WashingtonTimes: Voight: Is Obama creating a civil war in America?

[Baculus]

There are different models of libertarianism with variations of laissez-faire attitude towards economic and social issues. Some people are left, some are right. The right libertarians tend to have a more anarcho-capitalist ideal, while the left-libertarians represent the traditional European libertarians, which resembles political anarchism. (Often, left-libertarianism and anarchism is used interchangably.)

Noam Chomsky is an example of a left-libertarian, and Ron Paul is more of a right-leaning libertarian. (Even though, as someone mentioned, he resembles a moderate or paleo-conservative at times). Libertarians of both stripes can agree on several issues, but the disagreement tends to happen over the question of capitalism.

To leftists, capitalism represents another power entity, just like government. To rightists, it represents freedom and self-determination. Now, it must be said that left-libertarians support a free market, but what they call a "real" free market devoid of monopolistic, capitalist influences, which is basically what right-libertarians envision when they also talk about the "free market."

If Europe, if they call you a libertarian, in American terms, that would really mean "anarchist." What is an anarchist? Someone who believes in decentralization of power and collective, individual action, which is actually one form of socialism (in its non-statist form).

Now, the interesting thing, is that even the right-libertarianism is influenced by leftist politics. Where do you think the anti-capitalist tendency of some right-libertarians originates? That is why I am amused when I hear right-libertarians agitate about "the left," when they don't realize that their own ideology was influenced by 19th century leftist politics.

[Baculus]

A Libertarian conservative is basically just a moderate conservative/Republican. :2cents:

Yeah, there are similarities between moderate-centrists and moderate "libertarians." Some Blue Dog Democrats are also similar in nature to libertarians, being socially liberal and economically conservative.

While both of these groups are sometimes suspicious of the state, they aren't as anti-statist as most "serious" libertarians, if you will. Some of these people are perhaps closer to a minarchist form of libertarianism as opposed to a totally anti-state model.

Libertarianism is a very complicated ideology, with various forms.

[Baculus]

To me, libertarian is fiscal conservative social liberal. I think you and hubbs definitely fit that mold. But there are a lot of social conservatives who fancy themselves libertarians. To me that's a tough sell.

It's definitely become politically chic to call oneself a libertarian these days, which has really been used to describe every form of ideology. People juts don't want to be identified with either party, so libertarianism has been used to identity as an independent.

[twa]

Yeah, even at my most "anti-Bush" and "anti-NWO" period of my disillusion, I didn't speak of armed insurrection. "Taking back this country" wasn't supposed to involve guns. It was supposed to involve the ballot box.

I was able to shake that off around two years ago. It is hard to seriously talk about politics if everything is a "conspiracy" and if you see shadows in every corner.

Really, though, I find it interesting that some people lose an election, and now we're suddenly hearing talk of "revolt" and "secession."

None of that talk provides a solution to bettering our nation.

Is there serious talk of armed insurrection,or is that just a deflection?

Is the movement growing,if so, Why?

Is Voight advocating armed insurrection or direct political action?

There has always been a minority in this country that embraces insurrection,conspiracy theories and secession

[Larry]

A Libertarian conservative is basically just a moderate conservative/Republican. :2cents:

Old joke:

A Liberal is a Conservative who got laid off.

A Conservative is a Liberal who got mugged.

A Libertarian is a Conservative under indictment.

[ACW]

I'm a Harry Brownesque minarchist.

[Baculus]

Is there serious talk of armed insurrection,or is that just a deflection?

Judging by the Internet Talk, I would say there are definitely growing feelings of"armed insurrection." To use real world example, look at some of the sentiments displayed at some Tea Parties or the health care town halls, especially with firearms openly displayed.

I don't remember any anti-war hippies carrying around firearms.

I was on the "fringe" during the Bush years, and I never, ever heard this much talk even during the "worst" years (in their mindset) during that time period. What's happening now is the same thing that happened after Clinton was elected: right-wing agitation, growing militias, talk of a "new civil war," except it's worse, especially after a black liberal won the election.

We can pretend that race isn't a factor, but it is. Definitely.

Is the movement growing,if so, Why?

For different reasons: 1) This impression that liberalism is "destroying" this nation, an idea that has been pushed by right-wing pundits for years. 2) Some language from politicians (such as the governor of TX) 3) A sense of loss and helplessness (which drove anti-Bush sentiment in the past, so this happens on both the left and the right after lost elections), and 4) all of the events from over the last year, with bailouts and various federal policies. Except when the GOP was involved, such violent sentiment wasn't on display until the aforementioned black liberal was elected.

There's also a new "Confederate" movement that is growing as well.

Is Voight advocating armed insurrection or direct political action?

That is questionable. I don't think he would dare to suggest armed insurrection, but he would probably say something such as "armed insurrection could happen if the current government policies continue."

