What is Libertarian?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As Murray Rothbard said the basis of libertarianism is the nonaggression axiom, which states that no one may aggress against anybody else except in self-defense. Where libertarians differ from others, when it comes to the nonaggression axiom, is that we apply it to the state as well as to individuals. It doesn't suddenly become ok to aggress against people just because you call yourself government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Well we know that small governments are much less likely to infringe on somebody's liberties than a large government, and that if they do it's easier to rectify. We focus on economic liberty because it's just as important as any other liberty. As for the social issues you mention, not all libertarians agree on those things. Contrary to popular belief there is no libertarian consensus on abortion.

As Rothbard saw matters, libertarians are committed only to defining the permissible use of force. They are free to adopt whatever attitudes they wish towards people’s lifestyles, so long as they respect rights. They are emphatically not required to be "social liberals".

What Is Libertarianism? by David Gordon

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

 

[Contumacious]

Read about our party here and educate yourself .


Libertarian Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He has no interest in getting an education.

I've had enough education to realize that libertarianism is a crank movement. It is Progressive just by another name.

"Enough education".........er..........don't think so.

Wasn't your idol Bush the one that came up with the "compassionate conservative" bullshit? He was the ******* progressive .

Dumb ass..

.

 

[The Rabbi]

You've got good intentions Dblack. I've spent 12 years actively engaged in Libertarian politics and issues. But I've come to conclusion that my focus is going to be on issues, policy and REALITY of American politics -- not the party. Libertarians couldn't manage a bake sale. As evidenced by the decision to waive compulsory dues because that was "too coercive". Or the candidates we vet who think marijuana is an entire platform and not just a plant..

Interesting. That's more or less the conclusion I arrived at a few years back. From my perspective, the party proper is dominated by ideological purists who would rather be 'a big fish in a small pond' than have a real impact on the polical world. In particular, I felt like they passed up too many opportunities to reach out to like minded people simply because they were affiliated with mainstream parties. I see real potential in fomenting a movement that crosses party boundaries. I talk to Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Constitutionalists who agree that we have government run amok. We need to pull together and stand up for what is right.

Yup.. Third party choices and fourth and fifth choices would go a long way to breaking up the monotony and monopoly of the twin moron parties. There was active discussion with the Green party back about 8 years ago RE: cooperation on ballot access legal challenges. The only way to instill real philosophy into the Dem/Rep beauty contest is to challenge them from the "extremes". Because you know what you get when you cross a progressive with Tea Partier don'tcha? (John McCain)

I'm sick and tired of leaping thru hoops to get libertarians on Tennessee state ballots only to be told that the monopoly won't let us IDENTIFY THEM AS LIBERTARIANS ON THE BALLOT. Most people are not aware of how protected the political cartel really is.

So you have 2 examples of "stealth politics". The Progressive Dem model where the principles are clearly socialist but they are too chicken-shit to identify themselves. And the principled Repubs in the tri-cornered hats partying like it's 1774 and they are all John Adams. Either one works to enforce principles on the party. Those animals are not shy about their "identity".

But with only 2 choices, it's architecturally unstable. The 2 often collude to lower expectations for ethics, principles and results.

Is it my imagination or did "the Rabbi" actuallly just make an attempt at rational debate? I've got to go check. Maybe we're rubbing off on him....

Fourth or fifth parties would turn this country into something resembling Germany or Israel.
No thanks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Almost everyone agrees the gov't has gotten way out of control. It is out of control in its spending, it is out of control in its regulation, it is out of control in its legal system.
The question is what to do about it. We didnt get here in 4 years. And it will take more than 4years to get back. Hell, until Reagan the GOP was also the party of big government. Nixon added more agencies than almost anyone else.

THat's why I'm dissing your fav party here dear Rebbee. Too many party Libertarians want the world to start from their pristine principles --- rather than doing the harder job of taking the tiller of the leaky schooner and getting her back to port above the water line..

But if you can confuse a libertarian with a progressive -- you're not gonna pass the exit exam Rebbee..

Narco-libertarians and progressives are soul brothers.
You cannot take the tiller when the captain is drunk and the first mate is off sodomizing the cabin boy.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Contumacious]

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

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

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

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

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

Repugnants are the second biggest hypocrites to walk the planet. Their warmonger faction is only able to become sexually aroused when they invade small defenseless countries and slaughter their population.

Their mystic faction believes that they have a right to nationalize womens' uterus.

As always, Heil Hitler.

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

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

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

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

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

As I've said, repeatedly, this is incorrect. Not all libertarians are pro-choice.

 

[editec]

What is Libertarian?

Judging from the many posters I've exchanged posts with online over the last 15 years or so., I'd say that Libertarianism ranges from ANARCHISTS to SOCIAL DEMOCRATS and everything in between.

 

[Seawytch]

What is Libertarian?

Republicans that like to smoke pot mostly...

 

[Cuyo]

I just thought I'd throw this one out there for discussion. It's my guess, based on many of the posts around here, that there will be wildly divergent views. I've been associated with libertarian causes, including the Libertarian party since before Ron Paul's first run for president ('88). I even ran for local county offices on the Libertarian ticket a couple of times as a 'paper' candidate ('paper' meaning I was on the ballot but didn't run an active campaign - and frankly had no expectation of winning).

For me, libertarian ideology is pretty simple. It's about taking the ethos of 'live-and-let-live' seriously. It's about real tolerance and diversity. It's based on the idea that the whole purpose of government is to maximize freedom.

It's a Republican that wants to smoke pot...

 

[Cuyo]

What is Libertarian?

Republicans that like to smoke pot mostly...

Damn you!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What is Libertarian?

Republicans that like to smoke pot mostly...

No.

 

[Seawytch]

What is Libertarian?

Republicans that like to smoke pot mostly...

No.

Gay?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

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

As I've said, repeatedly, this is incorrect. Not all libertarians are pro-choice.

So Libertarians are prepared to coerce a woman on what she can do with her own body?
I'm confused here. I thought they were against gov't interference.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Republicans that like to smoke pot mostly...

No.

Gay?

What?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

As I've said, repeatedly, this is incorrect. Not all libertarians are pro-choice.

So Libertarians are prepared to coerce a woman on what she can do with her own body?
I'm confused here. I thought they were against gov't interference.

Pro-life libertarians think it's less wrong to violate the right of the woman in her ownership of her body than it is to violate the right of the baby to its life, and vice versa for pro-choice libertarians. I think most of us realize that when it comes to the abortion issue there is no right answer. Somebody's rights will be violated whichever side you come down on.

 

[Cuyo]

What is Libertarian?

Republicans that like to smoke pot mostly...

No.

You guys get mad at that one!

'NO! We're diffferent! We're all about liberty! Lookit, 'Liberty' is practically in the name!'

No. You're a Republican who doesn't want to say he's a Republican.

 

[The Rabbi]

As I've said, repeatedly, this is incorrect. Not all libertarians are pro-choice.

So Libertarians are prepared to coerce a woman on what she can do with her own body?
I'm confused here. I thought they were against gov't interference.

Pro-life libertarians think it's less wrong to violate the right of the woman in her ownership of her body than it is to violate the right of the baby to its life, and vice versa for pro-choice libertarians. I think most of us realize that when it comes to the abortion issue there is no right answer. Somebody's rights will be violated whichever side you come down on.

That's always the case.
Thank you for proving that narco-libertarianism is internally inconsistent.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.