What is Libertarian?

[Baron]

Libertarians are Liberal Conservatives.

 

[bripat9643]

THey supported all kinds of coercive stuff. Madison writes that taxing people to create a public university is good public policy. All the states had restrictions on voting, sometimes on holding public office, etc etc. They objected only to a central government with that kind of authority. Rightly so.

Restrictions on voting is not "coercion." We have restrictions on voting now. We also have government funded state universities. That being said, the Constitution leaves that kind of thing to the states, not the federal government.

 

[The Rabbi]

THey supported all kinds of coercive stuff. Madison writes that taxing people to create a public university is good public policy. All the states had restrictions on voting, sometimes on holding public office, etc etc. They objected only to a central government with that kind of authority. Rightly so.

Restrictions on voting is not "coercion." We have restrictions on voting now. We also have government funded state universities. That being said, the Constitution leaves that kind of thing to the states, not the federal government.

Yup. Exactly my point. The Founders were not narco-libertarians. They were fine with the social order being enforced by law. Just not at the Federal level. Each state was free to do what it wanted. It was not until after the Civil War that the BoR was incorporated to include the states.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jake, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The majority of those attending the constitutional convention were not slave owners and even some who owned slaves opposed slavery. Many would have freed their slaves but feared that in the south unscrupulous slave owners would only re-enslave them and treat them badly.

A large majority of the first signers of the Constitution opposed slavery.

And even among those who owned slaves we have these quotes:

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote. . . .
"There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him."

In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote, "[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it."

(Washington and his wife held over 300 slaves. He wrote in his will that he'd wished to free his slaves, but that because of intermarriage between his and Martha's slaves, he feared the break-up of families should only his slaves be freed. He directed that his slaves be freed upon her death. His will provided for the continued care of all slaves, paid for from his estate.)

The great American scientist and publisher Benjamin Franklin held several slaves during his lifetime. He willed one of them be freed upon his death, but Franklin outlived him. In 1789, he said, "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils."
Constitutional Topic: Slavery - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

They were all products of their culture and the evidence is clear that, given the indefensible nature of slavery, they were in conflict with themselves over the slaves they owned. But it was obvious that freeing their slaves was also laced with ethical problems.

And all of that does not in any way diminish their vision of the world's first free people who would have their rights secured by the Federal government and would then be free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

And to me THAT is the definition of libertarianism.

Sooooo... if he was so against owning slaves and thought that it was so bad, why did he wait until after his death to free them? Could he not have decided one day to free both his and Martha's slaves while he was still alive? It sounds more to me like he was saying "Owning slaves is horrible, but its so damn convenient."

I thought I explained that. Try reading my post again. And follow the link furnished.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre, I am not going to quarrel with you. By signing the Constitutional convention, the Founders signed onto regressive governance. No way around it. The New Right attempts to rewrite history must be exposed every time they do it. For instance, Paul Revere's intent on his ride was to warn the colonists about the British raid on miliita supplies and capture rebel leaders, not warn the British to keep their hands of our 2nd Amendment rights. Lexington is not in Concord or New Hampshire.

This wacky agenda of the Hard Right has to be exposed for what it is, partisan politics, not grounded history.

 

[bripat9643]

Yup. Exactly my point. The Founders were not narco-libertarians. They were fine with the social order being enforced by law. Just not at the Federal level. Each state was free to do what it wanted. It was not until after the Civil War that the BoR was incorporated to include the states.

That's true enough, up to a point. The whole point of federalism is that if one state became too oppressive, the residents could all pack up and move to another state more to their liking. This competition between states meant there was a limit to the outrages a state government could get away with.

The term is "anarcho-libertarians," BTW. "Narco" means they traffic in narcotics.

 

[The Rabbi]

You only have to look at laws that were overturned to see this.
Griswold was about a Connecticut law that prohibited contraceptive sales to unmarried people. Roe of course was about abortion. And on and on.
All of them were Constitutional until courts stepped in and said they weren't.

 

[bripat9643]

Foxfyre, I am not going to quarrel with you. By signing the Constitutional convention, the Founders signed onto regressive governance. No way around it. The New Right attempts to rewrite history must be exposed every time they do it. For instance, Paul Revere's intent on his ride was to warn the colonists about the British raid on miliita supplies and capture rebel leaders, not warn the British to keep their hands of our 2nd Amendment rights. Lexington is not in Concord or New Hampshire.

