A Question to Left-Libertarians: Why are you not Democratic Socialists or Progressive Democrats?

Obscurity said:

How so? You mean his misrepresented immigration plan, that is more conservative than it is progressive?

It returns power to the institutions that originally had it for enforcement and the like.

I dont agree with everything Sanders says but to me hes the best candidate out of the bunch.

Click to expand...

Nope...Because Bernie has literally said the words "I am a Democratic Socialist."

While having a few running around the Capitol building is OK, we will never or at least for the foreseeable future elevate a Democratic Socialist to the WH. In addition as the Dem field narrows, the Party will realize that if it puts a Democratic Socialist at the top of its 2020 ticket he will take the entire party down with him and AOC will be one lonely voice on the Hill.

As for Immigration, though that is an entirely different topic Bernie has adopted Castro's decriminalization idea which is not returning to where we were. Where we were gave prosecutors Prosecutorial Discretion regarding illegal border crossings which is why so many were charged with Misdemeanors or not charged at all. Trump and Sessions removed Prosecutorial Discretion through Zero Tolerance. Prosecutorial Discretion is what needs to be restored. Decriminalization puts a Dem in the Open Borders camp and that is no way to go into a National General Election in this country.

I'd suggest the people who call themselves 'left libertarian' are people who do not understand that Libertarianism is nothing but a phony bit of propaganda to serve as sheep's clothing for plutocracy, while allowing people to play around with thinking they have opinions on other things that have any relevance, but basically don't.

They're people who support some areas of government activity more than people in the 'middle or right' - it might be things such as education, reduced inequality, or environmental protection - but have strong opinions about wanting to limit the government in other areas making them uncomfortable being Democrats.

They're playing a role to serve the plutocrats, by giving them a 'big tent' appearance, much as 'Log Cabin Republicans' did for Republican plutocrats, even as Republicans were fighting things like gay marriage rights or AIDS care.

They might be 'Libertarians' for lots of reasons they think are relevant, but the only real issue for Libertarians is that they support a movement for denying the people power through government, to benefit the plutocrats. Democrats do something a bit similar with 'blue dog' Democrats, which says, 'go ahead and be right-wing/corporatist, but their votes usually count to give the Democratic Party more power.'

Praxas said:

Everything I have said is true is because you are trying to conserve Trump and his morals. You supoport him everyday. You support his actions. You support his methods. You support everything about him. You support hi foreign policy of asking his foreign contacts of investigating personal rivals, USING HIS OWN PERSONAL ATTORNEY (not US government) to gather that. You support all of that. So whether you voted for Trump or not, you support Trump now in all his crooked deals, corrupt behavior and illegal means.

YOU CONSERVE CORRUPTION and nothing more.

Click to expand...

I am left scratching my head at your nakedly false assertions. I presume you mean that because I am a conservative, and occasionally Donald Trump pursues conservative policies that I might otherwise find beneficial to the nation, I am inextricably tied to him and I am guilty by mere association of sharing political labels and party? Because I was a Republican far longer than Donald Trump was and believed in conservative principles overall far longer than Donald Trump did.

OscarLevant said:

You say 'get the government out of marriage' but then you go on to say 'tie it to visitation rights'. Wait a minute, that's getting the government in on marriage. MOreover, who gets what during divorce, is the state a community property state, etc. No, I don't see anyway how one cannot get the government involved with marriage licensing

Click to expand...

Unless you already thought I was an idiot, the conclusion that I would directly contradict myself like that is absurd.

As in get it out of deciding who can marry. People kept going on about "oh, but if we let gay people marry soon you'll have polygamy" and my response is: so what? I also specifically mentioned getting rid of attempts to encourage/discourage social things like marriage with tax implications, so quite obviously I did not mean get government entirely completely and utterly out of marriage; I instead obviously meant get it out of certain parts of marriage.

OscarLevant said:

You're a libertarian. Even Milton Friedman supported a negative income tax.

Click to expand...

I didn't say negative income tax.

OscarLevant said:

THe trouble with flat taxes is that they tax the poor and middle class more, and tax the rich less. \

Click to expand...

I didn't say flat tax.

OscarLevant said:

Also, a 'bracketed flat tax' is an oxymoron.

Click to expand...

