I'm wondering what happened to the 1960's liberal hippie (or the 1980's version of it) who was against 'the man' and his efforts to control people?

While certainly any 'freedom' movement can be taken to extremes and not all professed libertarians ARE libertarian...

How is a modern libertarian NOT the same as the 1960's (or 80's) 'free love', 'fight the man' hippie?

Have 1960's liberals become precisely that which they protested? (1960's conservatives already were)

(07-24-2017 01:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Have 1960's liberals become precisely that which they protested?

They were against "the man" only because they themselves were not "the man" at the time.

Now that they're the aristocracy they're all fine and dandy with their boot on your throat. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

all good points that I agree with....

the hippie movement folk are now old......hmmmmmmmmmm, maybe that's why they NOW understand why they needed the "man" all along....

I've pointed out to pops over my lifetime how lucky his generation (economic opportunities/living quality) was in the history of mankind.....he now (finally) agrees....

I've simply adapted and am piggybacking off that gen's dollar and the dysfunctional millennials.....

the millennials are beyond screwed unless they have a healthy rack or brain.....and those assets aren't foolproof

Did the non-radical 1960's counter-culture care about how other people lived, raised their families and ran their businesses? Did they think that government had the power and right to impact how people did those things?

If not, then there are a lot of similarities.

I'm a firm believer in the thought that your own ideology is your greatest threat.

Once you beat "the man", you become "the man". "The man" is undisciplined and always oversteps.

(07-24-2017 03:37 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Once you beat "the man", you become "the man". "The man" is undisciplined and always oversteps.

The guys fighting "the man" always seems to turn into bullying, loud-mouthed authoritarians who are happy to see you lose your livelihood for the crime of disagreeing.

(07-24-2017 03:48 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-24-2017 03:37 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Once you beat "the man", you become "the man". "The man" is undisciplined and always oversteps.

The guys fighting "the man" always seems to turn into bullying, loud-mouthed authoritarians who are happy to see you lose your livelihood for the crime of disagreeing.

they want it to become the unmanned 24 hr dollar store.....

#FREEdum

Because you can't differentiate between fringe ideology and the ideology of the Democratic Party. Seriously you are relying on a stereotype the type of which I have never personally come across before and are asking why that isn't mainstream. Odds are that anyone who held that view in the 1970s was too trivial demographically (they don't vote) or numerically (not that big a faction).

The difference between a 1960s liberal and a libertarian is that liberals had political goals of accomplishing reform. If using govt was a tool of reform they would take that option. If resistancing the govt was a tool of reform, they would take that option.

Libertariansm is a political philosophy. It doesn't care about policy of govt, it simply wants to go about limiting the size of the govt. that's why no libertarian can claim to be pro-civil rights/environment because they want to roll back the govt's power to enforce those policies despite not being against civil rights or pro pollution. Yet their action is the same as being against civil rights/environment.

Libertarians are by no means liberal. They are nothing more than ultra-conservatives who are so partisan that they reject the hypocrisy/double standards of the GOP, but in practice couldn't be further opposing the libs on reform even on social issues.

(07-24-2017 04:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  that's why no libertarian can claim to be pro-civil rights/environment because they want to roll back the govt's power to enforce those policies despite not being against civil rights or pro pollution. Yet their action is the same as being against civil rights/environment.

Sorry you are not looking at this the right way. Once again: government cannot grant 'civil rights'. It can only abridge (or refrain from abridging) rights that are already in existence as granted to us in the Bill of Rights (or as some will argue, by our "Creator")

As such, less government means more rights. As such, libertarians are the ultimate liberals when it comes to supporting civil rights.

I know you don't agree with the philosophy, but you need to understand the philosophy.

(07-24-2017 04:10 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-24-2017 04:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  that's why no libertarian can claim to be pro-civil rights/environment because they want to roll back the govt's power to enforce those policies despite not being against civil rights or pro pollution. Yet their action is the same as being against civil rights/environment.

Sorry you are not looking at this the right way. Once again: government cannot grant 'civil rights'. It can only abridge (or refrain from abridging) rights that are already in existence as granted to us in the Bill of Rights (or as some will argue, by our "Creator")

As such, less government means more rights. As such, libertarians are the ultimate liberals when it comes to supporting civil rights.

I know you don't agree with the philosophy, but you need to understand the philosophy.

2 posts have never more clearly delineated and explained the divide.

(07-24-2017 03:48 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-24-2017 03:37 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Once you beat "the man", you become "the man". "The man" is undisciplined and always oversteps.

The guys fighting "the man" always seems to turn into bullying, loud-mouthed authoritarians who are happy to see you lose your livelihood for the crime of disagreeing.

Is it going to be any different with this group of people who fought "the man" and called him "the establishment"? I don't think it will.

