Democrats More Libertarian than Republicans
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Libertarians (of the pro-capitalist, rather than the
traditional, variety) typically prefer Republicans over
Democrats as supposedly closer to their ideals. But a study
that creates a "libertarian index" for Congressmen based on
their votes reveals that Democrats typically score higher
than Republicans. With a few exceptions, like former
Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ron Paul, who
predictably tops the list, most of those at the top of the
list are Democrats, and most of those at the bottom are
Republicans.
For details, and to check the ranking of specific
Congressmen, see:
http://hammeroftruth.com/?p=1710
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never
entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries.
-- The Treaty of Tripoli, entered into by the USA under
George Washington
Ken Gardner
>Libertarians (of the pro-capitalist, rather than the
>traditional, variety) typically prefer Republicans over
>Democrats as supposedly closer to their ideals. But a study
>that creates a "libertarian index" for Congressmen based on
>their votes reveals that Democrats typically score higher
>than Republicans. With a few exceptions, like former
>Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ron Paul, who
>predictably tops the list, most of those at the top of the
>list are Democrats, and most of those at the bottom are
>Republicans.
None of this surprises me. Liberals, leftists, libertarians, and
other losers -- they all belong together.
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Libertarians (of the pro-capitalist, rather than the traditional,
> variety) typically prefer Republicans over Democrats as supposedly
> closer to their ideals.
Libertarianism implies private property and free markets run by the
participants. A libertarian by default is pro-capitalist. In a
capitalist order the only function of government is to assure that
contracts are honored and fraud is punished.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> None of this surprises me. Liberals, leftists, libertarians, and
> other losers -- they all belong together.
Libertarians, to the extent they are libertarian, are pro-capitalist.
The first think a libertarian should tell you is what is yours is yours
and what is his is his and the only way yours becomes his or his becomes
yours is by consentual trade.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
>> Libertarians (of the pro-capitalist, rather than the traditional,
>> variety) typically prefer Republicans over Democrats as supposedly closer
>> to their ideals.
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:eedlc5
> Libertarianism implies private property and free markets run by the
> participants. A libertarian by default is pro-capitalist. In a capitalist
> order the only function of government is to assure that contracts are
> honored and fraud is punished.
Right. Republicans are probably fractionally closer to this if you parse
the stats Dan Clore cites.
But because the 'Pubs are more badly infected with insane religion and a
widespread lack of sufficient genetic diversity (particularly in the South),
they tend to go spectacularly insane more often, like the guy with the Uzzi
whose wife of 35 years nags him that one last time...
So when we look for an America going explicitly Communist for a time, as in
tricky Dick's wage and price controls, or going spectacularly and
disasterously cowardly on defense (see Ronald Reagan's decision to cut and
run after the Wogs murdered over 200 Marines, often cited as the genesis of
9/11,) it's the 'Pubs in their occasional role of out-Democrating the
Democrats.
Watch for history's judgment of Bush. He'll get justified credit for
talking the talk, and walking the limp-ass walk on the terror/Islam thing.
But many will look back on his budgetary brain-damage and ask, "With
fiscally-conservative Republicans like this, who needs....?"
You get the idea.
Bert Hyman
news:4mujtbF...@individual.net:
> Libertarians (of the pro-capitalist, rather than the
> traditional, variety) ...
What? Please elaborate on this distinction.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Robert J. Kolker
> cl...@columbia-center.org (Dan Clore) wrote in
> news:4mujtbF...@individual.net:
>
>
>>Libertarians (of the pro-capitalist, rather than the
>>traditional, variety) ...
>
>
> What? Please elaborate on this distinction.
Some anarchists are confused with libertarians (who are minarchists). A
total anarchist could not favor a capitalistic order in which an
authority of some sort is tasked with enforcing contracts and punishing
frauds and breaches of contract. Such an authority would be, in effect,
a government.
Bob Kolker
>
Reggie Perrin
Only if it enjoyed a territorial monopoly. You'd better hope David
Friedman doesn't see this ;-).
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
John Shafto
eFe...@127.0.0.1...
> cl...@columbia-center.org (Dan Clore) wrote in
> news:4mujtbF...@individual.net:
>
> > Libertarians (of the pro-capitalist, rather than the
> > traditional, variety) ...
