My former life as a right-winger

[Bjorn Against]

I have a secret past that not very many of you know about, but tonight I feel that I need to speak out. I have not always been on the left end of the political spectrum, in fact I used to someone many of you would consider to be a right-wing-extremist. I am embarrassed by that fact now and so I rarely bring it up, and in fact many of my best friends do not even know that I have not always been a leftist.

Tonight however I realize that hiding my past beliefs is not helping me, and it is certainly not helping my efforts to get other people to convert to a more progressive ideology so I feel I must speak out.

I was once a Libertarian, yes a "big L" Libertarian, I even attended their state convention twice. For those who don't know much about the Libertarian Party they are in many ways a very extreme right-wing party that believes the government should get out of everything and basically hand most government programs off to big corporations. They believe education should be privatized, health care should be privatized, the minimum wage should be abolished, all environmental laws should be eliminated, and all our roads and transit should be sold to big corporations who would then be able to charge you to drive anywhere. Yes, it is all crazy and I realize that now and I apologize for ever supporting that kind of garbage.

So why did I ever believe any of that crap in the first place? Well see the thing is that on some issues the Libertarians weren't all that bad, particularly on civil liberties. I was a strong believer in our Constitutional rights and I felt the government was taking them away from us. I wanted an end to the war on drugs, and I wanted to stop the nanny state that I saw people in both the Democratic (Lieberman in particular) and Republican parties pushing. On these issues the Libertarians were pretty attractive to me, and once they pulled me in I basically got brainwashed into believing the other crap they spew. If you read a book by Harry Brown (the Libertarian candidate for President) you could probably see how the guy could convince someone who has not taken the time to study the facts, he is quite articulate and does not come off as an extremist no matter how wild his views are.

But enough about my former beliefs, because the reason I really posted all this is that I want people to know what turned me from a right-winger to a person who is quite far to the left.

It was not the DLC "centrists" that got me to come around, no in fact it was the people on the far left end of the spectrum that were responsible for my conversion. In fact it was the DLC politicians like Lieberman and Clinton who really turned me off from the Democrats when I was first starting to really think about politics as a teenager.

I think the moment that really changed me was watching the protests that happened at the Democratic National Convention in 2000. I was disgusted by the Democrats at the time so I was cheering the protesters on before I even really understood their message, but then I realized what they were telling us. They were speaking out against NAFTA and globalization, and calling for a greater awareness of human rights for all the people in the third world. I started to hear about the children working in the sweatshops, the women who were being subjected to toxic fumes and being beaten on the job while our government stood complicit. And then I read a story from a Libertarian publication attacking the protesters for speaking out, and I instantly saw the lies and hypocrisy I was being fed. They told all this great about "free trade" and they left this crucial information out so that I would buy into their immoral game. That was the first step towards my conversion.

The final step in my conversion came just a few months later after the Presidential "election" of 2000. I did not like either Bush or Gore, and on election day I did not really care who won, but I certainly never thought either one of them would try to steal it. Once I witnessed what happened in Florida I knew instantly that the Bush Administration was dangerous beyond belief, and from that point forward I knew I had to oppose them every step of the way.

I started reading a lot more on politics, and after reading several arguments from progressives I realized that on every single issue the left is right. I started college shortly after my political conversion, working my way towards a degree in Sociology four years later. Over the past several years I have read many books and articles and feel I have really got a very deep understanding of American politics these days and I believe that if everyone were to do the research I did that there would be no more right-wingers left aside from the truly evil Dick Cheney types.

The message I want everyone to take away from however is this, we need a strong vocal left in this country because it is the people who put the truth bluntly who are responsible for my conversion. Joe Lieberman kept me away from the left, but Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn opened my eyes. So before you go on criticizing the "circular-firing-squad" please realize that I would not be with you if it were not for that circular firing squad that attacked Lieberman and Clinton from the left. If everyone marches in lockstep then we will most certainly alienate potential allies we may not expect. In the end we can all come together, and I think the election of 2006 proved that, but in the time leading up to the end we all need to be engaged in serious debate so that we always keep pushing each other to wards a better future no matter what direction the current is trying to pull us.

[Eric J in MN]

1. I hope AAR doesn't fold, because it's part of the "strong vocal left."

NT

[Stardust]

17. Great thanks to AAR.//

[FrenchieCat]

2. Great testimonial! Thank you!

[ms liberty]

3. Thank you! K&R n/t

[Bicoastal]

4. Could anything ever cause you to radically change your political views?

I'm not going to lie and say that I would always vote Democrat no matter what. But they'd have to do something extremely, incredibly, horribly wrong and awful, with 100% proof of guilt, for me to change to the other side or vote 3rd party.

Like repealing the Emancipation Proclamation. Or voting a Vampire into the White House. Or if Pelosi, Kennedy, Waxman, and Clinton personally came to my house and threw bricks through my window. Yeah, I think the Democratic party is safe with me on their side.

[Bjorn Against]

8. I changed them radically before, but I doubt it will happen again.

I am sure I will modify my beliefs a bit from time to time as the facts warrant, but after all the numerous arguments I have read there is no way I could ever possibly radically shift my views to the right again. I am on the left for good.

As far as third parties go, well I support both a multi-party system and keeping Republicans out of office so I will support third-parties when they do not hand Republicans seats. I don't want to say any more than that on the issue however, because I do not want to get into a debate that the mods who put a lot of time and money into this site do not want us to use up their bandwidth for.

[Redneck Socialist]

5. I was never a registered Libertarian, but...

I understand the appeal, especially on the civil liberties front. I had some serious Libertarian leanings in my younger days. I saw (and still see) the War on Drugs as particularly noxious. It wasn't until I became involved in environmental politics that I began to understand how unworkable and dangerous many of the ideas espoused by libertarianism are. Ultimately that's what made me a Democrat.

Welcome home.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Nice post!

Sometimes reality can shape a person's politics more than textbook theory. Me? I've always been a Democrat. Not so much because I'm in lockstep with every policy issue, but because of the character of the people who are Democrats. I could never be a Republican when I consider the people who identify themselves as Republicans.

[Mythsaje]

7. I too was familiar with Libertarians

I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how their economic theories worked--too many things didn't add up for me to swallow them. I just didn't see the corporations as being all that socially conscious if the government wasn't looking over their shoulders.

I still agree with them about the Drug War and personal liberty matters.

[Bjorn Against]

10. That is very interesting

I have read some of your posts (which are always great), and we definately seem to think a lot alike.

