Faux Libertarianism?

Fauxbertarian n/t (3.33 / 6)

for transparency sake ~I represent Union print shops

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:51:06 AM CST

liberpublican (3.20 / 5)

or Republitarian.  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 10:53:12 AM CST

Republitarian! n/t (3.33 / 6)

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 10:57:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A liberty-gibbet, a will-o-the-wisp, (4.00 / 5)

a clown.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:54:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This one deserves a 10 rating. (4.00 / 3)

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 06:03:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

LiberTublican (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 13:57:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reading the right (0.00 / 0)

You have too understand when the re/cons/libertarian speak of tax cuts and getting the evil gov off of you back-----THEY ARE ONLY THINKING OF THE TOP 10%!!!
Tax cuts for the average American--perish the thought....
Deregulate little business---never happen  
Enforce fraud laws against wall street----that happens the second thursday of next week.
Tell you what to do in your own home----NO PROBLEM!

REAL AMERICANS START AT AROUND175K A YEAR----Or haven't you learned that yet??????

The Liberty Aliance is only for their liberty-----not yours!!!!!!!!!!!

---

by: tchair @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:07:47 AM CST

Well, actually... (0.00 / 0)

I help the NHLA in its Bill Review. That's the painstaking process where we read every bill and evaluate its expected effects according to pre-defined pro-liberty criteria. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't waste the time to check the submitter's party affiliation: most bill's are either pro-liberty or not.

-Tax cuts for the average American?
-Deregulate little business?
-Enforce fraud laws?
-Keep the government's nose out of your home and bedroom?

All those things are clearly and obviously pro-liberty. Why, the NHLA very consistently opposes new taxes on those earning under $175,000/yr, e.g. state income tax, sales tax, LLC/dividends tax.

A representative--Democrat or Republican--submitting bills covering the above items or voting in their favor would very likely bump the rep's NHLA score. But if he's consistently anti-liberty, that bump would make little difference in his overall NHLA score.

The NHLA's rating process is really quite simple and transparent.

B.D. Ross

---

by: rossby @ Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 23:56:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is indeed transparent. (0.00 / 0)

I downloaded the 2009 voting score card. The transparent process results in giving higher scores to every Republican Senator and lower scores to every Democrat, with the sole exception of Bob Odell, who scores a bit lower than a couple of Dems.

In short: the NHLA is effectively a tool of the New Hampshire GOP.

How does it perform this role? Easy.

The scorecard has three categories: Financial, Good Government, and Personal. The "libertarians" oppose establishing a standard contract for home improvement work as a violation of personal liberty - but take no position on marriage equality.

The NHLA is a joke.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 05:43:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not really. (0.00 / 0)

Senators? What about the 400 representatives?! You make it sound like every Republican received a higher grade than a Democrat, except for Odell. But that's just not true.

The reality of the bill submissions (and I know, as I read every one), is that many house Dems just do very poorly, repeatedly. Most often by trying to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes. Unfortunately, this brings down their scores despite the positive contributions of other personal liberty issues.

The NHLA could be a tool for the Democrats too. Just as soon as they stop trying to make the poor even poorer.

---

by: rossby @ Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 14:01:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

NHLA positions (0.00 / 0)

tchair:

The NHLA's positions on issues can all be found here on our website's forum. Each of those posts contains a PDF attachment of a handout that we distribute weekly at the State House, telling our Representatives how we want them to vote.

There are quite a few bills in there about taxes that impact everyone, regulating small businesses, and government interference in personal freedoms, where we took the pro-liberty position. No, we don't take a position on Wall Street - the NHLA is only concerned with New Hampshire and doesn't get involved in Federal laws or the laws of other states.

Just last week, we supported HB1588, a bill that would remove a $30 surcharge on vehicle registration that the state passed last year. This was a shameless money grab by the state to balance the budget, and obviously hits the poor the hardest.

We also supported HB1326, a bill to allow New Hampshire doctors to prescribe Lyme disease treatments without government interference.

This week we supported HB1278, lessening the regulation on New Hampshire's dairy farmers.

We opposed HB1679, attempting to apply a silly "sin tax" to soft drinks.