I understand your perspective. I'm just telling you it is absolutely wrong. Anti-pollution measures LGBT rights, ending slavery, and the civil rights movement were all won on the federal govt expanding its authority and power. Less govt does not mean more rights. Less govt means "it's your right to not serve a black man" or "Kansas is disenfranchising voters...that's not DCs problem."

You bank on your demented and delusional take on history so it's no wonder you see this so fundamentally wrong.

(07-24-2017 04:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  You bank on your demented and delusional take on history so it's no wonder you see this so fundamentally wrong.

I swear trying to have a normal conversation with you is like trying to calm a wild horse.

Shhhhhhhhhh, easy there, easy there big fella....

Big difference between the anti-heros of the 60s and the hippies.

(07-24-2017 04:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Libertariansm is a political philosophy. It doesn't care about policy of govt, it simply wants to go about limiting the size of the govt. that's why no libertarian can claim to be pro-civil rights/environment because they want to roll back the govt's power to enforce those policies despite not being against civil rights or pro pollution. Yet their action is the same as being against civil rights/environment.

Libertarians are by no means liberal. They are nothing more than ultra-conservatives who are so partisan that they reject the hypocrisy/double standards of the GOP, but in practice couldn't be further opposing the libs on reform even on social issues.

You seem to have a poor understanding of libertarian ideas.

Libertarian ideas = classical liberal ideas.

Classical liberal ideas are not conservative. They are liberal, in the classic definition of the term. They are liberal, as defined by Adam Smith or Lysander Spooner or Ludwig von Mises or... the age of enlightenment.

(07-24-2017 04:41 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-24-2017 04:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  You bank on your demented and delusional take on history so it's no wonder you see this so fundamentally wrong.

I swear trying to have a normal conversation with you is like trying to calm a wild horse.

Shhhhhhhhhh, easy there, easy there big fella....

Well I'm sorry but it's asinine to say civil rights was won on the concept of smaller govt

John,
do you have any idea how pompous it is of you to continually tell people that they believe something they clearly don't, and that they don't believe things they clearly do and that somehow, you know better what they think and want than they do?

I was alive in the 60's and both my aunt and uncle (from each side) were hippies. They didn't give a rats ass about crafting new legislation to support the downtrodden... they simply wanted 'the man' (influenced heavily by McCarthyism and Orwell's 1984) to leave them alone and let them make their own choices. Most of them were too stoned to want to change the government. Like the modern libertarians, of course there are those who instead wanted to force their own set of values on others... like Bill Ayeres.... but those aren't the people I'm talking about... since I very clearly stated that I'm talking about Hippie liberals (as opposed to activist liberals) and TRUE libertarians (as opposed to those who have merely adopted the moniker)

(07-24-2017 05:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Well I'm sorry but it's asinine to say civil rights was won on the concept of smaller govt

who said that?

I'd say it was pretty clear that Dr King was the primary driver of civil rights in the 1960's and not Jerry Garcia or Jimi Hendrix. I haven't seen many pictures of Dr King surrounded by a bunch of hippies.


I think it pretty obvious that the reason we DIDN'T have equality is because 'the man' took those 'inalienable rights' away from certain people.

libertarians are delusional because they can't admit to what they are. "Well were liberal in the sense that you declare everything beyond the enlightenment as liberal." Okay...what does that do to change the fact that you are further on the right of the political spectrum than the GOP. Wanna know why it's called "classical liberalism" because it doesn't fit in with modern liberalism

(07-24-2017 05:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  libertarians are delusional because they can't admit to what they are. "Well were liberal in the sense that you declare everything beyond the enlightenment as liberal." Okay...what does that do to change the fact that you are further on the right of the political spectrum than the GOP. Wanna know why it's called "classical liberalism" because it doesn't fit in with modern liberalism

1) Since people on here have self-identified as libertarian, you need to be more circumspect in calling us 'delusional'. Later on you essentially call us racists... not the first time.

2) I don't see anyone making the statement you've put in quotes. Whom are you quoting? It certainly doesn't fit anything I've seen anyone say. SOmetimes people put words in quotes that actually should be italicized, but I don't see that fitting here either. Are you once again putting words into people's mouths so you can argue with what they didn't say?

3) Nope, not nearly further to the right than the GOP. I support all sorts of things they don't because it's none of the government's business.... as to the alleged things YOU claim libertarians support (like the right to NOT serve a black man)... I specifically DON'T support that, nor do any libertarians I know (and I clearly know more of them than you) and see that as a very specific and limited role of government to enforce equality.

And yes, you're exactly right and that is my point. Modern Liberalism (embodied by the DNC) has nothing to do with classic liberalism (embodied by 1960's hippies).