The Libertarian Party has all but died in recent years, but I think many of the people who hold Libertarian values could be converted.

Just like you and me they looked into the party after hearing the stances on civil liberties, and just bought into the other stuff. Many Republicans are in a similar boat. Once the truth is shown to these people however they can change.

[Mythsaje]

15. I really became totally disgusted with the Libertarian Party

when they joined the lawsuit in Washington State to eliminate the open primaries, citing that the PARTY had rights, which struck me as hypocritical, considering the Libertarian position has always been that all rights arise from the rights of the individual. The parties themselves don't get to establish their rights at the expense of the voter's rights.

They somehow seem to think that big business is somehow more benevolent than "big government" and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest this is true. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to suggest quite the opposite. Many are willing to poison all of us, if nothing else, just to pad their profit margins.

[rep the dems]

46. It seems to me that young people tend to consider themselves

libertarian, and are usually just a step above teenage anarchists. They hear the idea of "personal freedom" and assume it's the perfect party. I don't think many people realize just how twisted some of their ideas are.

[CTyankee]

52. "Sex, drugs and rock and roll" LOL!

You stated it so well!

Did you know that there are Libertarians who are pro-Life? I thought that was antithetical to their core beliefs but it is true!

I have noticed that there are so called Independents who are secret Republicans here in CT. They don't want to be labeled a Repuke so they become these proud so-called independents. My next door day is a self fashioned independent/libertarian in his letters to the editor forever ranting about city taxes but I know for a fact that he is a registered Republican. What a coward!

[rep the dems]

65. Unbelievable. So much for the whole everyone should be free to do

as he or she wishes. Don't let the government regulate anything that requires regulation, but make sure they don't give women the right to choose. .:eyes: Crazy crazy crazy.

[J Miles]

84. I've met a pro-life Libertarian...

Well, sort of--on a discussion on a Usenet newsgroup. This woman was pro-life, BUT thought that a woman should be be able to SELL her baby like a piece of property. Seriously.

[Warpy]

9. I used to go to a doc who had all sorts of Libertarian pamphlets

in his waiting room. They made a great deal of sense when they were talking about civil liberties. They were totally nuts when they talked about the role of government and economics.

They suffer from the same basic flaw Marx had in his prescription for Utopia: Utopia depends entirely upon the perfection of the human race.

[Bjorn Against]

12. Hey, I like Marx

I am a Sociology major and Marx was probably my favorite theorist to read about. The guy is so widely misunderstood. I don't consider him a utopian at all, he was more of a critic. He really pointed out the failures of Capitalism, he actually did very little to provide a prescription for those failures but he was brilliant at pointing out the sins of the powerful. That is why the right-wingers hate him so much, they are making up all that crap about Marx supporting tyranny, the guy had absolutely no connection to Stalin or Mao or any of the other evil ones. What Marx does is he completely tears apart the corporate ideology, and that is why he is so hated by the right.

[Warpy]

14. I liked Marx, too

I'd read Marx in my early teens and found his sociology fascinating and his theory of labor pretty much spot on. However, his prescription for the workers' paradise left much to be desired, mainly a perfected humanity. I was thrilled to have remembered enough of it in my 30s to pass a CLEP exam and get out of another class that required lots of scribbling.

The problem with morons is that they've accepted the notion that both communism and socialism are synonyms for totalitarianism.

Plus, you had Lenin perverting the revolution by turning rule by the workers into rule by the party, neatly trading one powerful aristocracy for another.

I've often wished that Marx would be required reading at least in university. I'm thinking of the Pope on a pogo stick will happen first.

[eridani]

23. Marx was for sure good at diagnostics--

--but utterly lousy at treatment. Consider the era that intellectually formed him, though. In the second half of the 19th century. there were so many people that thought chemistry and physics were just about permanently finished as sciences except for a few loose ends, and many concluded from that that there must be some best scientific system for organizing human society and that we could figure out what it was and implement it. Not surprising that Marx thought that socialism could be "scientific" in that sense.

I would hope that people who at least know of the existence of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle and the incompleteness theorem could get beyond that attitude.

[Stevepol]

28. If you like Marx, you'll love Veblen.

I think Veblen is closer to the American species of the economic beast that Marx was diagnosing.

Veblen makes the same points Marx made but in a more profound way it seems to me.

I think Veblen should be studied more seriously in economics classrooms.

[eridani]

30. Yes, I do like the guy

Compared to Marx he seems to be more into description than theory. Which is probably a good thing.

[TiredTexan]

11. I was a Republican until 1992

when, at age 36, I voted for Clinton. My conversion came as a result of going to law school where I learned how to break down arguments and think for myself.

For me, it was like a light going off in my head, or as though I went through a gate that closed behind me. Once I saw it, I couldn't ever go back. I saw the lies, the smears, the propaganda, the mountainous structure designed to do everything fiscally possible to lure me into supporting an agenda that is against the interest of everyone but the very, very wealthy. I was suddenly able to recognize when I was being bated by emotions and prejudices, manipulated by money, or controlled by fear. The scales fell away, and I could suddenly see a truth so clear, it was excruciating.

I've never wavered since, in spite of being raised in a fundamentalist family, and having lived in Texas my whole life. I ended up divorced because of my conversion to the left, took my my sons out of the fundamentalist church I grew up in because I also saw that the church was a sham designed to control women, and disseminate conservative classicist propaganda.

Over time, interestingly enough, one by one, my family converted as well. My mother, at age 68, was the last to make the leap, having been a fundamentalist republican for a lifetime. Bush Jr. did it for her.

My children, including my stepdaughter and her family, are now solid Democrats. Perhaps this trend is replicating throughout the country.

[Bjorn Against]

13. I sure hope it is replicating...

I think it is a mistake for people to believe that all the former Bush voters who voted Democratic in the last election are still all "centrists", as I believe many of them are probably quite progressive. I know from my own experience that change can be radical if there is a realization you are being lied to.

[samfishX]

35. In My Experience, Most Right Wingers ARE Progressive

They just don't know it. I work with a few people who tilt WAY to the right. One guy tells me all about the crap he heard on Rush Limbaugh, even.
But when I talk to him, I can get him to admit that he'd rather have things like socialized healthcare and renewable energy.

The problem a lot of these people have is that they're firmly enclosed within the right wing noise machine's tentacles. They hear all this crap about "liberals" and taxes CONSTANTLY and they just stop thinking, I guess. We need to find a truly effective way to counter that. Make people realize that taxes AREN'T evil and serve the great good (usually).

