What is Libertarian?

[Skull Pilot]

I identify myself as a libertarian because I cannot find a closer description.

I do know that libertarianism as a governmental philosophy is unrealistic because people do not want the responsibility that comes with complete freedom.

 

[Bfgrn]

I just thought I'd throw this one out there for discussion. It's my guess, based on many of the posts around here, that there will be wildly divergent views. I've been associated with libertarian causes, including the Libertarian party since before Ron Paul's first run for president ('88). I even ran for local county offices on the Libertarian ticket a couple of times as a 'paper' candidate ('paper' meaning I was on the ballot but didn't run an active campaign - and frankly had no expectation of winning).

For me, libertarian ideology is pretty simple. It's about taking the ethos of 'live-and-let-live' seriously. It's about real tolerance and diversity. It's based on the idea that the whole purpose of government is to maximize freedom.

Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

 

[flacaltenn]

Interesting. That's more or less the conclusion I arrived at a few years back. From my perspective, the party proper is dominated by ideological purists who would rather be 'a big fish in a small pond' than have a real impact on the polical world. In particular, I felt like they passed up too many opportunities to reach out to like minded people simply because they were affiliated with mainstream parties. I see real potential in fomenting a movement that crosses party boundaries. I talk to Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Constitutionalists who agree that we have government run amok. We need to pull together and stand up for what is right.

Yup.. Third party choices and fourth and fifth choices would go a long way to breaking up the monotony and monopoly of the twin moron parties. There was active discussion with the Green party back about 8 years ago RE: cooperation on ballot access legal challenges. The only way to instill real philosophy into the Dem/Rep beauty contest is to challenge them from the "extremes". Because you know what you get when you cross a progressive with Tea Partier don'tcha? (John McCain)

I'm sick and tired of leaping thru hoops to get libertarians on Tennessee state ballots only to be told that the monopoly won't let us IDENTIFY THEM AS LIBERTARIANS ON THE BALLOT. Most people are not aware of how protected the political cartel really is.

So you have 2 examples of "stealth politics". The Progressive Dem model where the principles are clearly socialist but they are too chicken-shit to identify themselves. And the principled Repubs in the tri-cornered hats partying like it's 1774 and they are all John Adams. Either one works to enforce principles on the party. Those animals are not shy about their "identity".

But with only 2 choices, it's architecturally unstable. The 2 often collude to lower expectations for ethics, principles and results.

Is it my imagination or did "the Rabbi" actuallly just make an attempt at rational debate? I've got to go check. Maybe we're rubbing off on him....

Fourth or fifth parties would turn this country into something resembling Germany or Israel.
No thanks.

I know.. Having more than ONE party just confuses and frustrates you don't it?

 

[flacaltenn]

I just thought I'd throw this one out there for discussion. It's my guess, based on many of the posts around here, that there will be wildly divergent views. I've been associated with libertarian causes, including the Libertarian party since before Ron Paul's first run for president ('88). I even ran for local county offices on the Libertarian ticket a couple of times as a 'paper' candidate ('paper' meaning I was on the ballot but didn't run an active campaign - and frankly had no expectation of winning).

For me, libertarian ideology is pretty simple. It's about taking the ethos of 'live-and-let-live' seriously. It's about real tolerance and diversity. It's based on the idea that the whole purpose of government is to maximize freedom.

Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

OK -- First of alll the Cato Institute has handed out for free about 4 Mill "pocket Constitutions" of the US. Chances are -- if a Senator whips one out on floor -- it's from Cato. Which just illustrates that's it's NOT an either/or as you falsely propose. (That's about 4 mill more US Constitutions than the total free from the Dems + Reps)

Second -- it's Political freedom, Social Freedom, Economic Freedom. You generally EARN them in that order.. And you generally LOSE them in the reverse order. So adding ideas from AFTER our founding to supplement the ideas of ECONOMIC freedom is almost ideal adaption of principle ain't it?

We've been Constitutionalists and advocates of legal system since the Tea Party was in diapers..

 

[flacaltenn]

What is Libertarian?

Judging from the many posters I've exchanged posts with online over the last 15 years or so., I'd say that Libertarianism ranges from ANARCHISTS to SOCIAL DEMOCRATS and everything in between.

See comments above Editec about being completely vested in the Founding Docs and the legal system. YES -- we attract some people who might self-identify as "anarchists" -- but so does the Democratic Party don't they? There is NOTHING unclear in the party's whole hearted support of the Constitution --- therefore --- NOT anarchists..

 

[Bfgrn]

I just thought I'd throw this one out there for discussion. It's my guess, based on many of the posts around here, that there will be wildly divergent views. I've been associated with libertarian causes, including the Libertarian party since before Ron Paul's first run for president ('88). I even ran for local county offices on the Libertarian ticket a couple of times as a 'paper' candidate ('paper' meaning I was on the ballot but didn't run an active campaign - and frankly had no expectation of winning).

