Given it's his last term, I'm surprised that Obama is at this so much. It could be the pivotal cause that sinks the Dems in 2016 and Paul's filibuster only bolsters his own campaign.
Feel dirty supporting a tea-partier.
Generally speaking, I think most people would get behind libertarianism if they could get past the nut job conspiracy theories. Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business, anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs).
Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. This is no more realistic than it is to say democrats want a perfect utopia complete with killing people off once they reach retirement age.
Many do (more so the former than the latter, since public safety is definitely one of the near-universal agreed-upon functions of government), but any reasonable libertarian is well aware that that kind of thing shouldn't happen overnight. When people have relied upon a government service for years, grown up expecting it, and grown up paying for it, it would be the height of irresponsibility to dismantle it without a clear transition plan and a way to make sure people got value for the money they put in.
I'm afraid it's you who has the limited Beltway understanding of libertarianism. Rand Paul isn't a libertarian and he'd probably gawk at most actual libertarian political theory.
He's a states' rights conservative aligned with Old Right ideals (nowadays associated with paleoconservatism). These used to be common, but have been eclipsed by the more warhawking neoconservatives over the past few decades or so.
fiscally conservative, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business
None of these things are necessary to libertarianism. Hell, even being socially liberal isn't necessary for some of the more propertarian, extreme Rothbardian interpretations of anarcho-capitalism and the so-called paleolibertarians, like Lew Rockwell.
> None of these things are necessary to libertarianism.
Could you state what you mean by "libertarianism" because the definition I am used to has "limited intervention in individual's lives" at its heart.
In certain right-libertarian anarcho-capitalist theories where private property becomes the ultimate foundation of individual sovereignty that trumps all other rights, one may end up in a situation where you have little social mobility from decisions made by adjacent property owners, despite being master of your own dominion.
"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market."
"Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise."
"Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain."
Does the Democratic party espouse that we should recreate the US government as a democracy instead of a republic?
The US government is already, in theory, both a (indirect/representative/federal) democracy and a (democratic/federal) republic. "Republic" and "democracy" aren't mutually exclusive forms of government, they are largely orthogonal.
- On drug policy, he's against treating addicts like criminals. He's in favor of allowing states to legalize (that alone puts him in front of nearly all members of Congress).
- He's in favor of significantly reducing the incarceration rate in the US. He's in favor of felons re-acquiring voting rights.
- He's against minimum sentencing laws.
- He's against the police state, the militarization of police, and the surveillance state.
- He's against the vast government intrusion into personal lives, through the overly abundant creation of ridiculous laws and regulations.
- He's against the current system of civil asset forfeitures that we have, and its abuses.
Towards all of these points, at least, I don't know that they show he is clearly anything. I would guess you would be hard-pressed to find the politician who says they are against reducing the incarceration rate in the US.
... no welfare, no requirements for education; little regulation of industry - your only recourse is a post-hoc trip to the courts (hope you can afford that); maintaining network effects for the socially well-off; no attempts to give a hand up to the disadvantaged; wanting government services without having to pay for them; redefining words like 'violence' to mean almost anything; male-centric rhetoric; and should you suffer from an accident, libertarianism's response is: 'sucks to be you, hope you catch the attention of someone rich'...
This is just a counterpoint to your incredibly romantic view of libertarianism. You don't have to be a libertarian to want civil liberties - and the lack of colour in the (almost always male) faces of libertarians is pretty telling that it's not an ideology that serves everyone well.
In general such a system would be less intrusive on people's lives, and also relatively secure from abuse since everyone gets the same amount.
As to crony-capitalism, it would take several prongs as an approach. One would have to both eliminate corporate taxes, and enact laws restricting buildups of unutilized and under-utilized assets owned by non-living entities, as well as foreign tax shelters. An option could be a tax system that includes transactions in/out of the country.
All of this would reduce the size of government, lessen the burdens on the individual, while encouraging corporations to pay out taxable dividends or reinvest in growth.
As to limited regulation of industry, that also goes hand in hand with more limited protections... IP law has been expanded to the point of absurdity especially in conjunction with non-living entities having ownership. Not to mention expressly limiting non-living entity rights, as non-citizens. A person has rights, a corporation has collective bargaining, it's not the same, in that regard it may take a constitutional ammendment.
Libertarianism isn't about no government, it's about the most limited yet effective government one can have, and ensuring competition and free markets can exist.
