Those are excellent definitions in the abstract.

But hiding behind all those labels are the interests of the individual. The real battle over the last 27 years has been between those who believe that more inequality is a good thing and those who believe that more equality is a good thing. The former group does not dare speak this view in public, but since it naturally gravitates towards business & property, it is full of people who are skilled in advertising, so it lies its ass off. And it's won overwhelmingly.

Sometimes a crack shows in the anti-equality armor. During the early Reagan era I found a book by a Christian conservative backing far-right policies, but also arguing that taxes should be LOWER on rich people than poor people because the rich are clearly superior decision-makers and thus their spending is good for the economy and the spending of inferiors is bad for the economy. Now that is grotesque. But look at the subsequent effort by the Right, both "conservative" and "libertarian", to bring about exactly this state of affairs. They have moved heaven and earth to convince the ordinary American that his well-being entirely depends on the upper several % of citizens getting power over everything that matters.

Now to me the interesting division is between those who feel that capitalism is properly concentrating wealth and power in the hands of the "right" people, and those supporters of inequality who are shocked to discover that capitalism concentrates wealth and power in the hands of those they consider subhuman: Jewish bankers, black rappers, gay actors, etc, etc. That latter group is the dirty secret of American politics. They worship property as long as they have enough that they can piss on some lower caste. They assume that God is the Invisible Hand of the marketplace, ergo if they worship Him and persecute His enemies they will magically get nicer houses than Jews. And when they find that they are on the wrong end of the wealth-polarization process, they have no rational place to turn their wrath.

Yeah, Germany had 'em too.

Since many of these bullies are natural cops, prison guards and soldiers, it's natural that their version of capitalism supports gigantic military budgets, Patriot Acts and Duke Cunninghams. How else do they elevate themselves to their proper place over those faggy Harvard MBAs?

So yeah, Bush's less-affluent supporters are authoritarians, but it's important to see why. And why they're pouring their spare cash into an institution that violates all separation between Church, State and Business: the evangelical Protestant movement. The Falwells and Robertsons can re-define the failure of capitalism to raise the incomes of "good" Americans as actually being caused by a moral perversion of urban liberal elites - exactly Hitler's tack. Since a religion does not have to reward its average follower with rewards in this lifetime, these holy bastards can continue the polarization of American wealth, make fortunes on Wall Street, and then turn the rage of their impoverished followers on scapegoats, first at home, then abroad. You can make your own guess on how peak oil will amplify this.

This will not end in 2008.

It's way more complex than that. [US Only] Consider, why is Tom Friedman a liberal? Why is Hillary a liberal? Saying they want more restrictions on business and less on individuals is just wrong. And obviously so. "Liberalism" is a free market creed based on growth - in particular, that a rising tide (economic growth) will improve everyone's lot so there is no need to address distribution. There are those who think liberalism means pluralism; that's about the same as having Wal-Mart in your *local* Chamber of Commerce, and somehow thinking that, gee, what a nice ally....

Conservatives are either close to extinct or co-opted by the thugs ala Wal-Mart above. Given the triumph of economic liberalism and its adoption by what most people consider the conservative movement, it's hard to find a distinct thread. I'd hazard a guess that the Green Party, as in the sense of the European Greens, is probable the heir to this. But that will take the die-off of a generation that still thinks the Republicans represent their cause. John Dean writes about conservatives in several books - quite good books. Lakoff discusses the conservative personality in his fat book, Moral Politics; that's a good resource too, not his poppy shorter books.

There are analyses that show that libertarians aren't a true species. After all, what does one make of an anarchist that submits to authority when it make sense? They are really authoritarians in disguise.

Nor do authoritarians want more restrictions on business and individuals. It depends on the WHO gets restricted and on who gets to decide - chain of command, class, "the best people". A better distinction might be "rule of law" or "rule of man". A little story: I'm one of the people on the complaint list in Maine taking Verizon to court for wiretapping illegally with NSA - something President Bush has admitted is illegal but says he will continue anyway. The defense, by the US DOJ, is nothing but an affidavit from General Alexander, head of NSA, that there is nothing illegal. Never mind that the President admits it is illegal, the DOJ advanced that defense and the court - also a Bush appointee - accepted it. Authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism is much more than that. Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor is a good place to start. Or Catch-22 if you want to go at it from the other side. Just remember, when people are fearful, they seek authority.

cfm in Gray, ME

On issues of Justice:
A Liberal is a Conservative who has been arrested.

A Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged.