Unfortunately, the odds are stacked well against us these days.

[Norquist Nemesis]

37. Completely agree with you on the noise machine

Taxes bad, Liberals evil, Government thief's

I grew up in a Republican family and in a Republican area. Mom pretty much votes the way Dad does, although I think she's much more of an Independent. She just doesn't tell him who she voted for and let's him assume it was the same as him. LOL!

Dad didn't become an extreme right-winger till Bush was selected. He was terribly upset (troubled upset, not angry upset) about Clinton being elected and I can remember having conversations with him trying to calm him a little. Specifically, I recall saying to him, "The fact is, Clinton can't do that much in four years and he has a Republican Congress who's going to check him on every move he makes. Don't worry!" (Little did I realize how MUCH the Cons would be 'checking' him.)

Looking back, his conversion to the extreme came about as he started to be a regular viewer of Limbaugh's television show. Once it was canceled, he no doubt found the radio show and became a faithful listener. The 'arguments' he would put forth were truly mind boggling. I was often utterly speechless from the shocking things he'd say. I, on the other hand, was NOT a Limbaugh listener and didn't realize that he was getting his material straight from Rush.

[NewJeffCT]

45. Progressive on certain issues

I used to work with a far right guy, and he thought that we should nationalize the energy industries, primarily meaning oil. Then, he said we should go nuclear, "after all, if it's safe enough for the French, it should be safe enough for us."

Of course, he also thinks all immigrants must know English and have a job before they come here.

Part of the problem is that some of them are 1 issue voters. I know a guy that always votes Republican because he is afraid that Democrats will take his guns away. I'm pretty sure he'd love to have national health care, and I know he's pro-choice... but, that one issue of gun control makes him pull the "R" lever all the time.

[Malidictus Maximus]

67. Ain't it amazing how people who bash unions sure as hell

don't want to go back to the conditions workers had to endure before unionization?

[WinstonSmith4740]

68. My husband went through the same thing in '92.

We were watching the Republican Convention...that was the deal, he would watch the Democratic Convention with me, I'd watch the Republican with him, and we BOTH had to agree not to throw stuff at the TV. While watching Patrick Buchanan spew his venom, he turned to me and said, "Please pick up a new voter registration form for me tomorrow. I don't want to be associated with these people anymore." Not only did he re-register, he worked with me on voter registration for the Democrats that year!

And by the way, this: "My conversion came as a result of going to law school where I learned how to break down arguments and think for myself" is a big reason you were able to come to the light! The LAST thing these neo-cons want is for people to be able to think.

[AJ9000]

16. THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO DEVELOP A POPULIST MEDIA IN THE US!

There would be millions more like him if we had our own media just as the right does. But no, we "smart" liberals can't seem to figure this out. We do not realize that most of the public does not know and understand the issues like we do.

When we develop a serious "anti-establishment media," we win the hearts and minds of many millions like the OP described here. And when we do that, we take back our government from far-right radicals.

[No Exit]

18. You're soaking in it.

This forum, and those like it, ARE a form of populist media. Long may they live.

I can remember when people actually had to read the paper, or they caught the 5-o'clock news. (I didn't catch the 5-o'clock news--I preferred kiddie sitcoms back then.)

I have read/watched so much news... but nowadays a person doesn't have to helplessly scream at their TV. They can go online to a forum such as this, and talk back to the TV people. I can go online and ask a question and hear an answer from real, normal, people--instead of having to wait for the TV powers-that-be to possibly decide to do some 1-minute "feature story" on whatever question it was that I had. I would MUCH rather hear what normal, real, people have to say, than to be doomed to only hear the shined-up, hairsprayed, packaged stuff that the powers-that-be decide I should hear.

We have a populist media... if we can keep it.

("You're soaking in it" is a reference to an old TV commercial.)

[AJ9000]

19. That will never cut it! How many members does DU have? How many Americans are there?

TV is where it's at, and secondarily radio.

[No Exit]

21. I didn't mean just DU--I meant the whole internet.

Anyone who wants to can blog. There are countless political forums--not to mention forums on issues which are only occasionally political. Instead of taking time out to pen a letter to the editor, you just read the story at the newspaper's website and fire off an immediate e-mail. You can look up just about anything you want to look up. And this media is worldwide.

I agree that it would be nice to have more presence on TV and radio.

But we don't want to use the media in the same way that the anti-American, anti-freedom repukelican thugs have been using it--taking it captive and squeezing out ONLY their propaganda. Such a move wouldn't be populist.

More and more people are using computers. The internet is at the very least a nice, running start towards populism in the media.

All this can be ours--if only they don't screw around with it and give it away (as they give EVERYTHING away) to the rich avaricious bastards who buy everything up. As I said... we have a populist media, IF we can keep it.

[AJ9000]

25. The internet will not replace TV news. The right is using the internet too don't forget.

And I'm not suggesting we propagandize the public, but rather we need to counter rightwing propaganda with the truth, and professional, aggressive news analysis, not stymied by a corporate, or right-wing bias.

It's gonna take money, media outlets, infrastructure, etc. to accomplish this. A few cash-strapped liberal websites and forums that are always begging for money will never be enough by itself. We could do it if liberal organizations channeled their money the right way.

The average Joe turns on the tube for his news and then does something other than hunt down alternative views on the internet.

[No Exit]

33. Maybe it won't, for most people, but it has, for me.

I agree with you, that the average Bubba is more likely to sit and vegetate in front of a TV, than he is to actively go out and look for news/views on the internet.

I, too, would like to see someone besides the avaricious, cynical, murderous right wing have the ability to put out a message on TV.

I do think that the wingnut Mighty Wurlitzer (their coordinated "message" which is inescapable--being shouted from TV, radio, newspapers, and sometimes on the net, 24/7) has become so loud that even average Joes may have to tune it out. When our senses are bombarded continuously, that's what the human body does--tune out. I enjoy the thought that they have become so pervasive that their propaganda is basically discarded as a very loud form of "white noise".

But there is still no doubt that the internet has freed a lot of people, in a lot of ways. On the net, we don't HAVE to be bombarded with propaganda--we can just click away to some other website. I like that. And more and more people are using computers.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

20. I grew up thinking Libertarians were further right than republicans.

Not true on social issues, but on economics yes.

[porkrind]

22. Chomsky and Zinn opened my eyes also

world treasures, both of them.

