What is Libertarian?

[Fyght]

I consider myself conservative yet I fall into most of those. The issue I think is you are taking a jab at republican issues and I would define conservatives differently. I am pro choice (at least to a point) anti war, anti drug laws and mostly want to see the government out of marrying people altogether. I think that all those are actual conservative ideals if they are true to themselves. Where most people get stuck is when the conservative losses the core of conservatism (freedom and small government) for a view of government backed morality. In that case, I believe those are not examples of conservatism but are actually far close to progressive ideals.

Those are Conservative ideals. Just look around and see what your fellow conservatives have enacted. Conservatives are anti-choice, pro War on Drugs, pro Nation Building, and against gays marrying each other.

However, libertarians like to think that they are progressive.

At least what you refer to as a "conservative" has never hung blacks or attempted to ban cheeseburgers or happy meal toys while claiming they support "individualism."

Oh yeah and throwing blacks in ghetto subsidized housing while throwing them table scraps while telling them they're oppressed and lucky they get table scraps.

Ya fucking racist progressives..

This is nonsense.

 

[FA_Q2]

Those are Conservative ideals. Just look around and see what your fellow conservatives have enacted. Conservatives are anti-choice, pro War on Drugs, pro Nation Building, and against gays marrying each other.

However, libertarians like to think that they are progressive.

At least what you refer to as a "conservative" has never hung blacks or attempted to ban cheeseburgers or happy meal toys while claiming they support "individualism."

Oh yeah and throwing blacks in ghetto subsidized housing while throwing them table scraps while telling them they're oppressed and lucky they get table scraps.

Ya fucking racist progressives..

This is nonsense.

And exactly as accurate as your account. See what worthless vitriol makes you look like...

 

[Bfgrn]

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history. The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

 

[wihosa]

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.

The Libertarian Party can best be described as the "Every man for himself" party. Kind of flies in the face of WE the People...

 

[eflatminor]

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.

The Libertarian Party can best be described as the "Every man for himself" party. Kind of flies in the face of WE the People...

So let me get this straight. You think the phrase "We the people.." in the preamble to the Constitution refers to a collectivist centralized government? Is that what you're saying?

 

[editec]

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..

I know there is a LIBERTAIAN party, Flac.

I also know that millions of Americans identify themselves as libertarians who are NOT members of that party.

I find myself often agreeing with some libertarians about some issues.

So much so that could easily call myself a libertarian, too if I was into labeling myself. (or perhaps I just refuse to belong to any group that would have me)

I think much of the problem in our society, now, at least in terms of politics, is that we would rather LABEL ourselves and others than think for ourselves.

I suspect that because most people would rather be on a team than have to do all the heavy lifting of thinking things through on their own.

But of all the political animals, of all the partisans I encounter, I find that the libertarians have the widest range of POVs.

This is to the credit to that political philosophy, of course, but it does not lead to a very powerful political force in the world of politics.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The Libertarian Party can best be described as the "Every man for himself" party. Kind of flies in the face of WE the People...

So let me get this straight. You think the phrase "We the people.." in the preamble to the Constitution refers to a collectivist centralized government? Is that what you're saying?

 

[FA_Q2]

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history. The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

Democracy, or a republic as we have, thrives on a free market because it is exactly that - FREE. I do not understand what it is that has you liberals hating freedom. No one is asking for a market that is completely unregulated. No one is asking for a system that is devoid of protections. What people are asking for, and what democ5racy is based on in the first place, is a market that is free and allows the people within it to be as free as possible. Democracy itself may not be based on capitalism per say but it is based upon the exact same core value: freedom and rule of the people. All systems need protections in the same way that our republic requires the constitution and the bill of rights. That does not mean it needs to be replaced with a government controlled economy. That is rather asinine.

Where we stand today is in a place where business is regulated to the point of extinction and the vast majority of those regulations do not protect the consumer. We need to rework the system so that they do and still allow business to thrive.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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.

What is Libertarian?

A liberal who lives in a terrarium.

 

[Foxfyre]

A 1981 Kurt Russell movie "Escape from New York" was set in a futuristic Manhattan Island that had been turned into a maximum security penal colony. Convicted felons receiving life sentences were given a choice. They could receive a lethal injection or they could go to Manhattan. The perimeter was heavily guarded with guards ordered to shoot on sight anybody attempting to leave the Island. Inside there was no law of any kind other than what the people created for themselves. If they beat each other up, tortured each other, starved each other, it was just the way things were. Needless to say, with no rights recognized nor granted, the strong preyed on the weak and the weak had no recourse but to submit or hide in the sewers and underground infrastructure.

