But that Media Matters’ won’t list its own donors anywhere on its website dedicated to making think tanks and political advocacy groups more transparent is so predicatably hypocritical, it’s actually kind of expected from the left.

The right would probably do the same if it held a near monopoly on the media for a few decades – maybe we should try that sometime, just to see.

I jest! Well, mostly. The whole “shoe on the other foot”-schadenfreude thing would be enjoyable, even if the final results would be unhealthy.

Now I am the first to admit that the two views differ more in degree than in kind. That is, they cover much of the same ground using different words. But, I think it’s tougher to find common ground when one worldview lends itself to the approach that government in general is going to be a problem, so the goal is to minimize its role so that it can’t do too much harm, and the other worldview lends itself to the approach that government should be making things better by doing lots of stuff, but we have to be vigilant about the exceptions that cause harm.

BTW, I should be absolutely clear that, despite a fair amount of government-is-bad campaigning, actual Republican office-holders (just like Democrats) typically have very little use for the libertarian view of government. As soon as politicians of either stripe assume office, they start thinking government is good and will remain good if enough people from their team are in charge. To the GOP, the government-is-bad idea has been a rhetorical tool used to get elected and then to be stored away until the next election. We’ll soon see if they really understand ideological shift that sent them packing in 2006 and 2008 and then gave them another chance in 2010. I’m not holding my breath.

It’s a shame since there actually is substantial overlap in goals, but I don’t know if there’s any way to surmount the cultural differences.

“I’ve never understood why progressives see persons who are correct about everything, and who also are very handsome as enemies rather than as potential allies.”

Hope I didn’t cause any offense. lunchstealer raises a very good point regarding the transactional nature of politics.

“person who is correct about everything, and who also is very handsome”

You glistening-pated stud, you!

Really? “Left” is a slur now? What’s objectionable about it? It’s where you fall on the linear political spectrum. I don’ t think I’ve ever heard anyone on the right object to being called “a righty” or “on the right.”

My objection to “Lefty” is twofold: it is lazy, a slogan substituting for a proper definition of the worldview or the group of people with whose views you disagree in some way. It also plays into the very old left-right continuum of political viewpoint categorization, which I believe to be well past it’s sell-by date. To effectively promulgate libertarianism as a philosophy, you have to be able to convincingly explain to disaffected people why it is neither “Left” nor “Right”, but at the other end of the spectrum from authoritarianism. Continuing with the language of the paradigm that put libertarianism outside looking in seems to me to be counter-productive.
I have heard people object to being called right-wing in the past, their usual response being some variant on “I’m not right-wing, your’re just a “.

I don’t use “progressive” because it implies that people who disagree (like me) are opposed to progress. It’s a loaded term. It also clashes historically with the last movement to use the word, who shared some goals with the modern left, but held some drastically different views.

I like “progressive” because it IS a loaded term. It allows for control of the framing of a debate. I quite like to use the term “regressive” and watch some people attempt to defend what are often regressive views.
I agree about the clash with the former meaning of the word “progressive”. Very similar to the way that the term “liberal” has been re-framed over the years from the original classical Liberals.

Do we now have to refer to political movements by what they demand to be called? Because if so, I’d like to change the name of my ideology from “libertarian” to “person who is correct about everything, and who also is very handsome”.

I don’t recall suggesting that we have to refer to political movements by what they demand to be called…but I do like your tongue-in-cheek modesty…

The reason “left” and “liberal” have been turned into slurs but “right” hasn’t is that right-wing partisans have turned it into a talking point. I know a lot of liberals who use “right-wing” and “conservative” as slurs, but they don’t have the influence of Rush Limbaugh. Even comparable hot air jets on the left like Al Franken don’t remotely have the influence of Limbaugh and fellow travelers.

Really? “Left” is a slur now? What’s objectionable about it? It’s where you fall on the linear political spectrum. I don’ t think I’ve ever heard anyone on the right object to being called “a righty” or “on the right.”

I don’t use “progressive” because it implies that people who disagree (like me) are opposed to progress. It’s a loaded term. It also clashes historically with the last movement to use the word, who shared some goals with the modern left, but held some drastically different views.

Do we now have to refer to political movements by what they demand to be called? Because if so, I’d like to change the name of my ideology from “libertarian” to “person who is correct about everything, and who also is very handsome”.

And, just to bring it closer to home, every time I read an article by Radley that contains the stereotypical slogan like “lefties” as part of its first paragraph, I wonder inwardly; does the author really want to increase the reach of libertarianism, or does he just want to piss off some more interested progressives?

In the political lexicon, “lefties” is pretty tame. Glibertarian, Libtard, Rethuglican, Moonbat, Wingnut… those are the go-to words used at partisan sites.

I think lunchstealer is somewhat right, but I see it as a more basic thing: they are partisans, just like TEAM RED. Partisans cannot comprehend of other people not being partisans. And for partisans, if you don’t tow the party lion, you’re not on the TEAM. If you’re not on the TEAM, you must, in their simple binary minds, be on the other TEAM. Therefore you are the enemy. That’s it. That’s why they cannot seem to even remotely understand what libertarianism is about; because they can only conceive of someone not being TEAM BLUE as being TEAM RED. So they have to create a distorted concept for libertarians that allows them to sort of jam them into a TEAM RED mold. Hence, for an example, the constant accusations of corporatism (something that they think is a hallmark of TEAM RED, and it is), even though libertarians constantly decry corporate wrongdoing with eminent domain, etc., and no matter how many times you try and explain that libertarians are not corporatist, they keep coming back to it. Because they have to.

They just cannot grasp the concept of not being on one of the two TEAMs. They can’t do it. It’s pathetic, but that’s the way it is.

So while we’re right with progressives on a number of issues, we don’t get any respect, because we have too little power to give them anything they really want, and we say ‘no’ to them. So in the power equation, they’re strongly prejudiced towards just telling us to go to hell.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/03/bloggers-kneel-to-koch/

“The oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate, or military control.” (wikipedia)

If people with [wealth, in this case] can unduly affect the power structure of a “democracy”, what is the pro-libertarian result of this reality?

To backpedal, in theory the “free markets and minds” would compensate for public opinion of such actions, but… When public opinion is shaped by the very same oligarchy i.e. mass media… At what point does a natural correction occur?