what would you define as a "left-libertarian"?

[ButterflyBlood]

this is something that I always thought would apply to me and many others on DU more than pure liberal, but I wondered if it would work because of our stances on economic issues. I am:

pro choice
anti death penalty
pro gay marriage
pro drug legalization
pro prostitution legalization
anti affirmative action in its current form
pro class based affirmative action
pro seperation of church and state
anti unilateral military action
anti draft
anti vouchers
anti school uniforms
a centrist on gun issues
anti regulation of the entertainment industry

however on economic issues i'm a self described socialist (as i said in a previous poll a few days ago), the exact opposite of libertarians. so would i fall under left-libertarian in this case, and if not, then what would?

btw i'm going to bed so i won't be able to answer anything until morning. see ya all.

[tkmorris]

1. See?

I knew I liked you. That is a pretty fair summation of my own political views as well.

There is a questionnaire somewhere on the net that asks you a number of political position typ questions and then charts you on a graph. If I remember correctly the X axis is a Liberal/Conservative graph while the Y axis plots you as Authoritarian/Libertarian. I always plot Liberal and Libertarian, and I mean WAY the hell down in the corner.

Hey, found the link. It's been posted before several times but it's always fun to do it again. http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Cloud]

2. My first post

Greetings!

I took that test a while ago. I forgot what I got exactly but it was something like

Economic left/right: 2.00
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.00

I was next to the spot occupied by liberal democrats.

Makes sense.

[tkmorris]

4. Well hello!

Welcome to DU. Make yourself comfortable but please do stay awhile and post what ya think. Stop by the Lounge too for some relaxation. Glad to have ya aboard.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cloud]

9. From what I understood from the graph

In economics I am close to the middle. If you are far right on economics then that means you are all for corporations using the earth as a toilet. I scored a 2. I think it goes as high as 10. Far left would mean total government control of production.

I am for a free market but with regulations. The government should control some things. We need enviornmental controls to protect the earth, heath regulations to make sure our restaurants are sanitary, and protections of workers so nothing like Enron happens again.

Which from what I understand is the view of the majority of americans.

[newyawker99]

16. Hi Cloud!!

Welcome to DU!!

[Bombtrack]

3. your not a libertarian in any accepted respect

you're a leftist, a far leftist really. Libertarians are for the most part, more right-wing than republicans on economics where as you are obviously far to the left

Libertarians want drastically reduced spending and drastic decentralization, as well as drastic degregulation.

Other than legalization(which, by the way won't happen in any of our lifetimes), you didn't really favor any shrinkage of government, which is more important to the libertarian philosophy than legalization.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. You make the mistake of confusing libertarians with "Libertarians".

The capital L "Libertarians" are proponents of an economic system which, in its essential details, would lead to a modern feudalist oligarchy. Small-L libertarians (left-libertarians, liertarian socialists, etc...see for instance Noam Chomsky) have very different economic opinions.

[Terwilliger]

15. No

libertarians are about civil rights and basic freedoms

American Libertarians (capital L) are the wingnuts you're thinking of

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. Don't get trapped by the rhetoric.

You don't have to be a card carrying party member of the Libertarian pary to share its ideals. In fact, many individuals intentionally distance themselves from the party because many people associate it with selfish blowhards. So in order to retain some shred of credibilty, they go solo -- but it's still the same politics.

That's why I prefer "civil libertarian" vs. "libertarian or Libertarian."

[Terwilliger]

28. I prefer Libertarian Socialist

myself

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Is that...

Libertarian Socialist for a civil libertarian? That would be a political hot potato and not completely accurate.

[Terwilliger]

35. no

Libertarian Socialist as a way to live and think in terms of practical reform of the best of what we have with our system today.

Libertarian Socialism at Wikipedia

WWCD?

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. Social pragmatist...

me.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anti_shrub]

10. Why are you so worried about getting tombstoned?

I will confess in a previous life I was 'stoned for asking about Libertarianism which made everyone dogpile on me thinking I was a secret freeper, but I don't see how economics can get you banned......


on edit: well he got banned, so I guess it'll remain a mystery like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop....