>
> What? Please elaborate on this distinction.
He is playing a little wiggle game with the words
"capitalist" and "libertarian". In his usage "capitalism"
implies a government, and "libertarian" implies anarchy.
(and he pulls for the Democrats, which are neither
"capitalist" nor "libertarian", in any sense.)
Reggie Perrin
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message news:Xns983F556F355FCVeebl
> eFe...@127.0.0.1...
> > cl...@columbia-center.org (Dan Clore) wrote in
> > news:4mujtbF...@individual.net:
> >
> > > Libertarians (of the pro-capitalist, rather than the
> > > traditional, variety) ...
> >
> > What? Please elaborate on this distinction.
>
>
> He is playing a little wiggle game with the words
> "capitalist" and "libertarian". In his usage "capitalism"
> implies a government, and "libertarian" implies anarchy.
He is not without grounds, if what I have read elsewhere on Usenet is
anything to go by. I have frequently seen it said that "libertarian"
did not acquire it's modern pro-capitalist meaning until the
mid-twentieth century, having earlier been associated with anarchistic
strands of socialism.
Ken Gardner
>Libertarians, to the extent they are libertarian, are pro-capitalist.
>The first think a libertarian should tell you is what is yours is yours
>and what is his is his and the only way yours becomes his or his becomes
>yours is by consentual trade.
I don't think that libertarians are pro-capitalist. Some of them
pretend to be, but that's different. A real capitalist understands
that citizens and their private property needs protection from all
enemies, foreign and domestic. A real capitalist understands that we
need strong law enforcement and national security. A real capitalist
understands that the need to protect citizens and their property does
not end at our nation's borders.
Ken
Reggie Perrin
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> I have frequently seen it said that "libertarian" did not acquire it's modern
Bleuurgh. That should of course read "its" rather than "it's".
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I don't think that libertarians are pro-capitalist. Some of them
> pretend to be, but that's different. A real capitalist understands
> that citizens and their private property needs protection from all
> enemies, foreign and domestic. A real capitalist understands that we
> need strong law enforcement and national security. A real capitalist
> understands that the need to protect citizens and their property does
> not end at our nation's borders.
Should our government be World-Cop? Or perhaps, a tax funded vigillante?
Legal authority stops at the border. If a private individual goes abroad
to do business, he is taking his chances. If a private individual wants
protection from the government he should stay home.
Bob Kolker
Reggie Perrin
Ken Gardner wrote:
> [...]
> I don't think that libertarians are pro-capitalist. Some of them
> pretend to be, but that's different. A real capitalist understands
> that citizens and their private property needs protection from all
> enemies, foreign and domestic. A real capitalist understands that we
> need strong law enforcement and national security. A real capitalist
> understands that the need to protect citizens and their property does
> not end at our nation's borders.
Above all, a real capitalist can spot a loaded proposition at fifty
paces.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Above all, a real capitalist can spot a loaded proposition at fifty
> paces.
What is a loaded proposition? Is that anything like a loaded question?
Bob Kolker
Reggie Perrin
That was the effect I was aiming for. I thought I might have invented
the term, but Google suggests not.
John Shafto
news:1158330353.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> John Shafto wrote:
> > He is playing a little wiggle game with the words
> > "capitalist" and "libertarian". In his usage "capitalism"
> > implies a government, and "libertarian" implies anarchy.
>
> He is not without grounds, if what I have read elsewhere on Usenet is
> anything to go by. I have frequently seen it said that "libertarian"
> did not acquire it's modern pro-capitalist meaning until the
> mid-twentieth century, having earlier been associated with anarchistic
> strands of socialism.
He's not without grounds on the "Libertarian" usage, but
his use of "capitalism" is strictly political word bending, IMV.
The political left frequently conflates the word "capitalism"
with some notion of political collectivism resembling
facsism.
Capitalism does not imply government, it refers to an economic
system which can and has many times existed without any
centralized authority above it.
I tend to agree with Objectivists and (minarchist) Libertarians
that a limited state can and has empirically made capitalism
more orderly and efficient, but that in no way implies a state's
necessity.
Bert Hyman
news:1158330353.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
So far as I can tell, the word "libertarian" took on its current
usage when the meaning of the word "liberal" was destroyed; the
traditional use of "liberal" was what "libertarian" is used for
today.