On issues of taxation and profit:

As George Will once said, "America is a system that privatizes gains but socializes risk". If I hit it big, I keep the money. If I lose big, the public shares the loss.
"In America, everyone wants lower taxes, but everyone wants the benefits of government spending and programs. In this respect, all Americans are half Conservative." George Will.

Roger Conner jr.
Remember we are only one cubic mile from freedom

That's just bollox posing as political analysis

--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man

Two of my favorite Vonnegut quotes:

"And I tell you, we are here on earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different."

I have never found anyone that can come up with an argument to that, certainly not me.

And:
"Electronic communities build nothing. You wind up with nothing. We're dancing animals. How beautiful it is to get up and go do something."
[Gets up and dances a jig.]

-- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., interview in Inc. Technology January 1996, Vol.17, No. 17

Apparently, like for many glibertarians, the US circa 1890 is the gold standard here.

Considering that peak oil and dealing with global warming at the same time are susposed to push us back to 1890 (at least) isn't it appropriate to have a leader that is stuck in that time?

You touched a nerve. You framed the left / right issue to portray the left leaning totalitarian light types [liberals or "progressives"] as being on a higher moral plain than the right leaning totalitarian light types [big business Republicans and policitally militant Bible Thumpers.] The pest on both groups.

A whole lot of what the U.S. Government does isn't Constitutional. Read the Tenth Amendment. Tell me where progressives line up the Constitution. Show me someone who believes in a "living breathing constitution" and I'll show you an advocate for their version of authoritarianism based on their unwritten rules [that more like guidelines] which they believe they have the right to change as their moods change.

Do the same thing with the right except for the libertarians. You will find that there are a few "conservatives" who believe in the Constitution ... but not many.

BTW, as I see it, Ron Paul is unique. 534 "nays" for Constitutional Government [some profoundly so -- some almost tolerable] with one "yea" -- Ron Paul.

Libertarianism is an ideology where the building block of society is the private family, living in a fenced compound somewhere in the hills. That's also the extent of society - anybody coming close to My Private Property risks lead poisoning. Like Somalia, only without the positive social cohesion of the clan system.

An interesting description with no basis. Casually inflicting "lead poisoning" as a libertarian ideal? BTW, the family is IMO the basis for a healthy society. If kids don't get the right guidance and the appropriate social interaction, the odds aren't good. [Full disclosure: I am single which is not a good thing for the society as a whole -- but it seems to work for me -- and to best of my knowledge I have fathered no children.]

Somehow libertarians think all the rest of the hard won fruits of civilization (public roads, sanitation) are superfluous. They also think they themselves would magically be the ones making decisions in such a society, that somehow they would not be the unfortunate ones under the heel of the local warlord. Funny how that works.

Hardly, the states and local Government can handle local infrastructure and the Commerce Clause as origninally intended can pretty much handle the rest. Note that there are references to "post roads" and perhap other public works in the Constitution. Warlords? Where did that come from?

Privatize all public works? I honestly don't see the point, but if you do don't let the Government stand behind them with rules that guarantee monoply status and a lack of accountability.

BTW, imperialism isn't in the Constitution either ... and Ron Paul is an outspoken critic of U.S. involvement in Iraq in particular and foreing military adventures in general unlike progressive like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ and [your are going to hate this] George W. Bush [a proponent of the Medicare drug benefit, the current illegal immigration amnesty in lockstep with Ted Kennedy, and all maner of political pork.]

Finally, Ron Paul may oppose the income tax, but it is Constitutional ... explictly so as an amemndent to the U.S. Constituion [leaving aside some ratification controversies that probably don't have much merit].

Very well put!

I sometimes wish that Libertarians would get their way and establish their own state. It wouldn't take long for them to realise that "the government thingy" might be a good idea after all...

Incidentally, there's a hacker proverb that says "Those who don't know Unix are doomed to reinvent it; poorly". Substitute "Unix" by "government" and you get equally wise words.

Dennis Kucinich has a huge influence. The short vegan with the big ears and that weird history of being right to support a muni utility vs the banks. He carries the flag for at least 25% of the activists in the Democratic party right now and for a bunch of others that have abandoned it. He brings up the Iraqi oil law and an amendment to strip it from the benchmarks that the powers that be don't allow on the floor. Impeachment, because if we don't, we might as well elect a criminal. Yeah, a nut case. What are you going to tell me, that he's not presenting the case so that it will be accessible to the mainstream? Ayuh.

cfm in Gray, ME

There's an article on Ron Paul's republican opposition in his congressional district at galvnews.com, the Galveston Daily News website. A Friendswood City Councilman has announced against him for the Republican primary next year because "he doesn't reflect our values".