What is Libertarian?

[The Rabbi]

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

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

And prove their marginal status with every post! At this rate you can hope to take over the dog catcher position in North Pigsnuckle, ID.

 

[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.”

I had a moment to read the link you provided. I think you made a better case for the founding fathers not being true classical liberals than the author of that link. I do not think he makes a compelling case at all. This "fuzziness" he speaks of does not and never has existed. When he suggests 18th century town meetings would be "more like a condo association", he assumes that lawful and democratic processes were not in place. That's just not true except perhaps in the smallest of towns, where I bet they at least took a vote. Such meetings were viewed very much like modern town councils. We know this because we know what was being taught in schools of the day and through historical accounts. In fact, I would argue that the political process was taken a lot more seriously back then vs today.

And no, the Parliament was not equivalent to the Chamber of Commerce. The colonies did not go to war with the CoC. His belief that society can "reliably control" government has, well, been proven false. One look at the debt clock confirms that.

Then, the author drops this turd:

“The state” as experienced by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek was something outside civil society, something that society could not reliably control, and therefore had to be contained."

Aw come on! Mises lived in New York for 33 years. Outside civil society...that's ridiculous.

Lastly, I find it hard to believe that John Adams would be fine with today's Massachusetts government. Adams was a highly religious guy: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”, so the gay marriage thing is out and further, no founding fathers, even Hamilton, would think what we've got ourselves into today would be anything short of treasonous tyranny.

Not buying this guy's take. I'd stick with your take, which rings true. There is little evidence that this country was founded on true Randian ideals. Maybe because she lived so much later, I don't know. Whatever the case, thanks for the link. I enjoyed thinking about it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Great points!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.”

Compared to the current Progressive Liberal agenda we have been persuing for a few decades now the libertarian way is much more similar to the founder's ideas.

Like you said the founders weren't libertarians but if the only choice to "classify" them was liberatrian or liberal it would be the former.

 

[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.”

Compared to the current Progressive Liberal agenda we have been persuing for a few decades now the libertarian way is much more similar to the founder's ideas.

Like you said the founders weren't libertarians but if the only choice to "classify" them was liberatrian or liberal it would be the former.

I have breaking news for you. The "current" Progressive Liberal agenda ended in the late 1960's, early 1970's.

Over the last 40 years we have witnessed the full fruition and complete FAILURE of the conservative agenda.

 

[Avatar9]

A libertarian is basically a anarcho-capitalist with a warm and fuzzy new name

 

[eflatminor]

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.”

Compared to the current Progressive Liberal agenda we have been persuing for a few decades now the libertarian way is much more similar to the founder's ideas.

Like you said the founders weren't libertarians but if the only choice to "classify" them was liberatrian or liberal it would be the former.

I have breaking news for you. The "current" Progressive Liberal agenda ended in the late 1960's, early 1970's.

Over the last 40 years we have witnessed the full fruition and complete FAILURE of the conservative agenda.

Pardon? Are you saying that the dramatic increase in new entitlement programs and expansion of existing programs over the last 40 years, not to mention the deficit spending to fund those programs, was a failure of conservatism? Hey, I'm no conservative but what you said makes no sense to me. What do you call all this growth of government, both federal and state, if not progressive/liberal? I really don't want to get into semantics but to suggest we've seen no progressivism in the last 40 years seems absurd on the surface. What am I missing?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.”

Compared to the current Progressive Liberal agenda we have been persuing for a few decades now the libertarian way is much more similar to the founder's ideas.

Like you said the founders weren't libertarians but if the only choice to "classify" them was liberatrian or liberal it would be the former.

I have breaking news for you. The "current" Progressive Liberal agenda ended in the late 1960's, early 1970's.

Over the last 40 years we have witnessed the full fruition and complete FAILURE of the conservative agenda.

Ummmmm no

Just in the last 2 presidents

Patriot Act
Medicare Part D
Stimulus
Tarp

All 4 of those are big govt, progressive, ideas. There are many more subtle ones too.

 

[Bfgrn]

Compared to the current Progressive Liberal agenda we have been persuing for a few decades now the libertarian way is much more similar to the founder's ideas.

Like you said the founders weren't libertarians but if the only choice to "classify" them was liberatrian or liberal it would be the former.

I have breaking news for you. The "current" Progressive Liberal agenda ended in the late 1960's, early 1970's.

Over the last 40 years we have witnessed the full fruition and complete FAILURE of the conservative agenda.

Ummmmm no

Just in the last 2 presidents

Patriot Act
Medicare Part D
Stimulus
Tarp

All 4 of those are big govt, progressive, ideas. There are many more subtle ones too.

Patriot Act - Bush
Medicare Part D - Bush
Stimulus - Obama
Tarp - Bush

 

[Avatar9]

USA PATRIOT is a progressive idea?

I thought the progressives were evil communists, not uber-nationalists

 

[eflatminor]

I have breaking news for you. The "current" Progressive Liberal agenda ended in the late 1960's, early 1970's.

Over the last 40 years we have witnessed the full fruition and complete FAILURE of the conservative agenda.

Ummmmm no

Just in the last 2 presidents

Patriot Act
Medicare Part D
Stimulus
Tarp

All 4 of those are big govt, progressive, ideas. There are many more subtle ones too.

