Talk:Democratic Freedom Caucus

From dKosopedia

1 Discussion of a DFC FAQ
2 Who is the Democratic Freedom Caucus?
3 Talk page ettiquette
4 FAQ and "complaints" suggestions
5 Notes
6 Page update
7 Comment from critic

Discussion of a DFC FAQ

On this thread ("Understanding and Defining Left-Libertarian Ideals in a better Dem Party. cont..."), we determined that an FAQ would be handy to deal with the frequent objections of anti-libertarians.

Ideally, this would be a section of the main Democratic Freedom Caucus article, called "Frequent Objections", where the frequent objections to reaching out to small "l" libertarians would be addressed. -- RobLa 00:55, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

Ok, I have an account now. Now what? -- Ztn 12:12, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

I would like to pitch in here and imagine Logan would too. We have done some definition work on FreedomDemocrats.org, but I can't seem to find our original work. As for what we should put down, we could just list the responses to the most egregious questions/statements about libertarianism posted on DKos. Alternatively, we could make a quickie primer outlining the libertarian left's core values. --Robot.economist 13:03, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

There is already a Libertarian wiki. It is nearly defunct but it does exist and would be an excellent place for true-believers in God the Market to chat. BartFraden. May 17, 2006.

We're here (at least, I'm here) as a Democrat looking to emphasize the some aspects of the Democratic party platform, not as a big "L" Libertarian. Given that readers of Daily Kos are our target audience for these materials, it seems most appropriate to develop them here, rather than on a "Libertarian" wiki. -- RobLa 15:02, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

I think it would be good to build from the bottom up...starting with a broad Q&A's and then working up into specific issues and WHY it is our position. This is Ztn, my name and time didn't come up on my page...not sure about others.

Ztn, glad to see you made the jump over. Any time you want to sign your name, just put four tildes in a row (~~~~), and the wiki software will convert it to your name and date (or just three tildes for your name). -- RobLa 14:53, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

If Logan has no problem with it, the "about us" page from www.freedomdemocrats.org is a great, broad answer to an obvious general question:

Who is the Democratic Freedom Caucus?

We are Democrats forging a new message of freedom for the Democratic Party.

We believe strongly in the roots of liberalism, a word that originates from the Latin liber which means "free."

We believe in personal liberty, the freedom from all forms of oppression.

We believe in political liberty, the freedom of a political process that is democratic and accountable to the people.

We believe in economic liberty, the freedom of a marketplace of individuals involved in trade and competition free from state coercion.

We believe in social liberty, the freedom of a culture where individuals live as they wish by setting their own moral compass.

We stand for an Inclusive Democratic Commonwealth. America is home to a rich diversity of religions, races, and ethnicities. We believe in a Democratic Party that serves as a big tent political party for a big tent nation. Americans are entitled to the same fundamental rights and liberties regardless of religion, gender, race or sexual orientation.

We are to be treated as equals in the governing process; each person has a vote of equal worth. Democracy gives everyone a chance to be heard and have a say in the decisions that will impact them.

This government, based on the consent of the people, is designed to protect the rights and liberties of the people and to protect and promote the common good. While believing that government is best which governs the least, we recognize certain spheres where all individuals have equal claim. The government must work to recognize and respect the property rights of individuals to these commons.

Through these actions, the Inclusive Democratic Commonwealth stands in contrast to a vision of an Exclusive Corporatist State in which the government primarily acts to divide the people against each other in order to benefit the few within an inner circle of wealth and power.

We are Freedom Democrats. If you're committed, or even just curious, that's enough. Join us!

Reclaiming the Left by Thomas Knapp

Thomas Knapp ( http://www.knappster.blogspot.com/ ) addresses email and blog comments in an article posted on Free Market News last week. Here’s what he says to a correspondent who questions the term “Left Libertarian”:

The left/right dichotomy, of course, has served as a source of irritation to libertarians for many years. As that dichotomy has evolved in various, seemingly contradictory directions, its associated scale has become less and less relevant to libertarians — we seem torn between a “rightward” direction on economics and a “leftward” direction on civil liberties...except, of course, when the “right” happens to be imposing economic controls or the “left” seems to be advocating censorship.

