Are libertarians too doctrinaire to join a new Progressive/Liberterian 3rd party?

[metamars]

Gerald Celente has recently predicted the rise of new, Libertarian/Progressive 3rd party. Celente, who we're told has a very good record with his predictions, predicted the rise of a new 3rd party last month during an interview for Gary Null's show on ProgressiveRadioNetwork.com

Celente interviewed on ProgressiveRadioNetwork.com here (http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/2010/5/7/the-gary-null-show-050710.html), from May 7. This particular prediction starts at about 13:00.

Celente predicts a new, third party, which he labels as Progressive-Libertarian. It will have the following characteristics:

progressive
=================
* health
* nutrition
* environment
* education

libertarian
=================
* not becoming involved in foreign entaglements
* government staying out of your personal business, as long as you're not hurting anybody, and nobody else is paying for it


not libertarian in the sense that
==================================
* we don't need any government regulation, at all (e.g., Glass Steagle are desirable)


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
QUESTION:

At OpenLeft.com, when I posted about Celente's predictions (http://openleft.com/showQuickHit.do?quickHitId=15009#50952), another poster suggested that a Progressive/Libertarian marriage would never be consumated.:


This marriage will never get consummated
How can liberals unite with libertarians in a party when libertarians hate state power and liberals understand it's a fundamental precondition for effective governance?
Certainly, the strategic use of libertarian sentiments can be quite effective, as people like Jim Tester know. But party building for the long term requires more ideological cohesion than exists in this match.

I replied:


What do you know of the flexibility of people who self-identify as libertarians?
If it's true that, e.g., in spite of the Gulf oil spill catastrophe, a doctrinaire libertarian will still insist that the Government should not have been regulating the company, to begin with, then I would agree that such a libertarian is so hide-bound that there's no hope of them joining a progressive/libertarian party. (Presumably, they will also continue to maintain that the free market will magically clean up the oil spill.)
However, you apparently assume that most libertarians will prefer a rigid adherence to such viewpoints, while I assume that they will not. At least, not if enough serious discussion and positive propaganda can be had.

Do you have any basis for imputing such rigidity to libertarians as a whole? I frankly don't have any firm basis for assuming the opposite, though I do assume that Celente has done some sort of homework in order to make what he hopes is a sound prediction.

Your post has motivated me to pose this question on the ronpaulforums.com, which I will do, presently.

OK, SO HERE IS THE $64 QUESTION: What do you guys say? (I tend not to trust lefties pronouncements on libertarians and conservatives. And for damn good reason, I might add. I also tend not to trust conservatives pronouncements on liberals.) Presumably, most people posting here are libertarian. Is the Progressive/Libertarian party, as sketched out by Celente, something whose agenda you could support (even if with tempered enthusiasm), or not? What about your libertarian friends?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No. I can work with Progressives on issues where we see eye to eye, but those issues are few and far between. Besides, its almost impossible to establish a third party due to electoral laws. They didn't have these in 1850 when the Whigs died out. Besides, what we need is not another party, but a rejection of the process itself.

Individuals need to take action, and not defer the action needed to a select few politicians who do the exact opposite of the desired outcome. Start forming up geographic organizations like the Free State Project. If you are in large States, think about a Free County, or City project. You are never going to change the Federal Government by trying to "infiltrate" IE; get elected. The Colonials didn't try and change the Monarchy by getting knighted and attending Noble gatherings.

Fuck Parties. Yay to Secession.

[RM918]

Won't happen, as we've seen progressives will stab us in the back once they get a hint of weakness. All they care about is gaining state power, and are convinced that anyone against that is a 'redneck', an 'extremist' or a 'racist'. It will never hold together, progressives will probably just capitulate to the Democratic Party like they're used to doing.

It'd be nice if it did happen, but as was noted above, the two parties have too much of a stranglehold on election law. With things as is, people care far too much about 'winning' than principles.

[tremendoustie]

It will have the following characteristics:

progressive
=================
* health
* nutrition
* environment
* education

libertarian
=================
* not becoming involved in foreign entaglements
* government staying out of your personal business, as long as you're not hurting anybody, and nobody else is paying for it


not libertarian in the sense that
==================================
* we don't need any government regulation, at all (e.g., Glass Steagle are desirable)



That just sounds progressive to me. The only libertarian positions here are the ones progressives would already support -- anti-war, anti government enforcement of morals.

No, I could not support initiating aggressive violence against people, which is the means of funding any sort of "progressive" agenda would rely upon.

This agenda is also contradictory, because leaving people alone who don't harm others implies you don't dictate their health, educational, or nutritional decisions to them. Environmental damage should be handled with liability, not regulation.

Frankly, if you want a third party consensus, it's probably better built on states rights. The socialist wants to be free to try socialism in california, and the libertarian wants to be free to try freedom in, say, NH. Nobody likes the federal government. States rights can be pitched as a way for everyone to get what they want -- without massive federal bureaucracies and corporatism.

[Flash]

If anything it would make much more sense to unite with Conservatives, as we agree on most of the issues. And we already have a party for that, called the Republican Party. And besides, Progressives are okay with Obama except for a very fringe minority. They're not going to leave the Democratic Party because of very minor disagreements.

And Third Parties won't be able to take off until you implement something dramatic, like a change in the size of Congress, something like Thirty-Thousand (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/).

[metamars]

Fuck Parties. Yay to Secession.

For the sake of argument, if you were going to participate in electoral politics, and vote for your Congressional representative, would you vote for a member of Celente's theoretical party, or not? (Assume further that a pure libertarian was not running.)

[awake]

Would progressives like to compromise their principles and join the libertarian side?

[tremendoustie]

For the sake of argument, if you were going to participate in electoral politics, and vote for your Congressional representative, would you vote for a member of Celente's theoretical party, or not? (Assume further that a pure libertarian was not running.)

There isn't enough information here about the specific platform of the person running. But my guess is a strong no.

I only vote for candidates who will work to shrink all aspects of government. I won't vote for a big government extortionist just because he'll bring the troops home, or a warmonger just because he'll cut the department of education by 10%.

[Jeremy]

Would progressives like to compromise their principles and join the libertarian side?

If so, this would work out much easier. :D

[metamars]

Won't happen, as we've seen progressives will stab us in the back once they get a hint of weakness. All they care about is gaining state power, and are convinced that anyone against that is a 'redneck', an 'extremist' or a 'racist'. It will never hold together, progressives will probably just capitulate to the Democratic Party like they're used to doing.

It'd be nice if it did happen, but as was noted above, the two parties have too much of a stranglehold on election law. With things as is, people care far too much about 'winning' than principles.

Alas, you are apparently thinking in stereotypes, which is what lefty critics of libertarians do. You're quite correct that many lefties call libertarians (and Tea Party'ers) racists, but that doesn't mean that all of them do.

I can assure you that many lefties are (properly) quite concerned about a unitary executive, which can order disappearances leading to torture, etc. IOW, they are concerned, at least in some instances, about state power run amok.

In any event, although I didn't make it explicit, my question had the presumption that the features mentioned by Celente would be be genuinely pursued by the more progressive constituents of his new, so-far-theoretical 3rd party. I'm well aware, e.g., that the Democrats made people believe that they were for ending the Iraq war, but really only cynically mis-represented themselves that way, to gain ascendancy over the Republicans. However, I took Celente's prediction to entail a sincere break with the lying, deceiving, back-stabbing Democratic politicians who are only too facile at lying, effectively.

So, please interpret the question as entailing: if the progressive members of Celente's new party were not duplicitous, would you consider supporting the new party's agenda?

[tremendoustie]

So, please interpret the question as entailing: if the progressive members of Celente's new party were not duplicitous, would you consider supporting the new party's agenda?

Basically, you're asking, if I somehow knew a progressive politician were going to actually live up to what they say, would I vote for them? The answer is no. I don't support fiscal tyranny, even if they would have a more sensible foreign policy.

[dr. hfn]

can we get strong enough so we don't have to work with them...

[metamars]

This agenda is also contradictory, because leaving people alone who don't harm others implies you don't dictate their health, educational, or nutritional decisions to them. Environmental damage should be handled with liability, not regulation.


Unfortunately, Celente didn't spell out exactly what he meant by "health" and "education".



Frankly, if you want a third party consensus, it's probably better built on states rights. The socialist wants to be free to try socialism in california, and the libertarian wants to be free to try freedom in, say, NH. Nobody likes the federal government. States rights can be pitched as a way for everyone to get what they want -- without massive federal bureaucracies and corporatism.

I basically agree with this, at least for wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion. There are some issues, though, that you can't really push off to the states. If the US army is killing many more innocents in Afghanistan that it is terrorists, the soldiers doing that killing are going to be from every state in the union. If you gave a state veto power over whether soldiers from it's state could be used for the foreign adventure, then the federal government would just recruit that many more soldiers from war-approving states.

[BenIsForRon]

Metamars, notice how half the people that have responded aren't even libertarians, they're anarcho-capitalists (Aust Econ Disciple, Awake, tremendoustie). These people throw off the balance of this site much farther into laissez-faire territory, and make their stupid ideas much more acceptable, as most people on this site rarely have political debate outside this site. So don't use this site to guage the willingness of "libertarians" to compromise. Anarcho-capitalism is a rigid rejection of objective reality.

However, in my personal experience, working in both my university's YAL and the county-wide C4L, Libertarians are very willing to compromise, especially at state and local levels. Many progressives are beginning to realize that most change will have to occur within communities and local governments, and many libertarians are realizing that tax-payer funded bike lanes aren't the end of the word. Some areas will be easier to compromise on than others (welfare and medicare will be difficult), but I think an alliance is very possible if more people are willing to open their minds.

[susano]

* health - FDA, Dept of Ag, anti alternatives, allopathic monoply
* nutrition - same as a avove and passing Codex
* environment - movement hijacked by the global warming tards, cap & tradesters, very same entities destroying the environment, left is too stupid to realize it
* education - public mind control for the hive, "the village" owns the kids


Much of that left agenda is supported by Repukes.

