Thread: The Erosion of Civil Liberty in America

This is a thread about the loss of civil liberties. If you want to bait me into an argument about workers' entitlements and whether libertarians are right wing extremists although we are worlds more liberal on social issues than Democrats, then please start another thread on it.

You are concerned with having lots of social programs, but a lot of Democrats are focused on social issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization and don't really put much into the issue of bureaucracy and programs. We can win those people over. There are also large numbers of Republicans who have one foot in our door because they are so tired of Republican politicians' big spending, piss ant tax cut proposals, and gung ho attitude about social programs over free market remedies. Rand Paul might be the Republican nominee in the next presidential election. He is merely borderline libertarian, but the fact that things have shifted toward him says a lot about the turning of the tide. I have hope.

You cannot win over liberals with an anarcho-capitalist economic policy. Yes, many liberals are distracted by gay marriage and marijuana legalization, but that doesn't mean social justice becomes irrelevant. I am not trying to bait you into an argument, I am simply stating libertarians have no chance at getting the left to vote for them if they continue to glomb objectivist philosophy in with their stance on civil liberties. If they can let go of objectivism, they stand a chance. But not before that.

We should set up a boxing ring for you two. ( Maybe not )

How about finding a policy that you both agree on. There must be a few
You could then create an imaginary political party.
No policy would be allowed, unless both parties agreed on the matter.
Just see how many ideas would draw you together, instead of focusing on the things that are tearing you apart.
Or do you both disagree with my 'simple' idea.

No, we do agree, that's what the united front coalition thread is for. The problem is getting everyone else to agree. I won't budge on objectivism, I think it's a shite philosophy and it's the libertarians' number one downfall, but that doesn't mean a more accommodating economic philosophy can't be reached. Libertarians simply wont get liberal support until they attempt to reach it. Objectivism has to be left out of the platform.

(The quote mechanism isn't working right now.)

Phil, I like your idea. You should check out OP's thread on a common ground coalition. OP and I agree completely on civil liberties, but not social programs and taxes. Here, we're just discussing how Libertarians could win over liberals.

OP, I was a Democrat the Libertarians won over. That is because my issues were war and civil liberties. I went through a pro-war phase for a while after 9/11, but I protested the Gulf War and have always been liberal on civil liberties. It wasn't a far reach for me to go Libertarian.

Now you have just put up the biggest possible hurdle that could ever exist.
And I quote. " The problem is getting everyone else to agree. "

Do you not see how this reads ? You are the one that is right, and every one else is wrong.

Now do not get me wrong. I agree with 99 per cent of your posts, and think you are an intelligent person with some superb ideas.
My skills in getting ideas into words are quite limited, so I often use analogies.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink.

Maybe a softer touch when putting an alternate view accross would help, but then again.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

(The quote mechanism isn't working right now.)

What isn't working about it??

Originally Posted by melanieb

What isn't working about it??

I kept clicking it, and nothing would happen.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This is a thread about the loss of civil liberties. If you want to bait me into an argument about workers' entitlements and whether libertarians are right wing extremists although we are worlds more liberal on social issues than Democrats, then please start another thread on it.

You are concerned with having lots of social programs, but a lot of Democrats are focused on social issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization and don't really put much into the issue of bureaucracy and programs. We can win those people over. There are also large numbers of Republicans who have one foot in our door because they are so tired of Republican politicians' big spending, piss ant tax cut proposals, and gung ho attitude about social programs over free market remedies. Rand Paul might be the Republican nominee in the next presidential election. He is merely borderline libertarian, but the fact that things have shifted toward him says a lot about the turning of the tide. I have hope.

Not to be all negative, but I would bet you $1 that Rand gets fewer primary votes in 2016 than Ron did in 2012. I hope I'm wrong, but my worldview says I'm right.

Originally Posted by TiredPhil

Now you have just put up the biggest possible hurdle that could ever exist.
And I quote. " The problem is getting everyone else to agree. "

Do you not see how this reads ? You are the one that is right, and every one else is wrong.

Now do not get me wrong. I agree with 99 per cent of your posts, and think you are an intelligent person with some superb ideas.
My skills in getting ideas into words are quite limited, so I often use analogies.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink.

Maybe a softer touch when putting an alternate view accross would help, but then again.

You completely misinterpreted that. What I'm saying is people are stuck more on differences than agreements. I agree that the left and right have to work together, most people do not agree with that because most people are fixated on blaming the other party for causing all the problems in the first place. It has nothing to do with me being right and others being wrong. If I thought that way, then I would say to hell with libertarians out right. But I'm not saying that, I'm simply saying the libertarians cannot win over the left and the left will not elect a libertarian because objectivist economic policy has become so colluded with their platform. The left did come very close to electing Ron Paul, and he could have gotten a lot more left "fringe" except for his callous approach to economics and his suggestion that things like Social Security should be opted out of. I tried really, really hard to agree with Ron Paul but I realized I was trying to filter his statements in a way that made him look less mercilessly anarcho-capitalist and I had to be honest with myself. Like Cmind says, Rand stands an even smaller chance because he not only continues the same objectivist economic policy but also alienates himself from the left through his criticism of the Civil Rights Act, as well as his criticism of the 1st amendment:

“I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they've been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they've been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn't be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.”

