Libertarianism

[editec]

^^^

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

YOu are somewhat confused, GG.


My point was that people calling themselves LIBERTARIANS are have many beliefs.

As to those beliefs having or not having any validity?

That is all on you dude, as I made no such charge regarding their beliefs.

In principle I am a libertarian, sport, and I can assure you I hold that my beliefs are entirely VALID.

Trouble is that my version of libertarianism and yours may not agree on many points.

 

[editec]

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.

If you are TRULY a devotee of Rand then I need not remind you of the philosophical schism in that school of thought.

And yes one of those factions believes that no government is necessary.

Do feel free to do some reading if you doubt that such "Randians" exist

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...50,d.dmg&fp=9b1e3558ed1bd8da&biw=1920&bih=955

 

[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

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.

YES! On this point you and I quite agree. The whole point of labels in POLISCI is to express a complex POV siccinctly.

That is EXACTLY why I take such um,brage with the assholes on this board who seek to REDFINE already well understood concept to suit their own propagandist POVs.



SAdly. we live in a time when definitions of even formerly well understood concepts in poltical science have been clouded by PROPAGANDISTISTS.

Consider, as probably the best example, how the word SOCIALISM (which has a very specific meaning in POLISCI) no long has a RECOGNIZABLE definition on this very board.

LIBERTARIANISM, sadly has never had a CLEAR a definition as socialism has ALWAYS had.

About the only meaning that libertarianism has at this time is the propensity to think that less government is preferable to more government.

Beyond THAT?

One must query the person claiming to be a libertarian to understand what THEIR VERSION of that word means.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Libertarians know exactly what they believe. That's what happens when you believe in time tested principles. And you're one to talk? Your Republicans positions are fully adjustable to their circumstances and audiences.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

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

YOu are somewhat confused, GG.


My point was that people calling themselves LIBERTARIANS are have many beliefs.

As to those beliefs having or not having any validity?

That is all on you dude, as I made no such charge regarding their beliefs.

In principle I am a libertarian, sport, and I can assure you I hold that my beliefs are entirely VALID.

Trouble is that my version of libertarianism and yours may not agree on many points.

Actually, I think libertarian views are quite clear in their construct. Some libertarians are pure libertarians and others just believe or want practice much of the concepts. For instance, a pure libertarian would want to have no government sanctioned marriages. Many libertarians would consider it a time cherished institution and bend and not be against government sanctioned marriage. I don't think I'm quite as hardcore as many. But, I think that the world would be rid of the nonsense in a pure libertarian system.

 

[Auteur]

Libertarianism is in the province of naive dreamers, and the not so naive at the upper ends of the business community who hijack such movements for personal gain.

Clearly, those with only self-interest in mind would do better with less regulation and less government. Is it surprising then that political movements that tend toward the far right receive generous help from such groups?

In any society, there is a basic dichotomy between individual rights, and community rights. This is even more pronounced today in our more complex and interconnected world than it was in the past.

Should a person have a right to drive a car anywhere and anytime they like? Why not, nothing wrong with that per se. And if everyone in Manhattan over the age of 16 is now doing so, what do we have? An illustration of the need for government and regulation.

Why should government stick their nose into marriages? It sounds idealistic to be free of any constraints, but in fact there are practicalities involved. If separation occurs, division of assets and child custody can be a messy thing to sort out. Without a legal framework, it would be the strongest taking all.

Lots of coal in the world. From an individuals perspective, it would be tempting to use coal to heat their home, it's cheaper than oil. And as far as that goes, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But what if everyone does this- what happens to global warming, to air pollution? That's why we have government, and myriod laws and regulations, distasteful as that may be to some, who yearn for a John Wayne western movie type of world, in which wise and self-reliant folks all do the right thing spontaneously.

 

[Sactowndog]

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

I tend to lean Libertarian but I am distressed by their refusal to admit not all markets are well formed and that big businesses often pairs with government to limit people's rights. Allowing business unfettered ability to act in any manner leaves to enslavement via fiat.

 

[PaulS1950]

First; Libertarians are rarely naive and their platform allows for the state governments to have those powers not denied them by the constitution nor granted to the federal government by the constitution.