[Cloud]

12. Yeah

My views are really no different from the Democratic party which is the party it says on my voter registration.

I thought authoritarian was the government is greater than the individual while Libertarian was the individual is greater than the government.

So Libertarians are all for individual rights? Which is why I am slightly libertarian according to that site because I am strongly pro-choice and pro-separation of church and state.

[Mairead]

11. the basic qualifiers for left/socialist/original libertarianism are

1. A commitment to democracy and self-rule, i.e. that we are all completely responsible to one another for our own government; that in matters pertaining only to ourselves, we have the sole authority over our actions; that we can hire people to perform the functions of government but they remain our employees and delegates, not our rulers.

2. A commitment to community, i.e. that we're all in this together and so we should cooperate with and support one another particularly during hard times; that societies exist for the benefit of all rather than the benefit of a few.


So being a libertarian socialist would mean being willing to make and enforce laws, to share equally in the ownership and management of communal enterprises (businesses, parks, libraries, utilities, roads, schools, etc.), to contribute freely to the common wealth, and to be a 'good neighbor'.

[Racenut20]

13. What is a centrist on gun issues?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Someone who takes aim before firing???

[ButterflyBlood]

25. basically that I have the same views as the average American on the issues

not the NRA or Brady campaign. I don't have a problem with the assault weapons ban, licensing, registration, waiting periods, ect. but don't wan a ban or confiscation of all guns either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. The Poll Put Me In Almost The Exact Place As Canadian Prime

Minister Jean Chretien... I can acept that cept I might be a little right of him on the use of the military...

[meow2u3]

18. Here's where I stand

as a neoprogressive, my social views are moderate-to-conservative (but play by the rules), while my views on economic issues are pretty far to the left.

So.....on

pro choice .. no
anti death penalty .. yes
pro gay marriage .. no, but anti-discrimination against gays in job and housing, and in favor of hate-crimes laws which protect them.
pro drug legalization .. only under doctor's prescription
pro prostitution legalization .. no
anti affirmative action in its current form .. yes: we need anti-discrimination laws which include remediation for the disadvantaged so they can compete fairly with whites, who've historically had a head start.
pro class based affirmative action .. yes
pro seperation of church and state .. yes, but it depends on the definition...we should keep government out of religion....
anti unilateral military action .. ABSOLUTELY YES!
anti draft .. yes
anti vouchers .. yes
anti school uniforms .. no....uniforms protect poor kids from ridicule by children of the better off.
a centrist on gun issues .. yes: community standards.
anti regulation of the entertainment industry.. no. I don't like overhearing some inconsiderate, selfish jerk forcing loud music with filthy language on me. Whoever says, "If you don't like it, turn it off" apparently ignores the antics of selfish people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Wow

Are you in favor of regulation of the entermainment industry?

If the answer is yes does that mean that Joe Lieberman and Lynne Cheney can decide what kind of music I can listen to.

Are you anti-choice

If the answer is yes does that mean the government has contol of a woman's womb....

Are you against the legalization of drugs*?

If the answer is yes does that mean it's ok to throw Junior in the hokey for five years for smoking a joint.

Are you against the legalization of prostitution*?

If the answer is yes does that mean you would imprison consenting
adults for engaging in consensual sex for money.


*I favor the decriminalization of prostitution and drugs with an emphasis on treatment, diversion, and rehabilitation. Drugs and prostitution are not social goods but the offense against society is not great enough to justify imprisonment.

[LWolf]

19. Me.

According to the political compass.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Just an idle question:

On this issue, "pro class based affirmative action." Does that mean that only poor minorities would be allowed into colleges of higher learning?

[ButterflyBlood]

26. no, it means poor and QUALIFIED minorities are

same with whites.

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Poor AND qualified?

Or do you mean poor and/or qualified? My point is, does AA ONLY apply to poor minorities? So that once you have enough to keep the restless white natives happy, do you stop and thereby, exclude wealthy minorities who qualify?

