Ahem...what we Libertarian Leaning Dems mean by Libertarian Leaning

[Taverner]

This means we lean this way, but at the core we are Democrats.

It means we place human and civil rights at the center of every decision putting security and even social programs behind them. I, for example, would rather have a free press than a free meal. However, knowing a little bit about our budget tells me that we can have both - as long as we cut the biggest welfare recipent of them all: The Military Industrial Complex.

By Libertarian Leaning, that means that we find pornography none of the government's business. If you feel offended by pornography, then don't look at it. Same with Abortion - against it? Don't get one then.


It means we find Gays, Lesbians, Transgender and Straights with the same rights. It means we do support hate crime laws - not because of special rights but in order to make GLBT feel safer and more secure. Hate crime legislation is not an infringement on free speech, as it is not the speech that's being prosecuted, but the act that goes along with that speech. Keep in mind, 9/11 was a hate crime.

As for gay marriage, I'm simply appalled that the government has any say in marriage in the first place. Yes, gay spouses should have every right that straight couples have and yes they should be entitled to the same benefits, and the same name for the ceremony if they so choose. However, I still don't like the government making these kinds of decisions, and think the state should get out of the marriage business all together. But in the meantime, while we excorsize the demons of religion out of our government - give GLBT couples equal status. It's only fair.

It means the drug war, in our opinion, is more than a big joke. It's a huge waste of money, lives and rights. It strips us all of our dignity. And it smacks of the police state we are quickly becoming. Did you know that in some states if you have two bags of pot, you are automatically charged with dealing - and the state can seize your house, car and everything you own? Did you know that if you have more than a certain amount of some drugs, you get a mandatory sentence of life? It's called a mandatory minimum, and the law is pure infringement upon our rights.

It means we would like to see the USA stop playing policeman - in our personal lives and in the affairs of other countries.

If we just quit our wars - both at home (the drug war) and abroad (you name it) we would be so flush with cash, we could have health care for everyone, school for everyone, Social Security could be padded and we'd have money left over for a massive tax cut. Yeah, that's right - a tax cut. I like tax cuts, but not when we're bleeding money like we are now.

Did you know we are borrowing the money for the Iraq War from China? Most lenders like to be paid back, and I'm sure China is no exception. Perhaps we'll be sending our grandkids over to China to build their railroads to pay the money back, I'm not sure.

Anyway rant over

[leftupnorth]

1. Great rant! I feel the same.

:toast: :applause:

I'm a libertarian leftist as defined by Political Compass

http://www.politicalcompass.org

[Solon]

2. For Myself, I'm Libertarian on Social Issues, Socialist on Economic issues. n/t

[Taverner]

3. I think some socialism is a good idea - when there is a natural monopoly

But trust busting should be a big part of our economic policy, which isn't socialist but Classically Capitalist.

I like Capitalism, as long as we're really practicing it (What we practice today is monopolism, not capitalism)

[IronLionZion]

13. No one opposes free market competition as much as the Republicans do

NO ONE! Those bastards HATE capitalism. They prefer corporate cronyism, sweetheart deals for their wealthy supporters, no-bid contracts, and billions of our tax dollars disappearing into nowhere.

insurance is socialism. Everyone who has insurance is practicing socialism. Real capitalists pay cash.

[Solon]

14. I figured that with your choice for a sig picture...

I don't believe in a centrally controlled economy, I believe in a locally controlled economy, with some national programs to help all citizens, along with regulations to control corporations. I believe in some nationalization and federal government programs, Single Payer health, nationalize the electric grid, railroads, invest in public transportation, etc. I also believe the government should support stronger worker protections, setting up a small co-op administration to give low interest loans and grants to co-ops to help them get started, and many other ideas.

I believe that our system of capitalism is corrupt, but that Socialism itself can be used in such a way where it exists within the context of both competition and decentralized control, through workers and economic democracy. If two co-ops compete, its still capitalism, but with far less exploitation or externalities than what exists when two corporations compete. At the same time, where corporations exist, they should be ultimately regulated through our system of government, ensuring they obey the laws of the country and are subservient to the will of the people.

[Taverner]

16. This is very true - your model follows capitalism more than our current model does

And here's the kicker - I also think Karl Marx spoke the truth. I think Capitalism is the best system for right now, and every society must go through a capitalist phase and eventually evolve into socialism, then communism. But to jump start any society by the barrel of a gun into Communism is short sided and tragically wrong.

The society has to naturally evolve, over a period of generations, not in one overnight revolution.

[Solon]

20. I think Russia is a classic example of this...

I mean, before the Czar was toppled, Russia was literally a Feudal system, not capitalist, not even mercantile, except in the large cities, but feudal in nature. In that case, in an extremely short period of time, Russia transitioned from a mostly unindustrialized feudal economy into a Communist economy that was heavily industrialized within a generation. So Russia, with associated republics, became the USSR, under a nominally Communist system which could have been considered, more or less, "anti-feudalism" more than anti-capitalist. In any case, the positive thing was that it lead to rapid industrialization, however, violence, in addition to Stalin's paranoia, lead to severe oppression and the killing of millions.