My definition of those things is so vastly different from Republicans, Democrats, progressives and libertarians, I'm about to investigate the Natural Law Party.

My priorities are for the gov't to get the hell out of my life and to respect animals and the environment. I don't see any of that from Reps, Dems, progs or libertarians.

[susano]

Metamars, notice how half the people that have responded aren't even libertarians, they're anarcho-capitalists (Aust Econ Disciple, Awake, tremendoustie). These people throw off the balance of this site much farther into laissez-faire territory, and make their stupid ideas much more acceptable, as most people on this site rarely have political debate outside this site. So don't use this site to guage the willingness of "libertarians" to compromise. Anarcho-capitalism is a rigid rejection of objective reality.

However, in my personal experience, working in both my university's YAL and the county-wide C4L, Libertarians are very willing to compromise, especially at state and local levels. Many progressives are beginning to realize that most change will have to occur within communities and local governments, and many libertarians are realizing that tax-payer funded bike lanes aren't the end of the word. Some areas will be easier to compromise on than others (like welfare and medicare), but I think an alliance is very possible if more people are willing to open their minds.

You give me optimism :)

Have you read Small is Beautiful?

[metamars]

Would progressives like to compromise their principles and join the libertarian side?

You are asking an irrelevant question. The relevant questions to ask would be "Are progressives willing to compromise some of their principles to participate in new party which espouses some of their principles, but not all of them?" And yes, a similar question would apply to libertarians.

Also, you are probably tacitly thinking of all prospective members of Celente's party as either progressive or libertarian. What about people who are already "tweeners"? For whom a hyrid party is actually more natural?

[susano]

Alas, you are apparently thinking in stereotypes, which is what lefty critics of libertarians do. You're quite correct that many lefties call libertarians (and Tea Party'ers) racists, but that doesn't mean that all of them do.

I can assure you that many lefties are (properly) quite concerned about a unitary executive, which can order disappearances leading to torture, etc. IOW, they are concerned, at least in some instances, about state power run amok.

In any event, although I didn't make it explicit, my question had the presumption that the features mentioned by Celente would be be genuinely pursued by the more progressive constituents of his new, so-far-theoretical 3rd party. I'm well aware, e.g., that the Democrats made people believe that they were for ending the Iraq war, but really only cynically mis-represented themselves that way, to gain ascendancy over the Republicans. However, I took Celente's prediction to entail a sincere break with the lying, deceiving, back-stabbing Democratic politicians who are only too facile at lying, effectively.

So, please interpret the question as entailing: if the progressive members of Celente's new party were not duplicitous, would you consider supporting the new party's agenda?

I have often thought that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich could hammer out some real solutions.

Two things I find intolerable are fraudulent money (and usuary) and corporations.

[susano]

You are asking an irrelevant question. The relevant questions to ask would be "Are progressives willing to compromise some of their principles to participate in new party which espouses some of their principles, but not all of them?" And yes, a similar question would apply to libertarians.

Also, you are probably tacitly thinking of all prospective members of Celente's party as either progressive or libertarian. What about people who are already "tweeners"? For whom a hyrid party is actually more natural?

Ron Paul has talked about this.

[BenIsForRon]

Have you read Small is Beautiful?

Nope. I do think that "small is beautiful" mindset is starting to grow though. People have always deferred to the federal government to fix their problems. Now they're seeing that just doesn't work, legislation is hijacked from inception. So, they're starting to realize real change happens in the community, with the faces that you see on a daily basis.

[metamars]

Metamars, notice how half the people that have responded aren't even libertarians, they're anarcho-capitalists (Aust Econ Disciple, Awake, tremendoustie). These people throw off the balance of this site much farther into laissez-faire territory, and make their stupid ideas much more acceptable, as most people on this site rarely have political debate outside this site. So don't use this site to guage the willingness of "libertarians" to compromise. Anarcho-capitalism is a rigid rejection of objective reality.

However, in my personal experience, working in both my university's YAL and the county-wide C4L, Libertarians are very willing to compromise, especially at state and local levels. Many progressives are beginning to realize that most change will have to occur within communities and local governments, and many libertarians are realizing that tax-payer funded bike lanes aren't the end of the word. Some areas will be easier to compromise on than others (welfare and medicare will be difficult), but I think an alliance is very possible if more people are willing to open their minds.

Thanks for this reply. I have to admit that I don't know a whole heck of a lot about libertarianism, nor anarcho-capitalists. Thus, quite frankly, I did not know that the folks you mentioned were of the latter persuasion.

In a democracy, compromise is essential. What I can't forgive is who is doing the compromising, and for whose benefit. We have Dems and Repubs compromising with freaking lobbyists behind closed doors, at that. Who, pray tell, elected any lobbyist? And yet, these folks will actually write legislation. (Of course, I'm being generous. I'm sure many of our 'representatives' abandoned any sort of moral center, years ago, and are basically careerists who are consciously and deliberately abusing the public trust.)

Although off topic, would you please state your opinion as to the effect of the Gulf oil catastrophe on libertarian thought? IMO, limiting liability was criminal - yet another crime of Dems and Repubs, for which you and I will surely foot the bill. However, even if liability was not limited, by law, it's not in my nature to trust corporations to act as responsible citizens, any further than I can spit a watermelon. Thus I would hope that libertarians would now be in favor of intelligent, cost-effective regulation, designed to prevent catastrophes by greedy corporations that care first and foremost about their bottom lines, even if they weren't in favor of them before the catstrophe. The problem with just relying on liability is that you can easily be dead as the result of a corporations' greed or bone-headedness. Here in NJ, we passed a law regulating the application of pesticides and herbicides to lawns, because people were spraying this stuff around, and little children were breathing in the fumes, and ending up with permanent neurological damage.

Is there enough money in the entire world to compensate you for having a neurologically damaged child?

==========================================

Also, BTW, Gary Null, who interviewed Celente, has espoused many more 'libertarian-ish' points of view than Celente. This may turn out to be significant, because Null has stated that he is trying to get Ron Paul and Ralph Nader "together". Not sure exactly what he's trying to cook up....

[MN Patriot]

Most libertarians won't join ANY political party, period. At least a quarter of the nation's population is libertarian, according to various polls over the years. But look how many are in the Libertarian party, 20,000 maybe. A few more are probably in the Republican Party.

Expecting people who don't like government to get involved in government is like expecting vegetarians to work in a meat processing plant. Progressives love government. That is why we are going down the road to socialist hell.

So, no, libertarians will not join with progressives.

[South Park Fan]

Metamars, notice how half the people that have responded aren't even libertarians, they're anarcho-capitalists (Aust Econ Disciple, Awake, tremendoustie). These people throw off the balance of this site much farther into laissez-faire territory, and make their stupid ideas much more acceptable, as most people on this site rarely have political debate outside this site. So don't use this site to guage the willingness of "libertarians" to compromise. Anarcho-capitalism is a rigid rejection of objective reality.

However, in my personal experience, working in both my university's YAL and the county-wide C4L, Libertarians are very willing to compromise, especially at state and local levels. Many progressives are beginning to realize that most change will have to occur within communities and local governments, and many libertarians are realizing that tax-payer funded bike lanes aren't the end of the word. Some areas will be easier to compromise on than others (welfare and medicare will be difficult), but I think an alliance is very possible if more people are willing to open their minds.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater

Libertarians have been compromising with the political system for years to no avail. Perhaps the only exception to this is the Paul movement. However, if their were truly enough numbers of people desiring liberty such that a national election could elect a libertarian majority, we could have already gotten their liberty via secession and/or civil disobedience. Voluntaryism is merely the logical extension of libertarianism, hardly a rejection of reality. Anyone who isn't a voluntaryist or a nihilist is logically inconsistant, as they believe that different rules apply to different people. Also, even if you believe that compromise is the key to success, you still ought to ally with the voluntaryists for two reasons: 1. voluntaryists and minarchists have more in common than other groups do, as they both want to shrink the size of government, and 2. If you want to reach a favorable agreement with someone, it is better to ask for more up front. For example, if the goal is to obtain a sandwich from someone, and you seek to obtain a greater part of it using compromise, is it better to ask for the whole sandwich or half of a sandwich?

[Sentient Void]

I don't think such a party would work out. I just don't see it happening.

Of course, libertarians and progressives could work together in their separate parties on things they overlap on - such as anti-war, anti-war on drugs, anti-imperialism, pro-civil liberties, etc... but that will be the extent of their relationship. True libertarians would *never* support expanding the role of government, and should only be looking to minimize it as much as possible - some believe in limiting it with diminishing returns until we have a minarchist system, others (like myself) believe in minimizing it until we reach complete abolishment under a society that respects property rights (100% capitalist).

In the end, at some point, those who lean more actual progressive in the party would like to maintain or increase the state's role in fiscal matters and redistribution - the libertarians absolutely reject this notion, and would seek to eliminate or abolish such things. I don't see at all how a libertarian nor a progressive could be a true 'tweener', since both stances are extremely principled in their beliefs. A progressive believing in the free market would just make him a libertarian, and a libertarian believing in redistribution, etc would make him a progressive.

In the meantime, there should of course be a bridge where we push for increased civil liberties and other things, but if/when that is accomplished - that's where any such relationship would swiftly end.

[NewFederalist]

I consider myself a constitutional libertarian philosophically. I would not work with any progressive other than to break down barriers to ballot access which would benefit everyone (except the Demorepublicrats). Progressives believe in big government... period. I cannot work with that philosophy.

