Libertarianism on the rise in the last three years

[Lars]

Most of the people who call themselves libertarian give real libertarians a bad name, then again advocating an end to social welfare and providing no replacement (basically telling the poor to eat cake or just fall on the street and die*), tends to do that. Waiting for the kind of libertarianism where people talk about eliminating the welfare state (and replacing all its functions with private charity and community organizations), shutting down big corporations to create a free market, as well as providing jobs and education for the poor...then again that's 'socialism' right?

*Ron Paul and Sarah Palin give libertarianism a bad name.

Ron Paul is the only one that has given Libertarianism a name, it didn't exist in the mainstream dialogue before he came along. And yes, anti-trust laws and along with government jobs programs and universal education are socialist. I suppose you can be an anarcho-socialist and support universal education and social welfare on a voluntary basis, but you are still a socialist, and you sure as hell aren't a libertarian.

 

[hipeter924]

Most of the people who call themselves libertarian give real libertarians a bad name, then again advocating an end to social welfare and providing no replacement (basically telling the poor to eat cake or just fall on the street and die*), tends to do that. Waiting for the kind of libertarianism where people talk about eliminating the welfare state (and replacing all its functions with private charity and community organizations), shutting down big corporations to create a free market, as well as providing jobs and education for the poor...then again that's 'socialism' right?

*Ron Paul and Sarah Palin give libertarianism a bad name.

Ron Paul is the only one that has given Libertarianism a name, it didn't exist in the mainstream dialogue before he came along. And yes, anti-trust laws and along with government jobs programs and universal education are socialist. I suppose you can be an anarcho-socialist and support universal education and social welfare on a voluntary basis, but you are still a socialist, and you sure as hell aren't a libertarian.

Anarcho-Capitalist actually, and I said nothing about government, private =/= government; as for universal education it isn't socialist unless it is funded through forced taxation as opposed to private donations. As for your other point, if you argue that right and left wing labels matter then he is a right wing libertarian but not the only (or founding) one; Rothbard gave the theory without which Ron Paul would have nothing to stand on.

 

[Lars]

Most of the people who call themselves libertarian give real libertarians a bad name, then again advocating an end to social welfare and providing no replacement (basically telling the poor to eat cake or just fall on the street and die*), tends to do that. Waiting for the kind of libertarianism where people talk about eliminating the welfare state (and replacing all its functions with private charity and community organizations), shutting down big corporations to create a free market, as well as providing jobs and education for the poor...then again that's 'socialism' right?

*Ron Paul and Sarah Palin give libertarianism a bad name.

Ron Paul is the only one that has given Libertarianism a name, it didn't exist in the mainstream dialogue before he came along. And yes, anti-trust laws and along with government jobs programs and universal education are socialist. I suppose you can be an anarcho-socialist and support universal education and social welfare on a voluntary basis, but you are still a socialist, and you sure as hell aren't a libertarian.

Anarcho-Capitalist actually, and I said nothing about government, private =/= government; as for universal education it isn't socialist unless it is funded through forced taxation as opposed to private donations. As for your other point, if you argue that right and left wing labels matter then he is a right wing libertarian but not the only (or founding) one; Rothbard gave the theory without which Ron Paul would have no leg to stand on.

For someone that claims to know about political economy, your limited understanding of political philosophy is staggering. Anyways, socialism implies communal ownership, it does not imply a state, it merely implies a collective. The collective can be voluntary or involuntary. What you are advocating for is a universal education program financed on a voluntary basis, that is anarcho-socialist. If you are advocating charity based donations, which people can fund or not fund, than the system is not universal and it is not socialist. Universal implies that everyone in the society is funding it, whether it is voluntary or not.

Social anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ron Paul was a libertarian before Rothbard was publishing, and almost no one knows who Rothbard is. While Rothbard is a icon for libertarian intellectuals, Ron Paul formulated his ideas based on the readings of Menger, Mises, and Hayek. Rothbard is irrelevant in the development of Ron Paul as a popular libertarian political figure.

 

[Antiderivative]

Libertarianism has its roots in liberalism and true liberalism has much appeal.

 

[flacaltenn]

People think Libertarian=Free Sex and Pot.

Mostly they're right.

Dear Rabbi... You're confused. Just because I TOLERATE other people's choices, doesn't mean I condone them. In fact -- I reserve the right to be appalled by their abusive behaviours. Being pro-choice on EVERYTHING is just a coherent philosophy about trusting individuals and treating each one with respect. Not as an incompentent and untrustworthy child.

