If you're not libertarian, you're not paying attention.

that economies - and social structures generally - require cooperation; and that cooperation may be voluntary in only the loosest sense.

I have yet to talk to a Lib who had more than a passing acquaintance with history.

Reagan was probably the closest we've ever had to a Lib in the White House, and it's more accurate to describe him as just plain out of touch.

For what little it's worth, it's always struck me that libertarians were Republicans to embarrassed to cop to that fact.

I think it's their slight acquaintance with common sense, not their lack of historical knowlwdge, which characterizes the average self-professed libertarian.

You mention RWReagan.  I rest my case, re the common sense part of the argument.

Me, I'm  cynical and disgruntled and loving every minute of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge  He strongly believed in letting free market forces work with little government involvement.  Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is the only libertarian Republican in congress today.

Similarly, you could say FDR was a socialist Democrat.

with a strong independent streak.  Fiscally responsible, socially responsible, pro-freedom, limited government, and against government waste and pork and lobbyist influence.  I largely agree with the positions of Taxpayers for Common Sense. www.taxpayer.net

Lately I've also been supporting the Independence party in Minnesota (Governor Jesse Ventura's party). http://www.teammn.com/

The only libertarian Democrat we have in the Senate these days is Russ Feingold.

""Robert Sobel offers some context based on Coolidge's sense of federalism: "As Governor of Massachusetts, Coolidge supported wages and hours legislation, opposed child labor, imposed economic controls during World War I, favored safety measures in factories, and even worker representation on corporate boards. Did he support these measures while president? No, because in the 1920s, such matters were considered the responsibilities of state and local governments." [4] Other commentators, Austrian Economists included, say that Coolidge's policies were not laisse-faire because inflation rates were heavily increased under his administration which they consider to be a major factor contributing to the Great Depression."" (wikipedia)

Laissez-faire capitalism alone doesn't make a libertarian.   You have to be much more agressive in believing that the status quo fell from the sky and will continue without maintenance in any social action.

I suspect a true lib would insist on toll roads, no public subsidies of anything (schools, military, etc.)  Libs generally fail to understand that any law shifts "natural" relationships and burdens, and has to be enforced, and it was put there because somebody thought it improved life.

A true lib would insist on no involuntary membership in any group, including national citizenship.  Don't you think?

And exactly what criminal laws would a lib support?  Certainly nothing involving any sort of regulation, so there goes your securities markets, because caveat emptor, you should expect people to lie.  No product liability, because you should know what's in that can, and you don't have right to trust people's honesty.

What about self-defense?  Do you have to wait until a person actually shoots at you, or what sort of scowl allows you to shoot them 1st?

Most politicians, FDR included, are/were total  pragmatists.  Some of them have more foresight than others.

there are a couple like BT who susbscribe to other "hands-off" ideas, but I'll bet you that the Libs would collapse if mainstream Repubs could legislate porn and gays out of existence like they want to.  

Jack - Instead of pontificating about what current Libertarian thought is, try reading Charles Murray and David Boaz.  Or even Walter Williams.  

Ronald Reagan wasn't even close to being a Libertarian.  He was an economic, small government conservative and there not only a big difference, but a fundatmnetal one as well.

representing them, so I have as much claim to the label as they do.

Ideologies generally are for jack-offs, ie people who are more impressed with a particular model of the world, than the facts they might observe about the world; and Libertarians have to be close to the top of pure ideologues.

You might note that we were all agreed that no president was a libertarian.  "Close" depends on how much of a purist you are; and as noted, people who fixate on political ideologies instead of observed facts have a problem.

i'm an independent free thinker.
i support israel and guns, im pro-choice, my political leanings tend to be closer to classic  socialism (from my time on a kibbutz), i relate strongly to the orthodox jewish community, but i personally live a completely secular lifestyle absent dogma.

I also like to fuck.

Most normal people have a range of interests and opinions that don't fit well into a label.   Sometimes they're plain illogical, but rarely as illogical as the most common ideologies.   Because individuals need to make their lives work, whereas non-profit associations don't - they just suck off people's interest in / fixation on that idea.

The problem is that normal people aren't fixated on controlling other people through some ideology, BUT like everything else in life, politics tends to be dominated by specialists.   So you get these True Believers dominating politics, and those fuckers can be dangerous.   They might do something as inocuous as bankrupt your city and fuck you thru your property taxes, or they might start a war in god knows what sort of incompetence, lies, etc etc.   You can rest assured that most of these folks haven't had real lives, because they wouldn't be doing politics if they had lives - look at the Bushes, Cheneys, and every televangelist.  Ooops, there are McCains, Kerrys, Eisenhowers, people who really did something beside politics.

Anyway, these fuckers can be dangerous.  They sell all sorts of bullshit, and they have to be watched like hawks, from the assholes in your condo assn, all the way right up to the Pres, because you can't just take your business elsewhere, you know?

I don't blame you for taking your trike off somewhere.  But to think that you can safely turn your back on politics is IMHO misconceived.

-- Modified on 10/15/2006 1:15:15 PM

an economic, small government conservative except for the economic, small government part.

would a lib support the common law statutes of frauds?

Or is that excessive govt regulation?  What sort of lying would a lib object to?  Is it OK to go on TV and say a product is wonderful and makes your teeth white, without describing what conditions are necessary to be the 50% that it works on?  Or that it makes your teeth white because it's fucking oil paint, or chlorine bleach?

I don't give a shit about an ideology.  What I'm concerned with is specific problems.  The problem with most ideologues, AND ESPCIALLY LIBS, is that they develop their ideologies from frustration born of poor social skills, sitting in some ivory tower while the rest of us are trying to live and work.   They'd be a hell of a lot better off, and we'd have more trees, if they'd work for a living instead.