[ButterflyBlood]

38. yes, and/or

but not only to poor minorities, to poor minorities and whites. but no, of course wealthy qualified minorities wouldn't be excluded, just given the same treatment as wealthy, qualified whites.

[buddhamama]

23. economic socialist

i am pro choice
anti death penalty
pro gay marriage
i am for drug and prostitution legalization
i am for Affirmative Action. there has to be policies in place that will protect against discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws aren't enough and by the time these lawsuits,etc, go through the courts it is too late for most.

explain to me what pro class based affirmative action is.

definitely for seperation of church and state
anti draft,vouchers

i am for freedom of expression; in clothing and the arts.

the gun issue- regulate guns ie. requirements to own etc, but i am not for taking citizens guns away.

[JanMichael]

24. Let's see. My answers.

pro choice: Yes. Because the Poor will be the most terribly effected. The Rich get to go to Sweden, the Poor to a butcher.

anti death penalty: Yes. Not that I oppose the death sanction. I oppose the fact that it's levied on people that didn't commit the crime. We are not infallible.

pro gay marriage: Where some people get squirelly is they think this is soley a religious issue when it's most definately not. Hell, East Germany (The most Atheistic of the old Communists) had "Marriages", there were Wives & Husbands. I was married last month with no mention of God just a proclamation of Love, Life, and Responsibility to a wonderful woman. So Yes.

pro drug legalization: Yes. Take out the profit margine for the crime families that reap the wealth from our addictions.

pro prostitution legalization: Yes. Regulate it like we regulate Accountants...Well maybe better than Accountants.

anti affirmative action in its current form: No. Why? Race still matters whether we admit it or not.

pro class based affirmative action: Yes. Incorporate it into a re-vamped system.

pro seperation of church and state: YES.

anti unilateral military action: Yes. That day should come to an end ASAP.

anti draft: Yes. But I'm not anti-Public Service plans for people.

anti vouchers: YES.

anti school uniforms: No. Another poster mentioned the release from huge clothes purchasing demands on poorer families, I agree with that.

a centrist on gun issues: Mixed feelings.

anti regulation of the entertainment industry: No? Do you mean Ratings? You lost me.

On personal behavior issues you're a libertarian, same as myself. On the economic, you're a cooperative socialist. Same as myself.

[uptohere]

27. I'd say that makes you sort of a moderate democrat

theres nothing libertarian about it.

[ButterflyBlood]

30. I'm not a Democrat

I'm an independent. I'll vote for Democrats, but I won't affiliate myself with a party that's platform is so far from my personal views, even if I'll vote for them.

I also don't see how a self-described socialist is a moderate, and aside from the gun and affirmative action stances, there's really nothing moderate about any of those views.

[Sephirstein]

29. :)

pro choice: Yes. I'm not really a fan of abortion or sexual irresponsibility, but it's not really my business.

anti death penalty: Yes, except in war crimes cases.

pro gay marriage: Absolutely

pro drug legalization: Hell ya! I only like pot and alcohol though.

pro prostitution legalization: Not a fan of it, but I would prefer seeing it well-regulated.

anti affirmative action in its current form: Yes

pro class based affirmative action: Yes

pro seperation of church and state: Definitely

anti unilateral military action: I wouldn't mind seeing my Canada kick Saudi Arabia's ass over the Sampson thing (which in my opinion, hurts the Liberals, Alliance (Sampson's Alliance MP did nothing to help.), and Bloc Québécrap, but may help the Tories and the NDP, both parties I wouldn't mind seeing more powerful ath the federal law...Hopefully we vote the Tories out in Ontario though), but realistically, yes.

anti draft: Heheh...Until the wars are just and there are no crazy exemptions.

anti vouchers: Very much so

anti school uniforms: Freedom of expression concerns, but it would eliminate a lot of silly dress code rules (yes, I know this sounds almost contradictory...But in some American schools, you can be suspended for wearing the same coloured shirt as 2 or more of your friends. Better uniforms than silly shit like that.) and would eliminate a lot of classism from schools (not the biggest issue where I went to school, but my sister's telling me that promiscuous clothing is a major issue this year...)

a centrist on gun issues: I like Dean's approach a lot here. Works better than the shenanigans of our current government in Canada, which in all honesty is good for supporting same-sex marriages, standing up to you guys, but not much else.

anti regulation of the entertainment industry: Regulation that would prohibit adults from viewing content? Always, unless non-consensual sex or pedophilia were being presented in a positive light. But it's good for entertainment industry and government to come together to create age regulations.