We've supported several pro-liberty bills on the marijuana issue recently, including medical marijuana, decriminalization, and a legalize/tax/regulate scheme.

Disclosure: I am the current Research Director for the NHLA.

J'raxis 270145

---

by: jraxis @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:57:05 AM CST

Thanks for chiming in (4.00 / 4)

Could you please answer the diarist's assertion?


Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:10:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure (0.00 / 0)

I've posted a couple comments below that will hopefully answer this.

J'raxis 270145

---

by: jraxis @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 13:25:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You've posted a TR that (0.00 / 0)

violates site rules here and just about everywhere else, too.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 19:27:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Welcome to (0.00 / 0)

Blue Hampshire. have you read our Getting Started page?

It says:

Rating a Comment
You have the ability to rate the comments of others.  If you read something particularly useful or insightful, you may give the author a 4 or Excellent rating. On the other hand, if you feel that a comment was written whose sole purpose is to degrade the conversation or be intentionally abusive, you may choose to give it a 0 or Troll rating, a substantial number of which will cause the comment to be hidden. A significant number of troll ratings may also result in the account being banned. Note: Troll rating a comment simply because you disagree with it is considered ratings abuse and is grounds for banning the user.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:16:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My questions still stand: (4.00 / 9)

Is the NHLA pro-choice and pro marriage equality?

If so, why did the group endorse candidates whose stated policy goals are for more government intrusion in people's private lives?

If not, how would that be consistent with the NHLA's stated goals?

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:23:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How we endorse people (4.00 / 1)

The NHLA does not take a position on abortion. If a person believes that a human fetus is a "person," in the sense of having rights, then abortion is murder - which is clearly a violation of someone's liberty. On the other hand, if a person does not consider a fetus to be such, then prohibiting abortion is a violation of the woman's right to choose to do as she wishes with her body - a violation of her liberty. There is no way to reconcile these two arguments based on logic or facts. Whether or not a fetus has rights is basically a matter of faith for those who believe so, so we just stay away from this issue.

As for marriage equality, we have not taken a position on it in the past, but there is currently a major discussion underway about this policy. We'll have a notice about this in our upcoming newsletter, which should be published on our website by this weekend.

Our endorsements are based on a purely objective calculation: Each year, we rate all the Reps and Senators on a number of roll call votes and publish the Liberty Rating showing these scores. (You can download both the PDF there, and a spreadsheet with all the data and calculations.) If a Rep scores a B or above, we endorse them.

For new Reps, where we have no grades to refer to, we send them a simple ten-question survey asking about their stands on the kinds of issues we cover. If they score 8/10 or better, we endorse them.

Some organizations disqualify Reps based on one issue regardless of their other positions, or take other factors such as public statements, activism, or bill sponsorship into account. All we look at are a few dozen roll call votes in order to determine a Rep's score.

The NHLA's stated goals are to "work to increase individual freedom." We do so by working with Reps on an issue-by-issue basis, when they're on the right side of things, and not when they're not. (We opposed a Baldasaro-sponsored bill just this week, by the way: HB1442.) We're not going to find Reps who are 100% libertarian anytime soon. But if they score high enough overall, we endorse them, because overall, they're helping us move things in the pro-liberty direction.

I hope this answers your questions, and let me know if you have any others.

J'raxis 270145

---

by: jraxis @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:54:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Washington State Libertarian Party (4.00 / 2)

endorsed the state's new, full domestic partnership law when it came under attack by a referendum last November.  

Now that they've gone on record as supporting at least separate-and-unequal status for gays, I hope they will help the state move ahead and actualize true liberty and equality for Washington's gay residents.  I hope to see them become leaders, not mousy followers.

---

by: Love Child @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 13:30:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, I disagree that (4.00 / 3)

it is possible to be for liberty while forcing a medical decision on an adult woman.

I also think that the marriage equality issue is one of freedom in a most basic way.

As long as the NHLA does not take a "libertarian" stand on those two issues, while I agree with some of the group's stances, I do not think that it can rightfully be said to be for liberty for all.

Also, the pledge of allegiance ends with "liberty and justice for all". Justice is as important a value as liberty, IMO.

