The Cato Institute has a variety of people working for it with a variety of opinions.  There are people who work for Cato who have written opinions I’m sure you yourself would agree with (marriage equality, due process, foreign policy).  Maybe someone who worked for Cato said that democracy and libertarianism weren’t compatible, but there were assuredly others at Cato who disagreed with that.  Whatever the case, if you can provide a link where someone at Cato asserted that libertarianism isn’t compatible with democracy, I would appreciate it.

The best known and active libertarians today, it seems to me, are at Reason.  And I can assure you that the folks at Reason (who believe in things like environment regulation and social safety nets) don’t believe that libertarianism is incompatible with democracy.

I’m not defending an extremist ideology, you are, and I disagree, I think many examples actually do sink extreme ideologies on any side of the spectrum.

I’m not defending an extremist ideology any more than someone who defends socialized medicine is defending communism.  Pretending that libertarianism must be an “extreme ideology” is to take a very limited and biased view of the philosophy.

There are socialists who recognize flaws in state power and there are libertarians who recognize flaws in the free market.  There are folks from both sides who are unable to see those things and are more likely to be extremists.

I don’t consider myself to be a libertarian as I believe in things like universal healthcare and access to education.  But I have some beliefs that are, philosophically, libertarian.  Most people do, I think.

Why do you consider libertarianism a kind of authoritarianism? This definition…

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian

…doesn’t seem to reflect the belief in personal autonomy that defines a lot of the philosophy of libertarianism.

My actual beliefs in progressive policy are pretty easily defendable, and I can point to real, modern day examples of their implementation for proof.

I think that progressive policy and libertarian policy frequently overlap.  Marriage equality.  Prohibition.  Civil rights.  Criminal justice.  Foreign policy.

Perhaps our disagreement boils down to semantics.  What is “progressive?”  What is “libertarian?”  Maybe this is the problem.

Cato, Patri Friedman, and others for starters….  They were right for once…

Many socialists excused Stalin and Mao and Castro.  But that doesn’t condemn socialism.  It condemns the people who excuse tyranny in the name of their preferred ideology.

I’m not defending an extremist ideology, you are, and I disagree, I think many examples actually do sink extreme ideologies on any side of the spectrum. You’ll see that I’m not making an argument for communism in opposition to its opposite, but kindred spirit in terms of authoritarianism: Libertarianism.  My actual beliefs in progressive policy are pretty easily defendable, and I can point to real, modern day examples of their implementation for proof.

And can you tell me what you mean by “economic freedom?”  

If ”economic freedom” is responsible for “cementing into place political power and existing hierarchies,” how do you explain the fact that many countries with no economic freedom still had firmly fixed politcal power and hierarchies?

Which “modern libertarians” have said that “democracy and libertarianism are not compatible?”

I’m fairly familiar with the more popular libertarian writers and pundits and I’ve never, ever heard this sentiment expressed.

I know that Hayek excused Pinochet’s dictatorship and that many libertarians believe he was wrong for doing so.  Though Friedman gave lectures in Chile after the coup (the same lectures he gave in communist dictatorships), he described Pinochet’s regime as “terrible” and “despicable.”

Many socialists excused Stalin and Mao and Castro.  But that doesn’t condemn socialism.  It condemns the people who excuse tyranny in the name of their preferred ideology.

I think you’re making the same mistake that ideologues on the right make when they say exactly what you’re saying, while replacing “libertarianism” with “socialism.”

I’ll spare you a brief and embarrassing rundown of all the ways that Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and their libertarian offshoots have repeatedly by words and actions praised and excused autocracy, dictatorships etc. At least modern libertarians have the nerve to admit that democracy and libertarianism are not compatible. That’s one step closer to admitting it’s a sick fantasy.

When did he ever say that he “believed in the freedom of capital and markets over democracy and the freedom of all citizens?”

How about an employee-owned, dividend-paying company that pays decent wages? People are less likely to steal from themselves, especially when they’re making a decent wage and don’t feel like they’re being screwed by the people they’re working for.

So why was there no challenge to him from the left in the Democratic primaries?

Is there a left wing of the Democratic Party? Let me get my magnifying glass.

Subj: Fool Me Once

By 2011, it was crystal clear to even the terminally obtuse that Obama was pursuing most of the very worst policies of the Bush administration.

So why was there no challenge to him from the left in the Democratic primaries?

(Those of you who put party loyalty above principle, please tear up your Happy Mutant card forthwith).

“…(and stable end state)”

Good grief – no it isn’t! It’s a nasty downward spiral, accelerated by the refusal of the “winning capitalists” to fail.

