You are viewing the archives of the old northcoastoregon.com. Please visit the new North Coast Oregon at: http://www.northcoastoregon.com/

Libertarians supporting Democrats, good or bad for the country?

by Tryan Hartill

In an admission in itself, Reason editors are not only looking at Dem Candidates, but they are also going to their functions:

We were standing in Lamont’s room at the Washington Hilton, the site of the Campaign for America’s Future 2006 Take Back America conference. (Someone missed an opportunity for synergy by not booking the American Values suite.) As long as I was a hurdle for the candidate to jump before he could meet some people with checkbooks, I figured I could rope him into the “Libertarian Democrats” debate.
“Could you give me some reasons why libertarians might want to vote for you?”

I admit, on it’s face this is a very strange question to ask a primary candidate.  If one was campaigning for a regular election…...not so much.

But Ned hit a homerun:

Lamont’s first response was a look of wide-eyed, Marty McFly bewilderment. But after a moment of noodling, Lamont said “Terri Schiavo.” Sen. Lieberman had rushed the stage when President Bush and Republican leaders were staging an intervention in the tragedy of the comatose Florida woman whose husband and parents disagreed on whether she should be taken off life support. “Sen. Lieberman thought it was the government’s job to decide what was right for that family,” Lamont said. “He’s all right with the government intruding into our private lives. And not just in that case.”

Damn Straight, David agrees:

It was a good answer. (This judge would also have accepted Lieberman’s video game censorship, his support for the Iraq war, or the Department of Homeland Security.) Last week, Markos “Daily Kos” Moulitsas floated the “Libertarian Democrat” idea and sparked a discussion of what the party of Jefferson Davis can do to bring libertarians into its tent. It was thrilling, insofar as anything in Connecticut politics can be thrilling, to find a little common cause with a real Democratic candidate.

After some Democratic bashing, we come back to Ned Lamont and a plug for Jim Webb:

This isn’t a simple election. Some of the Clinton party’s candidates, like Virginia’s James Webb, actually deserve the “Libertarian Democrat” moniker. In Connecticut, where a Democrat’s going to win anyway, the pro-privacy, anti-war, pork-bashing Lamont would clearly make a better senator than Joe Lieberman. In the short term, libertarians could be satisfied—even more so than liberals—with a Democratic Congress that rolled back anti-privacy laws and acquainted Bush with his veto pen.

As the article finishes, it points out some advantages for Libertarians to vote Dem in 2006, but also includes the familiar point when we talk about the 2 party system:

It might be in libertarians’ best interest to ally with Democrats for this election. If they do, they could see short-term progress that would never come out of the invasion-happy GOP majority. Inevitably, they’ll find out something they have in common with liberals. They’ll be let down.

There is a good chance for the familiar letdown, but I doubt it will be any more of a letdown for libertarians then the last 6 years of Republican control.

A few other libertarian-leaning Democrats, that are running for office, have not been mentioned by the libertarian web users, but since they include libertarianism even more in their political thought then Lamont and Webb, I’m sure some will come out in support of them as well:

  • Jon Tester taking on Conrad Burns in Montana for Senator.
Jun 18, 09:58 pm | Tryan Hartill
Tags: ,
Click stars to rate this article. This article hasn't been rated yet.

33 comments on this article (post your own)

1 On Jun 19, 09:18 am, Walter Richards wrote:

A true libertarian would never make it high enough in the Democrat Party to run for office. To do so even in the Republican Party is a rarity.

Why? Because true libertarians are against gov’t intrusion in our daily lives – whether it be regulation, or subsidies/”charity”.

They can call themselves “Libertarian Democrats” all they want, but it doesn’t make them libertarians. I believe the old-fashioned term is “Blue Dog Democrats” or “Dixiecrats”.

2 On Jun 19, 10:03 am, Lee wrote:

The libertarians in office believe in not allowing government intrusion in “only their own special little miserly lives”. W said he doesnt e-mail because “I don’t want you reading my personal stuff!!” Is he defending your personal stuff?

