Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Some Guy]

I like the "foot in the door" approach, but you're right, the party (such as it is) simply isn't willing to budge an inch. My guess is that the "leaders" of the "party" have a great deal invested in it, and their egos simply won't allow for any kind of intellectual elasticity.

Maybe it has something to do with how the idea of governing, and thereby being an authoritarian in some way, is the antithesis of the libertarian ideal? If one is truly libertarian (if i'm interpreting things correctly) and thus believes in the individual, it wouldn't be their prerogative to set policies by which others must live by... in comparison to the the beloved "i'll spend your money better than you can" on the liberal side and the "you'll live your life how i tell you to" on the conservative side.

Running for office is a big deal, takes a lot of work and involves sifting through mountains of bullshit. Someone would have to be awfully altruistic to go through all of that in order to put his/her self in position to essentially fight for less power and less ability to influence/control. Considering that, if a libertarian was running for office on a more moderate platform, it would inherently make me question their real motives for seeking office (not that i wouldn't necessarily vote for them). At least with democrats, you know they want to get in power so they can spend your money for you, or with conservatives, so they can dictate how people live their lives.

I agree with most libertarian ideas on a more moderated level, so i would be right in that group that would be all about a libertarian candidate that's interested in filling the cavernous gap between the Democrats and Republicans right now, i just don't ever expect to see that happen. The government has become far too big of a behemoth to allow any itself to be killed off in any way.

 

[Some Guy]

You always go back to "run by the government". How is that the case? The taxpayers would be footing the bill, but the decision on who gets the money would be determined by the ballot box. If you're going to call that "run by the government" then every election we've had has been so. Also, rather than saying I'd want to stop people from using their money to promote a candidate, I'd prefer to look at it as preventing monied interests from extracting expensive promises from the candidates. Since the most powerful could do so to both sides, how are we really having fair elections? You wouldn't be able to contribute your money either, but what's more important, the amount of money each candidate has or the ideas and plans they have? What's fair about the candidate of your choice being swamped out every time, not because their ideas are flawed, but because a special interest can buy all the air time they want and your candidate can't? To my mind that isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.

To reform the political campaign contribution process (for lack of a better word) in this country requires one to look at why big, rich corporations would pile heaps of money on a candidate. If you're of the mind that these big, rich corporations are only interested in making even more money at the expense of nearly anything else, then surely them spending lots of money on a political process should be puzzling, no? No company looking to make a profit spends money on anything unless they're expecting to getting a return on that investment.

If their guy gets hired, that ROI comes in the form of regulations and tax code changes. Regulations could be put in place to make it harder for startups to threaten the big guys. It could be tax code changes that all them to pay less. The list goes on.

Asking the entity that's receiving said funds to carry out such acts to be the solution to the problem seems, foolish, doesn't it? If a couple kids are are bullying you at school, would you pay one of them to stop the other from bullying you?

The better, more long-term solution (perhaps) lies in removing the incentive for these mega-rich corps to pile money on a campaign. You do that by not allowing the government the pervert the tax code in favor of some but not others. You do that by not allowing the government to enact regulation that puts up massive barriers to entry in a given market.

Food for thought.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Then you embrace localized republicanism not libertarianism. The issue remains of course how does a federal or national government work in relation to decentralized communities in the states.

What role will the states fulfill in your plan?

You are not a libertarian, for who would agree on the penalties of violators? A democratic meeting of the whole population? You are sillier than democrats gone wild.

None of you guys offer a consistent philosophy that is different than what we have. You just say it is different.

Dear Jake: The more we localize government where there is closer to direct accountability, and train people to manage their own representation and conflict resolution on a scale that CAN be handled more effectively,
I believe we CAN start addressing abuses and violations on this locally democratized level.

In fact, we would be able to "intervene early" to address issues and resolve conflicts on a personal/civil level BEFORE they escalate into the types of violence and wars that ARE harder if not impossible to police once they go too far.

Given that each person and party has such different focus issues and priorities, I believe ALL people would be better off having local accountability and representation. The more work we can get done on that level, without imposing on other groups or parties, we can remove more burdens off federal govt, and delegate local issues to diverse communities to resolve themselves, and REWARD them for this by retaining control of authority and resources.
Where if you don't resolve your own conflicts, then outside authority of govt steps in instead.

By pushing for more local and individual accountability, responsibility and restitution for problems caused on that level, this would eliminate a lot of the conflicts that otherwise escalate out of control beyond what can be addressed "democratically."

I agree that all groups have a different way of pushing for their own autonomy; it is human nature to want our free will and consent to be respected as the basis of govt and law.

Sorry you don't get to tell people what their political philosophy is especially when you demonstrate such a dearth of knowledge on the subject. Here is a link to get you started learning though.

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.

Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oddball]

You always go back to "run by the government". How is that the case? The taxpayers would be footing the bill, but the decision on who gets the money would be determined by the ballot box. If you're going to call that "run by the government" then every election we've had has been so. Also, rather than saying I'd want to stop people from using their money to promote a candidate, I'd prefer to look at it as preventing monied interests from extracting expensive promises from the candidates. Since the most powerful could do so to both sides, how are we really having fair elections? You wouldn't be able to contribute your money either, but what's more important, the amount of money each candidate has or the ideas and plans they have? What's fair about the candidate of your choice being swamped out every time, not because their ideas are flawed, but because a special interest can buy all the air time they want and your candidate can't? To my mind that isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.

To reform the political campaign contribution process (for lack of a better word) in this country requires one to look at why big, rich corporations would pile heaps of money on a candidate. If you're of the mind that these big, rich corporations are only interested in making even more money at the expense of nearly anything else, then surely them spending lots of money on a political process should be puzzling, no? No company looking to make a profit spends money on anything unless they're expecting to getting a return on that investment.

If their guy gets hired, that ROI comes in the form of regulations and tax code changes. Regulations could be put in place to make it harder for startups to threaten the big guys. It could be tax code changes that all them to pay less. The list goes on.

Asking the entity that's receiving said funds to carry out such acts to be the solution to the problem seems, foolish, doesn't it? If a couple kids are are bullying you at school, would you pay one of them to stop the other from bullying you?

The better, more long-term solution (perhaps) lies in removing the incentive for these mega-rich corps to pile money on a campaign. You do that by not allowing the government the pervert the tax code in favor of some but not others. You do that by not allowing the government to enact regulation that puts up massive barriers to entry in a given market.

Food for thought.

He seems content on his socialist starvation diet.

 

[Oddball]

I'm telling you though...the moment the Feds feel this is a threat to the USD, it's over.

And don't think they don't know about it and don't monitor it intently.

There is PLENTY of work to do locally without threatening anyone on a federal level.
Most people I talk to about this idea DON'T WANT the responsibility. They will GLADLY pass the buck to anyone willing to do the work. The field is wide open, no one is fighting it.

One locality isn't a threat.

If the idea catches on and MANY localities start doing it, it's going to get shut down. That's not even open for debate. It's FACT.

Just ask my friend Bernie.

Bernard von NotHaus, Awaiting Sentencing for Competing with the Federal Reserve with a Hard Money "Liberty Dollar" - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[Vast LWC]

Why aren't more people Libertarian?

Because if more people became Libertarian, than the Libertarians that currently exist would move on to something else, claiming that Libertarianism was too mainstream.

 

[Oddball]

Why aren't more people Libertarian?

Because if more people became Libertarian, than the Libertarians that currently exist would move on to something else, claiming that Libertarianism was too mainstream.

Nu-uh.

We'd be asking the noobs "what the fuck took you so long?"

 

[Contumacious]

That's an easy answer, at least, abandon this near religious devotion to treasured ideology that forces most to reject things out of hand. If some part of liberal socialism works, do it, if some part of conservatism works, do it, and leave off the knee-jerk labels because anyone who thinks their rigid ideology is a golden road to prosperity is a blind fool.

Yo occupied, when are you going to abandon your rigid , near religious, adherence to parasitism/fascism/socialism?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[occupied]

That's an easy answer, at least, abandon this near religious devotion to treasured ideology that forces most to reject things out of hand. If some part of liberal socialism works, do it, if some part of conservatism works, do it, and leave off the knee-jerk labels because anyone who thinks their rigid ideology is a golden road to prosperity is a blind fool.

Yo occupied, when are you going to abandon your rigid , near religious, adherence to parasitism/fascism/socialism?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

Probably about the time you quit being a colossal, amoral prick, you are another one who is libertarian because you want the freedom to prey on people, Mr. insider trading cheerleader. What other kinds of heinous fraud do you think is unjustly outlawed?

 

[bripat9643]

Yo occupied, when are you going to abandon your rigid , near religious, adherence to parasitism/fascism/socialism?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Probably about the time you quit being a colossal, amoral prick, you are another one who is libertarian because you want the freedom to prey on people, Mr. insider trading cheerleader. What other kinds of heinous fraud do you think is unjustly outlawed?

How does insider trading constitute fraud? Who are you deceiving when you purchase or sell a stock?

 

[occupied]

Yo occupied, when are you going to abandon your rigid , near religious, adherence to parasitism/fascism/socialism?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Probably about the time you quit being a colossal, amoral prick, you are another one who is libertarian because you want the freedom to prey on people, Mr. insider trading cheerleader. What other kinds of heinous fraud do you think is unjustly outlawed?

How does insider trading constitute fraud? Who are you deceiving when you purchase or sell a stock?

If you were to sell me $10,000 worth of stock you know for a fact is going to be worth $500 dollars next week and I found out you had better hide because you can bet your ass I would feel defrauded.

 

[bripat9643]

Probably about the time you quit being a colossal, amoral prick, you are another one who is libertarian because you want the freedom to prey on people, Mr. insider trading cheerleader. What other kinds of heinous fraud do you think is unjustly outlawed?

How does insider trading constitute fraud? Who are you deceiving when you purchase or sell a stock?