I don't know if dblack is looking for Libertarian (capital L) which is a registered political party with a platform and an agenda. Or libertarian (little 'L') which is a ideological point of view.

But I hope somebody's definition that libertarianism as the government guarding the perimeter from attack and leaving everybody inside to do as they please is not what they really meant. That scenario of "Escape from New York" immediately came to mind. When the people's rights are neither recognized nor respected or when they are dictated by an authoritarian government, neither those governed nor anarchists are truly free.

The Founders were liberarian - little "L" or technically classical liberals which were nothing like modern day American liberals. To them the first and foremost role of the Federal government was to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people. Only with their rights secured would the Federal government then leave them entirely alone to live their lives and form whatever society they wished to have.

That is the ultimate freedom for humankind.

 

[JohnA]

I like the original poster's definition of libertarian (though it doesn't describe me). It seems like today, people's definition of libertarian is very different. Alot of people seem to equate libertarianism with small government, rather than a government that is willing to actively protect personal liberties. Similarly, there's an association of libertarianism with laissez-faire economics without protecting individual noneconomic liberties such as reproductive rights, vices (drugs, gambling, etc.) and the rights of criminal defendants. Libertarianism, like Constitutionalism, is something that some people like to throw around when it supports their point of view and ignore the rest of the time.

Gambling is more a creature of the state today and one could argue that drugs and the reactions to them are also largely inflamed by govt policies.

The only thing required to protect personal liberties is a healthy Court system that recognizes the Limited Powers of Govt. And an ACLU or Inst for Justice

The willingness of the Progressives and Social Conservatives to USE govt power to enforce their petty peeves is a MUCH bigger threat to Liberty than "the size" of govt.

Narco libertarians are the second biggest hypocrites to walk the planet. They offer "non aggression" (whatever that means) but back abortion. Go figure.

Infact we DONT
We back individual choice not quite the same
Infact one of the parties most prominent leader is pro life ( DR RON PAUL)
Nothing on the libertarian agenda says anything about **supporting abortion **
so get your facts right

talking about hypocrites the bigoted right talks about abortion is the killing of a person when a embryo is distroyed
yet support in vitro fertilisation when many unwanted embryos are distroyed

 

[Shellback]

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.

I've read some truly enlightened stuff, while perusing this forum for the first time... and some pathetically stupid stuff.

Those two statements, plummet past silly, funny, ridiculous and absurd... to resting comfortably under pure stupidity. Excuse me, but who's controlled the purse strings (Congress) for most of the last 40 years? Hint: it wasn't Conservatives. Keep trying though.

Also... the progressive liberalism you claimed died in the late 60s, early 70s, is particularly erroneous. That progressive liberal movement was fueled by teenagers and twenty-somethings, for the most part. I know, because I was growing up during that period. Those same people, are the left-wing of the government today. Hell, Obamao's upbringing is firmly rooted in the ideology of the 60s radical liberal.

Propping up Bush as an example of Conservative failure, is once again... a truly mind-boggling, stupid statement. Everyone, right of the looney-toons left understands that Bush wasn't a Conservative. He might have been a Social Con and even on some issues, he was kind of sketchy, in that department. But, he was far, far left of a Fiscal Con. I would call him a RINO, if it weren't for the fact, the Republican party is hard to nail down these days (and I'm a registered Republican). I don't know what its going to take, for guys like you to figure it out? Its just another one of your strawman arguments, every time you utter his name.

 

[jillian]

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

too funny.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

too funny.

We need a few to counter balance left wingnut nutbars such as yourself that blame the failure of a 30 year long liberal agenda on conservatives....

too funny.

 

[editec]

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history. The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

Democracy, or a republic as we have, thrives on a free market because it is exactly that - FREE.

Yeah, sort of true.

I do not understand what it is that has you liberals hating freedom.

Don't know who those "liberals" are but they must be very weird

No one is asking for a market that is completely unregulated.

No one is asking that a market be completely regulated, either

No one is asking for a system that is devoid of protections.

No one is aksing for a system that is entirely devoid of risk, either.

What people are asking for, and what democ5racy is based on in the first place, is a market that is free and allows the people within it to be as free as possible.

Yes, I agree. And it is in the "free as possible" issue where reasonable people can disagree reasonably.

Democracy itself may not be based on capitalism per say but it is based upon the exact same core value: freedom and rule of the people

.

Yeah, that makes sense.