For me, libertarian ideology is pretty simple. It's about taking the ethos of 'live-and-let-live' seriously. It's about real tolerance and diversity. It's based on the idea that the whole purpose of government is to maximize freedom.

Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

OK -- First of alll the Cato Institute has handed out for free about 4 Mill "pocket Constitutions" of the US. Chances are -- if a Senator whips one out on floor -- it's from Cato. Which just illustrates that's it's NOT an either/or as you falsely propose. (That's about 4 mill more US Constitutions than the total free from the Dems + Reps)

Second -- it's Political freedom, Social Freedom, Economic Freedom. You generally EARN them in that order.. And you generally LOSE them in the reverse order. So adding ideas from AFTER our founding to supplement the ideas of ECONOMIC freedom is almost ideal adaption of principle ain't it?

We've been Constitutionalists and advocates of legal system since the Tea Party was in diapers..

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

Right wing/libertarian/tea party zealots have the audacity or ignorance to preach that our founder's intent and their meanings of our Constitution are settled...they are NOT, and never will be.

Provide ONE first world country that has applied 'Austrian School economics', and if you can even find one, tell me how it outperformed modern neoclassical economics?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I just thought I'd throw this one out there for discussion. It's my guess, based on many of the posts around here, that there will be wildly divergent views. I've been associated with libertarian causes, including the Libertarian party since before Ron Paul's first run for president ('88). I even ran for local county offices on the Libertarian ticket a couple of times as a 'paper' candidate ('paper' meaning I was on the ballot but didn't run an active campaign - and frankly had no expectation of winning).

For me, libertarian ideology is pretty simple. It's about taking the ethos of 'live-and-let-live' seriously. It's about real tolerance and diversity. It's based on the idea that the whole purpose of government is to maximize freedom.

I'm a registered libertarian and here is my personal view of our party.

"If it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg" then its ok. The role of government is to protect our borders from foreign threats and to stay out of the way and lives of the citizens.

Our party is simple.....like the OP said we are Live and let Live type of people.

 

[Wiseacre]

Every political or economic school of thought has it's moderates and those who are more extreme. One of the problems I see from posters here and in the country at large is a propensity to lump everybody together from one group and label them based on the actions of the more activists among them. Usually that's the extremists, everybody gets a black eye event hought ye do not subscribe to the fringe elements. Too bad, it's damn hard to get an intelligent conversation going around here without some butthole trying to derail the debate.


I consider myself somewhat libertarian, although I see a need for gov't intervention to keep things honest and competitive, I think we swing too far from too much to too little depending on who's in charge.

 

[eflatminor]

To me, Libertarianism was well defined long ago. Read Mises. A good start is "Liberalism, the Classical Tradition". Written in 1927, it warns against the rise of Progressivism and lays out the logic, reason and history of limited government, maximum freedom.

 

[Bfgrn]

To me, Libertarianism was well defined long ago. Read Mises. A good start is "Liberalism, the Classical Tradition". Written in 1927, it warns against the rise of Progressivism and lays out the logic, reason and history of limited government, maximum freedom.

Again...Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

Our founding fathers were not libertarians.

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Republicans that like to smoke pot mostly...

No.

You guys get mad at that one!

'NO! We're diffferent! We're all about liberty! Lookit, 'Liberty' is practically in the name!'

No. You're a Republican who doesn't want to say he's a Republican.

Yeah? How many conservatives do you know that are strictly anti-war? How many conservatives are pro-choice, as there are pro-choice libertarians? How many conservatives oppose the war on drugs? How many conservatives want to leave it up to the people and the various religions to define marriage for themselves?

Simply put, how many conservatives do you know that are radically anti-state?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So Libertarians are prepared to coerce a woman on what she can do with her own body?
I'm confused here. I thought they were against gov't interference.

Pro-life libertarians think it's less wrong to violate the right of the woman in her ownership of her body than it is to violate the right of the baby to its life, and vice versa for pro-choice libertarians. I think most of us realize that when it comes to the abortion issue there is no right answer. Somebody's rights will be violated whichever side you come down on.

That's always the case.
Thank you for proving that narco-libertarianism is internally inconsistent.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[eflatminor]

To me, Libertarianism was well defined long ago. Read Mises. A good start is "Liberalism, the Classical Tradition". Written in 1927, it warns against the rise of Progressivism and lays out the logic, reason and history of limited government, maximum freedom.

Again...Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

Our founding fathers were not libertarians.

