Libertarians?

Added info defining Libertarianism (again from wikipedia)

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[1][2] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[3] political freedom, and voluntary association. Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all.[4]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[5] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[6] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[7][8]

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should have a role.[4] Anarchist schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept government assistance for the poor.[9] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead (Libertarian socialism).[10][11][12]

Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with anarchism, and some express disapproval of capitalists calling themselves libertarians.[13] Conversely, other academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives argue that free-market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the U.S. since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[14][15] and that "libertarianism" is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[16][17] Likewise, many libertarian capitalists disapprove of socialists calling themselves "libertarian."[6]

In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States),[18][19] along with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[20][21]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
 
Well, you have a right to your opinion, James, and you're certainly not afraid to voice it. I count myself as a libertarian. Different from being an anarchist. I quite like the voice Ron Paul has given Libertarianism (not his voice), but if I were in the US I wouldn't vote anyway.

The idea of Libertarians, people dedicated to their own personal freedom and the freedom of others, 'belonging' to a party is anathema to me. Neither do I vote. I no longer consent to be ruled. STOP! Please read the rest of the post before your knee jerks.

For anyone interested (you don't have to tell me if you're not... James), find yourself a copy of "Democracy: The God that Failëd" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. It's really worth a read regardless of which side of the debate you're on.

Nobody thinks about the fact that you have two parties down there (in reality) who both want the right to coerce you in the way that you should go.

Do I have a better system? Yeah, but it's loose and the powers that be would never allow it. It's called Freedom and independence. People in the US used to believe in that. Now they want security.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

Nouriel Roubini is the one who sez there are no libertarians in an economic crisis, all of them lick governments hand then.
 
I will admit that drives me crazy! Because the Democrats want to throw us with the Republicans and the Republicans want to co-opt us.

But then Republicans find out that we are for legalization of prostitution, drugs and (yes) gay marriage and suddenly Libertarians are bad to Republicans

But Democrats forget all of that because we don't support the idea of government spending and funding. (for lack of a better word)

So how do we step out? How do we get Democrats to stop aligning us with the Republican thoughts & issues? And how do we get Republicans to stop thinking that we are just a financially anarchistic group of their own party?


Hey Ricky and James~ yes I am dipping my toe in the GB pond. [laughs]

The folks here are OK. Few have teeth or testicles or brains enough to do harm.
 
Ummm... both and neithe? [laughs]

On the one hand do I support changes to health insurance regulations? Yes. I think there are many ways to change and overhaul the system to the betterment of our nation.
Ok. So far so good. What I was asking about was more about attitude than actual politics. If you can agree with reasonable people that facts are facts and respectfully disagree with them about what the best solution to a certain problem is, then that's fine.

Do I believe that best way is the government taking it over? Um Hell no! My fear there is that it leads us down the path of more regulations and restrictions on our life and liberty because our health is now communal property. We must eat better, exercise more, etc... because the government has a vested interest in it. And they have the tools to make us conform with the idea of denial of benefits if we don't do as we are told or they will just pass laws and regulations to make us. They will decide how much soda, bread, veggies we should and should not eat.
Here however is where we run into problem. You start diverting from that little thing that the rest of us call reality. Nobody asked you whether you believe that the best way is the government taking it over. I asked you about Obamacare. Obamacare is a change in the regulatory framework that the health insurance industry already had, a way to subsidize health insurance for more people, and the budgetary pulleys and levers needed to finance that. It is not the government taking over. It is not socialized medicine. Progressives wish in their most rosy dreams that it was, but it de facto is not. The rest of that paragraph is slippery slope ascription. Things that you fear the government might do. Not what they do.

Ultimately I believe that government health care should have been a last ditch, tried everything else, nuclear option. There were many options that were not examined, instead they jumped to creating a system that forces Americans to become dependent on the state for their health decisions. That seems dangerous to me and should have only been a last resort kind of thing.

What government health care? It was private health care and private health insurance before Obamacare, and it will be private health care and private health insurance after all of the changes called Obamacare is implemented. Those changes might be good, or they might be awful, that is up for debate, and rightfully should.

Like I said, what you're expressing here is not a difference of opinion about whether Obamacare is a good or bad solution to the problem at hand, you're expressing a difference in perception of reality. It is perfectly all right to disagree about things. But unless people can base what things are on what things actually are and replace it with partisan poli-fiction (whether that's "Government takeover!" on the right or "war on women!" on the left), there's no ground for communication.
 
Ok. So far so good. What I was asking about was more about attitude than actual politics. If you can agree with reasonable people that facts are facts and respectfully disagree with them about what the best solution to a certain problem is, then that's fine.