Any "buyer's remorse" in regard to some of NHLA's state rep endorsements?

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 14:12:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

liberty and justice for all... (4.00 / 1)

JD wrote:

"the pledge of allegiance ends with "liberty and justice for all". Justice is as important a value as liberty"

And there are different types of both justice and liberty...

Are you referring to:

1. "social" justice?
2. "economic" justice?
3. "distributive" justice?
4. "commutative" justice?
5. "retributive" justice?
6. "restorative" justice?

Also, regarding the concept of liberty...

Classical liberalism (dominant) viewed individual liberty as a biological phenomena based on the free will to voluntarily contract with whomever one wished. Social contract theory is thus straight in the cross-hairs of radical libertarianism.

Civic republicanism viewed individual liberty as practicing virtuous behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, participatory, and deliberative civic bodies.

---

by: BeFreer59 @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 14:54:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Liberty for all (0.00 / 0)

Personally, I agree with you on both of these issues.

The NHLA certainly does take a "liberty for all" stance - on the liberty issues that we take stances on. Part I, Art. 10 of the Constitution ("Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men ...") is probably one of the most-used constitutional arguments by NHLA activists, in opposing special-interest legislation, both on the Gold Standard and in public testimony.

I don't think the NHLA has ever regretted endorsing someone. The only thing that would cause a Rep to get un-endorsed is if their grade sunk steadily over the years, and that's pretty rare. When we endorse someone, we do it by the voting records, so we know what we're getting into, going in. And by using a mechanical formula to decide endorsements, it keeps any one issue from dominating: NHLA activists know that we consider dozens of bills (we had 44 on last year's Liberty Rating), and that covers a lot of issues, so even if a Rep is really bad on an issue one might personally care about, if they got an A or B rating, they're still pretty good overall.

J'raxis 270145

---

by: jraxis @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:01:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Go easy. This is my first time. (4.00 / 1)

("Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men ...")

So hate crimes and equal opportunity are out?

How do Libertarians provide protections for minorities?

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:10:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Libertarian way of doing things (0.00 / 0)

How to deal with discrimination? Boycott businesses that engage in discrimination. Work to put them out of business. Publicly shame them so people take their business elsewhere. If you're a businessman, provide the alternative where the victimized minorities can work and be treated fairly.

We already live in a society where most forms of discrimination have become taboo. If XYZ Corp. decided to stop hiring certain people on account of race, how do you think the public would react when word got out? How do you think XYZ's competitors would respond?

Hit someone in their pocket book and they'll rethink their course of action. No need to point laws at them.

This is the kind of thing libertarians mean when they talk about "self-interest." It's not about petty selfishness, as it often gets framed by opponents: It's about using natural human self-interest to achieve positive social change, instead of government coercion.

Libertarians want to see the same kind of free, equal society most liberals envision. But instead of trying to change human nature, we recognize it for what it is and work with it, not against it.

And on hate crimes:

Virtually all "hate crimes" are already crimes, regardless of the hate element. Murder, assault, vandalism, and so on. If hate was a motivation, that just serves as a sentencing enhancement. But... why? Harming someone is harming someone; why should the motivation matter? Why should one particular form of anger result in a harsher sentence, than some other form that doesn't?

J'raxis 270145

---

by: jraxis @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:41:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well sometimes bigotry is pretty popular and shaming doesnt work. (4.00 / 8)

Just ask the Armenians. Jews. Native Americans. etc.

Or look to NH history, where as I recently posted, the state constitutional provisions that restricted public offices to Protestants were inoperable after 1876 due to the passage of the 14th Amendment, yet remained part of the NH Constitution until 1952, because the majority voted to retain them after intervening every constitutional convention.

Should people have to submit to popular racism until it becomes unpopular?

I tend to agree with you on hate crimes-- I think for the most part we should punish for what is done and not what is thought. The one contrary argument that seems valid is that there probably is some general deterrence to criminalizing some crimes of hate. While there were always murder laws, they did little to stop lynchings and federal civil rights legislation was needed. When the crime itself is intended to terrorize a class of people, it represents a greater evil that a simple occurrence of the underlying crime. Thus a cross burning is fundamentally different that another type of arson or criminal mischief and should have different consequences.