Nonetheless, I believe that a plausible case can be made for placing libertarianism historically on the political “left” and for a libertarian reclamation of “left” values and the “left” banner. My observations as to the current state of the “libertarian left” are as follows:

The split between “socialist” or “communist” anarchists and “market” anarchists has a long history; however, that breach seems to be healing somewhat as “market” anarchists find their nominal allies on the right moving away from economic freedom as a value while leaning ever further toward the authoritarian in other realms. As time goes on, market anarchists find their nominal position on the political right less and less tenable — and there seem to be some indications that their fellow anarchists are becoming more amenable to market ideas. Fusionism may yet deliver some mix of the Rothbardian and Konkinite visions. Within the realm of state political action, the right has similarly continued down the authoritarian road it was always on, while throwing its formerly free-market rhetoric overboard. The failure of the right to deliver when in power has created an opportune space in which the left may examine — and hopefully purge — its own authoritarian contaminations while also reconsidering its economic orientation. Is it likely that the “libertarian left” will find itself populated to some degree by people of various degrees of statist orientation? Absolutely. The same is, and has always been, true of the Libertarian Party and the “libertarian right.” However, the left impulse is anti-authoritarian and the right impulse is authoritarian. For that reason, it is the left which has at hand the tools to correct its course — the right is lost to us at least for the moment, and has never been fit as a long-term anti-authoritarian vessel in any case.

As in any other sphere of human interaction, there are no guarantees in politics. However, I believe that a robust, anti-statist, anti-authoritarian, libertarian left can be built and that it can fulfill vital needs within the freedom movement.

Talk page ettiquette

Those of you who are new to wiki editing should probably take a sec and read up a little on talk page ettiquette. Since dKosopedia uses the same software as Wikipedia, the Talk page instructions from Wikipedia are pretty much all applicable here. -- RobLa 15:29, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

Is that referring to my entries? Are these ideas not what you had in mind?Ztn 15:50, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

Not you specificially....it's just that this page is becoming a little unwieldy, and I know there are beginners here, so I thought it'd be helpful.

One thing to note, the idea behind a "talk" (or "discussion") page is to discuss the corresponding main article (see the "article" tab at the top of the page). So, rather than entering proposed text, you should probably just "be bold" (see the Wikipedia "Be bold" article), and edit the main article.

I need to follow my own advice and do some of what I'm envisioning. -- RobLa 15:58, 17 May 2006 (PDT)

FAQ and "complaints" suggestions

What is Left-Libertarianism?
In its simplest form (as a first order normative doctrine), the libertarian left has two core beliefs: (1) the self-ownership of all agents (individuals and groups) and (2) the egalitarian ownership of all natural resources. Beyond these two common principles, left-libertarianism has evolved into many complex political doctrines, such as mutualism, geolibertarianism, and libertarian socialism. Most of these political beliefs emphasize very limited governance, taxation based on natural resource exploitation, scepticism of government rights monopolies (including patents, copyrights, and trademarks), and the free global flow of goods, capital and individuals. --Robot.economist 07:07, 19 May 2006 (PDT)
Libertarianism can't work. People need help!
To a certain degree, libertarians do believe that government's should help their citizens. Libertarians believe the state's role in the economy and society is to ensure a minimum equality of opportunity for all citizens. In contrast, socialists and populists believe the state should intervene to ensure a equality of result. --Robot.economist 07:18, 21 May 2006 (PDT)
Free Markets are unfair. It will lead to inequality!
The extreme economic inequality of today's society (and thoughout American history) is the result of government policy, such as pro-business policies, granting monopoly rights to the wealthy, and interfering with worker self-organization.Adamr
Absolute equality of wealth is neither achievable nor desirable (we don't want everyone to be the same), but wealth should be limited to what a person earns with his own labor, not by exploiting the labor of others.Adamr 13:53, 22 May 2006 (PDT)
Heavy regulation is needed to ensure fairness!
(answer here)
Limited goverment will put the poor at a disadvantage.
The government is of, for, and by the rich. Voting for representatives is not preciese enough to allow the common people to control a complex government.Adamr 13:53, 22 May 2006 (PDT)
Isn't this Republican-lite?
Heck no!
1. This (Freedom Democrats) isn't a political strategy--it is a vision for America emerging from a long-standing ideological tradition (Left-libertarianism).Adamr
2. Our core concerns are the same as those of the Democratic party. Adamr
  1. Economic reforms should benefit the poor: cut taxes from the bottom up. Move towards a citizen's dividend. Remove taxes and restrictions on labor. Never eliminate a program that helps the poor except when it is replaced by a more effective program. Adamr
  2. End all discrimination on the basis of sex.Adamr
3. For every way in which we disagree with others groups in the Democratic Party, we disagree with the Republicans in two ways!Adamr 13:53, 22 May 2006 (PDT)
Libertarians are nothing but tools of the wealthy!
(answer here)
Libertarians regard human rights as emanating from property rights.
Actually, property rights are valid only to the extent that they promote life and liberty.Adamr 13:53, 22 May 2006 (PDT)
Free markets invariably lead to tiny aristocracies and enormous underclasses.
(answer here)
Libertarians essentially think taxation should be stopped not made more fair.
(answer here)
truly free markets are no better than the bungled up system we have now. The markets have to be regulated, or they oscillate wildly out of control. Libertarianism, as I understand it, allows for a free market with virtually no regulation whatsoever. No thanks!
Coordination and regulation is allowed, and encouraged, but it must be voluntary.Adamr 13:53, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Might we want to think about moving this sort of discussion to another page? I think we've fleshed out the DFC's article a lot, but for a deeper discussion of a general philosophy and outlook I'd suggest maybe a different article. Perhaps one on left-libertarianism.--LoganFerree 07:36, 24 May 2006 (PDT)