Errr...I think I maybe too anarcho-leftist for this place...(Although I bet Malloy would get close to -10 in authoritarian-libertarian)

Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

[JanMichael]

31. Last time I took that test I was a -9 & -9.

So no, you're certainly not too anarcho-leftist for DU...Because if you were I'd be lynched...Yuck.

[Charlls]

32. i think "right" and "left" are wrong qualifiers

The axis viewpoint which separates world into left and right is a way to oversimplify the problem, reducing both to a given color, or side (this is a neo-con, this is right-wing, this is left-wing, this is a commie, etc). Thats bs. Thats an excellent example how relevant info is removed and cleansed, until we have a completely harmless, aseptic, politically correct, empty and useless statement.

The right side argues that the state (political power) should not try to limit or control the economicals powers (the corporative freedoms), but these can mess with the political power thru the lobbyist activity. The left side argues that the state should limit and control the corporate freedoms, and offer basic services.

Deciding if a society must be either Pol Pot's camboya or a Imperialist industrial complex is as relevant as deciding the color and texture of the rope that is going to hang me

So all viable societies must lie in "something" in between; the question is, ¿Who has the word to decide where the "in-between" point lies?

What most of the people wants is a equilibrium point between the political and economical power. However its currently impossible for a very simple reason: the 'dollar' travels effortlessly thru the free market economy. the capitalist system relates 'dolar' as the unit of
economical power. the stock market rules establish clearly that 'dolars' should have equals rights to compete for buying and selling stocks, which means capital its dinamical in a capitalist society, However, the 'vote' isnt dynamic at all in current pseudo-democratic societies; the democratic systems assures 'vote' as the unit of political power. It says you can offer your 'vote' to the political stocks (politicians) that offer in exchange to satisfy your demands. However (here is the gotcha) its removed the ability of my 'vote' to be withdrawed when a politician doesnt satisfy my demands, and give it freely to other politician.

Until we not reach that equilibrium point, societies will strive between the 'ideal' pure forms, or between artificial equilibrium point defined up to the taste of barely movable politicians that cannot be well punished or awarded by the voters, meanwhile, big corporations continue to evolve at a day-to-day pace, and continue to predate the political enviroment (citizens freedoms)

Democracies in a capitalist society only can be assured thru a continuous election system.

I see a electoral system where people can go any time of the year, and change their vote from a candidate to another; let it be a congressman, let it be the president. When that vote update occurs, the previous supported candidate drops by one, and the new supported increases by one. Whoever candidate with the biggest mayority of voters supporting him is the one in charge.

People right now CANNOT WITHDRAW ITS VOTE, and since Politicians know this, they only focus in obtaining the charge, thru the help of the Media Machine and Campaign propaganda, and they leave completely aside the actual implementation of their proposals.

With a continuous election system, Campaign will become also continuous, but it will slowly sink in the ambient noise of the mainstream advertisement.

Politicians will know that there are no "coming" elections, that if they want electors to move their asses and change/update their electoral support, they must really convince them there is a good reason for doing that.

the hegemony of the bipartidism would stop being rigid; small parties could grow their support slowly but progressively, given they manage to gain the simpathy of those disconform with bipartidism formulas.

Vote support will drift dinamically, just as currently does Nasdaq, but now politicians would know, that is not enough to get power.

The most important part will be to keep it

[Kat45]

34. I just took the test, ended up somewhere between the Dalai Lama

and Nelson Mandela. I guess that's good company to keep.

[Athletic Grrl]

36. Looks like I'm in the right place.

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

[friendofbenn]

39. results

Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08