[J Miles]

85. Same here

Zinn's A People's History of the United States specifically.

[SeattleGirl]

24. MN, I appreciate your post very much.

It may have been difficult for you to "reveal" yourself, but I admire you for doing so. Welcome to this herd of cats called the Democratic Party. :hi:

[some guy]

26. nice post!

I think civil liberties issues make Libertarians appealing enough for at least a look, for many people on the left.

Government does have problems, it's pretty much inescapable that any large institution will have a substantial bureaucracy, and that is the achilles heel which makes it easy for anyone to advocate for less government.

I don't think so much in left-right terms as I do class terms. From my perspective, government should be used as a tool to make the Republic a better place to live for the citizens of the Republic; not a bludgeon to be used by the elites to assist them in conquering the world.

I loathe living in the Empire, even though I have for all my life.

edit: I meant to spell-check before I posted. "bureaucracy" is one of those words which I never spell corectly.

[AJH032]

27. I'm sort of the opposite

I wasn't really a huge fan of Bill Clinton (I thought he was a good President but other than that I was pretty much indifferent). It wasn't until I started encountering all the attacks on him from the right and left (mainly here) that I found myself defending him more and more. I can honestly say that most of the positive feelings I have toward Clinton are a result of people (on both sides) attacking him. I guess that's just sort of my personality though, I go against what's popular.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. The hypocrisy of free trade. heh-heh-heh (My best Bush impersonation)

Yep. That free trade hypocrisy would knock the front teeth out of any thinking Libertarian.

Thanks for writing, because you are right. I think Lou Dobbs was one of the earliest Libertarians to see it, which is why he doesn't label himself as a Libertarian, any more. If you believe in Free trade, then you believe in outsourcing and open borders and all the sweat shop crap you mentioned. You certainly won't believe in Unions or Regulation unless you're capable of accepting the fact that even Unions and Regulation are a product of the free market system. Because revolution will occur wherever there is mass abuse of labor, thus, Unions and Regulation ensure that the system never really hits rock bottom. However, most Libertarians are really anarchist, so they have difficulty making this leap.

[NotGivingUp]

31. Thank you for posting this. You have said what I've always

believed...that the Democrats must STOP going for center. Many people will wake up when they finally hear someone speaking the absolute truth and what is truly needed for the health, happiness and well-being of people everywhere. People are not going to be inspired by middle-of-the-road-sounding bullshit. There ARE people who will be turned off by it though...many people...including me. You also mentioned two of my favorite writers...Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. There's so much to be learned from them. Great post and glad you're on our side!

[Raksha]

44. You said it!

Re >>the Democrats must STOP going for center. Many people will wake up when they finally hear someone speaking the absolute truth and what is truly needed for the health, happiness and well-being of people everywhere.<<

Too many people buy into the "centrist" fallacy because they believe the truism (about two opposing arguments/viewpoints) that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle." But especially when one side is telling the truth and the other side is LYING, the truth absolutely DOES NOT "lie somewhere in the middle." The truth is all on one side, and claiming that it "lies somewhere in the middle" is simply an evasion or playing for time so you don't get caught in a lie as quickly as you might otherwise. The best possible middle ground between the truth and a lie is a half-truth, and most of the time it's simply another lie.

That's the great thing about Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn--they tell the TRUTH, without apology and without hedging. Too bad if it sounds harsh and people don't like it, or at least they don't like it at first. Anyone with a real respect for the truth is going to come around to their POV sooner or later. As the not-so-old saying goes, "The facts have a liberal bias."

[mtnsnake]

32. Nice job with your anti-Hillary rhetoric painting her as some sort of extreme rightist

which she is not.

I'm so happy you've joined the Democratic Party to bring down one of the finest Democrats.

[Bjorn Against]

53. Show me where I mentioned Hillary.

I did not even bring up her name in my post, when I said Clinton I was refering to Bill.

Since you bring up Hillary though I must say there is no way she is going to get my support in the primary, and if she wins the primary I am going to have to go through some major soul-searching before I can bring myself to vote for her in the general.

Hillary Clinton may not be an "extreme rightest" and I never claimed that to be the case despite the words you placed in my mouth, but she did support Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq and still has not apologized for that support and that is enough to get her to lose my vote.

[mtnsnake]

57. Whether you meant Bill or Hillary, the point is the same & wrong on both accounts

if she wins the primary I am going to have to go through some major soul-searching before I can bring myself to vote for her in the general.

Woopie friggin doo for you. Funny how you went all the way from the far right to the far left without stopping along the way to check out the middle, where people actually want to heal the divide, not make it deeper. Yup, funny about that.

[Bjorn Against]

58. So tell me how you are healing the divide by attacking the left...

Your statement is very divisive while pretending to be unifying. To be honest the "middle" is every bit as divisive as any other group, and your statement proves that. They assume everyone on either side of them is divisive or reactionary while they are the only sensible ones. That is not a unifying position, the fact is the truth does not always lie in the middle because sometimes one side clearly has a better grasp of the facts.

And for your information I did "stop to check out the middle" I just did not find it compelling. I have studied a wide range of political ideologies, and while I may have gone through a radical change you can not just assume that that change was made without putting a great deal of thought into it. I have never agreed with the conservative Democrats (and I use the word conservative in the traditional sense rather than the modern sense, so don't think I am comparing the Clintons to any of Bush's people who are actually fascists). I believe war is wrong, and I even felt that way in my days as a right-winger. Watching politicians like Hillary and Lieberman stand up and condemn video-game violence while supporting real violence commited by our government is nauseating to me, and no one who takes such a ridiculously contradictory position could ever win my support. Furthermore when one of the primary reasons I changed was because of my realization that "free trade" was destroying the environment and exploiting workers it would not have made sense for me to go get behind the person who pushed through NAFTA while he was President.

Now I am by no means attacking all centrists, in fact there are even many things I like about the Clintons. While I may have opposed several of Clinton's positions I certainly acknowledge that he was far better than what we have today in every possible way. But you seem to be taking the position that we can not criticize anyone on the conservative side of the party, while you take potshots at the left. I am sorry but no one is above criticism, and we need to be able to speak out when we are not happy with something. If Hillary wants to be President she has to earn our support, she is not automatically entitled to the position. We have an opportunity to vote and she is not the only person who wants the job.

