Hey, You're A Civil Libertarian on DU - Why?

[Cronus Protagonist]

Just wondering. Is the GOP not giving you a good forum? Are the right wing discussion forums boring? Are you tired of talking with people who are not allowed to change their minds?

What are you doing here?

[CTLawGuy]

1. because democrats are more libertarian than republicans

NT

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. You know, I do think that's true today.

It might not have been at one time, but certainly in the last 20 years that I've been here, that has been my experience, if you define libertarian as in a commitment to individual liberty.

[Walt Starr]

33. Actually, rank and fiule Democrats are more libertarian than any Repub

The leadership of the party seems to be as anti-liberty as the Repukes, IMO.

The rank and file of the Repukes go along with whatever fearless leader says, so the rank and file of the Repuke party is anti-liberty as well.

[fnottr]

2. I consider myself a civil libertarian

and a fairly staunch liberal, I see no conflict between the two.

I've always taken civil libertarianism to mean getting the government out of the bedroom and getting the church out of the government. It goes along quite well with the Dem platform now days.

Now, I don't consider myself an economic libertarian, I want the government keeping big business under control. I believe if the government doesn't regulate cooperations, then they will become just as much of an oppressor as any totalitarian government can be.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. Are there really civil libertarians who want government reg. businesses?

I thought that was a deal killer.

[fnottr]

5. hmmm, I think we have our terms mixed up

here's the way I've always taken the term civil libertarian,

"Civil libertarian refers to one who is actively concerned with the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individual by law. This term refers to the social aspects of libertarianism rather than the fiscal aspects. Civil libertarians might, for example, argue that the fundamental civil right to self determination means that pornography and drug use should be legal, but they might have no objection to taxation and civil ordinances. Both conservative and liberal ideologies have civil libertarian adherents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarian

so I think you mean economic libertarian, those are the unregulated capitalism dudes

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. I didn't know there were several factions of Libertarians

I've never seen anyone make any differentiation between civil or fiscal, but perhaps then we can now add "theocratic" to round it off - referring to those libertarians who are indifferent to the other two, but insist on recognition of God and religion in society?

[fnottr]

8. the term libertarian

as I understand it, means you want the government as uninvolved as possible. So someone who calls themself just 'libertarian' would believe that the government shouldn't regulate anything, drugs, cooperate monopolies, etc.

A civil or social libertarian beleives the government shouldn't regulate social issues: sex, drugs, speech etc.

An economic or fiscal libertarian beleives the governmetn shouldn't regulate the economy, ie the coorperations and other buisnesses. Furthermore, and economic libertarian believes the government should tax as little as possible and provide as few services as possible, and most everything should be privatized.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with 'theocratic libertarian', to me that term would suggest someone who believes the government should not regulate religion at all. And those beliefs would be a subset of the civil libertarian belief set.

[Somawas]

9. Go to www.politicalcompass.com

take the test and look around.

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. I went there

It was a right wing search engine, apparently. No test.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Try this.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html


In the interest of full disclosure, my results:


Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. I did three pages and gave up

It's too long. Sorry. Didn't get a score.

[leftyandproud]

15. there are no "theocratic" libertarians

Most I know are atheists or agnostics. From my experience, libertarians want less government across the board...seperation of church and state...a lower tax burden...legalized marijuana...absolutely no constitutional ammendments to ban gay marriage, etc.

The LP is really concerned with restraining government power and activism across the board. They want to maximise economic AND civil liberties.

That makes them an enemy of both major parties today. Quite a predicament.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. It's always more fashionable to be a control freak...

for some odd reason.

[6th Borough]

45. The "capital L" Libertarian Party hasn't trademarked libertarianism.

To tell you the truth, I was aware of the socio-political concept of libertarianism before I ever even heard of the "Libertarian Party". They the philosophy to the extreme, applying it in an absolute form. You could call them Fundamentalist Libertarians. It also makes their party plank quite simple to formulate; they simply subtract government from...well, just about everything. If they ever gained control of the government, they wouldn't even need to leave their homes...a computer database could form their policy decisions for them.

