Can a White Libertarian Man Represent NY's Chinatown? Meet Dan O'Connor.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I welcome the idea of running as a democrat but this guys seems more interested in being a democrat than a libertarian

[arobidy]

How can a Libertarian be a Democrat? ... Sure our social policies are ocnsidered "Liberal" BUT Libertarian and libertarian FISCAL policies are free market and republican... Democrats are fans of Big government mandates and private sector regulation... I don't see this guy knowing WTF he's talking about.

[chopshec2]

@arobidy "Democrats are fans of Big government mandates and private sector regulation" I agree with you on that point, but don't forget to include the Republicans in the mix in terms of big government mandates and pivate sector regulation. For every Dodd-Frank regulation, and Obamacare mandate that the Democrats proposed and passed, the Republicans were no better with Sarbanes-Oxley, and Medicare Part D mandate. It's just two cheeks of the same asshole in the establishment side for both parties.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore "“Progressives” were the ones that initiated Jim Crow." - should read "weren't". I never said they were, and I don't believe I even mentioned Jim Crow before. - Just another invalid point.

[1corpoaratekochwhore]

@Omnicronimous I know you are kinda off, but don't play senile with me. In one of your original comments (I see you removed some comments) you said the progressives started Jim Crow. Also, you were the first one to mention Jim Crow. Its hard to have a discussion with someone who has the luxury of making up things and lying at the same time. I suggest you stop it.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore I'm off? Jim Crow, Jim Crow, Jim Crow. That's all you have? I just royally kicked your butt and all you can come back with is a lie that I stated Progressive Democrats started Jim Crow? Yeah, I removed comments. They were repeats that I removed. They didn't post the first time so I put them up a second time. When I refreshed the page they were doubles. So yeah, I'm just insidious like that. I knew you'd try to bring up stuff later... oh wait...

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore

Because you insisted on making your nefarious claim that I lied about Jim Crow - which is really all you have at this point - I just spent 15 mins of my time looking through the 16 pages of text in this comments section for what the hell you were talking about. And, after you couldn't even find it yourself, I found what (I assume, because nothing else fits) you were talking about. Jackass. Here are the comments you were thinking of -

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore 1) First I said, "The fact is, Progressive Democrats made segregation legal and part of the government system..." 2) Then I said, "The Civil Rights Acts proposed by Republicans dealt specifically with eliminating segregation from government and making Jim Crow illegal..." 3) Then I said, "The Democrats were only supportive of the CRA once it included Progressive socialist elements."

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore I was referring to separate events. I had assumed from the claims you were making that you had at least a rudimentary level of knowledge on the subject. I was wrong. Proof that you're being asinine about this whole thing is you would have understood as much if you had just read and absorbed the last set of comments I made. Class is in session pinhead. 1) Progressive Democrats introduced legalized segregation.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore If you had any objectivity at all and knew your history you'd know that WOODROW WILSON'S administration was the first to legalize segregation on a federal level. I'm not going to cite anything. It's basic history and only a complete ass wouldn't be able to find the information and validate it. Woodrow Wilson was the face and voice of the Progressive Democrats. 2) Republicans began seeking desegregation almost as soon as it had begun.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Republicans voted nearly 90% in favor of Civil Rights reforms from the 1920s to the 1960s. Democrats had voted nearly 80% against those same bills. I stated that the Republican Civil Rights legislation dealt directly with desegregation and making Jim Crow illegal. I made that distinction because they refused to attach what they viewed as socialist elements to Civil Rights reforms. Their purpose was clear. Abolish segregation and Jim Crow.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore

3) The 1960s saw the first time Democrats (Progressive or otherwise) willing to vote a majority for Civil Rights legislation. The McCarthy era had damaged Republicans badly and Democrats had a Democrat President in office. The two Civil Rights Acts ('57 & '60) passed during the Republican Eisenhower's Administration had already set the country on the road to desegregation. Every single version in the early '60s had socialist elements attached.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore

Republicans opposed the socialist elements that were continually attached to the bills. In the end, most were eliminated from the final versions. In 1964 over 80% of the Republicans voted for the passage of the CRA. Just over 60% of the Democrats voted for it. There was still an attempted filibuster by a core group of Democrats. It was obviously defeated. As I said, the first time Democrats, favored the CRA was only paired with Progressive socialism.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore And one last time: The shift of members from one party to the other during both the '60s and '70s was no more than had taken place in any other decade of the 20th century. One last time: Goldwater opposed only the final version of the CRA and only because it infringed upon the rights of businesses, which he viewed as unconstitutional.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore

And as to FDR's support: FDR was supported by the same racist white Democrats that had supported every single Democrate that came down the pipe because Democrats initiated, implemented, and supported both Jim Crow and segregation. The socialism of FDR wasn't nearly as important an issue. They didn't care and were willing to vote for him just because of the (D).

