Just What is Libertarianism?

[Dot Com]

Cecily Strong put it best at the WH Correspondents dinner-

“For those who don’t know, a Libertarian is just a Republican you have to block on Twitter.”

 

[MisterBeale]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it


You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

As a broad philosophy, Libertarianism views are worth considering. But the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters who are little more than anarchists

"You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it"

Not at the Federal level, this is obviously something the founders had intended the various states to deal with. The constitution even states that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is an issue to be dealt with by the states.

"You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them"

Same as above, these issues are to be left to the various states to find the best solutions. ESPECIALLY education. That is a deeply local issue, how one educates ones child. The fact that there is a national agency to treat kids all across the land the same? Complete bureaucratic, corporate evil.


When you end your post with an ad hominem attack by saying, "the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters," you do yourself no favors. You only make them look quite good by comparing them to the most politically wise of all, anarchists. Remember, it's that State that is evil, not the individuals that question the wisdom of these bureaucratic monstrosities. Those individuals have learned from history, why haven't you?

The founders lived in a different era with a different concept of the role of government at different levels

They couldn't have had a strong federal government if they wanted to. The country was too big, too poor and communicationand movement between the states was tedious

The concept of public welfare has evolved since the 18th century. It was once the resposibility of local communities and churches. As our country grew to over 300 million people, local charity could no longer work

Blahbitty blah blah blah balh.

Your argument is an even better reason why we should stick to the Constitution. With a larger nation, people closer to the issues at hand can take care of problems closer to home if they so choose. Massachusetts wants government healthcare? Good on them, have at it. Alabama doesn't? That's their choice. It's called freedom, try it, you might like it Marx.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Libertarians: I got mine or hope to get it, let me show you how to get yours and not become a crippled dependent living on Democratic welfare.

Libertarian: We believe in freedom and liberty
Republican: We believe in freedom and liberty: By way of welfare, wars, taxes and countless laws and regulations.
Democrat: We believe in freedom and liberty: By way of welfare, wars, taxes and countless laws and regulations.

of course if that was true Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would not be Republicans. Ever heard of them?

 

[rightwinger]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it


You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

As a broad philosophy, Libertarianism views are worth considering. But the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters who are little more than anarchists

"You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it"

Not at the Federal level, this is obviously something the founders had intended the various states to deal with. The constitution even states that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is an issue to be dealt with by the states.

"You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them"

Same as above, these issues are to be left to the various states to find the best solutions. ESPECIALLY education. That is a deeply local issue, how one educates ones child. The fact that there is a national agency to treat kids all across the land the same? Complete bureaucratic, corporate evil.


When you end your post with an ad hominem attack by saying, "the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters," you do yourself no favors. You only make them look quite good by comparing them to the most politically wise of all, anarchists. Remember, it's that State that is evil, not the individuals that question the wisdom of these bureaucratic monstrosities. Those individuals have learned from history, why haven't you?

The founders lived in a different era with a different concept of the role of government at different levels

They couldn't have had a strong federal government if they wanted to. The country was too big, too poor and communicationand movement between the states was tedious

The concept of public welfare has evolved since the 18th century. It was once the resposibility of local communities and churches. As our country grew to over 300 million people, local charity could no longer work

Blahbitty blah blah blah balh.

Your argument is an even better reason why we should stick to the Constitution. With a larger nation, people closer to the issues at hand can take care of problems closer to home if they so choose. Massachusetts wants government healthcare? Good on them, have at it. Alabama doesn't? That's their choice. It's called freedom, try it, you might like it Marx.

Yes a twenty first century superpower should allow its decisions to be made by a bunch of eighteenth century farmers

 

[Kosh]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it


You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

As a broad philosophy, Libertarianism views are worth considering. But the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters who are little more than anarchists

"You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it"

Not at the Federal level, this is obviously something the founders had intended the various states to deal with. The constitution even states that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is an issue to be dealt with by the states.

"You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them"

Same as above, these issues are to be left to the various states to find the best solutions. ESPECIALLY education. That is a deeply local issue, how one educates ones child. The fact that there is a national agency to treat kids all across the land the same? Complete bureaucratic, corporate evil.


When you end your post with an ad hominem attack by saying, "the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters," you do yourself no favors. You only make them look quite good by comparing them to the most politically wise of all, anarchists. Remember, it's that State that is evil, not the individuals that question the wisdom of these bureaucratic monstrosities. Those individuals have learned from history, why haven't you?

The founders lived in a different era with a different concept of the role of government at different levels

They couldn't have had a strong federal government if they wanted to. The country was too big, too poor and communicationand movement between the states was tedious

The concept of public welfare has evolved since the 18th century. It was once the resposibility of local communities and churches. As our country grew to over 300 million people, local charity could no longer work

Blahbitty blah blah blah balh.

Your argument is an even better reason why we should stick to the Constitution. With a larger nation, people closer to the issues at hand can take care of problems closer to home if they so choose. Massachusetts wants government healthcare? Good on them, have at it. Alabama doesn't? That's their choice. It's called freedom, try it, you might like it Marx.

Yes a twenty first century superpower should allow its decisions to be made by a bunch of eighteenth century farmers

Is that the new far left mantra now?

You the ones who want to enslave people to the party, through fear and righteous condemnation. Those that are not far left are ridiculed and they are to be silent until the far left allows them to speak?