3 On Jun 19, 10:48 am, Patrick McGee wrote:

Nobody believed them when they tried the “Progressive” cover either.

Anything but be directly linked to the current “Democratic Party”.

Sooner or later they are bound to find a name that will work for them.

4 On Jun 19, 11:08 am, Tryan Hartill wrote:

Walter

What is a true libertarian, conservative, liberal?

Fact is there is no one answer.

You act like you are speaking of facts, but you are basing your assumptions on your own opinion of what a “true libertarian” is.

5 On Jun 19, 06:02 pm, Tryan Hartill wrote:

Lee
I’m not really sure what you are referring to. There are very few Libertarians in office and George Bush is the EXACT opposite of a Libertarian.
Even the one issue that they did agree with him with, tax cuts, they are now calling for them to be repealed for the purpose of balanced budgets.

6 On Jun 20, 08:55 am, Lee wrote:

Libertarians are calling for taxcut repeal? Who then is screaming “that’s our money”. What label do they fall under.

7 On Jun 20, 09:31 am, Lee wrote:

http://ancapistan.typepad.com/edit/2005/07/is_there_a_norq.html

Tryan

There are all kinds of folks that come under the libertarian umbrella. You kinda said that earlier.
The Norquist/Rove connection and their activities advancing the Republican agenda is what I am usually thinking of lately as Libertarian. The Cato think tank is libertarian. I don’t know if they are calling for tax increases. Could be.

Norquist/Rove force behind Bush, is why I sometimes lump the Bush “figurehead” coup as libertarian.

Does this make some sense?

I took the libertarian test to see which kind I am. Anyone could be a libertarian with such an umbrella.

Bush is the Noisy drunken dune buggy passenger who playfully tosses a spent beer can at your feet , while you’re quietly searching for rare dune plants.

I think you can thank a particular breed of libertarians for an embarrasment and out of control Commander in Chief of the awesomest Arsenal.

I took the libertarian test to see which kind I am. Anyone could be a libertarian with such an umbrella. Even us “bleeding heart tax and spend ” liberals.

8 On Jun 20, 10:21 am, Tryan Hartill wrote:

Here is a paper by the Chairman of Cato that calls “Starving the Beast” junk.

But I think the libertarians are realizing how good they had it with Clinton before Bush took control. Many are very pissed off that Bush has gone in the opposite direction of libertariaism.

I don’t have the link, but I remember reading that Bush’s approval rating is 11% among libertarians, which is lower than Democrats at near 16%.

9 On Jun 20, 11:41 am, Walter Richards wrote:

Tryan, the main things libertarians disagree with are PERSONAL issues – not gov’t.

IE; Many libertarians disagree with each other over abortion, but they all agree it shouldn’t be up to gov’t to decide or pay for.

As to Lee calling those in office “libertarians” ... it’s just her way of trying to lump anybody she disagrees with under the same “evil” banner. Because the libertarian philosophy “threatens” the left, they want to point and say “look at the evil libertarians” – if the left can convince the right to do the same thing, the “2 Party” system will be secure.

10 On Jun 20, 12:45 pm, Lee wrote:

With libertarianism and justice for all —————
Walter, I’m sorry if I lumped you in with the evil people. I don’t think you’re. I Don’t think libertarians are evil, just fearful with cockeyed vision. Darned labels.

Americans have benefited from years of regulated business and socialistic programs that have delivered an unsurpassed quality of life.

Some thought they were bringing Ayn Rand’s philosophy to life by buying into the “virtue of selfishness”, and in reality they aren’t getting any of the pie, and people are dropping like flies from war and hunger and our planet is in serious trouble. The american elderly are quietly dying of hunger in their home or apartment, afraid to ask for more social security allotment for fear of taking much needed food out of a soldiers mouth.

Libertarianism delivers to the Rich high dividends while the rich tell them the reason there is no pie for them is the “war on terror”.

11 On Jun 20, 01:05 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

Lee, what do you suppose the elderly did before Social Security etc? Don’t you see the relationship between gov’t “assistance” and loss of “family values”?