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore

Your position is ridiculous. You have NOTHING. If I'm a joke, you're a profound tragedy. I should have known from that idiotic name you sport that you were just a stone wall.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Last parting shot before giving you a chance to respond: Your entire position is ludicrous. You're used to selling this kind of idiocy to other liberals, which is like selling condoms to prostitutes. I'm an educated conservative, and with me, you need to stand on the truth. I won't accept the b.s. Seriously, to sell the idea that overnight an entire party changed their core beliefs, young and old... Get a clue pinhead.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Overall, you have proved your ignorance on the issue. You have no idea what you’re talking about. The crux of difference between the Republican Party and the vast majority of the Black Vote is and has been since 1964 the issue of entitlement programs, which the black political leadership has continuously sold the black population of this country the notion that they can’t survive/thrive without. There was never a contention over Civil Rights.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore “Progressives” were the ones that initiated Jim Crow. It was largely the Southern Democrats. But when Progressives began to dominate the Democratic Party in the 1910s the shift wasn’t away from racism and anti-discrimination, but rather it ramped it up, even pursuing “Negative Eugenics” policies that are still in place to this day. The voting record on Progressive Democrats was even against outlawing lynchings.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Two horribly obvious things you’re ignoring are 1. The vast majority of the same Democrats that were in office and voted against previous Civil Rights Legislation were still Democrats after it passed. 2. Almost all of the same financial backing that supported Democrats for years, the same millionaire racists, still supported the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights Act passed.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Before Kennedy was elected as President he passed on voting on Civil Rights issues, just to keep from having to weigh in. This was in a district that generally favored Civil Rights reforms. His father was an avid Eugenicist and one of the most vocal advocates of eugenics in the 20th Century. And Kennedy didn’t propose anything new as President. The Civil Rights reforms he “proposed” were already the agenda of Republicans.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The fact is Ike sent out numerous personal letters to various political and cultural leaders asking on how best to proceed with eliminating racial discrimination and tension. His administration actually declared racial discrimination a national security issue. Ike was only hesitant in that he was wary of abusing his power as President to send in the military to enforce law on U.S. soil. To him it was a reprehensible idea.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. You say that “Ike was hesitant…” on enforcing Civil Rights – Are you actually trying to paint Ike as being on the racist side of things? I challenge you to find any quotes of Ike that are condemning. Good luck.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore "I'll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." - Lyndon B. Johnson. “ “ – Lyndon B. Johnson /watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms "If we have to get elected on civil rights, then we're already defeated . . . unless we can get the campaign on some other basis, why it is just going to be agonizing." - Lyndon B. Johnson, July 24, 1964. "Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nigger." – L.B.J. NYTimes.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Truman was an open racist his whole life. He was a member of the Missouri KKK. There are still existing records of his membership fee payments. He is well-known for numerous racist remarks he made his entire life, until he achieved the office of VP. His numerous letters to his wife and others are documented proof, while his quoted word and reputation among his peers fills in any gaps. He believed in benevolent racism, as a descendent of slave owners.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Right from the early years of the 20th century there was a willingness to compromise between racist Progressive Democrats and socialist leaning black political leaders. Their common cause was the institution of socialism into the American economy. This has been the primary dividing point between Democrats and Republicans since the Presidency of Wilson. Meanwhile, you actually compare Truman and Eisenhower?