Only if someone fails to understand what I meant and incorrectly assumes I must be an idiot, rather than that perhaps they had misunderstood something or thought about what else I might have meant. Bracketed flat tax meaning: each bracket is flat - all those deductions, credits, and the like swept away - but still have progressive tax brackets specifically to avoid the regressive effects of a perfectly flat tax. To make it painfully clear, someone at the 22% bracket now might effectively pay 16%, or 19% but something other than the exact 22% rate due to what credits/deductions/etc are available to them. I say a slow transition to wiping out all those credits/deductions, but this would also require changing the brackets. If there were a 22% bracket, it'd necessarily be for higher income ranges than currently, but those people in the 22% bracket would pay precisely 22%. That's the second-best policy I'd hope for.

As I was typing it occurred to me that rather than have distinct brackets where your tax rate jumps a load-per-dollar as you enter the next one, have that deducation/credit-free system operate on a curve. Above 75,000 taxed at X%, dollar 75,001 at X+Y%, so on and so forth. Incremental increases. Taxes on a curve, but no credit/deductions/"loopholes", etc. I suppose this second sentiment didn't stay in the final post.

I wouldn't shift the overall amount paid by people that much, though the upper income levels could definitely use a hike. (Though really it depends on which policies I get. If I got universal health care and UBI, people closer to the middle would also have to pay more. It all depends. I can't sit here and post a chart of exactly what would work because I don't know. I do, however, think the tax code could use a major overhaul to simplify in the extreme. I'm rather sick of paying hundreds and hundreds of bucks each year to an accountant just to make sure I didn't **** up my taxes).

OscarLevant said:

You're a libertarian.

Click to expand...

You really don't know what I am (if any one label does apply) because I only mentioned the first few things that came to mind. The full list of policies I support goes on and on. Would a libertarian want a huge government universal health care program? No, probably not. That's more democratic socialist/socialist, depending on the exact structure of the program in question.

Would a libertarian want to largely replace the messy patchwork of social welfare programs with a basic income, which might even be bigger (while still maintaining programs that don't simply grant money to help those with various disabilities and illnesses that might impair their ability to manage a guaranteed basic income)? No probably not.

On the other hand, would a Libertarian want government not dictating/influencing social things like who gets married? Probably.

Would a Libertarian not want government dictating personal health things like what substances one puts in one's body? Probably.

There are all sorts of things I'd support that a Libertarian wouldn't, which is why I only typically score about half way to libertarian on these political tests. It depends.





Don't be so quick to assume. I have to type shorthand because if I put my thoughts in their full long-form detail, all I'll get is "tl;dr" and then I'll just be talking to myself. Shorthand can necessarily be interpreted multiple ways. So...yeah..unless you think I'm an idiot, don't assume I'm all muddled up.

I have hesitated to post because I don't know if I fit any of the definitions (hence my "lean" descriptor). I have described my general philosophical position as "Eco-social democratic", or a believer in the Eco-Social Market Economic theory ("balancing free market economics, the strive for social fairness and the sustainable use and protection of the natural resources"). Some have/would describe(d) that as "Left-libertarian", so here I am.

In that regard, I think Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg actually are the candidates closest to my way of thinking (the actual candidates, as opposed to the caricatures popular on the internet). Neither is a "Democratic Socialist" - a position that I think is markedly at odds with "libertarian-left". "Progressive Democrat", however, I think would be an accurate descriptor (as opposed to "rabid progressive"), and certainly "Social Democrat".

Many of the positions previously described I have a strong affinity for, but I am perhaps more interventionist than the average "libertarian" in that regard. This is a practical, rather than philosophical, position, however - the effects of long-term inequality necessitating more interventionist policies to correct for them.

Natural resources, I think, should be publicly owned and managed (in general). This allows our society to balance the general welfare against individual benefit/profit. Similarly, government intervention is required to ensure markets are "fair" - as "self-policing" consistently fails - but it should be aimed at ensuring fairness, allowing free competition to the extent feasible, and may include social justice considerations as appropriate (e.g., affirmative action, race/culture/historical sensitivity). Occasionally, government support or encouragement is appropriate for general welfare/social justice reasons (e.g., subsidization of public-interest infrastructure - Green New Deal-type endeavors).

All public policy must have a rational basis and a strong tie to an acknowledged public interest and authority. That includes tax policy. Again, I may be more accepting of social-policy measures than friend Person, but I am philosophically aligned. Taxes are first and foremost for the purpose of raising revenue to support the general welfare and national defense effectively, efficiently and fairly. That essentially requires that it be generally progressive in nature, and also allows for things such as tax credits/deductions for socially responsible behavior (e.g., child care, IRA contributions, "green" purchases).

Anyway, that's where I stand, generally. My sig line adds a lot.