I find mainstream politics extremely INTOLERANT and INCOHERENT. That would keep me up at night.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not about the label of her shirt, it's about how she carries the fabric into negotiations and it's not about the car he drives it's about the game he brings. I'm so fucking tired of labels...

Fiscally, I'm looking for candidates to support who shun lobbyists and show me they understand the concept of fair taxes and appropriate regulation rather than low taxes and no regulation. I'm also looking for candidates who support a strict return to PAYGO

On social issues I'm looking for candidates of character. If taxes are fair, spending limited to what's collected and professional lobbying is relegated to the history books, maybe the states will have some money left over to keep things tidy for the tourists.

I see nothing at all wrong with what you're asking for. And in fact, it's not incompatible with practical libertarianism. If you want subsidies to disappear and lobbyist to become extinct -- that's what we've been striving for. The subsidies are the easy part -- that just takes willpower. The lobbying is a little more difficult because folks have to realize that the reason the lobbyists are feasting in D.C. is that D.C has increased it's range of meddling behaviour. It can easily be used to screw your competitor or have your competitor screw you. It's become the tool of choice for market advantage. And I guarantee that any politician without the "libertarian" leaning is NOT serious about these issues.

BTW: I'm embarrassed about the attacks on your first post. Some of my anarchist buds consider themselves performance artists as well as political savants.

 

[dblack]

I'm also looking for candidates who support a strict return to PAYGO

On social issues I'm looking for candidates of character. If taxes are fair, spending limited to what's collected and professional lobbying is relegated to the history books, maybe the states will have some money left over to keep things tidy for the tourists.

Indeed. I'm actually for attaching new taxes to every single bill that requires spending. We should raise taxes (on everyone, across the board) until every bit of government we're getting is paid for in full. The thing is, we really have no idea how much government we want as a nation, nor will we, until we're actually paying for it. As a libertarian, it's my hope that people will find much more enthusiasm for cutting government when the do have to actually pay for it, but either way, pushing the costs off on our children is indefensible.

 

[Triton]

Libertarians want to remove the burden of government and be free to live as they please as long as each other respects the others unalienable rights.

What is wrong with this?

 

[oreo]

A recent CNN poll shows that libertarianism is on the rise in the last three years in the United States, more than at any point in the last two decades.

The poll, which CNN has conducted yearly since 1993, tracks the strength of social and economic libertarianism and reveals that both ideas are gaining popular support.

Sixty-three percent of respondents believe that government is doing too much, up from 52 percent in 2008. Half of all respondents said that government should not promote any set of traditional or moral values, up from 41 percent in 2008.

Libertarianism | CNN Poll | On The Rise | The Daily Caller

This sounds nice but my problem is that while people may look at those two questions and conclude that libertarianism is on the rise nowhere was the word "libertarian" used in the questioning. Just because you think the government is generally doing to much, and you don't think the government should promote any kind of values doesn't mean you're a libertarian. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the people polled would actually consider themselves libertarian.

You're talking Ron Paul. And yes he is very popular with both sides of the isle who believe strickly in the U.S. Constitution--and DO NOT want the Federal Government in the business of running our daily lives--in trying to micro-manage it.

Ron Paul is popular with conservatives and liberals. In fact, I watched a group of conservatives and liberals discuss with congressmen on both sides of the isle--issues of today. The right was polarized against the left and visa versa--until Rand Paul--Ron Pauls son addressed those same issues--and every hand rose in that crowd approving of what Rand Paul had just stated. It was unbelievable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarians want to remove the burden of government and be free to live as they please as long as each other respects the others unalienable rights.

What is wrong with this?

Only a little too simplistic. I want to start with the Constitution and all those authorities mentioned therein. I'm not an anarchist. (although some on this board are). In addition, I recognize that the free market is ALREADY bound by several fundamentally INHERENT checks on power. Off the top of my head..

1) Competition
2) Public Relations and Customer Satisfaction
3) Civil law system for protecting against externalities of business.
4) Stockholders and Stakeholders with various concepts of corporate governance.
5) Contract Law for Products/Services (chain of liability).

So EVEN WITHOUT invoking Govt or regulation, I start from a lot more than a Mad Max scenario. With all that spelled out -- where's the problem that you want to warn me about?

OREO:: I saw that same clip.. Amazing. People are looking for a plan. Not a label. And apparently all those years of pondering what we'd do better just MIGHT be paying off.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's not about the label of her shirt, it's about how she carries the fabric into negotiations and it's not about the car he drives it's about the game he brings. I'm so fucking tired of labels...