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore FDR didn’t begin the conversion. FDR simply continued the conversion. “The Conversion” started earlier in the century when a small group of black political leaders adopted socialist tenets believing them to be a pathway toward social and economic equality. Woodrow Wilson’s segregation and filling of federal positions with racist whites, including the appointment of a KKK member to the Supreme Court didn’t dissuade them from allying Progressive whites.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Strom Thurmond is one example among a very small number of Democrats that switched to the GOP. In fact, the number of Democrats that switched to the GOP in the ‘60s and ‘70s hardly reflects any more of a change than during other decades of the 20th Century. The “Southern Strategy” worked because the tagline of “state’s rights” was already familiar with Southern voters and not because Republicans attempted to reverse Civil Rights reforms.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Nixon decided to emphasize the Republican position on small government, especially concerning “state’s rights”. Prior to the Civil Rights reforms, “state’s rights” was most often heard in the campaigns of segregationist Democrats. It didn’t change that Republicans had always supported “state’s rights” small government view, but using the term during elections, without clearly supporting Civil Rights was certainly a deliberate appeal to segregationists.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore To quote Barry Goldwater – “We can’t out-promise the Democrats.” Goldwater was a libertarianesque Republican, that was also a member of the NAACP. He realized that if Johnson was willing to go along with a Civil Rights Act, as well as continue to push big government socialism, there was no hope of winning an election. Johnson would be selling civil rights with entitlement programs and pro-unionism.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore From 1966 on Republicans faced a near impossible task for elections. Republicans had been fundamentally rejected in the South for a long time, and with Democrats gaining votes in the north, the slow gains Republicans made in the South couldn’t make up the difference. Richard Nixon won the Republican Nomination for President employing a strategy that capitalized on every divisive issue that his campaign thought they could take advantage of. 

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Black political leadership found that the allies they had in Republicans for gaining Civil Rights reforms were not friends to the cause of gaining “social justice”. By 1970, most of the black vote in America had already shifted to nearly 90% in favor of Democrats. In less than a decade, the party of racism had bought the loyalty of the black vote with entitlement programs in exchange for giving up the fight against segregation and Civil Rights reforms.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Prior to this there had been two schools to black political leadership in America, with the majority supporting Republicans. The Democrat support came from socialist leaning black political figures. Once the political conflict for desegregation and Civil Rights had been won by Republicans, the new conflict in American politics centered very much around the Cold War and entitlement programs. Slowly the black vote shifted toward Democrats.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” was nothing more than a title to describe what was one of the biggest eras of federal government seizure of power in the history of the United States. But because it was presented at face value as having a beneficial effect for the black community, the black vote started swinging solidly in favor of Democrats. Meanwhile, the Republicans remained opposed to perceived government controls, as they had for decades.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Considering that the Civil Rights Act had been passed, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed, with overwhelming support from Republicans, one would question why the switch to the Democratic Party by the black vote. Starting with Lyndon Johnson’s Presidency, the Democratic Party began tying socialist entitlement programs to the Civil Rights movement, actively attempting to appeal directly to the impoverished black community.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Barry Goldwater and the very few Republicans that had been against the bill were only against it because they didn’t like (Title II) the idea of the government telling businesses what they could and couldn’t do – at all. It’s the SAME FREAKING ISSUE WE HAVE NOW! It had nothing to do with being racist. They were for the bill without the government intervention. They couldn’t get Democrats to agree to vote for the bill without government intervention.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The filibuster of the 1964 bill was led by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. The vote was 80% favorable by Republicans, compared to 63% favorable by Democrats. You cited that Barry Goldwater, as a Republican, was against the bill. Yes, but he had been for the prior versions of the Civil Rights act. He was most certainly not a pro-segregationist and any attempt by you to portray him as such is simply proof of ignorance.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Democrat opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not as extreme, but it was still there. To quote Strom Thurmond (D-SC) – “This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.” The ONLY Republican resistance to the bill was over the power of the government to regulate private business.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Lyndon Johnson was the Dem. Senate Majority leader in 1957. That year the first Civil Rights Bill the Republicans were able to gain traction with was up for a vote and Lyndon Johnson took an active hand in having the bill changed so that it was essentially ineffective. Then, in 1960, the next Civil Rights Bill was up for contention, again backed overwhelmingly by Republicans. This time LBJ led the longest filibuster in history, but it passed anyway.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Wrong. Progressives were the ones that instituted segregation in the first place. Federal segregation really took hold when Woodrow Wilson took office. He was the leader of the Progressive movement. The Republican majority was against it then, just as they were the entire time it was in place, and as they are now. The only time Republicans have been against any Civil Rights Bills was during the '60s when Democrats were attaching socialist entitlements.

[Steadno]

look cam much

[s9z9s]

Sorry, libertarians are not united on the abortion issue.

[knightschwartz]

Liberterian support for open borders and mass 3rd world immigration is insane. Bring in the third worlders, watch as France and America become majority non-european, do you anticipate this to give rise to a small goverment utopia in America and elsewhere? Do you know how hispanics and blacks generally vote? Do you think they will stop prefering handouts suddenly in the future?

