The difference between Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians.

[The Backlash Cometh]

The Angel of Death visited a Democrat and told him, Democrat, tomorrow you're going to die, but I give you a choice to go alone, or take any number of people with you. The Democrat responds I'll take every tribal war lord in Africa with me to give the poorest of the poor a break.

The Angel of Death visits a Republican and gives him the same offer and the Republican replies, I'll take every twenty something, long-legged super model with me to make my stay in the afterlife more pleasant.

The Angel of Death visits a Libertarian and gives him the same offer and the Libertarian replies, Fuck them all. I'll take everybody on earth with me. If I can't stay and have some fun, neither can anybody else.

[razors edge]

1. Funny but

I have never gotten that impression from any of Thoreau's writings.

Nor any other Libertarian for that matter.

Their main claim seems to be that government does not actually do enough good to outweigh the inherent bad of corruption or misguided good intent.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Most of the Libertarians I know that are still living, are selfish to the bone.

It's all about them. They're only slightly different than Republicans, because Republicans want the social affirmation that they're "good" pillars of the society. Libertarians couldn't care less what other people think of them. A survivalist will more likely be a Libertarian than a Republican.

I'm generalizing up the hilt, but, this thread is near its end anyways.

[razors edge]

3. Yes you are

generalizing up the hilt, from what I have seen.

As a left leaning Libertarian, (yes, we do exist) I believe in taking care of ALL those who can't take care of themselves for the simple reason that it is the right thing to do, and we can do it if we decide to. But neither of the parties in power have chosen to do so, now have they?

The Democratic leaders are good at making government strong and capable. The Republicans are good at making it incapable and retaining or even shaming the Democrats into making it stronger, for their own nefarious purposes. They are two sides of the same coin, the coin of the realm, and the elite.

The Libertarians in this country did not cause the problems we now find ourselves faced with, they have not held power to do so. Projecting the failures of the leadership on the powerless is beyond generalizing, it is disingenuous.

And don't try to blame them for voting in the Republicans, as they feel voting in any election will only legitimize the governments actions.

I voted straight Dem in the last three elections, so I can't call myself a true Libertarian.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. I disagree with you on several counts.

First, Libertarians, right or left, want less government. When it comes down to subjectively deciding who the government SHOULD take care of, their bar is set so low as to be ineffective. Certainly, it would go much further than a true Democrat would pick. Maybe you're not a Libertarian?

Second, I have worked elbow to elbow with Libertarians/Republicans and they are loons. The only thing we had in common was a desire for open government. But once we got our hands on hard to get material, they quickly passed the information on to their developer buddies who were also Libertarians, where I felt like I was the sole steward for the public, because God knows, this city is more intent on building real estate than building a community.

Libertarians absolutely did create most of the problems in this country. Did you not read the DiIulio(sp) letter? He was the first one to leak information of the going ons in the White House and he describe them as beltway Libertarians. Those were the Machiavelli Mayberries he was describing. Dick Cheney is the main Libertarian in the White House. His style has been described as a Western-style Libertarian. And free market? That's a Libertarian concept. And so is privatization.

Libertarians in the last ten years have leeched onto the backs of both parties. Generally they try to infiltrate the Left with the marijuana common ground and then, before you know it, you start hearing their crazy talk about how the banking industry is so bogus we shouldn't be paying taxes to the government. The Right is where they've found better camouflage, for all the reasons that I described in the paragraph above. Small party, but great co-opters of parties. And by now, DUers have your ticket, so maybe you should do some personal introspection and ask yourself if you and the Libertarians of TODAY are all that similar.

[razors edge]

5. DUers have always had my ticket.

Edit:sp

I have posted prolifically about the problems with the income tax, IRS, FED, 16th Amendment, tax resisters who win in court, and more. There is a towel in the bathroom if your head just exploded. This country existed for 140 years without a direct unapportioned tax on wages, they had other taxes on business that have since been removed, so if you love paying the taxes that big business got out of paying to support a military to protect their overseas investment portfolios with our children doing the dying then by all means continue your blind support of it. I would prefer to see the true beneficiaries of the military presence in 130 countries foot the bill.