RabidAlpaca said:

I don't like labels because it lets people pigeon hole you on issues or limits the use of your own brain and moral compass, but I have heavy left libertarian tendencies.

Libertarian because I believe everyone has a fundamental right to his own body and essentially without exception. If someone wants to do drugs in their home and isn't harming anyone, that's their right. I do not believe there can be a crime without a victim. On social issues I'm very libertarian.

However, I realize that we've all been born into a world where most of the world's wealth has long since been predistributed. There are families who robbed society blind 200 years ago and their do nothing heirs are still riding on that wealth. Our economic society is a game and we should be free to adjust the rules of that game to make it more fair to new players. Some arbitrary digital value in a computer somewhere says Johnny never has to work a day in his life as he's pampered by servants while Ronny works 3 jobs just not to starve.

Classically left libertarian I'm very skeptical of the idea of ownership of land, especially the resources that are on that land. I think resources and land belong to society and that land ownership should be a lease paid for by some kind of contribution back to society, like work. It doesn't make sense to me that a family can own large swathes of America until the end of time just because they got there first, especially considering land indefinitely appreciates in value.

So in short, the rules of personal domain over one's body I see as absolute, but the rules over how we structure society's game is highly fluid and arbitrary and should be used to encourage real contributions and not just familial luck. I think these views are pretty compatible with Democratic Socialism and I don't see a lot of daylight between them.

Click to expand...

I differ with you on one issue - the private ownership of land.

But I must say your post is excellent, and even on the point where we disagree you make a cogent argument.

jnug said:

What is Democratic Socialism? This is not a question that really requires debate. There is an accepted definition for the term, Democratic Socialism:
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy which advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy.

There are some additional qualifiers that some think provide granularity sometimes added to the backend of the above. Here is one of them: with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.

Frankly I think this is one instance when granularity does not add light but just provides more gibberish to argue through. The bolded above in this post is sufficient.

In other words, a Democratic Socialist is a Socialist. The use of the adjective "Democratic" simply means they want to "vote" their way to Socialism.

So that might be a worthy topic for debate:
Is Democratic Socialism more or less likely to run wild than other Socialist constructs. Does it hold within it the possibility that once "voters" get the Socialist needle in their arms, that they will simply keep voting themselves newfound credits to voucher themselves with from the government?

Click to expand...

Yes, the bolded is it exactly. A Democratic Socialist is a Socialist. It's all about the means of production, which is the defining element of Socialism. Everything that flows from that is just further definition of the flavor of Socialism.

Helix said:

i don't have any desire to seize the means of production to give it to the workers, so i'm not much of a socialist. instead, i am European center left. this means that i support making America resemble countries that routinely score higher on quality of life indexes.

Click to expand...

:thumbs:

Yep. To me, that's the defining parameter of the efficacy of a given government - quality of life!

Chomsky said:

:thumbs:

Yep. To me, that's the defining parameter of the efficacy of a given government - quality of life!

Click to expand...

I agree.

jnug said:

The distinct difference between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist has been the lynchpin to my argument that in his effort to get farther and farther Left of some elements of the Dem field for nomination, Bernie has now thrown himself off the cliff edge and has done it in a way that will eventually make it very difficult for him to recover.

Click to expand...

Fair point. I have no idea why Bernie keeps portraying his-self as a Socialist. Is he really a socialist? Perhaps. But his current platform & policies assuredly are not. He does himself a disservice, I believe.

NWRatCon said:

I have hesitated to post because I don't know if I fit any of the definitions (hence my "lean" descriptor). I have described my general philosophical position as "Eco-social democratic", or a believer in the Eco-Social Market Economic theory ("balancing free market economics, the strive for social fairness and the sustainable use and protection of the natural resources"). Some have/would describe(d) that as "Left-libertarian", so here I am.

In that regard, I think Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg actually are the candidates closest to my way of thinking (the actual candidates, as opposed to the caricatures popular on the internet). Neither is a "Democratic Socialist" - a position that I think is markedly at odds with "libertarian-left". "Progressive Democrat", however, I think would be an accurate descriptor (as opposed to "rabid progressive"), and certainly "Social Democrat".

Many of the positions previously described I have a strong affinity for, but I am perhaps more interventionist than the average "libertarian" in that regard. This is a practical, rather than philosophical, position, however - the effects of long-term inequality necessitating more interventionist policies to correct for them.