[mtnsnake]

59. Huh, where did I attack the left?

Here in this thread? I don't think so. The only time I've attacked the Left is when certain ones of them whine constantly about everything under the sun except their own special issues, but never lift a finger to actually do anything positive for the Party.

in fact there are even many things I like about the Clintons.

hahaha, you're too funny. In your OP, you make it like it was because of how rotten Clinton was that you joined the Left circular firing squat who didn't like him. Now you're trying to tell me there are many things you like about the Clintons? You don't like to have it both ways or anything, do you.

BTW, who do you think you are putting your idiotic meanings and interpretations into my own thoughts, which weren't "divisive" and had no pretense involved. Now run along.

[Bjorn Against]

60. You made a very obvious implicit attack on the left right here...

"...check out the middle, where people actually want to heal the divide, not make it deeper." When you suggest that the middle wants to "heal the divide, not make it deeper" it is clear that you are suggesting that people outside the middle want to make the divide deeper. That is an attack on the left.

And yes there are some things I like about the Clintons, that does not mean it has always been that way and it does not mean that I like everything about them or want them to be in the White House again. That is not trying to have it both ways, it is simply saying that just because you aren't a big fan of a person doesn't necessarily mean you hate them.

And when you tell me "In your OP, you make it like it was because of how rotten Clinton was that you joined the Left circular firing squat who didn't like him.", please remember that the group I was with before were not particularly big fans of Clinton either so obviously the reason for my switch is far more complex than just being with people who didn't like Clinton if that were the case I certainly wouldn't be on here talking with Democrats.

[mtnsnake]

61. If you think that was an attack on the Left

then you are sorely lacking in reading comprehension, Mr Rightwinger turned Leftwinger. Oops, that must be another attack! lol

[Bjorn Against]

62. Yes that was an attack

You just proved my point by saying "then you are sorely lacking in reading comprehension, Mr Rightwinger turned Leftwinger. Oops, that must be another attack! lol" I think attacking a persons reading ability is an attack, despite your sarcastic denial.

And by the way, I had another post make it near the top of the greatest page before too, a post DEFENDING Clinton from the attacks against him in the ABC "Path to 9/11" garbage. Yes I will defend even those I don't always agree with from lies. Just because I don't agree with everything Clinton has done does not mean I won't stand up for him when I feel the attacks are unjust.

But I don't have time for baseless attacks on myself anymore than I have time for the baseless attacks from ABC that 9/11 was Clinton's fault. That is why you are on ignore from now on.

[bperci108]

70. A word of warning....

...the Clintons are Sacred Cows for some around here.

Woe upon anyone who dares to speak ill of the Mighty Clenis or the Goddess Incarnate. :eyes:




But seriously...

I'm pretty much with you on the Hillary candidacy; I'm so sick of the Bush/Clinton dynasties I could puke! :puke:

The fact that I might have to vote for her to keep a Repuke out of the WH just further illustrates how completely fucked our party system has become.

Oh, to have a European-type proportional-representation political system...where factions HAVE to build a consensus and learn to work together. Sad that the Framers weren't just a little more prescient.


:(


(It might, however, be fun to see Limbaugh and O'Reilly spontaneously combust on the news of a Hillary victory...:evilgrin:)

[roody]

74. Let's quit obsessing on Hillary.

How about we visualize a candidate who truly represents us and peace and justice. Don't put a name or face on him or her. Visualize the candidate and he or she will appear. It will be a surprise.

[bperci108]

77. Good point, roody....

...the ultimate goal is a Progressive America, regardless of the candidate(s) that get us there.

:patriot:

[peace frog]

34. To quote Victor Lazlo in Casablanca

"Welcome back to the fight - this time I know our side will win." :thumbsup:

[DBoon]

36. Implicitly you emphasize the importance of civil liberties

Democrats should always support constitutionally protected civil liberties and should be there strongest advocates

Where we need to restrict or regulate behavior, it should only be done when there is a compelling social justice issue at stake

Not only because this is the morally right thing to do, but also because we need the independent thinkers (like yourself) who require a society of liberty.

It truly pains me to see Democrats trying to (for example) further regulate video games to "protect the children".

A true social-democratic welfare state should enhance individual options, and make it possible for more people to work towards their dreams.

[Hawaii Hiker]

38. There are some good chacteristics of Liberterians

A true liberterian believes the government should stay out of people's bedrooms, liberterians strongly oppose censorship of movies, music, etc., & generally believe consenting adults should be able to "live and let live" so to speak....Liberterians are FAR & AWAY different on social views than the despicable intrusive religious right...

[Gregorian]

39. Thank you for telling us about your conversion.

And thank you for keeping your eyes and ears and mind open.

I find this conversation to be invaluable. It reinforces my disgust for "the middle".

I'm still trying to grow enough to be able to express myself in a way that I can open the eyes of those who I know. Just the opposite story of yours. I know people who were liberals at a young age, and then became conservatives. Even denying global warming. It's hard to break through the crust sometimes. Every example is valuable. And this is why there is no media, as Chomsky will agree. They just don't want us knowing. Because facts, and knowing, will make a liberal out of anyone but the coldest and most evil.

[David Zephyr]

40. Your post made my day.

I was a delegate (for Jerry Brown against Clinton) in 1992 at the Democratic National Convention that you speak of. The Left really raised the dust there about Globalization, AIDS, class inequality, institutionalized injustice against women, people of color, the GLBT community, the disabled and the environment. I admit we were very loud and visible there. I am proud we were.

There were a lot of authoritarian voices within the establishment of the Democratic Party scolding us that we were "embarrassing" the Party, that we were "scaring middle America" and other nonsense. I believe that we raised issues that Americans were not familiar with and I believe that when we speak truth to power that the American people will respond favorably.

The Democrats under Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt choked down dissent and coddled the rightwing out of fear of being called 'unpatriotic' or 'extremists'. Their cowardly behavior was punished in 2002 and 2004 in the elections. As Democrats found their footing and resolve, and thanks to a large part by the ascendancy of Howard Dean and the bloggers, Americans began to warm to them, their ideas and their message. And we won back the Senate and the House in a stunning rebuke to the right wing that they are still trying to understand.

The truth is that working class Americans are just that: working class. The insulting myth is that they are neanderthals who are easily manipulated to vote against their own self interests. The only reason that they ever do drift to the right is because we fail to speak out in advocacy of their condition.

I've spent more anger at Democrats the past six years than I have at Republicans. Why? Because I believe in the American people and their intelligence. But they have to hear us. They have to see us. We have to make our case.