[HybridD91]

@knightschwartz Wrong video, paranoid nativists are elsewhere on YouTube.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Be back to refute you tomorrow, but just wanted to point out that Byrd, Wallace, LBJ, and others that were racists right up to 1964 remained racist and Democrats after 1964 - That they voted in legislation that "benefited" black Americans after 1964 isn't debatable. They did, and I acknowledge that. However, all one has to do is read what they had to say about race before and after 1964 and see what govt. controls have done to know the score. CU2mro.

[Shonenut213]

This clueless dumbass is just another Machurian Candidate like Jon Huntsman.

Don't vote for this guy. America first, China never!

[Shonenut213]

Another Dennis Kucinich wanna be. This guy is a total idiot.

[upyr1]

I heard some one say libertarians are social liberals who like capitalism

[theadam22]

Hell, the more libertarians in the house the better!

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore To part with for now - I never said that there is NO difference between libertarians and Republicans. I'm simply pointing out the FACT that libertarianism is quite close to the core Republican tenets, and that it is in direct conflict with the vast majority of Democrat tenets. That you don't understand as much is simply proof of your ignorance.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore A portion of the racists in the South started voting Republican because just like the newly acquired "black vote" the racist whites perceived the Republican opposition to the socialist elements of the CRA and subsequent "Great Society" laws as if Republicans were simply trying to take welfare away and saw it as a way to get back at the impoverished black community.

Educate yourself.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The same Republicans that were trying to end segregation before the 1964 CRA were still running as Republicans and voting as Republicans after it passed. What changed was that Democrats were able to sell the enslavement of the entitlement system to the minority groups in the U.S. The racists prior to 1964 remained racists after 1964 and those who fought the racists prior to 1964 were still opposed to racism after 1964.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The position is that any legal distinction based on race is wrong. It is something that Democrats refuse to agree with. Furthermore, the same racist Democrats that were voting against Civil Rights before the '60s were still in office and running as Democrats after the Civil Rights Act passed because they were satisfied that the controls put in place by the socialist elements included in the CRA would allow them to control minority populations.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The first Civil Rights Act was passed during Eisenhower's Presidency and it was a Republican backed bill. The next one was during Kennedy's Presidency and there was a filibuster attempt by Democrats. The Democrats were only supportive of the CRA once it included Progressive socialist elements - laws that were sold as "giving a leg up" to African Americans. THAT is what libertarians and Republicans alike were and are against.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore You're ignoring most of what I've said, not to mention the facts. The fact is, Progressive Democrats made segregation legal and part of the government system. Republicans were against it from the beginning, and the Republican point of view all along has been equal opportunity. The Civil Rights Acts proposed by Republicans dealt specifically with eliminating segregation from government and making Jim Crow illegal.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore I'm going to stop there for now and pick up on Freedom of Religion (Not Freedom from Religion) and marijuana next time.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore It was a regular thing for Democrats to call Republicans paranoid when it came to "Right to Privacy" issues. It has only been within the last decade that dynamic has changed, but it's changing back very quickly. The ground where Republicans get shaky on "Right to Privacy" always comes back to law enforcement. Republicans are typically strong supporters of law enforcement - as it is seen as one of the two roles for which government is intended.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The motive for Republicans advocating a distinct reassertion by the government for marriage being between a man and a woman is moral. However, that motive is secondary to the argument that such a recognition is discriminatory. What it essentially boils down to is privileges. If there are no extra privileges afforded to heterosexual couples that get married over all other individuals, then there is no discrimination.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The institution of marriage as practiced by western society is the result of Judeo-Christian values. It is a tradition recognized by our government. It is reflected in our laws. That marriage is between a man and a woman is not up for debate. It is what it is. The only point of contention for those who cry "foul" is whether or not discrimination exists for homosexuals.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The Republican position is that the right to life makes abortions against the core values of the country as the foundation of the country includes the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It is not a restriction against people to "impose" anti-abortion laws. It is an attempt to recognize and preserve the right to life. The only point of contention is whether a human has a right to life before it is born or not.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore It was the Republican Party that advocated the Civil Rights Act. It was the Republican Party that opposed the big government agencies created during Democratic Presidencies. It is the Republican Party now that is advocating lower taxes, lower regulations, easing and/or eliminating gun control laws.

