Well, Leftists are just tired of being called liberals. So, they latched on to a new word* which makes them feel as if they really give two shiites about human liberty without having to renounce their inner-need to enslave everyone in order to save the planet from Capitalism.





*Leftists care nothing for actual concepts, which words are meant to represent. To them, the value of a word can be assesed by how it makes people feel. So, we go from "liberal" (which used to make them feel good) to "progressive" (which makes them feel like they aren't working to destroy western civilization) to "libertarian" (which makes them feel like Thomas Jefferson...without all the appeals to individual liberty). Children operate on similar linguistic principles.

I don't mind being called a liberal. I know what it really means. And the meaning has nothing to do with the lies told by the conservatives and Republicans trying to smear the word.

Viola, the role of regulation in the Libertarian government would be focused in protecting individual rights. The issue you are speaking of would be a blatant violation of the neighbors individual rights to property, as it would directly affect the value of the land and any structures on it, it would also have tangibly proveable direct health effects.

I don't know where you improperly learned the platform of the Liberatarian party, but it sounds as though someone purposely lied to you, or, the person you gained the information was making it up from personal bias and simple, illogical analysis.

The original government of the United States, after the ratification of the Constitution and addition of the Bill of Rights, is an ideal libertarian federal government. The states at that time then passed their own states constitutions, based on the limitations of government prescribed by the federal constitution.

The molestation of those rights through and the usurpation of the Constitutionally prescribed method of change are directly to blame for the lack of justice, and the irrational course of current government.

The people, were expected to hold government responsible for honoring their oaths and affirmations of duty, to protect and enforce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The people became generally apathetic over time and relaxed their independent oversight of the system. This led to the bi-partisan monopoly, that you see before you today which has existed for the last 157 years, a product of one party splitting into two.

The systematic encroachment upon civil and economic liberty stand as obvious proof that the bi-partisan monopoly changed the rules, usurped the Law of the Land, and have isolated themselves in power through gerrymandering, creating obstacles at every level to ballot access, abusing the media through direct bribery and coercion, and overall appointing, creating new positions and offices for their partisan loyalists to occupy.

This is the exact warning one of our finest Presidents, George Washington, warned us of explicitly. Unfortunately, through his warning he also provided quite a pathway for the minds of partisans to follow to achieve their goal, not that it wasn't hard to figure out.

The Avalon Project : Washington's Farewell Address 1796


To me, Washington on this premise alone, stands as one of the best Presidents this country has ever known. Couple that speech, those clarifications with the fact that he turned down a seat of royalty, as a King, in preference to true individual liberty and a represetnative government, he should stand as one of the true great American Heroes in my opinon.

Tell me after honest analysis of the issues Washington addressed, when held up to the current system, if that is not an accurate analysis when overlayed of our history since.

__________________
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.

Wow, good post, Osborn!

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

Agreed. I'm not sure I'm ready to trade our system for a parliamentary one, though.

I don't see any point or purpose to give a serious reply to your post.

Certainly.

The key distinction is the priority one places on liberty. I distinguish between those libertarians who believe that capital ought to have absolute liberty (and that human liberty is merely an enabler of liberty for capital - such as the "US Libertarian Party" and those who generally support it) and those libertarians who believe that human liberty is an end in itself, and capitalism is merely a means to that end.

For many people, the distinction is too subtle to notice.

Indeed, I've been saying the same thing about "liberals" and "conservatives" for years.

The labels claimed by most people bear no relation to the actual philosophy of the same name. In most cases, these labels are claimed and worn like a sport-team jersey (and all that implies).

In pure theoretical terms, they are very, very similar and highly related. Liberalism is the older and more prestigious term. Over time, liberalism developed various factions (classical liberalism and progressive liberalism most notably). For all intents and purposes, these are the ideological foundations of the two present day American parties - the Republicans are a traditionally 'classical liberal' party and the Democrats are a traditionally 'progressive liberal' party.

That being said, the 'classical liberalism' of the Republican party appears to be a dying breed, supplanted by 'neoliberals' (or neoconservatives if you prefer) who clearly are abandoning classical liberal grounds and swinging over to theocratic or traditional conservative grounds as their basis. For the most part, Republicans have stopped claiming to be liberals (though they tend to be still very classic liberal in economics).

Likewise, the 'progressive liberalism' of the Democratic party is also dying out - being supplanted by social democrats and those further left who make no pretense of respecting liberal principles. For the most party, Democrats often still do call themselves liberal and their party still claims to be liberal, but it is becoming increasingly less liberal as time goes on. Given that most Democratic voters who claim to be 'liberal' are not actually liberals but really social democrats, it is quite easy for the 'rightwing' to attack liberalism as nothing more than socialism in sheep's clothing. Under the flag of the Democratic party, it essentially is.

And that is why liberalism is, oddly enough, the rarest of actual political ideologies in the USA, though it is the ideology that the USA was founded upon, built upon and prospers upon.

Liberalism of course is the only ideology that places the individual at the apex of society. All other ideologies (conservativism, theocratism, socialism, social democrats, etc.) all place some other entity at the top of the value pyramid.

Thus, those liberals (true liberals, not social democrats) who are most horrified by the butchery of the word due to partisan politics have in many cases moved to claim the libertarian label as it has not yet been corrupted too badly yet (though the US Libertarian Party is doing its best to associate the word with radical extremism in economics).

Thus, libertarianism now has a couple of varieties. One is the radical extremism associated with the US Libertarian Party (and Ayn Rand obsessives), the other is much closer to the traditional classical liberalism that has been abandoned by the Republican party. For distinction, I call this 'left libertarianism' (though 'classical libertarian' would do just as well). Indeed, if it was up to me, I'd just call myself a Whig - but again, that term was used/abused and destroyed by US domestic politics a hundred years ago.

Btw, it is to be noted that in the US, the 'social democrat' types who have been claiming the liberal label (while opposing liberal ideas) have now been moving to claim the label of 'progressive' - which is of course radically different than the last 'progressive' movement of the 1890-1930 period when they were closely associated with pro-eugenics.

Agreed. I've seen many others offer the same preference. It only indicates these people really aren't paying very close attention.

Indeed, study after study has shown that the vast majority of voters do not base their electoral choices on policy at all. They tend to go by looks, partisan identification or shared socio-cultural identifications. Obama and Ron Paul do share the socio-cultural identification of being outsiders. That's attractive to lots of people (and totally shallow, but hey, I just analyze this stuff).

I agree with all this, though I'd say Jefferson's warning about the "money interest" and Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex" are even more salient at this time than Washington's warning.

It is a good analysis, but not the whole picture. Washington could never have imagined the power of the machine that Eissenhower witnessed first hand.

I would agree with both, but I see the spirit of party as the great enabler that allowed this "money intrest" and the "military industrial complex" to gain its power, solidify its base, and aquire capital.

Surely.... I tend to think the bulk of the forefathers, had they been alive, would have revolted out of hand before allowing the system to get THAT far.

I share the view with many that it is easier to prevent corruption, than to shrug it off, repeal it, remove it once it has festered and grown deep into the system.

Good post to Viola by the way.

__________________
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.

This:
Followed by this:
Translation: "Property rights aren't important."
See what I mean? You aren't a "classical liberal" or even a "libertarian". You're a Leftist. A Statist. A big-brother lover. One-who-wishes-to-separate-the-masses-from-their-wealth.

All rights are equally important. If one right is destroyed, the others generally follow. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.