Such a system was unsustainable, obviously, and under Gorbachev, the system was reformed, but ultimately, couldn't sustain itself, and collapsed. Ever since then, Russia has been introduced to Capitalism on a grand scale, a country open for plundering, so old Communist party insiders, not able to break the habit of centralized control, latched onto centralized, and undemocratic, corporate system, busily using foriegn investment and corruption that is inherent in the system to make themselves rich. You could call this "Communism Inc."

The Government of Russia underwent Democratic reforms, but because of the lack of political development for almost a century before that, and the entrenched bureaucracy that already existed, the system was and is just as corrupt as during the Communist Regime. One of the big reasons for Russia's problems today is that an extensive middle class nor the intellectuals that lived there were either killed or driven from the country in its early years. As we know now, political and economic reforms cannot be done from outside a nation, but from within, with having a large educated middle class, along with those encouraging free thought which then allows for a sustainable democracy to be put in place.

[Ron Green]

4. It's always satisfying to stand up for liberty and personal responsibility,

but the manufacture of consensus and the effectiveness of corporate propaganda complicates the discussion, in my opinion.

Education is the key, education of large numbers of people - and if the messages in our environment aren't good and true, people will believe the bad and false ones. And the market likes the false messages much better, because that's where the quick money is.

It's easy to say "take personal responsibility for yourself and your family," but that's also what the corporate bosses want, because it eclipses the message about their being forced by the government to do the right thing.

[Taverner]

19. The Problem isnt personal resp, but that corporations have the same rights as a citizen

That in itself is the cause of the cronyism we see today

[hootinholler]

5. Presumptuous to speak for all, but I'm pretty much aligned with these positions.

:hi:

-Hoot

[T Wolf]

6. Very good. Expressed very well, with logic and passion.

I cannot disagree with anything you have said.

There probably are specific issues that we would disagree on, but the overall philosop[hy, as expressed, is damn appealing.

[tnlurker]

7. This is so close to my views

That I am bookmarking the page. Good rant.

[denverbill]

8. I was a dues paying, card carrying Libertarian 15-20 years ago.

But I eventually parted company with them on several issues, probably because of their insistence on purism.

I think people should be able to own guns, but I think there are very valid reasons to put restrictions on them - what you can own, who can own them, where they can be carried, etc. Pure 'dog-eat-dog' capitalism doesn't work any better than pure socialism. And while capitalism is arguably the most efficient economic system, efficiency should not be our only concern when it comes to distributing certain goods and services, such as health care.

Frankly, I don't know why any Libertarians vote Republican. They might agree with them on guns, but clearly, Republicans are not the party of small government. They don't object to government spending at all. They just object to using tax dollars to help the poor. They have no problem using tax dollars to enrich themselves and their corporate cronies.

[populistdriven]

9. I agree wholeheartedly! nt

[Exiled in America]

10. By that description, I'm 100% with you. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I wouldn't call that a rant.

I would call it a rational explanation of your views.

Your views and mind pretty much coincide.

I'm a libertarian leftist.

[IronLionZion]

12. ALRIGHT!!! YES I'm not the only one here!

There aren't many of us around here.

Here are some useful links you might like:
http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Democratic_Freedom_Caucus

For those who aren't convinced yet:
From Kos:

"So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government "Big Brother" efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

So far, this isn't much different than what a traditional libertarian believes. Here is where it begins to differ (and it shouldn't).

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297

[distantearlywarning]

21. Love the Kos description.

That pretty much describes my viewpoints exactly. I also agree 100% with the OP's rant - it's all about individual freedom. And as someone up-thread said, one big problem is that we've confused corporations with individuals in this country.

Now if I could only find a candidate who was in that portion of the political spectrum...

[thereismore]

15. What do you think about national health insurance run by the gov'mint? nt

[Taverner]

17. I think its a great idea, but I prefer state-controlled health care

Each State having its own system, responsive to that state's needs - but with an open door policy (Arizonans can go to California for care, etc..) and Federal oversight.

[IronLionZion]

23. You're not truly free if you fear for your health

if bankruptcy and ruin is just one operation away, you can never be free to live the life you want to live. Although I love free market competition, it is NOT working with health care and is NOT helping us at all when it is run by greedy corporations who profit by NOT paying. I support single-payer, perhaps a state-by-state system like in Canada, but our doctors and hospitals should not change. Only the method of paying should be changed.

[w8liftinglady]

18. I was a Libertarian for about 18 years.Iraq,and all that's transpired,changed me.

[ComerPerro]

22. so why do you feel the need to separate yourself? Are you saying Dems don't believe in these things?

[IronLionZion]

24. I guarantee you won't find two Dems who agree on everything....

we are not members of any organized political part. We're Democrats. And yes we have libertarians, and socialists, and pro-corporate DLCers, and conservatives, and labor, and all kinds of people, mostly good people.