You mentioned anti-abortion laws, as if it was government control. That's not the issue.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore It is a fact that the core of what it means to be a Republican is an advocacy for the preservation of this nation as a Constitutional Republic. That means that the agendas of the party are meant to always gravitate toward the values The Constitution represents. That Republican politicians have gone against this core identity is not debatable. I acknowledge that they have. Those were deviations however, not the norm.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The Patriot Act was a Democrat talking point when they weren't in power. Guantanamo Bay was a Democrat talking point when they weren't in power. Anti-war demonstrations were a Democrat thing when they weren't in power. Again - The majority of the military conflicts the U.S. has been involved in over the last century has been with Democratic Presidents in the executive office. In fact, Republicans are traditionally painted as isolationist by Democrats.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore The only time in history that the majority of Republicans (voters, not politicians, and obviously according to polls) have been in favor of any kind of civil liberty restricting legislation was following 9/11 when virtually the whole country was perfectly fine with the Patriot Act at first - as everyone wanted to prevent another 9/11. It was reactionary. Within a year polls showed that the majority of Republican voters were AGAINST the Patriot Act.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" - Ronald Reagan. That's generally true. However, even within the ranks of libertarians there are those that lean liberal and those that lean conservative. I call myself a conservatarian, although I don't fit any particular mold. But, just looking at what Republicans in general hold to...

[AmericanSpeak]

So, would Dan O'Connor say that Ron Paul is in the wrong party?

[Omnicronimous]

Democrats essentially take the side of every single cause that is amoral, while libertarians take the side of every cause that promotes individual liberty. Meanwhile, Republicans are technically just supposed to take the side of causes that adhere most closely to the concept of the Constitutional Republic. Since the United States Constitution was founded on values emphasizing individual liberty, libertarians often find the Republican party more inviting, more in alignment with them.

[Omnicronimous]

@1corpoaratekochwhore Wrong. Democrats and Libertarians don't agree on foreign policy at all. Read all my previous comments. Otherwise, please feel free to explain the parallels of Democrats and Libertarians on foreign policy. I'd love to hear them. Oh, and civil liberties? Such as the 2nd Amendment? Right to Privacy? Freedom of Religion? Social issues? Other than the legalization of marijuanna, I'd love to hear about a single issue Libertarians and Democrats agree on.

[singlefella2008]

The right NOT to partake in a labor movement should also be considered. In a collectivist setting, those performing above the curve get underpaid while those below the curve are overcompensated. That said, there is no incentive to put one's foot forward.

Forced unionization doesn't seem libertarian in nature. In the public sector, a setting where workers are paid via income redistribution (taxation), the possibility of nepotism boxes out a more qualified taxpayer.

[singlefella2008]

I don't quite understand how the free market approach of Libertarian orthodoxy fits with the support of unionism. In NY the public sector unions flood tons of money towards Democratic candidates to help maintain their cushy and sometimes unrealistic collective bargaining agreements.

How does any of this help the taxpayer?

[Shanockdotcom]

@singlefella2008 The union leverages the value of its members' skilled labor to negotiate for the best benefits. The balance is that if they become too unreasonable, the company can cut its losses and train new workers. There's nothing *UN*libertarian about a union in-and-of itself.

The problems with public unions are the result of govt interference in the free market - they are paid by theft, protected by govt, and their benefits are detached from the value of their labor.

[jetrpg22]

@Shanockdotcom

The problems with unions in the us is they have special rights and Limitations via federal and state laws.  That both tie their hands and that of their employers.

I know for sure supporting the current union structure in the US is un-libertarian in both principle and definition. However, the right for a group of people to take collective action or unionize is totally libertarian and requires no laws or support from the gov.

[Madfoot713]

Libertarian Democrats? I like, I like.

[vonGleichenT]

Impressive

[pookatim]

I agree with this guy. That is why I reject Libertarianism. Cowardice. They hide behind the Constitution instead of defending it.

[asphyxiafeeling]

Answer to the title: NO, he can't. There's no way this guy is going to elected.

[UnderseaCaveman]

Go DAN!!!

[ArtStone]

Human perception is that people with constantly shifting eyes are not being honest.

He needs to identify the cause and resolve it. Perhaps there were some really attractive libertarian women walking around behind the camera. Or maybe he spent too much time in China.

Does China have a Libertarian movement?

[666sigma]

This guy is clueless about the DNC. The DNC is everything that this guy says he is against.

[Terje1337]

@666sigma If you listen he says there is overlap between democratic VOTERS, and libertarians, not the DNC.