But I also agree with some of what you have said. I think that countries like China who wish to import goods here and lower the employment level here should be taxed to support the needy, cost of doing business. If they don't like it then they can take their business elsewhere and we can open a company here and hire our own to produce.

Is it so terrible to wish for a world where people did the right things without the need of a government putting a gun to their head? If that offends you then perhaps you should do some introspection.

Dick Cheney is about as libertarian as you are, I don't care what someone describes him to be for the sake of some utterly false point. He derives riches from government corruption, he uses government power to destroy enemies, he removes the rights of the individual for fun and profit, he loves war, he loves foreign intervention, he is a Neocon and the the only opposition who try to give them cover by calling them Libertarians are Neolibs, both of whom hate Libertarians with a passion as they can smell them both coming a mile away, and they don't like having their cover blown.

Mike Gravel has Libertarian leanings, but he didn't jut leach onto the Democratic party in the last ten years. As a matter of fact, both parties have moved further from the true Libertarians in the last sixty plus years. It was inevitable in some ways due to the discovery of atomic weapons. After WW-I we stood down the military and FDR got elected on a non-interventionist platform, my how times change.

Like I said, I agree with the democratic agenda for the most part since we as a species have not reached the point where we are capable of living with each other peaceably. I have only ever voted Democratic, so if my desire to see my country evolve beyond the mud slinging two party system of lies and deceit offends you, then place me on ignore, thats what it is there for.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. There's a disconnect with what you think Libertarians stand for, and how they

actually operate in the real world. I've been on DU for several years now, and the number of Democrats who are unhappy with Libertarians and their interjection into the party is growing.

First, Democrats believe in benign government. They believe that government is the most effective way to ensure that those in need are taken care of objectively and without discrimination, i.e. not requiring them to declare their belief in God or Christ before getting federal assistance. They also believe that only benign government can be objective enough to read the science and regulate corporations to ensure the public safety, welfare and health. So, you're already at odds with Democrats who believe that a well-funded government is the only way to achieve those goals, because that means raised taxes. There's no way to run away from that. That's shared obligation.

And Dick Cheney's style is very Libertarian, for what I've seen of Libertarian's first hand. They have a feeling of entitlement and don't want anyone getting in their way.

Don't take my word for it. Start a thread and ask your fellow DUers how they perceive Libertarians.

[razors edge]

7. I have no doubt

that a post such as you have described would be thoroughly trashed, as it should be on a Democratic board. I am not trying to convert anyone, as I said, I support the Democratic efforts and ideas, I just wish we as a people could have those priorities as a country instead of the uphill battle of one side to get them.

Every attempt to force people to do what is needed will result in defiance, it is human nature. We need a media who shows the pitfalls of ignoring the needy that will encourage a nation to do what is right to begin with. Then the people will call for the needed changes. The problem with this goes back a long way, the rich own the printing presses and they are not about to let that happen.

Google "Strike the Root", if you wish to see a truly modern version of the philosophy that holds the old philosophy to heart. They update daily and a simple perusal of the twenty or so news stories of the day they link to will give you an idea of who they really dislike.

Nine out of ten headlines posted there daily by the editor are the same as are posted here, with the same level of disgust towards the Republicans.

If corporations form a threat to the environment, worker safety, or product safety, why should the citizen pay to police them for their indiscretion? Tax the businesses to pay for the regulators to enforce the laws, not the citizen with no connection to them whatsoever. Why should you, or I, pay to ensure Raytheon produces a perfect cluster bomb to be sold to another country?