The “early capitalism” you say I am nostalgic for is not mine: it is that of every Libertarian I have ever met. As is the nostalgia you attributed to me.

That’s easy, progressive ones do in real life.

There were probably a lot of buggy makers in 1915 waiting for the car fad to end and the horse and buggy glory days to return.

This word salad has nothing to do with manufacturing. Certain specific technologies become outmoded, but that has nothing to do with the larger need to manufacture things that being eclipsed by new technology.

Anyway, can’t believe I’m responding to this. Obvious t is obvious…

Anyone who puts money they need to survive into the stock market is a fool, and can not blame that on anyone except themselves.

Maybe you didn’t notice, but a lot of people lost what they thought were stable jobs. And “investments” includes houses, which they were paying for with the income from the jobs that they lost.

My concern would be that when 51% of the population opted for the basic guarantee, what would stop them from voting to boost that “basic” non-worker guarantee to a level above the average worker income, crashing the system.

My concern, on the other hand, is that we’re running our country based on paranoid fantasies like yours.

That’s one hell of a take-down, Cow.  

but my point was that there are rich people, and then there are high earners

Sorry, but trite, semantic arguments don’t fly with me. I’d rather face the fact that income disparity is growing (and do something about it) than squabble over your newspeak terminology.

Let me guess, you also think they should be called “job creators”? Sigh…

The problem is, those of “you who have had enough” often fail to target your angst specifically enough.

So you’re one of those who hasn’t had enough, huh? I’ve been quite specific over the years (along with many others that have “had enough”). And, sorry, this isn’t just some untargeted rebel without a cause “angst”.

I see that you’re new around here. Try lurking more and reading my previous comments and others before you rush to hasty judgement next time. I can give you a quick breakdown on who is (specifically) to blame that’s been brought up many, many times before here in boingboing.net and within its threads over the years by myself and many others who’ve “had enough”:

• The prison-industrial complex.
• The military-industrial complex. (You can educate yourself in detail here as well) – Also, are you aware that they use PSYOPS against our elected politicians and pry more money out of tax payers? Now you are.
• The absolutely sick corporatist scandal to lie to the public who DIE for their profits. (watch this until the very end and you might end up with some belated “angst” yourself)
• Wall Street and their collusion with rich corporatists is well documented. Are you not up to speed?

It’s goes on and on, but I hope this gives you enough to chew on. If you’d like to see more, read more here on the website and in the comments.

High earning WORKERS get lumped with the “rich” category despite paying very high income tax rates.

Those that are properly educated know that both the 1% and your “high earning WORKERS” (you all-CAPS emphasized) have had the lowest rates in 30 years.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/

Shall we shed some tears for them while, once again, our United States INCOME DISPARITY is worse now than in 1774?

Do you not understand the importance of income disparity? Forbes breaks it down for you in that link above.

Finally, your focus on manufacturing jobs shows you need to expand your horizons a bit.

Quit projecting. That’s just ONE aspect I gave. ALL jobs in both the private and public sector go UP with democrats. Even the holy grail of libertarian desires, the private sector.

It’s a much better question than, “Is Warren Buffet better off now than 10 years ago?”

Actually, I think that’s a fine question. He has been getting bargains from hell during this recession. Much more ridiculous value for his money.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/breaking-news/why-is-warren-buffett-hungry-for-acquisitions.html/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100460350

Since the recession, Buffet has acquired:

• 10% perpetual preferred stock of Goldman Sachs.
• Helped Dow Chemical pay for its $18.8 billion takeover of Rohm & Haas. He thus became the single largest shareholder in the enlarged group with his Berkshire Hathaway
• In 2008, Buffett became the richest man in the world. Not bad…
• In October 2008, he bought General Electric (GE) preferred stock. Received an option to buy 3 billion GE at $22.25 in the next five years, and also received a 10% dividend (callable within three years)
• In 2009, Warren Buffett acquired Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. for $34 billion in cash and stock
• On March 18, 2011, Goldman Sachs acquired Federal Reserve approval to buy back Berkshire’s preferred stock in Goldman. Buffet has been reluctant to give up the stock which averaged $1.4 million in dividends a day.
• In November 2011 he bought 64 million shares of IBM stock, worth around $11 billion. This investment raised his stake in the company to around 5.5 percent—the largest stake in IBM alongside one other.
• In May 2012, he acquired Media General, owner of 63 newspapers. It was the second news print purchase made by Buffett in one year.

Wow, too bad we’ve got a “socialist” president in office that’s hurting the rich… huh?

Obama’s more socialist approach.

Ah, now I see. This is fruitless.

The End.