Friedrich Hayek explaining his use of the word "liberal"
in the foreword of his book "The Road to Serfdom":
"I use throughout the term 'liberal' in the original,
nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current [1944] in
Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the
opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftist
movements in this country, helped by the muddle-headedness of many
who really believe in liberty, that 'liberal' has come to mean the
advocacy of almost every kind of government control."
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Capitalism does not imply government, it refers to an economic
> system which can and has many times existed without any
> centralized authority above it.
Capitalism live or dies on how contracts are upheld and enforced.
>
> I tend to agree with Objectivists and (minarchist) Libertarians
> that a limited state can and has empirically made capitalism
> more orderly and efficient, but that in no way implies a state's
> necessity.
Really. Assume no State. How does one enforce contracts? By sending out
one's boys armed with clubs and guns? If so, that would make for some
interesting business scenarios.
Bob Kolker
Bert Hyman
news:eeegid$van$2...@victor.killfile.org:
> Assume no State. How does one enforce contracts? By sending out
> one's boys armed with clubs and guns? If so, that would make for
> some interesting business scenarios.
Well, you know what they say ...
"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ..."
Atlas Bugged
news:dudlg2tk2uvg97m84...@4ax.com...
> I don't think that libertarians are pro-capitalist.
Aww, jeez, not this shit again.
>Some of them
> pretend to be, but that's different.'
Oh, I see, they're just pretending. Perhaps you could answer a few
eensy-weensy questions, such who, what, when, where, and why [can't wait for
that one], along with a modest personal question, such as what you smoke?
>A real capitalist understands
> that citizens and their private property needs protection from all
> enemies, foreign and domestic. A real capitalist understands that we
> need strong law enforcement and national security. A real capitalist
> understands that the need to protect citizens and their property does
> not end at our nation's borders.
Whoa! Did this just morph into a motorcycle rally while I wasn't looking?
Is Ken giving a speech?
Are those the only characteristics of a "real" capitalist, or is the list
meant to be just non-exhaustive and dumb? Do real capitalists know they
can't spend money they haven't even confiscated yet? Hey, I really wanna
know...do real capitalists pour vast sums into worthless shitholes,
"humanitarian" aid to sub-humans, nearly bankrupting their own asses in the
process?
My concern is that real capitalists ought to pay strict attention to
reality, and not make shit up, then go and believe it.
Chris Cathcart
Bert Hyman wrote:
> now...@nowhere.com (Robert J. Kolker) wrote in
> news:eeegid$van$2...@victor.killfile.org:
>
> > Assume no State. How does one enforce contracts? By sending out
> > one's boys armed with clubs and guns? If so, that would make for
> > some interesting business scenarios.
>
> Well, you know what they say ...
>
> "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ..."
For all their theoretical ingenuity, I'm surprised that the
anarcho-types haven't managed to envision a really, really
non-meddlesome state. Now, this state would be the "court of final
appeal," as it were, but only for final appeal. Lower courts get all
the standard "anarcho-capitalist" authority to render decisions, and
private agencies can effectively and efficiently run their police, law
and courts. But when some rogue agency decides it's going to get out
of line too much to upset all this spontaneously-generated order, then
the nightwatchman-state steps in to deal with this entity swiftly and
decisively. It then retreats back to its watchtower and lets all the
market participants carry on.
This genuine nightwatchman-state is a cross between the Godfather and
Kung-Fu master of "Flame Warriors" lore, and Tim Skirvin.
This setup doesn't do away with the state altogether, and probably
still needs to deal with the "public goods" issue, especially for
national defense, but it's about as non-interventionist a state as it
gets. Note the feature that it's a court of *final* appeal and review.
People wouldn't take their disputes to any government courts right
from the get-go. With the nightwatchman-state, all these private
agencies will get their chance to carry out that whole experiment of
capitalist economic efficiency, with a true built-in safeguard for
if/when things get out of line. For lack of a better term, this state
would be engaged in the creation and enforcement of meta-level law --
the laws that pertain to laws created and enforced by these private
agencies of lesser resort.
So, say that too many complaints have been filed with the state,
against an agency for its practices -- be it judicial or enforcement
procedures. The state, then, has review authority over this agency.