The general principles that make up "small L" libertarianism do not need to be applied wholesale. Libertarianism is a broad concept, not narrow viewpoint. It's perfectly possible to be a progressive libertarian Democrat.

The only clash I ponder over myself sometimes is that, without strict auditing and oversight, government (on any level) grows in power as it grows in wealth; as it grows in power, it grows farther away from the people whom it is entrusted to serve.

Anyways, there is no conflict between civil libertarianism and progressive ideals. Ever heard of the ACLU?

[Cats Against Frist]

31. I would actually tend to say "social libertarian,"

because let's say the tables were turned, and instead of emphasis on corporatism and cronyism, that militarism (though it is in third place, right now, after worship of conservative social institutions) were number one on the list, and that the government wanted to take our money to keep pre-emptively invading other countries, breaking international law, alienating all countries and making us MORE unsafe in the process (which is already happening, but let's say they kicked it up a notch) -- at some point, I would feel that it was a "civil liberty" of mine, not to be taxed for the fascist empire's war machine. I think that civil liberties CAN include what you do with your own money.

[McKenzie]

6. it's a complex issue is it not?

I suspect that some progressive people might be supportive of the right to do certain things provided that doing so does not harm society as a whole. If one reverses the argument then one way to stop people doing what they want is by authoritarianism. Is the latter a progressive trait? Rhetorical question. The other way is by consensus though education is in there with the arguments.

On the other hand, I would hope that progressive people at least question the wisdom of widespread ownership of hand guns. Libertarians would regard keeping hand guns as a "right" - progressives would realise that the number of deaths they cause suggests that hand gun ownership should be strictly controlled in the wider community interest.

For the record, the good of the community should be paramount imho. Unfortunately, the primacy of state interests over private rights was a facet of Nazi Germany. What happened in Nazi Germany isn't directly analagous to the current discussion though it does illustrate that debates on value systems are complex. Polarising any debate is only possible if the issues under discussion are simple and capable of separation into either/or headings.

It is perfectly possible for progressive people to have beliefs about civil liberties that do not fit into neat little boxes:

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." Oscar Wilde

regards

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I consider myself a social libertarian

I don't think it's any of the government's business what consenting adults do with their own bodies in their own homes. I find the idea that John Ashcroft can tell terminally ill bone cancer patients just how much pain medication they are "allowed" to take, lest they become "addicted" (God Forbid! An addicted terminally ill cancer patient!) well, I find that extremely offensive, and I think it's a natural outgrowth of the old idea that our bodies, our beings, our selves, belong to the government, they belong to the church, they belong to the state, they belong to "God"...

Funny, aint it, that the one person they never seem to belong to is ourselves.

Anyway, I consider myself socially libertarian. I believe an ideal society has a solid safety net, and I think there are collective responsibilities better handled by the common mass of humanity than handled by individuals or "free enterprise". I think Health Care is an excellent example, and I firmly believe that a SPHC system is the best and most humane way for this country to go. I don't think there is any logical contradiction between supporting the rights of individuals and consenting adults to make their own choices with regards to their lives and bodies and also believing in a collective responsibility from all to all. (I also acknowledge that alcohol, drug abuse, etc. has a fiscal, medical cost- and I think the way to address that is to tax it and feed the money into the health care system.. But do the same with high fat foods, too) I also don't think that Corporations should be accorded the same freedoms as individuals- I think there are perfectly legitimate reasons for regulations of large businesses, etc. As well as environmental laws and the like. When individual behavior crosses over into areas where it impacts others, that is a legitimate place for regulation.

I must say, however, if given the either/or choice between an excessively authoritarian nanny-and-daddy state, and a Libertarian Laissez Faire Capitalist state where individuals were free socially but also where there were few social services, few taxes, and very few regulations on business, I would probably pick the latter, although it would probably end up being polluted as hell.

[Zorra]

14. Huh? Isn't civil libertarian just another name for a real Democrat?

And what has the GOP got to do with civl liberties?

All the GOP ever does, aside from bankrupting the country, entering into ludicrous wars, and destroying our environment, etc., is take our civil liberties away from us as fast as they possibly can.

Please explain.