[stevemcgee99]

@666sigma lol so is the RNC, including quite a lot of what they say. But definitely just about all the republicans actually do.

[CurtHowland]

Rothbard was very serious for a long time about trying to convince the "left" that liberty is the natural alignment for the individual liberty that the "left" believes in.

The term "left" comes from the French Revolution, where the individuals were on the "left" while the king, priests and nobility were on the "right".

But no, the "left" in America is so wedded to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and wealth redistribution, that they won't give up on coercion. Period.

[Slipknotyk06]

This guy may be well-intending, but he's not any kind of consistent Libertarian. He's only calling himself that to differentiate himself from the idiots he's up against.

[8897670]

no. you can't.

one word: oxymoron.

Before the term "libertarian" goes the way of 'liberal", lets stop this kind of blatant hijacking right here and now. yes, even if benign & well-intended.

[bestofantiwarradio]

yes he can and let's hope he does!

[Shanockdotcom]

When it comes to government, individual liberty is retained by the people in three ways, in order of importance: guns, money, and free speech. Speech means little when government controls your money; the market is powerful, but any freedom therein won't last if granted only at the indulgence of government with a monopoly on force.

If Dems want civil liberties, protect guns, the free market, and free speech, and the rest will follow as people realize there's little profit in discrimination.

[RosenKrantz666]

INFILTRATE! INFILTRATE!

go get'em Dan!

[frkelsa]

More libertarians should infiltrate both partys and take them over from the inside!

[FrankiePoker]

@frkelsa Just like the Fabians.

[chopshec2]

@frkelsa That's the only way you're going to advance the cause of liberty in this country.

[glennd7962]

Total crap. Just one topic. Unions aren't the problem - it's the federal and state laws that tilt the balance of power in favor of unions. This guy is a liar and joke.

[Omnicronimous]

@glennd7962 Exactly. The only ethical stance to take is that government should neither endorse nor prohibit unions.

[ScientificScience]

It's kinda a contradiction to be a libertarian while running in a social democrat party, but the exact same thing is true for libertarians running as the Republicans. They both hold some libertarian values (although not in practice).

[SkullOfYorick]

@ScientificScience I agree. Democrats tend to be more libertarian than Republicans are on social issues, but Republicans tend to be more libertarian on economic issues than Democrats are. Unfortunately, the establishment, almost by definition, is very statist, and, as Dan O'Connor implies, a libertarian has to use one of the two major parties to secure media-attention and ballot-access, i.e. electability.

[Omnicronimous]

@ScientificScience The differences between mainline Repbublican positions and the libertarian positions are far fewer than those between Democrats and libertarians. Which is why when libertarians aren't running as either independents or with the Libertarian Party itself, they typically run as Republicans. The main difference between Republicans and libertarians being the cause for war, as Republicans don't adhere to the "self-defense only" philosophy of libertarianism.

[Omnicronimous]

And to clarify - More than half of the major military conflicts the United States has seen in its history has been during a sitting Democrat Presidency, including the ever so popular Vietnam Conflict. Democrats are not intrinsically against war. They're against war when the war is supported by Republicans. Libertarians are against any war that is not a war of self defense (which is their political Achilles Heal).

So really, what is a libertarian Democrat other than a walking contradiction?

[coliwood]

This guys isn't a Libertarian. He is a Democrat, who couldn't win in the primary so, he is running as a Libertarian, to get on the ballot. Democrats opposed the war because they believe in the UN not because they don't want to be the "world's police". He's just another Dennis Kucinich

[Omnicronimous]

Want more?

1. Democrats support gun control. Libertarians don't.

2. Democrats support govt. funded and controlled industries. Libertarians don't.

3. Democrats support what is essentially socialized agriculture. Libertarians don't.

4. Democrats support federally funded housing. Libertarians don't.

5. Democrats support substantial financial support of the UN. Libertarians don't.

6. Democrats support raising the debt ceiling. Libertarians don't.

7. Democrats support foreign aid. Libertarians don't.

[uk6strings]

O'Connor never got into why he's running as a Democrat.... All of those things - the anti-bailouts, the anti-militarism, the anti-invation of privacy, getting the government out of abortions/gay rights, the Fed-auditing etc. - are all 180 degrees from what Democrats believe. Why the Democrat Party, which are largely opposing these issues, and not the Republican Party, which are not as opposing of these issues? What makes him LEFT of Republicans?