Have Americans benefitted from intrusive regulations and socialism? I say, only in the same way the oppressed “benefitted” from slavery.

BTW – What do you think would happen, were word to spread to future generations … the ones paying for SS/etc … that they don’t have to have SS#s? And without SS#s, they can’t pay SS taxes. (According to the SSA, you only need a SS# if you plan on applying for SS benefits.)

The only thing libertarians are fearful of, is gov’t. And anybody who isn’t, is either ignorant (of history) or set on repeating it.

Is a libertarian-ideal gov’t possible? Yes, under limited circumstances. Mainly, strict limits on citizenship. In other words, you’d have to want to live under such a gov’t (thus my tri-stater affiliation). But regardless, our country would be a lot better off if libertarians were part of a “3 Party” (or more) system.

12 On Jun 20, 01:49 pm, Lee wrote:

Family values is at an all time high if you ask me.—————You yearn for the days of the robber- barons?

How did your ancestors fare pre-great depression? How were they making their millions?

Then in your world after the depression your people became slaves? To what?——————So are you not paying into Social Security? If you become disabled who will take care of you?————-
I could go on all day pointing out how gov’t has either helped you or saved your life. Didn’t you dad get disability? Did that benefit you or him?
——-

Reagan said the scariest words he ever heard were-”I’m from the government, and I’m hear to help”
Funny thing for a Governor and President to say. For hating government, he sure did find himself enabling a lot of fat cats.


BTW
Isn’t the interet a government creation?

13 On Jun 20, 03:55 pm, Tryan Hartill wrote:

the main things libertarians disagree with are PERSONAL issues – not gov’t.

Hence why we see a shift to some of the more free-market Democrats by libertarians.
The Neocons want the Governemnt to make the choice for you on abortion and other issues, so why not support some of the Democrats that line-up more with libertarians on personal issues and are also anti-war?

Also check out the Frank Gonzalas link and where he stands on the issues. I can’t imagine someone, who calls themself a libertarian, would not support someone like Frank.

14 On Jun 21, 06:25 am, Walter Richards wrote:

Family values is at an all time high if you ask me.

You’re kidding, right? Just a few examples: The rate of children out of wedlock is higher, the number of families who take care of their elderly is lower, the percentage of parents who teach their children to respect others is lower (thus higher crime rates).

Because people can dump their responsibilities on gov’t, family values suffered.

You yearn for the days of the robber-barons?

I thought we still had “robber barons”. Wouldn’t that be what you’d call the head of megacorporations? Isn’t Billy Gates a modern-day “robber baron”?

How did your ancestors fare pre-great depression? How were they making their millions?

Who needs to make millions? They were mostly self-sufficient farmers. Until gov’t forced them to sell their lands … during the great depression.

Then in your world after the depression your people became slaves? To what?

No. People became slaves … to the federal gov’t … at the end of the Civil War. When the federal gov’t overthrew the 10th Amendment, and federalized citizenship.

And the gov’t LOVES people who rely on its “charity”. Because those people can be depended on to support anything the gov’t tells them to. “Support this, or we’ll cut off your money.” – Just like the federal gov’t does to the states. Slavery, without the physical shackles.

So are you not paying into Social Security? If you become disabled who will take care of you?

If I had known prior to getting my first job, that I didn’t have to pay SS or file income taxes … I wouldn’t be doing either of those. Both are voluntary taxes, but once you volunteer in you can’t volunteer out. The only people required to have SS#s, are people who plan on applying for SS benefits. And since future generations aren’t likely to receive those benefits, it’s only a matter of time before they refuse to pay for “insurance” they won’t be allowed to use.

Who would take care of me? With being able to keep the extra 30+% of my pay, I’d do like my ancestors did and put money aside “for a rainy day”. Ever figure out that the “working poor” can’t afford (say) insurance, because they pay those increased taxes for all those social programs that “benefit” them? Ever figure out that gov’t wastes so much money on “middle men”, that those people could have better benefits if they could keep that money rather than sending it to gov’t?

