Libertarianism

[FA_Q2]

And there is the real truth. Republicans don’t like libertarians even though the core values are very close simply because they have not sold their values as republicans have. The I am going to take my ball and go home line is used all the time against libertarians from republicans because they cannot stand the fact that most libertarians refuse to vote for the continued corrupt politicians that keep coming out of the system.
‘
Where the R’s have sold out and are now willing to accept any and all lies that the republican party feeds them (while, indecently, acting exactly like the democrats in legislation) the libertarians are no longer willing to take that bullshit. Unfortunately, as long as republicans are willing to back democrats, nothing is going to change. Fortunately, more and more of them are refusing to play. Eve3ntually, the Republican Party will either change or die. I, for one, can’t wait for that day.

As a side note, it is funny that Rabbi rails against the reality that the libertarians have no power because they are not getting politicians in power when, in fact, that is how we garner the power in the first place. There would NEVER be any split or change in the parties if we did as they suggest, vote the ticket because it is better than the other guy. The more people break away and show that is unacceptable, the more the politicians need to take notice and change or die out. The ball gains momentum as it rolls along as well. So, in a way, he is right. We do not have the influence now to change much BUT it is gaining and this is EXACTLY how we get that power.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sure, but the constitution is NOT an anarcho-capitalist document. That is a fact\. It does provide for government and that is counter to anarchy.

 

[FA_Q2]

The trouble with 'freedom' is one never knows what it means for libertarians? I have never heard of any libertarian fighting for freedom for all people. Libertarianism often sounds like an apology for the status quo, 'I got mine...' My views on libertarianism are well known on the board. The article quoted at bottom, while a bit OT, is worth a read.

XXXXXXX

YOU consider ‘freedom’ to be the enforced equality of government. That is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination. Libertarians actually fight for freedom, not equality in outcome. There is a massive difference and the most stark reality is that the libertarians believe that ‘equality’ you seek is achieved by brining everyone down to the level of the lowest rather than raising others up. I believe that history supports that contention.

The idea that libertarians do not fight for freedom for all is false and I doubt that you can find a single libertarian that fight against universal freedom.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, "Republicans" is a big tent. Do you mean Republicans like John McCain or do you mean Republicans like Rand Paul?
The truth is that on economic matters Republicans and narco libertarians are almost exactly aligned. When it comes to social matters the social conservative wing of the GOP is diametrically opposed to the narcos.
Your statement: it is funny that Rabbi rails against the reality that the libertarians have no power because they are not getting politicians in power when, in fact, that is how we garner the power in the first place. Makes no sense. The national parties are agglomerations of different interests, all of them jockeying for influence within the party. Currently the old Left has the Democratic party in thrall, having beaten out the Clinton moderates. The old East Coast GOP, the party of Nixon and Rockefeller, mostly has control over the GOP, beating out the West coast Reagan/Goldwater Republicans.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Well, "Republicans" is a big tent. Do you mean Republicans like John McCain or do you mean Republicans like Rand Paul?
The truth is that on economic matters Republicans and narco libertarians are almost exactly aligned. When it comes to social matters the social conservative wing of the GOP is diametrically opposed to the narcos.
Your statement: it is funny that Rabbi rails against the reality that the libertarians have no power because they are not getting politicians in power when, in fact, that is how we garner the power in the first place. Makes no sense. The national parties are agglomerations of different interests, all of them jockeying for influence within the party. Currently the old Left has the Democratic party in thrall, having beaten out the Clinton moderates. The old East Coast GOP, the party of Nixon and Rockefeller, mostly has control over the GOP, beating out the West coast Reagan/Goldwater Republicans.

I'll say it's a big tent. That tends to happen when you're not constricted by silly things like the Constitution.

Actually, on economic matters; Republicans and libertarians are miles apart. Libertarians know that the income tax and social security are unconstitutional. Nor, do libertarians tend to support the Fed Reserve. In fact, I believe there official policy to abolish it.

Now that's a stark difference. Do you know what the difference is between Republicans and Democrats? Not much.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And that is central to that position. I don’t think it can because the power scale is totally different when you start going to the national scale. People and nations do not resemble each other in any respect at all.

As long as the federal government operates within the bounds of the Constitution then the sky is the limit. The reality is we are a very corrupt nation now. And the Constitution is written for a nation with enlightened masses; not self glazed morons.

Sure, but the constitution is NOT an anarcho-capitalist document. That is a fact\. It does provide for government and that is counter to anarchy.