[SkullOfYorick]

@uk6strings Democrats these days are more likely to be against militarism and nation-building, against corporate welfare, for drug-legalization and for freedom of speech, thought and religion, though admittedly Republicans tend to be better on taxes, business-regulation, gun rights and states' rights. Ultimately, though, the establishment politicians of both parties are terrible. Like Ron Paul, O'Connor is probably merely using a major party as a vehicle for his principles.

[uk6strings]

I'm not so sure Democrats are better that freedom of thought and religion or corporate welfare (just as many, if not more, Democrats echoed the "too big to fail" line; there seems to be a lot of Goldman Sachs liberals too). But that's neither here nor there - there has to be something that O'Connor adheres to that made him pick the Left over the Right. Overall, the Dem Left favors the power of the state over someone/thing - but hopefully O'Connor is just using the "(D)" as a vehicle....

[Omnicronimous]

Let's just go over a few of the major conflicts between the libertarian position and that of Democrats -

1. Democrats support welfare. Libertarians don't.

2. Democrats support govt. funded healthcare. Libertarians don't.

3. Democrats support tax increases to fund govt. programs. Libertarians don't.

4. Democrats support govt. funded education. Libertarians don't.

5. Democrats support the collusion of unions and govt. Libertarians don't.

The number of things to list is huge. So, what's he about?

[Omnicronimous]

What is a libertarian democrat = A walking contradiction.

[chronDiggity]

sounds to me like he wants to take a libertarian approach to things while ignoring some basic libertarian beliefs. Oh well, whatever. It's actually a little refreshing to see people not fall into a specific category over and over (albeit misguided.)

[RSG132]

@chronDiggity

the reason he is running as a Democrat is

because 90% of his District are

Registered Democrats

[jjcale1111]

Jesus people ... if the only problem you have with him is unions then you ought to support him.... stop being so theological and unnecessarily hardline.

All I want to know is is this guy honest or is he bought and paid for?? if not he has my support.

[tridentmovies]

@jjcale1111

Someone who supports public unions, supports paying people with taxpayer money who 'strong-arm' business-owners/employees, which is a gross denial of property rights both of the taxpayers and of those who own busineses to hire and fire whomever they want. If you don't understand basic libertarian principles, you can never be trusted to know the right thing.

What the hell do i care that he's honest if he's wrong?

Being hardline is never unnecessary.

[jjcale1111]

@tridentmovies Property rights are not the only rights... what about the right to free association?

What do unions in the private sector have to do with "taxpayer money"?

How does collective bargaining "deny" property rights?

Also, how does the mere existence of unions stop people being hired and/or fired for cause.

I dont support unions but I prefer to think critically... for myself.

[JaySee5]

@jjcale1111 Private unions also have lobbyists. Private unions also push for tax subsidies, mandated employee benefits, etc.

[jjcale1111]

@JaySee5 We are all entitled to petition the govt... my preferred solution is to limit the size and power of the govt (and have full transparency) so that there is little pont in pushing for big govt help ...

I dont like unions anymore than I like the existence of a communist party ... but people have a right to freedom of association.

[JaySee5]

@jjcale1111 Yes, and just as a communist party goes against libertarian principles, so do unions. You can't be a libertarian and not be against both. You're not going to take away peoples rights to associate, but you sure as hell won't be OK with unions. I'm OK with people owning guns, but not going around killing random people with them.

[ConscientiousMind]

@JaySee5 In what way are unions unlibertarian? Frederic Bastiat and Herbert Spencer supported not only the right to form unions, but unions themselves as a way to counteract the power of employers.

If you're thinking of monopoly unions, mandated closed shops or the conservative strawman of unionism (fat and lazy union goons introducing scabs to baseball bats), then of course libertarians should be against all of those. But that's not what traditional labor activism is actually about.

[mtanousable]

@ConscientiousMind But to say that today's unions are about traditional labor activism is a stretch, at best. If they were, right-to-work legislation outlawing closed shops and monopoly unions wouldn't be so controversial.

[JaySee5]

@ConscientiousMind Employers have no powers in a free market unless there is low demand for workers. Employers must find and try to keep employees, so that other employers don't steal them. The only thing a union would do in a free market is create a socialist labor monopoly. Why would an employee need protection from the employer in a free market?

[ConscientiousMind]

@JaySee5 What free market? The one that doesn't exist right now and isn't likely to exist in the near future, either? Why should we operate under the assumption that labor markets are flexible and employers don't have a monopsony?

