4 ms·

Potential tangent, but it annoys and amazes me in equal measure how self professed liberals always seemingly have an axe to grind about libertarianism. This als

Potential tangent, but it annoys and amazes me in equal measure how self professed liberals always seemingly have an axe to grind about libertarianism. This also relates to people accusing the actions of someone else as "ideological" as if their own are not. Ultimately things like this remind me of Matt Stone's "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."

jnbiche 12y ago
Since I left the Democratic party 5 years ago, and ceased considering myself a "liberal" about 3-4 years ago, I've become increasingly aware at how exclusionist and provincial most liberals -- particularly liberal Democrats -- are about other political ideologies. I find it very interesting that even though many libertarians have more in common with civil libertarian liberals than they do with big government conservatives, only the former treat libertarians as an anathama to humanity, and stereotype every libertarian as some kind of Ayn Rand acolyte (few of the libertarians I know care much for Ayn Rand). Ultimately, that kind of failure to find common bonds holds back political progress for us all. But it's become pretty clear to me that liberals are more interested in supporting their "team" than in making political progress for the average struggling American. And yes, I know this rant doesn't belong on HN. I'll take my lumps without complaint.
- gjtorikian 12y ago
  I'm a fervent leftist--I don't know if "liberal" is the right word--and I've long since abandoned the notion that US Democratic party is a group that speaks on behalf of my interests. If it helps, I cherish this clip of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader discussing their similarities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3-YoVPckk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3-YoVPckk That it's on CNN and Wolf Blitzer is just an inconsiderate ass is just the cherry on top to the larger point: you can have people from "different groups" that share some strong ideas. Personally I'd love it if both groups of people concentrated on their similarities over their differences to topple the status quo. After that we can quibble on the smaller issues. A single regime for a considerable length of time is rarely, if ever, a good idea.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I'm not sure why that's surprising to you. One characteristic that's common to both mainstream conservatives and mainstream liberals, though heavily more emphasized in the latter, is the deeply-held belief that government exists not just to create and enforce laws, but to establish and enforce social norms. Of course, one side wants to promote social norms discouraging racism and sexism, and the other side wants to promote social norms discouraging drug use, but they are on the same page about whether it's legitimate for government to be getting involved in any of that. Libertarians almost universally reject the idea that government should be in the business of promoting social norms, which is distressing to liberals and conservatives alike. Conservatives, however, tend to get along with libertarians to the extent that even if they disagree on the function of government, they often desire the same ends. Lower taxes, less business regulation, etc. Liberals, on the other hand, don't even share common ends with libertarians, with the exception of a few niche issues like civil liberties. Libertarians don't have a recipe for how limited government will end sexism in corporate America or fix the educational gap between black and white children. Worse of all, libertarians attack the very principles underling cherished liberal policies. Take, for example, the Civil Rights Act. I imagine very few libertarians would disagree with the goal of eliminating racism in commerce, but the means Congress used to achieve it was pretty anti-libertarian: sweeping interpretation of the Commerce Power to regulate very personal sorts of private conduct. If you own a restaurant, and so much as a potato traded in interstate commerce end up in your soup, Congress gets to tell you who you have to invite into your private establishment.[1] [1] Libertarians and liberals alike cite with disdain Gonzales v. Raich, where the Supreme Court held that growing marijuana fell within the Commerce Power because the drug trade involves interstate commerce. Nobody mentions Daniel v. Paul, a case where the Supreme Court held that a recreational park in Little Rock (located about as far from an interstate border as you can get in Arkansas), had to serve black people because, among other things, "three of the four food items sold at the snack bar contain ingredients originating outside of the State."
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Of course, one side wants to promote social norms discouraging racism and sexism, and the other side wants to promote social norms discouraging drug use I don't think it's at all fair to call racism and sexism, which have actual victims, "social norms" of the same category as opposition to (or support of) drug use.
makomk 12y ago
It really annoyed me after the Michael Brown shooting. That got a huge amount of libertarian attention right from the start, and then a day or two later a whole bunch of left-wing liberals found out about it and immediately accused libertarians - who, remember, had been yelling their heads off about it - of not talking about the shooting, arguing that this proved libertarians were really just racists who didn't care about government violence at all. In some cases this was literally the first thing they said about it; they cared more about attacking libertarians for supposedly not caring about the shooting than they did the shooting itself.
- cpursley 12y ago
  Yup, libertarians have being saying for years that there is an unequal distribution of "justice" towards those with brown skin and that the militarization of local police is dangerous territory. People, especially on the left, mischaracterize libertarians as racists who don't want to pay taxes and then the right thinks we're tin foil hat wearing pacifists ready to surrender to the jihadists.
  - schuman 12y ago
    If HN was anything other than a shithole, dang would blackhole all this whiny shit about how hard libertarians have it, and how evil all liberals are. Fortunately for y'all dang is a piece of shit who loves toxic shit on HN.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