Should it decide that this agency was abusive, it has the power to
alter or abolish it.
Anarcho-theorists like (or at least pay lip service to) the whole idea
of checks and balances, and this theoretical system looks like it has
it, in a way that reasonably resembles the kind of system with final
enforcement authority that everyone agrees is needed. It effectively
does away with the whine that under a "monopoly government" (which this
still is, as there is a state agency with monopoly over the final
appeal) people wouldn't be free to shop around their legal and security
needs to competitive agencies. It should be noted that the monopoly
that the state effectively keeps is a *legal* monopoly, not an economic
monopoly. Until the anarcho-types grasp this distinction, it's
doubtful they'd ever grasp the Objectivist politics.
Now, supposedly, the anarcho-types have even come up with schemes for
how national defense could be adequately funded via private mechanisms
-- insurance, say. (I think the Tannehills first popularized that
one.) It may very well be that the funding of national defense could
be done like this, which makes for an even less meddlesome and
interventionist a state. Now, you'd still need the state as an agency
of final authority on these matters, but given all the theoretical
schemes that anarchos cook up, you could just as well envision a scheme
were national defense matters follow a chain-of-command pattern, where
everyday decisions are left to the lower-level commanders/managers and
the commander-in-chief/CEO has the final say -- that c-i-c being at the
level of the state, of course.
So, in this hypothetical scenario, the state really is minimal in every
way. The funding level required for the state's existence would be
that required to pay the staffs of the commander-in-chief and
assistants, the judges on the Supreme Court, the forces required to
stamp out or put a rogue agency in line, a few nuke-warheads to make
foreign wars quick and painless, and the meta-level-lawmakers.
Basically an administrative function with a few shotguns laying across
some laps. How much would this state cost nowadays, tens of billions
of dollars a year, tops? It could be a hundred-billion and still come
in under 1% of GDP. Bugged is ecstatic, Ken knows the raving anarchos
haven't gotten their way, the lefty-liberals go get productive and
high-paying private-sector jobs, Coop writes treatises on other issues
requiring attention, everyone's happy.
Robert J. Kolker
> This genuine nightwatchman-state is a cross between the Godfather and
> Kung-Fu master of "Flame Warriors" lore, and Tim Skirvin.
I prefer the robot Gort, of -The Day the Earth Stood Still-.
Gort! B'ringa!
>
> This setup doesn't do away with the state altogether, and probably
> still needs to deal with the "public goods" issue, especially for
> national defense, but it's about as non-interventionist a state as it
> gets. Note the feature that it's a court of *final* appeal and review.
> People wouldn't take their disputes to any government courts right
> from the get-go. With the nightwatchman-state, all these private
> agencies will get their chance to carry out that whole experiment of
> capitalist economic efficiency, with a true built-in safeguard for
> if/when things get out of line. For lack of a better term, this state
> would be engaged in the creation and enforcement of meta-level law --
> the laws that pertain to laws created and enforced by these private
> agencies of lesser resort.
Fine. Quid custodiet ad ipso cutodii? Does the State have a Meta-State
to guard its doings. If the State is not manned by fallible humans, then
what assurance do we have against corruption?
The only one I can think of is Revolution.
Klaatu barada nicto!
Bob Kolker
Bert Hyman
> Fine. Quid custodiet ad ipso cutodii? Does the State have a
> Meta-State to guard its doings. If the State is not manned by
> fallible humans, then what assurance do we have against corruption?
>
> The only one I can think of is Revolution.
Well, you know what they say ...
"... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government ..."
Chris Cathcart
Well, there you go. The (well-armed) people are actually the
meta-meta-court of last resort. So, who will guard the people? I do
believe that Rand had an answer there, too. Begins with a 'P'.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Matt Barrow
the left's (Marxian "freedom" from responsibility, risk, motivation, effort,
etc.; life as a parasite).
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
John Shafto
>
> Really. Assume no State. How does one enforce contracts? By sending out
> one's boys armed with clubs and guns? If so, that would make for some
> interesting business scenarios.
One's success in trade really hinges on one's willingness
to live up to their own commitments...that's the motivation
for people (even in "lawless" places) to live up to their contracts.