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 20:33:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How would Libertarians have handled.... (4.00 / 3)

The meat-packing industry at the turn of the century?

The lack of banking regulations after the Stock Market crash of 1929?

Segregation in the south?

Sectionalism?

Slavery?

IMO, sometimes Government needs to act when 'free' people act in ways that are detrimental to the long-term health of society or themselves.  

"He who loves correction, loves knowledge.  He who hates reproof is stupid." - Proverbs 12:1

---

by: jdblanch @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 20:54:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So the NHLA is okay (4.00 / 1)

with Nancy Elliot's bizarre claims in the  in the Judiciary Executive session on HB1590?

Then the partial aftermath.

 

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:14:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Elliot (4.00 / 1)

The NHLA doesn't have official positions on every action these Reps take.

Personally I think Elliot is silly. I'm also very glad she's an opponent of marriage equality. It's nice to have opponents make themselves look so ridiculous they only help your side of an issue.

J'raxis 270145

---

by: jraxis @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:21:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But having endorsed her, (4.00 / 1)

the NHLA has recommended she should be elected to represent the citizens of Merrimack.

Now of course no organization can take positions on every action a rep takes, but IMO, hers were so egregious that they reflect poorly on any organization associated with her, including the GOP.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:30:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is not true. (4.00 / 1)

If a person believes that a human fetus is a "person," in the sense of having rights, then abortion is murder

That simply does not follow.

If you take that position - unsupported in law or science - you are saying that pregnant women have a state-mandated responsibility to fully provide for another person - their feeding, safety, warmth. And if some women refuse to carry that load entirely on their own your state will jail them.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 19:35:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so essentially (4.00 / 3)

you've just proven the initial assertions made by the diarist. You want to  eliminate taxes and regulations on business, while claiming to be libertarian on social issues - yet endorsing candidates who are against marriage equality and a woman's right to choose.

On top of that, you gave me a troll rating because you didn't like my comment, which is a violation of our rules.

You're off to a great start.


sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:52:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Social freedoms (4.00 / 1)

I posted a comment above about our positions on abortion and marriage equality.

We take several positions on social-freedom issues, actually.

I pointed out the marijuana issue above: For several years now, we've always taken the pro-liberty position on all the marijuana bills that have come up.

We also opposed a bill to mandate seatbelt use last year, and a motorcycle helmet bill this year.

We supported a bill this year to repeal an archaic criminal statute against adultery. (Tim Horrigan and Carol McGuire were sponsors of that bill: Nice cross-partisan support there.)

There are a number of bills dealing with police and judicial abuse that we've taken positions on: a bill last year to stop cops from using an archaic wiretapping law as a threat against people monitoring police abuse, and a jury nullification bill this year.

Name some of the other things you consider social-freedom issues and I'll look up if we've addressed those in the past couple years.

P.S.: Sorry about the comment rating - The comments I rated as troll were one-liners that seemed to simply be ridiculing the Reps in question, which really isn't helpful at moving discussion forward.

J'raxis 270145

---

by: jraxis @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 13:24:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

May I ask for your support? (4.00 / 4)

Allow me to put the shoe on the other foot.  And please keep in mind that I am an NHLA member, one which has fought strenuously for the NHLA to take a pro-Marriage Equality position.or, at a minimum, to oppose bills that would define marriage in law or allow 'the people' to vote on such a basic civl right.

I realize most of you on BH are Democrats.  And yet, there are Democrats like Bill Butynski....

...who opposed Marriage equality the first time, and supported CACR 28 this time.

...who opposed medical marijuana.

...who opposed decriminalization of marijuana.

...who protected drug companies by opposing allowing NH residents to purchase Canadian pharmaceuticals.

...who supported the 'rooms' tax on campgrounds, a clearly regressive tax which hits the lowest-income vacationers (both in-state and out of state), as well as though who claim campgrounds as their dwelling because they can't afford property taxes and standard home prices.

...who has sponsored legislation to bypass controlled substance procedures and classify possession of common veterinarian medications as a criminal offense.

This is a progressive Democrat, huh?