Here however is where we run into problem. You start diverting from that little thing that the rest of us call reality. Nobody asked you whether you believe that the best way is the government taking it over. I asked you about Obamacare. Obamacare is a change in the regulatory framework that the health insurance industry already had, a way to subsidize health insurance for more people, and the budgetary pulleys and levers needed to finance that. It is not the government taking over. It is not socialized medicine. Progressives wish in their most rosy dreams that it was, but it de facto is not. The rest of that paragraph is slippery slope ascription. Things that you fear the government might do. Not what they do.



What government health care? It was private health care and private health insurance before Obamacare, and it will be private health care and private health insurance after all of the changes called Obamacare is implemented. Those changes might be good, or they might be awful, that is up for debate, and rightfully should.

Like I said, what you're expressing here is not a difference of opinion about whether Obamacare is a good or bad solution to the problem at hand, you're expressing a difference in perception of reality. It is perfectly all right to disagree about things. But unless people can base what things are on what things actually are and replace it with partisan poli-fiction (whether that's "Government takeover!" on the right or "war on women!" on the left), there's no ground for communication.

The reason I bring the idea of government being too involved in the health care debate is because, being a Libertarian, I am always on the look out for ways in which policies advocated or advanced might be used to subvert individual freedoms. To me the very basis of my political belief is the notion of what government "might" do and how to prevent it. I don't think that governments start out with the intention to control us (this would be why I am not considered an Anarchist) but that through laws and regulations, government can end up in that position of needing to control aspects of our behavior.

While I understand the need for healthcare reform, I fear the steps that Obamacare will take will lead us into a position of government having sway and influence on our healthcare decisions. It is why I can agree with the intention but be against the proposed solution. But that is just one example and admittedly somewhat of a projection.

Hence the both and neither answer to your question. My explanation was simply to show my reasoning.
 
The reason I bring the idea of government being too involved in the health care debate is because, being a Libertarian, I am always on the look out for ways in which policies advocated or advanced might be used to subvert individual freedoms. To me the very basis of my political belief is the notion of what government "might" do and how to prevent it. I don't think that governments start out with the intention to control us (this would be why I am not considered an Anarchist) but that through laws and regulations, government can end up in that position of needing to control aspects of our behavior.

While I understand the need for healthcare reform, I fear the steps that Obamacare will take will lead us into a position of government having sway and influence on our healthcare decisions. It is why I can agree with the intention but be against the proposed solution. But that is just one example and admittedly somewhat of a projection.

Hence the both and neither answer to your question. My explanation was simply to show my reasoning.
See, that was a much more nuanced and reality based reply and choice of rhetoric. It contains nothing that contradicts fact. You believe that policy A will in the future lead to other stuff, like policy B. This is your analysis. Plus your value assessment that policy B is a bad thing. That is fine. You are no longer saying that policy A is policy B. See the difference?

Can you then also accept that some people might disagree with your analysis and believe that policy A does not lead to policy B without labeling them idiots? And can you accept that some people also might disagree with your value assessment that policy B is a bad thing, without calling them Hitler?

Then welcome, pull up a chair and have a frappuchino. Let's talk.



Yah, that got abstract awfully fast, but I felt it was just confusing to go on about Obamacare. That was after all just an example.
 
I voted for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in the last two elections. I donate to the party and am a dues paying member of the state and local party.

Libertarians are not some type of faction of the GOP. There are absolute differences. Many differences are rooted in the GOPs fundamentalists wishing to canonize the Old Testament by building it into the legal system. Other differences lie in the crony capitalism and big government ideals of the so-called fiscal conservatives that are really the henchmen of the military-industrial complex we were warned about by Eisenhower.

The formation of the Libertarian Party as a national party with a 50 state reach is something that is only just coming into focus. Just as the Democrats and Republicans have their factions and "wings" so does the growing Libertarian Party.

The growing number of Americans that consider themselves atheistic, fiscally conservative and socially liberal represent the growing ranks of the Libertarians. With 1% of the vote in 2012 and efforts to capture 5% of the vote in 2016 the Party will be eligible for federal election funding, and then the messages can start to really get out.

For the record - I do not like Rand Paul or Ron Paul. I held my nose and voted for Barr 5 years ago. If there has to be a label, call me a "Gary Johnson Libertarian".
 
See, that was a much more nuanced and reality based reply and choice of rhetoric. It contains nothing that contradicts fact. You believe that policy A will in the future lead to other stuff, like policy B. This is your analysis. Plus your value assessment that policy B is a bad thing. That is fine. You are no longer saying that policy A is policy B. See the difference?

Can you then also accept that some people might disagree with your analysis and believe that policy A does not lead to policy B without labeling them idiots? And can you accept that some people also might disagree with your value assessment that policy B is a bad thing, without calling them Hitler?