Fiscally, I'm looking for candidates to support who shun lobbyists and show me they understand the concept of fair taxes and appropriate regulation rather than low taxes and no regulation. I'm also looking for candidates who support a strict return to PAYGO

On social issues I'm looking for candidates of character. If taxes are fair, spending limited to what's collected and professional lobbying is relegated to the history books, maybe the states will have some money left over to keep things tidy for the tourists.

I see nothing at all wrong with what you're asking for. And in fact, it's not incompatible with practical libertarianism. If you want subsidies to disappear and lobbyist to become extinct -- that's what we've been striving for. The subsidies are the easy part -- that just takes willpower. The lobbying is a little more difficult because folks have to realize that the reason the lobbyists are feasting in D.C. is that D.C has increased it's range of meddling behaviour. It can easily be used to screw your competitor or have your competitor screw you. It's become the tool of choice for market advantage. And I guarantee that any politician without the "libertarian" leaning is NOT serious about these issues.

BTW: I'm embarrassed about the attacks on your first post. Some of my anarchist buds consider themselves performance artists as well as political savants.

Thanks. I like The Libertarian Party. The biggest problem with D.C. is it's seeming ability to take rational men and women and turn them into partisan politicians.

I blame professional lobbying and the lure of power. Changing the fundamental way our government does business is more than just a snappy catch phrase, it's necessary.

I wish Obama had had the political stones to call on The People to form a human shield between Congress and 'K' Street before the healthcare law was written, but wishes are for little girls and Sunday afternoons. It's Tuesday.... We need to find a candidate who walks the talk.


BTW: Don't be.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm also looking for candidates who support a strict return to PAYGO

On social issues I'm looking for candidates of character. If taxes are fair, spending limited to what's collected and professional lobbying is relegated to the history books, maybe the states will have some money left over to keep things tidy for the tourists.

Indeed. I'm actually for attaching new taxes to every single bill that requires spending. We should raise taxes (on everyone, across the board) until every bit of government we're getting is paid for in full. The thing is, we really have no idea how much government we want as a nation, nor will we, until we're actually paying for it. As a libertarian, it's my hope that people will find much more enthusiasm for cutting government when the do have to actually pay for it, but either way, pushing the costs off on our children is indefensible.

Step one is to determine how to tax - Income, Consumption or my personal favorite, a combination of the two.

Pick a number between 1 and 10 - say for instance 7.

Start with a tax on income and one on consumption, both at 7%. Only then can we see how much we have to spend - If it proves to be too much, slide it back to 6, if not enough, bump it up to 8.

Tax policy has GOT to be separated from spending. It's stupid to use a tax credit to dole out welfare, unless of course you own stock in H & R Block.

Taxing our economy at a simple and stated level will shift 1/3 of the power now found in Congress back to the people and the current political machine is not going to give up that power without a fight. Are We, The Peeps ready to fight?

 

[editec]

Was it libertarian when Bush II gave trillions to the Banksters?

Was it libertarian when Obama gave trillions to the Banksters?

 

[The Rabbi]

People think Libertarian=Free Sex and Pot.

Mostly they're right.

Dear Rabbi... You're confused. Just because I TOLERATE other people's choices, doesn't mean I condone them. In fact -- I reserve the right to be appalled by their abusive behaviours. Being pro-choice on EVERYTHING is just a coherent philosophy about trusting individuals and treating each one with respect. Not as an incompentent and untrustworthy child.

I find mainstream politics extremely INTOLERANT and INCOHERENT. That would keep me up at night.

You can trust whatever you want. But the fact is that a certain number of people are going to engage in destructive anti-social behavior. And the question is what to do about that.

Personally I find narco-libertarianism frightening in its child-like simplicity and lack of sophistication.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sadly the term is already being highjacked, liberal John McCain has already tried to label himself as one.


If you aren't a fiscal conservative, you don't follow a libertarian philosophy. McCain, Palin and the rest of the neocons don't fit the bill.

 

[Bfgrn]

I agree with you man.

The last narco-libertarian president incinerated 6,000,000 Jews.

Oooooooh, wait, Adolf, was a fascistic nazi, YOUR religion. So they should burn and your ilk at the stake.

Gee, hope you concur.

.

At least you admit the Holocaust actually happened. Unlike your ideological cell mates.

Ironic you mentions cell mates and holocaust in the same post, because in many countries you can be put in a prison cell for questioning the Holocaust.

The nation you are most likely to be incarcerated in has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population...

That nation; America, land of the 'free'...the city upon the hill

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree with you man.

The last narco-libertarian president incinerated 6,000,000 Jews.