15 On Jun 21, 08:12 am, Lee wrote:

I think “community values” is something that Dems should adopt.

Children born out of wedlock is not because of a loss of family values. It is the romanticizing of the teenage pregnancy by media and other special interests, and the demonizing of personal freedoms. Young women are expected to be “breeder workhorses” and grandmothers, babysitters. Grandmothers can make wonderful caregivers I think community needs to lend a helping hand if government wants young women to be breeders. It takes a village.

16 On Jun 21, 08:18 am, Lee wrote:

Children who are allowed to benefit from headstart are 7 times more likely to stay out of prison.

17 On Jun 21, 08:46 am, Walter Richards wrote:

On second thought … instead of “slavery”, perhaps I should say “indentured servitude”.

Children born out of wedlock is not because of a loss of family values.

So, you’re saying it’s in keeping with family values to have bastard children?

I don’t think there’s a “demonizing of personal freedoms”. In fact, I think personal freedoms are overemphasized … too many priviledges are being sold as rights … while there IS a “demonizing” of personal responsibility. The emphasis should be that the two go together equally.

I also don’t see a “romanticizing” of teen pregnancy. I see a “romanticizing” of teen sex … and not enough emphasis on “protection”. And the spread of belief that “there must be something wrong with you, if you practice abstinence”. (Usually associated with “you must be some religious freak”.)

18 On Jun 21, 09:38 am, Lee wrote:

Well I guess we disagree on the definition of the terms we use.

I have not a clue as to what you think family values are or personal freedoms.

Later

19 On Jun 21, 12:00 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

“Family Values” = when the family takes responsibility for instilling values/morals. Which requires parents to take responsibility for raising their offspring. Also requires parents to be involved in their children’s education, not just leaving it up to whatever the school requires.

“Personal Freedom” = a much-misused misnomer. There is Liberty, which grants the same Rights to everybody – AND requires the same Responsibilities of everybody. “Personal freedom” is most often used to excuse somebody’s action, when they don’t want to face the consequences for.

20 On Jun 21, 01:30 pm, Lee wrote:

“Personal freedom” is most often used to excuse somebody’s action, when they don’t want to face the consequences for.——From your own personal perspective? How do you come up with these judgemental assumptions, as a Liberty loving person no less. I guess you just start out with the assumption that people are worthless.

An example of a personal freedom for you to ponder. If government or pharmacy worker make it impossible for me to purchase a morning after pill, I consider that a violation of my personal freedom.

If my neighbor breaks my car window in the dead of night because I’m flying an American Flag upside down, that is a violation of my personal freedom and to my property.

21 On Jun 21, 04:41 pm, Patrick McGee wrote:

“An example of a personal freedom for you to ponder. If government or pharmacy worker make it impossible for me to purchase a morning after pill, I consider that a violation of my personal freedom.”

What about “YOUR” Personal Responsibility to take every precaution to assure that you don’t put yourself at risk of getting pregnant the night before?

Also, I think pharmacies as it is with most businesses still have the right to use their own discretion as to who they do or do not serve serve.

Now, if government makes it law then it’s your right moreso than a personal freedom.

22 On Jun 21, 05:40 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

An example of a personal freedom for you to ponder. If government or pharmacy worker make it impossible for me to purchase a morning after pill, I consider that a violation of my personal freedom.

Well, you’re 1/2 right … but that means you’re 1/2 wrong.

1 – As long as the pill has been deemed “safe” by scientific testing, gov’t shouldn’t block it.

2 – Businesses can choose to sell … or NOT sell … whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t pose a danger to the public.

In this example, gov’t overregulation results in a loss of liberty. But you have NO right to demand a business sell something, just because you want it. Of course, if the pharmacy normally sells the pill, but the worker refuses to sell it … you can ask the manager if store policy allows employees to choose what to sell (or not) from the store’s inventory. If store policy allows it, you have NO right to insist the employee sell you the item – get another employee to sell it to you.

If my neighbor breaks my car window in the dead of night because I’m flying an American Flag upside down, that is a violation of my personal freedom and to my property.