If you can question the NHLA's support of some candidates based on two issues, than I must question the support that Blue Hampshire members will give Democrat Bill Butynski in his race for reelection.

And I'll go one step further, and ask how many of you will endorse or support me in my race against him?

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 15:53:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Do we all look the same to you? (0.00 / 0)

This Butynski fella does not sound progressive.

I've heard this GOper meme that we vote for anyone with a D next to there name. Not entirely true.

I'm from MA. I like your backstory. Inspiring, in a way, Your politics? Not so much.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:05:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you running as (4.00 / 2)

a Republican, Democrat or Independent, and if as an Independent, which party would you caucus with?

We need to keep a Democratic majority in the State House, or we'll have people such as those I mentioned in positions of power. They would revoke marriage equality as soon as the next session begins.

While I don't agree with all the positions Rep Butynski took on the bills you mentioned, I'd have to see how he voted on other important issues.

What I'm taking NHLA to task for is what I see as  inconsistencies in their position: liberty, but not for women or gays.

Now the NHLA has every right to prioritize issues. I happen to think, though, that issues of private relationships and bodily integrity are higher on the "liberty importance scale" than de-funding public schools and allowing polluters to pollute the environment.

With respect to the soda tax someone mentioned above, we already pay a tax on soda in the form of corn subsidies. (No sugar, high frutcose corn syrup). So I pay tax on a product I don't even use, nifty! How come nobody mentions that?

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:06:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Does it matter? (4.00 / 1)

I mean, Jack above said its not true that BHites vote for anyone with a D after their name.

But Jennifer, you just wrote that its important to keep a Democratic majority.

So which is it?

If you say the NHLA is inconsistent for saying they support liberty but not taking what you see as the 'liberty position' on two issues...than how much more would that make you be inconsistent for calling yourself a progressive, and supporting a Democrat who is conservative on a dozen or more important issues? (I'm not trying to be combative here.)

I understand, like anybody, that at some point the line between pragmatism and purity becomes a wide swath of grey, and its different for all of us.

As for which party, Jennifer....I think that depends.  It depends on the response I get from my neighbors and activists ...and people on sites such as this one....as to how best to approach this race in a district that votes reliably Democratic in every election.

I'm open.  I no longer find myself entirely at home in either party.  I actually rather like the idea of a closely divided legislature.  If the GOP takes the legislature next year and the Theocrats begin flexing their muscle, I'd probably be much more comfortable as a Democrat.

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:39:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Two different things, (4.00 / 3)

Thomas. The NHLA is an advocacy group. It says it is non-partisan, although it endorsed many more Republicans than Democrats for state office in 2008. It also says its goal is liberty, but a large number of those endorsed voted against what I consider a basic liberty for gay and lesbian citizens.

I don't see a woman's right to choose and marriage equality as simply "two issues". One directly affects my bodily integrity as well as that of every other woman. I see that as a very large inconsistency in the NHLA's position.

My priority in the next election is a Democratic majority in the State House. This is a partisan, political stance, not an issues advocacy one.  

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 17:24:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so... (4.00 / 1)

You'd support a Democrat who opposed you on one or both of those important issues, rather than a Republican or Independent who agreed with you?

If so, I should bow out and let you and Jack dicuss this further :-)

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 17:29:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

P.S> (0.00 / 0)

Jennifer:  I oppose agricultural subsidies, too..I'm with you there :-)

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:46:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

PSS (4.00 / 1)

I'm not an ideologue. I am not against all agricultural subsidies. But I am not a fan of agri-business and factory farming methods.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 17:28:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Butynski (4.00 / 1)

is clearly no progressive. I would not be able to vote for him, if he were in my district.


sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 16:09:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Tom, count me in (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Putney Swope @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 18:46:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not surprised. (4.00 / 3)

Some people in the political sphere like to call President Obama a tyrant for his moderate and conventional fiscal policies, and many of those same people accuse him of putting us all in danger because he refuses to be a tyrant with respect to homeland security.

It would be nice to live in a country with two or more rational, nuanced, sides in the political debate, both respecting the intelligence of the people, but we don't, and we haven't for quite some time now.

--
Hope 2012

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 13:42:37 PM CST