They do seem to have a sense of entitlement to freedom as long as their actions do not harm others, and the same for everyone else. They believe in complete separation of church and state, religeous freedom, freedom of the press, no monopolies, no corporate welfare(or any welfare for that mater, I don't hold that belief as the left behind will not be able to catch up without a lot of help), and many other things that definately are more suited to a liberal position of self determination and freedom from enslavement, than the the few offensive positions we consider cold and careless like the conservatives.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. I've already posted my position against Libertarianism on

several other threads through the years and DUers agree with me, overwhelmingly.

Again, I disagree that "Every attempt to force people to do what is needed will result in defiance." That doesn't apply to everyone. That must be an Anglo-American trait to resist collective, cooperative behavior, but other cultures don't have a problem with it. In fact, if you take the right-wing media bullshit out of the formula, regarding rugged individualism, which is just that, bullshit, Americans actually set a good example when it came to working together for a common cause. That all stopped once corporations started getting leaner and meaner and made us compete against each other. That's when the right-wing media began their divide and conquer propaganda, using race to separate right-wing Anglo-American interests against all other Americans.

The military knows that our survival as a country depends on us overcoming all the racist bullshit that we've all been subjected to over the last fifteen years. Good luck with that. The lines are drawn. All the good faith that was built from Affirmative Action is now gone. Nobody trusts anybody's intentions anymore. So whoever takes over, Republicans or Democrats, had better be prepared for the resistance that will inevitably come based on political fracture lines, and my advice to the Democrats is that they need to pick up their offensive game or they will never succeed in keeping Republicans and Libertarians off balance long enough to do any good in this country.

As long as we remain a country that pretends that individuality is the aim, we will never be a united country in anything. And I do mean "pretends" because anytime anyone claims to be a self-made man, we usually find that he had some improper access to public funds. Gaming the system.

[razors edge]

9. As they should,

this is a liberal to moderate democratic board. Moderates beware.

Not just Anglo-Americans have a problem with being assimilated into the collective, the Native Americans, who received the biggest fucking of any people in this country, didn't take well to the required "cooperative behavior" either. But a solution to that was found, perhaps it will have to be repeated to accomplish the reigning in of the individuals still left. The Iraqis seem to be having a small problem with it at the present time, but it is definately not just an Anglo thing.

Like it or not, humans are individuals, and this presents many problems on a planet overpopulated and running out of convenient resources. It takes ten calories of fossil fuel to deliver one calorie of food to the shelf in America. Our military has already produced in depth studies of the largest problems facing the continuation of the empire from their perspective and charge, race was not one of them. Global warming and peak oil is all they are worried about. Tanks and planes don't work on solar or coal, and nuclear is not much of an option. The more they see their options of controlling these resources in foreign countries dwindle, the more they will focus on controlling them here.

The loss of Iraqi oil will leave the US with no option but to pay with a devalued dollar, that will be even further devalued by the required printing to try to keep the corrupt system afloat, like is going on now with the FED pushing over a hundred billion into the mortgage banks to keep them afloat. That extra hundred billion will only dilute the value of the dollar further and increase the debt you and I and our children owe the Fed with interest. But it was needed to keep the billionaires flush, so there was no debate. If the homeless were given a hundred billion, they wouldn't be homeless.

Do you get it yet? we are individuals on our own, unless we are rich and our own bad investments threaten our status as billionaire. Then we are a collective who comes to the rescue of the poor billionaire, at the expense of our nation. That is a bipartisan given.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. American Indians are a poor selection of an example to push your point.

They, of all Americans, have their own sovereign rights so when they're on their own land, they're subject to different rules than we are, albeit, rules that have been sanctioned by our government. The "sovereignty" is questionable, but that's not the point. Treaties have been continually broken with them, so they have a right to be pissed off with the US government, yet, you hear just the opposite. I read just the other day that the largest group, for its population, to enlist in the military come from the reservations.

I don't think you should be using them for an example here, because there are a lot of extenuating circumstances in their case.