jnbiche 12y ago

Since I left the Democratic party 5 years ago, and ceased considering myself a "liberal" about 3-4 years ago, I've become increasingly aware at how exclusionist and provincial most liberals -- particularly liberal Democrats -- are about other political ideologies. I find it very interesting that even though many libertarians have more in common with civil libertarian liberals than they do with big government conservatives, only the former treat libertarians as an anathama to humanity, and stereotype every libertarian as some kind of Ayn Rand acolyte (few of the libertarians I know care much for Ayn Rand). Ultimately, that kind of failure to find common bonds holds back political progress for us all. But it's become pretty clear to me that liberals are more interested in supporting their "team" than in making political progress for the average struggling American. And yes, I know this rant doesn't belong on HN. I'll take my lumps without complaint.

gjtorikian 12y ago
I'm a fervent leftist--I don't know if "liberal" is the right word--and I've long since abandoned the notion that US Democratic party is a group that speaks on behalf of my interests. If it helps, I cherish this clip of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader discussing their similarities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3-YoVPckk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3-YoVPckk That it's on CNN and Wolf Blitzer is just an inconsiderate ass is just the cherry on top to the larger point: you can have people from "different groups" that share some strong ideas. Personally I'd love it if both groups of people concentrated on their similarities over their differences to topple the status quo. After that we can quibble on the smaller issues. A single regime for a considerable length of time is rarely, if ever, a good idea.
rayiner 12y ago
I'm not sure why that's surprising to you. One characteristic that's common to both mainstream conservatives and mainstream liberals, though heavily more emphasized in the latter, is the deeply-held belief that government exists not just to create and enforce laws, but to establish and enforce social norms. Of course, one side wants to promote social norms discouraging racism and sexism, and the other side wants to promote social norms discouraging drug use, but they are on the same page about whether it's legitimate for government to be getting involved in any of that. Libertarians almost universally reject the idea that government should be in the business of promoting social norms, which is distressing to liberals and conservatives alike. Conservatives, however, tend to get along with libertarians to the extent that even if they disagree on the function of government, they often desire the same ends. Lower taxes, less business regulation, etc. Liberals, on the other hand, don't even share common ends with libertarians, with the exception of a few niche issues like civil liberties. Libertarians don't have a recipe for how limited government will end sexism in corporate America or fix the educational gap between black and white children. Worse of all, libertarians attack the very principles underling cherished liberal policies. Take, for example, the Civil Rights Act. I imagine very few libertarians would disagree with the goal of eliminating racism in commerce, but the means Congress used to achieve it was pretty anti-libertarian: sweeping interpretation of the Commerce Power to regulate very personal sorts of private conduct. If you own a restaurant, and so much as a potato traded in interstate commerce end up in your soup, Congress gets to tell you who you have to invite into your private establishment.[1] [1] Libertarians and liberals alike cite with disdain Gonzales v. Raich, where the Supreme Court held that growing marijuana fell within the Commerce Power because the drug trade involves interstate commerce. Nobody mentions Daniel v. Paul, a case where the Supreme Court held that a recreational park in Little Rock (located about as far from an interstate border as you can get in Arkansas), had to serve black people because, among other things, "three of the four food items sold at the snack bar contain ingredients originating outside of the State."
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Of course, one side wants to promote social norms discouraging racism and sexism, and the other side wants to promote social norms discouraging drug use I don't think it's at all fair to call racism and sexism, which have actual victims, "social norms" of the same category as opposition to (or support of) drug use.

makomk 12y ago

It really annoyed me after the Michael Brown shooting. That got a huge amount of libertarian attention right from the start, and then a day or two later a whole bunch of left-wing liberals found out about it and immediately accused libertarians - who, remember, had been yelling their heads off about it - of not talking about the shooting, arguing that this proved libertarians were really just racists who didn't care about government violence at all. In some cases this was literally the first thing they said about it; they cared more about attacking libertarians for supposedly not caring about the shooting than they did the shooting itself.

cpursley 12y ago
Yup, libertarians have being saying for years that there is an unequal distribution of "justice" towards those with brown skin and that the militarization of local police is dangerous territory. People, especially on the left, mischaracterize libertarians as racists who don't want to pay taxes and then the right thinks we're tin foil hat wearing pacifists ready to surrender to the jihadists.
- schuman 12y ago
  If HN was anything other than a shithole, dang would blackhole all this whiny shit about how hard libertarians have it, and how evil all liberals are. Fortunately for y'all dang is a piece of shit who loves toxic shit on HN.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]