All systems need protections in the same way that our republic requires the constitution and the bill of rights. That does not mean it needs to be replaced with a government controlled economy. That is rather asinine.

Concur. Of course nobody is demanding a "control economy", either.

Where we stand today is in a place where business is regulated to the point of extinction..

Histronic overstatment alert!

and the vast majority of those regulations do not protect the consumer.

Histronic overstatment alert #2!

We need to rework the system so that they do and still allow business to thrive.

Agreed.

 

[The Rabbi]

A 1981 Kurt Russell movie "Escape from New York" was set in a futuristic Manhattan Island that had been turned into a maximum security penal colony. Convicted felons receiving life sentences were given a choice. They could receive a lethal injection or they could go to Manhattan. The perimeter was heavily guarded with guards ordered to shoot on sight anybody attempting to leave the Island. Inside there was no law of any kind other than what the people created for themselves. If they beat each other up, tortured each other, starved each other, it was just the way things were. Needless to say, with no rights recognized nor granted, the strong preyed on the weak and the weak had no recourse but to submit or hide in the sewers and underground infrastructure.

I don't know if dblack is looking for Libertarian (capital L) which is a registered political party with a platform and an agenda. Or libertarian (little 'L') which is a ideological point of view.

But I hope somebody's definition that libertarianism as the government guarding the perimeter from attack and leaving everybody inside to do as they please is not what they really meant. That scenario of "Escape from New York" immediately came to mind. When the people's rights are neither recognized nor respected or when they are dictated by an authoritarian government, neither those governed nor anarchists are truly free.

The Founders were liberarian - little "L" or technically classical liberals which were nothing like modern day American liberals. To them the first and foremost role of the Federal government was to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people. Only with their rights secured would the Federal government then leave them entirely alone to live their lives and form whatever society they wished to have.

That is the ultimate freedom for humankind.

I dunno. Making a criticism of Libertarianism based on a Kurt Russell movie seems a little weak.
The Founders supported all kinds of repressive legislation that we would find intolerable today. But that was at the state level, not the Federal level.

 

[FA_Q2]

I do not understand what it is that has you liberals hating freedom.

Don't know who those "liberals" are but they must be very weird

They are here, all you have to do is look. I'll give you that there are just as many right wing nutjobs that hate freedom here as well. Non starter then.

No one is asking for a market that is completely unregulated.

No one is asking that a market be completely regulated, either

That was not the point. People here are consistently claiming that conservatives want business to be completely free of regulation. That is not true at all. I have never made the liberals here want communism or controlled economy but I do claim that they seem to think every problem can be solved with a new regulation. The financial reform bill is an excellent example as well as Obamacare. Liberals here think healthcare is too expensive and react with more regulation not realizing that regulation is one of the things that creates the problem to begin with.

No one is asking for a system that is devoid of protections.

No one is aksing for a system that is entirely devoid of risk, either.

Again - never said that. See above.

What people are asking for, and what democ5racy is based on in the first place, is a market that is free and allows the people within it to be as free as possible.

Yes, I agree. And it is in the "free as possible" issue where reasonable people can disagree reasonably.

Also agree. This is where the real debate is. Too bad most of the wingnuts here don't seem to understand this

All systems need protections in the same way that our republic requires the constitution and the bill of rights. That does not mean it needs to be replaced with a government controlled economy. That is rather asinine.

Concur. Of course nobody is demanding a "control economy", either.

Again, never said that. See first statement.

Where we stand today is in a place where business is regulated to the point of extinction..

Histronic overstatment alert!

Really? I look around and see it on a continual basis. Maybe I should rephrase that then. We are regulated to the point that small business is at the point of extinction. It is extremely difficult to start a small business in today's world even without the bad economy. On the flipside, those same regulations actually help large corporations. That's why I always get a chuckle when the wingnuts are harping on the right as shills for the corporations. Little do they know that the regulations they are putting in place are the exact same thing...

and the vast majority of those regulations do not protect the consumer.

Histronic overstatment alert #2!

Not at all. The VAST majority of regulations do nothing for the consumer. Regulating the water temperature at a gas station, the way to wipe a kids ass at a daycare, the requirement to wear fall protection when inside a closed cage are regulations that exists today that provide ZERO positive effects yet cause harm in both capitol loss and the ability for business to thrive. You are purposefully putting your head in the sand if you thing the MILLIONS of regulations that exist today through the alphabet soup of agencies like the FDA, FCC, EPA and the like are mostly helpful. We have so many regulations on all levels of government that you are guaranteed to be breaking a dozen at any given moment. I can think of several that I am breaking right now in my own business. They are overlooked because even the regulators themselves have no idea what they are. They are so expansive that regulators pick a f4ew each time they inspect. Next month there will be a new regulation that they will be sure we are conforming with.