[cindy25]

what he is predicting is a Kucinich type of platform

won't happen

[MatM]

Although off topic, would you please state your opinion as to the effect of the Gulf oil catastrophe on libertarian thought? IMO, limiting liability was criminal - yet another crime of Dems and Repubs, for which you and I will surely foot the bill. However, even if liability was not limited, by law, it's not in my nature to trust corporations to act as responsible citizens, any further than I can spit a watermelon. Thus I would hope that libertarians would now be in favor of intelligent, cost-effective regulation, designed to prevent catastrophes by greedy corporations that care first and foremost about their bottom lines, even if they weren't in favor of them before the catstrophe. The problem with just relying on liability is that you can easily be dead as the result of a corporations' greed or bone-headedness. Here in NJ, we passed a law regulating the application of pesticides and herbicides to lawns, because people were spraying this stuff around, and little children were breathing in the fumes, and ending up with permanent neurological damage.

Is there enough money in the entire world to compensate you for having a neurologically damaged child?


I would say, as a libertarian, that I think the key point is the liability cap, that shouldn't exist. I strongly believe if BP was aware that it would be liable for all their damages, they would have perhaps taken greater caution. And I would like to counter your point on the need of regulation. You are making an assumption that the government will know exactly what requirements are needed to be made to make something "safe" or "fair".

You first have to understand that those in the industry have an infinitely greater understanding of their industry. I also feel that many on the left just assume businessmen are greedy idiots and some very well may be, but they won't be in business very long and won't be in control of massive and wealthy companies. Businessmen respond to incentives, profit and loss, remember the loss part. Harming, wronging, or killing your customer is a horrible business model, it is in a business' best interest to satisfy their customers so they will voluntarily (note how this is voluntary as opposed to everything the government does, which is done through force) purchase their goods or services. The profit/loss mechanism is much more effective than any government regulation could ever dream of being.

That all being said, I would be willing to make some concessions if I were to be dealing with progressives, so I could stomach some regulation. However, they would have to make serious concessions when it comes to economic liberties, especially in terms of curtailing spending and making programs such as Medicare and Social Security voluntary.

[rprprs]

I don't think such a party would work out. I just don't see it happening.

Of course, libertarians and progressives could work together in their separate parties on things they overlap on - such as anti-war, anti-war on drugs, anti-imperialism, pro-civil liberties, etc... but that will be the extent of their relationship. True libertarians would *never* support expanding the role of government, and should only be looking to minimize it as much as possible - some believe in limiting it with diminishing returns until we have a minarchist system, others (like myself) believe in minimizing it until we reach complete abolishment under a society that respects property rights (100% capitalist).

In the end, at some point, those who lean more actual progressive in the party would like to maintain or increase the state's role in fiscal matters and redistribution - the libertarians absolutely reject this notion, and would seek to eliminate or abolish such things. I don't see at all how a libertarian nor a progressive could be a true 'tweener', since both stances are extremely principled in their beliefs. A progressive believing in the free market would just make him a libertarian, and a libertarian believing in redistribution, etc would make him a progressive.

In the meantime, there should of course be a bridge where we push for increased civil liberties and other things, but if/when that is accomplished - that's where any such relationship would swiftly end.

The above very much reflects my own views. Beyond a provisional partnership to effect change in a few areas where common ground exists, any more formal union would soon prove to be a marriage made in...hell.

Edit: I, also, thoroughly reject any notion that the characterization of "doctrinaire" is in any way more applicable to libertarians than it is to progressives.

[Anti Federalist]

My priorities are for the gov't to get the hell out of my life and to respect animals and the environment.

These are contradictory goals.

For government to respect animals and the environment, it will require a huge increase in government, at a personal level, in everybody's lives.

[susano]

Nope. I do think that "small is beautiful" mindset is starting to grow though. People have always deferred to the federal government to fix their problems. Now they're seeing that just doesn't work, legislation is hijacked from inception. So, they're starting to realize real change happens in the community, with the faces that you see on a daily basis.

I read it like 30 years ago and it's a good economic philosophy.

[BenIsForRon]

These are contradictory goals.

For government to respect animals and the environment, it will require a huge increase in government, at a personal level, in everybody's lives.

Yeah, I'm sure the clean air act is wreaking havoc on your daily life.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, I'm sure the clean air act is wreaking havoc on your daily life.

Yes, the CAA greatly expanded the role that the federal government assumed for itself.

Yes it is, in my line of work especially, compliance with various air regs promulgated under the authority of the CCA lead to a great deal of extra costs, paperwork and downtime. All to make diesel. engines that burn no cleaner than ones from 30 years ago.

Now, you can be in favor of it, that's fine, although I think you're wrong.

But what you can't do is claim you are for limited government and be in favor of CAA, ESA and Cap and Trade just to name a few.

That's nothing but a form of mental masturbation.

[heavenlyboy34]

No. I can work with Progressives on issues where we see eye to eye, but those issues are few and far between. Besides, its almost impossible to establish a third party due to electoral laws. They didn't have these in 1850 when the Whigs died out. Besides, what we need is not another party, but a rejection of the process itself.

Individuals need to take action, and not defer the action needed to a select few politicians who do the exact opposite of the desired outcome. Start forming up geographic organizations like the Free State Project. If you are in large States, think about a Free County, or City project. You are never going to change the Federal Government by trying to "infiltrate" IE; get elected. The Colonials didn't try and change the Monarchy by getting knighted and attending Noble gatherings.

Fuck Parties. Yay to Secession.

FTW! :cool::D

[susano]

These are contradictory goals.

For government to respect animals and the environment, it will require a huge increase in government, at a personal level, in everybody's lives.

You know what? We have never seen any society that really respects and protects animals and the environment. I don't want a lot of regulation but violating life and the earth is horrible. I don't know how we can have a paradigm shit to value these things. Obvioulsy, some things are protected. You can't dump radioactive waste into Lake Michigan, for instance. I GUARANTEE you if corporations could get away with such a thing, they would do it. Anyone who believes otherwise is very naive. Case in point: Monsanto. They have committed terrible crimes all over the world. The free market and the courts have not stopped them. They just spend more on lawyers while they rake in billions. Mnay of these corporations are a threat to life on earth.

[susano]

I fully support an abolishing of the federal gov't. There is no way to contain such a beast. Same for corporations. Both are antithetical to life and freedom.

[John Taylor]

I fully support an abolishing of the federal gov't. There is no way to contain such a beast. Same for corporations. Both are antithetical to life and freedom.

I agree regarding the federal government, but the millions of corporations? No, I don't favor abolishing private and voluntary associations joined together under a contract for limited liability in order to effectuate a joint economic aim.

[Bman]

To the OP. It won't happen at this point in time. Not unless progressives are willing to accept that most government cannot occur past a state level.

I just don't see it happening. Maybe it could in a state or two, but the only thing I see leading to a third party is an event that would trump recent Greece situations.

So it may be possible, but do you think progressives will understand what it means to be broke? I don't think those people understand anything economic.

[Dr.3D]

Emmm... excuse my ignorance here, but isn't 'Progressive' just another name for 'Liberal'?
If that is the case, then I guess the name might fit since from what I understand, Democrats are liberals and want to progressively destroy the republic just as was done when the Roman empire fell into democracy and then failed entirely.

Seems to me, it would be an oxymoron to call a party "Progressive/Libertarian" as the idea of personal liberty is the opposite of what progressives want. I believe progressives want to give up personal liberties for security provided by the government and those who give up personal liberties for security, deserve neither.

[susano]

I agree regarding the federal government, but the millions of corporations? No, I don't favor abolishing private and voluntary associations joined together under a contract for limited liability in order to effectuate a joint economic aim.

Of course you dont because you have expressed a distain for individual responsibility.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, I'm sure the clean air act is wreaking havoc on your daily life.

CAA and EPA can now declare you a polluter.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249523

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html

If you think this won't result in a huge, massive, unprecedented increase in the size and scope of the fedgov, you're not being rational.

[susano]

Progressives are all about gov't regulation and the nanny state. Maybe a libertarian-Natural Law Party would work. Progressives are commies and commies are an invention of the Rothschilds who funded the Bolsheviks. I think a lot of people who call themselves progressive have no clue what it really means.

[Stary Hickory]

Progressives are as about anti freedom as you can get. That is the problem, they are anti war SOMETIMES when it's not there guy doing it. Other than this they have absolutely nothing to offer America but shackles.

[ChaosControl]

I can give up some positions, but they're authoritarians on pretty much all fronts. I don't see much common ground with the average regressive leftist.

[John Taylor]

Progressives are all about gov't regulation and the nanny state. Maybe a libertarian-Natural Law Party would work. Progressives are commies and commies are an invention of the Rothschilds who funded the Bolsheviks. I think a lot of people who call themselves progressive have no clue what it really means.

The Rothchilds? There were socialists long before them, even utopian socialists who advocated for communism.

[susano]

The Rothchilds? There were socialists long before them, even utopian socialists who advocated for communism.

I mentioned that progressives are commies. The progressives came about in the early 1900s and the commies a little earlier.

[BenIsForRon]

Too many cynical bastards on this forum. ONLY LIBERTARIANS CAN BE TRUSTED!!!!!11!!

[Sentient Void]

I fully support an abolishing of the federal gov't. There is no way to contain such a beast. Same for corporations. Both are antithetical to life and freedom.

Susano, the best way to truly protect and preserve the environment while supporting freedom, individual liberty and the philosophy of liberty in general would be free-market environmentalism. Check it out if you want to learn more, that is if you're not familiar with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism

This is also a view that is widely held especially by anarcho-capitalists. Ron paul is also a free-market environmentalist.

[susano]

Susano, the best way to truly protect and preserve the environment while supporting freedom, individual liberty and the philosophy of liberty in general would be free-market environmentalism. Check it out if you want to learn more, that is if you're not familiar with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism

This is also a view that is widely held especially by anarcho-capitalists. Ron paul is also a free-market environmentalist.

Thank you. I'll check that out.

[emazur]

First of all, you have to realize that a very sizable chunk of the medium-to-heavy posters here are pretty damn intolerant and trust only in Ron Paul and his close associates like Judge Nap and Lew Rockwell. Such people wouldn't even support a straight up libertarian running on a third party, and any time you mention pro-libertarian outfits like Reason, Cato, the Libertarian Party, or even Milton Friedman, they'll point to one negative statement made by one individual, paint anyone and anything associated with him/her as being "sellouts" and/or "infiltrators". So don't expect too much support from people on this site for a Progressive/Libertarian 3rd party.