[Cronus Protagonist]

16. Libertarians are considered to the right of Democratics, AFAIK

In fact, I've heard it said that if you scratch a Republican you find a libertarian inside. However, some people on this thread seem to equate a civil libertarian with a Democratic person, which is interesting.

And apparently, an economic libertarian is what's leading the Republican party right now.

So you can get an education at DU :)

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Bush is an "economic libertarian" like Tony Soprano is

only on a much larger scale.

Maybe "free enterprise" equals rampant corruption and cronyism, hooliganism, cheating, and raiding the treasury, but it's really not supposed to. At least that's not what they teach in Econ class.

I think many true conservatives are aghast at Bush's notions of what constitutes "fiscal responsibility" (Kaff!) even as they enjoy their tax cuts.

"Liberty" in my mind is not a bad thing. Neither is "Libertarianism", although I've seen the term used as invective here, surprisingly enough.

If "libertarian" just meant "Conservative", you would think that the American Civil Liberties Union would be known as a conservative organization, would you not?

I think if you scratch about a third of the Republican party, you get people badly confused and frightened by modern life, so they have turned to simplistic, knee-jerk interpretations of religion and global politics. Scratch another third and you get old-fashioned Fascists, bigots, or genuine Theocrats. Scratch the final third and you have people who don't give a shit about anything except the fact that they don't like paying taxes.

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. I won't ask how the "sniff" part of scratch and sniff works....

...if you dond't mind. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Well

"If "libertarian" just meant "Conservative", you would think that the American Civil Liberties Union would be known as a conservative organization, would you not?."


Some would argue that today's true conservatives are liberals who want to conserve the classical liberalism of the seventeenth and eighteenth century which was embodied in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers though I would hasten to add Alexander Hamilton was more of a small r republican than a liberterian...


I think Milton Friedman is a true conservative or liberterian.. He's pro drug legalization, pro civil rights and favors a small state... I don't know his foreign policy but today's liberterians favor a greatly reduced military whose role is primarily to defend our shores from foreign attack....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Hmmmm

The essence of liberterianism can be found in John Stuart Mills' statement that "....over his body and mind the individual is sovereign."


I doubt many Republicans would embrace that notion... It conflicts with their anti-choice, anti gay rights agenda...


I am a civil liberterian and a welfare state capitalist...

[rman]

25. ever since the term has been hijacked by the Right, in the '60

you seem to be contributing to the confusion about the meaning of the word -
"Libertarian" is not the same as "civil libertarian", is not the same as "economic libertarian". Yet you seem to lumb together all of those on some occasions, and distinguish between those on other occasions.


And what does economic libertarianism have to do with education at DU?

[Cats Against Frist]

28. If you scratch a Republican that supports Bush

You find a fascist inside -- NOT a libertarian. I wish people, both left and right, would stop perpetuating the myth that the Bush administration is for the free market or libertarian economic policies. Just because he plans to privatize social security and give tax cuts, does not mean that they're libertarian, only that they are using the government to manipulate SPECIFIC economic conditions to their needs. It's "selective" much like their interpretation of the Bible. There are MORE policies that they're corpo-fascist (meaning the corporations have become the government, and make laws in their own favor) rather than "free market." Right-wing libertarianism is a complete and total canard. The best thing to call it would be neo-liberalism with near-fascist emphasis on conservative social institutions and hatred of cultural libertinism. It's not very "libertarian" at all -- but corporatist, or corpo-fascist, with a cultural supremacism thrown in, to boot.

People on the left are so busy badmouthing the free market, that they're missing the opportunity to let freepers and others who believe they're so "small-government oriented," and praise the free market, that the Bush administration, in alignment with the neocons and theocrats are "statist, right-wing authoritarians" and have nothing to do with libertarianism, at all, and that the free market -- and federalism -- would be PREFERABLE, in the end, to those who have a communalist or leftist bent, than the corpo-fascism that we get from BOTH the Democratic Party and the GOP -- especially the GOP.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I have to go back to work but this is a great discussion...

I lean toward the libertarian on social issues like drugs, sexuality, prostitution, and choice but I do see the need for boundaries; however the boundaries I embrace would be considerably broader than most Americans...