Notes

See Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka, "Why Left-Libertarianism is not Incoherent, Indeterminate or Irrelevant," Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 2 (2005) for an excellent primer on left-libertarian philosophy.

Logan's Comments- I'd be interested in knowing who suggested this essay, it's very good.

Page update

Logan's Comments-I've just updated the article page with more detail. In particular I talk about the conflict with the RLC, our support for unique policies like the Citizen's Dividends and LVT, and more information on candidates we like. -- 00:48, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Comment from critic

Does "a culture where individuals live as they wish by setting their own moral compass" mean the freedom to run a dog fighing ring, the freedom to force your employees to attend to same church as you or risk being fired, or the freedom to develop property when it causes a species to go extinct? We already live in a culture sick with obscene selfishness. The Republican Party and the Libertarian Party already exist. -- (unsigned comment from MarcusVick'sEvilTwin - 00:48, 19 May 2006 (PDT))

Logan's Comments-Some thoughts. For people like the idiot above, we might want to make clear some of our opinions on natural resources. I've seen many link anything libertarian at all with the extremists out West who oppose any regulations on the use of land. Despite attempts to talk about the earth as a commons, this doesn't seem to get through the thick skull of some people. We need to be clearer. -- 00:48, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Here's another thought for you. Calling people "idiots" without engaging their ideas is not terribly helpful. Exactly how would you deal with the sort of difficult policy problems presented when individual economic decisions generate nasty externalities like cruelty to animals, etc? BartFraden. May 19, 2006.

If you consider a comment to be "trolling", it's best to ignore it. Adamr 13:29, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

Hmmm...so asking a reasonable question is trolling? Here is another question: Have you noticed the ironic parallel between ignoring reasonable questions about externalities and ignoring the externalities themselves? BartFraden. May 23, 2006.

Logan's Comments-BartFraden, you have a good point about the question on externalities, however I have yet to see an argument that animal cruelty is an externality. More importantly, by claiming that our view ignores externalities you indicate that you have not even taken the time to familarize yourself with the views of the organziation--The Democratic Freedom Caucus. Until you put forth an effort to actually read that is already out there about the organization I don't see any reason to put forth an effort to interact with you.

That would make it what...a triple irony? The externality itself is being is being ignored, the reasonable question is being ignored, and one person asking the reasonable question is being ignored. Congratulations, that's the trifecta of ideological denial. Authoritarian regimes work for decades to indoctrinate their victims with attitude sets like that and sometimes they fail. Logan, I am going to keep on interacting with you; the keys with continue to jangle in front of your mental cage. All you have to do is reach one of your monkey paws through the bars and grasp the keys. Take the keys Logan and unlock on your own cage door. Come on out and see what it is like not to be banged up in an ideology that alienates you from the real world.

As a strong supporter of the Great Ape Project and all groups that push to end the cruelty toward our primate brothers, I find your allusions to the caging of monkeys to be offensive. ;-) You have no idea the type of person you are dealing with. The fact of the matter is that I don't find much in the way of how to address animal cruelty in any political ideology, liberalism, libertarianism, or conservatism. I support the strategy of Steven M. Wise in trying to use the legal system to argue for some degree of rights for animals, more rights for animals that approach closer levels to personhood in their mental capacity. Now will you tell me how liberalism addresses the externality caused by animal cruelty? Just how do you argue that animal cruelty is an externality?--LoganFerree 14:33, 24 May 2006 (PDT)

What a wonderful question! The OED instructs us that an externality is, "a side-effect or consequence (of an industrial or commercial activity) which affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved." The physical pain and psycholoigcal suffering experienced by animals subjected to scientific/industral testing or to blood sports is such a cost. BartFraden. May 25, 2006.

FYI, an animal rights blog post

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocratic_Freedom_Caucus_f546.html"

This page was last modified 06:01, 18 June 2006 by ricketson. Based on work by Drew S. and John Valerio and dKosopedia user(s) BartFraden, LoganFerree, RobLa and MarcusVick'sEvilTwin. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.