UM, you say that you were a democrat but I've argued with you on economics before and you seem to be steadfastly conservative in your views. I don't know if you chose to support objectivism after converting to libertarianism or if you already believed in it, but I do not think it possible to win over the left without compromising these views a little. You realize that a job creator to the right is a wage slaver to the left, right? I understand you believe this type of thinking can lead to totalitarianism, and it can, but so can stubborn objectivism. Balance must be maintained between the two economic philosophies. Neither socialists nor purist-capitalists should have complete say regarding economic policy.

I won't deny that some libertarians are objectivists, but equating the two ideas is a little weird, since objectivism is the spawn of Ayn Rand, who wasn't a libertarian at all (she hated libertarians, in fact).

Originally Posted by Original Poster

UM, you say that you were a democrat but I've argued with you on economics before and you seem to be steadfastly conservative in your views. I don't know if you chose to support objectivism after converting to libertarianism or if you already believed in it, but I do not think it possible to win over the left without compromising these views a little. You realize that a job creator to the right is a wage slaver to the left, right? I understand you believe this type of thinking can lead to totalitarianism, and it can, but so can stubborn objectivism. Balance must be maintained between the two economic philosophies. Neither socialists nor purist-capitalists should have complete say regarding economic policy.

I was a Democrat more than 20 years ago, and I didn't know enough about economics to have much of an opinion on it. My attitude was, "Eh, they're Democrats, they're probably right. Now let's talk about legalizing weed and opposing war." I hadn't yet learned that most Democrats aren't really for legalizing weed or opposing war.

I support certain parts of the objectivist philosophy. The "every person for himself" approach seems to result in much more success than the "government for every person" approach. I don't see how it can lead to totalitarianism. The less government we have, the less of a threat government is. But let's not get too much into that here.

Democrats who think the way I used to can become Libertarians, as I did. Democrats who are Hell bent on mass social programs are all very unlikely to become Libertarians. However, I think it is often the civil liberties issues that get people into the Democratic Party at first (because of misconception resulting from the fact that Democrats are not Republicans), and from there, they get really into the social program part of the philosophy.

I disagree, I think the Social Program part plays an equal role. It's not simply added on. I do not think either "the government for every person" or "every person for themselves" is optimal. But granted, at heart I'm an anarcho-syndicalist so I supposed my philosophy is "every worker-owned institution for itself."

Major points for liberals are social justice, we do not believe that the wealthy earn every penny, we believe their employees earned it for them. We do not believe every person can be extremely wealthy. Even if every runner in a race is an exceptional runner, not everyone can win the race. In the same way, even if every citizen is a remarkably skilled PhD, that just means more janitors will have PhDs. Someone has to take the positions on the bottom for society to operate. If everyone is a CEO, who actually runs the industry? And if you truly believe the individual holds sole responsibility for the wealth they've achieved, see what happens to their vast stores of wealth if that individual's employees refused to work. But they can't refuse to work or they starve, this is wage slavery. Ideally, a greater compromise over ownership must be struck between the Investors and the Workers. Until that happens, social programs to get people out of poverty or college educated are necessary to maintain a middle class and another word for the middle class is the consumer class. They keep the industries profitable, which enables the job-creators to keep their industries afloat without firing people. The poor are also good consumers when they're not crushed by financial stress. Social programs allow them to get back to a place of financial independence which allows them to spend more money. Economic stability comes from social protection and investment in education, not from rewarding "job-creators" with tax cuts and benefit cuts.

This is not "the government for every person," it's a long standing, hard won compromise. We do not need to go as deeply into employee benefits as France or Greece, but we cannot get rid of it all, either. Just as the liberals in a common ground coalition would not permit libertarians to make draconian cuts to social programs, so I'd only expect libertarians to prohibit liberals from making vast increases to these programs.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I think the Social Program part plays an equal role.

It does for some Democrats, but not others. Sadly, I think a lot of people are Democrats because Republicans seem uptight and uncool to them, which makes being a Democrat seem cool.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It does for some Democrats, but not others. Sadly, I think a lot of people are Democrats because Republicans seem uptight and uncool to them, which makes being a Democrat seem cool.

Very true, I think a lot more of how most people(collectivists in particular) live has to do with image and fitting in than they realize.

Originally Posted by TiredPhil

Now you have just put up the biggest possible hurdle that could ever exist.
And I quote. " The problem is getting everyone else to agree. "

Do you not see how this reads ? You are the one that is right, and every one else is wrong.

Now do not get me wrong. I agree with 99 per cent of your posts, and think you are an intelligent person with some superb ideas.
My skills in getting ideas into words are quite limited, so I often use analogies.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink.