On economics I favor our market system as long as it is regulated and there is a safety net that is there to help folks who slip through the cracks....


I guess I'm with Rousseau on economics... He wasn't a pure socialist but opined that "no man should have so little he has to sell himself and no man should have so much he can buy another man...

[Cronus Protagonist]

47. That's a VERY good point.

Seems like the Bush admin is masquerading on several fronts.

[poppet]

35. I don't think * is an economic libertarian

what * really advocates is corporate welfare - isn't one of the problems with Halliburton that it was given a contract with no bids and no competition - that's not economic libertairanism.

[WithStamina]

20. I'm a social and economic libertarian

I believe that George Bush is an enormous danger to both. He's taken the Republican party, which used to stand for sound government spending, and made it worse than Democrats have ever been. It's becoming clear to me that Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility; look at Clinton's years. I still believe that the Bush won because so many still think of his party as standing for small government and low taxes, while he really just lowers taxes for his buds and expands spending at a discusting rate.

[salin]

23. folks don't often know this - but in the 80s - of the 3 proposed budgets

House (dem)
Senate (repub then later dem)
White House (reagan/bush)

The democratic led House budget always had the smallest deficits/spending. The whole "Reagan as a fiscal conservative" is a myth. Get old govt printing office budgets from the years Reagan was president... eye opening.

Just the bushies are so much more OBVIOUS in their contradictions that it is now becoming clear to more and more of the public.

[WithStamina]

36. True

Reagan was almost as bad. Goldwater was probably the last fiscal conservative to be nominated by the Republicans.

[Cats Against Frist]

29. THANK YOU --

Now goeth unto the freepers and telleth them. They are oblivious.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. My Best Friend In Grad School Was A Liberterian...

It's an appealing philosophy but most philosophies don't work very well in real life....

[Cats Against Frist]

32. You've probably read some of my libertarian posts, before

because I've noticed that we've posted to several of the same threads. I WAS a state socialist, and became a libertarian (truthfully a libertarian socialist, but I still adhere to a libertarianism that accomodates the choice of whether to participate in collectives, cooperatives and unions, versus choosing individualism, scab-ism, and corporatism -- all based on the idea of federalism), because the GOP scared the shit out of me so much that I gave up my left-wing notions of government control in favor of classical liberalism, federalism and limited government.

I would not have picked this option, had it not been for what I consider to be a completely out-of-control Republican party -- and it was confirmed when I read that Suskind quote about the reality-based community and the Republicans being "history's actors." Rather than see the entire Englightenment written out of our history and Constitution, it makes more sense to me, for now, to cling to as much libertarianism as possible.

In addition, libertarianism is exceptionally nuanced, and is not as bad, nor lawless as people make it out to be -- there are different degrees and different views. It took me a LONG TIME to talk myself into going full-on libertarian, but once I understood it all, it made sense.

Unless things are so bad that they are on the brink of collapsing, and by voting for the GOP, I could forsee that collapse in a very near future, however, I will always vote for and with the Democrats. I think that my disdain for the cultural supremacism of the GOP is unmatched by most people -- my background is in critical theory, which is the antithesis of social conservatism -- and my love of Thomas Jefferson a la Rousseau and the Enlightenment make me suspicious of neo-Tories, and those who assert a return to "ancient ways," (like a lot of right-wing libertarians) -- so I am against the right, you can bet on that. But that does not mean that either libertarianism or federalism must be owned by the right-wing. I would rather see the Democratic party -- instead of moving right or left -- become more radical on the libertarian v. authoritarian scale.

I appreciate your posts, though -- because some people don't understand, and think that I'm some kind of anarchocapitalist, because I identify as a libertarian.

[toddaa]

42. Libertarian Socialist

This is how I describe myself. Voluntary collectives are the utopian ideal of any anarchist system, but utopia doesn't work in the real world so we generally must be satisfied with only approaching the ideal. There is a difference between capitalism, with its emphasis on wage labor, and free market socialism, which emphasizes cooperation. As strange as it sounds, it's possible to be in favor of a free market and yet not a capitalist.