At no point did I imply that anarchy was a Constitutional construct. At no point to be clear. The Constitution allows for socialism or whatever have you. But, it is to be done at the state level. The compulsive powers that the Federal government has granted unto itself are destructive in their nature. That is why they were have very limited powers. In fact, in the early days of the country, the president had less power than the governor of a state.

 

[The Rabbi]

Additional amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Income tax is unconstitutional. Which is why there is a constitutional amendment specifically permitting it.

Additional amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikisource, the free online library

Yes indeed, facts are facts. Which number amendment do you think grants the federal government to have an income tax; as if I don't know.

 

[PaulS1950]

Libertarians may hold personal opinions on matters outside the edict of the powers of the federal government but the party does not take any stand on those matters outside the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution.

The constitution is supported by many documents, one of which is the declaration of independence. It goes to the mind of the founders and provides insight into the document. Even the supreme court uses the declaration and the federalist papers in some of their decisions.

 

[Circe]

The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden".

Why not? We may as well consider the impoverished a burden -- I suppose that's what you mean by "less fortunate" though you could consider anyone who got caught for a crime as less fortunate, too, like Bernie Madoff. The impoverished ARE a burden, obviously. The high crime, the slums, etc. And more of a burden in a liberal society if everyone is expected to pitch in to support them, though that support never fixes their problems, of course.

Libertarians, if I understand correctly, think the poor can be a burden on their own time, not ours. They are responsible for themselves, and if their families or private charities wish to help them in some way, fine, but no government involvement.

 

[Circe]

I think it's a misnomer to state that the libertarian position is especially focused on the state of wars. Libertarians are neither for or against war as an absolute position. Libertarians are for freedom and no unnecessary government intervention in people's affairs.

That's not true, is it? Libertarians would be in favor of defensive war, with a government leading that effort.

The social-work wars, aggressive wars, and foreign power-projection wars of recent decades were none of them defensive wars, however, and were 100% unnecessary. And therefore wrong and immoral.

We did have to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan, but after we lost Tora Bora and he fled, we should have found a way to get out of that sandpit -------------------- or made war on Pakistan, where he actually was all that time. That would have been a reasonable defensive war, hitting Pakistan for sheltering bin Laden, and making sure of killing him, whatever it took. He did bomb New York and planned to do worse.

Bin Laden was the only just, defensive cause for war we have ever had since WWII!! All the many others were totally unnecessary.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden".

Why not? We may as well consider the impoverished a burden -- I suppose that's what you mean by "less fortunate" though you could consider anyone who got caught for a crime as less fortunate, too, like Bernie Madoff. The impoverished ARE a burden, obviously. The high crime, the slums, etc. And more of a burden in a liberal society if everyone is expected to pitch in to support them, though that support never fixes their problems, of course.

Libertarians, if I understand correctly, think the poor can be a burden on their own time, not ours. They are responsible for themselves, and if their families or private charities wish to help them in some way, fine, but no government involvement.

Yup. Exactly true. And while that may sound heartless; it's not. Waste is dramatically cut with government out of the picture. More people are physically, spirituall, emotionally and mentally prosperous and are even more incentivized to care out of gratitude for what they have. Instead, we have a bitter where's mine culture and is self perpetuating nightmare.

 

[SayMyName]

The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden".

Why not? We may as well consider the impoverished a burden -- I suppose that's what you mean by "less fortunate" though you could consider anyone who got caught for a crime as less fortunate, too, like Bernie Madoff. The impoverished ARE a burden, obviously. The high crime, the slums, etc. And more of a burden in a liberal society if everyone is expected to pitch in to support them, though that support never fixes their problems, of course.

Libertarians, if I understand correctly, think the poor can be a burden on their own time, not ours. They are responsible for themselves, and if their families or private charities wish to help them in some way, fine, but no government involvement.

Burden is subjective. Under Libertarianism, you are only a burden to those who support you, and in that case, you are not a burden, because they are free to support you. Charity is only charity and goodwill when freely given, not taken by the guns of government.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Well a libertarian wants the same rights for all worldwide. And since our wars have not generally been about that despite some clever window dressing; I think that libertarians have largely been against most wars. But my point was that libertarians aren't pure pacifists by definition.

 

[Circe]

The simple fact is that everything you have discussed is covered by the libertarians principle of non aggression. Taken to its ultimate conclusion non aggression actually prohibits all forms of pollution, even smoking in public and having light from your flashlight come onto my property.

That's actually a very interesting issue to me --- the question of what IS "harm." In Libertarianism you should be free as long as what you do doesn't harm others.

Well, just how tightly does the law, government, etc. define "harm"? There are a lot of great complainers in the world, always calling the law on their neighbors for this reason, that reason, but mainly for the reason that they are bad-tempered and have feelings of entitlement.

