The_Dude

true that

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

smooth

Your analysis of the libertarian position is skewed which might be the cause of your confusion over the determination that their views are inconsistent. The libertarian position regarding civil rights is not a leftish ideal that all minorities *will* be treated equally. Theirs is a subtle argument that a) laws should not govern morality vis-a-vis an individual's right to choose who he/she employs and b) race should not matter because everyone should be treated as equal under the laws. Now, this does not provide the protection of the law to various minorities that leftist movements have been fighting to maintain for the past fifty years. It's a neo-right movement to eradicate distinction between racial differences. The vast majority of social researchers recognize that while the notion of everyone's equality under the law is a noble ideal the practical implications of eradicating racial distinctions wouldn't result in equal or equitable treatment of ethnic minorities as it would serve to maintain the status quo--white hegemony. Hopefully this small tidbit will give you some insight as to how you were misarticulating the implications of the libertarian platform and concluding they were contradicting themselves. If you want more information then Michael Omi and Howard Winant's Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s is considered the definitive book on race/ethnic theory. You might like Cornel West's Race Matters more since it is written from a non-academic style (even though West has been at Princeton and is currently at Harvard) and was listed on the best seller for some time.

magic_hat

i get the notion that a large portion of Americans feel the same way. Some people do not want to be classified as being in a particular group....so when they vote for the person who represents their closest opinions, there may be a handful of issues that the voter does not want to support or does not agree with. Also, there exists a good portion of ideals that the candidate does not even discuss, and those being the ones that get thrown into action right after election.

Kabsnow

i'm more democratic than anything else.

but i stay independent.

republicans and democrats are tied... who shall be the winner!?!

bingle

Actually, I didn't say this. :-) I said that, when viewed with the mindset of a 2-dimensional political spectrum (right and left), Libertarian stances may *appear* inconsistent. This was simply meant to point out the failures of such a view!

I also said later that, when viewed on a government interference scale, both the basic left and right arguments appear inconsistent!

And I understand the distinction between the Libertarian approach and the leftist approach to civil rights. In fact, that was the point of my post: despite seemingly similar stances on many issues, the Libertarians are actually diametrically opposed to the Left on a basic philosophical level. This is why Leftists disagree with Libertarians, which is what the original poster was confused on :-)

I suggest you read my post again, this time more than the first paragraph ;-)

Bingle

Atropos4

I don't really follow a party....during presidential election I voted Green Party because I didn't like the top choices.....I look at what each individual canidate is about and then I make my choice...Has nothing to do with what party they're in.

__________________

smooth

Actually, I read your whole post. You explicitly stated that their views regarding civil rights could be placed far-left. That's incorrect. They don't believe in protecting equal treatment for minorities and women. That's incorrect. Your conclusion that they believed that the government should be involved in the civil rights sector but not the economic one is incorrect. A more correct articulation is that they believe that the government should be removed from *all* sectors of private life. This does not claim to support equal treatment of individuals. This instead claims to support that there should be no *preferential* treatment of anyone. The distinction is subtle yet important--one protects minority rights, the other claims no one should be protected by the government and each should fend for his or herself in an open market. This is a far-right argument--in regards to both economics and civil rights.

laconic1

I'm socially conservative, fiscally moderate to conservative, and environmentally moderate. I usually vote Republican even if I don't fully agree with the candidates because most of the candidates the Democrats put up are way too far out there for my tastes.

alpha phi

I refuse to vote for the goverments:
MAN A democrat
MAN B republican
Each is pretty much, the same the powers that be
I will vote green, reform, independant, or others!
Mainstream voters tell me "that's throwing away your vote"
I say it's not!
To throw away a vote is not to vote
If more people kept this in mind
The rep./dem. would not dominate america.

__________________

mean-spirited

I'm a mean-spirited Republican who is also a proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy. For lack of a viable 3rd party. I'm conservative and disagree with the repubs alot but a 3rd party vote is a vote for the dems. Can't have that.

George W Bush

100% Conservative Republican American

__________________
"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning"

"You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

bingle

Umm. This is exactly what I said. I stated that the left and right believe that the government should be involved in some things (such as personal morality for the right, and economic justice for the left). Libertarians, I said quite clearly, are for wholesale government non-interference. Keep in mind, too, I don't think that the left and right are inconsistent, I just mean that viewed along a certain axis they can be perceived that way. That's the trouble with one-dimensional political spectrums!

My inclusion of civil rights issues into the platforms is also valid: I was making the point that there are several civil rights issues (for instance, gay rights) on which the left and Libertarians agree. But again, this is just a coincidence - they do so for entirely different philosophical motives, as you pointed out. And you're right, there are some civil rights issues that Libertarians and leftists disagree on, such as affirmative action. But you missed the point of my post, which is that, despite some superficial similarities, the left and Libertarians are more deeply opposed than the left and the right. (Which is what you seem to be trying to argue!)

Bingle

nightshade000

I so whole heartedly agree. A lot of my friends just don't vote because they don't like the democrat/republican canidates. As a whole, at least 50% of the US does not vote. One year there was a voter turn out of 30%. That's 30% who get to control the other 70% who didn't vote because they didn't like the 2 main parties. If just 20% of those people who don't vote, voted 3rd party, we would have a viable 3 party system instead of just 2 party. Sometimes I just want to smack my friends over the head with same beer we're drinking while talking about this, because they think that no vote is better than voting for the "two evil's"

People just arn't educated enough because they think politics are dirty. I'm not saying they arn't, but bitch about getting dirty if you're not willing help contain the mud from being slung.

Simple_Min

I vote democrat because voting for other alternatives such as Libertarian Party, and Green Party actually divides the liberal vote and thus leads to the results of the 2000 election. Ideally I would support no particular party.

The Greens and Libertarians seem to be going for the holy grail: the white house.

They need to begin by seeping into the congress and then over time with enough influence make their way toward the White house and turn America into a multi party system where anything goes. None of the other parties seem to be pursuing this path rigorously.

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Freakasaurus

Democrat all the way.

George W. Hitler, oops I mean Bush is obviously not bright enough to run the show. If it were't for all his daddy's people around him, W. would not even know how to spell Iraq.

ConspiracyTheor

While I don't necesarilly agree with ALL of the Party Platform, I will, and do, vote Libertarian. I became disillusioned by the major parties (ie the Republicrats and the Demopublicans) years ago. Time for some fresh air. Give someone else a shot at cleaning up the mess that the big two have made over the years.

Nowlookit

Lawdy- One simple question. Has everyone who replied to this post voted in their local/state/fed elections? If so, take a bow. Otherwise, you are part of the problem. Voter apathy enables the twisting and morphing of memes like patriotism, american and war to mean go bomb the bejesus out of 5th rate dictators for profit.

I don't vote along party lines, Greens and Libertarians strike a chord within me however, they aren't (yet) huge profit driven behemoths that pay lip service to values, and line their pockets on the back of the working classes.

Intriguing post, who knew a simple survey would bring out such splendid discourse?

weedline

It not safe to vote for a Dem yet.
A Lib vote is a wased vote.
A Green vote is just stupid.
Rep vote gives me right to shoot the sumbitchs.

apetaster

I don't so much vote for a given person, rather I tend to vote against the person who I believe will do the worst job at protecting my interests (read, my money.)