This wacky agenda of the Hard Right has to be exposed for what it is, partisan politics, not grounded history.

The term "regressive governance" is leftwing pyscho-babble. The fact is the Constitution was the most enlightened and liberal legal document ever conceived of up to that point. Liberals insist on judging the Founders by modern standards. No one would pass muster according to those terms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deflection, litte bripat. That wasn't the point. The point was that (incorrectly) all the Founders did not sign onto regressive legislation. That point is false. For it's day and age, the Constitution was magnificient. However, it was not perfect, not anywhere near it, and it was not a libertarian document.

Stay grounded with the facts, bripat, and twist your philosophy to the facts, not the other way.

 

[Shellback]

cool... another rightwingnut nutbar who blames the failure of a 30 year long rightwing agenda on RINO's

too funny.

Seriously... that's all you've got?

That's OK. Just another libtard to blow off. When you bring something to the table, other than vague, unsubstantiated claims. Let me know.

 

[Shellback]

The majority who signed the Constitution certainly did. The date 1865 was inserted to show the strength of effect by the Founders' support of slavery.

Really? Proof? Link?

 

[dblack]

A libertarian is a Republican who found out how badly the GOP under Bush screwed over the country and are now trying to avoid being linked with them. Much like the communist like parties of Europe who suddenly became "Green" parties after the wall fell.

Libertarians are also those that are in most denial of over who was responsible for the crisis. They exclusively blame the left and supposedly left wing policies, and try to push the same failed policies that actually lead to the crisis in the first place. This is very evident since they keep trying to promote Reagan and Reaganomics as some sort of saviour when in fact it is those attitudes that ultimately lead to the crisis.

While many of the core ideas of a Libertarian/Conservative are in my own view quite good, the utter denial of responsibility and lack of accountability by the US libertarian/conservative has really soured the brand of being a "Conservative". When even European Conservatives try to distance themselves from the GOP these days, then you know you have strayed too far.

The day that Libertarians/Conservatives stand up and admit they screwed up on selective policies from Reagan and onwards is the day many people will start to respect the political movement. But right now, they are nothing but an ostridge with its head in the ground hoping no one will notice him and the large piece of crap he has laid on the food supply.

Confusion runs rampant in your post.

It was clear and concise. He nailed it...

Sorry, but pretty much every assertion in Bfrgn's post is wrong, or at least misguided. The popularity of the views like the ones presented here is exactly why I wanted to discuss this topic. What Bfrgn is describing is the attempt by Republicans to rebrand themselves as libertarians after the neo-con fiasco of the Bush administration. And he's right to call it bullshit. Most Republicans, Tea-Party or not, are not libertarians and are ultimately (in my estimation) opposed to the core values of libertarianism. They just like getting on the limited-government bandwagon when they're not running things.

It's true that since Reagan, the Republicans have been trying to lure libertarian-minded people with a phony sales pitch - but it's an empty come on. They've never given a shit about freedom or the core concerns of libertarian ideology. I suspect the next election will prove this out once again, as the party seems destined to nominate yet another authoritarian jackass as their presidential nominee. Libertarians need to get over their 'abused spouse' syndrome and drop the fantasy that "this time he's changed, I just know it."

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree that the Tea Partiers are in any way opposed to libertarianism (little 'L'). Libertarians have been flocking to the Tea Party rallies in noticable numbers and are backing Tea Party candidates as much as any other demographic. The GOP has been more 'liberal light' than conservative which is why we have a Tea Party movement. And because the Tea Party movement is so visible and vocal and has proved its power to effect outcomes in elections, many if not most GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to appear more attractive to Tea Partiers and win their endorsement.

The Tea Party is not a political party but draws from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and every other sub group--anybody who is sick of big, out-of-control, irresponsible, ineffective, and incompetent authoritarian government and who wants to return to the principles of freedom, self governance, and fiscal responsibility.

 

[Shellback]

I disagree that the Tea Partiers are in any way opposed to libertarianism (little 'L'). Libertarians have been flocking to the Tea Party rallies in noticable numbers and are backing Tea Party candidates as much as any other demographic. The GOP has been more 'liberal light' than conservative which is why we have a Tea Party movement. And because the Tea Party movement is so visible and vocal and has proved its power to effect outcomes in elections, many if not most GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to appear more attractive to Tea Partiers and win their endorsement.

The Tea Party is not a political party but draws from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and every other sub group--anybody who is sick of big, out-of-control, irresponsible, ineffective, and incompetent authoritarian government and who wants to return to the principles of freedom, self governance, and fiscal responsibility.