Patriot Act - Bush
Medicare Part D - Bush
Stimulus - Obama
Tarp - Bush

Exactly! Progressive ideals carried out by Ds and Rs in the White House and Congress. So again, how is it that progressivism "died" 40 years ago?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I have breaking news for you. The "current" Progressive Liberal agenda ended in the late 1960's, early 1970's.

Over the last 40 years we have witnessed the full fruition and complete FAILURE of the conservative agenda.

Ummmmm no

Just in the last 2 presidents

Patriot Act
Medicare Part D
Stimulus
Tarp

All 4 of those are big govt, progressive, ideas. There are many more subtle ones too.

Patriot Act - Bush
Medicare Part D - Bush
Stimulus - Obama
Tarp - Bush

And your point? It doesn't take a D in front of your name to be a progressive moron

 

[Mr.Nick]

Sex n drugs n rock n roll.

Libertarianism is a second cousin to communism by way of anarchism.

That is wrong...

It's the opposite of communism.... Besides the means of communism (socialism) violate the Bill of Rights...

I will say this tho - the only thing that separates the anarchists from the true libertarians are the first Ten Amendments of the US constitution.

I believe most classical liberals understand that the original classical liberals that came to this country fled their origins because they were sick of authoritarian theocratic government or monarchies...

They wanted individual liberty, or the ability to warship how they saw fit for themselves.

Now 400 years later we're reverting right back to the authoritarian ways that caused some of the first settlers to jump ship and flee their homelands.

Now, being a libertarian is embracing individual freedom - freedom from government.

Now as far as the communism assertion or comparison - libertarians believe individuals have property rights and communists don't....

 

[kwc57]

Sex n drugs n rock n roll.

Libertarianism is a second cousin to communism by way of anarchism.

Does it hurt to be that stoopid? I mean, do you actually feel physical pain or are you totally oblivious to it?

 

[kwc57]

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.

That's rich coming from a socialist conservative like you who wants to legislate morality to the citizens and enforce it thru the gubmint.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I have breaking news for you. The "current" Progressive Liberal agenda ended in the late 1960's, early 1970's.

Over the last 40 years we have witnessed the full fruition and complete FAILURE of the conservative agenda.

Ummmmm no

Just in the last 2 presidents

Patriot Act
Medicare Part D
Stimulus
Tarp

All 4 of those are big govt, progressive, ideas. There are many more subtle ones too.

Patriot Act - Bush
Medicare Part D - Bush
Stimulus - Obama
Tarp - Bush

The CRA only caused TARP, the stimulus' and this nasty ass economy.

Lets see if democrats will acknowledge that forcing banks to finance homes to a bunch of poor greedy asshats that feel entitled is a good idea when they turn around and use the home as a source for other credit then don't pay for anything (or little).

The CRA, or at least the Amendments Clinton and Sharpton demanded were made to it were one of the dumbest things democrats have done over the past 50 or so years.

The funny part is that Bush attempted to do everything in his power to prevent the foreseeable economic collapse.

Hell I saw the collapse coming in 1998 when every other commercial on TV was a bankruptcy commercial with the vampire lawyers promising people they could get them out of 50k debt for only 10k.

Well, 10 years later all that debt piled up reached the top of the mountain... Meanwhile the idiots that caused it (the fools that felt they were entitled to a free boat or Burger King) and those that legislated the means to do so started pointing fingers at the responsible who said giving them credit in the first place was a bad idea...

 

[kwc57]

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.

But, but, but.......rabid and editec say there is no difference between libertarians and progressives.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

But, but, but.......rabid and editec say there is no difference between libertarians and progressives.

Thats a joke, i think ed was just yanking your chain.....well I hope so anyway because that sounds

Progressives are all about govt doing things that they think people can't handle, libertarians are all about people doing things they think the govt can't/shouldn't handle

 

[flacaltenn]

No way Mr. Nick.. It was those greedy banks who qualified them for mortgages with "tricky" features like escrow and interest and variable rates. You know we are not supposed to understand that stuff or save enough for a down payment.. Without the protection of the gubermint, the banks could have GIVEN people homes for nothing and then taken them back whenever they wanted to..

((Or sumthin like that))

Good to keep pointing out that EVERYONE knew the crash was coming and even then Barney Frank was saying "it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a nickel"..... Was NOT a surprise or clandestine corporate conspiracy..

 

[The Rabbi]

Sex n drugs n rock n roll.

Libertarianism is a second cousin to communism by way of anarchism.

That is wrong...

It's the opposite of communism.... Besides the means of communism (socialism) violate the Bill of Rights...

I will say this tho - the only thing that separates the anarchists from the true libertarians are the first Ten Amendments of the US constitution.

I believe most classical liberals understand that the original classical liberals that came to this country fled their origins because they were sick of authoritarian theocratic government or monarchies...

They wanted individual liberty, or the ability to warship how they saw fit for themselves.

Now 400 years later we're reverting right back to the authoritarian ways that caused some of the first settlers to jump ship and flee their homelands.

Now, being a libertarian is embracing individual freedom - freedom from government.

Now as far as the communism assertion or comparison - libertarians believe individuals have property rights and communists don't....

The original settlers to this country were Puritans. They established colonies and made laws that governed many aspects of private life we would find intolerable today. The Founders, who lived later, had no issue with gov't per se doing the same. They objected to a national government setting standards for the states.
I didnt say narco-libertarians didnt believe in property. Only that they,like the Communists, are descended intellectually from anarchists, some of whom supported individual property while others opposed it.
But the roots of narco-libertarianism have nothing to do with Classical Liberalism.