Then welcome, pull up a chair and have a frappuchino. Let's talk.



Yah, that got abstract awfully fast, but I felt it was just confusing to go on about Obamacare. That was after all just an example.

I can accept that people disagree with my thoughts. I have a problem when their response is "Well you're just stupid!". I can't stand political discussions that degenerate into personal attacks. We can disagree as much as we like, at the end of the day I will just think you are wrong or misguided. But that's okay I think half of my family is wrong and misguided. [laughs]


I voted for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in the last two elections. I donate to the party and am a dues paying member of the state and local party.

Libertarians are not some type of faction of the GOP. There are absolute differences. Many differences are rooted in the GOPs fundamentalists wishing to canonize the Old Testament by building it into the legal system. Other differences lie in the crony capitalism and big government ideals of the so-called fiscal conservatives that are really the henchmen of the military-industrial complex we were warned about by Eisenhower.

The formation of the Libertarian Party as a national party with a 50 state reach is something that is only just coming into focus. Just as the Democrats and Republicans have their factions and "wings" so does the growing Libertarian Party.

The growing number of Americans that consider themselves atheistic, fiscally conservative and socially liberal represent the growing ranks of the Libertarians. With 1% of the vote in 2012 and efforts to capture 5% of the vote in 2016 the Party will be eligible for federal election funding, and then the messages can start to really get out.

For the record - I do not like Rand Paul or Ron Paul. I held my nose and voted for Barr 5 years ago. If there has to be a label, call me a "Gary Johnson Libertarian".

So nice to know I am not alone.

I would love to see the day when we are recognized as our own party, unaffiliated with the other two but as an independent entity.
 
I would love to see the day when we are recognized as our own party, unaffiliated with the other two but as an independent entity.

We are our own party, independent and unaffiliated. Have you formally joined the party? $25.00 and they even send you a nice card so you can be a card-carrying Libertarian :)


attachment.php
 
Last edited:
In my experience, the vast majority of libertarians are just republicans who want plausible deniability from the party.
 
We are our own party, independent and unaffiliated. Have you formally joined the party? $25.00 and they even send you a nice card so you can be a card-carrying Libertarian :)


[laughs] Let me clarify. I can't wait for the day when the media and the other parties recognize the Libertarian Party as a separate entity.
 
[laughs] Let me clarify. I can't wait for the day when the media and the other parties recognize the Libertarian Party as a separate entity.

Join a country club if you have such a need to 'belong.'
 
I have to ask because I see a lot of references to Libertarians and their beliefs and these statements are quite often wrong.

How many people here are Libertarians? If not, how many have done their research on the party or do they simply subscribe to the false notion and media spin that the Libertarian Party is simply a branch of the Republican Party?

National Socialist Democrats: If you aren't with us, you're against us, because you are a black and white thinker who actually likes the drivel written by Ayn Rand.
 
Added info defining Libertarianism (again from wikipedia)

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[1][2] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[3] political freedom, and voluntary association. Libertarians advocate a society with a greatly reduced state or no state at all.[4]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[5] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[6] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[7][8]

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should have a role.[4] Anarchist schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept government assistance for the poor.[9] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead (Libertarian socialism).[10][11][12]

Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with anarchism, and some express disapproval of capitalists calling themselves libertarians.[13] Conversely, other academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives argue that free-market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the U.S. since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[14][15] and that "libertarianism" is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[16][17] Likewise, many libertarian capitalists disapprove of socialists calling themselves "libertarian."[6]

In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States),[18][19] along with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[20][21]"


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

If you are not well-studied in the Austrian School of Economics, then you are one of those situational Libertarians who tend to be one, or two, issue voters but will side with Interventionism especially if you can frame the positive influence of government in ecological or "social" terms...
 
I don't see why libertarians would want to be Republicans.

It's the other way around here on Lit.

On Lit, "Libertarians" (more properly, "Glibertarians") are wingnut conservatives who want to bash libruls 24/7 without having to justify their conservative beliefs.
 
I can accept that people disagree with my thoughts. I have a problem when their response is "Well you're just stupid!". I can't stand political discussions that degenerate into personal attacks. We can disagree as much as we like, at the end of the day I will just think you are wrong or misguided. But that's okay I think half of my family is wrong and misguided. [laughs]
I think most of the world is wrong and misguided. What I see more and more lately though is people being wrong and misguided about facts.
Not which policy most effectively solve a problem, or about what is morally right and wrong. But partisan divides about what reality is. What then, how to you engage in meaningful debate with someone who starts off with "Since the earth is flat..." or "Since Obama is a radical maxist..." or "Since Libertarians think all poor people better just starve the fuck away..."?
 
Back
Top