My libertarian political philosophy is drawn from my belief in Taoism, which views government as unnatural and an interference with the innate nature of man. Taoism emphasizes cooperation over competition.

[XemaSab]

62. Libertarianism

"In addition, libertarianism is exceptionally nuanced, and is not as bad, nor lawless as people make it out to be -- there are different degrees and different views. It took me a LONG TIME to talk myself into going full-on libertarian, but once I understood it all, it made sense."

My big hesitation, and it seems the big hesitation with many people here about libertarianism, is the lack of environmental laws and the social safety net.

These are deal breakers for me. I'm curious how you understand these issues and reconcile them with your libertarian philosophy?

(I promise to be open minded and non-confrontational about your response. :-) )

[WithStamina]

37. How do you know?

It been an awful long time since it was implemented. Last time was when Jefferson was president. What ever happened to "The best government is the one that governs the least? (sorry, not sure on the exact wording of the quote.

Now, I'm not a full-out libertarian. I realize that corporations need rules and people need laws. Government needs to create and enforce those. However, the amount of fat in the government is discusting. Trim the fat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Liberterians Want To Disamantle The Welfare State

Social Scecurity, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, et cetera...

This would cause untold misery...

I favor our mixed system...

[6th Borough]

46. The "Libertarian Party" wants to dismantle the security nets of society.

...as do "pure" libertarians. It's entirely possible, however, to recognize the needs of an orderly, compassionate society, and government's role in it, while still being able to recognize that there are desirable limits on its power and scope.

[robre]

54. Emotional selfishness is not a virtue.

Ever think that solutions to problems such as poverty and retirement assistance starts with you? Having the government take some of your money won't change the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of elderly people shoved into nursing homes alone and simply waiting to die with no other purpose for loving won't change just by you casually sitting on the sidelines and calling for such "social justice" programs. There is nothing just or humane about the retirement center in America today. Who cares if they can afford to pay someone to flip them over every day so they don't get bedsores when they live such a miserable existence?

No amount of social programs will solve these problems with out greatly changing American society and American society will never shift from its current social laziness without removing the mental crutches of welfare and social security that prevent most from taking action. You may be able to sleep at night with such programs in place, but it's not really about you is it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Well....

"No amount of social programs will solve these problems with out greatly changing American society and American society will never shift from its current social laziness without removing the mental crutches of welfare and social security that prevent most from taking action. You may be able to sleep at night with such programs in place, but it's not really about you is it?"
robre (74 posts) Tue Dec-14-04 06:42 AM

Response to Reply #46

54. Emotional selfishness is not a virtue.



Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance are insurance programs... You pay into them until you need them... Of course there is a redistributionist element but there is also a redistributionist element in private insurance... Those of us who are healthy pay higher premiums to cover those who aren't....

I am somewhat of a unique character around here... I hope I am not.... I believe in free markets, individual initiative and individual responsibility but I also believe some folks are dealt the proverbial bad hand; they are poor, elderly, ill educated, or have some physical or emotional malady... Thank God I can take care of myself but I don't want those folks left to the vagaries of the market...

That's why I resist the libertarian impulse..

[robre]

53. self delete, whoops

[Cronus Protagonist]

48. I think the Democratics have learned from their mistakes

After being pilloried as "tax and spend" for years, they've cleaned up their act so that the label no longer fits.

Now the Bush administration is doing their version which I call "spend and borrow" - there's really not much difference there because what's borrowed will have to be paid out of taxes, with INTEREST (which is why I think they do this - they want their money in bonds so they can live off the interest the US taxpayer pays) - so, this was a long winded way of saying I agree with you.

[hollowdweller]

24. I believe in maximum personal freedom but with environmental regulation &

a social safety net. The Republicans are almost the exact opposite of this.

[poppet]

38. my husband who considers himself a libertarian

but who is not a US citizen (so couldn't vote) would describe himself this way: he is for maximum personal freedom (which includes for him a free market) but is against destroying the environment (and thinks there should be and are incentives against doing so); he also supports a social/economic safety net.

I have no idea why people consider republicans to be fiscally conservative or small government ?????

