Libertarianism

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

And how many children die directly from our intervention, and then indirectly from the chaos that ensues as a result of our intervention? Then these children are always chalked up to "collateral damage."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I choose not to make the situation worse, which is what inevitably happens. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya. How many times do we have to see this scenario play out?

 

[Tuatara]

]
I really thought they were called that. Is there a proper name or do you call them Tea Partyers?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Thank you for the clarifications. When you stated "government should not recognize marriage at all" did you mean all levels of government including local, state and federal?

90% of the people support universal background checks. Does this mean that it is only Libertarians who are the remaining 10% who oppose them? Would that be a fair estimate for the number of Libertarians?

You are correct that GZ had the right to walk down the street just as TM did. The subsequent altercation was the result of one or the other being accosted. However that was not the point that was being made. GZ owned a gun and under what was stated as being the Libertarian principle he was/is entirely responsible for that weapon and what he did with it. That principle should not change even if he was accosted by an unarmed TM.

Thank you for drawing the distinction between "Anarcho-capitalists" and Libertarians as far as economic regulation is concerned. It is a term that I was unaware of until now but it makes sense.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide these distinctions.

 

[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.

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.

That is exactly my point. Libertarianism, at its heart, is about liberty. That fits a pretty broad spectrum of philosophy, yet people keep insisting it is only about eliminating government, and insist that no libertarian ever thinks about all the different problems they think they see. They don't even take the time to understand that Ayn Rand, who they see as an anarchist, was actually in favor of some government regulation.

 

[PaulS1950]

In my mind this whole question of who or what a libertarian is or believes can be stated very simply.

It is the federal governments job to follow the constitution.

There are two major commands that the federal government should follow:
1. most important is to protect the rights of the individual and the states which gave the federal government its powers.
2. Protect and defend the citizens and member states from foreign attack.

you can pervert power to "protect people from themselves" but that is not within the powers granted to the federal government. It is not the job of the federal government to dictate who can marry, that is left to the state. The federal government can enforce that all contracts, including marriage, that are valid in one state must be accepted in all states as equal protection under the law of the constitution.

 

[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.

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

If they didn't believe in any government they were not objectivists, they were anarchists. Objectivism sees the government as a necessary part of the social order.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Introducing Objectivism - The Ayn Rand Institute

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

This is exactly the kind of argument I was thinking about when I started this thread. You argue that your position is that the only correct one from what you think libertarians believe, and then conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is not a libertarian, and use that justify your refusal to understand libertarians.

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Just like it is possible to be gay and oppose ssm, it is also possible to be libertarian and oppose it because of the actual, real world, consequences on the scope of the government. Many libertarians see this, and hope that forcing society to bight the bullet will, ultimately, lead to smaller government.

There Is No Libertarian Argument Against Gay Marriage | Thoughts on Liberty

The Best Libertarian Argument Against Gay Marriage - Greenville Post | Greenville Post

The Libertarian Gay Marriage Paradox - Reason.com

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.

This is one of the times I wish I could reach through the internet and smack someone upside the head with a sledgehammer.

There are no examples in history of a market completely divorced from government control. Just to demonstrate how positive I am of this, feel free to provide your three examples, whatever you think they are.

That said, what makes you think the Libertarian Party wants a completely unregulated market? The very quote you are basing your absurd position on envisions a role for the government in markets.

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.

Why should libertarians support an organization that believes in using the government to take away people's rights to free association?

To explain, the ACLU believes that businesses run by minorities should be forced to cater to KKK members in full regalia. I find that abhorrent and offensive.

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.

Actually, it is just meant to explain that they are not trying to address everything that is wrong at the same time. That would take way to long, and bog them down in useless details and minutiae.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The one detail that annoys me more than anything else. I have a few problems of my own with Rand, but it annoys me to deal with people who totally misrepresent her views on government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If people want to march off and defend other people they see as being oppressed, they should be free to do so. The problems is that when a government does it, even ours, the end result is another government that is built on force of arms and oppression.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

Thank you for the clarifications. When you stated "government should not recognize marriage at all" did you mean all levels of government including local, state and federal?

90% of the people support universal background checks. Does this mean that it is only Libertarians who are the remaining 10% who oppose them? Would that be a fair estimate for the number of Libertarians?

You are correct that GZ had the right to walk down the street just as TM did. The subsequent altercation was the result of one or the other being accosted. However that was not the point that was being made. GZ owned a gun and under what was stated as being the Libertarian principle he was/is entirely responsible for that weapon and what he did with it. That principle should not change even if he was accosted by an unarmed TM.

Thank you for drawing the distinction between "Anarcho-capitalists" and Libertarians as far as economic regulation is concerned. It is a term that I was unaware of until now but it makes sense.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide these distinctions.