Again, you’re only 1/2 right … and 1/2 wrong. It is vandalism. However, it isn’t a violation of any “personal freedom”.

There is no such thing as “personal freedom”. My reasoning is in the oxymoronic nature of the phrase itself. “Freedom” implies rights. And rights are, by their very nature, equal to all. “Personal freedom” implies that you have rights nobody else does. But I won’t use the term “freedom” either, because it has been so misused by people intent on upholding their “freedoms” without also claiming the attached responsibilities.

23 On Jun 21, 06:45 pm, Lee wrote:

What about “YOUR” Personal Responsibility to take every precaution to assure that you don’t put yourself at risk of getting pregnant the night before?———————————
Since I couldn’t get the only store in town to sell me the pill, I found myself pregnant. I demand the personal freedom of being in charge of my own body. I have the freedom of being the person who decides my future.

24 On Jun 22, 06:45 am, Walter Richards wrote:

Since I couldn’t get the only store in town to sell me the pill, I found myself pregnant. I demand the personal freedom of being in charge of my own body. I have the freedom of being the person who decides my future.

ROFL.

And, like, you didn’t know – before having sex – that it might lead to you getting pregnant? Because (in the scenario used) you obviously didn’t take any responsibility beforehand to prevent the pregnancy … not even calling the pharmacy to see if they did sell the pill. You likely weren’t on birth control, nor insisted your partner use a condom. Obviously weren’t abstinent.

See what I mean about using “personal freedom” as an excuse to avoid personal responsibility?

25 On Jun 23, 11:20 am, Lee wrote:

“Personal Freedom” = a much-misused misnomer
———-Ok-could you find an example where it is a much used misnomer when you have time?

I think you are pro-choice.

I think of what goes on in my body as something personal-of my person. I believe in the freedom to control my life. I believe in accepting responisbility for my actions. We all make mistakes, or are in danger of being raped, so it is our parents or ourselves that take responsibily to correct or make right what is our personal business.

I am free to seek out a morning after pill, (best because conception hasn’t happened yet so you can’t label me irresponsible for having sex without protection)I am free to seek an abortion or drink pennyroyal tea.

See what I mean by Personal Freedom.

26 On Jun 23, 02:21 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

YOU already provided the example, thank you very much. Again:

Since I couldn’t get the only store in town to sell me the pill, I found myself pregnant. I demand the personal freedom of being in charge of my own body.

You were blaming your pregnancy on the store, for not selling you the pill. But, if you had called beforehand, you’d know they didn’t. Thus, you’re attempting to blame the store for your own lack of taking precautions.

–
And my view on abortion is … it’s an individual choice. It should be between the couple, and gov’t shouldn’t have any say in the matter. UNLESS you ask gov’t to pay for it. Because taxpayers should have the right to say how their money is spent, if spent outside Constitutional boundaries.

And prostitution should be legal, since it’s merely sex between two consenting people … with money involved. Not really any different than a gal having sex with a guy because he bought her dinner or jewelry.

27 On Jun 23, 07:26 pm, Lee wrote:

And prostitution should be legal, since it’s merely sex between two consenting people … with money involved. Not really any different than a gal having sex with a guy because he bought her dinner or jewelry.————
So if one gets pregnant while participating with another in prostitution they are both equally responsible for the raising of the child if the female decides to keep it.

28 On Jun 23, 09:07 pm, Lee wrote:

I didn’t put a question mark after my sentence.
I am wondering if you agree with that statement, in keeping with your concept of “personal freedom” as an excuse for avoiding responsibility. So even though you think prostitution should be legal, both parties must pay the consequences if the mother decides to give birth. Right?

29 On Jun 24, 07:45 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

Of course.

I only have TWO caveats to both parties taking responsibility for a pregnancy due to consensual sex.

1 – Subterfuge or sabotage. IE; One partner tells the other s/he had “the operation” and can’t have kids, or s/he sabotages the birth control. Because, IMO, such action means the sex wasn’t really consensual. One party was actively trying for a pregnancy, while the other thought they had taken the precautions to avoid it.

