Libertarianism

[Quantum Windbag]

I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.

Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.

 

[oldfart]

I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.

Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.

I suggest that you have chosen a fool's errand. There is no way any one person can be cognizant of everything everyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" (or any other political label) has written. You are inviting an acrimonious and never-ending bitchfest about who is a "true libertarian". Better to state and defend what you believe and leave others to speak for themselves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.

Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.

I suggest that you have chosen a fool's errand. There is no way any one person can be cognizant of everything everyone who calls themselves a "libertarian" (or any other political label) has written. You are inviting an acrimonious and never-ending bitchfest about who is a "true libertarian". Better to state and defend what you believe and leave others to speak for themselves.

Even before the internet I could have done this because I know how to find things.

I am not trying to defend true libertarianism, I am trying to prove that people who pretend they actually studied libertarianism and came to a reasoned and well thought out conclusion based on their research didn't actually do that. So far no one has even tried to prove me wrong.

 

[PaulS1950]

All you have to do is go to the Libertarian party website and compare their platform to the other political platform. To summarize the Libertarian Point of View:

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.



2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.



3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.



4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval

 

[Two Thumbs]

No matter who is getting slaughtered outside the US, libers will not want us to send any kind of aide.

I find that to be cold. I don't understand how anyone, with any morals, can turn their backs on children in the crossfire b/c the most powerful and greatest nation ever will have to spend money.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.

Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.

My one complaint would be the intermingling of anarco-capitalists calling themselves libertarians.

Unfortunately for me, they actually do fall into the libertarian political worldview BUT it gets confusing when dealing with those that are not libertarians because they want to lump ALL libertarians into anarco-capitalist views when that is clearly not true.

The number of times that I have seen people demand that libertarianism and anarchy are essentially the same thing is staggering. A complete misrepresentation of the underlying concepts.

 

[editec]

I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.

Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.

THIS is a great idea, QW.

Anybody can practically say anything for or against LIBERTARIANISM since there is NO AUTHORIZED AUTHORITY to define what libertarianism really is, what it really believes, etc.

I've know libertarians who were basically heartless misanthops, who clearly had no idea how humans actually think or work, and who cling to this LABEL merely as a cover to give their hatred for ALL HUMANS some philosophical cover.

Then too I've known or read things from people ALSO claiming to be Libertarians that made great sense.

So when someone tells me they are libertarian, that tells me exactly NOTHING about what they REALLY are.

I can and DO say the same of people claiming to be liberals, or conservatives, incidently.

These labels really mean nothing you or I can truly depend on.

 

[editec]

All you have to do is go to the Libertarian party website and compare their platform to the other political platform. To summarize the Libertarian Point of View:

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.



2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.



3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.



4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval

The trouble with that approach is the Libertarian Party does NOT speak for all people calling themselves libertarians.

It is perfectly competenet to speak for itself and its members, but it does NOT define the entire class of people calling themselves LIBERTARIANS.

 

[editec]

I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.

Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.

My one complaint would be the intermingling of anarco-capitalists calling themselves libertarians.

Unfortunately for me, they actually do fall into the libertarian political worldview BUT it gets confusing when dealing with those that are not libertarians because they want to lump ALL libertarians into anarco-capitalist views when that is clearly not true.

The number of times that I have seen people demand that libertarianism and anarchy are essentially the same thing is staggering. A complete misrepresentation of the underlying concepts.

Yup.

I have been guilty of that, myself since the first people I met who claimed to be libertarians also were Randian school objectivist libertarians.

They did not believe in any form of government AT ALL.

Now in my wold view, those people are called ANARCHISTS.

Only in the world there are people who call call themselves ANARCHISTS who are basically crypto communists.

POLITICAL LABELS...these do NOT serve any of us, folks.

They are mostly DESIGNED to confuse us rather than help us.

It is NOT until one gets down to specific policies that one can begin to truly understand what person REALLY is.

POLITICAL LABELS are worse than worthless since they confuse us into thinking that people are what they are NOT

 

[PredFan]

I don't know why so many people have so much trouble with the concept that, like democrats and republicans, libertarians are composed of people who have variations on the same theme. One does not have to toe the libertarian party platform line completely in order to be a libertarian.

But the OP is correct. Too many people here TOTALLY misunderstand Libertarians and there are too many threads building strawman armies misrepresenting Libertarians.

 

[Derideo_Te]

All you have to do is go to the Libertarian party website and compare their platform to the other political platform.

Thanks for providing these summaries.