Libertarians oppose universal background checks because they understand the mechanism that would be required to enforce it. It would require the government being able to search any home, business, or property, at any time, without a warrant, to be sure their are no unregistered guns and no materials to put one together. They would also be empowered to stop everyone in public and conduct a spot check to be sure you are not carrying a weapon, or in possession of something that could be used to manufacture said weapon. They would also impose restrictions on computers and printers, and all manufacturing, in order to assure that no one is making new weapons that they are unaware of.

They would retain that power forever.

I am pretty sure that no one, including you, actually supports universal background checks, so stop throwing out polls that don't actually ask about universal background checks like they prove something.

 

[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.

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

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you here. I have addressed the exact statement from you before. The terms are useful in communicating your base belief and political stance in an succinct manner. If I had to spell out my political beliefs in full anytime that I spoke to a new person about politics I would have little time for anything else. The explanation might take hours. Instead, one word effectively projects what I am with some details described after to refine my political worldview. Rejecting ALL political words because they do not have very precise definitions is as useless as demanding that no one ever use the word car because that does not convey the exact vehicle that you might be driving. Instead, you would have to recite the engine, number of doors, horsepower, wheelbase and tire size etc etc each time you wanted your friend to hop in and take a ride.

The attacking of people based on complete misconceptions of political ideologies are NOT due to the use of terms like conservative, liberal and libertarian. That would occur no matter how accurate we described our political worldviews. That is based on the division and the need for low information people to justify their position by making the opposite evil or abhorrent. You do not need to do all the legwork if the other side is obviously insane. You need even less legwork if you can convince yourself that the other side is insane by closing your eyes and yelling really loud. THAT is the problem with labels, not the labels themselves but what people do with them and would continue to do even if you never used another label again.

 

[FA_Q2]

Thank you for the clarifications. When you stated "government should not recognize marriage at all" did you mean all levels of government including local, state and federal?

It varies by each libertarian as there is a lot of similarity when dealing with the federal but more debate exists within the state and local level where greater powers should be vested. Generally though, I think that libertarians mean ALL levels. Realize that this does not preclude contractual agreements that go with marriage. The thousand ‘rights’ that come with marriage can be mostly conveyed within a contract – even something standard that could have slight changes based on the individual marriage. The main difference would be the complete removal of benefits conveyed to a married couple that those who are single do not obtain. Things like tax breaks and kickbacks. Those are generally abhorrent in a libertarian worldview.

90% of the people support universal background checks. Does this mean that it is only Libertarians who are the remaining 10% who oppose them? Would that be a fair estimate for the number of Libertarians?

Not really. I know a LOT of libertarians (certainly more than 10 percent of those that I know) but I am not deluded enough to actually think that we number that high across the nation. The voting population shows that to be generally false even though some STILL vote for the republican no matter how asinine that seems to be.

As far as the 90 percent – I think that figure is garbage as it is based off a generic question and NOT real legislation. When actual legislation is up for review, it is never popular.

You are correct that GZ had the right to walk down the street just as TM did. The subsequent altercation was the result of one or the other being accosted. However that was not the point that was being made. GZ owned a gun and under what was stated as being the Libertarian principle he was/is entirely responsible for that weapon and what he did with it. That principle should not change even if he was accosted by an unarmed TM.

Yes and no. Realize that once GZ was attacked, he was still responsible for the use of the gun but it would not confer liability or be illegal – protection is a basic right. In that light, GZ was fully justified in shooting Martin and would deserve no jail time or financial repercussion. That would be different if, say, a round missed and hit another. Now he has caused harm that was NOT justified and fully culpable for damages and jail. Even by accident, his fault.

Now, if Martin did NOT start the altercation of GZ did something that forced it (like telling martin he was going to kill him or pulling his weapon as through he was going to use it) then he is fully culpable and should spend the rest of his life in prison for it (or at least a damn good chunk of time).

Thank you for drawing the distinction between "Anarcho-capitalists" and Libertarians as far as economic regulation is concerned. It is a term that I was unaware of until now but it makes sense.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide these distinctions.

I appreciate someone that actually cares enough to listen and/or offer counterpoints.

I had another debate here a week ago with a libertarian that was an anarcho-capitalist and it made debate difficult until he let loose that he ascribed to that political worldview. It makes things simpler if you are accurate as well as succinct, something libertarians so not do enough and causes to damn much strife. That problem is self-inflicted and I REFUSE to be part of it.

It is nice to say something and not be countered with insults and demands that my worldview is untenable because I am an anarchist.

 

[FA_Q2]

And how many children die directly from our intervention, and then indirectly from the chaos that ensues as a result of our intervention? Then these children are always chalked up to "collateral damage."