2 – Medical incompetence. IE; “the operation” was performed incompletely. Whether or not the couple has the child, the surgeon who screwed up (pun intended) should at least pay some of the costs.

30 On Jun 25, 12:27 pm, Lee wrote:

I’m Shocked, I tell ya-does not compute

Suggestion that a Doctor is responsible for one’s sexual irresponsiblity floors me, coming from you, a libertarian, tristatist, former constitutionalist.

Patients are told that these surguries aren’t 100%. Audacious to demand subzidation for child born out of prostituion by bilking a surgeon.

31 On Jun 25, 02:04 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

No different than any other malpractice. The doctor is responsible for making sure the surgery is a success. If the patient is told the surgery is a success, and it isn’t … the doctor is responsible.

(Of course, as with any medical condition that requires surgery, it’s always recommended to get a second opinion.)

I’ve known a few people who’ve gotten these surgeries, and not one of them was told it isn’t 100%. In fact, they were told prior to the surgery that it would be irreversible and “are you sure you’ll never want children”. Implying that the surgery is 100%. (This was before the reversible procedures available today.)

32 On Jun 25, 06:32 pm, Lee wrote:

Planned Parenthood website

HOW WELL STERILIZATION WORKS

Sterilization is one of the most effective contraceptive methods. Of every 1000 women who are sterilized, only five will become pregnant during the first year. About one of 100 women will become pregnant each year after. Of every 1000 men who are sterilized, fewer than two will cause pregnancy during the first year.
————-

I am going to presume that a male who is considering a vasectomy is told that that there is a very small chance that a sperm may get through. I don’t know if that is caused by something growing back or a negligent surgeon.

Sounds like a good bet for males who don’t want to get saddled with a child because they are prosituting themselves for a living.

I encourage all non-liberal men to get one.

(smile)

33 On Jun 26, 06:56 am, Walter Richards wrote:

I had a thought this morning on the way to work. I know, dangerous.

Anyway, what’s the legal difference between a woman who’s paid for sex … and a woman who’s paid to be a “surrogate mother”? Is it just because one is trying to get pregnant? Hmmmmmmmm. I smell a case for discrimination.

Post A Comment

(required)

(required but not displayed)



(No HTML, Textile only please. Live comment preview below.)

this is not Spam.

preview

:

Jan 6, 05:11 am


Previous Article:
« An Open Letter to the FBI ...

Next Article:
The Fed Energy Outlook vs. Oregon's »

NCO Reader Comments


lhjzgbnr txymgjc (The Vote 2006!)
lhjzgbnr txymgjc (The Vote 2006!)
lhjzgbnr txymgjc (The Vote 2006!)
SARA (What to do in Astoria on New Years Eve....)
Alexa Manning (What does the Federal Government Do with our Taxes?)
cnabas (New Tillamook and Clatsop County Blog)
pasgettaorri (The Vote 2006!)
pasgettaorri (The Vote 2006!)
connie (Focus on 49: BOCC work session grapples with difficult legislature)
Delores (Focus on 49: BOCC work session grapples with difficult legislature)
Kristen Molina (North Coast AA Round Up Seaside April 4th 5th 6th 2008)
Madonna Carr (What does the Federal Government Do with our Taxes?)
Wallace Kennedy (More D.A. Talk)
Ollie Woodward (Fort George Brewery Coming Alive)
Augustine Sweet (CCFOG - First report on Lee recall petition signatures)
Glynn Oconnor (A gun show ... without guns ?)
Lorne Riley (notes from Clean Slate PAC meeting 2/13/07)
Clare Ruiz (Durban Group Discusses Carbon Trading and LNG in Astoria)
Stewart Hernandez (Random News For Friday)
Johnna Acosta (Measure 50....Healthy Kids...Cigarette Taxes)

Recent Articles

View All Articles...

Feeds



Home | Archives | Contribute | Back to Top
Take What You Want 2009 NorthCoastOregon.com unless otherwise indicated.
Please email us with any questions or comments.
Site created by Upspring Design.