Very well, said. Including your comments concerning the GOP. As a registered Republican, it bothers me they have morphed into something I don't recognize anymore.

Of course, someone will pop in, laugh, call us a bunch of Tea-Baggers, laugh again... and act like they made some monumental, game-changing statement.

 

[Kevinthedog]

In alaska, which prides itself of being very libertarian, libertarian means hating all laws and rules, disobeying most of them, and then voting republican!

 

[Kevinthedog]

I disagree that the Tea Partiers are in any way opposed to libertarianism (little 'L'). Libertarians have been flocking to the Tea Party rallies in noticable numbers and are backing Tea Party candidates as much as any other demographic. The GOP has been more 'liberal light' than conservative which is why we have a Tea Party movement. And because the Tea Party movement is so visible and vocal and has proved its power to effect outcomes in elections, many if not most GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to appear more attractive to Tea Partiers and win their endorsement.

The Tea Party is not a political party but draws from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and every other sub group--anybody who is sick of big, out-of-control, irresponsible, ineffective, and incompetent authoritarian government and who wants to return to the principles of freedom, self governance, and fiscal responsibility.

Funny how most of the old neo cons are now tea partiers. Why the name change?

 

[ColonialMarine]

What is Libertarian?

A fence sitter who has neither the courage nor conviction to stand for something.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree that the Tea Partiers are in any way opposed to libertarianism (little 'L'). Libertarians have been flocking to the Tea Party rallies in noticable numbers and are backing Tea Party candidates as much as any other demographic. The GOP has been more 'liberal light' than conservative which is why we have a Tea Party movement. And because the Tea Party movement is so visible and vocal and has proved its power to effect outcomes in elections, many if not most GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to appear more attractive to Tea Partiers and win their endorsement.

The Tea Party is not a political party but draws from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and every other sub group--anybody who is sick of big, out-of-control, irresponsible, ineffective, and incompetent authoritarian government and who wants to return to the principles of freedom, self governance, and fiscal responsibility.

Very well, said. Including your comments concerning the GOP. As a registered Republican, it bothers me they have morphed into something I don't recognize anymore.

Of course, someone will pop in, laugh, call us a bunch of Tea-Baggers, laugh again... and act like they made some monumental, game-changing statement.

You can pretty well take that to the bank. Either here or on some other thread. The ONLY reason I am registered Republican right now is because the Democrats, as liberals are wont to do, are compelled to try to destroy anybody as freedom loving as Tea Partiers and at least some in the GOP are trying to clean up their act. So, in order to be able to vote in our local primaries, I have to be registered something.

If the GOP refuses to be reformed, however, I look for a strong third party to emerge within the next one to five years. And it will be a party that those of us who want to govern ourselves can get behind.

 

[dblack]

I disagree that the Tea Partiers are in any way opposed to libertarianism (little 'L'). Libertarians have been flocking to the Tea Party rallies in noticable numbers and are backing Tea Party candidates as much as any other demographic.

Yeah. I'd like to see an exhaustive survey on the matter. You may be right. But most the Tea Partiers I talk to only like libertarian ideas in isolated circumstances. And the libertarians I know are more and more prone to distance themselves from the Tea Party which looks more and more like warmed over Bush voters.

The GOP has been more 'liberal light' than conservative which is why we have a Tea Party movement. And because the Tea Party movement is so visible and vocal and has proved its power to effect outcomes in elections, many if not most GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to appear more attractive to Tea Partiers and win their endorsement.

Appearances don't really count for much in the end. It's how they vote and how they govern that matters, and on that we have only their records to go by. People like Bachman and Perry simply can't back up any claim to libertarian convictions.

The Tea Party is not a political party but draws from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and every other sub group--anybody who is sick of big, out-of-control, irresponsible, ineffective, and incompetent authoritarian government and who wants to return to the principles of freedom, self governance, and fiscal responsibility.

I'd love to believe this. And I hope I turn out to be wrong, but the Tea Party movement looks to me a like a handy way to keep libertarian minded voters signed up as Republicans - with no real intent to address their concerns.

 

[kaz]

What is Libertarian?

A fence sitter who has neither the courage nor conviction to stand for something.

In other words you have no idea and since they are neither Republican nor Democrat you assume we are "moderate."

Your tiny world can conceive of only Republicans and Democrats. And they are in the end the same. It's actually pretty funny.