Oooooooh, wait, Adolf, was a fascistic nazi, YOUR religion. So they should burn and your ilk at the stake.

Gee, hope you concur.

.

At least you admit the Holocaust actually happened. Unlike your ideological cell mates.

Ironic you mentions cell mates and holocaust in the same post, because in many countries you can be put in a prison cell for questioning the Holocaust.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A recent CNN poll shows that libertarianism is on the rise in the last three years in the United States, more than at any point in the last two decades.

The poll, which CNN has conducted yearly since 1993, tracks the strength of social and economic libertarianism and reveals that both ideas are gaining popular support.

Sixty-three percent of respondents believe that government is doing too much, up from 52 percent in 2008. Half of all respondents said that government should not promote any set of traditional or moral values, up from 41 percent in 2008.

Libertarianism | CNN Poll | On The Rise | The Daily Caller

This sounds nice but my problem is that while people may look at those two questions and conclude that libertarianism is on the rise nowhere was the word "libertarian" used in the questioning. Just because you think the government is generally doing to much, and you don't think the government should promote any kind of values doesn't mean you're a libertarian. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the people polled would actually consider themselves libertarian.

These are the 2 questions:

Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?

That sounds like conservatisim vs liberalism/progressivism/socialism.

Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?

That sounds like conservatism/liberalism vs libertarianism

Yes I just said both conservatives and liberals want to use the govt to promote a certain set of values, the dems claim progressive socialism is a traditional value .

 

[konradv]

Maybe people don't call themselves libertarian, because they realize it's just another "ism". Who needs that kind of straight jacket after what happened in the 20th century? It's actually the flip side of the Marxist coin, in that they both require a basic shilt in human nature to work. Marxists expect everyone to work for the good of everyone, forgetting that without relatively rapid reward for their labors, many will not work at all. The libertarians, on the other hand, expect most transactions to be on a person-to-person basis with little if any outside influence, forgetting that without oversight some of the powerful will inevitably prey on the weak.

 

[hipeter924]

Ron Paul is the only one that has given Libertarianism a name, it didn't exist in the mainstream dialogue before he came along. And yes, anti-trust laws and along with government jobs programs and universal education are socialist. I suppose you can be an anarcho-socialist and support universal education and social welfare on a voluntary basis, but you are still a socialist, and you sure as hell aren't a libertarian.

Anarcho-Capitalist actually, and I said nothing about government, private =/= government; as for universal education it isn't socialist unless it is funded through forced taxation as opposed to private donations. As for your other point, if you argue that right and left wing labels matter then he is a right wing libertarian but not the only (or founding) one; Rothbard gave the theory without which Ron Paul would have no leg to stand on.

For someone that claims to know about political economy, your limited understanding of political philosophy is staggering. Anyways, socialism implies communal ownership, it does not imply a state, it merely implies a collective. The collective can be voluntary or involuntary. What you are advocating for is a universal education program financed on a voluntary basis, that is anarcho-socialist. If you are advocating charity based donations, which people can fund or not fund, than the system is not universal and it is not socialist. Universal implies that everyone in the society is funding it, whether it is voluntary or not.

Social anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ron Paul was a libertarian before Rothbard was publishing, and almost no one knows who Rothbard is. While Rothbard is a icon for libertarian intellectuals, Ron Paul formulated his ideas based on the readings of Menger, Mises, and Hayek. Rothbard is irrelevant in the development of Ron Paul as a popular libertarian political figure.

*yawn*

Ron Paul was in the army in 1963 (and didn't enter the house of Representatives till 1976), when Rothbard wrote his first book in 1962 and had lectured at universities several years before then; as far as your fails go I don't know where begin. Also Ron Paul and Rothbard were on the same page in lots of areas, in fact Rothbard complemented Ron Paul on his efforts, but neither claims to have started the libertarian movement or brought it all on their own into the political arena; it already was before either was born.

I was talking about states with socialist policies, not stateless socialism which I might add hasn't even existed. Secondly what do you define as 'universal education', something I never even suggested implementing in the first place; for me the ideal education system is user pays, with the poor being provided education by private charity and donations not collectives, workers unions and whatever else you are ranting on about.

Finally "Universal implies that everyone in the society is funding it, whether it is voluntary or not." universal education doesn't mean that at all, all it means is that everyone has access to education (it's how its funded and what the curriculum is made up of which determines what sort of system it is); in fact the US basically has universal education right now (though certainly not a perfect one as not everyone has access to education), and it would have it (you would hope) under a non state system as well.

PS: Red means false, blue means you are on the ball but missing something, green means true.