If you were to sell me $10,000 worth of stock you know for a fact is going to be worth $500 dollars next week and I found out you had better hide because you can bet your ass I would feel defrauded.

No one ever sells stock to a particular person, and no one ever knows what a stock is going to be worth a week from now.

 

[occupied]

How does insider trading constitute fraud? Who are you deceiving when you purchase or sell a stock?

If you were to sell me $10,000 worth of stock you know for a fact is going to be worth $500 dollars next week and I found out you had better hide because you can bet your ass I would feel defrauded.

No one ever sells stock to a particular person, and no one ever knows what a stock is going to be worth a week from now.

Bullshit, stock transactions may not usually be a one-on-one transaction but you are still dumping your losing bet off on someone else, in the imclone scandal the CEO having been tipped-off told his family to dump their stock worth several million dollars just before it was announced their new drug was not going to be approved for sale, do you seriously see nothing wrong with that kind of behavior?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any wikipedia definition is questionable at best, LibertyForAll, because of the nature of lack of peer-reviewed verification. Since I am a James Madison compared to you in this area, you are fortunate that I can correctly intepretyour supposed minimal statistism as limited constitutional republicanism with some democratic tendencies.

As long as state exists to perform the duties you describe below, you are not preaching libertarianism at all, merely small-town republicanism.

Philosophers would tell you to go back to basic definitions and not create new names for extant systems. Please, you are embarrassing yourself.

Then you embrace localized republicanism not libertarianism. The issue remains of course how does a federal or national government work in relation to decentralized communities in the states.

What role will the states fulfill in your plan?

Dear Jake: The more we localize government where there is closer to direct accountability, and train people to manage their own representation and conflict resolution on a scale that CAN be handled more effectively,
I believe we CAN start addressing abuses and violations on this locally democratized level.

In fact, we would be able to "intervene early" to address issues and resolve conflicts on a personal/civil level BEFORE they escalate into the types of violence and wars that ARE harder if not impossible to police once they go too far.

Given that each person and party has such different focus issues and priorities, I believe ALL people would be better off having local accountability and representation. The more work we can get done on that level, without imposing on other groups or parties, we can remove more burdens off federal govt, and delegate local issues to diverse communities to resolve themselves, and REWARD them for this by retaining control of authority and resources.
Where if you don't resolve your own conflicts, then outside authority of govt steps in instead.

By pushing for more local and individual accountability, responsibility and restitution for problems caused on that level, this would eliminate a lot of the conflicts that otherwise escalate out of control beyond what can be addressed "democratically."

I agree that all groups have a different way of pushing for their own autonomy; it is human nature to want our free will and consent to be respected as the basis of govt and law.

Sorry you don't get to tell people what their political philosophy is especially when you demonstrate such a dearth of knowledge on the subject. Here is a link to get you started learning though.

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.

Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious wants to decriminalize behavior that harms others.

 

[konradv]

I'm working on it.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Any wikipedia definition is questionable at best, LibertyForAll, because of the nature of lack of peer-reviewed verification. Since I am a James Madison compared to you in this area, you are fortunate that I can correctly intepretyour supposed minimal statistism as limited constitutional republicanism with some democratic tendencies.

As long as state exists to perform the duties you describe below, you are not preaching libertarianism at all, merely small-town republicanism.

Philosophers would tell you to go back to basic definitions and not create new names for extant systems. Please, you are embarrassing yourself.

Then you embrace localized republicanism not libertarianism. The issue remains of course how does a federal or national government work in relation to decentralized communities in the states.

What role will the states fulfill in your plan?

Sorry you don't get to tell people what their political philosophy is especially when you demonstrate such a dearth of knowledge on the subject. Here is a link to get you started learning though.

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.

Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is another site then and one that most Libertarians would not dispute. You are simply wrong.

Minarchism is a political ideology that accepts the role of a minimal state, the term was coined by Samuel Edward Konkin III[1]. Minarchism is usually classified as being a libertarian ideology and can be contrasted with anarchism another common libertarian ideology which sees no role for a state. Minarchists generally believe that the state should be limited to providing such services as national defense and the criminal justice system, however, these views vary among different minarchists. Some prominent thinkers who could be classified as minarchists include Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand.

Minarchism - Mises Wiki

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious wants to decriminalize behavior that harms others.

Comrade Starkiev believes that stealing, looting and plundering are not crimes if the proceeds therefrom are shared with him.

.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The Libertarians don't (or don't want to) see the opportunity staring them square in the face: an opening to promote cost-efficient, effective government and a moderate/liberal approach to social issues. There's a ton of votes waiting for such a strategy.

Maybe they don't want the responsibility of actually having to govern. Screaming platitudes sure is a lot easier.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taxation is not theft in our republic. You are governed by the will of We the People, the expression of our social compact.

Tell us what it is really that you want to do that you can't by our laws right now, something that has nothing to do with business or taxes or income.

Tell us what really motivates your libertarianism.

Contumacious wants to decriminalize behavior that harms others.

Comrade Starkiev believes that stealing, looting and plundering are not crimes if the proceeds therefrom are shared with him.

.