Maybe a softer touch when putting an alternate view accross would help, but then again.

Thanks. I don't think it's too assertive or closed-minded to say you are trying to get everybody else to agree with you. It's a given that you want people to agree with you on a political position. Nobody who has passion about a political position is above that.


I saw this a little while ago on the Libertarian Party's Facebook page. Click to enlarge.

snowden spying.jpg

Supreme Court Bombshell: No Right to Remain Silent – Secrets of the Fed

WHAT?!

LAPD runs urban warfare drill in downtown Los Angeles during Homeland Security terror conference - YouTube
I'm surprised no one knew about this drill in June? It's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It does for some Democrats, but not others. Sadly, I think a lot of people are Democrats because Republicans seem uptight and uncool to them, which makes being a Democrat seem cool.

In much the same way most republicans are only republicans because they think gay people are icky. I'm not concerned with those people, they would probably not involve themselves in a social movement anyways. And if they did, they'd be following the most simplistic of messages. Right now most republicans are more pissed off over the ruling regarding gay marriage than they are about the wire-tapping scandal. For fuck's sake, I'm looking for the slightly more politically interested sorts. You can insult my political affiliation for as long as you want to but it doesn't represent the facts regarding liberal philosophy any more than deranged theocrats represent libertarian philosophy. So please, for the love of God, stop arguing that you can simply win liberals over to the libertarian party once they see through democrats. That's no more true than asserting that liberals can convince libertarians to become anarcho-communists. You think most liberals are only liberals because it's the cool party? Well I think most libertarians are only libertarians because they like simplistic, absolutist bullshit that doesn't force them to contemplate the deeper intricacies of the world. We are not allowing a party to enter office that would further deregulate the economy. That's how the economic crisis happened in the first place. Even Ron Paul said that bankers need to be regulated to prevent more recession.

Calm down. I didn't say "most." I said "a lot." My quote is in your post. Read it. I also wasn't talking about you.

A lot of Republicans are what they are because they don't know how to separate their religion from the function of government. That involves thinking gay people are icky. I think we can win over a lot of those people too. They need to understand that their theocratic ideations are turning a lot of people away from their political preachings. We have to fight socialism and big program government, and when Republicans preach against socialism (while voting for candidates who escalate it ) but preach for theocratic escalation, they lose most of their audience. Once they finally get the connection, they might shut the fuck up about a Jesus government and effectively speak out against socialism and mad regulation. Those principles are awful for the economy, and we can get people to understand that if the main speakers against it stop mixing crazy talk in with it. Also, obviously, some people need to understand that being against excessive regulation is not the same as being an economic anarchist. Libertarians do believe in laws against fraud, false advertising, intellectual property infringement, etc. We are also against politicians who imposed lowered loan standards so that people by the gazillions have mortgage debts they can't pay. That is what caused the housing crisis. That was perpetrated by both Democrats and Republicans. Bush was the major player in it. So, Republicans need to understand that they keep voting for people who talk a good economic game but behave in office like Democrats. Getting people to understand these truths, as opposed to the Remoblicrat propaganda, will help us win over more Republicans.


Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis - Peter Wallison - The Atlantic


Also, as I said, getting people to understand that their ideas of coolness should have absolutely nothing to do with political positions because the political world is way more serious than that, and that the Libertarian Party is the only large American political party that really is for gay marriage, drug legalization, 4th Amendment protection, foreign nonintervention, and certain other things, will win us a lot of Democrats. Notice that I didn't say anything about you are "most."

Mayor Bloomberg urges Cuomo to retain sparkler ban - NYPOST.com

This is the state of perpetual fear New Yorkers have been subject to.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Mayor Bloomberg urges Cuomo to retain sparkler ban - NYPOST.com

This is the state of perpetual fear New Yorkers have been subject to.

Omg are you serious? Sparklers are awesome! but i heard if u tape a whole bunch of em and light it up, it explodes....there's a way to do it but i don't know because who ever told me doesn't want to give the secret lol.

I don't want to worry you guys over the Atlantic, but I read the following on a site I visit quite regularly

I Quote

"One of the more-unsettling revelations we’ve had this month is that the FBI routinely deploys drones over American soil. Unlike the behemoths that float over the Middle East, raining hellfire death on weddings and suchlike, these “domestic” drones are about the size of a model airplane—and they’re used exclusively for surveillance. Given what we’ve recently learned about the NSA, the idea of fleets of spy drones continuously monitoring the civilian population should be worrying enough; and it might be about to get a whole lot worse.

Scientists are now on the verge of constructing fully-autonomous bee-sized robots. Once that happens, it’s only a small step before we find microscopic cameras swarming across our skies, monitoring our every move. At that point we can kiss our privacy goodbye. All of us—me, you, your girlfriend, your mom—will be under what will basically amount to 24/7 surveillance. It sounds like the stuff of paranoid nightmares—but so does an unaccountable government organisation constantly monitoring all our communications. And, as with the NSA, we probably won’t know about it until it’s already happening."