Like it or not, the United States glorifies individuality more than any other culture in the world. And this is going to be a problem for them in times of war when we need to work collectively. Because we don't have the practice and we don't have a shared nationalistic experience. It's a crazy conflict. The American dream is different, for everyone, and in a conflicting way. A large number of Americans (i.e. Republicans) dream of living in a community free of dark skinned Americans, and the other half dreams of being accepted.

No unity. Just emphasis on individuality and that's different from other cultures. In latin America, cooperation was an important part of the native upbringing, until the American influx of capitalism intruded. As it did, a dual culture developed. In the city you have a crazy Libertarian style of life where anybody can be bought to facilitate business. Laws are used to keep the honest people in check, everybody else learns to grease the palms and game the system. And, yes, there are good people there. Usually in the outskirts. It's like three layers of society. The abject poor, the struggling middle class and the uber rich. That's where we're headed in this country.

The only way to destroy this strata culture is to hang together, collectively, the poor and the middle class. To fight those who continually game the system. Expose them. Because, as long as the crooks get to live in their Mc Mansions with soiled money, other middle classers will follow their lead. It's the churn that tires an honest person from fighting them. The fact that the people fighting in the trenches next to them may just give up trying to do things honestly, and just follow the road to the Mc Mansion houses. You see, that's where individuality is a problem. Once you separate someone from the group, their family, their community, they get indoctrinated into believing that their success is measured monetarily, and in this country, how you get there is irrelevant. They forget everything they learned at home or at school or at church in regards to ethics and morality. They're re-indoctrinated by their business culture.

And kids get reinforced over and over in America, that they are full, operating adults at the age of 18. Too many American families abandon their own kids, making them figure out how they're going to pay for their own college. Some succeed and should be proud of themselves for it, but far more fail, or struggle and get bitter at everybody else who appears to find support from their own family members or elsewhere. This bitterness is exploited by your right-wing radio. Never mind that they never analyze the roots of the failure which would be found in the American glorification of individualism.

In America, we stress individuality, while all other cultures that stress community and family, surpass us. For example, we keep glorifying Asian students and assume it's their individual ability which helps them rise above all others. But it's not just their individual ability, which I believe we all share. It's also the support from their family. They have a very strong nit family base which extends beyond the nuclear family. I've even heard of mothers coming to live off campus, renting apartment housing during Finals week where their sons or daughters can study, and eat home cooking. And,yet, here we feel sorry for the Asian student who never seems to have a social life on an American campus, when that's to his advantage in the long term. Because that socialized American lifestyle is all about competition and individuality and mean things happen to kids which distract them from the success which the Asian student is focused on. Things like being subjected to everybody else's pecking order. Discrimination and prejudice. The Asian student has blinders during this period, so does not see it, nor tries to compete against it. He just merrily develops at his own pace, finding praise and accolades among his teachers and family members.

And everybody else? If a minority member stops to listen to all the mixed messages that come across in this country, they'd go crazy. Actually, we do. We suffer identity crisis's. We either turn our backs on our own native cultures in a losing fight to become anglocized, a fight where we'll eventually lose because we don't have the genetic markers to succeed. For example, if it's true that only tall people can be president, 80% of latin Americans have just been eliminated from the running. Or, if we're lucky enough to have a good upbringing of our own native cultures, we hold onto that as our base, for our own sanity. But that will always be a barrier into the Anglo-culture. Yet, that's the only options afforded to us, right now.

So, when you claim that humans are individuals, just be aware that it's Anglo-Americans who have set up this goal of being super-individuals and that it's creating for this country, far more trouble than its worth. You can't have 300,000,000 individuals running around, fighting each other for resources and affirmation. And the fact that it's not natural, is indicated by the way that psychiatrists have boomed in this country. I say, for every successful American, there must have been at least ten Americans who were damaged by him along the way. It's a game of stealing cheese out of your neighbor's mouth and out of your grandkid's hands. At one time, community mattered. I hope that it will again.