So, when you hear the saying; Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

you choose to hide away like a coward.

I choose not to make the situation worse, which is what inevitably happens. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya. How many times do we have to see this scenario play out?

And there is the reality of that. Those that think war is some humanitarian undertaking have no concept of what actually occurs in war. People burn to death, limbs are blown off, children watch their parents torn apart, and parents watch babies die in their hands. It is horrific. There is no humanitarian war and there is no good in war at all. We should only go to war because we MUST, never because we want.

The current practice of nation building has not worked even once but we do not learn our lesson and all we do is create hate and angst against ourselves while not serving our interests. Such is a terrible idea.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That's just pure feel goodery nonsense. All wars have their pros and cons. The ones that have where the pros outweigh the cons; those are the good wars.

That said, the last three presidential administrations have had sinister motives and our military endeavors have largely been negative imo.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thank you for the clarifications. When you stated "government should not recognize marriage at all" did you mean all levels of government including local, state and federal?

It varies by each libertarian as there is a lot of similarity when dealing with the federal but more debate exists within the state and local level where greater powers should be vested. Generally though, I think that libertarians mean ALL levels. Realize that this does not preclude contractual agreements that go with marriage. The thousand ‘rights’ that come with marriage can be mostly conveyed within a contract – even something standard that could have slight changes based on the individual marriage. The main difference would be the complete removal of benefits conveyed to a married couple that those who are single do not obtain. Things like tax breaks and kickbacks. Those are generally abhorrent in a libertarian worldview.

90% of the people support universal background checks. Does this mean that it is only Libertarians who are the remaining 10% who oppose them? Would that be a fair estimate for the number of Libertarians?

Not really. I know a LOT of libertarians (certainly more than 10 percent of those that I know) but I am not deluded enough to actually think that we number that high across the nation. The voting population shows that to be generally false even though some STILL vote for the republican no matter how asinine that seems to be.

As far as the 90 percent – I think that figure is garbage as it is based off a generic question and NOT real legislation. When actual legislation is up for review, it is never popular.

You are correct that GZ had the right to walk down the street just as TM did. The subsequent altercation was the result of one or the other being accosted. However that was not the point that was being made. GZ owned a gun and under what was stated as being the Libertarian principle he was/is entirely responsible for that weapon and what he did with it. That principle should not change even if he was accosted by an unarmed TM.

Yes and no. Realize that once GZ was attacked, he was still responsible for the use of the gun but it would not confer liability or be illegal – protection is a basic right. In that light, GZ was fully justified in shooting Martin and would deserve no jail time or financial repercussion. That would be different if, say, a round missed and hit another. Now he has caused harm that was NOT justified and fully culpable for damages and jail. Even by accident, his fault.

Now, if Martin did NOT start the altercation of GZ did something that forced it (like telling martin he was going to kill him or pulling his weapon as through he was going to use it) then he is fully culpable and should spend the rest of his life in prison for it (or at least a damn good chunk of time).

Thank you for drawing the distinction between "Anarcho-capitalists" and Libertarians as far as economic regulation is concerned. It is a term that I was unaware of until now but it makes sense.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide these distinctions.

I appreciate someone that actually cares enough to listen and/or offer counterpoints.

I had another debate here a week ago with a libertarian that was an anarcho-capitalist and it made debate difficult until he let loose that he ascribed to that political worldview. It makes things simpler if you are accurate as well as succinct, something libertarians so not do enough and causes to damn much strife. That problem is self-inflicted and I REFUSE to be part of it.

It is nice to say something and not be countered with insults and demands that my worldview is untenable because I am an anarchist.

The Libertarian position as provided and clarified has much that is good about it. Where I see the problem is not with genuine Libertarians like yourself but that you are being associated with anarcho-capitalists and other extreme fringe groups who claim to be Libertarians too.

Unfortunately this "guilt by association" problem is pervasive in politics. All Liberals are vilified because a kid is sent home for wearing an inappropriate t-shirt by some well meaning, if not too bright, teacher. Moderate conservatives are treated as "traitors" because they don't toe the hardline Tea Party stance.

The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden". This is possible as long as we reject those who are looking to "divide and conquer" as the means to gain political power. The motto of "e pluribus unum" means that combined we are united and capable of greatness. It is a disservice to our children and grandchildren to allow petty differences tear us apart and bring this nation to it's knees.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I think it's a misnomer to state that the libertarian position is especially focused on the state of wars. Libertarians are neither for or against war as an absolute position. Libertarians are for freedom and no unnecessary government intervention in people's affairs.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's just pure feel goodery nonsense. All wars have their pros and cons. The ones that have where the pros outweigh the cons; those are the good wars.