Natural resources, I think, should be publicly owned and managed (in general). This allows our society to balance the general welfare against individual benefit/profit. Similarly, government intervention is required to ensure markets are "fair" - as "self-policing" consistently fails - but it should be aimed at ensuring fairness, allowing free competition to the extent feasible, and may include social justice considerations as appropriate (e.g., affirmative action, race/culture/historical sensitivity). Occasionally, government support or encouragement is appropriate for general welfare/social justice reasons (e.g., subsidization of public-interest infrastructure - Green New Deal-type endeavors).

All public policy must have a rational basis and a strong tie to an acknowledged public interest and authority. That includes tax policy. Again, I may be more accepting of social-policy measures than friend Person, but I am philosophically aligned. Taxes are first and foremost for the purpose of raising revenue to support the general welfare and national defense effectively, efficiently and fairly. That essentially requires that it be generally progressive in nature, and also allows for things such as tax credits/deductions for socially responsible behavior (e.g., child care, IRA contributions, "green" purchases).

Anyway, that's where I stand, generally. My sig line adds a lot.

Click to expand...

After thoroughly digesting this interesting thread, and reading your post & rationale, I've come to see I'm doing myself a disservice by using my Libertarian-Left lean indicator in lieu of the unavailable more accurate Social Democrat indicator.

So like yourself I've now become an "Other", even though I hate representing myself as undefined!

Chomsky said:

I differ with you on one issue - the private ownership of land.

But I must say your post is excellent, and even on the point where we disagree you make a cogent argument.

Click to expand...

What don't you agree with? Does land belong to the first person to claim it until the end of time? If a few rich families gather the majority of land in America with its resources and decide to never give it back do we just accept that?

Do all of their ancestors deserve to profit from that wealth eternally with no effort?

Ah, here we go fellow Social Democrats! We can display our "Social Democrat" lean in the Custom User Title field, then display "Other" in the Political Leaning field.

Works for me! No more explaining/debating/arguing over our inaccurate "Libertarian-Left" public lean!

Chomsky said:

Fair point. I have no idea why Bernie keeps portraying his-self as a Socialist. Is he really a socialist? Perhaps. But his current platform & policies assuredly are not. He does himself a disservice, I believe.

Click to expand...

Agreed....I posted earlier in this or some other thread that I simply do not know where Dems get their consultants. If it were me I would have tied and gagged Bernie and thrown him into a closet till he regained his senses.

RabidAlpaca said:

What don't you agree with? Does land belong to the first person to claim it until the end of time? If a few rich families gather the majority of land in America with its resources and decide to never give it back do we just accept that?

Do all of their ancestors deserve to profit from that wealth eternally with no effort?

Click to expand...

Look, you make a good argument. But if we chose capitalism as our economic system, I believe at least some control or use of land should be capitalistic. I'm a Social Democrat; as such, I believe there should be a social safety net for secure housing. But, I'm also an avowed capitalist. I'm fine with a system of capitalistic acquisition/control of private lands alongside land put aside for public use. I might consider arguments for something similar to the long-term leasehold method used in Hawaii, but don't misconstrue my "willing to consider" with "given support" of leasehold.

Now all this is not to say we can't apply techniques to allow fair access to the purchase, acquisition, and control of private lands. I'm fine with massaging our economic systems to provide more equitable results in terms of opportunity.

jnug said:

Agreed....I posted earlier in this or some other thread that I simply do not know where Dems get their consultants. If it were me I would have tied and gagged Bernie and thrown him into a closet till he regained his senses.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Because his policies for the most part are reasonable. I see him as a Social Democrat, to be honest. Which is fine by me.

Chomsky said:

Agreed. Because his policies for the most part are reasonable. I see him as a Social Democrat, to be honest. Which is fine by me.

Click to expand...

Its a political problem now. It does not much matter what you or I might see Bernie as when Bernie has already said the words and self-avowed as a Democratic Socialist.

If Bernie gets the nomination, it will be just too easy for the GOP to provide the definition of Democratic Socialist to American voters and they will simply shove Bernie's own words right down his throat. Bernie will be left blathering about how his platform is the platform of a Social Democrat and the GOP will force him into a box of his own making (a literal political coffin). What does he do, tell us all that he did not know the dif. Send us a "SORRY America" letter.

Captain Adverse said:

I consider myself Left-Libertarian because I see some needs for government beyond mere criminal justice and national defense.

For example, I also support a national education program. I do so because I adhere to the ideal that an educated citizenry can make informed decisions. My problem with such a system is the fear that it can be used not simply to educate, but also to indoctrinate. That fear is coming to a head when I see all these clearly indoctrinated millennials and Gen-Z'ers spouting globalist, socialist, anti-freedom doctrines these days and a hatred of our national identity.