It is not an overstatement at all. The current regulatory environment we live in exists solely to justify its own existence. That is the ultimate doom that any bureaucracy ends in. It grows and grows until the point that it can no longer reasonable exist in that state so it finds a way to justify itself.

We need to rework the system so that they do and still allow business to thrive.

Agreed.

How can you say that and then disagree with the last 2 statements. If we do not have too many regulations AND those regulations are not killing business then why do we need to rework the system.

 

[konradv]

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history. The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

Democracy, or a republic as we have, thrives on a free market because it is exactly that - FREE. I do not understand what it is that has you liberals hating freedom. No one is asking for a market that is completely unregulated. No one is asking for a system that is devoid of protections. What people are asking for, and what democ5racy is based on in the first place, is a market that is free and allows the people within it to be as free as possible. Democracy itself may not be based on capitalism per say but it is based upon the exact same core value: freedom and rule of the people. All systems need protections in the same way that our republic requires the constitution and the bill of rights. That does not mean it needs to be replaced with a government controlled economy. That is rather asinine.

Where we stand today is in a place where business is regulated to the point of extinction and the vast majority of those regulations do not protect the consumer. We need to rework the system so that they do and still allow business to thrive.

I object to your appropriating the word FREE. Since you don't want a completely unregulated market, we're both whores, just dickering over the price!

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

I've read some truly enlightened stuff, while perusing this forum for the first time... and some pathetically stupid stuff.

Those two statements, plummet past silly, funny, ridiculous and absurd... to resting comfortably under pure stupidity. Excuse me, but who's controlled the purse strings (Congress) for most of the last 40 years? Hint: it wasn't Conservatives. Keep trying though.

Also... the progressive liberalism you claimed died in the late 60s, early 70s, is particularly erroneous. That progressive liberal movement was fueled by teenagers and twenty-somethings, for the most part. I know, because I was growing up during that period. Those same people, are the left-wing of the government today. Hell, Obamao's upbringing is firmly rooted in the ideology of the 60s radical liberal.

Propping up Bush as an example of Conservative failure, is once again... a truly mind-boggling, stupid statement. Everyone, right of the looney-toons left understands that Bush wasn't a Conservative. He might have been a Social Con and even on some issues, he was kind of sketchy, in that department. But, he was far, far left of a Fiscal Con. I would call him a RINO, if it weren't for the fact, the Republican party is hard to nail down these days (and I'm a registered Republican). I don't know what its going to take, for guys like you to figure it out? Its just another one of your strawman arguments, every time you utter his name.

Did anyone notify the Supreme Court?

Reagan's Destructive Revolution

Amid the mountains of praise and the occasional criticism of Ronald Reagan, what may be his most lasting legacy remains hidden. He led a political revolution that radically altered the American system of government and its key institutions.

The revolution began in 1981 under the banner of Reaganism. Ronald Reagan's anti-government, market-fundamentalist philosophy that now dominates American political thought.

Yet, it is best labeled the "Stealth Revolution" because pundits and the public, after nearly a quarter century, still appear to be unaware of its existence, much less the damage already done. The deleterious changes have stayed under the radar.

Be that as it may, a revolution is in full swing. President Reagan's two terms put it on course; Reaganism sustained it for the next 12 years; George W. Bush, Reagan's disciple, re-energized it with a vengeance.

Following the tenets of Reaganism, Bush has led the most undemocratic American government in the post-World War II era. It well may be the least democratic government since 1789.

The result is that the national institutions created by the Constitution to support representative democracy have been disfigured. America has become an entrenched plutocracy where the wealthiest individuals and major corporations unduly influence government decisions to reap benefits at the expense of ordinary citizens.

A modern-day Rip Van Winkle falling asleep just before Reagan's inauguration and awakening today would be amazed to find that the political revolution has eaten away much of the foundation of the American republic during his hibernation. The Stealth Revolution has succeeded to an extent unimaginable a quarter century ago.

 

[editec]

FA_Q2 asks

How can you say that and then disagree with the last 2 statements. If we do not have too many regulations AND those regulations are not killing business then why do we need to rework the system.

Let us stop speaking in vague generalities and start being specific, shall we?

What regulations do you think are killing businesses?

Be specific.

I might agree with you and not even know it because you have not explained your specific complaints.