[Warren DeMontague]

41. The Republican party seems to be working towards

maximum freedom for corporations combined with minimum freedom for individuals.

Just another in a long line of ass-backwards, "up-is-down" policies, IMHO.

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. Civil libertarians and Libertarians are different critters.

I'm a 'civil libertarian' and a Democrat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I Consider Myself A Civil Liberterian

but I would not go as far as they do in legalizing all victimless crimes...


I would decriminalize drugs and prostitution...

[Guaranteed]

34. WTH? Who ISN'T a civil libertarian around here?

Except for the gun issue, I think most good Democrats are.

[Pathwalker]

43. I consider myself a Social Libertarian, but I MAY be

a Socialist when it comes to the social safety net. I believe health care, food, heat,air conditioning when and where needed, and lodging should be available to everyone. I believe in REGULATED capitolism, where safety rules, and it's illegal to sell for an outrageous profit.

One thing does bother me though, the "Social Liberties" we all refer to now USED to be known as the Bill of Rights, just another way the right has changed our language.

[Cats Against Frist]

51. Why make it "illegal" to sell something for an outrageous profit

This is what people don't get about libertarianism. It makes people be responsible for being GOOD CONSUMERS. Anyone who buys name-brand shit, priced far beyond its use value, and harvested in sweatshops in Asia and Latin America DESERVES to be swindled out of his or her money. You couldn't pay me enough to be that jackass -- but I'd rather put it in their hands to decide, than the government.

[unfrigginreal]

44. You're not?

Then what are you doing here?

[Cronus Protagonist]

49. No, I'm not a civil libertarian nor a Democratic, nor a Republican

I refuse to adhere to the restrictions such labels require. Did you have a point other than that?

[hughee99]

50. I think the problem for the "libertarian" philosophy

is that most people want the government out of one issue but involved in another. Some people think that the government should not be involved in social issues (drugs, sex, porn...) but support government programs to help people who develop problems with those things, as in "I think that all drugs should be legalized, and I support a social safety net to support drug addicts". At it's core, the libertarian philosophy provides both a positive and negative to society, where people are free to make there own decisions, but are also alone (or without government) to deal with the consequences. For some people (on some issues), the benefits outweigh the costs, in other cases, and for other people, they do not. I think it makes it more difficult to have a discussion on this topic because I think most people have different ideas about what a libertarian government should and shouldn't be doing.

[Lexingtonian]

52. wow, an *amusing* topic for a change!

Well, the distinction is something like this: the sort of people who go around calling themselves political Libertarians (capital L) are people who end up denying that our society has a Social Contract a la Rousseau. They take various views on the particular laws, but they want a patchwork of laws that allows them to evade social responsibilities to some extent. Ultimately they want all the protections/benefits of a Social Contract but none of the systematic obligations/costs.

Political Conservatives, aka Republicans, are at a point of diminishing the Social Contract to an absolute minimum- well, maximizing enforcement of the parts of the Constitution that favor the privileged classes (white/property-owning, male, 'Christian', conforming to the colonialist socioeconomic and anti-intellectual scheme) and close to non-enforcement of the parts that favor the 'underclass' (everybody else). It's Constitutional dissociative disorder with recurring hallucinations.

Political Liberals...there was a time when they were a small and embattled minority that they insisted on an extreme emphasis on protecting the rights of, well, small and embattled minorities. This is in terrible tension with a strongly held notion that the Constitution is meaningfully the definitive Social Contract of the country- a belief not greatly shared by Conservatives, who generally cling to a majority ethnicity/culture (British-derived) and colonial formulations of Christianity and an Anglo-Saxon set of ruling families as the essential guarantors of the society and social order they want. This is all to be distinguished from "tax and spend" regional subsidy politics of the era dominated by FDR Democrats and Eisenhower Republicans, which continues to this day in the South and Midwest as "borrow and spend" regional subsidy politics- perpetrated by Reagan and Gingrich Republicans and some Democrats. (It reflects the technology economy- the "postindustrial" economy is always used to subsidize the industrial and agrarian kind it in turn makes margins off of.)