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

The difference between true Classical Liberalism and the founding fathers (and the first 130 or so years of America) is slight. The difference between either entity and modern Progressivism is VAST. I'll happily take the founding fathers vision of American and set aside any Ayn Randian influences in exchange for the permanent expulsion of Progressivism. Deal?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To me, Libertarianism was well defined long ago. Read Mises. A good start is "Liberalism, the Classical Tradition". Written in 1927, it warns against the rise of Progressivism and lays out the logic, reason and history of limited government, maximum freedom.

Again...Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

Our founding fathers were not libertarians.

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Well that would be because the Austrian school, and libertarianism, in many respects build on the same principles that influenced the founders. Economists like Say, Turgot, Smith, Cantillon influenced many of the founders, and the Austrian school economists have built on their work. The founders were mainly influenced politically by classical liberalism which anyone with common sense can see bears many similarities to libertarianism today.

 

[Paulie]

Libertarianism is Personal Freedom at almost any cost.

No it's not.

A libertarian advocates personal freedom so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of someone else.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup.. Third party choices and fourth and fifth choices would go a long way to breaking up the monotony and monopoly of the twin moron parties. There was active discussion with the Green party back about 8 years ago RE: cooperation on ballot access legal challenges. The only way to instill real philosophy into the Dem/Rep beauty contest is to challenge them from the "extremes". Because you know what you get when you cross a progressive with Tea Partier don'tcha? (John McCain)

I'm sick and tired of leaping thru hoops to get libertarians on Tennessee state ballots only to be told that the monopoly won't let us IDENTIFY THEM AS LIBERTARIANS ON THE BALLOT. Most people are not aware of how protected the political cartel really is.

So you have 2 examples of "stealth politics". The Progressive Dem model where the principles are clearly socialist but they are too chicken-shit to identify themselves. And the principled Repubs in the tri-cornered hats partying like it's 1774 and they are all John Adams. Either one works to enforce principles on the party. Those animals are not shy about their "identity".

But with only 2 choices, it's architecturally unstable. The 2 often collude to lower expectations for ethics, principles and results.

Is it my imagination or did "the Rabbi" actuallly just make an attempt at rational debate? I've got to go check. Maybe we're rubbing off on him....

Fourth or fifth parties would turn this country into something resembling Germany or Israel.
No thanks.

I know.. Having more than ONE party just confuses and frustrates you don't it?

You really are stupid,aren't you?
My post went right over your pointy head.

 

[Paulie]

Read about our party here and educate yourself .


Libertarian Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He has no interest in getting an education.

I've had enough education to realize that libertarianism is a crank movement. It is Progressive just by another name.

Progressive

What is progressive about following the ideologies of the founding fathers? They wrote a binding document guaranteeing us freedom, and you think that an ideology that adheres to this document as literally as possible is progressive?

You know what's progressive? Neoconservatism, wars of choice, entangling alliances, nation building, etc... NONE of those things were supported by the founding fathers, yet today's conservative seems to eat it up like candy, and then has the audacity to say a libertarian is a "progressive".

Go read a book.

 

[The Rabbi]

He has no interest in getting an education.

I've had enough education to realize that libertarianism is a crank movement. It is Progressive just by another name.

Progressive

What is progressive about following the ideologies of the founding fathers? They wrote a binding document guaranteeing us freedom, and you think that an ideology that adheres to this document as literally as possible is progressive?

You know what's progressive? Neoconservatism, wars of choice, entangling alliances, nation building, etc... NONE of those things were supported by the founding fathers, yet today's conservative seems to eat it up like candy, and then has the audacity to say a libertarian is a "progressive".

Go read a book.

I was wrong. I had you on ignore and for some insane reason looked at your post. My bad. You're still stupid.

Narco-libertarians are not following the Founding Fathers. They had no problem with gov't dictating religious beliefs, or anything else. As long as that gov't was not the Federal Government. The states were free to do what they want.

 

[Paulie]

I've had enough education to realize that libertarianism is a crank movement. It is Progressive just by another name.

Progressive

What is progressive about following the ideologies of the founding fathers? They wrote a binding document guaranteeing us freedom, and you think that an ideology that adheres to this document as literally as possible is progressive?

You know what's progressive? Neoconservatism, wars of choice, entangling alliances, nation building, etc... NONE of those things were supported by the founding fathers, yet today's conservative seems to eat it up like candy, and then has the audacity to say a libertarian is a "progressive".

Go read a book.

I was wrong. I had you on ignore and for some insane reason looked at your post. My bad. You're still stupid.

Narco-libertarians are not following the Founding Fathers. They had no problem with gov't dictating religious beliefs, or anything else. As long as that gov't was not the Federal Government. The states were free to do what they want.

You do realize there's an amendment in the constitution that explicitly spells out that the states retain all powers not granted to the federal government, right?

Apparently now it's progressive to follow the constitution

 

[flacaltenn]

This is good.. My faith in alternative politics is getting restored.

Good group of narco-anarchist-progressives we have here..