WRT insurance or healthcare coverage... this is where I break from the libertarian ideal in favor of a more pragmatic approach... that being to first off, take the funding that already goes into various service (VA retirement, medicare, medicaid and other state-directed funds) and move that into a government owned non-profit insurance company. And given that there is now a baseline for coverage (despite an insane number of exceptions), that requiring any company with more than 5 people working for them more than 10hours/week to provide that baseline. Eliminating exceptions, and allowing any person or business to buy into the public option... Anyone working would be covered, and there would be enough funding (given what is already spent) to cover the rest.
All of what I've suggested above, in my mind is pretty much in line with a libertarian mindset offset by a bit of pragmatism for a structure/path that could lead to a better use of public resources, more individual freedom.
Beyond any of that, in terms of bringing light to social injustice, the internet (and some news organizations) have held decent stewardship here... on an individual basis you're already limited to the courts, with the odds stacked against you. Having a limited case of something not being better doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things otherwise/elsewhere.
I had the same argument with a friend recently, in that I feel most drugs should be decriminalized, and he didn't feel so unless one could provide a near instant screening (similar to breathalyzer tests for alcohol)... my opinion is the scenario for a police stop wouldn't be worse with the drug decriminalized, and that public endangerment is as such, regardless of the motivation or reason... from there, police, prosecutors and judges should be encouraged discretion. It doesn't matter if you're 16 and just smoked a bowl, or if you're 85 and just had your third heart attack if you're a danger to others.
In regards to regulation of industry, IP laws are a complete sideshow, complete with tinsel and fireworks. I'm talking about things like chemical dumping. IP is largely based around the entertainment and high-tech industries, which for the most part an individual can take or leave. But a company dumping chemicals that you can't easily detect? That can fuck you up for life, and once the damage is done to your health, no court order can recover it. Or similarly, mandating minimum safety requirements in vehicles - it reduces healthcare requirements, and strengthens societies by having fewer families with maimed or killed members, whereas an unregulated vehicle industry cuts a lot of corners that a consumer doesn't see, and therefore doesn't understand the value of.
Honestly, if I was to read what you wrote here about what you wanted without any ideological labels being mentioned, I'd think you were a fairly standard leftie.
As to chemical dumping, this is precisely what the court system is for, punishing those that infringe on another's rights and/or lie, cheat, steal to do so. In the chemical dumping case, the appropriate action might be to liquidate said company and have all funds distributed to those affected. That might be an appropriate response to that type of action.
Liberty should extend so far as not to infringe on another's rights. I already pay close to 50% of my income in taxes... 38% of my paycheck is gone (between payroll taxes, social security, mandated healthcare coverage, etc), a significant amount of the rest are tethered to utilities, and essential services... more still on sales taxes.. that doesn't even cover the taxes that go into tariffs and other fees along the way.
No libertarian likes the loopholes that corporations are allotted in terms of liberty over individual citizens. Libertarians tend to be very left leaning on some issues, and very right leaning on others... the goal is for a minimal amount of government interference... my own pragmatic view is to come up with solutions that move us towards more freedom in ways that have a chance of being more broadly approved, working and not costing more overall.
> Team" voting is why politics is broken and we can't have nice things. People vote & evaluate ideas based on their teams position rather than the ideas themselves.
I'm glad you're able to evaluate the situation based on it's own merits & come to your own conclusions, but the polarization & villainization of opposite sides of the spectrum is what is killing real political debate.
Rand Paul is a politician as much as any other, and the tea party are nutters. Obama hardly has a stellar record in office and all of the incumbents are, IMO, laughable at this point.
I'd say that politicians, and their monied interests, are killing real political debate.
The tea party is probably only as dirty as the Koch's money. Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO.
[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-te...
Maybe not dirty, but terribly naive. Not in the sense that I think people are inherently evil, but I do believe they are inherently greedy (naturally as greed serves an important evolutionary function as long as we live in a society with scarcity) in a way that makes them perfectly willing to bend and break the rules to increase their personal wealth and power as long as they don't get punished for it and nobody that they have to actually see (and thus empathize with) gets hurt by their greed (though some have such advanced systems of self-denial that even this bit is negotiable).
This is why unregulated capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism for now, current humans can't be trusted to live in any system without external checks and balances (and even with those the best we can hope for is that the system mostly works for most people).
Removing corporate taxes, and in the same vein reducing both the rights of corporations to that of "non-living entities" (no freedom of speech, etc), as well as driving out tax shelters and loopholes in favor of encouraging either reinvestment/growth or paying dividends which are taxed...
Most libertarians I've known are not in favor of crony corporatism, which is very different from allowing or encouraging free markets to work.