To summarize the Libertarian Point of View:

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Given what is stated in #1 above everyone who professes to be a Libertarian should be an ardent supporter of gay marriage since that is clearly the choice of consenting adults. Furthermore this sentence clearly states that people must "accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make" so it would appear that Libertarians would be in favor of universal background checks and all in favor of holding Zimmerman responsible for the "choice he made" to shoot Martin.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

As far as #2 regarding economic Libertarianism is concerned the deregulated free market concept has failed on at least 3 occasions. The Founding Fathers understood the need for government regulation which is why they included the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The only issue is the degree to which government can impose regulations rather than that there should be none whatsoever. So in that respect the Founding Fathers were not libertarians.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

Given what is stated in #3 it seems as though all Libertarians should be card carrying members of the ACLU. The Founding Fathers would probably have agreed wholeheartedly with this principle and also belonged to the ACLU. They would probably have agreed with #4 below too.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval

Not sure how others interpret those statements but that is my opinion on what they mean for what it is worth. Doubtless there are others who see things differently but this was not meant as a criticism of those who hold different views but rather just an observation on what are the clearly stated principles of Libertarianism.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No matter who is getting slaughtered outside the US, libers will not want us to send any kind of aide.

I find that to be cold. I don't understand how anyone, with any morals, can turn their backs on children in the crossfire b/c the most powerful and greatest nation ever will have to spend money.

That's because you believe in half truths. Libertarians don't believe in not sending aid. They believe private charities are more effective and less corrupt. When government cuts a check, they are much less accountable for how that money gets spent. Nine out of ten dollars typically goes to some fat cat's wallet.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.

Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.

My one complaint would be the intermingling of anarco-capitalists calling themselves libertarians.

Unfortunately for me, they actually do fall into the libertarian political worldview BUT it gets confusing when dealing with those that are not libertarians because they want to lump ALL libertarians into anarco-capitalist views when that is clearly not true.

The number of times that I have seen people demand that libertarianism and anarchy are essentially the same thing is staggering. A complete misrepresentation of the underlying concepts.

Except the only reason they do that is to annoy you. It's not that the issue is confusing for them, it's that it distracts from any real issues and puts you on the defensive arguing about semantics. It's the same reason they call us isolationists.

 

[FA_Q2]

You have made several misconceptions about what libertarians believe and how that fits into their worldview. As has been stated, libertarians are varied in their so I cannot speak for all of them but I can speak for myself and about the majority of libertarians that I know (discounting the anarcho-capitalist ones as I am not clear on the ability for that reality to work)

Given what is stated in #1 above everyone who professes to be a Libertarian should be an ardent supporter of gay marriage since that is clearly the choice of consenting adults.

And that is generally the position that libertarians hold. In that, most have one of two views – that government should recognize gay marriage or that government should not recognize marriage at all. The latter view is more widely held and adheres to libertarian core values.

Furthermore this sentence clearly states that people must "accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make" so it would appear that Libertarians would be in favor of universal background checks and all in favor of holding Zimmerman responsible for the "choice he made" to shoot Martin.

No, that is utterly against libertarian views. More background checks is a form of prior restraint and libertarians are pretty all against government trading citizens as criminals without cause. You are completely backwards in libertarian thought with that statement.

Further, Zimmerman is not that simple. He has a right to walk down the same street as Martin as long as he did not accost him. IF he accosted him, then he is responsible. If martin did the attack first, then he is not. That is all about who initiated force which, indecently, is how current law works and why Zimmerman is going to trial. He thinks that he can prove Martin attacked him and if he can then he did not do anything wrong. That is unless you thing walking down the street behind someone is wrong.

As far as #2 regarding economic Libertarianism is concerned the deregulated free market concept has failed on at least 3 occasions. The Founding Fathers understood the need for government regulation which is why they included the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The only issue is the degree to which government can impose regulations rather than that there should be none whatsoever. So in that respect the Founding Fathers were not libertarians.

Again, you fail to understand what a free market means. Anarcho-capitalists do want unfettered markets but for the most part, libertarians are not against basic regulations as those are required to keep a free market free. A monopoly – the end result of all unfettered markets, is anti-free market. Basic regulation is not against libertarian philosophy.

I would reiterate that libertarians are not all anarchists. A completely unregulated market is an example of anarchism. That might fall under libertarianism bit in the same manner that a square is a rectangle. Not ALL rectangles are squares and the majority of libertarians are not anarchists.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am a bit tired of all the experts on libertarianism telling me everything libertarians don't believe. To finally put an end to that I decided to start this thread to prove everyone wrong. Lay out your favorite criticism of libertarians, and I will find a libertarian that says the same thing. Point out something libertarians don't think about and I will find the libertarian that not only thought about it, he wrote about it.

Feel free to disagree with their ideals, but don't pretend to be an expert until you have actually read everything they have to say.

My one complaint would be the intermingling of anarco-capitalists calling themselves libertarians.

Unfortunately for me, they actually do fall into the libertarian political worldview BUT it gets confusing when dealing with those that are not libertarians because they want to lump ALL libertarians into anarco-capitalist views when that is clearly not true.