Libertarians are not anarchists - they agree with the limitations on the federal government decreed by the constitution and the rights of the states to govern themselves according to the constitution.

The federal and state governments have no control over the rights and freedoms of the individual. That is the way the constitution is laid out. The only way a person can lose their rights or freedom is by breaking the law - basically by abusing rights and freedoms to infringe on or trample the rights and freedoms of others. When a person does that they forfeit their rights until after they serve their time. (the law currently states that after ten years of good citizenship their rights can be restored and I tend to agree with that)

Businesses are not "constitutional individuals" and thus can be controlled by the states. The federal government is not granted that authority by the constitution unless the product or service is sold beyond the states borders.

The constitution only provides limited power to the federal government and only restricts the state governments from interfering in the rights and freedoms of the individual. Beyond that point the states have the power to regulate businesses within their state as the people require. Remember that we have a Republican form of government where the government is supposed to make decisions based on the popular vote as long as it does not interfere with the rights and freedoms of the individual.

 

[PaulS1950]

Well, I am one of the 10% of the population that has never smoked dope or used any illegal drugs and I am a Libertarian. I believe in the constitution and the bill of rights just as most Libertarians do.

 

[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.

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?

I thought I was clear – we all have to deal with them.

Some of the greatest ideas come from that extreme when tempered with common sense application. The problem that we face with those on the far edge is getting some to compromise hardline values with actual implementation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

I thought I was clear – we all have to deal with them.

Some of the greatest ideas come from that extreme when tempered with common sense application. The problem that we face with those on the far edge is getting some to compromise hardline values with actual implementation.

Precisely. The Constitution was the compromise that this nation was founded upon. Without compromise everything is going backwards. It is time to drop the hardline stances and find common ground again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

I thought I was clear – we all have to deal with them.

Some of the greatest ideas come from that extreme when tempered with common sense application. The problem that we face with those on the far edge is getting some to compromise hardline values with actual implementation.

My point, however, is that you act as if the anarchist-wing of libertarianism is essentially a crazy nuisance that libertarians in general would be better off without. When, in many respects, without the anarchists modern libertarianism would look very different. For example, without Murray Rothbard does libertarianism even exist today? He was instrumental in founding the Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, and the Mises Institute. Not to mention all of the people inspired by his ideas, who otherwise might never have become interested at all. Ron Paul would still exist, of course, but without Rothbard there's hardly a framework for Ron Paul to fall back on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Interesting, you think the problem is that libertarians are associated with people you do not like. The real problem is that you are still insisting on a definition of libertarianism that is completely divorced from reality. There is no such thing as a real libertarian because no two libertarians agree on 100% of the issues. If we applied that standard to Democrats, for example, they would have to kick the socialists in Minnesota out of the party.

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.

I have a simple solution for that, stop doing it. If you stop applying different standards to people you disagree with because they associate with people you don't like and start treating them as individuals you will find that you can actually learn from everyone.

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".

Is that the reality, or just the reality you want?

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.

Yet you support the most divisive political figure in America since Abraham Lincoln. "E pluribus unum" actually means one from many, it implies that our differences are what give us strength, not us all fitting into the same post partisan utopia. Utopias do not exist, and never will, even if I enjoy imagining them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If you are TRULY a devotee of Rand then I need not remind you of the philosophical schism in that school of thought.

And yes one of those factions believes that no government is necessary.

Do feel free to do some reading if you doubt that such "Randians" exist

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...50,d.dmg&fp=9b1e3558ed1bd8da&biw=1920&bih=955

Please point out where I said I was a devotee of anyone.

I do not doubt that there are people who claim to follow Rand who have totally ignored what she actually taught anymore than I believe that there are people who call themselves educated who totally reject the idea that Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. That is not what I said, I said that I have a problem with people, like you, who insist that Rand believed in anarchy, and that anyone who is an objectivist is an anarchist.

That means my problem is with you, not with reality, because you are the one that is insisting you beliefs trump reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

YES! On this point you and I quite agree. The whole point of labels in POLISCI is to express a complex POV siccinctly.

That is EXACTLY why I take such um,brage with the assholes on this board who seek to REDFINE already well understood concept to suit their own propagandist POVs.