Anyway, a Progressive/Libertarian alliance for 2012 is something I'd support if it had a real chance at knocking out the establishment 2 party system, but it would and should only be temporary. Federalists and Anti-Federalists (whether or not they were called it at the time) joined together to fight tyranny in the Revolutionary War and went their separate ways afterwards. That's what needs to happen in 2012. Let's say there was someone who'd vow to end the wars, end the Fed (and not replace it with more fiat money), bring the troops home, end or greatly cut the income tax, make Social Security optional, cut many department like DOE while providing taxpayer funded vouchers (and schools that accept such vouchers could not be have their curriculum interfered with by the govt.), end the drug war, and keep most environmental regulations as-is (and is skeptical of global warming but wouldn't rule it out). Would I vote for someone like that? Hell yeah. I think progressives would too, at least if they thought such a candidate had a real shot of winning. What I'm hoping will happen is that if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination in 2012, he'll run Libertarian in 2012 on on '08 platform (it will be his last chance to run due to his age) and he'll bring in enough votes from fiscal conservatives, independents, libertarians, progressives, and disgruntled liberals to win and shatter the 2-party system. If the progressives want to go elsewhere after 2012, so be it.

here's a few progressive/libertarian articles I've come across if anyone's interested:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/why-i-as-a-socialist-support-tax-revolt-by-rocket-kirchner/

I am a socialist. I make no bones about it. I voted for Ralph Nader, but I also support guys like Ron Paul.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/1/165223/613

The conservatives I'm referring to could be called Libertarians. Thats the term I use, but I'm not talking about the Ayn Rand Elitest types. I mean Libertarian as far as civil liberties go. These types were isolationists who did not go for "Liberal" wars and nation building. (Remember, Bush family aside, democrats were in charge at the beginning of every war we'd been in during the 20th century). They were for fiscal responsibility, something previously atributed with Republicans. They belived in states rights. They opposed censorship from holier than thou PC types. They hated the gradual erosion of civil liberties. They felt the drug war was unethical, and a huge waste of money. They support the second amendment, and when Waco and Ruby Ridge occured, they became worried about federal agents. And they agreed with Scalia and Thomas on one occasion, when they opposed the recent ruling upon "eminent domain".

This sounds like a lot of the people who post here.
http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2008/08/im-progressive-libertarian.html

I'm a Progressive Libertarian
http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/2010/04/10/unleashing-my-inner-libertarian/


Unleashing My Inner Libertarian

As a long time progressive, I have been quite fascinated to discover that I agree with the Tea Party movement in many areas. In fact a number of people on the so-called “left” have been following Ron Paul, one of the Tea Party’s founders, quite closely since he first raised the alarm about the systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights under the Bush administration.

[silentshout]

Looks interesting to me...anything other than the same old, same old.

[aravoth]

Would progressives like to compromise their principles and join the libertarian side?

lulz

[RokiLothbard]

R progs too doctrinaire to accept the non-aggression principle?

[South Park Fan]

Emmm... excuse my ignorance here, but isn't 'Progressive' just another name for 'Liberal'?
If that is the case, then I guess the name might fit since from what I understand, Democrats are liberals and want to progressively destroy the republic just as was done when the Roman empire fell into democracy and then failed entirely.

Seems to me, it would be an oxymoron to call a party "Progressive/Libertarian" as the idea of personal liberty is the opposite of what progressives want. I believe progressives want to give up personal liberties for security provided by the government and those who give up personal liberties for security, deserve neither.

"Progressive" is what modern "liberals" called themselves before that label fell out of favor. Lately, "liberals" have started using the term again due to the demonization of "liberal". The original Progressives favored such "great" ideas as antitrust laws, federal income taxation, direct election of Senators, central banking, nation building, eugenics, segregation, minimum wage laws, and Prohibition

[Sentient Void]

First of all, you have to realize that a very sizable chunk of the medium-to-heavy posters here are pretty damn intolerant and trust only in Ron Paul and his close associates like Judge Nap and Lew Rockwell. Such people wouldn't even support a straight up libertarian running on a third party, and any time you mention pro-libertarian outfits like Reason, Cato, the Libertarian Party, or even Milton Friedman, they'll point to one negative statement made by one individual, paint anyone and anything associated with him/her as being "sellouts" and/or "infiltrators".

I have no problem and very much support Reason, Cato, Milton Friedman, et al/cetera... though I find the Libertarian Party generally useless.

This is how I see such a situation going down...

Anyone elected into office by such a party that you and the OP are advocating would be either libertarian or progressive. I have never known nor expect to see any true 'tweeners' in regards to progressivism and libertarianism. They then simply could *not* be libertarians nor progressives by definition if they deviated from such principles. Because of this, when policies or legislation come up that is outside the realm of the overlapping similarities, whoever is in office, that being either a progressive or libertarian, will obviously support or not support the legislation based on their other views - IMO, this would cause the party to tear itself to shreds.

It just wouldn't work. It makes more sense to just work together in separate parties towards common goals.

[AuH20]

Most of the population are just strands of grass waiting to be mowed down by the Progressive lawn mower. I don't see how they can conceal their goals and betray their nature. Paleos and libertarians will NEVER join the mainstream left. Most of the sensible, respectful progressives are few and far between.

[TCE]

The Left has shown that their principles don't mean anything as long as a Democrat is in charge. If they did, they would be furious about the continuation of the wars and the Afghanistan surge. Instead, they are claiming that eventually we'll get out, we just need to trust Obama. Now, if a Republican were in charge, they would be protesting the war.

In three years when a Republican takes the Presidency, watch The Left complain about the wars even though their guy could have ordered everyone home.

That is the big reason why I don't see a coalition anytime soon. This movement stands on principles, we don't care which party, we just want our goals achieved.

[zade]

I would love to support something like this. The idiots on here see the world basically as libertarians vs communists/progressives/fascists, which they lump together despite that they mean different things. And so they see progressives as the complete antithesis to us and thus cooperation must be impossible.

These are the people who really believe that the "progressive agenda" is basically support of the current establishment, that it's our current policy, despite the war on terror, war on drugs, patriot act, torture, death penalty, corporate welfare, all these things that no real progressive person supports. This evidence does not phase them. They think that the progressives are winning in government. Which is of course why people like Nader and Kucinich are just so dang successful at everything they do.

In reality, the ideological progressives are struggling just as much as we are to bring down the current corporatist order. Obama is not progressive. If libertarians would stop claiming, as is so often claimed here, that there's "no such thing as a principled liberal," this type of alliance would be possible.

[someperson]

An individual who finds the initiation of force and coercion acceptable, and is also unwavering and principled... somehow, this doesn't strike me as a good thing.

This post is only half serious, I think. ;)

[AuH20]

I would love to support something like this. The idiots on here see the world basically as libertarians vs communists/progressives/fascists, which they lump together despite that they mean different things. And so they see progressives as the complete antithesis to us and thus cooperation must be impossible.

These are the people who really believe that the "progressive agenda" is basically support of the current establishment, that it's our current policy, despite the war on terror, war on drugs, patriot act, torture, death penalty, corporate welfare, all these things that no real progressive person supports. This evidence does not phase them. They think that the progressives are winning in government. Which is of course why people like Nader and Kucinich are just so dang successful at everything they do.

In reality, the ideological progressives are struggling just as much as we are to bring down the current corporatist order. Obama is not progressive. If libertarians would stop claiming, as is so often claimed here, that there's "no such thing as a principled liberal," this type of alliance would be possible.

There are principled liberals, but aside from Glenn Greenwald and Russ Feingold, I don't see too many. Both Sanders and Kucinich folded like cheap suits when the corporate masters twisted the vise.

Many progressives do want to utilize government as the great equalizer of inequalities, both real and perceived. That's where the real chasm exists between progressives and us. We advocate for a more voluntary, communal approach while progressives defer to the distant and self-serving middle man named government.

[krazy kaju]

Many radical libertarians (e.g. Rothbard, Hess) worked with the New Left in the 1970s. I don't see why a larger movement like this can't be had. That said, I think Celente is full of it for other reasons.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

An individual who finds the initiation of force and coercion acceptable, and is also unwavering and principled... somehow, this doesn't strike me as a good thing.

This post is only half serious, I think. ;)

Even Rothbard advocated eliminating nuclear weapons violently if necessary. I had the pleasure of Conza beat down in a private property discussion.



The libertarian's basic attitude toward war must then be: it is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defense of one's rights of person and property; it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people. War, then, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion.

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.

This is why the old cliché no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modem world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder – indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself – is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price control or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html

[.Tom]

I think the left can be worked with in certain instances (anti-war, anti-war on drugs, pro-privacy, pro-civil liberties, anti-state moral enforcement), but like the right, they ultimately worship at the alter of the state.

Their welfare state fetishism quite frankly scares me, and inevitably also reduces the civil liberties they pretend to care about, because if the government runs all health care than the government will have an interest in what you put into your body. They are also ultra-nanny statist on protecting people from themselves in regards to what food and other products they purchase and consume, further showing how their belief in self-ownership of one's body cannot exist without economic freedom.

[metamars]

I would love to support something like this. The idiots on here see the world basically as libertarians vs communists/progressives/fascists, which they lump together despite that they mean different things. And so they see progressives as the complete antithesis to us and thus cooperation must be impossible.

These are the people who really believe that the "progressive agenda" is basically support of the current establishment, that it's our current policy, despite the war on terror, war on drugs, patriot act, torture, death penalty, corporate welfare, all these things that no real progressive person supports.