Sounds like you are criticizing your own far left religion and not realizing it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course, the whole talk of being a 21st century power vs. an 18th century agrarian society is beside the point because if we want to change their system then they gave us a process to do so. But power mad politicians can't be bothered to follow that process so they just do whatever they want.

 

[dblack]

Of course, the whole talk of being a 21st century power vs. an 18th century agrarian society is beside the point because if we want to change their system then they gave us a process to do so. But power mad politicians can't be bothered to follow that process so they just do whatever they want.

Yeah. I mostly ignore it, but the notion that libertarians pine for the days of yore is sort of laughable. For the most part, we want ideals that haven't yet been realized. The libertarian movement is about moving forward, toward a better, freer society.

 

[merrill]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

 

[merrill]

ALEC/Koch represent libertarians however they also represent fascist pigs,buying elections,subverted the republican party,killing public education,Medicare Insurance,Social Security Insurance,Medicaid,Food Stamps,Reducing Wages etc etc etc. And support outsourcing USA jobs. All of which is anti American.

Public education,Medicare Insurance,Social Security Insurance,Medicaid,Food Stamps etc etc etc are not free services by any stretch. Taxpayers pay for these services therefore should use them accordingly as necessary.

 

[SwimExpert]

Libertarianism: I got mine, fuck the rest of you

I think you're confusing it with a one night stand.

 

[SwimExpert]

Libertarian: We believe in freedom and liberty
Republican: We believe in freedom and liberty
Democrat: We believe in freedom and liberty

Libertarian: We believe in free weed.
Republican: We believe in freedom and libery
Democrat: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Rabbi: *reverse flow diarrhea*

 

[ralfy]

There are different types of libertarianism, in which case definitions differ.

 

[Publius1787]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

It has all the awesomeness of a conservative domestic policy with all the crappyness of a liberal foreign policy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Libertarianism" means something different to everyone, including those who consider themselves "libertarians".

The same thing goes for "liberalism", "conservatism" and every other -ism.

 

[bripat9643]

If Libertarians believe in the concept of "No harm, no foul" I am OK with it

Smoking a joint does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Prostitution does not harm anyone.....leave it alone
Gays are not harming anyone.....leave them alone

But they go beyond that in a blind fanaticism that the founding fathers somehow knew everything this country would ever need

You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it


You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them

As a broad philosophy, Libertarianism views are worth considering. But the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters who are little more than anarchists

"You know, the founders never supported welfare so we shouldn't do it"

Not at the Federal level, this is obviously something the founders had intended the various states to deal with. The constitution even states that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is an issue to be dealt with by the states.

"You know, the founders never said we should have healthcare, social security or schools....so we don't need them"

Same as above, these issues are to be left to the various states to find the best solutions. ESPECIALLY education. That is a deeply local issue, how one educates ones child. The fact that there is a national agency to treat kids all across the land the same? Complete bureaucratic, corporate evil.


When you end your post with an ad hominem attack by saying, "the movement has filled with whack jobs and haters," you do yourself no favors. You only make them look quite good by comparing them to the most politically wise of all, anarchists. Remember, it's that State that is evil, not the individuals that question the wisdom of these bureaucratic monstrosities. Those individuals have learned from history, why haven't you?

The founders lived in a different era with a different concept of the role of government at different levels

They couldn't have had a strong federal government if they wanted to. The country was too big, too poor and communicationand movement between the states was tedious

The concept of public welfare has evolved since the 18th century. It was once the resposibility of local communities and churches. As our country grew to over 300 million people, local charity could no longer work

You haven't posted any evidence that local charities would no longer work. The claim is just one of the tenants of liberal orthodoxy. Neither have you presented any evidence that technological advances require the changes in government that we have suffered under.

 

[bripat9643]

"Libertarianism" means something different to everyone, including those who consider themselves "libertarians".

The same thing goes for "liberalism", "conservatism" and every other -ism.

No, not really. If your a libertarian then you endorse the "initiation of force" principle. Everything else flows from that. If you don't endorse the principle, then you aren't a libertarian.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Libertarianism" means something different to everyone, including those who consider themselves "libertarians".

The same thing goes for "liberalism", "conservatism" and every other -ism.

No, not really. If your a libertarian then you endorse the "initiation of force" principle. Everything else flows from that. If you don't endorse the principle, then you aren't a libertarian.

Man, I love this board.

Would you consider yourself a "libertarian"?

 

[bripat9643]

"Libertarianism" means something different to everyone, including those who consider themselves "libertarians".

The same thing goes for "liberalism", "conservatism" and every other -ism.

No, not really. If your a libertarian then you endorse the "initiation of force" principle. Everything else flows from that. If you don't endorse the principle, then you aren't a libertarian.

Man, I love this board.

Would you consider yourself a "libertarian"?

Yep. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, as was the man who pretty much founded the libertarian movement, Murry Rothbard.

 

[hazlnut]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

The Dictionary definition doesn't not match today's American Libertarian, a party co-opted by far-righties both religious and non-religious.

Basically people who were pissed off at the Mainstream GOP looking for new brand, they stole the Libertarian brand.

 

[hazlnut]

Republicans: "We believe in the freedoms and liberties that we approve of"
Democrats: "We believe in the freedoms and liberties that we approve of"
Libertarians: "We believe in freedom and liberty"

Libertarians, then, don't approve of other peoples ethical objection to child porn?

Libertarian support the freedom to own a gun for the purpose of shooting people in a authority acting in accordance with the law.

Seems like libertarians support the freedom to follow only the laws they agree with.