The number of times that I have seen people demand that libertarianism and anarchy are essentially the same thing is staggering. A complete misrepresentation of the underlying concepts.

Yup.

I have been guilty of that, myself since the first people I met who claimed to be libertarians also were Randian school objectivist libertarians.

They did not believe in any form of government AT ALL.

Now in my wold view, those people are called ANARCHISTS.

Only in the world there are people who call call themselves ANARCHISTS who are basically crypto communists.

POLITICAL LABELS...these do NOT serve any of us, folks.

They are mostly DESIGNED to confuse us rather than help us.

It is NOT until one gets down to specific policies that one can begin to truly understand what person REALLY is.

POLITICAL LABELS are worse than worthless since they confuse us into thinking that people are what they are NOT

One cannot be a "Randian Objectivist" and an anarchist. Ayn Rand hated anarchists and expelled them from her Objectivist philosophy.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Given what is stated in #1 above everyone who professes to be a Libertarian should be an ardent supporter of gay marriage since that is clearly the choice of consenting adults.

And that is generally the position that libertarians hold. In that, most have one of two views – that government should recognize gay marriage or that government should not recognize marriage at all. The latter view is more widely held and adheres to libertarian core values.

Not really true. Few libertarians would be "ardent supporters" of gay marriage. They are often for marriage equality in reverse; meaning no government sanctions of any marriage.

 

[editec]

My one complaint would be the intermingling of anarco-capitalists calling themselves libertarians.

Unfortunately for me, they actually do fall into the libertarian political worldview BUT it gets confusing when dealing with those that are not libertarians because they want to lump ALL libertarians into anarco-capitalist views when that is clearly not true.

The number of times that I have seen people demand that libertarianism and anarchy are essentially the same thing is staggering. A complete misrepresentation of the underlying concepts.

Yup.

I have been guilty of that, myself since the first people I met who claimed to be libertarians also were Randian school objectivist libertarians.

They did not believe in any form of government AT ALL.

Now in my wold view, those people are called ANARCHISTS.

Only in the world there are people who call call themselves ANARCHISTS who are basically crypto communists.

POLITICAL LABELS...these do NOT serve any of us, folks.

They are mostly DESIGNED to confuse us rather than help us.

It is NOT until one gets down to specific policies that one can begin to truly understand what person REALLY is.

POLITICAL LABELS are worse than worthless since they confuse us into thinking that people are what they are NOT

One cannot be a "Randian Objectivist" and an anarchist. Ayn Rand hated anarchists and expelled them from her Objectivist philosophy.

What do you call a person who believes that NO GOVERNMENT is the only fair and just society>

I call those people ANARCHISTS since that word means NO LEADERS

However \, just to conbfuse the issue, in Europe a whole school of people calling themselves ANARCHISTS exist who DO BELIEVE in government, only NOT the ones that currently exist.

See the problem here?

SEMANTICS....MOST of the debates here are NOT about reality, they're about what to CALL reality.

He's a communist, she's a gun nut, he's a libertairian, she's a liberal. it's all nothing more than bla bla bla fucking bla bla bla.

All sound and fury signifying WHAT exactly?

NOTHING.

If you cannot agree on what a word ACTUALLY MEANS, then using it is bound to make any discussion a forking waste of time.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

Speaking of semantics. Way to pretend that libertarians are nothings that don't have beliefs with any sort of validity.

 

[FA_Q2]

Given what is stated in #1 above everyone who professes to be a Libertarian should be an ardent supporter of gay marriage since that is clearly the choice of consenting adults.

And that is generally the position that libertarians hold. In that, most have one of two views – that government should recognize gay marriage or that government should not recognize marriage at all. The latter view is more widely held and adheres to libertarian core values.

Not really true. Few libertarians would be "ardent supporters" of gay marriage. They are often for marriage equality in reverse; meaning no government sanctions of any marriage.

I did mention that was the more widely held view. The crux of the issue for liberals is that being against gay marriage is not supporting equality. I was dispelling the myth that libertarians are being bigoted in that regard. They, for the most part, do NOT support a system where the government recognizes one marriage and then rejects another.

 

[Two Thumbs]

No matter who is getting slaughtered outside the US, libers will not want us to send any kind of aide.

I find that to be cold. I don't understand how anyone, with any morals, can turn their backs on children in the crossfire b/c the most powerful and greatest nation ever will have to spend money.

That's because you believe in half truths. Libertarians don't believe in not sending aid. They believe private charities are more effective and less corrupt. When government cuts a check, they are much less accountable for how that money gets spent. Nine out of ten dollars typically goes to some fat cat's wallet.

Im not talking about sending food and mosquito nets.

I'm talking about stopping children from being killed on conflicts.

every liber has said; "What's that country have to do with us?" when I said we need to go in and do something.


That's an ice cold look on actual life.