The Progressive Democrats of America is a group, all of whose main objectives (http://pdamerica.org/iot/)are in opposition to the current President*. (With respect to whom, it can honestly be said that he is very much like Bush, and in fact worse, in many respects.) Unfortunately, I can assure you that stereotypical and afactual "thinking" (actually, irrational non-thinking, where it's the fore-ordained conclusion that is paramount) is rampant on across the political spectrum. I take this in large part due to human evolution, however I do think that there are some evil players, behind the scenes, who deliberately reinforce toxic stereotypes. In other words, they are deliberately exploiting the all-too-flawed human tendency towards tribalistic irrationality. A divided populace is much more easy to subdue, no?


I don't usually speculate, though, as to who is deliberately misleading, and who is just irrational. The fact is, I have no way of knowing, so why embarass myself with speculation that can easily be challenged?




This evidence does not phase them. They think that the progressives are winning in government. Which is of course why people like Nader and Kucinich are just so dang successful at everything they do.

In reality, the ideological progressives are struggling just as much as we are to bring down the current corporatist order.

Well, the honest ones are. Unfortunately, a lot of the organizational leaders have been co-opted. I highly recommended reading about the articles about the "veal pen" at firedoglake. (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afiredoglake.com++%22veal+pen%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)(Firedoglake, btw, has been an active participant in efforts to cooperate with libertarian and other groups, where such cooperation is possible.) It's my belief that most of the well-known groups have been co-opted by plutocratic forces.

There are also other players that may be involved, muddling the picture, which are ultimately plutocratic, but not corporations, per se. E.g., did you know that the CIA used to have art critics on their payroll? From wikipedia:


Since mid 1970s it has been argued by revisionist historians that the style attracted the attention, in the early 1950s, of the CIA, who saw it as representative of the USA as a haven of free thought and free markets, as well as a challenge to both the socialist realist styles prevalent in communist nations and the dominance of the European art markets. The book by Frances Stonor Saunders [2], The Cultural Cold War—The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, [3] and other publications such as Who Paid the Piper?: CIA and the Cultural Cold War, detail how the CIA financed and organized the promotion of American abstract expressionists as part of cultural imperialism via the Congress for Cultural Freedom from 1950–67

(Admittedly, the wikipedia article goes on to mention critics of the above.)


You can get a sense of the connection between the CIA and Wall Street from copvcia.com (http://www.copvcia.com/free/economy/dontblink.html):



Remember - The National Security Act of 1947, which created the CIA, was written by Wall Street lawyer and banker Clark Clifford. Clark Clifford is the man who brought the CIA backed drug bank BCCI into the United States. Allen Dulles who virtually designed the CIA and served as its Director, and his brother John Foster who was Eisenhower's Secretary of State, were Wall Street lawyers from the firm Sullivan and Cromwell. Dwight Eisenhower's personal liaison with the CIA was none other than Nelson Rockefeller. William Casey was Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Richard Nixon. Former CIA Directors from William Raborn to William Webster to Robert Gates to James Woolsey to John Deutch all sit or have sat on the Boards of the largest, richest and most powerful companies in America.



Obama is not progressive.

To this I say "absolutely correct", even if that doesn't make complete sense, as the definition of "progressive" is variable.



If libertarians would stop claiming, as is so often claimed here, that there's "no such thing as a principled liberal," this type of alliance would be possible.

I wish that I had a link, handy, of Gary Null's description what he thinks a new 3rd party, which is partly progressive and partly libertarian. He has gone into much more detail than Celente did in his 2 minutes on the subject. Not sure whether Null's vision and Celente's vision are very close, or not, as Celente has not given details that I am aware of.

I will say this, though: the starting point of analysis of what a hybrid libertarian/progressive party would look like would certainly have a lot to do with the size of government and how much regulation and taxation citizens would have to tolerate.

Speaking for myself (not Null or Celente), I will say that I, personally, tend to prefer cost-benefit analyses over ideological viewpoints, in making decisions about which regulations make sense and what sorts of taxation make sense. I'll also point out, as I have earlier on this forum, that computer technology allows us do some tailoring for specific subgroups of American citizens, which might be useful in inducing them to cooperate, politically. My suggestion was to allow people to opt out of getting any healthcare benefits from the government, and in return they would be taxed at a lower rate than citizens who would not forswear accepting such benefits.


* This is clear if you both look into the details of what implementation of the PDA's priorities are, and also make reasonable inferences about what the Obama administration actually pushes for, behind the scenes (as opposed to what he says).

[Stary Hickory]

I think the left can be worked with in certain instances (anti-war, anti-war on drugs, pro-privacy, pro-civil liberties, anti-state moral enforcement), but like the right, they ultimately worship at the alter of the state.

Their welfare state fetishism quite frankly scares me, and inevitably also reduces the civil liberties they pretend to care about, because if the government runs all health care than the government will have an interest in what you put into your body. They are also ultra-nanny statist on protecting people from themselves in regards to what food and other products they purchase and consume, further showing how their belief in self-ownership of one's body cannot exist without economic freedom.

This is what strikes me as so funny Progressives are not Pro privacy at all. Not Pro civil liberties, not pro anti-state moral enforcement. The Health Care bill alone destroys all of this. The progressive agenda created state coerced schools and has corrupted unviersities and colleges, turning the entire mess into one huge indoctrination scheme. Frankly there is nothing that the progressive agenda has to offer.

They say they are for civil liberties but they are not. They are for instituting a racist agenda as they have been for years.

They say they are for privacy, but they don't mind stealing medical information, or breaking down doors to get into your finances. Under every progressive leadership we see ordinary Americans targeted as threats and attacked. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and now even Ron Paul types or other "crazies" under this administration.

[Annihilia]

Even Rothbard advocated eliminating nuclear weapons violently if necessary. I had the pleasure of Conza beat down in a private property discussion.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html

Thanks for that. I've been doing a lot of reading lately, journeying into AnCap Land, and that was very enlightening.

[metamars]

I think the left can be worked with in certain instances (anti-war, anti-war on drugs, pro-privacy, pro-civil liberties, anti-state moral enforcement), but like the right, they ultimately worship at the alter of the state.

Their welfare state fetishism quite frankly scares me, and inevitably also reduces the civil liberties they pretend to care about, because if the government runs all health care than the government will have an interest in what you put into your body. They are also ultra-nanny statist on protecting people from themselves in regards to what food and other products they purchase and consume, further showing how their belief in self-ownership of one's body cannot exist without economic freedom.

Would you say that libertarians have done a poor job communicating the suffocating aspects of a nanny state, to the public as a whole? Based on what I've read about some of the nanny-esque dysfunction in Europe, I'd say that's definitely the case. E.g., Europeans don't have the same freedom to purchase health food type supplements, at reasonable prices, as Americans do. However, if Codex Alimentarius is completely implemented in the US, then my understanding is that we would also be dragged down to the European levels. You'll need a prescription to get necessary dosages of most healthful supplements. (All but 18, IIRC).

Europeans, BTW, tend to be much happier with their level of taxation than Americans are, even though they pay more taxes. That's because they get a lot of benefits for their taxes. I have read some things lately, though, that make me wonder if the European models are sustainable. Greece certainly has not got a viable model....

[metamars]

This is what strikes me as so funny Progressives are not Pro privacy at all.

This is false. If you doubt this, I suggest you ask at progressive web sites.

Methinks the basis of your error is that you are confusing Democrats - especially Democrats who hold politicla office - with progressives.

[Stary Hickory]

This is false. If you doubt this, I suggest you ask at progressive web sites.

Methinks the basis of your error is that you are confusing Democrats - especially Democrats who hold politicla office - with progressives.

So progressives would be against the HC bill, or limiting people's freedom to choose healthcare as they please? They would be against prying into the financial records of Americans? I doubt you are being very honest here.

[fisharmor]

Metamars, notice how half the people that have responded aren't even libertarians, they're anarcho-capitalists (Aust Econ Disciple, Awake, tremendoustie). These people throw off the balance of this site much farther into laissez-faire territory, and make their stupid ideas much more acceptable, as most people on this site rarely have political debate outside this site. So don't use this site to guage the willingness of "libertarians" to compromise. Anarcho-capitalism is a rigid rejection of objective reality.

FBO metamars:
Ben's "balance" doesn't exist on this site because anti-anarchocapitalists have a habit of rebutting ancap arguments with examples like I quoted.
Thus, the ancap ideas are stupid, insulated, rigid, and outside of objective reality.
You'll be really hard pressed to find honest debate on the matter from the other side, just ad hominem and straw man arguments.
You're certainly free not to pay any attention to ancap arguments, but bear in mind that the reason this site has a "thrown off balance" is because the other side doesn't really want to talk about it, they just want to shit in their hands and chuck it out of their cage.
Food for thought.

I would not support such a party for the same reason I did not vote for McCain.
People with the exact same mentality as Ben flooded the internet, airwaves, and printed media in 2007 and 2008 with one comment on the Republican primary: Ron Paul can't win.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, just like "anarchocapitalism can't work" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The more you say it, the more other people say it, and the more the general public believes it.
It becomes true in Goebbels fashion: through repetition.
I rejected the anti-Paul message despite how often it was repeated, and I hope your presence here means that you did, too.

Likewise, I reject Celente's message. I've seen how politics works for a while, and if there's one thing that holds true, it's the sandwich analogy. If you want a sandwich, demand ten sandwiches and threaten violence if you don't get them. Then you'll end up with one sandwich.

Celente's party to libertarians would be like asking for half a sandwich and maybe getting to lick the inside of an empty mustard container, but probably not even that.

I am asking for more now. If Ben were to tell libertarians that if we vote for someone we'd be practically guaranteed to end the foreign wars, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the war on drugs, but we're getting national bike lanes instead, then I'd be the first in line to vote.

But that's not what anyone is talking about here. I am done watching this shit happen so that I can save an extra 5% on my federal return. I suspect most libertarians feel likewise. Offer us some concrete progress, and we'll show up to vote. But nibbling at the edges of the problem doesn't cut it.

[Sentient Void]

Progressives don't like the healthcare bill and acknowledge it as a corporatist scheme, an generally are very disappointed with Obama to the point of irritation. I have progressive friends who have told me this.