These days it's liberals who want the Constitutional rights structure enforced with integrity. The idea that it's conservatives that want it so...well, John Dean says that in 1968 Bill Rehnquist famously defined a 'strict constructionist' as 'a judge who favors the prosecution in criminal cases and the defendant in civil ones'. In political-historical translation to plain English, a 'strict constructionist' finds the colonial ruler class bias to the wordings in the Constitution and determines that to be the basis of the definitive interpretation, rather than the ostensible substance and thrust ('plain meaning') of the language. This, and the Political Conservative inclination to self-contradiction especially concerning the 14th Amendment, is the fundamental problem in many of the controversial 5-4 verdicts written by the Rehnquist Five- famously in Bush v. Gore, but clearly in stuff like Bowers v. Hardwick.

The reason for why liberal Democrats are becoming more emphaticly civil libertarians is that they have (almost) everything to gain in the face of systematic civil rights sabotage by the Right. The reason for this is that the defining Constitutional fight of this era is- in my humble, recent, and increasingly broadcast opinion- is that the story is that both Parties have become fundamentally defined by their positions on Section 1 of the 14th Amendment over the course of the last ~60 years. Republicans are defined by minimizing its bearing or pure bastardization of its plain language (Bush v Gore). Democrats want its bearing to be extended as far as possible. Thus, for example, you get the Goodridge verdict in Massachusetts and gay marriage legalization there, and the Texas Supreme Court not daring to touch the lower court verdict in Lawrence v Texas (though every inclination to reinstitute a guilty verdict was there) and punting. The TSC and the 5th CCoA (Texas and Louisiana) are getting overturned on civil rights stuff (notably death penalty) cases with increasing frequency and disgust and the amount of indefensible rulings by the USSC, btw.

As more and more social rights extension (14th Amendment extension) consensus grows among Democrats, there has been an increasing extremism (14th Amendment diminishment, and generally lower reliance on the Constitution) among Republicans. In a sense Libertarians are the secular arm of the conservative/Republican part of the politics- political Libertarians are products of the age but they don't have the King James or other Bible to provide the ersatz Social Contract that the Evangelicals and such do. The monied class of Republicans has always lived by impunity and doesn't bother with libertarianism- their freedom involves and revolves around green paper. Republicans who want to smoke pot...not that bad a summary for the run-of-the-mill Libertarian out there.

The Second Amendment remains a sticking point that is kind of complicated. Basically, it's really an argument about how much civilization and (conversely) barbarism there really is in the country- how far the Social Contract there is (or isn't) goes and can be relied upon, and how much of it to enforce or expect, and how/where to draw the lines.

[Sugarbleus]

55. I lean Libertarian only in terms of "Personal Freedoms" and

"Anti-knee jerk", costly war.
I'm anti confiscatory/extortionist insurance companies, anti-helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans in open places, war on drugs etc etc.

I'm PRO FREE PERSONAL CHOICE.

Beyond that, the libertarians lose me. They are NOT for regulating business nor are they in favor of social programs or public healthcare. :thumbsdown:

[hollowdweller]

57. There are so many people like that that neither party really represents

[Sugarbleus]

60. How well I know...

THX 451 or the orgininal Farhenheit movie are what I fear awaits us.

A "controlled society" whether by RWers or NeoLiberals isn'tFreedom or liberty at all..........

[orpupilofnature57]

56. learning more,than ten years of social studies class, thank you

[eallen]

58. The new GOP is the anti-libertarian party...

There are many Americans who have, as their political priorities, both civil liberties and conservative fiscal policies. The new GOP opposes both of these. Vehemently. When Kerry said that listening to Bush talk about fiscal responsibility was like listening to Tony Soprano talk about law and order, we stood up and cheered. No, we'll never be a leftist, in the socialist sense. We think capitalism is the goose that lays the golden eggs. (Marx had that much right. :)) But that doesn't mean that we believe in the kind of corporate cronyism which the GOP loves. We believe in capitalism because we think economic productivity is good, even necessary, not because with think God loves the rich.

[DoNotRefill]

61. I thought we were SUPPOSED to be the party of civil liberties....

If you like the stuff in the Bill of Rights, you're a civil libertarian.