The Property and Freedom Society stands for an uncompromising intellectual radicalism: for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association—which logically implies the right to not associate with, or to "discriminate against," anyone in one's personal and business relations—and unconditional free trade. It condemns imperialism and militarism and their fomenters, and champions peace. It rejects positivism, relativism, and egalitarianism in any form, whether of "outcome" or "opportunity," and it has an outspoken distaste for politics and politicians. As such it seeks to avoid any association with the policies and proponents of interventionism, which Ludwig von Mises had identified in 1946 as the fatal flaw in the plan of the many earlier and contemporary attempts by intellectuals alarmed by the rising tide of socialism and totalitarianism to found an anti-socialist ideological movement. Mises wrote: "What these frightened intellectuals did not comprehend was that all those measures of government interference with business which they advocated are abortive...There is no middle way. Either the consumers are supreme or the government."

As culturally conservative libertarians, we are convinced that the process of de-civilization has again reached a crisis point and that it is our moral and intellectual duty to once again undertake a serious effort to rebuild a free, prosperous, and moral society. It is our emphatic belief that an approach embracing intransigent political radicalism is, in the long run, the surest path to our cherished goal of a regime of totally unfettered individual liberty and private property. In thus seeking a fresh and radical new beginning, we are heeding the old but frequently forgotten advice of Friedrich Hayek's: "We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty..., which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote�..Unless we can make the philosophical foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost."

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc148.htm

Conservatives seem to be asking themselves and others the question, "What is a liberal? Am I a liberal? Are you a liberal?" Rather than construct a list of attributes, I would like to offer a short list of familiar names of individuals who are unquestionably liberals:

Franklin D. Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Gloria Steinem, Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King Jr., Coretta Scott King, Virginia Woolf, Joan Baez, Woody Guthrie, Oprah Winfrey, Allen Ginsberg, Susan Sontag, Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Hunter Thompson, Gore Vidal, Annie Sprinkle, Andy Warhol

So, if you are currently conservative and wonder if maybe you were actually a liberal all along, compare yourself to these people and if you still think you're a liberal, well maybe you are.

Also, Jesus was a liberal. So was Buddha.

You want some anti-war or pacifist street cred, join the Green party. Nobody here is as stupid as you seem to think. There are damn few pacifists. Being "anti-war" does not make you a pacifist. You are the fellow who wanted to own what ever weapons systems the government owns. You are anti-statist anti-militarists. You are not pacifists or opposed to the use of force, just opposed to the state's use of force, regardless of what your fakakta libertarian bullshit professes. As Mike Huben says:

"If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun, why don't you have even more powerful armament?"

"Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police."

I mean, really; he claims there are "Anti-war Fascists" for gods sake! Does he think all those fascists were pacifists? bejesus; it gets better all the time!

Why is it hard to understand that we anti-war types do not see any difference in a war simply based on which Party got it started. Why is this hard to see?

If you are really opposed to violence and war, join the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_Freedom_Party

Whatever it is, classical or otherwise, I'm not going to have a bunch of right wing ideologues define it for me. I don't care what think tank they come from. As far as anarchists go. What kind of anarchist would you be if you didn't define it for yourself?

That might be Chomsky's idea, too. It was always mine.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html

LWM writes "Excuse me" and I see no reason to do so. We are up to almost a week of this vile, slanderous, profane, crap by an idiot by the handle of LWM.

... You want some anti-war or pacifist street cred, join the Green party. Nobody here is as stupid as you seem to think.

What is a reasoning person to make of this statement? Does the fool think I care about "street-cred", or does he think I do not know many in the Democratic party are every bit as war loving as the current administration. (just different enemies) The sentence makes it difficult to discern his state of mind.

... There are damn few pacifists. Being "anti-war" does not make you a pacifist. You are the fellow who wanted to own what ever weapons systems the government owns. You are anti-statist anti-militarists. You are not pacifists or opposed to the use of force, just opposed to the state's use of force, regardless of what your fakakta libertarian bullshit professes. ...

Still no clue as to what he means, but it looks like he has declared a "fakakta" on me. Does that mean he realizes he is all mixed up, can not spell it, or it was lost in translation?

(note:fakakta: Yiddish for crazy, all mixed up)

LWM: ... If you are really opposed to violence and war, join the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom party. ...

I do not join parties, I am more interested in truth and justice. I can see that one such as you has a deep, deep need to belong to some group --- after all, this comment section is all you do. :-)

(even the resident poet wondered if you ever sleep)