tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718338093102084116.post3197462990335457555..comments2023-05-15T06:53:23.161-04:00Comments on Trans-Cendence: A Clarion Call to Democrats - we need a clear, articulate program!Joann Prinzivallihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08273374659694014340noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718338093102084116.post-12061590862040051802010-09-19T17:28:28.244-04:002010-09-19T17:28:28.244-04:00Eric,
You might be surprised at how much we have ...Eric,<br /><br />You might be surprised at how much we have in common. <br /><br />For the moment, let's set aside the issue of what constitutes "special rights for gays." I am sure we can have a separate conversation on that - I don't know of a single legislative proposal that creates <em>special</em> rights for gays. However, what I see in that comment is perhaps more an artifact of your accommodation with your party's social conservative wing.<br /><br />Take a look at the Democratic Freedom Caucus link in my blog essay, and compare it to what you wrote. From a libertarian standpoint, Democratic libertarians and Republican libertarians have more in common with each other, than we have with our respective party mainstreams - we just choose to make different compromises.<br /><br />Personally, I think Barry Goldwater would be condemned as a "liberal" by the current crop of mainstream Republicans, who wouldn't understand the "small l" liberal concept if it bit them in the nose. The Eisenhowers and Nixons of the past are about where the Clintons and Obamas are today - and the mainstream Republicans consider them "socialists."<br /><br />So I compromise with the moderate democrats you may see as "liberal" and "socialist" while you compromise with the Christianist social conservatives and neo-cons, who I see as "oppressors" and "fascists."<br /><br />It's not just abortion and LGBT civil rights.<br /><br />So, are you implying that you agree with, or at least turn a blind eye toward, social conservatives and neo-cons on civil liberties (and other) issues like:<br /><br />- favoring prayer in public schools<br />- invading and occupying countries that did not attack the US?<br />- The civil liberties attacked, limited and restricted by the USA PATRIOT and REAL ID Acts?<br />- imposing a Christianist Shariah?<br />- special rights for heterosexuals?<br />- criminalizing private relationships?<br />- restricting religious liberty for non-Christians<br />- supporting the "tyranny of the majority" when it creates special restrictions for minorities<br />- forcing some men to use women's rest rooms and showers? <br /><br />Women's reproductive rights may not impact you personally - considering that I am a transsexual woman, it does not impact me personally, either. <br /><br />I think we each make some compromises with our respective "mainstreams" and we each would like to have more influence over the direction our parties take. <br /><br />I think there is less danger from social liberals than from social conservatives. I fear "a little bit" of fascism far more than I fear "a little bit" of socialism. <br /><br />Then again, as a transsexual lesbian, I'm already treated as less-than-equal in American society, and I have much more to lose from the fascist than the socialist approach. If you fit in with the mainstream in other ways, it's easier to compromise with the "evil" that would marginalize me more.<br /><br />Given the size of the libertarian movement in Republican circles, I would be surprised if you did not know Cliff Thies - give him my warmest regards!Joann Prinzivallihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08273374659694014340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718338093102084116.post-32628228730632512032010-09-19T08:37:28.112-04:002010-09-19T08:37:28.112-04:00You make the mistake of assuming that civil libert...You make the mistake of assuming that civil liberties issues applies only to abortion and gay rights. Yes, we libetarians agree with liberals on those two issues to some extent, though we are against government funding for abortion, and most certainly against special rights for gays which they seem to be pushing for these days.<br /><br />Civil liberties encompasses other issues like seat belt laws, smoking bans, lowering the drinking age to 18, ending selective service along with opposing any calls for mandatory national service, opposing trans fats bans and bans on sugary sodas, and opposing efforts such as those from Muslim communities in the U.S. to ban liqour stores. <br /><br />How do liberals stand on these Nanny-state issues? Not well. Liberals are on the side of big government in all of these instances, and it is the conservatives who support civil liberties. Yes, conservatives don't care about these issues like we libertarians do. But when pressed they side with their longtime libertarian allies against the liberals. <br /><br />So, in sum, libertarians and liberals agree halfway on a total of two civil liberties issues - abortion and gay rights. And with conservatives on just about every other civil liberties issue.<br /><br />Why would we libertarians, particularly us libertarian Republicans want to side with liberals? Run that by me again?<br /><br />Eric Dondero, Publisher<br />LibertarianRepublican.net<br /><br />P.S. Abortion has no impact on my life. But I do drive. And seat belt laws, have an enormous direct impact on me. Help us libertarians to repeal seat belt laws nationwide, and then maybe we'll think about some sort of alliance with you liberals.Eric Donderohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02763399145451696076noreply@blogger.com