't hurt people without cause is a staple for all libertarians.  Yeah, some forget this for their own reasons, but certainly not all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't that how it is now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, not all libertarians hate the environment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

libertarians don't have to be at loggerheads with unions.  I'm not anti-union.  Sure, I don't like what they do 90% of the time, but I certainly think they should exist, especially in skill based trades, much less so in the unskilled trades.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, this isn't (just) a libertarian issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair point and one I think that will become a bigger issue in the future as we need fewer and fewer workers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yeah, that's how it is now and libertians had zilch to do with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Having a job isn't a right nor should it be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep and funk 'em.  Did you see The Daily Show piece the other day where two actors playing gay dudes got engaged in a Waffle House in MS and then AL?  Everybody clapped.  I don't think the US is as racist/bigoted as some on your side of the aisle would like to believe.  Will some businesses exist in some hypothetical place where you can bar black dudes?  Sure.  Will they thrive, funk no.  Will people that go/work there be shamed, yeah, probably.  Even in the deep south.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like the term libertarian much myself...for one, it's too long and threads like these are challenging enough, add in typing that word over and over again and it just becomes brutal .  But it's all the baggage and stereotypes that follow the word that really get in my craw.  It's wrong to stereotype, everybody says that all the time, but when it comes to libertarians the left assumes everyone is exactly like the worst possible one.  It stifles debate.  I've mentioned it, nobody cares.  They just keep on using the same giant brush.  (not saying you are)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

certainly not

You must be logged in to read this quote.

probably not

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't even know what that is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

probably

You must be logged in to read this quote.

thank you and thank you for the calm debate on the subjects.  I'm not the best at this, I think PiT and Dibble do a much better job representing "my side" than I do, but they don't post enough.  I'm probably too aggressive and too quick to mock, but it's hard not to when what you usually get from the other side is "lol get back in the basement libertarian" as debate.

(and that's the first post I've ever tried to post that reached the character limit...I blame you )