so is the Democratic party a new type of Libertarian?

It's supposed to be the Democratic party, right?

So who cares if one of the candidates bashes on Democratic candidates, constituencies, and viewpoints?

Nobody can really say Obama is a Libertarian proper. But he sure inspires the argument.

Something to think about when you are watching events play out - if this group gets to take over, where will the Democrats go?

Just for the record, I'm opposed because real Democrats stand for the little guy - a fair chance for the underrepresented, including but not limited to the working class, the disabled, racial minorities, GLBT, religious minorities, etc. We work together to make this a good place for all of us. We establish that all human beings are entitled to a certain level of decent treatment - minimum wage, safety concerns in buildings and in workplaces, rights before the law, the minimums that keep everyone above the line where serious abuse starts. We reject survival of the fittest, because that means there's nothing wrong with slavery (whether it's racial, sex trafficking, or fundamentalist-style polygamy). We recognize not only freedom to do what you want when it benefits affluent white men, but also the freedom to guard your own interests when freedom means the freedom to organize, to march, to boycott, to picket, and to engage in other collective actions.


That's the difference between a version of "freedom" that grants virtually unlimited power to affluent men, vs. a version of "freedom" that includes everyone.

Because when one group wants to exploit another group, you can't have freedom for all. You can have freedom for this group or freedom for that group, but not both. Freedom becomes a zero-sum game.

Or, to put it another way, you could say Libertarianism stands for anti-collective action. If you think you ought to be free to guard your own interests any way you want, then what Libertarianism offers is a restriction of your freedom, not more freedom. For most people, Libertarianism takes away more freedom than it grants. (And that is not even mentioning the fact that the overwhelming majority of people will be either disabled or elderly at some point in their lives, and Libertarianism opposes the social thinking that makes human beings feel obligated to take care of the less fortunate.)

But they're their own party, and they're welcome to believe what they like. It's when the Democratic candidates start talking about universal health care as a bad thing that I start getting concerned.

You can't come into the Democratic party and bash the whole notion of the welfare state without challenging this notion. We want universal health care. We don't want social security made optional. If you have a problem with that, may I recommend the Libertarian party - you know, the one the Libertarians with their awesome "each man for himself" attitude has built up to such huge and impressive levels of organization.

Yeah - funny, huh? The guys who hate working together toward the common good would like to appropriate us to do their "working together".

Not that I for one moment feel that real Libertarians have anything to do with this. There seems to be some sort of mushy new "Libertarian lite" philosophy that Obama is spearheading.

"Kos Libertarians" ?!

Or, of course, he could just be a GOP plant, here to wreck the party. (If so, he's done well.)