There are millions upon millions of "red state Americans" that belong with us. We need to be evangelical about reaching them instead of mocking them with a shitty smugness of superiority that we are better. We need them and they need us.

Your transition is not a unique one, but still it is too rare. Many here know that I am a admirer of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. (I still give "The People's History of the United States" out as holiday gifts every year).

Plato teaches us that Socrates said that the unevaluated life is not worth living. When you think about it, your life is the corollary to that statement and how wonderful is that.

It's easy to be a limousine liberal and sip Chardonnay with your brie with those that think like you. It's a whole other thing to live a life openly as a progressive among those who are, shall we say, temporarily ideologically challenged (I like that: they have a tic). I say temporarily because I believe that there is gooness and real compassion in perhaps 99% of all of our citizens and they are just waiting for the challenge to respond to it.

I admire you and sharing your story here. It made my day. I'm glad to know you and will look for your posts in the future. And I am enthusiastically giving this thread a DU K&R!

-- DZ

[gemma]

41. I'm not sure about that....

"They believe ..... and all our roads and transit should be sold to big corporations who would then be able to charge you to drive anywhere."

Are you sure, I thought they were against this, like NASCO corridors etc

[Bjorn Against]

54. Yep, here is the platform plank for the North Carolina party

Transportation
The LPNC challenges state and local government to stop building new highways or other transportation systems. We propose giving private enterprise the opportunity to come up with innovative transportation solutions without government interference. Current roads should be maintained by private enterprise until such time as they can be transferred to private ownership.

http://www.lpnc.org/our_principles/platform.html

Most other states will have similar planks in their platform, North Carolina is just the first one I found in a google search. It used to be in the National platform as well, but they seem to have done a massive rewrite of their platform from the time I was a member and transportation is no longer even mentioned. I can assure you however that this still is the position of the national party.

[OzarkDem]

42. Good quote from your post

"It was not the DLC "centrists" that got me to come around, no in fact it was the people on the far left end of the spectrum that were responsible for my conversion. In fact it was the DLC politicians like Lieberman and Clinton who really turned me off from the Democrats when I was first starting to really think about politics as a teenager."

At a time when right leaning voters are becoming disenchanted with conservative GOP policies, it defies logic to think that GOP-like DLC candidates would appeal to them.

[Straight Shooter]

43. Excellent. Cannot tell you how much I appreciate your post.

The more critical thinkers are pulled into the Democratic Party, the stronger we as a party, and our country, will be.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[AzDar]

47. Better late than never, Baby! Glad to have you. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

48. A much-needed post, to counter the trolls on here. "Their words are softer than butter,

but war is in their hearts".

"Do not drag me away with the wicked,
with the evil-doers,
who speak words of peace to their beighbours
but with evil in their hearts."

Psalm 28 (28)

This world was made for everyone, not just for the slyest, most deceitful and manipulative to endlessly arrogate more and more of it to themsleves.

In the fifties, Aneurin Bevan, one of our greatest Socialist Party parliamentarians in the UK, and a brilliant orator, called the Cnservatives vermin, and there was an enormous fuss about it. Yet how true his words were, and how much more so today.

Ironically, under Harold Macmillan, the Conservatives were better, more humane socialists than Blair and his cyphers were to be over the last nine years. He called Thatcher's privatisations, her sell-offs of the utilities (and for a song) "selling the family silver."

[wicket]

49. K & R

:kick:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

50. Very enlightening... wonderful post! Glad to have your

skills working towards a better tomorrow.

[Solon]

51. My Conversion was similar...

I was an apathetic Libertarian, I sort of held my nose and voted for Clinton in '96(my FIRST time voting, 18 years old), but otherwise stayed out of politics. In 1997, I started working at Wal*Mart, and let me just say, if ANYTHING will turn you into a flaming leftist, THAT place will do it. Before I worked at Wal*Mart, I was generally considered Corporations as not that evil, generally they benefit us, that's was my opinion. Anyways, so I worked at Wal*Mart, and the first thing I noticed was the shorting of my hours, then, in the back "Warehouse" so to speak, where overstock is stored, the fire doors were CHAINED, and had carts full of merchandise parked in front of them. In addition to this, I noticed other things, the benefits package was a joke, the stock options minimal, and they paid me practically nothing. They worked us like dogs, they even had the tenacity to call me on my paid vacation and asked if I can work a couple of days during it. I said that unless they paid me double time, forget it.

I have stories of the place, many stories, and other stories besides that involve banks and other private entities. So, I converted, rather drastically, into a full fledged Socialist.

[illinoisprogressive]

55. Welcome to the Dark Side

It's always been the left of center that speaks to the conscience of people. some listen. It's about people. The DLC is just republican lite.

[Leftist78]

56. wonderful

When I first started paying attention around 17 or 18. I was fairly left of center, but pretty uninformed. I voted for Clinton in '96 when I was 18, but it was mostly because he seemed way cooler than Dole. Later I realized I should have voted for him, but I should have been holding my nose when I did it. One of the bands I liked, Rage Against The Machine had a picture of a bunch of books in the sleeve of their Evil Empire cd. I got couple of the books (don't really remember which ones) from the library, but under the same subject was a little book called "A People's History of The United States". That book changed my life. From there I became a voracious reader of all things progressive, and when I finally got a computer in '98 I was all over the progressive web sites. I joined progressive groups, started going to my local UU church (really the only place in my hometown where you could find progressive thinkers), and generally got involved. Those are good memories, when everything was so new.

[Bjorn Against]

63. Rage Against the Machine and "A People's History" were both big influences for me too

Ironically I was a fan of Rage even while I was a right-winger, obviously I had not fully grasped their message yet. Once I started to really analyze their lyrics I started to pay attention, and if you remember they did play a free show at the 2000 DNC protests I mentioned in my OP. I only wish I could have been there to watch that show in person, because even havin the knowledge that it was taking place had a huge impact on my political views.

And as far as "A People's History of the United States" goes, I rate it as the best book I have ever read. It is EXTREMELY eye opening, and if anyone has not read it yet they must. It is one of the most important pieces of non-fiction ever written.

[calimary]

64. What a wonderful story!

What a wonderful transformation!

Thank you SO much for sharing this. I hope everybody reads it!