They acknowledge that Obama s more of a corporatist than anything else. Im inclined to agree.

[Sentient Void]

Many radical libertarians (e.g. Rothbard, Hess) worked with the New Left in the 1970s. I don't see why a larger movement like this can't be had. That said, I think Celente is full of it for other reasons.

I'd say the key phrase here is 'worked with' and not 'created a party with'. I see what the OP is saying about furthering civil liberties, end the wars etc... But maintain regulations? No self-respecting libertarian would atually support maintaining the insane regulations we have now, as part of a platform.

Such a platform would be tantamount to trading in principles of being a libertarian and the moral and consequentialist/practical reasons of being such.

Let me ask this, would prgressives be willng to trade in their principles in order to reduce regulation, taxation and government services? Even a little bit?

Btw, metamars, most libertarians aren't libertarians just for ideological reasons. Apart from the moral case for libertarian philosophy, there is a VERY string practical/economic reasoning for it as well, and it's also extremely logcally consistent in it's message.

[kahless]

The only thing I would chose off that list would be the environment. As we have seen time and time again liability after the fact almost always leaves the taxpayer with the clean-up or disasters that are near impossible to clean-up. But even then I still would not trust progressives to enact regulation. Perhaps a bi-partisan board of elected environmental officials that would enact common sense regulation that has no ties to special interests would be a better choice.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If you know you are right, why would you ever compromise your position? There is nothing valuable to be had in compromise. Never compromise positions you know are morally, and consquentially right. It would be as if you knew murder was wrong, but then you decided that it would be ok to compromise that position, because you wanted to be "pragmatist" and get some of your other goals accomplished. THATS WRONG. If you are right, fight for whats right. Don't compromise your beliefs away. Fucking retarded.

[sailingaway]

ARe progressives too doctrinaire to make the size of government side of it follow the libertarian view? We simply disagree there. I believe in coalitions on issues we can agree on but if you think this party would push for more government, that isn't an issue of doctrine, but an issue of liberty and theft.

[TCE]

Progressives don't like the healthcare bill and acknowledge it as a corporatist scheme, an generally are very disappointed with Obama to the point of irritation. I have progressive friends who have told me this.

They acknowledge that Obama s more of a corporatist than anything else. Im inclined to agree.

I have the same thing going on here, progressives are infuriated by the continuation of the wars, the lack of a public option, no cap and trade, etc. However, when I ask them who they'll vote for, one said Green Party, the others said Obama. So, their anger doesn't mean anything.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I have the same thing going on here, progressives are infuriated by the continuation of the wars, the lack of a public option, no cap and trade, etc. However, when I ask them who they'll vote for, one said Green Party, the others said Obama. So, their anger doesn't mean anything.

Oh yeah, sounds like a lovely hodge podge to throw in with...not.

[specsaregood]

* government staying out of your personal business, as long as you're not hurting anybody,

Here is the conundrum: both the "progressives" and "social conservatives" don't think you should be allowed to "hurt" yourself. Which basically means the government won't be staying out of your personal business.

[TCE]

Oh yeah, sounds like a lovely hodge podge to throw in with...not.

Agreed. The way it looks now, we would almost be a single-issue party because the strongest link we have is the ending of the wars, but other than that, we disagree on pretty much everything else. I declare this idea dead.

[sailingaway]

Agreed. The way it looks now, we would almost be a single-issue party because the strongest link we have is the ending of the wars, but other than that, we disagree on pretty much everything else. I declare this idea dead.

No, we agree fervently that corporatism is bad and the government should not funnel money to special interests. THAT covers a LOT of territory and a lot of potential savings. If we could implement ideas there and split the difference between shoring up entitlement spending and returning the stolen money to the taxpayer, we would come out ahead, and with a more responsive government. Rand's idea of contractually requiring government contractors of a certain size to NOT lobby the govt would be great on both sides.

I am all for issues coalitions, and heavens knows progressives can find enough votes elsewhere for bigger government... we'd have to make our coalitions elsewhere on that. But if we band together on issues we agree on, we couldn't be marginalized in the way both sides are now.

Ron forms coalitions with the left, and I think he is correct in that.

[helmuth_hubener]

I would not support such a party. I guess I'm too doctrinaire. Oh well!

[teamrican1]

That just sounds progressive to me. The only libertarian positions here are the ones progressives would already support -- anti-war, anti government enforcement of morals.
.

And I'd take issue with the idea they'd even support that. The lack of widespread progressive protest in the wake of Obama continuing (and even making worse) Bush's foreign policy has shown that only a tiny percentage of progressive's are genuinely anti-war, and I'd take extreme exception with the idea any progressives are truly against government enforced morals. Yeah, they are against government enforced morals of the type they don't like, but if it jibes with their particular world view, progressives are all about government enforcement of morals. Just look at the progressive outrage over Rand Paul's position on article two of the CRA. Or cigarettes. Or "sin" taxes. Or mandating calorie labeling on fast food restaurants. Or mandatory recycling. The list goes on and on. They are different morals for sure, but when it comes to support for government enforcement of morals, progressives are just as authoritarian as social conservatives.

That's why any liberal progressive alliance on ideological issues is doomed. There is literally nothing we see eye to eye on. Tremendoustie is absolutely right that the only thing we could join on is a campaign to destroy the Federal Government/restore state's rights. But once that battle was won, the Progressives would become our #1 enemy. It's kind of like the Iranian Revolution. Liberals (classical sense) and Religious Fundamentalists joined together to topple the Shah, and once that victory was achieved the Religious Fundamentalists outmaneuvered the Liberals and took power. The alliance worked because the Liberals never thought the Fundamentalists would win once the Shah was out of the way. So if there is an alliance, we have to be very careful that we end up being the Ayatollahs and not the Liberals (who ended up executed or exiled).

[fisharmor]

No, we agree fervently that corporatism is bad and the government should not funnel money to special interests.

No, I don't think libertarians and progressives meet on this point at all.

First of all, the progressive's standpoint is never simply to turn off the money spigot: it's to keep the spigot going full blast and then try to punish people ex post facto when they use the spigot money for purposes which they subjectively don't like.

Second of all, they are 100% in favor of corporatism and special interests when the special interest IS something that they subjectively approve of.
At this point in history any company which is "green" is a-ok to feed at the progressive's trough.

[erowe1]

progressive
=================
* health
* nutrition
* environment
* education

libertarian
=================
* not becoming involved in foreign entaglements
* government staying out of your personal business, as long as you're not hurting anybody, and nobody else is paying for it


not libertarian in the sense that
==================================
* we don't need any government regulation, at all (e.g., Glass Steagle are desirable)


Isn't that a description of the Green Party? So why a new one?

[metamars]

Progressives don't like the healthcare bill and acknowledge it as a corporatist scheme, an generally are very disappointed with Obama to the point of irritation. I have progressive friends who have told me this.

They acknowledge that Obama s more of a corporatist than anything else. Im inclined to agree.

I think it must depend on where they get their information from. If they read firedoglake.com and openleft.com, then probably, at best, they would say that HCR is greatly flawed, but still worth passing. OTOH, there are many people at those sites who consider it such crapola that it should not have been passed.

At docudharma.com, probably there's very few people who thought it should have been passed.

Unfortunately, I don't have data that shows how self-identified progressives come down on the final HCR bill. Even if I did, I seriously doubt that it would tell me what their positions are as a function of how much they actually know about what is in the bill. I find a lot of polling to be superficial, and I suspect it would be vastly eye-opening if more in-depth polling was done so that we could know the positions of people as a function of their knowledge.

I do know, from speaking about it at a recent workplace, even the supporters seem to have little idea of it's details, nor the fact that there's no serious cost containment, and thus we just blew the chance, as a society, to save ourselves tons of money. Most people don't know about Obama's back-stabbing deal with Tauzin, either.

[metamars]

Isn't that a description of the Green Party? So why a new one?

This is a good question, similar to posts made earlier in the thread. I can't answer the question, because Celente did not go into a lot of detail. He may well have had other bullet points on the libertarian side, which he neglected to mention.

Gary Null has gone into details of what a fusion party would look like, but I don't have a link handy, nor do I know how close his position is to Celente's. Sorry.... I can tell you, though, that he's looking to dispense with tons of regulations, though certainly not all. He also spoke about a flat tax, on corporations and individuals (I think he said 15% should do it). A lot of Fortune 500 companies end up paying no tax, at all.

A flat tax is anathema to many progressives, so there's a difference from what I expect the Green Party would support.

[Stary Hickory]

Lets see progressive want to give up my rights to choose and attain healthcare in a manner I see fit or they will kill me.

These sound like perfecty decent liberty minded people.

Keep in mind this is just the tip of the iceberg for progressives. They support killing a man for any number of offenses like attaining education with your own resources, or using a private retirement acount in lieu of a government forced one. In fact I have never met a progressive who was not ready to kill a man for doing anything that any liberty minded person would do.

Progressives are upset with HC reform because it did not go far enough. What they wanted was far more draconian and oppressed more people than ever before. The progressive agenda is about eroding freedoms and shooting you for disobedience. In fact their entire agenda relies on the fact they can shoot people whenever they like if they don't volunarily relinquish their freedoms.

[metamars]

Lets see progressive want to give up my rights to choose and attain healthcare in a manner I see fit or they will kill me.

These sound like perfecty decent liberty minded people.

Keep in mind this is just the tip of the iceberg for progressives. They support killing a man for any number of offenses like attaining education with your own resources, or using a private retirement acount in lieu of a government forced one. In fact I have never met a progressive who was not ready to kill a man for doing anything that any liberty minded person would do.

Progressives are upset with HC reform because it did not go far enough. What they wanted was far more draconian and oppressed more people than ever before. The progressive agenda is about eroding freedoms and shooting you for disobedience. In fact their entire agenda relies on the fact they can shoot people whenever they like if they don't volunarily relinquish their freedoms.

