Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Libertarians and Liberals should be friends

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 3:29 a.m. EST by MerchantofLight (46) from Chicago, IL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It is true, Liberals and Libertarians seem inherently opposed. Yet beneath that opposition we find a common desire, to protect the people.

The Liberal wants to protect the people from oppression, from exploitation, from social injustice, from unanticipated disaster and, in some cases, from themselves.

The Libertarian wants to protect the people from government.

Yes, these are essentially polar opposites, but they are united by that very polarity. Libertarians are the natural counterbalance to Liberals.

Yet one thing should unite you two more than anything, and that is loathing for the Republican party. By contrast the Republican party does not share the desire that unites Libertarians and Liberals, the desire to protect the people. This is not to say that those the Republican's protect aren't people, just that there aren't enough of them to warrant the definite article. Republicans are acutely aware of this fact, that's why they call themselves the Government of the People, sort of like a used car salesman who sells lemons will call his dealership "Quality Auto."

Moreover, the Republican party has no place on the axis that both divides and unites Libertarians and Liberals. Theirs is a policy of opportunism and expedience, and they have twisted many a noble endeavor to serve the desires of the few, rather than the needs of the many (see the Tea Party). Besides these condemnations, it is almost superfluous to note that the GOP is a corpulent plutocracy, a tumor on the body politic, and devoid of any of the morals it attempts to lord over its opponents.

Of course Liberals don't come off smelling so rosy either. With a fiend for a nemesis, Liberals need only play the victim to win all the support they require. Yet this passive aggressive politics is not progressive, but defensive. It does not move, it does not change and adapt, because it does not have to compete. The result is political stagnation, in which failed programs are maintained and protected rather than adapted and changed. The constant fear is that the Republicans are going to come and take (blank) away, and the Republicans play the role quite nicely, considering they have no intention of doing away with programs that make them so much money.

The current political balance resembles nothing so much as an estranged marriage between a bloated hysterical mother and a miserly cunning old bastard. The old bastard does something horrible, the mother screams "What about the chilldren?!" and bursts into tears, and nothing gets resolved. The old bastard gets angrier and more miserly, perhaps he even starts going to church, in an attempt to gain the moral high ground. The mother stays plopped on the same position, and gets fatter and fatter as more of the children huddle beneath her protective arm. She's fine with that, because when more people depend on her, more people defend her and protect her. But the old bastard is at his wits end, because the money is running out, and he can't get the fat ass to budge. He wants to go his own way but he can't because [AND HERES THE IMPORTANT PART] whatever their quarrels during the day, he's in bed with the old bitch.

Liberals, aren't you ready for a worthy, noble opponent? Someone who actually challenges your right to speak for The People. Someone who makes the party get off her ass, lose some weight, and start DOING something again. I assure you, so long as your enemy remains the Republicans, your Democratic leaders will continue to disappoint.

Libertarians, are you not tired of Republicans hijacking your ideas for their own nefarious purposes, dragging your high ideals through the mud, or hiding their theft and greed behind a supposed concern for the constitution? Does it not disgust you? Just look what they did to the Tea Party. Such high hopes, dashed. (Kinda how many Liberals feel about Obama.)

This lopsided system won't repair itself. The Country NEEDS its Libertarian element. It has been an essential part of our nation since its founding. Republicans have failed on that count, as they have on so many others. Their failure has led to an indolence on the part of Democrats, and the people they strive to serve are suffering from their ineptitude.

Thus, if we must have a two party system, let it be Liberals Vs Libertarians. The similarity in names might cause some confusion, but it can't be any more befuddling than what currently passes for political debate in this country, which more closely resembles a school yard shouting match.

6 Comments

6 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 11 years ago

Why does Romney lie about a dead priest?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/mary-jo-kopechne-and-leola-anderson-rest-in-peace/

Monseigneur Albert Marie, a vehicular manslaughter in 1968, and the victim: Mrs. Leola Anderson.

Amazing the lies that Romney and his crew can generate.

[-] 1 points by joe (8) 12 years ago

These labels are really a big part of the problem. They create false dualities which reduce complexity into something ultra-simplistic. All reinforced by our media, which needs 30-second soundbites and can't bear to delve into complex issues. These labels are meant to divide, and we need to find ways to unite. That's not to say that there aren't legitimate differences of opinion, just that throwing these labels around closes our minds and boxes people into to fixed ideologies.

[-] 1 points by meanmckean (51) 12 years ago

I agree, and I'll do you one better.

Liberals, Libertarians, Unions, Democrats, Republicans even Tea Partiers should be friends. Make no man your enemy, and every man your friend. Allow the free exchange of ideas and information without reliving the past and demeaning any single person regardless of how much they agree with you or disagree.

Let the legitimacy of your message win over the hearts and minds of your fellow man. Keep your discourse civil and your actions above reproach at all cost.

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 12 years ago

"The Liberal wants to protect the people from oppression, from exploitation, from social injustice, from unanticipated disaster and, in some cases, from themselves."

How are you going to protect me from myself. Tell me I can't smoke, tell me what to eat, tell me how much sleep I need. Liberal and libertarian are vastly different bud.

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 12 years ago

"It is true, Liberals and Libertarians seem inherently opposed. Yet beneath that opposition we find a common desire, to protect the people."

Wrong right off the bat. Libertarians don't want to 'protect the people.' They want to be left the fu*k alone to protects themselves and their neighbors, family, and friends.

[-] 0 points by OccNoVi (415) 11 years ago

The Liberal is willing to accept a broad rule of law, in part because he knows that the nature of mankind includes a significant percentage of dangerous Personality Disorder-afflicted adults. Indeed, on the numbers, we must be protected from ourselves.

Libertarianism is largely constructed on abstractions. If you like Rousseau and the Romantics then you will be tempted by the Libertarians.

For myself, the arguments of Voltaire and La Rochefoucauld are a stronger base for a just civilization.

Meanwhile, in the details, let's not forget Mary Jo Kopechne and Leola Anderson. Bad driving kills under either philosophy.

-- occupywallst dot org /forum/mary-jo-kopechne-and-leola-anderson-rest-in-peace/ -- for the details connecting these accidents.