A basic education should be just that, learning to read, write, add/subtract/calculate, science, literature, and physical education. Not "Politics." Save that for the college you go to and are paying for on your own dime.

The other thing I support is national health. Not "medical coverage from the cradle to the grave," but rather actual public health actions. This would include sewage and garbage treatment, pandemic reaction (isolation, development of cures, and treatment of plagues), and medical care for those who served in government and were injured in service.

Click to expand...

Great post, however I don't see which part of what you described fall under "left"? I could see someone who self identifies as 'right leaning conservative saying pretty much what you just said here too.

Court Jester said:

Great post, however I don't see which part of what you described fall under "left"? I could see someone who self identifies as 'right leaning conservative saying pretty much what you just said here too.

Click to expand...

I see that you are a relatively new member, so I would like to recommend that you read my first blog posted in 2017, located here:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/captain-adverse/1391-time-re-introduce-myself.html

Then there is my actual "new member" post (which is linked at the bottom of the above Blog post and also immediately below) showing it is a true representation of my positions from the start of my Forum membership in 2013. That they are truly held beliefs, and not made to impress others. My Forum posts conform to these ideals.

Hi and here are my positons. Anyone wanna add me as a freind

Basically I am not a "conservative" because I have no problem with changes that do not negatively affect individual liberty. Hence my support for Same-Sex marriage, responsible recreational drug use, etc..

I want to preserve individual rights and liberties, and do not believe in some nebulous idea of "group" rights which serve to elevate "the group" over the individual in all things.

Thus I oppose an overweening government of the type Leftists push for, hoping to impose and enforce their ideology on the rest of us. My view of government is limited to just that which protects citizens from enemies foreign and domestic, maintains general infrastructure, provides a "just" system of criminal justice, maintains general health (sewage/garbage disposal, fresh water access, disease control) and also includes basic educational needs as listed in a prior post.

Does that help?

Captain Adverse said:

I see that you are a relatively new member, so I would like to recommend that you read my first blog posted in 2017, located here:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/captain-adverse/1391-time-re-introduce-myself.html

Then there is my actual "new member" post (which is linked at the bottom of the above Blog post and also immediately below) showing it is a true representation of my positions from the start of my Forum membership in 2013. That they are truly held beliefs, and not made to impress others. My Forum posts conform to these ideals.

Hi and here are my positons. Anyone wanna add me as a freind

Basically I am not a "conservative" because I have no problem with changes that do not negatively affect individual liberty. Hence my support for Same-Sex marriage, responsible recreational drug use, etc..

I want to preserve individual rights and liberties, and do not believe in some nebulous idea of "group" rights which serve to elevate "the group" over the individual in all things.

Thus I oppose an overweening government of the type Leftists push for, hoping to impose and enforce their ideology on the rest of us. My view of government is limited to just that which protects citizens from enemies foreign and domestic, maintains general infrastructure, provides a "just" system of criminal justice, maintains general health (sewage/garbage disposal, fresh water access, disease control) and also includes basic educational needs as listed in a prior post.

Does that help?

Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. However when I think of a "classic liberal" I tend to think more leaning toward libertarian right than libertarian left.

Captain Adverse said:

I want to preserve individual rights and liberties, and do not believe in some nebulous idea of "group" rights which serve to elevate "the group" over the individual in all things.

Click to expand...

Like so many libertarians, you appear to have a simplistic idea of liberty. For example, you say you support 'individual rights', but don't appear to understand that what actually tends to happen are conflicts between 'individual rights' - for example, should a rich guy be able to buy Yosemite or a mile of the beach as his individual right, or should a citizen have 'the public' protect his individual right to visit them as public properties?

Thus I oppose an overweening government of the type Leftists push for, hoping to impose and enforce their ideology on the rest of us.

Click to expand...

As with most libertarians, you appear oblivious to the primary issue that's actually relevant in our society today, plutocracy, which is not mentioned in your post. It has nothing to do with mythical leftists pushing ideology. Libertarians have jokes for ideas how to address plutocracy, barely even admitting its existence. And I'm not sure any of them understand they are (usually) unwitting supporters of plutocracy, which is all Libertarianism actually exists for.