:yourock:

:thumbsup:

:toast:

[WinstonSmith4740]

66. I think you'd be surprised

By the number of former libertarians you find around here. I bounced around for a while between Independent, Libertarian, & Green for a long time...anything but the major parties. My epiphany came when I was working on the Dukakis campaign. I had commented that I wasn't a Democrat I was a Libertarian, when one of the guys said he used to be one also, but he was tired of them only seeming to support war spending and nothing else. It really made me stop & think, because like so many others, I came to the libertarians because of their support for personal freedom, and keeping the government out of our lives. But I came to realize that was about the only thing they stood for that I agreed with.

I'll never be in agreement with all the things Democrats do, but they sure as hell come closer than any other party, and at least they try to keep the publics' needs in mind with their legislation. My niece is in a poli-sci class right now in college, and we were discussing the basic core beliefs about the different parties. When we got to the Libertarians, I told her to look at the government response to Hurricane Katrina, because that's basically how they would respond to any crisis like that...you're on your own, it's not the government's responsibility to bail you out.

[CTLawGuy]

69. If Libertarians can be made to understand...

that providing social services avoids a greater future societal cost, they would become liberals.

If we don't educate a child, then the child will have no means to work and (1) pay taxes, (2) support him or herself. The child will have to eat somehow, so he or she will likely turn to crime, which entails loss due to theft or injury (which is a cost to society) and WE will have to pay to try, convict, and incarcerate the child, to the tune of $20k a year.

So instead of being a net contributor to society, the child becomes a net drain on society in the future, all because it's "socialist" to have universal education.

[sandyd921]

82. Unfortunately there are probably some

with libertarian economic views who will only come to realize the fallacies of these beliefs when they experience significant personal suffering or setbacks such as loss of a job, debilitating illness, disability, falling into poverty, etc.

[LiberalLovinLug]

71. Mushy middle politics

I will echo what some others have been saying here that I am sick of this pandering to the MIDDLE that so many D representatives seem to think is their only way to victory. Hillary sold her soul to this method in her unapologetic pro-war stance. ( I don't even think deep down she believed she was doing the right thing - just listened to Bill and others whispering in her ear to stay the course - right down center lane).

If we can learn ANYTHING from the Neo-Fascists in power for the last 6 years, it's that they win by listening to their bases. I think that many in the mushy middle came over to the right simply because of the passion and altruism projected from the top down. Even if they didn't agree on every extreme right wing view, they saw a group that was cohesive, on track, confident, and determined. This because they were "energized" by the base. It gave the illusion of "they must know what they are doing"

Unfortunately the elite in the Democrat party still cling to this impossible notion that if they try and please all of the people all of the time, they will come out on top. Sorry but the "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" just won't work! If that sorry assed middle group of wind watchers is to be wooed over to the left, they have to see a party that has passion, and principles they are willing to stand up for, even if they don't agree on all of the "wedge" issues.

I really hope Gore runs. A Gore/Obama ticket would be fantastic. Gore, at least on the environment, puts his cards on the table. THAT is what people respect. I heard he could be persuaded if enough people do a write-in for him. Let's get to it!

[Printer70]

72. Libertarians aren't extremist Republicans

We would be only be so lucky if they were. They don't meddle in people's lives like the Xtian right. In fact, they stay out of the social issues like gay marraige and abortion. Economically yes.

[Bjorn Against]

75. There is a difference between Libertarians (big L) and libertarians

The Libertarian Party is to the right of the Republican Party on economic issues sadly enough, however you are correct that they are opposed to meddling in people's private lives.

I am still to this day a small l libertarian, and from my experience on DU it seems that most people here are. Whenever issues related to civil liberties comes up there is virtually no debate, the vast majority of people here believe very strongly in protecting people's rights.

You see threads pop up here quite frequently for the political compass test, and I don't think I have found a DUer yet who has not come out on the libertarian side of that test. The political compass site originates in Europe where the Libertarian Party does not exist and the word libertarian is used only in the small l context.

So yes Libertarians are right-wing, libertarians however are usually not right wing.

[Ken Burch]

73. Wonderful story. I'm glad you've come over.

I won't say "I'm glad you joined US" because no one OWNS progressive politics. You've found you're own place in the neighborhood of conscience and hope, and it's very inspiring to see the journey you've taken.

Good to have you in the fight.

[Emilia Liz]

76. Libertarians: who are they really?

Let’s get a grip on ourselves: libertarians (at least the majority of them) aren’t the evil right-wingers many leftists make them out to be. In fact, on social issues they tend to fall more on the left- than right-wing side, and some of them may even differ with conservatives on issues like war - many libertarians adhere to an isolationist philosophy.

Needless to say, I’m with the libertarians on most social issues, and even on some of their economic positions I agree to a certain extent. For example, I’d like to see welfare rates go down. Where I differ from them is that many of them think that welfare (for those people who really need it and aren’t skimming off the system) can be handled entirely by private charity. Look, I realize some welfare recipients are indeed abusing the system – though they’d probably try to cheat private organizations too – but that doesn’t negate the fact that SOME people really do need financial assistance from the private sector. I think libertarians’ greatest shortcoming is their faith in the goodness of the human heart. I myself am more cynical; I don’t think human beings in general are all that altruistic.

Also, I considered voting for the Libertarian Party in Canada, but I probably wouldn’t do so other than as a protest vote because they have pretty well zero chance of winning.

Emilia Liz

[rdarmand]

78. What libertarians offer is philosophical consistency

It's an interesting twist, too. There is no such thing as an all-inclusive philosophy, and perhaps that's why libertarianism seems to break down, e.g. privitization of roads, private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, etc. But the root principle is quite solid and extremely seductive; and that is that what a man produces represents the investment of his irreplaceable life, which belongs to no other. Therefore, no one has a right to what a man produces but the man himself. He may give it away if he wishes, or he may trade it with another in free and unforced exchange; but his rights in his property are absolute and inviolable. The only way this conclusion can be avoided is by abandoning the proposition that a man owns himself. It's a simple choice: are men free by nature, or are they by nature slaves to the common good?

I believe politicians are almost exclusively pragmatists. For them, principle is something to merely pay lip-service to. The politician with integrity is the one who, once bought, stays bought. In this theatre of the absurd, the Libertarians are a breath of fresh air. They stand for something, even when it leads to a ridiculous result.

But, despite the fact that some of their conclusions are outrageous, I believe their fundamental assumption is correct. Either a man owns himself, or he does not. If he owns himself, then he must also own the fruit of his labor. Thus is taxation inevitably and irredeemably theft; there is no avoiding the conclusion. Justifying taxation of a free people may be the most difficult philosophical problem facing the Democratic Party.