And just as importantly, one's ability to gauge the snake
oil salesmen among us, and avoid getting in too deep
with them. It's much cheaper to limit one's exposure
to untrusted people, and write off any small amounts
they stiff you for. The time and energy involved in
getting the clubs and guns out is rarely, if ever, worth it.
This may seem odd to forceful fellows such as yourself,
Bob, but I have been self employed for over ten years,
and corporate employed for 15 years before that, and I
have never once really needed clubs or guns in my
dealings with tens of thousands of individual people.
I've sent some people to private collections firms, but
only because I let a few of my customers get further out
than I would have without knowing I had the recourse of
collection services, and ultimately small claims. I've
also come to the place were I've discovered it's much
easier to never let anyone get into me enough to need
to pay the time and money for collections and small
claims.
Today, many people are willing to forgo the "getting
to know your business fellows" part, because they have
too much faith in the clubs and guns. Those people
usually discover that the system really isn't that great
to deal with, and that they still end up quite short when
they get stiffed on something, because time is really
more valuable than money.
Being somewhat of a New Yorker, you should know that
the contract enforcers can be worse to deal with than
the (potential) contract breechers.
John Shafto
> that citizens and their private property needs protection from all
> enemies, foreign and domestic. A real capitalist understands that we
> need strong law enforcement and national security. A real capitalist
> understands that the need to protect citizens and their property does
> not end at our nation's borders.
<Jack Nicholson>
"Son, we live in a world that has walls,
and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.
Who's gonna do it? You?!"
</JN>
One thing that must be allowed for when considering
the political left's conception of 'capitalism' and capitalists
is that their notions are often shared by the political right.
I also cringe when the Rush Limbaughs and Shawn Hannitys
of the world prattle on about "libruls".
Atlas Bugged
>> But a study
>> that creates a "libertarian index" for Congressmen based on
>> their votes reveals that Democrats typically score higher
>> than Republicans.
"Agent Cooper" <agentc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158389758....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Is it just me or is this *totally* meaningless?
Almost meaningless, yes, but I understand what little point its trying to
make. There are a number of such "indices," as you know.
You yourself have occasionally raised this same sort of point in evaluating
Supreme Court Justices and wannabes.
Such measurements are invariably imprecise. Example: you might be looking
at dozens of votes regarding the operation of public schools. Since their
elimination is never even brought to a vote, it is impossible to cleanly
graph those votes onto a libertarian issue-map.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I would add that the libertarian basis of liberty (anarchy) is as hokey as
> the left's (Marxian "freedom" from responsibility, risk, motivation, effort,
> etc.; life as a parasite).
Libertairans promote minarchy, not anarchy. A government big enough to
protect life and property, but small enough as not to be intrusive into
people's rightful private affairs. We cannot get rid of government, but
we can make it quasi useful.
Bob Kolker
Matt Barrow
"John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote in message
news:eeg690$jul$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
> One thing that must be allowed for when considering
> the political left's conception of 'capitalism' and capitalists
> is that their notions are often shared by the political right.
>
> I also cringe when the Rush Limbaughs and Shawn Hannitys
> of the world prattle on about "libruls".
>
"What is a Reactionary?"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=22695
Pretty much the definition of the left, as the article clearly demonstrates.
Ken Gardner
>Should our government be World-Cop? Or perhaps, a tax funded vigillante?
>Legal authority stops at the border. If a private individual goes abroad
>to do business, he is taking his chances. If a private individual wants
>protection from the government he should stay home.
I disagree. In case you haven't guessed, I'm not a libertarian. And
this attitude is so September 10. I want our government to secure and
protect the rights of Americans everywhere in the world -- which, in
the final analysis, is the only way to make us secure inside our
borders as well.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>I would add that the libertarian basis of liberty (anarchy) is as hokey as
>the left's (Marxian "freedom" from responsibility, risk, motivation, effort,
>etc.; life as a parasite).
I would add that their refusal to secure such rights outside our
borders (when in our national self-interest, which is probably most of
the time) is a version of anarchy. Libertarians are masters of
dis-integration and the concrete bound mentality. They think that
what happens outside our borders does not threaten our "liberty"
inside our borders. This type of thinking should have died a
well-deserved death on 9/11/2001. Libertarians suck.
Ken