Needs thought.

 

[Circe]

Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?

Libertarians aren't a real political party, or even a group organized as much as the Tea Party, so I don't suppose there is a "fight." Libertarianism is more a one by one thing, at this point.

However, it seems obvious to me that libertarianism includes abortion rights! How could it not? Darn.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?

Libertarians aren't a real political party, or even a group organized as much as the Tea Party, so I don't suppose there is a "fight." Libertarianism is more a one by one thing, at this point.

However, it seems obvious to me that libertarianism includes abortion rights! How could it not? Darn.

Because in the view of many; it's killing a separate life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is not a power granted to the federal government.
The Libertarians will fight for the rights and freedoms of all citizens

Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?

You are deliberately confusing the issue there now Derideo and you know it. That is a personal belief on YOUR part. To understand the libertarian position you MUST accept that there is a competing interest here and that is the rights of the unborn child. YOU might disagree with that fact BUT there are others that see that a different way. You know that I am a pro-choice individual with some basic limitations but pro-life is not necessarily counter to libertarian ideals. There are the rights of other involved. MOST libertarians that I know are prochoice simply on the grounds that they don’t want the government involved with your life that deeply but to try and direct this to an abortion debate is an attempt to derail the topic.

Abortion is not a right/left/libertarian subject. That crosses the line of deeply held beliefs on when life begins and rights start.

Not intentionally, FA_Q2. The objective of the question is to determine the true extent to which Libertarians are willing to go to stick to their principles. For instance I am opposed to racism in all it's forms but I will uphold the right of white supremacists to say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent I may find it to be. The principle here being the right to free speech. When it comes to the principle of upholding rights then either you do or your don't.

As far as women having access to abortions is concerned they are legal whether you or I agree with them. Since women have that right then I have a duty to uphold their right because failing to do so means that I am surrendering my own rights too. The Libertarian principle is stated as the support of individual rights. Abortion is a right just like all the others that were covered by the 10th amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and for those who feel as you do you are free not to have one. However the principle remains the same and either it must be upheld or it means that you are willing to sacrifice your own rights.

Whatever rights you surrender you are never going to get back. Our right to privacy was taken away by the Patriot Act. How many more of our rights are you willing to give up? Isn't the whole point of being a Libertarian that you uphold individual rights?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Can you please provide examples where the Libertarians are fighting for the "rights and freedoms" of women to have access to abortions where these rights are being threatened in states like ND, LA and TX?

You are deliberately confusing the issue there now Derideo and you know it. That is a personal belief on YOUR part. To understand the libertarian position you MUST accept that there is a competing interest here and that is the rights of the unborn child. YOU might disagree with that fact BUT there are others that see that a different way. You know that I am a pro-choice individual with some basic limitations but pro-life is not necessarily counter to libertarian ideals. There are the rights of other involved. MOST libertarians that I know are prochoice simply on the grounds that they don’t want the government involved with your life that deeply but to try and direct this to an abortion debate is an attempt to derail the topic.

Abortion is not a right/left/libertarian subject. That crosses the line of deeply held beliefs on when life begins and rights start.

Not intentionally, FA_Q2. The objective of the question is to determine the true extent to which Libertarians are willing to go to stick to their principles. For instance I am opposed to racism in all it's forms but I will uphold the right of white supremacists to say what they want to say no matter how abhorrent I may find it to be. The principle here being the right to free speech. When it comes to the principle of upholding rights then either you do or your don't.

As far as women having access to abortions is concerned they are legal whether you or I agree with them. Since women have that right then I have a duty to uphold their right because failing to do so means that I am surrendering my own rights too. The Libertarian principle is stated as the support of individual rights. Abortion is a right just like all the others that were covered by the 10th amendment. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion and for those who feel as you do you are free not to have one. However the principle remains the same and either it must be upheld or it means that you are willing to sacrifice your own rights.

Whatever rights you surrender you are never going to get back. Our right to privacy was taken away by the Patriot Act. How many more of our rights are you willing to give up? Isn't the whole point of being a Libertarian that you uphold individual rights?

All of that flowery speech to ignore the premise that another person's life is on the line. I mean come on. Use your head.

 

[Circe]

Libertarians aren't a real political party, or even a group organized as much as the Tea Party, so I don't suppose there is a "fight." Libertarianism is more a one by one thing, at this point.

However, it seems obvious to me that libertarianism includes abortion rights! How could it not? Darn.

Because in the view of many; it's killing a separate life.

It's not a separate life until the life is separate.

As long as the life is not separate from the woman concerned, libertarianism applies. IMO.