That said, the last three presidential administrations have had sinister motives and our military endeavors have largely been negative IMO.

It is not feel goodery nonsense. It is FACT. War is horrible and what happens when you go to war is one of the travesties of this world.

The things I described happen to thousands. The number of people that die unjustly is staggering and it takes mountains to justify such atrocities. I never stated that no wars should be fought though. I will NOT call the ‘good’ wars. They are not good IMHO, but they were NECESSARY. WW2 was necessary. It was horrific as other wars but there was a greater need hanging in the balance. In that respect, there are wars that MUST be fought.

The key difference is that these modern wars are not necessities, they are nation building. When you fight a war, there is no objective outside of killing your enemy. You worry about rebuilding after, when you are not fighting a war. Iraq, we never went in there with the intention of utterly destroying our enemy and look where that got us – mired in this bullshit. The same thing happened in Vietnam. We held back, tried to fight with other objectives in mind. War does not go well when you are not willing to put it all on the table.

I think it's a misnomer to state that the libertarian position is especially focused on the state of wars. Libertarians are neither for or against war as an absolute position. Libertarians are for freedom and no unnecessary government intervention in people's affairs.

Did anyone really make that claim though? I am against needless war – something that the R’s and D’s are addicted to. I think that the same could be said of most libertarians. I don’t think many are against ALL war as there are times where fighting ends up being the only real solution. Most of us are determined that self-defense be a big part of that though rather than aggressive wars. Afghanistan is an example of that for me. I believe that was a valid and just war – they struck first and we needed to defend ourselves. If we just bother to actually fight that war rather than move on and trat that as a sideshow.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Libertarian position as provided and clarified has much that is good about it. Where I see the problem is not with genuine Libertarians like yourself but that you are being associated with anarcho-capitalists and other extreme fringe groups who claim to be Libertarians too.

Unfortunately this "guilt by association" problem is pervasive in politics. All Liberals are vilified because a kid is sent home for wearing an inappropriate t-shirt by some well meaning, if not too bright, teacher. Moderate conservatives are treated as "traitors" because they don't toe the hardline Tea Party stance.

The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden". This is possible as long as we reject those who are looking to "divide and conquer" as the means to gain political power. The motto of "e pluribus unum" means that combined we are united and capable of greatness. It is a disservice to our children and grandchildren to allow petty differences tear us apart and bring this nation to it's knees.

We all have our extremes. As said earlier in response to editc, people use those not because that is accurate but because it is easy to justify your own beliefs when you are arguing against a crazy concept. There is no self-reflection in that and no need to adjust your worldview to assimilate new ideas or challenges.

I can believe in anarchy as long as I think that all liberals and conservatives want slaves and actually eat babies for lunch every day. Never mind that it is false, I can get that feel good I am right feeling because I don’t actually have to think about how the positions that I am holding are weak, they straw men set up are so bad that they are obviously worse.

Personally, I don’t like that way of doing things. My time here would be an utter waste if that is what I did though there are MANY posters that seem to like that train of thought. Unfortunately, we all have to deal with the overly extreme within our own political ideologies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Libertarian position as provided and clarified has much that is good about it. Where I see the problem is not with genuine Libertarians like yourself but that you are being associated with anarcho-capitalists and other extreme fringe groups who claim to be Libertarians too.

Unfortunately this "guilt by association" problem is pervasive in politics. All Liberals are vilified because a kid is sent home for wearing an inappropriate t-shirt by some well meaning, if not too bright, teacher. Moderate conservatives are treated as "traitors" because they don't toe the hardline Tea Party stance.

The reality is that we need to protect our individual rights while at the same time having a well ordered society that does not treat the less fortunate as a "burden". This is possible as long as we reject those who are looking to "divide and conquer" as the means to gain political power. The motto of "e pluribus unum" means that combined we are united and capable of greatness. It is a disservice to our children and grandchildren to allow petty differences tear us apart and bring this nation to it's knees.

We all have our extremes. As said earlier in response to editc, people use those not because that is accurate but because it is easy to justify your own beliefs when you are arguing against a crazy concept. There is no self-reflection in that and no need to adjust your worldview to assimilate new ideas or challenges.

I can believe in anarchy as long as I think that all liberals and conservatives want slaves and actually eat babies for lunch every day. Never mind that it is false, I can get that feel good I am right feeling because I don’t actually have to think about how the positions that I am holding are weak, they straw men set up are so bad that they are obviously worse.

Personally, I don’t like that way of doing things. My time here would be an utter waste if that is what I did though there are MANY posters that seem to like that train of thought. Unfortunately, we all have to deal with the overly extreme within our own political ideologies.

Some of the most important players in the history of the libertarian movement were anarchists. Were they too "overly extreme" that you would reject them rather than "deal" with them?