There has always been a minority in this country that embraces insurrection,conspiracy theories and secession

Sure, but it has been growing over the last two decades, and it's really growing even faster during the Clinton or Bush years. To the degree that it is being embraced by some factions of the Republican party. Look at the language used by Glenn Beck, one of the most popular right-wing pundits. For days and days he held court on how this country is being fascist or socialist. And look at recent events, with right-wing shooters, the "angry mob" mentality, and so forth. Just last year, we had that church shooter in TN who wanted to kill "all liberals."

[Obibyn23]

Just noting.

And a very good note you took. It's beyond stupid how this is all unfolding.

[techboy]

Ron Paul is against gay marriage. He is also pro-life. He is a moderate conservative to me, not a libertarian. A libertarian is a social liberal and an economic conservative.

This is far too simplistic.

For one thing, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent in being a libertarian and being pro-life. If the government exists only to prevent force and fraud (a common libertarian assertion), then it is still well within the role of the government to prevent force against another human being. It can be argued that some of his pro-life positions go against the Constitution (and he has even alluded to such in speeches), but there's nothing that says that a libertarian has to be a Constitutionalist (though he does claim to be one).

As to gay marriage, Ron Paul voted against the Constitutional ammendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. He has also stated in interviews that he supports the rights of gays to marry. Where he gets the "anti-gay marriage" label is that he has also supported things like DOMA, but he did so on the grounds that the Federal Government has no role forcing a definition of marriage on individual states, also a position that is consistent with libertarianism, though not necessarily with his position on abortion.

In truth, Ron Paul is pretty clearly a libertarian, though of course there are different kinds. He might be officially a Republican, but there's only one district in the country that the "official" Libertarian Party doesn't try to field a candidate (as far as I know). Guess which one it is?

[Larry]

We can pretend that race isn't a factor, but it is. Definitely.

Yeah, but that's kind of a "death panel" comment.

Yeah, race is a factor in politics today.

It was a factor 10 years ago, too. And 50 years ago.

So no, I'm not going to stand here and try to claim that race has no effect whatsoever in the world today. (I couldn't keep a straight face.)

OTOH, I will point out that, IMO, if we had President Hillary today, we'd be seeing the same exact behavior.

(Well, OK, maybe they wouldn't be claiming she was born in Kenya.)

[techboy]

I don't remember any anti-war hippies carrying around firearms.

I had a friend in college who was virulently pro-gun control. He used to insist that one day there would be a civil war over gun rights.

Finally, I looked at him and said "Oh really? And just which side do you think would win that one?"

Stopped him dead in his tracks.

[SparkleMotion]

To leftists, capitalism represents another power entity, just like government. To rightists, it represents freedom and self-determination. Now, it must be said that left-libertarians support a free market, but what they call a "real" free market devoid of monopolistic, capitalist influences, which is basically what right-libertarians envision when they also talk about the "free market."

If Europe, if they call you a libertarian, in American terms, that would really mean "anarchist." What is an anarchist? Someone who believes in decentralization of power and collective, individual action, which is actually one form of socialism (in its non-statist form).

Now, the interesting thing, is that even the right-libertarianism is influenced by leftist politics. Where do you think the anti-capitalist tendency of some right-libertarians originates? That is why I am amused when I hear right-libertarians agitate about "the left," when they don't realize that their own ideology was influenced by 19th century leftist politics.

What exactly is a free market devoid of capitalist tendencies?

I would argue that right-libertarians view themselves as radical capitalists.

I don't see anything anti-capitalist in right-libertarian thought. If anything, it's against crony capitalism, which is not a critique of capitalism per se, but a critique against giving the government too much influence over the market that leaves it ripe for backroom deals and rent-seeking.

You said yourself that capitalism represents freedom and self-determination to the right. How could a right-libertarian be against that?

[SnyderShrugged]

This is far too simplistic.

For one thing, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent in being a libertarian and being pro-life. If the government exists only to prevent force and fraud (a common libertarian assertion), then it is still well within the role of the government to prevent force against another human being. It can be argued that some of his pro-life positions go against the Constitution (and he has even alluded to such in speeches), but there's nothing that says that a libertarian has to be a Constitutionalist (though he does claim to be one).

As to gay marriage, Ron Paul voted against the Constitutional ammendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. He has also stated in interviews that he supports the rights of gays to marry. Where he gets the "anti-gay marriage" label is that he has also supported things like DOMA, but he did so on the grounds that the Federal Government has no role forcing a definition of marriage on individual states, also a position that is consistent with libertarianism, though not necessarily with his position on abortion.

In truth, Ron Paul is pretty clearly a libertarian, though of course there are different kinds. He might be officially a Republican, but there's only one district in the country that the "official" Libertarian Party doesn't try to field a candidate (as far as I know). Guess which one it is?

As usual, TB "Gets it"

[Larry]

Agreeing with your post, but I just felt compelled to pick one nit that kind of jumped out at me.

Where he gets the "anti-gay marriage" label is that he has also supported things like DOMA, but he did so on the grounds that the Federal Government has no role forcing a definition of marriage on individual states, . . .