[janx]

80. I see that last point as a false dilemma.

It assumes that we're operating under a dictatorship and that we have no say about taxes, when in fact we do.

I have a lot of respect for libertarians, however, and almost always agree with them over some of the views of the far left. When the far lefties and the far righties are battling it out, I long for a cold beer with a libertarian.

[Raksha]

81. I doubt it. You can justify taxation if you believe in the common good,

and I've never met a libertarian who did (maybe I should use the capital-L here?) no matter what they say. Or a progressive who didn't.

Re >>Justifying taxation of a free people may be the most difficult philosophical problem facing the Democratic Party.<<

Did you check out Ernest Partridge's essay on the front page of DU? He has an interesting take on libertarianism, which I pretty much agree with.

Here's another link to the essay, which is called "The Public Interest and the Limits of Volunteerism." http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6p/volunteerism.htm

I agree with you however that libertarianism DOES offer a logical consistency that makes it very attractive to some people, although I was never one of them.

Edited to add link.

[Lasher]

83. Taxes are payments for the public goods and services you consume.

As such, taxation of a free people is not hard to justify at all. Taxes are part of a social contract, an agreement between voters and government to exchange money for the government's goods and services. If you reject the social contract you should not consume any of the government's goods and services. The only way to avoid this consumption is to move out of the country.

Any consumption of public goods is implicit agreement of the social contract, just as any consumption of food in a restaurant is implicit agreement to pay the bill. If you consume public goods and do not pay required taxes, it is you who is the thief.

It is not consistency, but the direct opposite that best characterizes your libertarian argument.

[rdarmand]

86. There is no all-encompassing philosophy ...

... but we must keep trying, mustn't we? :)

The problem with your social contract theory is that, to have merit, each individual must agree to each tax as part of the exchange. Agreeing to taxation "in general" according to the "will of the majority" is nothing but selling yourself into slavery. I would think that a Libertarian would consider himself living in occupied territory.

I am not a Big-L Libertarian, though I was at one time, and I still agree with their basic premises. In the past, I felt more comfortable with people whose actions were guided by principle rather than pragmatism. However, these days I am reconsidering my approach. I believe our country is in trouble, and that it may be more important to simply save the patient without wondering whether or not he has adequate coverage. In times of peace and safety, I would require principle to be satisfied; but when the wolves are at the door I will buy a gun from whoever is selling one, even if it was made by child laborers working for 25 cents a day.

That's why I'm planning to vote for Hillary. She's brilliant, capable, experienced, driven, visionary, and a cold-hearted bitch when she needs to be. She'll be the first Democrat candidate for president I will ever have voted for, and I plan to be first in line on Election Day.

[Lasher]

87. Our social contract is a reality, not a theory

The Constitution and its subordinate laws embodies this contract. Taxation is specifically authorized in Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." And the 16th Amendment states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

You are not correct to infer that each individual must agree to each part for this contract to have merit. We are governed by the "will of the majority", or majority rule, which you apparently find distasteful. As such it is incumbent on you to offer a better alternative. Minority rule? A dictatorship? Or maybe self-rule, AKA anarchy? There is really no alternative. Herein lies the libertarian's weakest point, and one that in my mind renders the rest of the philosophy academic.

Or you might want to keep the current political structure and convince a majority of voters to pass an anti-tax amendment. But in doing so you would legitimize the social contract and the principle of majority rule.

[rdarmand]

89. Sounds like indentured servitude to me

The social contract theory is a useful fiction for describing the relationship between the individual and the state. It simply breaks down when you try to apply it to individuals who never had any choice about what they supposedly agreed to.

In message no. 88, rman states that a fundamental flaw of libertarianism is the assumption that individuals can negotiate with corporations on an equal footing. The same problem attends your application of social contract theory. The individual has no real choice in the matter; for the vast majority, leaving is not an option. Thus, he must take whatever he is given; and both he and government know it. This is why I said that I thought a Libertarian would see himself as living in an occupied country.

You seem to misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm not preaching Libertarian gospel. Even if I were of that mindset, I would be foolish to do it here. This is a philosophical issue. I started by asking what justification there is for taxing a free people, and that's still all I'm asking. What is the justification for taking what belongs to one person and giving to another, against that person's will? If that justification is some so-called social contract, then what are its limits? or doesn't it have any? This is the philosophical dilemma I referred to earlier.

I have heard it said that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Congress from taxing our income 100%. However, let's suppose that Congress has a more limited right -- a right to take by taxation everything we make that we don't absolutely have to have to survive. What do you call this, besides slavery? Serfdom, perhaps; but not freedom, in any case.

[Lasher]

90. No principle is self-justifying

You seem to believe that an individual's personal autonomy must be absolute or that person is not free. This is a false dilemma, as pointed out to you by janx in post #80. By this abstract expectation, no one who participates in any social relationship is ever free.

You are correct to infer that most of us have no real choice whether to participate in our society (or that of some other nation) or not. We were born into this arrangement. We have no option of individual sovereignty, and have no right to expect one. But even if we were suddenly overcome by anarchy, we would quickly develop social relationships to replace the ones that now exist.

It is true to say that there are times when we are not at liberty to make choices. This is because our society is governed by the principle of majority rule. In my last message to you I invited you to identify a better alternative to majority rule if you can. Since you have not done so I must assume you support the concept.

The practical reality of our social contract called The Constitution is therefore sound. Collection of taxes is justified because the majority has willed it to be so. As a result of this relationship, and providing further justification, we as a society are much better off than we would be if payment of taxes were voluntary. You choose to frame that as taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another while I prefer to think of it as paying my dues as a member of our society.

Ultimately the limits of our society's authority are determined by the will of the majority. If the majority wants all taxation to be voluntary on the part of the individual we will change The Constitution to reflect that. If we collectively decide we don't want to be governed by The Constitution any more we will rescind it.

That's the way it works with majority rule. I think it's the best arrangement possible. You consider this slavery. I see myself as a dues-paying member of the greatest free society that has ever been.

[rman]

88. The root principle of RW-Libertarianism,

or one of the root principals - one of their main arguments as to why we don't need a government - is that individual citizens can negotiate with corporations on an equal footing.

Which is obviously crap.

[MikeH]

79. Coincidentally, here is an article dealing with the flaws of Libertarianism

On DU's front page.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/63

I think what he says is as good as anything as to what are the real problems with Libertarianism.