Quite honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you actually think you wrote anything that's true, why don't you quote front-paged articles from FireDogLake or OpenLeft to support your claims?

As for "They support killing a man for any number of offenses like attaining education with your own resources", I don't even understand what your claim means. Are you implying that progressives want to execute people who go to college on their own dime? If so, they'll want to execute me, because my undergraduate degree was paid for by myself and my family. (Well, doubtless there were state subsidies that applied to all students.)

In any event, this thread should be primarily about a fusion progressive/libertarian party. Unfortunately, this hasn't been well defined by Celente as we need it to be, in order to have a more substantive discussion.

[Jeremy]

I would never support someone who seeks to strengthen government and weaken liberty. Why would you ever think that libertarians would try to minimize liberty? If a progressive wants to focus on liberty and not big government, then he or she is free to support libertarians.

[Sentient Void]

I can tell you, though, that he's looking to dispense with tons of regulations, though certainly not all. He also spoke about a flat tax, on corporations and individuals (I think he said 15% should do it). A lot of Fortune 500 companies end up paying no tax, at all.

A flat tax is anathema to many progressives, so there's a difference from what I expect the Green Party would support.

Kinda on a side note (not on the topic of the party fusion), but I think most libertarians are very much against an income tax and if it *were* to be replace by anything if not completely abolished int he first place (along with according cuts in govt expenditures), The Fair Tax would be more preferable. Economically speaking, you'd want to tax consumption and not production to maximize economic growth.

Also, corporations, businesses, etc don't pay tax. Period. Just the same way property owners don't pay tax. All such taxes get passed down to consumers in higher prices - as they should since it's a cost of doing business.

Didn't mean to derail, just had to add that in ;)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Quite honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you actually think you wrote anything that's true, why don't you quote front-paged articles from FireDogLake or OpenLeft to support your claims?

As for "They support killing a man for any number of offenses like attaining education with your own resources", I don't even understand what your claim means. Are you implying that progressives want to execute people who go to college on their own dime? If so, they'll want to execute me, because my undergraduate degree was paid for by myself and my family. (Well, doubtless there were state subsidies that applied to all students.)

In any event, this thread should be primarily about a fusion progressive/libertarian party. Unfortunately, this hasn't been well defined by Celente as we need it to be, in order to have a more substantive discussion.

It'll never happen. It's like trying to fuse the proverbial apples, and oranges. Our ideologies are totally incompatible. If you are going to have a third party that includes libertarians, its going to be some kind of mix of Paleos and libertarians, but even then we saw how well that worked out with the Mont Pelerin Society (Not too well). If you want to know how libertarians feel and how principled we are in our convictions, just read about Ludwig von Mises and his discourse at the Mont Pelerin Society, in which he walked out and called everyone socialists (Friedman, Hayek, etc.). They were. No libertarian can support such things. Sorry, but agreeing on 5% of the issues, does not a party make.

Besides, why the hell would libertarians want to form a party. A party necessarily means compromise, and libertarians aren't known to compromise, and for good reasons. You seem to be new here. You'll learn very quickly your idea has a 0% chance of working. All the libertarians I know in person are also devoutly anti-compromise. We will work on issues where we see eye to eye, but we will NOT compromise our issues to facilitate statists. Liberty is paramount.

[metamars]

I would never support someone who seeks to strengthen government and weaken liberty. Why would you ever think that libertarians would try to minimize liberty? If a progressive wants to focus on liberty and not big government, then he or she is free to support libertarians.

You are thinking in purist, either/or terms. If a fusion progressive/libertarian party takes power, and pulls US troops out of Europe, and further decreases taxes proportionately, would this "strengthen government"? No, of course not. So if such a fusion party simultaneously maintains the same level of regulations (with accompanying taxation and indirect costs), and thus from this perspective, neither strengthens nor weakens government, what is the net/net? Certainly, nothing that can fit into the either/or straightjacket which you are positing.

"Politics is the art of the possible." In a democracy, nobody gets everything that they want.

[someperson]

I would think that none of the individuals here would object to these "social" programs if participation in them was strictly voluntary. However, involuntary resource collection (theft) is unacceptable; it matters not who is committing the theft, how many individuals participate in the act, or what label they've affixed to themselves.

With coercion comes resistance... some individuals will inevitably refuse to comply, leading to other individuals initiating force on behalf of the state in order to collect. The result would likely be incarceration at "best" or an unfortunate incident at worst (the "killing" that Stary is referring to).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You are thinking in purist, either/or terms. If a fusion progressive/libertarian party takes power, and pulls US troops out of Europe, and further decreases taxes proportionately, would this "strengthen government"? No, of course not. So if such a fusion party simultaneously maintains the same level of regulations (with accompanying taxation and indirect costs), and thus from this perspective, neither strengthens nor weakens government, what is the net/net? Certainly, nothing that can fit into the either/or straightjacket which you are positing.

"Politics is the art of the possible." In a democracy, nobody gets everything that they want.

Even if we pulled all the troops out from overseas and reduced military spending by 50%, we would still be bankrupt. Progressives will never cede to getting rid of Welfare, and Welfare accounts for much larger spending. Besides, progressives would never lower taxes on businesses, or cut capital gains, or inheritence taxes, or the other 50+ taxes. Progressives for the most part are anti-capitalist also. Libertarians are staunchly capitalist--free-marketeers.

Your idea is a pipedream made in hell. It'll never happen. We don't need a party to come together on one issue. Besides, most, if not all libertarians are anti-democracy.

[Stary Hickory]

Quite honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you actually think you wrote anything that's true, why don't you quote front-paged articles from FireDogLake or OpenLeft to support your claims?

As for "They support killing a man for any number of offenses like attaining education with your own resources", I don't even understand what your claim means. Are you implying that progressives want to execute people who go to college on their own dime? If so, they'll want to execute me, because my undergraduate degree was paid for by myself and my family. (Well, doubtless there were state subsidies that applied to all students.)

In any event, this thread should be primarily about a fusion progressive/libertarian party. Unfortunately, this hasn't been well defined by Celente as we need it to be, in order to have a more substantive discussion.

Well lets see here, we are now to believe that all the Dems in the current administration are NOT progressives. And the people that are progressives really represent something etirely different right? I mean how many labels do they go through...lets see Liberal used to be a term that meant "liberty" then a group says they are liberal and for liberty when actually they are for something entirely different.

So after a period of confusion and displacement, liberty folks make the term Libertarian to represent themselves. But now we have a group who say despite what many of us understand as progressivism, they are really for liberty. So how long before we toss out libertarian label into the wastebasket and try to find another term for liberal..libertarian...or anyone who believes in real liberty? This looks suspcisously like just another attempt to coopt a real liberty movement.

Progessives are now not progrssives right? They don't believe in all those nasty government institutions which the "other" progrssives endeavored so hard to create. Nope not at all now they are for LIBERTY...because now there is a popular grassroots liberty movement...now progressives are for liberty just like they were for liberty when they cooped the liberal name before.

I am to believe that none of the Democrats in power today are progressive? I mean redefing terms and changing labels is a sinister way to derail a liberty movement that actually has a chance at reducing government power. Every progrssive I have met,.....(the people that call themselves that), are liberals..who are just statists of a marxist flavor.

Looks like just another attempt for the statist left to ditch an unpopular lable that people can use to identify them and latch onto another label to remain the wolf in a sheep's disguise. Just like these same types found refuge in the classical liberal party much to the detriment to real liberty minded people.

Progressives have graced us with a FED and SS and public schools, and medicare, and tons of other statist garbage.....of course these are "different" progressives.....

[Jeremy]

You are thinking in purist, either/or terms. If a fusion progressive/libertarian party takes power, and pulls US troops out of Europe, and further decreases taxes proportionately, would this "strengthen government"? No, of course not. So if such a fusion party simultaneously maintains the same level of regulations (with accompanying taxation and indirect costs), and thus from this perspective, neither strengthens nor weakens government, what is the net/net? Certainly, nothing that can fit into the either/or straightjacket which you are positing.

"Politics is the art of the possible." In a democracy, nobody gets everything that they want.

I'm not thinking like a purist. Progressives have no philosophy. I wouldn't trust them managing government. By your logic, libertarians should have voted for Obama?

Libertarians have more in common with conservatives now that the Dems are in power. So we side with both? We support everyone? Huh???

[Schiff_FTW]

I would gladly ally with someone who is antiwar and pro civil liberties. Unfortunately this does not describe any "progressives" I'm aware of, as they are only concerned about these things when the other side is in power.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I also take umbrage to the title. Why is it always the liberty oriented person who has to make concessions. It's never the Statist. No, the statist is always right. Libertarians are wrong, therefore they must concede. God I hate that connotation.

[BenIsForRon]

Metamars, I hope you're starting to realize that a lot of people on this forum are off their fucking rocker. They're all launching into philosophical diatribes, and saying shit like "The Libuurrrals will take over America like the Shah did after the revolution!"

Compromise is possible. Look at this video where Ron Paul brought together Nader, McKinney and Baldwin, to talk about important issues that they could all agree on, and promise to work on together. This alliance party would take a similar stance, and probably put aside the major differences to be dealt with further down the road.

Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney & Ralph Nader on stage together! (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5899338291241389730#)

[AuH20]

Metamars, I hope you're starting to realize that a lot of people on this forum are off their fucking rocker. They're all launching into philosophical diatribes, and saying shit like "The Libuurrrals will take over America like the Shah did after the revolution!"

Compromise is possible. Look at this video where Ron Paul brought together Nader, McKinney and Baldwin, to talk about important issues that they could all agree on, and promise to work on together. This alliance party would take a similar stance, and probably put aside the major differences to be dealt with further down the road.

Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney & Ralph Nader on stage together! (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5899338291241389730#)

For what it's worth, Daniel Estulin has stated that Nader is a trojan horse. He's been largely funded by the Ford and Field Foundations. He also maintained a very close relationship with John D. Rockefeller the IV when he was first gaining steam as an activist.