Now, I may be thinking of a different let's-ban-gay-marriage-at-every-level-we can law . . .

But wasn't the sole purpose of DOMA to legislate that if a state were to grant equal rights to gays, that neither the federal government, nor any other state would recognize those marriages?

[techboy]

But wasn't the sole purpose of DOMA to legislate that if a state were to grant equal rights to gays, that neither the federal government, nor any other state would recognize those marriages?

That may have been the intention of some of its supporters, but Paul supported it because it allowed, for example, Massachussetts to make gay marriage legal without, say, Georgia having to recognize it, which has the effect of allowing each state to make its own individual decision on the issue.

[SparkleMotion]

We can pretend that race isn't a factor, but it is. Definitely.

If race is such a big factor, where was all this anger and outrage before and just after Obama took office?

Maybe some of the more feeble-minded people to show up these protests are motivated by racism, but a vast majority of it is a reaction to his policies. There may a handful of racists along for the ride, but they aren't in the driver's seat.

[ACW]

Crony capitalism is not capitalism.

As for abortion, the question is is the fetus a person?

EDIT: Harry Browne says it best: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Abortion.htm

Key quote (funny but true): Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.

[techboy]

As for abortion, the question is is the fetus a person?

I agree that this is the central question, but it's not really relevant, since any pro-life libertarian has presumably already decided that question in favor of personhood.

[Baculus]

What exactly is a free market devoid of capitalist tendencies?

Capitalism is seen as a monopolistic power entity. Think small business vs. Big Business corporations (ex. Wal-mart vs. some town shops) and perhaps that will make it a little bit more clear.

You can be a small "c" capitalist without being a "Capitalist." Small "c" capitalists tend to support the free market in its true competitive form. A large "C" Capitalist wants victory in any form for their business, and that the ends justifies the means. Squash competition. Good. Move to a third nation for cheap labor? Good. Violate laws and exploit labor to achieve these aims? Good. Break up pro-union rallies with armed goons? Good. Create government-business monopolies to further their supra-national objectives?

Even better.

This isn't the goal of the average small business owner who just want to find their niche in the market.

Incidentally, mutualism is a pro-free market, anti-capitalist philosophy.

I would argue that right-libertarians view themselves as radical capitalists.

Some do. That is why I use the phrase "anarcho-capitalist" during some arguments.

I don't see anything anti-capitalist in right-libertarian thought. If anything, it's against crony capitalism, which is not a critique of capitalism per se, but a critique against giving the government too much influence over the market that leaves it ripe for backroom deals and rent-seeking.

You just missed the anti-capitalism element with your own example: Anti-crony capitalism, which is a form of anti-capitalism. Some would argue that one of the highest forms of capitalism is, indeed, crony capitalism.

You said yourself that capitalism represents freedom and self-determination to the right. How could a right-libertarian be against that?

Because capitalism also represents the worst excesses of the free market/free enterprise system. Look at the modern world for a multitude of examples.

One of the best examples you can use is warfare, which has sometimes been used to further corporate economic goals. To some people, Capitalism represents the Iron Triangle: the merger of Congress, the military, and the Corporate body.

[techboy]

]Key quote (funny but true): Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion will lead within five years to men having abortions.

Key quote (funny but true): Given the results of the government's War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Prosecutorial Misconduct will lead within five years to defense attorneys helping convict their innocent clients.

That logic is stupid, unless you're an anarchist. Not all libertarians are anarchists.

[ACW]

To some people, Capitalism represents the Iron Triangle: the merger of Congress, the military, and the Corporate body.

To others, this is a gross perversion of capitalism.

And the iron triangle: isn't it bureaucrats instead of the military?

[SparkleMotion]

I agree that this is the central question, but it's not really relevant, since any pro-life libertarian has presumably already decided that question in favor of personhood.

The problem is people try to use abortion as a gotcha issue for libertarians. They certainly did for Ron Paul. I think people can answer that question both ways and be either pro-life or pro-choice without having to turn in their libertarian card.

[Larry]

That may have been the intention of some of its supporters, but Paul supported it because it allowed, for example, Massachussetts to make gay marriage legal without, say, Georgia having to recognize it, which has the effect of allowing each state to make its own individual decision on the issue.

Ah, so it permitted states to ignore the full faith and credence clause of the Constitution. (If they were doing so for the purpose of legislating against gays.)

(And it created a federal definition of "marriage". But he supported it, because he opposes the feds defining marriage.)

[Destino]

That may have been the intention of some of its supporters, but Paul supported it because it allowed, for example, Massachussetts to make gay marriage legal without, say, Georgia having to recognize it, which has the effect of allowing each state to make its own individual decision on the issue.

... and deny them those rights at the federal level.

[techboy]

The problem is people try to use abortion as a gotcha issue for libertarians. They certainly did for Ron Paul. I think people can answer that question both ways and be either pro-life or pro-choice without having to turn in their libertarian card.

I agree, obviously.