What is controversial is the Kochs' tactic of backing republican politicians who are themselves pro-war and opposed to personal liberty (along side candidates who oppose wars and support personal liberty, of course): sometimes the "lesser" of two evils is still... evil; even worse, one may be mistaken about what is lesser. This wasn't always this way: Kochs once supported the Libertarian Party and represented its more liberal (in the conventional sense) wing, oddly enough in opposition to its more radical wing led by Ron Paul.
None of this is a defense of libertarian ideas per-se, my own views have evolved on this. Of course that's besides the point of TFA: civil liberties are a core point of classical liberalism, the foundation conservatism, liberalism, and libertarians; this isn't a matter of arguing whether or not healthcare should be socialized (or not), one would hope Rand Paul would be speaking for the majority of senate (across both parties) and not as a maverick.
This is an extremely generous characterization and one that I do not feel is borne out by the vigorous "fuck you, I've got mine" platform that's dressed up as a defense of personal liberty. American conservatism had degenerated to this point before the Tea Party, but rarely was it stated so barefacedly.
The liberties of poverty--say, to die rather than impoverish your family when you get cancer, or to doom another generation to subsistence due to the factors in which they are raised--are no liberty at all. And, either through malicious advocacy or through desired inaction, the Tea Party was about that from day one. I was there. (I look rather poorly on historical hagiography, regardless of who the halo's being painted onto.)
Donated money to charity? Republicans 54%, Democrats 45% Volunteered for a cause? Republicans 33%, Democrates 24% [1]
"...households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals" [2]
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=...
Why take the churches out? Because you're implying that donating to a "charity" means they're doing good for their local community. Churches seldom do much good compared to dedicated social benefit organizations.
It would be more convincing if you backed that claim up with evidence.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foun...
I honestly have no idea of their affiliation, I can only assume this website is right-wing because of the story, but there are at least links to a W2, which seems impartial enough.
I lost faith in non-pro's a while ago because of stories like the above. The idea is sound, the reality seems shaky at best.
But look around your city, look at the housing or domestic violence nonprofits, look at the ones that retrain ex-felons or offer services to help them integrate, and on and on and on.
Find churches that do a tenth of that kind of work. In my city, a medium-sized American city, I can think of a very few church-run social benefit organizations, but the city is thick with nonprofits that help the worst-off in society in a variety of ways.
More than a few have told me that the majority of their time is met filing for grants, doing "shady" book-keeping and fulfilling whatever minimum requirements needed to earn said grants. The shady book-keeping has caused more than a few to leave.
No, of course not all non-pros are that way. But, comparing church to a non-pro seems as useful as comparing the NFL to a non-pro, which until this year, the NFL was a non-profit. [0]
This was why I was curious if you had data to back up your claim. I am far from a church apologist. Very far from it, but in my N=1 anecdotal experience, the only difference between church and a non-religious non-pro, is the religion.
Not at all an attack towards you, I was hopeful you had data to back up your claim. I am still hopeful. I do not like churches.
[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/why-the-...
I don't think the data set exists that says "Nonprofits are/are not tax-shelter scams that spend most of their time doing shady bookkeeping".
I don't know if there's a data set that breaks down how many people get helped by nonprofits, either, because the stuff they do takes on so many different forms (and how would you quantify the work, say, an environmental nonprofit does in terms of human benefit?).
I do know that, if you were curious, there is a very far-reaching community of nonprofit professionals online, and they'd do a much better job than me explaining the social-benefit-type of work their employers do.
I'll ask around tomorrow, too (I have a bunch of nonprofit-employed friends, who work in programs and not administration). I'll return to this thread if I get anything good to share.
(And yes, there's definitely corruption in the nonprofit world, I won't argue with that, my beef is with churches that do almost nothing for the community and still enjoy the tax-exempt status and that "we're a charity, ergo we're good for the world" sentiment.)
As opposed to having the government decide for you, without actually changing the possible alternatives?
Let's have a quick review of the policies the US government has in place to "help the poor" -- starting with subsidizing mortgage interest. Not new housing construction, borrowing money so people can spend more on housing. Which therefore bids up the cost of housing for anyone who hasn't yet or never will save enough for a down payment. On top of that, it's structured so that people in higher tax brackets or who own more expensive property get more subsidy.
Since you now can't afford housing, the government will provide subsidized housing projects with no hot water but plenty of drug dealers.
You might want out of these conditions and start working a second job in order to save up a down payment for your own property. But the added income from your second job disqualifies you from the government subsidies, so running twice as fast only keeps you in the same place.
At some point a working class person starts to wonder if they wouldn't be better off if the government would stop "helping" them so much.