What is a libertarian?

[Skull Pilot]

Libertarians wouldn't be in favor of nilly willy "wars" that makes them different from both repugnantcans and dimwitcraps.

 

[SniperFire]

Libertarians are the last great hope against tyranny.

Anarchy guarantees tyranny.

Perhaps this is why I prefer the term Classical Liberal. Either way, I have never met a Libertarian that didn't make clear his stance against anarchy, which indeed guarantees tyranny. In any case, to be clear, I stand for a strong federal government, with guaranteed and required powers, and states with their own constitutions, laws and traditions. This is far from anything resembling anarchy.

So you are more of a Federalist, since you believe the People's Republic of Massachusetts has every right to start their own welfare programs if they so see fit. I buy into that.

 

[eflatminor]

Libertarians are the last great hope against tyranny.

They just favor corporate tyranny.

You could not be more wrong about that. Capitalism we favor. Cronyism we do not.

 

[uscitizen]

Libertarians are the last great hope against tyranny.

They just favor corporate tyranny.

You could not be more wrong about that. Capitalism we favor. Cronyism we do not.

Unregulated capitalism will most always take advantage of both the workers and the nation.

 

[Ravi]

Just seems like another form of GOP.

A: Someone who whines that both parties are foul yet votes Republican every single time.

Bingo.

 

[SniperFire]

They just favor corporate tyranny.

You could not be more wrong about that. Capitalism we favor. Cronyism we do not.

Unregulated capitalism will most always take advantage of both the workers and the nation.

Here we go again with the Pollyannic Internet Libertarians!

 

[eflatminor]

Anarchy guarantees tyranny.

Perhaps this is why I prefer the term Classical Liberal. Either way, I have never met a Libertarian that didn't make clear his stance against anarchy, which indeed guarantees tyranny. In any case, to be clear, I stand for a strong federal government, with guaranteed and required powers, and states with their own constitutions, laws and traditions. This is far from anything resembling anarchy.

So you are more of a Federalist, since you believe the People's Republic of Massachusetts has every right to start their own welfare programs if they so see fit. I buy into that.

Not exactly. America is a Federalist system, one in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. Within that system, one can support big government powers or a limited government, socialistic meddling or free markets, etc.

Classical Liberals like myself and everyone I know that calls themselves Libertarian supports individual liberty, free markets and limited government. On those points, I do not understand why you or any conservative would express disdain towards such support. If you're big into military interventionism, perhaps there we may differ, but on economic issues and freedom? We should see eye to eye.

 

[SniperFire]

Perhaps this is why I prefer the term Classical Liberal. Either way, I have never met a Libertarian that didn't make clear his stance against anarchy, which indeed guarantees tyranny. In any case, to be clear, I stand for a strong federal government, with guaranteed and required powers, and states with their own constitutions, laws and traditions. This is far from anything resembling anarchy.

So you are more of a Federalist, since you believe the People's Republic of Massachusetts has every right to start their own welfare programs if they so see fit. I buy into that.

Not exactly. America is a Federalist system, one in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. Within that system, one can support big government powers or a limited government, socialistic meddling or free markets, etc.

Classical Liberals like myself and everyone I know that calls themselves Libertarian supports individual liberty, free markets and limited government. On those points, I do not understand why you or any conservative would express disdain towards such support. If you're big into military interventionism, perhaps there we may differ, but on economic issues and freedom? We should see eye to eye.

So you really DON'T believe in the sovereignty of States to decide things like healthcare for their constituency?

 

[eflatminor]

They just favor corporate tyranny.

You could not be more wrong about that. Capitalism we favor. Cronyism we do not.

Unregulated capitalism will most always take advantage of both the workers and the nation.

How could any capitalist organisation take such advantage without the support of the force of law? It takes a meddling politician to write laws, create loopholes, or otherwise grant undo support to a company in order for them to "take advantage of workers or the nation". Without the force of law or other political favors, any company taking unfair advantage could simply be avoided by consumers. You confuse cronyism with real capitalism.

 

[eflatminor]

Just seems like another form of GOP.

A: Someone who whines that both parties are foul yet votes Republican every single time.

Bingo.

And the 523,686 people that voted for Bob Barr in the last election?

Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps you're just a really big fan of BINGO?

 

[SniperFire]

You could not be more wrong about that. Capitalism we favor. Cronyism we do not.

Unregulated capitalism will most always take advantage of both the workers and the nation.

How could any capitalist organisation take such advantage without the support of the force of law?

LOL

Ever hear of a monopoly?

 

[Douger]

Up'ar in the mountain it's a lil ole lady who goes and dusts off them thar books that nunna the kinfolk here kin rede.

 

[eflatminor]

So you are more of a Federalist, since you believe the People's Republic of Massachusetts has every right to start their own welfare programs if they so see fit. I buy into that.

Not exactly. America is a Federalist system, one in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. Within that system, one can support big government powers or a limited government, socialistic meddling or free markets, etc.

Classical Liberals like myself and everyone I know that calls themselves Libertarian supports individual liberty, free markets and limited government. On those points, I do not understand why you or any conservative would express disdain towards such support. If you're big into military interventionism, perhaps there we may differ, but on economic issues and freedom? We should see eye to eye.

So you really DON'T believe in the sovereignty of States to decide things like healthcare for their constituency?

A state can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the individual rights in their own constitution and more importantly, the federal Constitution. However, as a Classical Liberal, I support limited government at the state level as well as the federal level. So no, I would not vote for a state run healthcare system.

 

[eflatminor]

Unregulated capitalism will most always take advantage of both the workers and the nation.

How could any capitalist organisation take such advantage without the support of the force of law?

LOL

Ever hear of a monopoly?

Sure, do you have an example of one? Unless you're talking about an extremely limited resource that is found only on a piece of land owned by a single entity, monopolies are practically impossible without government meddling in support of that entity.

 

[SniperFire]

How could any capitalist organisation take such advantage without the support of the force of law?

LOL

Ever hear of a monopoly?

Sure, do you have an example of one? Unless you're talking about an extremely limited resource that is found only on a piece of land owned by a single entity, monopolies are practically impossible without government meddling in support of that entity.

You are a joke.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's a political philosophy where individual liberty and freedom are paramount and rejects the authoritarian statist of both parties.

It is also a political party. Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

 

[eflatminor]

LOL

Ever hear of a monopoly?

Sure, do you have an example of one? Unless you're talking about an extremely limited resource that is found only on a piece of land owned by a single entity, monopolies are practically impossible without government meddling in support of that entity.

You are a joke.

Well, that was a telling retort.

 

[konradv]

It's a political philosophy where individual liberty and freedom are paramount and rejects the authoritarian statist of both parties.

It is also a political party. Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

The devil is in the details. That's why libertarians talk about liberty, but avoid the nuts and bolts like the plague. It only works when there's no one else around. As soon as a second person arrives, the complications begin and the "ism" falls apart.

 

[SniperFire]

Sure, do you have an example of one? Unless you're talking about an extremely limited resource that is found only on a piece of land owned by a single entity, monopolies are practically impossible without government meddling in support of that entity.

You are a joke.

Well, that was a telling retort.

Do you think you are the first Libertariantard in here to spout your useless pollyannic theory?

 

[eflatminor]

It only works when there's no one else around. As soon as a second person arrives, the complications begin and the "ism" falls apart.

Example?