RabidAlpaca said:

Classically left libertarian I'm very skeptical of the idea of ownership of land, especially the resources that are on that land. I think resources and land belong to society and that land ownership should be a lease paid for by some kind of contribution back to society, like work. It doesn't make sense to me that a family can own large swathes of America until the end of time just because they got there first, especially considering land indefinitely appreciates in value.
.

Click to expand...

This is something I wanted to address earlier RabidAlpaca. It sounds like you are not averse to the idea of the Feudal conception of land ownership, in which no one technically owned the land; the land was owned by the Crown, and nobles were given tenancy in exchange for military service. If you replace the monarch with an elected executive, and nobles with appointed land-managing bureaucrat, would you find that system more acceptable than one in which a person of any class could own their own land?

Felis Leo said:

This is something I wanted to address earlier RabidAlpaca. It sounds like you are not averse to the idea of the Feudal conception of land ownership, in which no one technically owned the land; the land was owned by the Crown, and nobles were given tenancy in exchange for military service. If you replace the monarch with an elected executive, and nobles with appointed land-managing bureaucrat, would you find that system more acceptable than one in which a person of any class could own their own land?

Click to expand...

No, you've completely missed the point. I'm not talking about feudalism, I'm talking about the left libertarian skepticism of the rich owning all the land and resources in perpetuity. The ultimate tendency in capitalism is for the land and resources to become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, and it's often because of the start conditions of the game, not because they worked so hard for it.

As an example, let's say the Nestlé family bought half of the land in Wisconsin in the 1800s for 30 dollars and two goats. In 2019 their great great great grandchildren are billionaires who live in luxury because their family has been selling Wisconsin's natural resources for generations. They don't even live in Wisconsin, it's just a cash cow. Meanwhile the people who actually live in Wisconsin can't afford real estate because it's all been owned for 200 years and nobody is selling and they're living in abject poverty because the resources and profits are being sent out of state to corporations.

This was just an example but it shows what I'm talking about.

1) People should not be able to own land past their own life span. Families do not deserve large swathes of land until the end of time because an ancestor got there first. It should be fairly leased in some way, and not necessarily to the highest bidder.

2) The system should be structured in a way that encourages work and added value, not just having arbitrary bank bits in a computer they inherited from grandpa.

3) Natural resources belong to the people as a whole, not whoever just happens to own the deed of the land.

I did not invent this line of thinking so let's not go off into the weeds with wacky ideas like feudalism. Feudalism is crony land giveaways to the rich and noble, which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what I'm talking about.

Felis Leo said:

I have a question that I have been wanting to ask those who label themselves Left-Libertarians here on this Board, and please mind you, I ask purely for my own edification and am not trying to be insulting towards you: Why do you not consider yourselves either Democratic Socialists or Progressive Democrats? What do you believe distinguishes you and your political philosophy from either the political Progressives or Democratic Socialists such that you would not wish to be lumped in with them?

As a Left Libertarian, what would your ideal country look like and how would it look different from an ideal Democratic Socialist country or a nation ruled by political progressive ideals?

Click to expand...

Is Anarcho-Socialism the same thing Democratic Socialism or what Progressive Democrats support?

Answer that question and you’ll have your answer.

Craig234 said:

Like so many libertarians, you appear to have a simplistic idea of liberty. For example, you say you support 'individual rights', but don't appear to understand that what actually tends to happen are conflicts between 'individual rights' - for example, should a rich guy be able to buy Yosemite or a mile of the beach as his individual right, or should a citizen have 'the public' protect his individual right to visit them as public properties?

As with most libertarians, you appear oblivious to the primary issue that's actually relevant in our society today, plutocracy, which is not mentioned in your post. It has nothing to do with mythical leftists pushing ideology. Libertarians have jokes for ideas how to address plutocracy, barely even admitting its existence. And I'm not sure any of them understand they are (usually) unwitting supporters of plutocracy, which is all Libertarianism actually exists for.

Click to expand...

I have to admit, as sad as your attempts to put other people down, you are one of the most adorable posters here

You seem to believe you actually understand the things you post about and feel all superior only to continue your posts with proof of the opposite

What did you think of Adam Smith's writings as you've obviously read them to have such a great understanding of libertarianism? Do you think the invisible hand doesn't exist or simply that it doesn't work? Do you honestly hold the incredibly naive belief that we want unfettered free markets with no controls? Do you understand why monopolies are so dangerous and that the government is the biggest one when left unchecked or do you trust the managers of the DOE, DOT, SS, etc etc to be the best managers of other aspects of our life?

When you earn your arrogance, you might be less entertaining, but we might take your posts more seriously - I stress might because I've read a few of them