SAdly. we live in a time when definitions of even formerly well understood concepts in poltical science have been clouded by PROPAGANDISTISTS.

Consider, as probably the best example, how the word SOCIALISM (which has a very specific meaning in POLISCI) no long has a RECOGNIZABLE definition on this very board.

LIBERTARIANISM, sadly has never had a CLEAR a definition as socialism has ALWAYS had.

About the only meaning that libertarianism has at this time is the propensity to think that less government is preferable to more government.

Beyond THAT?

One must query the person claiming to be a libertarian to understand what THEIR VERSION of that word means.

Like when you redefine Randian to mean anarchist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Libertarians are such a mess they dont know what they believe. It tends to center on being allowed to smoke pot and run businesses.

While there are some libertarians who do not actually know why they believe, I doubt there is anyone who doesn't know what they believe. I think the problem here is you expect every libertarian to believe exactly the same thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Libertarianism is in the province of naive dreamers, and the not so naive at the upper ends of the business community who hijack such movements for personal gain.

Clearly, those with only self-interest in mind would do better with less regulation and less government. Is it surprising then that political movements that tend toward the far right receive generous help from such groups?

In any society, there is a basic dichotomy between individual rights, and community rights. This is even more pronounced today in our more complex and interconnected world than it was in the past.

Should a person have a right to drive a car anywhere and anytime they like? Why not, nothing wrong with that per se. And if everyone in Manhattan over the age of 16 is now doing so, what do we have? An illustration of the need for government and regulation.

Why should government stick their nose into marriages? It sounds idealistic to be free of any constraints, but in fact there are practicalities involved. If separation occurs, division of assets and child custody can be a messy thing to sort out. Without a legal framework, it would be the strongest taking all.

Lots of coal in the world. From an individuals perspective, it would be tempting to use coal to heat their home, it's cheaper than oil. And as far as that goes, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But what if everyone does this- what happens to global warming, to air pollution? That's why we have government, and myriod laws and regulations, distasteful as that may be to some, who yearn for a John Wayne western movie type of world, in which wise and self-reliant folks all do the right thing spontaneously.

Another illustration of people not understanding the concepts that they are actually trying to discuss. The simple fact is that everything you have discussed is covered by the libertarians principle of non aggression. Taken to its ultimate conclusion non aggression actually prohibits all forms of pollution, even smoking in public and having light from your flashlight come onto my property.

 

[The Rabbi]

So there we have it. Libertarianism believes that business should be free from regulation and coercion. But they cannot pollute at all. So they will have to be subject to strict regulation to prevent them from infringing on others' rights not to have pollution (which part of the Constitution specifies the right of non pollution?).

This is the problem with libertarianism: everything is based on perceived "rights" that exist nowhere and therefore can be constantly invented. Eventually all these rights contradict each other and it becomes a free for all with each one claiming the msot right to whatever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So there we have it. Libertarianism believes that business should be free from regulation and coercion. But they cannot pollute at all. So they will have to be subject to strict regulation to prevent them from infringing on others' rights not to have pollution (which part of the Constitution specifies the right of non pollution?).

This is the problem with libertarianism: everything is based on perceived "rights" that exist nowhere and therefore can be constantly invented. Eventually all these rights contradict each other and it becomes a free for all with each one claiming the msot right to whatever.

That is a problem with thinking that libertarians don't understand the issues. There is a lot of debate about the non aggression principle, and how to apply it.

 

[The Rabbi]

So there we have it. Libertarianism believes that business should be free from regulation and coercion. But they cannot pollute at all. So they will have to be subject to strict regulation to prevent them from infringing on others' rights not to have pollution (which part of the Constitution specifies the right of non pollution?).

This is the problem with libertarianism: everything is based on perceived "rights" that exist nowhere and therefore can be constantly invented. Eventually all these rights contradict each other and it becomes a free for all with each one claiming the msot right to whatever.

That is a problem with thinking that libertarians don't understand the issues. There is a lot of debate about the non aggression principle, and how to apply it.

translation: Libertarianism is a muddle.

Pretty much what I maintained at the outset.