We don't live in a perfect world, and sometimes less-than-perfect solutions are needed. Pre-Roosevelt unions actually fought for better working conditions in a bottom-up way (unlike modern NLRB-approved unions which are admittedly vastly inferior).

[JaySee5]

@ConscientiousMind The free market every libertarian fights to create. You have to take a fair approach to both sides that feed into corporatism. You seem to favor "the poor employee" over the "big bad employer" on some false moral high ground. Hmm... sounds like a democrat and their class warfare propaganda. Why are jobs held in big corporations hands? Because small business can't afford to hire thanks to laws unions got passed.Take out gov, corporations, and unions together.

[Omnicronimous]

@JaySee5 P.s. "ConscientiousMind" is just one of a number of accounts posting around YouTube using that same "What free market?" line. They ignore that throughout history there have been numerous times that free markets have emerged and that on a scale, the freer the market the more prosperous the civilization. Furthermore, you'll find that responses from such accounts will always lack integrity. They have no value for liberty; just their cause - pure liberalism.

[ConscientiousMind]

@Omnicronimous "Pure liberalism" is hardly my agenda - my ideal world would have no state-enforced rents, monopolies or paternalistic assholes deciding what's best for everyone.

The reason I asked that question is because the world is not black & white. For example, in a perfect world the state would be out of the marriage business, but in an imperfect world it should also wed gay couples. Maybe that makes me a utilitarian douchebag, but it doesn't make me a liberal.

[Omnicronimous]

@ConscientiousMind Without having either of us qualify our every single position we take, I'm telling you right now that all over the Internet within the last few months there has been a dialogue circulating in liberal circles attempting to confront conservatives and libertarians with that "What free market?" line. You can call yourself whatever you want, but, intentional or not, you're using a current popular liberal talking point.

[ConscientiousMind]

@JaySee5 I'm not claiming modern unions are a net positive force, they're definitely part of the corporatist status quo, and you're right to criticize them. I think our disagreements are mostly semantic, because what I mean by libertarian-friendly unions has nothing to do with the AFL-CIO model. All I mean is that if we're to establish a prosperous libertarian society, both in private lives and the workplace, voluntary solidarity should be one of the ways to achieve it.

[pseudonominous]

He's the muthafuckin' Manchurian candidate!!

Nice try pal.... :|

[JaySee5]

You can't be a libertarian and not be against unions.

[sugarkang]

@JaySee5 Private sector unions are valid. It's Freedom of Association. Public sector unions are what's wrong. Public unions using taxpayer money to form a political bloc to pay for a politician that will provide the same public unions with more taxpayer money.

[liknital07]

@sugarkang This.

[tridentmovies]

@sugarkang

Private sector unions are valid, yes. So is an employers right to fire whomever they want.

[Omnicronimous]

@JaySee5 Libertarians aren't against unions. Libertarians are against the collusion of unions and government.

[JaySee5]

@Omnicronimous Unions are democratic socialist organizations. The majority (workers) bullies the minority (owners). Unions have no place in a free market. Unions were created to fight corporatism. Without corporatism, there is no need for a union.

[Omnicronimous]

@JaySee5 Believe me, I have issues regarding the government endorsement of corporations. However, there should be no laws endorsing or prohibiting corporations any more than there should be laws regarding unions.

[JaySee5]

@Omnicronimous No laws endorsing is the key. All laws endorsing unions should be repealed.

[AKlover]

Libertarian and Democrat????? I smell bullshit! You can't be a parasite/looter and an advocate of free minds and free markets. I'd bet if elected he votes party line democrat or is forced to defect to the GOP.

[hoosierhiver]

3:12  What, those ARE the corrupt politicians you are talking about, they aren't against it.

[TheChunkyAtheist]

This guy could do wonders for libertarians. Democrats tend to stick their fingers in their ears when people tell them about libertarian ideas, because they associate it with Republicans. This guy could give us libertarians a way to bring significant numbers of people into believing about limited government.

[arcanekrusader]

HOW is a libertarian democrat?

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

Come on Dan... You do not have a problem with the unions in this country? Seriously? You want to come out and say that out loud, publicly, and still claim that you are a libertarian? :)

[liknital07]

@TheLegalImmigrant05 Are you talking about private unions or public unions?

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

@liknital07 Doesn't matter, with the current union legislation. I have no problem with freedom of association; but the government's grant of privilege to the unions to apply coercion to non-union labor and to employers is evil.