[someperson]

If I recall correctly, in that presentation, Dr. Paul suggested that individuals should vote for the candidate that best supports their ideas and not to simply vote for one of the two wings of the same vulture one more time. He wasn't suggesting that anyone should forsake their ideas and principles in order to come together and vote for one individual or one composite party. In fact, that's exactly the mentality that he was rejecting, and why Mr. Barr apparently objected (with disastrous timing).

[Sentient Void]

Metamars, I hope you're starting to realize that a lot of people on this forum are off their fucking rocker. They're all launching into philosophical diatribes, and saying shit like "The Libuurrrals will take over America like the Shah did after the revolution!"
Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney & Ralph Nader on stage together! (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5899338291241389730#)

Unbelievable, dude - have you *not* read the majority of responses? Did you even READ the OP about creating a new party?

Just like Ron was doing in that video and was advocating - most of us are saying we could very well work on overlapping issues - but a fusionist party *WOULD NOT WORK*.

[Stary Hickory]

If I recall correctly, in that presentation, Dr. Paul suggested that individuals should vote for the candidate that best supports their ideas and not to simply vote for one of the two wings of the same vulture one more time. He wasn't suggesting that anyone should forsake their ideas and principles in order to come together and vote for one individual or one composite party. In fact, that's exactly the mentality that he was rejecting, and why Mr. Barr apparently objected (with disastrous timing).

And that is exactly why Libertarians should remain separate and mobile. The last time the left was able to anchor itself to a liberty party it killed it. In this thread I am seeing progressivism being redefined and presented as something it never has been in the past. Right now I am in a fight against what has largely been understood to be progressivism.

Anyone supporting statist control over my life and an erosion of my liberties is not welcome with me. I have not yet seen a self proclaimed progressive or anyone else tossed in that category that did not want to make me subject to the state in the most basic of liberties. I support candidates who will make me more free, that is my litmus test.

[someperson]

Unbelievable, dude - have you *not* read the majority of responses? Did you even READ the OP about creating a new party?

Just like Ron was doing in that video and was advocating - most of us are saying we could very well work on overlapping issues - but a fusionist party *WOULD NOT WORK*.
I'd love to see individuals stop the mindless obsession with parties and labels, and start promoting ideas, first and foremost. As you suggested, I doubt there's much objection here to individuals cooperating in an effort to further specific ideas. Each individual can decide when and where to participate based on their own ideas.

[BenIsForRon]

If I recall correctly, in that presentation, Dr. Paul suggested that individuals should vote for the candidate that best supports their ideas and not to simply vote for one of the two wings of the same vulture one more time. He wasn't suggesting that anyone should forsake their ideas and principles in order to come together and vote for one individual or one composite party.

Well of course he didn't mention a composite party, that's not what the event was about. But they did all agree on four critical issues that the country needs to deal with, and it sounded like an awesome platform for a composite party to take. I'm sure they could have found much more agreement if they had gone into other issues.

[fisharmor]

Quite honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you actually think you wrote anything that's true, why don't you quote front-paged articles from FireDogLake or OpenLeft to support your claims?

I don't think we need to quote any leftist sites to make the point that progressive doctrine is enforced with violence. Government is nothing more than the monopoly on the use of force within a geographic boundary. Any state requirement is backed by violence, and resistance to those requirements eventually leads to death.

It doesn't matter what the "offense" is - if I repeatedly spurn government mandate, I will eventually be killed, most likely informally, "Cool Hand Luke" style.


As for "They support killing a man for any number of offenses like attaining education with your own resources", I don't even understand what your claim means. Are you implying that progressives want to execute people who go to college on their own dime?

The damage is already done by college. By the time people graduate high school, they have been segregated into those who can play ball, and those whom the system has deemed unworthy to hold any real job.
After that they have the options of either taking an undesirable job which doesn't require an education, or starting their own business, armed with a defective statist work ethic and no real grasp of real-world subjects (like economics or accounting) courtesy the state's brainwa-er-education system.

Not to mention that their "obligation to the state" will be increased if they decide to forge their own destinies, in the form of fees, licenses, and higher taxes.


In any event, this thread should be primarily about a fusion progressive/libertarian party. Unfortunately, this hasn't been well defined by Celente as we need it to be, in order to have a more substantive discussion.

This is the more substantive discussion.
It doesn't sound like you have a really good idea where we're coming from, so I'll give you an example.

I have two children. They are very young. The older is three, and is already attempting to spell words in writing - spontaneously. We're not making a big deal forcing her to do this. We are simply encouraging her to learn for herself.

Your progressive buddies' very first item on their agenda is to take all of the self-education that my daughter will have done, which, by the time they will try to force her to her first year of school will be roughly three grades' worth, and take a gigantic shit on it.
Their stated goal is to destroy her self sufficiency. This is actually recorded for posterity and reported by John Taylor Gatto in his books.

Read the story of a man named John Singer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w90.html) - a man who defied the education system by educating his own children - and was gunned down for it in cold blood.

I don't know if you have kids or not. So let me break it down for you: progressives have voluntarily placed themselves directly between the bear and the cubs. We're kind of past reasoning through our differences at this point... we're at the point where we're standing and roaring and baring our teeth, and all the progressives have to say is "YOU'RE RACISTS!"

We're not crazy. They actually are looking for excuses to shoot people. They are actually acting a lot like they want to get shot.

Now I hope you realize why such a union between libertarians and progressives will never, ever happen.

[someperson]

Well of course he didn't mention a composite party, that's not what the event was about. But they did all agree on four critical issues that the country needs to deal with, and it sounded like an awesome platform for a composite party to take. I'm sure they could have found much more agreement if they had gone into other issues.
I have no problem if some individuals wish to come together and create a composite party. After all, this would be a voluntary arrangement and what other individuals do is none of my business :)

I'll just say that I find it all a bit redundant. If I had a suggestion, it would be to cooperate with other individuals directly to promote ideas, not parties. In other words, lose the middle man, as parties exist to be coopted... well, not literally, but the trend speaks for itself ;)

[zade]

If you know you are right, why would you ever compromise your position? There is nothing valuable to be had in compromise. Never compromise positions you know are morally, and consquentially right. It would be as if you knew murder was wrong, but then you decided that it would be ok to compromise that position, because you wanted to be "pragmatist" and get some of your other goals accomplished. THATS WRONG. If you are right, fight for whats right. Don't compromise your beliefs away. Fucking retarded.

Because there's a million people on every side of the spectrum who "know they're right." I believe there's really no such thing as being objectively right in most of these matters, its a matter of opinion. If we don't know how to compromise and cooperate, we just have all these different interests and ideologies pulling in different directions (and btw, we're always going to lose that one) and nothing ever gets done. Honesty is the key thing, and that's something libertarians and progressives could have in common.

[heavenlyboy34]

Too many cynical bastards on this forum. ONLY LIBERTARIANS CAN BE TRUSTED!!!!!11!!

edit for correctitude: NO POLITICIANS CAN BE TRUSTED!!!!!!! :mad:

[Elwar]

Celente predicts a new, third party, which he labels as Progressive-Libertarian. It will have the following characteristics:

progressive
=================
* health
* nutrition
* environment
* education

libertarian
=================
* not becoming involved in foreign entaglements
* government staying out of your personal business, as long as you're not hurting anybody, and nobody else is paying for it




Umm...sounds more like a progressive agenda with no comprimise on the side of progressives.

You're basically asking:
Are libertarians too doctrinaire to join the new big government/small government 3rd party?

The way to comprimise would be for progressives and libertarians to join forces at the federal level to bring the power back to the states. You could have your socialist utopia in Vermont next to our libertarian utopia in New Hampshire and all would be well (until you start to whine about the big sucking sound of New Hampshire pulling in all of the productive people, and you start to pass draconian laws to keep people from leaving).

Progressives already have the Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians are the final ones standing strong against the tyranny.

[Sentient Void]

I don't even know why I didn't even notice this.

Replace 'doctrinaire' (a heavily insulting and arrogant word to use, BTW) with 'principled' and you've got a far more accurate thread title.

Progressives are the ones that are doctrinaire. I want to ad hominem you, but I'm resisting.

[ifthenwouldi]

The key to approaching any resembling unity between these two divergent opinions is local autonomy.

If the scope of government is limited to a local area, then you have a bit more freedom to try out "progressive programs." (Ultimately, I believe many of them would fail, but the damage to individuals would theoretically be far less).

The one thing all Americans *should* support is a return to a more decentralized form of government.

[Number19]

...OK, SO HERE IS THE $64 QUESTION: What do you guys say?...I going to answer this before reading any of the 100+ replies already submitted.

The whole question confuses policy and principle.

Progressives and libertarians are fundamentally incompatible - it's a moral issue. Progressives accept the initiation of force as a moral good when used by authority to advance a political and social agenda. Libertarians fundamentally believe that the initiation of force is morally wrong - no exceptions.

So when progressives support a "libertarian issue", they do so for political reasons and its no more than a policy decision. The next administration, or the next administration, would have no hesitation in modifying the old policy.

Libertarians, if elected to office, would strongly - maybe imperfectly - seek to formulate decisions around their belief that the exercise of power is morally wrong.

The two just never could find any agreement .

[charrob]

the marriage of Ron Paul / Dennis Kucinich-- what a beautiful thought. :)

[South Park Fan]

It wouldn't be as bad if it simply focused on the issues in which they are in mutual agreement, but why are clearly unlibertarian ideas included in the platform? Compromise between water and poison is still poison. I have no problem with coalitions on the other hand, which seem to be a more useful tool to accomplish goals without compromising principle.

[osan]

I think a lot of people who call themselves progressive have no clue what it really means.

Yes, but it sounds so cool. "I'm a progressive." - as if to say "I'm modern and intelligent and evolved... yeah, that's the ticket."

What can one expect from a moron?

[John Taylor]

the marriage of Ron Paul / Dennis Kucinich-- what a beautiful thought. :)

How would they consumate it?

Too heretical???